NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Parents can soon use QR codes to reveal heavy metal content in baby food

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By C. Michael White, Distinguished Professor of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut

    It’s impossible to eliminate heavy metals from baby food entirely, but testing can help consumers make informed decisions. Jeff Greenberg via Getty Images

    Parents across the U.S. should soon be able to determine how much lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury are in the food they feed their babies, thanks to a California law, the first of its kind, that took effect this year.

    As of Jan. 1, 2025, every company that sells baby food products in California is required to test for these four heavy metals every month. That comes five years after a congressional report warned about the presence of dangerously high levels of lead and other heavy metals in baby food.

    Every baby food product packaged in jars, pouches, tubs and boxes sold in California must carry a QR code on its label that consumers can scan to check the most recent heavy metal readings, although many are not yet complying.

    Because companies seldom package products for a single state, parents and caregivers across the country will be able to scan these QR codes or go online to the companies’ websites and see the results.

    I am a pharmacist researcher who has studied heavy metals in mineral supplements, dietary supplements and baby food for several years. My research highlights how prevalent these toxic agents are in everyday products such as baby food. I believe the new California law offers a solid first step in giving people the ability to limit the intake of these substances.

    How do heavy metals get into foods?

    Soil naturally contains heavy metals. The earth formed as a hot molten mass. As it cooled, heavier elements settled into its center regions, called the mantle and core. Volcanic eruptions in certain areas have brought these heavy metals to the surface over time. The volcanic rock erodes to form heavy metal-laden soil, contaminating nearby water supplies.

    Another major source of soil contamination is the exhaust from fossil fuels, and in particular leaded gasoline. Some synthetic fertilizers contribute, too.

    Heavy metals in the soil can pass into foods via several routes. Plants that yield foods such as sweet potatoes and carrots, apples, cinnamon, rice and plant-based protein powder are especially good at extracting them from contaminated soil.

    Sometimes the contamination happens after harvesting. For example, local water that contains heavy metals is often used to rinse debris and bugs off natural products, such as leaves used to make a widely used supplement called kratom. When the water evaporates, the heavy metals are retained on the surface. Sometimes drying products in the open air, such as cacao beans for dark chocolate, allows dust laden with heavy metals to stick to their surface.

    Producers can reduce heavy metal contamination in food in several ways, which range from modestly to very effectively. First, they can reserve more contaminated areas for growing crops that are less prone to taking in heavy metals from the soil, such as peppers, beans, squash, melons and cucumbers, and conversely grow more susceptible crops in less-contaminated areas. They can also dry plants on uncontaminated soil and filter heavy metals out of water before washing produce.

    Producers are starting to use genetic engineering and crossbreeding to create susceptible plants that take up fewer heavy metals through their roots, but this approach is still in its early stages.

    Sweet potatoes and other root vegetables are especially susceptible to absorbing heavy metals from soil.
    skaman306 via Getty Images

    How much is too much?

    Although there is no entirely safe level of chronic heavy metal ingestion, heavy metals are all around us and are impossible to avoid entirely.

    In January 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its first-ever guidance for manufacturers that sets limits on the amount of lead that baby food can contain. But the FDA guidance does not require companies to adhere to the limits.

    In that guidance, the FDA suggested a limit of 10 parts per billion of lead for baby foods that contain fruits, vegetables, meats or combinations of those items, with or without grains. Yogurts, custards and puddings should have the same cutoff, according to the agency. Root vegetables and dry infant cereals, meanwhile, should contain less than 20 parts per billion of lead. The FDA regulations don’t apply to some products babies frequently consume, such as formula, teething crackers and other snacks.

    The agency has not defined firm limits for the consumption of other heavy metals, but its campaign against heavy metals in baby food, called Closer to Zero, reflects that a lower dose is better.

    That campaign also laid out plans to propose limits for other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury.

    Modestly exceeding the agency’s recommended dosage for lead or arsenic a few times a month is unlikely to have noticeable negative health effects. However, chronically ingesting too much lead or inorganic arsenic can negatively affect childhood health, including cognitive development, and can cause softening of bones.

    How California’s QR codes can help parents and other caregivers

    It’s unclear how many products consistently exceed these recommendations.

    A study by Consumer Reports in 2018
    found that 33 of 50 products had concerning levels of at least one heavy metal. In 2023, researchers repeated testing on seven of the failing products and found that heavy metal levels were now lower in three, the same in one, and slightly higher in three.

    Because these tests assess products bought and tested at one specific time, they may not reflect the average heavy metal content in the same product over the entire year. These levels can vary over time if the manufacturer sources ingredients from different parts of the country or the world at different times of the year.

    Consumers can call up heavy metal testing results with their smartphones at the grocery store.

    That’s where California’s new law can help. The law requires manufacturers to gather and divulge real-time information on heavy metal contamination monthly. By scanning a QR code on a box of Gerber Teether Snacks or a jar of Beech Nut Naturals sweet potato puree, parents and caregivers can call up test results on a smartphone and learn how much lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury were found in those specific products manufactured recently. These test results can also be accessed by entering a product’s name or batch number on the manufacturer’s website.

    Slow rollout

    In an investigation by Consumer Reports and a child advocacy group called Unleaded Kids, only four companies out of 28 were fully in compliance with the California law as of early this year. Some noncompliant companies had developed no infrastructure, some had developed websites but no heavy metal information was logged in, and some had information but required consumers to enter batch numbers to access results, without the required QR codes on the product packaging.

    The law requires companies to provide this information for foods produced after Jan. 1, 2025, with no provisions for extensions, and the major producers agreed to comply not only for California residents but to provide the results nationwide. California enforces noncompliance by embargoing misbranded baby food products, issuing penalties, and suspending or revoking registrations and licenses.

    When companies’ testing and reporting systems are fully up and running, a quick scan at the grocery store will allow consumers to adapt their purchases to minimize infants’ exposures to heavy metals. Initially, parents and caregivers may find it overwhelming to decide between one chicken and rice product that is higher in lead but lower in arsenic than a competitor’s product, for example.

    However, they may also encounter instances where one baby food product clearly contains less of three heavy metals and only slightly more for the fourth heavy metal than a comparable product from a different manufacturer. That information can more clearly inform their choice.

    Regardless of the readings, health experts advise parents and caregivers not to eliminate all root vegetables, apples and rice but instead to feed babies a wide variety of foods.

    C. Michael White does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Parents can soon use QR codes to reveal heavy metal content in baby food – https://theconversation.com/parents-can-soon-use-qr-codes-to-reveal-heavy-metal-content-in-baby-food-247579

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Americans really feel about deporting immigrants – 3 charts explain the conflicting headlines from recent polls

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Leo Gugerty, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, Clemson University

    A protest in San Diego against the Trump administration’s mass deportation plan, Jan. 31, 2025. Carlos Moreno/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s signature promise during his campaign was to carry out the “largest deportation” operation in U.S. history, targeting all migrants “who violated the law coming into this country.”

    Since anyone living in the U.S. without legal permission has broken civil immigration law, Trump would have to deport all of the 11 million to 12 million immigrants living without legal authorization in the U.S., not just people who have committed serious crimes. Most immigrants living in the country illegally have been here longer than 10 years, so many longer-term residents would be deported.

    Trump has claimed that his election victory gives him a “powerful mandate” for such actions. But what do the American people really think about mass deportation?

    News outlets like CBS and Scripps News have been reporting since mid-2024 that a majority of Americans support Trump’s plans to deport most or all undocumented immigrants.

    These stories rely on some polls during 2024 that showed majority support for mass deportation. Meanwhile, other polls in 2024 found public support for deportation below 40%.

    I am a psychologist with expertise in survey research and the influence of political ideology on people’s beliefs about news events. And I believe the key to making sense of these conflicting polls lies in understanding the psychological principles that underlie opinion polling.

    Conflicting polls

    Extensive psychological research research demonstrates that people make better decisions about complex, high-stakes problems when they think about and compare multiple courses of action, instead of narrowing in on one option.

    When it comes to deportation, the main policy alternative offered by presidents as far back as George W. Bush has been allowing immigrants to become legal permanent residents if certain conditions are met, like passing a background check.

    Because of this, Pew Research, a prominent pollster, suggests that the best way to determine how people feel about issues like mass deportation is to give them a question that forces them to choose between deportation and something else – in this case, legalization.

    For example, one July 2024 poll using a “forced-choice” question asked people whether they’d rather see “a way for undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements … to stay here legally” or “a national effort to deport and remove all illegal immigrants” from the U.S.

    Another type of question used by pollsters focuses people’s attention on only one choice by asking them how much they support a policy like deportation, but without mentioning alternatives. Polls that follow this approach ask people’s opinion of deportation in one question, and their opinion of legalization in another.

    This is not ideal because research shows it can lead people to exaggerate their support for the named policy.

    What the polls say

    In total, I found 14 polls conducted during the past eight years that measured Americans’ opinions on both mass deportation and legalizing status. I dropped two from my analysis because they had questions worded in biased language.

    The findings from the remaining 12 polls are representative of the diverse demographics of the U.S.

    Graph 1 present the results from the eight polls that used a single forced-choice question. I believe these polls give the best picture of how Americans as a group feel about the two immigration policies.

    These polls suggest that over the past eight years, Americans’ overall support for mass deportation has increased from around 22% to around 44%. Meanwhile, support for legalizing immigrants’ status has decreased from about 77% to 55%.

    However, all four polls conducted in 2024 find support for legalizing status to be above 54% and support for deportation below 45%.

    Graph 2 shows the results of the four polls that used separate questions to assess opinions about deportation and legalization.

    This chart clearly demonstrates the problem with asking people to rate their support for deportation and legalization in separate questions. Two polls, both taken in the past year – one by Gallup, the other by Times/Siena – found that a majority of respondents supported deportation and that the same group of respondents supported legalization in equal or even greater numbers.

    Consider the October 2024 poll where 57% of respondents supported deportation and 57% supported legalization. These percentages add up to more than 100% because many people in the group said they supported both policies. Since mass deportation and general legalization are polar opposites, people who support both policies should not be considered to strongly support either policy.

    For this reason, the separate questions technique does not yield good absolute information about the percentage of people who support either deportation or legalization. However, it does give useful relative information like which policy a group supports more and how opinions change over time.

    Keeping this in mind, the results of the 12 polls I analyzed indicate that people favored legalizing immigrants’ status over deportation. Eleven polls, including five taken since 2024, showed this pattern. Overall public support for deportation has actually increased since 2016, while support for legalization has decreased.

    However, these changes in opinion over time do not hold true for all Americans.

    Americans are polarized about immigration

    The poll results I’ve discussed so far are averages calculated based on the responses of everyone who responded to the poll. But group averages don’t tell the whole story on any issue – especially when opinions differ widely within a group, as they do with immigration. So let’s look at the results for Republicans and Democrats separately.

    Graph 3 breaks down the results by party for the eight polls that used the best practice: forced choice question.

    During Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020, just over half of Republicans supported legalization; just under half supported deportation. Only within the past year has Republican opinion shifted, with about 70% now supporting deportation.

    In contrast, Democrats’ opinions have remained steady for eight years, with about 90% supporting legalization and 10% favoring deportation.

    In other words, the apparent shift toward greater support for deportation shown in Graphs 1 and 2 occurred only among Republicans – not for Americans as a whole.

    A mandate to legalize

    Despite the recent uptick in Republican support for mass deportation, a clear majority of people in the U.S. would rather give undocumented immigrants a path to legal status than have them deported. This has remained true for eight years.

    Polls that seem to contradict this conclusion by showing majority support for mass deportation have used the less reliable separate-questions technique. These results are questionable because these poll respondents voiced equal or stronger support for legalizing immigrants’ status.

    If Trump has a “powerful mandate” on immigration, my research shows, it’s for getting legal authorization for immigrants who’ve lived in the U.S. a long time without it – not deporting them.

    Leo Gugerty is affiliated with the Democratic Party of Pickens County, SC, as a volunteer.

    – ref. How Americans really feel about deporting immigrants – 3 charts explain the conflicting headlines from recent polls – https://theconversation.com/how-americans-really-feel-about-deporting-immigrants-3-charts-explain-the-conflicting-headlines-from-recent-polls-248838

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Could Elon Musk’s government takeover happen in the UK? A constitutional law expert’s view

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University

    It has been less than a month since Donald Trump retook the Oval Office. But with dozens of executive orders, every day has brought substantial change.

    While Trump claims he has a democratic mandate to cut government waste, it is the unelected Elon Musk who has been behind the most radical changes. Musk, the world’s richest man, joined the US government as head of the new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which Trump established by executive order.

    Trump and Doge have begun dismantling government agencies, introduced widespread recruitment freezes, and withheld billions of dollars in federal funds – including freezing foreign aid and dismantling USAid. Through Doge, Musk has also gained access to IT and payment systems in the US Treasury and other major departments.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Their actions have not been without legal challenge. A judge issued a temporary order restricting Musk from accessing the Treasury’s files due to the risk of exposing sensitive data. In response, Trump has expanded Musk’s power further, instructing government officials to cooperate with Doge.

    It already appears that Trump is prepared to defy court orders related to these changes. The US is on the cusp of a constitutional showdown.

    A key question for the UK is whether something similar could happen here. In theory, the answer is yes – but it would be difficult for anybody to enact.

    There have been ongoing concerns, including some raised by the current government, around the size of the UK government and the budget deficit. Politicians from the Reform party are already saying that Britain needs to adopt a Musk-style approach to cut government waste.

    Compared to other systems of government, UK prime ministers have almost unparalleled power to change existing, and establish new, government departments as they see fit. So it would be well within the gift of the prime minister to establish a new department like Doge – though there could be limits to its power to change things like national spending, given the need for budgetary approval by parliament.

    There is also plenty of precedent for private citizens like Musk to work in the UK government. This could be as a special adviser: a temporary “political” civil servant who advises the government and is appointed under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Previous examples include Alastair Campbell (Tony Blair’s spokesman) and Dominic Cummings (Boris Johnson’s senior adviser). While cabinet ministers hire their special advisers, the prime minister approves all appointments.

    Alternatively, civilians can be brought more directly into government as ministers. Under constitutional convention, a member of the UK government is a member of either the Commons or Lords. Someone who is not an elected politician can be appointed to the Lords (and a ministerial role) by the prime minister. Rishi Sunak did this when he made David Cameron foreign secretary, as did Keir Starmer with businessman-turned-minister for prisons James Timpson.

    There have even been debates in recent years over whether this convention of government ministers needing to be members of parliament can be dispensed with, given it lacks legal enforcement. But this raises questions about how you afford parliament opportunities to scrutinise the work of such ministers, if they are not even in the Lords.



    Read more:
    Plans for ministers who aren’t in parliament raise concerns for UK democracy – constitutional expert

    Constitutional limits

    However, the kind of actions that Trump and Musk are currently undertaking could not strictly pan out the same way under the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

    While it does not have executive orders in the same way as the US, there are means for the UK government to administratively act without passing legislation through parliament.

    The government’s power can be exercised through orders in council via the monarch. These can either be via statutory orders (where the power has been granted through an act of parliament) or prerogative powers.

    The prerogative refers to powers that government ministers have, which do not require the consent of parliament. For example, to enter international treaties or wars, or the ability to call an election.

    The monarch also retains some prerogative powers – for example, to appoint or dismiss a prime minister, and to summon or prorogue (end a session of) parliament. But by convention, the monarch fulfils these functions in a ceremonial and symbolic capacity – without input in the decisions. In reality, they merely follow the advice of the prime minister on these matters.

    Importantly, prerogative powers can only be used when legislation does not exist to the contrary – and the UK government cannot arbitrarily change prerogative powers or create new ones.

    President Trump signals that there is more to come from Doge.

    One way a Musk-style takeover would struggle in the UK is if a proposed change affected primary legislation and left it redundant. It has been established since 1610 that prerogative powers cannot be used to change or make law without parliament.

    To give hypothetical examples: if the UK government tried to exercise its powers in a way which ran contrary to the International Development Act, failed to fulfil a legally promised government function, or went against human rights obligations, they would be doing so contrary to UK constitutional principles – not least parliamentary sovereignty, separation of powers, and the rule of law.

    Should this happen, the courts can intervene. This was tested in Miller 1, the legal case over whether the prime minister alone had the power to leave the EU, or whether parliamentary approval was needed. It was decided that the government could not rely on its prerogative powers to trigger Brexit without parliament’s approval, as this would change primary law.

    And, as was clear when it came to Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament, the Supreme Court will nullify government action which it deems unconstitutional.



    Read more:
    Q+A: Supreme Court rules Boris Johnson’s prorogation of UK parliament was unlawful – so what happens now?

    In this sense, it is a well-established common law principle that judges will rely on the rule of law to check what the government is doing, and would view parliament as never truly intending to pass any law which would exclude that oversight. Any attempt to legislate to block courts from having that check would be an unconstitutional violation.

    Here, the UK has the advantage of a strong independence of the courts. Since 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent commission. There is also a separate, independent selection process for the Supreme Court. This effectively bars the prime minister from changing the composition of the courts in the same way the US president can.

    What if parliament went rogue?

    Some may be minded that, if a reformist government had a majority in parliament and existing laws were preventing change in the UK, then it could easily change the law through an act of parliament. This was the risk of the now-defunct Rwanda plan, where the government effectively tried, through legislation, to overrule the Supreme Court and send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

    Should this have continued, it would probably have faced legal challenges at the European court of human rights. Here is where efforts to remove the UK from the European convention on human rights, or to repeal the Human Rights Act, would have become consequential.



    Read more:
    How the bill to declare Rwanda a ‘safe’ country for refugees could lead to a constitutional crisis

    Of course, even with the strongest majorities, backbench MPs do not always vote with their government, and would be less likely to do so if the leader was attempting to do something extreme, unprincipled and unconscionable.

    We would be in relatively uncharted constitutional waters if the prime minister then ignored a Supreme Court ruling. But while rarely used, there are mechanisms available to parliament in such cases to use motions of no confidence in the government to instigate change to the executive.

    Unless the law is radically changed, the machinery of parliament, with the checks and balances of the Supreme Court, would make a US-style overhaul challenging – if not, theoretically, impossible. But while it is not codified into one text, the UK does still have a constitution and the safeguards that come with it – as well as hundreds of years of convention to back it up.

    Stephen Clear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Could Elon Musk’s government takeover happen in the UK? A constitutional law expert’s view – https://theconversation.com/could-elon-musks-government-takeover-happen-in-the-uk-a-constitutional-law-experts-view-249544

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What does Platonic love really mean?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Armand D’Angour, Professor of Classics, University of Oxford

    If the object of your affection were to suggest that a “platonic” relationship might be of more interest to them, your heart might sink a little. The common understanding of Platonic love, so called after the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, is that it indicates a relationship of strong affection from which sex is excluded. But there’s potentially much more to the concept of Platonic love than the absence of romantic or physical passion.

