Skip to main content

What's inside the aid convoy trying to get lifesaving supplies into Gaza?

President Biden announced while in Israel this week that Egypt has agreed to allow 20 trucks filled with humanitarian aid to enter into the Gaza Strip.

Over 100 trucks have been stationed outside of Gaza for days, unable to deliver supplies since Israel closed the borders on Oct. 7.

“Every hour these supplies remain on the Egyptian side of the border, more girls and boys, women, and men, especially those vulnerable or disabled, will die while supplies that can save them are less than 12 miles away," the World Health Organization said in a press statement earlier this week.

This is what's in the aid convoy, according to the UN, as illustrated by Elizabeth Sokolich.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
2 minute read

How Shein and Temu get around US labor laws that ban products made with forced labor

In short: Fast fashion giants Shein and Temu have become increasingly popular in the U.S. for their cheap clothes and other goods. Influencers on social media post “hauls” of huge purchases from Temu or Shein. But a June congressional report revealed the two companies are taking advantage of a U.S. shipping provision that allows them to avoid paying tariffs on orders and to “circumvent” a U.S. law that aims to protect Uyghurs in China from being forced to produce cotton products.

What are Temu and Shein?

Shein and Temu both sell products for incredibly low prices – Shein focuses on fashion while Temu sells everything from water bottles to skin care. Both websites have been gaining popularity. As of October 2023, Temu is the top free app in Apple’s App Store and Shein is the second-most downloaded shopping app in the U.S.

A report from the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party estimated that Temu and Shein accounted for more than 30% of all packages (valued under $800) that came into the U.S. in 2022.

Who owns Temu and Shein?

Temu is the U.S. subsidiary of the Chinese e-commerce site Pinduoduo; Temu is owned by a company of the same name. Shein was founded by Chinese billionaire Chris Xu and is now operated by Roadget Business Pte., according to Reuters.  

While the two companies are similar in terms of their low prices and social media marketing campaigns, they have different business models. Temu, like Amazon, is the middleman between factories and consumers. Shein, on the other hand, buys clothes from factories to sell as Shein designs (think of a retailer like Forever 21 or Fashion Nova).

An appeal of both websites is the sheer number of products. Shein puts up to 10,000 new items on its site every day and Temu has over 200 categories of products on its site.

While the fashion industry produces clothes for four seasons per year, “fast fashion has 52 seasons a year,” Iranian American writer and organizer Hoda Katebi told Blue Marble.

“Everything you can think of is now a season and that creates this mass creation of trends. For people to want to buy new things, you have to make them trendy.”  

"phone in front of a computer screen"
Pages from the Shein website, left, and from the Temu site, right, are shown in this photo, in New York, Friday, June 23, 2023. Chinese e-commerce retailer Temu has filed a lawsuit accusing its rival Shein of violating U.S. antitrust law by blocking clothing manufacturers from working with Temu. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

How are their prices so low?

Shein and Temu keep their prices low through a U.S. shipping provision called the “de minimis exception,” which waives duty fees for any packages with a retail value of less than $800. Shein and Temu packages rarely reach the de minimis maximum – the average Shein shopper spends $100 per month and the average Temu order size is $25.

According to the June congressional report, Shein and Temu paid no duty fees on imports to the U.S. in 2022. In comparison, H&M paid $205 million.

Another way companies like Shein and Temu keep their prices low is by using garment workers, typically in Southeast Asia, who work long hours for low pay and typically without an employment contract.

The compressed trend cycles of fast fashion lends itself to exploiting workers, Katebi said.

“The sheer volume of clothes that fast fashion requires to meet their 52-season-a-year calendar and the quotas that are placed on garment workers to create these clothes are actually humanly impossible,” said Katebi, who has spoken with garment workers in Indonesia, India, and Cambodia.

Garment workers often end up working 14- to 16-hour days, seven days a week. 

