NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Lake Victoria is turning green – the deadly bacteria behind it

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Lauren Hart, PhD candidate, Michigan Geomicrobiology Lab, University of Michigan

    Lakes, natural and man-made, provide water, food and habitats for wildlife, as well as supporting local economies. Around the world, though, there’s a growing threat to lakes: toxic bacteria which turn the water green.

    This is the same green as you see on stagnant ponds. It’s caused by tiny organisms called cyanobacteria and can be deadly.

    Cyanobacteria thrive in warm, sunny lakes and ponds that contain excess nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients derived from fertiliser, manure and sewage. When conditions are right, cyanobacteria multiply rapidly and form smelly green scums on the water’s surface.

    Known to science as cyanoHABs (cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms), the scums are harmful to livestock, wildlife, pets, people and aquatic organisms like fish. Toxins make untreated water unsafe to drink, swim in, or even touch. Sometimes they can become suspended in air and be inhaled. The cyanoHABs also harm ecosystems by depleting oxygen, killing off whatever lives in the water, and disrupting food webs and fisheries.

    CyanoHABs are a global threat and receive considerable scientific attention in North America and Europe. Blooms are becoming more widespread worldwide because rising temperatures promote cyanobacterial growth and more intense rainfall delivers nutrients from the landscape. Only effective management of nutrients can reverse this trend.

    The problem is understudied in Africa’s main lakes, including its largest – Lake Victoria. Past research on cyanoHABs has mostly used microscopy to study the kinds found there, but microscopy cannot differentiate between toxic and non-toxic cyanobacterial cells.

    We are on a large project team of scientists who have been studying the socioeconomic and environmental effects of cyanoHABs in the Winam Gulf region of Lake Victoria in south-western Kenya.

    Our latest study identified which cyanobacteria were the most abundant in the gulf and which ones were producing the main toxin of concern.

    These findings can improve public safety:

    • local authorities can monitor for specific cyanobacteria and warn residents to stay away when blooms are present

    • cyanoHAB prevention practices (nutrient reduction, land-use practices) can target the cyanobacteria that cause the problem.

    Greening of lakes

    Lake Victoria now receives large influxes of nutrients because of growing lakeside populations and land-use changes. Nutrients from agriculture, industry and urbanisation fuel the growth of cyanoHABs.

    CyanoHABs occur in many basins in Lake Victoria but are highly concentrated in Kenya’s shallow Winam/Nyanza Gulf. Changing nutrient and temperature conditions can also alter which types of cyanobacteria dominate the gulf and the types and levels of toxins in the water. Lakeside communities that rely on the gulf for drinking water and domestic tasks are at risk of exposure to cyanoHAB toxins.

    Past research on cyanoHABs has mostly used the oldest of microbiological techniques — microscopy — to classify the types of cyanobacteria in the gulf. This cannot differentiate between toxic and non-toxic cyanobacterial cells.

    Modern genome sequencing technologies can identify genes encoding the production of known and novel toxins and other molecules of interest, such as those with medicinal properties. Genomic data from African Great Lakes is scarce, so the chemical capabilities of bacteria in this region are largely unexplored. But this is beginning to change.

    Our latest study adds to a growing number of recent studies our team has carried out in and around Lake Victoria. In this study, our research vessel stopped at over 31 sites to collect scientific samples and data. The samples were later analysed for DNA, the biological “instruction manual” inside every living thing. DNA tells an organism how to grow, function, reproduce, and – in the case of cyanobacteria – make deadly toxins. This analysis produced near-complete genome sequences – that is, the set of all genes in the DNA – for organisms at each sampling site.

    Past reports identified Microcystis as the dominant cyanobacteria in the Winam Gulf. Our research, however, found Dolichospermum was the most abundant type in major cyanoHAB events there. This finding might be due to recent environmental changes in the region.

    But we linked Microcystis to microcystin. This is a liver-damaging toxin that can kill livestock, wildlife and humans, especially those whose immune system isn’t working well. In Winam Gulf, it’s often more abundant than the health limits set by the WHO.

    Our study also found that Microcystis occurs mainly in murkier river mouths where green scums are not visible, making scientific monitoring and public alerts even more important.

    Local authorities can now monitor for these cyanobacteria and warn residents to stay away when blooms are present.

    The findings also mean that authorities know which cyanobacteria to target in prevention efforts like reducing the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients entering the gulf.

    Lastly, our genomic study uncovered over 300 uncharacterised genes that may produce novel cyanobacterial molecules. These molecules could have toxic or therapeutic effects, and provide an opportunity for future investigators to explore.

    A model for what is to come

    Rapid human population growth and settlement around lakes and their watersheds is leading to high levels nutrients in lakes around the world. This results in excessive growth of algae and aquatic plants. This danger is likely to increase with global warming because warm temperatures promote algal blooms.

    Our data provides a foundation for remedying this in Lake Victoria – and possibly discovering beneficial properties in cyanoHABs.

    Lauren Hart receives funding from National Institute of Health.

    George S Bullerjahn receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    Gregory J. Dick receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institutes for Health, and the US Geological Survey.

    Kefa M. Otiso receives funding from the US National Science Foundation.

    – ref. Lake Victoria is turning green – the deadly bacteria behind it – https://theconversation.com/lake-victoria-is-turning-green-the-deadly-bacteria-behind-it-249298

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Michael Mosoeu Moerane was a pioneering composer in South Africa. A new book is restoring his place in history

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Gwen Ansell, Associate of the Gordon Institute for Business Science, University of Pretoria

    Composer and educator Michael Mosoeu Moerane (1904-1980) is probably best known for a few evergreen choral works, including Della and Sylvia, still sung by choirs across South Africa today.

    And, of course, for his orchestral piece FatŠe laHeso (My Country). It had the distinction of being recorded by both the British and South African public broadcasters in an era when white minority rule denied even the existence of Black classical musicians.

    Apartheid held the identity of Black people in South Africa to be unchangeingly simple, rural and tribal. Sophisticated activities such as orchestral composing were both beyond their capacity and dangerously subversive.

    But, as South African author and music scholar Christine Lucia’s biography of Moerane, The Times Do Not Permit, reveals, there was more to Moerane’s work than those few compositions. And a far more nuanced relationship with his oppressive political times. Moerane was vocal against the system, yet secured white university supervision. He was consulted by white ethnomusicologists. Yet still he was stereotyped and confined by apartheid rules.

    I am a researcher into South African jazz and other genres and a teacher of writing. (Jazz, incidentally, was a genre that Moerane detested.) From my own work, I recognise many similarities between his story and the lives of jazz musicians I have studied: genteel homes with a piano in the parlour; after-dinner family music hours; the risk of instant dismissal for schoolteachers heard discussing anti-apartheid politics.

    I recognise, too, the gaps in his music story that Lucia finds: the questions that scholars did not ask while more people were still alive to answer them.



    Read more:
    Mzilikazi Khumalo: a stellar Zulu, African, Pan African and cosmopolitan composer

    Her book matters because, at last, it asks and answers those questions. In how it assembles the answers, it helps us to start mapping the undiscovered continent of Black classical music under apartheid.

    The book’s nearly 300 pages offer a detailed account of Moerane’s life, based on research and conversations with family and still-living contemporaries.

    Lucia takes us through Moerane’s various roles in turn (student, teacher, choralist and more). It also analyses his compositions and their treatment of themes that range from spirituality and tradition to love and loss.

    A reader can view Moerane’s life though these different lenses; together they add up to an intricate, multidimensional portrait.

    Who was Michael Moerane?

    Born in the Eastern Cape province and educated there and in neighbouring Basutoland (today Lesotho), Moerane stitched a music-teaching career together that moved between the two countries.

    His own radical Africanist politics, the activism of family members, his marriage across apartheid-defined ethnic barriers (he was Sotho, his wife Xhosa) and the simple fact of being a Black composer exploring unconventional, modernist music meant he was often in the sights of repressive authorities in both countries. Lowering his profile every now and then (a new school, a more obscure place to live) was his best protection.

    There’s real fear in some of his letters that all these moves would mean his written compositions would be lost or scattered. Yet remarkably, through all this, he managed to hold a family together, establish music ensembles and a reputation, and graduate with a music degree from the University of South Africa in 1941, a time when it was almost unknown for Black South Africans to receive a university education outside segregated black colleges. He was supported, through a unique arrangement, by supervision from the all-white Rhodes University College in his home province.

    His external examiner, William Henry Bell, said of FatŠe laHeso (Moerane’s examination piece) that he “never had expected such a work to be written in South Africa and less so by a Native”.

    Lucia’s account of how Moerane got there, and of the many compositions and long music teaching career that followed, is made even clearer through a rich variety of material. There are geographical, historical and musical road-maps, extracts from his manuscripts, evocative photographs of people and places, and probably the most complete catalogue of Moerane’s works to date.

    The catalogue was put together from both archive records and fragments of sheet music surviving in the family piano-stool, where they were stored. It’s a poignant reminder of how much Black South African history is no longer available because of how apartheid repeatedly uprooted people and communities, with little chance to save family memorabilia.

    White minority rule didn’t only restrict where Black South Africans could live and work but even how they could learn music. Tuition for Black music students was limited to writing in tonic sol-fa (doh-re-mi) notation. Excluded from the notation used in classical music, composers and performers who would have occupied concert stages were limited to community choirs and brass bands. That was part of Moerane’s story too.

    Moerane’s Sylvia is still performed by choirs today.

    His life matters because of all this.

    A masterful book

    The book traces the defiant survival and originality of this important figure and restores him in the country’s history. It adds detail and clarification to what was already known. It corrects confusions about dates and place names. If that were all the book had done, it would already have been a worthwhile contribution.

    But Lucia’s way of telling the story adds significantly more. It brings Moerane alive through the texture of human voices and human detail, creating a read that is academic but far from dry. We hear, for example, his children recalling how strict he was during daily piano practice: “You would scramble to get a slot when my father wasn’t at home.”

    But more: South African music under apartheid is often shown as the “soundtrack” to history. Or often the history is seen as mere “background” to the music. But Moerane’s music was not a soundtrack to history: it was part of history. His times were not a background to his music, they were an ingredient. Not so much because of the work but because of who he chose to be – and who he could not be.

    The title, The Times Do Not Permit, is taken from a 1966 letter written by Moerane to music academic Percival Kirby, in polite response to a request for detailed information about his life:

    Please be satisfied with the bare statement that the times do not permit.

    That may seem cryptic to anybody who has not felt the iron heel of state repression. For those who have, it’s obvious: the more the authorities know about you, the more power they have over you.



    Read more:
    An African violin? New study tests which indigenous woods could make one

    So Lucia’s book allows us to enter a world that is distant from today’s experience and rejoice that such a full life was led and that now we know about it. But it also forces us to mourn the opportunities lost for him – and by earlier scholars looking into his life. How many other Black South African musicians have had their lives and legacies obscured like Michael Mosoeu Moerane’s was?

    Gwen Ansell 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. Michael Mosoeu Moerane was a pioneering composer in South Africa. A new book is restoring his place in history – https://theconversation.com/michael-mosoeu-moerane-was-a-pioneering-composer-in-south-africa-a-new-book-is-restoring-his-place-in-history-248948

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can the president really kill off the penny – and should he?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jay L. Zagorsky, Associate Professor Questrom School of Business, Boston University

    In the middle of Super Bowl LIX, President Donald Trump posted on social media that he was getting rid of the penny. Since the lowly penny in 2024 cost about 3.7 cents to make – meaning the government loses money on every coin – the announcement might seem practical at first glance. But does the president have the power to kill off the penny?

    I’m a business school professor and a longtime advocate for physical money who has written op-eds supporting the penny in The Wall Street Journal and CNN. My forthcoming book, “The Power of Cash,” explores the many advantages of using old-fashioned currency. Yet inflation has slashed the value of the penny by a third in just the past decade, and even I now admit that its time is up.

    But eliminating the penny via a social media post isn’t just legally dubious. It could cause more problems than it solves.

    The penny problem

    Critics see the penny as a shining example of government waste. Last year, the U.S. Mint lost US$85 million making pennies, according to the bureau’s annual report. It also lost about $18 million minting nickels. Now, to be clear, just because the mint didn’t make money on pennies or nickels doesn’t mean it’s losing money overall. In 2024, the mint earned a profit of about $100 million making the country’s pocket change. Still, $85 million is no small sum.

    Meanwhile, public opinion on the penny is split. Some surveys show support for it, but it has plenty of opponents. Many of my students cite carrying around “nuisance coins” like the penny as a reason for switching away from using cash.

    The good news, for those who dislike the penny, is that the coin is disappearing on its own. The U.S. Mint has made about 5 billion pennies annually throughout the 2020s — down from about 11 billion each year in the 1990s. So far in 2025, it has only made about a quarter of a million pennies.

    But is it legal?

    Setting aside people’s feelings toward the penny, the problem with the president’s order, I think, is that only Congress can change the type of coins the mint produces.

    To be fair, some defenders of the president’s order believe his actions are legal. But the U.S. Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 – which gives Congress the power to do important things like levy taxes, pay debts and declare war – also authorizes Congress “to coin money.”

    Now the phrase “to coin money” is vague. To fix that, the United States’ second Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1792, which was signed into law by President George Washington. The act, which lays out how the mint operates and what it produces, says it must produce “Cents – each to be of the value of the one hundredth part of a dollar, and to contain eleven penny-weights of copper.”

    Congress can modify this act anytime it wants – and it has. The 1792 act also required the mint to produce “Half Cents – each to be of the value of half a cent.” These coins were eliminated in 1857 by an act of Congress. Similarly, before 1965, many U.S. coins were made out of silver. After a 1965 congressional amendment to the act passed, they were made out of a cheaper composite.

    And lawmakers have tried several times to eliminate the penny. In 1989, for example, Arizona Rep. Jim Hayes proposed the Price Rounding Act, which called for cash purchases to be rounded to the nearest nickel. It didn’t pass. More recently, in 2017, Republican Senator John McCain introduced the COINS act, which would have eliminated the minting of pennies. The bill also proposed switching the paper one-dollar bill to a metal coin. It, too, didn’t pass.

    What happens if pennies go?

    Since Congress has failed to eliminate the penny in the past, Trump is trying to do so via a direct order to the Treasury secretary. However, many of Trump’s actions are being challenged in court. For the sake of argument, let’s assume no one challenges the order to kill off production of the penny.

    A big problem remains. Even if the U.S. stopped making pennies, they’d remain legal tender and people would still need them as change. In simple terms, the supply would change, but not the demand.

    Past efforts to phase out the penny have tried to deal with this problem by requiring rounding, but Trump’s effort doesn’t do this. I think it’s entirely possible that people opposed to Trump would organize national “Demand your penny in change” days in an attempt to embarrass the president.

    The U.S. government loses less than $10 million a month minting pennies. In theory, Congress could pass legislation eliminating the penny and requiring rounding within a month or two. The cost to the government for doing things legally is low. If the penny has to go, let Congress do it the right way.

    Jay L. Zagorsky 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. Can the president really kill off the penny – and should he? – https://theconversation.com/can-the-president-really-kill-off-the-penny-and-should-he-249825

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Jewish summer camp to gospel to Chabad, Bob Dylan’s faith doesn’t fit in a box − but he’s long had a connection to Israel

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Shalom Goldman, Professor of Religion, Middlebury

    Bob Dylan gives his first concert in Israel in 1987 in Tel Aviv, playing with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. AP Photo/Anat Givon

    James Mangold’s film “A Complete Unknown,” nominated for eight Oscars, captures the elusive, enigmatic quality of Bob Dylan in the early 1960s: the years he emerged as a major musical and cultural phenomenon. A scant few years after he came to New York from Minnesota, and legally changed his name from Robert Allen Zimmerman, Dylan transformed American music.

    Especially “unknown” and baffling is Dylan’s religious and spiritual identity, one that has undergone many transformations. Mangold’s film avoids these questions, as does his 2005 film “Walk the Line,” a Johnny Cash biopic. The filmmaker – and much of Hollywood in general – must believe religion isn’t good at the box office.

    As a music fan and scholar of religion, I have long been interested in artists’ religious backgrounds. Cash’s tumultuous life, like his friend and collaborator Dylan’s, was rich in religious affiliations and commitments.

    And both of these musical giants shared a connection with Israel, defying calls to cancel performances there over concern for Palestinian rights – similar to artists’ debates in recent years. Dylan’s, in particular, is difficult to parse and part of his larger spiritual journey – one that’s rambled through Judaism and Christianity and back again.

    Bob Zimmerman

    The last time Dylan took the stage in Israel was at Tel Aviv’s Ramat Gan Stadium in June 2011. It had been 18 years since his last performance in the country, though he had made many personal visits in the interim.

    He was, of course, a household name in Israel, revered by the young as well as the not so young. The audience members that evening, according to the Haaretz reporter who covered the event, were
    “overwhelmingly young, overwhelmingly native-born Israelis.”

    Surely everyone in attendance knew that Dylan had been born Robert Zimmerman – indeed, that he had a long, complicated relationship with Israel and with Judaism itself.

    Bob Dylan, right, and a friend visit the Western Wall in Jerusalem on April 6, 1971.
    AP Photo

    Young Zimmerman grew up in Hibbing, Minnesota, in a home that emphasized Jewish identity, if not its religious rituals. A visiting Orthodox rabbi had prepared him for his bar mitzvah, which took place in May 1954, with 400 guests in attendance. That summer, Zimmerman attended Camp Herzl in Wisconsin, a Jewish camp with a Zionist orientation; he would return there the following summers as well. At Camp Herzl young Bob formed his first musical group, the Jokers.

    In his mid-20s, he married Sara Lownds, a Jewish woman with whom he had five children. Dylan made his first private visit to Israel in 1969 and returned regularly in the early 1970s. In May 1971, he celebrated his 30th birthday in Jerusalem; photos of him at the Western Wall appeared in Israeli and American newspapers, fueling speculation that he had “found religion” in the holy city.

    In some ways, the young star put distance between himself and his Jewish roots – he was now Dylan, after all, not Zimmerman. But even in these early years, as throughout his career, “Dylanologists” delighted in the biblical allusions in some of his songs – including irreverent ones, at least at first glance.

    “Highway 61 Revised,” for example, the title track of a 1965 album, kicks off with the binding of Isaac: a section of the Book of Genesis where God famously tests Abraham with a command – reprieved at the last moment – to kill his beloved child:

    Yeah, God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
    Abe said, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
    God said, “No”, Abe said, “What?”

    Twists and turns

    But Dylan confounded both his admirers and his critics, turning abruptly in the late 1970s to evangelical Christianity. After his conversion, Dylan took a course at Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Los Angeles, which emphasized the end-time narratives of the New Testament Book of Revelation.

    Bob Dylan performs in November 1979, during his Gospel Tour, in San Francisco.
    Larry Hulst/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

    His years as a born-again Christian resulted in a series of gospel-influenced albums and at least one more visit to Israel during this early ’80s period. In 1987 he gave his first concerts there, kicking off his Temples in Flames world tour alongside Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.