    The term is derived from Plato’s writing on the topic of love in the Symposium, a work composed in the early fourth century BC. It’s set at a dinner party in Athens that supposedly took place much earlier in 416 BC, when a playwright called Agathon won first prize for his tragic drama.

    Agathon threw a party – symposium in Greek means “drinking together” – where everyone over-indulged. So the following night the partygoers, including the philosopher Socrates, decided that instead of drinking they would give speeches in praise of the god of love, Eros (whence comes the word “erotic”).

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    In the course of the party, the comic poet Aristophanes offers a humorously extravagant story about the origins of love:

    Once upon a time human beings were duplicates of what we are today, with four arms, four legs, and two faces. These double-humans came in three types, male-male, female-female, and male-female. They were over-powerful beings who threatened the gods – so Zeus decided to split them in half. Now we’re just halves of a whole, and each half desperately seeks its matching half in a quest for completion. This is what we mean by love.

    Humour aside, Aristophanes’ tale accounts for both sexual orientation and why human beings may feel incomplete alone.

    There’s great thoughtfulness and variety in the Symposium. In addition to this comic representation of love as literally “seeking our other half”, Plato reports four speeches given by participants, followed by a presentation by Socrates, and finally an extended contribution by the flamboyant Alcibiades, who bursts in late on the gathering.

    For ancient Greeks, love was literally divine. The notion that love is a god (Eros) or goddess (Aphrodite) distinguishes many of the speeches in the Symposium. Another culturally distinctive feature is that the party consists entirely of men, who tacitly acknowledge that love is to be thought of as homoerotic.

    In ancient Athens, heterosexual relations were rarely seen to involve an intellectual dimension. Women and girls were generally not educated, so the notion of intellectual engagement as a component of a relationship was something reserved for love between men, although Plato’s propositions about love don’t exclude (as Aristophanes’ tale shows) love between the sexes or between women.

    In Plato’s day, Athens’ rival city Thebes had established a unit of warriors, the Sacred Band, consisting of 150 pairs of male lovers. The first speaker, the young aristocrat Phaedrus, argues that an army of this kind will be invincible, because men will always strive to show courage in front of the partner they love.

    He takes sexual love for granted in arguing that love “inspires lovers to act nobly in matters of life and death”. The following speaker, Pausanias, makes a distinction between true love and sex, insisting that the latter should be reserved for committed relationships.

    Other speakers offer more abstract views of love – as a force of universal harmony, or (as Agathon argues) a stimulus to artistic creativity. Socrates then offers to “tell the truth about love”, recounting how Diotima (a fiction evidently based on a real woman, Aspasia of Miletus) had taught him that love begins with physical desire but leads on to “higher” forms such as love of knowledge, beauty, and truth.

    The final speech is given by the drunken latecomer to the party, the playboy politician Alcibiades, famously beloved of Socrates. The most handsome youth of his day, he describes how he once tried in vain to seduce the older man. Socrates was not interested because – as he argued a true lover should be – he was keener on improving the young man’s soul through philosophy than being gratified by his body.

    Properly understood, then, Platonic love is not about the negation of passion but about its elevation and transformation. This means it cannot be simply narcissistic. Aristophanes’ myth of the original human beings seeking a similar matching half is challenged by Socrates’ doctrine.

    Love’s aim, we eventually learn, is not to complete us, but to inspire us to grow creatively in relation to another person. Not to guide us to love our mirror image, but to lead us to educate and be educated by another person to become the highest version of ourselves.

    This invites us to think about relationships in terms of shared aspirations. From this point of view, Platonic love means focusing on what lies beyond the relationship itself, on the ideals that connect those who truly love each other.

    In practice, one might conclude, the highest form of love is a partnership in which two people are united by a common creative quest. Such love is not passionless, but a powerful force that begins with physical desire but ends with its transcendence.

    To love Platonically is to see in another person not just what they are, but what they may be inspired to become, and to climb together toward something greater than one might attain alone.

    Seen in this light, the quest for our “matching half” proposed by Aristophanes, if only in jest, cannot be the answer. And though we may not be wholly satisfied with any of the views expressed in the dialogue, the aim of the Symposium is surely to invite us to continue the conversation.

    Armand D’Angour does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What does Platonic love really mean? – https://theconversation.com/what-does-platonic-love-really-mean-249625

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: In the struggle to get Britain working, the long shadow of austerity could be part of the problem

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Guilherme Klein Martins, Lecturer in Economics, University of Leeds

    pxl.store/Shutterstock

    Austerity is an unusual economic concept. While it is one of the economic terms that attracts the most interest from the public, it remains controversial in policy debates. Advocates argue that reducing government deficits through spending cuts and tax increases restores confidence and stabilises economies. Critics, however, warn that these policies just deepen downturns.

    My recent research, using data from 16 countries over several decades, provides new evidence supporting the second view. That is, austerity has significant and persistent negative effects on employment and the size of an economy (measured by GDP), with the damage lasting more than 15 years.

    A common defence of austerity is that while it may slow growth in the short term, it ultimately strengthens economies by reducing debt and making room for private-sector expansion. But my findings challenge this assumption.

    I analysed episodes of austerity, defined as large fiscal contractions (reduced state spending or large tax increases) across a variety of advanced economies. What I found was the negative impact on GDP remains substantial even after a decade and a half. On average, GDP is more than 5.5% lower 15 years after a large austerity shock than would have been expected if there had been no austerity, based on statistical estimates.

    Beyond GDP, austerity has a lasting impact on labour markets (the number of jobs on offer and people available to do them). My research shows that large fiscal contractions lead to a significant drop in the total number of hours worked, which is a key indicator of labour market health.

    This is a crucial finding, as policymakers often assume that labour markets will adjust quickly after an economic shock. Instead, results suggest employment levels (which is best measured by the total number of hours worked by everyone in the labour force) remain depressed for more than a decade after major austerity measures.

    One reason for this is the connection between investment and employment. When governments cut spending, firms delay investments. This, in turn, lowers productivity growth and reduces job creation.

    If businesses anticipate that the economy will remain weak for a long time, they adjust their hiring and investment strategies. This can reinforce a cycle of stagnation. My results suggest that, on average, an austerity shock generates a reduction of 4% in the total worked hours and 6% in the capital stock (the value of physical assets like buildings and machines used to produce goods and services) after 15 years.

    The effects of an austerity shock on countries’ GDP:

    UK: A case study

    Perhaps one of the most striking real-world examples of the long-term effects of austerity is the UK. Following the 2008 global financial crisis, the UK government implemented sweeping austerity measures starting in 2010. These policies were framed as necessary to reduce the budget deficit and restore investor confidence. Spending cuts affected key areas, including welfare, healthcare, education and local government services like social housing, roads and leisure facilities.

    The 2010 coalition government brought in more than £80 billion of cuts to public spending.

    But here’s a conundrum. The UK’s fiscal deficit (the difference between what it spent and what it raised in taxes) after the implementation of these policies was greater than before the austerity cuts. The deficit in 2023/2024 was 5.7% of GDP, while in 2007/2008, it was 2.9%.

    What is evident is that these measures are associated with stagnant wages, weakened public services and sluggish GDP growth. Productivity growth has remained weak, and long-term economic damage is evident in underfunded infrastructure and an increasingly fragile NHS.

    More than a decade later, real earnings have barely recovered to pre-crisis levels. The past 15 years have been the worst for income growth in generations, with working-age incomes growing by only 6% in real terms from 2007 to 2019, compared to higher growth rates in countries including the US, Germany and Ireland.



    Read more:
    How the UK’s austerity policies caused life expectancy to fall

    My findings contribute to a growing body of research challenging the longstanding view that shocks like austerity have only short-run effects. Traditionally, models assume that economies return to their long-run growth paths after temporary disruptions. But recent evidence, including my research, suggests that demand shocks can have persistent effects on supply by reducing investment and participation in the labour force.

    In the wake of the COVID pandemic, many governments responded with generous financial support, temporarily reversing the austerity-driven policies of the previous decade. The strong recovery in some economies suggests that government spending can play a crucial role in sustaining long-run growth. On the other hand, a return to austerity measures could once again lead to prolonged stagnation.

    What should policymakers take away from this? First, the assumption that austerity is a path to long-term prosperity needs to be re-evaluated. While reducing excessive public debt might be important, the economic costs of large and rapid cuts to spending can far outweigh the benefits.

    Second, policymakers should recognise that timing matters. Gradual adjustments to spending, when really necessary, should be accompanied by measures to support investment and employment in order to reduce the likelihood of causing long-term harm.

    Finally, economic policy should prioritise long-term growth over short-term deficit reduction. Governments facing tough spending choices should explore alternative approaches – things like progressive taxation and targeted public investment. And when cuts are needed, they should avoid implementing them during periods of economic recession.

    Austerity is often framed as a necessary sacrifice for future prosperity. As governments consider fiscal strategies in an era of rising debt and economic uncertainty, they should take heed of austerity’s long-run costs. The evidence suggests that a more balanced approach – one that prioritises investment and economic stability – may be the wiser path forward.

    Guilherme Klein Martins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. In the struggle to get Britain working, the long shadow of austerity could be part of the problem – https://theconversation.com/in-the-struggle-to-get-britain-working-the-long-shadow-of-austerity-could-be-part-of-the-problem-249888

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Masturbation remains taboo – but research shows how it can be good for you

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chantal Gautier, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Sex and Relationship Therapist, University of Westminster

    nito/Shutterstock

    Despite being a natural act, many people still feel awkward and embarrassed about masturbation. So, why does this topic make so many of us feel uncomfortable? The past can offer clues.

    Throughout history, views on self-pleasure vary. Egyptians saw masturbation as sacred. Greeks viewed it as natural but not something to celebrate. And Romans considered it inferior to sex with a partner.

    In medieval Europe, masturbation was labelled sinful and harmful. But 20th-century scholars, including sexologists Alfred Kinsey and Shere Hite, challenged negative perceptions and helped normalise masturbation.

    However, the stigma attached to masturbation is stubborn and negative attitudes persist. Attitudes that it’s dirty, shameful or even harmful to touch yourself sexually are often shaped by conflicting messages rooted in societal norms, religious doctrines and inadequate sex education.

    Masturbation remains taboo – some people consider it an unnatural act because it has no reproductive purpose. This negative belief can be bad for health if it contributes to psychological distress, including feelings of guilt and shame caused by ingrained condemnation.

    However, through my experience as a sex therapist and psychology researcher, I understand how openly discussing masturbation with clients has been incredibly beneficial for their mental health. The more we talk about it, the easier it becomes to unravel those shame-filled thoughts. The key is creating a safe and non-judgmental space that encourages self-acceptance and understanding of what makes us tick.

    For one thing, masturbation can be surprisingly educational when it comes to appreciating your body. It’s not just about pleasure; it’s about self-discovery and understanding your sexual response and anatomy while accepting that vulvas and penises come in all shapes and sizes.

    Masturbation offers a safe, judgment-free way to explore and understand your body without any risk of pregnancy or STIs. It allows you to try out what feels good and what doesn’t – essentially getting to know your own pleasure map. It’s also a great way to experiment with sex toys.

    Connecting with your body, including your genitalia, can also help you feel more at ease in your own skin and boost your confidence. Understanding what works for you can feel liberating.

    It also makes it easier to communicate your needs and desires to others. By empowering yourself, you can take charge of your sexual experiences and fully embrace ownership of your body.

    In sex therapy, masturbation is often included as a therapeutic tool. For example, clients may be asked to engage in masturbation exercises.

    This could involve using techniques such as mindfulness to focus on sensations that help them reconnect, by turning their attention to their body and understanding what sensations lead to pleasure. So solo sex helps promote body awareness, which can be especially beneficial for anyone experiencing difficulty with orgasm.

    The stop-start technique is another method used in sex therapy to help with issues like premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction. It is designed to help people gain greater control, particularly with orgasm and erection management. Here, too, the focus is on the sensations of touch and for the client to build awareness of their sexual responses.

    And, with masturbation, there’s no need to worry about anyone else’s expectations or feel any pressure about sexual performance. So sexual self-pleasure is a positive, safe way to explore the body without feeling rushed or self-conscious.

    Masturbation is also associated with other health benefits. For some, it can reduce stress and promote sleep. During masturbation and orgasm, hormones such as oxytocin (sometimes called the “love hormone”) and endorphins are released. Both play a role in enhancing mood and feelings of relaxation.

    Research has even found that men who ejaculate 21 or more times a month have a 31% lower risk of prostate cancer.



    Read more:
    Does ejaculating often reduce your risk of prostate cancer?

    How much is too much?

    As a sex and relationship therapist, I am often asked: “How much masturbation is too much?” There is no right answer to that.

    Masturbation can be a healthy way to seek pleasure and for some people to cope with emotions like stress. However, if it becomes the primary or only means of emotional regulation, it may start to feel compulsive.

    When this leads to a sense of loss of control, emotional distress or negative effects on daily life, it can be an issue. In these instances, sexual compulsivity attempts to resolve unmet needs, whether they are sexual, emotional or relational.

    Psychosexual therapy is an effective, sex-positive and inclusive approach that helps clients develop a wider range of strategies for managing emotions, not just masturbation.

    As we move toward a more inclusive and open understanding of sexuality, self-pleasure may one day be recognised not as something to feel guilty or ashamed about but as a natural form of self-expression. Until then, it remains a powerful act of self-love.

    Chantal Gautier does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Masturbation remains taboo – but research shows how it can be good for you – https://theconversation.com/masturbation-remains-taboo-but-research-shows-how-it-can-be-good-for-you-249667

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What does the Bible say about who belongs in the ‘promised land’? A biblical scholar explains

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joan Taylor, Professor Emerita of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism, King’s College London

    In current US politics, a “biblical” view of the Middle East informs foreign policy – perhaps more than it has for decades. This makes it very important to understand what the Bible actually says, particularly about the idea of a “promised land”.

    Biblical scholars and historians like me often observe that the Bible does not provide a full, holistic history. It shines the torch on certain events and memories, for particular purposes. It tells of origins, laws, ethics, divine revelations and a nation’s relationship with God.

    It does not speak with one voice, but with many voices from different times and places in a collection of books. The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, was finalised largely from the eighth century BC to the second century BC, and the Christian Bible added literature of the 1st century AD in the form of the New Testament.

    The Bible doesn’t always speak plainly, either, and has been translated and interpreted in different ways. The Bible has a lot to say about land, but there isn’t a single clear message throughout. Instead, there are various agreements made between God and different men (it’s a patriarchal world) about where certain people should live.

    In the Book of Genesis, God promises a wandering herder named Abraham that he will be “the father of many nations” stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, as long as these different Abrahamic nations keep a covenant of faithfulness (symbolised by male circumcision).

    God sends Abraham to the Land of Canaan: ‘In you all the families of the earth will be blessed’ (Gen. 12:3).
    Rijksmuseum

    To a herder, this is about the right to move around with flocks. Nothing is said of Abraham destroying existing cities or evicting people, though he might form alliances and fight if his close family is attacked. He also makes agreements with rulers. On this biblical view, there is room for different people to live together in the same region. It is a patchwork.

    Abraham’s sons Ishmael and Isaac go on to inherit key promises (as herders). This breaks down as follows: Isaac’s portion is the “Land of Canaan”, and Ishmael’s “east of Egypt as one goes to Assyria”. Canaan roughly corresponds to the area of modern-day Israel, northwestern Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The area was also known as “Palestine” from at least the fifth century BC.

    Isaac has two sons, Esau and Jacob. Jacob is promised Canaan, while Esau goes to Edom, a region spanning present-day southwestern Jordan and (in due course) southern Israel.

    Jacob, renamed Israel, has 12 sons – the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel, or Israelites. They then also inherit the promise to settle (with families and herds) in Canaan. Among these tribes is the tribe of Judah – the Judahites (Jews).

    From the books of Exodus to Deuteronomy, however, the Israelites are no longer herders. Enslaved in Egypt, they escape, under the leadership of the prophet Moses. In Deuteronomy, God promises the Israelites possession of land on condition of obedience to his commandments: “But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient … I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land.” It is an ominous note.

    Moses receives the law from God.
    Carolingian book illuminator circa 840

    On this biblical view, holding land is correlated with the Israelites’ obedience to the laws. To give a pertinent example – Leviticus 19:33-34: “When a foreigner lives among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner living among you must be treated as your home-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.”

    In the Book of Joshua, the Israelites take possession of parts of Canaan by means of conquest, mass slaughter and destruction common in ancient warfare, but totally at variance with today’s laws of war. The 12 tribes of Israel then notionally divide the territory (conquered and unconquered) between them. Judah’s territory is around Jerusalem and to the south.

    However, already in the next book, Judges, the Israelites are actually only one of several peoples living in the area, and are not even entirely united. On this biblical view, the land is still a patchwork.

    In the books of the prophets (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others), Israelites are continually berated for failing in ethical matters, and warned of dire consequences. The theme remains that the promise is conditional, and Israel is failing to keep the law.

    The biblical story arc

    The Book of Joshua is actually the starting point of a story that tells of continual wars and – apart from some grand successes – a downhill slide into territorial loss. There is a slow, painful working out of God’s disappointment, as God allows other local peoples and foreign nations to take back territory the Israelites seized, until it is nearly all gone. The Jews are taken into exile in Babylon.

    In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews retake possession of their former temple city of Jerusalem and its surrounding region. A biblical view based on those accounts would be that Judah restores and settles peaceably in that area, but claims nowhere else.

    Other Israelite tribes were largely gone, apart from a pocket in Samaria. There was yet hope for tribal restoration. In Ezekiel, it is predicted that God would eventually see off oppressive empires and re-enliven the 12 tribes of Israel in a region the prophet called “the land of Israel”, under the rule of a Jewish king: the Messiah (Ezekiel 37:22 and 24). On this biblical view, only the Messiah can lead a miraculously reconstituted Israel to the land.

    And a big question is, on this view of restoration: who even represents Israel? This takes us beyond the Hebrew Bible to later times.

    Adding to the story

    In the 2nd century BC, Jewish priest-kings in Judah, which had become known as Judaea, started to conquer neighbours, including other remaining Israelites. Jews settled in conquered territories and some other inhabitants – the now culturally Greek Palestinians – converted.

    For the priest-kings, Jews were the only true representatives of all the tribes of Israel, exclusively inheriting the promise. Their rule lasted just over a century. But that story is not in the Bible.

    Then came Christianity. In the fourth century AD, Christianity became the religion of Roman emperors, and they took a special interest in Palestine. For Christians, following Jesus as the Messiah, they had become the heirs of God’s promise. Jewish claims were superseded.

    Thus we later get the Byzantine empire’s provinces of Palestine, the concept of the Holy Land and the Crusades. All this was justified by interpretations of certain passages of the Bible.

    Despite the varied and nuanced concepts of how to settle in “the promised land” found throughout the Bible, it is the Book of Joshua’s divisions that provide some people today with a model for a “biblical” territorial claim. But this is combined with the non-biblical assertion that Jews alone have inherited the promise.

