In his first term, Donald Trump deported far fewer people from the United States than his three predecessors: Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Just weeks into his second term, however, Trump is making the deportation of immigrants one of his top priorities. Immigration raids on those who have overstayed their visas and non-citizens with criminal histories have already commenced, with arrests increasing dramatically in recent days.
His administration has announced plans to build a migrant detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba that could hold up to 30,000 people awaiting deportation. Trump has also threatened to use a little-known law from 1798 to speed up the process, bypassing immigration courts.
While much of the attention has focused on the hundreds of thousands of migrants at risk of being deported to Latin America, many Pacific islanders are likely to be ordered to leave, as well.
A list from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement of people with “final orders of removal” includes some 350 migrants from Fiji, 150 from Tonga and 57 people from Samoa, among others.
Unsurprisingly, Trump’s threats have invoked fear across the Pacific. Prominent Fijian lawyer Dorsami Naidu told the ABC:
We’ve had lots of people who have served prison sentences in America get sent back to Fiji where they introduce different kinds of criminal activities that they are well-groomed in.
It should be noted, though, that not all of the people with orders to leave have been convicted of serious crimes. Many have simply overstayed their visas or may have only committed a minor infraction. Most want to turn their lives around.
Lack of support
Criminal deportations from the US, Australia and New Zealand have increased dramatically over the past decade, yet there is still a crucial lack of funding to support reintegration services.
Concerns about the repercussions of criminal deportations are particularly high in Tonga, which received more than 1,000 returnees from 2009–20, nearly three-quarters of whom were from the US.
One Tongan commentator suggested Trump’s decision would “unleash a wave of deportees that could drown Tonga and other Pacific nations in crisis”.
Though some Tongan returnees are accepted back into families and societies, many struggle. A large number left the country when they were young and often have limited understanding of the local language and culture. As such, they experience difficulties reintegrating into society.
My research shows that some deported Pacific islanders with criminal histories may turn “back to what they know” in the absence of support, which at times means involvement in the drug trade if there are no other means of gainful employment.
In countries like Tonga where there is an escalating methamphetamine problem and a lack of employment opportunities, this is understandably concerning.
Tonga, like other Pacific countries, struggles to fund organisations that crucially assist with deported peoples’ reintegration needs in order to prevent the risk of (re)offending. The countries deporting these individuals (such as the US, New Zealand or Australia) rarely provide any assistance, despite repeated requests from Pacific governments and non-governmental organisations.
Can these countries negotiate instead?
Countries can push back against Trump’s decisions to deport their citizens. Colombia was the first to do so, when President Gustavo Petro initially refused to allow military planes carrying deported migrants to land.
Petro’s refusal was met with fury in Washington. Trump threatened a number of retaliatory trade measures, prompting Petro to eventually relent.
Pacific states have previously tried to push back against deportations during the COVID pandemic. Samoa and Tonga, for instance, used diplomatic channels to request a “pause” on removals while they grappled with the unfolding health crisis.
Australia and New Zealand complied with the request, but the US did not. Instead, it used punitive measures to force states into continue receiving deportations.
For instance, the US blacklisted Samoan and Tongan nationals from the list of states eligible for seasonal work visas, affecting these countries’ economies. They were not returned to the list until they “complied” with US removals.
International law mandates that countries accept their own citizens if they are deported. Those that refuse are deemed “deviant states”, which can cause problems for both the deporting state and returnees trapped in limbo.
However, there are other ways of delaying deportation orders.
For example, Samoa has requested additional information from the countries trying to deport Samoans and will not issue travel documents (for example, a passport) until this request is complied with. This information includes evidence of an individual’s connection to Samoa and family ties in the country.
Samoan authorities maintain this helps organisations like the Samoa Returnees Charitable Trust find their families and arrange appropriate accommodation, aiding with their reintegration.
Countries like Colombia and Samoa are acting in the interests of their citizens. While many have legitimate concerns about returnees potentially turning to crime once they are in their home countries, these states also want to challenge the perception that all migrants are criminals.
They are Colombians. They are free and dignified, and they are in their homeland where they are loved […] The migrant is not a criminal. He is a human being who wants to work and progress, to live life.
Henrietta McNeill 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.
Peat swamp in Danau Sentarum National Park, West Kalimantan.(Bramanthya Fathi Makarim/Shutterstock)
Protecting and restoring peatlands and mangroves can strengthen Southeast Asian countries’ efforts to combat climate change, according to new findings from an international team of researchers.
Carbon-dense peatlands and mangroves comprise only 5% of Southeast Asia’s surface. Protecting and restoring them, however, can reduce approximately 770±97 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) annually. This is equal to more than half of the carbon emissions from land use in the region.
Conserving offers larger mitigation potential through reduced emissions from ecosystem loss in the region compared to gains from restoration. If optimally implemented, restoration can still play an important role in nature-based carbon sequestration.
Having peatlands and mangroves included in the new climate pledges (Nationally Determined Contributions 3.0) can help countries set higher emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2035.
More benefits to offer
The study reports extensive climate benefits from conserving and restoring peatlands and mangroves. Therefore, they make effective natural climate solutions for Southeast Asian countries.
Both ecosystems protect organic matter from decay under natural conditions, acting as net carbon sinks. This means that carbon uptake exceeds carbon loss.
Net carbon gains are mainly accumulated in their soils instead of their vegetation. More than 90% of carbon stocks in peatlands and 78% in mangroves are in their soils.
At scale, protecting and restoring both types of wetlands also supports other valuable co-benefits. These include biodiversity preservation, water quality improvement, coastal protection, food security and rural development for millions of coastal people across Southeast Asian countries.
Challenges remain
Despite the benefits, many challenges and risks persist in conserving and restoring peatlands and mangroves.
When peatlands and mangroves are disturbed – commonly due to land use change – they release large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. This release can later exacerbate climate change.
The new estimates suggest that changes in their land use for the past two decades (2001-2022) had caused the release of approximately 691±97 MtCO2e of excess emissions.
Indonesia accounts for the largest portion of the region’s emissions, accounting for 73%. Malaysia (14%), Myanmar (7%), and Vietnam (2%) follow. The other seven Southeast Asian countries generate the remaining 4% of emissions.
In Southeast Asia, mangroves and peatlands are often treated as unproductive land. Still, they have long been subject to agricultural land expansion planning.
Despite these challenges, government and corporate interest in developing conservation and restoration-based carbon projects for peatlands and mangroves is rapidly increasing.
That is why now is a good opportunity to recognise their vital roles — not only for climate change mitigation — but also for people and nature.
Implications for national emissions reduction targets
The new study addresses a critical gap in climate policy for Southeast Asian by providing annual climate change mitigation potentials from peatlands and mangroves.
Climate mitigation potential for national land-use emissions varies widely between countries.
The findings suggest that it could reduce national land-use emissions by up to 88% in Malaysia, 64% in Indonesia, and 60% in Brunei. Other countries include Myanmar at 39%, the Philippines at 26%, Cambodia at 18%, Vietnam at 13%, Thailand at 10%, Laos at 9%, Singapore at 2%, and Timor-Leste at 0.04%.
In its 2022 NDCs, Indonesia plans to reduce its annual emissions from FOLU by 2030 between 500-729 MtCO2e, depending on the level of external support. According to the study, this figure is within the same order of mitigation potential as peatlands and mangroves can collectively generate.
However, peatland and mangrove mitigation potentials are insufficient to avoid dangerous levels of climate change in the future.
Decarbonisation remains the most effective means of curbing climate change and its impacts, with peatland and mangrove protection enhancing these efforts.
Susan Elizabeth Page menerima dana dari University of Leicester, UK.
Dan Friess, David Taylor, Massimo Lupascu, Pierre Taillardat, Sigit Sasmito, dan Wahyu Catur Adinugroho tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.
Let them know it is OK to start small. You don’t have to make ten best friends all at once! Making friends takes time and even just one or two good friends can make a big difference.
To break the ice, encourage simple actions such as saying “hello” or offering a compliment: “That’s a cool handball” or “I love your Taylor Swift bracelet”.
Encourage your child to do activities with other kids they enjoy. They can play a particular game or sport or do craft, dancing or reading. Tell them how it’s possible to be friends with lots of different kinds of people.
Talk about the importance of friendship
Research shows it’s important for parents to offer encouragement and guidance about friendships. This can lead to better quality friendships (how well friends get along) as children grow up.
Parents can start to talk to their child about the importance of friendships from a young age. Some questions parents could ask include “Who did you play with today?”, “What did you like about playing with them?”, “What games did you play”.
Parents can also start conversations about the value of friends and friendship. For example, parents could ask their child about the importance of sharing with friends (“it actually feels great to share and make your friends happy”).
Over time, children’s concept of friendships changes. Younger children view friends as somebody you can play with, while older children see friends as people they can trust and can share emotions and thoughts with.
Research shows, parents can also help this transition with advice and encouragement. Encourage your child to express their feelings and talk about what happens at school, so you can work through any issues or tricky things together.
This does not have to be a formal talk. You could chat while you are doing something else – like drawing, playing chess or throwing a ball.
To create a safe space for your child to freely express their feelings and emotions, avoid being judgemental or critical. Instead, ask questions, like “if you do it again, will you do it differently?” or “was that a kind decision?”
Encourage active listening
You can also encourage your child to be a good and supportive friend.
One way to do this is by being an active listener. This is about understanding what someone is saying (and possibly taking action because of it), not simply “hearing” what is said.
You can suggest your child takes a deep breath and lets the other child finish what they are trying to say, instead of interrupting and talking over people.
Active listening is a skill parents can practise with their child. Make a game and have fun doing it. Try it in the car, over the dinner table or in another informal setting.
Deb Agnew and Shane Pill also developed versions of the Big Talks for Little People program on which this article is based.
Gretchen Geng works for Flinders University. Big Talks for Little People receives funding from Breakthrough Mental Health Research Foundation, Little Heroes Foundation, Medibank, BeyondBank, and the South Australian Education Department.
Phillip Slee works for Flinders University. Big Talks for Little People receives funding from Breakthrough Mental Health Research Foundation, Little Heroes Foundation, Medibank, BeyondBank, and the South Australian Education Department.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University
Large social media companies should have to proactively remove harmful content from their platforms, undergo regular “risk assessments” and face hefty fines if they don’t comply, according to an independent review of online safety laws in Australia.
The federal government will today release the final report of the review conducted by experienced public servant Delia Rickard, more than three months after receiving it.
The review comes a few months after Meta announced it will stop using independent fact checkers to moderate content on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
Rickard’s review contains 67 recommendations in total. If implemented, they would go a long way to making Australians safer from abusive content, cyberbullying and other potential harms encountered online. They would also align Australia to international jurisdictions and address many of the same problems targeted by the social media ban for young people.
However, the recommendations contain serious omissions. And with a federal election looming, the review is not likely to be acted upon until the next term of government.
Addressing online harms at the source
The review recommends imposing a “digital duty of care” on large social media companies.
The federal government has already committed to doing this. However, legislation to implement a digital duty of care has been on hold since November, with discussions overshadowed by the government’s social media ban for under 16s.
The digital duty of care would put the onus on tech companies to proactively address a range of specific harms on their platforms, such as child sexual exploitation and attacks based on gender, race or religion.
It would also provide several protections for Australians, including “easily accessible, simple and user-friendly” pathways to complain about harmful content. And it would position Australia alongside the United Kingdom and the European Union, which already have similar laws in place.
Online service providers would face civil penalties of 5% of global annual turnover or A$50 million (whichever is greater) for non-compliance with the duty of care.
Two new classes of harm – and expanded powers for the regulator
The recommendations also call for a decoupling of the Online Safety Act from the National Classification Scheme. That latter scheme legislates the classification of publications, films and computer games, providing ratings to guide consumers to make informed choices for selecting age-appropriate content.
This shift would create two new classes of harm: content that is “illegal and seriously harmful” and “legal but may be harmful”. This includes material dealing with “harmful practices” such as eating disorders and self-harm.
The review’s recommendations also include provisions for technology companies to undergo annual “risk assessments” and publish an annual “transparency report”.
The review also recommends adults experiencing cyber abuse, and children who are cyberbullied online, should wait only 24 hours following a complaint before the eSafety Commission orders a social media platform to remove the content in question. This is down from 48 hours.
It also recommends lowering the threshold for identifying “menacing, harassing, or seriously offensive” material to that which “an ordinary reasonable person” would conclude is likely to have an effect.
The review also calls for a new governance model for the eSafety Commission. This new model would empower the eSafety Commissioner to create and enforce “mandatory rules” (or codes) for duty of care compliance, including addressing online harms.
The need to tackle misinformation and disinformation
The recommendations are a step towards making the online world safer for everybody. Importantly, they would achieve this without the problems associated with the government’s social media ban for young people – including that it could violate children’s human rights.
Missing from the recommendations, however, is any mention of potential harms from online misinformation and disinformation.
Given the speed of online information sharing, and the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) tools to enable online harms, such as deepfake pornography, this is a crucial omission.
From vaccine safety to election campaigns, experts have raised ongoing concerns about the need to combat misinformation.
A 2024 report by the International Panel on the Information Environment found experts, globally, are most worried about “threats to the information environment posed by the owners of social media platforms”.
In January 2025, the Canadian Medical Association released a report showing people are increasingly seeking advice from “problematic sources”. At the same time technology companies are “blocking trusted news” and “profiting” from “pushing misinformation” on their platforms.
In Australia, the government’s proposed misinformation bill was scrapped in November last year due to concerns over potential censorship. But this has left people vulnerable to false information shared online in the lead-up to the federal election this year. As the Australian Institute of International Affairs said last month:
misinformation has increasingly permeated the public discourse and digital media in Australia.
An ongoing need for education and support
The recommendations also fail to provide guidance on further educational supports for navigating online spaces safely in the review.
The eSafety Commission currently provides many tools and resources for young people, parents, educators, and other Australians to support online safety. But it’s unclear if the change to a governance model for the commission to enact duty of care provisions would change this educational and support role.
The recommendations do highlight the need for “simple messaging” for people experiencing harm online to make complaints. But there is an ongoing need for educational strategies for people of all ages to prevent harm from occurring.
The Albanese government says it will respond to the review in due course. With a federal election only months away, it seems unlikely the recommendations will be acted on this term.
Whichever government is elected, it should prioritise guidance on educational supports and misinformation, along with adopting the review’s recommendations. Together, this would go a long way to keeping everyone safe online.
Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the Association for Information Science and Technology, and an Affiliate of the International Panel on the Information Environment.
Australian companies with operations in Canada or Mexico such as Rio Tinto, whose Canadian operations export billions of dollars of aluminium to the US, have won a temporary reprieve. But the risk of weaker economic growth in China will weigh heavily on companies that export to our largest trading partner.
And Trump has hinted all US imports of aluminium and copper, including from Australia, may be his next target.
However, even if Australia manages to stay out of Trump’s sights, Australians cannot expect to come out of a trade war unscathed. Due to the complexity of global supply chains, it is difficult to predict exactly how Australia would be affected, but here are a few key factors that would likely come into play.
Our largest trading partner
About 40% of Australia’s exports go to China, making it the biggest destination by far, according to data for 2023 from UN Comtrade. Most of this is Australian iron ore and other minerals that are used in China’s construction and manufacturing sectors.
If Trump’s tariffs further slow the already sluggish Chinese economy, this will reduce demand for the goods it buys from Australia.
If China’s demand for iron ore falls significantly, this will not only hurt the Australian mining sector, but it could trigger a fall in the Australian dollar, making the things Australians buy from abroad more expensive.
But the size of the impact of the latest tariffs on China remains to be seen. China has already absorbed the tariffs from the first Trump administration, and the latest increase is much smaller than the 60% tariff he previously proposed.
Trade diversion
The one positive effect for Australia of US tariffs on other countries is that, because they raise the price of other countries’ exports to the US, they may make some Australian exports more competitive. This is something economists call trade diversion. For example, the tariffs on Canadian aluminium would have shifted US demand toward aluminium produced in Australia.
The tariffs on China will divert relatively little trade to Australia because there is not much overlap between the products China and Australia export to the US.
But China’s retaliatory tariffs could make a significant impact. China responded to the US tariffs imposed during Trump’s first term with tariffs on American wheat and other agricultural products. A similar move this time could create an opening for Australian farmers to fill the gap.
But it is not all good news. The US exports diverted away from the Chinese market will also compete with Australian products in other countries. So, while Australian wheat may become more competitive in China, US wheat may displace Australia’s in the Philippines.
A weaker Aussie dollar?
Tariffs also tend to cause the currency of the country imposing them to rise because they reduce demand for goods denominated in foreign currencies.
The flip side is a weaker Australian dollar, which dropped to a five-year low after the tariffs were flagged. The currency has now fallen nearly 10% since November.
Again, this raises the cost of imports to Australia, which could lift inflation.
Network disruption
If the tariffs on Canada and Mexico are confirmed in 30 days’ time, the greatest impact will be in the supply chain disruption they will cause.
Analyses of the tariffs Trump imposed on China in 2018 found most of the cost was borne by US businesses that use imported inputs. But because North American production networks are so highly integrated, and have been for decades, the effect of tariffs on Canada and Mexico will be much more disruptive to all North American producers.
As economic networks expert Ben Golub explains, the concern is not just that auto prices will rise, but that if key parts of the production network fail, such as if small but important intermediate suppliers go out of business, the effects of the tariffs could cascade into major disruptions.
Eventually, businesses will develop alternative supply chains, but the short-run pain could be considerable.
For Australians, this could mean higher prices and supply disruptions, not just for the products we buy from the US, but for anything that depends on a North American supplier at any stage in the production process.
We are still feeling the effects of the supply chain disruptions caused by COVID, including the jump in inflation in 2021 and 2022 and the subsequent high interest rates and global backlash against incumbent political parties. That includes Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office.
Similar disruptions may be in store if this skirmish becomes a major global trade war. Even if Trump’s promised tariffs never actually materialise, we may still see the same effects on a smaller scale because the trade policy uncertainty from just the threat of a trade war has similar effects on business activity as actual tariffs.
Whatever transpires, even if Australia can escape direct involvement in a trade war, it cannot escape the shockwaves that reverberate through the global economy. The question is whether it will be a ripple or a tsunami.
Scott French 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.
You wake up exhausted from yet another hot night of tossing and turning, with very little sleep.
So you might be tempted to buy a “cooling blanket” after reading rave reviews on social media. Or you might have read online articles with taglines such as:
Stop waking up in a puddle of sweat with our roundup of the best cooling blankets – including a top-rated option from Amazon that ‘actually works’.
But what are cooling blankets? And can they help you get a restful night?
We know a cooler bedroom is best
First, let’s look at why a cooler environment helps us sleep better at night.
Our body’s internal temperature has a circadian rhythm, meaning it fluctuates throughout the day. A couple of hours before bed, it drops about 0.31°C to help you fall asleep. It will drop about another 2°C across the night to help you stay asleep.