“During peak season, they may work until 2 or 3 am to meet the fashion brand's deadline,” according to Berlin-based nonprofit Sustain Your Style. “Their basic wages are so low that they cannot refuse overtime - aside from the fact that many would be fired if they refused to work overtime. In some cases, overtime is not even paid at all.”


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

Why are the companies under investigation by Congress?

Both Shein and Temu have been accused by a House committee of using forced labor from the autonomous region of Xinjiang in China. According to the U.S. State Department, 12 million Uyghurs, Turkic-speaking Muslims, live in Xinjiang and are native to the region.

"a worker in a factory"
A worker watches as a machine processes cotton yarn at a Huafu Fashion plant, as seen during a government organized trip for foreign journalists, in Aksu in western China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Tuesday, April 20, 2021. A backlash against reports of forced labor and other abuses of the largely Muslim Uyghur ethnic group in Xinjiang is taking a toll on China's cotton industry, but it's unclear if the pressure will compel the government or companies to change their ways. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
The Chinese government's treatment of Uyghurs

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Chinese government has allegedly imprisoned over 1 million Muslims, most of them Uyghurs, in “reeducation camps” since 2017. The CFR also notes that Uyghurs “have been subjected to intense surveillance, forced labor, and involuntary sterilizations, among other rights abuses.”

But leaked documents reveal that Muslims are sent to these camps for religious observances like “wearing a veil” or growing “a long beard.”

In 2021, the U.S. deemed the actions of the Chinese government a “genocide,” and the United Nations has said there are “serious human rights violations.”

An estimated 100,000 Uyghurs and other “ethnic minority ex-detainees in China may be working in conditions of forced labor following detention in re-education camps.” This includes picking cotton to make clothes – 16% of cotton clothes in the U.S. had cotton from Xinjiang, according to a survey conducted in 2021.

In December 2021, President Joe Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), banning goods made in Xinjiang. The law states that any product manufactured in Xinjiang should be assumed to have been made using forced labor. It also provided companies that ship products into the U.S. with guidelines on how to ensure that their products aren’t made with forced labor.

But companies that take advantage of the de minimis provision use it to “circumvent the UFLPA,” because without paying duty fees there is no “formal entry documentation – a major impediment to collection of data necessary to enforce import bans,” Anasuya Syam told a joint House and Senate hearing. Syam is the human rights and trade policy director at the Human Trafficking Legal Center.

A Bloomberg investigation revealed that Shein was using Xinjiang cotton in its clothes, and items on Temu’s website have included “Xinjiang Cotton” in the description, according to the congressional report.

“There is no way to make fast fashion ethical,” Katebi said. “There's no way to make fast fashion sustainable. We can create more laws around labor and regulation, but if those laws actually change the output of clothing, there is no way that those laws are actually going to be implemented within fast fashion. They can't because of the requirements set based on the needs of the industry.”

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
4 minute read

Despite early support, Australians voted 'No' to First Nations' Voice in constitution

By Abby Vela

On Oct. 14, Australia held a nationwide referendum on whether to amend the constitution to include the Voice, an advisory board made up of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The referendum needed to receive the majority vote at a national level, as well as in at least four states to pass. Neither of these happened, with the “Yes” vote only gaining 39.3% of total votes and none of the states gaining a majority.

What is Voice and why is it significant?

The aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice were part of a proposed amendment to the Australian Constitution. Functioning as an advisory board, the Voice would have represented the aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Parliament. The Voice wouldn’t have had voting power, but it would have had the ability to weigh in on policies that affect their peoples.

The idea for the Voice can be traced back to Australia’s 2017 National Constitutional Convention, where over 250 aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders met to create the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The statement called for recognition of First Nations peoples in the constitution.

“We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country," said the Uluru Statement from the Heart." We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.”


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

Since the colonization of Australia by European settlers, the Indigenous peoples of Australia have faced massive inequities and discrimination.

While they make up just 3.8% of Australia’s population, 21% of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples face unemployment, and they make up 27% of people who are incarcerated.

The aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples sought to create the Voice through referendum rather than legislation because unlike legislation, which can be overturned and changed by Parliament, changes made through referendums can’t be altered or removed without the passage of another referendum.

What do Australians think of the Voice?

Despite early investment, recent polls showed that public support for the Voice has declined significantly.

Polling conducted in the second half of 2022 showed support at about 65%, which held steady from August to December. Since then, there has been a consistent and significant decline in support. On Oct. 12, a poll by YouGov found support for the Voice slightly exceeded 40%.

FairAustralia, an anti-Voice organization funded and powered by Advance Australia – a conservative organization that also funds campaigns against the inclusion of trans women in sports and the teaching of racism in schools – turned to tactics like targeted-ad campaigns, aggressive phone banking, and TikTok algorithms to convince Australians to vote “No” last weekend.

In September, tens of thousands of Australians gathered with signs and shirts to march in support of the referendum. Linda Burney, the minister for Indigenous Australians, told a crowd in Melbourne that “for 65,000 years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been speaking 363 languages, but no voice … you have the power to do something about it.”

What's next?

Indigenous Voice supporters have called for a week of reflection and silence after the failed referendum.

"Now is not the time to dissect the reasons for this tragic outcome,” a statement distributed Saturday night after the vote said. "Now is the time for silence, to mourn and deeply consider the consequence of this outcome."

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read

A journalism expert on the language of war and how to get trustworthy news

On Oct. 12, the BBC released a statement explaining why the publication doesn’t refer to Hamas as terrorists. “We don’t take sides. We don’t use loaded words like ‘evil’ or ’cowardly.’ We don’t talk about ‘terrorists,’” it reads. “It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn — who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.”

The statement came after criticism from journalists, Jewish leaders, and members of the British government over the BBC’s coverage of Hamas’s attack on Israel. Since the attack began on Oct. 7, Hamas has killed more than 1,400 people and kidnapped 200. In response, Israel has killed more than 2,778 people in Gaza. These numbers do not include the more than 500 people killed in the Oct. 17 explosion at a hospital in Gaza.

A study published in the journal "Media, War, and Conflict" examined The New York Times’s coverage of the first and second intifadas, or Palestinian uprisings (December 1987-September 1993 and September 2000-February 2005, respectively) and found that references to Palestine were more negative in tone, whereas references to Israel were more neutral.

“The language journalists use must be accurate, precise, and verifiable,” says Aly Colón, the John S. and James L. Knight Professor of Media Ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. He said that describing events, using as much detail as possible, is preferable to using language that may exaggerate or distort the intended meaning. “Show, don’t tell,” as the maxim goes.

Blue Marble spoke with Colón about language, how readers can get the most balanced coverage of a crisis like the Hamas-Israel war, and what “objectivity” means to him. 

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Do you feel that terms like “terrorist” or “terrorism” are always inappropriate for journalists to use?

It’s not the term necessarily that is a problem. But it’s how we apply the term. In what situations do we apply it, and does it describe clearly and accurately what it is that as journalists we want to report and have readers or viewers take in.

In general, I would say describe the event… The more clarity we have, the more details that we can use, the fuller the picture can be for our audience.

How can people ensure they’re getting balanced coverage of a crisis like this? 

Aly Colón, John S. and James L. Knight Professor of Media Ethics at Washington and Lee University
More people than I would want get attached to a particular publication. There’s not really anything wrong with that — if you trust the publication and they’ve done a good job. 

I do something a little more specific when I can, although there are publications that I follow. I read or scan around 15 or 18 news sites from one end of the spectrum to the other. I do that because, “Am I only getting the information that particular publication or website wants to convey on its own?”

When I find certain types of either websites or publications that I have repeatedly seen to be pretty accurate… I will usually and almost always read them or listen to them. Does it mean I don’t listen to others? No.