    Joshua has become a paradigm for extremist Zionist settler claims and even aspects of the Israeli army, as American Bible scholar Rachel Havrelock has explored. The Book of Joshua is lifted out of the total story arc of the Bible.

    And if we move beyond the Bible there is so much other history in this region to remember. People converted and married as well as fought each other. Later on, Jews could become Christians, Christians could become Muslims – and all peoples could become Arabs (with Arabisation and cultural transition in the 7th-9th centuries).

    People could flee or be evicted, but keep their identities and traditions and return. The return of Jewish people to the land has been momentous in terms of Jewish national life. But the Palestinians, too, are the descendants of the people of old, from the places of old.

    The Bible’s narrative concerns God’s love for Israel, but the land is a patchwork. After all, as Abraham was told, through him “all the families of the earth will be blessed”.

    Joan Taylor has received funding from the Commonwealth scholarships and Fulbright schemes, the Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme and various academic societies. In terms of religious faith she is a Quaker.

    – ref. What does the Bible say about who belongs in the ‘promised land’? A biblical scholar explains – https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-who-belongs-in-the-promised-land-a-biblical-scholar-explains-249555

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Myrrh, conifer oil and … breakfast tea’: my sniffer team’s surprise findings on what mummified bodies smell like

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cecilia Bembibre, Lecturer in Sustainable Heritage, UCL

    Mum’s the word. Banu Sevim

    When we see objects in museum display cases, it often doesn’t tell their whole story. One thing that tends to get ignored or even lost in the conservation process is the smell. We lose a lot of valuable information as a result, such as how the object was produced or how it functioned.

    My field is called sensory heritage, which relates to how we engage with heritage objects with senses other than vision. As part of this, I develop methods to identify and preserve culturally significant smells.

    For example, I have worked with St Paul’s Cathedral to recreate the scent of its library, to ensure that it can be experienced by future generations. I was also part of an EU-funded project called Odeuropa, which worked with computer scientists and historians to tell the stories of smells from 300 years of European history.

    With help from some perfumers, we brought back smells such as 17th-century Amsterdam, with its canals and linden trees. As a result, for example, visitors to Museum Ulm in southern Germany can experience our olfactory interpretations for ten of the paintings on display.

    My latest project delves much further into the past. I was asked by the University of Ljubljana, in association with the University of Krakow and the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, to help with a study of mummified bodies. Ljubljana was studying a mummified body in the national museum in Slovenia, and had been invited to extend its research to some mummified bodies in Cairo.

    The strict guidelines about studying these bodies stipulate that researchers must use techniques that are not destructive. One way is to see what can be learned by smelling, which is why I joined the project, led by Professor Matija Strlič and PhD researcher Emma Paolin.

    Sarcophaguses on display in Cairo.
    Author provided, CC BY-SA

    We studied nine mummified bodies at the Egyptian Museum, four of which were on display and five in storage. They span different time periods, with the oldest being from 3,500 years ago. They were also conserved in different ways and stored in different places, so they give a decent representation of all the mummified bodies in different collections around the world.

    I put together a team of eight expert sniffers, of which I was one. Some are specialists who have worked with me on other projects, while some are colleagues from the Egyptian Museum who were given smell training in advance. We wanted them on the panel because they are so familiar with the smells in question.

    The research

    We began by doing chemical analysis to ensure the bodies were safe to smell, since in prior decades they were treated with synthetic pesticides to keep them preserved. Several bodies had high concentrations of these pesticides, which could potentially be carcinogenic, so these were removed from the study.

    With the remaining nine, we slightly opened their sarcophaguses to insert little pipes and extract quantities of air. A measured volume of this air went into special bags which we took into a room away from display areas, so I and the other sniffers could experience them “nose on”.

    More air was captured inside metal tubes containing a polymer that traps the volatile organic compounds, so they could be studied in a laboratory at the University of Ljubljana. This air was subjected to various chemical analyses to see which compounds were present, and also separated into its constituent parts using chromatography, so that we sniffers could experience and describe each smell individually.

    This was very hard work: we usually took turns to sit on the end of a special machine with an outlet known as an olfactory port. You spend 15 to 20 minutes experiencing one smell after another, having to quickly describe them and rate their intensity. It can be as much as one smell every second, which can be overwhelming – hence the taking of turns.

    Emma Paolin taking her turn at the olfactory port in Ljubljana.
    Author provided, CC BY-SA

    Our findings

    I was more excited at the prospect of discovering something new than nervous about what it would be like to smell these ancient bodies. However, you’d be forgiven for thinking these odours would not be agreeable. From the accounts of archaeologists to movies such as The Mummy (1999), mummified bodies are associated with foul smells.

    Yet surprisingly, the smells were quite pleasant. The sniff team’s descriptions included “woody”, “floral”, “sweet”, “spicy”, “stale” and “resin-like”. We were able to identify ancient embalming ingredients including conifer oils, frankincense, myrrh and cinnamon.

    Opening the sarcophagus.
    Author provided, CC BY-SA

    We also identified degraded animal fats used in the mummification process; the human remains themselves; and both synthetic pesticides and benign plant-based pest oils that had more recently been used by the museum for preservation.

    Bodies in display cases had a stronger scent than those in storage, but none was as strong as, say, a perfume. Surprisingly, one smelled distinctly of black tea: when you smell a body from millennia ago, you certainly don’t expect to be transported back to your kitchen. The other sniffers agreed about the tea smell, and we later established that the source was probably a chemical called caryophyllene.

    Future steps

    Next, we will reconstruct the smell of the mummified bodies so that visitors to the Egyptian Museum can experience them first-hand. We’ll make both a faithful chemical construction of what we smelled, plus an interpretation of how the body would have smelled when it was sealed off in its tomb.

    It will probably be 2026 before the public can experience these. In the meantime, we’re also being approached by other museums with ancient Egyptian collections who are interested in working with us to apply similar methods.

    Separately, I am working with other colleagues on developing a catalogue for smells of cultural significance to the UK, including vintage cars, traditional dishes and more libraries.

    Gotta love the smell of an old library.
    Author provided, CC BY-SA

    Hopefully, our work with mummified bodies is an example of how you can bring back another dimension of heritage. Experiencing smells helps to give visitors a more holistic appreciation and understanding of the subjects.

    And everyone is fascinated by mummified bodies. Soon, it will be possible to put yourself in the shoes of the archaeologists who originally discovered their tombs, and revealed their secrets to the modern world.

    Part of the research mentioned in this piece was funded by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (grant P1-0447), and the Odeuropa research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101004469.

    – ref. ‘Myrrh, conifer oil and … breakfast tea’: my sniffer team’s surprise findings on what mummified bodies smell like – https://theconversation.com/myrrh-conifer-oil-and-breakfast-tea-my-sniffer-teams-surprise-findings-on-what-mummified-bodies-smell-like-249904

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Serbia is facing its largest-ever protest movement – why is Europe looking away?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andi Hoxhaj, Lecturer in Law, King’s College London

    On November 1 2024, the roof of a newly €55 million renovated railway station in Novi Sad, Serbia’s second biggest city, collapsed and killed 15 people. The deaths sparked Serbia’s largest wave of student-led anti-government protests since Yugoslavia’s disintegration in 2000.

    The protests pose the most serious threat to Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić’s power since he became prime minister in 2014, and president in 2017. The protest movement has highlighted Vučić’s growing authoritarian rule and widespread corruption in Serbia.

    Serbians believe that the deadly roof collapse was caused by government corruption. The station was renovated by a Chinese-led consortium as part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative investments and growing political ties with Serbia. The Chinese consortium and Vučić refused to publish the railway station restoration procurement contract after protesters demanded it.

    The protesters have four demands: the publication of all procurement documents concerning the renovation of the station, a stop to the prosecution of students arrested during the protests, the prosecution of police and security forces involved in attacking students during the protests and a 20% increase in the budget for higher education.

    However, the Serbian government and media — most of which Vučić controls through a network of political patronage and cronyism – are downplaying the protests and threatening students.

    Vučić claims that foreign powers are behind the protests to topple him and destabilise Serbia. Russia and China have fully supported Vučić’s claims that Serbia is the target of a western plot to orchestrate the protesters and overthrow Vučić.

    Serbia’s history of corruption

    In the decade after former president Slobodan Milošević was overthrown, Serbia implemented a number of democratic and anti-corruption reforms. As a result, the country climbed to 72nd place out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index in 2013. Serbia opened EU membership negotiations the following year.

    However, since Vučić took office, Serbia has become more authoritarian. Corruption is widespread, and the government has exploited tensions and instability with most of its western Balkans neighbours, primarily Kosovo, for political gain.

    Serbia was downgraded to partly free by Freedom House in 2019, and the V-Dem Institute (Varieties of Democracy) labelled it as as an “electoral autocracy”. Serbia dropped to 105th place in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index in 2024.

    Many international organisations monitoring anti-corruption, human rights and democracy have reported Vučić’s authoritarian tendencies and corruption in Serbia.

    A report from Amnesty International published in December 2024 describes Serbia as a “digital prison”. It has been reported that Serbian authorities are using surveillance technology to monitor and suppress the protesters and other political opponents.

    International response

    The EU has mostly stayed silent since the protests began. After receiving letters from NGOs and activists, EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos stated that the EU is following the protests in Serbia, and backed the rule of law and freedom of assembly.

    This is a far cry from the EU’s response to protests in Georgia last year. EU commission president Ursula von der Leyen said “the Georgian people are fighting for democracy” – yet has stayed silent on the protests in Serbia.

    Some argue this (lack of) response is because in August 2024, Vučić made a deal with the EU to provide lithium to the bloc – a boon to the EU’s electric vehicle production. There were also widespread protests against the lithium deal over its transparency and concerns that the mine would cause irreversible environmental destruction to Serbia’s Jadar Valley.

    The US has also stayed quiet. President Donald Trump’s associates were recently granted permission to build a Trump hotel in Belgrade. Further, Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois who served eight years in prison for corruption, is being considered as the new US ambassador to Serbia. Blagojevich, whose father is from Serbia, expressed support for Vučić and visited the country.

    What is next for Serbia?

    Serbia’s prime minister, Miloš Vučević, and Novi Sad’s mayor, Milan Đurić, both resigned in an effort to de-escalate the protests. Following the resignation of the PM, Vučić has said that he is open to the new government making the documents about the station collapse public.

    While this may be a sign that the protests are loosening Vučić’s grip, the movement has only intensified, spreading to more than 200 towns on February 1.

    Vučić has pledged to either form a new government within one month, or organise a new parliamentary election in the spring to address the protesters’ demands. However, this would barely paper over the cracks of systemic corruption in Serbia.

    The student movement has revealed how democracy and the rule of law have eroded since Vučić came to power in 2014.

    The protests have also exposed the international community’s complicity in supporting Vučić under the premise that he is a constructive partner for regional cooperation and stability in the western Balkans.

    But to have a lasting impact in Serbia, the protesters should also demand a transitional government to undertake anti-corruption and democratic reforms to strengthen the rule of law, and to organise the next elections.

    At the heart of these reforms must be constitutional changes, such as term limits on elected public office. Research shows stricter term limits can reduce the costs of corruption, abuse of power and attacks on the rule of law and democracy.

    Term limits would also prevent figures with authoritarian tendencies, like Vučić, from becoming the state themselves with unlimited and unaccountable power.

    The EU also has a role to play here. By not putting pressure on Vučić, the EU is empowering his authoritarian tendencies. Second, in EU membership negotiations, it should introduce electoral reform as a new requirement for all EU candidate countries.

    Other leaders in the western Balkans have adopted similar authoritarian government models and patronage systems as Serbia to maintain power. These would undermine and threaten the EU rule of law, if they were to join the bloc today.

    The EU must also publicly support student protesters who want Serbia to become more democratic and accountable. After all, the students are fighting for the very ideals on which the EU was founded.

    Andi Hoxhaj does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Serbia is facing its largest-ever protest movement – why is Europe looking away? – https://theconversation.com/serbia-is-facing-its-largest-ever-protest-movement-why-is-europe-looking-away-249388

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: RSF demands White House restores AP’s access — and let press do its job

    Pacific Media Watch

    Trump administration officials barred two Associated Press (AP) reporters from covering White House events this week because the US-based independent news agency did not change its style guide to align with the president’s political agenda.

    The AP is being punished for using the term “Gulf of Mexico,” which the president renamed “Gulf of America” in a recent executive order, reports the global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

    The watchdog RSF condemned this “flagrant violation of the First Amendment” and demanded the AP be given back its full ability to cover the White House.

    “The level of pettiness displayed by the White House is so incredible that it almost hides the gravity of the situation,” said RSF’s USA executive director Clayton Weimers.

    “A sitting president is punishing a major news outlet for its constitutionally protected choice of words. Donald Trump has been trampling over press freedom since his first day in office.”

    News from the AP wire service is widely used by Pacific media.

    First AP reporter barred
    AP was informed by the White House on Tuesday, February 11, that its organisation would be barred from accessing an event if it did not align with the executive order, a statement from executive editor Julie Pace said.

    The news organisation reported that a first AP reporter was turned away Tuesday afternoon as they tried to enter a White House event.

    Later that day, a second AP reporter was barred from a separate event in the White House Diplomatic Room.

    “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment,” the AP statement said.

    Unrelenting attacks on the press
     Shortly after he was inaugurated on January 20, President Trump signed an executive order “restoring freedom of speech,” which proclaimed: “It is the policy of the United States to ensure that no Federal government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

    Yet the president’s subsequent actions have continually proved that this statement is hollow when it comes to freedom of the press.

    The White House . . . clamp down on US government transparency and against the media. Image: RSF

    Prior to barring an AP reporter, the Trump administration launched Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigations into public broadcasters NPR and PBS as well as the private television network CBS.

    It has restricted press access to the Pentagon and arbitrarily removed freelance journalists from White House press pool briefings.

    In a startling withdrawal of transparency, it removed scores of government webpages and datasets and barred many agency press teams from speaking publicly.

    Also the president is personally suing multiple news organisations over their constitutionally protected editorial decisions.

    The United States is ranked 55th out of 180 countries and territories, according to the 2024 RSF World Press Freedom Index.

    Republished from Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: France’s top diplomat confirms ‘unfreezing’ of New Caledonia’s electoral roll back on table

    By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific Presenter/Bulletin editor

    France’s top diplomat in the Pacific region says talks around the “unfreezing” of New Caledonia’s highly controversial electoral roll are back on the table.

    The French government intended to make a constitutional amendment that would lift restrictions prescribed under the Nouméa Accord, which disqualified around 20,000 French citizens who had not resided in the territory before 1998 from voting in the provincial elections.

    The restrictions were viewed as a step to ensure indigenous Kanaks were not at risk of becoming a minority in their own country.

    However, the Paris decision by Paris to move ahead with the changes last year triggered five months of civil unrest that has cost the New Caledonian economy more than 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion).

    The constitutional reforms were initially suspended in June, before the former Prime Minister Michel Barnier abandoned them.

    However, this week, France’s Ambassador to the Pacific, Véronique Roger-Lacan, confirmed that the French Overseas Minister Manuel Valls is set to discuss the issue during next week’s high-level visit to Nouméa.

    She said a date for the provincial elections, to be held at the end of this year, is also in the works.

    Unfreezing of lists
    “The provincial elections were due in December last year, and because there was discussion on the unfreezing of the electoral lists, the whole process was stopped,” Roger-Lacan said at a press briefing in Wellington.

    “The discussion on the unfreezing of the electoral list for the provincial elections continues.”

    She said in a normal democratic system, everyone who pays taxes has the right to vote.

    “Because when you pay taxes to a government, you have the choice of the government [to whom] you give your money. [In New Caledonia] there is a discrepancy,” she said.

    “This was one point of contention that led to the riots.”

    She said the French constitution states that if any of its overseas territories want self-determination, “they can have it”.

    Self-determination is defined by the United Nations as either independence, state association (as in the Cook Islands), or integration within an already independent country, which is the case in New Caledonia, she said.

    Peaceful choice
    “They can choose peacefully among those three solutions. But no riots, no insurrection.”

    Roger-Lacan pointed out that there was a “strong split” within the pro-independence groups in New Caledonia.

    She said there was a part of the pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) who realised that “this discussion on the unfreezing of the electoral list does not make sense”.

    “They agree that the unfreezing of this electoral list is the way to go. What are the criteria for the deferring of this electoral listing are a case of discussion.”

    Roger-Lacan added that the provincial elections must take place before Christmas Day.

    “The question is: with what type of electoral list they will take place.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Apprenticeships aren’t designed for young people any more

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Charlynne Pullen, Principal Research Fellow in Education, Sheffield Hallam University

    BigPixel Photo/Shutterstock

    The number of people in England choosing to enrol in an apprenticeship has declined markedly over the past decade. Apprenticeship participation has fallen overall from 908,700 in 2016-17 to 736,500 in 2023-24.

    Particularly notable has been a shift away from apprenticeships providing introductory skills for young people towards them becoming higher level qualifications for older adults.

    In 2023-24, 55,660 under-19s were taking part in an intermediate apprenticeship, down from 75,500 in 2019-20. On the other hand, 185,810 over-25s were participating in a higher level apprenticeship in 2023-24 – up from 109,770 in 2019-20.

    “Apprenticeship starts for the under-25s fell by 38% in the period 2015-16 to 2022-23,” education secretary Bridget Phillipson told the House of Commons in September 2024. “It will fall to this Labour government to turn that around.”

    Continued messaging from successive governments has emphasised that apprenticeships are for young people. “To every young person I meet my message is that no matter who you are, or where you’re from, or whatever career you want to do, an apprenticeship will open doors for you,” Robert Halfon, skills minister in the previous Conservative government, said in 2023.

    Politicians present a decline in young people taking apprenticeships as a problem. But it is government policy that has turned these qualifications into something much more suitable for adults already in the workforce.

    Employers first

    A large reason for this is changes to how apprenticeships work that make them more centred on the role and needs of employers.

    The changes to apprenticeships since 2012 include a levy on large employers. Companies with an annual pay bill of more than £3 million pay 0.5% of this into a time-limited pot that they can use for apprenticeships within the company or transfer a proportion to smaller companies.

    Apprenticeships have also shifted from a focus on achieving qualifications towards meeting standards that focus on the knowledge, skills and behaviours of a job and often include a status or recognition from a professional body.

    The employer recruits, employs and pays the apprentice. Employers appoint the training provider, and they set the standards.

    Faced with using or losing money for apprenticeships and the choice between an unknown new recruit and an established member of staff, large employers might rationally opt to use apprenticeships to support their existing workforce to improve their skills.

    Many adults enrol on apprenticeships to improve their skills.
    fizkes/Shutterstock

    Adult apprentices typically have experience in relevant roles but want to improve their skills and progress in their careers.

    The NHS, for example, sees apprenticeships as a key part of its workforce strategy. Emerging evidence from my research with colleagues at Sheffield Hallam University and charity the Edge Foundation suggests many people on health apprenticeships are adults and existing staff.