During sleep, your internal temperature and skin work together to achieve a balance between losing and producing heat. Your skin has sensors that pick-up changes in the environment around you. If it gets too warm, these sensors let your body know, which may cause you to kick-off blankets or bed clothes and wake more often leading to poorer sleep quality.
Sleep quality is an important component of sleep health ensuring you get the physical, mental and emotional benefits that come from a good night’s sleep.
The ideal temperature for sleep varies depending on the season and type of bedding you have but falls between 17°C and 28°C. Keeping your sleeping environment within this range will help you to get the best night’s rest.
So what are cooling blankets?
Cooling blankets are designed to help regulate your body temperature while you sleep.
Different technologies and materials are used in their design and construction.
We’re not talking about hospital-grade cooling blankets that are used to reduce fever and prevent injury to the nervous system. These use gel pads with circulating water, or air-cooling systems, connected to automatic thermostats to monitor someone’s temperature.
Instead, the type of consumer-grade cooling blankets you might see advertised use a blend of lightweight, breathable materials that draw moisture away from the skin to help you stay cool and dry through the night. They look like regular blankets.
Common materials include cotton, bamboo, silk or the fibre Lyocell, all of which absorb moisture.
Manufacturers typically use a thread count of 300-500, creating air pockets that enhance airflow and moisture evaporation.
Some blankets feature a Q-Max rating, which indicates how cool the fabric feels against your skin. The higher the value, the cooler the fabric feels.
Others feature phase change materials. These materials were developed by NASA for space suits to keep astronauts comfortable during a spacewalk where temperatures are from roughly -157°C to 121°C. Phase change materials in cooling blankets absorb and hold heat producing a cooling effect.
If you believe online reviews, yes, cooling blankets can cool you down and help you sleep better in warmer weather or if you get too hot using normal sheets and blankets.
However, there is little scientific research to see if these consumer-grade products work.
In a 2021 study exploring sleep quality, 20 participants slept for three nights under two different conditions.
First, they slept with regular bed sheets in an air-conditioned room with the temperature set to their preference. Then, they used cooling bed sheets in an air-conditioned room where the temperature was set 3°C higher than their preference.
Participants reported good sleep quality in both conditions but preferred the warmer room with its cooling sheets.
This may suggest the use of cooling bedding may help provide a more comfortable night’s sleep.
But everyone’s cooling needs varies depending on things like age, health, body temperature, the space you sleep in, and personal preferences.
So while these products may work for some people who may be motivated to leave a good review, they may not necessarily work for you.
Are they worth it?
There’s a wide variety of cooling blankets available at different prices to suit various budgets. Positive customer reviews might encourage a purchase, especially for individuals experiencing disrupted sleep at night due to heat.
Yet, these cooling blankets have limited scientific research to show they work and to say if they’re worth it. So it’s up to you.
If a cooling blanket isn’t for you, there are other things you can do to stay cool at night, such as:
using air conditioning or a fan
placing a damp towel under or over you
wearing lightweight or minimal sleepwear and avoiding thick or synthetic fabrics, such as nylon, that can trap heat
if you usually share a bed, on hot nights, consider sleeping by yourself to avoid excess body heat from your partner.
On a final note, if you often struggle with hot, disturbed sleep, you can check in with your health-care provider. They can see if there is a medical explanation for your disturbed sleep and advise what to try next.
Luana Main will receive funding from the NHMRC to investigate the effects of climate change on an unrelated topic starting later this year.
Linda Grosser 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.
I sign this Treaty with my hand, but with the mana of my ancestors.
So said Hōne Heke, the first rangatira (chief) to sign the Treaty of Waitangi. To emphasise the gravity of this sentiment, he then mentioned two of his predecessors by name: Kaharau and Kauteawha.
It would be difficult to imagine a statement that could invest more mana in the Treaty than this. And Heke was not alone in his view of the agreement.
Many other rangatira similarly regarded the Treaty as a kawenata (covenant) of utmost importance, including some going as far as putting a representation of their tā moko (facial tattoo) on the document.
How each rangatira interpreted the Treaty’s provisions remains open to speculation. But what they committed themselves to abiding by was the text of the agreement (either the English version, or in the case of most signatories, the translation in te reo Māori).
That text was comprised of a preamble, followed by three operative articles. Some rangatira read it, some had it read to them. But as far as all the parties were concerned, that was the entirety of the Treaty.
In the 1990s, however, suggestions began to surface about a mysterious “fourth article” guaranteeing religious protections. It was not part of the text, but supposedly a verbal promise that amounted to a provision of the agreement.
The idea has gained sufficient traction for supporters to petition parliament late last year to recognise the fourth article, just as debate about the Treaty Principles Bill was heating up. But it is a claim that needs to be treated with caution and scrutiny.
Religious protections
Prior to the first signing of the Treaty – at Waitangi – the Anglican missionary Henry Williams had observed that some Catholic rangatira were reluctant to commit to the agreement.
The Catholic Bishop, Jean-Baptiste Pompallier, had queried British motives and insisted Catholic rangatira should receive specific protection from the Crown. Williams then read out a hastily-prepared statement to clarify the issue:
The Governor wishes you to understand that all the Maories (sic) who shall join the Church of England, who shall join the Wesleyans, who shall join the Pikopo or Church of Rome, and those who retain their Maori practices, shall have the protection of the British Government.
Williams noted that this statement “was received in silence. No observation was made upon it; the Maories, and others, being at perfect loss to understand what it could mean.”
And there the matter ought to have ended: a peripheral detail in a momentous day. But this minor episode was disinterred from its historical obscurity in 1995 at a meeting of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference.
The clerics announced that a “fourth article was added to the Maori text of the Treaty signed at Waitangi, at the request of Bishop Jean Baptiste […] This article guaranteed religious freedom for all in the new nation, including Maori.”
Some Anglicans soon endorsed this position. The “fourth article” thus entered the bloodstream of Treaty discourse and began to circulate freely.
Missing evidence
There are several objections to the claim of a fourth article of the Treaty.
Firstly, if it was regarded as a part of the Treaty at the signing on February 6 1840, then we would expect to see both contemporaneous confirmation of this, and subsequent evidence that is consistent with it.
Yet, these categories of evidence are largely absent. Indeed, mention of a “fourth article” before the 1990s does not exist.
The sentiment of the fourth article is also absent from the instructions for the Treaty issued by Lord Normanby, British Secretary of State for the Colonies, in 1839.
Indeed, far from the Crown wishing to guarantee freedom of cultural or religious beliefs, Normanby made it explicit that only those Māori customs the British regarded as acceptable would be protected:
[The] savage practices of human sacrifice and cannibalism must be promptly and decisively interdicted; such atrocities, under whatever plea of religion they may take place, are not to be tolerated in any part of the dominions of the British Crown.
Therefore, as far as one party to the Treaty was concerned, the idea of the fourth article was never in contention. What was explicitly promised to all people was the protection of the British government, and not the protection of all customs held by Māori.
Treaties are written
As every other contemporaneous source confirms, no rangatira sought this fourth article, and around 90% of rangatira who signed the Treaty (in places other than Waitangi) did not have this so-called fourth article read to them (and so could not have consented to it).
Nor was it included in the text of copies of the agreement that were subsequently circulated around the country, and neither Hobson nor Pompallier suggested it was an “article” as such.
International law requires that treaties be in a written form. This certainly has been the convention as far as European treaties are concerned, extending back several centuries.
It makes any suggestion Hobson admitted an oral article extremely problematic. Likewise, New Zealand’s domestic law also specifies the Treaty contains only three articles.
Furthermore, if spoken commitments have the status of an article, then what about other verbal commitments made at some of the Treaty signings? Singling out one statement as a presumed article is inconsistent. Either the principle of all verbal commitments in such a setting constitute articles of the Treaty, or none does.
Previous attempts to insert the fourth article into the country’s constitutional framework have gone nowhere. And in the absence of more persuasive historical evidence, it’s likely to stay that way.
Paul Moon 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.
Picture writing the numbers 1 to 5 in a horizontal line, from smallest to largest. Where did you put 1? If you placed 1 on the left and 5 on the right, you share this preference with most humans.
Humans are not alone in this preference. Some other primates, and even some birds, also order small-to-large quantities from left to right. Although, some animals do prefer to order quantities from right to left.
This is known as the mental number line, and it shows how brains typically organise information. But why do our brains do this?
To investigate how and why brains order numbers, it’s sometimes useful to step back in time. How did a common ancestor of humans and insects order information? To find out, we can compare the results of humans and bees: we last shared a common ancestor more than 600 million years ago.
Two recent studies on bees have revealed a lot about how tiny brains order numbers.
One study, conducted by a team in Europe, showed that bees prefer to order lower numbers on the left and higher numbers on the right, just like many humans. Our new study, led by Jung-Chun (Zaza) Kuo and her supervisory team, has explored how numbers and space interact in the bee brain.
‘Number’ and ‘space’
As humans, we link the concepts of “space” and “number”. This means there is a logic to how we order numbers (typically from left to right in ascending order: 1, 2, 3, 4 … and so on).
There may also be educational influences, especially due to language and writing direction. Some languages, like English, write from left to right. Others, such as Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Hebrew or Arabic, can be written in other directions. Writing direction can influence how we prefer to order numbers.
The competency bees show around numbers makes them an ideal animal to look at how number and space interact in a miniature brain.
Do bees have a mental number line? Scarlett Howard
How did we test bees in our study?
We gave freely flying bees sugar water for visiting an image of three circles printed on a card: this was our “reference number”. The card was hung in the centre of a large circular screen, with a drop of sugar water on a platform underneath it.
As the bees repeatedly visited the reference number, they learned an association between the number three, the centre of the circular screen, and a reward. In between visits, bees took the sugar water back to their hive to be made into honey.
After bees had learned to associate number (three) and space (middle) with a reward, we tested them on numbers higher and lower than three, to see if they had linked space and number.
We showed bees images of a higher number (four circles) and a lower number (two circles). Two identical images of four shapes were shown simultaneously on the left and right sides of the screen. If bees preferred the larger number on the right, they would fly to the quantity of four presented on the right more than when four was presented on the left.
We did the same for the smaller number of two shapes. If bees preferred four circles on the right and two circles on the left, that would reveal they have a left-to-right mental number line, like humans.
We also tested if bees had a preference to order numbers upwards or downwards, and found no preference for linking space and number vertically. However, bees did prefer options that were towards the bottom of the circular screen.
The image on the left (a) shows a diagram of the screen apparatus. In the right panel (b) we see a bee flying towards an image of three yellow dots on a grey background. Jung-Chun (Zaza) Kuo
So, how does the bee mental number line work?
The study by the European team found bees have a consistent left-to-right mental number line. This means they prefer to order lower numbers on the left and higher numbers on the right.
Our study has confirmed bees prefer to order higher numbers on the right. But we also found bees preferred to visit the right side of the screen. The preference of bees to order numbers from left-to-right and to visit the right side of the circular screen interacted in an intriguing way.
The bees in our study showed a preference for higher numbers on the right, but not for lower numbers on the left. This could be because the right-side bias we observed cancelled out the preference for smaller numbers on the left.
Taken together, the findings of both studies confirm that bees do possess a left-to-right mental number line and also that they have a bias towards the right side of their visual space.
Our team suggests such biases – for example, how most humans are right-handed – may be an important part of how brains make sense of ordering information in the world.
The birds and the bees (and the apes)
By looking at the behaviours of animals, we can sometimes learn more about ourselves.
These two recent studies on bees show there is a complex interaction between ordering numbers and how spatial relationships are processed by an insect brain.
We now know that the preference to order numbers from left to right exists in several very different animal groups: insects, birds and apes. Perhaps evolution has landed on this preference as an advantageous way to process complex information.
Scarlett Howard has received funding from the Australian Research Council and Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
Adrian Dyer receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Australian Research Council.
For Canada, the tariffs on Canadian products will significantly affect Canada’s competitiveness in the U.S. market by driving up prices. Such tariffs could pose serious challenges for various sectors in Canada, given the country’s heavy reliance on the U.S. economy.
Effects on different sectors
The impact of U.S. tariffs on Canadian prices is likely to differ across sectors and products, depending on their reliance on the U.S. market.
Sectors with a higher dependence on U.S. trade are likely to experience more severe disruptions. If the tariffs make certain products uncompetitive, Canadian producers may struggle to secure alternative markets in the short term.
In the agricultural and forestry sector, wood and paper products, along with cereals, are among Canada’s largest exports to the U.S., with the U.S. accounting for 86 to 96 per cent of these exports, according to data from the World Integrated Trade Solution.
When examining the impact on different products, it’s not only the value of trade that matters, but also the share of trade. The share of trade indicates how reliant Canada is on the U.S. compared to other markets.
A high trade share with the U.S. suggests a product is particularly vulnerable to trade disruptions, as Canada depends heavily on the U.S. market for that product. Conversely, a lower share indicates that Canada has diversified suppliers, which reduces its dependence on the U.S.
For instance, in 2023, Canada’s top exports to the U.S. included vehicles and parts, nuclear machinery and plastics, according to data from the World Integrated Trade Solution. The U.S. accounted for 93 per cent of vehicle and parts exports, 82 per cent of nuclear machinery exports, and 91 per cent of plastics exports.
This data highlights Canada’s extreme dependence on the U.S. market, making these industries within the manufacturing sector highly susceptible to the tariff. This could harm jobs in the manufacturing sector, which is vital to employment in Canada, providing jobs for over 1.8 million people.
Canada’s reliance on the U.S. is also evident in imports. In 2023, vehicle imports totalled US$92 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 58 per cent of that amount.
The dependence is also evident in the agri-food and forestry sector, where Canada heavily relies on U.S. imports. This suggests that retaliatory tariffs on agricultural goods from the U.S. could have a substantial impact on food prices in Canada.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says this includes immediate tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods as of Tuesday, followed by further tariffs on $125 billion worth of American products in 21 days’ time to “allow Canadian companies and supply chains to seek to find alternatives.”
This will include tariffs on “everyday items such as American beer, wine and bourbon, fruits and fruit juices, including orange juice, along with vegetables, perfume, clothing and shoes,” and also on major consumer products like household appliances, furniture and sports equipment, and materials like lumber and plastics.
Given Canada’s significant dependence on U.S. imports, the retaliatory tariffs will raise the cost of American goods entering the country, further driving up consumer prices and exacerbating inflation.
In its latest policy rate announcement, the Bank of Canada warned of the severe economic consequences of Trump’s tariffs, highlighting their potential to reverse the current downward trend in inflation.
What should Canada do now?
Canada must extend its economic diplomacy efforts beyond the Trump administration, engaging with the U.S. Congress and Senate to advocate for the reconsideration of tariffs on Canadian goods. The Canadian government should persist in leveraging this channel to push for a reversal of the tariffs. This kind of broader negotiation remains the most effective approach to mitigating trade tensions and ensuring stable economic relations with the U.S.
At the same time, Canada must reduce dependence on the U.S. market by adopting a comprehensive export diversification strategy. While the U.S. remains a convenient and accessible trade partner, expanding into emerging and developing markets would help mitigate risks and create more stable long-term trade opportunities.
One effective way to achieve export diversification is by expanding free trade agreements (FTAs) with emerging and developing economies. Currently, Canada has 15 FTAs covering about 51 countries, but there is room for expansion. However, signing FTAs alone is insufficient; Canada must ensure these agreements translate into tangible trade growth with partner countries.
International politics is increasingly shaping global trade, making it imperative for Canada to proactively manage diplomatic and trade relations. In recent years, tensions have emerged with key partners such as China, India and Saudi Arabia. These countries could all become potential markets for Canadian products. Given that China is Canada’s second-largest export destination, there is significant potential to expand trade ties.
Canada stands at a critical juncture in its trade relationship with the U.S. While diplomatic efforts remain essential to averting harmful tariffs, they cannot be the country’s only line of defence.
Boosting productivity is one of the most effective ways for Canada to improve its competitiveness in global markets. Canadian producers should prioritize innovation and the adoption of advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and maintain a competitive edge, particularly as they seek to expand beyond the U.S.
In response to potential U.S. tariffs, the Canadian government should implement a bailout strategy to provide short-term relief and mitigate revenue losses to firms that will be mostly affected. Additionally, Canada should leverage its embassies and consulates worldwide to promote exports and help affected firms identify and access new market opportunities.
By doing this, Canada can position itself as a more self-reliant and competitive player in the global economy — one less vulnerable to shifting U.S. policies.
Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor receives funding from the OMAFRA and the USDA. He is affiliated with the Centre for Trade Analysis and Development (CeTAD Africa).
Naduni Uduwe Welage and Promesse Essolema 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.
Nonetheless, Canada’s closest ally is all but tearing up the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade deal negotiated only seven years ago. The rationale behind what the Wall Street Journal editorial board has called “the dumbest trade war in history” isn’t even clear.
The pessimistic view is that if Canada doesn’t give Trump everything he wants, he will bulldoze the country with more tariffs, sanctions on banks, enhanced border inspections and even a travel ban — everything he recently threatened to do to Colombia.
Canada’s political class is scrambling because the U.S. has long been a cultural sibling and an economic partner. But now it is toxic, threatening and untrustworthy. Will Canada sign another trade deal with Trump in office? The chances recede the longer the tariffs remain in place.
Iron-fisted
It’s never been more clear that Trump is obsessive, seldom a bluffer and always iron-fisted. He seems to have planned and executed this tariff bomb to cause maximum pain and chaos. Now he says the European Union is next on his list.
Trump is counting on his new majorities in U.S. Congress to ram through his radical right populist agenda, forcing other countries to play a role in his melodrama.
In response to Trump’s charge that the U.S. subsidizes Canadian trade, former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper pointed out that half of America’s imported oil comes from Canada, and its price is significantly discounted due to a lack of pipeline capacity. “It’s actually Canada that subsidizes the United States in this regard,” Harper said.
Nevertheless, Trump’s preferred foreign policy tactic is to hit first with economic sanctions and negotiate later. With his near total grip on U.S. government, he can now achieve all his aims through tariffs.
For example, America’s 19th-century navy of wooden sailing ships was purchased with tariffs. But it would be impossible to fund modern-day health care, student loans and $13 billion aircraft carriers with tariff revenues.
A recent study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows the math doesn’t add up. Tariffs are levied on imported goods and are worth about US$3 trillion. American income tax is levied on incomes and are worth more than US$20 trillion. Government would have to be much smaller, and tariffs would have to be so high they would choke American trade, for tariffs to make economic sense.
And yet Trump has a broad mandate. In the summer of 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that presidents require a broadly defined “presumptive immunity from prosecution for … official acts.”
This decision has given Trump the legal clout to force the entire federal government to answer to the president himself.
Trump is using his vast new mandate to wage multiple wars simultaneously. These wars against the guardrails of liberal democracy require the punishment of his enemies inside his own party.
Republicans who have voted against Trump legislation during his first term faced high-profile challenges in the primaries as he funded their opponents. Today, the war is waged against those who are insufficiently loyal, including the highest ranks of the Coast Guard and the FBI.
The war against the administrative state involves the mass firing of independent inspectors, federal lawyers and thousands of civil servants to be replaced by foot soldiers personally loyal to the leader.
