In a video she posted en route to court, she stated, “I am freedom… I am the oxygen you breathe. This autocratic regime wants to stop you from breathing. This autocratic regime wants to imprison freedom.”

Seng was arbitrarily detained on Jun 14, 2022. Over two years later, Seng’s lack of release is a haunting display of how democracy is failing our very own “Lady Liberty.” 

A survivor of the Cambodian genocide, Seng emigrated to the United States at age nine and went on to receive her B.S. from Georgetown University and J.D. from the University of Michigan. She then returned to Cambodia and founded two advocacy organizations, the Cambodia Center for Justice and Reconciliation and the Center for Cambodian Civic Education. In her advocacy efforts, she became a vocal critic of the reigning Cambodian People’s Party, particularly its leader, Hun Sen, and a proponent of the opposition party. 

Seng’s civic work was highlighted by the USC Shoah Foundation, an institute dedicated to collecting testimonies from subjects of genocide. This article outlined Seng’s triumphant journey from an orphan by the Khmer Rouge to the fiery political activist, lawyer and author she is today. Attached to this article is a headshot in front of a vertically columned building, a location eerily familiar to a USC student. This image was taken in front of the Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow Center for International and Public Affairs, the same building that houses classes such as International Courts and Globalization of the Law, Leadership and Democracy and Global History of War Crimes: Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Although initially published just a paltry two months before her arrest, Theary’s photo with the backdrop of our campus now appears next to articles discussing her political suppression from news channels around the world. Seng’s continual detainment taints the walls of not only our capital but our campus, too. 

The face in that professional headshot is unrecognizable from Seng’s mugshot, where she dons a shaved head, orange prison garb and a sullen expression. During her two years in prison, numerous human rights organizations such as Freedom House and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Groups have spoken out against her arrest. The Clooney Foundation of Justice’s TrialWatch Initiative found that she was imprisoned on a lack of evidence in a marred justice procedure, resulting in an arbitrary conviction under international law. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention supports these claims, asserting that her detention violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Despite a change in leadership when Hun Sen’s son, Hun Manet, took over the prime minister role, the call for Theary Seng’s release remains ignored by the Cambodian parliament. 

These calls for release are heard not only outside her prison cell but inside it as well. In Dec 2023, Theary held a hunger strike while in prison, which ended in a stay at Phnom Penh Hospital. This hospital visit delayed an appeals court visit scheduled for later months. Her brother, Mardi Seng, reported that Theary fired her lawyers and plans to represent herself when the appeal eventually occurs. 

Even President Biden has echoed the ubiquitous call for justice. When visiting Cambodia in Nov 2022, five months after Seng’s detainment, Biden called for the release of activists detained on politically motivated charges, explicitly naming Theary Seng. However, simply calling on Seng’s release is a shallow and cowardly display of Biden’s presidential powers. 

The Robert Levison Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act, signed into law in Dec 2020, establishes various procedures and entities to address the wrongful detainment of US citizens abroad. If the Department of State designates Seng as “unlawfully detained” under this act, her case will be transferred to the Office of Special Presidential Envoy on Hostage Affairs. This case transfer allows for additional resources and expertise, ensuring her case receives the attention it deserves. The bi-partisan Levinson Act is bolstered by Executive Order 14078, which expands the tools available to deter and reprimand those responsible for the detainment of US citizens abroad. Issued by President Biden a month after Seng’s arrest, this order declared hostage-taking a national emergency and provided a pathway to impose sanctions on hostage-takers.

Biden’s unwillingness to invoke the Levinson Act reflects a larger loosening of US influence on Cambodian Politics as China’s power expands south. The United States adopted the Cambodian Democracy Act in 2021, which allowed for the sanctioning of individuals who have undermined democracy. This act, coupled with an arms embargo, caused a rapid deterioration of US-Cambodia relations, providing ample opportunity for China to assert dominance. China recently moored its naval fleet at Cambodia’s Ream Naval base, representing China’s first maritime post in the Indo-Pacific. Chinese funds built this base, which was met with concern by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. As democratic influence in the nation withers away, so does hope for Theary Seng’s release. 

Infuriatingly, Seng’s imprisonment is not an idiosyncrasy. Despite protections such as the Levinson Act and Executive Order 14078, the State Department has routinely abandoned foreign citizens abroad. The 2023 Hostage report by the James Foley Foundation found that 59 US nationals are held captive in foreign countries, 90% of whom are wrongful detainees. The instituted protections don’t mean anything if they are not implemented to serve those immediately affected. 

US democracy is rooted in the enshrined freedoms put forth in the First Amendment of the Constitution, securing freedom of speech and freedom of petition. Democracy in Cambodia echoes those same values, with Article 41 of the Cambodian Constitution stating, “Khmer citizens shall have freedom of expression of their ideas.” Seng’s arbitrary detainment for expression of her belief reflects a blatant disregard for the very values that democracy stands on. 

Cambodian democracy neglected Seng with imprisonment and a botched trial. But US democracy is a violent bystander in her prosecution, abandoning not only her but a whole nation desperate for hope and equality. 

Seng’s case is a vile example of the detrimental encroachment on civil liberties, both domestically and to citizens abroad. Despite the damaging history of the US presence in the nation, The United States does not deserve the privilege to step back and disengage from Cambodia. They must act on the human rights violations and collaborate with advocates, such as Seng, to pave the way for a more equal and just Cambodia.

For decades, Indian Americans from diverse religious backgrounds have peacefully coexisted in the United States. However recent occurrences, like the divergent responses to Prime Minister Modi’s visit, serve as a microcosm of the deep-seated division within the Indian community and raise concerns that the extreme political and religious division in India is slowly seeping into diaspora communities. 

Hindu nationalism, in India, surged under Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party, which rose to power in 2014 and was empowered by their landslide election win in 2019. 

The ruling party faced significant criticism for the increasing attacks on Muslims and other religious minorities, as well as from some Hindus who argue that Modi’s lack of action empowers right-wing groups and puts national unity at risk. Such conversations are also occurring in the United States but to a different tune.

“All of the mainstream Hindu American organizations were either very vocal and openly supportive of this political ideology and its vision of Hindu identity, ” said Nikhil Mandalaparthy, deputy executive director of the Hindus for Human Rights. “Or they were just silent about what was happening in the name of the Hindu tradition and Hindu community.”

It was under this period of rising tensions that Hindus for Human Rights, a non-profit organization based in Washington D.C., was formed to counteract what Mandalaparthy calls “the American monopoly on the Hindu voice.” 

The goal was to inject an inclusive, progressive Hindu voice in policy and advocacy spaces and to establish connections within the Hindu American diaspora in the United States, which wields substantial influence on Indian politics. 

“Diaspora money funds a lot of the work of groups like the RSS or the BJP that have a very clear ideological agenda and is really key to a lot of their operations in India,” Mandalaparthy explains. “There’s a very long documented history of money going from Hindu Americans to nonprofits, charities and different organizations that are connected to networks of the Hindu right in India.”

In early 2023, South Asia Citizens Web released a report exposing 24 U.S.-based organizations with links to the Sangh Parivar, an India-based global network of Hindu nationalist organizations. 