    Reduced requirements

    Policy announcements from the current government have cemented this shift. They include the removal of the need for English and maths qualifications for adult apprentices, and the reduced minimum time period for an apprenticeship from 12 months to eight.

    In announcing the recent changes to English and maths, Bridget Phillipson said: “Businesses have been calling out for change to the apprenticeship system and these reforms show that we are listening. Our new offer of shorter apprenticeships and less red tape strikes the right balance between speed and quality, helping achieve our number one mission to grow the economy.”

    These changes are designed to increase the number of adult apprentices who complete their apprenticeship. Shorter apprenticeships should allow adults’ substantial relevant experience to be recognised within their apprenticeship so they can complete it more quickly.

    English and maths requirements had been a barrier for some adults to completing their apprenticeship. Some employers had made having English and maths qualifications a requirement for getting onto an apprenticeship. Without the requirements, more adults should be able to access and complete apprenticeships – but this change is only for those aged over 19.

    Increased funding for small and medium enterprises to take on apprentices, which was introduced under the previous government, also prioritised employers, although it did come with an additional incentive for them to take on 16-to-18 year olds. Other employer-focused policy changes from the previous government include reducing the requirements for time spent training off-the-job.

    The current government’s planned change to a growth and skills levy does include the creation of foundation apprenticeships. More detail on what they will entail in England is yet to come. But these do currently operate in Scotland, allowing younger people to gain substantial work experience whilst studying for qualifications at college.

    This kind of programme could create a smoother transition into an apprenticeship for a young person, and may increase the number of young people participating in apprenticeships. But for now, employers and the skills needed for economic growth still seem to be the priority.

    Sheffield Hallam has received funding for Charlynne Pullen to conduct related research on apprenticeships from the Low Pay Commission and the Edge Foundation. Charlynne was a Labour councillor in 2010-14 and a Labour parliamentary candidate in the 2015, 2017 and 2019 general elections, but has not been active in the party since 2019.

    – ref. Apprenticeships aren’t designed for young people any more – https://theconversation.com/apprenticeships-arent-designed-for-young-people-any-more-249640

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How would Israel respond if Trump called for death camps in Gaza?

    The issue is no longer a hypothetical one. US President Donald Trump will not explicitly suggest death camps, but he has already consented to Israel’s continuing a war that is not a war but rather a barbaric assault on a desolate stretch of land. From there, the road to annihilation is short, and Israel will not bat an eye. Trump approved it.

    COMMENTARY: By Gideon Levy

    And what if US President Donald Trump suggested setting up death camps for the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip? What would happen then?

    Israel would respond exactly as it did to his transfer ideas, with ecstasy on the right and indifference in the centrist camp.

    Opposition leader Yair Lapid would announce that he would go to Washington to present a “complementary plan”, like he offered to do with regard to the transfer plan.

    Benny Gantz would say that the plan shows “creative thinking, is original and interesting.” Bezalel Smotrich, with his messianic frame of mind, would say, “God has done wonders for us and we rejoice.” Benjamin Netanyahu would rise in public opinion polls.

    The issue is no longer a hypothetical one. Trump will not explicitly suggest death camps, but he has already consented to Israel’s continuing a war that is not a war but rather a barbaric assault on a desolate stretch of land. From there, the road to annihilation is short, and Israel will not bat an eye. Trump approved it.

    After all, no one In Israel rose up to tell the president of the United States “thank you for your ideas, but Israel will never support the expulsion of the Gaza Strip’s Palestinians.”

    Hence, why be confident that if Trump suggested annihilating anyone refusing to evacuate Gaza, Israel would not cooperate with him? Just as Trump exposed the transfer sentiment beating in the heart of almost every Israeli, aimed at solving the problem “once and for all,” he may yet expose a darker element, the sentiment of “it’s us or them.”

    A whitewasher of crimes
    It’s no coincidence that a shady character like Trump has become a guide for Israel. He is exactly what we wanted and dreamed about: a whitewasher of crimes. He may well turn out to be the American president who caused the most damage ever inflicted on Israel.

    There were presidents who were tight-fisted with aid, others who were sour on Israel, who even threatened it. There has never been a president who has set out to destroy the last vestiges of Israel’s morality.

    From here on, anything Trump approves will become Israel’s gold standard.

    Trump is now pushing Israel into resuming its attacks on the Gaza Strip, setting impossible terms for Hamas: All the hostages must be returned before Saturday noon, not a minute later, like the mafia does. And if only three hostages are returned, as was agreed upon? The gates of hell will open.

    They won’t open only in Gaza, which has already been transformed into hell. They will open in Israel too. Israel will lose its last restraints. Trump gave his permission.

    But Trump will be gone one day. He may lose interest before that, and Israel will be left with the damage he wrought, damage inflicted by a criminal, leper state.

    No public diplomacy or friends will be able to save it if it follows the path of its new ethical oracle. No accusations of antisemitism will silence the world’s shock if Israel embarks on another round of combat in the enclave.

    A new campaign must begin
    One cannot overstate the intensity of the damage. The renewal of attacks on Gaza, with the permission and under the authority of the American administration, must be blocked in Israel. Along with the desperate campaign for returning the hostages, a new campaign must begin, against Trump and his outlandish ideas.

    However, not only is there no one who can lead such a campaign, there is also no one who could initiate it. The only battles being waged here now, for the hostages and for the removal of Netanyahu, are important, but they cannot remain the only ones.

    The resumption of the “war” is the greatest disaster now facing us, heralding genocide, with no more argument about definitions.

    After all, what would a “war” look like now, other than an assault on tens of thousands of refugees who have nothing left? What will the halting of humanitarian aid, fuel and medicine and water mean if not genocide?

    We may discover that the first 16 months of the war were only a starter, the first 50,000 deaths only a prelude.

    Ask almost any Israeli and he will say that Trump is a friend of Israel, but Trump is actually Israel’s most dangerous enemy now. Hamas and Hezbollah will never destroy it like he will.

    Gideon Levy is a Ha’aretz columnist and a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. He joined Ha’aretz in 1982, and spent four years as the newspaper’s deputy editor. He is the author of the weekly Twilight Zone feature, which covers the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza over the last 25 years, as well as the writer of political editorials for the newspaper. Levy visited New Zealand in 2017.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Car brake dust can be more harmful than diesel exhaust – new study

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Parkin, Research Fellow, Air Pollution, University of Southampton

    Kichigin/Shutterstock

    Exposure to air pollution is associated with around seven million premature deaths per year across the world. When we think of urban air pollution, diesel exhaust emissions are often portrayed as a key culprit – rightly so, given previous research findings. However, our latest research shows that dust from brake pads could be more harmful to our lungs.

    Dust produced by wear of the road, tyres, and brakes, known as “non-exhaust emissions”, are now the major type of emissions from road transport, surpassing exhaust emissions across many European countries. Of these, brake dust is often the main contributor, but it’s not yet subject to regulation. There is much less known about the potential health effects of brake dust compared to diesel exhaust dust.

    We grew cells in the lab to mimic the lining of the lung, and exposed these cells to both brake dust and diesel exhaust dust. Brake dust proved significantly more harmful to these cells across different measures that are linked to lung diseases such as cancer and asthma. Interestingly, we found that removing copper from the brake dust reduced these effects.

    Despite this, current vehicle regulations in the UK only target exhaust emissions. Our findings suggest there is an urgent need to consider regulation of non-exhaust emissions as well. Reformulating brake pads might be one way to reduce the potential health burden imposed by these emissions.

    Brake pads previously contained asbestos fibres to deal with overheating. However, asbestos was banned in the UK in 1999 because of links to lung disease. This resulted in the motor industry designing new brake pad linings, including non-asbestos organic (NAO) pads commonly used in vehicles today.

    We compared the harmfulness of dust from the wear of different pad types. Ironically, we found that dust from the NAO pads, designed to replace asbestos-containing pads, was the most toxic to lung cells compared not only to dust from other pad types, but also to diesel exhaust dust. Some of the effects on our exposed cells relate to diseases such as lung cancer, lung fibrosis (lung scarring), asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    Friction braking system.
    Photology1971/Shutterstock

    Previous research has shown that metals in air pollution particles can have toxic effects. We measured the metal content in the different types of brake dust and diesel exhaust dust. AI techniques identified high copper content as the defining characteristic of brake dust from NAO pads.

    We also found that this copper could get inside exposed lung cells. Most interestingly, when we treated this brake dust with a chemical to neutralise copper, its toxic effects were diminished. This suggests that copper is causing at least some of the harmful properties of this dust.

    Almost half of all copper in the air we breathe comes from brake and tyre wear. Various studies conducted by other research groups have found that exposure to high concentrations of copper is associated with impaired lung function, and overall risk of death.

    EVs aren’t perfect

    There is a huge body of evidence showing that airborne dusts are damaging to our health. Unfortunately, while the switch to electric vehicles (EVs) will eliminate exhaust emissions, which include toxic gases as well as dust, it will not eliminate road, tyre and brake dust. Studies indicate that, because they tend to be heavier, electric vehicles can generate more non-exhaust dust than petrol or diesel vehicles – the zero-emission label is clearly not accurate.

    Electrification of transport won’t solve the problem of brake pad emissions.
    Sue Thatcher/Shutterstock

    Some EVs are fitted with regenerative braking systems that allow the engine to act as a generator, slowing the car. However, EVs are still fitted with friction braking systems, which help bring the car to a full stop, so they still generate brake dust.

    The upcoming Euro 7 emissions standards that will be introduced in November 2026 will place limits on brake dust emissions which may spur innovation to develop new brake materials or dust-trapping mechanisms. They may also place extra focus on traffic calming and road design, to minimise stop-start and aggressive driving styles – both of which increase brake dust emissions.

    New brake pad formulations might reduce the total level of dust emissions or might be designed to exclude toxic components similarly to how asbestos was eliminated previously. Notably, in the US, both California and Washington have passed legislation to reduce copper content within brake pads, although this was primarily in response to concerns about the runoff of copper from brake dust into waterways, affecting aquatic life.

    Non-exhaust emissions are all around us, making up around 60% of all vehicle-derived pollution particles in the UK. It is important for us to recognise that there is no air pollutant for which there is an established safe exposure level.

    As we make the shift to electric cars, science and regulation must approach these emissions as seriously as those from the exhaust pipe.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    James Parkin works for the University of Southampton. He received funding from Wessex Medical Research.

    Matt Loxham receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Medical Research Council (MRC), Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Academy of Medical Sciences, Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute, Wessex Medical Research, and Asthma Allergy and Inflammation Research (AAIR) Charity.

    He is a member of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP), but he is writing here as an individual and his views do not necessarily represent those of the Committee or its members.

    – ref. Car brake dust can be more harmful than diesel exhaust – new study – https://theconversation.com/car-brake-dust-can-be-more-harmful-than-diesel-exhaust-new-study-249736

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘A shameful call by Creative Australia’: the arts community reacts to Khaled Sabsabi being dropped from the Venice Biennale

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cecelia Cmielewski, Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

    To be selected as the artist and curator team to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale is considered the ultimate exhibition for an artistic team. To have your selection rescinded, as has now happened to the 2026 team of Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino, is without precedent.

    Australia has presented at the biennale since 1954, and is one of 29 countries to have a permanent pavilion. Last year, Archie Moore was the first Australian to win the Golden Lion for best national pavilion.

    The selection of an artist and curator pair is managed by Creative Australia. The arts funding body appoints a committee of visual artists and industry experts to form a shortlist of six teams, and make the final selection.

    The announcement on February 7 of Sabsabi and Dagostino was widely celebrated as creatively bold and inclusive.

    On Thursday, opposition arts spokesperson, Claire Chandler, questioned Sabsabi’s selection in the Senate. She cited a 2007 work that featured Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and said the artist had made work “promoting” Osama bin Laden.

    In a statement released on Thursday night, Creative Australia said Sabsabi and Dagostino would no longer represent Australia at the biennale.

    The Creative Australia board, the statement said, “believes a prolonged and divisive debate about the 2026 selection outcome poses an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia’s artistic community”.

    On social media, the artistic community was swift in its condemnation. They criticised the paucity of understanding of Sabsabi’s artistic and community practice, and questioned the role of political interference and freedom of artistic expression.

    Artists called for the resignation of the Creative Australia board, and for a boycott of the Australian pavilion at the biennale.

    ‘A remarkable career’

    Before moving into visual arts, Sabsabi began his career as a hip-hop artist, known as Peacefender. In a career spanning more than 35 years, he has worked in video, mixed media and installation art, exhibiting around Australia and internationally.

    Media artist and academic John Gillies described Sabsabi as “a thoughtful and peaceful person” who has worked as a community arts worker in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

    The former head of the Sydney gallery Artspace, Nicholas Tsoutas, said Sabsabi “has had a remarkable career in contemporary art and his selection was so well deserved”.

    He praised the selection of Sabsabi as “an extraordinary opportunity to really advocate for artistic freedom for bringing [people] together”, and added this decision will “do the exact opposite”.

    ‘A sad day’

    Artist Kate Just said the board’s decision “undermines the expertise of the artist, curator, and the selection team. The decision fails to uphold the work of artists to interrogate complex personal and political histories and the urgent issues of our time.”

    Fiona Winning, former director of programming at Sydney Opera House, said it was “a shameful call by Creative Australia”. Artist Nigel Helyer expressed his belief this decision was “liable to emphasise cultural divides, rather than placate them”.

    Investment banker, art collector and philanthropist Simon Mordant, commented on Instagram he has “resigned as an Ambassador to the now cancelled project and withdrawn my financial support – this situation is unacceptable”.

    He suggested “the Pavilion should remain empty in solidarity with Khaled. A very dark day for Australia and the Arts”.

    Advocacy body National Association for the Visual Arts (commonly known as NAVA) released a statement saying “government interference in the expert panel’s selection process undermines the very principle of independence”.

    The decision, they said, “erodes public trust, alienates artists, and sparks widespread protest from those who stand with Sabsabi and Dagostino as a matter of principle”.

    ‘Artists reflect the times they live in’

    The five artistic teams who were shortlisted to represent Australia at the biennale have released a joint statement in support of Sabsabi.

    They called the selection process “rigorous and professionally independent” leading to the selection of a team with “artistic vision and courage”.

    Revoking support, they wrote, is “antithetical to the goodwill and hard-fought artistic independence, freedom of speech and moral courage that is at the core of arts in Australia”.

    In a statement, Sabsabi and Dagostino said “art should not be censored as artists reflect the times they live in”.

    “We intended to present a transformational work in Venice, an experience that would unite all audiences in an open and safe shared space,” they said.

    As the artistic community is showing, this decision has raised a debate on what artists are allowed to say in Australia and brings into question the independence of Creative Australia.

    Cecelia Cmielewski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘A shameful call by Creative Australia’: the arts community reacts to Khaled Sabsabi being dropped from the Venice Biennale – https://theconversation.com/a-shameful-call-by-creative-australia-the-arts-community-reacts-to-khaled-sabsabi-being-dropped-from-the-venice-biennale-249941

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Dingoes are being culled in Victoria. How much harm to the species is needed to protect commercial profits?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Ireland-Piper, Associate Professor, ANU National Security College, Australian National University

    A Victorian government decision to allow dingo culling in the state’s east until 2028 has reignited debate over what has been dubbed Australia’s most controversial animal.

    Animals Australia, an animal welfare group, has filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the decision. The case is due to be heard this year.

    Announcing the legal action, the group said the eradication program targeted a unique native animal at risk of extinction, and ignored pleas from Traditional Owners who “treasure the dingo as a totem species”.

    The controversy raises a few thorny questions. Are dingoes an important native species or an agricultural pest? And what is the right balance between protecting the species, and protecting the interests of farmers?

    What’s this all about?

    Dingoes are listed as vulnerable in Victoria. This means the species faces a high risk of extinction in the wild over the medium term.

    Dingoes are also protected under Victoria’s Wildlife Act – unless a special order is made to declare them “unprotected”. To date, these unprotection orders have been made when authorities deem it necessary to prevent dingoes from killing livestock.

    An unprotection order means a person can legally kill dingoes in certain areas of private and public land, by trapping, poisoning or shooting.

    Since around 2010, a succession of unprotection orders have allowed dingoes to be killed in various parts of Victoria. The unprotection order now being challenged came into effect on October 1 last year and will continue until January 1, 2028.

    Announcing the decision, Victoria’s Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos says the government was:

    striking the right balance between protecting our vulnerable dingo populations while giving farmers the ability to protect their livestock, and we will regularly engage to ensure settings continue to achieve this balance.

    Dingoes are not ‘wild dogs’

    DNA studies suggest dingoes have been in Australia for between 4,600 and 18,000 years. Often wrongly described as “wild dogs”, they are [actually descended from south Asian wolves](https://environment.desi.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals/living-with/dingoes#:~:text=The%20dingo—Australia’s%20only%20native,role%20in%20the%20natural%20environment.Sustainable dingo management (and public sympathies either way).

    Adding to the complications, it can be hard to distinguish between a wild dog and a dingo without DNA testing.

    Dingoes were once widespread across Victoria but are now extinct across most of the state, save for two populations in the state’s north and east.

    Conservationists and scientists fear the extended order in eastern Victoria may push dingoes to local extinction

    The experience in north-west Victoria offers a cautionary tale. There, under a dingo unprotection order, the population dropped to as few as 40 individuals. The local dingo population was deemed “critically low and at risk of extinction”, prompting the government to reinstate dingo protections.

    In eastern Victoria, the dingo population is estimated at between 2,640 and 8,800.

    However in September last year, before the unprotection order in eastern Victoria came into effect, Nationals Member for Gippsland, Tim Bull, claimed 1,500 dingoes were already being killed in the region each year by farmers and others.

    If those figures are correct, it suggests extending the unprotection order until 2028 will devastate the dingo population in eastern Victoria.

    A decline in dingo populations is not just a concern for the species itself – it will have knock-on effects.

    Dingoes are apex predators and research shows they are central to how ecosystems function. They can help control introduced predators such as foxes, feral cats and rabbits. This benefits native animals and plants.

    Is the balance right?

    Given the risks to dingo populations and the broader environment, it’s pertinent to ask if the government decision swings too far towards protecting agricultural production.

    One report suggests within Victoria’s 16 “wild dog management zones” in the 2022–23 financial year, there were more than 1.7 million head of livestock. Of these, 1,455 were confirmed killed by dingoes. While understandably of concern to farmers, this nonetheless represents a tiny proportion of total stock numbers.

    The number of sheep killed by dingoes is also only a fraction of the 14.6 million currently farmed in Victoria. Sheep are not at risk of extinction.

    These numbers suggest the government has not struck the right balance between protecting livestock and ensuing dingo populations survive.

    Considering the rights of Traditional Owners

    When weighing up an unprotection order, a minister must consider how it affects the rights of Traditional Owners.

    In 2023, when deliberating over whether to make an unprotection order in eastern Victoria, the Victorian government stated that for Aboriginal people:

    • dingoes are part of their living cultural heritage

    • the loss of a dingo is akin to the loss of a family member

    • the dingo helps maintain connection to Country

    • some have a totemic and kinship relationship with the dingo.

