Everywhere Insiders 15: Nepal Unrest, WHO Updates, Egypt Crackdown, Niger Delta

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, she outlines Nepal’s youth-led protests, mounting death tolls, arson, mass prison breaks, border spillovers, and leadership change from K.P. Sharma Oli to interim prime minister Sushila Karki, urging caution with unconfirmed reports and foreign-influence claims. She welcomes new WHO guidance on diabetes and albinism, linking health, education, and protection. In Egypt, she reads morality-law prosecutions as a distraction and factional power play amid economic strain. In Nigeria’s Niger Delta, she warns accountability often lags where governments are complicit.

Interview conducted September 12. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today’s sources include Amnesty International, Reuters, the UN system’s press reporting, AP, and major regional outlets. In Nepal, there is an active push for accountability after a deadly crackdown on youth-led (“Gen Z”) protests that erupted in early September 2025. Amnesty International called for an independent investigation on September 8, initially citing at least 19 dead and more than 100 injured.

The protests were driven by anger over corruption and a short-lived government order that banned 26 social-media platforms (among them LinkedIn and Signal). The ban itself became a flashpoint and helped swell the crowds.

The death toll rose as the week went on: AP reported at least 51 dead after curfews were lifted and calm started to return; Nepal’s Health Ministry then raised the count to 72, according to Reuters, with more than 2,100 injured.

Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli resigned amid the unrest. Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was sworn in as interim prime minister—the first woman to hold the post—tasked with stabilizing the country and preparing for elections. Reuters reports she has pledged transparency and jobs-focused reforms; AP also notes compensation and medical support commitments for victims. Any thoughts?

Irina Tsukerman: During the chaos, coordinated prison breaks occurred nationwide. Reports from Nepali and international outlets indicate roughly 13,000–15,000 inmates escaped from more than two dozen facilities; thousands remain at large, while authorities have recaptured several thousand. Some escapees were intercepted along the India–Nepal border.

There were severe arson attacks on public buildings and private residences. Multiple outlets reported that the house of former Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal was set ablaze. Several Indian and Nepali outlets said his wife, Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar, died of burn injuries; at least one fact-check later said she was alive and recovering. Due to conflicting reports, this detail should be considered unconfirmed until an authoritative update is provided.

Regional spillovers are tangible: Indian border forces have detained escapees crossing rivers into Uttarakhand, and Kathmandu’s airport and key government sites were attacked or shut temporarily during the peak of unrest.

Claims that the movement was directed by “foreign malign influencers,” organized crime, or a coordinated royalist–Maoist front are not substantiated in the mainstream reporting above; I have removed them. There were separate, earlier 2025 pro-monarchy mobilizations in Nepal, but that is distinct from the September anti-corruption protests and should not be conflated.

Jacobsen: The World Health Organization has issued new guidelines. It looks like a big win, actually—addressing both people with albinism and people with diabetes. One is probably less updated, the other more urgent, but both are serious. 

Tsukerman: Diabetes has been a growing problem worldwide, especially in the Middle East, partly due to dietary issues.

For the first time, data now show that children are suffering more from obesity than from undernourishment. So the guidelines emphasize health advice related to diet, exercise, stress management, and other contributing factors, as well as genetic complications that can lead to more children being born with diabetes.

The albinism part is less intuitive at first glance. Albinism is a relatively rare genetic condition, and in Western contexts, it is not typically viewed as a significant public health issue. But in some African countries, there have been literal witch hunts targeting people with albinism. In Tanzania and elsewhere, deep-rooted superstitions and disinformation surround this condition. Some individuals with albinism are treated as supernatural beings, viewed with suspicion, or, in the most horrifying cases, hunted.

There is a belief in specific regions that the body parts or blood of people with albinism can be used in rituals to cure illnesses, remove hexes, or provide magical protection. These superstitions, fueled by poverty, lack of education, and the spread of unchecked misinformation on social media, make individuals with albinism extremely vulnerable.

Because of this, people with albinism often face severe discrimination. At best, they may be ostracized, harassed, or bullied. At worst, they may be murdered and used in occult rituals to advance the goals of witchcraft-oriented groups.

It is terrifying, and governments in affected countries have limited resources to fight these beliefs. Weak governance, poor education systems, poverty, unemployment, social instability, and high crime rates all prevent intense action. The WHO’s guidelines are likely aimed at providing basic public education to counter superstition and protect vulnerable people.