The Trump administration has sent out “deferred resignation” notices that invite the entire civil service to resign. This is the tactic Trump’s key adviser, Elon Musk, implemented at X, and it suggests a wave of firings will soon begin.
Nonsensical trade war
The trade war against Canada and Mexico is peculiar because neither country has expressed any willingness to abolish the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is among the achievements of Trump’s first administration.
Nevertheless, the paranoid Trump seems to be convinced that he got a raw deal in 2018, and so he wants to scrap the whole treaty and negotiate something tougher that brings more jobs home.
In 2024, the cars that were ranked most “American” in terms of their content and final assembly were made by Tesla, Honda and Volkswagen. By comparison, the best-selling the Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck ranked No. 43 on the list. What Trump considers American and non-American isn’t clear, even to voters.
A new Bank of Canada forecast predicts that American tariffs may reduce Canadian GDP by six per cent. The federal government is planning an enormous bailout package to compensate for widespread job losses like the one offered to businesses and individuals during the pandemic.
Unsurprisingly, Trump divides Canada’s leadership. Alberta and Saskatchewan have publicly criticized the Team Canada approach. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith refused to sign the joint federal/provincial statement and played to her secessionist base.
Even so, former Alberta premier Jason Kenney recognizes the peril, arguing that Alberta needs to “be prepared to retaliate … we can’t be wusses about this; we have to have a spine.”
What’s next?
Canada is an export-led economy based on natural resources. Its strength lies not in refusing to buy California wine or Florida orange juice. Its main sources of leverage are oil and gas, potash and uranium, rare earth minerals, timber products and hydroelectric power. But of all these, oil, uranium, and hydro-electric power are Canada’s biggest guns.
It’s not yet clear how effective the Canadian government’s strategy will be. Previous rounds of retaliation after the steel and aluminum tariffs in Trump’s first term did not drive him to the negotiating table. It’s also unclear what the CEOs of Canada’s branch-plant multinational corporations will do when their loyalties are divided between Trump and Canada.
Furthermore, it’s anyone’s guess how much the dissent of western Canadian premiers has hurt Canada’s case with Trump. Certainly, his preferred tactic is to divide and conquer.
Finally, it’s unclear if Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s “Captain Canada” approach will earn the respect or disdain of Republicans — although, ultimately, it doesn’t matter what the rest of the American political class thinks because Trump and his inner circle are calling all the shots.
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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Kriner, Director of Strategy, Partnerships and Intelligence at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, Middlebury Institute of International Studies
Once again, a presidential administration headed by Donald Trump is in the spotlight over allegations of hiddenfascist sympathies. This time, it’s precipitated by what one observer called a “stiff-armed salute” that presidential supporter and adviser Elon Musk did twice during inauguration festivities.
Musk turned the controversy over his gesture into something like a joke about Nazis. On X, he posted, “Don’t say Hess to Nazi accusations!” and “Bet you did nazi that coming.”
This is not the first time that Trump or someone close to him has been accused of sending fascist messages, even if they denied doing so. Nor even is it the first time a well-known figure endorsing Donald Trump has been accused of giving a Nazi salute.
As a scholar of far-right extremism, I regularly review instances of coded fascist symbols and other right-wing messages being sent by public figures and their supporters, some more obvious than others.
Laura Ingraham speaks and gestures at a Trump rally in 2016.
In 2021, the Conservative Political Action Conference set up its center stage in the shape of an odal rune. That is an ancient pagan symbol coopted by Germany’s Nazi regime and worn prominently during World War II on the uniforms of the brutal Waffen SS units. Social media erupted in outrage over the likeness, and columnists spilled much ink. Event organizers rejected the criticism, calling it “outrageous and slanderous.”
Trump himself has been reluctant to criticize white supremacists. In August 2017, he responded to a reporter’s statement that neo-Nazis had “started” the violence during and after a rally they held in Charlottesville, Virginia, by saying “(t)hey didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis. And you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”
During the September 2020 presidential debate, Trump responded to a request from moderator Chris Wallace to condemn right-wing paramilitary groups by instead referencing one of them, saying, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”
The night before the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017, people carrying torches and chanting fascist slogans marched through the University of Virginia campus.
Coded messages
In other more abstract and lesser-known incidents, Trump may make his sympathies known without making direct statements himself. And I have personally observed white supremacists remark upon – and take encouragement from – these implied messages on Telegram channels dedicated to antisemitism and hate.
In June 2020, Facebook removed Trump campaign ads for iconography invoking Nazi concentration camp symbols that “violat(ed) our policy against organized hate.” A campaign official disputed the association, saying other groups, including Facebook and anti-fascist groups, used the same symbol.
In September 2024, pro-Trump CEO Mike Lindell’s company MyPillow ran a sale discounting a pillow from $49.98 to $14.88. Critics quickly pointed out that this aligned with the 14-word white supremacist slogan and the numerical reference “88” that white supremacists use to mean “Heil Hitler,” because H is the eighth letter of the alphabet. Lindell denied any connection between the price and right-wing messaging.
A list of the 14 people whose Jan. 6-related sentences President Donald Trump commuted. Screenshot of WhiteHouse.gov
Sending these sorts of fascist and white supremacist messages allow Trump and his supporters to court right-wing extremist supporters while claiming innocence in the face of public outrage.
If they deny the allegations of veiled fascism or white supremacy, Trump and his backers can claim their opponents are inflamed against them and conducting ideological witch hunts.
Family members and friends of people imprisoned for their actions on Jan. 6, 2021, wait outside the Washington, D.C., jail for their release on Jan. 22, 2025. Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images
But failure to directly deny allegations of fascism is a common strategy used by far-right and radical conservative movements seeking to obscure deeper links to extremist groups to avoid public backlash.
The lack of explicit admission can end up leaving these actions and symbols open to interpretation. Trump’s MAGA movement members, led by his inner circle of advisers and lieutenants, have consistently sought to use outrage and anger to generate additional momentum and attention for their agenda.
But as the old saying goes, “where there’s smoke there’s fire” – and in this case the smoke is probably closer to a book-burning bonfire in Berlin than a tiki torch carried in Charlottesville.
Matthew Kriner 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.
Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs – Analysis-Reportage
By John Perry and Roger D. Harris
Migration, Drugs, and Tariffs.
With Donald Trump as the new US president, pundits are speculating about how US policy towards Latin America might change.
In this article, we look at some of the speculation, then address three specific instances of how the US’s policy priorities may be viewed from a progressive, Latin American perspective. This leads us to a wider argument: that the way these issues are dealt with is symptomatic of Washington’s paramount objective of sustaining the US’s hegemonic position. In this overriding preoccupation, its policy towards Latin America is only one element, of course, but always of significance because the US hegemon still treats the region as its “backyard.”
First, some examples of what the pundits are saying. In Foreign Affairs, Brian Winter argues that Trump’s return signals a shift away from Biden’s neglect of the region. “The reason is straightforward,” he says. “Trump’s top domestic priorities of cracking down on unauthorized immigration, stopping the smuggling of fentanyl and other illicit drugs, and reducing the influx of Chinese goods into the United States all depend heavily on policy toward Latin America.”
Ryan Berg, who is with the thinktank, Center for Strategic and International Studies, funded by the US defense industry, is also hopeful. Trump will “focus U.S. policy more intently on the Western Hemisphere,” he argues, “and in so doing, also shore up its own security and prosperity at home.”
According to blogger James Bosworth, Biden’s “benign neglect” could be replaced by an “aggressive Monroe Doctrine – deportations, tariff wars, militaristic security policies, demands of fealty towards the US, and a rejection of China.” However, notwithstanding the attention of Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, Bosworth thinks there is still a good chance of policy lapsing into benign neglect as the new administration focuses elsewhere.
The wrong end of the telescope
What these and similar analyses share is a concern with problems of importance to the US, including domestic ones, and how they might be tackled by shifts in policy towards Latin America. They view the region from the end of a US-mounted telescope.
Trump’s approach may be the more brazen “America first!,” but the basic stance is much the same as these pundits. The different scenarios will be worked out in Washington, with Latin America’s future seen as shaped by how it handles US policy changes over which it has little influence. Analyses by these supposed experts are constrained by their adopting the same one-dimensional perspective as Washington’s, instead of questioning it.
Here’s one example. The word “neglect” is superficial because it hides the immense involvement of the US in Latin America even when it is “neglecting” it: from deep commercial ties to a massive military presence. It is also superficial because, in a real sense, the US constantly neglects the problems that concern most Latin Americans: low wages, inequality, being safe in the streets, the damaging effects of climate change, and many more. “Neglect” would be seen very differently on the streets of a Latin American city than it is inside the Washington beltway.
Who has the “drug problem”?
The vacuum in US thinking is nowhere more apparent than in responses to the drug problem. Trump threatens to declare Mexican drug cartels to be terrorist organizations and to invade Mexico to attack them.
But, as academic Carlos Pérez-Ricart told El Pais: “This is a problem that does not originate in Mexico. The source, the demand, and the vectors are not Mexican. It is them.” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum also points out that it is consumption in the US that drives drug production and trafficking in Mexico.
Trump could easily make the same mistake as his predecessor Clinton did two decades ago. Back then, billions were poured into “Plan Colombia” but still failed to solve the “drug problem,” while vastly augmenting violence and human rights violations in the target country.
A foretaste of what might happen, if Trump carries out his threat, occurred last July, when Biden’s administration captured Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada. That caused an all-out war between cartels in the Mexican state of Sinaloa.
Sheinbaum rightly turns questions about drug production and consumption back onto the US. Rhetorically, she asks: “Do you believe that fentanyl is not manufactured in the United States?…. Where are the drug cartels in the United States that distribute fentanyl in US cities? Where does the money from the sale of that fentanyl go in the United States?”
If Trump launches a war on cartels, he will not be the first US president to the treat drug consumption as a foreign issue rather than a concomitantly domestic one.
Where does the “migration problem” originate?
Trump is also not the first president to be obsessed by migration. Like drugs, it is seen as a problem to be solved by the countries where the migrants originate, while both the “push” and “pull” factors under US control receive less attention.
Exploitation of migrant labor, complex asylum procedures, and schemes such as “humanitarian parole” to encourage migration are downplayed as reasons. Biden intensified US sanctions on various Latin American countries, which have been shown conclusively to provoke massive emigration. Meanwhile Trump threatens to do the same.
Many Latin American countries have been made unsafe by crime linked to drugs or other problems in which the US is implicated. About 392,000 Mexicans were displaced as a result of conflict in 2023 alone, their problem aggravated by the massive, often illegal, export of firearms from the US to Mexico.
Costa Rica, historically a safe country, had a record 880 homicides in 2023, many of which were related to drug trafficking. In Brazil and other countries, US-trained security forces contribute directly to the violence, rather than reducing it.
Mass deportations from the US, promised by Trump, could worsen these problems, as happened in El Salvador in the late 1990s. They would also affect remittances sent home by migrant workers, exacerbating regional poverty. The threatened use of tariffs on exports to the US could also have serious consequences if Latin America does not stand up to Trump’s threats. Economist Michael Hudson argues that countries will have to jointly retaliate by refusing to pay dollar-based debts to bond holders if export earnings from the US are summarily cut.
China in the US “backyard”
Trump also joins the Washington consensus in its preoccupation with China’s influence in Latin America. Monica de Bolle is with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a thinktank partly funded by Pentagon contractors. She told the BBC: “You have got the backyard of America engaging directly with China. That’s going to be problematic.”
Recently retired US Southern Command general, Laura Richardson, was probably the most senior frequent visitor on Washington’s behalf to Latin American capitals, during the Biden administration. She accused China of “playing the ‘long game’ with its development of dual-use sites and facilities throughout the region, “adding that those sites could serve as “points of future multi-domain access for the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] and strategic naval chokepoints.”
As Foreign Affairspoints out, Latin America’s trade with China has “exploded” from $18 billion in 2002 to $480 billion in 2023. China is also investing in huge infrastructure projects, and seemingly its only political condition is a preference for a country to recognize China diplomatically (not Taiwan). Even here, China is not absolute as with Guatemala, Haiti, and Paraguay, which still recognize Taiwan. China still has direct investments in those holdouts, though relatively more modest than with regional countries that fully embrace its one-China policy.
Peru, currently a close US ally, has a new, Chinese-funded megaport at Chancay, opened in November by President Xi Jinping himself. Even right-wing Argentinian president Milei said of China, “They do not demand anything [in return].”
What does the US offer instead? While Antony Blinken proudly displayed old railcars that were gifted to Peru, the reality is that most US “aid” to Latin America is either aimed at “promoting democracy” (i.e. Washington’s political agenda) or is conditional or exploitative in other ways.
The BBC cites “seasoned observers” who believe that Washington is paying the price for “years of indifference” towards the region’s needs. Where the US sees a loss of strategic influence to China and to a lesser extent to Russia, Iran, and others, Latin American countries see opportunities for development and economic progress.
Remember the Monroe Doctrine
Those calling for a more “benign” policy are forgetting that, in the two centuries since President James Monroe announced the “doctrine,” later given his name, US policy towards Latin America has been aggressively self-interested.
Its troops have intervened thousands of times in the region and have occupied its countries on numerous occasions. Just since World War II, there have been around 50 significant interventions or coup attempts, beginning with Guatemala in 1954. The US has 76 military bases across the region, while other major powers like China and Russia have none.
The doctrine is very much alive. In Foreign Affairs, Brian Winter warns: “Many Republicans perceive these linkages [with China], and the growing Chinese presence in Latin America more broadly, as unacceptable violations of the Monroe Doctrine, the 201-year-old edict that the Western Hemisphere should be free of interference from outside powers.”
Bosworth adds that Trump wants Latin America to decisively choose a side in the US vs China scrimmage, not merely underplay the role of China in the hemisphere. Any country courting Trump, he suggests, “needs to show some anti-China vibes.”
Will Freeman is with the Council on Foreign Relations, whose major sponsors are also Pentagon contractors. He thinks that a new Monroe Doctrine and what he calls Trump’s “hardball” diplomacy may partially work, but only with northern Latin America countries, which are more dependent on US trade and other links.
Trump has two imperatives: while one is stifling China’s influence (e.g. by taking possession of the Panama Canal), another is gaining control of mineral resources (a reason for his wanting to acquire Greenland). The desire for mineral resources is not new, either. General Richardson gave an interview in 2023 to another defense-industry-funded thinktank in which she strongly insinuated that Latin American minerals rightly belong to the US.
Maintaining hegemonic power against the threat of multipolarity
Neoconservative Charles Krauthammer, writing 20 years ago for yet another thinktank funded by the defense industry, openly endorsed the US’s status as the dominant hegemonic power and decried multilateralism, at least when not in US interests. “Multipolarity, yes, when there is no alternative,” he said. “But not when there is. Not when we have the unique imbalance of power that we enjoy today.”
Norwegian commentator Glen Diesen, writing in 2024, contends that the US is still fighting a battle – although perhaps now a losing one – against multipolarity and to retain its predominant status. Trump’s “America first!” is merely a more blatant expression of sentiments held by his other presidential predecessors for clinging on to Washington’s contested hegemony.
The irony of Biden’s presidency was that his pursuit of the Ukraine war has led to warmer relations between his two rivals, Russia and China. In this context, the growth of BRICS has been fostered – an explicitly multipolar, non-hegemonic partnership. As Glen Diesen says, “The war intensified the global decoupling from the West.”
Other steps to maintain US hegemony – its support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the regime-change operation in Syria and the breakdown of order in Haiti – suggest that, in Washington’s view, according to Diesen, “chaos is the only alternative to US global dominance.” Time and again, Yankee “beneficence” has meant ruination, not development.
These have further strengthened desires in the global south for alternatives to US dominance, not least in Latin America. Many of its countries (especially those vulnerable to tightening US sanctions) now want to follow the alternative of BRICS.
Unsurprisingly, Trump has been highly critical of this perceived erosion of hegemonic power on Biden’s watch. Thomas Fazi argues in UnHerd that this is realism on Trump’s part; he knows the Ukraine war cannot be conclusively won, and that China’s power is difficult to contain. Accordingly, this is leading to a “recalibrating of US priorities toward a more manageable ‘continental’ strategy — a new Monroe Doctrine — aimed at reasserting full hegemony over what it deems to be its natural sphere of influence, the Americas and the northern Atlantic,” stretching from Greenland and the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego and Antarctica.
The pundits may not agree on quite what Trump’s approach towards Latin America will be, but they concur with Winter’s judgment that the region “is about to become a priority for US foreign policy.” His appointment of Marco Rubio is a signal of this. The new secretary of state is a hawk, just like Blinken, but one with a dangerous focus on Latin America.
However, the mere fact that such pundits hark back to the Monroe Doctrine indicates that this is only, so to speak, old wine in new bottles. Even in the recent past, an aggressive application of the 201-year-old Monroe Doctrine has never seen a hiatus.
Recall US-backed coups that deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (2009) and Bolivian Evo Morales (2019), plus the failed coup against Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (2018), along with the parliamentary coup that ousted Paraguayan Fernando Lugo (2012). To these, US-backed regime change by “lawfare” included Dilma Rousseff in Brazil (2016) and Pedro Castillo in Peru (2023). Currently presidential elections have simply been suspended in Haiti and Peru with US backing.
Even if Trump is more blatant than his predecessors in making clear that his policymaking is based entirely on what he perceives to be US interests, rather than those of Latin Americans, this is not new.
As commentator Caitlin Johnstone points out, the main difference between Trump and his predecessors is that he “makes the US empire much more transparent and unhidden.” From the other end of the political spectrum, a former John McCain adviser echoes the same assessment: “there will likely be far more continuity between the two administrations than meets the eye.”
Regardless, Latin America will continue to struggle to set its own destiny, patchily and with setbacks, and this will likely draw it away from the hegemon, whatever the US does.
Nicaragua-based John Perry is with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition and writes for the London Review of Books, FAIR, and CovertAction.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Carmela Cucuzzella, Dean, Faculty of Environmental Design, Université de Montréal, Full Professor School of Design, Université de Montréal
Those designing university courses should ensure issues of universal accessibility are embedded throughout a student’s academic journey.(Shutterstock)
People living with disabilities, ranging in severity, regularly face barriers. Oftentimes, built environments are designed in ways that fail to consider the needs of those in situations of disability. That can include improperly sized ramps for wheelchair users or public spaces that are not sensory friendly.
If our public spaces are not accessible to all, then they cannot be truly public. The first step in changing our built environment is to bring awareness to the different forms of disabilities that people in Canada experience.
As a professor in a school of design and the dean of the Faculty of Environmental Design at the Université of Montréal, I believe it’s urgently important to explore how faculties of architecture, design, landscape architecture and urbanism can inform design practices through the way we teach and conduct research.
Our objective must be to teach students how to make our built environment more inclusive and universally accessible through creative means rather than basic technological add-ons.
