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 Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production co-ordinator: Janet Staples and Liam Morrey

(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: Thula Simpson, Author and Associate Professor, Department of Historical and Heritage Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa Tanveer Jeewa, Junior Lecturer, Constitutional Law, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Dr Ralph Mathekga, Author and Political Analyst, Pretoria, South Africa Christopher Vandome, Senior Research Fellow, Africa Programme, Chatham House, UK and Ph.D. Student in International Relations, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Co-Producers: Jill Collins and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Broadcast Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey

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 Producer: Dan Hardoon and Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: James Bradshaw Editor: Tara McDermott (Photo: Employees of Orange Marine work on the installation of the very high speed submarine cable SEA-ME-WE 5, linking Singapore to France, 1 March, 2016. Credit: Boris Horvat/AFP)

The International Criminal Court was founded to prosecute the world’s worst crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It has secured historic convictions, but its effectiveness is under scrutiny.

US opposition has been a long-standing challenge. Donald Trump previously rejected the ICC’s legitimacy, and now, early in his second presidential term, he has imposed sanctions on its top prosecutor. The move echoes past tensions but raises new concerns about the court’s ability to function under external pressure.

The ICC also relies on member states to arrest and transfer suspects. A recent case in Italy has highlighted the court’s enforcement difficulties, as Italian authorities deported a Libyan suspect instead of extraditing him to The Hague. Such incidents fuel questions about the ICC’s global authority.

Despite its high-profile cases, the court has only secured 11 convictions in 23 years. Its slow trials and high costs have drawn criticism, leading some to question whether reform—or even an alternative—is needed. But with 125 member states still backing its mission, is the ICC an institution the world can afford to lose?

Contributors: Dr Viviane Dittrich, Deputy Director of the International Nuremberg Principles Academy in Germany Gerry Simpson, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics in the UK  Rachel Kerr, Professor of War and Society at King's College London in the UK  Mark Kirsten, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, Canada

Presented by Charmaine Cozier Produced by Louise Clarke and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor Tara McDermott Technical Producer Toby James Production co-ordinator Liam Morrey

Image credit: Michael M. Santiago via Getty Images

Women have been using the female contraceptive pill for over 60 years, and many other options have followed. Yet, after decades of research, there is still no male version of a birth control pill.

Male options for contraception are limited to the condom, vasectomy or withdrawal. However, clinical trials are underway around the world testing new innovations in male contraception. New options may be less than a decade away but, when they arrive, will people want to take them? In this edition of the Inquiry Sandra Kanthal asks: Are we ready for the new male contraceptives? Contributors: Allan Pacey, Professor of Andrology, University of Manchester Dr Diana Blithe, Chief of the Contraceptive Development Programme, National Institutes of Health Dhananjay Vaidyanathan Rohini, Founder and Partner, Alstonia Impact Logan Nickels, Chief Research Office, Male Contraceptive Initiative

Presenter/Producer: Sandra Kanthal Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical Producer: James Beard Editor: Tara McDermott

The Panama Canal, a crucial artery for global trade, is at the centre of growing tensions between the United States and China. Donald Trump has claimed that Chinese companies exert undue influence over the waterway, accusing Panama of overcharging US businesses. But does the US still have a legitimate stake in the canal?

With Trump demanding action, Panama faces a difficult choice. Could a renegotiation of tolls or a review of Chinese port contracts ease US concerns?

Contributors: Will Freeman, Fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations Andrew Thomas, Academic and Author of The Canal of Panama and Globalisation Dr Yu Jie, Senior Research Fellow on China in the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House  David Young, President of the Committee for Economic Development

Presented by Gary O’Donoghue Produced by Louise Clarke Researched by Katie Morgan Technical producer Matthew Dempsey Production Coordinator Liam Morrey Editor Tara McDermott

Image credit: Getty Images via MARTIN BERNETTI

In the decade that followed the Great Financial Crisis, inflation rates remained low and steady, and in some cases even threatened to turn negative, as economies around the world struggled to recover.

This era came to an abrupt end in recent years following the double economic shocks of the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Many central banks and senior policymakers were caught on the back foot as inflation rates soared to levels not seen for nearly half a century in some countries.

Although rates have since come down from those highs, they are still proving tricky to completely get under control, causing concern among some observers. We explore what inflation is, where it comes from, what has been happening in recent years and what the outlook might be. Our panel includes Stephen D. King, author and senior economic adviser at HSBC, Vicky Pryce, chief economic adviser at the Centre for Economics and Business Research, Marieke Blom, chief economist and global head of research at ING and Manoj Pradham, author and chief economist at Talking Heads Macroeconomics.

Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Ben Cooper Researcher: Katie Morgan Sound engineer: Richard Hannaford

China has approved the construction of what will become the world’s largest hydropower dam in Tibet. Located in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo river, it could generate three times more energy than the Three Gorges Dam – also built by China - and currently the worlds’ biggest. This Inquiry examines how important hydropower is for China’s economy, whether it will meet its climate goals and whether this new dam is a “safe project that prioritises ecological protection” as China claims. We look at how it’ll be built, and why some in neighbouring countries have concerns.

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Craig Boardman Editor: Tara McDermott

Contributors: Brian Eyler, Director of the Energy, Water and Sustainability Programme at the Stimson Center, Washington DC Neeraj Singh Manhas, special advisor for South Asia at the Parley Policy Initiative, South Korea & Subject Matter Expert at the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, HQ IDS, Ministry of Defence, Government of India Prof Mark Zeitoun, Director General of the Geneva Water Hub and professor of Water Diplomacy at the Geneva Graduate Institute, Switzerland Prof Cecilia Tortajada, Social and Environmental Sustainability at the University of Glasgow, Adjunct senior research fellow Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore

Image credit: China News Service via Getty Images

In December 2024, the decades-old Assad regime in Syria fell following 13 years of brutal civil war.

The Islamist rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, seized power in the capital Damascus, having co-ordinated a lightning offensive along with other opposition forces across the country.

This week on The Inquiry, we examine how recent events led to the current situation, who the main players are vying for control, and the many challenges facing both the new government and the Syrian people.

Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Ben Cooper Researcher: Evie Yabsley Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Toby James Editor: Tara McDermott

Contributors:

Tim Eaton, Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House

Dr Rahaf Aldoughli, Middle East and North African Studies at Lancaster University

David Schenker, Director of the Arab politics programme at the Washington

Natasha Hall, Middle East programme at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Image Credit: ABDULAZIZ KETAZ via Getty Images

Drinks with toxic ingredients have been linked to deaths and poisonings in Turkey, Laos and India in 2024.

Fake alcohol is unrecorded and unregulated alcohol that hasn’t been registered in official statistics for sales, production or trade. The range of unrecorded alcohol includes alcohol smuggled across borders, counterfeit alcohol and homemade brew.

This week of The Inquiry we look at how toxic and widespread fake alcohol is. What are the health risks of drinking contaminated alcohol? Bootleg alcohol is big business for criminals, are governments doing enough to combat the illicit alcohol trade?

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier

Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Toby James Editor: Tara McDermott

Contributors: Dr. Monica Swahn, alcohol epidemiologist and professor at the Wellstar College of Health and Human Services at Kennesaw State University in the USA, currently based in Uganda. Dr Dirk Lachenmeier, food chemist and toxicologist, director of department of plant-based foods at CVUA Karlsruhe, an official control laboratory, Germany. Piotr Stryszowski, senior economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and head of the Working Party on Countering Illicit Trade (WP-CIT), France. Jeff Hardy, Director General of Transnational Alliance to Combat Illicit Trade, USA.

Cancer is a disease that will affect 1 in 5 people in our lifetime, and it’s estimated that around 20 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in 2025.

But how might a vaccine help in the treatment of cancer?

Numerous trials began testing the viability of cancer vaccines in 2024, including one for melanoma and another for lung cancer.

With all the promise that these new cancer vaccine trials bring for cancer patients, we explore the different ways in which vaccines could work within the body, and how the time at which future vaccines are administered may vary according to the cancers they are targeting.

This week on the Inquiry we’re asking: Are we close to a cancer vaccine?

Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Matt Toulson Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Coordinator: Tim Fernley Editor: Tara McDermott Studio Director: Craig Boardman

Contributors:

Meredith McKean, director of Melanoma and Skin Cancer Research for Sarah Cannon Research Institute at Tennessee Oncology

Samra Turajlic, Chief Investigator of translational studies into melanoma and kidney cancer at the Francis Crick Institute and Professor at the Institute of Cancer Research

Eduardo Vilar-Sanchez, professor in the department of Clinical Cancer Prevention at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Patrick Ott, Clinical Director at Melanoma Disease Center at the Dana-Farber Institute

Robert F Kennedy Jr, nephew of America's 35th President, John F. Kennedy, has been nominated to be the next US health secretary by President-elect Donald Trump. The post oversees everything from medical research to food safety and public welfare programmes.

Kennedy has been the face of “Make America Healthy Again”, a movement dedicated to “public health, sustainable practices and a government that truly serves the people”.

This week of The Inquiry, we look at how MAHA wants to tackle chronic disease, in particular obesity. Will RFK carry these ideas into public office? How will food corporations and colleagues in the US Congress react? How feasible is it for the US Health Secretary to shift the dial on healthy eating?

Contributors: Bill Dietz, Director of the Stop Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., US Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and former Trump State Department official, US Professor Jerold Mande, CEO of Nourish Science, US Professor Colleen Heflin, Professor of public administration and international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, US

Production Team: Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producers: Vicky Carter and Matt Toulson Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Richard Hannaford Editor: Tara McDermott

Photo Credit: Bloomberg via GettyImages