Ricardo Arduengo/Reuters

Former President Donald Trump applauds as supporters greet him after his New York arraignment, at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida, April 4, 2023.

All the familiar trappings were there: The gilded ballroom at Mar-a-Lago. The walk-on music. The coterie, from “My Pillow guy” Mike Lindell to Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to Donald Trump Jr. 

Former President Donald Trump’s speech at his Florida estate Tuesday night, following that day’s trip to Manhattan for his unprecedented criminal arraignment, was effectively the real launch of his 2024 presidential campaign. 

Unlike his actual hourlong campaign announcement last November – also at Mar-a-Lago – this address lasted just 25 minutes, short by Trump standards. 

Maybe Mr. Trump was trying to demonstrate discipline. After all, he made it through the New York legal proceedings Tuesday in uncharacteristically low-key fashion. Or maybe he was just tired after a long day in which he was formally arrested for 34 felony counts of bookkeeping fraud over hush payments to a porn star, and was instructed by a judge to cool his rhetoric before his next court appearance, scheduled for December. Mr. Trump declared himself “not guilty” of the charges.  

From his supporters’ perspective, the proverbial “witch hunt” has now advanced to a new level. And that’s reflected in the polls. The former president’s support among Republicans had been flagging against his presumed top rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, before news of his pending indictment broke. 

But since March 24, his average support among GOP voters in polls for the 2024 presidential nomination has spiked to 51%, 14 percentage points ahead of Governor DeSantis, who is expected to run but has yet to announce. 

Mr. Trump has also seen a spike in fundraising. Since a Manhattan grand jury voted to indict him last Thursday, his campaign has raised more than $8 million.

Many Republicans are defending Mr. Trump, even some who see him as “unfit for office,” as GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah put it Tuesday. In his statement, Senator Romney said “the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.”

Evan Vucci/AP

Trump supporters await the former president's remarks at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida, April 4, 2023.

Still, it’s early in the 2024 cycle. The Iowa caucuses – the traditional start of the Republican presidential nomination process – are about 300 days away. And over the long term, Mr. Trump’s legal problems – potentially involving multiple cases – could weigh heavily on his candidacy. 

“I’m not saying he can’t win” the Republican nomination or even another term as president, says a Florida-based Republican strategist, speaking on background to protect his relationships with both the Trump and DeSantis camps. But the indictment “has made it harder.”

In other words, regardless of any short-term bump, being indicted is likely to be a negative. Even in a case that may be questionable. 

There are other signs that Republicans may face challenges ahead. 

The victory of the liberal candidate in Tuesday’s critical election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court is another sign that progressives have mojo. In the Wisconsin race, they showed a motivation to turn out in an electoral battleground state over abortion and voting rights.

The more liberal candidate also won Tuesday’s runoff election for Chicago mayor, in a race between two Democrats. The contest was less of a bellwether than in Wisconsin, but Brandon Johnson’s victory was still a sign that left-leaning voters are highly motivated to turn out. 

On Mr. Trump’s candidacy, political analysts are cautious as they game out scenarios for 2024. The idea that Mr. Trump would be easier to defeat in the general election than, say, Mr. DeSantis, sounds reasonable now. The Florida governor, who just won reelection in a major former battleground state by almost 20 percentage points, is in his mid-40s, and has an attractive young family. And he doesn’t carry the baggage that Mr. Trump does. 

Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz celebrates after the race was called for her during her election night watch party in Milwaukee, April 4, 2023.

But some Democrats are warning their party to be careful what they wish for. 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who oversaw the indictment of Mr. Trump, isn’t doing this to help the former president win the nomination, says Democratic strategist Karen Finney. 

“I don’t think anyone should think that,” says Ms. Finney, former communications director for the Democratic National Committee. 

She says Democrats can’t assume Mr. Trump is unelectable in a general election, and definitely shouldn’t try, somehow, to help him win the Republican nomination. 