In 2022, the Canadian Survey on Disability showed that 27 per cent of Canadians aged 15 years and older had one or more disabilities that impacted their daily activities. (Shutterstock)
Standards exist for accessibility and inclusivity in Canada, but they are not systematically applied. Furthermore, when designing for universal accessibility, the emphasis is on conformity rather than experience, on separation rather than integration, and on functionality rather than fulfillment.
Take, for example, a multi-storey office building that provides separate entrances and facilities for people with disabilities. The building complies with the minimum accessibility requirements set by local building codes, but does so in a way that isolates people with disabilities rather than integrating their needs into the overall design. This building does not provide the same experience to all people and therefore separates rather than includes diverse populations.
The universal accessibility of public spaces and buildings is a complex design problem. It is especially difficult for retrofits, since solutions can quickly become costly, particularly in heritage buildings.
But if changes are managed carefully, costs can become manageable. Universal accessible design is also challenging for new buildings and spaces, but if universal design is prioritized right from the outset of a project, architects and developers can create inclusive environments that accommodate diverse needs without incurring substantial additional expenses.
Universities that offer teaching and research programs in universal accessible design can make a real difference. (Shutterstock)
How universities can help
Universal accessible design is not just a question of following a set of codes, but rather a question of designing for an equitable, qualitative accessible experience. This means ensuring that all people, regardless of their physical or mental situations, are offered equivalent spatial experiences.
Universities that offer teaching and research programs in a universal accessible design can make a real difference. But it’s integral that teaching is developed alongside the research, as understanding of needs and best practices are in continual renewal.
Faculties with such programs and courses could achieve this by enabling students through creative engagement of this difficult subject. Furthermore, being in these design environments allows students to understand these societal issues as leverage for innovative solutions, rather than just satisfying building codes.
Those designing university courses should ensure issues of universal accessibility are embedded throughout a student’s academic journey, and included in a way that helps empower the graduating students.
Students graduating from these programs will become the young professionals in the fields of design, architecture, urbanism or landscape architecture.
Unfortunately, the exact likelihood of students specializing in universal accessibility — and applying their knowledge in their careers — is challenging due to limited specific data. But there is an increasing recognition of the importance of accessibility in various sectors, leading to more roles that require expertise in universal design and inclusive practices.
Incorporating more discussion on universal accessibility in the classroom and in university research environments can help students apply their expertise in the design of our built environment throughout their careers.
By fostering dialogue between research, education and practice, universities can ensure a future where accessibility is seamlessly integrated into the every day.
Carmela Cucuzzella receives funding from FRQSC and SSHRC.
Mastercard has announced plans to remove the 16-digit number from their credit and debit cards by 2030 in a move designed to stamp out identity theft and fraudulent use of cards.
In 2022, Mastercard added biometric options enabling payments to be made with a smile or wave of the hand.
Tokenisation converts the 16-digit card number into a different number – or token – stored on your device, so card information is never shared when you tap your card or phone or make payments online.
The first rollout of these numberless cards will be through a partnership with AMP Bank, but it is expected other banks will follow in the coming 12 months.
Why card security is important
There is nothing quite like the sinking feeling after receiving a call or text from your bank asking about the legitimacy of a card transaction.
In 2023-2024 the total value of card fraud in Australia was A$868 million, up from $677.5 million the previous financial year.
Credit card numbers and payment details are often exposed in major data breaches affecting large and small businesses.
The cost of credit card fraud in Australia rose by almost $200 million last financial year. CC7/Shutterstock
Late last year, the US Federal Trade Commission took action against the Marriott and Starwood Hotels for lax data security. More than 300 million customers worldwide were affected.
Event ticketing company Ticketmaster was also hacked last year. The details of several hundred million customers, including names, addresses, credit card numbers, phone numbers and payment details were illegally accessed.
So-called “card-not-present fraud”, where an offender processes an unauthorised transaction without having the card in their physical possession, accounts for 92% of all card fraud in Australia. This rose 29% in the last financial year.
The Card Verification Value (CVV) (or three-digit number on the back of a credit card) aimed to ensure the person making the transaction had the physical card in their hands. But it is clearly ineffective.
Benefits of removing credit card numbers
Removing the credit card number is the latest attempt to curb fraud. Removing numbers stops fraudsters processing unauthorised card-not-present transactions.
It also reduces the potential for financial damage of victims exposed in data breaches, if organisations are no longer able to store these payment details.
Companies will no longer be able to store card data, reducing the risk of data breaches. ESBProfessional/Shutterstock
The storage of personal information is a contested issue. For example, the 2022 Optus data breach exposed information from customers who had previously held accounts with the telco back in 2018.
Removing the ability of organisations to store payment details in the first place, removes the risk of this information being exposed in any future attack.
While any efforts to reduce fraud are welcome, this new approach raises some new issues to consider.
Potential problems with the new system
Mastercard has said customers will use tokens generated by the customer’s banking app or biometric authentication instead of card numbers.
This is likely to be an easy transition for customers who use mobile banking.
However, the use of digital banking is not universal. Many senior consumers and those with a disability don’t use digital banking services. They would be excluded from the new protections.
While strengthening the security attached to credit cards, removing numbers shifts the vulnerability to mobile phones and telecommunication providers.
Offenders already access victims’ phones through mobile porting and impersonation scams. These attacks are likely to escalate as new ways to exploit potential vulnerabilities are found.
There are also concerns about biometrics. Unlike credit card details, which can be replaced when exposed in a data breach, biometrics are fixed. Shifting a focus to biometrics will increase the attractiveness of this data, and potentially opens victims up to ongoing, irreversible damage.
While not as common, breaches of biometric data do occur.
For example, web-based security platform BioStar 2 in the UK exposed the fingerprints and facial recognition details of over one million people. Closer to home, IT provider to entertainment companies Outabox is alleged to have exposed facial recognition data of more than one million Australians.
Will we really need cards in the future?
While removing the numbers may reduce credit card fraud, emerging smart retail technologies may remove the need for cards all together.
Smartphone payments are already becoming the norm, removing the need for physical cards. GlobalData revealed a 58% growth in mobile wallet payments in Australia in 2023, to $146.9 billion. In October 2024, 44% of payments were “device-present” transactions.
Amazon’s innovative “Just-Walk-Out” technology has also removed the need for consumers to bring a physical credit or debit card all together.
Amazon Go and the world’s most advanced shopping technology.
This technology is available at more than 70 Amazon-owned stores, and at more than 85 third-party locations across the US, UK, and Australia. These include sports stadiums, airports, grocery stores, convenience stores and college campuses.
The technology uses cameras, weight sensors and a combination of advanced AI technologies to enable shoppers in physical stores make purchases without having to swipe or tap their cards at the checkout line.
Such technology is now being offered by a variety of other vendors including Trigo, Cognizant and Grabango. It is also being trialled across other international retailers, including supermarket chains Tesco and ALDI.
While Just-Walk-Out removes the need to carry a physical card, at some point consumers still need to enter their cards details into an app. So, to avoid cards and numbers completely, smart retail tech providers are moving to biometric alternatives, like facial recognition payments.
Considering the speed at which smart retail and payment technology is entering the marketplace, it is likely physical credit cards, numberless or not, will soon become redundant, replaced by biometric payment options.
Gary Mortimer receives funding from the Building Employer Confidence and Inclusion in Disability Grant, AusIndustry Entrepreneurs’ Program, National Clothing Textiles Stewardship Scheme, National Retail Association, Australian Retailers Association. .
Cassandra Cross has previously received funding from the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Cybersecurity Cooperative Research Centre.
A virulent strain of bird flu continues to spread across the world. Australia, New Zealand and Pacific nations are the only countries free from the infection, but this will no doubt change.
Known as “Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza” or H5N1, the bird flu strain had killed more than 300 million birds worldwide as of December last year, including both poultry and wild bird populations.
Birds have always been part of the cultures and livelihoods of Australia Indigenous people. They feature in songs and dance, and are used for food and customary practices such as ceremonies and craft. Many of these practices continue today.
To date however, Indigenous peoples have not been adequately included in federal government planning for the arrival of H5N1.
So what is the likely result? Agencies and organisations will be ill-prepared to support Indigenous people experiencing intense social and cultural shock. And the opportunity to draw from the strengths of Indigenous organisations to tackle this impending disaster will have been squandered.
What is H5N1?
First identified in Hong Kong in 1997, H5N1 has since spread globally.
H5N1 is a viral infection primarily affecting birds – both poultry and wildlife. As overseas experience has shown, it can lead to population declines in wild birds and disrupt local ecosystems. Infected birds may exhibit symptoms such as lethargy, respiratory distress and neurological signs such as paralysis, seizures and tremors, and sudden death.
The virus also affects mammals including humans.
Since November 2003, more than 900 human cases have been reported across 24 countries. About half these people died.
Birds are highly significant to many Indigenous groups.
The adult magpie goose and its eggs, for example, are an important food source for groups in the Kakadu region.
In Tasmania, Indigenous groups are revitalising customary practices by harvesting mutton birds. And bird feathers are used by Indigenous artisans in fashion and jewellery-making.
If H5N1 makes birds sick and diminishes their populations, Indigenous people’s livelihoods and wellbeing – social, emotional, and spiritual – will be severely affected.
Many birds are already struggling
Of greatest concern are the fate of threatened and endangered bird species. Indeed, Australia’s Threatened Species Commissioner, Dr Fiona Fraser, has warned the forthcoming H5N1 event may be more ecologically devastating than the 2019–20 bushfires.
Migratory birds, such as waders that travel from Siberia to lake systems throughout Australia, may take years or decades to return – if they return at all.
Even relatively healthy bird populations, such as emus, may be at risk in areas where local populations are dwindling.
The challenge has become more pronounced following the 2019–20 bushfires that affected vast areas of Australia’s southeast. Biodiversity in these burnt forests was later found to have declined, especially in bird populations.
These challenges mean Australia’s native bird populations may struggle to remain healthy and sustainable, and their availability to Indigenous groups is likely to diminish.
Mobilising Indigenous know-how
Indigenous people are deeply engaged in caring for Country and caring for their communities. This makes them a strategic asset when planning for the arrival of H5N1.
For example, Indigenous rangers are deeply engaged in land and water management including habitat restoration and biodiversity surveys. So, they are well placed to protect and monitor native species.
Indigenous health organisations will also be crucial to identifying human illness, should rare animal-to-human transmissions occur.
Shire councils and land councils are also well-placed to identify and monitor the impacts of bird flu.
It’s time for Indigenous inclusion
Indigenous inclusion in the federal government’s response to the threat H5N1 has been late and inadequate
This means Australia is already behind in supporting Indigenous groups to understand the threat and how to respond if they observe it – including how to deal with sick or dead birds.
To fill these gaps in public information, National Indigenous Disaster Resilience at Monash University has produced a bird flu fact sheet.
Indigenous community organisations demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for leadership during COVID-19. The muscle memory to mobilise in response to another outbreak remains strong.
Indigenous groups must be centred in preparing and responding to H5N1. What’s more, Indigenous culture needs to be foregrounded when considering how the virus might affect the social, psychological, spiritual, and economic wellbeing of communities.
In response to concerns raised in this article, a spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said the federal government was “working to engage with First Nations communities to ensure we meet community needs” before and during an outbreak of H5N1.
The department’s Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy was surveilling for avian influenza in northern Australia, including working with Indigenous Rangers. Indigenous engagement has also included presentations delivered virtually and on-country.
“By fostering close partnerships with First Nations communities and Indigenous rangers, and leveraging access to a broad collaborative network, NAQS is able to facilitate trusted avenues for First Nations communities and Indigenous rangers to report concerns about wild bird health across northern Australia,” the spokesperson said.
States and territories were planning local responses, and nationally coordinated, culturally appropriate communication activities were being developed. The spokesperson said Parks Australia was also working with Traditional Owners at jointly managed national parks, and with the Indigenous Protected Areas network, in developing plans to prepare and respond to any H5N1 detection.
Bhiamie Williamson is a director of Country Needs People, and the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute
Vinod Balasubramaniam receives funding from Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia.
Nell Reidy 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Takahiro Kubo, Senior Researcher in National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) & Visiting Researcher in ICCS, University of Oxford
Governments often use bans to protect wildlife that’s most threatened by trade. However, in our recent study we ask the question: could banning wildlife trade in one threatened species increase the trade in other threatened species?
The expansion of online markets has made it easier for people to buy and sell wildlife. This potential for larger-scale commercial trade creates a potential threat to wildlife, particular when populations are small, which is often the case for species that inhabit islands.
To deal with the risk of overexploitation, the government of Japan, one of the world’s largest wildlife markets, banned the trade of three threatened species: the giant water bug, the Tokyo salamander and the golden venus chub.
While the ban successfully halted legal sales of the policy-targeted species, it had an unintended consequence: an increase in the sales of similar, non-banned species, some of which are threatened.
This pattern, known as the “spillover effect”, suggests that when a species is no longer available, demand often moves to alternative species rather than disappearing entirely. However, these effects affected different species in different ways, with the spillover lasting for more than a year for water bugs, but disappearing over the same period for the salamanders and freshwater fish.
These spillovers can be problematic as they can drive buyers to seek exotic pet species from other countries or even continents. Based on past experience in Japan and elsewhere, we know that these are often then released into nature by those that can no longer keep them. This increases the pressure on native fauna through competition and the spread of disease which may threaten not only native wildlife but also human health. Our findings highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach to wildlife trade regulations – one that considers both direct conservation efforts and indirect global impacts.
Balancing bans
While wildlife trade bans can play an important step, their ability to address overexploitation on their own is limited. To conserve species, we need complementary strategies that can manage demand and monitor supply.
Prior to a ban, it is key to work to reduce the demand for the species to be targeted or redirect it to species that are well managed and not of conservation concern. This would be likely to minimise the effects of any unintended spillover after the trade ban comes into effect. If buyers understand why a species is at risk and are offered sustainable alternatives, they may be less likely to shift their interest to other vulnerable wildlife.
Governments also need to enforce stronger monitoring to be able to track which species are traded and in what amount. This may be hard to implement across all trade but is feasible when we talk about online legal trade, which represents a large part of the global wildlife trade. Instead of focusing only on banned species, authorities should keep an eye on similar species that could become the next target for trade.
For this to be effective, international cooperation, in the form of data sharing, for example, is critical since wildlife trade crosses borders. Countries need to work together to track and regulate trade so that bans don’t simply push demand to other regions.
Finally, promoting legal, ethical and sustainable alternatives – such as responsible captive breeding programs or well-managed wild source populations – can help meet consumer demand without harming wild species.
Our study serves as an important reminder: conservation has no silver bullets and we must be willing to embrace a multitude of tools if we are to deal with the different sides of an issue as complex as the wildlife trade. If we only focus on banning species without considering how the market will react, we risk simply moving the risk of extinction from one species to the next. A well-rounded approach – one that includes consumer behaviour change, improved monitoring and sustainable alternatives – offers the best chance of protecting wildlife for the long term.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Takahiro Kubo receives funding from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). He is a member of the IUCN SSC CEC Behaviour Change Taskforce.
Diogo Veríssimo is the Chair of the IUCN SSC CEC Behaviour Change Taskforce.
Taro Mieno 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.
Professors and students alike argue that unrestricted use of generative AI threatens the purpose of an education in disciplines like philosophy, history or literature. They say that, as a society, we should care about this loss of intellectual competencies.
But why is it important that traditional learning not become obsolete — as some predict?
Today, when corrupt leaders promote AI development, AI reflects repressive political biases. There are serious concerns about AI disinformation, so it’s critical to consider the original purpose of modern universities.
The German term Bildung captures this broad understanding of the educational process, denoting the activity of shaping yourself according to your inner purpose.
For the philosophers of Bildung, self-development couldn’t take place in isolation but required a community of equals where mutual recognition and critical engagement with each other unlocked everyone’s potential.
They envisioned the university as a community of learners where teachers facilitate the self-development of students by supporting their critical faculties instead of adapting them to fulfil predetermined roles for society. They believed education should prepare for lifelong learning about the self and world.
It was Humboldt who turned these lofty ideals into concrete reforms, laying the groundwork for the modern university and its research-led teaching model. For Humboldt, the realm of Bildung had political significance.
Living under Prussian absolutism, he feared the paternalism of the state that turned its citizens into loyal subjects under the pretence of furthering their spiritual and material welfare.
He was critical of the attempt of Frederick the Great, the Prussian king, to regulate economic life and to control private consumption. Humboldt saw such a concentration of power as a despotic tendency that all forms of government could succumb to, including oligarchy and democracy. He therefore insisted on spaces for individual expression and free association. Literary salons were the initial community space for Bildung, and were a model for the modern idea of universities.
A drawing by Georg Melchior Kraus depicts the salon of Duchess Anna Amalia, showing, among others, writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in discussion. The image suggests the important role of women and community in the Bildungs context. (Wikimedia)
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen from 1789 restricted active citizenship to male property owners and did not abolish slavery. Advocacy for applying equal rights to all was soon taken up by members of oppressed groups to justify their emancipatory pursuits.
Early feminists in late 19th-century Germany, such as the philosopher and writer Hedwig Dohm, demanded access to educational institutions so that women could also “become who they are.”
We find a similar battle cry in the United States, where writer and educator Anna Julia Cooper regarded the higher education of Black women as a key step to social change.
I believe that the idea of Bildung still captures the value of humanities education. In-depth engagement with the complex manifestation of human cultures seen in philosophical ideas, forms of knowledge or literary texts fosters important skills necessary for self-development.
Students learn critical thinking, enabling them to question authorities and discern their own convictions from received values. They experience thinking as a process which takes time and demands the exploration of different points of view — similar to democratic decision-making.
Methods to understand others are therefore an important subject of the humanities. The humanities nurture the ability to connect and to develop solidarity with each other.
The classroom itself is a space where students experience understanding as a collaborative process by discussing with their peers and the instructor.
Instructors must actualize high-level pedagogical goals by creating concrete exercises through which intellectual skills can be learned and practised.
Assessing claims, justifying evaluations
Writing an essay has been the pinnacle of traditional humanities education, since it demands employing the full set of interpretative tools such as identifying sources, analyzing arguments, assessing claims and justifying evaluations independently. It also demands expressing oneself intellectually.
Basic analytic skills such as formulating an argument or giving an objection can be taught in class. But in-class assignments cannot replace pondering an issue over some time and expressing one’s interpretation of it.
The important exercise of individual study is deprived of its value when students use technological shortcuts to complete writing tasks. AI-driven chatbots undermine a key part of the learning process through which students improve their critical thinking. This happens through sustained engagement with complex issues, through which students grow by overcoming challenges and practising habits of thinking.
Relying on AI can undermine processes through which students improve their critical thinking. (Pexels/Cottonbro)
In the U.S., as seen recently in Donald Trump’s second presidential inauguration, the economic elite dominates the political system. Tech oligarchs have found a president who is using his vast powers to further their interests and is prepared to do so without checks and balances.
More than ever, we need citizens who have learned to think for themselves and developed capacities for paying attention to and caring about complex challenges in our ever-changing world.
At their best, the humanities are a laboratory to cultivate essential skills for critically assessing the status quo and imagining better alternatives in both political and economic life.
