Daily Brief Audio Series
Probably the most dangerous thing in politics is when a leader needs conflict – when he depends on conflict for his political power, maybe knows no other way to hold on to it.
He drives up fears of others, launches deliberate provocations to incite violence, to then expand conflict, all for his own power. There’s no thought for the threat of death and destruction others will face because of it.
Opponents are seemingly left with two bad options. If they fight, they give him more of what he wants: conflict used to justify his power. If they are passive, he escalates anyway, because he needs the conflict.
And so, a country seems on the edge of something disastrous.
The situation has not just arrived out of the blue, of course. For a while now, many people have felt it drawing closer and closer toward the darkness, toward an abyss of mass violence.
There have been rising tensions, and leaders have emerged who, rather than seeking to cool those tensions, instead sought to exacerbate them to expand their influence.
Like Serbian President Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia in the late 1980s and 90s, these politicians say: those other people are dangerous, but I’ll protect you. The tensions – the conflict, the wars – became central to his political survival.
At some point in such a situation, de-escalation of tensions and conflict may seem impossible, because powerful people are depending on them continuing, even deepening. What that point is exactly is hard to say. It surely wasn’t inevitable for Yugoslavia to descend into mass bloodshed. Until it was.
If there is a way out, it might start with folks remembering the basics about what keeps societies more secure and peaceful: respect for human rights.
For example, people have a right to express opinions the government doesn’t like and shouldn’t be locked up for it. People have a right to due process in courts and shouldn’t be imprisoned, deported, or disappeared at the whim of security forces. People have a right to peaceful protest.
Elections put politicians into power, but that doesn’t mean they can do whatever they want. There are limits. At the heart of democracy, human rights help establish those limits. Human rights are a red line to power.
If people can rally around that shared understanding of the limits to political power, there’s a chance they can prevent even the most conflict-needy politician from wrecking their country.
It’s a big “if,” sure. Support has to come from across the political spectrum, and it’s usually the lack of precisely that which has facilitated the rise of the dangerous leader.
But ordinary people – even people on opposite ends of the political spectrum – will always have one thing in common: they don’t want their country to fall into an abyss. Even if a leading politician thinks it might be useful.
Imprisoned without Trial in the Central African Republic, Daily Brief 5 June 2025.
Daily Brief, 5 June 2025.
Most times, when I write about individuals in this newsletter, I have never met them in person.
With Joseph Figueira Martin, it’s different.
I worked with Joe, a Belgian-Portuguese citizen, at the International Crisis Group in Brussels for several years. I knew him as a stand-up guy, respected by colleagues for being smart, reliable, and caring.
That was years ago, and our paths have long since diverged. I moved on to Human Rights Watch. Joe became an expert on conflict and conflict management, working for several organizations in central Africa. We kept in distant touch over the years in the typical way of former professional colleagues.
Then, Joe was arrested by Russian forces in the town of Zemio in the Central African Republic.
Yes, Russian forces. They’re in lots of places across central and western Africa these days, including the Central African Republic, where they’ve committed abuses, like torturing and killing civilians.
At the time of his arrest, Joe had been conducting research for FHI 360. It’s an American organization aimed at reducing poverty, expanding economic opportunities, and preventing gender-based violence.
That was in May 2024. Joe has been in detention for more than a year. He’s being held in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, in a military prison for the most high-profile prisoners.
He’s not been found guilty of any crime. There’s been no trial, not even a date set for one.
The authorities in the Central African Republic accuse him of all sorts. They claim he was financing and coordinating activities for armed groups, one of which the government considers a terrorist organization. There’s a raft of other accusations, including undermining state security.
The Central African government has repeatedly stated it has substantial evidence against him. So, why not send this case to trial?
His family has been desperately seeking to move Joe’s case forward, convinced he can explain what he was doing in the country – that he was there to help the Central African Republic, not destabilize it.
Everyone has a right to trial without undue delay. That’s a key element of the right to a fair and public trial before an independent and impartial court.
It’s well past time for the authorities to end Joe’s prolonged detention without trial and ensure due process takes its course.
And if the authorities don’t have enough evidence to bring this case to trial – after having a year to gather it – they should let Joe go.
When we need medical advice, who should we turn to: a doctor or a politician?
None of us would answer “politician.”
We all know doctors aren’t perfect. But when it comes to medical issues, we all trust them a million times more than politicians. Rightly so.
And if thousands of doctors give the same medical advice, you can bet it’s the best medical advice currently available. Regardless of what any attention-seeking politicians may say. That’s just our common sense.
Yet, when it comes to some medical issues, some unscrupulous politicians try to derail our common-sense thinking about medical advice. And, bizarrely, some folks then seem to believe politicians with no medical training whatsoever before they’ll listen to the advice of thousands of doctors.
Gender-affirming care for transgender youth in the United States is one prominent example.
The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry all support access to evidence-based, developmentally appropriate, gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
In the US, transgender youth typically undergo months or years of comprehensive evaluation by medical professionals before any medical interventions are initiated.
How can any politician claim to know better about such things? How can anyone else believe the politician over the doctors? How can the issue of people’s medical care get tossed around like a political football in the “culture wars” without any regard for the needs of the people most concerned?
Whatever the answer to these questions, the current anti-trans hysteria in the US is ruining people’s lives.
Laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth are inflicting severe harm on young people and their families.
Under the Trump administration, families are being pushed to the brink. They’re forced to navigate impossible barriers to medical care. Meanwhile, the federal government intensifies its assault on transgender rights.
The laws and the poisonous rhetoric contribute to an increasingly hostile, anti-trans climate. Young people feel forced to hide their identities and socially withdraw. There’s increased anxiety, depression, and suicide attempts.
To start undoing some of this devastation, it might help if we all remember our common-sense thinking on medical advice.
We trust doctors over politicians for our medical care. It really is that simple.
Back in September last year, Anastasia Pavlenko, was riding her bicycle. The 23-year-old mother of two was heading for an appointment in the city of Kherson in southern Ukraine.
As she was cycling along, she saw a drone take off from the roof of a house. It started to follow her.
The drone followed Pavlenko for nearly 300 meters. It moved closer, chasing her. Then, the drone dropped something a few meters to the left of her.
An explosion injured Pavlenko in her neck, in her left leg, and under her rib.
Covered in blood, she somehow kept moving. Her bike’s tires were flat, but she wanted to get to an underpass just ahead. There, she might at least have some cover from the hunters above.
The next day, a video of the attack was uploaded to a Telegram channel affiliated with the Russian military.
The drone assault on Pavlenko is just one of several hundred such Russian attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Kherson since June 2024. Russian forces are using small, easily maneuverable – even commercially available – quadcopter drones armed with explosive weapons.
Sometimes it’s a grenade. Sometimes an antipersonnel landmine. Sometimes it’s an incendiary weapon, that is, a bomb meant to burn.
The drones send live video feeds back to their operators, who may be up to 25 kilometers away.
These are deliberate attacks on civilians, that is, war crimes. And the perpetrators film their war crimes and share the videos on social media. Russian forces are apparently proud of the atrocities they’re committing and the terror they’re spreading.
Indeed, spreading terror among civilians seems to be the point.
Russian forces once occupied Kherson, but they were later pushed back across the river. No longer physically on the ground, through these attacks they make clear to Kherson’s residents that they’re still present, that they can target and kill the population at will.
Making people afraid to leave their homes by hunting them individually – in what some locals darkly label a “human safari” – is certainly a way to maintain terror.
Beyond the maimings and deaths, it’s having an additional impact, as well. In the two areas of Kherson Russian drones have been targeting in this way, many people have been forced out. Deliberate depopulation through fear.
Russian forces may be showing the world something of the future of war crimes here, combining inexpensive drones, explosives, and social media, to spread terror and kill civilians.
And the future is now: people living in deadly fear of a buzzing from above.
Human Rights Watch has a new web feature on Russian drone attacks in Kherson, Ukraine, which includes selections from some of the videos mentioned above. It’s difficult viewing, but I encourage you to look at this special report.
Libya’s story in recent years is one of political fragmentation and entrenched warlordism – with disastrous results for its people.
No single authority controls Libya. Two rival entities compete for territory and resources.
One is the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU), appointed in 2021 as an interim authority through a UN-brokered process. Together with affiliated armed groups and abusive security agencies, the GNU control most of western Libya. The Libyan Presidential Council is also based in Tripoli.
Their rival is the Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF), along with their affiliated security apparatuses and a civilian authority. It administers territory under the LAAF’s control, essentially eastern and southern Libya.
Impunity amid political stalemate resulted in rising repression and armed confrontations. In the middle of last month, for example, there was heavy fighting between armed groups and quasi-state forces in Tripoli. It resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of homes and cars.
After the clashes, GNU authorities said they discovered 53 unidentified bodies in a hospital morgue and a previously unknown unmarked grave site, containing at least nine unidentified bodies of men and women. It remains unclear when and how they ended up there.
These grisly discoveries beg some key questions. Amid the confusion of rival authorities, how will any of these victims’ families seek justice? How will they be able to get to the bottom of what happened to their loved ones?
Libya’s justice sector reflects the country’s political fragmentation. Key judicial institutions, including the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Supreme Court, and the Prosecutor General’s Office, are in deep conflict. A newly established Supreme Constitutional Court in Benghazi may compete with the Supreme Court in Tripoli.
The justice problem goes beyond that. Legislation is outdated and repressive. There’s a lack of fair trial rights and due process. Civilians can be tried in abusive military trials. Legal professionals, defendants, and witnesses face attacks, intimidation, and harassment. Authorities fail to offer them proper protection.
And – as mentioned in this newsletter a few weeks ago, when the Trump administration was talking about sending migrants and asylum seekers to Libya – conditions in detention and prisons range from inhumane to literally torturous.
Taken all together, achieving justice in Libya today appears elusive. The dysfunctional system seems practically designed to compound abuses and help perpetrators get away with their crimes.
The massive reform the justice sector needs could take years. The sooner it starts, the better.