“Frankly, I’m not convinced on any of the Republicans until we see them all on a debate stage,” Ms. Finney says. “That’s where you really learn and see who’s got it.”

President Joe Biden is expected to announce he’s running for a second term, but has reportedly decided to delay his campaign announcement until this summer or even fall to freeze out any potential rivals. So far, only Marianne Williamson, a bestselling author who ran in 2020, has announced a campaign. 

Meanwhile, the Republican nomination race is only getting started. In Florida, the latest survey by Mason-Dixon Polling, released Tuesday, shows Mr. DeSantis ahead of Mr. Trump in that state for the Republican nomination, 44% to 39%. 

Mr. DeSantis is also at a four-year high in job approval – 59% positive versus 39% disapproval – in the Mason-Dixon poll. But Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon, sees potential challenges ahead for Mr. DeSantis. The Florida legislature has just approved a ban on abortion at six weeks of gestation, far below the current cutoff of 15 weeks. 

Signing the bill could help Mr. DeSantis win the GOP nomination, but put him outside the mainstream of general election voters. 

“That would be a can of worms which, if he wins the nomination, would be a problem in the general election,” Mr. Coker says. 

The strongest democracy in the Americas isn’t the United States or Canada, but a small, quiet nation home to 3 million people and four times as many cows.

Nestled between Argentina and Brazil, Uruguay has long been considered something of an exception in a region of headline-grabbing political turmoil and economic crises. It boasts the highest GDP per capita and lowest poverty rates in Latin America, with a social safety net rivaling some European countries.

To be sure, it’s no utopia: Disparities exist, and many lament what can be a prohibitively high cost of living.

But geographic and historic advantages have laid the foundation for Uruguay’s success story, including lots of pasture, few people, and the absence of a marked social hierarchy dating back to the colonial period, in addition to a culture that prizes civility and moderation. As protests simmer in Peru, migrants fill border cities in Mexico, politicians sow divisions in the U.S., and inflation soars in Argentina, the Uruguayan model seems to be working. How it got here – and what conditions are keeping that balance in place – is increasingly under the microscope.

“There’s a rejection of any politician looking to profit from extreme polarization. That means finding balance,” says Javier Rodríguez Weber, an economic historian at the University of the Republic in Montevideo. Uruguay functions under what’s “like the Goldilocks rule: not too hot, not too cold.” 

Erika Page/The Christian Science Monitor

Main downtown street of Montevideo, Uruguay, March 17, 2023.

Tolerance for inequality

Uruguay’s social equality today is linked to its relative lack of natural riches historically. With no gold or silver to be found during the colonial era, the wealthy in Montevideo were poor compared to elites in Buenos Aires or Mexico City. No entrenched aristocracy or marked social hierarchy took hold as it did in other parts of Latin America.

Free and universal education, public health care, strong unions, and a solid social security system have carried forward that legacy, creating a social balance that reflects the Uruguayan ethos of “nadie es más que nadie,” or nobody is worth more than anybody else. It now has the largest middle class in the Americas, including over 60% of the population.

“Economic inequality generates instability. It’s like a pressure cooker,” says Mr. Rodríguez Weber. “In Uruguay there is less tolerance for inequality than in other countries.”

Uruguay wasn’t always known for its stability. In the 19th century, a series of civil wars racked the nation amid deep political divides. And it was just as susceptible as its neighbors to the wave of dictatorships that swept the region in the 1970s. Its dictatorship lasted from 1973 to 1985.

“Uruguay has achieved what it has because of a large effort to think about how to resolve the problems of political stability, peace, democracy. It took cognitive effort,” says Adolfo Garcé, a political scientist at the University of the Republic.

“There is a stability here that is enviable for any other country in the region,” says Ruben Florencio, a civil servant at the Paraguayan consulate here and who walks along the famous La Rambla shoreline every evening after work. “When you’re not worrying about what you’re going to eat, you can have other ambitions.”