Johannes Steizinger 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.
We are in a rapidly changing visual culture where it is increasingly inadequate to take images at face value.
There is an ever-increasing prevalence of image manipulation and AI imagery. And in the attention economy, our attention has become a precious, sought-after resource. Images participate in this redirection of our attention with an endless production line of new, stimulating content to maximise user engagement.
In this environment, there is an increasing demand to prioritise visual literacy with the same rigour as we do with writing and reading.
We need to look more closely at images – to practise slow looking.
What is it you’re looking at?
The act of slow looking involves taking a pause and thoroughly describing what you see.
Often, we jump to the image’s meaning by identifying its contents. But it is important to discern what the image actually “looks like” and how this influences its reading.
The aim of looking slowly is not just to verify what is real, fake or AI. After all, there will become a time when it is too difficult and time-consuming for the average person to determine every AI-generated image without a watermark or label.
While the ability to detect whether something is AI is one important skill, this should not be the only reason to practise slow looking. To only determine if it is fake or real can ignore what an AI image can also tell us about our cultural climate.
In December, Madonna shared a deepfake of her embracing the Pope from digital artist RickDick.
Satirical images of the pope have a long history. As early as the 16th century, artists depicted the head of the Catholic Church alongside the profane as a means of critique and provocation.
RickDick’s deepfakes, in their eerie sense of realness, prove a new means to continue to satirise and provoke viewers in the digital age. We can deduce on close inspection that these images of Madonna and the Pope are not real photographs, but we can look even further to also discern what nevertheless gives these AI images their potency.
Fake or not, the lifelike, intimate embrace of the two icons probes an old but ongoing friction between perceived acts of blasphemy in pop culture and the sacred authority of the church.
In this etching from 1555, the Pope has three heads: one wears the papal tiara, one wears a turban, and one is an infant. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
The act of slow looking develops visual literacy. It examines why certain images go viral, why some move us above others and what they say about our reality, values or beliefs.
Beginning to look slowly
To begin this practice, imagine you are trying to describe an image to a friend who cannot see it. What’s happening in the image? What is its scale? What colours are used? How is it made? Where and how are you viewing it – on your phone, a billboard or poster?
Adopt a questioning stance to spot possible biases or blind spots – your own, or of the creator of the image. What is possibly missing from the image? Whose perspective is it or isn’t it showing?
This process can be significantly enhanced through using your hands: draw or paint what you see. It doesn’t need to be expensive or time-consuming. Nor do you need to be “good” at it. Drawing on a scrap piece of paper with an old ballpoint pen you have on your desk for even just a few minutes can connect the mind and body into a deep awareness of your visual field.
Try drawing what you see, to really examine it and have a deeper connection with it. Eepeng Cheong/Unsplash
Pick anything to draw from your immediate surroundings or screens. This is all about the process: it is not the goal to have a finished artwork.
Key details that weren’t apparent before will emerge through this creative practice and help you analyse how an image works, why it is or isn’t engaging and what are its multiple possible meanings.
Slowing down
That we should look more slowly in our fast-paced, oversaturated visual culture is not a new concept, especially in the art community.
These events often take the form of a guided tour and provide prompts to build the viewer’s analytical skills, with the additional benefit of building a communal engagement to look slowly together.
We are all creators and consumers of images. It is important for all of us to reflect on where our attention is being directed, and why, in the constant flood of images.
We have a shared responsibility in how we examine images. Now, more than ever, our visual literacy would benefit from creative practices to slow us down. At both individual and collective levels, we should prioritise looking intently at how our images remember the past, define our present, and envision the future.
Sienna van Rossum 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.
In January, the United States’ Office of the Surgeon General, the country’s leading public health spokesperson, recommended warnings about alcohol’s cancer risks should be displayed on drink packaging.
So, do they work? And should we mandate them here?
Isn’t a glass of wine or two good for me?
Most of us know heavy drinking is unhealthy.
Yet the belief a few glasses of wine helps protect against heart disease and other conditions has persisted. That is despite evidence in recent years showing the benefits have been overestimated and the harms underplayed.
In fact, any level of alcohol use increases the risk for several types of cancer, including colorectal cancer (affecting the large intestine and rectum) and breast cancer.
One study estimated how many new cancer cases will develop across the lifetimes of the 18.8 million Australian adults who were alive in 2016. It predicted a quarter of a million (249,700) new cancers – mostly colorectal – will arise due to alcohol.
We know what causes this harm. For example, acetaldehyde – a chemical produced by the body when it processes alcohol – is carcinogenic.
Alcohol also increases cancer risk through “oxidative stress”, an imbalance in the body’s antioxidants and free radicals which causes damage to DNA and inflammation.
It can also affect hormone levels, which raises the risk for breast cancer in particular.
Australians unaware of the risk
While the harms are well-known to researchers, many Australians remain unaware.
This follows Ireland, the first country to mandate cancer labels for alcohol. From 2026, alcohol packaging will include the warning: “there is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers”.
Since 2017, alcohol producers in South Korea have had to choose between three compulsory warning labels – two of which warn of cancer risks. However they can instead opt for a label which warns about alcohol’s risks for dementia, stroke and memory loss.
Currently, whether to include warnings about alcohol’s general health risks is at the discretion of the manufacturer.
Many use vague “drink responsibly” messages or templates provided by DrinkWise, an organisation funded by the alcohol industry.
Pregnancy warning labels (“Alcohol can cause lifelong harm to your baby”) only became obligatory in 2023. Although this covers just one of alcohol’s established health effects, it has set an important precedent.
We now have a template for how introducing cancer and other health warnings might work.
Cancer warnings already feature on some tobacco products in Australia. Galexia/Shutterstock
Would it work?
We know the existing “drink responsibly”-style warnings are not enough. Research shows consumers find these messages ambiguous.
But would warnings about cancer be an improvement? Ireland’s rules are yet to come into effect, and it’s too early to tell how well South Korea’s policy has worked (there are also limitations give manufacturers can choose a warning not related to cancer).
But a trial of cancer warnings in one Canadian liquor store found they increased knowledge of the alcohol–cancer link by 10% among store customers.
Cancer messages would likely increase awareness about risks. But more than that – a 2016 study that tested cancer warnings on a group of 1,680 adults across Australia found they were also effective at reducing people’s intentions to drink.
It may take years before Australia changes its rules on alcohol labelling.
In the meantime, it’s important to familiarise yourself with the current national low-risk drinking guidelines, which aim to minimise harm from alcohol across a range of health conditions.
Rachel Visontay receives funding from the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales.
Louise Mewton receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dementa Australia, Australian Rotary Health, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care (DoHAC).
For much of the 20th century, efforts to remake government were driven by a progressive desire to make the government work for regular Americans, including the New Deal and the Great Society reforms.
But they also met a conservative backlash seeking to rein back government as a source of security for working Americans and realign it with the interests of private business. That backlash is the central thread of the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” blueprint for a second Trump Administration.
But Project 2025 does so with particular detail and urgency, hoping to galvanize dramatic change before the midterm elections in 2026. As its foreword warns: “Conservatives have just two years and one shot to get this right.”
The standard for a transformational “100 days” – a much-used reference point for evaluating an administration – belongs to the first administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Bill in Washington on Aug. 14, 1935. AP Photo, file
Social reforms and FDR
In 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression, Roosevelt faced a nation in which business activity had stalled, nearly a third of the workforce was unemployed, and economic misery and unrest were widespread.
But Roosevelt’s so-called “New Deal” unfolded less as a grand plan to combat the Depression than as a scramble of policy experimentation.
Roosevelt did not campaign on what would become the New Deal’s singular achievements, which included expansive relief programs, subsidies for farmers, financial reforms, the Social Security system, the minimum wage and federal protection of workers’ rights.
A generation later, another wave of social reforms unfolded in similar fashion. This time it was not general economic misery that spurred actions, but the persistence of inequality – especially racial inequality – in an otherwise prosperous time.
LBJ’s Great Society
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs declared a war on poverty and, toward that end, introduced a raft of new federal initiatives in urban, education and civil rights.
As with the New Deal, the substance of these policies rested less with national policy designs than with the aspirations and mobilization of the era’s social movements.
Resistance to policy change
Since the 1930s, conservative policy agendas have largely taken the form of reactions to the New Deal and the Great Society.
The central message has routinely been that “big government” has overstepped its bounds and trampled individual rights, and that the architects of those reforms are not just misguided but treasonous. Project 2025, in this respect, promises not just a political right turn but to “defeat the anti-American left.”
After the 1946 midterm elections, congressional Republicans struck back at the New Deal. Drawing on business opposition to the New Deal, popular discontent with postwar inflation, and common cause with Southern Democrats, they stemmed efforts to expand the New Deal, gutting a full employment proposal and defeating national health insurance.
They struck back at organized labor with the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which undercut federal law by allowing states to pass anti-union “right to work” laws. And they launched an infamous anti-communist purge of the civil service, which forced nearly 15,000 people out of government jobs.
In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned Lewis Powell – who would be appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court the next year – to assess the political landscape. Powell’s memorandum characterized the political climate at the dawn of the 1970s – including both Great Society programs and the anti-war and Civil Rights movements of the 1960s – as nothing less than an “attack on the free enterprise system.”
In a preview of current U.S. politics, Powell’s memorandum devoted special attention to a disquieting “chorus of criticism” coming from “the perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.”
Powell characterized the social policies of the New Deal and Great Society as “socialism or some sort of statism” and advocated the elevation of business interests and business priorities to the center of American political life.
A copy of Project 2025 is held during the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 21, 2024, in Chicago. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Building a conservative infrastructure
Powell captured the conservative zeitgeist at the onset of what would become a long and decisive right turn in American politics. More importantly, it helped galvanize the creation of a conservative infrastructure – in the courts, in the policy world, in universities and in the media – to push back against that “chorus of criticism.”
In national politics, the conservative resurgence achieved full expression in President Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign. The “Reagan Revolution” united economic and social conservatives around the central goal of dismantling what was left of the New Deal and Great Society.
Publicly, the Reagan administration argued that tax cuts would pay for themselves, with the lower rates offset by economic growth. Privately, it didn’t matter: Either growth would sustain revenues, or the resulting budgetary hole could be used to “starve the beast” and justify further program cuts.
Project 2025, the latest in this series of blueprints for dramatic change, draws most deeply on two of those plans.
As in the congressional purges of 1940s, it takes aim not just at policy but at the civil servants – Trump’s “deep state” – who administer it.
In the wake of World War II, the charge was that feckless bureaucrats served Soviet masters. Today, Project 2025 aims to “bring the Administrative State to heel, and in the process defang and defund the woke culture warriors who have infiltrated every last institution in America.”
Whatever their source – party platforms, congressional bomb-throwers, think tanks, private interests – the success or failure of these blueprints rested not on their vision or popular appeal but on the political power that accompanied them. The New Deal and Great Society gained momentum and meaning from the social movements that shaped their agendas and held them to account.
The lineage of conservative responses has been largely an assertion of business power. Whatever populist trappings the second Trump administration may possess, the bottom line of the conservative cultural and political agenda in 2025 is to dismantle what is left of the New Deal or the Great Society, and to defend unfettered “free enterprise” against critics and alternatives.
Colin Gordon receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Mellon Foundation, and the Russell Sage Foundation.
In the 185 years since te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed between Māori rangatira and the British Crown, Māori have been writing about its meaning, sharing their stories and seeking justice.
For some years, we have been reading and thinking about this mass of written work by Māori. While we know and love these titles, we were aware many New Zealanders have little idea that Māori scholarship stretches back to the earliest books published in this country.
So, in 2018 we collaborated with Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga (the Māori Centre of Research Excellence) and Te Apārangi Royal Society of New Zealand to curate a list of Māori non-fiction publications. Our list formed the inspiration for Books of Mana: 180 Māori-Authored Books of Significance, published this week by Otago University Press.
Co-edited with Jeanette Wikaira, and featuring short essays by leading Māori writers about their relationship to books, mātauranga Māori and the written word, it showcases 180 Māori-authored books published between 1815 and 2022.
For generations our ancestors created sense, meaning, stories and histories from the mountains, rivers and coastlines, and recited generations of history and knowledge through whakapapa, karanga, whaikōrero, mōteatea and pūrākau.
With the arrival of Europeans in the late 18th-century, Māori adopted new tools for recording and passing on knowledge. Pen and paper were rapidly added to the kete and used to weave stories, to engage in creative expression, and as a way to connect and resist.
Much of this writing holds prestige, authority, power, influence, status and even charisma. The word that we think best describes these books is mana.
We encourage all New Zealanders to know more about these remarkable books. At a time when Māori language, culture, identity and te Tiriti are politically threatened, Māori writing is essential for anyone serious about understanding the past, present and future of Aotearoa New Zealand from a Māori perspective.
This Waitangi Day, consider reading any one of these 180 books. But to help make the selection even easier, here are ten that are accessible in bookstores or local libraries.
These titles address language revitalisation, leadership, politics and history. They are also relevant to the world we find ourselves in today.
Ngā Pepa a Ranginui, The Walker Papers – Ranginui Walker
To understand contemporary political debates it is worth looking to the past. Ranginui Walker was one of New Zealand’s leading intellectuals. His collection of opinion pieces, originally published in the Listener magazine between 1973 and 1990, are collated in Ngā Pepa a Ranginui, The Walker Papers.
All of these opinion pieces remain relevant today. As a communicator between the worldviews of Māori and Pākehā, the range of topics he wrote about was extraordinary, from fishing rights, to Māori ideas about health, to critiques of government policies.
Tōku Reo, Tōku Ohooho – Chris Winitana
Ranginui Walker said te reo Māori is a taonga. In Tōku Reo Tōku Ohooho, Chris Winitana tells the story of the people who fought for its retention and revitalisation from the 1970s – and why this kaupapa remains so vitally important today. The book is available either in English or te reo Māori and will be of interest to many as we strive to keep te reo Māori alive.
Huia Histories of Māori: Ngā Tāhuhu Kōrero – Danny Keenan
A stellar lineup of Māori writers will help deepen your knowledge of custom, the natural world, language, health, politics and cultural expression in editor Danny Keenan’s recently republished book Huia Histories of Māori. It covers a vast array of topics, from waka migration traditions, to the introduction of Christianity, to the New Zealand Wars and much more.
Navigating the Stars: Maori Creation Myths – Witi Ihimaera
In Navigating the Stars: Māori creation myths Witi Ihimaera shows how we have always been storytellers, intellectuals and knowledge makers. Pūrākau (legends) are retold for the 21st-century by this pioneer of the Māori novel and short story.
We are in awe of the way the author honours this storytelling tradition and strengthens it for the future. This is a big book that starts our national history with Māori creation narratives, and challenges us to think differently about our past.
Te Kōparapara: An introduction to the Māori world – Michael Reilly & others
If you are looking to build your knowledge of te ao Māori (the Māori world), but don’t know where to begin, we recommend Te Kōparapara. It’s a really accessible introduction to Māori culture, tikanga, history and contemporary society.
Wayfinding Leadership – Chellie Spiller, Hoturoa Barclay-Kerr & John Panoho
Our tūpuna (ancestors) guide us into the future. Chellie Spiller, Hoturoa Barclay-Kerr and John Panoho look to waka navigators in Wayfinding Leadership. It’s part practical guide about how to lead for the collective good, but also part introduction to Māori philosophy. And it’s all cleverly told through the boldness, radical vision and skill of those who laid the foundations for Māori to flourish in these islands.
Imagining Decolonisation – Bianca Elkington, Moana Jackson & others
The bestselling Imagining Decolonisation explains what decolonisation looks like for Māori and Pākehā in an accessible way, and sets out what is required for our country to become a just society.
A particular highlight is the contribution of the late Moana Jackson. A lawyer who was passionate about the transformative possibilities of te Tiriti for Aotearoa, his writings about justice reform and constitutional change will continue to shape generations to come.
A Fire in the Belly of Hineāmaru – Melinda Webber & Te Kapua O’Connor
A Fire in the Belly of Hineāmaru: A collection of narratives about Te Tai Tokerau, translated into te reo Māori by Quinton Hita, is an invitation into Te Tai Tokerau histories, lands and esteemed ancestors, told through the lives of peacemakers, strategists, explorers and entrepreneurs (available in both English and te reo Māori editions).
Mokorua – Ariana Tikao
Mokorua is an inspiring account of the author “re-indigenising” through receiving her moko kauae. We love how she weaves that story into a personal reclaiming of language and identity. Matt Calman’s photographs are particularly striking, too.
From the Centre: A writer’s life – Patricia Grace
A favourite book is From the Centre: a writer’s life, an uplifting memoir by one of our most gifted fiction writers. It stresses the power of reading for cultivating imagination, anchoring identity and deepening a sense of belonging.
We treasured reading about Grace’s life growing up, how she responded to instances of injustice and unfairness, and how she had the courage to write about everyday Māori families. The gentle weight of this beautiful work, in both a physical and emotional sense, will live with us for a long time.
These books enrich our scholarship and our everyday life. We hope you take some time this Waitangi week to engage with Māori writing, and that you come to love these taonga as much as we do.
Angela Wanhalla has received previous funding from Royal Society Te Apārangi and Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga for this book project.
Jacinta Ruru has received previous funding from Royal Society Te Apārangi and Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga for this book project.
A nationwide plan to digitise immigration documents recently came into force. Since January 1, millions of foreign nationals who live in the UK must now use digital-only status documents, as all biometric residence permits expired at the end of 2024.
The Home Office says an online system will mean faster processing times and lower risk of fraud. However, the rollout has created significant problems for some migrants, with reports of non-citizens being denied entry to the UK after border agents did not accept their proof of status.
My recent work with colleagues at the Oxford Migration Observatory suggests this was predictable. When migration rules and processes change, non-citizens are less likely to understand the rules. This can have serious consequences, as their access to housing, employment and healthcare hinges on their ability to show they have a valid immigration status.
Even when migrants do understand the rules, they may still experience problems proving their status if the people they interact with – such as employers and landlords – do not, or if the processes are unclear. This has been the case for some Ukrainians in the UK, who have been unable to renew their tenancies and face losing their jobs because of uncertainty surrounding visa extensions.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
The results of an online survey by the Migration Observatory reveal non-UK citizens’ knowledge of the rights and conditions attached to their immigration status. The survey asked respondents which immigration status they held, a question not usually included in British surveys or the census.
Using this data, we compared the experiences and understanding of people who received their status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EU citizens and their family members who came to the UK under EU free movement rules) and those with “non-EUSS” statuses (typically non-EU citizens arriving on family, work or study visas).
We found that migrants were less likely to understand their rights and responsibilities when immigration rules related to their situation had recently changed.
There was, for example, no consensus among EUSS pre-settled status holders (people who arrived in the UK under EU free movement but have lived in the UK for fewer than five years) as to whether their status had an expiry date. While 72% said their status would not expire, 17% said they would need to reapply, and 11% did not know. For comparison, 99% of respondents with temporary immigration statuses – such as a work or family visa – knew their status had an expiry date.