    The government said while the order would limit Aboriginal people’s rights, this was justified when taking other factors into account.

    The court will decide

    Animal protection group Animals Australia has filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the lawfulness and validity of the unprotection order. Court documents are not yet publicly available.

    Australia does not have a single and consistent animal welfare and protection regime. Instead, protections are fractured between the states. That is why the current challenge to dingo culling is limited to Victoria, even though culling takes place in other states. This illustrates the difficulty in using the law to protect animals at a national level.

    This challenge is part of a broader push to redefine the relationship between humans and animals through what’s known as animal law. In recent years, animal advocates have used various aspects of the law to challenge the gassing of pigs before they are slaughtered, and recreational duck shooting.

    The current case is an important test for how the law balances the needs of humans and animals – and in particular, how much harm is deemed “necessary” at law to protect commercial profit and livelihood.

    Danielle Ireland-Piper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Dingoes are being culled in Victoria. How much harm to the species is needed to protect commercial profits? – https://theconversation.com/dingoes-are-being-culled-in-victoria-how-much-harm-to-the-species-is-needed-to-protect-commercial-profits-245759

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Bracing for a monster: Tropical Cyclone Zelia is bearing down on WA. Here’s what to expect

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia

    Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia is bearing down on the northwest coast of Australia and is likely to make landfall early Friday evening.

    It’s a monster storm of great concern to Western Australia. Port Hedland is the largest town in the firing line and also our busiest iron ore export port. Strong winds may extend to other areas along the coast, and inland to areas such as Marble Bar, Tom Price and Paraburdoo.

    Even if Zelia doesn’t hit towns directly, it’s likely to cause a lot of damage. The Bureau of Meteorology predicts extremely dangerous sustained winds of around 205 kilometers an hour and wind gusts higher still, at 290km/h. That’s strong enough to flatten homes, trees, power lines and other infrastructure.

    This is a category five cyclone, which is the most severe possible under the current scale. But as climate change worsens, authorities may need to add another category to the scale.

    Bureau of Meteorology video explaining the threat of Tropical Cyclone Zeila.

    Do we need a category 6?

    Elsewhere in the world, tropical cyclones are called hurricanes or typhoons.

    The severity of a tropical cyclone (or hurricane or typhoon) is ranked in categories from 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest).

    Category one involves maximum average wind speed of up to 88km/h, and strongest gusts up to 125 km/h. It typically causes negligible damage to homes but may damage crops, trees and caravans.

    Category five, the most severe, is defined as “extremely dangerous”, causing widespread destruction of buildings and vegetation. These cyclones bring maximum average wind speeds greater than 200km/h and gusts greater than 279km/h.

    However, on a warming planet, cyclones are expected to become more intense. It’s also making tropical cyclones and hurricanes intensify more quickly.

    Some scientists have called for a category six for hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones with sustained wind speeds greater than 309km/h. They argue a new category is needed to communicate the risks associated with tropical cyclones fuelled by climate change.

    Bureau of Meteorology video explaining the threat of Tropical Cyclone Zeila.

    Climate change is feeding storms

    It’s too early to say if Cyclone Zelia is directly caused, or fuelled, by climate change. However, research over the last 30 years has found a link between global warming and more intense tropical cyclones.

    Globally, 2024 was Earth’s warmest year on record. Ocean heat content is increasing around most tropical seas, and other places where tropical cyclones are forming.
    Warmer oceans, and a warmer atmosphere, both feed energy into tropical cyclones, making them more intense and fast-forming when conditions are favourable.

    Zelia intensified from a category one into a five in just over 24 hours.

    Australia is currently experiencing record-breaking sea surface temperatures. The area off the northwest coast has been up to 4-5°C above normal this summer.

    Hurricane Milton, which struck the United States in October last year, also shows how climate change is making tropical cyclones worse. Amid very warm ocean temperatures, it intensified rapidly over the Gulf of Mexico to a category five hurricane.

    We can expect more of these severe cyclones in future, if humanity keeps warming up the oceans and the atmosphere.

    Slow is not good

    Climate change is slowing the forward motion of tropical cyclones over the ocean and land. That means they take longer to cross the coast and pass through an area – inflicting more damage from wind and storm surge, and dumping more rain.

    The Bureau of Meteorology says Cyclone Zelia’s “forward speed” is quite slow, at 11km/h. So, heavy rain and the strong winds will persist for quite a few hours before and after it crosses the coast.

    The strongest winds of a tropical cyclone are usually near the eye, but can extend for hundreds of kilometres. Sometimes, winds on opposite sides of the eye blow in different directions, causing destruction on the ground which damages buildings, infrastructure, farmland and the environment.

    Conditions on the ground

    At the moment around Port Hedland, winds are about 70-100km/h and rising. That’s gale force but not too alarming. Conditions will rapidly deteriorate into this afternoon, particularly to the east of Port Hedland.

    The storm has already dropped a lot of rain. This has caused local flooding and cut rail lines. But there’s more to come.

    The Bureau of Meteorology is also warning of a significant storm tide – when sea levels rise well above a typical high tide. This may lead to flooding and inundate coastal roads and properties.

    The cyclone will continue to trek inland over the weekend, gradually weakening as it goes. People in mining and Indigenous communities hundreds of kilometres inland could experience strong winds, heavy rain and flooding.

    The bureau is providing regular updates online. For those in the path of the cyclone visit www.emergency.wa.gov.au or download the Emergency WA app for the latest community alerts and warnings.

    Steve Turton has received funding from the Australian government.

    – ref. Bracing for a monster: Tropical Cyclone Zelia is bearing down on WA. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/bracing-for-a-monster-tropical-cyclone-zelia-is-bearing-down-on-wa-heres-what-to-expect-249947

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: In Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the US has put a conspiracy theorist in charge of public health

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

    Overnight, Robert F. Kennedy Jr was confirmed as the secretary of the US Health and Human Services Department. Put simply, this makes him the most influential figure in overseeing the health and wellbeing of more than 330 million Americans.

    As health secretary, Kennedy will be involved in overseeing federal health agencies that regulate medical research, disease prevention, drug approvals and health-care programs.

    This includes oversight of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, which are among the most crucial public health agencies in the country.

    Reports suggest he’ll oversee a budget in the order of US$1.8 trillion (A$2.8 trillion) annually.

    In the era of Trump 2.0, there’s little that shocks me anymore. But Kennedy would have to be the most unqualified person ever to hold this crucial role of protecting the health of the American people.

    A history of discounting science

    The absolute minimum requirement for someone occupying such as role should be an understanding of science and respect for scientific evidence and expertise. Yet, Kennedy fails spectacularly in this regard.

    Here are just some of the false claims he has made over the years:

    None of these positions has even the smallest amount of scientific support.

    It’s hard to predict what Kennedy will do as health secretary, especially given his confirmation hearings looked to be an exercise in being vague, evasive and denying or downplaying his prior controversial statements to secure support.

    But there are three areas where his views are fairly clear and his appointment could be expected to have a significant impact. These are water fluoridation, infectious diseases research and vaccines.

    Fluoridation of water

    Kennedy has been a long-term opponent of water fluoridation, despite its proven benefits in preventing tooth decay. He has consistently questioned its safety and claimed it’s linked to a range of illnesses such as arthritis, bone cancer, IQ loss and neurodevelopmental disorders.

    While a recent review suggested a link between water fluoridation and lower IQ in children, the levels of fluoride in the water in countries included in this review were generally several times higher than the levels in public water fluoridation programs in countries such as the US and Australia. There were also other limitations that make interpreting these findings challenging.

    The CDC has identified community water fluoridation as as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. And it continues to benefit dental health today, without any convincing evidence of possible harms.

    Nonetheless, it seems likely that in keeping with his longstanding views one of Kennedy’s first priorities will be to try to halt water fluoridation in the US.

    Infectious diseases

    Alongside his confirmation as health secretary, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing “The President’s Commission to Make America Healthy Again”, with Kennedy as the chair.

    The Make America Healthy Again movement (MAHA) is an initiative driven by Kennedy focusing on improving nutrition, increasing transparency in medical practices and reducing the corporate influence in health.

    Though premised primarily on combating chronic diseases, the movement also embraces scepticism of established medical practices, unproven alternative therapies and a general mistrust of institutions.

    What’s more, Kennedy’s focus on chronic diseases seems to be coming at the expense of continued work on infectious diseases.

    He has proposed directing the National Institutes of Health to pause infectious disease research for eight years to prioritise research into chronic diseases and alternative treatments.

    As health secretary, Kennedy has the power to shift research priorities. If he were to effectively halt infectious diseases research – in the wake of COVID and with a looming threat of future pandemics – this would be catastrophic for the US and global health.

    Vaccine scepticism

    Related to infectious diseases, there’s little doubt the area in which Kennedy has done the most damage relates to vaccines.

    He has dedicated a large part of his life to undermining public confidence in vaccines. This is despite overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating their safety and effectiveness, and the millions of lives they’ve saved.

    Although he has subsequently denied it, Kennedy is on record as falsely stating there is no such thing as a safe and effective vaccine. Notably, he has continued to push the debunked claim that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is linked to autism, despite the single study finding this having been widely discredited.

    Kennedy’s frequent assertion that he’s not anti-vaccine, but “pro-safety”, is also deeply disingenuous. Being “pro-safety” is a deliberately vague notion designed to appear reasonable while at the same time undermining the scientific evidence.

    The impact of Kennedy’s appointment as health secretary on vaccine confidence will not just be limited to the US. Vaccine hesitancy has been recognised as one of the greatest threats to public health. Having a vaccine sceptic leading the US health agencies has the potential to harm vaccine uptake worldwide.

    As we’ve seen during the COVID pandemic, producing a vaccine is only half the battle. Convincing people to take it is just as important. There’s no doubt Kennedy’s influence on public health messaging could further erode vaccine confidence at a time when vaccine messaging must be clear.

    It’s bad news for the US and the world

    One of the reasons Kennedy poses such a threat to public health in the US and globally is his lack of trust in science. He believes a narrative can be crafted by picking and choosing any study that fits with his world view, regardless of its quality.

    In addition, he personifies the bad-faith tactics of conspiracy theorists globally, “selling” the flawed premise that any assertion is valid until others prove it false.

    What the world needs now is a safe pair of hands leading public health in the US. Someone who is guided by evidence – not someone who promotes anti-science propaganda and conspiracy theories.

    Hassan Vally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. In Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the US has put a conspiracy theorist in charge of public health – https://theconversation.com/in-robert-f-kennedy-jr-the-us-has-put-a-conspiracy-theorist-in-charge-of-public-health-249601

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Parliament has passed landmark election donation laws. They may be a ‘stitch up’ but they also improve Australia’s democracy

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

    Federal parliament has passed the biggest changes to Australia’s electoral funding laws in decades.

    The Albanese government’s Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 cleared the Senate on Wednesday night after just two hours of debate on amendments agreed to earlier by the Coalition. In blatant disregard for democracy, the government refused to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny.

    The amendments fail to address numerous deficiencies in the original bill that was introduced last November. Transparency has been wound back and hollow contribution caps have been locked in.

    In significant respects, however, the package is an improvement on the status quo, which has seen unrestricted donations and spending flourish. So, too, secrecy.

    We need to penetrate the sound and fury of partisanship and assess the substance of these laws. This will yield a much more nuanced picture than conveyed by cross bench claims of a major party stitch up.

    Some improvement to transparency

    The government originally proposed lowering the disclosure threshold for donations from $16,000 to $1,000. The revised bill settles on a new threshold of $5,000.

    The amendments fail to plug a loophole that allows a donor to give separately to all of the branches attached to a political party if each individual contribution is just under the threshold. For example, a donor could spread almost $45,000 to the nine state and federal branches of the ALP without being required to declare the amounts.

    But the new laws will usher in near-real time disclosure and substantially reduce “dark money”, a seismic shift from the secrecy and lack of timeliness in the regime it replaces.

    Hollow donation caps

    Under the reforms, a series of contribution caps have been introduced to curb the influence of big money in politics.

    In my assessment of the original bill, I highlighted how the caps would prevent multi-million dollar contributions from cashed-up individuals.

    The amendments go further by closing a number of sizeable loopholes. Self financing candidates, such as Clive Palmer and Malcolm Turnbull will be subject to the contribution caps. The current exclusions for membership and affiliation fees to associated entities – “disguised donations” – will also be caught by the caps.

    But any positives are emphatically outweighed by the “annual gift cap” more than doubling to $50,000. The same “spreading” loophole that applies to the disclosure obligations would allow a donor to to give just shy of this amount to each of a party’s state and federal branches across the country. The major parties could reap up to almost $450,000 per annum from a single donor.

    And the “overall gift cap” on total donations made to political parties and candidates is a generous $1.6 million, which means large contributions will still be permissible under the new framework.

    The government has also failed to remove the patently unfair provisions relating to “nominated entities”, which are likely to be used by the major parties as investment vehicles.

    As the Victorian Electoral Review Expert Panel has rightly noted, such entities:

    provide some (parties) with significantly more funds, creating a risk that those (parties) drown out other voices.

    Election spending contained and fairer

    The spending caps in the new finance laws are fundamentally unaltered by the government’s amendments.

    The $800,000 per electorate limit, and $90 million per party nationally, will contain the “arms race” that has necessitated “big money” fundraising and fuelled unfair contests.

    However, the limits are set too high and will benefit the established parties due to the narrow scope of the spending caps in individual electorates. This means the major parties will be able to shift funding to must-win seats without being caught by the electorate caps.

    This shortcoming has been seized upon as clear evidence that Labor and the Liberals are seeking to kneecap Teal election campaigns. While having some force, these criticisms should be viewed in the context of the current situation where the major parties have an unfettered ability to direct spending to marginal seats, a situation which the Teals are ironically defending with their opposition to spending caps.

    The importance of public funding

    The new regime includes a substantial jump in public funding from $3.50 to $5 per vote.

    Crossbenchers, such as Kate Chaney, are opposed, to the increase, saying it will entrench the might of the majors while making it harder for new independents:

    The effect of increasing public funding is that political parties don’t have to fundraise because they’ve got their war chests. But any challengers do have to fundraise.

    While there is a clear risk of unfairness, the crossbench position throws the baby out with the bathwater. It romanticises the role of private funding, skating over the risks of corruption and undue influence via large donations.

    The public funding of political parties and candidates is warranted. But there should be a conversation about the design and scope of taxpayer support.

    The political finance laws could be made considerably fairer by fixing the structural bias that favours incumbents, including teal MPs. And they don’t need to be as generous given the large flows of private funding that will continue under the shallow contribution caps.

    Unfinished business

    Bad processes tend to make bad laws. The government’s actions have cast a pall of illegitimacy over its political finance regime. The new framework is unfair and ineffectual in significant ways and yet democracy enhancing in others.

    We are all trustees of democracy, with an obligation to protect and deepen democratic practices. An urgent task in that continuing struggle is to protect the strengths of these laws while jettisoning the elements that are egregiously bad.

    Joo-Cheong Tham has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute, International IDEA, the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Victorian Electoral Commission. He is a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; Expert Network Member of Climate Integrity; a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia; and the Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff) of the National Tertiary Education Union.

    – ref. Parliament has passed landmark election donation laws. They may be a ‘stitch up’ but they also improve Australia’s democracy – https://theconversation.com/parliament-has-passed-landmark-election-donation-laws-they-may-be-a-stitch-up-but-they-also-improve-australias-democracy-249588

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Suicide or accident? The hidden complexities of intentional road crashes in Australia

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

    Juris Teivans/Shutterstock

    In Australia, fatal road crashes are climbing again, especially since the pandemic, and despite years of attempts to reduce road trauma, the numbers remain stubbornly high.

    Strategies to reduce the road toll have largely focused on speeding, distractions and enforcement gaps, such as roadside drug testing.

    But hidden in these statistics is a lesser-known, deeply troubling reality: some of these crashes are not unintentional at all.

    A difficult area to explore

    A portion of road fatalities each year are deaths by suicide.

    For some, cars and trucks are not just modes of transport – they become a means to intentionally end their lives.

    The true scale of this issue is difficult to determine, as coroners and crash investigators often struggle to distinguish suicide from accidental death.

    The phenomenon is not confined to Australia – it has been studied and documented in several countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, and the United States.

    International research suggests driver suicides may account for up to 8–9% of all fatal road crashes. But studies indicate up to half of these cases may go unreported.

    So what do we know about these cases? Why are they so difficult to identify and what patterns exist in these incidents?

    How bad is the problem?

    Between 2001 and 2017, the rate of suicide involving a road vehicle collision in Australia nearly doubled from 0.125 per 100,000 people to 0.25 per 100,000.

    These suicides take several forms.

    Some involve single-vehicle crashes, where a driver deliberately collides with a tree, pole, or concrete barrier.

    Others are multiple-vehicle collisions, where a driver or rider intentionally steers into oncoming traffic, often targeting trucks.

    There are also pedestrian suicides, where people step or lie in front of moving vehicles.

    Among driver suicides, single-vehicle crashes are the most common, with studies estimating more than half of driver suicides involve collisions with fixed objects (some studies suggest the figure is more than 70%).

    For multiple-vehicle collisions, almost 82% of cases involve colliding with an oncoming truck.

    More than half of pedestrian deaths by suicide also involve trucks.

    While there are variations in research findings, current evidence suggest males make up between 78% and 91% of those who die by road transport suicide.

    Certain demographics have been found to be more likely to die in a road suicide in Australia compared to other methods of suicide:

    This includes those who are:

    • male (15% more likely than females)
    • younger than 25 (nearly five times more likely than those older)
    • non-Indigenous (three times more likely than First Nations people)
    • born overseas (40% more likely than those born in Australia)

    The ripple effects

    Unlike most other suicide methods, road vehicle collisions pose a significant risk to others.

    Intentional crashes can involve unsuspecting drivers, passengers and pedestrians, turning a personal act of self-harm into a broader public safety issue.

    Studies show that when a suicide collision involves vehicles with a large weight disparity — such as a car colliding with a truck — nearly 30% result in injury to another person and almost 4% result in the death of another person.

    Beyond the immediate loss of life or injury, these incidents leave lasting psychological scars on the drivers involved.

    Why is it difficult to establish suicide on the road?

    Determining whether a fatal road crash was intentional or unintentional is fraught with challenges. Unlike other suicide methods, there is often no definitive proof of intent.

    Coroners and crash investigators rely on a patchwork of evidence: eyewitness accounts, vehicle behaviour before impact, the driver’s psychological history and physical crash characteristics.

    Even when red flags are present — such as high-speed impacts with no signs of braking, the driver not wearing a seat belt, collisions with trucks, or cases where drivers abruptly veer into oncoming traffic — these alone are not always enough to confirm intent.

    Investigators must also navigate the cultural and social sensitivities surrounding suicide, which can lead to hesitation in formally classifying a death as intentional. Families, religious beliefs and even financial factors such as life insurance claims can influence how these cases are handled.

    In many instances, those who use this method do so in a way that obscures their intent, deliberately staging a crash to appear unintentional.

    Without conclusive evidence, such as a documented history of suicidality or a suicide note, these cases often remain in statistical limbo — unconfirmed, unclassified, and possibly unreported.

    What can be done?

    While broader suicide prevention efforts are always relevant, reducing suicide-related road crashes requires targeted, practical interventions that make vehicles less likely to be used for suicide. Some ideas include:

    1. Vehicle safety features that reduce lethality, such as automatic emergency braking and collision avoidance systems, can make intentional high-speed crashes less likely to be fatal. As such, they could discourage the use of vehicles as a suicide method. Airbags, in particular, can play a crucial role, as they can make the outcome of a crash less predictable for people attempting suicide.

    2. A national standardised process for classifying intentional crashes would improve detection and data accuracy. Incorporating psychological autopsies and mandating coroners consider behavioural indicators (such as lack of evasive action) could help identify cases that currently go unreported.

    3. Heavy vehicle drivers and first responders should receive specialised training to recognise potential suicide crash indicators and manage the psychological toll of being involved in such incidents.

    Together, these measures can make vehicle-related suicide, as a very complex issue, less likely and more detectable.

    If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available. In Australia, you can contact Lifeline at 13 11 14 for confidential support.

    Angela J Clapperton receives funding from Suicide Prevention Australia.

    Lay San Too receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for a fellowship.

    Matthew J. Spittal receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for an Investigator Grant (GNT2025205).

    Milad Haghani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Suicide or accident? The hidden complexities of intentional road crashes in Australia – https://theconversation.com/suicide-or-accident-the-hidden-complexities-of-intentional-road-crashes-in-australia-248673

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: In the quest to appease Israel, the media undermine our basic rights

    In its eagerness to appease supporters of Israel, the media is happy to ride roughshod over due process and basic rights. It’s damaging Australia’s (and New Zealand’s?) democracy.

    COMMENTARY: By Bernard Keane

    Two moments stand out so far from the Federal Court hearings relating to Antoinette Lattouf’s sacking by the ABC, insofar as they demonstrate how power works in Australia — and especially in Australia’s media.

    The first is how the ABC’s senior management abandoned due process in the face of a sustained lobbying effort by a pro-Israel group to have Lattouf taken off air, under the confected basis she was “antisemitic”.

    Managing director David Anderson admitted in court that there was a “step missing” in the process that led to her sacking — in particular, a failure to consult with the ABC’s HR area, and a failure to discuss the attacks on Lattouf with Lattouf herself, before kicking her out.

    To this, it might be added, was acting editorial director Simon Melkman’s advice to management that Lattouf had not breached any editorial policies.

    Anderson bizarrely singled out Lattouf’s authorship, alongside Cameron Wilson, of a Crikey article questioning the narrative that pro-Palestinian protesters had chanted “gas the Jews”, as basis for his concerns about her, only for one of his executives to point out the article was “balanced and journalistically sound“.

    That is, by the ABC’s own admission, there was no basis to sack Lattouf and the sacking was conducted improperly. And yet, here we are, with the ABC tying itself in absurd knots — no such race as Lebanese, indeed — spending millions defending its inappropriate actions in response to a lobbying campaign.

    The second moment that stands out is a decision by the court early in the trial to protect the identities of those calling for Lattouf’s sacking.

    Abandoned due process
     The campaign that the group rolled out prompted the ABC chair and managing director to immediately react — and the ABC to abandon due process and procedural fairness. Yet the court protects their identities.

    The reasoning — that the identities behind the complaints should be protected for their safety — may or may not be based on reasonable fears, but it’s the second time that institutions have worked to protect people who planned to undermine the careers of people — specifically, women — who have dared to criticise Israel.

    The first was when some members — a minority — of a WhatsApp group supposedly composed of pro-Israel “creatives” discussed how to wreck the careers of, inter alia, Clementine Ford and Lauren Dubois for their criticism of Israel.

    The publishing of the identities of this group was held by both the media and the political class to be an outrageous, antisemitic act of “doxxing”, and the federal government rushed through laws to make such publications illegal.

    No mention of making the act of trying to destroy people’s careers because they hold different political views — or, cancel culture, as the right likes to call it — illegal.

    Whether it’s courts, politicians or the media, it seems that the dice are always loaded in favour of those wanting to crush criticism of Israel, while its victims are left to fend for themselves.

    Human rights lawyer and fighter against antisemitism Sarah Schwartz has been repeatedly threatened with (entirely vexatious) lawsuits by Israel supporters for her criticism of Israel, and her discussion of the exploitation of Australian Jews by Peter Dutton.

    Targeted by another News Corp smear campaign
    She’s been targeted by yet another News Corp smear campaign, based on nothing more than a wilfully misinterpreted slide. She has no government or court rushing to protect her.

    Meanwhile, Peter Lalor, one of Australia’s finest sports journalists (and I write as someone who can’t abide most sports journalism) lost his job with SEN because he, too, dared to criticise Israel and call out the Palestinian genocide. No-one’s rushing to his aide, either.

    No powerful institutions are weighing in to safeguard his privacy, or protect him from the consequences of his opinions.

    The individual cases add up to a pattern: Australian institutions, and especially its major media institutions, will punish you for criticising Israel.

    Pro-Israel groups will demand you be sacked, they will call for your career to be destroyed. Those groups will be protected.

    Media companies will ride roughshod over basic rights and due process to comply with their demands. You will be smeared and publicly vilified on completely spurious bases. Politicians will join in, as Jason Clare did with the campaign against Schwartz and as Chris Minns is doing in NSW, imposing hate speech laws that even Christian groups think are a bad idea.

    Damaging the fabric of democracy
    This is how the campaign to legitimise the Palestinian genocide and destroy critics of the Netanyahu government has damaged the fabric of Australia’s democracy and the rule of law.

    The basic rights and protections that Australians should have under a legal system devoted to preventing discrimination can be stripped away in a moment, while those engaged in destroying people’s careers and livelihoods are protected.

    Ill-advised laws are rushed in to stifle freedom of speech. Australian Jews are stereotyped as a politically convenient monolith aligned with the Israeli government.

    The experience of Palestinians themselves, and of Arab communities in Australia, is minimised and erased. And the media are the worst perpetrators of all.

    Bernard Keane is Crikey’s politics editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics. First published by Crikey.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Parliament has passed landmark election donation laws. They may be a ‘stich up’ but they also improve Australia’s democracy

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

    Federal parliament has passed the biggest changes to Australia’s electoral funding laws in decades.

    The Albanese government’s Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 cleared the Senate on Wednesday night after just two hours of debate on amendments agreed to earlier by the Coalition. In blatant disregard for democracy, the government refused to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny.

    The amendments fail to address numerous deficiencies in the original bill that was introduced last November. Transparency has been wound back and hollow contribution caps have been locked in.

    In significant respects, however, the package is an improvement on the status quo, which has seen unrestricted donations and spending flourish. So, too, secrecy.

    We need to penetrate the sound and fury of partisanship and assess the substance of these laws. This will yield a much more nuanced picture than conveyed by cross bench claims of a major party stitch up.

    Some improvement to transparency

    The government originally proposed lowering the disclosure threshold for donations from $16,000 to $1,000. The revised bill settles on a new threshold of $5,000.

    The amendments fail to plug a loophole that allows a donor to give separately to all of the branches attached to a political party if each individual contribution is just under the threshold. For example, a donor could spread almost $45,000 to the nine state and federal branches of the ALP without being required to declare the amounts.

    But the new laws will usher in near-real time disclosure and substantially reduce “dark money”, a seismic shift from the secrecy and lack of timeliness in the regime it replaces.

    Hollow donation caps

    Under the reforms, a series of contribution caps have been introduced to curb the influence of big money in politics.

    In my assessment of the original bill, I highlighted how the caps would prevent multi-million dollar contributions from cashed-up individuals.

    The amendments go further by closing a number of sizeable loopholes. Self financing candidates, such as Clive Palmer and Malcolm Turnbull will be subject to the contribution caps. The current exclusions for membership and affiliation fees to associated entities – “disguised donations” – will also be caught by the caps.

    But any positives are emphatically outweighed by the “annual gift cap” more than doubling to $50,000. The same “spreading” loophole that applies to the disclosure obligations would allow a donor to to give just shy of this amount to each of a party’s state and federal branches across the country. The major parties could reap up to almost $450,000 per annum from a single donor.

    And the “overall gift cap” on total donations made to political parties and candidates is a generous $1.6 million, which means large contributions will still be permissible under the new framework.

    The government has also failed to remove the patently unfair provisions relating to “nominated entities”, which are likely to be used by the major parties as investment vehicles.

    As the Victorian Electoral Review Expert Panel has rightly noted, such entities:

    provide some (parties) with significantly more funds, creating a risk that those (parties) drown out other voices.

    Election spending contained and fairer

    The spending caps in the new finance laws are fundamentally unaltered by the government’s amendments.

    The $800,000 per electorate limit, and $90 million per party nationally, will contain the “arms race” that has necessitated “big money” fundraising and fuelled unfair contests.

    However, the limits are set too high and will benefit the established parties due to the narrow scope of the spending caps in individual electorates. This means the major parties will be able to shift funding to must-win seats without being caught by the electorate caps.

    This shortcoming has been seized upon as clear evidence that Labor and the Liberals are seeking to kneecap Teal election campaigns. While having some force, these criticisms should be viewed in the context of the current situation where the major parties have an unfettered ability to direct spending to marginal seats, a situation which the Teals are ironically defending with their opposition to spending caps.

    The importance of public funding

    The new regime includes a substantial jump in public funding from $3.50 to $5 per vote.

    Crossbenchers, such as Kate Chaney, are opposed, to the increase, saying it will entrench the might of the majors while making it harder for new independents:

    The effect of increasing public funding is that political parties don’t have to fundraise because they’ve got their war chests. But any challengers do have to fundraise.

    While there is a clear risk of unfairness, the crossbench position throws the baby out with the bathwater. It romanticises the role of private funding, skating over the risks of corruption and undue influence via large donations.

    The public funding of political parties and candidates is warranted. But there should be a conversation about the design and scope of taxpayer support.

    The political finance laws could be made considerably fairer by fixing the structural bias that favours incumbents, including teal MPs. And they don’t need to be as generous given the large flows of private funding that will continue under the shallow contribution caps.

    Unfinished business

    Bad processes tend to make bad laws. The government’s actions have cast a pall of illegitimacy over its political finance regime. The new framework is unfair and ineffectual in significant ways and yet democracy enhancing in others.

    We are all trustees of democracy, with an obligation to protect and deepen democratic practices. An urgent task in that continuing struggle is to protect the strengths of these laws while jettisoning the elements that are egregiously bad.

    Joo-Cheong Tham has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute, International IDEA, the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Victorian Electoral Commission. He is a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; Expert Network Member of Climate Integrity; a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia; and the Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff) of the National Tertiary Education Union.

    – ref. Parliament has passed landmark election donation laws. They may be a ‘stich up’ but they also improve Australia’s democracy – https://theconversation.com/parliament-has-passed-landmark-election-donation-laws-they-may-be-a-stich-up-but-they-also-improve-australias-democracy-249588

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What was the Sykes-Picot agreement, and why does it still affect the Middle East today?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    Pictures From History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    Some national borders are determined by natural phenomena like seas, mountains and rivers. Most, however, are created by people.

    This means the creation of borders is often a political exercise – usually informed by the interests of those who create them, not the local populations to whom they apply.

    The Sykes-Picot agreement, known officially as the Asia Minor Agreement of 1916, was arguably the first in a series of attempts by colonial powers to mould the borders of the Middle East.

    Signed in secret at the height of the first world war, Sykes-Picot was an agreement between France and Great Britain, approved by Russia. It would have lasting consequences for the region.

    It is frequently cited as the epitome of European colonial betrayal, and the genesis of most conflict in the Middle East.

    But while Sykes-Picot did significantly affect regional politics, the history is more complicated than popular narratives suggest.

    ‘The Eastern question’

    The agreement was seen by the signatories as a potential answer to what was then known by European powers as “the Eastern question”: what would happen when the Ottoman Empire inevitably collapsed?

    The Ottoman state in the early 20th century was vast compared to its European peers, encompassing Anatolia (the Asian part of modern-day Turkey) and parts of the Arabian Peninsula.

    But it was weak, and had been on a steady decline since the 18th century due to multiple military defeats, revolts and rampant corruption. By the beginning of the first world war, the Triple Entente (France, Britain and Russia) believed the Ottoman state would not survive long.

    The Entente aimed to create new “zones of influence” in the Middle East, dividing Ottoman territory into colonial partitions.

    By the beginning of the first world war, France, Britain and Russia believed the Ottoman state would not survive long.
    Everett Collection/Shutterstock

    Secret negotiations

    Between late 1915 and early 1916, Britain and France sent their respective envoys to negotiate the potential terms of this outcome in secret.

    Mark Sykes, a political adviser and military veteran, represented the British. François Georges-Picot, a career diplomat, represented the French.

    Italy and Russia also had delegations in attendance, though the discussions were dominated by Britain and France as the most powerful nations. The Ottomans were oblivious to these negotiations.

    Under the agreement:

    • France was allocated what is now Syria, Lebanon and southern Turkey
    • Britain claimed most of modern-day Iraq, southern Palestine and Kuwait
    • Russia took control of Armenia.

    An area known as the Jerusalem Sanjak (an administrative division created by the Ottomon Empire) in Palestine was to come under an international protectorate, though it was not settled in the agreement as to how this protectorate would operate.

    Sykes-Picot was kept secret, mostly because Britain had made contradictory commitments to other parties. It had promised (through a series of letters known as the McMahon-Hussein correspondence) to give independence to the Arabs who had helped the British fight the Ottomans in the first world war.

    Later, in early November 1917, it also made a promise to Zionist Jews migrating to Palestine in the Balfour Declaration. In this public declaration, Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour effectively expressed Britain’s support for the Zionist project to create a Jewish state in Ottoman Palestine. Then-Prime Minister David Lloyd George also publicly supported both Zionism and Balfour’s statement.

    The Sykes-Picot agreement did not stay secret for long.

    In November 1917, the Bolsheviks, who were now in power in Russia following the fall of the Russian monarchy, published Sykes-Picot to the world.

    Arab nationalists were enraged. So, too, were Zionists who had witnessed the Balfour Declaration just weeks prior. The Anglo-French declaration of November 1918 attempted to allay the fears of the Arabs by pledging to “assist in the establishment of national governments and administrations.” However, Arab distrust of the European powers only grew.

    Borders moulded by colonial powers

    In the years following, European powers started to reevaluate their position on Ottoman territory.

    The French, who still wished to take control of Syria, had argued the newly formed League of Nations (a predecessor of the United Nations) could give France the territory under a mandate. A mandate is a formal authorisation to govern by the League of Nations.

    The British said this would violate their earlier promises to the Arabs. Britain reiterated that the Anglo-French declaration of 1918 superseded Sykes-Picot.

    Then came the San Remo Conference in 1920, an international meeting in Italy. This is where some of the popular readings into Sykes-Picot get muddled, as several aspects of the agreement were discarded. What remained the same was the French and British desire to add Ottoman territory to their dominions.

    Here, the European victors of the first world war sought to finalise the division of Ottoman territories by slicing them into League of Nations mandates.

    This included the French mandates of Syria and Lebanon, as well as the British mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia. Britain also confirmed at the time its support for a Jewish national homeland, while protecting the local Palestinian population.

    This is where we start to see borders of the modern Middle East form. The boundaries themselves differed from Sykes-Picot. But Britain and France, however, were still able to expand their colonial dominion in the region.

    In 1921, a group of British representatives met in Cairo to finalise the borders of their mandates. This led to the creation of two states: Iraq under King Faisal and Transjordan (now Jordan) under King Abdullah – both of whom were members of the Arab Heshemite dynasty. Palestine was to remain under British mandatory control.

    While these states had independence on paper, then-Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill believed that Transjordan would ultimately be controlled by the British Empire, giving the Heshemites only nominal independence.

    Little consideration was given to the ethnic and religious diversity of these territories. Some argue this helped lead to modern-day sectarian conflict in Iraq.

    Ripples that continue today

    The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was always going to cause regional upheaval, but the colonial jockeying for territory clearly had lasting consequences.

    Several regional conflicts were exacerbated during this period, but it would also directly lead to the creation of the state of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    This leads to the displacement of Palestinians and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that still rages today.

    Zionists and Arab nationalists viewed Palestine to have been originally promised to them by the British through the Balfour Declaration and McMahon-Hussein correspondence, respectfully.

    But in Sykes-Picot, the British had no intention of promising Palestine to anyone but themselves.

    As a result, the British mandate was characterised by anti-colonial violence from both Jews and Arabs.

    When the British eventually abandoned control of Palestine in 1947, the UN partition plan for two states (one Jewish, one Arab) was supposed to take over. Instead, Arab-Israeli conflict began within hours of the partition taking effect.

    So a lot happened after Sykes-Picot, with the map proposed in 1916 looking very different to what actually eventuated.

    Many scholars argue it was the agreements that followed Sykes-Picot that were more consequential, and Sykes-Picot holds only “minor importance” by comparison.

    While this may be true, Sykes-Picot is still emblematic of how consequential European colonial ambition was in the Middle East.

    And while the borders outlined in the agreement did not eventuate, Britain and France still managed to get most of the territory they wanted, with little consideration of local populations.

    The Sykes-Picot agreement is therefore one of many colonial projects that we are still feeling the ripples of today.

    Andrew Thomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What was the Sykes-Picot agreement, and why does it still affect the Middle East today? – https://theconversation.com/what-was-the-sykes-picot-agreement-and-why-does-it-still-affect-the-middle-east-today-246332

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: An unexpected anomaly was found in the Pacific Ocean – and it could be a global time marker

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominik Koll, Honorary Lecturer, Australian National University

    View of the Pacific Ocean from the International Space Station. NASA

    Earth must have experienced something exceptional 10 million years ago. Our study of rock samples from the floor of the Pacific Ocean has found a strange increase in the radioactive isotope beryllium-10 during that time.

    This finding, now published in Nature Communications, opens new pathways for geologists to date past events gleaned from deep within the oceans.

    But the cause of the beryllium-10 anomaly remains unknown. Could it have been major shifts in global ocean currents, a dying star, or an interstellar collision?

    Extremely slow rocks deep in the ocean

    I am on a hunt for stardust on Earth. Previously, I’ve sifted through snow in Antarctica. This time, it was the depths of the ocean.

    At a depth of about 5,000 metres, the abyssal zone of the Pacific Ocean has never seen light, yet something does still grow there.

    Ferromanganese crusts – metallic underwater rocks – grow from minerals dissolved in the water slowly coming together and solidifying over extremely long time scales, as little as a few millimetres in a million years. (Stalactites and stalagmites in caves grow in a similar way, but thousands of times faster.)

    This makes ferromanganese crusts ideal archives for capturing stardust over millions of years.

