Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: Amnesty International –

EU Return Regulation policy discussed by home affairs ministers from across the EU today 

Ministers proposed making detention of up to two-and-a-half years the default for people issued deportation decisions  

The authorities would be allowed to raid a person’s home or ‘other relevant premises’, paving the way for vast surveillance, discriminatory policing and racial profiling 

‘Today, the Council has… opted to introduce new punitive measures, dismantling safeguards and weakening rights further, rather than advancing policies that promote dignity, safety and health for all’ – Olivia Sundberg Diez 

Responding to EU home affairs ministers’ position on the EU Return Regulation agreed in Brussels today, Olivia Sundberg Diez, EU Advocate on Migration and Asylum at Amnesty International, said: 

“EU ministers’ position on the Return Regulation reveals the EU’s dogged and misguided insistence on ramping up deportations, raids, surveillance, and detention at any cost. These punitive measures amount to an unprecedented stripping of rights based on migration status and will leave more people in precarious situations and legal limbo. 

“In addition, EU member states continue to push for cruel and unworkable ‘return hubs’, or offshore deportation centres outside of the EU – forcibly transferring people to countries where they have no connection and may be detained for long periods, violating protections in international law. This approach mirrors the harrowing, dehumanising and unlawful mass arrests, detention and deportations in the US, which are tearing families apart and devastating communities. 

“Today, the Council has taken an already deeply flawed and restrictive Commission proposal and opted to introduce new punitive measures, dismantling safeguards and weakening rights further, rather than advancing policies that promote dignity, safety and health for all. They will inflict deep harm on migrants and the communities that welcome them. 

“Amnesty International urges the European Parliament, which is yet to adopt its final position on the proposal, to reverse this approach and place human rights firmly at the centre of upcoming negotiations.” 

Dangerous and undignified 

At today’s Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, ministers from EU member states agreed on a negotiating position for the Council on new rules on returns or deportations at EU level, which the European Commission proposed in March 2025.  

Amnesty said at the time that this proposal marked a “new low” for Europe’s treatment of migrants, and joined over 250 organisations in calling for its rejection in September. 

Ministers now propose making detention of up to two-and-a-half years the default for people issued deportation decisions. The proposal would also expand obligations, surveillance and sanctions on people subject to deportation, including unreasonable requirements with which many will be unable to comply, if they lack identity documents or a fixed residence, for example. New measures would allow the authorities to raid the person’s home or “other relevant premises” and to seize their belongings, paving the way for vast surveillance, discriminatory policing and racial profiling practices. 

It would allow for indefinite detention of people posing a so-called threat to “public policy” or “public security” circumventing criminal justice – as well as limiting challenges to deportation orders, and independent monitoring of respect for human rights in deportation procedures. Meanwhile, countries have insisted on leaving the door open for further sanctions, obligations, and grounds for detention in national law. 

The European Parliament is also negotiating its position on the proposal, paving the way for interinstitutional negotiations in the coming months. 

Home affairs ministers also reached agreement on two proposals under negotiation relating to the ‘safe third country’ concept in EU asylum law and to an EU list of ‘safe countries of origin’. Amnesty has warned that these three proposals would seriously undermine territorial asylum in Europe as well as human dignity. 

Source: Amnesty International –

Tanzanian authorities must respect and protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression during planned nationwide protests on 9 December 2025, and guarantee that the protests are facilitated and protected, Amnesty International said today.

“Police must refrain from violating protesters’ rights, including through the use of unnecessary and excessive force,” said Tigere Chagutah, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East and Southern Africa.

“Authorities must also refrain from any blanket Internet shutdowns as witnessed during the electoral period as this violates the right to access information and obstructs crucial monitoring and reporting on human rights violations.

Police must refrain from violating protesters’ rights, including through the use of unnecessary and excessive force.

Tigere Chagutah, Regional Director, ESARO

“Tanzanian authorities must ensure an independent, thorough and impartial investigation into allegations of human rights violations committed by state security officers during the post-elections protests with those suspected of responsibility brought to account in fair proceedings”.

Background

Amnesty International has documented how state security officers used unlawful force against protestors after the 29 October 2025 elections.