Even though albinism is rare, persecution is systematic and widespread enough to demand international attention. It stems from complete misunderstanding of genetics and mutations, and it has left people with albinism among the most at-risk groups in parts of Africa.

Jacobsen: There has been a mass crackdown on online content creators in Egypt. Prosecutors are charging them under the pretext of violating “family values” and “public morals.” Mir Madi, Senior Middle East Researcher at Human Rights Watch, stated: “Egyptian authorities’ campaign against online content creators seems intended to quell the last vestiges of space for free expression in the country… This is part of the government’s relentless attempt to criminalize all forms of expression that do not conform to its political or social views.”

The criminal charges are being brought under Article 25 of Law No. 175 (2018) on cybercrime, which cites “violating family principles or values in Egyptian society.” Punishments range from six months to three years in prison, plus hefty fines, which are hefty relative to Egyptian income levels.

Tsukerman: It is not a coincidence that this crackdown began now. The Egyptian economy has been in crisis for years. While there has been modest growth recently, most of the population still struggles. At the same time, upheavals and demonstrations related to Gaza have increased pressure. Pro–Muslim Brotherhood groups have been demonstrating at Egyptian embassies abroad, accusing Egypt of not doing enough to support Gaza.

Inside Egypt, political tensions have intensified. Various groups are seizing on economic grievances to push their own agendas, hoping to destabilize the government and bring themselves to power. Analysts have even warned of a potential “new Arab Spring,” once again rooted in economic discontent but linked with broader political goals.

This crackdown serves multiple purposes. First, it diverts attention away from issues the government cannot easily manage. Second, it reflects the rising influence of conservative elements within the state. These groups, after a period of relative liberalization, now feel more powerful and are demanding greater influence in policymaking—including tighter control over “morals.”

Whenever we see moral panics like this—fixation on “family values” and “public morals”—it usually signals two things: (a) the ascendance of fundamentalist groups and (b) a deliberate distraction from more damaging crises facing the government.

Simply calling for the release of detainees is not enough. Some have already been released on bail. In the long run, many of these cases may not go anywhere. They are meant to generate headlines and reinforce the image of moral guardianship. At the same time, factions within the government may be pursuing their own conservative agendas, exploiting instability for leverage.

There are tensions with President Sisi over his support for the Coptic community, which has angered stricter Salafist elements and remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood. The result is a fragmented ruling environment where some actors push harsher conservative measures—not only to control public morals but also to undermine the government itself.

Opponents have tried to mobilize against the crackdown, but because there is so much international support for these measures, it has been difficult for them to oppose directly and openly. Instead, they have lashed out against secular, liberal Muslims and others—both to retain their own power and to show they have not abandoned their broader religious objectives. Without understanding this complicated situation in Egypt, it is hard to address it properly.

The Egyptian government is not monochrome or monolithic. It is filled with rival factions and interests that are not always coordinated. Because of the prolonged economic crisis, many of these interests have managed to reassert themselves after being suppressed for years. None of this is positive, and all of it is deeply concerning.

The arrests of women, secularists, and others are not the root cause—they are a symptom. Yes, they create new grievances, but they are really signs of larger internal political trends. If Egypt’s situation is to return to its most hopeful period, those deeper currents must be addressed.

Jacobsen: Moving to another case: a letter was recently published by seven UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights addressed to Shell and other oil companies.

The context here is the historic pollution of the Niger Delta. Issa Sanusi, Amnesty International’s Nigeria Director, stated: “Amnesty International has been researching and campaigning on oil pollution in Nigeria since the 1990s. The UN Special Rapporteurs have concurred with our findings that the repeated oil spills in the Niger Delta amount to violations of human rights. For every rights violation, there must be a remedy. Shell and other companies responsible for oil spills in the region must therefore clean up affected areas and compensate local communities for the decades of harm caused by these violations… We call on Shell to accept its responsibility. Divesting from assets and operations does not absolve the company of responsibility for its past actions.”

That seems straightforward as a news item. The companies should be held accountable for reckless and negligent environmental damage.

Tsukerman: The challenge, however, is that the most directly interested parties—the governments of the countries involved—are often themselves complicit. They may have contributed to the pollution or signed the agreements with the companies in the first place. Those governments should be the ones pressuring corporations to act responsibly and to fund remediation. The reality is far more complex.