I’m also what I would call a byline reader. If I see a reporter on a regular basis and she gets it, and I can see that she is really concrete and concise and able to convey what I need to know, then when I see her byline, I read it.

When it’s possible, have a wide distribution of sources you can follow. And then identify particular reporters, journalists that over time you have seen they’ve been right there bringing the information in a way that has been reliable, confirmed, and true. Most journalists, I think, desire to do that. Some are just a lot better than others.

Given that people have very stubborn beliefs, and they go to outlets where they can have those justified and reinforced, how important do you think “objectivity” is to readers?

Here’s what I’m going to say, which is not the common thread. I don’t believe in objectivity. I just think it’s impossible. And I think the use of objectivity was probably a good thing in a way. It was, in my view, always a standard that you aspire to because objectivity means you don’t know anything. 

What I tell people is usually we have a leaning, and we need to know which way we lean and how far we lean. It’s human to have that. And we need, in recognizing that, [to determine] how we can amplify our understanding, increase it. So we’re closer to the center of what’s going on.

So for me, I think we should see objectivity as an aspirational thing and with a responsibility on our part to recognize that we’re not objective. But we can really work hard to bring as much information as we can to fill the picture up more.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read

Providing electricity to 750 million people could help fight climate change, not exacerbate it

After decades of steady progress, the number of people without access to electricity increased in 2022. 

That’s according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), which found that 80% of people worldwide who don’t have electricity live in sub-Saharan Africa. In Chad and the Central African Republic, only about 1 in 20 have access to electricity.

Achieving universal access to energy by 2030 is one of the U.N.’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Is it possible to provide electricity to nearly three-quarters of a billion people without substantially increasing emissions and exacerbating climate change? 

Blue Marble spoke with Gianluca Tonolo, who helps lead the IEA’s Modern Energy Outlook team. Part of his job is developing forecasts to determine how energy access could impact climate emissions.

“All our scenarios that achieve global climate goals – even net zero emissions by 2050 – includes the achievement of universal access to electricity and clean cooking,” Tonolo told Blue Marble. 

Expanding electrification “will not undermine climate goals,” he said. 

Adding 750 million electricity consumers could actually reduce emissions

A jolt for rural economies 

Electrification can improve people’s health and stimulate the local economy. But poverty is the chief obstacle — even more so than access to the grid. 

Recent crises, including the pandemic and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, have made affording electricity even more difficult, according to the IEA. Both sparked economic crises that increased costs and disrupted energy supply chains. 

Without electricity, rural communities are locked out of the modern economy. Families rely on candles, kerosene stoves, or open fires — even though smoke fumes harm children’s health, Tonolo explained. And when it’s dark, students often can’t study at night and shops have to close at sunset.

Tonolo also describes electrification as a ladder. The first step for a newly electrified community is typically adding simple lighting, maybe for just two hours a day. A few lamps for a few hours each day can start to change the picture: Children can study after school, shops can stay open longer and earn more money, which in turn stimulates the local economy. 

Next, households might buy a radio or a phone and charger. Consumers climb up the ladder and start buying higher energy services: a refrigerator to reduce food waste; a fan to stay cool in the heat; and maybe a television. 

But here’s the problem: Even if 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa without access to electricity were connected to the grid for free tomorrow, half of them wouldn’t be able to afford enough electricity to power a few lights, a phone charger, and a small radio. 

On the ladder’s second rung, only 5% would be able to afford powering a fan, a TV, and a few more light bulbs. The next step up includes running a refrigerator, but almost none of the 600 million people would be able to pay their electric bill.

“They cannot afford the electricity that’s on the other end,” Tonolo said.

Expanding energy access could reduce emissions 

The lack of electricity isn’t just holding back rural economies. It could also be contributing to climate change. 

To be clear, developing countries are responsible for a tiny percentage of global emissions, even though they often bear the brunt of its impacts. Still, expanding energy access and electrification could lead to big net reductions in emissions. 