Between 29 October and 3 November 2025, Tanzanian authorities imposed a nationwide Internet shutdown during which security forces committed various human rights violations, including unlawful killings and enforced disappearances. The shutdown made it difficult to monitor and document those violations.

Source: Amnesty International –

Responding to EU home affairs ministers’ position on the EU Return Regulation agreed in Brussels today, Olivia Sundberg Diez, EU Advocate on Migration and Asylum at Amnesty International, said:

“EU ministers’ position on the Return Regulation reveals the EU’s dogged and misguided insistence on ramping up deportations, raids, surveillance, and detention at any cost. These punitive measures amount to an unprecedented stripping of rights based on migration status and will leave more people in precarious situations and legal limbo.

“In addition, EU member states continue to push for cruel and unworkable ‘return hubs’, or offshore deportation centres outside of the EU – forcibly transferring people to countries where they have no connection and may be detained for long periods, violating protections in international law. This approach mirrors the harrowing, dehumanizing and unlawful mass arrests, detention and deportations in the US, which are tearing families apart and devastating communities.

“Today, the Council has taken an already deeply flawed and restrictive Commission proposal and opted to introduce new punitive measures, dismantling safeguards and weakening rights further, rather than advancing policies that promote dignity, safety and health for all. They will inflict deep harm on migrants and the communities that welcome them.

“Amnesty International urges the European Parliament, which is yet to adopt its final position on the proposal, to reverse this approach and place human rights firmly at the centre of upcoming negotiations.”

Background

At today’s Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, ministers from EU member states agreed on a negotiating position for the Council on new rules on returns or deportations at EU level, which the European Commission proposed in March 2025.

Amnesty International said at the time that this proposal marked a “new low” for Europe’s treatment of migrants, and joined over 250 organizations in calling for its rejection in September.

Ministers now propose making detention the default for people issued deportation decisions and for up to two and a half years. The proposal would also expand obligations, surveillance and sanctions on people subject to deportation, including unreasonable requirements with which many will be unable to comply, if they lack identity documents or a fixed residence, for example. New measures would allow authorities to raid the person’s home or “other relevant premises” and to seize their belongings, paving the way for vast surveillance, discriminatory policing and racial profiling practices.

It would allow for indefinite detention of people posing a so-called threat to “public policy” or “public security” circumventing criminal justice – as well as limiting challenges to deportation orders, and independent monitoring of respect for human rights in deportation procedures. Meanwhile, states insist on leaving the door open for further sanctions, obligations, and grounds for detention in national law.

The European Parliament is also negotiating its position on the proposal, paving the way for interinstitutional negotiations in the coming months.

Home affairs ministers also reached agreement on two proposals under negotiation relating to the ‘safe third country’ concept in EU asylum law and to an EU list of ‘safe countries of origin’. Amnesty International has warned that these three proposals would seriously undermine territorial asylum in Europe as well as human dignity.

Source: Chatham House –

US NATO ambassador on US security strategy: is Europe ‘a dynamic economy that can grow, or is it just a museum?’
News release
jon.wallace
8 December 2025

Speaking at the Doha Forum in conversation with Chatham House CEO Bronwen Maddox, Mathew Whitaker defended the new US security strategy and its criticisms of Europe.

Chatham House Chief Executive Bronwen Maddox joined US Ambassador to NATO Mathew Whitaker in conversation at the Doha Forum on 6 December, discussing US attitudes to European defence under the Trump administration, and the administration’s new national security strategy.

Asked by Maddox what he thought of the reaction of those reading the strategy, who ‘feel that the US is sounding tougher on them than it is on countries formerly regarded as enemies, like Russia’, the ambassador replied that:

‘Nothing is, for me, new in this. I mean, it talks about that our allies, that are rich European countries, need to do more. That they have underspent over the last several decades, and they need to spend a lot more on their own defence, and therefore the collective defence. 

‘I think that’s the headline. And then it also talks about, kind of, this concept: is Europe a dynamic economy that can grow or is it just a museum that is a relic of the past and we just go to see the cathedrals and the lovely wines and cheeses and beers, and waffles in the case of Brussels.’

Whitaker also addressed the national security strategy’s references to cultural values, citing the EU’s recent €120 million fine imposed on social media platform X, for breaching transparency rules of its Digital Services Act (DSA).

