Everywhere Insiders 70: India Protests, North Korea and UN Reform

Irina Tsukerman is a New York human rights and national security lawyer, geopolitical analyst, and journalist. She is president of Scarab Rising, Inc., and editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider. Her work addresses information warfare, foreign policy, security strategy, and Middle Eastern affairs. She holds a law degree from Fordham University.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Irina Tsukerman about youth protests in India, North Korea’s response to trafficking allegations, and renewed American funding for UN institutions. Tsukerman argues that governments should address protesters’ grievances, identifies Pyongyang’s messaging as propaganda, and examines how Washington can preserve influence while demanding reform through active diplomacy.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Welcome back to Everywhere Insiders with the Washington Outsider, Irina Tsukerman, and me, Scott Jacobsen. In world news, India detained more than 2,000 protesters on October 10 and locked down parts of Delhi to stop a demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Thousands of police and paramilitary personnel were deployed across the city. Mobile internet services were suspended in central Delhi, and dozens of metro stations and markets were shut down to stop the rally organized by the Cockroach Janta Party. Its founder, Abhijeet Dipke, was also detained.

The opposition says disputed changes to voter lists have affected state election results and benefited Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. The Election Commission and the BJP deny wrongdoing. The commission says eligible voters whose names were incorrectly removed can re-enrol.

I’m not too familiar with polling metrics in India, but deploying thousands of police and paramilitary personnel tells me the authorities are treating this as a major political challenge. The number of security personnel doesn’t establish the number of protesters.

We’re also seeing student protests in France and Belgium over education funding and conditions. Those demonstrations have included clashes with police, so we shouldn’t describe all of them as peaceful. Young people are expressing grievances that extend beyond voting. What are your thoughts on this particular Indian case led by Dipke?

Irina Tsukerman: It’s interesting because it began as a youth-oriented movement around unemployment, examination irregularities, and government accountability. It grew out of a satirical response to a Supreme Court judge’s remarks comparing unemployed young people to cockroaches. Dipke urged protesters to remain peaceful.

It then spread to other issues, including voter-list revisions. They’ve repeatedly challenged the government, and the authorities have responded with restrictions and detentions. The BJP has also dismissed protesters as anarchists. In my opinion, dismissing their grievances is a mistake.

The movement’s leaders have called for peaceful demonstrations. Their demands focus on education, accountability, and electoral rights. Those are legitimate subjects for public protest. Ignoring the grievances risks prolonging the demonstrations, widening their impact, and bringing other groups into the fray.

They’ve kept concrete demands at the centre of the movement. Their success on education gave them political momentum, and they’re now challenging the election authorities. It’s become difficult for the government to dismiss them.

The smartest thing for India’s ruling party to do is address those grievances, take the initiative, and get ahead of the messaging and concerns. Explain why you’re doing what you’re doing, what hasn’t been addressed, and how the problems will be fixed. Then take steps to fix them. That’s the best way to go.

They cannot deliver everything everyone wants instantaneously, but they can announce a phased plan to address educational issues and explain the grounds for removing particular names from the voter rolls. Are those entries duplicates? Do they belong to people who have died or moved out of the constituency? Have eligible voters been removed incorrectly? Those questions need clear answers.

Whatever the reason for a removal, the election authorities need to explain it and provide an accessible way to correct mistakes. The government shouldn’t simply dismiss the protests as agitation.

This movement has been challenging the government since the summer. Restrictions and detentions haven’t resolved the grievances. The response needs to move from containing demonstrations to addressing the issues that brought people into the streets.

It doesn’t necessarily come from ill intent. Addressing or fixing problems takes too long, and the messaging has been poor. There’s also the issue of the ruling party having enjoyed strong political success for years. Once political parties get too comfortable in power, they become more reactive and less proactive in politics and policy.

Some consultants and advisers get too comfortable where they are. They stop doing their jobs properly and become less responsive to voters and activist groups.

There’s a huge difference between activist groups focused on drawing attention to themselves and groups raising legitimate concerns and asking for common-sense changes. I see no reason why governments should not respond to their constituents. Why shouldn’t they take the opportunity to engage these young people instead of alienating them?

If these people are serious, they will want to engage with the government and work together to fix the problems. If they’re not serious, engagement provides an opportunity to expose that. Being reactive and dismissive is a major political blunder, and it will become even more costly if it continues.

Jacobsen: There are also items concerning the Nobel Peace Prize, both about this year’s winner, Navi Pillay, and Mr. Trump’s response. I don’t think we need to belabour those points.

Turning to North Korea, its foreign ministry has criticized the U.S. State Department’s 2026 Trafficking in Persons Report. It accused Washington of having a “vicious and malicious intention to politicize and weaponize human rights.” What are your thoughts on the report and North Korea’s response?

Tsukerman: What was the response?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: North Korea accused the United States of using the trafficking report as an instrument of its hostile policy toward Pyongyang.

Irina Tsukerman: North Korea responds to criticism with attacks on the United States. I’m not surprised that it’s attacking Washington and Western powers or presenting itself as exposing their double standards.

That response doesn’t answer the report’s findings. The report places North Korea in Tier 3 and identifies state-imposed forced labour and trafficking within its system of political repression. Calling the report hostile doesn’t address those practices.

I read this messaging as directed at domestic audiences and governments that share Pyongyang’s hostility toward Washington. Russia and China are central to that political alignment. North Korea has reaffirmed its support for Russia and criticized American military support for Taiwan.

The Taliban has also opened military contacts with North Korea. Their representatives met during Russia’s Centre-2026 exercises to discuss bilateral relations, military experience, training, and professional education.

These governments have their own reasons for opposing Western policy. My assessment is that Pyongyang’s messaging is intended to reinforce those shared political interests as well as its domestic narrative.

I don’t expect these statements to change people’s perceptions of either the United States or North Korea. Releasing them at opportune moments strengthens Pyongyang’s visibility and reinforces its message among existing supporters. That’s the aim I see here.

North Korea’s strategic communications have been clumsy, but they can improve over time. That would make its propaganda more effective.

I hope the people currently in power are paying attention to how Pyongyang uses these communications to reach groups and governments that already oppose Western policy and strengthen its position internationally.

Jacobsen: A very confusing country. Much of the mainstream news has already attracted extensive commentary, so I’m looking for stories we can bring a fresh perspective to.

The United States has pledged tens of millions of dollars to UN organizations in Geneva, including the World Meteorological Organization and the secretariat of CITES, the convention regulating international trade in endangered wild animals and plants.

The WMO confirmed receiving 15.1 million Swiss francs to cover U.S. contributions owed for 2024. Washington also pledged another 2.2 million Swiss francs, while its contributions for 2025 and 2026 remain outstanding. CITES confirmed receiving a funding pledge on September 24 without disclosing the amount.

A State Department spokesperson said, “This payment should not be mistaken for satisfaction with the status quo.” The spokesperson said it recognized reforms already achieved and reflected an expectation of further changes. The Trump administration previously cut UN funding and left contributions unpaid while accusing the organization of waste and inefficiency.

Tsukerman: I’m not surprised by the withholding of money. I’m more surprised that the United States is paying part of its arrears while publicly attacking international institutions. Some of those criticisms have merit, but the tension between the criticism and renewed financial engagement is striking.

I see this as an effort to preserve influence and respond to China’s growing role in international institutions. There’s also a concrete reason to pay: the payment covering its 2024 WMO contributions preserved U.S. voting rights in that organization.

Paying outstanding obligations also gives Washington a stronger position from which to demand reform. It’s difficult to criticize an institution’s performance while withholding the contributions that help it function. Settling arrears removes that objection and lets the United States focus on the substance of its criticism.

Let’s see what happens. It’s worth watching how the United States positions itself at the UN. Paying dues preserves access and voting rights, but influence also requires active diplomacy.

I want to see a more forceful American position on Russia’s war against Ukraine and on Russian and Chinese influence within the UN. If the objective is to regain influence, Washington needs to use the diplomatic tools available to it.

Taking a back seat gives authoritarian governments more room to organize, shape decisions, and advance their interests. I don’t think it serves American interests to leave that space to them.

I don’t think it’s in America’s interest to let these governments grandstand, lobby, obstruct sanctions, or push through resolutions that they then use selectively against the United States and its allies.

Jacobsen: Let’s leave it there. Thank you!

Tsukerman: Sounds good.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a Writer and Editor for The Good Men Project with more than 2,000 publications on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343; 978-1-0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018-7399; Online: ISSN, 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719-6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic, media, and research institution fellowships, and currently serves on numerous international boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), and Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20-0708028), and others.