    Within years of embracing Christianity, however, Dylan’s spiritual life yet again confounded his critics and fans, including the more scholarly obsessives known as “Dylanologists.” Born into Judaism, then a born-again evangelical, the rocker now forged ties to Chabad, an ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish movement. Between 1986 and 1991, he made three appearances on the Chabad “To Life” Telethon, an annual fundraiser broadcast from Los Angeles.

    Because Dylan was – and is – so private and publicity-shy, it is difficult to know whether such ecumenism represented true spiritual seeking, a political statement or sheer mischief.

    Whether he was presenting himself as a born-again Christian, a supporter of Chabad or just a rock and roller, Dylan seemed inextricably connected to Israel in all its complexity. For example, many listeners interpreted the song “Neighborhood Bully” on his 1983 “Infidels” album as a “declaration of full-throated Israel support,” as Haaretz wrote.

    Many fans interpret ‘Neighborhood Bully’ as sympathetic to Israel.

    The lyrics presented the title character, the “bully,” as an unrepentant, besieged victim: “His enemies say he’s on their land/ They got him outnumbered a million to one/ He got no place to escape to, no place to run.”

    ‘Dylan lives here’

    Dylan performed again in Israel in June 1993, bringing his summer tour to Tel Aviv, Beersheba and Haifa.

    It would be nearly two decades before his next public performance in Israel, the 2011 concert at Ramat Gan. By then, performing in Israel had become much more controversial, with artists planning to tour there under scrutiny.

    The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement publicly pressured the singer to cancel his Tel Aviv show, appealing to his past support of the American Civil Rights Movement. Activists called on Dylan “not to perform in Israel until it respects Palestinian human rights. A performance in Israel, today, is a vote of support for its policies of oppression, whether you intend for it to be that, or not.”

    Ever the enigmatic artist, Dylan did not respond to the BDS appeal, nor did he cancel his concert. The towering pop-music icon did not say why. But many Israelis and Americans read his return as a gesture of support for the Jewish state in the face of widespread criticism.

    Tel Aviv welcomed him with open arms, including a television news profile of his life, music and Jewish affiliations. Though he said nothing from the stage during the performance – late-career Dylan is notorious for not addressing the audience between songs – Israeli fans saw the concert as a triumphant homecoming.

    “Dylan lives here. He lives in the culture of Israel,” wrote the Haaretz reviewer. “He has influenced Israel for the better more than any other American Jew.”

    Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in 2023, international criticism of Israeli policies has become much more strident. Dylan, as cryptic as ever, has neither joined the critics nor identified himself with Israel’s supporters.

    But supporters are posting “Neighborhood Bully” wherever and whenever they can.

    Shalom Goldman 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. From Jewish summer camp to gospel to Chabad, Bob Dylan’s faith doesn’t fit in a box − but he’s long had a connection to Israel – https://theconversation.com/from-jewish-summer-camp-to-gospel-to-chabad-bob-dylans-faith-doesnt-fit-in-a-box-but-hes-long-had-a-connection-to-israel-248739

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Syria’s mass graves: Accounting for the dead and disappeared is crucial for the nation to heal

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stefan Schmitt, Project Lead for International Technical Forensic Services Global Forensic Justice Center, Florida International University

    Shortly after the fall of Bashar Assad in Syria in December 2024, reports emerged of mass graves being uncovered in liberated areas.

    Grim as such discoveries are, they should come as little surprise. The scale of the regime’s torture and killings in its detention facilities became evident years earlier, when in January 2014 a forensic photographer defected and left the country with a cache of 55,000 photos of people who had been tortured and died in detention.

    As an expert in forensic anthropology and mass casualties in conflict, I was asked to evaluate what became known as the “Caesar photographs.” What was clear to me then, and is even more so now, is that those photos represented a systematic approach to torturing, killing and disappearing massive numbers of people by the Assad regime.

    With Assad now gone, the newly formed government of the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has vowed to seek justice for the crimes Syrians suffered under Assad. Doing so will be difficult, even with the civil war in Syria being one of the better monitored conflicts in recent history. Yet it is a task that is imperative for the sake of pursuing justice in a shattered country and reducing the likelihood of violence returning to Syria.

    Holding perpetrators to account

    Since Syria erupted into violence in 2011, several groups have been collecting evidence of human rights violations. These include the Syrian Justice and Accountability Center, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the Syrian Emergency Task Force and the Commission for International Justice and Accountability. Internationally, the United Nations established an International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria in 2016 to assist any investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for serious violations of international law in Syria since March 2011.

    Estimates of those killed since the start of civil conflict in 2011 range anywhere from 100,000 to over 600,000, with civilian deaths accounting for at least 160,000.

    Many of these deaths have been at the hands of the Assad regime. But different armed groups, including the al-Nusra Front and Islamic State group, have also been accused of atrocities.

    From the perspective of holding perpetrators accountable, that could complicate matters. The leader of now ruling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is the founder of the al-Nusra Front and might not be willing to hold his group or others accountable or acknowledge the crimes of that group.

    An uncovered mass grave believed to contain the remains of civilians killed by the ousted Assad regime in Daraa, Syria.
    Bekir Kasim/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Who investigates?

    There are three dimensions of accounting for the missing following conflict. First, there is the task of identifying and repatriating the remains of those in mass graves to allow family and friends to grieve. Second, the rights of victims to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones needs to be addressed. And finally, the process needs to provide justice, accountability and reconciliation, regardless of who was responsible.

    But before this can take place, the question of who is responsible for the accounting needs to be addressed.

    Countries coming out of civil conflict have turned to different mechanisms, from truth commissions to criminal tribunals. In the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, special U.N. courts were set up to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of grievous crimes. These tribunals were created as independent judicial bodies dedicated to investigating and prosecuting those most responsible for the crimes that had been committed during conflict.

    Guatemala, which emerged from a decades-long civil war in 1996, turned to national human rights and victim organizations to take the lead in a process of “transitional justice.” This included the Commission for Historical Clarification, which through its investigation concluded that an estimated 200,000 people had been killed.

    The nongovernmental Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala, or FAFG, has since 1993 formed a fundamental part of searching, identifying and repatriating the missing. FAFG collects personal information, DNA profiles and witness statements and is responsible for protecting the rights of victims’ families in Guatemala’s judicial system.

    Its work continues to this day.

    What crimes to include

    As to the Syrian civil war, a decision over the scope of any investigation into the disappeared and dead will likewise have to be made.

    Will it include all those missing and in mass graves in areas held by al-Nusra, the Islamic State group and other armed groups, as well as those killed by Assad? The fact that groups and individuals that now form the government could have been involved in human rights violations may risk future investigations being skewed toward just the victims of Assad.

    Even if the scope was narrowed to Assad’s crimes, it’s unclear how far back one should go. Assad rule in Syria began more than 50 years ago under Assad’s father, Hafez al Assad. And killings and disappearances date back to the elder’s time in power, including the 1982 massacre in the city of Hama in which an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 were killed.

    The role of the state

    Another fact-finding question concerns the sharing of information between civil society groups and the state.

    The information gathered on the war by various NGOs so far is technically held or “owned” by such groups, not the Syrian state. This is for a good reason, as victims trust these organizations to protect information from the perpetrators, some of whom might form part of the new government.

    The International Commission on Missing Persons, an NGO with its seat in the Netherlands, gained its reputation while identifying the dead from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and early 2000s. It has already collected and stored testimonies from over 76,200 Syrian relatives of more than 28,000 missing persons and has identified 66 mass grave locations. Other organizations have similar testimonies.

    But to what extent will these groups share their data and analysis with a future Syrian state led by a rebel group that itself is accused of human rights violations, such as arbitrary detentions and torture?

    At some point, the state of Syria will need to be involved in the process. Legally and in practice, the state issues a citizen’s “civil identity” through things such as a birth certificate that establish a person with rights and responsibilities. In the same manner, the state issues death certificates in which the manner of death determines any judicial reactions – such as a criminal investigation in cases where the death is due to homicide.

    The state is also important in resolving issues such as inheritance and widower status.

    Identifying the remains from the mass graves is therefore not just a “technical” issue dependent on cutting-edge DNA laboratories and missing-persons databases. It is also something that any future Syrian state should work toward, and then own and take responsibility for.

    Shifting responsibility away from the state to an international body would not really help Syria develop its own accountability mechanisms or hold the government to delivering justice for the victims and their families.

    In my view, empowering victims in this transitional justice process needs to be a priority for the Syrian state. This includes the establishment of a transparent forensic and investigative effort to address the concerns of families searching for loved ones.

    It should not, I believe, be outsourced. From my experience with similar processes elsewhere, it is important that Syrians become “experts” in all aspects of this process. No doubt, the task will take time and searching for the truth about what happened, and will involve perpetrators and victims alike.

    It might well be a painful and painstaking process. But it is a necessary one if postconflict Syrian is to hold to account those who attempted to “erase” the identity of victims by disappearing them, burying them in mass graves, or leaving them under the bombed rubble of their neighborhoods.

    Stefan Schmitt 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. Syria’s mass graves: Accounting for the dead and disappeared is crucial for the nation to heal – https://theconversation.com/syrias-mass-graves-accounting-for-the-dead-and-disappeared-is-crucial-for-the-nation-to-heal-246400

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump and Maduro refresh a complex relationship governed by self-interest and tainted by Venezuela election fraud

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul Webster Hare, Master Lecturer and Interim Director of Latin American Studies, Boston University

    Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s special envoy, in Caracas, Venezuela, on Jan. 31, 2025. Venezuela’s presidential press office, via AP

    In 2019, President Donald Trump recognized then-Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country’s interim leader over Nicolás Maduro, who has ruled the country since 2013.

    The policy, which led Venezuela to officially sever ties with the United States, was consistent with the first Trump administration’s policy of maximum pressure and a desire for regime change when it came to the socialist government in Caracas.

    Fast forward six years: The early days of Trump’s second administration has seen the U.S. president negotiate with Maduro over the release of detained Americans and an apparent willingness from Venezuela to receive hundreds of thousands of its nationals being deported from the U.S.

    As a diplomat who served in Venezuela and knew Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez, I detect a subtle shift in the evolving Trump administration’s policy toward Venezuela. It’s true that the administration retains a strong dose of the anti-Maduro posture it held last time, particularly in light of Maduro’s widely denounced election fraud in 2024 and an undercurrent of antipathy in Washington toward left-wing authoritarianism in Latin America.

    But U.S.-Venezuela relations under a second Trump term are subject to other factors and dynamics, including Trump’s desire to be known for deal-making and the fulfillment of his campaign promise to deport immigrants back to Latin America. At the same time, Trump needs to balance satisfying anti-Maduro voices in his coalition with not pushing Venezuela further toward China, a country all too willing to exert greater influence in parts of Latin America.

    Deal-making and immigration

    So far, the second Trump’s administration seems to be sticking to the line of not officially recognizing Maduro and preferring his departure from the scene. It has kept sanctions on the country intact and continues to recognize Maduro’s opponent, Edmundo González, as the legitimate president-elect.

    But that hasn’t stopped the administration from pursuing negotiations. In late January, Trump’s envoy Richard Grenell visited Caracas to secure the release of six Americans accused by Venezuela of plotting to destabilize the country. Trump subsequently announced that Maduro would accept repatriation of deportations of Venezuelans in the U.S. The U.S. administration also revoked the Temporary Protected Status, a categorization prioritized by President Joe Biden, for hundreds of thousands of people who fled Maduro’s Venezuela.

    On Feb. 10, two Venezuelan planes returned home from the U.S with nearly 200 deported Venezuelan nationals, a signal that negotiations between the two nations were more than just optics. But news that the Trump administration has sent Venezuelan detainees to a U.S. military camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba – and is trying to send more – could yet prove a thorn in the side of any diplomatic thaw.

    Regardless, the shift in stance on Venezuela has raised eyebrows among some Republicans and Democrats alike. Their concern is that Grenell’s visit – and overtures from the White House – gives Maduro’s regime a veneer of legitimacy.

    But so long as Trump feels Venezuela under Maduro is useful to his aims of deportations, other U.S. issues with the government in Caracas are, I believe, likely to remain of secondary importance.

    Rhetoric vs. reality

    The complicated dynamic of two men, ideologically opposed but aware of the other’s usefulness, is reciprocated by Maduro. The Venezuelan leader congratulated Trump on his election victory in November, and he appears to treat his more powerful adversary with some pragmatism. But Maduro also remains willing to take a strident line rhetorically, even suggesting that Venezuela might “liberate” Puerto Rico if the U.S. keeps meddling with Venezuela’s affairs.

    Rhetoric aside, Maduro – as evidenced by his apparent willingness to deal with the new administration on hostages and immigration – is likely to pursue self-interest where possible. And he will be well aware that the survival of his rule may be tied with his country’s economic situation.

    Venezuela has been hit hard by U.S. sanctions that have been in place since 2017.

    The level of poverty in the country is estimated to be around 80% of the population. This bleak economic picture is improving slowly but is still hampered by sluggish oil production despite having vast reserves.

    Under Biden, the U.S. granted some exemptions for oil companies to work in Venezuela despite sanctions, helping the struggling export industry to recover some of its lost productivity.

    Maduro will want to see where he can work with the Trump team to continue such allowances and avoid a full embargo. But recent noises coming from the administration have been mixed on this front. On Jan. 20, Trump suggested that he may pull the plug on Venezuelan oil exports to the U.S. “We don’t have to buy their oil. We have plenty of oil for ourselves,” he said.

    Such a move would be a severe blow to Venezuela’s economy, which has benefited from increased exports to the U.S. in recent years. But the move will likely face resistance from oil producers like Chevron, the American company that has a license to operate in Venezuela.

    Election fraud and beyond

    It’s plausible Trump will be swayed by the elements of his base or administration who view Venezuela primarily in terms of a socialist authoritarian adversary to be defeated.

    In 2024, Maduro pulled off one of Latin America’s great election frauds. Computer printouts had shown the opposition campaign of González and Maria Corina Machado won the July election by a landslide. And yet, Maduro declared himself the winner with no evidence.

    Many in Trump’s circle viewed the fraudulent election as another reason for being hawkish toward the nation – a position that takes in both ideological and electoral considerations.

    Trump knows there is a strong base of anti-communist Venezuelans in Florida who want to be tough on the Cuban-aligned government of Maduro. The new U.S. administration’s deportation policy has already concerned some among this strongly Trump voting base; any relaxation on Maduro could be seen as a further “betrayal.”

    And Trump has appointed several people who have long been critical of Maduro, including his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

    Rubio, in particular, is a longtime critic of any accommodation with Venezuela. He has spoken to opposition leaders, called González the legitimate president, blasted any relaxation of sanctions and, during his confirmation hearing, labeled Maduro’s government “a narco-trafficking organization.”

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, right, oversees a ‘seized’ sign being placed on a Venezuelan government airplane on Feb. 6, 2025.
    Mark Schiefelbein/AFP via Getty Images

    And while U.S. envoy Grenell has been shaking hands with Maduro, Rubio has been seizing the Venezuelan leader’s aircraft. On Feb. 6, the U.S. secretary of state personally oversaw its confiscation while visiting the Dominican Republic, where it had been impounded since last year.

    Competition with China

    During his first administration, Trump failed in his efforts to encourage the replacement of Maduro.

    In any case, the Venezuelan government under Maduro, like Chavez before him, has shown itself capable of withstanding U.S. pressure.

    Throwing a further wrinkle to any U.S. intentions of influencing the future of Venezuela is the role China has taken on in the country and Maduro’s increasing closeness with Beijing. In contrast to leaders in the West, China’s president, Xi Jinping, congratulated Maduro following the latter’s claim of victory in 2024. China is the leading importer of Venezuelan crude oil and has signed a series of bilateral trade and tourism pacts that have provided Maduro an economic lifeline.

    To some U.S. hawks, China’s influence with Maduro represents a breach of a long-standing vision of the U.S. as a regional hegemony, as envisioned by the Monroe Doctrine. Yet other voices within the administration – including Trump, who has spoken positively about diplomatic overtures to Beijing, or Elon Musk, who has extensive business interests in China – view the country in far different terms than predecessors.

    Ultimately, whatever path Trump chooses on relations with Venezuela is likely to be conditioned on what factions win out in his administration and which political constituencies the president is most keen to please.

    Paul Webster Hare 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. Trump and Maduro refresh a complex relationship governed by self-interest and tainted by Venezuela election fraud – https://theconversation.com/trump-and-maduro-refresh-a-complex-relationship-governed-by-self-interest-and-tainted-by-venezuela-election-fraud-248275

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: 60 years of progress in expanding rights is being rolled back by Trump − a pattern that’s all too familiar in US history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Philip Klinkner, James S. Sherman Professor of Government, Hamilton College

    There’s a long history in the U.S. of denying the rights, liberties and benefits of democracy to some Americans. rob dobi/Getty Images

    For many Americans, Donald Trump’s head-spinning array of executive orders in the early days of his second term look like an unprecedented effort to roll back democracy and the rights and liberties of American citizens.

    But it isn’t unprecedented.

    As we have written, American history is not a steady march toward greater equality, democracy and individual rights. America’s commitment to these liberal values has competed with an alternative set of illiberal values that hold that full American citizenship should be limited by race, ethnicity, gender and class.

    The most famous example of this conflict is the Jim Crow era after Reconstruction, when many of the political and legal rights gained by African Americans in the Civil War era were swept away by disenfranchisement, segregation and discrimination. From roughly 1870 until 1940, democracy and equal rights were retreating, not advancing, leaving what was described in the 1960s by President Lyndon Johnson as “the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.”

    Today, the Trump administration is seeking to roll back America’s commitment to equality and engaging in a broad effort to limit – if not outright deny – the rights, liberties and benefits of democracy to all Americans.

    President Donald Trump attacked the FAA’s DEI initiatives during a press conference on the D.C. plane crash.

    Progress, then rollbacks

    The biggest gains in African American rights came during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War II and the Cold War, when the United States confronted enemies that Americans believed contradicted its liberal values – the British monarchy, Southern slaveholders, fascist dictators and communist tyrants. The United States highlighted its commitments to democracy and human rights as a way of contrasting itself from its enemies.

    But once the pressures of war faded, America’s illiberal values reasserted themselves. With the end of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, the movement for greater equality stalled and many of the previous gains were rolled back.

    The onset of World War II and then the Cold War forced Americans to renew their commitment to democracy and human rights for all Americans. This period is often described as the Second Reconstruction.

    Like the First Reconstruction a century earlier, the federal government helped to ensure civil and voting rights for African Americans. These efforts laid the groundwork for advancing the political and civil rights of women, other racial and ethnic groups, immigrants, disabled persons and, eventually, members of the gay and lesbian community.

    But like the First Reconstruction, these changes generated intense backlash.

    Bigger than anti-DEI

    Since the demise of the Cold War over 30 years ago, the Republican Party has increasingly sided with those seeking to roll back the gains of the Second Reconstruction.

    Even before Trump first ran for president, the Republican Party began adopting nativist, anti-immigration policies. In 2012, a Republican-dominated Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law barring racial discrimination in voting that was one of the signal achievements of the Second Reconstruction.