When households rely on open fires and charcoal to cook, they emit lots of methane and chop down trees for firewood, contributing to deforestation. Tonolo’s team found that switching to electricity or even using liquified petroleum gas would reduce carbon emissions by 1.5 gigatons by 2030. That’s roughly the same amount of CO2 emitted by planes and ships in 2022 combined. 

In addition, rural communities are often using green technology to expand electricity access. Solar-powered “mini-grids” can’t reach very far. They only cover a few households or businesses, but these standalone systems can provide clean energy for households and essential services in remote locations. 

Household appliances that use electricity also are much more efficient than they used to be. In addition to reducing emissions, more efficient appliances means that smaller solar panels become more viable solutions for rural communities trying to expand access. It also becomes cheaper to use electricity each month, too. 

“Greenhouse gas emissions savings completely compensate and go beyond the additional emissions from access to electricity,” Tonolo said.

The IEA estimates that it would take about $25 billion each year to provide universal access to modern energy. That’s about 1% of global investment in the energy sector, including both renewable energy and fossil fuels. 

“What we are spending for extracting oil, producing electricity, doing all these things… what if we spend 1 percent more? We can electrify all people — 750 million today — that don’t have access to electricity in the world.” 

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described the International Energy Agency (IEA) as part of the United Nations.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
4 minute read

A history of hostage and prisoner swaps in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

It’s believed that more than 150 Israeli citizens and soldiers have been taken hostage since Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel this Saturday.

Hamas said that it would kill a civilian hostage every time an Israeli airstrike hits Gazans “in their homes without warning.”

A senior Hamas official has said enough Israelis have been captured to secure the release of all Palestinian prisoners. There are currently 5,200 Palestinians behind bars in Israel, including 33 women and 170 children, according to Al Jazeera.

There have been several hostage rescue operations and prisoner exchanges throughout the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Early on, Israel responded with military-rescue operations. Palestinian militant groups changed their tactics in response, replacing large extortionist attacks with kidnappings wherein hostages were taken to secret hiding places, thus prohibiting Israel from carrying out rescue operations.

A few notable rescues and prisoner exchanges show this evolution.

Entebbe 

On June 27, 1976, German and Palestinian hijackers took control of a flight carrying 247 passengers and 12 crew members from Israel to France. Eventually they diverted the flight to Uganda, where they held the hostages in the Entebbe International Airport. Their objective was to secure the release of 40 Palestinian militants imprisoned in Israel and 13 prisoners in four other countries. The non-Israelis among the hostages were released and flown to Paris.

On July 4, the Israeli military launched a rescue mission known as Operation Entebbe or Operation Thunderbolt. The operation left all the hijackers and at least 20 Ugandan soldiers dead. The only Israeli fatality during the operation was Yoni Netanyahu, brother to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who led the attack. 

Coastal Road Massacre of 1978

In 1978, 11 members of the Palestinian nationalist Fatah group, formerly the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, entered Israel and took control of two buses with 71 hostages on board. As with Operation Entebbe, Israel responded with a high-stakes rescue operation, which led to a 10-hour standoff. By the end, the hijackers had killed 38 of the hostages, including 13 children. Nine of the 11 hijackers were killed.

1982 Lebanon War

During the 1982 Lebanon War, Fatah kidnapped six Israeli infantry soldiers in Lebanon. In November 1983, the soldiers were exchanged for more than 4,500 Palestinian prisoners.

Jibril Agreement of 1985

Named after Ahmed Jibril, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Jibril Agreement took nearly a year to negotiate. Under the agreement 1,150 Palestinian prisoners were swapped for three Israelis the group had kidnapped. 