The report implicates that Sewa International and India Development and Relief Fund, among seven other groups, funded Sangh Parivar-associated initiatives with tens of millions of dollars. The report also names two sponsors, the HSS and VHPA, as having documented ties to extremist Hindu organizations in India. 

Despite these links, both the HSS and VHPA are deeply embedded in Hindu American cultural life and “present themselves as authorities on Hinduism” through “identity-based youth programs, cultural events and disseminating Sangh-approved forms of Hindu culture to the diaspora.”

Redefining Hinduism 

Hindus for Human Rights seeks to challenge the influence of organizations like HSS and VHPA on how Hinduism is perceived in the diaspora community. 

“We have to start by recognizing that today the dominant expression of Hindu identity, whether you’re in India or the diaspora, has really been taken over by Hindu nationalism” explained Nikhil. “There are other ways to be Hindu in a more progressive and inclusive way”. 

As an advocate for pluralism, civil and human rights in South Asia and North America, Hindu for Human Rights’ work is rooted in the values of the Hindu faith: shanti (peace), nyaya (justice) and satya (truth). Their vision is a world defined by lokasangraha (the universal common good) — where there is peace among all people. 

The organization is committed to the elimination of caste and achieving the right to equality for all the communities that have been marginalized in the name of Hinduism by providing a Hindu voice of resistance. 

Their work is infused with these values, spanning from advocacy and community building to countering the disinformation that fuels the propagation of Hindu nationalism in the United States.

Combating Disinformation Campaigns

The digital epidemic that’s taken root in India and the diaspora community is the rapid spread of misinformation and fake news through messaging platforms, particularly WhatsApp. 

WhatsApp chat groups are a breeding ground for misinformation, which is particularly damaging during periods of communal tension and violence. They pose a threat to diaspora communities, which have turned to WhatsApp and other messaging apps for the trust and intimacy they afford.

“In Modi’s India, educated young individuals are so polarized and are spreading [false information]on social media against Muslims,” said Ishani Dutta Roy, an editor at ABP News in Kolkata. 

Government data show a nearly threefold rise in India of instances of “fake news” and “rumors” from 2019 to 2020, even as social media companies take steps to curb the spread of misinformation. 

In a survey conducted in the report Experiences of Muslims in India on Digital Platforms With Anti-Muslim Hate, at least 60% of participants in a survey said they had come across content on digital platforms that incited violence against Muslims. 

Because these platforms have shrunk the distance between South Asia and the United States, they are contributing to the spread and amplification of anti-Muslim sentiments between the two communities.

Anti-Muslim disinformation has become even more readily available and persuasive, especially for anyone seeking confirmation of their hatred and deep-seated prejudice.

“The rise of Hindu nationalism has been accompanied by a really strong effort on the part of Hindu nationalist organizations and political parties to dominate the media landscape, particularly social media,” explained Nikhil while describing the type of content they are finding on platforms like WhatsApp, Instagram or Facebook. “In many cases, the messages that are sent on these platforms can sometimes be the trigger for actual on the ground violence.”

In response, the organization launched Voices of Peace and Ulti Pulti Baat — programs that aim at the influence of religious extremism and hate speech on vulnerable communities and seek to debunk misinformation. 

Activists, scholars and community leaders come together through webinars, panel discussions and other events to discuss issues related to human rights and social justice. They promote dialogue as a method to foster a culture of peace and nonviolence in South Asia and beyond. 

The goal of these initiatives is to target everyday Hindus through WhatsApp groups and the social media ecosystem to inject a different perspective. 

“It’s all about getting into the same places where right now, the only Hindu voices are from the Hindu right and offering an inclusive, progressive alternative,” said Nikhil.

Speaking Across the Divide

Although countering disinformation can be a useful approach to reducing communal tensions in the United States and abroad, it is equally important to engage in on-the-ground efforts to facilitate civil dialogue on challenging issues that impact the Indian community. 

Hindus for Human Rights is doing exactly that through their Desh Videsh series. 

“We go into communities where there [are]high concentrations of South Asians and create opportunities for Hindus and Muslims to be able to talk about issues that are dividing the community, that are leading to more and more polarization,” explained Nikhil. 

The debut event took place in Jan 2023 at the Indian Community Center in Milpitas, California — the heart of the Bay Area and home to a large Indian population. The conversation delved into the history and severe clauses of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, along with the persecution of minority groups in India. 

By facilitating dialogue and featuring expert opinions, the initiative aims to bridge gaps between people with differing perspectives. 

While these dialogues often include both civil and uncivil disagreements, progress stems from the exposure and willingness to have these conversations. Hindus for Human Rights’ attempts at outreach and bridge-building are one-of-a-kind and happen in collaboration with many other forces. 

“All of our work is done in coalition, in partnership with Muslim groups and secular organizations. We’re coming in as a united front representing the whole diversity of the Indian diaspora” said Nikhil. The Desh Videsh series is the beginning of bridges being built between these two communities and creating a safe space for individuals to interact with those across the aisle. 

It also provides Hindus for Human Rights an opportunity to show members of the diaspora community the literal consequences of nationalism and anti-muslim sentiment, focusing specifically on cases of persecuted individuals in India.

Advocacy 

The National Crime Records Bureau in 2021 reported that over 30% of all detainees in Indian prisons were Muslims, despite the community only making up 14.2% of the total population. 

A combination of factors has kept the statistic consistent, including police bias resulting in baseless charges, inadequate representation of Muslims in law enforcement and insufficient or non-existent legal assistance. 

Faisal Khan, a victim of the Indian justice system, was associated with both Khudai Kidmatgar, a non-violent freedom movement, and the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) for the past 15 years. As an activist, he pushed for communal harmony between Hindus and Muslims. 

Khan and his group Khudai Khidmatgar conducted a journey in Brij, Uttar Pradesh, where they visited the Nand Baba Temple and were invited to pray by the priest. 

Four days later, Khan was arrested and charged with conducting Muslim prayers in a Hindu temple without permission and creating disharmony, as well as using Khudai Kidmatgar to raise funds for malicious purposes from foreign sources. The charges were filed by the same priest who had invited Faisal to pray.

Hindus for Human Rights organized numerous press conferences and met with US House of Representative officials and individuals in the State Department to voice their apprehensions regarding the events taking place in India.

“For the last several years, whenever [government agencies]have been looking for the Hindu community perspective, the only groups that are out there responding or reaching out to them are coming from the Hindu right, from the Hindu nationalist perspective,” stated Nikhil. 

The organization summoned human rights defenders and interfaith activists to speak up on Khan’s behalf. Eventually, Khan was released. 

Media coverage and international attention can be crucial in cases like these. Authoritarian governments are particularly sensitive about being publicly shamed on the global platform and don’t want these issues to be discussed beyond its borders. 

Hindus for Human Rights takes advantage of this and utilizes its influence and scope to raise awareness regarding instances such as Kahn’s and the numerous others in India who are being unjustly persecuted.