One likely reason for the confusion is that the situation is genuinely a bit complicated and keeps changing. When the EU settlement scheme was introduced, pre-settled status lasted for only five years. People who did not upgrade to the more secure “settled status” would see their leave expire.
However, since December 2022, people with pre-settled status can stay in the UK indefinitely if they still meet the original eligibility criteria. Rules on permitted absences (the amount of time somebody can spend outside the UK without it affecting their immigration status) have also changed several times.
Similarly, almost a third of in-work pre-settled status holders did not know they were eligible for most benefits, such as universal credit. This is another area where the rules have evolved following several court cases. A surprisingly high share also did not know they were entitled to free NHS hospital treatment.
By contrast, pre-settled status holders were more likely to know they could work for any employer, an area where the conditions for access have been consistent. This suggests that some people who are not aware of what they are entitled to access may refrain from seeking support they require.
Changing immigration processes
To access the labour and housing markets, receive secondary healthcare, or get married, migrants must show they hold valid leave (permission to live in the UK). At the time of the survey, most non-EUSS status holders could show a physical document, such as a biometric residence permit.
Most EUSS status holders, however, had a digital eVisa. This is a relatively new addition to the immigration system. People with an eVisa prove their status by presenting a “share code” linked to gov.uk.
Most respondents from both groups – 92% – had not experienced issues proving their right to live and work in the UK. However, problems were more common among people with a digital-only status than with physical documentation.
In addition, this group faced different challenges — 48% of digital-only respondents who encountered an issue said it was because the person checking their status would not accept the proof provided, compared to 29% of people with physical documentation.
While most people with a digital-only status were confident they could generate a share code to demonstrate their status to an employer or landlord, a substantial minority of older respondents lacked this confidence. People who had experienced a problem proving their status in the past also lacked confidence, and they considered having a physical card to prove their status to be more important to them.
The challenges migrants face in navigating the UK immigration system are unlikely to disappear — rules and processes will continue to evolve in the years ahead in response to changes in UK migration patterns more broadly. However, policymakers cannot assume that everyone understands the rules, particularly when they keep changing.
Ben Brindle 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.
Have you ever bought a souvenir from a local market on holiday? Or tried to travel overseas with a guitar? If so, you may have been stopped at the airport if your item contains animal or plant parts. This is because most countries, and also the EU, implement Cites, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Cites is the main global agreement regulating international wildlife trade to ensure the protection of the 41,000 species covered by the convention. Under Cites, trade measures are established for species to ensure that international trade is legal and ecologically sustainable. For most species (96%), this comprises close regulation of trade. For more threatened species (3%), commercial international trade in wild animals and plants is banned (the remaining 1% refers to a third category of species protected in at least one country).
Under Cites, countries must prohibit international trade in violation of the convention. They are also encouraged to restrict or prohibit the collection of – and domestic trade in – Indigenous species included under Cites. Crucially, countries must enact laws to implement the convention. By design, Cites relies mainly on state-led law-enforcement to achieve its goals.
This year, as Cites marks its 50th anniversary, our new study evaluates the convention’s effectiveness. It asks whether it solves the problem for which it was designed, as well as outlining how it could be more effective.
Taking stock
Cites has had several successes. It can boast an effective system of international cooperation among 184 countries and the EU. Much international trade in Cites-listed species is legally permitted and has been determined to be sustainable. The convention has helped raise the profile of, and catalysed conservation action for, species threatened by international trade, such as pangolins and seahorses.
The convention has also supported the recovery of species, such as crocodiles and vicuña, a member of the camel family that lives in South America. Since 2010, Cites has generated awareness of, and coordinated action to address, illegal wildlife trade, most notably through the establishment of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime.
However, there are some major problems with the Cites approach. Illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade involving thousands of Cites-listed species occurred in at least 162 signatory countries from 2015 to 2021. This includes countries such as the US that are well resourced to deter it. A predominant focus on state-led law enforcement is therefore proving ineffective in many instances.
We find that many law enforcement agencies are not well enough resourced to deter illegal collection and trade of species. Simply creating laws does not necessarily mean that people or businesses will comply with them.
Also, regulating or prohibiting international wildlife trade does not necessarily reduce the threat to the species concerned. These measures may signal scarcity and lead to price increases, which could accelerate over-exploitation by incentivising speculative collection and stockpiling. In this context, there is much room for improvement.
What needs to change
Deciding on appropriate Cites trade measures for species relies primarily on biological criteria, such as population size. Typically, that process does not involve consultation with the people extracting or trading wildlife. Nor does it really consider insights from the social sciences, including economics, on the likely impact of trade measures on wildlife and people. Decisions by the world’s governments to establish these measures are therefore highly uncertain.
To better prevent species from being overexploited for international trade through Cites, countries need to have a greater understanding of how different species are traded. This would enable them to identify the most appropriate combination of rights, rules and decision-making procedures along supply chains, and then pre-test and implement interventions specific to these systems.
Countries therefore need to analyse how species are traded. This would include looking at the relevant property rights and other laws that affect people involved in the trade, as well as understanding factors such as incentives for people to harvest species, the extent to which trade contributes to peoples’ income, and market size for traded species and products.
Countries could then reconfigure rights and rules so that they are aligned along supply chains. This is needed to avoid creating loopholes and facilitating illegal trade. Where trade (both within countries and between countries) is taking place, these arrangements should support it to be legal and sustainable. That’s the ultimate aim of Cites. The relevant actors, including collectors and traders should also be consulted – or better yet involved in co-designing regulations – so that the rules are legitimate to them.
The most appropriate interventions will depend on each country’s analysis of its own trading situation and their role in the trade of given species. They may include devolving land or use rights to Indigenous peoples so that they manage and can benefit from the species. Or interventions may be programmes to reduce consumer demand or develop responsible markets for wildlife products as appropriate.
The approach we propose in our study has the potential to reduce reliance on state-led law enforcement along international supply chains. Pluralist regulatory approaches, including self-regulation, community monitoring or the engagement of appropriate third parties, could be used to support compliance with new rules at each stage of supply chains. Where property rights are appropriately assigned, clear and enforceable, this could mean less reliance on state law-enforcement. This is because local people with a sense of ownership of wildlife are more likely to help protect it rather than overexploit it.
How could Cites be more effective? By understanding the dynamic trade systems for species in greater detail. Then, identifying the most appropriate combination of rights, rules and decision-making procedures to achieve sustainability throughout supply chains. And, finally, integrating Cites trade measures within these broader systems.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Dan Challender receives funding from the Global Challenges Research Fund through the Trade, Development, and the Environment Hub, the A. G. Leventis Foundation, and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. He serves as CITES Focal Point for the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Pangolin Specialist Group, and is a member of the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic, and Social Policy (CEESP)/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group.
Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes has consulted as a technical advisor to Rhinomics, an initiative working to develop an ethical and sustainable trading model for the benefit of rhino conservation. He serves on the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) African Rhino Specialist Group, and is a member of the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic, and Social Policy (CEESP)/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sofia Nilsson Warkander, PhD Candidate, 17th-Century Literature, Stockholm University
José Lourenço’s film adaptation of German author Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s epistolary novel The Sorrows of Young Werther opens with a line on screen stating it is “based on the smash hit 1774 novel of tragic romance”. Set in contemporary Canada, it revolves around Werther (Douglas Booth), who falls tragically in love with Charlotte (Alison Pill), who is already engaged to Albert (Patrick J. Adams).
Goethe’s “smash hit” was written in a new literary landscape, where both readers and writers increasingly belonged to the growing middle class. It was one of the most influential works of the Sturm und Drang movement, also called Geniezeit (the age of genius), which cultivated individual emotion and expression, rejecting antiquated class structures in favour of an “aristocracy of feeling”.
The movement’s interest in the individual’s inner life was revolutionary at the time. Today, it has become an integral part of western ideology and culture, and is arguably part of the reason that romantic comedy is such a popular genre.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
In recent years, movie adaptations of early modern works have been made with a tongue-in-cheek style far removed from BBC adaptations of the 1990s. One notable example is Carrie Cracknell’s 2022 adaptation of Jane Austen’s Persuasion, where much of the original novel’s tone was changed for a strong flavour of the television series Fleabag. But still, successful reworkings generally show a director’s appreciation for the original.
Lourenço’s comedy, however, strips away much of the complexity of Goethe’s masterpiece. In I’ve Never Wanted Anyone More, the literary genius of The Sorrows of Young Werther is metamorphosed into tropes so contemporary that they already seem dated.
The jovial movie Werther is a trust-fund baby who loves gelato and bespoke tailoring. Instead of an artist, here he is an aspiring science-fiction writer. And although they share an enthusiasm for J.D. Salinger, the film’s Werther and Charlotte generally find more joy in sample sales and smoking joints than poetry.
The trailer for I’ve Never Wanted Anyone More.
The film also has a bizarre penis fixation. Werther’s confidant, Paul, has an obsession with semen, and his uncle repeatedly urges him to avoid condoms. In the moment of their greatest confrontation, Charlotte’s fiancé Albert and Werther agree that linden trees (a passing reference to the ones the literary Werther is buried between) smell like semen.
Apparently, after a fistfight, this is all two romantic rivals have to talk about. As the seminal male bond prevails, I can’t help feeling that the film would have been more credible without trying to be American Pie.
Adapting Goethe
Beyond passion, Goethe’s novel also depicts different social dilemmas. In the book, Werther leaves a promising bureaucratic career because he cannot overcome a sense of disgust at having to navigate social hierarchies with flattery and falseness. In fact, it often seems that it is this social order that he cannot survive, rather than his infatuation with Charlotte.
Unlike Werther, in the novel Charlotte can’t give in to her feelings, because of the expectations of female modesty of the time as well as her duty to provide for her younger siblings by marrying the well-to-do Albert.
In the film version, Charlotte is despondent about how much of her own life she has had to sacrifice to care for her family. The film’s exploration of this sacrifice, and her loneliness as Albert neglects her in favour of his work, shows the potential for a more nuanced characterisation of the heroine.
Unfortunately, I’ve Never Wanted Anyone More is typical of much contemporary screenwriting in its over-explanation of actions and desires, telling rather than showing.
Lourenço often appears inspired by Whit Stillman’s deftly crafted romantic comedies. Love and Friendship (2016), Stillman’s brilliantly funny adaptation of Jane Austen’s novella Lady Susan, could be a model for any attempt to rework centuries-old prose. However, I’ve Never Wanted Anyone More lacks the light touch and meticulous writing that made that adaptation glimmer, exposing original genius alongside the new version’s appeal.
Instead, the film turns both social analysis and tragedy into pat, moral lessons. The literary Werther’s reluctance to partake in a society still ruled by arbitrary privilege is excised from the movie. After being chastised by a friend for being unhappy instead of recognising the advantages he already possesses, Werther instead helps Albert and Charlotte improve their marital relationship.
This therapy speak seems oddly in touch with contemporary pop psychology touting the benefits of gratitude. Instead of suicide, in the film Werther’s despair is transmuted into an artistic breakthrough and an exultant trip to Berlin with Paul, as Charlotte and Albert settle into wedded bliss.
Touching on the novel’s social critique would have made for a more complex and satisfying adaptation. It also has its own interest in times of increasing income disparity and the eradication of the middle class. Keeping more such characteristic marks could have made this reworking stand out among blander cinematic fare.
I’ve Never Wanted Anyone More’s problem is that it cannot decide whether to be burlesque or emotional, whether it’s adapting a novel or its Sparknotes summary. Again, differences between model and adaptation might not be a work’s most important quality. But if the director wants to deviate so consistently, why choose a literary model at all?
Sofia Nilsson Warkander 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.
It has taken decades for some to accept the devastating effects of climate change on our planet. Despite scientific evidence that was available years ago, many people were reluctant to make the connection between increasing use of fossil fuels, rising global temperatures and devastating weather events.
A key reason for this reluctance is the dislocation of cause and effect, both in time and geography. And here there are clear parallels with another deadly human activity that is causing increasing levels of suffering across the planet: the production, trafficking and consumption of illicit drugs. Here are some troubling “highlights” from the UN’s latest World Drugs Report:
Cocaine production is reaching record highs, with production climbing in Latin America coupled with drug use and markets expanding in Europe, Africa and Asia.
Synthetic drugs are also inflicting great harm on people and communities, caused by an increase in methamphetamine trafficking in south-west Asia, the near and Middle East and south-eastern Europe, and fentanyl overdoses in North America.
Meanwhile, the opium ban imposed by the de facto authorities in Afghanistan is having a significant impact on farmers’ livelihoods and incomes, necessitating a sustainable humanitarian response.
The report notes how organised criminal groups are “exploiting instability and gaps in the rule of law” to expand their trafficking operations, “while damaging fragile ecosystems and perpetuating other forms of organised crime such as human trafficking”.
Illicit drug use is damaging large parts of the world socially, politically and environmentally. Patterns of supply and demand are changing rapidly. In our new longform series Addicted, leading drug experts bring you the latest insights on drug use and production as we ask: is it time to declare a planetary emergency?
At every stage of the process of producing drugs such as cocaine, there are not only societal impacts but environmental ones too. An example of the interconnected relationship between climate change and drugs is demonstrated in the use of land.
Demand for cocaine has grown rapidly across many western countries, and meeting this can only be met by changing how land is used. Forests are cleared in South America to make way for growing coca plants. The refinement of coca into cocaine involves toxic chemicals that pollute the soil and nearby watercourses. This in turn compromises those living in these areas as access to clean water and fertile land is reduced.
Until this is reversed, these local communities will not be able to cultivate the land to earn an income or rely on water sources to live. And each year, some of their number will add to the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who die, directly or indirectly, as a result of illicit drug use.
People in the world with drug use disorders (1990-2021)
Having spent most of my career researching the human toll of drug use at almost every stage of the supply and consumption chain, I believe a complete shift in the way we think about the world’s drug problem is required.
We already have many years of evidence of the ways that drugs – both natural and (increasingly) synthetic – are destabilising countries’ legal and political institutions, devastating entire communities, and destroying millions of lives. My question is, as with climate change, why are we so slow to recognise the existential threat that drug use poses to humanity?
The disconnect between users and producers
For decades, problems with drugs have been viewed as a mainly western issue, affecting Europe, North America and Australasia in terms of drug taking. This perception was fostered in part by US president Richard Nixon’s “war on drugs” announcement in June 1971, when he declared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one”.
This western-centric focus has come at a cost – we still have little data and information about drug use and problems in Africa, for example. But we are beginning to see how far drugs and their associated devastation has reached beyond traditional western borders.
Illicit drug use has increased by 20% over the past decade, only partly due to population growth. Almost 300 million people are estimated to consume illicit drugs regularly, with the three most popular being cannabis (228 million users), opioids (60 million) and cocaine (23 million). According to the UN report:
The range of drugs available to consumers has expanded, making patterns of use increasingly complex and polydrug use a common feature in most drug markets. One in 81 people (64 million) worldwide were suffering from a drug use disorder in 2022, an increase of 3% compared with 2018.
There are multiple harmful consequences of drug use. The largest global burden of disease continues to be attributed to opioids, use of which appears to have remained stable at the global level since 2019, in contrast to other drugs.
In the same way that climate change has threatened whole populations, so too have drugs. Yet many of us remain disconnected from how they are produced and distributed – and the misery they cause throughout the supply chain, all over the world.
The production of cocaine, for example, is associated with violence and exploitation at every stage of the manufacturing process. Death threats to farmers and unwilling traffickers have all increased in parallel with the growing demand for cocaine in the US and Europe.
Global drug use disorder deaths by substance (2000-21):
Organised crime groups not only supply and distribute drugs but also trade in people, whether for the commercial sex trade or other forms of modern slavery. This makes sense as the infrastructure and contacts to move drugs are similar to those used to move humans across borders and even continents. Yet many cocaine users are oblivious – wilfully or otherwise – of the violence associated with how this drug is supplied to them. As the UK National Crime Agency points out:
Reducing demand is another critical factor in reducing the supply of illegal drugs. Many people see recreational drug use as a victimless crime. The reality is that the production of illegal drugs for western markets has a devastating impact in source countries in terms of violence, exploitation of vulnerable and indigenous people and environmental destruction.
While some of the suffering associated with the production of drugs like cocaine makes the headlines, it’s often overshadowed by the glamorisation of criminal drug gangs in films and on TV. To the extent that people worry about the impact of drugs, it’s usually focused on those in our immediate communities, such as people dependent on heroin who are sleeping rough and vulnerable to exploitation. But there have already been other victims before the drug reaches our streets.
Shifts in the global supply chain
Tracking heroin routes demonstrates the way that drug supply is an international effort which affects every community on its journey, from the Afghan farmer to officials who are bribed so the drug can cross borders or be let through ports without being seized, to the person injecting or smoking the finished product.
Much of Europe’s heroin is produced in Afghanistan by small farming operations growing opium, which is then transformed into the drug. Most Afghan farmers are simply surviving growing the crop, and don’t reap significant wealth from their harvest. It is those supplying and distributing the opium as heroin who can make serious money from it.
Meanwhile, following the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, those farmers’ livelihoods have faced a new threat.
The Taliban is ideologically opposed to the production of opium. Soon after assuming control, its leaders issued a decree banning farmers from growing opium. They have enforced this by destroying crops when farmers have ignored the ban – although there is still believed to be a significant stockpile of heroin in the country, meaning that as yet, there has not been a big impact on supply to Europe and the UK. But this could change amid the emergence of more deadly synthetic alternatives, including nitazenes and other new synthetic opioids.
Heroin trafficking flows based on reported seizures (2019-22):
Either way, the drug gangs who traffic heroin won’t worry about the opium farmers’ wellbeing. As so often happens with changes in the availability of illicit drugs, when there is a shortage, these groups prove adaptable and nimble at providing alternatives quickly.
While gathering intelligence about organised crime gangs is difficult and potentially dangerous, the European Union Drugs Agency (EUDA) has provided some insights about who these groups are and how they operate. The Netherlands remains an important hub for the distribution of heroin, with several Dutch criminal groups involved in importing and distributing heroin from Afghanistan.
But others are involved too: the EUDA’s intelligence shows that criminal networks with members from Kurdish background are central to the wholesale supply and have control over many parts of the supply chain. These professional, well-organised groups have established legal businesses throughout the route of supply that facilitate their illicit activities – largely along the Balkan route with hubs in Europe.
Intermediate & final recipients of heroin shipments (2019-22):
Unlike these organised crime gangs, governments and law enforcement appear to respond to emerging threats slowly and lack the flexibility and ingenuity that the gangs repeatedly demonstrate.
As drug detection techniques have improved, organised crime has shown how inventive it can be. Taking advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic, dealers used consignments of surgical masks to conceal large quantities of cocaine being trafficked to China and Hong Kong from South America.
And as western markets for cocaine become saturated, organised crime gangs have exploited new markets in Asia, where cocaine seizures, a proxy for use of cocaine, have increased. But the shifting landscape is also reflected in changes in consumption, with use of the synthetic stimulant methamphetamine growing rapidly in Asia – reflected in record levels of seizures in the region in 2023.