‘It is no longer a one-way street,’ he said, ‘and we are going to have expectations. Not only about picking up conventional defence of the European continent, but also in implementing things that our shared values should drive, things like free speech. 

‘You saw the EU’s fine of X that happened in the last couple of days. And I think there are many examples where sort of traditional values that we still hold dear in the United States and are enshrined in our constitution are not necessarily valued as much in Europe. 

‘And this document, I think, captures some of that and puts it in the conversation of how it affects and how it weakens cultures, how it weakens countries and how it ultimately will weaken their own sovereignty’. 

Maddox replied saying:

‘We could get into a kind of ping pong about perceptions of free speech in either country. But as you were speaking, I was thinking of President Trump’s suggestion to an ABC reporter that the licence of ABC ought to be withdrawn because he didn’t like the question that she asked of a Saudi crown prince in the Oval Office. So the perceptions go both ways’. 

Source: Chatham House –

Almost 70% of people globally are comfortable with their government buying Chinese-made clean technologies, new survey finds
News release
jon.wallace
8 December 2025

New data suggests that China’s clean tech ‘charm offensive’ is working to win over emerging economies.

COP30 saw China flexing its climate diplomacy muscles in place of an absent US – underpinned by Beijing’s dominance of global clean energy supply chains in stark contrast to President Trump’s outspoken ‘war’ on clean energy.  

However, results from a recent survey commissioned by Chatham House and conducted by GlobeScan reveals that there is not only a high level of consumer interest in clean technology around the globe, but also wide support for Chinese-made clean technology like solar panels and electric vehicles (EVs), which are dominating the market.

‘It’s not just theory anymore – solar and EVs are now winning hearts and minds, and most importantly, wallets,’ notes Bernice Lee, Distinguished Fellow at Chatham House’s Environment and Society Centre.  

‘Despite President Trump’s high-profile war on clean technology, even in the US large majorities either already own or are interested in buying clean-tech products,’ notes Lee.

Responses collected in summer 2025 across 33 markets revealed that around half of consumers surveyed are at least somewhat likely to consider buying Chinese-made solar panels or EVs – whereas nearly 7 in 10 support their governments purchasing Chinese-made solar panels and wind turbines to some degree.  

Despite some governments being vocal over security concerns of tech dependence and China’s growing influence, consumers seem more relaxed – especially younger people.  

‘As China becomes more closely associated with supplying affordable versions of these increasingly popular products, China’s soft power continues to grow,’ says Lee.  

Results demonstrate that the degree of support correlates with Global North/Global South country status. Respondents from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Latin America are the most likely to purchase, or support their governments purchasing, Chinese clean technology – whereas richer countries like those in Europe and North America are the least likely.  

‘Traditional Western perceptions of Chinese-manufactured products as poor quality are not shared in the Global South, where interest in buying Chinese-clean technology products is very high,’ says Chris Aylett, Research Fellow at Chatham House.

Survey results also demonstrate a clear generational divide – younger consumers like millennials and Gen Z are more likely to consider buying Chinese-made clean technologies while Baby Boomers are the least likely.  

In 8 countries surveyed in both 2024 and 2025, the level of support for personal or government consumption of Chinese-made solar panels or EVs remained consistent or increased over the past year – with the largest increases recorded in the USA, South Africa and Turkey.  

Chris Aylett said: ‘The growth in positive perceptions of Chinese-made clean technology over the past year is remarkable.’

‘While part of this may simply be due to the surge in availability, another explanation could possibly be the generally improved view of China as a source of certainty and stability, contrasted with the volatility of the US.’

Survey details:

Online surveying in 33 markets in July and August 2025, and 8 markets in July and August 2024 for comparison. 