Erika Page/The Christian Science Monitor

Ruben Florencio works at the Paraguayan consulate in Uruguay, La Rambla, Montevideo, March 16, 2023.

Yet as immigrants from across Latin America move to Uruguay to take advantage of its relative calm, reality doesn’t always conform to expectations.  

Rodrigo Alcantara left his native Rio de Janeiro six years ago, tired of the police violence. He opened a vegan Brazilian restaurant in 2021 after decades toiling in kitchens.

“Stability? I haven’t found that yet,” he laughs, rattling off prices of basic goods that continue to surprise him here. “Yes, there’s a certain ease,” he says, like minimal red tape for opening a business, strong laws protecting workers, and the security he feels on the streets.

“But I see a type of poverty that’s more hidden,” he says.

Sitting at a corner table is one of his regulars who sleeps in a homeless shelter. “The country is too small to have this many people living on the streets,” Mr. Alcantara says. Uruguay has essentially eliminated extreme poverty, yet an estimated 2,500 people in Montevideo are homeless.

And those who have found stability have had to be patient. Sofía Ortega sits on the floor of her one-bedroom apartment, framed by the vintage clothes she’s made a business of reselling on Instagram. 

Erika Page/The Christian Science Monitor

Rodrigo Alcantara poses for a photo in his Brazilian pay-by-the-kilo restaurant, Montevideo, Uruguay, March 17, 2023.

“Saving doesn’t exist,” she says. One study recently found that prices of many basic goods were up to three times more expensive in Uruguay than in neighboring Argentina. In her mid-30s, Ms. Ortega is one of the only unmarried people she knows able to afford to rent her own place.

A minimum wage equal to $540 per month means “the low here isn’t so low,” says Cristian Cabrera, who sells crystals in the historic town of Colonia del Sacramento.

Yet moderation isn’t always a good thing, he says. With housing in this area close to 50% of a monthly minimum wage, and basic Wi-Fi around 10%, Mr. Cabrera says he often wonders why no one is protesting more loudly.

“Biggest wealth?”

On a windy afternoon, across a wide avenue from the Legislative Palace in Montevideo, the country’s centralized union is doing just that. Like in France, the government is reforming the retirement system, here raising the age from 60 to 65. Unlike in France, nothing is on fire.

“We are more conciliatory. There is more dialogue. We negotiate more,” says Guillermo García, a union member out protesting. “We can argue about many things, but our unity is not debated.”

These are qualities he says are reflected in politics at large here. New administrations in Uruguay tend to refrain from undoing the work of previous governments, typically a hallmark in Latin American political transitions, and instead tweak details.

Uruguay ranked first in the Americas (and 11th in the world) in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2022 Democracy Index, which takes into consideration aspects like electoral processes, political participation and culture, and civil liberties.

Erika Page/The Christian Science Monitor

Vendor Roberto Martínez and his wife, María Alba Anselmo, pose for a photo in the Cerro neighborhood on the outskirts of Montevideo, Uruguay, March 18, 2023.

The sense of togetherness sometimes “leads to solutions that might not be as efficient as you might want ... but that avoid anybody losing out too badly,” says Adrián Fernández, an economist at the Center for Economic Research in Montevideo.

Despite what are viewed as political traditions keeping the collective good in mind, some Uruguayans fear they aren’t immune to global trends - like a growing threat of polarization. And as Uruguay toes the line between economic stability and stagnation, economists say investment in things like education, science, and technology are necessary to preserve Uruguay’s democratic strength. In 2019, less than 40% of the country’s youth graduated from high school.

On a recent afternoon, Graciela Cotelo scoops spoonfuls of ground beef and onions from a bucket onto sections of dough, then folds them into empanadas in the working-class neighborhood of Cerro. By her side, Jose Anchen dips her handiwork into boiling grease.

Uruguay’s relative prosperity is less obvious here. In the first half of the 20th century, this neighborhood was a thriving industrial area, home to three refrigeration plants that stored meat for export to Europe. Economic contraction following World War II led the plants to close, launching a spiral of economic deterioration.