For the organised crime gangs, production and supply of synthetic drugs is in many ways easier, as it is not reliant on an agricultural crop in the way that heroin and cocaine are and can be manufactured locally. This reduces the distribution logistics and distance needed for an effective supply chain. According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, organised crime gangs are exploiting gaps in law enforcement and state governance to both traffic large volumes of drugs and expand their production in the region.
Where there is destabilisation, there is opportunity for those who seek to profit from drug addiction. In Syria, Russia and Ukraine, war has made some people very rich.
Syria and Russia: the new drug hotspots
The wars in Syria and Ukraine bear testament to the way drugs provide solutions to people who are experiencing the worst of times – and to governments that are ready to exploit evolving situations.
As the war in Syria progressed, the Bashar Al-Assad regime actively developed a strategy to dominate the captagon market in the Middle East and North Africa. First produced in the 1960s in Germany to treat conditions such as attention deficit disorders and narcolepsy and other conditions, captagon is a stimulant that staves off hunger and sleep, making it ideal for military use – particularly in countries where food supplies are inconsistent. It has been referred to as the “drug of jihad” used by Islamic fighters in the region.
As the war progressed in Syria, the country and its leader became increasingly isolated, its economy crashed creating the perfect conditions to develop the trade in captagon. Rather than drug production leading to the collapse of law and order, it was the other way round.
Isolated by the west and with a historically strained relationship with its neighbours including Saudi Arabia, the Assad regime – under the guidance, reportedly, of Assad’s brother Maher al-Assad– ruthlessly positioned itself as the world’s main producer and distributor of this drug, then used this position to leverage its influence and try to reintegrate into the Arab world.
Video by TRT World.
Captagon also provided much-needed revenue for the Assad regime. The drug was estimated to be worth US$5.7 billion annually to the Syrian economy – at a time when western governments have placed severe sanctions on the country, restricting its ability to raise revenue. Saudi Arabia was one of the main countries being supplied captagon by Syria. Until the fall of Assad, it was the senior leadership in Syria that controlled the supply and distribution of the drug – giving rise to the label “the world’s largest narco state”.
The Assad government achieved this position by making captagon good value – a viable alternative to alcohol in terms of price and for those who don’t drink. Exploiting many of its own citizens, the regime encouraged individuals and businesses to participate in manufacturing and distributing the drug.
The fall of Assad and his hurried escape to Russia left the rebel fighters to pick up vast hauls of captagon and other drug ingredients. “We found a large number of devices that were stuffed with packages of captagon pills meant to be smuggled out of the country. It’s a huge quantity,” one fighter belonging to the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group told the Guardian. What this will do to drug production and supply in the region is unclear.
While the latest UN World Drug Report highlights “a rapid increase in both the scale and sophistication of drug trafficking operations in the region over the past decade”, it goes on to highlight that “one of the most striking changes worldwide in drug trafficking and drug use over the past decade has taken place in Central Asia, Transcaucasia [Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia] and eastern Europe”, where there has been a shift “away from opiates, mostly originating in Afghanistan – towards the use of synthetic stimulants, notably cathinones … There is hardly any other region where cathinones play such a significant role.”
This is part of “a groundbreaking shift in the global drug trade, pioneered in Russia and now spreading globally,” according to the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. This shift is changing the nature of drug sales, using “darknet markets and cryptocurrency for anonymous transactions, allowing buyers to retrieve drugs from hidden physical locations or ‘dead drops’, rather than direct exchanges.”
The rise of Russia’s dead drop drug trade stems from several unique national factors: restrictive anti-drug policies, strained western trade relations, and a strong technological foundation. Enabled by these conditions, the dead drop model has reshaped how drugs are distributed in Russia.
Drug transactions now involve no face-to-face interactions; instead, orders are placed online, paid for with cryptocurrency, and retrieved from secret locations across cities within hours. This system, offering convenience and anonymity, has seen synthetic drugs – especially synthetic cathinones like mephedrone – overtake traditional imported substances like cocaine and heroin in Russia … These potent synthetic drugs are cheap, easy to manufacture, and readily distributed through Russia’s vast delivery networks.
The report notes that this shift in drug distribution has been accompanied by rising levels of violence including punishment beatings, and a public health crisis.
Podcast by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime.
Yet officially, there is very little reliable data about drug use in Russia. Under the premiership of Vladimir Putin, Russia has no sympathy with those who are dependent, viewing them as weak and without value. And its invasion of Ukraine three years ago has had ramifications for Ukraine’s users too.
Prior to the war, Ukraine had demonstrated an increasingly progressive policy towards those who had problems with drugs, establishing treatment centers and encouraging access to treatment. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, this strategy has been severely set back, with many people who need access to substitute treatments such as methadone unable to secure consistent supply of these drugs.
Another global blind spot is China, where, like Russia, little is known about the extent or type of problems that drugs are causing. Both regimes are ideologically opposed to recreational or problem drug use and, as far as we know, there is no state-funded rehabilitation provided in either country; the approach is to criminalise people rather than offer health-based interventions.
We shouldn’t be too critical as many western countries, including the UK, also need to pivot from a criminal approach to drug problems towards a health-focused one. Portugal made such a policy change several years ago, recognising that people who develop problems with drugs such as dependency need help rather than punishment.
This radical shift in thinking has made a significant change to the way those using drugs are treated, in the main offered help and specialist support rather than being arrested and sent to jail, only to be released and then repeat the same cycle of drug use, arrest and prison.
The evidence of this policy change is impressive: not only have drug-related deaths fallen, but population-level drug use is among the lowest in Europe. Nowhere is this policy shift more urgent than the US.
North America: epicentre of the opioid crisis
In the US, the synthetic opioids fentanyl and oxycodone have contributed to more than 100,000 fatal overdoses each year since 2021. While there are signs this deaths toll is at last beginning to fall, the harm and pain of addiction and overdose affects every strata of American society – as shown in moving portrayals of America’s opioid crisis such as Painkiller and Dopesick. Most fatalities are caused by respiratory depression where breathing is significantly slowed or stops altogether.
Official trailer for Painkiller (Netflix)
Fentanyl is an analgesic drug that is 50-100 times more potent than heroin or morphine. Where China used to be the principal manufacturer and supplier of fentanyl to the US, Mexico is now the primary source. In December 2024, Mexican authorities announced “the largest mass seizure of fentanyl pills ever made” – amounting to more than 20 million doses of fentanyl pills worth nearly US$400 million. The pills were found in Mexico’s Sinaloa state, home of the Sinaloa drug cartel and a hub of fentanyl production,
“This is what makes us rich,” one fentanyl cook recently told the New York Times. He was scathing about the idea that Donald Trump would be able to stamp out the supply of fentanyl from Mexico to the US by threatening Mexico’s government with tariffs. “Drug trafficking is the main economy here.”
However, the introduction of synthetic opioids to the US came not via organised crime but through a deliberate strategy of the pharmaceutical industry. Upon launching its prescription opioid painkiller OxyContin (a brand name for oxycodone) in 1996, Perdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, devised a plan to increase prescriptions of the drug by incentivizing and rewarding doctors to give these drugs to their patients. On a business level, this was a success; on a human level, it has been a disaster.
As patients quickly developed tolerance to drugs such as OxyContin, they had to take higher doses to avoid withdrawal symptoms or the positive feelings it gave them. Taking more of these opiates increases the risk of accidental overdose, many of which proved to be fatal. It has also driven those dependent on drugs to the black market, and into the hands of organised drug gangs, as they seek the drugs in greater quantities.
Dependency on fentanyl and other opioids is all-consuming. When not using these drugs, people are entirely focused on ensuring sufficient supply of the next dose. This includes funding supply which can take people to places they thought they would never be, for example breaking the law, shoplifting or getting involved in commercial sex to make enough money to buy drugs.
Synthetic opiates like OxyContin and fentanyl have proved to be classless, ageless and sex blind. The first-hand experience of addiction and fatalities have radically altered the way many Americans think about drugs and the problems they cause. Canada, too, is suffering a major crisis.
Compounding this tragedy is the failure of the state to provide interventions and treatment that could have reduced fatal and non-fatal overdoses. It is only now that evidence-based interventions are beginning to be made widely available, such as access to Naloxone – a drug that can reverse the effects of opiates and potentially save a life.
Of course, it isn’t just hospitals and health professionals that are challenged by the results of widespread use of opioids, but public services like the police and fire service. In some areas of the US, there have been so many daily overdoses that every service was called on to try and deal with it. Local mayors have made it a priority to train police and fire personnel to be trained as first responders, such is the scale of the problem.
But it is not just in North America that we see the failure of politicians and the state to act when faced with growing problems with drugs. In the UK, where record numbers are dying because of using drugs such as heroin, the government has not invested in overdose prevention strategies. At a time when fatal overdoses increase year on year, budgets for specialist treatment have been reduced. It remains to be seen what the recently elected Labour government will do, if anything, to tackle the tragic rise in drug related fatalities.
What connects both examples from the US and UK is the attitude and perception of drug use many of us have. Drug use and the heavy use of prescription painkillers is still heavily stigmatised. Many of us still view this as something individuals bring on themselves or have a choice about.
So, if we don’t care about what happens to people who develop problems with drugs, why should our elected representatives? In part, it is our bigotry that is enabling the lack of timely intervention, despite us possessing the knowledge and evidence of how drug harms can be minimised.
Latin America: breakdown of the rule of law
Under the last Conservative government, the UK Home Office asserted that people who used cocaine recreationally are supporting violence not only in the UK but in the countries that produce its raw ingredients. It’s not clear if this has made any difference to those using cocaine in the UK – personally, I doubt many people consider or are aware of how cocaine is produced or its provenance.
Perhaps if those using cocaine, mainly in western countries, realised the extent of violence and suffering that cocaine manufacture causes they might think again. Latin America has suffered enormously, with few countries there not touched in some way by the violence and breakdown of law associated with drug production and supply. According to the latest UN World Drugs Report:
Global cocaine supply reached a record high in 2022, with more than 2,700 tons of cocaine produced that year, 20% more than in the previous year … The impact of increased cocaine trafficking has been felt in Ecuador in particular, which has seen a wave of lethal violence in recent years linked to both local and transnational crime groups, most notably from Mexico and the Balkan countries.
Cocaine seizures and homicide rates increased five-fold between 2019 and 2022 in Ecuador, with the highest such rates reported in the coastal areas used for trafficking the drug to major destination markets in North America and Europe.
Cocaine trafficking flows based on reported seizures (2019-22):
As with opium production in Afghanistan, it is small-scale farmers in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia that grow the coca plant that will be turned into cocaine. Like their Afghan counterparts, they grow coca as it is more profitable than alternatives such as coffee. While it may be profitable in the short term, there are greater costs to them and their society.
Cocaine production brings with it violence as those further up the drug production chain try to control its trade. Few parts of these societies are unscathed, from bribing local politicians through to whole regions that are controlled by organised crime. Keeping control means that the use of firearms and violence increases. Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that basic health and social services suffer.
So, while a coca grower may have more money, every other aspect of their life is negatively impacted. Whether it is regional or state institutions, both are compromised by the drug trade and those that control it. While this may not lead to the total collapse of law and order, it does create injustice and distorts the rule of law in many areas of Latin America and the Caribbean, where competition between gangs has also resulted in an increase in homicides.
The impact is on all sectors of society, now and into the future. For example, while historically the role of women has been largely underrepresented in research and drug policy, the UN report recognises that this is changing:
As women increasingly participate in economic activities, the role that women play in the drug phenomenon may become increasingly important. For example, a shift away from plant-based drug production may affect many women in rural households involved in opium poppy and coca bush cultivation.
The UN also identifies the specific risk to young people and the drugs trade, highlighting:
Long-term efforts to dismantle drug economies must provide socioeconomic opportunities and alternatives, which go beyond merely replacing illicit crops or incomes and instead address the root structural causes behind illicit crop cultivation, such as poverty, underdevelopment, and insecurity. They must also target the factors driving the recruitment of young people into the drug trade, who are at particular risk of synthetic drug use.
Meanwhile, demand for treatment in Europe due to problems with cocaine has risen significantly in recent years, since 2011 there has been an 80% increase in treatment presentations. This reflects the growing number of people using cocaine and the rise in purity of the drug.
Amid what may seem to be a story of unrelenting despair and hopelessness, there are local initiatives and even a few state-wide policies that provide optimism that change is possible.
In my roles both as clinician and scientist, I’ve often been amazed by how ingenious people can be when faced with the apparently impossible. For example, the way some people use heroin to dampen their psychotic symptoms, such as auditory and visual hallucinations – or the development of Naloxone, a drug that can temporarily reverse the effects of opioids, providing a short window for emergency services to treat people who have overdosed.
Early in my career, I witnessed the emergence of HIV in the UK in the 1980s. The speed at which this disease spread was not matched by our ability to treat it. Our response to HIV was undoubtedly hampered by prejudice and stigma towards marginalised groups in society, namely gay men and those using drugs (particularly injecting them).
However, unexpectedly and courageously, the Conservative government recognised those who were most at risk of contracting HIV, and organised a package of measures to contain the spread of infection. One part of this was a media campaign based on public health messaging designed to reduce the risk of contracting the disease. But the government also invested in treatment for those who had been infected and engaged with people at high risk, such as those intravenously injecting drugs.
I worked in specialist HIV clinics for those using drugs. At the time, methadone and diamorphine were provided as an alternative to heroin. Regulations and protocols that restricted the prescribing of these medical opioids were eased, so we could ensure patients attending these clinics were given sufficient oral and injectable opioids that they didn’t need to source street heroin.
This meant they had access to medical grade opioids and, crucially, were given regular supplies of sterile injecting equipment. It was this that reduced the risk of contracting HIV, as some people would share injecting equipment when using heroin.
This impressive policy ran counter to the Conservative party’s ideology at the time, which was to punish rather than help those using drugs like heroin. It showed me how, even with traditional mindsets, it is possible to shift policy thinking in the face of a health crisis. And make no mistake, the global drug problem is an ongoing health crisis. Today, the UN points to the risks that intravenous users of drugs still face:
An estimated 13.9 million people injected drugs in 2022, with the largest number living in North America and East and South-East Asia … The relative risk of acquiring HIV is 14 times higher for those who inject drugs than in the wider population globally.
There are, though, signs of positive change in the way some countries and regions are changing their drug policies. Scotland recently opened a drug consumption facility in Glasgow – a safe place for people to use their drugs, usually injecting drugs like heroin. Such spaces provide access to sterile injecting equipment, reducing the risk of blood-borne infections such as HIV or Hepatitis. At the same time, they offer the opportunity to engage with people who have not accessed traditional health services.
Portugal, as mentioned earlier, has made substantial changes to the way it approaches drug use and the problems associated with it. This policy shift since 2000 has saved lives and brought a more humane way of treating people who develop problems with drugs.
Contrast this with the wasted effort and resources ploughed into the war on drugs – initiated by Nixon and followed by so many western governments ever since. My plea to policymakers is simple: employ the same evidence-based science you use for health issues towards drugs and problem drug use.
Science and research can help in many ways, if given the chance. Some of it might seem radical, like providing safe drug consumption spaces. Some of it is more mundane, but vital – like tackling inequality, a clear driver of problem drug use across the world.
But while we often look to politicians to take the lead on change, it is people – us – that really hold the solution. By far the greatest threat to people and society from drugs is ignorance and bigotry. So many lives have been lost to drugs because of shame, either as a driver of drug use or a barrier to seeking help.
Beliefs are notoriously difficult to shift. As with climate change, the most powerful driver of change is personal experience. We know that when a family or community is affected by a drug overdose, their beliefs and perceptions change. But this is not the way any of us should want to see change happen.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Ian Hamilton 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University
North Korea is believed to be preparing to send another group of soldiers to come to Vladimir Putin’s aid in the war in Ukraine, despite heavy combat losses already suffered by troops from the east Asian country.
When Ukrainian forces crossed the border into the Kursk region of Russia in August 2024, Ukraine’s military commanders hoped that their surprise move would force Moscow to withdraw troops from eastern Ukraine to defend Russia’s own territory. Kyiv did not expect its troops to end up fighting North Koreans.
Neither Moscow nor Pyongyang have officially confirmed that North Korean troops are fighting side by side with Russians. But South Korean intelligence has been reporting on their presence since October 2024, when approximately 1,500 North Korean special forces were observed to have arrived in Russia’s far eastern city of Vladivostok, initially for training.
This group was later joined by another 10,000 or so of their comrades (some of whom are also believed to be from North Korean special forces units). They were transported nearly 7,000 kilometres across Russia to reach the combat zone.
North Korea, an isolated dictatorship with few allies, is one of Russia’s most reliable suppliers of weapons, including missiles and millions of rounds of ammunition that Russia needs to continue to fight its war against Ukraine. North Korea, however, would seem to have little reason to send its own people to risk their lives in that conflict. But North Korean soldiers appear to be at the heart of a deal struck by North Korea’s supreme leader Kim Jong-un and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
What does Putin want?
For Putin the gains are clear. His campaign in Ukraine has received a much-needed influx of trained soldiers to shore up efforts to retake Russian territory occupied by Ukrainian forces.
Although the numbers of North Korean troops are relatively small, their strategic deployment allows Russia to push the Ukrainians back without diverting any of its forces from their offensive operations in eastern Ukraine. Expectations are high that Donald Trump’s return to the White House could mean an end to the war – or at least a pause – sooner rather than later. This gives Putin an incentive to occupy as much Ukrainian territory as possible ahead of a ceasefire, when occupied areas are likely to form the basis of territorial settlements.
The suggestion that Russia is not capable of maintaining its position in Ukraine and also defending its own territory without the addition of foreign troops is very revealing.
Moscow is struggling to recruit enough of its own citizens to fight in Ukraine. This is despite offering salaries and benefits packages to prospective soldiers that are beyond generous. The lack of resistance to Kyiv’s summer incursion into Russian territory made it clear that Russia is relying upon barely trained conscripts – that is, teenage boys doing their one year of compulsory military service – to defend its borders rather than professional soldiers. And while Russia has regained control of a substantial proportion – perhaps more than 60% – of the area seized by Ukraine in the summer, this has taken nearly six months to accomplish.
What does Kim Jong-un want?
For Kim Jong-un, sending his soldiers to fight with Russia provides his troops with valuable experience of combat in a conflict that is rapidly defining how war will be waged in the future.
Since the end of the Korean War (1950-53), Pyongyang has placed a high priority on maintaining a large and heavily armed standing army. After training, North Korean soldiers are mostly used for patrolling the de-militarized zone that marks its border with South Korea. Participating in Russia’s war against Ukraine provides the North Korean military with its first experience of combat in more than 70 years.
North Korean soldiers captured in Ukraine.
Observations from Ukrainian soldiers suggest the North Korean soldiers are courageous and determined fighters but with no experience of actual combat. The Ukrainians have described the North Koreans as relying on strategies typical of the second world war – for example advancing in large groups on foot, where they provide easy targets for artillery and drone strikes. They were also apparently bemused by the appearance of drones on the battlefield and had no idea that these objects could deliver lethal attacks.