    In 2016, Trump rose to the Republican nomination by expressing and amplifying the racist and xenophobic views of many white Americans, including the claim that Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S., that Mexican immigrants were criminals and rapists, and that the U.S. should close its borders to anyone from Muslim countries.

    Since his second inauguration, Trump has mounted a full-scale effort to undermine the policies of the Second Reconstruction. This effort has been masked as an attack on diversity, equity and inclusion – or DEI – policies. According to Trump and other critics of DEI, these policies are themselves racist, since they allegedly single out white Americans for shame and scorn.

    As scholars of race and American politics, we believe that, overall, DEI initiatives have combated racial discrimination and expanded the pools of talented people who can contribute to the nation’s progress.

    The Trump administration’s effort to end DEI programs is really an attack on decades of efforts by the federal government to make good on the promise of America: to engage in rigorous nondiscrimination efforts and open up opportunities for all.

    One of Trump’s first executive orders, which prominently featured abandonment of DEI policies, also repealed a 60-year-old executive order signed by President Johnson mandating “affirmative action” to end widespread discrimination by the federal government and its contractors.

    Antidiscrimination is discrimination?

    These diversity initiatives have for more than 50 years included requirements that beneficiaries of these policies must be qualified for the benefits they obtain.

    But to Trump and many conservatives, such policies force employers to engage in racial and gender quotas to prove that they don’t discriminate. Furthermore, these efforts to end discrimination, according to Trump’s executive order, “diminish the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination,” leading to “disastrous consequences.”

    In other words, Trump and others claim that efforts to end discrimination are themselves a form of discrimination and force the hiring of unqualified and incompetent people.

    Trump made this view clear in his comments on the recent collision between a passenger airliner and a military helicopter in Washington, D.C. Before any formal investigation, Trump alleged that the crash resulted from Obama and Biden administration efforts to diversify the Federal Aviation Administration staff. Such efforts, he suggested, elevate unqualified people.

    “If they don’t have a great brain … they’re not going to be good at what they do and bad things will happen,” he said.

    Efforts to reverse DEI have been accompanied by other antidiversity moves. One example: According to a news release, the Defense Department will no longer use “official resources” to mark “Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Pride Month, National Hispanic Heritage Month, National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and National American Indian Heritage Month.”

    Undoing 19th-century advances

    The attack on DEI goes beyond the federal government. Other executive orders mandate that K-12 schools as well as colleges and universities end DEI programs, since they are “anti-American, subversive, harmful, and false ideologies.”

    Instead, Trump insists that schools engage only in “patriotic education.”

    Such a policy will almost certainly prevent schools from honestly addressing the ways in which racial, ethnic and gender discrimination have influenced America’s past and present.

    The Trump administration is attacking the First Reconstruction as well. Another Trump executive order seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized alien residents.

    That move would limit the 14th Amendment, one of the constitutional cornerstones of the First Reconstruction. Passed in 1868 in order to guarantee citizenship rights for African Americans, it begins by stating:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    This provision was included in order to explicitly overturn the notorious 1857 Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, that ruled that African Americans were not citizens and consequently “they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

    Pushback capacity

    A protester at a demonstration against the Trump administration at the Texas State Capitol on Feb. 5, 2025, in Austin, Texas.
    Brandon Bell/Getty Images

    How far can the Trump administration go in its efforts to undo the Second Reconstruction?

    Numerous legal challenges have already been filed. In the case of the executive order limiting birthright citizenship, a lower federal court judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan blocked the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

    Many of these cases will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, which under Chief Justice John Roberts has been willing to overturn long-established equal rights precedents. Besides its 2012 gutting of the Voting Rights Act, in 2022 the court limited the reproductive rights of women by overturning its 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade. Most recently, in 2023 the court ended a 45-year precedent that allowed colleges and universities to engage in limited forms of affirmative action in order to achieve more student diversity.

    Yet despite years of attacks by conservatives and now the Trump administration, most efforts to end discrimination and open doors to all Americans, including DEI, remain popular. And the groups empowered by the Second Reconstruction – racial and ethnic minorities, women, immigrants, the LGBTQ community – are far more numerous and have far more legal and political resources available with which to fight back than those that were aided by the First Reconstruction.

    There are now no government pressures driving Americans to make greater progress toward democracy and equal rights for all, as in the relatively brief earlier periods of significant reform in America.

    But those reforms have given many more Americans the capacity to push back against policies that violate both American values and American interests.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. 60 years of progress in expanding rights is being rolled back by Trump − a pattern that’s all too familiar in US history – https://theconversation.com/60-years-of-progress-in-expanding-rights-is-being-rolled-back-by-trump-a-pattern-thats-all-too-familiar-in-us-history-248526

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Damage has been done’ – Miss Pacific pageant statement too late, say critics

    By Lagi Keresoma in Apia

    The Miss Pacific Islands Pageant (MPIP) Committee has finally issued a statement — 5 days after damaging social media attacks following the 2025 Pageant finals hosted by the Solomon Islands last Saturday.

    The statement yesterday simply said the committee recognised and deeply regretted the distress caused by recent disputes concerning the result on the pageant night.

    “Unfortunately, these allegations have escalated to the extent of subjecting contestants to degrading treatment and issuing threats against the lives of certain judges, thereby, detrimentally impacting the camaraderie and ethos of the pageant,” it said.

    However, the statement did not address the judging controversy despite calls from around the Pacific for a proper investigation and to hold the person responsible for the false allegations of results rigging against the pageant’s head judge, Leiataualesa Jerry Brunt.

    A former pageant organiser told Talamua that the statement had come “too late — too little, the damage has been done”.

    The organiser said there were policies and regulations that must be followed to ensure the successful progress of the pageant and steps to be taken if such events like the allegations against a judge surfaced.

    She told Talamua that the MPIP committee should have issued a statement within 24 hours of the allegations.

    Opened the door to conflict
    She believes that if MPIP had issued a statement earlier, it would have prevented the harsh attacks on the contestants and the head judge, but the delay had opened the door for the exchange between Samoans and Tongans on social media.

    The statement did not offer an apology or reasons why a statement was not issued earlier.

    It only gave an explanation on why such a pageant had been established and then acknowledged Miss Samoa Litara Ieremia Allan, the contestants, all involved in the pageant, and the host country.

    According to the former pageant organiser, the MPIP seemed to take the stop notices issued on the pageant judges very lightly, which drew an unprecedented involvement of both the Solomon Islands and Samoan governments.

    Although the detained judges have returned to their respectful countries, a statement from the Solomon Islands government issued yesterday said investigation was continuing based on the complaint and that formal charges would then be determined.

    It should not have gone this far if the MPIP committee had done their part, said a former pageant organiser.

    Republished from Talamua Online News.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Eugene Doyle: Will New Zealand invade the Cook Islands to stop China? Seriously

    Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. –

    The New Zealand government and the mainstream media have gone ballistic (thankfully not literally just yet) over the move by the small Pacific nation to sign a strategic partnership with China in Beijing this week.

    It is the latest in a string of island nations that have signalled a closer relationship with China, something that rattles nerves and sabres in Wellington and Canberra.

    The Chinese have politely told the Kiwis to back off.  Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters that China and the Cook Islands have had diplomatic relations since 1997 which “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”.

    “New Zealand is rightly furious about it,” a TVNZ Pacific affairs writer editorialised to the nation. The deal and the lack of prior consultation was described by various journalists as “damaging”, “of significant concern”, “trouble in paradise”, an act by a “renegade government”.

    Foreign Minister Winston Peters, not without cause, railed at what he saw as the Cook Islands government going against long-standing agreements to consult over defence and security issues.

    “Should New Zealand invade the Cook islands?” . . . New Zealand Herald columnist Matthew Hooton’s view in an “oxygen-starved media environment” amid rattled nerves. Image: New Zealand Herald screenshot APR

    ‘Clearly about secession’
    Matthew Hooton, who penned the article in The Herald, is a major commentator on various platforms.

    “Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown’s dealings with China are clearly about secession from the realm of New Zealand,” Hooton said without substantiation but with considerable colonial hauteur.

    “His illegal moves cannot stand. It would be a relatively straightforward military operation for our SAS to secure all key government buildings in the Cook Islands’ capital, Avarua.”

    This could be written off as the hyperventilating screeching of someone trying to drum up readers but he was given a major platform to do so and New Zealanders live in an oxygen-starved media environment where alternative analysis is hard to find.

    The Cook Islands, with one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones in the world — a whopping 2 million sq km — is considered part of New Zealand’s backyard, albeit over 3000 km to the northeast.  The deal with China is focused on economics not security issues, according to Cooks Prime Minister Mark Brown.

    Deep sea mining may be on the list of projects as well as trade cooperation, climate, tourism, and infrastructure.

    The Cook Islands seafloor is believed to have billions of tons of polymetallic nodules of cobalt, copper, nickel and manganese, something that has even caught the attention of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Various players have their eyes on it.

    Glen Johnson, writing in Le Monde Diplomatique, reported last year:

    “Environmentalists have raised major concerns, particularly over the destruction of deep-sea habitats and the vast, choking sediment plumes that excavation would produce.”

    All will be revealed
    Even Cook Island’s citizens have not been consulted on the details of the deal, including deep sea mining.  Clearly, this should not be the case. All will be revealed shortly.

    New Zealand and the Cook Islands have had formal relations since 1901 when the British “transferred” the islands to New Zealand.  Cook Islanders have a curious status: they hold New Zealand passports but are recognised as their own country. The US government went a step further on September 25, 2023. President Joe Biden said:

    “Today I am proud to announce that the United States recognises the Cook Islands as a sovereign and independent state and will establish diplomatic relations between our two nations.”

    A move to create their own passports was undermined by New Zealand officials who successfully stymied the plan.

    New Zealand has taken an increasingly hostile stance vis-a-vis China, with PM Luxon describing the country as a “strategic competitor” while at the same time depending on China as our biggest trading partner.  The government and a compliant mainstream media sing as one choir when it comes to China: it is seen as a threat, a looming pretender to be South Pacific hegemon, replacing the flip-flopping, increasingly incoherent USA.

    Climate change looms large for island nations. Much of the Cooks’ tourism infrastructure is vulnerable to coastal inundation and precious reefs are being destroyed by heating sea temperatures.

    “One thing that New Zealand has got to get its head round is the fact that the Trump administration has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord,” Dr Robert Patman, professor of international relations at Otago University, says. “And this is a big deal for most Pacific Island states — and that means that the Cook Islands nation may well be looking for greater assistance elsewhere.”

    Diplomatic spat with global coverage
    The story of the diplomatic spat has been covered in the Middle East, Europe and Asia.  Eyebrows are rising as yet again New Zealand, a close ally of Israel and a participant in the US Operation Prosperity Guardian to lift the Houthi Red Sea blockade of Israel, shows its Western mindset.

    Matthew Hooton’s article is the kind of colonialist fantasy masquerading as geopolitical analysis that damages New Zealand’s reputation as a friend to the smaller nations of our region.

    Yes, the Chinese have an interest in our neck of the woods — China is second only to Australia in supplying much-needed development assistance to the region.

    It is sound policy not insurrection for small nations to diversify economic partnerships and secure development opportunities for their people. That said, serious questions should be posed and deserve to be answered.

    Geopolitical analyst Dr Geoffrey Miller made a useful contribution to the debate saying there was potential for all three parties to work together:

    “There is no reason why New Zealand can’t get together with China and the Cook Islands and develop some projects together,” Dr Miller says. “Pacific states are the winners here because there is a lot of competition for them”.

    I think New Zealand and Australia could combine more effectively with a host of South Pacific island nations and form a more effective regional voice with which to engage with the wider world and collectively resist efforts by the US and China to turn the region into a theatre of competition.

    We throw the toys out
    We throw the toys out of the cot when the Cooks don’t consult with us but shrug when Pasifika elders like former Tuvalu PM Enele Sopoaga call us out for ignoring them.

    In Wellington last year, I heard him challenge the bigger powers, particularly Australia and New Zealand, to remember that the existential threat faced by Pacific nations comes first from climate change. He also reminded New Zealanders of the commitment to keeping the South Pacific nuclear-free.

    To succeed, a “Pacific for the peoples of the Pacific” approach would suggest our ministries of foreign affairs should halt their drift to being little more than branch offices of the Pentagon and that our governments should not sign up to US Great Power competition with China.

    Ditching the misguided anti-China AUKUS project would be a good start.

    Friends to all, enemies of none. Keep the Pacific peaceful, neutral and nuclear-free.

    Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.

    This article was first published on Café Pacific.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Decentralised social media offers an alternative to big tech platforms like X and Meta. How does it work? Podcast

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

    Koshiro K/Shutterstock

    When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, many users looked for alternatives, fuelling a wave of online migration from the social media platform. Musk says he’s using Twitter, now named X, to champion free speech and that “cancel culture has been cancelled”. But his closeness to Donald Trump and his use of X to support far-right political ideologies around the world, have driven even more people to explore new options.

    How do these alternative platforms differ from traditional social media, and what does the future hold for these online spaces? In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Robert Gehl, Ontario Research Chair of Digital Governance at York University, Canada, about the evolving landscape of decentralised social media.

    In 2018, technologists working at the World Wide Web Consortium built a new protocol for social media called ActivityPub. It would give birth to the Fediverse, a decentralised form of social media. Robert Gehl likens the Fediverse to email.

     ”A friend of mine can have a Gmail account, another friend can have an Outlook account with Microsoft. I could have an account with ProtonMail. And even though these are three different companies and three different locations in the world, I can email all my friends and they can email me back because all those email servers agree to speak a shared protocol.“

    ActivityPub does the same, but for social media. Somebody could set up a server that speaks that protocol and invite their friends to sign up. Somebody else could set up a different type of server, and those two could connect using ActivityPub’s protocol. Gehl explains: “You can build a big network out of all these little servers that removes a centre.”

     Examples of platforms on the Fediverse include micro-blogging site Mastodon, image-sharing site Pixelfed and video-sharing platform PeerTube. By comparison to these decentralised systems, traditional social media platforms like X, Instagram or YouTube centralise user data, content, moderation and governance and control how information is organised and distributed to their users.

    Other alternative platforms, which aren’t part of the Fediverse, include Bluesky, which  launched to the public in 2024. Bluesky grew out of Twitter, and Twitter’s founder, Jack Dorsey, used to be on its board. However, Gehl says analysts still see Bluesky as a quite centralised because of the way it’s designed.

     ”They’re building an architecture where all posts are accessible and then they let people build filters to go to that big stack of posts and pull out the things that they want to see …  I personally find Mastodon and the Fediverse to be a little bit more compelling because they’re federated systems. When you run a federated social media system, you install the software like Mastodon, and then it pulls in messages from the network as need be … so you don’t have the entire network on one box.“

    Listen to the interview with Robert Gehl on The Conversation Weekly podcast, which also includes an introduction with Nehal El-Hadi, interim editor-in-chief at The Conversation Canada.

    This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany with assistance from Katie Flood and Gemma Ware, Sound design was by Michelle Macklem, and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

    Clips in this episode from NBC News and CTV News.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

    Robert Gehl has received funding from the Canada First Research Excellence Fund.

    – ref. Decentralised social media offers an alternative to big tech platforms like X and Meta. How does it work? Podcast – https://theconversation.com/decentralised-social-media-offers-an-alternative-to-big-tech-platforms-like-x-and-meta-how-does-it-work-podcast-249758

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Will New Zealand invade the Cook Islands to stop China? Seriously

    The Chinese have politely told the Kiwis to back off.  Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters that China and the Cook Islands have had diplomatic relations since 1997 which “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”.

    “New Zealand is rightly furious about it,” a TVNZ Pacific affairs writer editorialised to the nation. The deal and the lack of prior consultation was described by various journalists as “damaging”, “of significant concern”, “trouble in paradise”, an act by a “renegade government”.

    Foreign Minister Winston Peters, not without cause, railed at what he saw as the Cook Islands government going against long-standing agreements to consult over defence and security issues.

    “Should New Zealand invade the Cook islands?” . . . New Zealand Herald columnist Matthew Hooton’s view in an “oxygen-starved media environment” amid rattled nerves. Image: New Zealand Herald screenshot APR

    ‘Clearly about secession’
    Matthew Hooton, who penned the article in The Herald, is a major commentator on various platforms.

    “Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown’s dealings with China are clearly about secession from the realm of New Zealand,” Hooton said without substantiation but with considerable colonial hauteur.

    “His illegal moves cannot stand. It would be a relatively straightforward military operation for our SAS to secure all key government buildings in the Cook Islands’ capital, Avarua.”

    This could be written off as the hyperventilating screeching of someone trying to drum up readers but he was given a major platform to do so and New Zealanders live in an oxygen-starved media environment where alternative analysis is hard to find.

    The Cook Islands, with one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones in the world — a whopping 2 million sq km — is considered part of New Zealand’s backyard, albeit over 3000 km to the northeast.  The deal with China is focused on economics not security issues, according to Cooks Prime Minister Mark Brown.

    Deep sea mining may be on the list of projects as well as trade cooperation, climate, tourism, and infrastructure.

    The Cook Islands seafloor is believed to have billions of tons of polymetallic nodules of cobalt, copper, nickel and manganese, something that has even caught the attention of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Various players have their eyes on it.

    Glen Johnson, writing in Le Monde Diplomatique, reported last year:

    “Environmentalists have raised major concerns, particularly over the destruction of deep-sea habitats and the vast, choking sediment plumes that excavation would produce.”

    All will be revealed
    Even Cook Island’s citizens have not been consulted on the details of the deal, including deep sea mining.  Clearly, this should not be the case. All will be revealed shortly.

    New Zealand and the Cook Islands have had formal relations since 1901 when the British “transferred” the islands to New Zealand.  Cook Islanders have a curious status: they hold New Zealand passports but are recognised as their own country. The US government went a step further on September 25, 2023. President Joe Biden said:

    “Today I am proud to announce that the United States recognises the Cook Islands as a sovereign and independent state and will establish diplomatic relations between our two nations.”

    A move to create their own passports was undermined by New Zealand officials who successfully stymied the plan.

    New Zealand has taken an increasingly hostile stance vis-a-vis China, with PM Luxon describing the country as a “strategic competitor” while at the same time depending on China as our biggest trading partner.  The government and a compliant mainstream media sing as one choir when it comes to China: it is seen as a threat, a looming pretender to be South Pacific hegemon, replacing the flip-flopping, increasingly incoherent USA.

    Climate change looms large for island nations. Much of the Cooks’ tourism infrastructure is vulnerable to coastal inundation and precious reefs are being destroyed by heating sea temperatures.

    “One thing that New Zealand has got to get its head round is the fact that the Trump administration has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord,” Dr Robert Patman, professor of international relations at Otago University, says. “And this is a big deal for most Pacific Island states — and that means that the Cook Islands nation may well be looking for greater assistance elsewhere.”