    The age of these crusts can be determined by radiometric dating using the radioactive isotope beryllium-10. This isotope is continuously produced in the upper atmosphere when highly energetic cosmic rays strike air molecules. The strikes break apart the main components of our air – nitrogen and oxygen – into smaller fragments.

    Both stardust and beryllium-10 eventually find their way into Earth’s oceans where they become incorporated into the growing ferromanganese crust.

    Ferromanganese crust sample VA13/2-237KD analysed in this work. The anomaly was discovered in this crust at a depth of about 30mm – representing 10 million years.
    Dominik Koll

    One of the largest ferromanganese crusts was recovered in 1976 from the Central Pacific. Stored for decades at the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources in Hanover, Germany, a 3.7kg section of it became the subject of my analysis.

    Much like tree rings reveal a tree’s age, ferromanganese crusts record their growth in layers over millions of years. Beryllium-10 undergoes radioactive decay really slowly, meaning it gradually breaks down over millions of years as it sits in the rocks.

    As beryllium-10 decays over time, its concentration decreases in deeper, older sediment layers. Because the rate of decay is steady, we can use radioactive isotopes as natural stopwatches to discern the age and history of rocks – this is called radioactive dating.

    A puzzling anomaly

    After extensive chemical processing, my colleagues and I used accelerator mass spectrometry – an ultra-sensitive analytical technique for longer-lived radioactive isotopes – to measure beryllium-10 concentrations in the crust.

    This time, my research took me from Canberra, Australia to Dresden, Germany, where the setup at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf was optimised for beryllium-10 measurements.

    The results showed that the crust had grown only 3.5 centimetres over the past 10 million years and was more than 20 million years old.

    However, before I could return to my search for stardust, I encountered an anomaly.

    Initially, as I searched back in time, the beryllium-10 concentration declined as expected, following its natural decay pattern – until about 10 million years ago. At that point, the expected decrease halted before resuming its normal pattern around 12 million years ago.

    This was puzzling: radioactive decay follows strict laws, meaning something must have introduced extra beryllium-10 into the crust at that time.

    Scepticism is crucial in science. To rule out errors, I repeated the chemical preparation and measurements multiple times – yet the anomaly persisted. The analysis of different crusts from locations nearly 3,000km away gave the same result, a beryllium-10 anomaly around 10 million years ago. This confirmed that the anomaly was a real event rather than a local irregularity.

    Ocean currents or exploding stars?

    What could have happened on Earth to cause this anomaly 10 million years ago? We’re not sure, but there are a few options.

    Last year, an international study revealed that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current – the main driver of global ocean circulation – intensified around 12 million years ago, influencing Antarctic ocean current patterns.

    Could this beryllium-10 anomaly in the Pacific mark the beginning of the modern global ocean circulation? If ocean currents were responsible, beryllium-10 would be distributed unevenly on Earth with some samples even showing a lack of beryllium-10. New samples from all major oceans and both hemispheres would allow us to answer this question.

    Another possibility emerged early last year. Astrophysicists demonstrated that a collision with a dense interstellar cloud could compress the heliosphere – the Sun’s protective shield against cosmic radiation – back to the orbit of Mercury. Without this barrier, Earth would be exposed to an increased cosmic ray flux, leading to an elevated global beryllium-10 production rate.

    A near-Earth supernova explosion could also cause an increased cosmic ray flux leading to a beryllium-10 anomaly. Future research will explore these possibilities.

    The discovery of such an anomaly is a windfall for geological dating. Various archives are used to investigate Earth’s climate, habitability and environmental conditions over different timescales.

    To compare ice cores with sediments, ferromanganese crusts, speleothems (stalagmites and stalactites) and others, their timescales need to be synchronous. Independent time markers, such as Miyake events or the Laschamp excursion, are invaluable for aligning records thousands of years old. Now, we may have a corresponding time marker for millions of years.

    Meanwhile, my search for stardust continues, but now keeping an eye out for new 10-million-year-old samples to further pin down the beryllium-10 anomaly. Stay tuned.

    This research was conducted at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf. Dominik Koll received funding from AINSE.

    – ref. An unexpected anomaly was found in the Pacific Ocean – and it could be a global time marker – https://theconversation.com/an-unexpected-anomaly-was-found-in-the-pacific-ocean-and-it-could-be-a-global-time-marker-249695

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From homes to hospitals, Canada’s food environments need reform

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sara F.L. Kirk, Professor of Health Promotion; Scientific Director of the Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University

    Healthy eating sounds deceptively simple — just eat more fruits and vegetables and avoid junk food, right? However, healthy eating really isn’t easy.

    A new report illustrates how ubiquitous unhealthy foods are, how aggressively they are promoted and how hard it is to access healthy foods in places we spend our time.

    We are part of a team of 18 nutrition and food policy experts from across Canada who looked at research from the past five years to expose the environmental factors that influence what people in Canada buy and eat. We explored many different factors, like the quality of food, food marketing practices and what foods are available in places like hospitals, schools and grocery stores.

    The report is part of an international network called INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) Research, Monitoring and Action Support). Our findings reinforce that, from homes to hospitals, Canada’s food supply needs reform.

    What we see is what we get

    Unhealthy food is everywhere, and that makes it hard to avoid: what we see is what we get. Our report found that most packaged foods in grocery stores are unhealthy. In fact, two-thirds of them were high in salt, sugar or saturated fat. Only 12 per cent were low in these nutrients.

    Unhealthy foods are readily available for purchase. One study showed that children in Ottawa had, on average, 19 places to purchase foods within one kilometre of their school. In Vancouver, that number was as high as 45.

    In-store environments also thwart healthy purchases: 50 per cent of stores had “power walls” of candy, snacks and sugary drinks, tempting consumers at the checkout, while only around one in five stores operated a junk-free checkout. And nearly all hospital cafeterias and recreation centre vending machines sold sugary drinks.

    Unhealthy foods are also heavily marketed, particularly to children. One study estimated that children aged six to 11 see more than 4,000 food ads on their digital devices each year, while older children see twice that number. Around 90 per cent of the ads that children saw on their digital devices were deemed less healthy based on their sugar, sodium and saturated fat content.

    A closer look at marketing on five food product categories in the INFORMAS Canada report found that one-third of products carried marketing targeting to children.

    For example, almost 46 per cent of breakfast cereals used marketing techniques that made products look fun or cool, or used cartoon characters and celebrities, to entice young consumers. More than 90 per cent of products using these techniques were unhealthy. Of 75 per cent of foods that had some sort of health or nutrition claim on their packaging highlighting healthy attributes of products, 45 per cent of these products were also high in salt, sugar or saturated fat.

    Unhealthy foods are big, cheap and easy

    Our report illustrates how, in many ways, the cards are stacked against us in terms of healthy eating. The food industry, where power is often concentrated within the hands of a few large, multinational companies, continues to create and market unhealthy foods, despite stated commitments to do better.

    With unhealthy foods so available and tempting, it’s no surprise that many Canadians struggle to eat according to Canada’s Food Guide.

    Our unhealthy food environments are making us sick and we all pay the price. Unhealthy eating has been estimated to cost more than $15.8 billion, including direct healthcare costs of $5.9 billion. With unhealthy eating a leading risk for death and the second leading risk for disability in Canada, there is a strong moral and economic imperative for action to improve food environments.

    Creating healthier food environments

    It doesn’t have to be this way. In addition to providing benchmarking data, our report offers a road map for policymakers, industry leaders and advocates to collaborate in creating healthier, more equitable food environments for all Canadians.

    Canada can also draw inspiration from global leaders in food policy like Chile and Mexico. Both countries have introduced bold front-of-package warning labels for foods high in sugar, sodium or saturated fats, combined with restrictions on marketing unhealthy products to children and taxes on unhealthy foods.

    Canada will follow suit with front-of-package labels in January 2026, but policy change in these others areas is lacking.



    Read more:
    Front-of-package food labels: A path to healthier choices

    Mexico has implemented front-of-package food label regulations flagging unhealthy foods. Canada will follow suit in 2026.
    (Shutterstock)

    Taxes on sugary drinks already exist in more than 45 countries, with the United Kingdom recently seeing reductions in sugar consumption after a sugary drink tax was implemented. Canada, unfortunately, is lagging behind, with Newfoundland & Labrador the only province with a tax on sugary drinks.

    As Canada’s national school food policy rolls out, there are opportunities to protect school food from vested interests. These actions need to be extended to other food environments — our homes, hospitals and grocery stores.

    With the threat of tariffs being imposed by the United States and potentially creating major challenges for food affordability, more Canadians are looking for a food supply that is made in Canada. Creating healthier food environments and food systems takes a strong commitment from leaders at all levels (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal).

    Our benchmarking report can help create a nutrition transition that nourishes our population and supports our healthy food producers, farmers and fisheries. This report makes the case for improving our food environments and shows the way to a healthier future for all Canadians.

    Sara F.L. Kirk has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Research Nova Scotia and Dalhousie University Office of Advancement. She is a co-author on the report being discussed in this article.

    Lana Vanderlee receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the US National Institutes of Health, the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and has received funds from Health Canada. She is currently supported by a Canada Research Chair in Healthy Food Policy (Tier 2).

    – ref. From homes to hospitals, Canada’s food environments need reform – https://theconversation.com/from-homes-to-hospitals-canadas-food-environments-need-reform-249540

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: China confirms ‘in-depth exchange’ with Cook Islands as New Zealand faces criticism for bullying

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist in Avarua, Rarotonga

    China has confirmed details of its meeting with Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown for the first time, saying Beijing “stands ready to have an in-depth exchange” with the island nation.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters during his regular press conference that Brown’s itinerary, from February 10-16, would include attending the closing ceremony of the Asian Winter Games in Harbin as well as meeting with Premier of the State Council Li Qiang.

    Guo also confirmed that Brown and his delegation had visited Shanghai and Shandong as part of the state visit.

    “The Cook Islands is China’s cooperation partner in the South Pacific,” he said.

    “Since the establishment of diplomatic ties, the two countries have respected each other, treated each other as equals, and sought common development.”

    Guo told reporters that the relationship between the two countries was elevated to comprehensive strategic partnership in 2018.

    “Our friendly cooperation is rooted in profound public support and delivers tangibly to the two peoples.

    ‘New progress in bilateral relations’
    “Through Prime Minister Brown’s visit, China stands ready to have an in-depth exchange of views with the Cook Islands on our relations and work for new progress in bilateral relations.”

    Brown said on Wednesday that he was aware of the strong interest in the outcomes of his visit, which has created significant debate on the relationship with Cook Islands and New Zealand.

    He has said that the “comprehensive strategic partnership” deal with China is expected to be signed today, and does not include a security component.

    Cook Islanders are divided over Brown’s decision to keep Aotearoa in the dark about the contents of the agreement it intends to sign with Beijing.

    While on one hand, the New Zealand government has been urged not to overreact, on the other the Cook Islands opposition want Brown and his government out.

    Locals in Rarotonga have accused New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters of being a “bully”, while others are planning to protest against Brown’s leadership.

    A local resident, Tim Buchanan, said Peters has “been a bit bullying”.

    He said Peters had overacted and the whole issue had been “majorly” blown out of proportion.

    ‘It doesn’t involve security’
    “It does not involve our national security, it does not involve borrowing a shit load of money, so what is your concern about?

    “Why do we need to consult him? We have been a sovereign nation for 60 years, and all of a sudden he’s up in arms and wanted to know everything that we’re doing”

    Brown previously told RNZ Pacific that he had assured Wellington “over and over” that there “will be no impact on our relationship and there certainly will be no surprises”.

    However, New Zealand said it should have seen the text prior to Brown leaving for China.

    Cook Islands opposition MP and leader of the Cook Islands United Party Teariki Heather . . . he has filed a vote filed a vote of no confidence motion against Prime Minister Mark Brown. Image: Caleb Fotheringham/RNZ Pacific

    Vote of no confidence
     Cook Islands opposition MP Teariki Heather said he did not want anything to change with New Zealand.

    “The response from the government and Winston Peters and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, that’s really what concerns us, because they are furious,” said Heather, who is the leader of Cook Islands United Party.

    Heather has filed a no confidence motion against the Prime Minister and has been the main organiser for a protest against Brown’s leadership that will take place on Monday morning local time.

    He is expecting about 1000 people to turn up, about one in every 15 people who reside in the country.

    Opposition leader Tina Browne is backing the motion and will be at the protest which is also about the Prime Minister’s push for a local passport, which he has since dropped.

    With only eight opposition members in the 24-seat parliament, Browne said the motion of no confidence is not about the numbers.

    “It is about what are we the politicians, the members of Parliament, going to do about the two issues and for us, the best way to demonstrate our disapproval is to vote against it in Parliament, whether the members of Parliament join us or not that’s entirely up to them.”

    The 2001 document argument
     Browne said that after reading the constitution and the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration, she agreed with Peters that the Cook Islands should have first consulted New Zealand on the China deal.

    “Our prime minister has stated that the agreement does not affect anything that he is obligated to consult with New Zealand. I’m very suspicious of that because if there is nothing offensive, why the secrecy then?

    “I would have thought, irrespective, putting aside everything, that our 60 year relationship with New Zealand, who’s been our main partner warrants us to keep that line open for consultation and that’s even if it wasn’t in [the Joint Centenary Declaration].”

    Other locals have been concerned by the lack of transparency from their government to the Cook Islands people.

    But Cook Islands’ Foreign Minister Tingika Elikana said that is not how these deals were done.

    “I think the people have to understand that in regards to agreements of this nature, there’s a lot of negotiations until the final day when it is signed and the Prime Minister is very open that the agreements will be made available publicly and then people can look at it.”

    Cook Islands Foreign Minister Tingika Elikana . . . Image: Caleb Fotheringham/RNZ Pacific

    New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the government would wait to see what was in the agreement before deciding if any punishment should be imposed.

    With the waiting, Elikana said he was concerned.

    “We are worried but we want to see what will be their response and we’ve always reiterated that our relationship is important to us and our citizenship is really important to us, and we will try our best to remain and retain that,” Elikana said.

    He did not speculate about the vote of no confidence motion.

    “I think we just leave it to the day but I’m very confident in our team and very confident in our Prime Minister.”

    ‘Cook Islands does a lot for New Zealand’
     Cultural leader and carver Mike Tavioni said he did not know why everyone was so afraid of the Asian superpower.

    “I do not know why there is an issue with the Cook Islands and New Zealand, as long as Mark [Brown] does not commit this country to a deal with China with strings attached to it,” he said.

    Tavioni said the Cook Islands does a lot for New Zealand also, with about 80,000 Cook Islanders living in New Zealand and contributing to it’s economy.

    “The thing about consulting, asking for permission, it does not go down well because our relationship with Aotearoa should be taken into consideration.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ depends on the rules-based world Trump is dismantling – why the silence?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ 2023 strategic foreign policy assessment, “Navigating a shifting world”, accurately foresaw a more uncertain and complex time ahead for New Zealand. But already it feels out of date.

    The Trump administration’s extreme disruption of the international order (which New Zealand helped construct) is going further and faster than foreseen in the assessment. Were another nation responsible, the government would have been quick to condemn it.

    But New Zealand has so far been largely mute while Trump has quit the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accord, attacked foreign assistance programs and withdrawn funding from key United Nations organisations.

    Had Russia or China threatened the annexation or acquisition of Canada, Panama and Greenland, New Zealand would have reacted strongly. But it has said nothing substantive.

    The United States still belongs to the World Trade Organization and various regional trade agreements. But Trump’s use of tariffs threatens havoc throughout the multilateral trade system.

    Similarly, Trump has not quit the International Court of Justice. But his proposal to remove two million Palestinians from Gaza amounts to an unequivocal rejection of the court’s recent ruling on Israeli policies and practices in the Occupied Territories – as well as international law.

    On all these fronts, New Zealand has preferred not to make a stand.

    The coming Russia-Ukraine test

    While other countries have been quick to criticise Trump’s Gaza plan, New Zealand has opted not to comment until greater clarity is available, other than to reiterate its support for a two-state solution for Palestine.

    When Trump imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, New Zealand (along with Australia and Japan) failed to join a statement from 79 other countries expressing unwavering support for the court.

    The next likely test will be Trump’s attempt to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. While the goal is undoubtedly worthy, the question will be at what cost.

    If the price is ignoring the UN Charter, and if European supporters of Ukraine find the illegal annexations of its sovereign territory unpalatable, New Zealand will face a stark choice.

    For Australia, with its special trade relationship with the US and membership of the AUKUS security pact, this may be simple politics. For New Zealand, without a special free trade agreement with the US, frozen out of ANZUS and not part of AUKUS, the equation is more complex.

    Discord in the Pacific

    Last year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand must “stand up for this international rules-based system that has actually served New Zealand incredibly well”. Quietly sitting down will not be an option forever.

    Furthermore, all this is happening against the backdrop of New Zealand’s apparently waning influence in its own back yard, the South Pacific.

    While China seeks to expand its own influence, cuts and possible retrenchment in New Zealand’s aid budget suggest little appetite for tangible counteraction.

    The loss of influence was first apparent with Kiribati, which has steered towards a much closer relationship with China since 2022. More recently, China has made inroads into other Pacific countries, including the Solomons and East Timor, working in an increasingly grey zone with support for civilian and military security.

    But the recent fracture with the Cook Islands takes things to a new level.

    Struggling to find a voice

    While no longer a dependency, the Cooks’ free association agreement with New Zealand gives its people immense benefits, including citizenship and the right to work and live in New Zealand.

    In return, the Cooks undertakes to consult over foreign affairs matters, including any policy or initiative that might affect the interests of the other signatory.

    But the development of a somewhat opaque “comprehensive strategic partnership” with China blindsided New Zealand, and has strained what is meant to be a good-faith relationship. Again, however, New Zealand has struggled to find its voice.

    If it speaks too loudly, it risks further undermining that special Pacific relationship, as well as irritating its largest trade partner, China. If it speaks too softly, the respect and influence the country deserves will fade.

    New Zealand’s vaunted independent foreign policy is a fine ideal and has been a workable mechanism to navigate the challenges facing a small trading nation reliant on a rules-based global order.

    This has worked well for the past few decades. But as the old world order erodes, losing its voice for fear of offending bigger powers cannot become the country’s default position.

    Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. NZ depends on the rules-based world Trump is dismantling – why the silence? – https://theconversation.com/nz-depends-on-the-rules-based-world-trump-is-dismantling-why-the-silence-249857

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Like dictators before him, Trump threatens international peace and security

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sabine Nolke, Research Associate in International Law, Western Academy for Advanced Research, Western University

    At first, Canadians just shook their collective heads when United States President Donald Trump suggested Canada become the 51st American state.

    They rolled their eyes when he posted a fake image of himself standing next to a Canadian flag amid snowy mountaintops — in actuality, the Swiss Alps.

    Another Trump post showed a map purporting to merge Canada and the U.S. That prompted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to respond on social media that there was not a “snowball’s chance in hell” that Canadians would soon become Americans.