Ms. Cotelo and Mr. Anchen say the neighborhood is on the mend, in part thanks to housing, employment, and infrastructure projects begun by the leftist coalition Frente Amplio, which came to power in 2004. Much of that work has continued since the more conservative National Party gained a majority in 2020, residents say.

Mr. Anchen didn’t vote for the National Party but says “this new government is doing good things, too.”

Across the street, Roberto Martínez, who sells caps, jerseys, and trinkets, agrees. He wouldn’t choose to live anywhere other than Uruguay. “I always tell my kids, the biggest wealth this country has is its democracy.”

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File

Edward Blum (left) walks with Abigail Fisher, who challenged the use of race in college admissions at the Supreme Court, in Washington, Dec. 9, 2015. The justices upheld affirmative action in that ruling, but this term, the Supreme Court is considering two cases that could end the practice.

Getting even one case before the United States Supreme Court is challenging. You need sound arguments, good plaintiffs, significant resources – and at least four justices willing to hear the case.

Getting eight cases before the high court is another level of potency, especially for someone who, like Edward Blum, isn’t a trained lawyer.

Raised in a “very liberal” home in Houston, the Republican candidate-turned-stockbroker-turned-conservative policy activist has spent the past two decades quietly reshaping American civil rights law. Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 decision voiding a key section of the Voting Rights Act? That was him.

But his more recent efforts have focused on eliminating race-based affirmative action in college admissions. In 2016, the court ruled against him, upholding decades of precedent saying that universities have a compelling interest in attaining diverse student bodies. This term, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) – an organization he founded – has two new cases before the justices. Argued last Halloween, the cases – Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard – challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. 

With the cases still pending, Mr. Blum would not discuss them specifically. He did speak with the Monitor about his career, and his legal and policy beliefs. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you summarize your views on affirmative action, and how you formed those views? 

Well, if by affirmative action you mean a process by which public and private actors treat people differently because of their race and their ethnicity, then that is in grave tension with the founding principles of our civil rights movement. And those principles were that an individual’s race or ethnicity should not be used to help that individual or harm that individual in their life’s endeavors. So my opinion of race-based preferences, race-based classifications – race-based affirmative action, if you will – was born out of the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence to leading up to our Civil Rights acts. 

My views on affirmative action are not controversial. In poll after poll after poll – when asked, “Should race be an element in college admissions?” – significant majorities of African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, whites, Democrats, Republicans are against the use of race in college admissions.

You aren’t a lawyer, but you’ve been active in the federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, for decades. How did that happen?

I’ll give you the CliffsNotes version here. ... [In 1992] I found myself as the Republican nominee running to represent the 18th Congressional District of Texas. In the process of going door to door for nearly a year, I realized that the congressional district was very badly gerrymandered by race. For example, one side of the street, in a garden variety Houston neighborhood, would have, I don’t know, four or five Hispanic households. Across the street, there would be a small apartment complex with mostly African American households. The Hispanics were drawn into one district. ... The African Americans were drawn into another. A block or two north, there would be a cluster of white homes, [and] they would be drawn into a white congressional district. 

This is not how representation in this country was designed. Single-member districts were designed to represent neighborhoods, even if they are multiracial, multiethnic neighborhoods. So I sued the state of Texas – the first lawsuit I ever filed – arguing that the congressional redistricting plan of 1990 was an unconstitutional gerrymander. That went to the Supreme Court, and we, as a group – myself and some other plaintiffs – we won. The state of Texas was compelled to redraw those congressional districts, reuniting multiracial, multiethnic neighborhoods. And that was the beginning of now, 30 years later, somewhere around 35 lawsuits all focusing in on the improper use of race and ethnicity in our public policies. That’s the only thing I have litigated.

SFFA was founded in 2014. How did you come to start that organization?