    Diplomatic spat with global coverage
    The story of the diplomatic spat has been covered in the Middle East, Europe and Asia.  Eyebrows are rising as yet again New Zealand, a close ally of Israel and a participant in the US Operation Prosperity Guardian to lift the Houthi Red Sea blockade of Israel, shows its Western mindset.

    Matthew Hooton’s article is the kind of colonialist fantasy masquerading as geopolitical analysis that damages New Zealand’s reputation as a friend to the smaller nations of our region.

    Yes, the Chinese have an interest in our neck of the woods — China is second only to Australia in supplying much-needed development assistance to the region.

    It is sound policy not insurrection for small nations to diversify economic partnerships and secure development opportunities for their people. That said, serious questions should be posed and deserve to be answered.

    Geopolitical analyst Dr Geoffrey Miller made a useful contribution to the debate saying there was potential for all three parties to work together:

    “There is no reason why New Zealand can’t get together with China and the Cook Islands and develop some projects together,” Dr Miller says. “Pacific states are the winners here because there is a lot of competition for them”.

    I think New Zealand and Australia could combine more effectively with a host of South Pacific island nations and form a more effective regional voice with which to engage with the wider world and collectively resist efforts by the US and China to turn the region into a theatre of competition.

    We throw the toys out
    We throw the toys out of the cot when the Cooks don’t consult with us but shrug when Pasifika elders like former Tuvalu PM Enele Sopoaga call us out for ignoring them.

    In Wellington last year, I heard him challenge the bigger powers, particularly Australia and New Zealand, to remember that the existential threat faced by Pacific nations comes first from climate change. He also reminded New Zealanders of the commitment to keeping the South Pacific nuclear-free.

    To succeed, a “Pacific for the peoples of the Pacific” approach would suggest our ministries of foreign affairs should halt their drift to being little more than branch offices of the Pentagon and that our governments should not sign up to US Great Power competition with China.

    Ditching the misguided anti-China AUKUS project would be a good start.

    Friends to all, enemies of none. Keep the Pacific peaceful, neutral and nuclear-free.

    Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Albanese and Trump put Australia in holding patterns on election timing and tariffs

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    When parliamentarians left Canberra on Thursday after the fortnight sitting, federal politics had the air of an uneasy waiting game.

    Waiting for the election date, although the campaign has been running for months.

    Waiting to know whether there will be a budget on March 25.

    Waiting for capricious United States President Donald Trump to decide whether to grant Australia that keenly-sought exemption from his new 25% tariff on aluminium and steel imports.

    Most immediately, waiting for the Reserve Bank to announce on Tuesday whether interest rates will be cut.

    In policy terms, the government could be satisfied with this sitting week. Its Future Made in Australia legislation, with promised tax credits for major projects, passed. So too, did its sweeping new rules to put caps on political donations and spending.

    The electoral reform legislation has been an extraordinarily drawn-out saga. Special Minister of State Don Farrell had originally hoped to introduce it by early 2024, with it operating at this election. But the process proved immensely complex, including for constitutional reasons. Finally the bill was introduced late last year, and has passed with virtually no time to spare. The measures won’t operate until the next parliamentary term.

    Farrell brought to the task negotiating skills honed in a lifetime as a right wing factional power broker. He always wanted the deal to be done with the Liberals. He knew they would be the easiest dancing partners, because the changes are in the big parties’ mutual interests. But he also believed bipartisanship would reduce the chance of them being unravelled by a subsequent government.

    The Coalition came on board – after the government made some concessions on donation and disclosure amounts – in the knowledge the reforms help put a floor under the two-party system. It’s obvious the Liberals want to limit the spread of the teal movement, that Climate 200 has helped finance.

    But the potential for the increase in independents is a future danger also for Labor, which at this election is trying to win back Fowler, that fell in 2022 to independent Dai Le.

    While the changes will limit the amount of money available to small players, they are a compromise and less unfair than some crossbenchers claim. Of course, judgements on fairness will differ according to where those making them are coming from. But it’s a substantial leap from urging newcomers should be encouraged into the system to believing the system should facilitate a financial auction for a seat.

    As he basks in his victory of the electoral legislation Farrell, who is also trade minister, finds himself in a supporting role in a more immediately high-profile issue: the tariff battle with the US. Farrell is anxious to engage as soon as possible with his US counterpart, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, preferably face-to-face. But he can’t officially do so until Lutnick is confirmed.

    The tariff issue is being cast by the opposition as a test of Albanese’s ability to deal successfully with the Trump administration.

    It’s an easy test to pose, but the government has done all it can to pursue a positive relationship with the administration. Notably, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was in Washington a week ago for talks with new defence secretary Pete Hegseth, armed with a hefty cheque for some A$800 million as part of Australia’s contribution under the AUKUS deal.

    The Albanese-Trump call this week, when the PM argued for a tariff exemption, apparently went well. But the outcome is unpredictable, as is the timing of a decision. Trump might have sounded encouraging but, as we’ve been seeing, there’s some strong opposition in the system to giving Australia special treatment.

    A win for Australia would be a significant fillip for the PM; a Trump rebuff would be a corresponding blow. Timing is also important: it would not be good for the government if this issue was unresolved through the election campaign (even worse, if there was a bad result then).

    The opposition seeks to grab headlines by calling for Albanese to rush to Washington. Even if practical that could be counterproductive; if the mission failed it would be a disaster. Voters wouldn’t give him too many marks for trying.

    While Peter Dutton might have thought the arrival of Trump and a more general swing against “wokeism” would be helpful to him at the election, as the US scene becomes more unsettling, the risk for him is that some “soft” voters might decide now is not the time to change.

    Though the tariff issue is important, the election contest is mainly on cost of living in all its manifestations.

    Trump has the power to inflict a blow on Albanese on the tariffs, but the Reserve Bank is a much bigger player in the government’s thinking.

    Expectations remain high of a rate cut next Tuesday. If that didn’t happen, it would be a serious setback for the government. The next chance for a cut would then be April 1.

    It’s not that a cut would necessarily directly swing a lot of votes. The electorate’s mood is likely too negative for that. But the absence of the much-anticipated cut would badly mess with the government’s narrative that things are on the right track for people to become better off.

    Many political stories have dominated this term. A lot could have been foreseen. One, however, was predicted by no one: the appalling antisemitism crisis that has overtaken us, and reached new lows this week. This crisis is the product of far away events triggering a local malignancy that was lurking largely unrecognised.

    A parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism at universities said, in a report tabled this week, that it had found “a disturbing prevalence of antisemitism that has left Jewish students and staff feeling unsafe, hiding their identity on campus and even avoiding campus all together”.

    On the same day that report was tabled, a horrifying video emerged of two nurses at a Sydney hospital, in an online discussion with Israeli influencer Max Veifer, spewing vile sentiments about killing Israeli patents. One of the two is an Afghan who became an Australian citizen several years ago. Dutton has seized on the video to call for a discussion “about the way in which the whole migration system works”.

    Antisemitism has extended beyond being an appalling assault on Jews in our community – it is starting to undermine our institutions and society.

    Michelle Grattan 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. Grattan on Friday: Albanese and Trump put Australia in holding patterns on election timing and tariffs – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-albanese-and-trump-put-australia-in-holding-patterns-on-election-timing-and-tariffs-249843

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Here’s why some people still evade public transport fares – even when they’re 50 cents

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

    Public transport in Queensland now costs just 50 cents. Yet in the first six months of the trial, it’s been revealed that thousands of commuters were fined for fare evasion.

    More than 3,000 people received fines of A$322 each, amounting to more than $1 million in penalties. And more than 21,000 were issued warnings over this period.

    Queensland’s 50 cent fares trial was designed to boost ridership and ease cost-of-living pressures. Now it has exposed a paradox: why do people evade fares even when the price is nearly free?

    Fare evasion isn’t just a Queensland problem — it’s a nationwide challenge. Queensland’s experience raises bigger questions about enforcement, policy, and the role of public transport funding.

    A nationwide challenge

    Across the country, fare evasion drains millions from state public transport budgets. In New South Wales, for example, fare evasion costs the state government about $80 million each year.

    The latest NSW Fare Compliance Survey inspected 52,152 tickets, including Opal cards, contactless payments, and single-trip tickets, across the NSW public transport network.

    Fare evasion costs the NSW government $80 million a year.
    Gordon Bell/Shutterstock

    It found most non-compliance came down to passengers travelling without a valid ticket. This included not only those customers carrying no ticket at all, but also those who did have an Opal or other payment card but hadn’t tapped on.

    Another form of non-compliance was when passengers used concessions for which they weren’t eligible.

    The survey also highlighted variations in compliance – across different modes of transport, times of day and days of the week.

    Overall, compliance did not significantly differ between weekends and weekdays.

    Looking at weekday use, Sydney Metro had the highest compliance rate at 97%. This was followed by Sydney Ferries (95.9%), all trains (93.6%), Sydney Light Rail (91%) and all buses (89.2%).

    Who evades fares and why?

    Fare evasion isn’t just about people trying to save money. Research shows there are different types of fare evaders, ranging from habitual dodgers to those who evade unintentionally.

    An international study on Santiago’s Transantiago system found that evaders could be categorised into four groups:

    • radical evaders who view non-payment as a form of protest
    • strategic evaders who evade when they believe the risk of being caught is low
    • ambivalent evaders who sometimes pay but don’t always see the value in it
    • accidental evaders who forget or run into ticketing system barriers.

    A separate study in Melbourne also identified a wide spectrum of attitudes on fare evasion, from those who consider it morally wrong to those who take calculated risks based on enforcement patterns.

    Does lowering fares reduce evasion?

    Queensland’s 50-cent fare trial presents a real-world test of a long-standing question: does cheaper public transport reduce fare evasion?

    Our calculations using the state’s early data show a 27% drop in fare evasion fines since the trial began, compared with the same period in the previous year.

    This aligns with the idea that fare evasion is, at least partially, a rational economic decision. When the price is lower, the incentive to evade diminishes – though it does not completely disappear.

    Modelling evidence from Santiago’s bus system also suggests price sensitivity, but with caveats. A 10% increase in fares led to a two-percentage-point rise in fare evasion.

    The role of trust and public perception

    A surprising insight from research is that fare evasion isn’t just an economic decision. It’s a social one, too.

    When passengers perceive the system as unfair (due to factors such as unreliable service, high fares or lack of investment), fare evasion rises.

    Further, if fare dodging behaviour is normalised within a city or demographic, it spreads like contagion.

    Studies have suggested that permissive social attitudes toward fare evasion are as strong a predictor as actual financial hardship.

    The limits of enforcement

    Most transit agencies rely on two standard deterrents: more ticket inspections, and harsher fines for fare evaders.

    Does this approach work? Research suggests only to a point.

    All states and territories have had to grapple with the issue of fare evasion.
    Adam Calaitzis/Shutterstock

    Empirical evidence suggests that potential evaders are more deterred by the certainty of getting caught than by the size of the fine.

    In other words, the visibility of inspectors matters more than the penalty itself. For many, the social stigma of getting caught is a key factor, regardless of how big the penalty is.

    A crucial question in the Queensland debate is: if public transport is already nearly free, does fare evasion even matter?

    The lost revenue from the unpaid fares by those who were issued a fine over the period in question amounts to just $1,663.

    Depending on the level of crackdown, at such low fees, enforcement measures could easily end up costing more than the revenue lost. Security patrols, inspections and fine processing can amount to significant costs.

    Why it matters

    There are at least two key factors to consider in relation to whether cracking down on evaders is worth it.

    First, allowing widespread fare evasion could erode social norms around paying for public services. If the expectation of compliance disappears, what happens if fares rise again?

    And second, even when fares are zero or near-zero, requiring passengers to validate a ticket (such as by tapping on and off) allows transport agencies to track demand, plan services, and prevent system abuse.

    Even in Tallinn, Estonia — where residents ride for free — tap-ons are still required for data collection and preventing system abuse.

    Even at 50 cents a trip, authorities still expect public transport to function within a structured system, with rules that encourage accountability and predictability.

    But enforcement alone won’t solve fare evasion. Winning public trust is just as important as enforcing rules. Investing in better service quality, reliability and community engagement can be as effective as increasing inspections.

    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. Here’s why some people still evade public transport fares – even when they’re 50 cents – https://theconversation.com/heres-why-some-people-still-evade-public-transport-fares-even-when-theyre-50-cents-249739

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: This is Australia’s only icebreaker. Here’s why experts say we need another

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Younger, Lecturer in Southern Ocean Vertebrate Ecology, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

    Australia’s Antarctic territory represents the largest sliver of the ice continent. For decades, Australian scientists have headed to one of our three bases – Mawson, Davis and Casey – as well as the base on sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island, to research everything from ecology to climate science.

    But despite our role as leaders in Antarctic science, Australian funding and logistics for Antarctic research hasn’t kept pace. Our single icebreaking vessel spends most of its time on resupply missions, restricting its use for actual science. And funding is often piecemeal, which makes it hard to plan the complex, multi-year efforts it takes to do research down on the ice.

    This week, we saw a welcome change. The federal parliamentary committee on Australia’s external territories delivered a report calling for a second icebreaking vessel and more reliable funding. It also urged the government to progress work on marine protected areas in east Antarctica as well as resume fishing patrols, due to concern over illegal or exploitative fishing.

    These measures are long overdue. For those of us who work and study on the ice continent, logistics and funding have long been a challenge. Illegal fishing in Antarctica must be stamped out, and a second vessel would support our ambitious, world-leading science.

    Why is Antarctic science so important?

    Antarctica is often out of sight, out of mind for many Australians. But what happens on the ice doesn’t stay there.

    For climate science, Antarctica matters a great deal. For decades, much of the concern about melting ice focused on the Arctic and Greenland, while Antarctica stayed relatively stable. But this is now changing. Sea ice is melting more quickly than in the past. Glacial ice is retreating. Increased melting will affect sea level rise and ocean currents.

    I study diseases such as the lethal strain of bird flu which has devastated bird and some mammals populations around the world. It recently reached Antarctica, where it killed large numbers of penguins, skuas, crabeater seals and more. I saw the devastation myself on my recent journey there.

    If this strain makes it to Australia – the last continent free of it – it could come from the south and devastate both Australian wildlife and poultry.

    To study these large and important changes, we need to be down there on the ice. It’s not an easy task. Keeping our bases functional means we need regular resupply missions. Repairs and extensions require tradies. Scientists and other workers need to be brought home.

    Antarctic science has long relied on just one vessel, now the RSV Nuniya, which the Australian Antarctic Division describes as the “main lifeline to Australia’s Antarctic and sub-Antarctic research stations and the central platform of our Antarctic and Southern Ocean scientific research”.

    The problem is, resupply can trump science. After all, no one wants bases running short of food or fuel. This is, in fact, what the Nuniya is largely doing.

    Australia’s role is key

    The Australian Antarctic Territory represents about 40% of the ice continent – the largest territory by far.

    Territory, here, doesn’t mean exclusive rights. In 1959, 12 nations with a scientific interest in the ice continent signed the Antarctic Treaty. This treaty was an agreement that Antarctica – the only landmass with no indigenous human presence – would be reserved for peaceful, scientific purposes.

    But in recent years, this treaty has come under pressure. Nations such as Norway and China have expanded fishing operations for krill. Illegal and unregulated fishing from various nations continues.

    The report recommends the Australian government continue efforts to establish a marine protected area off East Antarctica – where fishing would be restricted – as well as reopening fishing patrols. China – which recently opened its fifth Antarctic base – is opposed to the idea of fishing-free zones and is pushing to expand fishing in the Southern Ocean.

    Under Antarctica’s ice lie many resources. Mining is banned in Antarctica until 2048. What happens after that is uncertain. The race to tap critical minerals in Greenland signals what may lie ahead for Antarctica.

    This is why Australia’s leadership in Antarctic science matters. Australia was an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, and has a long history of exploration and science. Hobart has long been the home of Australia’s Antarctic vessels.

    As Antarctica changes, Australian scientists must be there to analyse, understand and report back. To do that, improvements are needed, including new vessels and longer-term funding. This report is the first step.

    The government is yet to formally respond to the report’s recommendations. Let’s hope it takes heed of the findings.

    Jane Younger receives funding from the Australian Research Council, WIRES Australia, the Geoffrey Evans Trust and the National Geographic Society.

    – ref. This is Australia’s only icebreaker. Here’s why experts say we need another – https://theconversation.com/this-is-australias-only-icebreaker-heres-why-experts-say-we-need-another-249714

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Short-term politics keeps stalling long-term fixes. This bill offers a way forward

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Harris Rimmer, Professor, Griffith Law School, Griffith University

    Two federal politicians from opposing camps reached across the aisle this week to promote a valuable cause – the wellbeing of future Australian generations.

    Independent MP Sophie Scamps tabled the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill 2025, which was seconded by Liberal backbencher Bridget Archer.

    In an election year no less, this was a highly unusual moment of bipartisan collaboration.

    It is extremely rare for private members bills to be passed into law. But the ideas in the Scamps bill have merit – especially its central recommendation that all decision makers properly consider the needs of young people when drafting government policy.

    The bill was a direct response to a diverse civil society campaign in Australia and overseas to prioritise long term solutions to deliver a fairer, more sustainable future.

    We support those efforts through our involvement in the youth-driven non-profit Foundations for Tomorrow, which worked closely with Scamps on her bill.

    What is in the bill?

    The bill would introduce a range of measures to try and apply a future focus to decision making across the policy spectrum. This includes housing, environment, climate change, mental health and job security, all of which are pressing issues for young people.

    An independent Commissioner for Future Generations would be appointed to advocate for better policies and sustainable practices, while the government would have a public duty to always consider the best interests of future generations.

    Importantly, a national conversation would be launched to engage Australians in a public consultation to help shape the nation’s vision for the future.

    What is future governance?

    Globally, we are in a state of polycrisis.

    We are confronting cascading climate disasters, intense regional conflicts and geo-strategic competition. In response to this, a growing international movement representing the interests of future generations has emerged.

    The concept incorporates an approach to decision making that overcomes the trappings of short-term, inadequate solutions. Instead, the emphasis is on planning for the future, not just the here and now.

    Here in Australia, it aspires to future-proof the country by managing extreme, long-term risks that are damaging current and future prosperity.

    Growing inequality is showing up in many policy areas, none more so than in the housing wealth gap between people in their 30s and 50s, which has widened to an extraordinary 234%.

    By improving governance, it is hoped that intergenerational justice will be achieved. This ethical lens is compatible with the Australian Public Service value of good stewardship.

    A global movement

    Many countries, including Scotland, Finland, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore, are exploring ways to reorient their policy making towards a better understanding of long-term impacts of decisions taken now. It has also been taken up by the United Nations and the European Union.

    The Australian bill is based on the experience in Wales, where similar legislation was introduced in 2015.

    The Welsh model has delivered significant practical benefits by including community involvement in planning, and protecting essential services from election cycles. For instance, environmental protection has been given higher status in decision making about transport.

    The Australian landscape

    Australia has undertaken other efforts to think long term. The Intergenerational Report was launched by former treasurer Peter Costello in 2002 to build consensus around the big issues facing Australia over the next 40 years.

    The most recent report, in 2023, identified five major areas needing future generations policy. These were population and ageing, technological and digital transformation, climate change and the net zero transformation, rising demand for care and support services, and geopolitical risk and fragmentation.

    The ideas in the Wellbeing of Future Generations bill could help guide policy in these critical areas. It would be an improvement on our current approach of recognising issues, but constantly kicking the can down the road.

    There have been other excellent future generations measures at all levels of government. One of these is the Albanese government’s commitment to the Measuring What Matters framework.

    And there is merit in independent Senator David Pocock’s Duty of Care Bill and the establishment of the Parliamentary Group for Future Generations at the Commonwealth level.

    An increasing number of leaders and policy makers are recognising the power and potential of expanding our definitions of policy success.

    Young voters and the 2025 election

    However, much more needs to be done to overcome intergenerational inequities. Policy-making continues to be driven by short-term political objectives, which is eroding trust and optimism in Australia’s future.

    In a 2021 survey for Foundations for Tomorrow, 71% of young Australians said said that they “do not feel secure”. Young people are also drifting away from supporting the major parties, especially the Coalition.

    Tabling her bill, Scamps correctly pointed out that today’s young Australians are the first generation in modern history to be worse off than their parents.

    Australians want politicians to start thinking beyond their own re-election prospects. They want long term solutions, they want vision, they want hope. We owe them that much.

    A recent survey by EveryGen (a network convened by Griffith University’s Policy Innovation Hub) found that 81% of Australians feel that politicians focus too much on short-term priorities. An overwhelming 97% of people believe that current policies must consider the interests of future generations.

    Genuine futures thinking is not always easy. But it does add an important ethical dimension to decision making, that of real attention to political legacy.

    Susan Harris Rimmer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with Foundations for Tomorrow as a board member who are running the For the Future campaign, and is founder of the EveryGen network. EveryGen is a member of the Intergenerational Fairness Coalition.

    Elise Stephenson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a founding member of the EveryGen network and supporter of Foundations for Tomorrow. EveryGen is a member of the Intergenerational Fairness Coalition.

    – ref. Short-term politics keeps stalling long-term fixes. This bill offers a way forward – https://theconversation.com/short-term-politics-keeps-stalling-long-term-fixes-this-bill-offers-a-way-forward-249598

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Heads vs tails? A simple coin flip can be enough to change how we treat others

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eliane Deschrijver, Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Sydney

    Circles in a Circle (1923) Wassily Kandinsky / Philadelphia Museum of Art / The Louise and Walter Arensberg Collection, 1950

    Imagine you are asked to give a small amount of money to a stranger. It’s not your money, so it doesn’t cost you anything. You’re just deciding how much they get.

    But first, a pair of coins is flipped – one for you and one for the stranger – and you are told the results.

    Would the coin flip change how much money you give? Specifically, would you give them a larger amount if you both got heads or tails than if you got different results?

    As we discovered in a series of experiments with more than 1,400 participants, the coin flip – or other seemingly insignificant points of similarity or difference – might well affect your behaviour.

    In a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we show how understanding why even a coin flip can influence behaviour might help us understand what makes people discriminate against others.

    ‘Us’ versus ‘them’

    Historically, many psychological theories that aim to explain discrimination have focused on group processes, rather than on how we respond to individual people.

    This focus on group processes followed, in part, from the discovery that people benefit their own group over another group even if the division into groups had happened based on seemingly irrelevant features.

    The use of such features has been crucial for explaining the core psychology of discrimination, stripped from any wider societal elements such as race, gender, values or attitudes.

    In the seminal “minimal group” experiment, people were assigned to one of two groups based on seemingly irrelevant differences. Some groups were split by a preference for the paintings of Paul Klee versus those of Wassily Kandinsky, others by whether they had over- or underestimated the number of dots in an image. Some were even allocated to groups by a random event like a coin flip.

    The so-called ‘minimal group’ experiment showed that separating people into groups was enough to make them favour members of their own group.
    Andrii Yalanski/Shutterstock

    The result? Klee fans tended to give financial benefits to other Klee fans ahead of Kandinsky enthusiasts. Likewise, people in the “heads” group favoured their own group over those in the “tails” group.

    The results could not be explained easily by existing research at the time. Some theories had emphasised that people show favour towards an individual after agreeing on more meaningful topics than painting preferences or dots estimations. The meaningful topics were things like one’s belief system, values or political or religious views.

    Small studies had also found that a coin flip – which didn’t lead to explicitly dividing people into groups – was not enough to make people show discriminatory tendencies.

    An influential theory called social identity theory thus concluded that social categorisation – thinking in terms of “us” versus “them” – could lead to people discriminating. This was tied to an idea that people elevate their self-image or improve their self-esteem by benefiting their own group over others.

    New research emphasises a role for even random similarity versus difference

    In our recent research, we set out to reassess whether group division is crucial to understand discriminatory tendencies.

    We carried out seven experiments with over 1,400 participants in total (all based in the United Kingdom).

    The study analysed data from participants who were asked to either repeatedly choose their preferred painting from two, estimate the number of dots presented in a “cloud”, or take part in a coin toss.

    After each choice or coin flip, participants had to assign money to another person (the same person each time).

    The result of a coin flip was enough to change how study participants treated another person.
    Motortion Films/Shutterstock

    The only information participants were given about the other individual was their outcome in the same situation. Neither participants nor the other person were assigned to groups. Someone asked to pick between two paintings, for instance, was only told which painting the person they were allocating money to preferred in that instance.

    Participants allocated on average 43.1% more money to another person who demonstrated the same judgement – or chance outcome – to their own.

    Our research demonstrates that some of our discriminatory tendencies may be driven by individual difference versus sameness even when that difference or sameness is based on random chance, like a coin flip.

    The findings raise the possibility that more basic neural processes than thinking about groups may have contributed to these outcomes.

    Detecting a difference often comes with a conflict signal in the brain, and may come with negative emotions. Sameness with another person may hence lead to a more favourable treatment. However, this potential explanation will require further research.

    Why does this matter?

    The findings can help understand our own tendencies for favouring another person.

    Previous research had suggested that “incidental similarity” with somebody, such as sharing a birthday or a name, can influence pro-social behaviour or liking because we associate the person with the way we see ourselves.

    Our research surprisingly suggests that something similar can happen on the basis of an even less-relevant chance event such as a coin flip.

    This may affect how we think about discrimination. We usually understand discrimination as making unfair distinctions between people based on groups or other social categories.

    Our research suggests future perspectives on discrimination may incorporate a role for individual-level difference, too.

    Does this new understanding suggest ways we can lessen discrimination? At this stage, they would only be speculative.

    However, earlier scientific efforts to find ways to reduce prejudice and discrimination have largely been informed by group-based theories of discrimination. For example, some interventions have aimed to influence people’s perceptions of other groups.

    In the same way, our new findings may inspire future research into interventions based on individual-level drivers of discrimination.

    Eliane Deschrijver receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Richard Ramsey 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. Heads vs tails? A simple coin flip can be enough to change how we treat others – https://theconversation.com/heads-vs-tails-a-simple-coin-flip-can-be-enough-to-change-how-we-treat-others-249611

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New play Housework is a future Australian classic – a Don’s Party for our time

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Campbell, Lecturer, Performing Arts, UniSA Creative, University of South Australia

    Matt Byrne/STCSA

    Housework, a new play by Emily Steel, lifts the rock off politics to expose its crawling, ruthless, yet undeniably comic underside. The result is masterful, hilarious and deeply incisive.

    Housework opens with the day-to-day demands of a local MP electorate office and then sweeps to the halls of power in Canberra.

    Chief of staff Anna Cooper (Emily Taheny), media advisor Ben (Benn Welford) and junior staffer Kelly (Franca Lafosse) try to perform damage control for their headstrong, cherry-picked, first-term MP Ruth Mandour (Susie Youssef).

    In Canberra, Ruth is preparing for her first private member’s bill, calling for health care reform; Anna has a sick child back home; and Ben is absent with COVID. Add in a star-struck young female staffer, a predatory older male MP (Paul, played by Renato Musolino), and a photo of them leaving a bar together and we strap in for a rollicking ride through media manipulation, personal and political sacrifice, and the fleeting moments of power.

    It is absolutely compelling and all too recognisable.

    This is everything you’ve always wanted to know about Australian politics but were too afraid to have your worst fears confirmed. Steel’s play is laugh-out-loud funny in its satire and send-ups. But it is also deeply affecting in her bleak but loving depiction of the chasm between personal dreams and the reality of politics.

    Uproarious comedy

    Steel has based her script on interviews with politicians and staffers (confidential, of course) and media stories. She centres the experiences of women in politics, personal lives, gender roles, sexism, fighting the patriarchal socio-political systems. This sits within the story of a new MP butting up against potential scandal and the power plays of Parliament, and the relentless 24-hour news cycle.

    It is a timely reminder of the barriers that continue to obstruct social equality.

    The cleaning woman eventually gets one of the best skewering zingers of the play.
    Matt Byrne/STCSA

    Steel’s script is bookended with a woman cleaning (who eventually gets one of the best skewering zingers of the play). The constant references to rubbish disposal are a highlight, from the hilarious opening scene (“we don’t do bins”) to the frantic scramble to weaponise a “scandal” and who is sacrificed to save who.

    Steel’s writing revels in the roller coaster of political life, balancing the high comedy with deep insight into the human cost.

    This is the kind of play you want to see again to delight in Steel’s use of language, the uproarious comedy and the undercurrents of bloodthirsty power.

    A brilliant cast

    Director Shannon Rush has expertly paced this excellent cast to bring out every laugh, back stab and all-too-familiar power jostle. They don’t miss a beat or drop a spark of energy. The sense of building political pressure and personal conflict is relentless and exciting; the depiction of the sense of place and power is spot on.

    Every one of Steel’s political animals is instantly recognisable. We watch them with morbid fascination as they spar, jostle, align and detonate, revealing more of themselves as the stakes rise.

    Every one of Steel’s political animals is instantly recognisable.
    Matt Byrne/STCSA

    Taheny effortlessly makes the whip-smart staffer Anna multifaceted, with internal conflict alongside high-energy pragmatism and expertly timed comedy. Youssef’s Ruth is blunt, no-nonsense and idealistic, with comically few diplomatic skills and no idea how the machinations of government work – but an unflinching desire to make a change for good.

    Lafosse brings depth, subtlety and excellent comic foil timing to the young idealist. Musolino revels in the role of the leader-in-waiting Paul, giving us a joyously morally bankrupt character. Every moment of his scenes is a delight and his repulsively predatory-yet-attractive older white male politician was all-too recognisable. The scenes between Paul and Taheny’s Anna spark and hum with energy and presence.

    Welford is wonderful as Ben the media officer and Duncan the party apparatchik, bringing out the offhanded ruthless grabs for power and casual decimations between laughs.

    Youssef’s Ruth is blunt, no-nonsense and idealistic, with comically few diplomatic skills.
    Matt Byrne/STCSA

    The ensemble cast all play smaller roles, filling out the world of parliament with the faceless “schemers and plotters” in the back rooms and corridors, ABC news journalists, and continual stream of environmental protesters.

    Sunitra Martinelli plays both the ever-present (and mostly voiceless) cleaner, and the prime minister. This pairing is a genius move, played with presence and deft contrast. The cleaning woman, constantly fixing the mess others make, bookends the play as a constant reminder of the mopping-up required for the people in power. Politics is literally a dirty business.

    A future classic

    Ailsa Paterson’s stylish set references the stark white outside of Parliament House in Canberra. The repetitive doorways and hallways, entries and frames for the machinations of the people of government. A rotating long timber table divides the scenes and the sides of parliament.

    Sound design by Andrew Howard punctuates scene changes and mood swings with pounding relentless pace, the tick-tock of time passing, and rich sonic textures to create the insistent, driving tempo of government.

    The stylish set references the stark white outside of Parliament House in Canberra.
    Matt Byrne/STCSA

    Nigel Leavings’ lighting is superb, creating menace, blinding office fluros, and shadows in this mad-rush-to-the-top climb over the bodies of everyone to get to the top.

    Housework is firmly in the now-familiar worlds of Total Control (2019–24), Rake (2010–18) and The Thick Of It (2005–12). It is a deft capturing of a socio-political moment in time, undeniably Australian and gloriously uncompromising.

    Dare I say it, this a future Australian classic: a Don’s Party for our time, but with fewer blokes and WAGs – and a female PM.

    Housework is at the State Theatre Company South Australia until February 22.

    Catherine Campbell 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. New play Housework is a future Australian classic – a Don’s Party for our time – https://theconversation.com/new-play-housework-is-a-future-australian-classic-a-dons-party-for-our-time-249019

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Menopause hormone patches are in short supply. What are they? And how do they compare with other therapies?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Bushell, Clinical Associate Professor in Pharmacy, University of Canberra

    DimaBerlin/Shutterstock

    The federal government yesterday released its response to the Senate inquiry into issues related to menopause. The inquiry recommended the government examine options to make menopause hormone therapy (MHT, or sometimes called hormone replacement therapy) more affordable and accessible, and address drug shortages.

    In response, three MHT products will be added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS): Estrogel and Estrogel Pro (gels) and Prometrium (a tablet). From March 1, this will bring the cost down to A$31.60 a month ($7.70 concession).

    Some MHT skin patches are already subsidised on the PBS, but they’re in short supply globally. This is due to a combination of factors including manufacturing issues, unexpected increases in demand and the discontinuation of the Climara brand of patch.

    When patients can’t access their MHT patches, they may be prescribed alternative brands that aren’t listed on the PBS, potentially costing more. Others will switch to different formulations, combinations and or strengths to try to get the same effect.

    So what are MHT patches? And how do they compare with gels, tablets and other formulations?

    First a quick recap of menopause

    During the transition to menopause, the ovaries gradually produce less oestrogen until they stop altogether.

    This hormonal change can lead to a range of symptoms, including hot flushes, night sweats, sleep disturbances, mood swings, memory problems and vaginal dryness.

    Over time, the reduction in oestrogen also increases the risk of health problems such as osteoporosis.

    To help reduce the sometimes-debilitating symptoms, some women may be prescribed hormone therapy. This typically includes an oestrogen hormone (such as oestradiol or conjugated oestrogens) and, for women with an intact uterus, a progestogen. Therapy with both hormones is known as combination therapy.

    If taken alone, oestrogen stimulates endometrial growth, increasing the risk of endometrial hyperplasia (irregular thickening of the uterine lining) and cancer. Progestogens counteract this by promoting regular shedding.

    Women without a uterus (after a hysterectomy, for example) do not require progestogens as there is no endometrium to protect.

    What are the different MHT formulations?

    Early MHT, used in the 1940s, used oestrogens extracted from the urine of pregnant mares. Oral formulations derived from this source, such as conjugated equine oestrogens (such as Premarin, short for PREgnant MARes’ urINe), are still available.

    These days, MHT can be broken down into two types of formulations:

    1. ‘Systemic’ treatments such as tablets, patches or gels

    Tablets and capsules are swallowed, while patches and gels are applied to the skin.

    These treatments affect the whole body and are usually best for the vasomotor symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats, as well as to prevent bone loss.

    2. ‘Localised’ treatments, such as creams and pessaries

    These are inserted into the vagina, and act on the vagina and surrounding tissues. They are absorbed in very small amounts into the bloodstream, much lower than systemic treatments, and are unlikely to have significant effects on the rest of the body.

    Creams and pessaries contain oestrogen alone, and are the best option for treating dryness and discomfort in the vagina.

    They can also help prevent frequent urinary tract infections and improve some bladder problems, such as urinary urgency and urge incontinence.

    It is possible for women to use different forms of oestrogen and progestogen in their hormone therapy regimen. They might use an oestradiol patch to deliver oestrogen, for example, and take oral progesterone to provide the necessary progestogen component.

    Potential MHT side effects include oestrogen-related, headaches, breast tenderness or pain, nausea, leg cramps, mood changes, vaginal bleeding or spotting, bloating, swelling of the hands or feet, indigestion, and skin irritation with patches.

    Patches vs tablets and gels

    MHT patches, which have been available since the 1990s, are now more widely used and often preferred.

    Patches deliver a consistent dose of hormones directly into the bloodstream through the skin, bypassing the liver. This mimics the natural release by the ovaries and provides steady hormone levels into the bloodstream.

    Gels, like patches, bypass the liver. They are associated with less skin irritation than patches, making them a preferable option for people sensitive to adhesives or prone to skin irritation.

    In contrast, oral formulations must be absorbed by the gut and then pass through the liver, where the drug gets processed. Some will be broken down, some will be converted to active metabolites, before entering the bloodstream. This can result in fluctuating oestrogen levels and more side effects than the more consistent delivery provided by patches.

    When oral oestrogen goes through the liver, there is also an increase in the production of clotting factors. For this and other reasons, oestrogen patches have a lower risk of blood clots compared to oral tablets and capsules. Women with an elevated risk of blood clots – including those who are obese, smoke, or have a history of clotting disorders – often prefer patches.

    Patches, which are applied once or twice weekly, are designed to make it easier to stick to than tablets and gels MHT, which requires daily dosing.

    What if you need to switch?

    Currently, both oestrogen and combination skin patches are in short supply in Australia.

    The differences in absorption and metabolism between formulations mean that switching directly from one dosage form to another might not maintain the same level of symptom control or could cause new side effects.

    MHT guidelines provide prescribers with information on dose equivalence between formulations – for example, switching from an oestrogen-containing patch to a gel or tablet – ensuring women have a range of options available and for treatment to be tailored to their individual needs.

    To address the shortages, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has enabled pharmacists to dispense alternative brands or strengths of estradiol patches without requiring a new prescription. This might mean, for example, two lesser strengths that add up to the strength prescribed.

    The TGA also temporarily approved the supply of MHT patches from the United States in June, and listed them on the PBS, but these are now also in short supply.

    What if you’re new to MHT?

    The TGA is advising prescribers to consider current shortages when initiating patients on MHT.

    First-time MHT patients may be prescribed readily available formulations to avoid therapy changes and to preserve stock for those already using patches.

    The TGA expects some patches to be out of stock until December 2025 and provides regular updates about the estimated dates the patches will be available again.

    Mary Bushell 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. Menopause hormone patches are in short supply. What are they? And how do they compare with other therapies? – https://theconversation.com/menopause-hormone-patches-are-in-short-supply-what-are-they-and-how-do-they-compare-with-other-therapies-245166

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Civicus Monitor criticises PNG use of cybercrime law to curb free speech

    Pacific Media Watch

    Papua New Guinea’s civic space has been rated as “obstructed” by the Civicus Monitor and the country has been criticised for pushing forward with a controversial media law in spite of strong opposition.

    Among concerns previously documented by the civil rights watchdog are harassment and threats against human rights defenders, particularly those working on land and environmental rights, use of the cybercrime law to criminalise online expression, intimidation and restrictions against journalists, and excessive force during protests.

    In recent months, the authorities have used the cybercrime law to target a human rights defender for raising questions online on forest enforcement, while a journalist and gender-based violence survivor is also facing charges under the law, said the Civicus Monitor in its latest report.

    The court halted a logging company’s lawsuit against a civil society group while the government is pushing forward with the controversial National Media Development law.

    Human rights defender charged under cybercrime law
    On 9 December 2024, human rights defender and ACT NOW! campaign manager Eddie Tanago was arrested and charged by police under section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Act 2016 for allegedly publishing defamatory remarks on social media about the managing director of the PNG Forest Authority.

    Tanago was taken to the Boroko Police Station Holding cell and released on bail the same afternoon. If convicted he could face a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.

    ACT NOW is a prominent human rights organisation seeking to halt illegal logging and related human rights violations in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

    According to reports, ACT NOW had reshared a Facebook post from a radio station advertising an interview with PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) staff members, which included a photo of the managing director.

    The repost included a comment raising questions about PNGFA forest enforcement.

    Following Tanago’s arrest, ACT NOW said: “it believes that the arrest and charging of Tanago is a massive overreach and is a blatant and unwarranted attempt to intimidate and silence public debate on a critical issue of national and international importance.”

    It added that “there was nothing defamatory in the social media post it shared and there is nothing remotely criminal in republishing a poster which includes the image of a public figure which can be found all over the internet.”

    On 24 January 2025, when Tanago appeared at the Waigani Committal Court, he was instead charged under section 15, subparagraph (b) of the Cybercrime Act for “identity theft”. The next hearing has been scheduled for February 25.

    The 2016 Cybercrime Act has been used to silence criticism and creates a chilling effect, said Civicus Monitor.

    The law has been criticised by the opposition, journalists and activists for its impact on freedom of expression and political discourse.

    Journalist and gender activist charged with defamation
     Journalist and gender activist Hennah Joku was detained and charged under the Cybercrime Act on 23 November 2024, following defamation complaints filed by her former partner Robert Agen.

    Joku was charged with two counts of breaching the Cybercrimes Act 2016 and detained in Boroko Prison. She was freed on the same day after bail was posted.

    Joku, a survivor of a 2018 assault by Agen, had documented and shared her six-year journey through the PNG justice system, which had resulted in his conviction and jailing in 2023.

    On 2 September 2024, the PNG Supreme Court overturned two of three criminal convictions, and Agen was released from prison.

    On 4 and 15 September 2024, Joku shared her reactions with more than 9000 followers on her Meta social media account. Those two posts, one of which featured the injuries suffered from her 2018 assault, now form the basis for the current defamation charges against her.

    Section 21(2) of the Cybercrimes Act 2016, which has an electronic defamation clause, carries a maximum penalty of up to 25 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kina (NZ$442,000).

    The Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) expressed “grave concerns” over the charges, saying: “We encourage the government and judiciary to review the use of defamation legislation to silence and gag the universal right to freedom of speech.

    “Citizens must be informed. They must be protected.”

    Court stays logging company lawsuit against civil society group
     In January 2025, an injunction issued against community advocacy group ACT NOW! to prevent publication of reports on illegal logging has been stayed by the National Court.

    In July 2024, two Malaysian owned logging companies obtained an order from the District Court in Vanimo preventing ACT NOW! from issuing publications about their activities and from contacting their clients and service providers.

    That order has now been effectively lifted after the National Court agreed to stay the whole District court proceedings while it considers an application from ACT NOW! to have the case permanently stayed and transferred to the National Court.

    ACT NOW! said the action by Global Elite Limited and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited, which are part of the Giant Kingdom group, is an example of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

    “SLAPPs are illegitimate and abusive lawsuits designed to intimidate, harass and silence legitimate criticism and close down public scrutiny of the logging industry,” said Civicus Monitor.

    SLAPP lawsuits have been outlawed in many countries and lawyers involved in supporting them can be sanctioned, but those protections do not yet exist in PNG.

    The District Court action is not the first time the Malaysian-owned Giant Kingdom group has tried to use the legal system in an attempt to silence ACT NOW!

    In March 2024, the court rejected a similar SLAPP style application by the Global Elite for an injunction against ACT NOW! As a result, the company discontinued its legal action and the court ordered it to pay ACT NOW!’s legal costs.

    Government pushes forward with controversial media legislation
     The government is reportedly ready to pass legislation to regulate its media, which journalism advocates have said could have serious implications for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.

    National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) of PNG reported in January 2025 that the policy has received the “green light” from cabinet to be presented in Parliament.

    The state broadcaster reported that Communications Minister Timothy Masiu said: “This policy will address the ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.”

    In July 2024, it was reported that the proposed media policy was now in its fifth draft but it is unclear if this version has been updated.

    As previously documented, journalists have raised concerns that the media development policy could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.

    The bill includes sections that give the government the “power to investigate complaints against media outlets, issue guidelines for ethical reporting, and enforce sanctions or penalties for violations of professional standards”.

    There are also concerns that the law will punish journalists who create content that is against the country’s development objectives.

    Organisations such as Transparency International PNG, Media Council of PNG, Pacific Freedom Forum, and Pacific Media Watch/Asia Pacific Media Network among others, have asked for the policy to be dropped.

    The press freedom ranking for PNG dropped from 59th place to 91st in the most recent index published by Reporters without Borders (RSF) in May 2024.

    Civicus Monitor.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Indigenous knowledge merges with science to protect people from fish poisoning in Vanuatu

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meg Parsons, Associate Professor in Historical Geography, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    Wikimedia/Louisa Cass/AusAID, CC BY-SA

    Ciguatera fish poisoning is the world’s most frequently reported seafood-borne illness.

    It poses a serious health risk to tropical coastal communities, with some of the highest rates reported in Vanuatu. But now, Indigenous knowledge provides crucial insights for predicting fish poisoning outbreaks.

    Our study documents a collaboration between scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders on Vanuatu’s Ambae island. It offers a powerful new model designed to protect people’s health in vulnerable regions.

    Ecological indicators and fish poisoning risk

    Ciguatera poisoning occurs when people eat fish contaminated with ciguatoxins produced by marine algae that accumulate in reef-feeding fish. Symptoms can range from nausea and muscle pain to severe neurological effects. In some cases, the poisoning can lead to serious illness or even death.

    For millennia, Ambae islanders have relied on their knowledge of the local environment to manage their lands and seas in a sustainable manner. They have observed ecological indicators, including environmental changes that precede ciguatera fish poisoning events, to monitor and respond to risks.

    For instance, they note how heavy rains wash volcanic sediments into the ocean, triggering algal blooms that produce ciguatoxins. Likewise, jellyfish blooms and shifts in coral growth signal imbalances in the marine ecosystem, often preceding toxic fish contamination.

    These ecological indicators, passed down through oral traditions, have guided community decisions about fishing practices and food consumption.

    The islanders’ traditional observations are now being woven together with scientific data to create an early-warning system known as the Gigila Framework, named after a local term meaning “risk onset”, to aid public health responses.

    Our research documents 14 key environmental indicators used by Ambae island communities. We cross-referenced these indicators with climate, geological and marine data to confirm their accuracy. By comparing Ambae islanders’ observations with scientific data, we identify which Indigenous indicators can be used to assess when and where ciguatera fish poisoning outbreaks take place.

    Ambae islanders use ecological observations guide decisions about fishing practices and food consumption.
    Allan Rarai, CC BY-SA

    Lessons for other regions

    The Gigila framework is a community-driven early-warning system designed to reduce the risk of people eating contaminated fish. It uses visual markers, such as dials, to indicate risk levels.

    Village elders appoint local people to act as observers to track environmental changes. They then share their observations (such as jellyfish blooms) with government agencies.

    The Gigila model helps local community members make informed decisions about if and where they go fishing. It also strengthens collaborations between Indigenous knowledge holders, scientists and medical professionals.

    The approach makes health risk information more accessible and practical. Instead of replacing Indigenous knowledge, it seeks to empower and enhance it. It also helps to ensure that younger generations learn about it.

    Challenges of working with different knowledge systems

    The weaving together of Indigenous knowledge with scientific knowledge is not without hurdles.

    Indigenous knowledge practices are deeply rooted in local culture, passed on through oral traditions and combined with lived experiences. Scientific research, in contrast, relies on standardised testing, numerical data and universal theories.

    Unsurprisingly, miscommunication between scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders abounds. Scientists sometimes misinterpret and misunderstand Indigenous knowledge and treat it like data to be extracted and exploited. In doing so, Indigenous peoples’ sacred knowledge systems, cultural identities and ways of life are disrespected and marginalised.

    However, the success of the Gigila framework shows that respectful collaborations between scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders are possible. At the heart of this collaboration is respect for Indigenous knowledge holders’ expertise.

    Another vital component is that Indigenous communities are active participants in helping to create and maintain the early-warning system designed to protect their health. This approach highlights the strengths of combining different knowledge systems to address local environmental issues, which can be adapted to fit different problems and risks.

    Local and global applications

    The Gigila framework holds potential beyond Vanuatu. Many small island nations face similar challenges from fish poisoning. Climate change is making these risks worse by creating the environmental conditions that toxic algae favour.

    Warmer sea temperatures, ocean acidification, more intense and frequent extreme weather events and changes in the distribution of fish species are all contributing to more frequent fish poisoning outbreaks worldwide, including in areas with no history of it.

    This highlights the need for enhanced monitoring and management strategies to reduce the impacts on human health and communities that depend on fisheries.

    Other communities could develop their own early-warning systems drawing on the Gigila framework. Globally, Indigenous peoples manage vast ecosystems. Their knowledge and environmental guardianship practices are critical for sustainability and environmental health, but are often sidelined in science and policy.

    The Gigila framework highlights the continued relevance and importance of Indigenous knowledge and the need for Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists to work together in a respectful and equitable manner.

    As climate change accelerates, partnerships between communities and researchers will be crucial. Governments should support locally led initiatives that promote the deployment of Indigenous knowledge with scientific expertise to produce solutions that are both effective and culturally grounded.

    The Gigila framework offers a compelling example of what’s possible when different ways of knowing are woven together. By embracing these approaches, we can build stronger, more resilient and adaptable communities in the face of an uncertain future.

    Allan Rarai receives funding from the Association of the Commonwealth Universities through the Ocean Country Partnership Programme research grant.

    Meg Parsons 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. Indigenous knowledge merges with science to protect people from fish poisoning in Vanuatu – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-knowledge-merges-with-science-to-protect-people-from-fish-poisoning-in-vanuatu-249469

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Antarctic research has long been hamstrung by reliance on one icebreaker and sporadic funding. That might be about to change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Younger, Lecturer in Southern Ocean Vertebrate Ecology, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

    Australia’s Antarctic territory represents the largest sliver of the ice continent. For decades, Australian scientists have headed to one of our three bases – Mawson, Davis and Casey – as well as the base on sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island, to research everything from ecology to climate science.

    But despite our role as leaders in Antarctic science, Australian funding and logistics for Antarctic research hasn’t kept pace. Our single icebreaking vessel spends most of its time on resupply missions, restricting its use for actual science. And funding is often piecemeal, which makes it hard to plan the complex, multi-year efforts it takes to do research down on the ice.

    This week, we saw a welcome change. The federal parliamentary committee on Australia’s external territories delivered a report calling for a second icebreaking vessel and more reliable funding. It also urged the government to progress work on marine protected areas in east Antarctica as well as resume fishing patrols, due to concern over illegal or exploitative fishing.

    These measures are long overdue. For those of us who work and study on the ice continent, logistics and funding have long been a challenge. Illegal fishing in Antarctica must be stamped out, and a second vessel would support our ambitious, world-leading science.

    Why is Antarctic science so important?

    Antarctica is often out of sight, out of mind for many Australians. But what happens on the ice doesn’t stay there.

    For climate science, Antarctica matters a great deal. For decades, much of the concern about melting ice focused on the Arctic and Greenland, while Antarctica stayed relatively stable. But this is now changing. Sea ice is melting more quickly than in the past. Glacial ice is retreating. Increased melting will affect sea level rise and ocean currents.

    I study diseases such as the lethal strain of bird flu which has devastated bird and some mammals populations around the world. It recently reached Antarctica, where it killed large numbers of penguins, skuas, crabeater seals and more. I saw the devastation myself on my recent journey there.

    If this strain makes it to Australia – the last continent free of it – it could come from the south and devastate both Australian wildlife and poultry.

    To study these large and important changes, we need to be down there on the ice. It’s not an easy task. Keeping our bases functional means we need regular resupply missions. Repairs and extensions require tradies. Scientists and other workers need to be brought home.

    Antarctic science has long relied on just one vessel, now the RSV Nuniya, which the Australian Antarctic Division describes as the “main lifeline to Australia’s Antarctic and sub-Antarctic research stations and the central platform of our Antarctic and Southern Ocean scientific research”.

    The problem is, resupply can trump science. After all, no one wants bases running short of food or fuel. This is, in fact, what the Nuniya is largely doing.

    Australia’s role is key

    The Australian Antarctic Territory represents about 40% of the ice continent – the largest territory by far.

    Territory, here, doesn’t mean exclusive rights. In 1959, 12 nations with a scientific interest in the ice continent signed the Antarctic Treaty. This treaty was an agreement that Antarctica – the only landmass with no indigenous human presence – would be reserved for peaceful, scientific purposes.

    But in recent years, this treaty has come under pressure. Nations such as Norway and China have expanded fishing operations for krill. Illegal and unregulated fishing from various nations continues.

    The report recommends the Australian government continue efforts to establish a marine protected area off East Antarctica – where fishing would be restricted – as well as reopening fishing patrols. China – which recently opened its fifth Antarctic base – is opposed to the idea of fishing-free zones and is pushing to expand fishing in the Southern Ocean.

    Under Antarctica’s ice lie many resources. Mining is banned in Antarctica until 2048. What happens after that is uncertain. The race to tap critical minerals in Greenland signals what may lie ahead for Antarctica.

    This is why Australia’s leadership in Antarctic science matters. Australia was an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, and has a long history of exploration and science. Hobart has long been the home of Australia’s Antarctic vessels.

    As Antarctica changes, Australian scientists must be there to analyse, understand and report back. To do that, improvements are needed, including new vessels and longer-term funding. This report is the first step.

    The government is yet to formally respond to the report’s recommendations. Let’s hope it takes heed of the findings.

    Jane Younger receives funding from the Australian Research Council, WIRES Australia, the Geoffrey Evans Trust and the National Geographic Society.

    – ref. Antarctic research has long been hamstrung by reliance on one icebreaker and sporadic funding. That might be about to change – https://theconversation.com/antarctic-research-has-long-been-hamstrung-by-reliance-on-one-icebreaker-and-sporadic-funding-that-might-be-about-to-change-249714

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘A house battery you can drive around’: how a handful of Australians are selling power from their cars back to the grid

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott Dwyer, Research Director, Energy Futures, University of Technology Sydney

    24K-Productions

    Our cars sit unused most of the time. If you have an electric vehicle, you might leave it charging at home or work after driving it. But there’s another step you could take. If you have a bidirectional charger, you can set it to sell power back to the grid when demand is high.

    Fewer than ten people across Australia actually do this, because the technology – known as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) – is very new. To date, it only works with a single car model (Nissan LEAF) and a single charger (Wallbox Quasar 1). We’ve estimated the number of users based on sales of this charger. The chargers are expensive and there’s a thicket of regulations to navigate.

    But that could soon change. Last year, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen announced new Australian standards and communications protocols for bidirectional chargers in a bid to make it mainstream. Cheaper EVs and bidirectional chargers will make this more appealing.

    If it takes off, V2G could become extremely useful to the power grid as a way to release power as required and stabilise the grid against fluctuations.

    This week, Australia’s renewable energy agency released a V2G roadmap, which notes widespread uptake could “materially reduce electricity costs for consumers and accelerate national emissions reduction”.

    To understand why people are using the technology and the challenges to do so, we interviewed five early adopters from New South Wales and South Australia. Our findings are released today.

    A bidirectional charger is necessary to sell power back to the grid.
    doublelee/Shutterstock

    Setting up V2G isn’t easy

    Our interviewees reported a long, complex journey to set up V2G. These early adopters had no playbook to follow, so the process was one of trial and error.

    Some relied on professional networks or social media groups to gather information. They spent significant time and energy finding electricians, installers and charger manufacturers to set up their systems. Strata approvals were required. They also had to negotiate with power retailers and distributors.

    Delays were common, especially when seeking approval from the energy distributor. Some interviewees reported delays of months to years.

    Most interviewees had experience in a technical field such as engineering or technology. Some reported a significant learning curve, while others using new software from their retailer reported a smoother “set and forget” process.

    So why do it? Our interviewees had several reasons, ranging from getting the most out of expensive assets (solar and the EV) to offsetting power bills entirely.

    Four out of five interviewees reported making a small profit of about A$1,000 annually instead of a bill. Many wanted to be able to reduce dependence on the grid and reduce their environmental impact.

    As one told us:

    you originally think of it as a car you can also use to power your house. [But actually] it’s a house battery you can drive around.

    Maximising savings

    Typically, our interviewees plugged their car in at home during the day to charge from their rooftop solar. In the evenings when power prices peaked, they used an app to sell power back to the grid. This maximised their cost savings for charging the car battery and their earnings from the grid.

    For instance, a V2G user was alerted by their energy retailer that power prices had spiked to over $20 per kilowatt hour – far above normal rates of 25–45 cents. They immediately set their car and home battery to sell power back to the grid. In two hours, they sold 28 kilowatt hours of power to the grid and made more than $560. As they told us: “I look forward to more such events.”

    Our interviewees often monitored energy prices, solar output and car battery levels to optimise their output. To avoid their EV battery getting too low, they set a lower limit – say 30% of charge – after which their car would stop exporting power.

    This photo shows the setup of one of our early adopter interviewees. Pictured is the Nissan LEAF and bidirectional charger. For years, this has been the only car model compatible with vehicle to grid, but this is set to change.
    Author provided, CC BY-NC-ND

    Is there a downside?

    One of the main reasons people are sceptical of V2G is due to concern about accelerated degradation of the battery.

    This is a common concern. But to date, there’s no consensus showing V2G shortens the battery life of EVs significantly. One recent study shows it increases degradation by 0.3% a year. But another showed V2G might actually extend battery life in some scenarios.

    Last year, we surveyed more than 1,300 members of a motoring organisation about their view of V2G technology. We found battery warranty was a bigger concern than battery life. This is because most EV manufacturers other than Nissan don’t mention V2G in their battery warranties, leading drivers to believe they might void their warranty by using V2G.

    Awareness of V2G technology is growing. The survey also found almost 40% of respondents were very or somewhat familiar with V2G, a jump from the 17% who reported familiarity in 2022. Among EV owners, almost 90% reported knowledge of the concept.

    Moving beyond early adopters

    For V2G to go mainstream, the process must be much simpler, cheaper and easier to set up.

    To accelerate uptake, reliable, accessible information is essential.

    Expanding government incentive programs to include bidirectional chargers would cut the upfront cost and make it more accessible.

    Even within the EV supply chain, knowledge of V2G is limited. Car dealerships will need to know which models work with V2G.

    Electricians may need specific training to install and maintain these chargers.

    EVs are falling in price as manufacturers vie for market share and cheaper options become available. V2G capabilities might help boost sales for competing car companies.

    As more motorists switch to EVs, interest in V2G will increase. While V2G can boost the appeal of EVs, there are others, such as Vehicle-to-Home (using your car to power your home during blackouts or to save money) and Vehicle-to-Load (using your EV to run power tools or appliances).

    Each of these can help consumers get more value from the vehicles parked in driveways and garages.

    Scott Dwyer receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

    Scott Dwyer receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

    Kriti Nagrath receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

    – ref. ‘A house battery you can drive around’: how a handful of Australians are selling power from their cars back to the grid – https://theconversation.com/a-house-battery-you-can-drive-around-how-a-handful-of-australians-are-selling-power-from-their-cars-back-to-the-grid-249696

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cook Islands opposition files no-confidence motion against PM

    By Melina Etches of the Cook Islands News

    A motion of no confidence has been filed against the Prime Minister and his Cabinet following the recent fiasco involving the now-abandoned Cook Islands passport proposal and the comprehensive strategic partnership the country will sign with China this week.

    Cook Islands United Party leader Teariki Heather said Prime Minister Mark Brown should apologise to the people and “graciously” step down, or else he would move a no-confidence vote against him in Parliament.

    Clerk of Parliament Tangata Vainerere today confirmed that a motion of no confidence has been filed, and he had placed the notice with the MPs.

    Parliament will convene for the first time this year next Monday, February 17, to consider various bills and papers, including the presentation of the supplementary budget.

    Heather, an Opposition MP, is concerned with Brown’s lack of consultation regarding the passport issue, which the Prime Minister later confirmed was “off the table”, and the China agreement with New Zealand.

    New Zealand has raised concerns that it was not properly consulted, as required under their special constitutional arrangement.

    However, PM Brown said he had advised them and did not believe the Cook Islands was required to provide the level of detail New Zealand was requesting.

    ‘Handled the situation badly’
    “He [Brown] has handled the situation badly. He has to step down graciously but if he doesn’t, I’m putting in a no confidence vote in Parliament — that’s the bottom line,” Heather told the Cook Islands News.

    “I will move that motion and if there’s no support at least I’ve done it, I’ve seen it through.”

    Heather also said that he believed the Prime Minister should apologise to the people of the Cook Islands.

    “A simple apology, he made a mistake, that’s it.”

    Cook Islands News asked the Leader of the Opposition Tina Browne for comment on Heather’s no confidence motion.

    Browne on Sunday told PMN that residents were angry, and there was mounting pressure and strong feeling that the PM Brown “should go” (step down).

    Backed by cabinet ministers
    The Prime Minister has the confidence of his Cabinet Ministers, who are backing their leader and the China agreement, according to Foreign Affairs Minister Tingika Elikana.

    Brown is in China on a state visit with his delegation. Yesterday marked the third day of the visit, during which he will oversee the signing of a Joint Action Plan for Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) with China.

    He is also expected to meet with Chinese Premier Li Qiang and President Xi Jinping.

    The content of the agreement and its signing date remain unknown.

    “At this stage, discussions regarding the agreement are still ongoing, and it would be premature to confirm a signing date at this time. However, once there are any formal developments, we will ensure updates are shared through an official MFAI media release,” a spokesperson for the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration told Cook Islands News.

    Public protest march
     A public protest march will convene at Parliament House on Monday to challenge the government’s direction for the people of the Cook Islands.

    Heather is spearheading the “peaceful” protest march, rallying citizens against PM Brown’s controversial proposal to introduce a Cook Islands passport.

    More than 100 people attended Heather’s public meeting last Monday evening at the Aroa Nui Hall to voice their concerns about government’s actions disregarding the voices of the people.

    “Do we just sit around no. Te inrinaki nei au e te marama nei kotou te iti tangata,” Heather said.

    “We have to do this for the sake of our country. This is not a political protest, it’s people of the Cook Islands uniting to protest, if you understand the consequences, you will understand the reason why.”

    Although Brown has since ditched the proposal after New Zealand warned it would require holders to renounce their New Zealand one, “the damage is done”.

    This has sparked heated debates about national identity, sovereignty and the implications for the Cook Islands relationship with New Zealand.

    Concerns of citizens
    Heather has taken onboard the concerns of citizens and argued that such a move could undermine the historical ties and shared citizenship that have long defined the relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand.

    He has no confidence in Brown’s statement that the proposed Cook Islands identity passport is “off the table”.

    “I think it is off the table for now . . .  but for how long?” Heather questioned.

    “Then there’s the impact of what he has done with our relationship with New Zealand so we are very much concerned about that.

    “We are making a statement. The march is actually to show the government of New Zealand that we the people of the Cook Islands don’t agree with the Prime Minister on that.

    “We want New Zealand to see that the people of the Cook Islands – that we love to keep our passport, that we care about our relationship as well.”

    Heather said they are also concerned about New Zealand’s reaction to the Cook Islands proposed agreement with China.

    ‘Peaceful’ protesters welcomed
    He welcomes members of the community to join the “peaceful” protest.

    On Monday morning, drummers will be located on both sides of Parliament House on the main road.

    At 10.45am, the proceedings will start when people start moving towards Parliament. Heather wants all protesters to bring along their New Zealand passports.

    Heather would like to remind people not to use dirty language at the protest — “auraka e autara viiviii, don’t bring your dirty laundry . . . ”

    First published by the Cook Islands News and republished with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘It’s a house battery you can drive around’ – how a handful of Australians are selling power back to the grid from their cars

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott Dwyer, Research Director, Energy Futures, University of Technology Sydney

    24K-Productions

    Our cars sit unused most of the time. If you have an electric vehicle, you might leave it charging at home or work after driving it. But there’s another step you could take. If you have a bidirectional charger, you can set it to sell power back to the grid when demand is high.

    Fewer than ten people across Australia actually do this, because the technology – known as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) – is very new. To date, it only works with a single car model (Nissan LEAF) and a single charger (Wallbox Quasar 1). We’ve estimated the number of users based on sales of this charger. The chargers are expensive and there’s a thicket of regulations to navigate.

    But that could soon change. Last year, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen announced new Australian standards and communications protocols for bidirectional chargers in a bid to make it mainstream. Cheaper EVs and bidirectional chargers will make this more appealing.

    If it takes off, V2G could become extremely useful to the power grid as a way to release power as required and stabilise the grid against fluctuations.

    This week, Australia’s renewable energy agency released a V2G roadmap, which notes widespread uptake could “materially reduce electricity costs for consumers and accelerate national emissions reduction”.

    To understand why people are using the technology and the challenges to do so, we interviewed five early adopters from New South Wales and South Australia. Our findings are released today.

    A bidirectional charger is necessary to sell power back to the grid.
    doublelee/Shutterstock

    Setting up V2G isn’t easy

    Our interviewees reported a long, complex journey to set up V2G. These early adopters had no playbook to follow, so the process was one of trial and error.

    Some relied on professional networks or social media groups to gather information. They spent significant time and energy finding electricians, installers and charger manufacturers to set up their systems. Strata approvals were required. They also had to negotiate with power retailers and distributors.

    Delays were common, especially when seeking approval from the energy distributor. Some interviewees reported delays of months to years.

    Most interviewees had experience in a technical field such as engineering or technology. Some reported a significant learning curve, while others using new software from their retailer reported a smoother “set and forget” process.

    So why do it? Our interviewees had several reasons, ranging from getting the most out of expensive assets (solar and the EV) to offsetting power bills entirely.

    Four out of five interviewees reported making a small profit of about A$1,000 annually instead of a bill. Many wanted to be able to reduce dependence on the grid and reduce their environmental impact.

    As one told us:

    you originally think of it as a car you can also use to power your house. [But actually] it’s a house battery you can drive around.

    Maximising savings

    Typically, our interviewees plugged their car in at home during the day to charge from their rooftop solar. In the evenings when power prices peaked, they used an app to sell power back to the grid. This maximised their cost savings for charging the car battery and their earnings from the grid.

    For instance, a V2G user was alerted by their energy retailer that power prices had spiked to over $20 per kilowatt hour – far above normal rates of 25–45 cents. They immediately set their car and home battery to sell power back to the grid. In two hours, they sold 28 kilowatt hours of power to the grid and made more than $560. As they told us: “I look forward to more such events.”

    Our interviewees often monitored energy prices, solar output and car battery levels to optimise their output. To avoid their EV battery getting too low, they set a lower limit – say 30% of charge – after which their car would stop exporting power.

    This photo shows the setup of one of our early adopter interviewees. Pictured is the Nissan LEAF and bidirectional charger. For years, this has been the only car model compatible with vehicle to grid, but this is set to change.
    Author provided, CC BY-NC-ND

    Is there a downside?

    One of the main reasons people are sceptical of V2G is due to concern about accelerated degradation of the battery.

    This is a common concern. But to date, there’s no consensus showing V2G shortens the battery life of EVs significantly. One recent study shows it increases degradation by 0.3% a year. But another showed V2G might actually extend battery life in some scenarios.

    Last year, we surveyed more than 1,300 members of a motoring organisation about their view of V2G technology. We found battery warranty was a bigger concern than battery life. This is because most EV manufacturers other than Nissan don’t mention V2G in their battery warranties, leading drivers to believe they might void their warranty by using V2G.

    Awareness of V2G technology is growing. The survey also found almost 40% of respondents were very or somewhat familiar with V2G, a jump from the 17% who reported familiarity in 2022. Among EV owners, almost 90% reported knowledge of the concept.

    Moving beyond early adopters

    For V2G to go mainstream, the process must be much simpler, cheaper and easier to set up.

    To accelerate uptake, reliable, accessible information is essential.

    Expanding government incentive programs to include bidirectional chargers would cut the upfront cost and make it more accessible.

    Even within the EV supply chain, knowledge of V2G is limited. Car dealerships will need to know which models work with V2G.

    Electricians may need specific training to install and maintain these chargers.

    EVs are falling in price as manufacturers vie for market share and cheaper options become available. V2G capabilities might help boost sales for competing car companies.

    As more motorists switch to EVs, interest in V2G will increase. While V2G can boost the appeal of EVs, there are others, such as Vehicle-to-Home (using your car to power your home during blackouts or to save money) and Vehicle-to-Load (using your EV to run power tools or appliances).

    Each of these can help consumers get more value from the vehicles parked in driveways and garages.

    Scott Dwyer receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

    Scott Dwyer receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

    Kriti Nagrath receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

    – ref. ‘It’s a house battery you can drive around’ – how a handful of Australians are selling power back to the grid from their cars – https://theconversation.com/its-a-house-battery-you-can-drive-around-how-a-handful-of-australians-are-selling-power-back-to-the-grid-from-their-cars-249696

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: You’re playing (or watching) sport and someone blurts out a racial slur. The next 60 seconds are crucial

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aish Ravi, Lecturer in Curriculum, Teaching and Inclusive Education, Monash University

    In October last year, the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) launched Dealing with the Moment: Anti-Racism in Community Sport, a free online course designed to help community coaches, parents, umpires and players respond to racism in sport.

    The course equips people with the tools they need to intervene effectively when racism occurs, ensuring everyone feels safe, welcome and respected.

    One of the key recommendations from the course is what to do if you hear someone say something racist on the sports field.

    Why racist remarks are so damaging

    Racist remarks hurt more than just a player’s feelings — they attack their sense of belonging and identity on the field.

    I know from my own experiences.

    During my years playing various community sports as a young adult, including Australian rules football, soccer and cricket, I was often one of the only people of colour.

    In those moments, I wanted my play and skills to be the focus but unfortunately, my appearance often made me stand out, which led to racist comments.

    Those remarks were deeply offensive and hurtful. They made me feel like I didn’t belong or shouldn’t be there.

    Racism in sport sends a harmful message: that someone doesn’t belong because of their skin colour or background. These incidents leave lasting emotional and psychological scars, even if they don’t result in physical harm.

    Why I helped develop the course

    I worked on developing the course to address a significant gap in how racism is handled in community sport.

    The course aims to ensure all sport participants have a positive and inclusive experience and that everyone understands the importance of addressing racism immediately – in the moment.

    It’s not good enough to delay action, even if that’s how it has often been done in the past. Some organisations claim that delaying action allows for thorough investigations and careful consideration.

    However, this is often a strategy to protect reputations and minimise backlash rather than address the root causes of the problem.

    Such delays can silence victims, perpetuate harm, and show a lack of genuine commitment to tackling systemic racism. Immediate action is necessary to demonstrate accountability and foster meaningful change.

    We must do better. We need to see progress, not stagnation.

    So, what should you do after a racist comment?

    If you don’t have time to dive into the full course, here are the key lessons:

    • the first 60 seconds are crucial: intervening immediately sends a strong message that racism won’t be tolerated and shows support for the victim

    • understand racism: recognise what racism is and how it affects people. Never dismiss someone’s experience by saying it’s “not racism” or telling them to “get over it”. Just because the harm isn’t physical doesn’t mean it’s not significant

    • take action: the course provides clear guidance on how to respond effectively to incidents of racism and support those affected.

    Why are the first 60 seconds so cruical?

    Acting early allows you to nip the issue in the bud by calling it out and intervening on the spot. It leaves no room for misinterpretation of events or for the narrative to shift.

    The longer the delay, the more time it allows for the situation to be downplayed, the narrative to change, or for excuses to be made.

    Ultimately, delays often result in the issue being swept under the carpet, with no one taking accountability for the harm caused.

    Immediate action demonstrates clarity, conviction, and a genuine commitment to addressing racism.

    Strategies for coaches, parents and officials

    Everyone — coaches, parents, officials, players and spectators — has a role to play when dealing with racism. Here are some practical strategies:

    • acknowledge and act: staying silent is not an option. A simple statement like “that’s not okay” sends a strong message of support and sets a clear standard of behaviour

    • use your authority: coaches can address players directly, officials can stop play, and parents can challenge inappropriate behaviour from the sidelines. Everyone has the power to intervene

    • educate yourself: take the course or learn more about racism so you feel confident and empowered to act

    • don’t minimise the impact: never tell someone to brush it off or suggest it’s not a big deal. Acknowledge their feelings, show empathy, and take the situation seriously

    • apply this to all inappropriate behaviour: these strategies aren’t limited to racism. They apply to misogynistic, homophobic, or other harmful remarks as well.

    Sport should be for everyone

    We live in a multicultural society – a melting pot of diverse cultures that is beautifully reflected on our streets and in our classrooms. It would be wonderful to see this diversity equally represented in community sport.

    Greater representation on the field and in the stands would create a sense of belonging and allow all players to thrive, regardless of their background.

    This is why addressing racism is so crucial — it paves the way for more inclusive and equitable participation in sport.

    The goal is to make sport a space where diversity is celebrated, teamwork is valued, and everyone can thrive without fear of discrimination.

    We can all play a part in creating lasting change.

    Aish Ravi receives funding from organisations for consulting work on training and education and evaluation work. She is also on various volunteer committees advocating for change.

    – ref. You’re playing (or watching) sport and someone blurts out a racial slur. The next 60 seconds are crucial – https://theconversation.com/youre-playing-or-watching-sport-and-someone-blurts-out-a-racial-slur-the-next-60-seconds-are-crucial-248671

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Tiny splendid peacock spiders have the fastest known jump among their kin – new study

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ajay Narendra, Associate Professor of Insect Neuroethology, Macquarie University

    Pranav Joshi

    Jumping spiders – one of the largest spider families – get their name from the extraordinary jumps they make to hunt prey, to navigate and also to evade predators.

    Male jumping spiders also jump to escape from cannibalistic females and competing males. So they are under tremendous pressure to jump efficiently and rapidly.

    We studied the jumping abilities of miniature male and female Australian peacock spiders. We found that the males – incredibly light creatures, weighing just 2 milligrams – have the highest acceleration among any known jumping spider.

    Our study is the first to explore and identify differences in how male and female jumping spiders undertake their impressive jumps. It’s now published in the Journal of Experimental Biology.

    A male Australian splendid peacock spider.
    Pranav Joshi

    Unique hydraulics

    Jumping is an energetically “expensive” movement strategy. To perform it, animals have to launch themselves from a surface by coordinating the movement of numerous body parts.

    Some invertebrates, like ants, jump with the help of their muscles. Others, like fleas, use energy stored in internal structures that are rapidly released to trigger a leap.

    Jumping spiders are different – they use a unique semi-hydraulic system. They don’t have muscles to extend their legs and power the jumps. Instead, they extend their legs by increasing the pressure of the haemolymph (fluid analogous to blood in invertebrates) in their legs, which triggers the jump.

    Peacock spiders are well known for the elaborate courtship display males carry out to court females. It has captured the attention of biologists and non-scientific audiences alike. The display includes extending and waving their third pair of legs and opening the colourful flap-like extensions on the abdomen.

    The quantitative description of jumping movements, known as jump kinematics, has only been conducted for four of the 6,000+ jumping spider species known worldwide. On top of this, scientists have never investigated differences in jump dynamics in male and female spiders.

    Because male and female peacock spiders differ strongly in size from each other, they present a unique opportunity to identify sex-specific differences in jump kinematics.

    Spiders on campus

    We studied the Australian splendid peacock spider (Maratus splendens) found both on the Macquarie University campus in Sydney and in the surrounding area.

    The females weighed more than twice as much as males, and the heaviest female was 6.6 times heavier than the lightest male. We scanned male and female specimens using micro-computed tomography and carried out a 3D reconstruction to determine the centre of mass of each sex.

    Micro CT reconstruction of the male of the Australian splendid peacock spider with centre of mass highlighted by a circle.
    Ajay Narendra

    We then filmed the jumps of male and female spiders using a high-speed camera, and tracked the animals’ centre of mass during each jump. From this, we measured a suite of kinematic measures, including jump take-off angle, acceleration, and g-force.

    We found that these lighter male peacock spiders have a distinct jump choreography and kinematics compared to the heavier females.

    High, fast and steep

    We discovered that the splendid peacock spiders accelerated at 127.8 m/s² – more than twice as fast as the previous highest known acceleration in jumping spiders.

    This rapid acceleration may have evolved to escape from predators or to track and capture fast-moving prey in their natural environments.

    Though the lighter males accelerated faster, after controlling for body mass we found that acceleration in males was slower compared to females. Males and females experienced accelerations equivalent to 13.03 times and 12.5 times the force of gravity, respectively.

    Interestingly, the jumps of males were at a steeper angle than those of females, which is likely an adaptation to rapidly escape from females and other males.

    A question that remained was which of the four pairs of legs powered this rapid jump. To figure this out, we tracked multiple joints on all of the spiders’ legs throughout the jump.

    We found that the joint on the third pair of legs had an extremely acute angle before jumping, and rapidly changed to something like a straight angle after attaining maximum acceleration. Our results show that it’s the third pair of legs that propels the splendid peacock spider into its impressive jumps.

    Ajay Narendra receives funding from Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Tiny splendid peacock spiders have the fastest known jump among their kin – new study – https://theconversation.com/tiny-splendid-peacock-spiders-have-the-fastest-known-jump-among-their-kin-new-study-247241

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Inflation is heating up again, putting pressure on Trump to cool it on tariffs

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame

    Inflation is building again; but the housing industry may find it harder to do so as a result of Trump tariffs. Win McNamee/Getty Images

    Inflation figures released on Feb. 12, 2025, will come as a disappointment to Americans who hoped President Donald Trump would be true to his word on bringing down prices “on Day One.” It will also put pressure on the new administration to be wary of policies that may heat up inflation – and that includes tariffs.

    The consumer price index, which measures the change in prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services, rose unexpectedly from December to January by 0.5%. It means consumers are paying around 3% more on item prices than they were a year ago.

    Economists had been expecting the pace of inflation to slow in January.

    The news isn’t good for anyone concerned. It means inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s long-run target of 2% – making it harder for the central bank to cut rates at its next meeting on March 19. At its last meeting, the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee kept its benchmark federal funds rate unchanged at a range of 4.25-4.50%.

    Following the release of the latest inflation data, markets have a stronger conviction that the Fed will again hold rates steady when it meets in March.

    It also means more pain for consumers. Higher interest rates set by the Fed play a large role in determining rates for mortgages, credit cards and auto loans. If January’s rate of inflation were to continue throughout 2025, consumers would see a painful 6.2% annualized inflation rate.

    And although it would be churlish to link the latest jump in inflation to an administration just weeks old, it does put into focus the current slate of Trump economic policies. Economists have long warned that imposing tariffs on imports and cutting taxes does little to curb inflation – rather, they may contribute to faster price increases.

    Already, China has been hit by a 10% tariff on all products. Trump has also proposed a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, and he mulled imposing new tariffs on Canada and Mexico – two of the United States’ largest trading partners.

    I believe that if these wide-ranging tariffs come into effect, the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to keep rates elevated for the remainder of 2025.

    Revving up for higher car costs

    One of the largest drivers of inflation in January was rent increases, which accounted for nearly 30% of all items increase. Rents jumped 4.6% from a year earlier.

    If Trump’s tariffs on Canadian imports, like lumber, take effect, Americans can expect continued price increases in the homebuilding sector. Supply and demand imbalances remain a key driver for higher prices, so fewer houses being built due to higher materials cost will likely lead to higher rents.

    Consumers saw better news on new vehicle prices, which remained flat over the month and showed slight declines from a year ago.

    This is even as demand for new cars increased 2.5% over 2024. In January 2025, the number of new vehicles sold topped the same month a year earlier for the fifth month in a row.

    But as with homebuilding, any tariffs on the import of car parts or materials will impact the auto industry. Carmakers may have breathed an immediate breath of relief when Trump delayed new tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But if deals aren’t reached by the March 1 deadline, industry analysts expect immediate impacts on top sellers.

    And any higher cost of new cars will have a knock-on effect on used cars, which saw prices jump 2.2% in January – it’s largest increase since May 2023.

    Increased prices are no yoke! (groan)

    Of course, not all inflationary pressures are in the purview of government.

    The transportation sector, which includes insurance and parking fees, increased by 8% over the year. Insurance prices soared almost 12%, on the back of last year’s 20.6% increase in prices, while parking fees increased by almost 5% as a result of more expensive repairs and more dangerous driving behaviors.

    Meanwhile, with bird flu continuing to spread, egg prices rose a shocking 15.2% in January, and are 53% more expensive than at this time last year.

    All in all, voters who cited inflation as the main reason they were backing Trump may be feeling a little uneasy – the administration is only a few weeks old, but for one reason or other, Americans are experiencing ever higher prices with little relief in sight.

    Jason Reed 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. Inflation is heating up again, putting pressure on Trump to cool it on tariffs – https://theconversation.com/inflation-is-heating-up-again-putting-pressure-on-trump-to-cool-it-on-tariffs-249815

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Paris summit marks a tipping point on AI’s safety and sustainability

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Robert Diab, Professor, Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University

    United States Vice President JD Vance made headlines this week by refusing to sign a declaration at a global summit in Paris on artificial intelligence.

    In his first appearance on the world stage, Vance made clear that the U.S. wouldn’t be playing ball. The Donald Trump administration believes that “excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off,” he said. “We’ll make every effort to encourage pro-growth AI policies.”

    His remarks confirmed a widespread fear that Trump’s return to the White House will signal a sharp turn in tech policy. American tech companies and their billionaire owners will now be shielded from effective oversight.

    But upon a closer look, events this week point to signs that just the opposite may be unfolding. A host of nations took notable steps towards address growing safety and environmental concerns about AI, indicating that a regulatory tipping point has been reached.

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered the keynote address at the AI Action Summit in Paris, France.

    Wide consensus

    The two-day global summit in Paris, chaired by France and India, led to broad consensus. Some 60 countries signed on to a Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable AI. This included Canada, the European Commission, India and China.

    Both the U.S. and the United Kingdom declined to sign on. But the prevailing winds are against them.

    The meeting in Paris was the third global summit on AI, following meet-ups at Bletchley Park in the U.K. in 2023 and in Seoul, South Korea, in 2024. Each of them ended with similar declarations widely endorsed.

    The Paris communiqué calls for an “inclusive approach” to AI, seeking to “narrow inequalities” in AI capabilities among countries. It encourages “avoiding market concentration” and affirms the need for openness and transparency in building and sharing technology and expertise.

    The document is not binding. It does little more than tout principles, or affirm a collective sentiment among the parties. One of these — perhaps the most important — is to keep talking, meeting and working together on the common concerns that AI raises.

    Environmental challenges

    Meanwhile, a smaller group of countries at the Paris summit, along with 37 tech companies, agreed to form a Coalition for Sustainable AI — setting out a series of goals and deliverables.

    While nothing is binding on the parties, the goals are notably specific. They include coming up with standards for measuring AI’s environmental impact and more effective ways for companies to report on the impact. Parties also aim to “optimize algorithms to reduce computational complexity and minimize data usage.”

    Even if most of this turns out to be merely aspirational, it’s important that the coalition offers a platform for collaboration on these initiatives. At the very least, it signals a likelihood that sustainability will be at the forefront of debate about AI moving forward.



    Read more:
    AI is bad for the environment, and the problem is bigger than energy consumption

    Signing the first international treaty on AI

    A further notable event at the summit was that Canada signed the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. In recent months, 12 other countries had signed, including the U.S. (under former president Joe Biden), the U.K., Israel and the European Union.

    The convention commits parties to pass domestic laws on AI that deal with privacy, bias and discrimination, safety, transparency and environmental sustainability.

    The treaty has been criticized for containing no more than “broad affirmations” and imposing few clear obligations. But it does show that countries are committed to passing law to ensure that AI development unfolds within boundaries — and they’re eager to see more countries do the same.

    If Canada were to ratify the treaty, Parliament would likely revive Bill C-27, which contained the AI and Data Act.



    Read more:
    The federal government’s proposed AI legislation misses the mark on protecting Canadians

    The act aimed to do much of what Canada agrees to do under the convention: impose greater oversight of the development and use of AI. This includes transparency and disclosure requirements on AI companies, and stiff penalties for failure to comply.

    What does this really mean?

    While the U.S. signed the convention on AI and human rights, democracy and rule of law in the fall of 2024, it likely won’t be implemented by a Republican Congress. The same might happen in Canada under a Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre. He could also decide not to fulfil commitments made under other agreements about AI.

    And if Poilievre comes to power by the time Canada hosts the next G7 meeting in June, he might decline to honour the Trudeau government’s commitment to make AI regulation a central focus of the meeting.

    The Trump administration may have ushered in a period of more lax tech regulation in the U.S., and Silicon Valley is indeed a key player in tech — especially AI. But it’s a wide world, with many other important players in this space, including China, Europe and Canada.

    The events in Paris have revealed a strong interest among nations around the globe to regulate AI, and specifically to foster ideas about inclusion and sustainability. If the Paris summit was any indication, the hope of sheltering AI from effective regulation won’t last long.

    Robert Diab 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. The Paris summit marks a tipping point on AI’s safety and sustainability – https://theconversation.com/the-paris-summit-marks-a-tipping-point-on-ais-safety-and-sustainability-249706

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why federal courts are unlikely to save democracy from Trump’s and Musk’s attacks

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Maya Sen, Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

    Many people may look to federal courts as a bulwark of the U.S. Constitution. Jose Luis Pelaez/Stone via Getty Images

    State governments, community groups, advocacy nonprofits and regular Americans have filed a large and growing number of federal lawsuits opposing President Donald Trump’s barrage of executive orders and policy statements. Some of his actions have been put on hold by the federal courts, at least temporarily.

    As a scholar of the federal courts, however, I expect the courts will be of limited help in navigating through this complicated new political landscape.

    One problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has moved sharply to the right and has approved of past efforts to expand the powers of the presidency. But the problem with relying on the courts for help goes beyond ideology and right-leaning justices going along with a right-leaning president, as happened in Trump’s first term.

    One challenge is speed: The Trump administration is moving much faster than courts do, or even can. The other is authority: The courts’ ability to compel government action is limited, and also slow.

    And that doesn’t even factor in statements by Trump, Vice President JD Vance and “special government employee” multibillionaire Elon Musk. All three have indicated that they are open to ignoring court rulings and have even threatened to seek the impeachment of judges who rule in ways they don’t like.

    President Donald Trump and multibillionaire Elon Musk are working together to restructure the U.S. government.
    Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    Speed

    Musk has been put in charge of White House efforts to cut government services, both in spending amount and reach.

    Constitutional law is clear: The executive branch cannot, on its own, close or shut down a federal agency that has been established by Congress. That is Congress’ job. But Trump and Musk are trying to do so anyway, including declaring that the congressionally established U.S. Agency for International Development will be shut down and turning employees away from the agency’s offices in Washington, D.C.

    The administration’s strategy, it seems, is the longstanding tech-company mantra: “move fast and break things.” The U.S. courts do not – and by design cannot – move equally quickly.

    It can take years for a case to wind its way through the lower courts to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. This is by design.

    Courts are deliberative in nature. They take into account multiple factors and can engage in multiple rounds of deliberation and fact-finding before reaching a final ruling. At every stage, lawyers on both sides are given time to make their cases. Even when a case does get to the Supreme Court – as many of these lawsuits likely will – it can take months to be fully resolved.

    By contrast, Trump’s and Musk’s actions are happening in a matter of days. By the time a court finally resolves an issue that happened in late January or early February 2025, the situation may have changed substantially.

    Volunteers hand out USAID flour at the Zanzalima Camp in Ethiopia in 2021.
    J. Countess/Getty Images

    For an example, consider the effort to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development. In the space of a week, the Trump administration put most of USAID’s workers on administrative leave and halted USAID’s overseas medical trials, which included pausing potentially lifesaving treatments.

    As of this writing, a district judge has temporarily blocked the order putting USAID workers on leave. But even if the courts ultimately conclude several months from now that the Trump administration’s actions regarding USAID were unlawful, it might be impossible to reconstitute the agency the way it used to be.

    For instance, many workers may have been demoralized and sought other employment. New personnel would have to be recruited and trained to replace them. Contracts that were terminated or invalidated or expired would have to be renegotiated. And the countries and communities that had received help from USAID might be less committed to the renewed programs, because of concerns services could be cut off again.

    Breadth

    When Republicans disagreed with any of Joe Biden’s executive actions – for example, his student debt forgiveness plan – they went to federal court to obtain nationwide injunctions stopping the implementation of the plan.

    But injunctions will not be as helpful given Trump’s recent playbook. A court blocking one order isn’t enough to stop the administration from trying different tactics. In 2017, courts blocked the first two versions of Trump’s ban on travel to the U.S. from majority-Muslim countries – but ultimately allowed a third version to take effect. And if an attack on one agency is blocked, the administration can try similar – or different – tactics against other agencies.

    The strategy of moving fast and breaking things is successful if the other side – or even the process of repair – can’t keep up with all the different strategies. Courts can be part of the strategy to preserve the Constitution, but they cannot be its only defenders.

    Authority

    John Marshall served as the nation’s fourth chief justice, from 1801 to 1835.
    Painted by Henry Inman, via Wikimedia Commons

    Researchers have argued that court-issued injunctions mostly work to stop the government from doing something, not to compel the government into doing something. Judges are already expressing concern that the Trump administration may fail to comply with orders to stop funding freezes.

    For instance, a federal district judge in Massachusetts has ordered the government not only to refrain from implementing changes to federal research grant funding but to provide evidence to the court that it was complying with the court’s order, immediately and every two weeks until the case is decided.

    Another federal judge has already found the administration failed to abide by a court order – but so far has not imposed any consequences on Trump, the administration or other officials.

    It’s unclear whether Trump would obey Supreme Court rulings against him, either. On the campaign trail, Trump’s running mate JD Vance said, “When the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.’” He also recently remarked that “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” hinting at strong opposition to rulings the administration disagrees with.

    All this doesn’t mean the courts are useless, nor that people shouldn’t sue to challenge actions they deem illegal or unconstitutional. The courts – and the Supreme Court in particular – exist in part to arbitrate power disputes between Congress and the presidency. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in his landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

    But the courts alone will not be sufficient. The courts are like an antibiotic on a cut, helping healing and staving off further infection. They cannot keep a grievously wounded patient alive. For this, a robust political strategy is necessary. It is in all Americans’ hands collectively to make sure that the constitutional structure is not just enforced, but also sustained.

    Maya Sen 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. Why federal courts are unlikely to save democracy from Trump’s and Musk’s attacks – https://theconversation.com/why-federal-courts-are-unlikely-to-save-democracy-from-trumps-and-musks-attacks-249533

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A new report card shows inequality in Australia isn’t as bad as in the US – but we’re headed in the wrong direction

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Allen, Senior Research Fellow, Monash University

    Shutterstock

    It’s hard to remember a time the United States seemed as tense and divided as it does today. That should serve as a stark reminder of just how important it is to monitor the health of our own nation.

    Today, our new report card on Australia’s progress will be launched in Canberra. It assesses progress on 80 economic, social and environmental targets and models a range of policy shifts that could boost progress.

    We find that progress on more than half of these targets has either stagnated or is going backwards. And growing inequalities threaten the wellbeing of many Australians.

    Our report comes on the heels of America’s own State of the Nation report, which puts the US near the bottom of global rankings on inequality, violence, trust and polarisation.

    The situation in Australia is not yet as dire. However, our results signal a need to start thinking long-term and take bold action on inequality to avoid a similar fate.

    Not an A+ student overall

    Our report draws on the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to select a broad and balanced set of 80 economic, social and environmental indicators.

    Each of our indicators can be grouped under one of these 17 goals and includes a 2030 target. We use this target to evaluate progress and allocate “traffic lights” that tell us about the direction in which the country is moving.

    We also benchmark Australia against peer nations from the OECD, including the US.

    The overall outlook for Australia is mixed. We aren’t completely on track to meet any of the 17 SDGs. And on some indicators, Australia is actually going backwards, away from the target.

    Many areas of concern centre on increasing inequality. These include:

    • a 30% decline in the share of wealth held by the bottom 40% of Australians since 2004
    • almost 20% of Australians living in financial stress
    • over 40% of lower-income renter households living in housing stress
    • household debt levels now exceed Australia’s annual gross domestic product (GDP).

    There are also some broader economic concerns. Australia’s level of investment in innovation is nearly 40% below OECD averages. Economic complexity – which measures the sophistication and diversity of what our economy produces – has fallen behind Honduras, Armenia and Uganda.

    And there’s been a rapid decline in education outcomes for students from lower socio-economic groups.

    Shining in some areas

    On the other hand, Australia is on track and actually leading our peers in life expectancy, road fatalities, tertiary education, water efficiency and government debt.

    We’re also above average on closing gender gaps in both income and political representation. Australia also has very low homicide rates and high feelings of safety and trust compared to our peers.

    Australia has made some progress on gender equality.
    Andrii Zastrozhnov/Shutterstock

    In some key areas, Australia is actually trending rapidly towards SDG targets.

    The gender gap in superannuation, for example, has fallen from 53% in 2014 to 21% in 2021.

    The share of renewable electricity in our national energy grid has climbed to 35% and greenhouse gas emissions are steadily falling.

    And rates of unemployment, underemployment and youth unemployment have all declined to within or closer to SDG target levels of below 5-6%.

    How does the US compare?

    America’s State of the Nation report, which tracks progress on a range of similar measures to our report, paints a bleak picture.

    There are only four measures where the US performs in the top 20% of high-income countries – economic output, productivity, years of education and long-term unemployment.

    Compared to Australia, the US outperforms us on average per-capita income, investments in research and development and knowledge-based capital, economic complexity, household debt and broadband connection speeds.

    But despite their apparent economic success, mental health and life satisfaction have deteriorated. Social connections are fraying with increased social isolation, polarisation and eroding trust.

    Tragically, suicide rates, fatal overdoses and shootings have increased.

    Far worse on some measures

    In areas where Australia is also trending backwards, things in the US are often far worse.

    Income and wealth inequality, for example, are much higher in the US. The top 1% of Americans hold around 35% of wealth – compared to 24% for the top 1% of Australians.

    US welfare payments are almost 90% below the poverty line and the poverty rate is 30% higher than in Australia. Yet US government debt as a share of GDP is almost double that of Australia.

    This stark contrast suggests America’s approach to pursuing material prosperity is undermining social wellbeing, with rising inequalities fuelling social tensions and polarisation.

    Bold action needed

    For the first time, our new report models two future scenarios for Australia, exploring policies that reverse negative trends and accelerate progress towards SDG targets by 2050.

    Our modelling shows that with increased policy ambition, Australia can halve poverty and reduce income inequality by a third. We can also boost health, education and productivity, improve biodiversity, and deliver net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

    To do it, we’d need to increase public investment by around 7% a year over 10 years in key areas such as education and health, disaster resilience, sustainable food, energy and urban systems and the natural environment.

    Our modelling shows that with these measures, Australia could achieve 90% of our Sustainable Development Goal targets by 2050.

    Without them, our future prosperity is projected to stagnate and decline by 2050, reaching just 55% progress towards our targets and with GDP around A$300 billion lower than our more ambitious scenario.

    There’s a famous aphorism that in the long run, economic productivity is almost everything. The social fissures in the US despite a strong economy would suggest otherwise.

    Australia should take note and take action to ensure the long-term sustainable prosperity of our nation.

    Cameron Allen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    John Thwaites is Chair of Monash Sustainable Development Institute and Climateworks Centre which receive funding for research, education and action projects from the Commonwealth and state governments as well as from philanthropy and industry. He is a former Deputy Premier of Victoria (1999 – 2007)

    – ref. A new report card shows inequality in Australia isn’t as bad as in the US – but we’re headed in the wrong direction – https://theconversation.com/a-new-report-card-shows-inequality-in-australia-isnt-as-bad-as-in-the-us-but-were-headed-in-the-wrong-direction-249579

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –