app_store_button

google_play_button

Copy of Device Banner Block 894x1036 3

Descubre un mundo infinito de historias

Escucha y lee

BBC World Service

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

The Inquiry

In the aftermath of World War Two, the charter that founded the United Nations was signed, with the aim of preventing a third global conflict. The UN Security Council, one of six organs of the UN, has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It’s made up of 15 member countries, there are 10 rotating non-permanent members who are elected for two-year terms by members of the UN General Assembly, the body that represents all UN members. And there are five permanent members – the US, the UK, France, China and Russia; it’s these five that have veto power. 

Now 80 years on, there are growing calls for the council to reflect the world of today, not only in its representation, but in the way it functions. Criticisms of this international body include abuse of the veto power, lack of permanent representation for countries which have seen more than their fair share of conflict and an inability to reach common consensus, including on how to reform the organisation from within. 

So, on The Inquiry this week we’re asking, ‘Is the UN Security Council still relevant?’

Contributors: 
Devika Hovell, Prof International Law, London School of Economics, UK 
Richard Gowan, Director, UN and Multilateral Diplomacy, International Crisis Group, New York, USA
Dr Samir Puri, Director, Global Governance and Security Centre, Chatham House, London, UK 
Mona Ali Khalil, former Senior Legal Officer, UN Office of the Legal Counsel, Co-Editor and Co-Author, ‘Empowering the UN Security Council: Reforms to Address Modern Threats’, Vienna, Austria. 

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier
Producer: Jill Collins
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer 
Technical Producer: Craig Boardman
Editor: Tom Bigwood 

(Photo: United Nations Security Council meeting. Credit: Reuters/BBC Images)

Is the UN Security Council still relevant?

Benin has long tried to highlight its role in the transatlantic slave trade through monuments and memorials in the country, in the hope it would attract tourism.

Now it has a new plan.

It is offering citizenship to descendants of enslaved Africans around the world.

US singers Lauryn Hill and Ciara received their citizenship in July. Filmmaker Spike Lee and his wife Tonya Lewis Lee have also been made Benin’s ambassadors to the African-American population in America.

The move is an attempt to attract talent and money to its shores and showcase the nation’s culture and traditions to a wider audience.

This week on The Inquiry we’re asking: Can Benin win back its diaspora?

Contributors:
Dr Bayo Holsey, Association Professor, African American Studies and Anthropology at Emory University, United States
Ana Lucia Araujo, Professor in the Department of History at Howard University, United States
Dr Leonard Wantchekon, Founder and President of the African School of Economics
Tonya Lewis Lee, filmmaker and entrepreneur

Presenter: Tanya Beckett
Producer: Daniel Rosney
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer
Technical producer: Nicky Edwards
Production Co-ordinator: Hattie Valentine
Editor: Tom Bigwood

(Photo: Ciara receiving citizenship of Benin. Credit: Government of Benin)

Can Benin win back its diaspora?

At the beginning of September 2025, within 48 hours, Nepal’s government had been toppled, and more than 70 people had been killed, with many more injured. The trigger for all of this had been a government ban on 26 social media platforms, but the primary reasons ran much deeper. Nepal became a republic in 2008, following a decade long civil war, but since then, the promised stability and prosperity have failed to materialise. The country has been subjected to short term coalition governments, resembling a game of musical chairs between certain political parties.
 
And it was Nepal’s Gen Z, who decided to make their frustrations over the lack of opportunities, the social inequality and the existing political system known, with their digitally driven anti-corruption protests. In the aftermath, the protestors gave their approval to a new interim prime minister and demanded new elections, set for March next year.

Asia is increasingly witnessing a mood for change amongst its young people, from Indonesia to Sri Lanka and last year’s student-led revolution in Bangladesh. But very few protests of this nature have translated into fundamental social change. And it remains to be seen if the decision by Nepal’s Gen Z, to place their trust in 73-year-old Sushila Karki as the new Interim Prime Minister, reflects their own political maturity. 
 
So, on this week’s Inquiry we’re asking, ‘Can Gen Z shape a new Nepal?’

Contributors: 
Prof Jeevan Sharma, Chair of South Asia and International Development, University of Edinburgh, UK 
Pranaya Rana, Journalist and Writer, Kalam Weekly, Kathmandu, Nepal
Prof Sreeradha Datta, International Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana, India
Dr Rumela Sen, Lecturer and Faculty Director, Master’s in International Affairs programme, Columbia University, USA

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier
Producer: Jill Collins
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer 
Production Co-ordinator: Tim Fernley
Technical Producer: James Bradshaw
Editor: Tom Bigwood

(Photo: Anti government protest in Kathmandu. Credit: Sunil Pradhan/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Can Gen Z shape a new Nepal?

Donald Trump once dismissed cryptocurrencies as a scam. But since returning to office, his view of them has shifted dramatically. 

In July, President Trump signed new legislation aimed at integrating crypto into the financial mainstream. Members of the Trump family have launched their own ventures, generating significant profits and boosting the visibility of digital currencies in American politics. 

Supporters say this could reassert the dominance of the US dollar in a changing global economy, while critics warn of economic volatility and regulatory gaps. How did crypto go from fringe to front-and-centre in Trump’s economic vision?

This week on The Inquiry, we’re asking: Is Trump building a crypto economy?

Contributors:
Molly White, writer for the Citation Needed Newsletter in the US
Francine McKenna, Lecturer at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, US
Will Grant, BBC's Mexico, Central America and Caribbean correspondent
Gillian Tett, Provost of King's College, Cambridge, UK

Presenter: Tanya Beckett
Producers: Ben Henderson and Matt Toulson
Researcher: Evie Yabsley 
Editor: Tom Bigwood 
Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards
Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey

(Photo: President Donald Trump displays the GENIUS Act on 18 July 2025. Credit: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

Is Trump building a crypto economy?

Lyme disease is a bacterial infection passed on to humans by infected ticks. Symptoms can range from fatigue, joint pain and a circular shaped rash to facial paralysis and heart arrythmia. 

According to a British Medical Journal (BMJ) global health review, Lyme disease has likely infected about one in 10 people across the globe. 

Recently, pop star Justin Timberlake went public about contracting the condition. 

If treated quickly, most people will recover but there are still issues around diagnosing and treating Lyme disease. 

And globally, cases are on the rise. In this edition of The Inquiry, Charmaine Cozier explores what's behind the increase and hears about new tests and vaccines currently being developed. 

Contributors: 
Dr Sally Mavin, clinical scientist and Director of the Scottish Lyme Disease and Tick-Borne Infections Reference Laboratory, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, Scotland
Dr Armin Alaedini, Chief Scientific Officer, Global Lyme Alliance
Dr Gábor Földvári, research group leader, Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Evolution, Budapest, Hungary
Dr Alessandra Luchini, Professor, School of Systems Biology, George Mason University, USA

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier
Producers: Jill Collins and Emma Forde
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer
Technical producer: Richard Hannaford 
Production Coordinator: Tammy Snow
Editor: Tara McDermott

(Photo: Tweezers removing a forest tick from human body. Credit: rbkomar/Getty Images)

Why are more people getting Lyme disease?

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?

In August this year, a US court in Washington DC ruled that Google acted illegally to crush its competition and maintain a monopoly on online search and related advertising. This is just one of a number of lawsuits that have been filed against the big tech companies, as US antitrust authorities attempt to strengthen competition in the industry. 

Now Google is facing another legal case in Virginia, USA, over its advertising technology. Whilst in Europe it has been fined billions in monopoly cases. 
Google themselves dispute they are a ‘monopolist’ and presented evidence in the US court case in August to show that they face ‘fierce competition from a broad range of competitors’. The court did find Google’s search to be ‘superior’ to its competitors. And Google’s executives say consumers stick with them because they find Google ‘helpful’. 

Google is everywhere in our online lives and it handles billions of search queries every day, so on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Can we trust Google?’

Contributors: 
David Vise, Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist and Author of ‘The Google Story’, New York, USA 
Professor Douglas Melamed, Visiting Fellow, Stanford Law School, Washington, DC. USA 
Jonathan Stray, Senior Scientist, UC Berkeley Center for Human-Compatible AI, California, USA 
Cristina Caffarra, Independent Expert Economist, Honorary Professor, UCL, London, UK 

Presenter: David Baker 
Producer: Jill Collins 
Researcher: Matt Toulson 
Editor: Tara McDermott 
Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards 
Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson

Image Credit: Reuters/Steve Marcus

Can we trust Google?

Escucha y lee

Otros podcasts que te pueden gustar...