By advocating for persecuted individuals in India, spearheading campaigns against the dissemination of misinformation among the diaspora, and fostering a sense of a unified community, Hindus for Human Rights hopes to change the political climate.

“If we win the culture and politics in the states, if we increase our voice here, then our political influence becomes stronger in India,” said David Kalal, communications director for the organization, “That’s the vision, that’s what we are working towards and why I joined this organization. ”

Guatemala’s 36-year-long civil war ended with the singing of the 1996 Peace Accords. However, while the first two election cycles appeared like promising steps forwards, this did not mean that Guatemalan democracy would have an easy, perfect transition. The young democracy experienced several challenges, and today, corruption continues to deeply affect the Guatemalan government.

The most famous corruption scandal in Guatemala is known as “La Línea” or “the line.” The scandal involved the disgraceful resignation of President Otto Fernandez Perez Molina, a retired Army General who was elected in 2012 on a platform of fighting drug-related crime. La Línea was the name given to this scandal, which accused former President Molina of defrauding the state of millions of dollars and led to his eventual resignation in September 2015. The uncovered scheme allowed companies to evade import taxes entirely or at a reduced cost through bribes. The term “La Linea” was coined in reference to the telephone number that businesses could call in order to bribe the former President. Molina actively denied these charges, claiming them to be lies. He said “Nobody has ever said I gave an illegal order, and I never gave any. They never said I was given money.” However, despite his denials, in December 2022, Molina was found guilty of crimes associated with “La Linea” and was sentenced to 16 years in prison along with his Vice President Roxana Baldetti. 

Unfortunately, corruption has not only plagued the executive branch of Guatemala’s government, but the judicial branch as well. The Humans Rights Watch 2020 World Report states that Guatemala’s judiciary system “suffers from high levels of impunity,” along with long delays taken advantage of by defendants to escape justice.  A clear example of the effects of corruption on the judiciary system involved Judge Erika Aifan. Aifan served on Guatemala’s high risk court, which deals with high profile cases of corruption and criminal cases, sometimes involving politicians. Aifan was known as an anti-corruption judge, with The U.S. Department of State recognizing “Judge Aifan as a 2021 International Woman of Courage (IWOC) for her efforts to strengthen the rule of law in Guatemala.” Yet, after harassment and threats to judicial independence persisted, Judge Aifan felt threatened that she would be arrested by corrupt government officials trying to escape her convictions. This rising threat eventually led to her resigning and fleeing the country, citing “particular pressure from Guatemalan Attorney General Consuelo Porras.”. 

Fortunately for Guatemalan citizens, there have recently been calls for progress in ending widespread corruption. In 2017, Guatemala’s Attorney General, Thelma Aldana, and Ivan Velasquez, a human rights lawyer, made accusations against President Morales of stealing up to $800,000 of campaign funds. In response, Morales called for Velasquez’s resignation and gave a police memo stating that all previously approved leave for the country’s elite special forces had been canceled, essentially putting these special forces on high alert if push comes to shove, ready to use for his own protection from the law. Outraged, thousands of Guatemalan citizens rose up in protest against corruption in the government and the lack of action to combat this issue. From these protests, the Semilla or “seed” political party was born. The party’s name references seeds of change and anti-corruption. In its young history, the Semilla party has been very successful. In its first election in 2019, the party won seven seats in the Congress of the Republic, Guatemala’s unicameral legislative structure. In the most recent, 2023 presidential election, Bernardo Arévalo of the Semilla Party, campaigning on anti-corruption, won in a landslide victory receiving 58% of the votes. This trumped the 36 percent former first lady and establishment politician Sandra Torres received. Arévalo’s victory illustrates a clear call from Guatemalan voters for change as Arévalo campaigned on a strong anti-corruption platform. However, establishment politicians did not take this loss lying down. 

Guatemala’s Attorney General, Consuelo Porras, launched a campaign against Arévalo. This concentrated effort led by Porras, dubbed a ‘coup in slow motion’ by Arévalo, aimed to undermine the legitimacy of his election victory in order to prevent him from taking office. Porras first tried to call the election victory illegitimate, citing “ballot falsification [and]computer manipulation.” Following the court’s upholding of the election outcome, Porras had the Semilla party suspended due to unproven claims that the signatures necessary to the legality of the party were falsified at its conception. Prosecutors even went so far as to illegally seize documents from Semilla headquarters. Porras’s efforts to prevent an anti-corruption candidate from taking office led to widespread protests from Guatemalan citizens calling for his resignation. 
Due to his perseverance, public support and lack of base for claims against his party, Arévalo was formally sworn into office on the morning of Jan. 15, 2024. This marked a triumph for Arévalo and the Semilla party, but even more so for the citizens of Guatemala as their unity in support of Arévalo has persevered through multiple attempts of stopping his assumption of office. Arévalo, standing for anti-corruption, promising to strengthen democratic institutions and being another of few examples of a peaceful transition of power, all represent a glimpse of hope for the democracy of Central America’s largest country.

In the simplest use of the phrase, a “stateless person” is someone who is not recognized as a citizen by any country; however, the ways in which a person can become stateless are varied. One method is based on the legal principles of birth; some countries are based on jus soli, the right to citizenship when born in the country, while other countries are jus sanguinis, based on bloodline. As such, if a child comes from a country without jus sanguinis and is born in a country without jus soli, they would be stateless. While this principle causes people to be legally fully stateless (de jure), some people can also become effectively stateless despite having a claim to citizenship (de facto) as a result of discrimination or war. The de facto stateless people would normally have a right to citizenship, however, their government treats them as if they do not have the right or valid paperwork. As such, governments that actively deny their citizens citizenship render them stateless despite them potentially having proof of the contrary.

Stateless people face many issues as a result of their lack of official nationality. Arguably the biggest of the problems is a lack of legal documents. Without official papers and records, certain freedoms and rights are limited or even unobtainable, such as public education, healthcare, employment, marriage and many other rights. By not having access to those rights, stateless people are pushed into worse living conditions. This can lead to governments abusing their power over their stateless populations, causing or continuing the oppression of those people and trapping them in an inescapable loop of statelessness. 

One of the most prominent examples of widespread statelessness can be seen among the people of Kurdistan, an unofficial nation split across Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Some Kurds, like the ones in Syria, are de jure stateless and possess no citizenship in the country despite being born within its borders. In comparison, Kurds in Turkey are more often de facto stateless – in other words, they have Turkish citizenship but are still treated as if they do not. In stark contrast to Syria and Turkey, the Kurdish people in Iran and Iraq are typically treated as Iranian and Iraqi citizens and therefore have access to state privileges like international travel and are not considered stateless. Another important thing to note about the issue of statelessness is that although being stateless and being undocumented are technically different things, they present similar challenges. As such, solving just one of these two global issues could lead to breakthroughs in the other. 