Gilad Shalit

Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was taken hostage in 2006 by Hamas. He was freed five years later in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. At the time it was described as the “most lopsided prisoner swap in Israel's history.” Egypt brokered the deal.
In Israel, Shalit had become a “national obsession,” prompting Israel to bombard the Gaza Strip.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
2 minute read

College students are speaking out and protesting Israel-Hamas war

In short: Israel declared war on the Palestinian militant group Hamas after it launched an attack on Israeli soil on Oct. 7, taking at least 100 hostages. The attack comes after months of heightened tensions due to Israel’s ongoing treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and recent violence at a site sacred to both Jewish and Muslim people. In the U.S., student groups across the country have voiced their stances on the matter, including a statement signed by 34 Harvard University groups holding Israel responsible for the violence. The statement faced backlash both from the university’s former president and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

What’s going on in Israel?

Hamas launched an attack on Israeli soil on Oct. 7 and took at least 100 hostages.

What is Hamas?

Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, “is a militant group that governs the Gaza Strip, a 25-mile-long, densely populated enclave of more than 2.1 million people.” Hamas, which won elections in Gaza in 2006, doesn’t recognize Israel’s existence and wants to replace it with a Palestinian state. The U.S. designated the group a terrorist organization in 1997.

Hamas said the attack was in response to “Israeli attacks on women,” Israeli police raids on a sacred mosque in Jerusalem, and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

How long has Israel occupied Gaza?

Israel has occupied Gaza since 1967 and has imposed a blockade on the region, regulating movement in and out. The Israeli government has also maintained a policy of land confiscation, where land is taken from Palestinians and given to Israeli settlers, since the start of the occupation. Human Rights Watch has called Gaza an “open-air prison.”

 

Israel responded to the attack by retaliating with airstrikes and declared war on Hamas. Israel also sealed off Gaza from any incoming food and water, as well as cutting off electricity for the region’s 2 million Palestinian residents, half of whom are under the age of 19.

An Israeli military official said Hamas had “opened the gates of hell” into Gaza, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would “return fire of a magnitude that the enemy has not known,” and that “the enemy will pay an unprecedented price.”

The death toll on both sides combined is at least 1,600.

What happened at Harvard?

After the fighting broke out in Israel, 34 Harvard University student groups issued a statement blaming Israel for the violence.

“The apartheid regime is the only one to blame,” the statement read. “Israeli violence has structured every aspect of Palestinian existence for 75 years. From systemized land seizures to routine airstrikes, arbitrary detentions to military checkpoints, and enforced family separations to targeted killings, Palestinians have been forced to live in a state of death, both slow and sudden.”


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

The statement – signed by multiple Palestinian and Muslim student groups, Harvard Jews for Liberation, and the African American Resistance Organization – was condemned by former Harvard president Lawrence Summers and Democratic and Republican federal lawmakers alike, many of them alumni of the university.

Harvard’s current president, Claudine Gay, condemned the Hamas attack.  

What’s happening on other campuses across the U.S.?

Campuses across the country have seen groups organize events after the fighting broke out, including a vigil in support of Israel at the University of Vermont and multiple events in support of Palestinians being organized by local chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine.

There also have been several other events in the news:

International students in Israel were also killed in the fighting, and three Northeastern University students were safely evacuated from Israel.  

U.S. college campuses have become a hot spot on the issue of Israel and Palestinians. In 2021, the last time there was a flare-up of violence between Hamas and Israel, student groups supporting both Palestinians and Israel issued statements and organized events.

Those supporting Israel say that the statements and protests cause an uptick in “antisemitism and anti-Israel rhetoric,” while those who support Palestinians say that Palestinian voices are often silenced, and many receive death threats.

Antisemitism is on the rise in the U.S. and antisemitic incidents increased by 36% from 2021 to 2022. There is an ongoing debate over whether criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic.

In 2021, Palestine Legal, a group that provides legal aid to those who support Palestinians, took on 280 cases defending supporters from suppression of their views. This is a 31% increase from 2020. More than half of these incidents happened on college campuses across the country.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
4 minute read

Government shutdowns are rare in other countries – so why are they more common in the US ?

