Rebel groups in Colombia are increasingly using social media platforms like Facebook and TikTok to recruit children and teenagers, prompting the United Nations to call for stronger moderation efforts by tech companies. The UN’s top human rights official in Colombia, Scott Campbell, said more investment is urgently needed in automated moderation tools and local content teams to remove materials that glamorize rebel life and directly target marginalized youth. Campbell noted that rebel factions, particularly the FARC-EMC, are spreading slickly produced videos portraying armed life as adventurous and loyal, featuring motorcycles, camouflage, and promises of camaraderie. These videos are often tailored to impoverished Indigenous communities and conflict zones like Cauca province, where children are most vulnerable. According to Colombia’s Human Rights Ombudsman, 409 minors were recruited into armed groups in 2024—double the number from the previous year. Many of these cases occurred in territories where the Colombian government struggles to maintain control after the demobilization of the main FARC faction in 2016. While Meta says it bans terrorist organizations and cooperates with law enforcement, Campbell criticized what he described as a two-tiered system where moderation resources are disproportionately focused on the Global North. “These companies are not putting enough resources into online content moderation in the Global South,” he warned. Campbell called for greater transparency, closer cooperation with Colombian prosecutors, and faster takedown responses to stop the cycle of account regeneration. He also acknowledged the difficulty of balancing moderation with free speech protections but emphasized that the content in question often crosses into clear harm, especially when aimed at children. So far, TikTok has not publicly responded. In the meantime, recruitment efforts continue online, targeting Colombia’s most marginalized communities with offers of cellphones, motorcycles, and a sense of belonging—offers that, for many vulnerable youth, can be hard to refuse.

North Korea’s unveiling of the Choe Hyon-class destroyer and its advanced weapon systems has fueled expert speculation about direct Russian military support, particularly in naval and radar technologies. The ship’s weapons tests, including supersonic and strategic cruise missiles, anti-air systems, and electronic warfare equipment, showcase capabilities that appear beyond North Korea’s indigenous production and development capacity. Analysts have noted strong similarities between these systems and Russia’s Zircon missile, Karakurt-class radars, and Pantsir air defense architecture, suggesting either technology transfer or close technical cooperation. This revelation comes as Pyongyang publicly confirmed, for the first time, that it had deployed troops to assist Russia in its war on Ukraine, highlighting the deepening strategic axis between Moscow and Pyongyang. The timing of this naval demonstration, following the troop deployment and amid continued munitions shipments, raises concerns that military hardware, training, and even co-design efforts may be part of a quid pro quo arrangement. The broader implication is the evolution of North Korea’s force projection strategy, shifting from land-based deterrence to an increasingly capable naval force with nuclear delivery potential. If confirmed, Russian support in enabling such developments would constitute a breach of international arms control norms and a direct threat to maritime security in East Asia.

The aftermath of the April 22 terrorist attack in Kashmir, which killed 26 primarily Hindu tourists, has sparked a wave of state-backed detentions, demolitions, and public hostility against Muslims across India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has blamed Pakistan for supporting the attackers and has signaled potential military retaliation. At the same time, right-wing Hindu nationalist groups and local authorities have launched sweeping crackdowns, particularly in BJP-controlled states, under the guise of rooting out “illegal” migrants. In Gujarat, police arrested more than 6,000 people they labeled “suspected Bangladeshis,” but later admitted that only a fraction had any confirmed foreign ties. Simultaneously, state officials bulldozed more than 2,000 homes in a Muslim-majority slum in Ahmedabad without due process, citing national security. Kashmiri Muslims, both in the valley and in cities across India, have reported arbitrary detentions, harassment, and mob attacks. In Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka, incidents that appear to be hate crimes have resulted in Muslim deaths, though officials have downplayed the communal nature of the violence. Meanwhile, ultranationalist media outlets and influencers have escalated anti-Muslim rhetoric, portraying the attack as justification for broader punitive measures. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, have condemned the targeting of civilians, warning against the use of collective punishment and the erosion of legal protections. Within Kashmir, over 2,000 people have reportedly been detained, and authorities have demolished the homes of those suspected of militant ties. These acts mirror prior crackdowns in the region that often sidestep formal judicial procedures. For Muslim residents across the country, the broader political climate, already shaped by years of communal tension, has become increasingly precarious. Longstanding tropes used to equate Indian Muslims with Pakistanis or Bangladeshis have resurfaced, creating a dangerous conflation of religious identity with foreignness. Critics argue that the Modi government’s response amounts to institutionalized discrimination, exploiting a national tragedy to further marginalize a vulnerable community. Legal challenges to the demolitions have largely failed, with courts deferring to executive claims of national security. Civil society activists contend that this marks a dangerous precedent where constitutional protections can be suspended based on collective identity. As the threat of escalation with Pakistan remains, so too does the risk of deepening domestic polarization, where communal fear and political expediency erode the rule of law and democratic norms.

Mali's military leader Gen Assimi Goïta has secured backing from political allies to remain in power as president for the next five years, solidifying his grip on the country following two coups since 2020. Although he initially promised elections in 2022, Goïta has since walked back on that commitment. A national conference convened by his regime—boycotted by major opposition parties—recommended he stay in office until 2030 and that elections be suspended until national peace is achieved. The proposal has drawn condemnation from domestic opposition figures and international human rights groups. Amnesty International criticized what it called a “proposal to dissolve all political parties,” calling it an attack on freedom of expression and association. Opposition leader Mohamed Salia Touré warned that dismantling multi-party democracy would be a “historic error.” Goïta, who elevated himself from colonel to five-star general last year, has steered Mali away from France and toward closer military and diplomatic ties with Russia, while aligning regionally with junta-led Burkina Faso and Niger. All three have withdrawn from the West African regional bloc ECOWAS, rejecting calls for a return to civilian rule. The junta has justified its prolonged hold on power by citing ongoing jihadist violence and instability, though critics argue the regime is exploiting the security crisis to entrench authoritarian rule. The call to suspend electoral processes under the guise of restoring peace raises serious concerns about the long-term erosion of democratic governance in Mali and the broader Sahel region

The Israeli military launched a targeted warning strike in Syria on Wednesday against what it described as an “extremist group” preparing to attack members of the Druze minority in the town of Sahnaya, southwest of Damascus. According to a statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, the operation was designed to prevent sectarian violence against Syria’s Druze community and to send a message to the country’s new Sunni-led government, which replaced Bashar al-Assad after his ousting in December 2024. The exact nature of the strike and the identity of the targeted group remain unspecified. This intervention comes amid intensifying armed clashes in the southern outskirts of Damascus. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported ongoing firefights between Druze local militias and forces tied to Syria’s interior and defense ministries, alongside other loyalist factions. In the nearby town of Jaramana, 17 people were killed the previous day in violence rooted in growing sectarian tensions between the Druze and Sunni groups. Syrian government forces have begun reinforcing their positions near Sahnaya as local security continues to unravel. Israel’s move marks an escalation of its military footprint in southern Syria. Since Assad’s fall, Israeli forces have pushed further into the border region to establish a demilitarized buffer zone. Netanyahu framed the intervention as part of Israel’s longstanding commitment to the Druze, a community that also forms an important minority within Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Ties between the Druze populations on both sides of the border are often familial and culturally strong, and the Israeli government has signaled that any threats to Syria’s Druze would be treated as threats to its own citizens. While couched in humanitarian terms, Israel’s strike also signals broader strategic intentions. With Syria’s central authority fragmented and minority protections uncertain under the new Islamist regime, Israel is likely aiming to both secure its northern border and shape post-Assad power dynamics. The operation also sends a clear warning to Damascus: failure to protect minorities may provoke further Israeli engagement. However, such unilateral moves risk further inflaming regional sectarian tensions and complicating the already volatile post-conflict landscape in Syria.

Cuba has re-imprisoned prominent dissidents José Daniel Ferrer and Félix Navarro just months after their release in a Vatican-brokered agreement, deepening concerns over the island’s human rights climate. The two were taken back into custody on Tuesday after Cuba’s Supreme Court alleged they violated parole conditions. Ferrer’s wife and son were also detained briefly, and activists from his Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU) were reportedly arrested during a raid on the group’s headquarters. The arrests signal a sharp reversal from the tone of the January prisoner release deal, mediated by the late Pope Francis and framed as a gesture of goodwill. At the time, Cuba released 553 detainees, though it disputed their classification as political prisoners. The US, under then-President Joe Biden, briefly removed Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, a decision quickly reversed by Donald Trump upon his return to office. Ferrer, a long-time government critic and former Black Spring detainee, had publicly denounced the Vatican deal as a strategic ploy for international approval. He refused to comply with his parole on principle, calling his original imprisonment unjust. Human rights groups say the re-arrest—just days after the Pope’s funeral—betrays Cuba’s prior commitments and underscores the regime’s tightening grip on dissent. US officials condemned the move, calling it part of a broader crackdown on pro-democracy voices. Ferrer’s sister reported that UNPACU’s facilities were looted and activists taken to undisclosed locations. Though Ferrer’s wife and son have since been released, the dissident leader remains in detention, reigniting international pressure on Havana as rights advocates demand accountability.