The recent violence in Los Angeles, California, stemming from protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids starting June 6, 2025, has evoked strong responses from global communities. The militarized response to what began as localized unrest has triggered a much wider debate, both within the United States and internationally. The deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops and the placement of 700 U.S. Marines on “high alert,” coupled with the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and curfews, has drawn sharp criticism. This heavy-handed approach is not entirely unexpected, given President Trump’s experience with the 2021 Capitol Hill riot, which underscored his administration’s preference for forceful responses to civil unrest. The ensuing tension between the California state government, led by Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, and the federal government has raised further concerns about governance, human rights, and the risk of escalating conflict.
The global response has been swift and critical. The United Nations has called for de-escalation, urging U.S. authorities to avoid “further militarization” of the response to the LA protests and to uphold the right to peaceful assembly. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed concern over the handling of the unrest, particularly the use of rubber bullets. Canada, Ireland, Germany, and the Netherlands have issued travel advisories for their citizens visiting the U.S., citing risks of detention due to aggressive immigration enforcement. Amnesty International USA condemned the deployment of National Guard troops as an “unnecessary militarized reaction” aimed at “crushing dissent” rather than protecting communities. Human Rights Watch (HRW) framed the LA protests as part of a broader fight for human rights in the U.S., noting that ICE raids targeting sensitive locations like courthouses, schools, and workplaces have sparked nationwide demonstrations. The Economist described the U.S. administration’s response as appearing to “create confrontation” and fuel a “cycle of protest, violence, and repression” for political gain, rather than prioritizing order.
Notably, the U.S. is not alone in witnessing violent protests or militarized responses to civic unrest, particularly in recent years. Civilians have faced brutality in active war zones like Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine; in terrorism- and gang-war-infested countries such as Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, South Africa, and Kenya; and in nations governed by non-democratic regimes, including Myanmar, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Haiti. In India also, ethnic violence and alleged state oppression in Manipur have led to civilian suffering, internet shutdowns, and persistent unrest. These cases highlight a grim reality: the use of force against civilians is a global phenomenon, often exacerbated by weak governance, conflict, or authoritarianism.
Yet, the phenomenon of violent protests and their suppression by force is not confined to the developing world or conflict zones. Developed democracies like Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, and Spain have also experienced significant civil unrest in recent years. The Allianz Risk Barometer 2025 identifies France, the UK, Germany, and Spain as global hotspots for protest and riot activity, with over 80,000 incidents recorded in 2024 alone. In France, protests over economic policies and immigration have frequently turned violent, while the UK has seen riots linked to immigration and political polarization. Germany and the Netherlands have faced farmer protests and demonstrations over energy costs, and Ireland has grappled with tensions over immigration policies. These parallels with the U.S. and Canada underscore a troubling trend: even stable democracies are not immune to the forces driving public discontent and violence.
In most cases, the catalysts for violent civilian protests are clear: restrictive immigration policies that limit labor mobility, economic stress inducers, e.g., unemployment, inflation, and unfair taxation, curbs on personal liberties such as religious freedom or reproductive rights, suppression of ethnic or religious minorities, and deepening political polarization. These issues, while diverse, share a common thread: they erode trust between governments and their citizens, creating fertile ground for unrest. The Los Angeles protests, sparked by ICE raids targeting immigrant communities, exemplify how policy decisions can ignite broader social tensions, particularly when met with disproportionate force.
In my view, the primary reason behind the rise in violent tendencies in recent times is the overwhelming dominance of divisive and parochial political agendas across the world. Statesmanship, a hallmark of much of the 20th century, has all but vanished from the global stage. The world once saw leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, and Nehru, who, despite their flaws, prioritized unity, long-term vision, and humanitarian values over short-term political gains. Today, too many leaders are elected on platforms that amplify division, fear, and narrow self-interest. These leaders often lack a global perspective or a commitment to addressing the root causes of unrest—poverty, inequality, and injustice. Instead, they resort to populist rhetoric or militarized responses, further alienating their citizens and fueling cycles of protest and repression.
The absence of statesmanship is not just a leadership failure; it is a systemic crisis. Global challenges like climate change, migration, and economic inequality require cooperative, forward-thinking solutions, yet many leaders prioritize domestic political survival over collective progress. In the U.S., the LA unrest reflects a failure to bridge divides between immigrant communities and policymakers, exacerbated by a federal response that prioritizes control over dialogue. Similarly, in Europe, protests over immigration and economic policies highlight a disconnect between governments and their increasingly frustrated populations. Even in war-torn regions like Sudan or Myanmar, the lack of visionary leadership perpetuates cycles of violence and displacement.
To break this cycle, the world urgently needs a new generation of statesmen and stateswomen—leaders who can rise above parochial agendas and embrace a humanitarian approach to governance. These leaders must prioritize dialogue over confrontation, addressing the root causes of unrest rather than merely suppressing its symptoms. For instance, immigration policies could focus on integration and economic opportunity rather than punitive enforcement, as seen in the LA raids. Economic reforms could tackle inequality and inflation through inclusive growth, rather than austerity measures that disproportionately harm the vulnerable. Political polarization could be countered by fostering civic engagement and rebuilding trust in institutions, rather than exploiting divisions for electoral gain.
Moreover, the international community has a role to play in fostering statesmanship. The UN, regional organizations, and civil society must hold leaders accountable for human rights abuses and militarized responses, while supporting initiatives that promote peacebuilding and social cohesion. Grassroots movements, empowered by technology and global connectivity, can also pressure governments to prioritize the common good over divisive politics. Education and public discourse must emphasize empathy, critical thinking, and global citizenship, equipping future leaders to navigate an interconnected world.
The violence in Los Angeles, like unrest elsewhere, is a symptom of a deeper malaise: a world led by division rather than vision. The global outcry over the LA protests—whether from the UN, human rights groups, or concerned citizens on platforms like X—signals a shared desire for change. Yet, change will not come without leadership that transcends borders, ideologies, and short-term gains. The world urgently needs statesmen and stateswomen who can heal divides, inspire hope, and forge a path toward a more just and peaceful future. Only then can we move beyond the cycles of protest, violence, and repression that define our time.
