“Measles is back, and it’s a wake-up call,” proclaimed one regional director from the World Health Organisation who went on to add, “without high vaccination rates, there is no health security.”

Measles is a childhood disease which can be deadly. We’ve been successfully vaccinating against it for decades. So much so that many younger physicians have never seen a child with the disease. But recently, the recorded number of cases has been rising - and this is a global trend.

Measles is one of the most contagious viruses known to man. In an unvaccinated population it will spread like wildfire. So what’s behind the rapid rise of measles cases around the world? According to one of our expert witnesses it comes down to three Cs: complacency, convenience and confidence.

In this edition of the Inquiry, Sandra Kanthal looks into what’s causing the rise in measles cases around the world and asks how this trend can be reversed.

Contributors:

Doctor Claudia Cojocaru – Romanian physician and neonatologist

Robb Butler - Director of the Division of Communicable Diseases, Environment and Health: World Health Organisation

Dr Benjamin Kasstan-Dabush -Assistant Professor, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Fatima Cengic, Regional Immunization Specialist, Europe and Central Asia: UNICEF

Presenter: Sandra Kanthal

Serbia’s citizens have been protesting for over six months, taking part in demonstrations around the country in reaction to their government’s alleged corruption. Though the country’s president, Aleksandar Vučić, has attempted to appease them, the movement shows no sign of slowing down.

Situated in the Western Balkans, Serbia has had a long history of conflict; from the Ottoman Empire to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but the ongoing civil unrest comes at a crossroads moment for President Vučić. Serbia is awaiting approval to join the European Union yet remains closely tied with the Kremlin.

As the Serbian government seeks to solidify its place in the world, protestors continue their calls for transparency and accountability. This week on The Inquiry we ask “Will Serbia’s mass protests unseat the president?”

Contributors:

Presenter: Tanya Beckett

Image credit: Srdjan Stevanovic via Getty Images

Scientists at a bio-technology firm made headlines when they announced the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf, a species of wolf that went extinct on Earth over 10,000 years ago. Colossal Biosciences examined DNA from ancient dire wolf fossils and used it to create wolf puppies with traits of the extinct species. The gene editing technology sparked curiosity around the world, and although the new wolves were not exact replicas of the originals they had similar traits. The development raises serious questions about what de-extinction really means.

Mass extinctions have shaped the history of life on Earth, and nature has adapted across the millennia, but with almost half of all species already in decline, including some frogs, how seriously is de-extinction technology being taken?

Contributors:

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier

Earlier this month President Trump announced radical new taxes on foreign imports amounting to what he described as ‘Liberation Day' for the United States. It was a promise he made to American voters during last year’s election campaign but the scale of the tariffs caught many countries by surprise.

Global financial markets plunged as investors braced themselves for a shock to the flow of international trade. Faced with prolonged market turmoil, within days the US president paused most of his plans.

A to-and-fro between Washington and Beijing has left many world leaders confused who to side with, as many look towards the White House wondering if there is a detailed plan at the heart of these unprecedented few weeks.

Contributors:

Presenter: Tanya Beckett

(Photo: US President Donald Trump holds a chart and delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs at an event entitled Make America Wealthy Again, at the White House, Washington DC, 2 April, 2025. Credit: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

For Russia’s President Putin, the return of President Donald Trump to the White House ushered in a new world order. This has created new diplomatic space for Russia, as Trump’s world view seems more closely aligned with Moscow’s ambitions. Support for Ukraine has diminished, peace talks have been floated, and speculation has grown about a lasting ceasefire.

While the relationship between Washington and Moscow appears to be warming, recent tensions show how unpredictable diplomacy between the two leaders can be.

Putin’s ambition for Russia as an influential superpower remains but with shifting global alliances how much potential leverage does Putin have to reshape the international order?

Contributors:

Presented by Victoria Uwonkunda

Image credit GAVRIIL GRIGOROV via Getty Images

SpaceX has revolutionised space travel, making reusable rockets a reality and dramatically reducing the cost of reaching orbit. But two high-profile Starship explosions have raised concerns about the company’s approach to innovation and risk.

Commercial spaceflight has rapidly expanded, with private companies looking to harness space resources and build new economies beyond Earth. Reusability has been a game-changer, significantly lowering launch costs and enabling more ambitious missions.