Statelessness is a massive problem with no clear solution. In 2014, the UNHCR announced its #IBelong campaign, setting the goal to eradicate statelessness by 2024. Despite this sounding like a nearly impossible task, given that 3.5 million people out of an estimated 10 million stateless people were actually recorded stateless at the beginning of the initiative, the UNHCR established smaller, more tangible and realistic goals to see the initiative through. These goals, or “actions” (as titled by the UNHRC), mainly focused on taking steps to stabilize at-risk populations, such as women and minority ethnic groups, as well as lowering the risk associated with adopting or changing nationalities through obtaining legal documents. The #IBelong campaign also tackles some of the Sustainable Development Goals, specifically numbers five, ten, 16 and 17, which span issues from gender equality to strong institutions, further demonstrating how multifaceted the issue of statelessness really is.  

The #IBelong campaign is also unique in that it complements the work of other UN bodies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), leading to greater international collaboration. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has been one of the strongest contributors to the campaign, working specifically to resolve the issue of statelessness due to its impact on children. One key example of UNHCR/UNICEF collaboration on the project involved the Royal Thai Government. In its direct endorsement of the #IBelong campaign, Thailand has vouched to establish jus soli for babies while also creating new pathways to grant both stateless adults and children citizenship. Through gaining Thai citizenship, formerly stateless people will gain the ability to access education, national protection and other services offered by the government. In the nine years that Thailand has been committed to the campaign, over 63,000 registered stateless people have obtained citizenship. In addition, the UNHCR, alongside the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), helped over 50,000 stateless people gain assistance in Thailand. The original relationship established between the UNHCR and UNICEF through the #IBelong campaign has led to a more permanent partnership via the UNICEF-UNHCR Strategic Collaboration Framework, a framework to eliminate childhood statelessness by 2030. 

Despite over 66 countries and 32 international organizations pledging their dedication to make statelessness a problem of the past, the UNHCR has yet to reach its 2024 goal for the #IBelong campaign. The responsibility for this failure rests not only with the UNHCR but also with the states whose genuine participation in the program could have made the #IBelong campaign more successful. Currently, only 34% of all UN-recognized states have made pledges to participate in the #IBelong campaign; however, with greater international support, more people could potentially obtain official citizenship, or at least be officially recorded as stateless. 

Although this decade-long promise has yet to fully come to fruition, massive progress has already been made toward eliminating statelessness for good. Aside from the direct progress made by working with states and NGOs, other more subtle improvements have been made to reduce and reverse aspects of statelessness. Improved data regarding stateless people has become available during the past decade, allowing for more accurate statistics and planning. A greater number of campaign partners within the UN bodies has also helped bolster the project, as resources can be more easily pooled between a greater number of members, which, in turn, helps to increase global awareness about the issue at a faster pace. Additionally, one of the most important successes of the #IBelong campaign has arguably been the outreach generated by the project, which has helped to ensure that more people are even aware of the problem. Individual actions can help generate policy changes in more resistant countries, such as China and Brazil, from the bottom up, thereby further helping the UNHCR to gather more resources via an expanded support network. 

Through the work of the #IBelong campaign, the UNHCR established a foundation for resolving statelessness, allowing for the creation of additional campaigns, projects and laws to further the cause. UNICEF-UNHCR Strategic Collaboration Framework and other partnerships represent an important step towards a more permanent effort to resolve statelessness, working in tandem with the UN Sustainable Development Goals to create that future. Although it did not fully accomplish its goals by 2024, hopefully, the spirit of the #IBelong campaign will continue to live on so that someday statelessness will be permanently eradicated.

In May 2023, Turkey began a large-scale humanitarian project in the Idlib and Aleppo governorates of Syria pledging the construction of about a quarter million housing units, commercial facilities, industrial areas, farming plots, schools and hospitals, spearheaded by President Recep Erdoğan and supported by the Qatar Fund for Development. The housing project pushed refugees displaced into Turkey to begin relocating back to their motherland, specifically to the 30km swathe of land along the northern Syrian–Turkish border created by Turkey to function as a demilitarized area known as the “safe zone.” The target amount of 240,000 permanent housing units is set to be finished by 2025, with 1 million refugees expected to be repatriated into Syria. In addition to this new program, Turkey has already built 75,000 25-square-meter briquette homes in Idlib and 107,000 in Aleppo within the past two years, housing over 6 million Syrians.

The new project is operating under the slogan “safe, voluntary and [honorable]returns,” and is most likely a result of the “temporary protected” status for Syrians which grants refuge that is temporary and thus volatile. According to Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu, “there is a serious demand for a voluntary and dignified return to this safe area.”

While Soylu has labeled this repatriation scheme “the most honorable project the human history will talk about” and “an exemplary step for the whole world, showing how humanitarian aid transforms into development in a region,” many have been skeptical of Turkey’s true intentions. 

The validity of this “serious demand” expressed by Soylu has been contested by a myriad of international sources including the UNHCR, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW). The UNHCR reported in 2023 that although over half of Syrian refugees hope to return one day, a mere 1.1% planned to do so within the next year. 

In 2019, the Turkish government began forcibly deporting refugees back to Idlib, an area marred with violence. Police scoured public areas and raided apartments, searching for Syrians with and without temporary protection cards. While Turkey insisted its actions were legal, Turkish and international law — under the principle of non-refoulement — prohibit forced deportation to active war zones under any circumstances “irrespective of migration status.” 

While in custody, Turkish officials coerced detained Syrian refugees to sign statements expressing their desire to repatriate, under the threat of imprisonment. If able to re-enter Turkey, deported refugees who did have Turkish identification documents found their validity had been canceled. Whether or not the zone is actually safe is also a matter of contention, with major international organizations including HRW condemning the Turkish safe zone as “anything but,” describing it as “woefully misguided,” “dangerous” and “bound to fail.”

Many are concerned that the safe zone simply is not safe, as it is rife with violence. With 12,000 ISIS fighters imprisoned in the safe zone’s easternmost governorate of Al-Hasakah, the area is a prime target for rebel groups and armed uprisings — such as the 2022 ISIS prison break, the “most significant” assault since its inception. 

Additionally, safe zones as a concept have been notoriously counterintuitive. According to HRW, militants are known to take advantage of safe zones, intermingling with civilians to attempt to avoid retaliation, turning the area into a “valid military target.” Additionally, safe zones are lucrative sources of humanitarian aid, which combatants can easily steal. They also serve as ripe recruiting grounds for extremist organizations.  

President Erdoğan is managing a two-level political game, juggling both domestic and international concerns. Regardless of these criticisms, free housing and resources are not entirely negative endeavors. Erdoğan is incentivizing Syrians to act in a way beneficial to their long-term development — taking advantage of resources that will ultimately lead to a sense of stability and safety —– and furthering his domestic and international agendas. 

Regarding Turkish domestic politics, Erdoğan established this plan in the midst of the country’s 2023 presidential elections. His opponent Kemal Kilicdaroglu campaigned on a platform of sending “all the refugees home,” reflecting popular anti-refugee sentiment, so a similar message was necessary on Erdoğan’s behalf if he wanted to compete with Kilicdaroglu. Instead of publicly forcing refugees to return home, he attempted to bolster both his domestic image as a stern advocate for Turkish nationalism and international image as a humanitarian by proposing the free housing solution instead. 