In short: The U.S. government averted a shutdown after lawmakers in Congress reached a temporary, 45-day deal to extend a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. This would have been the eleventh time the government has shut down since 1981 – meaning hundreds of thousands of federal workers wouldn’t have gotten paid, food assistance programs would have been left without funding, and housing assistance for people with low incomes could have been at risk.

Which countries have had government shutdowns?

No other country has had a government shutdown like the U.S., where important services grind to a halt due to lack of funding. But Northern Ireland came close.

Why does a government shut down?

Typically, a government shutdown means that the legislative branch of the government failed to pass a budget. Government-funded services eventually run out of money without a budget for the new fiscal year.

In 2017, Northern Ireland’s government collapsed after Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness resigned. His party announced it wouldn’t replace him, the executive branch of the government subsequently collapsed, and Northern Ireland’s assembly didn’t sit in session for the next three years.

In those three years, the British government had to pass a budget for Northern Ireland to ensure its services didn’t run out of funds.

Back for more

Northern Ireland is in that same boat again. The country’s conservative party, the DUP, pulled out of the executive branch in February 2022 to protest against Britain’s trade deal with the European Union.

But a bill passed by the assembly just before the DUP left the executive branch will act as a stopgap measure and allow the assembly to carry on without an executive for at least six months.

Belgium has also gone without a government for long periods. But unlike the U.S., funding keeps coming in because until a new budget is passed, the old budget stays in effect. This is the case for many European countries.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

How have other countries prevented government shutdowns?

For most of its existence, Britain’s parliamentary system has made a government shutdown virtually impossible.

How does a parliamentary system work?

In a parliamentary system, the party that holds the majority in the legislative branch chooses the head of government. If there are more than two parties represented in the legislative branch, sometimes multiple parties will have to form a coalition to gain the majority.  

If parliament doesn’t reach a majority when it is first elected, or on a major bill, it is fairly easy to call a new election and start over with new parliamentarians who could potentially reach a majority.

And a 2011 bill made it much more difficult to call these elections, leaving Britain more prone to a shutdown. But parliament repealed the law in 2022, reducing the possibility of a shutdown again after a group of lawmakers threatened a “Trump-style shutdown” in 2019.

In Australia, which has a similar parliamentary system, “budgets have to be passed or else the government is usually forced to resign or Parliament gets dissolved.” New Zealand, Bangladesh, and Canada all have similar systems.

What's next for the government shutdown?

On Sept. 30, President Joe Biden signed a bill that keeps the government open for 45 more days, until Nov. 17. During this time, the government will be fully funded and include $16 billion in disaster relief funds. One White House official told Politico that the stopgap budget avoids “any version of the deep cuts to essential domestic programs that were proposed in the past few days.”

But the 45-day measure – coming just a week after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Biden at the White House to advocate for more support – did not include aid for Ukraine.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. has provided more than $75 billion in humanitarian, financial, and military assistance. While most of the aid is war-related, some also goes to refugees and independent radio journalists.

A bill passed by the House giving $300 million in aid to Ukraine is with the Senate, Punchbowl News reports, and could be one way the U.S. continues to provide aid to Ukraine.  

The stopgap measure is also just that – a temporary fix that doesn’t protect the U.S. from another shutdown.

“We’re going to be right back in this place in November,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said on CNN.

One way the U.S. government could prevent shutdowns indefinitely is to enact an automatic continuing resolution, which many European countries have, where if Congress can’t pass a budget, the current budget remains.  

This has been done before. In September 2013, then-President Barack Obama passed an automatic continuing resolution that ensured many members of the U.S. military kept getting paid during a government shutdown.

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner proposed a law in 2021 that would enact an automatic continuing resolution for the government called the Stop STUPIDITY Act. In the wake of the most recent potential shutdown, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson has proposed a similar bill.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
5 minute read

What it's like to clean up landmines in your own country

It will take decades to clear Ukraine’s landmines. Without more women, it will be even slower — and more dangerous.

Subscribe to