Countries include:  

• Asia-Pacific: Australia, China, Hong Kong, India*, Indonesia*, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam.  
• Europe: France, Germany*, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, UK.  
• Latin America: Argentina, Brazil*, Colombia, Mexico*, Peru.  
• Middle East and North Africa: Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey*.  
• North America: Canada, USA*.  
• Sub-Saharan Africa: Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa* 

(* indicates survey conducted in both 2024 and 2025)

Representative online samples of approximately 1,000 adults in each of 33 markets (500 each in Hong Kong, Kenya, Nigeria, and Singapore, and 1,500 in USA)(n=31,960)

Samples are representative of online population, weighted to reflect general population census data 

Read the survey in full: 

Source: Amnesty International –

By Mandipa Machacha and Tsidi Leatswe

When Tadala Zindawa**, (21) from Tata village in Lilongwe’s Chitukula area, fell pregnant while in secondary school, she was overcome by fear and panic. Scared of her parents’ disapproval and with abortion criminalized in Malawi, Tadala resorted to unsafe methods using Aloe Vera or Surf Soap to induce abortion. The procedure not only failed, but it led to severe pain and heavy bleeding. She survived after post-abortion care, but the psychological and physical scars are lifelong.

Nevertheless, Tadala is one of the lucky ones.

Every year, hundreds of women and girls in Malawi die or are injured from pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. According to the Malawi Ministry of Health and the Guttmacher Institute, about 141,000 abortions occur annually in Malawi, the vast majority unsafe and accounting for 6–18% of maternal deaths.

Every year, hundreds of women and girls in Malawi die or are injured from pregnancy and childbirth-related complications.

Mandipa Machacha and Tshidi Leatwe

Preventing such deaths and injuries through timely access to care has been increasingly recognized around the world as a human rights issue, and not solely a public health concern.

In October 2025, the Human Rights Council adopted by consensus Resolution A/HRC/60/L.20/Rev.1 on Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights. The resolution urges states to eliminate legal, structural, and social barriers that deny women and girls access to life-saving sexual and reproductive health services by repealing discriminatory laws, combating gender stereotypes, and ensuring access to comprehensive sexuality education.  

The resolution’s strength lies in its comprehensive framing. By linking maternal health to the right to life,  health, equality and non-discrimination, the resolution obliges states to ensure maternal care is based on human rights, health workers are protected, and sexual and reproductive health are integrated into universal health coverage. In doing so, it reminds the global community that maternal deaths and injuries are not inevitable – they are preventable when rights are respected and systems are accountable.

Yet, in Malawi, these commitments remain far from reality.

When law and policy fail women and girls

Malawi’s abortion law, inherited from colonial legislation and provided for in the Penal Code (Cap. 7:01)  permits abortion only to save the life of the mother, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or severe fetal anomaly. This restrictive framework violates international standards, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ General Comment No. 2 (2014) on Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol, which recognizes women’s right to medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, and where pregnancy endangers life or health.

Malawi’s abortion law, inherited from colonial legislation and provided for in the Penal Code (Cap. 7:01) permits abortion only to save the life of the mother, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or severe fetal anomaly

Mandipa Machacha and Tshidi Leatswe

Many women and girls, like Tadala, resort to unsafe and clandestine methods – ingesting harmful substances, inserting objects, or seeking untrained providers. Fear of prosecution deters them from seeking post-abortion care, which is legal under Sections 19 and 20 of the Gender Equality Act No. 3 of 2013.

This stark reality was reflected in a recent ruling by the High Court in Blantyre. On 28 October 2025, the High Court of Malawi ruled that denying a 14-year-old rape survivor access to a safe abortion violated her rights to sexual and reproductive health under the GenderEquality Act (AC (a minor) v Attorney General & Others, Civil Cause No. 162 of 2023).

Reform deferred, lives lost

For nearly a decade, advocates, medical professionals, and civil society organizations have pushed for the adoption of the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, which would expand access to abortion in limited cases such as rape, incest, and severe fetal anomaly.

Yet it remains stalled in Parliament, trapped between political hesitation and moral panic. Public opposition has been fueled by misinformation and religious fundamentalism that frames abortion as a moral transgression rather than a human rights and public health imperative. This rhetoric not only distorts the issue; it costs lives.

For nearly a decade, advocates, medical professionals, and civil society organizations have pushed for the adoption of the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, which would expand access to abortion in limited cases such as rape, incest, and severe fetal anomaly.

