Healthcare workers were covered in Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) and wore double N95 masks cutting into the back of their ears. Some nurses and doctors shared their frustrations and grief but, for many, emotions could be seen solely in their eyes. Eyes became the only windows into seeing each other’s emotional spirit, and it was dwindling. The COVID-19 pandemic pushed healthcare workers to the breaking point, contributing to a healthcare provider shortage that is still vastly impacting medical institutions today. Although many people have moved on, choosing to forget COVID-19, its consequences are still reverberating. COVID-19’s impact did not just linearly diminish as the number of cases decreased. Therefore, the world cannot just ignore the statistically significant possibility of a future pandemic. 

The memories of COVID-19 cannot be shoved under the carpet; living in a false safety that this circumstance will not happen again is an extreme collective denial. Rather, it is vital that the world rebuilds with a new approach to protecting the global population from the next possible source of a global pandemic, what has become more commonly referred to as Disease X. 

Disease “X” is the World Health Organization’s (WHO) coined term for an unknown pandemic pathogen. This is a placeholder concept the organization has created for a pathogen that has not yet mutated into a global outbreak but could do so in the near future. Disease X was first introduced in the WHO 2018 Annual Review of diseases prioritized under the Research and Development Blueprint. The Disease X term was needed to discuss the threat of a hypothetical pathogen that is not known or exists yet. It is still largely debated whether COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) should be considered the first pathogen given Disease X classification. In fact, experts are also discussing whether COVID-19 is just a small taste of what is to come with a far more fatal Disease X. Ultimately, the Disease X concept is considered a pathogen which will hold the right characteristics and ingredients to create another global pandemic. Recognizing the growing threat, the scientific community has turned its attention to defining which types of pathogens the international community should be urgently monitoring. 

For instance, there is specialized focus on zoonotic diseases as the next possible source of Disease X. It takes what is known as a zoonotic jump for an animal virus to become transferable and infectious in human beings. The Center of Disease Control states that an estimate of  “more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals” whilst “3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals.” These statistics highlight that, in most cases, zoonotic spillover is an inevitability not an anomaly. 

This is especially the case since the boundaries between species have become increasingly  entangled because of deforestation, industrial agriculture, the wildlife trade and climate change. Environmental pressures and human behavior should not be overlooked when addressing zoonotic disease solutions. Notable origins of diseases from animals include Ebola virus, where bats are the suspected virus reservoir; Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human form of the prion disease Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease); Zika virus, which is transmitted by mosquitoes; and Avian influenza (bird flu), which originates in birds. These examples illustrate a disease landscape that could serve as the origin of Disease X and has well-established precedent.

Another potential source of Disease X that needs to be scrutinized is an engineered pandemic pathogen. Carl Jung, an influential Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist, warns that the “only real danger that exists is man himself.” Bioterrorism is a threat to humans created by humans. Alongside nuclear weapons, bioterrorism has become a new missile in the self-destruction toolbox. The development of biotechnology has allowed for advancements in many health sectors such as pharmaceuticals and vaccines. However, it has also made engineering pandemic pathogens that can be customized to have high virulence and fatality rates possible. During the cold war, viral agents were stockpiled as militarized weapons in the US and the Soviet Union. Viral bioterrorism puts everyone at risk and, whether the release of a bioengineered Disease X could be intentional or accidental, the impact would be globally devastating. 

All these factors suggest that Disease X is not a question of if it will cause the next global pandemic — it is a question of when.

Given this, organizations like The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) have identified 25 different virus families that can serve as the host to the next deadly virus. CEPI hypothesizes that Disease X will come from one of these twenty-five different virus families. CEPI’s “100 Days Mission” aims to achieve the ability to respond to the next Disease X pandemic in just under three months by preparing globally accessible vaccines.  The 100 Day Mission is centered around swift and equitable vaccine deployment that will defend those at highest risk in order to stop the spread of an outbreak. Their research on “the most wanted viruses” provides a library of prototype vaccines to preempt the need for the next crucial vaccine by ideally supplying the world with an expedited prophylactic vaccine to contain the spread of the next pandemic. CEPI’s current diversification into the unknown of the 25 families is reimagining pandemic prevention in research. 

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was born after the Ebola outbreak highlighted just how ill-equipped state and non-state actors are at containing epidemics. The WHO is often criticized for their inefficient reaction and response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak. The WHO did not have efficient intergovernmental cooperation nor the proper funding needed to execute a cohesive effective response. The Ebola outbreak sheds light on the significant gaps in the global health system, harkening the need for an innovative multifaceted approach to respond to epidemics and pandemics. Ebola should have been the wake-up call. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic is the writing on the wall. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic exposed global governments to a new crisis, a war against a common enemy — a virus. 

Sovereign states have the responsibility to protect and provide for the population in crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic global health security was threatened. However, instead of nations banding together to contain COVID-19, there was global division and politicization of healthcare. The pandemic introduced two predominating questions: who was responsible for COVID-19 and what international actors were going to contain it? 

There needs to be a new framework to instill global cooperation, one that begins with framing viruses as a shared enemy rather than a localized problem. This reframing shifts responsibility not only to individual nations or institutions, but to collective action by changing the narrative to global commitment and shared responsibility. COVID-19 could have been a moment of unification, but it became a moment of polarization. This was not just seen on a global scale. Personally, many people in my own community that didn’t have immunocompromised family members decided it was not their responsibility to protect people from the spread of the virus. This is why framing the virus as a shared enemy and responsibility could create a stronger collective action against the next pandemic. 

 After World War II, global cooperation created the United Nations to prevent future conflict and another devastating world war. The U.N. served as a preemptive measure to ideally maintain peace and established a permanent institution for conflict resolution. Over time, the U.N. has become a platform for diplomacy and has helped shape postwar international order. In addition, the U.N. launched specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), founded in 1948 to address global health issues. The WHO was established from the premise that health is inseparable from peace and security. Ten years after the WHO’s Constitution was created, the Soviet Union (USSR) proposed a WHO-led smallpox eradication program that would become a profound example of global health governance. In 1977, the last confirmed case of smallpox was identified and, by 1980, the WHO declared smallpox eradicated. This success was attributed to a moment of unprecedented global political commitment, even during the height of the Cold War, where the US and the USSR both agreed upon this shared goal of eradication. The program’s strength lay in its measurable objective for complete eradication thus countries systematically reported case detection and worked with the WHO. Nations shared the responsibility by sharing resources. The program had political backing and funding for over a decade. The WHO had a Smallpox Eradication Unit that was led by experts in the field like Donald Henderson, who later founded the Center of Civilian Biodefense Studies at Johns Hopkins. The smallpox eradication campaign can serve as a powerful model for international cooperation. Smallpox remains “the only infectious disease to achieve this distinction.”

The evolution of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR) have made expansive strides in global healthcare. However, the accelerating pace of globalization and the changing global health landscape have revealed critical limitations. The WHO struggled to enforce effective governance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was unable to coordinate an international response, delayed declaring COVID-19 as an international emergency and was not able to hold nations accountable for disease surveillance and timely reporting. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed domestic political agendas which led to a fragmented response and its politicization fueled skepticism on scientific advice globally. What this highlighted is that the WHO has arrived at a critical inflection point where the future of successful pandemic response must be able to transcend political pressures. 

Although the WHO has had a historical commitment to global health, another moment of international solidarity is needed — one where a global crisis becomes the catalyst for cooperation just as World War II served as the platform for creating the U.N. A virus may not be treated as a world war, yet its global consequences and strains are not unlike the destructive impacts of warfare. There are extensive fatalities, governmental instability, economic implications and a shared sense of fear and crisis. So, why isn’t there an international institution or organization solely dedicated and committed to preventing the next global pandemic? 

In 2015, Bill Gates performed a TED Talk where he outlined that the world is not prepared for a pandemic. Fast forward 10 years to today in 2025 the global health system is still not prepared for a pandemic. 

Bill Gates has now proposed a systematic multifaceted solution to prevent the next global pandemic. This solution is the Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization (GERM) team. 