    Meme wars are one thing, but in the real world, threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a foreign state is quite another. Canadian leaders have stopped laughing, and they now need to situate Trump’s dangerous rhetoric in the language of international law and state-to-state relations.

    As a former Canadian ambassador to the Netherlands, and a permanent representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and international courts and tribunals in The Hague, I know language matters.

    Trump’s threats make it an opportune time to provide a brief snapshot of the historical context for Trump’s rhetoric, and the necessary 21st-century vocabulary with which to respond and shape the public discourse.

    Manifest Destiny

    In threatening hefty tariffs on Canada, Trump cited the flow of fentanyl over the Canada-U.S. border, but it was clear it had little to do with fentanyl, particularly since so little crosses the border into the U.S. Instead, it seems he is coming for Canada’s sovereignty as an independent state.

    When asked on Feb. 3 how Canada could ward off tariffs, Trump reiterated: “What I’d like to see is Canada become our 51st state.”

    Later that same day, Trump paused tariffs on Canada, ostensibly thanks to border measures that Canada, like Mexico, had already announced. But what is still being said by the president of one of the most powerful nations on Earth cannot be unsaid.

    At a Jan. 7 news conference, Trump called the border between Canada and the U.S. an “artificially drawn line” — echoing rhetoric deployed by Vladimir Putin as justification for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. His remarks, in fact, were gleefully retweeted by Russia’s propaganda channel RT.

    Putin claims the Ukrainian border is the result of “administrative” action under the former Soviet Union, while Trump appears to be invoking the 19th century American concept of “Manifest Destiny.”

    He used the phrase verbatim in his inaugural address in the context of planting a flag on Mars, but it is entirely consistent with his plans for, and rhetoric on, Canada.

    As John O’Sullivan, the American diplomat who coined the phrase, wrote in a 1845 article entitled Annexation, it’s America’s destiny to “overspread the continent.” Trump appears to be taking that idea to heart.

    ‘The free white race’

    Arguably the biggest fan of territorial expansion in the 20th century was Adolf Hitler, architect of the Third Reich. Trump reportedly has some of Hitler’s writings on his bedside table. Hitler had this to say in Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf:

    “The extent of the national territory is a determining factor in the external security of the nation. The larger the territory which a people has at its disposal, the stronger are the national defences of that people.”

    Sound familiar?

    But why Canada and not Mexico, you may ask? Likely because he considers Canada less racialized, even though modern-day Canada has a large multicultural population.



    Read more:
    Trump has put down his racist dog whistle and picked up a bull horn

    In 1848, however, in the midst of the American expansionist era, pro-slavery South Carolina Sen. John Calhoun said:

    “We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race — the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.”

    In short, neither the context nor the history informing Trump’s designs on Canada are reassuring for Canadians.

    Rules still matter

    Trump’s dismissive approach to established borders ignores fundamental norms and principles on the sovereignty, equality and territorial integrity of states, codified following the Second World War in the Charter of the United Nations. Canada is a founding member of the UN; its status as a sovereign state is not subject to challenge under international law.

    The charter clearly states that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

    Similarly, the North Atlantic Treaty obliges NATO member states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”



    Read more:
    Allies or enemies? Trump’s threats against Canada and Greenland put NATO in a tough spot

    Trump has said he will use “economic force” to annex Canada. The suggestion that an economically devastated Canada could be sufficiently brought to heel has been embraced by the so-called MAGA-sphere, including an influential blogger with ties to Russia.

    International law

    Threatening economic rather than military force does not make Trump’s efforts at subjugating Canada any more acceptable in terms of international law.

    In 1970, in the UN’s Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operations Among States, the UN General Assembly unanimously confirmed that “no state may use … economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of its exercise of its sovereign rights.” While not legally binding, this declaration represents customary international law.

    In 1986, the International Court of Justice ruled in Nicaragua v, United States that:

    “A prohibited intervention must accordingly be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy. Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion in regard to such choices, which must remain free ones.”

    Keeping score

    It’s both right and righteous for our elected leaders to say that Canada will never be the 51st state.

    But the time has come, especially in the context of Trump’s threats to buy Greenland, seize the Panama Canal and turn Gaza into a Middle Eastern Riviera, to call out his threats to Canada.

    Amid Trump’s dizzying litany of outlandish pronouncements, Canada’s leaders must keep track of what Trump’s declarations represent:

    • A threat to international peace and security;
    • A threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Canada;
    • Unlawful coercion and intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state;
    • A breach of the UN Charter;
    • A breach of the North Atlantic treaty.

    Trump’s threats are no way to treat an ally, but unfortunately for him, international law is on Canada’s side.

    Sabine Nolke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Like dictators before him, Trump threatens international peace and security – https://theconversation.com/like-dictators-before-him-trump-threatens-international-peace-and-security-248735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Oscar Peterson: Cherishing a legacy of technical virtuosity and soulful swing

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Barrington Coleman, Professor and Jazz camp instructor, Carleton University

    The distinction given to the virtuoso — an artist recognized for exceptional skill and talent — is generated by their prominence and unique creative fortitude.

    Through the ages and across genres, virtuosi have been revered for their ability to transcend technical limitations and transport audiences into new realms of musical experience.

    Oscar Peterson’s artistic identity as a conveyor of compelling passion, expressive freedom and technical command of the piano through jazz improvisation became a beacon of inspiration among his contemporaries, across the spectrum of music.

    Here, as a professor of vocal jazz studies at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and as a performing vocal artist, pianist, choral conductor, jazz and gospel artist, I reflect on elements that contributed to Peterson’s identity, distinctive sound and mission as a Black artist.

    As a visiting instructor at Carleton University in Ottawa, I am pleased to present these thoughts in collaboration with my colleague, James Deaville, a musicologist who has researched virtuosity.

    Trailblazer in virtuosity

    Peterson’s legacy stands as a bright beacon among the trailblazers in technical virtuosity and soulful expression.

    Peterson, who was born in 1925 and passed away in 2007, was a foundational catalyst for new generational keepers of artistic excellence due to his tremendous range, from rhapsodic spontaneity to vulnerable tenderness.

    This contributed to his iconic stature, globally evidenced in sold-out concert halls, filled jazz clubs and many commissioned works. His media personality and his television appearances, including performing his acclaimed composition “Canadiana Suite” in 1964, contributed to the pop culture of his generation.

    I was delighted to visit Peterson’s home church in Montréal with my wife on Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Jan. 20.

    Childhood milieu, training

    Peterson established his musical heritage through the bonds of family and church in his childhood home of the Little Burgundy community in Montréal.

    He did so as one of five siblings with his immigrant father and mother respectively from the British Virgin Islands and St. Kitts.

    Video about Oscar Peterson and Montréal’s Little Burgundy, from Historica Canada, featuring Céline Peterson, Oscar’s daughter.

    Founded in 1907, the Little Burgundy church home of the Petersons, Union United Church, still stands. It serves as a representation of faith-based progressive activism, social consciousness and a resource for the civility and human rights of its congregation. The church proudly displays its African and Afro-Caribbean heritage, and “continues to serve a diverse congregation with roots from over 50 countries.”

    Throughout centuries, Black churches have intrinsically been linked to the core of community engagement, socialization, educational programs, political activism and such initiatives as job training and raising health-care awareness.

    At Union’s observation of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, individuals spoke to the congregation and with me privately of their lifetime multi-generational sacrifices, accomplishments and efforts to combat racial injustice and employment inequities. These endeavours they undertook from their origin as a community of immigrants and parishioners of colour.

    One meeting of great significance took place with Annie “Mildred” Rockhead, the sister-in-law of Rufus Nathaniel Rockhead (1896-1981), Jamaican-born entrepreneur and founder of the famed Rockhead’s Paradise Jazz Club in Little Burgundy.

    Another was with Oliver Theophilus Jones, critically acclaimed African Canadian jazz pianist, composer and educator.

    Notably, Jones, like Peterson, received musical tutelage under the accomplished Daisy Peterson Sweeney (1920-2017), Oscar’s sister.

    Virtuosic fluency

    Sweeney and Peterson’s father were his first musical teachers.

    An amalgamation of concepts and cultural exposures established the platform for Peterson’s musical explorations. His training in western music theory and his immersion in Black vernacular traditions — comprising linguistic, oral and improvisational elements from Black cultural, popular and religious spaces, and music genres such as spirituals, gospel, blues and jazz — provided him with an expansive repertoire on which to build.

    Pedagogic guidance with such mentors as Hungarian concert pianist Pauly de Marky and the influence of iconic jazz pianist Art Tatum also contributed to Peterson’s unique mix of virtuosic fluency.

    Peterson absorbed a wide range of stylistic influences in tempos and dynamics into his prevailing spiritual core of swing and blues.

    ‘Soulful swing’

    Peterson’s tutelage and cultural absorption contributed to an identifiable expressive voice of stylistic grace, impeccable command of his instrument and execution of spiritual freedom.

    I refer to this freedom as the identity of Peterson’s interminable musical statement of “soulful swing.” It draws on blues from its historical roots of cries, moans, and smiles through tears, of the hope and joyful praise of gospel and the pride and grace of jazz. These may all be woven into a charismatic tapestry of rhapsodic virtuosity or solemn stillness.

    In exploring Oscar Peterson’s encompassing discography, I reference two mesmerizing excerpts from the Solo recording, featuring solo piano renditions performed for live audience in 1972, released 2002.

    Peterson’s performance of the classic Edward Heyman jazz ballad, “Body and Soul,” contains innovative depth, improvisatory brilliance and transportive eloquence. Through these elements, and its structural pace-setting, the performance may be aligned to some of great virtuosi of music history, including such masters of the piano as Franz Liszt, Vladimir Horowitz and another Canadian, Glenn Gould.

    Oscar Peterson’s ‘Body and Soul.’

    Each statement of the song is presented in incremental segments. We hear the mastery of harmonic inflection, dramatic flare — and elements of surprise. Peterson escorts the listener through multiple doors of rapture, humour, joy and personal tenderness.

    “Hogtown Blues” presents Oscar’s rhythmically precise, memorable melody punctuated by harmonic “call and response” phrases raised out of the African American diaspora from secular work songs to sacred songs of faith, hope and praise.

    Throughout each consecutive chorus, Peterson extends this lyrical simplicity into euphoric release by the application of virtuosic complexity in keyboard techniques. Yet, during this journey, the constant dance groove remains at the forefront of Oscar’s signature expressive voice — swing!

    Dignity, elegance, empowerment

    As Canada celebrates Black History Month and the centennial commemoration of Peterson, I am most inspired by Peterson’s own words about his “Hymn to Freedom,” originally featured on the Night Train album with the Oscar Peterson Trio.

    Of the song, inspired by the words and life of Martin Luther King Jr., Peterson said:

    “I wrote the song with hope because the lyrics personified exactly what I was thinking): ‘When every man joins hands and forever sings in harmony, that’s when we’ll be free.‘”

    Today, Peterson’s stardom continues to resonate as one of the first world-renowned African Canadians. He set a path for many African Canadian artists of today like The Weeknd, Drake and hip-hop legend Maestro Fresh Wes, who paid tribute to Peterson in his 1991 track “Nothin’ at All.”

    As one of our most prolific representatives of dignity, elegance and empowerment over adversity, Peterson’s artistic profile and lifetime achievement remain a legacy to cherish.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Oscar Peterson: Cherishing a legacy of technical virtuosity and soulful swing – https://theconversation.com/oscar-peterson-cherishing-a-legacy-of-technical-virtuosity-and-soulful-swing-247288

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What we learned from Trump and Putin’s phone call – editor’s briefing

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, spoke for much of the European diplomatic community when she reacted to news of Donald Trump’s phone chat with Vladimir Putin: “This is the way the Trump administration operates,” she declared. “This is not how others do foreign policy, but this is now the reality.”

    The resigned tone of Baerbock’s words was not matched by her colleague, defence minister Boris Pistorius, whose criticism that “the Trump administration has already made public concessions to Putin before negotiations have even begun” was rather more direct.

    Their sentiments were echoed, not only by European leaders, but in the US itself: “Putin Scores a Big Victory, and Not on the Battlefield” read a headline in the New York Times. The newspaper opined that Trump’s call had succeeded in bringing Putin back in from the cold after three years in which Russia had become increasingly isolated both politically and economically.

    This was not lost on the Russian media, where commentators boasted that the phone call “broke the west’s blockade”. The stock market gained 5% and the rouble strengthened against the dollar as a result.

    Reflecting on the call, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, continued with operation flatter Donald Trump by comparing his attitude favourably with that of his predecessor in the White House, Joe Biden. “The previous US administration held the view that everything needed to be done to keep the war going. The current administration, as far as we understand, adheres to the point of view that everything must be done to stop the war and for peace to prevail.

    “We are more impressed with the position of the current administration, and we are open to dialogue.”

    Trump’s conversation with Putin roughly coincided with a meeting of senior European defence officials in Brussels which heard the new US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, outline America’s radical new outlook when it comes to European security. Namely that it’s not really America’s problem any more.

    Hegseth also told the meeting in Brussels yesterday that the Trump administration’s position is that Nato membership for Ukraine has been taken off the table, that the idea it would get its 2014 borders back was unrealistic and that if Europe wanted to guarantee Ukraine’s security as part of any peace deal, that would be its business. Any peacekeeping force would not involve American troops and would not be a Nato operation, so it would not involve collective defence.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    International security expert David Dunn believes that the fact that Trump considers himself a consummate deal maker makes the fact that his administration is willing to concede so much ground before negotiations proper have even got underway is remarkable. And not in a good way.

    Dunn, who specialises in US foreign and security policy at the University of Birmingham, finds it significant that Trump spoke with Putin first and then called Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky to fill him in on the call. This order of priority, says Dunn, is a sign of the subordination of Ukraine’s role in the talks.

    He concludes that “for the present at least, it appears that negotiations will be less about pressuring Putin to bring a just end to the war he started than forcing Ukraine to give in to the Russian leader’s demands”.



    Read more:
    Trump phone call with Putin leaves Ukraine reeling and European leaders stunned

    Hegseth’s briefing to European defence officials, meanwhile, came as little surprise to David Galbreath. Writing here, Galbreath – who specialises in defence and security at the University of Bath – says the US pivot away from a focus on Europe has been years in the making – “since the very end of the cold war”.

    There has long been a feeling in Washington that the US has borne too much of the financial burden for European security. This is not just a Donald Trump thing, he believes, but an attitude percolating in US security circles for some decades. Once the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union disintegrated, the focus for Nato become not so much collective defence as collective security, where “conflict would be managed on Nato’s borders”.

    But it was then the US which invoked article 5 of the Nato treaty, which establishes that “an armed attack against one or more [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”. The Bush government invoked Article 5 the day after the 9/11 attacks and Nato responded by patrolling US skies to provide security.

    Pete Hegseth dashes Ukraine’s hopes of a future guaranteed by Nato.

    Galbreath notes that many European countries, particularly the newer ones such as Estonia and Latvia, sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. “The persistent justification I heard in the Baltic states was “we need to be there when the US needs us so that they will be there when we need them”.

    That looks set to change.



    Read more:
    US says European security no longer its primary focus – the shift has been years in the making

    The prospect of a profound shift in the world order are daunting after 80 years in which security – in Europe certainly – was guaranteed by successive US administrations and underpinned, not just by Nato but by a whole set of international agreements.

    Now, instead of the US acting as the “world’s policeman”, we have a president talking seriously about taking control of Greenland, one way or another, who won’t rule out using force to seize the Panama Canal and who dreams of turning Gaza into a coastal “riviera” development.

    Meanwhile Russia is engaged in a brutal war of conquest in Ukraine and is actively meddling in the affairs of several other countries. And in China, Xi Jinping regularly talks up the idea of reunifying with Taiwan, by force if necessary, and is fortifying islands in the South China Sea with a view to aggressively pursuing territorial claims there as well.

    And we thought the age of empires was in the rear view mirror, writes historian Eric Storm of Leiden University. Storm, whose speciality is the rise of nation states, has discerned a resurgence of imperial tendencies around the world and fears that the rules-based order that has dominated the decades since the second world war now appears increasingly tenuous.



    Read more:
    How Putin, Xi and now Trump are ushering in a new imperial age

    Gaza: the horror continues

    In any given week, you’d expect the imminent prospect of the collapse of the Gaza ceasefire to be the big international story. And certainly, while Trump and Putin were “flooding the zone” (see last week’s round-up for the origins of this phrase) the prospects of the deal lasting beyond its first phase have become more and more uncertain.

    Hamas has recently pulled back from its threat not to release any more hostages. Earlier in the week it threatened to call a halt to the hostage-prisoner exchange, claiming that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had breached the terms of the ceasefire deal. Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, responded – with Trump’s backing – saying that unless all hostages were released on Saturday, all bets were off and the IDF would resume its military operations in the Gaza Strip. Trump added that “all hell is going to break out”.

    The US president has also doubled down on his idea for a redeveloped Gaza and has continued to pressure Jordan and Egypt to accept millions of Palestinian refugees. This, as you would expect, has not made the population of Gaza feel any more secure.

    Nils Mallock and Jeremy Ginges, behavioural psychologists at the London School of Economics, were in the region last month and conducted a survey of Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza to get a feel for how the two populations regard each other. It makes for depressing reading.

    The number of Israelis who reject the idea of a two-state solution has risen sharply since the October 7 2023 attacks by Hamas, from 46% to 62%. And roughly the same proportion of people in Gaza can now no longer envisage living side by side with Israelis. Both sides think that the other side is motivated by hatred, something which is known to make any diplomatic solution less feasible.



    Read more:
    We interviewed hundreds of Israelis and Gazans – here’s why we fear for the ceasefire

    We also asked Scott Lucas, a Middle East specialist at University College Dublin, to assess the likelihood of the ceasefire lasting into phase two, which is when the IDF is supposed to pull out of Gaza, allowing the people there room to being to rebuild, both physically and in terms of governance.

    He responded with a hollow laugh and a shake of the head, before sending us this digest of the key developments in the Middle East crisis this week.



    Read more:
    Will the Gaza ceasefire hold? Where does Trump’s takeover proposal stand? Expert Q&A

    We’ve become very used to seeing apocalyptic photos of the devastation of Gaza: the pulverised streets, choked with rubble, that make the idea of rebuilding seem so remote. But the people of Gaza also cultivated a huge amount of crops – about half the food they ate was grown there. Gazan farmers grew tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and strawberries in open fields as well as cultivating olive and citrus trees.

    Geographers Lina Eklund, He Yin and Jamon Van Den Hoek have analysed satellite images across the Gaza Strip over the past 17 months to work out the scale of agricultural destruction. It makes for terrifying reading.



    Read more:
    Gaza: we analysed a year of satellite images to map the scale of agricultural destruction

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get our updates directly in your inbox.

    – ref. What we learned from Trump and Putin’s phone call – editor’s briefing – https://theconversation.com/what-we-learned-from-trump-and-putins-phone-call-editors-briefing-249902

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –