App Store

Google Play

DK - Details page - Device banner - 894x1036

Nyd den ubegrænsede adgang til tusindvis af spændende e- og lydbøger - helt gratis

Lyt når som helst, hvor som helst 

BBC World Service

The Inquiry gets beyond the headlines to explore the trends, forces and ideas shaping the world.

The Inquiry

The major rivers of the Rio Grande and the Colorado run through both the United States and Mexico and they are the source of a water sharing agreement between the two countries that dates back to 1944. 

Under the terms of this treaty, Mexico must send 430 million cubic metres of water per year from the Rio Grande to the US, to supply Texas and dozens of cities near the border. Whilst the US sends a much larger allocation of nearly 1.85 billion cubic metres of water a year, from the Colorado River to supply Mexico’s border cities like Mexicali and Tijuana. 

But 80 years on, a deepening row over a shortage of water has put the treaty in jeopardy. Mexico is in arrears and has failed to keep up with its water deliveries to the US for much of this century and its unlikely to meet its obligation this year too. Farmers on both sides are struggling to water their crops, whilst the border cities are facing water shortages for both their populations and industries. And pressure on Mexico is mounting with President Trump earlier this year accusing Mexico of ‘stealing’ the water. 

So this week on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Why does Mexico owe the US water?’

Contributors: 
Stephen Mumme, Emeritus Professor in Political Science, Colorado State University, USA
Dr Rosario Sanchez, Senior Research Scientist, Texas Water Resources Institute, USA 
Susanne Schmeier, Professor in Water Co-operation, Law and Diplomacy, IHE Delft, The Netherlands. 
Naho Mirumachi, Professor in Environmental Politics, King’s College, London, UK 

Presenter: Gary O’Donoghue
Producer: Jill Collins
Researcher: Maeve Schaeffer 
Technical Producer: Craig Boardman
Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey
Editor: Tom Bigwood

{Photo: The Rio Grande River and surrounding land that divides the USA and Mexico. Credit: Daniel Slim/Getty Images)

Why does Mexico owe the US water?

Deepfakes are videos, picture or audio clips made with artificial intelligence to look real.

Although sometimes used for fun, they can also be used to defame or discredit people. Anyone from politicians to celebrities to normal members of the public can become the subject of deepfake imagery. So how can we protect our image from being used maliciously?

In Denmark, the government is proposing a new law which would give people copyright-like protection over their face, voice, and appearance. In this edition of the Inquiry, Tanya Beckett explores how the new law would work and asks how do we strike a balance between Big Tech and AI innovation and the need to protect our identity?

Contributors:

Gitte Løvgren Larsen, Lawyer and partner, Sirius Advocator, Denmark

Dr Alina Trapova, lecturer (Assistant Prof), Intellectual property law, University College London

Ignacio Cofone, Professor of Law and Regulation of AI, University of Oxford

Mikkel Flyverbom, Professor of Communication and Digital Transformations, Copenhagen Business School

Presenter: Tanya Beckett 
Producer: Emma Forde 
Researcher: Matt Toulson 
Technical Producer: Richard Hannaford 
Production Coordinator: Tammy Snow
Editor: Louise Clarke
 
(Photo: Digital human head. Credit: imaginima/Getty Images)

Is it time to copyright your face?

In January, the popular Chinese social media app TikTok went offline for its 170 million Americans. The outage marked a turning point in a long-running dispute over data privacy and national security, with US lawmakers concerned about the app’s Chinese ownership. A law passed by Congress required ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, to sell its US operations or face a ban.
 
Although ByteDance did not meet the deadline, the newly inaugurated President Trump postponed enforcement, introducing a timeline for a potential sale. That deadline has since been extended multiple times, with the current cutoff now set for 17 September. But with complex negotiations still underway and Beijing reluctant to approve any deal, Trump has signalled he may grant yet another extension leaving the app’s fate in the US uncertain.
 
This week on The Inquiry, we’re asking: Is it time up for TikTok in the US?

Contributors:
Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota 
Dr Joanne Gray, Senior Lecturer in Digital Cultures in the Discipline of Media and Communications at the University of Sydney
Anupam Chander, Professor of Law and Technology at Georgetown University 
Isabella Wilkinson, Research Fellow in the Digital Society Initiative at Chatham House 

Presenter: David Baker
Producer: Matt Toulson
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer
Editor: Louise Clarke
Technical Producer: James Bradshaw
Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey

(Photo: TikTok message announcing a ban. Credit: NurPhoto/Getty Images)

Is time up for TikTok in the US?

A far-right party which came to prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic recently showed itself to be a contender to Japan’s centrist political establishment, when it grew from one seat, three years ago to 15 seats in the recent elections. 

Known as Sanseito, the party is led by Kamiya Sohei, whose YouTube videos spread conspiracy theories about vaccinations. Its political platform is a nationalist ‘Japanese first’ agenda and warns against a ‘silent invasion of foreigners’. 

Whilst for Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party coalition, the election results were bruising. The LDP lost its majority in the Upper House, having already lost control of the Lower House last year. But its embattled Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, whilst facing calls from within his party to resign, has said he has no plans to quit. 

Against this backdrop, there’s a growing unease amongst Japanese voters over issues like immigration, over-tourism and the economy and Sanseito are tapping into that. 

Joining us to discuss Japan's political climate are Kenneth Mori McElwain, professor of Comparative Politics, University of Tokyo, Japan; Dr Fabian Schäfer, chair of Japanese Studies, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany; Jeffrey Hall, author and lecturer, Kanda University of International Studies, Eastern Japan; Dr Kristi Govella, associate professor of Japanese Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, UK.

Presenter: William Crawley
Producer: Jill Collins 
Researcher: Evie Yabsley 
Technical producer: Craig Boardman
Production management assistant: Liam Morrey
Editor: Tara McDermott

Image credit: Reuters via BBC Images

Is Japan moving to the right?

Children in Indonesia are now receiving free school meals — part of a bold new plan by President Prabowo Subianto to tackle malnutrition.
Around one in five children in the country are stunted, meaning they are too short for their age.
The lunch programme is central to Prabowo’s vision of a “Golden Indonesia” – a prosperous, high-income nation by 2045.
But not everyone is happy.
To fund this and other populist pledges, the president has reallocated billions in public funds, cutting budgets from ministries including health and education.
There have also been reports of food poisoning linked to the programme.
Meanwhile, millions of Indonesians are struggling. The International Monetary Fund warns the country's unemployment rate will rise to 5% this year — the highest among the Southeast Asian economies it tracks.
On this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking: ‘Can Indonesia afford free lunches?’
Contributors:
Dini Widiastuti, Executive Director, Yayasan Plan International Indonesia
Julia Lau, Senior Fellow and Coordinator, Indonesia Studies Programme, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore
Dr Suman Chakrabarti, Associate Research Fellow in the Nutrition, Diets, and Health Unit, International Food Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, India
Bhima Yudhistira, Executive Director, Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), Indonesia

Presenter: Tanya Beckett 
Producer: Vicky Farncombe
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer 
Editor: Tara McDermott 
Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards
Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey

Image Credit: Dimas Rachmatsyah via Getty Images

Can Indonesia afford free lunches?

When the war in Ukraine began back in February 2022, the remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicle or drone as its commonly known, was peripheral to the conflict. But three years on, the drone in all its shapes and sizes has taken on a central role in this battle, in the air, on land and at sea, for surveillance, reconnaissance, combat and other purposes. Now drone technology is evolving even further into the area of autonomous weapons.
But whilst the drone can offer greater strategic and operational flexibility and a possible reduction in the number of military casualties, there are concerns that the drone, particularly in Ukraine’s case, has prolonged the war. 
Only last year the United Nations reported that 118 countries now had military drones, along with at least 65 non-state actors. And as an increasing number of countries have begun to manufacture and export their own array of military drones, many are concerned about how drone technology is presenting a big challenge in terms of defensive measures. 
So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘How are drones changing the landscape of modern warfare? 
Contributors: 
James Patton Rogers, Author and Executive Director, Brooks Tech Policy Institute, Cornell University, New York State, USA. 
Dr Oleksandra Molloy, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia 
Stacie Pettyjohn, Director of the Defence Programme, Centre for A New American Security, Washington DC. USA. 
Dr. Elke Schwarz, Professor of Political Theory, Queen Mary University, London, UK

Presenter: Gary O’Donoghue 
Producer: Jill Collins 
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer 
Editor: Tara McDermott 
Technical Producer: Toby James 
Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey

Image credit SOPA via Getty Images

How are drones changing the landscape of modern warfare?

In July, a brutal highway hijacking in southern Syria sparked tit-for-tat clashes between Druze and Bedouin fighters. 

During the week-long violence, over a thousand people were killed and more than 125,000 displaced. Syrian government forces and Israel also entered the conflict.

The latest hostilities come less than a year after Syrians celebrated the end of dictatorship and the promise of renewal. The resurgence of sectarian violence raises urgent questions about interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s leadership and whether his government can truly unify a fractured nation.

What does Syria’s recent conflict tell us about al-Sharaa’s presidency?

Contributors: Dr Rim Turkmani, Research Fellow at Director of Syria Conflict Research Programme (CRP); Makram Rabah, Assistant professor of history at the American University of Beirut; Dr Rahaf Aldoughli, Middle East and North African Studies at Lancaster University; Dr Burcu Ozcelik, Senior Research Fellow for Middle East Security at the Royal United Services Institute. 

Presenter: Tanya Beckett
Producer: Matt Toulson
Researcher: Evie Yabsley
Technical Producer: Richard Hannaford
Editor: Tara McDermott

Image credit Reuters via BBC Images

What does Syria’s recent conflict tell us about al-Sharaa’s presidency?

What lies behind the clashes on the Thai Cambodian border is a fractured friendship between the two nations. 

In July both countries strike each other with civilians killed and injured in the crossfire. More than a hundred thousand are evacuated. 

Thailand warns the clashes could escalate to war. In May a brief gunfire exchange killed a Cambodian soldier. Just over two weeks later surprising details from a recorded private phone conversation went public. 

On that 17-minute call to Cambodia was Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. It was supposed to defuse the situation - instead it has erupted.

Away from the border, there’s been public outrage in Thailand, a major prime ministerial setback, fractured friendships, diplomatic ties downgraded and even more political pressure on a far from robust government.

Contributors: · 
Dr Petra Alderman, Centre manager at the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science 
Dr Thitinan Pongsudhirak, Professor and senior fellow of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University 
Dr Vu Lam, Lecturer at the University of New South Wales 
Dr Pavida Pananond, Professor of International Business and Strategy at Thammasat University’s Business School based in Bangkok 

Presented by Charmaine Cozier 
Produced by Daniel Rosney 
Researched by Evie Yabsley 
Technical producer Criag Boardman 
Production Management Assistant Liam Morrey 
Editor Tara McDermott

Image credit: Lillian Suwanrumpha via Getty Images

How has one leaked phone call shaken Thai politics?

In Chile, a powerful new telescope has just given a taster of what we can expect from it later this year, when it will be used to survey the cosmos over a ten-year period. In one image it revealed vast colourful gas and dust clouds swirling in a star-forming region 9,000 light years from the Earth. 

Housed in the Vera C Rubin Observatory, which sits on a mountain in the Chilean Andes, the telescope is designed to get giant images of the sky about one hundred times larger and quicker than any other existing telescope can achieve. It contains the world’s most largest digital camera, the size of a large car. 

When the Legacy Survey of Space and Time begins towards the end of 2025, the camera will film the entire Southern hemisphere night sky for the next decade, every three days, repeating the process over and over. And it will focus on four areas: mapping changes in the skies or transient objects, the formation of the Milky Way, mapping the Solar System and understanding dark matter or how the universe formed. 

So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking, ‘What will Chile’s latest telescope tell us about the Universe?’

Contributors: 
Catherine Heymans, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Edinburgh, Astronomer Royal for Scotland, UK 
Željko Ivezić, Director of Rubin Construction, Professor of Astronomy, University of Washington, USA
Dr. Megan Schwamb, Planetary Astronomer, Reader, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Dr. Burçin Mutlu-Pakdil, Observational Astronomer, Assistant Professor, Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, USA

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier 
Producers: Louise Clarke and Jill Collins 
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer
Editor: Tara McDermott 
Technical Producer: Craig Boardman
Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey 

Image Credit: Anadolu via Getty Images

What will Chile’s latest telescope tell us about the universe?

More and more of the tasks we perform in our daily lives are been guided by artificial intelligence, from searching the internet for answers to relying on satellite navigation in our cars. But studies recently released suggest that our use of AI is having a negative impact on our ability to make informed judgements and decisions. In one recent study from MiT’s Media Lab, a group of people were asked to write several essays. Some of them used AI, others didn’t. Those who used generative AI reportedly became lazier with each subsequent essay. 

This cognitive offloading, allowing AI to take over from our brains might be less taxing, but there are concerns that if we come to rely on AI, we are in danger of replacing our own critical thinking for a technology that might not always come up with the right answer. 

However, there are those who argue that AI can be beneficial in helping our cognitive function, that it can be employed to take on the more mundane, repetitive tasks, freeing up headspace to allow us to become more productive. Software education platforms are just one example where AI is been employed to assist teachers in things like knowledge checks and grading, with the claim that it allows them time for more valuable interaction with their students. 

So is it possible to find a balance where we can we can rely on AI but not to the extent were we lose our mental agility.
On this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking "Is AI eroding our critical thinking?’

Contributors:
Dr. Daniel Willingham, Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia, USA 
Dr. Michael Gerlich, Professor of Management, SBS Swiss Business School, Zurich, Switzerland
Yvonne Soh, Co-founder and CEO, Noodle Factory, Singapore 
Sana Khareghani, Professor of Practice in AI, AI Policy Lead for Responsible AI UK Programme, King’s College, London 

Presenter: Tanya Beckett 
Producer: Jill Collins 
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer 
Editor: Tara McDermott 
Technical Producer: Craig Boardman
Production Co-ordinator: Tammy Snow
Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey

Image credit: Surasak Suwanmake via Getty Images

Is AI eroding our critical thinking?

China’s decades-long One Child Policy has led to a low birth rate, and a shrinking workforce. It has also been placing a heavy burden on the younger generations who will have to support two parents and four grandparents. It’s predicted that in five years’ time, a quarter of the population will be over 65. With a smaller workforce, the country risks becoming poorer.

China tried to address the problem by allowing couples to have two children instead of one, but except for an initial uptick, the birth rate has continued to fall regardless. So now China has introduced a three-child policy. But couples continue to worry about the lack of affordable childcare, and the high financial and emotional cost of raising children. So in this edition of The Inquiry, Tanya Beckett asks: can China raise its birth rate? 

Producer: Arlene Gregorius

(A mother and her child waving Chinese flags near Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China. Photo: Peter Parks/Getty Images)

Can China raise its birth rate?

Lyt når som helst, hvor som helst

Other podcasts you might like ...