Mandipa Machacha and Tshidi Leatswe

Pregnancy complications  in childbirth remain the leading cause of death among girls aged 15–19 worldwide, according to the WHO. In Malawi, adolescent pregnancies are associated with higher risks of obstetric complications, school dropout, and social exclusion. Denial of sexual and reproductive health information and services perpetuates gender inequality and violates Malawi’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Maputo Protocol.

Every maternal death and injury from a preventable cause violates the right to life. Every unsafe abortion is a failure of justice. Malawi to must act now, because the cost of inaction is measured in lives lost, those living with injuries and futures denied.

This opinion piece first ran in the Malawi Nation Online.

Mandipa Machacha is a Researcher and Advisor on Gender at Amnesty International.
Tshidi Leatswe is a Regional Campaigner on Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe at Amnesty International.

*names have been changed to protect her identity. 

Source: Amnesty International –

As people in Syria mark one year since the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad’s government, Amnesty International reiterates the urgent need for Syria’s new authorities to break with the past and commit to delivering justice, truth and reparations while securing human rights for all.

Over the past year, the decades of repression and systematic human rights violations that were committed under the Assad government have continued to deeply affect the country, with victims and survivors still waiting to see their rights to truth, justice and reparation realised. The new government, led by President Ahmad al-Sharaa and formed on 29 March 2025, has pledged to break with this legacy, and has taken some measures towards justice and accountability, but challenges remain. 

Syrian authorities must act decisively to build a rights-respecting future for Syrians who have suffered so much already. The government must strictly adhere to international human rights standards particularly on due process rights, including for suspects of past and current crimes.

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International

In addition to crimes of the past, the new government’s response to serious violations committed since they came to power, including sectarian-based killings in the coastal and southern regions of Syria, will be a litmus test of its commitment to pursuing justice and accountability. Armed groups opposed to the government have also committed serious abuses including unlawful killings, abductions and burning of homes.

“During a recent trip to Syria, survivors, families of victims and local organizations spoke of their hunger for truth and justice for past and current human rights violations. The challenges are many, and the task monumental, but we saw the energy, effort and commitment of those who want to work together to build a new rights-respecting Syria, from the mothers and wives who came together to demand answers about their missing sons and husbands, to survivors of the recent massacres who documented what happened to their communities, to those leading civic efforts, to others who have joined the national commissions to deliver on truth, justice and reparation,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.

“Syrian authorities must act decisively to build a rights-respecting future for Syrians who have suffered so much already. The government must strictly adhere to international human rights standards particularly on due process rights, including for suspects of past and current crimes. They must signal a zero-tolerance approach to any new violations to avoid spiralling back into old cycles of impunity for atrocities. They must enhance protection of the space for civil society to independently contribute towards this transition away from Assad-era violations.”

Source: Amnesty International –

In April and September 2022, Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) human rights activists King Mwamisyo Ndungo and Elias Bizimungu, members of the movement Lutte pour le Changement (LUCHA), were arbitrarily arrested. They were later sentenced by a military court in Goma to five years in prison for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Amnesty International proclaimed the two as prisoners of conscience.

On May 29, 2023, Elias Bizimungu was acquitted and released. On January 27, 2025, King Mwamisyo Ndungo fled prison during a mass prison escape that followed the takeover of Goma by the March 23 Movement (M23) fighters. This is Mwamisyo’s story.

In 2021, President Félix Tshisekedi proclaimed a state of siege in North Kivu and Ituri provinces.

He appointed army and police officers to replace civilian admins. He said this would help to deal with the several armed groups in the provinces so that civilians would be better protected.

At first, we were happy because to us, it seemed the President was determined to tackle these groups that had for years caused untold suffering to civilians.

The DRC Constitution strictly limits the use of state of siege (also referred to a state of emergency) to an initial 30 days and, if necessary, an extension of 15 days at a time. But in this case, Tshisekedi extended the state of siege for up to six months. And yet, nothing was changing in terms of the security situation.

We did not agree with these extensions because people were still being killed. In Beni, more people were killed during the state of siege by the the various fighters in eastern DRC than when there was no state of siege. The army and the police had become law unto themselves using the state of siege to extort [money] from civilians.

Source: Amnesty International –

By Boram Jang, East Asia Researcher at Amnesty International

Like every schoolchild in South Korea, I was taught about the days in May 1980 when our country’s soldiers killed civilians in the Gwangju Democratic Uprising. At least 166 protesters — mostly students — were shot dead, and at the time there were no consequences for those responsible.

One year ago — on Dec. 3 last year, when South Korea’s then-President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law and deployed troops to the National Assembly — that lesson helped save the country’s constitutional order. In just six hours.

Not because of courts or international intervention, but because of citizens, including soldiers and lawmakers, who had all been taught the same thing: Power must answer to the people. And it’s a lesson that can be learned by countries under authoritarian threat worldwide.

After democratization in 1987, South Korea began the painful work of reckoning, centered on truth and accountability. In 1996, two former presidents were tried and imprisoned for their roles in the supression of the Gwangju Uprising. Truth commissions documented the killings, schools taught this history, and memorials were built. The process was imperfect, but it fundamentally succeeded in breaking the cycle of impunity. The principle that power must answer to the people became enforceable, not aspirational.

When my generation learned about Gwangju, we absorbed a powerful collective memory of state wrongdoing and the principle that such crimes must never go unpunished.

At around 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, Yoon declared martial law on television and deployed soldiers to storm and barricade the National Assembly. It was the first such declaration since the end of military rule. Within minutes, thousands of citizens began marching towards parliament. What followed showed the strength built over four decades of work towards accountability.

While parts of the military did follow the orders, several officers who received orders to move toward the National Assembly hesitated or refused. It has since been reported that one senior officer instructed his unit not to cross the bridge to Yeouido, where the Assembly sits, and not to harm civilians. Nine months later, the Ministry of National Defense honored 15 service members for refusing or delaying unlawful orders. These soldiers were “citizens in uniform” — even though their decision to defy a presidential command carried personal risks, they chose to act on the lessons of Gwangju to ward off an unacceptable abuse of power.

Civilians poured into the streets. Thousands of people blocked military vehicles and helped lawmakers climb over walls when police barricaded the gates. They remained through the freezing December night, phones out, livestreaming everything. They weren’t guaranteed safety, but these individuals — including my friends — had seen the need to bear witness and knew this was critical for accountability.

Lawmakers understood that their duty was to the people, not the presidential office. At about 1 a.m. 190 lawmakers voted unanimously to lift martial law. This included opposition members and 18 from the president’s party. Under South Korea’s constitution, parliament’s demand could not be refused. By dawn, martial law was lifted. Six hours from start to finish.

The resistance worked because 40 years of reckoning had proven that the principle of accountability carries real force.

The soldiers and officers who refused orders weren’t just being moral; they were making judgments shaped by decades of accountability. They knew from the Gwangju trials that the era of executive impunity for unlawful orders had ended. They assumed that the constitutional system ultimately sets fidelity to the rule of law higher than blindly following superiors. Justice, they had learned, might be slow, but it would arrive.

Those who defended parliament a year ago believed they had the right to check their government, and they had evidence. After Gwangju, families who demanded truth received some, prosecutors who charged presidents kept their positions, and courts that convicted the powerful remained independent.

This wasn’t faith in the abstract but trust built on observable reality. Dictators had served time, courts functioned under pressure, and through years of incomplete justice and civic effort, accountability became tangible.

South Korea’s reckoning remains unfinished. Former President Yoon now stands on criminal trial, many questions about the military and police remain open, and political divisions run deep.

But that night demonstrated something essential for countries facing authoritarian pressure. Accountability cannot remain rhetorical but must be demonstrated through concrete action, even when imperfect. This is the ultimate guarantee of non-recurrence.

This requires prosecuting leaders who commit crimes, no matter their stature. It means protecting those who demand answers, not intimidating them into silence. It means teaching what happens when this principle fails and when it succeeds. It means showing that standing against overreach protects the system rather than destabilizes it.

The resistance shown that night held because each actor, from “citizens in uniform” to everyday citizens to elected officials, operated in a system where accountability had proven real. They had seen accountability work, despite its flaws. We trusted it would work again.

South Korea built that public trust through 40 years of struggle and accountability, from the classroom to the highest corridors of power. When tested, it held. And with authoritarian practices expanding globally, it’s a lesson that has rarely seemed more relevant.

This article was originally published by The Korea Herald