In some cases, governments in West Africa are either corrupt, uninterested, or overwhelmed by competing priorities. Environmental preservation often takes a back seat to urgent security concerns. The region is plagued by conflicts—separatists versus pro-government forces, jihadists against the pro-Russian juntas, and in Nigeria’s case, an array of separatist groups, militias, jihadist networks, and Boko Haram.

Accusations of corruption, mismanagement, and poor governance further weaken the ability of states to respond. Environment is not at the top of the list. We saw this during the Biden administration’s push for green-energy transitions in Africa—ambitious in theory but underfunded and ultimately beyond what many of these countries were equipped to handle.

When large international contractors or even local firms cause environmental damage, real accountability requires resources—human, financial, and political—that many states lack. If those same companies provide badly needed income, governments hesitate to alienate them by demanding reparations. Leaders may fear losing revenue, foreign investment, or even their own grip on power.

This leaves a scenario where, unless lawsuits are filed abroad or influential private stakeholders intervene, corporations may escape meaningful accountability for environmental harm.

Tsukerman: Moving on—Reuters is leading with a shocking story: the murder of a significant political commentator. Charlie Kirk was killed yesterday—potentially a political assassination. Images spread first on TikTok and other social media before they reached major outlets. I spoke earlier with someone who saw a leaked video from just a few feet away. They said once they saw the blood loss from the jugular, they knew he was dead immediately, regardless of any cautious wording in early reports.

Tsukerman: The suspect has been named as Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah resident. The governor of Utah announced, “We got him,” though that may be premature.

U.S. President Donald Trump has already said he will attend Kirk’s funeral. Reports also mention that the unfired shell casings were engraved, although details about what was written may never be made public.

In the United States, there has been commentary noting a spike in politically related violence. This latest murder of a political activist fits that troubling pattern. Authorities have a suspect in custody, but the commentary around the case is varied. What are your thoughts?

First, no one should ever be murdered for their political beliefs, no matter how controversial. That principle should be obvious. The concern now is that this incident will spark a political backlash and further polarize already divided groups. We are already seeing finger-pointing, blame games, and heated rhetoric.

The activist himself started as a mainstream conservative student organizer. He never completed college, but he played a pivotal role in mobilizing younger people to engage with political issues, initially doing so peacefully and respectfully. Over time, though, his positions became more controversial.

Part of that can be explained by what’s called “audience capture.” Instead of leading his audience, he became shaped by their demands, repeating whatever resonated emotionally rather than developing a coherent set of ideas. He was more an activist than a political thinker, and that made him vulnerable to conspiracy theories.

Years ago, some of his commentary already showed he was parroting what appealed emotionally in the media climate rather than critically processing it. Eventually, he fell in with pro-Russian influencers and U.S. media figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who became known for conspiratorial rhetoric.

Candace Owens and her associates were particularly influential. They helped him expand his Turning Point organization to the United Kingdom, where it became Turning Point UK. Whether he was financially incentivized or convinced, he increasingly aligned himself with their worldview and the broader MAGA movement.

His activism also grew more controversial when he introduced “watch lists” of professors on campus whom he labelled as biased or hostile to conservative students. Given academia’s predominantly left-leaning orientation, this was provocative and drew significant backlash, regardless of whether the lists were selective or not.

He started inviting Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to his symposia, even after they made conspiratorial and, in some cases, anti-Semitic remarks. That caused consternation among some of his pro-Israel followers, who had initially supported him because, in his earlier years, he was quite effective at countering anti-Israel accusations through respectful debate.

Over time, though, he became a close ally of President Trump. Both Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu issued public statements after he was shot.

He is widely considered the most successful conservative activist in terms of reach and organizational effectiveness—his ability to build a movement, recruit young people, and secure funding. In that sense, he was very good at his job. Whether his rhetoric damaged the public sphere by contributing to conspiratorial, post-factual discourse is subject to intense debate.

His views became increasingly controversial, and his platforming of conspiracy theories did not advance honest or truthful conversation, if that was ever his objective.

The way he died, however, was clearly pre-planned, intentional, and political. It happened during one of the debates he himself organized on a Utah campus. The crowd was large, mostly supporters, but the security presence was minimal. He had his own security detail, but they were not positioned to detect someone aiming from 200 meters away.

The FBI made mistakes early on by arresting two individuals prematurely, announcing them as suspects without solid confirmation. They were quickly released. A third suspect—whose appearance matched video evidence and who allegedly confessed to his father, a sheriff—is now in custody.

Observers noted the shooter’s composure suggested at least some training. As the son of a sheriff, he may have had access to rifles and the preparation required. The video shows that if it was indeed Tyler, he did not panic. He fled quickly, discarded the weapon, and was arrested later. Had he not spoken to his father, it might have taken far longer to catch him, since sunglasses and misleading clothing obscured his face.

That points to a deliberate political assassination. Reports indicate Tyler’s parents are registered Republicans and past contributors to Trump. So, as usual, a grim turn in U.S. politics. The shooter was identified not through law enforcement efficiency but because his father, a former sheriff in southwestern Utah, recognized him.

Jacobsen: Did a pastor also turn him in?

Tsukerman: Yes. His father, who used to be a sheriff and is now a pastor, identified his son and held him until authorities arrived.

Jacobsen: Do we know the circumstances? Whether the son cooperated or resisted?

Tsukerman: That remains unclear. What we do know is that the son comes from a conservative, Republican, pro-Trump background. The right is now trying to frame the narrative as if he was “radicalized in college.” That is ridiculous. He studied electronics for a semester. You do not get steeped in politics by studying circuit boards. At most, he may have taken another technical course at another college. I was a math and physics major myself, and the most “political” classroom discussion was about hockey.

His widow, Erica Erck, went on Hannity and gave a speech about Charlie being “up in heaven fighting for us.” She said this was the start of a bigger movement—”where there was one Charlie, now there will be ten, or a hundred.”

The right is trying to blame the left, including Trump himself. Across Twitter, there is a flood of chatter: “gird up, we’re going to take it to them.” “Them” is loosely understood as liberals.

Erica, his widow, is a former beauty pageant contestant. She clearly comes from an evangelical background, and her speaking style reflects that tradition—dramatic, emotional, performative in a way. You have to feel sympathy for her loss; she and her children have been devastated. But her way of testifying, while deeply sincere to evangelicals, comes across as staged or “fakey” to many liberals.

It is not fakery—it is rooted in her religious and cultural tradition. But it functions as a call to action for her base, whether intentional or not. The impact could be significant. Tens of millions may hear her message.

The rhetoric is not cooling down. The only prominent figure urging restraint is the Republican governor of Utah, who frequently says things like “this isn’t the time to gin things up,” “let’s step back from social media,” and “go outside, touch grass, talk with your family.”

That may resonate with moderates, but it is unlikely to persuade the hardened factions. Conservatives who are already committed appear to be doubling down in their resolve.

Jacobsen: Do you see this murder being used politically as a justification for retaliatory violence?

Tsukerman: Absolutely. People are already invoking parallels to Horst Wessel in pre-Nazi Germany. Every time a Nazi or “good German” was killed, it was exploited for propaganda. Kristallnacht itself was orchestrated after a single assassination, serving as the pretext for the violence they had already planned. This killing in the U.S. was not coordinated in the same way—it appears to be the act of a lone individual—but the rhetoric is following the same pattern: ginning up hate and hinting at action against Trump’s opponents.

Trump himself has been preparing the ground—talking about using the National Guard in Chicago, trying to create distractions from other controversies like Epstein, and steering focus away from economic trouble. Inflation has been rising gradually, the economy is showing signs of decline, and political scapegoating becomes a convenient outlet.

Jacobsen: It’s important to note that the overwhelming majority of extremist violence in the United States has come from right-wing extremists. The second-largest category is Islamist-inspired attacks. Left-wing extremist violence exists but is a distant third. Most reasonable observers know this. However, about one-third of Americans reject the data because they identify with the side that is more skeptical of facts.

Tsukerman: Liberals have been sharing pie charts and statistics showing the breakdown of extremist violence—right-wing, left-wing, and Islamist. The numbers consistently show the far right as the dominant source of violence. Yet the right is already shifting blame, claiming they are the actual victims of “hate from the left.”

Jacobsen: And if you compare rhetoric, I would strongly suspect that the language from the right is also more extreme and inflammatory. Someone should quantify that systematically. Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.