Our story now begins back in, I think it was 1996, at the University of Texas School of Law. A handful of kids who had been rejected from UT Law in I think 1995 or ‘96 sued the University of Texas School of Law, arguing that the use of race was unconstitutional. The lead plaintiff in that case was a woman by the name of Cheryl Hopwood. Cheryl and her co-plaintiffs won their case, in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the use of race as a factor to achieve diversity at the University of Texas School of Law, and all public institutions of higher education in the Fifth Circuit, which meant that University of Houston, Texas Tech, Sam Houston, UT, all of them, LSU, could no longer use race. That was just in the Fifth Circuit.

In response to that, because African American and Hispanic enrollment dropped significantly – not so much at University of Houston or Texas Tech, but at the two flagship universities – the Texas legislature passed the Top 10 Percent Plan. I think it was in [1997]. So now there’s a state law that says any student graduating in the top 10% of their high school class will be admitted to any public university in the state of Texas, regardless of their SAT scores, or their ACT [scores], or whether they volunteered, it doesn’t matter. Two years after that law went into effect, the number of Hispanics and African Americans at the University of Texas exceeded the number that were attending when race-based affirmative action was a policy. So you follow the sequence of events: all of a sudden, kaboom! This law has created this incredible new racial and geographic diversity at the University of Texas. ... So all of a sudden this is really an interesting laboratory for creating a unique student body.

Now let’s fast forward to 2003 when the issue of – by the way, the University of Texas appealed that to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court declined to take it. So now we’ve got colorblind admissions only in one of the nine circuits in the United States. Now comes [Grutter v. Bollinger], in which the Supreme Court said, No, diversity is a compelling governmental interest. Colleges and universities may use race as an admissions factor. The day that opinion came down, Bill Powers, then president of the University of Texas, issued a press release and stated that in light of the new Supreme Court ruling, we here are going to reinstitute race-based affirmative action. Same day, maybe 3 hours later.

Well, wait a minute. If you read ... [Justice] Sandra Day O’Connor’s Grutter opinion in 2003, she states that before a university turns to race-based classifications and preferences, it must make a good faith effort to find a race-neutral means of achieving a diverse class. Wait a minute, the University of Texas has this race-neutral means. The racial diversity is higher than ever before, and growing. Now you’re going to layer affirmative action preferences back on top of this? That’s wrong. That’s not going to stand up in court. So that was the beginning of the effort to find a plaintiff to challenge the University of Texas’ reintroduction of race. And that’s when Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas.

Her case went to the Supreme Court twice. The first time in 2013, the Supreme Court said to the Fifth Circuit, you’ve applied the wrong deference. Justice [Anthony] Kennedy wrote that opinion. The case went back. Her case then went before the Supreme Court once again, and this time Justice Kennedy said, OK, the University of Texas did everything the right way, and Abigail Fisher, you lose. That happened in 2016. Students for Fair Admissions was formed in 2014 and sued Harvard and UNC in 2014.

Just to clarify your views: Is it your view that universities should be allowed to have a policy like that but there needs to be a very high bar for them to have to do that? Or should they not be able to do that at all? 

No. We believe that there should not be a racial classification box on a student’s application, that universities at the undergraduate and postgraduate level should never use race as an element in college admissions. They will argue that, well, race isn’t the predominant factor, but it is a factor. We believe that it should never be a factor. It shouldn’t be a big factor, a medium factor, or a small factor. Race has no place in American life and law. 

Do you believe, when it comes to education and college education, that a racially and ethnically diverse student body is a benefit educationally for students?

It can be. I’ve thought deeply about this. What your question implies, and what America is in the middle of a long debate about, is diversity. By diversity, I assume you mean visual diversity, skin color diversity. Is it important that we have people at college campuses in educational environments that look different from one another? Well, most Americans don’t believe that how a person looks, or his skin color, or the shape of her eyes, or what her hair might look like tells us much of importance about who that individual is. Is it a benefit to be in an educational environment in which some kids have grown up in very modest, low-income environments and some kids have grown up in very well-to-do professional environments? Is it good for there be some kids who are interested in jazz, and some kids who are interested in soccer, some kids who are deeply religious, some kids who couldn’t care less? Yeah. Is there some benefit to having a diverse group of individuals? Yes, to me that is a benefit.

Now, having said that, there are dozens and dozens of colleges throughout the country in which there is no racial diversity, no skin color diversity on campus. ... Go to University of Texas, El Paso [UTEP], 85% are Hispanic. ... Consider Spelman College. It is considered the most competitive of the historic HBCUs. Spelman, I think, is 98% African American. Are we going to go to Spelman and tell those kids, your educational experience has somehow been diminished because you don’t know any Asian kids, you didn’t hang out in your dorms and your biology classes, and in your English literature classes with [them]? There were no Jews. There were no Hispanics, no whites to speak of. What would the women at Spelman say about that? What would the kid who’s got a petroleum engineering degree coming out of UTEP say? Well, your degree is not as fulsome, your experience hasn’t been as fulsome because there are really no Asians in your class? I don’t think those kids would say, Oh, gee, had I known I really would have gone someplace else.

Beyond this Supreme Court term, and beyond this year, what does the future hold for you and SFFA?

Well, we don’t know yet. I use the pronoun “we,” and I use that because I’m speaking on behalf of our organization. We’ll see. No one knows how the Supreme Court is actually going to rule. There’s common wisdom. I’m very skeptical of common wisdom after having lost a case that we thought Abby [Fisher] would win. We’ll just have to see the breadth and scope of what the Supreme Court writes. It is possible that there are things that need to be litigated post-opinion. It’s a possibility that Students for Fair Admissions will become more of a watchdog organization depending on what the Supreme Court has to say. It’s just hard to say right now. 

Students for Fair Admissions is a membership group. As a membership group, people who had been rejected from Harvard and from UNC joined this organization. We have, I don’t know, like 22,000 members now, dozens of whom were rejected from Harvard and UNC, and other colleges and universities. ... That was a way in which students would not have to have their names made public, because the experience of Abigail Fisher in her second lawsuit was a very, very challenging and a very problematic experience for Abby. In the world of social media, in the world of people finding out your telephone number, people find out where you work, the harassment, the threats, the grave concern that a parent would have if their 17-year-old son were to be identified as a litigant, compelled us to form this membership organization.

I understand a lot of the donations are anonymous. Is that a reason why?

Well, people have different reasons for giving money anonymously, especially individuals who are worried that if their names become public or their corporations become public, the same thing could happen to them as individuals. ... We live in a world in which disagreement is now weaponized. That wasn’t the case 10 or 15 years ago.

At the close of 2022, a European satellite unfurled a glimmering silver sail behind it. The purpose of this appendage was simple: to accelerate the satellite’s self-destruction by pushing it into the Earth’s atmosphere. 

Strange as it may sound at first, this was in fact just the latest in a growing wave of efforts to address a burgeoning problem facing humanity’s endeavors in space – the proliferation of debris and satellites orbiting our planet. 

We have essentially been treating space as a junkyard.

And the challenge is becoming no easier, with the United States granting Amazon authorization in early February to launch more than 3,000 satellites – not to mention a Russian missile that destroyed a defunct Soviet satellite in November 2021, creating a fresh cloud of debris that will endanger spacecraft for years, maybe decades, to come.

There is hope, as the European Space Agency’s silver sail illustrates, but the situation is complex. A plethora of countries and companies now seek to utilize the promise of space, with a range of competing and overlapping priorities. It raises the question of where responsibility lies to tackle this mess – and whether we even care.

“I think until the last few years it wasn’t people being irresponsible,” says Nic Ross, founder and CEO of Niparo, a space sustainability consultancy based in Edinburgh, Scotland. “It was people not even thinking of space as a finite resource.”