SpaceX operates with a philosophy of rapid iteration, treating test failures as learning opportunities rather than setbacks. While this approach has led to major breakthroughs, repeated failures raise questions about long-term reliability and safety. Meanwhile, growing competition from other private space firms suggests the industry is no longer dominated by a single player.

With rivals gaining ground and technological hurdles ahead, does SpaceX still have the edge in the new space economy?

Contributors:

Jack Burns, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics in the USA

Dr Ella Atkins is Fred D. Durham Professor and Head of the Kevin T. Crofton Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department at Virginia Tech in the USA

David Thomas is Director of the Thunderbird School of Global Management's Initiative for Space Leadership, Policy and Business at Arizona State University.

Presenter Charmaine Cozier

Image credit: Brandon Bell via Getty Images

In November, a far right, pro-Russia figure came from almost nowhere to become favourite for the presidency. Calin Georgescu, with no affiliated political party and whose campaign had been largely on social media, won the first round of Presidential elections in Romania. The result sent shockwaves across the continent.

Contributors:

Presenter: Tanya Beckett

European leaders have had cause to rethink their roles within Nato recently, in light of statements coming from the US Government. The Trump administration’s dealings with Russia to try and broker a peace deal in Ukraine, have called into question America’s support for the alliance. But whilst the Trump administration say they are not pulling out of Nato and remain committed to the defence partnership with Europe, they have warned that they will "no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency".

Nato currently asks member states to spend at least 2% on defence, but US President Donald Trump has consistently told European allies to spend much more than that target. The alliance’s famous Article 5 holds that Nato members will come to the defence of an ally which comes under attack and the assumption has always been that the US would continue to be the anchoring power. But now Europe’s leaders are having to consider whether they could potentially go it alone without American military aid. So, do we need a new Nato?

This week's experts include John Deni, author and research professor, US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, USA; Rachel Ellehuus, director-general, The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), London, UK; Toomas Hendricks Ilves, Former President of Estonia, professor at Tartu University; Estonia, Irina Borogan, deputy editor Agentura.ru, non-resident senior fellow, The Centre for European Policy Analysis, London, UK.

Presenter: Tanya Beckett

(Photo: Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte participates in a bilateral meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance (not pictured) at the Commerzbank in Munich, Germany, 14 February, 2025. Credit: Leah Mills/Reuters)

At the beginning of this year, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a bill into law which allows for private land to be seized by the government. Known as the Expropriation Act, it’s a power that many democratic governments around the world can exercise – the seizure of private property for public use in return for compensation. But in South Africa’s case, the plan is not to offer compensation, in certain circumstances, such as if land was needed for public use and all other avenues to acquire the land exhausted.

And it is this caveat that has provoked strong reactions both domestically and on the international front. Even within the President’s own party, the ANC, there are those who would prefer more consultation before the law can be implemented. Whilst the Democratic Alliance, the second largest party in South Africa’s coalition government, says that it supports legislation addressing land restitution, it does takes issue with the process followed by the country’s parliament to enact the law. It is testing the Act’s constitutionality with legal action. And now President Trump has signed an executive order cutting US financial aid to South Africa, the order claims that this Act would enable the government to seize the agricultural property of ethnic minority Afrikaners without compensation.

For his part, President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced that he’ll be sending envoys to various countries to explain South Africa’s positioning on the Expropriation Act, amongst other recent policy changes.

So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking, ‘Can South Africa solve land inequality’?

Contributors:

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier

Image Credit: Shadrack Maseko, whose family has been residing on Meyerskop farm for three generations, looks over a piece of land, in Free State province, South Africa, February 9, 2025. REUTERS/Thando Hlophe

Undersea cables form the backbone of global communication, with over 95% of global internet traffic relying on hundreds of fibre-optic cables criss-crossing the globe. But recent incidents such as disruption to cables in the Baltic Sea have highlighted concerns over their security and raised the possibility of ‘grey zone warfare’.

We examine who owns and runs this vast global network, what happens when things go wrong, and what the future holds for underseas cables. Are they powerful enough to sustain future communications, and what role could quantum technology play in their future?

To discuss all this are Lane Burdette, research analyst, TeleGeography, Jovan Kurbali, director of the Diplo Foundation and head of Geneva Internet Platform, Erin L Murphy,  senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC and Kristine Berzina, managing director at the German Marshall Fund, Washington DC.

Presenter: Gary O'Donoghue