This degree of inexperience, together with Russia’s tactic of using the North Koreans to draw the fire of the Ukrainians and clear the way for the Russians to advance, is believed to be the reason for such high losses so soon after their deployment.
In January the Ukrainians managed to capture two North Koreans and question them, which has provided the clearest picture so far of their experiences of fighting with the Russian armed forces. The North Korean soldiers both had false identity papers with Russian names, which is consistent with official denials of their presence. The men, who do not speak any foreign languages and had to be questioned through an interpreter, said that they had both been soldiers for several years. This supports the Ukrainians’ impression that the North Koreans are trained and disciplined. Both prisoners, however, reportedly believed they were being sent to Russia to participate in training exercises, not to fight in a war.
Considering the heavy losses and the brutal treatment that North Korean troops have already suffered, Kim Jong-un might be expected to seek the speedy return of his soldiers rather than preparing to send more of their comrades to fight with Russia. But high casualties on the battlefield seems to be a price that North Korea’s president is willing to pay for combat experience that might give his army an edge in any future war that he fights on his own behalf.
Jennifer Mathers 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.
The UK government’s new plan to foster innovation through artificial intelligence (AI) is ambitious. Its goals rely on the better use of public data, including renewed efforts to maximise the value of health data held by the NHS. Yet this could involve the use of real data from patients using the NHS. This has been highly controversial in the past and previous attempts to use this health data have been at times close to disastrous.
Patient data would be anonymised, but concerns remain about potential threats to this anonymity. For example, the use of health data has been accompanied by worries about access to data for commercial gain. The care.data programme, which collapsed in 2014, had an similar underlying idea: sharing health data across the country to both publicly funded research bodies and private companies.
Poor communication about the more controversial elements of this project and a failure to listen to concerns led to the programme being shelved. More recently, the involvement of the US tech company Palantir in the new NHS data platform raised questions about who can and should access data.
The new effort to use health data to train (or improve) AI models, similarly relies on public support for success. Yet perhaps unsurprisingly, within hours of this announcement, media outlets and social media users attacked the plan as a way of monetising health data. “Ministers mull allowing private firms to make profit from NHS data in AI push,” one published headline reads.
These responses, and those to care.data and Palantir, reflect just how important public trust is in the design of policy. This is true no matter how complicated technology becomes – and crucially, trust becomes more important as societies increase in scale and we’re less able to see or understand every part of the system. It can, though, be difficult, if not impossible, to make a judgement as to where we should place trust, and how to do that well. This holds true whether we are talking about governments, companies, or even just acquaintances – to trust (or not) is a decision each of us must make every day.
The challenge of trust motivates what we call the “trustworthiness recognition problem”, which highlights that determining who is worthy of our trust is something that stems from the origins of human social behaviour. The problem comes from a simple issue: anyone can claim to be trustworthy and we can lack sure ways to tell if they genuinely are.
If someone moves into a new home and sees ads for different internet providers online, there isn’t a sure way to tell which will be cheaper or more reliable. Presentation doesn’t need – and may not even often – reflect anything about a person or group’s underlying qualities. Carrying a designer handbag or wearing an expensive watch doesn’t guarantee the wearer is wealthy.
Luckily, work in anthropology, psychology and economics shows how people – and by
consequence, institutions like political bodies – can overcome this problem. This work is known as signalling theory, and explains how and why communication, or what we can call the passing of information from a signaller to a receiver, evolves even when the individuals communicating are in conflict.
For example, people moving between groups may have reasons to lie about their identities. They might want to hide something unpleasant about their own past. Or they might claim to be a relative of someone wealthy or powerful in a community. Zadie Smith’s recent book, The Fraud, is a fictionalised version of this popular theme that explores aristocratic life during Victorian England.
Yet it’s just not possible to fake some qualities. A fraud can claim to be an aristocrat, a doctor, or an AI expert. Signals that these frauds unintentionally give off will, however, give them away over time. A false aristocrat will probably not fake his demeanour or accent effectively enough (accents, among other signals, are difficult to fake to those familiar with them).
The structure of society is obviously different than that of two centuries ago, but the problem, at its core, is the same — as, we think, is the solution. Much as there are ways for a truly wealthy person to prove wealth, a trustworthy person or group must be able to show they are worth trusting. The way or ways this is possible will undoubtedly vary from context to context, but we believe that political bodies such as governments must demonstrate a willingness to listen and respond to the public about their concerns.
The care.data project, was criticised because it was publicised via leaflets dropped at people’s doors that did not contain an opt-out. This failed to signal to the public a real desire to alleviate people’s concerns that information about them would be misused or sold for profit.
The current plan around the use of data to develop AI algorithms needs to be different. Our political and scientific institutions have a duty to signal their commitment to the public by listening to them, and through doing so develop cohesive policies that minimise the risks to individuals while maximising the potential benefits for all.
The key is to place sufficient funding and effort to signal – to demonstrate – the honest motivation of engaging with the public about their concerns. The government and scientific bodies have a duty to listen to the public, and further to explain how they will protect it. Saying “trust me” is never enough: you have to show you are worth it.
Richard Milne receives funding from Wellcome under grant 220540/Z/20/A to the Wellcome Sanger Institute and the Kavli Foundation, grant G115418 to the University of Cambridge.
Jonathan R Goodman 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.
Visit a supermarket in 2025 and you’ll see that a tub of Lurpak butter can cost £5.70. It may strike you that this represents a staggering increase from £3.65 just three years ago, so instead of paying the premium, you reach for the supermarket’s own brand at £3.80.
This kind of switch, multiplied across millions of shopping baskets, represents a massive shift in consumer behaviour that has been largely invisible to official statistics. But that’s changing, as the UK embarks on its biggest revolution in measuring living costs since the second world war.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is transforming the way it tracks inflation, moving from painstakingly checking prices to analysing millions of real purchases through supermarket scanners. Consider olive oil, the price of which surged by 47% in a year, or milk, which jumped by more than 25%. While official statistics captured these price rises, they couldn’t track how households adapted – whether by switching to cheaper alternatives, buying less, or cutting back elsewhere. This was a blind spot in our understanding of consumer behaviour.
Currently, price collectors visit stores across the country each month, checking the prices of about 25,000 products. It’s like taking a snapshot of what’s on the shelves at a particular moment. But this system, designed decades ago, often misses the real impact of inflation on different household types in things like choosing different products or switching stores.
This is crucial for understanding the real impact of inflation on lower-income households. These families often have less flexibility in their budgets and must make more dramatic changes to their shopping habits when prices rise. During recent periods of high inflation, many on low incomes found that official figures didn’t match their experience, which was of even higher inflation than the headline rates. And there’s a good reason why.
Inflation statistics aren’t just academic exercises. They drive decisions that affect every aspect of our financial lives. The Bank of England uses them to set interest rates, which in turn influence mortgage payments and savings returns. Employers use them in wage negotiations. Government uses them to adjust benefits, state pensions and tax thresholds. Even commercial contracts, including mobile phone bills and rail fares, are often linked to inflation rates.
When these numbers don’t accurately reflect price pressures, it can have serious consequences. If official figures underestimate the inflation experienced by lower-income households, benefit increases might not keep pace with their actual cost increases. Similarly, if wages don’t rise in line with real living costs, workers effectively experience a pay cut.
The scanner data revolution
The ONS’s new approach, to be introduced next year, will analyse around 300 million price points from supermarket scanners, covering about half of all grocery transactions in the UK. Instead of just seeing what’s on the shelf, they’ll know exactly what prices people are paying at checkouts across the country.
This massive increase in data points – from 25,000 to 300 million – will allow for a more nuanced understanding of consumer behaviour.
The change will also enable quicker identification of emerging price trends. After the start of the COVID pandemic and the Ukraine war, prices of certain goods changed rapidly. Scanner data could help spot these changes faster, allowing for more timely policy responses. It might also reveal regional variations in price pressures.
Take the 2023 surge in food prices – while overall food inflation hit 19%, the impact varied dramatically across households. Current statistics would not capture lower-income families switching from fresh to frozen vegetables, or from branded to value ranges.
In times of cost pressures, shoppers may switch from fresh produce to frozen. sirtravelalot/Shutterstock
With scanner data, policymakers could spot these trends quickly and respond more precisely – perhaps by adjusting benefit payments or targeting support to specific households when essential food costs spike. Instead of waiting for quarterly surveys to reveal hardship, they will be able to see in real time how different groups are coping with price pressures.
The ONS recently said full implementation will come in 2026, a year later than planned. While it will have the technical capability ready by March 2025, it is opting for a year of parallel running to ensure accuracy. This approach reflects how crucial these statistics are for the economy.
It has already modernised other areas of price collection, including incorporating 40 million train fare data points and 300,000 used car prices. But grocery prices, being central to household budgets and varying significantly across different income groups, require extra attention.
The change is coming at a crucial time. Recent years have shown how rapidly economic conditions can change and how differently these changes can affect various segments of society. The pandemic, Brexit adjustments, and global supply chain disruptions have all contributed to price pressures.
For consumers, while the changes won’t directly lower prices, they could lead to more appropriate responses from the Bank of England, government and employers. Most importantly, it could ensure that official inflation figures better reflect the reality of the weekly shop, particularly during times of economic stress.
The transformation of inflation statistics might seem like a technical detail, but its implications reach far beyond government offices and economic reports. It’s about ensuring that the official measures of living costs better reflect the reality experienced by millions of households across the UK. In this challenging economic environment, that’s something worth getting right.
Marcel Lukas receives funding from the British Academy. He is the Director of Executive Education at the University of St Andrews and Fellow of the ONS. The presented views are his own and do not represent the ONS.
The way you see nutrition labels on food packaging is about to change. By 2025, new front-of-package labels will start appearing on grocery store shelves, and by January 2026, they’ll be mandatory.
Over the past two decades, nutrition labelling has evolved into a cornerstone of public health strategies worldwide. Traditional back-of-package labels, which provide comprehensive nutritional details, are often overlooked due to their complexity and placement, making them less effective in guiding consumer choices.
Front-of-package labels address this issue by simplifying key nutritional information and positioning it in a more prominent, visible space. This streamlined approach has proven successful in leading consumers toward healthier choices, as research indicates that simplified, visible labels can influence purchasing decisions.
Globally, front-of-package systems vary, with some countries employing warning symbols to flag excessive nutrient levels, while others use colour-coded “traffic light” systems or endorsement icons to promote healthier options.
Canadian policy
The Canadian government’s new policy requiring front-of-package nutrition symbols aims to guide consumers toward healthier food choices by highlighting foods high in sodium, sugars or saturated fats. These nutrients are closely linked to chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and hypertension.
Designed for simplicity and consistency, the labels feature a black-and-white magnifying glass icon. This design’s uniformity in size, placement and bilingual presentation is intended to make it easily recognizable and understandable.
Fresh produce, plain dairy products and raw, single-ingredient meats are exempt from the regulations, acknowledging their inherent nutritional benefits.
The policy is intended to promote transparency and improve public health by helping Canadians make more informed food choices. With full implementation set for January 2026, further research and targeted actions such as meetings and correspondence on healthy eating by Health Canada are required to ensure the effectiveness of the policy.
Since 2016, extensive consumer testing, including focus groups, online surveys and in-store experiments, has informed decisions regarding the labels’ design, size and placement. As a result, the labels have been refined to better meet their goal of providing consumers with clearer, more actionable nutritional information.
While the initiative holds promise, several gaps could undermine its overall effectiveness. Varying levels of health literacy may hinder consumers’ ability to fully comprehend and act on the front-of-package labels, with some potentially unaware of the health risks associated with flagged nutrients like sodium, sugars and saturated fats.
Additionally, manufacturers face challenges in adhering to new labelling standards, reformulating products to meet healthier benchmarks and overcoming potential consumer resistance.
Addressing these issues requires significant investment in consumer education, alongside targeted support for manufacturers from the Canadian government in form of consultation in adapting to the new requirements.
The policy also presents an opportunity to engage consumers more deeply in their health choices. Education campaigns such as community workshops and public health initiatives, and point of sale posters that explain the purpose and interpretation of front-of-package labels, can empower consumers to make informed decisions.
These campaigns should address disparities in health literacy, ensuring that all Canadians benefit from the initiative regardless of socioeconomic status. Collaborative efforts among government agencies, health-care providers and community organizations could amplify these educational initiatives, reaching a wider audience.
Industry response
For manufacturers, the introduction of front-of-package labels often triggers efforts to reformulate products, reducing sodium, sugars or saturated fats to avoid negative labelling.
This process frequently involves ingredient substitution, recipe adjustments or portion size reductions. However, retaining the taste, texture and overall consumer satisfaction of a product while meeting nutritional targets requires significant innovation. If reformulated products fail to meet consumer expectations, brands risk losing loyalty and market share.
The stakes are particularly high for manufacturers whose flagship products are most at risk of being flagged. To overcome these challenges, collaboration with food scientists, ingredient suppliers and regulatory bodies is essential. Research and development efforts must focus on finding innovative solutions that meet regulatory requirements without sacrificing consumer preferences.
Beyond reformulation, compliance with front-of-package labelling requirements presents logistical and financial challenges. Packaging must be redesigned to incorporate the bilingual, standardized labels, often at significant cost. Smaller manufacturers with limited resources may find these changes particularly burdensome.
Updating supply chains to include new packaging materials and ensuring consistent application across product lines add further complexity. In addition to these financial and operational pressures, reformulation may affect production processes and shelf life, necessitating further adjustments.
Potential impact
Despite these challenges, front-of-package labelling has the potential to drive significant change within the food industry. By prioritizing healthier formulations, companies can gain a competitive advantage, particularly as consumer demand for health-conscious products grows.
Over time, this shift could lead to broader industry trends, pushing manufacturers toward greater transparency and accountability in their product offerings.
However, these positive outcomes require supportive policies. Tax incentives, subsidies for reformulation and clear regulatory guidance can help ease the financial and operational burdens faced by manufacturers, particularly smaller businesses.
While front-of-package labelling shows promise in promoting healthier choices and encouraging innovation, its long-term impact remains to be fully understood.
Key areas for future research include examining how manufacturers prioritize reformulation, tracking changes in nutrient composition over time, and analyzing consumer behaviour in response to labelled products. Studies that link front-of-package labels to dietary intake and health outcomes could provide a comprehensive view of their effectiveness in achieving public health goals.
This story was co-authored by Christopher Marinangeli. He is a nutrition scientist and regulatory expert with the Centre for Regulatory Research and Innovation at Protein Industries Canada, a not-for-profit organization and one of Canada’s five Global Innovation Clusters.
Zahra Saghafi receives funding from Arrell Food Institute, Protein Industries Canada, and Mitacs for her PhD research. She is affiliated with the Lang School of Business and Economics at the University of Guelph.
A painting of President Andrew Jackson hangs in the Oval Office on the day Donald Trump was inaugurated for the second time, Jan. 20, 2025.AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The portrait of President Andrew Jackson has recently made a comeback in the Oval Office. “Old Hickory” – Jackson’s nickname – has long been a favorite of President Donald Trump.
And there is a commonality of philosophical and political visions. The two tap into the same definition of freedom. They both believe the president has freedom from all restraint and from every form of legislative or judicial control.
However, differences exist between the two that might prompt Trump to consider the potential danger of how he governs and whom he listens to.
When Jackson had to choose his advisers and shape his first Cabinet, he relied on cronies from his beloved Tennessee – plus a handful of relatives.
The most famous and infamous of those chums was John H. Eaton. Eaton had developed a brotherly relationship with Jackson. Jackson felt indebted to him because Eaton had run his presidential campaigns of 1824 and 1828. Eaton would become secretary of war, but he also ended up embarrassing the president.
A political cartoon depicts President Andrew Jackson sitting stunned as his Cabinet, represented as rats, runs to escape his falling house during the political scandal surrounding the Eaton Affair. Bettman/Getty Images
First off, he had an affair with a married woman, Margaret O’Neale Timberlake, whose husband was often at sea. When in 1828 Mr. Timberlake died abroad, rumor spread that he had slashed his own throat because of Margaret’s infidelity.
Jackson was irate. He had always realized he didn’t belong in the elite society of Washington, D.C. He was too self-conscious about his entire persona and too aware that he was perceived as an interloper. Consequently, he usually reacted defensively and often violently, thus betraying insecurity: “Our society wants purging here,” he wrote to one of his friends in 1829.
Under the same roof
Jackson’s clan lived with him in the White House. There was Andrew Jackson Jr., a nephew and his adopted son. Andrew Jr. would inherit a huge fortune, but he would die in debt. It’s no surprise that historians have described him as “irresponsible and ambitionless, a considerable disappointment to his father.”
There was Andrew Jackson Donelson and his wife, Emily. Donelson was the nephew of the just-deceased wife of the president, Rachel Jackson, who tragically died just days after her husband won the 1828 election. Donelson had served with Jackson in the Florida War – known as the First Seminole War – and later became his private secretary. Emily Donelson would act as the president’s hostess in the White House.
Another close friend from Tennessee, Maj. William B. Lewis, also moved into the White House. Also a presidential adviser, Lewis gained the official title of second auditor of the Treasury. But the Donelsons couldn’t stand the man. Emily Donelson would eventually label him a “sycophant” who had seized an opportunity to “save himself all expense.”
As he shaped his first Cabinet, Jackson consistently ignored the suggestions coming from the two higher-profile characters of his administration, Martin Van Buren and John C. Calhoun. It wasn’t just an ideological difference; it was that neither of them had been early Jackson men.
Surrounded by a few favorites
Jackson, the president who made no secret that he was running a one-man show, had a presidential style derived from his military experience. As a general, Jackson rarely summoned councils of war. When he had to decide on a given course of action, he didn’t share responsibility.
To describe the informal group of friends, family members and advisers whom they believed maintained too great an influence over the president, the opposition coined the phrase “kitchen cabinet.”
But the opposition’s image of the “kitchen cabinet” was not the reality. No matter his personal quirks, Jackson proved to be an excellent administrator. And contrary to Emily Donelson’s fears, he resisted sycophants and self-interested counselors.
Elon Musk, right, is a top adviser and donor to Donald Trump and directs the administration’s effort to cut government spending. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
He sought to create a blueprint for a government that would outlast him. He enacted impersonal rules that were sustained by elaborate systems of checks and balances. Whether you like him or not, Jackson was a builder, not a destroyer, of administrations.
The circumstances of the Jackson and Trump presidencies might look similar, but the key is that they are two very different men. Both wanted to fully reform the federal government, faced scandal, felt like an outsider in Washington, D.C., and had all sorts of close loyalists around pushing their agendas.
But Jackson didn’t get distracted. So he was not a useful puppet for those who sought to exploit him that way.
There’s no doubt that they are a potential liability more dangerous than Jackson’s sycophants, more problematic than his cronies, more embarrassing than his wacky nephews.
Maurizio Valsania 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