The GERM team would be a permanent institution and organization that can combat and coordinate rapid responses to new potential infectious outbreaks. Ultimately the GERM team could be seen as another functional unit of global cooperation and governance. Additionally, they would be coordinated with the WHO. The GERM team would become a multinational unit that comprises over 3,000 full time specialists in epidemiology, vaccine development, genetic engineering, data science, computer simulation, emergency medicine, communications and diplomacy. The GERM team would be actively monitoring and researching threatening outbreaks. Disease X would be contained before it becomes a global health threat. Bill Gates states in his TED talk that if COVID-19 was caught in the first 100 days it would have saved over 98% of the lives lost. The first 100 days are crucial to stop the spread of an epidemic and the GERM team would be equipped to do so. 

The GERM team is an exemplary theoretical model solution that can transition into becoming a groundbreaking reality. For the GERM team to come into fruition it needs funding. Governments spent an immense amount of funds during COVID-19. Money was poured into economic relief programs, healthcare infrastructure and other aid response measures. The U.S government spent 4.6 trillion dollars and created the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act during the pandemic. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a major U.N. financial agency, estimates that COVID-19 has cost the world around 14 trillion dollars. To put the GERM team’s funding into perspective, spending money on the GERM team now would save nations from spending trillions of dollars later. The GERM team will cost the world 1 billion dollars annually to maintain all the resources and on-the-ground manpower. This is a worthy investment for the survivability of our future. To apply Bill Gates’ motto here — “This is the billions we need to spend in order to save millions of lives and trillions of dollars.”

The funding needed for the GERM team would have an expansive impact beyond stopping Disease X. It could provide another opportunity to advance medical tools for efficiency in many different specialties. To prepare to prevent a pandemic there needs to be investment in diagnostic tools, vaccines and deliverance which will subsequently address health disparities and global accessibility. A case study on microneedle patch vaccines exemplifies the reach the GERM team could have on closing the health security gap. 

The GERM team would fund new research in vaccine deliverance such as microneedle patches. Microneedle patch vaccines provide an efficient delivery system to the dermis and epidermis layers of the skin. Research on this deliverance method has shown higher immunogenicity for some vaccines than the traditional intramuscular needle route. Microneedle patch vaccines could revolutionize immunization strategies because it allows fast global vaccine deployment and mass production. More importantly, this vaccine method does not need large infrastructure or manpower to distribute. The vaccine patches do not require refrigeration, making delivering vaccines in remote areas and rural regions easier, thus improving accessibility. As illustrated, the GERM team’s impact on healthcare development could provide more than just pandemic prevention but could also help remedy the gaps in global health security that disproportionately devastate populations that do not have access to proper healthcare infrastructure. New diagnostic tools and therapeutics, disease surveillance, strengthening existing healthcare infrastructure in low-income countries and pathogen genomic data sharing are just a few more examples of how the GERM team’s impact addresses narrowing the health gap. 

In this era of increasing interdependence between nations, international institutions play a critical role in global governance and are vital forums to address global crises. The United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization are international institutions that are fundamental to global stability in governance, economy and health security. Yet the capacity to respond through these institutions has been undercut by political resistance. The Trump administration, for example, has demonstrated a strong aversion towards global multilateral commitments and institutions. Recently, the administration has cut thousands of programs under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has long supported global health, education, humanitarian relief and economic development for nations recovering from conflict or disaster. Increased efforts to defund and discredit governmental agencies and organizations such as the WHO have further politized healthcare and weakened international cooperation. The GERM team could have direct funding that could be insulated from shifting political pressures which would bypass bureaucratic delays and geopolitical conflicts. Detailed frameworks for pandemic response are still under development, but the most important promenet is addressing the governance and enforcement gaps by embedding pandemic preparedness into the core agendas of nations. 

The current geopolitical climate has revealed the fragility of global health governance within the hands of today’s leaders. The tension underscores the relevance of Complex Interdependence Theory, founded by Keohane and Nye, which establishes a framework where states are not solely driven by military power or security concerns. Instead, nations are deeply interconnected through shared economies, trade networks, security interests, technological advancements, international institutions, shared health dependencies and environment (Keohane and Nye). States do not operate in isolation. While interdependence is a defining feature of global order, many states perceive it as a liability during global crises, precisely when collective action is most critical. Disease X will not happen in isolation either, it will thread itself through the web of international interdependence. 

 Globalization has fueled more interconnectedness among states, making global cooperation the cornerstone for global stability. A global pandemic is a wicked problem characterized by its complexity. It requires a multifaceted approach that necessitates international cooperation and robust global governance. A single nation is not able to stop a global pandemic alone, yet a single nation’s outbreak can trigger a chain reaction sending the world into crisis. The GERM team is strategically and uniquely positioned to interrupt the chain reaction. However, the question still remains: Who is responsible for Disease X? The answer is everyone — Disease X is our shared global foreign enemy, and it is our collective responsibility to confront it.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Disease X: The Next Global Foreign Enemy — Are We Ready? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While other international summits,such as the United Nations’ AI for Good Global Summit, have seen increased attendance in recent years, the overall presence of Southeast Asian nations remains disproportionately underrepresented, especially when considering the countries’ wide usage of AI platforms and softwares. 

As Brookings’ scholars Shaun Ee and Jam Kraprayoon point out, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” Underrepresentation on the international stage means that Southeast Asia, and other regions alike, will be increasingly vulnerable to the risks posed by frontier AI systems such as OpenAI’s o1 reasoning models; according to the company, these new models utilize additional compute to spend more time “thinking”, enabling a greater capacity to tackle more complex tasks and problems. Reportedly, it performs near a PhD student level on challenging physics, chemistry, and biology tasks. According to Yosua Bengio, a computer science professor at the University of Montreal, this improved ability to reason can easily be misused to deceive users at a higher rate than GPT-4o. Hence, including Southeast Asia in the global dialogue for AI governance is crucial not only to the region, but also for the broader Global North, given that robust safeguard systems require diverse testing settings. Additionally, the capacity of AI system development can be expanded through transatlantic talent exchange. But what exactly does it mean to be on the menu, and what will it take to get them a proper seat at the table?

While the February Paris AI Summit discussed AI safety, threats to Southeast Asia were barely discussed, despite an alarming 82 percent increase in cybercrime throughout Southeast Asia and Singapore alone experiencing a 174 percent increase in phishing attempts between 2021 to 2022. Though broader safety concerns are often raised in these global summits, they are typically isolated from local contexts. For instance, in Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos, ‘scam centers’ are operating and affecting victims all across the region, but properly addressing them requires a specific understanding of the threat actors involved.. More importantly, when mitigating these threats, it is integral to note that several regions in Southeast Asia have more limited cybersecurity resources compared to North America and Europe. While Malaysia and Singapore have significantly strengthened their cybersecurity strategies over time, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines are still considered developing in terms of cyber capabilities, with many countries such as Indonesia facing limited cybersecurity funding. Although serious cyberattacks are common, the region’s cyber resilience remains relatively low. 

AI infrastructure in Southeast Asia is rapidly emerging, with drastic investments from major tech corporations such as Microsoft and Nvidia into data centers and cloud services. Yet, many local startups are missing out on their own AI boom. While approximately $20 billion is being invested into the Asia-Pacific region, only $1.7 billion has been invested into Southeast Asia’s young AI firms. This disparity has raised concerns regarding the region’s ability to develop its private sector and compete with AI leaders such as China and the United States. Yet how can the region be expected to address such rapid investment flows without being provided the space to participate in cutting-edge R&D and technical standards-setting? A seat in forums such as the International Network of AI Safety Institutes may incentivize domestic AI development, and such inclusion will certainly be as beneficial to global investors as it will be to the region; providing Southeast Asia with the needed technical insight and collaborative frameworks will better strengthen the local AI sector, which in turn can mitigate geopolitical risk and offer a more robust, innovation-friendly market to the global AI ecosystem. 

In order to push for a seat at the table, however, it is important to take a step back and assess why Southeast Asia is being left out to begin with. 

For starters, Global AI summits typically reflect the agendas of major powers. Intensified technological rivalry between the U.S. and China has fostered a polarized environment in global AI governance, which has trickled down into the structure and makeup of international summits.  For instance, the United Kingdom’s AI Safety Summit and Geneva’s AI for Good Global Summit typically consist of US-aligned countries such as the EU and South Korea, while Shanghai’s World Artificial Intelligence Conference and the BRICS Summits typically reflect China’s digital diplomacy interests such as sovereignty and state-centric regulation. 

Consequently, Southeast Asia’s non-alignment stance means choosing not to fully engage in these summits to avoid signaling alignment with one bloc over another. By design, many global partnership initiatives are also inaccessible to the region. For instance, The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) strives for broad international participation, but its only Southeast Asian member is Singapore. GPAI and summits such as the Bletchley Park and AI Seoul Summits uphold a restrictive membership process and are invitation-only, typically limited to countries with advanced AI R&D capacity. However, most Southeast Asian countries currently allocate less than 1% of their GDP into R&D, leading to talent shortages as capable professionals often end up moving abroad for better opportunities. These compounding factors contribute to the region’s lack of influence in AI ethics and policy circles, which serves as a core prerequisite for an invitation. 

Given these challenges, what will it take for Southeast Asia to get a seat at the table and enter the space of these ‘global’ summits? 

ASEAN as a whole must work towards a unified AI development and cooperation framework. The status quo of fragmented approaches to AI governance make it difficult for coordinated advancements and regulations. For starters, the most tangible regional action lies in the publication of the ASEAN Guide to AI Governance and Ethics 2024, which offers recommendations for government and non-government usage of AI in the region. However, this document is non-binding and thus unable to impose sanctions if different paths were to be adopted by member states. This visibly translates in the diversity of AI-readiness in the region, measured through pillars such as Government, Technology Sector, and Data & Infrastructure. As of 2022, while Singapore and Malaysia respectively scored 84.1 and 67.4, other countries like Laos and Cambodia scored 31.7 and 31.2. Meanwhile, ASEAN’s commitment to avoid being a rule-taker means continued exclusion in major policy dialogue spaces; the region must find ways to maintain its non-alignment approach without sacrificing representation in the most pivotal AI governance spaces. 

It is equally important that global powers recognize the urgency of the region’s inclusion. Collaboration with Southeast Asia is pivotal to strengthening global AI governance structure. The region’s linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic diversity provides unique datasets that can improve AI models’ adaptability and performance. For instance, projects like SEA-LION are building natural language processing tools for Southeast Asian languages, which may enhance AI applications in multilingual contexts. Further, the region’s rapidly growing digital economy and tech-savvy population presents great potential for AI-driven economic growth—one that remains largely underutilized; in fact, Southeast Asia’s internet economy is expected to reach $330 billion by 2025. Through increased collaboration, global powers may better engage with emerging markets and foster innovation—presenting significant opportunities for global AI companies to scale and localize their services in a rapidly-growing environment increasingly pivotal to global supply chains and data flows. 

Simultaneously, it is just as crucial for local governments to increase investment in their AI R&D budgets. In Indonesia, the National Research and Innovation Agency has collaborated with international NGOs and startups to leverage AI for predicting volcanic eruptions and flash floods in disaster-prone areas, which has reduced disaster response times by over 30%. In Vietnam, tech companies VinAI & VinBrain are investing millions in foundational AI research for products in healthcare, mobility and natural language processing. The company has developed DrAid, an AI-powered diagnostic platform to detect respiratory diseases, reducing diagnostic time by over 50% during the pandemic. If current investment trends continue, AI could add $79.3 billion annually to the country’s GDP by 2030. 

It is apparent that when more investments are poured into R&D, the results speak for themselves. It is also apparent that strides in the right direction are being made. And yet, the region still has much work to do in investing into R&D and developing robust regulatory frameworks to truly utilize its potential in the AI frontier, given that many of these countries are still left behind within the Government AI Readiness Index, with Indonesia being ranked 42nd, Vietnam being ranked 59th and others such as Laos and Cambodia ranked even lower. 

The table is set, the stakes are high, and yet, the chairs remain unevenly distributed. Whether it’s the G20 Hiroshima Process, Bletchley Park, Paris, or Seoul, the world’s most influential summits continue championing global cooperation while their guest lists suggest otherwise. While much work is to be done internally, we cannot undermine the role of geopolitical interests and inaccessible systems towards Southeast Asia’s absence in these crucial rooms. More so, the region cannot be expected to play catch up when it continues to be systematically excluded. At the end of the day, if Southeast Asia continues to be left out of the conversation, the world will miss out on the opportunity to empower local solutions, diversify the AI ecosystem and create unique opportunities for market growth and collaborative innovation; if it continues to be left out, global AI governance will miss a perspective the world cannot afford to lose, one that makes global governance a reality rather than a mere slogan. 

The post Missing SEA(t): Southeast Asia’s Exclusion from the AI Policy Conversation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Titled ‘Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,’ the order’s purpose was to prioritize governing AI to tackle threats such as fraud, discrimination and disinformation. In practice, this entailed developments such as implementing new risk-management strategies, labelling AI-generated content and promoting competition through supporting small businesses. 

In place of Biden’s order, Trump’s replacement most notably maintains that the United States’ priority is to promote American international dominance in AI. Referred to as the ‘Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence’ order, both policies share the similarity of promoting innovation. However, that is where the resemblance ends. Following the recent trend of removing DEI-related content, nowhere in the six sections of the executive order is there any mention of equity. 

It is true that if the United States wants to remain competitive on the international stage — in both economic and national security contexts — it is important to devote resources to developing and implementing the best artificial intelligence products possible. From private use to military applications, AI technology is, in many ways, the new space race of today. The benefits to the American people, both in securing influence on the global scale and enhancing quality of life at home, should not be understated; hence the technology’s widespread adoption. 

Since the rise of generative technologies like ChatGPT, AI’s use has grown at a rapid pace and will only continue to do so. One study even suggests that “77% of companies are either using or exploring the use of AI in their businesses, and 83% of companies claim that AI is a top priority in their business plans.” Accordingly, this has led to the expansion of AI into countless fields and products, many of which actually go unrecognized in day-to-day life. From classic digital assistants like Siri and Alexa to early disease diagnosis in healthcare, the list is virtually limitless. 

Alongside this growth, the problem of inequity only becomes exacerbated. Tenant selection, financial lending and hiring processes have all been tainted by the inherent bias present in AI. One side of the issue lies within the information used for each of the above applications. As AIs are trained on data, whatever bias is present in the dataset will manifest itself in the decisions produced. Since companies that screen potential renters, borrowers or employees rely on old court data and criminal databases, they can reflect systemic prejudices. Sometimes, the trained system will just run incorrectly. In one woman’s case, she was denied an apartment thanks to a faulty background check, combining four other individuals’ records with her own. As all of the women had the same name, the system mistakenly attributed burglary, meth distribution, assault and more to her record. The evidenced potential for error, combined with the technology’s black-box nature, creates a situation where all parties are left confused.

The most concerning application of all is within law enforcement. Around the globe, implementation of artificial intelligence has been incorporated into crime regulating agencies’ operations, motivated by arguments for leveraging AI to increase efficiency and public safety. Out of all of the implementations, predictive policing is by far the most common. Essentially, this method utilizes data — from paroled populations to economic conditions — to forecast where, when and what crime will occur. Then, it provides recommendations to prevent it.

In terms of who is utilizing this technology, one example is Argentina. They are “us[ing]machine learning algorithms to analyze historical crime data to predict future crimes and help prevent them.” Additionally, Japan has also used predictive policing strategies, with AI having a “deep learning” algorithm that grabs real-time information about police force statistics and crime data on weather, time and geographical conditions. Most well-versed of all though, is Singapore. While law enforcement also relies on predictive technology, what distinguishes Singapore’s AI use in this sector is the scale at which data is collected through sensors. UAVs, facial recognition, drones and smart glasses are all part of how the police and civil defense forces record information. 

The U.S. takes similar approaches to its international peers. It varies by state, but the overall idea is the same. Machine learning (ML) — or computers’ ability to learn from data and subsequently perform tasks without explicit instructions — leverages large datasets in order to predict future criminal activity. This data typically contains information pertaining to what the crime was, when and where it happened, and further locational statistics such as median income and past crime rate. ML is often combined with computer vision, teaching technology like security cameras how to categorize objects like people, vehicles, and weapons in their field of vision through repeated exposure to visual information. 

Ideally, these tools would create sound predictions about crime, increasing efficiency while lowering costs. However, there are troubling drawbacks in this technology — many of which have already begun affecting society. Public mistrust of police has long been felt across the U.S. And for those who have consistently been at-risk, the increasing incorporation of AI-based technology isn’t helping. The core issue pertains to the historical crime data AI models are trained on. By relying on data which was collected in the midst of over-policing as well as the pre-existence of discriminatory criminal laws, predictive policing algorithms inherit bias. For example, “if a predictive policing system is trained on arrest data that reflects racially disparate enforcement practices, it may disproportionately flag certain communities as high risk, leading to the over-policing of already marginalized groups.” 

According to six U.S. Senators in a letter to the Department of Justice, “mounting evidence indicates that predictive policing technologies do not reduce crime… Instead, they worsen the unequal treatment of Americans of color by law enforcement.” So, what is there to do? The tool sought to improve policing seems to actually make it less effective. The Senators’ recommendation was to scrap the technology all together until further study of predictive policing took place. However, as is the case with many innovations, once they’re put into the world, it’s pretty challenging to take them out of it. 

Therefore, rather than instituting a full pause on the use of AI in law enforcement, perhaps it would be better to alter the approach. One recommendation is to prioritize human supervision with each AI implementation. By requiring continued human influence in automated processes, the black-box nature of artificial intelligence will begin to minimize, allowing people to further understand the models they are working with. An example of how this could be achieved in law enforcement and beyond is through required audits of AI usage. Through monitoring the outputs generated, the algorithm’s intention, and the use, it can be gathered how effective and ethical a model is. Another method of increasing an AI’s transparency is by incorporating explanations into its outputs. By engineering models to include descriptions of its logic — especially tailored to the expertise of the people it’s working with — the partnership between human and technology will become much more seamless, and further promote collaboration as opposed to replacement.  

Another side of ensuring equitable use of artificial intelligence is through legislation. Currently, there are no comprehensive, enforceable rules pertaining to how people use AI on the federal level. Some laws have attempted to increase oversight — such as the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 — but in reality the nation is left to rely on loose guidelines, such as Biden’s White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. At the state level, legislation varies. At least eight states have finished enacting laws regulating artificial intelligence, while three have not even proposed any. Federally, there are over 30 bills in the works. They seek to both increase AI implementation as well as mitigate its harms. In practice, this could entail leveraging the technology to speed up cargo inspections along the border (being the CATCH Act), or disclosing computer-generated respondents in text messages and phone calls (called the QUIET Act). In order to keep equity at the forefront of AI legislation, it will be important to incorporate legal checks, especially pertaining to the transparency of when and how the technology is used.

These two paths both work to minimize harm through regulating the use of artificial intelligence. Consequently, the narrative surrounding AI and equity is often a negative one. However, there still exists potential to change the conversation. Through using AI to promote the study of justice, it can transform a tool defined by uncertainty into a tool that defines the uncertain.

An instance of this effort can be found at the University of Southern California. Co-led by Drs. Benjamin Graham and Morteza Dehghani, the Everyday Respect project began after the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners asked them to analyze a year’s worth of bodycam footage. The request came in response to the success of a similar Stanford study, which started in 2014 after a $10.9 million settlement agreement about intense police misconduct required the Oakland Police Department to collect information on stops by race. 

Through this initiative, they are “working to develop community-informed AI models to study communication between officers and drivers during traffic stops.” After surveying stakeholders about what a “good” interaction entails, video annotators (ranging from those previously incarcerated to retired cops) now analyse bodycam footage to create an AI model which will automatically rate exchanges at stops. Once the algorithm is complete, it will be fed 30,000 LAPD police stops. This will allow for a better understanding of how different communities perceive officer behavior, which in turn should inform the creation of better training programs.

This process does not have to be limited to the LAPD. In fact, part of the project’s goal is to make the language model available to other police departments. As mentioned earlier, this transparency when dealing with artificial intelligence is part of what makes it trustworthy enough to rely on in the face of such significant, sensitive responsibilities like procedural justice. 

Professor Graham, one of the professors in charge of the project through USC’s Security and Political Economy Lab, agrees that this scalable process is one that countries would consider adopting to analyze their own police forces, if they were not already. “There are tools in the works in a lot of places that apply some version of AI to evaluate some aspect of policing,” Graham said. “I think we’re going to see a lot more of that over the next few years.”

According to Graham, there is a lot of potential in AI. The key is making sure it’s properly planned, considered and supervised. “It is not a technology without risks, but I think it enables analysis of data at scale, and it enables analysis of data in ways that respect the privacy of the people depicted in that data,” Graham said. “Carefully designed, it can be a really powerful tool for transparency, for accountability, for learning and improvement. So it can definitely be a powerful force for good.”

While it’s clear that inherent issues of equity arise as the use of artificial intelligence becomes more commonplace in every facet of life, the benefits are undeniable. Advances in technology at this scale do not come often, so it is not wrong to take advantage of them. However, if no concrete, widespread efforts to regulate this use emerge, then the nation may suffer the consequences of unjust policing, public mistrust, and overall inaccurate AI outputs. Hopefully, institutions — both national and international — keep in mind the importance that human supervision and legislation play in creating a more technologically sound future. Combined with the promotion of innovative ways to implement AI, such as through analyzing police interactions at traffic stops, there is faith that the technology can contribute to real good while minimizing negative impact.

The post Artificial Intelligence Has Already Exacerbated Issues of Equity. Here’s How We Can Fix It. appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Of course, life in a wheelchair comes with its challenges, but I don’t see my wheelchair as a problem. Disabled people are the largest minority in the United States and also the one that any person can become a part of at any point. The issue is not being disabled, but that the United States is not set up for disabled people to thrive.

Disabled rights have an extremely long way to come, but that is not to say that strides have not been made. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, was passed in 1990 thanks to relentless efforts by thousands of disabled activists. This is one of the most famous – and one of very few – measures that the U.S. government has taken to protect the rights of its disabled citizens. As stated by the federal government, “The ADA guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to enjoy employment opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in state and local government programs.”

This change is obviously not one that can happen overnight – and no one expects it to. However, it has now been over 30 years since the ADA was passed and disabled individuals still face significant barriers that prevent access to opportunities that the rest of the population is able to take advantage of. Examples of this exist in every sector that the ADA claims to address, but the most impactful in my life has been that of public transportation. There are elevators that don’t work and bus drivers who refuse to let wheelchairs on their bus, but that is to be expected. These are not things that can be completely eradicated and are just part of the disabled experience. 

However, the country’s most applauded public transportation system was not something that I expected to be so much of an issue. Visiting New York City for the first time as a full-time wheelchair user made me realize just how behind the city is regarding accessibility. Despite being the most popular transit system in the country, the New York subway is only 30% accessible and does not expect to reach 95% accessibility until 2055. The work to make the subway accessible began in the 1980s, yet within the subway system’s 472 stations, only roughly 150 are currently ADA-compliant.

Full accessibility requires time and money, but it also needs advocates. The simple fact is that disabled people are frequently ignored and their needs are seen as less important, if considered at all. However, the fight for accessibility cannot be one that is put on the back burner, and systems such as the New York subway must make this a priority rather than just a passive project that will happen eventually.

A Trump presidency, and the rise of anti-DEI rhetoric that has come with it, is deeply concerning in relation to the ADA and the general issue of disabled rights. Trump and the GOP have been framing DEI as a new concept and an unreasonable and pointless waste of resources. Trump’s executive order ending government DEI programs lists them as discriminatory efforts that lead to unfairness and inequality. The inclusion of DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility) in this executive order points out an intent to end equitable disability policy as well. Many anti-DEI voices claim that the elimination of these programs will not hurt disabled populations and that disabled rights will not be encroached upon. However, this is simply untrue. 

Accessibility and the ADA exemplify the principles of DEI, most prominently that of equity. The existence of a ramp into a building is equity – equality would mean leaving a set of stairs and leaving those with mobility issues to fend for themselves. This is equal, of course, but that does not make it fair. Many opponents of DEI argue that these policies provide unfair advantage to minority groups and give unqualified individuals opportunities that they do not deserve. However, systemic barriers exist and remain a problem for many people in the United States. 

Redlining was not ended in the United States until the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, the gay panic defense is still permitted in 30 states and historical buildings do not face the same scrutiny from the ADA that others do. The United States presents itself as a progressive nation in many ways and one that has moved past its dark history of civil rights infringements. However, these sorts of things are not nearly as far in the past as we think. Brown v. Board of Education was passed in 1954 and integration remained a contentious issue for the decades following. Frankly, it is ridiculous to believe that wrongs like these could have been entirely fixed in less than a century. Hopefully, the United States will reach a point where DEI is unnecessary. This has not happened yet, though.

In the realm of accessibility, the United States continues to fail its disabled citizens. Although the ADA does exist, that does not mean that it is followed. Personally, I have been rejected from jobs purely because I am in a wheelchair. When I have reported this issue, the most that has happened is that the employer gets reprimanded, if anything at all. I have been turned away from classes I paid for because of an inaccessible environment and refused a refund. These are only some of the barriers faced by disabled people, and other marginalized groups, in the United States. Under Trump, I can only expect for these disparities to worsen. 

Trump’s disdain for disabled communities came into conversation in 2015 after he mocked a disabled reporter during a campaign rally. This has continued and on Mar. 20, 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order to abolish the Department of Education. Special education is guided by the DoE and countless protections for disabled students exist because of the DoE. With his long standing dispute against the DoE, Trump continues to present an air of indifference towards the ability of disabled people to succeed. 

By abolishing the DoE, Trump is effectively removing safeguards to ensure that disabled students have equal access to education. And, by removing all DEIA policies, he doubles down on this. First, the Trump administration is adding barriers to education. Then, the administration is making it harder for disabled people to find jobs. It is already legal to pay disabled workers a subminimum wage and, in 2022, the median annual salary for disabled workers was $46,877 while the median salary for non-disabled workers was $55,208. Even with DEIA policies, there remains a stark difference in the benefits that disabled employees receive. There is already a shocking number of barriers to employment access for disabled people and, by removing governmental support for these communities, Trump is making it even more difficult to succeed in a society that is not set up for disabled communities. The United States is not so far from its horrific past and the country has yet to right all past wrongs. DEIA makes this a possibility and gives hope to the millions of Americans who continue to face discrimination in the workplace.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post What Trump’s Anti-DEI Policy Means for Disabled Americans appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As I waited for ChatGPT to respond, I looked across my dorm to the clock that read 1:17AM. 

I can’t remember what prompted my roommate and I to start a conversation with ChatGPT, but I do recall being surprised by how much we enjoyed our conversation with OpenAI’s chatbot. 

It answered countless silly questions in extreme detail, all while asking follow-up questions and telling us that it “loved listening to our stories.” While the bot’s phrasing was occasionally awkward and used more alliteration than a person would, its responses were genuinely fun and encouraging. 

Ultimately, our conversation with ChatGPT lasted over two hours—but we were far from the only ones having a late-night therapy session with an AI chatbot. 

In fact, more and more people have turned to AI chatbots for mental health support. 

On CharacterAI, a platform where users can talk to chatbots based on fictional and real-life figures, there are approximately 475 chatbots designed to act like a “therapist,” “psychologist” or “psychiatrist.” The most popular of these chatbots — “Psychologist” — received 78 million messages between 2023 and 2024, 18 million of which were shared in a period of just under two months. 

Woebot, an AI therapist app which around 1.5 million people downloaded within its first six years, is an example of an early chatbot designed specifically for therapy and trained to provide responses based on scripts written by certified mental professionals. Character.AI and ChatGPT on the other hand, are generative AI chatbots that have not been trained according to psychological guidelines and are instead designed to learn from and mirror users’ responses. 

Interestingly, generative AI chatbots are skyrocketing in popularity among users seeking mental health support due to these platforms’ availability and accessibility, some even choosing it over human mental health professionals. 

While human counselors have to see other patients and take care of responsibilities aside from their job, AI chatbots are available 24/7. This is extremely helpful for users who need counseling at unconventional hours when human support is unavailable or who want sessions that last longer than an hour. 

Moreover, talking to a chatbot can be conducted via various free AI platforms and from whatever physical location the user prefers. This eliminates the costs of the mental health service itself and those associated with traveling to a therapist’s office. 

Thanks to these qualities, AI chatbots are viewed by proponents as the key to closing the enormous gap between the demand for and availability of mental health resources. In the United States, there are approximately 45,000 psychiatrists available to serve 333 million Americans—a shortage that researchers warn is growing. 

Beyond the U.S., the implementation of AI therapy chatbots could be transformative in developing countries where the shortage of mental health professionals is even more severe. In 2021, Yemen had only 46 psychiatrists to serve its population of 37 million. In 2022, Kenya had only 100 psychiatrists to serve its population of 54 million. This extreme scarcity speaks to a widespread public health emergency that leaves millions without access to psychological care. 

Across the Global South, innovators are turning to AI to close this gap. One example of this is the Kenyan app Xaidi. According to its developer iZola, Xaidi is a free community health assistant platform, designed specifically to support neurodivergent children and their caregivers by providing access to 24/7 interactive AI support. Xaidi and similar initiatives illustrate how AI can be tailored to meet local mental health needs in regions where professional human care is in critically short supply.    

More broadly, optimists believe AI chatbots will alleviate resource strain and support those harmed by the various barriers restricting access to traditional mental health support. 

Skeptics, however, warn that AI therapists may not just be ineffective but also dangerous. 

Due to their lack of psychological training, AI chatbots have been observed to make unfounded assumptions. For example, the Psychologist chatbot on Character.AI shares advice on treating depression when users report merely feeling sad. This kind of speculation can skew users’ perception and understanding of their mental health, potentially resulting in anxiety about a condition they may not actually have. In turn, this misunderstanding can lead users to take unnecessary action in an attempt to address their supposed disorder. 

Additionally, AI chatbots are often programmed to reinforce users’ thinking—even if it is harmful. This reinforcement is especially dangerous for users who are in a particularly vulnerable state. For example, a Florida mother is filing a civil suit against Character.AI, claiming that one of its chatbots encouraged her son to kill himself. She alleges that her 14-year-old son committed suicide after the chatbot responded to his admission of having misgivings about a plan to kill himself by saying, “That’s not a reason not to go through with it.” As illustrated, chatbots may provide inappropriate responses that inadvertently encourage users to hurt themselves. 

While AI chatbots can be an invaluable mental health resource thanks to their unrivaled availability and accessibility, it is clear that they should be approached with extreme caution. Instead of using chatbots to replace human mental health professionals, AI can be used to support their work. 

While more complex tasks like diagnosis of disorders should be reserved for trained clinicians, AI chatbots can be entrusted with simpler tasks such as reminding patients to take their medication and helping therapists take notes on patients’ behavior during sessions. That way, human therapists can dedicate more of their limited time to the tasks chatbots are not currently equipped to handle. 

While its capabilities will continue to evolve and improve, AI is ultimately no substitute for real human care. In the middle of the night, ChatGPT said all the right things and asked all the right questions, but that didn’t change the fact that our interaction felt more like a scripted performance than a genuine conversation. 

AI can simulate connection — a powerful feat in today’s world. But when it comes to care, there’s no substitute for a person who can truly empathize and offer more than just nice, yet ultimately empty, words.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Chatbots, Comfort, and the Cost of Convenience: Can AI Replace Human Care? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The leader who has emerged in the months since the fall has been Ahmed al-Sharaa, a military commander who led the rebellion against Assad and former al-Qaeda member. His role in al-Qaeda is something that has raised concern on a global stage, though Sharaa cut ties with the group in 2016. The United States has designated Sharaa, previously known as Abu Mohammed al-Golani, as a terrorist when, in 2011, he established a new Syrian branch of al-Qaeda called the Nusra Front. Sharaa refused to bring the Nusra Front into ISIS in 2013 and, in 2016, the group was renamed to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and broke off from al-Qaeda. Sharaa’s newest insurgent front is named Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and is ultimately the group that toppled the Assad regime.

In 2013, while still maintaining ties with al-Qaeda, Sharaa named his intent for Syria to exist as a fundamentalist Islamic state, stating that religious minorities would have no room in the country. Since then, however, Sharaa has appeared to pull back from this intent, announcing in 2015 that he does not wish to target religious minorities or to create conflict with Europe or the United States. In 2023 and 2024, Sharaa showed little understanding for dissenters and was not known to show mercy. Although this may bear similarity to the Assad regime, HTS has shown far less suppression of those with differing beliefs and Sharaa has since maintained his commitment to a freer Syria. With the signing of a new transitional Constitution, Sharaa remains committed to the freedoms of expression and media and remains steadfast in his commitment to a unified Syria.

In a 2021 interview with PBS, Sharaa spoke with a U.S. news outlet for the first time. Here, he re-emphasized that he does not wish to infringe upon the security of Europe and America and criticized his designation as a terrorist, asking, “Terrorism, how do you define it? Today, every country has a terrorism list. Any person or party that the country claims is opposing it is automatically added to the terrorism list.” Sharaa also urged people to ask the question of why people join al-Qaeda and to understand how U.S. policy has driven many to join al-Qaeda. Despite al-Qaeda’s attacks on civilians, such as those on 9/11, Sharaa claims that he does not, and never has, supported external attacks on civilians and that he has never killed an innocent person in one of his operations.

Regarding Sharaa’s plans for Syria’s future, he has highlighted the need for unity and democracy within the country. Sharaa has been named as Syria’s transitional president and HTS has also declared that the Constitution will be repealed and the army and parliament will both be terminated. HTS seems to be planning a complete upheaval of the existing Syrian government and Sharaa has announced his intention to create a constitution for this transition period and to hold a national dialogue conference to discuss the future of Syria. 

As a result of the Syrian civil war, which began in 2011, parts of Syria have been controlled by various militia groups. This civil war began with Assad’s crackdown on pro-democracy protests and did not end until the regime was overthrown. Sharaa has announced that all rebel militia groups will be absorbed into the government and that, to promote unity, all guns held by non-state actors should be surrendered to the new government. Regardless of whether Sharaa’s intentions are in earnest, this will likely be a difficult endeavor and possibly one that will never occur. After 53 years under the iron fist of the Assad regime, Syrians are their militia groups have faced constant terror and threat from their government and can be expected to be distrustful of a future government, especially one led by a former al-Qaeda member and a man who advocated for a fundamentalist Islamic rule. 

Due to the 14-year civil war, it has been incredibly difficult to obtain accurate data about Syria’s population statistics. The numbers vary by source, but it is estimated that Syria’s population is 70% Sunni Muslim, 10% Alawite and 3% Shi’a with a variety of other religious minorities, primarily Christian denominations.Sharaa is a Sunni Muslim, something that has worried many Syrians and even caused some Shi’a Muslims to flee the country for fear that Sharaa will lead religious persecution efforts. Conflicts between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims have defined much of the recent history of the Middle East and it remains to be seen how tensions between the two will play a role in Syria’s future.

Throughout early March 2025, the Alawites, a religious minority in Syria, have experienced a surge in violence against them. This has been a fear among Alawites since the overthrow of Assad as the Alawites have been politically dominant throughout the entirety of the Assad regime. Bashar al-Assad, along with his father, was an Alawate and installed Alawite leaders in his regime, suppressing other religious groups. Because of this, Alawites are often viewed as more sympathetic to the Assad regime. On Mar. 6, 2025, on the coast of Syria, a group of Assad loyalists attacked, killing hundreds of civilians and security forces. Security forces then provided a defense against these pro-Assad fighters. A number of unknown fighters then came in, killing Alawites in, presumably, a retaliatory action. As of Mar. 17, 2025, the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) has reported at least 639 deaths as a result of the fighting on the Syrian coast. Following these events, Sharaa has called for peace amongst Syrians and promises that those responsible for targeting civilians will be held responsible.

With the changing landscape of Syria and the chaos within the country, the future of Syria remains unclear. Many have hope for the rule of Sharaa and many others worry that this will only continue division within the country and that this new rule will be no better than that of Assad. Sharaa holds firm in his hope for a united Syria, however, and the future of Syria remains hopeful, though unknown.

The post Ahmed al-Sharaa and Hope for the Future of Syria appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The involvement of North Korean troops fighting on Russia’s side of the war in Ukraine is perplexing. Throughout its entire history, North Korea has never launched a foreign military intervention, so their presence in the Russian-Ukraine war is unprecedented. 

Russia is at a turning point in its history. With the war in Ukraine waging on for nearly three years, its ultimate status remains unclear; however, the war has undoubtedly questioned the U.S.-led global order. After the start of the invasion, Western nations immediately imposed trade and economic sanctions on Russia, effectively isolating it and reducing it to a pariah state similar to North Korea. 

As the war in Ukraine has gone on far longer than Russia anticipated, Russia has begun to run low on ammunition and manpower. Unwilling to back down on Ukraine, Moscow’s options for wartime trade have become largely restricted to the handful of other countries who have similarly been isolated from the Western financial world, such as Iran and North Korea. Russia has already been turning to Iran for thousands of cheap yet deadly drones throughout the war. As for North Korea, the country has spent decades preparing for a war with South Korea and the United States. As a result, outside of Russia itself, North Korea possesses the largest arsenal of artillery munitions of any country in the world. Realizing this and sharing a land border with North Korea, Putin saw a golden opportunity to restock on munitions by shipping artillery shells from Russia’s far east to the far west into Ukraine. 

In exchange, Russia agreed to give North Korea some of its significantly more advanced military technology compared to North Korea’s frozen in time Soviet military armaments. Previously, nearly the entire world including Russia was united in restricting trade with North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program. This restricted North Korea’s military from advancing into the modern day, especially compared to their South Korean counterpart. However, now that Russia has been ostracized by the Western world, its previous cooperation with Western powers has been abandoned, prompting Russia to seek new trading partners to counter its isolation.

The Russian Defence Minister visited Pyongyang in July 2023. Afterwards, Kim Jong Un traveled across the border to meet personally with Putin in September 2023. In summer 2024 Putin personally visited Kim on his own turf in Pyongyang for the first time in 24 years, pledging to support one another in the event of an attack on either country.

This marks a significant departure from North Korea’s previous attempts to normalize relations with the United States during the Trump administration, and realign its relations with Russia similarly as they were during the Cold War era. 

The details of Putin and Kim’s meetings are unknown, but the U.S. state department suggests that, since mid 2022, roughly 11,000 shipping containers have entered Russia from North Korea presumably carrying primarily munitions. Western estimates suggest that roughly 1.6 million to 6 million artillery shells have entered Russia from North Korea worth several billions of dollars. These shells are of debatable quality and reliability but have undoubtedly given Russia the edge in munitions while Russia restocks from their own factories. In October 2024, Western intelligence sources reported that roughly half of the Russian artillery shells used in Ukraine came from North Korea.

North Korea is arguably the most militarized country in the world. North Korea spends 36% of its GDP on military spending, which is nearly the same as Ukraine (37%) with an ongoing invasion across its territory. However, since North Korea is so impoverished, this is only a fraction of the spending the United States and South Korea spend on their militaries. 

Pyongyang knows that once Russia restores itself on munitions, its need for North Korea will diminish. As a result, in order to maintain the relationship and gain further military advances from Russia, North Korea is left offering Russia the only other thing they have that Russia is in need of: its massive reserves of soldiers. Approximately 30% of the entire North Korea population is either actively serving or in the reserves. All North Korean men are required to serve ten year terms while women are required to serve eight year terms. The country has more than 1.3 million personnel in their active duty army. This is almost as much as the 1.4 million U.S. personnel and more than Russia’s 1.1 million personnel.  

The New York Times estimated in October 2024 that approximately 115,000 Russian soldiers have been killed fighting in Ukraine, in addition to another 500,000 that have been wounded. Russia likely considered doing a larger mandate draft as Ukraine has done but it knows it would presumably make the war deeply unpopular. As a result, Moscow calculated the better option for itself is to give North Korea more technology in exchange for manpower. The Ukrainian military suspects that Moscow will use these North Korean troops to deploy in the Russian Kursk Oblast which Ukraine acquired in their counter offensive in August 2024. The presence of North Korean troops in Russian territory leads to frightening implications for the war and the rest of the world. 

Currently, the Ukraine-Russia war is at its worst point for Ukraine since the start of the war, with Russia slowly advancing further into Ukraine’s territory as Ukraine faces extreme artillery and manpower shortages. North Korean forces entering the Kursk Oblast would allow Russian troops to redeploy to the Russian offensive helping to increase their advances. The current North Korean troops are still untested with significant language barrier and operational differences to overcome. However, if North Korean soldiers prove effective it could suggest that these 10,000 troops are only the start of a much larger share of forces entering Russia to help the war effort. 

As for what this means outside of the Russian-Ukraine war, the Korean peninsula has become extremely precarious. In January 2024, Kim Jong Un formally called for an alteration to the North Korean constitution to remove all commitments to a peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, he had the constitution changed to label South Korea as the nation’s “primary foe and invariable principle enemy.” In addition, he ordered the arch of reunification, a monument constructed in 2001 symbolizing Korea’s eventual reunification, to be destroyed. These moves effectively eliminate the long standing peaceful reunification of Korea from North Korea’s official policy. This has led several North Korea analysts to suggest that Kim Jong Un plans to go to war with South Korea. The publication does not suggest a specific when or how, only that Kim has made it in his mind to do so eventually. 

That being said, the South Korea military still far outclasses the North’s in almost every way. The rationale for North Korea to invade the South can be seen as extremely irrational. However, with the aid of advanced Russian technology in the form of advanced missiles, submarines, and more, South Korea is on high alert.

The involvement of North Korean troops in Russia’s war against Ukraine marks an unprecedented shift with significant implications for global security. For Russia, North Korea’s vast munitions and manpower alleviate critical shortages, enabling its prolonged offensive. For North Korea, the partnership offers advanced military technology, currently desperately needed by the Kim regime to bolster its aggressive ambitions. This alliance not only complicates Ukraine’s defense but also destabilizes the Korean peninsula, as Kim Jong Un dismantles the long standing peaceful reunification efforts and escalates hostile rhetoric toward South Korea. With authoritarian regimes deepening ties and defying international norms, the ripple effects of this partnership extend far beyond the battlefields of Ukraine, threatening to reshape regional dynamics and global power balances.

The post Why North Korean Troops are in the Russia-Ukraine War and What it Means for the Rest of the World appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

CBAM, which is set to go into effect at the start of 2026 once it is confirmed by the European Council and European Parliament, is a tariff on carbon-intensive imported goods like cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen. Through these efforts, the EU pushes cleaner production abroad and a decrease in carbon leakage. The agreement effectively urges governments to step up their climate efforts or risk losing competitiveness in the market, making the EU the global leader in sustainability. 

While the deal may seem like a step in the right direction, the developing world has expressed serious disapproval toward the tariff, arguing that the measure discriminates against poor nations that do not have the administrative capacity or climate regulations to comply with CBAM. For instance, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman denounced the tariff as “unilateral and arbitrary,” acting as a “trade barrier” to the fastest-growing economies. As a result, New Delhi notified the WTO of their plans to retaliate via a retaliatory tariff. 

The EU’s largest exporters in sectors covered by CBAM include Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Egypt and Morocco. However, some of these countries, particularly the EU’s trading partners with developing economies such as Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Bhutan and Jamaica, lack the economic and geopolitical power to impose tariffs. The GDP of developing countries is expected to decline between 1.4% and 2.4% depending on the final Greenhouse gas (GHG) price. As a result, their response will likely take the form of legal disputes at the WTO. 

Furthermore, CBAM can be viewed as a message to major economies and significant GHG emitters of the EU’s commitment to safeguard its domestic priorities. Zhao, Deputy Minister of China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment, claimed China staunchly opposed any unilateral measures that increased costs. “China always respects multilateral practices,” he added. This perspective also anticipates retaliatory responses, such as potential trade conflicts. 

Researchers at the Swedish Institute for European Studies have expressed that expanding BRICS coalition could act as a counterbalance to the EU, potentially competing to shape the future global economic and trade landscape. Green protectionism can force countries to join cooperative partnerships that could reverse decarbonization efforts by encouraging less environmentally aligned economic interests. Consequently, addressing the geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges posed by the CBAM will be a crucial task for the EU. 

While impending trade disputes and wars pose a significant threat to the multilateral trade regime, the pressing urgency of the climate crisis makes it vital to not abandon the CBAM. Rather, the EU must ensure it accommodates the economic needs of developing nations to foster a less discriminatory and effective approach to global trade. 

The EU should adopt a carbon-pricing mechanism that goes beyond a direct carbon tax. It should include both explicit prices and other indirect measures that impact the cost of emitting GHGs, like taxes on fuel or cuts to fossil fuel subsidies. In short, it counts all the costs that make carbon-emitting activities more expensive, even if those costs aren’t labeled specifically as carbon fees. For many developing countries, direct carbon taxes or emissions trading systems are challenging to implement because they require significant resources, infrastructure and administrative capacity. However, virtually every country already has policies that indirectly discourage emissions, like fuel taxes or energy efficiency standards. It would also encourage a gradual transition so developing nations could build up their climate policies without facing immediate trade penalties. Reforms that reduce subsidies to fossil fuel consumption have taken place in many developing countries, such as Ghana and Sudan.

Lastly, the EU’s current CBAM doesn’t qualify as a “border carbon adjustment” according to the WTO because it violates articles II, III, XI and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). A border carbon adjustment (BCA) that includes explicit and indirect measures is compatible with WTO law because it is not a unilateral action. According to the 2015 Paris Agreement, BCA mechanisms designed to allow for more leeway in climate policy should be seen as “multilateral universalism”. Thus, policies of this nature should face less stringent scrutiny under WTO rules as the GHG pricing mechanisms being introduced have been implicitly accepted by WTO members. This is evident from their collective endorsement of international climate agreements such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact. Even nations like China are likely to be supportive.

Thus, the EU must implement a fair and bold carbon border tax now. Absent a WTO-compliant BCA, Daniel Esty, a leading expert on climate change governance, warns, “I can imagine a scenario whereby they’re challenged not once or twice, but a dozen, 15, 20, 30, 40 times within the first six months.” Such legal uncertainties could also escalate into a global trade war, threatening economic stability and international cooperation on climate action. For the EU, this moment calls for decisive action to lead by example and pave the way for a sustainable and equitable global trading system.

The post The EU CBAM Conundrum: Balancing Climate Goals with Trade Justice for Developing Countries appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The largest tropical area being confronted with deforestation is the Amazon Rainforest. As it is about the same size as the United States and home to over three million different species, the destructive practice is guaranteed to have a drastic impact on both humans and the environment. 

Deforestation has many harmful effects, from global warming to air pollution, but one of the most underrated impacts of this procedure is the increased risk of another pandemic.

When clearing an area, it isn’t just trees that are being removed. Animals are faced with the choice of living in unhealthy and unsafe conditions or being displaced. It is when this decision happens that the risk of a zoonotic disease increases. 

Let’s say that the disease-carrying animal decides to move. Once leaving their habitat, they may enter a new environment not prepared or equipped to handle the disease this animal has. This is especially true in urban areas where sanitation is already a health concern. These animals now interact with humans on a much larger scale than before, allowing for the transmission of a disease to be a much quicker and smoother process. This is emphasized by the fact that these areas don’t have the resources or knowledge to fight off these new diseases. Towns and cities located close to deforestation areas are hotspots for zoonotic diseases to spread.

The same problems arise even if the disease-carrying animal stays in its habitat. Most of the deforested land in the Amazon is used for cattle ranching and farmland, meaning that humans are now working and living on land that they hadn’t used before. Once again, these animals are in contact with people in an unprepared and vulnerable state, making conditions perfect for zoonotic transfer. Both of these scenarios consist of increased human exposure to zoonoses, highlighting the root of zoonosis outbreaks.

To take things a step further and consider what may turn a possible epidemic into a full-blown pandemic, the environmental impacts of deforestation must also be considered.

As mentioned before, mass deforestation has been proven to lead to global warming and climate change overall. This massive transition in temperature has allowed for regions once not considered habitual for certain species to now be places where new life can grow, allowing for new diseases to spread.

Looking back at malaria, the type of mosquito that carries this disease needs tropical conditions. Well, as the temperature of the Earth climbs up, these conditions become much more common and new areas can be home to these mosquitos. Once considered eliminated from the United States, malaria reappeared in 2023 with nine locally transmitted cases reported by people who hadn’t recently traveled to any tropical areas. 

So, not only are disease-carrying animals able to spread regionally, but also internationally. Malaria isn’t the only disease popping back up in Global North countries. So far, eight cases of dengue fever have been reported as locally transmitted in LA County. Before this year, the mosquito-transmitted disease had never been locally transmitted in California. Similar to malaria, the West Nile virus transfers through mosquito bites and, just like malaria, is increasing in numbers in Global North countries as the globe continues to heat up. 

As zoonotic diseases begin to spread more into countries unprepared for this type of problem, the likelihood of a pandemic occurring increases.

Faced with this possibility, the call to mitigate deforestation of the Amazon has never been more necessary. It is the responsibility of the governments and departments in control of the Amazonian region to address this issue. New policies must be implemented that will strike down illegal deforestation practices. For areas near these destructive practices, the goal should be promoting awareness of potential health hazards as well as preparing in case of an outbreak so the disease will be contained. While it can’t be guaranteed that zoonoses won’t spread, procedures and preparations can be put in place to ready nations for when a disease does have the potential to cause a pandemic.

The post How Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest May lead to the next Pandemic appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international treaty designed to facilitate international cooperation in combating climate change. Originally signed in 1992, it aims to limit further increases in average global temperature by regulating nations’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Since 1995, the Convention’s signatories have annually gathered for what is known as the Conference of Parties (COP). At this conference, individual countries’ inventories of their yearly emissions are reviewed to assess the efficacy of each signatory’s measures against climate change. This data is used to evaluate the progress made towards the Convention’s overarching goal. 

Citing the “need [for]action, not more talk,” Papua New Guinea vowed to skip this year’s COP29. If PNG keeps its promise, it will become one of the first states to completely withdraw participation from a COP summit. 

However, it is far from the first body to criticize COP’s attempts to address climate change. 

Climate activists have long criticized the COP for failing repeatedly to deliver on its lofty promises to address the consequences of climate change. In its third year, the COP summit was labeled a “tragedy and a farce” by environmental protection group Greenpeace. This was in response to COP3 delegates settling on emission reduction targets far below those recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Additionally, COP has faced much censure from developing nations for allowing advanced countries to dominate policy negotiations at their expense. This is particularly evident in the decade-long struggle to secure “loss and damage” funding for developing nations significantly impacted by climate change. Though Vanuatu introduced the concept of such funds as early as 1991, developed nations were reluctant to acknowledge that they are disproportionately responsible for climate change and consequently owe reparations to those suffering its effects. As such, these funds were not mentioned in an official UNFCCC document until 2007 and not implemented until 2022. 

In particular, the Pacific Islands are a major source of COP criticism because they are one of the regions most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Thanks to warmer waters and ocean currents, sea levels rise twice as fast as the global average. Over the next thirty years, NASA predicts that sea levels around the Pacific Islands will rise by at least six inches, posing great danger to the 90% of the region’s residents who live within three miles of a coast. 

Future aside, climate change has already begun transforming life in the Pacific Islands for the worse. Rising sea levels contaminate freshwater sources, threatening local water supplies needed for drinking and agriculture. Furthermore, the ocean is acidifying and its surface temperature is increasing, prompting changes in the behavior of local marine species that endanger locals’ fishing livelihoods. These effects simultaneously enable the spread of climate-sensitive diseases and increase the threat of health risks stemming from environmental hazards like unsafe water.  

Despite their position on the frontline of the battle against climate change, the Pacific Islands have been shut out of COP negotiations. After COP28, delegates from the Pacific Islands reported that they “weren’t in the [plenary]room when this decision was gavelled.” In other words, the remaining countries finalized the terms of COP’s concluding agreement for the year without input from anyone with a stake in the region. 

As a result, the final text contains a “litany of loopholes.” For example, it reads that countries will “transition away” from fossil fuels because parties could not choose between “phase out” or “phase down.” According to Pacific climate campaigner Drue Slatter, the imprecise nature of “transition away” merely encourages a reduction in fossil fuels rather than demands it. 

This all but spells disaster for the Pacific Islands. 

As Samoan climate activist Brianna Fruean explains, “science tells us that 1.5 degrees is [the Pacific Islands’]survival line. And in order for us to make it to 1.5, we need a phase-out of fossil fuels.” However, the final wording of the COP28 agreement does not specify the extent to which fossil fuels need to be cut or establish a timeline for doing so, thus allowing nations to get away with continuing to use fossil fuels. 

Given the increasingly dire stakes and the inefficiency of COP negotiations, PNG’s withdrawal from COP29 is far from unreasonable. 

However, other leaders and climate activists from the Pacific Islands are concerned that PNG’s boycott of COP29 will undermine the region’s overall authority at the summit. Kim Allen, a climate activist from Papua New Guinea, said that the COP summit is an opportunity to amplify the voice of the Pacific Islands by presenting a united front. From this point of view, PNG’s absence could reduce the Pacific Islands’ ability to leverage its influence as a collective region, potentially diluting its role in COP29 negotiations. 

On the other hand, PNG’s withdrawal may eventually generate more effective results than the ones COP can produce. In his announcement of the boycott, Tkatchenko shared that PNG will instead pursue bilateral climate agreements with “like-minded countries” who “can do 100 times more than COP.” Focusing on bilateral agreements would reduce the number of competing demands that must be addressed, minimizing the challenges associated with writing an agreement that satisfies the almost 200 countries attending COP29. 

With those challenges out of the way, Papua New Guinea can devote more attention to creating and implementing actionable climate commitments that address climate change in a specific and timely manner. Strategically picking nations to work with also eliminates the risk of progress being hindered by nations who do not share the same dedication to mitigating the effects of climate change.   

As world leaders prepare for COP29, Papua New Guinea’s withdrawal from the summit sends a clear message that climate-vulnerable nations can no longer afford to wait for COP to deliver measurable results. More than that, it is a declaration that they are ready to chart their own course in the fight against climate change. 

As Tkatchenko said, “Papua New Guinea will no longer wait for empty words while our people suffer. We are taking control of our destiny.” 

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Climate Credibility Crisis: Papua New Guinea Exits COP29 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.