In addition to improving his international reputation, his building schemes solidified the establishment of the “safe zone,” as Turkish building projects bolster Turkish influence in the region. This move also supports Turkish imperial interests and the rise in pan-Turkism, a growing nationalist ideology that “emphasizes the common ethnic, cultural, and linguistic roots of Turkic peoples living across Eurasia,” regardless of Turkish nationality. 

Before the inception of the new project, the Syrian government issued a statement in 2022 “[rejecting]these plans” and labeling them as “criminal projects.” Although the Syrian government is viewed as highly corrupt and not necessarily concerned with the best interests of the Syrian people, it is worth noting their stern opposition to the plan. Echoing concerns from the international community, Syria declared, in relation to the housing project, that “the main objective is colonialism.” Considering that Turkey has maintained a violent occupation of northern Syria since 2016, fears of continued land-grabs are not unfounded.  

Whether or not Syrians would repatriate into Syria without the force of the Turkish government or the incentive of free housing is unclear, but it is safe to say that the temporary safe place provides respite for the refugees, especially since the Syrian war persists, with rebel group strongholds as prevalent as ever. Thus, while the housing project is a potential positive step in Syrian repatriation, it is not unreasonable to scrutinize Turkey’s questionable underlying motives and reexamine the actual benefits of safe zones. 

While this apartheid regime has existed for the past 75 years, and these atrocities for even longer, it has failed to gain adequate coverage by the mainstream media. The main reason for this is that of Israel’s creation, where a UN resolution gave Israel its own state, disregarding and displacing the Palestinian people who resided on the land. Israel is much richer than Palestine, and, however disheartening it may be, standing by Israel is more advantageous for governments across the world for many reasons, including the power of Israel’s financial allyship. Because of this, it is far more uncommon to see a major publication or news outlet throw its support behind the Palestinian people, who have been subject to ethnic cleansing for the past 75 years.

Now, as the world begins to understand the gravity of the genocide that is occuring in Palestine, governments are also beginning to crack down on any criticism of the state of Israel. 

While governments have expressed unwavering support for the Israeli government, despite the war crimes that are being committed daily, it becomes clearer every day that these countries’ populations do not agree. From Yemen to the United Kingdom and the United States, pro-Palestine protests have garnered millions to support their cause. However, as people begin to express their discontent with government support for Israel, these governments are limiting the right to protest and free speech. 

For example, in Germany, a country which outlines that, “every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech writing and pictures … There shall be no censorship,” the government is directly opposing what is stated in the country’s legal code. Currently, Germany is banning a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, with police attacking citizens for simply wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Palestinian scarf. These are not only horrifying attacks on free speech, but in direct opposition of what the German government claims to stand for. Germany has justified its actions as combating antisemitism, but it is abhorrent and dishonest to Jews and Palestinians alike to claim that standing up against Israel’s apartheid regime is an antisemetic act.

Germany is not the only country where this is happening, though. Austria, Hungary and Switzerland have all attempted to enact similar bans, while France continues to ban these protests on a case-by-case basis. 

Unsurprisingly, protest is also being heavily suppressed within Israel. In a country that is often lauded as the only democracy in the Middle East, its government is restricting the right to express any disagreement with its current actions. Not only is Israel arresting dozens of its Arab citizens for suspicions of terrorist sympathy, but is also treating social media posts with the Palestinian flag as hate speech. 

Seeing this, a clear act of anti-Arab sentiment and proof that Israel does not see Palestinians as equals, makes me wonder if Israel really has “the most moral army in the world” as it claims. If a global power who arrests citizens for sympathizing with innocent civilians is considered moral, the state of the world is worrisome.

The United States, a country that constantly boasts about its First Amendment rights and the right to free speech, is certainly not exempt from this hypocrisy. Some of the most elite universities in the country, which often pride themselves on being free-thinking and allowing of political speech, are among the harshest opposition to pro-Palestinian speech. 

Columbia University has suspended both JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) over claims that both groups are supporting hate speech. The idea that JVP, a Jewish activist organization with over 700,000 members, is antisemetic is not only laughable, but an insult to every Jewish person who stands against Israel’s crimes. Brown University is yet another example of this, arresting 20 Jewish students for asking that Brown consider a divestment resolution.

It is important to note that free speech within the United States is limited to the prohibition of government retaliation, meaning that groups not associated with the government are free to respond to speech as they wish. This is a bit of a difficult area to navigate, but it is crucial to remember that free speech does not signify speech without consequence. Speech that one simply disagrees with should not be a punishable offense, but speech that is hateful in nature and threatens violence must be addressed. Free speech does have consequences and it has limits, yet the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues to prove that governments will only acknowledge the right to free speech when it suits them. 

A prime example of this within the United States is the censorship of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Tlaib was censured for defending the use of the slogan “from the river to the sea,” which is not violent, despite what Zionists may claim. What this statement means is that Palestine will be a free state for all to exist in, regardless of religion — it is not calling for Jewish genocide as many Zionists choose to believe. While Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, faces a completely unjust censure for this statement, government officials who have called for violence against Palestine have not faced similar repercussions. 

Representative Max Miller has gone so far as to say “I don’t even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they’re not a state, they’re a territory, that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot.” 

This statement is unquestionably violent and does not begin to acknowledge the fact that Palestine is made up of innocent civilians, with half of Gazans being children. Yet, he has not faced any repercussions while Tlaib is censured for speaking on behalf of a country that endures genocide. The double standard here is astounding, and I am ashamed to be represented by those who silence voices advocating for equality while simultaneously failing to condemn others who wish violence upon innocent civilians.

The other side of the coin here is the individuals who are not receiving any repercussions for their actions. While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and something that must not be taken away, it is important to consider that the right to free speech includes the ability to retaliate. 

While people are free to express themselves in a manner that you choose, they are equally able to respond, whether in agreement or not. And, as explained by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

Everyone should unequivocally condemn the vitriol that is being spewed, that which is antisemetic as well as that wishing violence on Palestinians. The University of Southern California has its own issues with this, specifically regarding Professor John Strauss, who was taped on video saying, “I hope they all are killed,” as he walked passed an event held to mourn the thousands of Palestinian lives lost to Israel’s genocide. Not only is his speech not protected from consequence by the First Amendment, but it is in direct contrast with USC policy against hate speech. 

I must add that I do not have faith that USC will uphold what it claims to stand for and unequivocally condemn this violent speech, but I hope that I am wrong. 

Globally, we have been subject to a media campaign to support Israel and suppress any opposition to the Israeli government, labeling the fight for Palestinian liberation as antisemitic. However, it is clear that people across the world do not stand with our respective governments, and it is crucial that we continue to oppose Israel’s violent settler-colonial apartheid regime by using our right to free speech, regardless of the attempt to take it away from us.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

In the midst of all this new legislation, why has Canada taken up the mantle to defend the LGBTQ+ community, not just in the United States, but around the world as well? The answer has to do with their domestic push for queer rights and the strong culture it fostered within the country.

Canada has a strong record of LGBTQ+ protections, with the country ranking sixth in the world for LGBTQ+ equality. While still going through waves of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, such as previous bans against same-sex marriage, Canada is often regarded as one of the safest countries for queer people. This is due to a combination of legal protections and an accepting culture of queer identities. From a legal perspective, Canada has passed legislation that grants LGBTQ+ people protection against discrimination and access to adoption, as well as incorporating efforts to ban conversion therapy. Culturally, Canadian cities like Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal host frequent Pride events, such as Pride Week, and also boast several LGBTQ+-friendly stores.

Canada even offers asylum for persecuted LGBTQ+ people through government and private sponsored refugee programs. Programs such as the Rainbow Refugee Assistance Partnership allow both the government and Canadian citizens to help refugees and provide them with the necessary resources to establish themselves in Canada. 

In order to gain asylum in Canada, LGBTQ+ individuals are required to undergo a lengthy screening process to determine eligibility, and there are country-specific barriers that can either aid in or inhibit one’s ability to obtain asylum. For countries like Uganda that are located far from Canada geographically, extracting refugees can generate a greater economic burden and therefore create additional barriers to escape due to the distance. On the other hand, obtaining asylum in Canada as an American citizen is extremely difficult, as the United States is considered a “safe place” in the eyes of the Canadian legal system. As such, LGBTQ+ U.S. citizens seeking asylum in Canada are often rejected– for many, this has prompted a push to change Canadian law.

Although the protections in place make Canada a generally safe place for LGBTQ+ people, the country is not entirely free from homophobia. Blaine Higgs, the premier of the New Brunswick province, recently established laws mirroring anti-LGBTQ+ legislation such as requiring parent consent for queer children under 16 years to use different names and pronouns. Saskatchewan has also passed laws attacking LGBTQ+ rights. Despite these issues, Canada as a whole has made it clear that it wants to serve as both a safe haven for the LGBTQ+ community and an advocate for their rights. 

Canada’s domestic efforts to establish and defend queer rights actively plays a role within their foreign presence as well, such as their relationship with their biggest ally, the United States. Within the United States, over 417 new laws have been passed, taking away rights from LGBTQ+ individuals from children and adults alike. These laws include the restriction on discussion about sexual orientation and gender in schools, restrictions on gender affirming care for minors and forced outing to parents.

In response to this harmful new legislation, the Human Rights Campaign, the biggest LGBTQ+ resource organization in the United States, announced a national state of emergency, ultimately prompting Canada’s updated travel advisory. The advisory update has a dual purpose: to ward Canadian citizens who are traveling of possible discrimination, while also making a public announcement of Canada’s disapproval towards the new laws. While the U.S. Embassy in Canada has yet to officially comment on the situation, they did show support for the 2023 Capital Pride Festival, juxtaposing the recent U.S. policies.

The United States is not the only country to have a LGBTQ+ travel advisory warning placed, but it is noteworthy due to their shared regional and historical ties. For instance, Canadian travelers receive government warnings when traveling to Uganda, a country which recently passed their “Anti-Homosexuality Act;” however, the warnings placed on Uganda are more severe than the ones that have been placed on the United States due to how serious the situation there is for LGBTQ+ people. Many countries with policies similar to those of Uganda in regards to the LGBTQ+ community have legal punishments for homosexuality ranging from ten years in prison to the death sentence, which is currently a source of continual concern for queer and human rights activists.

Canada has taken a firm stand in the defense of the LGBTQ+ community, both domestically and internationally. In regards to Uganda’s 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly publically denounces the law and calls for Uganda to reverse their policy on the grounds of being a violation of human rights. 

Whereas Canada has taken a public stance against Uganda’s human rights abuses of the LGBTQ+ community, its government has yet to make a comment on the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. This could be due to the difference in severity of punishment between Ugandan anti-LGBTQ+ legislation as compared to that of the United States or an attempt on the part of the Canadian government to protect United States/Canada relations. Whatever the reason, the steps Canada has taken to show its support of the LGBTQ+ community through its travel advisory on the U.S. are significant.

Within a huge wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation being passed around the world, it is easy for the LGBTQ+ community to feel hopeless. Despite this, there are still countries like Canada that will fight for their rights. To protect all of their citizens, countries should follow in Canada’s lead to protect their LGBTQ+ citizens’ rights such as with a simple change to a travel advisory.

For 21-year-old Tigran*, his biggest fear as a sex worker is that he could be killed at any time when meeting with a client. Or that behind the profile of the woman with whom he corresponds, there may be a man hiding who can also kill him.

“There is a constant aura of fear. You are afraid that you will get sick, that you will be beaten or killed. It has a big impact mentally when you are forced to live in secret. So that someone doesn’t accidentally find out something about you, because sex workers are not accepted in society, especially male sex workers.”

As of 2023, sex work continues to be illegal in Armenia. As Arthur Margaryan, a lawyer for Right Side NGO, says, in Armenia, sex work is considered an offense according to the Administrative Offences Code. In particular, Article 179, paragraph 1, stipulates a fine of 20,000 AMD, approximately $50, for doing sex work (the law uses the word “prostitution”). There is no legal framework for sex workers in Armenia.

All of this contributes to an increase in the number of criminal cases against sex workers, who are currently members of one of the most vulnerable segments of society.

Christina*, a transgender woman and sex worker, also confirms that sex work in Armenia is dangerous. 

“One time my client threatened me, beat me, fought with me,” she said. “Recently, my phone was stolen and the thief used it to log into Telegram and start ordering drugs. They still threaten me on Telegram. Since my family is not from Yerevan, they write to me from fake accounts and say that they will go and burn my family if I don’t send them money.”

Christina also admits that, unlike cisgender sex workers, she, as a trans person, faces discrimination much more often, which is confirmed by Tigran, who says that female sex workers are treated better than male sex workers.

However, discrimination and violence are not the only fears that sex workers in Armenia have (to clarify, the response from the Ministry of Health assumed only cisgender female sex workers). Under the state program, sex workers have the opportunity to undergo a free medical examination and be checked by doctors to prevent HIV infection. If a diagnosis is confirmed, they also receive free treatment. 

But often, workers in the field fear for their health. According to Tigran, many sex workers delay treatment after contracting HIV because they do not have the necessary funds, and in hospitals, it is not free. Treatment is free only in case of an STI, or if you contact some NGOs and other public organizations.

As part of the project, I also spoke with a 31-year-old cisgender sex worker Lilith*, who admitted that she is forced to engage in sex work because her income from floristry is not enough to live and support relatives who have health problems.

Speaking about her health, Lilith focuses on going to a psychologist once every six months, because, in her opinion, “unloved,” stressful work (which for her is sex work) can drive a person “crazy.” Recalling her first experience in this field at the age of 24, Lilith said that she had to go to a psychiatric clinic after a year of work, and the rejection and impossibility of continuing to be in the profession was so strong.

“I couldn’t imagine myself in this, I didn’t like being touched,” Lilith said. “For about a year, I was constantly crying with clients. After that, I went to a psychiatric clinic and was treated there, because I was already starting to go crazy. And already working with a psychologist, I gradually began to enter the profession.”

She had not worked from then until last year, when, due to dire needs, she had to return to sex work.

According to all three respondents, sex work is paid quite well, and the monthly amount exceeds the average monthly salary in Armenia (all sources are located in Yerevan). For example, Tigran charges from $200 to $300 per hour, and if he met clients with the same frequency as other sex workers, he would earn approximately 200,000 AMD (approximately $500) per day. (For comparison, the monthly salary of a journalist can range from $500 to $750 in Yerevan).

Although each of them began the path of working as a sex worker for their own reasons, one thing was constant – they needed money.

By her own admission, Christina was at first gay, not a trans person. “Then I worked in a travel company, where I did translations from Persian into Armenian. When I became trans, I could no longer do this work because my friends and my environment at work no longer accepted me. They accepted me only as a gay man. But I needed money to live, for hormone therapy, to go to the salon.”

Tigran also came to the profession out of need. However, if Tigran and Lilith would happily stop sex work at the first opportunity if they found a stable job with decent pay, then Christina says that she likes her occupation and does not want to change. “This business,” she says, “allows you to combine pleasure and communication with different people, with good earnings.” She also likes the freedom of her schedule and the fact that she works for herself.

Lilith has a completely opposite opinion: “This job has no advantages. Even money, damned money, comes and goes. Yes, you can make money here, but this cannot be considered a plus, because you know that your inner world is being destroyed, your environment does not accept you, society does not accept you… And then you don’t know who you are dealing with. Anything can happen, you meet a person and you don’t know who he is, a murderer or a madman.”

Lilith makes a separate point that sex work is always humiliating, because the client invariably experiences visible disgust for the sex worker, no matter how hard he tries to hide it: “There is no one who would say, oh well, she earns as much as she can. The way things are, they think that since they paid the money, they can treat you however they want.”

And Tigran adds that it is the process of receiving money that is often the most traumatic: “You must be psychologically prepared for the fact that now you will go have sex with a stranger, and he will also give you money for it. This is a kind of stressful situation, because even if you like the person’s appearance and personality, the thought of him giving you money will be depressing. Not everyone can bear it.”

However, despite the obvious difficulties of this work, people still continue to do it and, according to all three respondents, there is enough competition. Of course, the clientele of trans people, men and women, according to Lilith and Christina, does not overlap, but Tigran’s experience is different. Since Tigran is bisexual and dates both men and women, he faces more competition. “Plus, after the Russian-Ukrainian war, many women and men engaged in escorting came to Armenia, and the number of them is off the charts in Telegram channels.”

But contrary to expectations, getting into sex work is not that easy. And, if from a moral side you can still set yourself up, as Lilith says, then from a purely technical side, people are faced with the fact that they do not know which social networks and platforms they can post on how to build a client base, or where exactly to work, such as in a hotel or at a client’s home. Among other things, says Tigran, you also need to be able to communicate competently with a client so that he notices you and chooses you, and Lilith adds that you also need to be able to find an approach to each client in order to avoid possible violence.

And the clients are completely different. Each of the three respondents reported that there is no specific type that constantly visits them. According to them, people with completely different professions come to them, from doctors to politicians and police officers. People with different financial statuses, of different genders, and different ages, as well as both single and married people. Lilith, for example, noted that married couples often call her, whom she, however, refuses.

Despite the fact that completely different people use the services of sex workers, and the demand for their services is truly great, nevertheless, people in the profession are not accepted in society. “Absolutely everyone goes to sex workers, the question is why, after using their services, do they speak out against them?” thinks Tigran.

He believes that this is the “Armenianization” and religiosity of society. “That is: It is not appropriate for an Armenian to engage in such things. But let’s be honest: They say, ‘your families are sacred.’ But the person who says this goes to sex workers and the amount that he could spend on his children and wife, he spends on a sex worker, betraying their wife and children. They say that this is unacceptable, that Armenians should not do such things, that we are spoiling children…”

It is worth noting that the Scandinavian model of working with this area criminalizes the demand for services itself, and not the services and workers as such. In Armenia, according to lawyer Arthur Margaryan, this, unfortunately, is impossible.

Interestingly, Lilith says, many clients prefer sex with a sex worker to sex with women with whom they could build relationships. “I asked many of my clients, and the vast majority of them answered that they were afraid of problems later. Girls who have sex without money are basically a problem. Someone may blackmail him about what she will tell his wife, someone is saying that you should marry me…”

“Everything comes from the family,” continues Lilith. “I recently watched on Facebook how several women were cursing and swearing at sex workers in some group, and out of curiosity I went to their pages. And on one of them, I found photographs of my client: It was her son who comes to do cunnilingus.” The children themselves are already quite promiscuous, Lilith believes, and adds that she would like society to be stricter in matters of sex, so that children do not lose their innocence so early.

“We also need to make schools stricter. And the army too. And institutions need to be made stricter for girls. They go through these three links, only then they reach a sex worker, a transgender person or a gay person. Let the children go through these three authorities first, and then let’s see if they reach gays, trans people and sex workers.”

The situation could change if sex work were legalized in Armenia, as this would provide an opportunity not only to work in the legal field, as lawyer Margaryan says, but also without fear of discrimination from the police, who can detain them for three hours at the police station to write up an arrest report, or, for example, beat them and cut off their hair.

Tigran says that he would like to work officially, including in order to pay taxes and count on free health insurance, the opportunity to receive treatment on time and a pension for old age.

However, as Armenia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs said in response to our inquiry, there are no plans to legalize sex work in Armenia. The agency said they had no figures regarding the number of sex workers in Armenia, nor the number of cases of domestic violence involving sex workers.

_________________

* Tigran, Christina and Lilith are fake names used to cover the identity of the subject.

_________________
This article was made possible by a grant by RightSide NGO.

The women born during the one-child policy should be bolstering the workforce and becoming wives and mothers. Instead, China grapples with a surplus of bachelors, a booming bride trafficking industry to heal lost causes, a labor shortage and a shocking population decline. 

China’s skewed sex ratio has produced a textbook supply and demand problem, with bachelorettes as the products and bachelors paying the price. Many marriages in China operate on a dowry system, where the groom gives the bride’s family a financial gift as a token of appreciation. In some provinces, dowry payments now average over $20,000, creating a bidding war between eager bachelors. Governments are working to set a limit for bride prices, but it is an insufficient remedy to the high demand. Some rural areas with faulty transportation systems are even shifting into “bachelor villages,” with an unusual excess supply of middle-aged bachelors. Experts warn that this demographic makeup will become the new norm, predicting that in 2055, there will be 30% more single men than women. 

In a cruel attempt to provide wives to desperate bachelors, an elaborate bride trafficking ring was formed in Southeast Asia. In February, police detained two women in the Bac Lieu province of southern Vietnam for allegedly trafficking over 30 females, many of whom were children, into China to be sold as wives. The two ringleaders targeted financially struggling women, promising employment and a paycheck of $4,000 to their families back home. However, once these women arrived in China, they were sold as wives for upwards of 400 million VND, which is almost $17,000. From 2019 to 2021, it is estimated this trafficking ring generated more than $42,000, and it is not alone. Activists assert that thousands of women are trafficked from Southeast Asia into China yearly. 

China’s working population is also expected to fall 40% from its 2010 levels in the next 100 years. The women born during the one-child policy now stand precariously on the seemingly mutually exclusive line between corporate success and familial obligations. Women occupy the esteemed role of “president” in 241 Chinese companies, almost triple the amount in 2012. Yet this success juxtaposes a female employment rate of 61.6%, the lowest the country has seen in decades. Women are doing better than they ever have in the workplace, yet fewer of them are in the workplace than ever before. 

Interestingly, despite this exodus of female workers, fertility rates continue to wither. China’s national birth rate plummeted to a record low in 2022, with 6.077 births per 1,000 people, as did the national fertility rate, with 1.1 children per woman. The population is shrinking, and the future of China hangs in the balance.

2022 was the first year since the end of the Great Leap Forward, a famine that wiped out millions, that the country’s population decreased. China desperately blasts propaganda encouraging couples to “have children for the country.” Even the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official newspaper, dedicated a whole page to family planning, featuring an op-ed titled: “Having Children is a Family Matter and a National Matter.” Fearful of a future with an exorbitant elder-dependency ratio and a deepening labor gap, local governments are even going so far as incentivizing births. Shenzhen provides parents of three children with an annual subsidy of $890 until their third child turns three. Other cities, such as Jinan, have followed suit, providing a monthly stipend of $83 for the second and third child until they turn three. 

The one-child policy is not the only perpetrator of this deeply rooted gender imbalance. Globally, sex ratios at birth remain skewed to favor men. In 2006, in the U.S., 104.9 males were born for every 100 females. Malawi’s sex ratio was the closest to equal, but even then, 100.3 males were born for every 100 females. China’s patriarchal cultural makeup is to blame. Traditionally, the bloodline is passed down through the male side; thus, having a son ensures a retirement plan, while having a daughter forecasts abandonment. 

The exaggeration of these “missing women” has been much debated, as many experts attribute the skewed ratio to neglected birth registration. Yet, the gender imbalance in the world’s second-largest economy remains undeniable. The one-child policy left women forgotten, disregarded, and underappreciated. Now, China and the world must deal with its reverberating consequences.  

The situation has reached a critical point. Street clashes between Sudan’s warring factions have exacerbated pre-existing humanitarian needs and resulted in the forced displacement of nearly 5.1 million individuals, both within Sudan and across neighboring countries. 

“25 million people, more than half the population of Sudan, [are in]need [of]humanitarian aid and protection,” said Ramesh Rajasingham, Head and Representative of OCHA in Geneva.

The current turmoil in Sudan is a consequence of yet another governmental system breakdown in the nation and is a single crisis within the broader spectrum of political challenges that have occurred throughout Sudan’s history.

In December 2018, a wave of protests erupted in the city of Atbara, driven by grievances over Sudan’s deteriorating economic crisis, escalating food prices, widespread corruption and high unemployment rates. 

These initial protests swiftly spread across the nation, eventually reaching the capital, Khartoum. By April 2019, President Omar al-Bashir was ousted by the Sudanese army following months of demonstrations, bringing an end to his three-decade-long grip on power. The military, holding considerable influence, took steps to solidify its authority by suspending the constitution and imposing a three-month state of emergency.

Protests persisted as demonstrators called for a transition of power to civilian authorities. In an effort to dismantle the protest movement, armed individuals affiliated with the RSF militia killed 128 people in what came to be known as the Khartoum massacre. 

The escalation of violence prompted Ethiopia and the African Union to step in and act as mediators. Following negotiations, civilian leaders and the military agreed to share power and establish a governing body, called the Sovereignty Council, to rule over Sudan for a three-year transition period. 

This council faced significant challenges as military authorities and civilian counterparts refused to cooperate, which, alongside mounting political tension, led to an attempted – and failed – coup by remaining members of President Bashir’s regime. 

In October 2021, a splinter faction from the civilian protesters started a sit-in in front of the presidential palace and called for a military takeover. In response, thousands of pro-democracy supporters came out on the streets in a show of continued support for civilian rule. 

General Burhan and General Daglo, responding to the protests, jointly orchestrated a military coup in 2021 which led to the dissolution of Sudan’s power-sharing government and council, as well as disruption of its transition to democracy. Burhan justified his actions by claiming it was meant to prevent a potential civil war in Sudan, citing the incitement by politicians against the military as a threat. He portrayed his actions as a transitional measure rather than a coup, aiming to maintain stability until the upcoming elections.

More than a year after the military coup, an agreement was signed by the Sudanese military and a coalition of civilian actors that forged a path to a more civilian-centered government. Under the new framework deal, the military would step back and would only be represented on a security and defense council. While the agreement was a major accomplishment and a show of compromise, its success was uncertain as it excluded formal rebel groups and others who had the capacity and power to undermine the transitional government. 

The fear of the agreement’s potential collapse materialized when conflict emerged between the military leaders concerning the integration of the RSF into the national military. Implementing military reforms to establish a competent and standardized national army was seen as one of the first steps to adhering to the internationally recognized agreement for the transfer of power. 

General Burhan advocated for the planned integration of the RSF to take place within a two-year timeframe, while Dagalo insisted on stretching it out over a decade. As a result, disagreement resulted in a struggle for power, with neither displaying any signs of relenting. 

Central Khartoum became a war zone as the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) conducted airstrikes aimed at RSF forces who in response, retaliated using artillery and anti-aircraft weaponry. 

The international community denounced the escalation of violence in Khartoum. Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed strong condemnation for the indiscriminate violence, emphasizing that both sides had disregarded international humanitarian law. 

In an effort to hold all those undermining peace in the country, the United States and UK imposed sanctions on five businesses that have been linked with bankrolling and providing support to the Sudanese army and RSF. 

“At least 5,000 people have been killed and over 12,000 wounded” said Volker Perthes, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Sudan. 

6.3 million people – 13% of Sudan’s population – are experiencing emergency levels of hunger – just one step from famine, with the conflict continuing to disrupt access to humanitarian aid, water, food and medicine. 

In an effort to put an end to fighting, Saudi Arabia and the United States facilitated a seven-day ceasefire on May 22 between Sudan’s army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This temporary cessation of hostilities provided some respite and allowed limited humanitarian access. 

However, the ceasefire has since lapsed, and the subsequent ceasefires were primarily implemented to facilitate unrestricted movement and the delivery of humanitarian aid across the nation. Additionally, efforts made in July by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to mediate a peace agreement were rejected by the Sudanese army. 

So what happens now?

It’s unclear. The political landscape of Sudan has historically been unstable with a pattern of short-lived agreements. However, continued violence of this nature in Africa’s third largest country poses a real risk to destabilize the wider region and contributes to the mass exodus of the civilian population that bears the brunt of the suffering. 

With current peace talks in Jeddah stagnating, the fate of Sudan hangs in the balance. It is essential that the two military forces, with the well-being of the Sudanese people in mind, accept and adhere to a long-term ceasefire and bring an end to the hostilities.