A mushrooming launch rate

In recent years, the situation above our skies has shifted dramatically. For decades, since the dawn of the Space Age in the late 1950s, the launch rate of satellites remained fairly stable, but in the past few years, it has exploded.

This exponential growth has been led not by government agencies, which long dominated the arena of space exploration and activities, but rather by commercial enterprises. Starlink, a satellite-based broadband service being rolled out by SpaceX, has already put about 3,500 satellites into orbit.

John Raoux/AP/File

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, carrying a Nilesat 301 geostationary communications satellite, lifts off at Cape Canaveral, Florida, June 8, 2022. In the past few years, the launch rate of satellites has exploded.

To put that in context, there are currently only 7,200 functioning satellites floating above the Earth. And Starlink has received authority to launch a further 7,500 – not to mention Amazon’s Kuiper program, which now has the green light, and OneWeb, another company that already has more than 500 satellites in orbit.

The main worry with the mushrooming population of satellites comes down to one thing: collisions.

The International Space Station has had to take evasive action more than 30 times in its 24-year history to protect astronauts on board. And falling debris has the potential to affect humans on Earth. But for now, the most frequent risks are faced by satellites.

“In ESA, when we have to perform collision avoidance maneuvers, it sometimes causes interruption of service,” says Francesca Letizia, a space debris engineer contracted to the European Space Agency. “At the moment, it’s tolerated because it only happens once in a while, but if you go to a long-term scenario where you have 10 times the number of objects, then maybe the interruption becomes more significant.”

That, of course, assumes the satellites are even able to make the maneuver. In 2009, for example, an inactive Russian satellite, Cosmos 2251, collided with an active satellite owned by the U.S.-based company Iridium. The impact produced thousands of pieces of debris, many of which will still be in orbit decades from now.

Some positive steps

Since that time, monitoring and warning systems have improved, and many modern satellites have self-propulsion capabilities, which allow them to take evasive action if another satellite flies too close. Starlink satellites, for example, have already had to undertake more than 26,000 such maneuvers. The concern is that as particular orbits become ever more crowded, the task of avoiding every conceivable collision will become more difficult. 

And it’s not just other satellites that have to be taken into account. It’s also the hundreds of thousands of pieces of debris hurtling through the same orbits. Some of these originate from accidents – perhaps collisions, or explosions caused by unspent fuel. But some are created intentionally.

“The biggest problem we have right now is countries testing their own missiles against their own satellites,” says Krystal Azelton, director of space applications programs at Secure World Foundation, a U.S.-based organization that promotes cooperative solutions for space sustainability. 

“People on Earth receive immense value from space,” continues Ms Azelton. “It is fragile, it’s not infinite, and it needs to be managed in a way that is sustainable.”

And this cuts to the core of why we should care: The number of industries, down here on Earth, that are reliant on space is only growing. So many of our day-to-day activities now depend upon satellites, not least all the mapping and navigation on our phones. Yet a recent report indicates that the vast majority of us deeply underestimate the role that space plays in supporting our way of life.

Magnets and harpoons

Efforts are afoot to address the threats. On the one hand, for example, there are companies seeking to remove objects in orbit that are no longer functional – a process known as active debris removal. Concepts include the space equivalent of a net, a magnet, or a harpoon.

One of the most recent trials involved small-scale plasma thrusters attached to a CubeSat (miniature satellite), enabling it to power itself into Earth’s atmosphere and burn up once its mission is over. CubeSats, which can be as small as a tissue box, are responsible for a big chunk of the ballooning satellite population, so finding ways to facilitate their de-orbit could produce outsize returns in efforts to keep space a little cleaner.

Another approach is to minimize the creation of further debris, largely by fostering international agreement on what the norms of behavior should be. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, for example, has set down the guideline that all satellites in low Earth orbit should be removed from that orbit within 25 years of end of mission – a number that the U.S. recently unilaterally reduced to five years. 

Of course, much of this hinges on whether nations abide by the frameworks, and how they value responsibility in their national policies. But many analysts agree that while there are gaps and deficiencies, it is in the interests of all parties, both public and private, to keep space usable; self-interest, in other words, generally encourages compliance.

Yet some space experts argue the solutions run deeper than just addressing the physical congestion in certain orbits.

“I think we can solve this”

“When I look at the definition of space sustainability, I question whether or not the guidelines we have actually fit within the framework that space is for everybody,” says Hugh Lewis, a professor of astronautics at the University of Southampton in England. “For me, it’s shifted from a typical engineering problem to something that’s centered around ethics, morals, and responsibility.”

Dr. Lewis, who represents the U.K. Space Agency at the interagency committee, notes that all of humanity has an interest in space, yet a relatively small number of nations have held sway there. Newcomer nations must by definition adapt to frameworks set by established heavyweights, and fit in where they can. 

That’s the case even though, as Spock from “Star Trek” put it, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Another problem highlighted by both Dr. Lewis and Dr. Ross of Niparo is the way satellites are so often de-orbited by simply directing them into Earth’s atmosphere and letting the colossal pressures and temperatures involved essentially vaporize the spacecraft. This tosses aside the notion of a circular economy that reuses materials, and raises concerns about the effects on the atmosphere when those materials are deposited in its upper reaches.

“I think I’ve been quite pessimistic, but ... collectively, as humanity, I think we can solve this, just as I hope for with things like climate change,” says Dr. Lewis.  

“I think we’re very good at giving ourselves the worst case to dig out of, and that’s certainly where we’ll end up with space debris as well, but I have hope we can dig ourselves out and find solutions.”

AP

Afghan women chant and hold signs of protest during a demonstration in Kabul, Afghanistan, March 26.

The ruling Taliban in Afghanistan took another step on Tuesday toward limiting the place of women by banning them from working for United Nations agencies in Afghan society. Two days earlier, the government in neighboring Iran decreed that all state universities must bar female students from their classrooms if they are not wearing traditional headscarves known as hijabs.

There was a time when measures denying women equal rights would hardly have raised an eyebrow in Central Asia – a region where women face persistent domestic violence, and a “high prevalence of restrictive gender norms” undermines female participation in education and economic activity, according to the World Bank.

Yet there are signs that those norms are cracking. Across the region, civil society groups devoted to gender equality are growing more numerous and vocal. And in one sign that the Taliban’s violent reversal of rights for girls and women in Afghanistan is resonating poorly, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan have opened their schools to Afghan girls under a scholarship program funded by the European Union.

“All Central Asian countries face similar problems in the field of gender equality,” said Madina Jarbussynova, a former Kazakh diplomat now serving as consultant to the U.N. on women’s issues. She told The Astana Times that “there is a need to deepen processes of removing obstacles to the full involvement of women in economic, social, and political spheres of development.”

Her country is setting the pace. In 2020, Kazakhstan adopted quotas requiring that at least 30% of any political party’s candidates for Parliament or local assemblies had to be female. The new rule had two motives: to boost the country’s credibility in international economic blocs and to ensure that more politicians understood the needs of women and youth.

Since then, the country has joined international campaigns against gender-based violence, eliminated an official list limiting women to certain jobs, opened entrepreneurship development centers for women across the country, and created the region’s first ministry for women’s economic development. More than 30% of Kazakhstan’s tech students are now female. So are 45% of small-business owners in the country. The country rose 15 places in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report.

Elsewhere in the region, Uzbekistan has created programs and scholarships to boost education for girls in science and engineering. Last month, Kyrgyzstan hosted an international conference including governments, civil society groups, and educators on harnessing digital data to promote gender equality in education and employment.

Initiatives like these reflect a region attempting to bridge its traditional social norms with a more modern recognition that women are essential to economic development – a process that one Uzbek teacher argued should result in “all the conditions for the full support of women ... to reveal their talents and aspirations.” That message may be getting harder for the Taliban to ignore.