NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Data can show if government programs work or not, but the Trump administration is suppressing the necessary information

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sarah James, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Gonzaga University

    Do government programs work? It’s impossible to find out with no data. Andranik Hakobyan/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The U.S. has the highest rate of maternal mortality among developed nations. Since 1987, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has administered the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System to better understand when, where and why maternal deaths occur.

    In April 2025, the Trump administration put the department in charge of collecting and tracking this data on leave.

    It’s just one example of how the administration is deleting and disrupting American data of all kinds.

    The White House is also collecting less information about everything from how many Americans have health insurance to the number of students enrolled in public schools, and making government-curated data of all kinds off-limits to the public. President Donald Trump is also trying to get rid of entire agencies, like the Department of Education, that are responsible for collecting important data tied to poverty and inequality.

    His administration has also begun deleting websites and respositories that share government data with the public.

    Why data is essential for the safety net

    I study the role that data plays in political decision-making, including when and how government officials decide to collect it. Through years of research, I’ve found that good data is essential – not just for politicians, but for journalists, advocates and voters. Without it, it’s much harder to figure out when a policy is failing, and even more difficult to help people who aren’t politically well connected.

    Since Trump was sworn in for a second time, I have been keeping an eye on the disruption, removal and defunding of data on safety net programs such as food assistance and services for people with disabilities.

    I believe that disrupting data collection will make it harder to figure out who qualifies for these programs, or what happens when people lose their benefits. I also think that all this missing data will make it harder for supporters of safety net programs to rebuild them in the future.

    Why the government collects this data

    There’s no way to find out whether policies and programs are working without credible data collected over a long period of time.

    For example, without a system to accurately measure how many people need help putting food on their tables, it’s hard to figure out how much the country should spend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program, formerly known as food stamps, the federal supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, known as WIC, and related programs. Data on Medicaid eligibility and enrollment before and after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 offers another example. National data showed that millions of Americans gained health insurance coverage after the ACA was rolled out.

    Many institutions and organizations, such as universities, news organizations, think tanks, and nonprofits focused on particular issues like poverty and inequality or housing, collect data on the impact of safety net policies on low-income Americans.

    No doubt these nongovernmental data collection efforts will continue, and maybe even increase. However, it’s highly unlikely that these independent efforts can replace any of the government’s data collection programs – let alone all of them.

    The government, because it takes the lead in implementing official policies, is in a unique position to collect and store sensitive data collected over long periods of time. That’s why the disappearance of thousands of official websites can have very long-term consequences.

    What makes Trump’s approach stand out

    The Trump administration’s pausing, defunding and suppressing of government data marks a big departure from his predecessors.

    As early as the 1930s, U.S. social scientists and local policymakers realized the potential for data to show which policies were working and which were a waste of money. Since then, policymakers across the political spectrum have grown increasingly interested in using data to make government work better.

    This focus on data grew starting in 2001, when President George W. Bush made holding government accountable to measurable outcomes a top priority.

    He saw data as a powerful tool for reducing waste and assessing policy outcomes. His signature education reform, the No Child Left Behind Act, radically expanded the collection and reporting of student achievement data at K-12 public schools.

    President George W. Bush speaks about education in 2005 at a high school in Falls Church, Va., outlining his plans for the No Child Left Behind Act.
    Alex Wong/Getty Images)

    How this contrasts with the Obama and Biden administrations

    Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden emphasized the importance of data for evaluating the impact of their policies on low-income people, who have historically had little political clout.

    Obama initiated a working group to identify ways to collect, analyze and incorporate more useful data into safety net policies. Biden implemented several of the group’s suggestions.

    For example, he insisted on the collection of demographic data and its analysis when assessing the impacts of new safety net policies. This approach shaped how his administration handled changes in home loan practices, the expansion of broadband access and the establishment of outreach programs for enrolling people in Medicaid and Medicare.

    Why rebuilding will be hard

    It’s harder to make a case for safety net programs when you don’t have relevant data. For example, programs that help low-income people see a doctor, get fresh food and find housing can be more cost-effective than simply having them continue to live in poverty.

    Blocking data collection may also make restoring government funding after a program gets cut or shut down even more challenging. That’s because it will be more challenging for people who in the past benefited from these programs to persuade their fellow taxpayers that there is a need for investing in a expanding program or creating a new one.

    Without enough data, even well-intended policies in the future may worsen the very problems they’re meant to fix, long after the Trump administration has concluded.

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

    – ref. Data can show if government programs work or not, but the Trump administration is suppressing the necessary information – https://theconversation.com/data-can-show-if-government-programs-work-or-not-but-the-trump-administration-is-suppressing-the-necessary-information-259760

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: College ‘general education’ requirements help prepare students for citizenship − but critics say it’s learning time taken away from useful studies

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Kelly Ritter, Professor of Writing and Communication, Georgia Institute of Technology

    Students learn about the arts and humanities, social sciences, and science and mathematics in general education. Olga Pankova/Moment via Getty Images

    What do Americans think of when they hear the words “general education”?

    By definition, general education covers introductory college courses in arts and humanities, social sciences, and science and mathematics. It has different names, including core curriculum or distribution requirements, depending on the college or university.

    It is also sometimes called liberal education, including by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, which describes it as providing “a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills.”

    The liberal label can be fodder for conservative groups who argue that today’s general education is part of an indoctrination into higher education’s purported left-leaning belief systems. Some other conservatives support general education as a concept but want more emphasis on so-called traditional values and less on cross-cultural understanding. These initiatives position general education and college as a space for ideological battles.

    As a scholar of historical connections between literacy and social class, I know that general education was designed to provide opportunity for all students without regard for their political preferences.

    The value of a college education can be shaped by political affiliation.
    bernarddobo/iStock via Getty Images

    An education for all

    Eighty years ago, a group of Harvard University faculty created what many colleges and universities still follow as a template for general education. This plan was outlined in the book “General Education in a Free Society.”

    Harvard’s plan was meant for all students, including veterans studying under the GI Bill, and others we today refer to as first generation, where neither parent had a college degree.

    General education made college more accessible to students who were not becoming doctors or lawyers but who also wanted careers outside the vocational trades. It helped make college a place for educating all citizens, not just students of socioeconomic privilege.

    Expanding access to higher education was central to the 1947 special report Higher Education for American Democracy, commissioned by President Harry Truman. The goal was to provide a foundational education for all, especially in math and science. But the report, commonly known as the Truman Commission Report, also included disciplines that help students understand the world – such as writing and communication, literature, psychology and history.

    The purposes of general education are central to two competing views of college today, views that I also hear expressed by students and parents I’ve met in my 28 years as a professor.

    One view of college is of an on-campus experience steeped in the liberal arts that holistically prepares students to live in a functioning democracy. These benefits are seen as worth the time and costs.

    The other view is of college as a sum of career-focused credentials that can begin and end anywhere, not specific to one college campus. These benefits are completely financial, to be gained via the cheapest, quickest means.

    Both of these views are informed by national perspectives that further divide citizens on higher education as a whole, such as Vice President JD Vance’s 2021 statement that “there was a wisdom in what Richard Nixon said approximately 40, 50 years ago. He said, and I quote, ‘The professors are the enemy.’”

    Both these groups of Americans, however, hope that obtaining a college degree will pay off for graduates who find employment and reach a standard of living better than their parents’ generation.

    For the first group, general education is critical to developing the whole student for jobs and life. For the latter, it is an expensive obstacle to it.

    Not surprisingly, these views on education and college often correspond to political party identification and whether a person attended college themselves.

    A July 2023 Lumina Foundation and Gallup Poll showed that only 36% of Americans have a “great deal” of confidence in higher education, with significant partisan differences between the 20% of Republicans who have this confidence, the 56% of Democrats and the 35% of independents who have it. There are also measurable differences between those who have earned a postgraduate degree and those who have not.

    To cut costs, more students are searching for ways to complete general education requirements before they begin college.
    PeopleImages/E+ via Getty Images

    Questioning value

    As college costs continue to rise in 2025, families are struggling – even taking on payment plans for everyday purchases, also known as phantom debt – to make ends meet.

    General education represents about a third of the requirements of a bachelor’s degree and most of an associate degree.

    For those who see college as a waste of money, general education courses are a calculable loss on future income. In the past two decades, this – and the increasingly competitive admissions process for college – has contributed to a tenfold increase in low-income students who take Advanced Placement courses and a 50% increase since 2021 in the number of students in dual-credit coursework. Both programs allow students to complete general education-equivalent courses for free while still in high school.

    Complete College America, a nonprofit advocacy group that works with states to increase college completion rates, supports these moves by students and parents, classifying general education under “gateway courses” to be completed “as soon as possible.”

    Other groups promote stackable units of credit toward college degrees. This push to complete general education requirements before entering college is gaining momentum, despite studies that show Advanced Placement classes, and exams, favor and benefit mostly white, middle- to upper-class students because these students tend to have more time and resources to devote to AP coursework and also take multiple exams in order to earn college credit.

    For college students, general education can offer benefits beyond career attainment.
    ferrantraite/E+ via Getty Images

    Understanding the world

    While arguments for streamlining college and its costs are evergreen, foundational lessons taught across fields of study are as relevant in 2025 as they were in 1945. The U.S. faces threats to its democracy, is navigating rapid advances in technology, and is adapting to population shifts that will change how its residents live and work.

    General education gives students broad foundational knowledge that can be used in a variety of careers. By design, it teaches an understanding of the world outside one’s own and how to live in it – a core requirement for a functioning democracy.

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

    – ref. College ‘general education’ requirements help prepare students for citizenship − but critics say it’s learning time taken away from useful studies – https://theconversation.com/college-general-education-requirements-help-prepare-students-for-citizenship-but-critics-say-its-learning-time-taken-away-from-useful-studies-257083

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Poll finds bipartisan agreement on a key issue: Regulating AI

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam Eichen, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, UMass Amherst

    Are concerns about AI a bridge across the polarization divide? ZargonDesign/iStock via Getty Images

    In the run-up to the vote in the U.S. Senate on President Donald Trump’s spending and tax bill, Republicans scrambled to revise the bill to win support of wavering GOP senators. A provision included in the original bill was a 10-year moratorium on any state law that sought to regulate artificial intelligence. The provision denied access to US$500 million in federal funding for broadband internet and AI infrastructure projects for any state that passed any such law.

    The inclusion of the AI regulation moratorium was widely viewed as a win for AI firms that had expressed fears that states passing regulations on AI would hamper the development of the technology. However, many federal and state officials from both parties, including state attorneys general, state legislators and 17 Republican governors, publicly opposed the measure.

    In the last hours before the passage of the bill, the Senate struck down the provision by a resounding 99-1 vote. In an era defined by partisan divides on issues such as immigration, health care, social welfare, gender equality, race relations and gun control, why are so many Republican and Democratic political leaders on the same page on the issue of AI regulation?

    Whatever motivated lawmakers to permit AI regulation, our recent poll shows that they are aligned with the majority of Americans who view AI with trepidation, skepticism and fear, and who want the emerging technology regulated.

    Bipartisan sentiments

    We are political scientists who use polls to study partisan polarization in the United States, as well as the areas of agreement that bridge the divide that has come to define U.S. politics. In April 2025, we fielded a nationally representative poll that sought to capture what Americans think about AI, including what they think AI will mean for the economy and society going forward.

    The public is generally pessimistic. We found that 65% of Americans said they believe AI will increase the spread of false information. Fifty-six percent of Americans worry AI will threaten the future of humanity. Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans told us AI will make them more productive (29%), make people less lonely (21%) or improve the economy (22%).

    While Americans tend to be deeply divided along partisan lines on most issues, the apprehension regarding AI’s impact on the future appears to be relatively consistent across Republicans and Democrats. For example, only 19% of Republicans and 22% of Democrats said they believe that artificial intelligence will make people less lonely. Respondents across the parties are in lockstep when it comes to their views on whether AI will make them personally more productive, with only 29% − both Republicans and Democrats − agreeing. And 60% of Democrats and 53% Republicans said they believe AI will threaten the future of humanity.

    On the question of whether artificial intelligence should be strictly regulated by the government, we found that close to 6 in 10 Americans (58%) agree with this sentiment. Given the partisan differences in support for governmental regulation of business, we expected to find evidence of a partisan divide on this question. However, our data finds that Democrats and Republicans are of one mind on AI regulation, with majorities of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (54%) supporting strict AI regulation.

    When we take into account demographic and political characteristics such as race, educational attainment, gender identity, income, ideology and age, we again find that partisan identity has no significant impact on opinion regarding the regulation of AI.

    State of anxiety

    In the years ahead, the debate over AI and the government’s role in regulating it is likely to intensify, on both the state and federal levels. As each day seems to bring new advances in AI’s capability and reach, the future is shaping up to be one in which human beings coexist – and hopefully flourish – alongside AI. This new reality has made the American public, both Democrats and Republicans, justifiably nervous, and our polling captures this widespread trepidation.

    Lawmakers and technology leaders alike could address this anxiety by better communicating the pitfalls and potential of AI, and take seriously the concerns of the public. After all, the public is not alone in its trepidation. Many experts in the field also have substantial worries about the future of AI.

    One of the fundamental political questions moving forward, then, will be to what degree regulators put guardrails on this emerging and transformative technology in order to protect Americans from AI’s negative consequences.

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

    – ref. Poll finds bipartisan agreement on a key issue: Regulating AI – https://theconversation.com/poll-finds-bipartisan-agreement-on-a-key-issue-regulating-ai-259780

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Supreme Court justices’ political leanings got a lot more newspaper coverage after the 2016 death of Scalia – and reporters have been mentioning them ever since

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joshua Boston, Associate Professor of Political Science, Bowling Green State University

    Reporters used to treat the Supreme Court as a nonpolitical institution, but not anymore. Tetra Images/Getty

    The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled on politically controversial issues. From elections to civil rights, from abortion to free speech, the justices frequently weigh in on the country’s most debated problems.

    And because of the court’s influence over national policy, political parties and interest groups battle fiercely over who gets appointed to the high court.

    The public typically finds out about the court – including its significant decisions and the politics surrounding appointments – from the news media. While elected officeholders and candidates make direct appeals to their voters, the justices and Supreme Court nominees are different – they largely rely on the news to disseminate information about the court, giving the public at least a cursory understanding.

    Recently, something has changed in newspaper coverage of the Supreme Court. As scholars of judicial politics, political institutions and political behavior, we set out to understand precisely how media coverage of the court has changed over the past 40 years. Specifically, we analyzed the content of every article referencing the Supreme Court in five major newspapers from 1980 to 2023.

    Of course, people get their news from a variety of sources, but we have no reason to believe the trends we uncovered in our research of traditional newspapers do not apply broadly. Research indicates that alternative media sources largely follow the lead of traditional beat reporters.

    What we found: Politics has a much stronger presence in articles today than in years past, with a notable increase beginning in 2016.

    When public goodwill prevailed

    Not many cases have been more important in the past quarter-century or, from a partisan perspective, more contentious than Bush v. Gore – the December 2000 ruling that stopped a ballot recount, resulting in then-Texas Governor George W. Bush defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore and winning the presidential election.

    Bush v. Gore is particularly interesting to us because nine unelected, life-tenured justices functionally decided an election.

    The New York Times story about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore indicated the justices’ names and votes but neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings.
    Screenshot, The New York Times

    Surprisingly, the court’s public support didn’t suffer, ostensibly because the court had built up a sufficient store of public goodwill.

    One reason public support remained steady following Bush v. Gore might be newspaper coverage. Although the court’s decision reflected the justices’ ideologies, with the more conservative members effectively voting to end the recount and its more liberal members voting in favor of the recount, newspapers largely ignored the role of politics in the decision.

    For example, the New York Times case coverage indicated the justices’ names and their votes but mentioned neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings. The words “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal” and “conservative” – what we call political frames – do not appear in the Dec. 13, 2000, story about the decision.

    This epitomizes court-related newspaper articles from the 1980s to the early 2000s, when reporters treated the court as a nonpolitical institution. According to our research, court-related news articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal hardly used political frames during that time.

    Instead, newspapers perpetuated a dominant belief among the public that Supreme Court decisions were based almost completely on legal principles rather than political preferences. This belief, in turn, bolstered support for the court.

    Recent newspaper coverage reveals a starkly different pattern.

    A contemporary political court

    It would be nearly impossible to read contemporary articles about the Supreme Court without getting the impression that it is just as political as Congress and the presidency.

    Analyzing our data from 1980 to 2023, the average number of political frames per article tripled. To be sure, politics has always played a role in the court’s decisions. Now, newspapers are making that clear. The question is when this change occurred.

    Across the five major newspapers, reporting about the court has gradually become more political over time. That isn’t surprising: America has been gradually polarizing since the 1980s as well, and the changes in news media coverage reflect that polarization.

    Take February of 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died. Of course, justices have died while serving on the court before. But Scalia was a conservative icon, and his death could have swung the court to the center or the left.

    How the politics of naming his successor played out after Scalia’s death was unprecedented.

    President Barack Obama’s nomination effort to put Merrick Garland on the court were stonewalled. The Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the Senate would not consider any nomination until after the presidential election, nine months from Scalia’s death.

    Republican candidate Donald Trump, seeing an opening, promised to fill the vacancy with a conservative justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The court and the 2016 election became inseparable.

    President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama pay respects to Justice Antonin Scalia, whose 2016 death brought lasting change in newspaper coverage of the court.
    Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

    Scalia vacancy changed everything

    February 2016 brought about an abrupt and lasting change in newspaper coverage. The day before Scalia’s death, a typical article referencing the court used 3.22 political frames.

    The day after, 10.48.

    We see an uptick in political frames if we consider annual changes as well. In 2015, newspapers averaged 3.50 political frames per article about the Supreme Court. Then, in 2016, 5.30.

    Using a variety of statistical methods to identify enduring framing shifts, we consistently find February 2016 as the moment newspapers shifted to higher levels of political framing of the court. We find the number of political frames in newspapers remained elevated through 2023.

    How stories frame something shapes how people think about it.

    If an article frames a court decision as “originalist” – an analytical approach that says constitutional texts should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they became law – then readers might think of the court as legalistic.

    But if the newspaper were to frame the decision as “conservative,” then readers might think of the court as ideological.

    We found in our study that when people read an article about a court decision using political frames, court approval declines. That’s because most people desire a legal court rather than a political one. No wonder polls today find the court with precariously low public support.

    We do not necessarily hold journalists responsible for the court’s dramatic decline in public support. The bigger issue may be the court rather than reporters. If the court acts politically, and the justices behave ideologically, then reporters are doing their job: writing accurate stories.

    That poses yet another problem. Before Trump’s three court appointments, the bench was known for its relative balance. Sometimes decisions were liberal; other times, conservative.

    In June 2013, the court provided protections to same-sex marriages. Two days earlier, the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. A liberal win, a conservative win – that’s what we might expect from a legal institution.

    Today the court is different. For most salient issues, the court supports conservative policies.

    Given, first, the media’s willingness to emphasize the court’s politics, and second, the justices’ ideologically consistent decisions across critical issues, it is unlikely that the news media retreats from political framing anytime soon.

    If that’s the case, the court may need to adjust to its low public approval.

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

    – ref. Supreme Court justices’ political leanings got a lot more newspaper coverage after the 2016 death of Scalia – and reporters have been mentioning them ever since – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-justices-political-leanings-got-a-lot-more-newspaper-coverage-after-the-2016-death-of-scalia-and-reporters-have-been-mentioning-them-ever-since-259120

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Philly’s City Council turned down a new rental inspection program − studies show that might harm tenants’ health

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gabriel L. Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Health Management and Policy, Drexel University

    Tenants who complain to landlords about housing conditions can risk eviction. Photo Jeff Fusco/The Conversation U.S., CC BY-NC-ND

    As Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s US$2 billion housing plan moves forward, heated debates continue about another set of municipal housing proposals that could transform Philadelphia tenants’ rights.

    In June 2025, Philadelphia’s City Council considered three housing bills, collectively known as the Safe Healthy Homes Act. The package was introduced by Nicolas O’Rourke, an at-large council member who belongs to the Working Families Party.

    One of the bills authorized the city to create a fund for tenants to relocate if their buildings are condemned by city inspectors. It was signed into law, though it remains unclear how the fund will be financed.

    The other two bills stalled. One was an ordinance that would broadly strengthen tenants’ rights, and the other – known as the Right to Repairs – would shift how Philadelphia ensures housing is safe for tenants, empowering the city to proactively inspect rentals for housing code violations.

    These bills deal with housing policy, but they’re also matters of public health.

    I know this because I am a researcher in Philadelphia who studies how housing affects our health outcomes. And in particular, recent research by myself and others suggests the fate of the Rights to Repairs legislation could have major implications for Philadelphians’ well-being.

    Housing protections today

    To understand this new evidence, it’s important to first understand the system of housing regulations Philadelphia has now, in the absence of the proposed Right to Repairs legislation.

    When a landlord rents an apartment, Pennsylvania law mandates that apartment must be habitable and free of hazards such as mold, cockroaches and dangerous dilapidation.

    This legal principle is known as the “implied warranty of habitability.”

    All 50 states except Arkansas have some kind of policy like this, though they vary in how much they hold landlords responsible for tenants’ safety.

    Under Pennsylvania’s warranty and related municipal law, if conditions deteriorate in a rental property, Philadelphia tenants are first supposed to alert their landlord, who has 30 days to fix the given violation – such as rodents or lead exposure.

    If landlords refuse, however, tenants are in a bind. They could file a complaint with the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which might come and issue a citation. Tenants could also file a lawsuit against their landlord, and they are entitled to withhold rent. But all of these options risk provoking your landlord – at potentially high cost.

    Invoking your warranty rights as a tenant can therefore be tricky. You have to know your rights, document repair requests in writing, and be willing to take your landlord to task legally.

    That’s challenging in a city like Philadelphia, where most renters – outside of a pilot program in some ZIP codes – aren’t guaranteed lawyers in housing court.

    Indeed, nationally, 9 in 10 landlords have lawyers in housing cases, while 9 in 10 tenants do not.

    The stakes are high for tenants. If they complain, they risk eviction – and that’s amid a shortage of affordable housing in Philadelphia and across the country.

    In 2018 alone, according to a local news investigation, Philadelphia landlords filed over 2,000 eviction cases soon after tenants raised habitability issues, despite such retaliatory evictions being illegal. More up-to-date estimates are hard to come by, as these illegal evictions are not systematically tracked.

    Tenants have little choice. Philadelphia does not require that an apartment pass an inspection before the city issues rental licenses or certificates of rental suitability. If housing violations arise, it’s on tenants to assert and defend their rights.

    Philadelphia City Council member Nicolas O’Rourke introduced a housing legislation package guided by three rights – the right to safety, the right to repairs and the right to relocation. Only the right to relocation bill was passed.
    Lisa Lake for MoveOn via Getty Images

    Do habitability laws work?

    Housing quality protections for tenants, in other words, largely boil down to implied warranties of habitability, plus associated fines the city can issue. But this works only if tenants are able to properly document violations, submit complaints and defend themselves from the blowback.

    Despite warranties forming the backbone of Philadelphia’s housing quality governance system – and concerns that these laws saddle tenants with unreasonable enforcement responsibilities – little is known about whether warranties are even effective. Do they keep tenants from getting sick due to poor housing conditions?

    To find out, fellow researchers and I examined what happened when nine states enacted implied warranty of habitability laws like the one in place in Pennsylvania today. We wanted to know whether renters’ health improved after warranty policies were enacted, compared with other states where such laws didn’t go into effect over the same period.

    We also used homeowners as a control group, comparing whether renters’ health uniquely improved when these laws were enacted. Homeowners are useful here because we wouldn’t expect homeowners’ health to be affected by these laws.

    Our findings were stark: We found no improvements for renters at all, across a slew of housing-related health outcomes, even 10 years after enactment.

    There were no effects on renters’ asthma, respiratory allergies, bronchitis, mental health, hospitalizations, or even less clinical outcomes such as self-rated health.

    To be clear, implied warranties of habitability are important laws and are surely helpful for individual tenants. Broadly speaking, however, our findings suggest that these policies simply don’t work.

    That is likely especially true in Pennsylvania, a state whose implied warranty of habitability was given an F- by researchers who evaluated the comprehensiveness of states’ policies for protecting tenants’ well-being.

    A 2014 study in neighboring New Jersey helps shed light on why these policies fall short.

    Researchers there examined 40,000 eviction cases, looking for whether tenants successfully raised implied warranty of habitability violations as a defense. Given how often landlords retaliate after violation complaints are made, one might expect thousands of tenants party to these lawsuits to have invoked their warranty rights.

    The result? Only 80 tenants did so – 80 out of 40,000.

    In practice, then, existing data paints a bleak picture: The vast majority of tenants lack the financial resources, legal knowledge, alternative housing options or freedom from fear necessary to protect themselves from unsafe conditions at home.

    Proactive rental inspections show more success

    What policies might work instead? Cities such as Rochester, New York, may provide an answer.

    In 2005, Rochester implemented a more proactive rental inspection program to combat their child lead-poisoning crisis – a problem Philadelphia shares.

    This meant that Rochester’s municipal inspectors began proactively inspecting rental units on a regular basis and issuing fines for any violations they found. Tenants did not have to file a complaint and therefore weren’t forced into adversarial disputes with their landlords.

    The results were dramatic. By 2012, childhood lead poisoning in Rochester had dropped by 85%. This decline was nearly 2.5 times faster than the rest of New York state.

    Further, scientists found that units that were inspected every three years had one-third of the rate of housing code violations as units inspected every six years.

    Whether the Right to Repair is good policy for Philadelphia is a question for city legislators. But research is increasingly clear: The city’s current housing policies do not protect tenants from unsafe housing, while proactive rental inspections show real promise for fighting persistent housing-related health problems.

    Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

    Gabriel L. Schwartz’s research described in this article was funded through a pilot grant from the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. UCSF had no role in the design, completion, or reporting of that study. The views expressed in this article solely represent the scientific opinion of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of either UCSF or his employer.

    – ref. Philly’s City Council turned down a new rental inspection program − studies show that might harm tenants’ health – https://theconversation.com/phillys-city-council-turned-down-a-new-rental-inspection-program-studies-show-that-might-harm-tenants-health-260266

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Research replication can determine how well science is working – but how do scientists replicate studies?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amanda Kay Montoya, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

    Some research teams work on replicating prior studies to assess the value of a body of work. AzmanL/E+ via Getty Images

    Back in high school chemistry, I remember waiting with my bench partner for crystals to form on our stick in the cup of blue solution. Other groups around us jumped with joy when their crystals formed, but my group just waited. When the bell rang, everyone left but me. My teacher came over, picked up an unopened bag on the counter and told me, “Crystals can’t grow if the salt is not in the solution.”

    To me, this was how science worked: What you expect to happen is clear and concrete. And if it doesn’t happen, you’ve done something wrong.

    If only it were that simple.

    It took me many years to realize that science is not just some series of activities where you know what will happen at the end. Instead, science is about discovering and generating new knowledge.

    Now, I’m a psychologist studying how scientists do science. How do new methods and tools get adopted? How do changes happen in scientific fields, and what hinders changes in the way we do science?

    One practice that has fascinated me for many years is replication research, where a research group tries to redo a previous study. Like with the crystals, getting the same result from different teams doesn’t always happen, and when you’re on the team whose crystals don’t grow, you don’t know if the study didn’t work because the theory is wrong, or whether you forgot to put the salt in the solution.

    The replication crisis

    A May 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump emphasized the “reproducibility crisis” in science. While replicability and reproducibility may sound similar, they’re distinct.

    Reproducibility is the ability to use the same data and methods from a study and reproduce the result. In my editorial role at the journal Psychological Science, I conduct computational reproducibility checks where we take the reported data and check that all the results in the paper can be reproduced independently.

    But we’re not running the study over again, or collecting new data. While reproducibility is important, research that is incorrect, fallible and sometimes harmful can still be reproducible.

    By contrast, replication is when an independent team repeats the same process, including collecting new data, to see if they get the same results. When research replicates, the team can be more confident that the results are not a fluke or an error.

    Reproducibility and replicability are both important, but have key differences.
    Open Economics Guide, CC BY

    The “replication crisis,” a term coined in psychology in the early 2010s, has spread to many fields, including biology, economics, medicine and computer science. Failures to replicate high-profile studies concern many scientists in these fields.

    Why replicate?

    Replicability is a core scientific value: Researchers want to be able to find the same result again and again. Many important findings are not published until they are independently replicated.

    In research, chance findings can occur. Imagine if one person flipped a coin 10 times and got two heads, then told the world that “coins have a 20% chance of coming up heads.” Even though this is an unlikely outcome – about 4% – it’s possible.

    Replications can correct these chance outcomes, as well as scientific errors, to ensure science is self-correcting.

    For example, in the search for the Higgs boson, two research centers at CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, ATLAS and CMS, independently replicated the detection of a particle with a large unique mass, leading to the 2013 Nobel Prize in physics.

    The ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is one of two that led to the discovery of the Higgs boson.
    CERN, CC BY

    The initial measurements from the two centers actually estimated the mass of the particle as slightly different. So while the two centers didn’t find identical results, the teams evaluated them and determined they were close enough. This variability is a natural part of the scientific process. Just because results are not identical does not mean they are not reliable.

    Research centers like CERN have replication built into their process, but this is not feasible for all research. For projects that are relatively low cost, the original team will often replicate their work prior to publication – but doing so does not guarantee that an independent team could get the same results.

    Because the results on vaccine efficacy were so clear, replication wasn’t necessary and would have slowed the process of getting the vaccine to people.
    XKCD, CC BY-NC

    When projects are costly, urgent or time-specific, independently replicating them prior to disseminating results is often not feasible. Remember when people across the country were waiting for a COVID-19 vaccine?

    The initial Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine took 13 months from the start of the trial to authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. The results of the initial study were so clear and convincing that a replication would have unnecessarily delayed getting the vaccine out to the public and slowing the spread of disease.

    Since not every study can be replicated prior to publication, it’s important to conduct replications after studies are published. Replications help scientists understand how well research processes are working, identify errors and self-correct. So what’s the process of conducting a replication?

    The replication process

    Researchers could independently replicate the work of other teams, like at CERN. And that does happen. But when there are only two studies – the original and the replication – it’s hard to know what to do when they disagree. For that reason, large multigroup teams often conduct replications where they are all replicating the same study.

    Alternatively, if the purpose is to estimate the replicability of a body of research – for example, cancer biology – each team might replicate a different study, and the focus is on the percentage of studies that replicate across many studies.

    These large-scale replication projects have arisen around the world and include ManyLabs, ManyBabies, Psychological Accelerator and others.

    Replicators start by learning as much as possible about how the original study was conducted. They can collect details about the study from reading the published paper, discussing the work with its original authors and consulting online materials.

    The replicators want to know how the participants were recruited, how the data was collected and using what tools, and how the data was analyzed.

    But sometimes, studies may leave out important details, like the questions participants were asked or the brand of equipment used. Replicators have to make these difficult decisions themselves, which can affect the outcome.

    Replicators also often explicitly change details of the study. For example, many replication studies are conducted with larger samples – more participants – than the original study, to ensure the results are reliable.

    Registration and publication

    Sadly, replication research is hard to publish: Only 3% of papers in psychology, less than 1% in education and 1.2% in marketing are replications.

    If the original study replicates, journals may reject the paper because there is no “new insight.” If it doesn’t replicate, journals may reject the paper because they assume the replicators made a mistake – remember the salt crystals.

    Because of these issues, replicators often use registration to strengthen their claims. A preregistration is a public document describing the plan for the study. It is time-stamped to before the study is conducted.

    This type of document improves transparency by making changes in the plan detectable to reviewers. Registered reports take this a step further, where the research plan is subject to peer review before conducting the study.

    If the journal approves the registration, they commit to publishing the results of the study regardless of the results. Registered reports are ideal for replication research because the reviewers don’t know the results when the journal commits to publishing the paper, and whether the study replicates or not won’t affect whether it gets published.

    About 58% of registered reports in psychology are replication studies.

    Replication research often uses the highest standards of research practice: large samples and registration. While not all replication research is required to use these practices, those that do contribute greatly to our confidence in scientific results.

    Replication research is a useful thermometer to understand if scientific processes are working as intended. Active discussion of the replicability crisis, in both scientific and political spaces, suggests to many researchers that there is room for growth. While no field would expect a replication rate of 100%, new processes among scientists aim to improve the rates from those in the past.

    Amanda Kay Montoya is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She serves on the Board of Directors for the Center for Open Science. She receives funding from the US-National Science Foundation.

    – ref. Research replication can determine how well science is working – but how do scientists replicate studies? – https://theconversation.com/research-replication-can-determine-how-well-science-is-working-but-how-do-scientists-replicate-studies-260771

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • Babies born with DNA from three people hailed as breakthrough – but questions remain

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cathy Herbrand, Professor of Medical and Family Sociology, De Montfort University

    Ten years after the UK became the first country to legalise mitochondrial donation, the first results from the use of these high-profile reproductive technologies – designed to prevent passing on genetic disorders – have finally been published.

    So far, eight children have been born, all reportedly healthy, thanks to the long-term efforts of scientists and doctors in Newcastle, England. Should this be a cause for excitement, disappointment or concern? Perhaps, I would suggest, it could be a bit of all three.

    The New England Journal of Medicine has published two papers on a groundbreaking fertility treatment that could prevent devastating inherited diseases. The technique, called mitochondrial donation, was used to help 22 women who carry faulty genes that would otherwise pass serious genetic disorders – such as Leigh syndrome – to their children. These disorders affect the body’s ability to produce energy at the cellular level and can cause severe disability or death in babies.

    The technique, developed by the Newcastle team, involves creating an embryo using DNA from three people: nuclear DNA from the intended mother and father, and healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. During the parliamentary debates leading up to The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations in 2015, there were concerns about the effectiveness of the procedure and its potential side effects.

    The announcement that this technology has led to the birth of eight apparently healthy children therefore marks a major scientific achievement for the UK, which has been widely praised by numerous scientists and patient support groups. However, these results should not detract from some important questions they also raise.

    First, why has it taken so long for any updates on the application of this technology, including its outcomes and its limitations, to be made public? Especially given the significant public financial investment made into its development.

    In a country positioning itself as a leader in the governance and practice of reproductive and genomic medicine, transparency should be a central principle. Transparency not only supports the progress of other research teams but also keeps the public and patients well informed.

    Second, what is the significance of these results? While eight babies were born using this technology, this figure contrasts starkly with the predicted number of 150 babies per year likely to be born using the technique.

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK regulator in this area, has approved 32 applications since 2017 when the Newcastle team obtained its licence, but the technique was used with only 22 of them, resulting in eight babies. Does this constitute sufficiently robust data to prove the effectiveness of the technology and was it worth the considerable efforts and investments over almost two decades of campaigning, debate and research?

    As I wrote when this law was passed, officials should have been more realistic about how many people this treatment could actually help. By overestimating the number of patients who might benefit, they risked giving false hope to families who wouldn’t be eligible for the procedure.

    The safety question

    Third, is it safe enough? In two of the eight cases, the babies showed higher levels of maternal mitochondrial DNA, meaning the risk of developing a mitochondrial disorder cannot be ruled out. This potential for a “reversal” – where the faulty mitochondria reassert themselves – was also highlighted in a recent study conducted in Greece involving patients who used the technique to treat infertility problems.

    As a result, the technology is no longer framed by the Newcastle team as a way to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders, but rather to reduce the risk. But is the risk reduction enough to justify offering the technique to more patients? And what will the risk of reassertion mean for the children born through it and their parents, who may live with the continuing uncertainty that the condition could emerge later in life?

    As some experts have suggested, it may be worth testing this technology on women who have fertility problems but don’t carry mitochondrial diseases. This would help doctors better understand the risks of the faulty mitochondria coming back, before using the technique only on women who could pass these serious genetic conditions to their children.

    This leads to a fourth question. What has been the patient experience with this technology? It would be valuable to know how many people applied for mitochondrial donation, why some were not approved, and, among those 32 approved cases, why only 22 proceeded with treatment.

    It also raises important questions about how patients who were either unable to access the technology, or for whom it was ultimately unsuccessful feel, particularly after investing significant time, effort and hope in the process. How do they come to terms with not having the healthy biological child they had been offered?

    This is not to say we shouldn’t celebrate these births and what they represent for the UK in terms of scientific achievement. The birth of eight healthy children represents a genuine scientific breakthrough that families affected by mitochondrial diseases have waited decades to see. However, some important questions remain unanswered, and more evidence is needed and it should be communicated in a timely manner to make conclusions about the long-term use of the technology.

    Breakthroughs come with responsibilities. If the UK wants to maintain its position as a leader in reproductive medicine, it must be more transparent about both the successes and limitations of this technology. The families still waiting to have the procedure – and those who may never receive it – deserve nothing less than complete honesty about what this treatment can and cannot deliver.

    The Conversation

    Cathy Herbrand receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. Babies born with DNA from three people hailed as breakthrough – but questions remain – https://theconversation.com/babies-born-with-dna-from-three-people-hailed-as-breakthrough-but-questions-remain-261385

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Babies born with DNA from three people hailed as breakthrough – but questions remain

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cathy Herbrand, Professor of Medical and Family Sociology, De Montfort University

    Ten years after the UK became the first country to legalise mitochondrial donation, the first results from the use of these high-profile reproductive technologies – designed to prevent passing on genetic disorders – have finally been published.

    So far, eight children have been born, all reportedly healthy, thanks to the long-term efforts of scientists and doctors in Newcastle, England. Should this be a cause for excitement, disappointment or concern? Perhaps, I would suggest, it could be a bit of all three.

    The New England Journal of Medicine has published two papers on a groundbreaking fertility treatment that could prevent devastating inherited diseases. The technique, called mitochondrial donation, was used to help 22 women who carry faulty genes that would otherwise pass serious genetic disorders – such as Leigh syndrome – to their children. These disorders affect the body’s ability to produce energy at the cellular level and can cause severe disability or death in babies.

    The technique, developed by the Newcastle team, involves creating an embryo using DNA from three people: nuclear DNA from the intended mother and father, and healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. During the parliamentary debates leading up to The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations in 2015, there were concerns about the effectiveness of the procedure and its potential side effects.

    The announcement that this technology has led to the birth of eight apparently healthy children therefore marks a major scientific achievement for the UK, which has been widely praised by numerous scientists and patient support groups. However, these results should not detract from some important questions they also raise.

    First, why has it taken so long for any updates on the application of this technology, including its outcomes and its limitations, to be made public? Especially given the significant public financial investment made into its development.

    In a country positioning itself as a leader in the governance and practice of reproductive and genomic medicine, transparency should be a central principle. Transparency not only supports the progress of other research teams but also keeps the public and patients well informed.

    Second, what is the significance of these results? While eight babies were born using this technology, this figure contrasts starkly with the predicted number of 150 babies per year likely to be born using the technique.

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK regulator in this area, has approved 32 applications since 2017 when the Newcastle team obtained its licence, but the technique was used with only 22 of them, resulting in eight babies. Does this constitute sufficiently robust data to prove the effectiveness of the technology and was it worth the considerable efforts and investments over almost two decades of campaigning, debate and research?

    As I wrote when this law was passed, officials should have been more realistic about how many people this treatment could actually help. By overestimating the number of patients who might benefit, they risked giving false hope to families who wouldn’t be eligible for the procedure.

    The safety question

    Third, is it safe enough? In two of the eight cases, the babies showed higher levels of maternal mitochondrial DNA, meaning the risk of developing a mitochondrial disorder cannot be ruled out. This potential for a “reversal” – where the faulty mitochondria reassert themselves – was also highlighted in a recent study conducted in Greece involving patients who used the technique to treat infertility problems.

    As a result, the technology is no longer framed by the Newcastle team as a way to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders, but rather to reduce the risk. But is the risk reduction enough to justify offering the technique to more patients? And what will the risk of reassertion mean for the children born through it and their parents, who may live with the continuing uncertainty that the condition could emerge later in life?

    As some experts have suggested, it may be worth testing this technology on women who have fertility problems but don’t carry mitochondrial diseases. This would help doctors better understand the risks of the faulty mitochondria coming back, before using the technique only on women who could pass these serious genetic conditions to their children.

    This leads to a fourth question. What has been the patient experience with this technology? It would be valuable to know how many people applied for mitochondrial donation, why some were not approved, and, among those 32 approved cases, why only 22 proceeded with treatment.

    It also raises important questions about how patients who were either unable to access the technology, or for whom it was ultimately unsuccessful feel, particularly after investing significant time, effort and hope in the process. How do they come to terms with not having the healthy biological child they had been offered?

    This is not to say we shouldn’t celebrate these births and what they represent for the UK in terms of scientific achievement. The birth of eight healthy children represents a genuine scientific breakthrough that families affected by mitochondrial diseases have waited decades to see. However, some important questions remain unanswered, and more evidence is needed and it should be communicated in a timely manner to make conclusions about the long-term use of the technology.

    Breakthroughs come with responsibilities. If the UK wants to maintain its position as a leader in reproductive medicine, it must be more transparent about both the successes and limitations of this technology. The families still waiting to have the procedure – and those who may never receive it – deserve nothing less than complete honesty about what this treatment can and cannot deliver.

    Cathy Herbrand receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. Babies born with DNA from three people hailed as breakthrough – but questions remain – https://theconversation.com/babies-born-with-dna-from-three-people-hailed-as-breakthrough-but-questions-remain-261385

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • East African countries and open borders: great strides, but still a long way to go

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Alan Hirsch, Senior Research Fellow New South Institute, Emeritus Professor at The Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, University of Cape Town

    It’s not uncommon to find a Ugandan taxi driver in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, just as one regularly meets Zimbabwean Uber drivers in South Africa. But there is a big difference. A Ugandan working in Rwanda most likely has a secure legal right to be there, whereas Zimbabweans working in South Africa are often uncertain of their current or future legality.

    East Africa has made greater strides towards the free flow of people crossing borders and seeking work than most of Africa. Only the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) is in the same league.

    While the African Union’s Free Movement of Persons protocol has faltered at a continental level, some of the regional economic communities have made progress. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) allows visa-free travel across almost all its borders.

    Ecowas and the East African Community (EAC) have driven ambitiously towards regional common markets including the freeing up of job-seeking, residential settlement and business development across the borders of member states.

    The New South Institute, a think-tank focused on governance reforms in the global south, is nearing the end of a research programme on migration governance reform in Africa. Our new report is on East Africa.

    We have found that unlike much of the global north, the African continent is moving towards more open borders for people. In some of the global south the promise of economic growth outweighs political fears. Yet progress is slow, and not coordinated. Mostly migration reform happens in regions and between neighbours.

    The progress in the East African Community is particularly notable compared with other African regional communities. We identify a number of reasons for this, including strong leadership and co-operation between state and non-state actors.

    The commitment to free movement

    The East African Community adopted its Common Market Protocol in 2010. The bloc is made up of Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan, the DRC and Somalia.

    The regional body’s common market pact includes the movement of goods, services, capital and people. It gives people the right – on paper at least – to find employment across borders, the right to reside and the right to establish a business. There is also a commitment to the harmonisation and mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications and labour policies to ease mobility.

    Even before the common market protocol, the regional bloc began to establish one-stop border posts on many of its internal borders to facilitate the flow of goods and people. Though they don’t all operate the same way or equally well, they have been successful at easing movement.

    Uneven outcomes

    The common market’s impact on the movement of people has been uneven within the region. Most integrated are Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda, which allow the cross-border movement of citizens with standardised identity documents – they do not need passports.

    It is also relatively easy to get jobs across these borders.

    Tanzania and Burundi are close to the inner circle but still require passports, though no visas. The three states which joined more recently, South Sudan, the DRC and Somalia, are all fragile states with governance systems that do not always meet the standards needed for acceptance into all the privileges of the regional bloc.

    In practice there is differential treatment. Generally, it is more difficult for citizens of the three latecomers to get regular access and jobs in their regional partners.

    Another limitation when it comes to the mobility of people is that little progress has been made in the formal harmonisation of education, health and social welfare systems between member states. This inhibits job seeking across borders.

    In addition, national labour laws, which tend to require permits for foreigners, still apply to varying degrees in the region. Some countries are more permissive. For example, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda have a reciprocal no-fee work permit agreement.

    Another shortcoming has been that the outcomes of court processes in enforcing the freedom of movement have been disappointing. This is so even though the regional bloc has an active East African Court of Justice. Its legal mandate includes the enforcement of the bloc’s treaty and its protocols.

    In some cases the court has found that national actions inhibiting the movement of persons were trumped by the regional protocol. It has instructed the errant governments to comply. But its ability to enforce the decisions is minimal.

    Reasons for success

    Leadership has been important. The fact that the strongest economy in the region, Kenya, has been part of the leading echelon is significant.

    Rwanda and Uganda have led by example too. Rwanda was one of the first countries on the continent to offer visa-free entry to all other African countries. For its part, Uganda is widely admired for its refugee inclusion programmes.

    Another factor outlined in our report has been the opportunity for collaboration fostered by relationships between formal institutions, such as governments, and non-state actors such as the International Organisation for Migration. Interactions between these various players have created opportunities for officials and policymakers from states of the region to meet, discuss issues of concern, and develop relationships of trust and understanding.

    Another non-state donor-funded actor, TradeMark Africa, which was established in 2010 to support in the implementation of the common market in east Africa, provided considerable support. For example it supported the implementation of the regional One-Stop Border Post programme..

    Way forward

    Based on our report we identified changes that could make a positive difference.

    Firstly, the development of reliable, harmonised systems in the region to collect and manage data on population mobility and employment. This would build confidence that policy was being made on the basis of reliable information.

    Secondly, reducing friction in cross-border monetary transactions, including migrants’ remittances. This would make it easier for migrants to send some of their income to their countries of origin.

    Thirdly, improvements to population registers, identity documents, passports and cross-border migration management systems. Improvements would build mutual trust in the integrity of systems and pave the way for further commitments to lowering migration barriers.

    Fourth, cooperation on cross-border access to social services such as health and education. This is one of the most important intermediate steps towards freeing up mobility for the citizens of the region.

    Fifth, reconsidering some of the amendments made to weaken the East African Court of Justice in 2007. This would strengthen the de jure powers of the court, adding considerably to the entrenchment of cross-border rights in the region.

    Ultimately, the key constraint in the region is political and security instability, which holds back social and economic development. Nevertheless, incremental progress on mobility is possible despite issues in the fragile states, even though it may result in asymmetric progress within the East African Community.

    The Conversation

    Alan Hirsch’s work on migration governance is part of his responsibilities while employed as a Senior Research Fellow at the New South Institute.

    – ref. East African countries and open borders: great strides, but still a long way to go – https://theconversation.com/east-african-countries-and-open-borders-great-strides-but-still-a-long-way-to-go-261021

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: East African countries and open borders: great strides, but still a long way to go

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Alan Hirsch, Senior Research Fellow New South Institute, Emeritus Professor at The Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, University of Cape Town

    It’s not uncommon to find a Ugandan taxi driver in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, just as one regularly meets Zimbabwean Uber drivers in South Africa. But there is a big difference. A Ugandan working in Rwanda most likely has a secure legal right to be there, whereas Zimbabweans working in South Africa are often uncertain of their current or future legality.

    East Africa has made greater strides towards the free flow of people crossing borders and seeking work than most of Africa. Only the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) is in the same league.

    While the African Union’s Free Movement of Persons protocol has faltered at a continental level, some of the regional economic communities have made progress. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) allows visa-free travel across almost all its borders.

    Ecowas and the East African Community (EAC) have driven ambitiously towards regional common markets including the freeing up of job-seeking, residential settlement and business development across the borders of member states.

    The New South Institute, a think-tank focused on governance reforms in the global south, is nearing the end of a research programme on migration governance reform in Africa. Our new report is on East Africa.

    We have found that unlike much of the global north, the African continent is moving towards more open borders for people. In some of the global south the promise of economic growth outweighs political fears. Yet progress is slow, and not coordinated. Mostly migration reform happens in regions and between neighbours.

    The progress in the East African Community is particularly notable compared with other African regional communities. We identify a number of reasons for this, including strong leadership and co-operation between state and non-state actors.

    The commitment to free movement

    The East African Community adopted its Common Market Protocol in 2010. The bloc is made up of Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan, the DRC and Somalia.

    The regional body’s common market pact includes the movement of goods, services, capital and people. It gives people the right – on paper at least – to find employment across borders, the right to reside and the right to establish a business. There is also a commitment to the harmonisation and mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications and labour policies to ease mobility.

    Even before the common market protocol, the regional bloc began to establish one-stop border posts on many of its internal borders to facilitate the flow of goods and people. Though they don’t all operate the same way or equally well, they have been successful at easing movement.

    Uneven outcomes

    The common market’s impact on the movement of people has been uneven within the region. Most integrated are Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda, which allow the cross-border movement of citizens with standardised identity documents – they do not need passports.

    It is also relatively easy to get jobs across these borders.

    Tanzania and Burundi are close to the inner circle but still require passports, though no visas. The three states which joined more recently, South Sudan, the DRC and Somalia, are all fragile states with governance systems that do not always meet the standards needed for acceptance into all the privileges of the regional bloc.

    In practice there is differential treatment. Generally, it is more difficult for citizens of the three latecomers to get regular access and jobs in their regional partners.

    Another limitation when it comes to the mobility of people is that little progress has been made in the formal harmonisation of education, health and social welfare systems between member states. This inhibits job seeking across borders.

    In addition, national labour laws, which tend to require permits for foreigners, still apply to varying degrees in the region. Some countries are more permissive. For example, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda have a reciprocal no-fee work permit agreement.

    Another shortcoming has been that the outcomes of court processes in enforcing the freedom of movement have been disappointing. This is so even though the regional bloc has an active East African Court of Justice. Its legal mandate includes the enforcement of the bloc’s treaty and its protocols.

    In some cases the court has found that national actions inhibiting the movement of persons were trumped by the regional protocol. It has instructed the errant governments to comply. But its ability to enforce the decisions is minimal.

    Reasons for success

    Leadership has been important. The fact that the strongest economy in the region, Kenya, has been part of the leading echelon is significant.

    Rwanda and Uganda have led by example too. Rwanda was one of the first countries on the continent to offer visa-free entry to all other African countries. For its part, Uganda is widely admired for its refugee inclusion programmes.

    Another factor outlined in our report has been the opportunity for collaboration fostered by relationships between formal institutions, such as governments, and non-state actors such as the International Organisation for Migration. Interactions between these various players have created opportunities for officials and policymakers from states of the region to meet, discuss issues of concern, and develop relationships of trust and understanding.

    Another non-state donor-funded actor, TradeMark Africa, which was established in 2010 to support in the implementation of the common market in east Africa, provided considerable support. For example it supported the implementation of the regional One-Stop Border Post programme..

    Way forward

    Based on our report we identified changes that could make a positive difference.

    Firstly, the development of reliable, harmonised systems in the region to collect and manage data on population mobility and employment. This would build confidence that policy was being made on the basis of reliable information.

    Secondly, reducing friction in cross-border monetary transactions, including migrants’ remittances. This would make it easier for migrants to send some of their income to their countries of origin.

    Thirdly, improvements to population registers, identity documents, passports and cross-border migration management systems. Improvements would build mutual trust in the integrity of systems and pave the way for further commitments to lowering migration barriers.

    Fourth, cooperation on cross-border access to social services such as health and education. This is one of the most important intermediate steps towards freeing up mobility for the citizens of the region.

    Fifth, reconsidering some of the amendments made to weaken the East African Court of Justice in 2007. This would strengthen the de jure powers of the court, adding considerably to the entrenchment of cross-border rights in the region.

    Ultimately, the key constraint in the region is political and security instability, which holds back social and economic development. Nevertheless, incremental progress on mobility is possible despite issues in the fragile states, even though it may result in asymmetric progress within the East African Community.

    Alan Hirsch’s work on migration governance is part of his responsibilities while employed as a Senior Research Fellow at the New South Institute.

    – ref. East African countries and open borders: great strides, but still a long way to go – https://theconversation.com/east-african-countries-and-open-borders-great-strides-but-still-a-long-way-to-go-261021

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: New parliament presents traps for Albanese and Ley

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

    Anthony Albanese hasn’t been in any rush to convene the new parliament, which Governor-General Sam Mostyn will open on Tuesday.

    It’s only mildly cynical to observe that governments of both persuasions often seem to regard having pesky members and senators around too much as a hindrance to business. Accountability is all very good in theory – facing it in practice is another matter.

    In this first fortnight of the new parliament, however, much of the attention will be less on the government than on the opposition. Liberal leader Sussan Ley has handled her early weeks without tripping. But her critics hover like crows on the fence in lambing season. Angus Taylor, who narrowly lost the leadership ballot, retains his ambition. The right-wing media wait for Ley’s mistakes.

    Ley will need to maintain a strong grip on her team’s messaging, especially on foreign and defence policy, or the Coalition will open itself to criticism.

    Taylor, now the defence spokesman, attracted attention this week when he went out on a limb on Taiwan, telling the ABC, “we should have a joint commitment with them [the US] to the security of Taiwan”.

    Ley, who says she wants to avoid unrelenting negativity, must choose the Coalition’s targets carefully. It has been presented with some useful fodder with the (inadvertently) leaked Treasury brief to the re-elected government that urged the need for tax rises and spending cuts. This is manna from political heaven because it is on the Coalition’s favoured economic ground, and raises issues for which the government doesn’t have immediate or clear-cut answers.

    As important as Ley’s own performance will be, so will that of shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien. Taylor’s handling of the job last term was a serious weakness for the Coalition.

    Facing a well-prepared and confident counterpart in Jim Chalmers, O’Brien must find his feet quickly. Sensibly, he has hired on his staff an experienced, credible economist, Steven Hamilton, who has been an assistant professor of economics at George Washington University in Washington DC. Hamilton has also been a regular contributor to The Australian Financial Review, so he has a feel for, and contacts in, the financial media.

    The government has a mix of legislation to introduce in this initial fortnight. Albanese promised during the campaign that Labor’s first cab off the rank would be its commitment to cut student debt by 20%. It also foreshadowed early action to cement in penalty rates.

    It didn’t anticipate having to rush in a bill to strip funding from childcare centres that do not meet safety standards. This follows the recent revelations
    of abuse.

    The first parliamentary fortnight comes in the run-up to the government’s August 19–21 productivity roundtable (named by Chalmers the “economic reform roundtable”). With expectations inevitably exploding, observers will be watching closely the dynamics between the treasurer and the prime minister in parliament.

    The two agree that delivering election promises should be the floor, rather than the ceiling, of ambition for the second term. But their degrees of ambition differ. Chalmers fears Albanese’s is limited; the prime minister fears his treasurer’s will overreach. Will Albanese show a restraining hand on the roundtable in the weeks before it?

    As the government wants to emphasise delivery to voters in the early days of the parliament, Chalmers hasn’t rushed to seek the deal he needs with the Greens on his controversial changes to superannuation tax arrangements. The plan is to increase the tax on balances of more than $3 million, and tax the unrealised capital gains.

    The Greens want the $3 million reduced to $2 million and that amount indexed. It’s a fair assumption a compromise will be reached when negotiations occur.

    That will be a relatively easy test for the Greens under their new leader Larissa Waters, who has also said she wants to be constructive while holding the government to account.

    Later on, though, will come harder issues, including whether the Greens will sign up to a new environmental protection authority, stymied by political obstacles last term.

    In general, the Senate will be less complicated for the government in coming months than last term, given the Greens hold the sole balance of power on legislation contested by the opposition.

    That means things are more frustrating for other Senate crossbenchers.

    In his stand on staffing, Albanese is not improving their mood. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation doubled its representation to four senators but has no extra staff. Staff allocation is up to the prime minister, who has once again been arbitrary about how many staff individual Senate crossbenchers receive. This is an unfair and indefensible system – there should be independent, consistent rules.

    ACT senator David Pocock hasn’t lost any staff but he has lost clout, compared with last term when his vote could be crucial and he was able to trade it for concessions from the government. The new numbers deal him and other non-Green crossbenchers out of the game.

    In the House of Representatives, the Teals retain strong representation but, as in the last parliament, they can only exert (limited) influence, not power. For a while early this year, when it looked as if there would be a hung parliament, they were preparing wish lists.

    One new Teal will be sworn in next week, Nicolette Boele, who won the seat of Bradfield from the Liberals. She can’t know, however, whether she will see out her term. The Liberals have challenged the result after she won by just 26 votes. The matter will be decided by the Court of Disputed Returns.

    There are three possible outcomes: the court confirms the result; the result is overturned and the seat awarded to Liberal candidate Gisele Kapterian (who was allowed to vote in the Liberal leadership and supported Ley); or a fresh election is ordered.

    The Liberals are taking some risk with the challenge. If there were a new election, and they lost it, that would be another setback for them and could destabilise Ley’s leadership.

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

    – ref. Grattan on Friday: New parliament presents traps for Albanese and Ley – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-new-parliament-presents-traps-for-albanese-and-ley-261096

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Police protection for New Caledonian politicians following death threats

    By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    New Caledonian politicians who inked their commitment to a deal with France last weekend will be offered special police protection following threats, especially made on social media networks.

    The group includes almost 20 members of New Caledonia’s parties — both pro-France and pro-independence — who took part in deal-breaking negotiations with the French State that ended on 12 July 2025, and a joint commitment regarding New Caledonia’s political future.

    The endorsed document envisages a roadmap in the coming months to turn New Caledonia into a “state” within the French realm.

    It is what some legal experts have sometimes referred to as “a state within the state”, while others say this was tantamount to pushing the French Constitution to its very limits.

    The document is a commitment by all signatories that they will stick to their respective positions from now on.

    The tense but conclusive negotiations took place behind closed doors in a hotel in the small city of Bougival, near Paris, under talks driven by French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls and a team of high-level French government representatives and advisers.

    It followed Valls’ several unsuccessful attempts earlier this year to reach a consensus between parties who want New Caledonia to remain part of France and others representing the pro-independence movement.

    Concessions from both sides
     But to reach a compromise agreement, both sides have had to make concessions.

    The pro-French parties, for instance, have had to endorse the notion of a State of New Caledonia or that of a double French-New Caledonian nationality.

    Pro-independence parties have had to accept the plan to modify the rules of eligibility to vote at local elections so as to allow more non-native French nationals to join the local electoral roll.

    They also had to postpone or even give up on the hard-line full sovereignty demand for now.

    Over the past five years and after a series of three referendums (held between 2018 and 2021) on self-determination, both camps have increasingly radicalised.

    This resulted in destructive and deadly riots that broke out in May 2024, resulting in 14 deaths, more than 2 billion euros (NZ$3.9 billion) in damage, thousands of jobless and the destruction of hundreds of businesses.

    Over one year later, the atmosphere in New Caledonia remains marked by a sense of tension, fear and uncertainty on both sides of the political chessboard.

    Since the deal was signed and made public, on July 12, and even before flying back to New Caledonia, all parties have been targeted by a wide range of reactions from their militant bases, especially on social media.

    Some of the reactions have included thinly-veiled death threats in response to a perception that, on one side or another, the deal was not up to the militants’ expectations and that the parties’ negotiators are now regarded as “traitors”.

    Since signing the Paris agreement, all parties have also recognised the need to “sell” and “explain” the new agreement to their respective militants.

    Most of the political parties represented during the talks have already announced they will hold meetings in the coming days, in what is described as “an exercise in pedagogy”.

    “In a certain number of countries, when you sign compromises after hundreds of hours of discussions and when it’s not accepted [by your militants], you lose your reputation. In our country . . . you can risk your life,” said moderate pro-France Calédonie Ensemble leader Philippe Gomès told public broadcaster NC La Première on Wednesday.

    Pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) chief negotiator Emmanuel Tjibaou was the first to face negative repercussions back in New Caledonia.

    Tjibaou’s fateful precedent
     “To choose this difficult and new path also means we’ll be subject to criticism. We’re going to get insulted, threatened, precisely because we have chosen a different path,” he told a debriefing meeting hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron.

    In 1988, Tjibaou’s father, pro-independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou, also signed a historic deal (known as the Matignon-Oudinot accords) with pro-France’s Jacques Lafleur, under the auspices of then Prime Minister Michel Rocard.

    The deal largely contributed to restoring peace in New Caledonia, after a quasi-civil war during the second half of the 1980s.

    The following year, he and his deputy, Yeiwéné Yeiwéné, were both shot dead by Djubelly Wéa, a hard-line member of the pro-independence movement, who believed the signing of the 1988 deal had been a “betrayal” of the indigenous Kanak people’s struggle for sovereignty and independence.

    ‘Nobody has betrayed anybody’
     “Nobody has betrayed anybody, whichever party he belongs to. All of us, on both sides, have defended and remained faithful to their beliefs. We had to work and together find a common ground for the years to come, for Caledonians. Now that’s what we need to explain,” said pro-France Rassemblement-LR leader Virginie Ruffenach.

    In an interview earlier this week, Valls said he was very aware of the local tensions.

    “I’m aware there are risks, even serious ones. And not only political. There are threats on elections, on politicians, on the delegations. What I’m calling for is debate, confrontation of ideas and calm.

    “I’m aware that there are extremists out there, who may want to provoke a civil war . . . a tragedy is always possible.

    “The risk is always there. Since the accord was signed, there have been direct threats on New Caledonian leaders, pro-independence or anti-independence.

    “We’re going to act to prevent this. There cannot be death threats on social networks against pro-independence or anti-independence leaders,” Valls said.

    Over the past few days, special protection French police officers have already been deployed to New Caledonia to take care of politicians who took part in the Bougival talks and wish to be placed under special scrutiny.

    “They will be more protected than (French cabinet) ministers,” French national public broadcaster France Inter reported on Tuesday.

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

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

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

    The majority of the world’s rechargeable batteries are now made using lithium-ion. Most rely on a combination of different rare earth metals such as cobalt or nickel for their electrodes. But around the world, teams of researchers are looking for alternative – and more sustainable – materials to build the batteries of the future.

    In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to four scientists  who are testing a variety of potential battery materials about the promises they may offer.

    When lithium-ion batteries emerged in the 1990s, they were a huge breakthrough, says Laurence Hardwick, a professor of electrochemistry at the University of Liverpool in the UK. He explains that lithium-ion batteries “ became commercialised at the same time as the mobile electronics industry really took off”. But their subsequent use in electric cars now presents “a challenge of scale”, given the use of rare earth minerals within their components.

    Hardwick is director of the Stephenson Institute for Renewable Energy, named after the 19th-century engineer George Stephenson – builder of the world’s first inter-city rail link between Liverpool and Manchester, which passed close by to the University of Liverpool’s campus.

    Hardwick’s work focuses on what other materials could be used either in conjunction with lithium, or on their own, to diversify battery manufacturing away from rare earth metals. Part of this includes research on solid-state batteries, which use ceramic plates rather than a solvents to conduct the ions that provide the charge. “ Solid-state batteries offer a lot of potential energy-gaining benefits and safety benefits,” he says.

    Sodium-ion is also being touted as a potential alternative to lithium-ion batteries. Robert Armstrong, principal research fellow in chemistry at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, is part of a consortium of UK-based researchers working on questions around sodium-ion batteries, including what type of electrodes and electrolytes work best.

    Like potassium-ion, which is also a potential battery candidate, sodium-ion is heavier than lithium-ion, but Armstrong says sodium is  fairly evenly abundant: “So you don’t have the supply issues that might affect lithium-ion, and you’re not like to see the same price volatility.”

    Some Chinese manufacturers in China, such as BYD and CATL, are pushing ahead with sodium-ion batteries for cars, despite the fact they’re heavier than lithium-ion batteries. There’s also interest in sodium-based technology in countries in the Arabian Gulf that use desalination plants. “They’ve got all this sodium kicking around. Why not make use of it?” says Armstrong.

    Batteries which biodegrade

    A version of the soil-fuelled Terracell battery
    Terracell on display at the Prototypes for Humanity 2024 showcase in Dubai.
    Gemma Ware, CC BY-SA

    Other researchers are looking at how to make batteries out of plant-based materials that are biodegradable. Bill Yen, a PhD candidate in electrical engineering at Stanford University, is part of a team who are developing Terracell, a type of battery that generates power using microbes in the soil.

    Their inspiration was how to power environmental sensors in damp environments without leaving lots of electronic waste behind at the end of the battery’s life. Terracell won the energy category of the Prototypes for Humanity 2024 event in 2024 in Dubai, a  showcase for sustainable solutions to the world’s problems.

    Also in Dubai was Ulugbek Asimov, a professor of mechanical and construction engineering at Northumbria University in the UK, who is developing BioPower Cells, a type of rechargeable battery made from waste products such as coffee which doesn’t contain any rare earth metals. “  And at the end of its lifespan, we drop it into boiling water and it will be turned into liquid ionic fertilizer,” Asimov said.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly to hear the conversations with these four scientists about their work and the batteries of the future.

    Applications are now open for early career researchers to submit their projects for the Prototypes for Humanity 2025 awards and showcase in Dubai.

    This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware with assistance from Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

    The Conversation

    Bill Yen has received funding for his work on Terracell from National Science Foundation, the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative and support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,VMware Research, and 3M. Laurence Hardwick has received funding from the Faraday Institution and is a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Ulugbek Asimoz has received funding from the Northern Accelerator Proof of Concept to develop certain stages of the BioPower Cells project, which will be a spinout company from Northumbria University in the future. Robert Armstrong has received funding from the Faraday Institution and funding from EPSRC and Leverhulme Trust.

    – ref. What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast – https://theconversation.com/what-will-batteries-of-the-future-be-made-of-four-scientists-discuss-the-options-podcast-261294

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast

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

    The majority of the world’s rechargeable batteries are now made using lithium-ion. Most rely on a combination of different rare earth metals such as cobalt or nickel for their electrodes. But around the world, teams of researchers are looking for alternative – and more sustainable – materials to build the batteries of the future.

    In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to four scientists  who are testing a variety of potential battery materials about the promises they may offer.

    When lithium-ion batteries emerged in the 1990s, they were a huge breakthrough, says Laurence Hardwick, a professor of electrochemistry at the University of Liverpool in the UK. He explains that lithium-ion batteries “ became commercialised at the same time as the mobile electronics industry really took off”. But their subsequent use in electric cars now presents “a challenge of scale”, given the use of rare earth minerals within their components.

    Hardwick is director of the Stephenson Institute for Renewable Energy, named after the 19th-century engineer George Stephenson – builder of the world’s first inter-city rail link between Liverpool and Manchester, which passed close by to the University of Liverpool’s campus.

    Hardwick’s work focuses on what other materials could be used either in conjunction with lithium, or on their own, to diversify battery manufacturing away from rare earth metals. Part of this includes research on solid-state batteries, which use ceramic plates rather than a solvents to conduct the ions that provide the charge. “ Solid-state batteries offer a lot of potential energy-gaining benefits and safety benefits,” he says.

    Sodium-ion is also being touted as a potential alternative to lithium-ion batteries. Robert Armstrong, principal research fellow in chemistry at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, is part of a consortium of UK-based researchers working on questions around sodium-ion batteries, including what type of electrodes and electrolytes work best.

    Like potassium-ion, which is also a potential battery candidate, sodium-ion is heavier than lithium-ion, but Armstrong says sodium is  fairly evenly abundant: “So you don’t have the supply issues that might affect lithium-ion, and you’re not like to see the same price volatility.”

    Some Chinese manufacturers in China, such as BYD and CATL, are pushing ahead with sodium-ion batteries for cars, despite the fact they’re heavier than lithium-ion batteries. There’s also interest in sodium-based technology in countries in the Arabian Gulf that use desalination plants. “They’ve got all this sodium kicking around. Why not make use of it?” says Armstrong.

    Batteries which biodegrade

    Terracell on display at the Prototypes for Humanity 2024 showcase in Dubai.
    Gemma Ware, CC BY-SA

    Other researchers are looking at how to make batteries out of plant-based materials that are biodegradable. Bill Yen, a PhD candidate in electrical engineering at Stanford University, is part of a team who are developing Terracell, a type of battery that generates power using microbes in the soil.

    Their inspiration was how to power environmental sensors in damp environments without leaving lots of electronic waste behind at the end of the battery’s life. Terracell won the energy category of the Prototypes for Humanity 2024 event in 2024 in Dubai, a  showcase for sustainable solutions to the world’s problems.

    Also in Dubai was Ulugbek Asimov, a professor of mechanical and construction engineering at Northumbria University in the UK, who is developing BioPower Cells, a type of rechargeable battery made from waste products such as coffee which doesn’t contain any rare earth metals. “  And at the end of its lifespan, we drop it into boiling water and it will be turned into liquid ionic fertilizer,” Asimov said.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly to hear the conversations with these four scientists about their work and the batteries of the future.

    Applications are now open for early career researchers to submit their projects for the Prototypes for Humanity 2025 awards and showcase in Dubai.

    This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware with assistance from Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

    Bill Yen has received funding for his work on Terracell from National Science Foundation, the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative and support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,VMware Research, and 3M. Laurence Hardwick has received funding from the Faraday Institution and is a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Ulugbek Asimoz has received funding from the Northern Accelerator Proof of Concept to develop certain stages of the BioPower Cells project, which will be a spinout company from Northumbria University in the future. Robert Armstrong has received funding from the Faraday Institution and funding from EPSRC and Leverhulme Trust.

    – ref. What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast – https://theconversation.com/what-will-batteries-of-the-future-be-made-of-four-scientists-discuss-the-options-podcast-261294

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • New discovery at Cern could hint at why our universe is made up of matter and not antimatter

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Barter, UKRI Future Leaders Fellow, University of Edinburgh

    Why didn’t the universe annihilate itself moments after the big bang? A new finding at Cern on the French-Swiss border brings us closer to answering this fundamental question about why matter dominates over its opposite – antimatter.

    Much of what we see in everyday life is made up of matter. But antimatter exists in much smaller quantities. Matter and antimatter are almost direct opposites. Matter particles have an antimatter counterpart that has the same mass, but the opposite electric charge. For example, the matter proton particle is partnered by the antimatter antiproton, while the matter electron is partnered by the antimatter positron.

    However, the symmetry in behaviour between matter and antimatter is not perfect. In a paper published this week in Nature, the team working on an experiment at Cern, called LHCb, has reported that it has discovered differences in the rate at which matter particles called baryons decay relative to the rate of their antimatter counterparts. In particle physics, decay refers to the process where unstable subatomic particles transform into two or more lighter, more stable particles.

    According to cosmological models, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were made in the big bang. If matter and antimatter particles come in contact, they annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. With this in mind, it’s a wonder that the universe doesn’t consist only of leftover energy from this annihilation process.

    However, astronomical observations show that there is now a negligible amount of antimatter in the universe compared to the amount of matter. We therefore know that matter and antimatter must behave differently, such that the antimatter has disappeared while the matter has not.

    Understanding what causes this difference in behaviour between matter and antimatter is a key unanswered question. While there are differences between matter and antimatter in our best theory of fundamental quantum physics, the standard model, these differences are far too small to explain where all the antimatter has gone.

    So we know there must be additional fundamental particles that we haven’t found yet, or effects beyond those described in the standard model. These would give rise to large enough differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter for our universe to exist in its current form.

    Revealing new particles

    Highly precise measurements of the differences between matter and antimatter are a key topic of research because they have the potential to be influenced by and reveal these new fundamental particles, helping us discover the physics that led to the universe we live in today.

    Differences between matter and antimatter have previously been observed in the behaviour of another type of particle, mesons, which are made of a quark and an antiquark. There are also hints of differences in how the matter and antimatter versions of a further type of particle, the neutrino, behave as they travel.

    Big Bang
    Equivalent amounts of matter and antimatter were generated by the Big Bang.
    Triff / Shutterstock

    The new measurement from LHCb has found differences between baryons and antibaryons, which are made of three quarks and three antiquarks respectively. Significantly, baryons make up most of the known matter in our universe, and this is the first time that we have observed differences between matter and antimatter in this group of particles.

    The LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider is designed to make highly precise measurements of differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter. The experiment is operated by an international collaboration of scientists, made up of over 1,800 people based in 24 countries. In order to achieve the new result, the LHCb team studied over 80,000 baryons (“lambda-b” baryons, which are made up of a beauty quark, an up quark and a down quark) and their antimatter counterparts.

    Crucially, we found that these baryons decay to specific subatomic particles (a proton, a kaon and two pions) slightly more frequently – 5% more often – than the rate at which the same process happens with antiparticles. While small, this difference is statistically significant enough to be the first observation of differences in behaviour between baryon and antibaryon decays.

    To date, all measurements of matter-antimatter differences have been consistent with the small level present in the standard model. While the new measurement from LHCb is also in line with this theory, it is a major step forward. We have now seen differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter in the group of particles that dominate the known matter of the universe. It’s a potential step in the direction of understanding why that situation came to be after the big bang.

    With the current and forthcoming data runs of LHCb we will be able to study these differences forensically, and, we hope, tease out any sign of new fundamental particles that might be present.

    The Conversation

    William Barter works for the University of Edinburgh. He receives funding from UKRI. He is a member of the LHCb collaboration at Cern.

    – ref. New discovery at Cern could hint at why our universe is made up of matter and not antimatter – https://theconversation.com/new-discovery-at-cern-could-hint-at-why-our-universe-is-made-up-of-matter-and-not-antimatter-261274

  • MIL-Evening Report: 12 countries agree to confront Israel collectively over Gaza after Bogotá summit

    ANALYSIS: By Mick Hall

    Collective measures to confront Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people have been agreed by 12 nations after an emergency summit of the Hague Group in Bogotá, Colombia.

    A joint statement today announced the six measures, which it said were geared to holding Israel to account for its crimes in Palestine and would operate within the states’ domestic legal and legislative frameworks.

    Nearly two dozen other nations in attendance at the summit are now pondering whether to sign up to the measures before a September deadline set by the Hague Group.

    New Zealand and Australia stayed away from the summit.

    The measures include preventing the provision or transfer of arms, munitions, military fuel and dual-use items to Israel and preventing the transit, docking or servicing of vessels if there is a risk of vessels carrying such items. No vessel under the flag of the countries would be allowed to carry this equipment.

    The countries would also “commence an urgent review of all public contracts, in order to prevent public institutions and public funds, where applicable, from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory, to ensure that our nationals, and companies and entities under our jurisdiction, as well as our authorities, do not act in any way that would entail recognition or provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

    The countries will prosecute “the most serious crimes under international law through robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, in compliance with our obligation to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes”.

    They agreed to support universal jurisdiction mandates, “as and where applicable in our legal constitutional frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes in the Occupied Palestine Territory”.

    This will mean IDF soldiers and others accused of war crimes in Palestine would face arrest and could go through domestic judicial processes in these countries, or referrals to the ICC.

    The statement said the measures constituted a collective commitment to defend the foundational principles of international law.

    It also called on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to commission an immediate investigation of the health and nutritional needs of the population of Gaza, devise a plan to meet those needs on a continuing and sustained basis, and report on these matters before the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in September.

    Following repeated total blockades of Gaza since October 7, 2023, Gazans have been dying of starvation as they continue to be bombed and repeatedly displaced and their means of life destroyed.

    The official death toll stands at nearly 59,000, mostly women and children, although some estimates put that number at over 200,000.

    The joint statement recognised Israel as a threat to regional peace and the system of international law and called on all United Nations member states to enforce their obligations under the UN charter.

    It condemned “unilateral attacks and threats against United Nations mandate holders, as well as key institutions of the human rights architecture and international justice” and committed to build “on the legacy of global solidarity movements that have dismantled apartheid and other oppressive systems, setting a model for future co-ordinated responses to international law violations”.

    Countries face wrath of US
     Ministers, high-ranking officials and envoys from 30 nations attended the two-day event, from July 15-16, called to come up with the measures. It is now hoped some of those attendees will sign up to the statement by September.

    For countries like Ireland, which sent a delegation, signing up would have profound implications. The Irish government has been heavily criticised by its own citizens for continuing to allow Shannon Airport as a transit point for military equipment from the United States to be sent to Israel.

    It would also face the prospect of severe reprisals by the US, as would others thinking of adding their names to the collective statement. The US is now expected to consult with nations that attended and warn them of the consequences of signing up.

    The summit had been billed by the UN Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, as “the most significant political development of the last 20 months”.

    Albanese had told attendees that “for too long, international law has been treated as optional — applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful”.

    “This double standard has eroded the very foundations of the legal order. That era must end,” she said.

    Co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa, the Hague group was established by nine nations in late January at The Hague in the Netherlands to hold Israel to account for its crimes and push for Palestinian self-determination.

    Colombia last year ended diplomatic relations with Israel, while South Africa in late December 2023 filed an application at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide, which was joined by nearly two dozen countries.

    The ICJ has determined a plausible genocide is taking place and issued orders for Israel to protect Palestinians and take measures to stop genocide taking place, a call ignored by the Zionist state.

    Representatives from the countries arrived in Bogota this week in defiance of the United States, which last week sanctioned Albanese for attempts to have US and Israeli political officials and business leaders prosecuted by the ICC over Gaza.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it an illegitimate “campaign of political and economic warfare”.

    It followed the sanctioning of four ICC judges after arrest warrants were issued in November last year for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

    Ahead of the Bogota meeting, the US State Department accused The Hague Group of multilateral attempts to “weaponise international law as a tool to advance radical anti-Western agendas” and warned the US would “aggressively defend” its interests.

    Signs of division in the West
     Most of those attending came from nations in the Global South, but not all.

    Founding Hague Group members Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal and South Africa attended the Summit. Joining them were Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Republic of Ireland, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

    However, in a sign of increasing division in the West, NATO members Spain, Portugal, Norway, Slovenia and Turkey also attended.

    Inside the summit, former US State Department official Annelle Sheline, who resigned in March over Gaza, defended the right of those attending “to uphold their obligations under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.

    “This is not the weaponisation of international law. This is the application of international law,” she told delegates.

    The US and Israel deny accusations that genocide is taking place in Gaza, while Western media have collectively refused to adjudicate the claims or frame stories around Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the strip, despite ample evidence by the UN and genocide experts.

    Since 7 October 2023, US allies have offered diplomatic cover for Israel by repeating it had “a right to defend itself” and was engaged in a legitimate defensive “war against Hamas”.

    Israel now plans to corral starving Gazans into a concentration camp in the south of the strip, with many analysts expecting the IDF to exterminate anyone found outside its boundaries, while preparing to push those inside across the border into Egypt.

    Asia Pacific and EU allies shun Bogota summit
     Addressing attendees at the summit yesterday, Albanese criticised the EU for its neo-colonialism and support for Israel, criticisms that can be extended to US allies in the Asia Pacific region.

    Independent journalist Abby Martin reported Albanese as saying: “Europe and its institutions are guided more by colonial mindset than principle, acting as vessels to US Empire even as it drags us from war to war, misery to misery.

    “The Hague Group is a new moral centre in world politics. Millions are hoping for leadership that can birth a new global order, rooted in justice, humanity and collective liberation. It’s not just about Palestine. This is about all of us.”

    The Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was asked why Foreign Minister Penny Wong did not take up an invite to attend the Hague Group meeting. In a statement to Mick Hall in Context, a spokesperson said she had been unable to attend, but did not explain why.

    She said Australia was a “resolute defender of international law” and added: “Australia has consistently been part of international calls that all parties must abide by international humanitarian law. Not enough has been done to protect civilians and aid workers.

    “We have called on Israel to respond substantively to the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    “We have also called on Israel to comply with the binding orders of the ICJ, including to enable the unhindered provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale.”

    When asked why New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters had failed to take up the invitation or send any of his officials, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) spokesperson simply refused to comment.

    She said MFAT media advisors would only engage with “recognised news media outlets”.

    Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, as well as a number of his ministers, have been referred to the ICC by domestic legal teams, accused of complicity in the genocide.

    Evidence against Albanese was accepted into the ICC’s wider investigation of crimes in Gaza in October last year, while Luxon’s referral earlier this month is being assessed by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office.

    Delegates told humanity at stake
     Delegates heard several impassioned addresses from speakers on what was at stake during the two-day event in Bogota.

    Palestinian-American trauma surgeon, Dr Thaer Ahmad, told the gathering that Palestinians seeking food were being met with bullets, describing aid distribution facilities set up by the US contractor-run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) as “slaughterhouses”. More than 800 starving Gazans have been killed at the GHF aid points so far.

    “People know they could die but cannot sit idly by and watch their families starve,” he said.

    “The bullets fired by GHF mercenaries are just one part of the weaponisation of aid, where Palestinians are ghettoised into areas where somebody in military fatigues decides if you are worthy of food or not.”

    Palestinian diplomat Riyad Mansour had urged the summit attendees to take decisive action to not only save the Palestinian people, but redeem humanity.

    “Instead of outrage at the crimes we know are taking place, we find those who defend, normalise, and even celebrate them,” he said.

    “The core values we believed humanity agreed were universal are shattered, blown to pieces like the tens of thousands of starved, murdered and injured civilians in Palestine.

    “The mind and heart cannot fathom or process the immense pain and horror that has taken hold of the lives of an entire people. We must not fail — not just for Palestine’s sake — but for humanity’s sake.”

    At the beginning of the summit, Colombian Deputy Foreign Minister Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir told summit delegates the Palestinian genocide threatened the entire international system.

    Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote in The Guardian last week: “We can either stand firm in defence of the legal principles that seek to prevent war and conflict, or watch helplessly as the international system collapses under the weight of unchecked power politics.”

    Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers, as well as Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Syrian counterpart, Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani, met in Brussels at the same time as the Bogota summit, to discuss Middle East co-operation, but also possible options for action against Israel.

    At the EU–Southern Neighbourhood Ministerial Meeting, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas put forward potential actions after Israel was found to have breached the EU economic cooperation deal with the bloc on human rights grounds. As expected, no sanctions, restricted trade or suspension of the co-operation deal were agreed.

    The EU has been one of Israel’s most strident backers in its campaign against Gaza, with EU members Germany and France in particular supplying weapons, as well as political support.

    The UK government has continued to supply arms and operate spy planes over Gaza over the past 21 months, launched from bases in Cyprus, while its military has issued D-Notices to censor media reports that its special forces have been operating inside the occupied territories.

    Mick Hall is an independent Irish-New Zealand journalist, formerly of RNZ and AAP, based in New Zealand since 2009. He writes primarily on politics, corporate power and international affairs. This article is republished from his substack Mick Hall in Context with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: 12 countries agree to confront Israel collectively over Gaza after Bogotá summit

    ANALYSIS: By Mick Hall

    Collective measures to confront Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people have been agreed by 12 nations after an emergency summit of the Hague Group in Bogotá, Colombia.

    A joint statement today announced the six measures, which it said were geared to holding Israel to account for its crimes in Palestine and would operate within the states’ domestic legal and legislative frameworks.

    Nearly two dozen other nations in attendance at the summit are now pondering whether to sign up to the measures before a September deadline set by the Hague Group.

    New Zealand and Australia stayed away from the summit.

    The measures include preventing the provision or transfer of arms, munitions, military fuel and dual-use items to Israel and preventing the transit, docking or servicing of vessels if there is a risk of vessels carrying such items. No vessel under the flag of the countries would be allowed to carry this equipment.

    The countries would also “commence an urgent review of all public contracts, in order to prevent public institutions and public funds, where applicable, from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory, to ensure that our nationals, and companies and entities under our jurisdiction, as well as our authorities, do not act in any way that would entail recognition or provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

    The countries will prosecute “the most serious crimes under international law through robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, in compliance with our obligation to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes”.

    They agreed to support universal jurisdiction mandates, “as and where applicable in our legal constitutional frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes in the Occupied Palestine Territory”.

    This will mean IDF soldiers and others accused of war crimes in Palestine would face arrest and could go through domestic judicial processes in these countries, or referrals to the ICC.

    The statement said the measures constituted a collective commitment to defend the foundational principles of international law.

    It also called on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to commission an immediate investigation of the health and nutritional needs of the population of Gaza, devise a plan to meet those needs on a continuing and sustained basis, and report on these matters before the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in September.

    Following repeated total blockades of Gaza since October 7, 2023, Gazans have been dying of starvation as they continue to be bombed and repeatedly displaced and their means of life destroyed.

    The official death toll stands at nearly 59,000, mostly women and children, although some estimates put that number at over 200,000.

    The joint statement recognised Israel as a threat to regional peace and the system of international law and called on all United Nations member states to enforce their obligations under the UN charter.

    It condemned “unilateral attacks and threats against United Nations mandate holders, as well as key institutions of the human rights architecture and international justice” and committed to build “on the legacy of global solidarity movements that have dismantled apartheid and other oppressive systems, setting a model for future co-ordinated responses to international law violations”.

    Countries face wrath of US
     Ministers, high-ranking officials and envoys from 30 nations attended the two-day event, from July 15-16, called to come up with the measures. It is now hoped some of those attendees will sign up to the statement by September.

    For countries like Ireland, which sent a delegation, signing up would have profound implications. The Irish government has been heavily criticised by its own citizens for continuing to allow Shannon Airport as a transit point for military equipment from the United States to be sent to Israel.

    It would also face the prospect of severe reprisals by the US, as would others thinking of adding their names to the collective statement. The US is now expected to consult with nations that attended and warn them of the consequences of signing up.

    The summit had been billed by the UN Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, as “the most significant political development of the last 20 months”.

    Albanese had told attendees that “for too long, international law has been treated as optional — applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful”.

    “This double standard has eroded the very foundations of the legal order. That era must end,” she said.

    Co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa, the Hague group was established by nine nations in late January at The Hague in the Netherlands to hold Israel to account for its crimes and push for Palestinian self-determination.

    Colombia last year ended diplomatic relations with Israel, while South Africa in late December 2023 filed an application at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide, which was joined by nearly two dozen countries.

    The ICJ has determined a plausible genocide is taking place and issued orders for Israel to protect Palestinians and take measures to stop genocide taking place, a call ignored by the Zionist state.

    Representatives from the countries arrived in Bogota this week in defiance of the United States, which last week sanctioned Albanese for attempts to have US and Israeli political officials and business leaders prosecuted by the ICC over Gaza.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it an illegitimate “campaign of political and economic warfare”.

    It followed the sanctioning of four ICC judges after arrest warrants were issued in November last year for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

    Ahead of the Bogota meeting, the US State Department accused The Hague Group of multilateral attempts to “weaponise international law as a tool to advance radical anti-Western agendas” and warned the US would “aggressively defend” its interests.

    Signs of division in the West
     Most of those attending came from nations in the Global South, but not all.

    Founding Hague Group members Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal and South Africa attended the Summit. Joining them were Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Republic of Ireland, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

    However, in a sign of increasing division in the West, NATO members Spain, Portugal, Norway, Slovenia and Turkey also attended.

    Inside the summit, former US State Department official Annelle Sheline, who resigned in March over Gaza, defended the right of those attending “to uphold their obligations under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.

    “This is not the weaponisation of international law. This is the application of international law,” she told delegates.

    The US and Israel deny accusations that genocide is taking place in Gaza, while Western media have collectively refused to adjudicate the claims or frame stories around Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the strip, despite ample evidence by the UN and genocide experts.

    Since 7 October 2023, US allies have offered diplomatic cover for Israel by repeating it had “a right to defend itself” and was engaged in a legitimate defensive “war against Hamas”.

    Israel now plans to corral starving Gazans into a concentration camp in the south of the strip, with many analysts expecting the IDF to exterminate anyone found outside its boundaries, while preparing to push those inside across the border into Egypt.

    Asia Pacific and EU allies shun Bogota summit
     Addressing attendees at the summit yesterday, Albanese criticised the EU for its neo-colonialism and support for Israel, criticisms that can be extended to US allies in the Asia Pacific region.

    Independent journalist Abby Martin reported Albanese as saying: “Europe and its institutions are guided more by colonial mindset than principle, acting as vessels to US Empire even as it drags us from war to war, misery to misery.

    “The Hague Group is a new moral centre in world politics. Millions are hoping for leadership that can birth a new global order, rooted in justice, humanity and collective liberation. It’s not just about Palestine. This is about all of us.”

    The Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was asked why Foreign Minister Penny Wong did not take up an invite to attend the Hague Group meeting. In a statement to Mick Hall in Context, a spokesperson said she had been unable to attend, but did not explain why.

    She said Australia was a “resolute defender of international law” and added: “Australia has consistently been part of international calls that all parties must abide by international humanitarian law. Not enough has been done to protect civilians and aid workers.

    “We have called on Israel to respond substantively to the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    “We have also called on Israel to comply with the binding orders of the ICJ, including to enable the unhindered provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale.”

    When asked why New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters had failed to take up the invitation or send any of his officials, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) spokesperson simply refused to comment.

    She said MFAT media advisors would only engage with “recognised news media outlets”.

    Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, as well as a number of his ministers, have been referred to the ICC by domestic legal teams, accused of complicity in the genocide.

    Evidence against Albanese was accepted into the ICC’s wider investigation of crimes in Gaza in October last year, while Luxon’s referral earlier this month is being assessed by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office.

    Delegates told humanity at stake
     Delegates heard several impassioned addresses from speakers on what was at stake during the two-day event in Bogota.

    Palestinian-American trauma surgeon, Dr Thaer Ahmad, told the gathering that Palestinians seeking food were being met with bullets, describing aid distribution facilities set up by the US contractor-run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) as “slaughterhouses”. More than 800 starving Gazans have been killed at the GHF aid points so far.

    “People know they could die but cannot sit idly by and watch their families starve,” he said.

    “The bullets fired by GHF mercenaries are just one part of the weaponisation of aid, where Palestinians are ghettoised into areas where somebody in military fatigues decides if you are worthy of food or not.”

    Palestinian diplomat Riyad Mansour had urged the summit attendees to take decisive action to not only save the Palestinian people, but redeem humanity.

    “Instead of outrage at the crimes we know are taking place, we find those who defend, normalise, and even celebrate them,” he said.

    “The core values we believed humanity agreed were universal are shattered, blown to pieces like the tens of thousands of starved, murdered and injured civilians in Palestine.

    “The mind and heart cannot fathom or process the immense pain and horror that has taken hold of the lives of an entire people. We must not fail — not just for Palestine’s sake — but for humanity’s sake.”

    At the beginning of the summit, Colombian Deputy Foreign Minister Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir told summit delegates the Palestinian genocide threatened the entire international system.

    Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote in The Guardian last week: “We can either stand firm in defence of the legal principles that seek to prevent war and conflict, or watch helplessly as the international system collapses under the weight of unchecked power politics.”

    Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers, as well as Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Syrian counterpart, Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani, met in Brussels at the same time as the Bogota summit, to discuss Middle East co-operation, but also possible options for action against Israel.

    At the EU–Southern Neighbourhood Ministerial Meeting, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas put forward potential actions after Israel was found to have breached the EU economic cooperation deal with the bloc on human rights grounds. As expected, no sanctions, restricted trade or suspension of the co-operation deal were agreed.

    The EU has been one of Israel’s most strident backers in its campaign against Gaza, with EU members Germany and France in particular supplying weapons, as well as political support.

    The UK government has continued to supply arms and operate spy planes over Gaza over the past 21 months, launched from bases in Cyprus, while its military has issued D-Notices to censor media reports that its special forces have been operating inside the occupied territories.

    Mick Hall is an independent Irish-New Zealand journalist, formerly of RNZ and AAP, based in New Zealand since 2009. He writes primarily on politics, corporate power and international affairs. This article is republished from his substack Mick Hall in Context with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: New discovery at Cern could hint at why our universe is made up of matter and not antimatter

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Barter, UKRI Future Leaders Fellow, University of Edinburgh

    Why didn’t the universe annihilate itself moments after the big bang? A new finding at Cern on the French-Swiss border brings us closer to answering this fundamental question about why matter dominates over its opposite – antimatter.

    Much of what we see in everyday life is made up of matter. But antimatter exists in much smaller quantities. Matter and antimatter are almost direct opposites. Matter particles have an antimatter counterpart that has the same mass, but the opposite electric charge. For example, the matter proton particle is partnered by the antimatter antiproton, while the matter electron is partnered by the antimatter positron.

    However, the symmetry in behaviour between matter and antimatter is not perfect. In a paper published this week in Nature, the team working on an experiment at Cern, called LHCb, has reported that it has discovered differences in the rate at which matter particles called baryons decay relative to the rate of their antimatter counterparts. In particle physics, decay refers to the process where unstable subatomic particles transform into two or more lighter, more stable particles.

    According to cosmological models, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were made in the big bang. If matter and antimatter particles come in contact, they annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. With this in mind, it’s a wonder that the universe doesn’t consist only of leftover energy from this annihilation process.

    However, astronomical observations show that there is now a negligible amount of antimatter in the universe compared to the amount of matter. We therefore know that matter and antimatter must behave differently, such that the antimatter has disappeared while the matter has not.

    Understanding what causes this difference in behaviour between matter and antimatter is a key unanswered question. While there are differences between matter and antimatter in our best theory of fundamental quantum physics, the standard model, these differences are far too small to explain where all the antimatter has gone.

    So we know there must be additional fundamental particles that we haven’t found yet, or effects beyond those described in the standard model. These would give rise to large enough differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter for our universe to exist in its current form.

    Revealing new particles

    Highly precise measurements of the differences between matter and antimatter are a key topic of research because they have the potential to be influenced by and reveal these new fundamental particles, helping us discover the physics that led to the universe we live in today.

    Differences between matter and antimatter have previously been observed in the behaviour of another type of particle, mesons, which are made of a quark and an antiquark. There are also hints of differences in how the matter and antimatter versions of a further type of particle, the neutrino, behave as they travel.

    Equivalent amounts of matter and antimatter were generated by the Big Bang.
    Triff / Shutterstock

    The new measurement from LHCb has found differences between baryons and antibaryons, which are made of three quarks and three antiquarks respectively. Significantly, baryons make up most of the known matter in our universe, and this is the first time that we have observed differences between matter and antimatter in this group of particles.

    The LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider is designed to make highly precise measurements of differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter. The experiment is operated by an international collaboration of scientists, made up of over 1,800 people based in 24 countries. In order to achieve the new result, the LHCb team studied over 80,000 baryons (“lambda-b” baryons, which are made up of a beauty quark, an up quark and a down quark) and their antimatter counterparts.

    Crucially, we found that these baryons decay to specific subatomic particles (a proton, a kaon and two pions) slightly more frequently – 5% more often – than the rate at which the same process happens with antiparticles. While small, this difference is statistically significant enough to be the first observation of differences in behaviour between baryon and antibaryon decays.

    To date, all measurements of matter-antimatter differences have been consistent with the small level present in the standard model. While the new measurement from LHCb is also in line with this theory, it is a major step forward. We have now seen differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter in the group of particles that dominate the known matter of the universe. It’s a potential step in the direction of understanding why that situation came to be after the big bang.

    With the current and forthcoming data runs of LHCb we will be able to study these differences forensically, and, we hope, tease out any sign of new fundamental particles that might be present.

    William Barter works for the University of Edinburgh. He receives funding from UKRI. He is a member of the LHCb collaboration at Cern.

    – ref. New discovery at Cern could hint at why our universe is made up of matter and not antimatter – https://theconversation.com/new-discovery-at-cern-could-hint-at-why-our-universe-is-made-up-of-matter-and-not-antimatter-261274

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Rainbow Warrior bombing by French secret agents remembered 40 years on

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Te Aniwaniwa Paterson of Te Ao Māori News

    Forty years ago today, French secret agents bombed the Greenpeace campaign flagship  Rainbow Warrior in an attempt to stop the environmental organisation’s protest against nuclear testing at Moruroa Atoll in Mā’ohi Nui.

    People gathered on board Rainbow Warrior III to remember photographer Fernando Pereira, who was killed in the attack, and to honour the legacy of those who stood up to nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage before the bombing was Operation Exodus, a humanitarian mission to the Marshall Islands. There, Greenpeace helped relocate more than 320 residents of Rongelap Atoll, who had been exposed to radiation from US nuclear testing.

    The dawn ceremony was hosted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and attended by more than 150 people. Speeches were followed by the laying of a wreath and a moment of silence.

    Photographer Fernando Pereira and a woman from Rongelap on the day the Rainbow Warrior arrived in Rongelap Atoll in May 1985. Image: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

    Tui Warmenhoven (Ngāti Porou), the chair of the Greenpeace Aotearoa board, said it was a day to remember for the harm caused by the French state against the people of Mā’ohi Nui.

    Warmenhoven worked for 20 years in iwi research and is a grassroots, Ruatoria-based community leader who works to integrate mātauranga Māori with science to address climate change in Te Tai Rāwhiti.

    She encouraged Māori to stand united with Greenpeace.

    “Ko te mea nui ki a mātou, a Greenpeace Aotearoa, ko te whawhai i ngā mahi tūkino a rātou, te kāwanatanga, ngā rangatōpū, me ngā tāngata whai rawa, e patu ana i a mātou, te iwi Māori, ngā iwi o te ao, me ō mātou mātua, a Ranginui rāua ko Papatūānuku,” e ai ki a Warmenhoven.

    Tui Warmenhoven and Dr Russel Norman in front of Rainbow Warrior III on 10 July 2025. Image:Te Ao Māori News

    A defining moment in Aotearoa’s nuclear-free stand
     “The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was a defining moment for Greenpeace in its willingness to fight for a nuclear-free world,” said Dr Russel Norman, the executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    He noted it was also a defining moment for Aotearoa in the country’s stand against the United States and France, who conducted nuclear tests in the region.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Dr Russel Norman speaking at the ceremony on board Rainbow Warrior III today. Image: Te Ao Māpri News

    In 1987, the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act officially declared the country a nuclear-free zone.

    This move angered the United States, especially due to the ban on nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships entering New Zealand ports.

    Because the US followed a policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons, it saw the ban as breaching the ANZUS Treaty and suspended its security commitments to New Zealand.

    The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage before it was bombed was Operation Exodus, during which the crew helped relocate more than 320 residents of Rongelap Atoll in the Marshall Islands, who had been exposed to radiation from US nuclear testing between 1946 and 1958.

    The evacuation of Rongelap Islanders to Mejatto by the Rainbow Warrior crew in May 1985. Image: Greenpeace/Fernando Pereira

    The legacy of Operation Exodus
     Between 1946 and 1958, the United States carried out 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands.

    For decades, it denied the long-term health impacts, even as cancer rates rose and children were born with severe deformities.

    Despite repeated pleas from the people of Rongelap to be evacuated, the US government failed to act until Greenpeace stepped in to help.

    “The United States government effectively used them as guinea pigs for nuclear testing and radiation to see what would happen to people, which is obviously outrageous and disgusting,” Dr Norman said.

    He said it was important not to see Pacific peoples as victims, as they were powerful campaigners who played a leading role in ending nuclear testing in the region.

    Marshallese women greet the Rainbow Warrior as it arrived in the capital Majuro in March 2025. Image: Bianca Vitale/Greenpeace

    Between March and April this year, Rainbow Warrior III returned to the Marshall Islands to conduct independent research into the radiation levels across the islands to see whether it’s safe for the people of Rongelap to return.

    What advice do you give to this generation about nuclear issues?
     “Kia kotahi ai koutou ki te whai i ngā mahi uaua i mua i a mātou ki te whawhai i a rātou mā, e mahi tūkino ana ki tō mātou ao, ki tō mātou kōkā a Papatūānuku, ki tō mātou taiao,” hei tā Tui Warmenhoven.

    A reminder to stay united in the difficult world ahead in the fight against threats to the environment.

    Warmenhoven also encouraged Māori to support Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    Tui Warmenhoven and the captain of the Rainbow Warrior, Ali Schmidt, placed a wreath in the water at the stern of the ship in memory of Fernando Pereira. Image: Greenpeace

    Dr Norman believed the younger generations should be inspired to activism by the bravery of those from the Pacific and Greenpeace who campaigned for a nuclear-free world 40 years ago.

    “They were willing to take very significant risks, they sailed their boats into the nuclear test zone to stop those nuclear tests, they were arrested by the French, beaten up by French commandos,” he said.

    Republished from Te Ao Māori News with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Rainbow Warrior bombing by French secret agents remembered 40 years on

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Te Aniwaniwa Paterson of Te Ao Māori News

    Forty years ago today, French secret agents bombed the Greenpeace campaign flagship  Rainbow Warrior in an attempt to stop the environmental organisation’s protest against nuclear testing at Moruroa Atoll in Mā’ohi Nui.

    People gathered on board Rainbow Warrior III to remember photographer Fernando Pereira, who was killed in the attack, and to honour the legacy of those who stood up to nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage before the bombing was Operation Exodus, a humanitarian mission to the Marshall Islands. There, Greenpeace helped relocate more than 320 residents of Rongelap Atoll, who had been exposed to radiation from US nuclear testing.

    The dawn ceremony was hosted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and attended by more than 150 people. Speeches were followed by the laying of a wreath and a moment of silence.

    Photographer Fernando Pereira and a woman from Rongelap on the day the Rainbow Warrior arrived in Rongelap Atoll in May 1985. Image: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

    Tui Warmenhoven (Ngāti Porou), the chair of the Greenpeace Aotearoa board, said it was a day to remember for the harm caused by the French state against the people of Mā’ohi Nui.

    Warmenhoven worked for 20 years in iwi research and is a grassroots, Ruatoria-based community leader who works to integrate mātauranga Māori with science to address climate change in Te Tai Rāwhiti.

    She encouraged Māori to stand united with Greenpeace.

    “Ko te mea nui ki a mātou, a Greenpeace Aotearoa, ko te whawhai i ngā mahi tūkino a rātou, te kāwanatanga, ngā rangatōpū, me ngā tāngata whai rawa, e patu ana i a mātou, te iwi Māori, ngā iwi o te ao, me ō mātou mātua, a Ranginui rāua ko Papatūānuku,” e ai ki a Warmenhoven.

    Tui Warmenhoven and Dr Russel Norman in front of Rainbow Warrior III on 10 July 2025. Image:Te Ao Māori News

    A defining moment in Aotearoa’s nuclear-free stand
     “The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was a defining moment for Greenpeace in its willingness to fight for a nuclear-free world,” said Dr Russel Norman, the executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    He noted it was also a defining moment for Aotearoa in the country’s stand against the United States and France, who conducted nuclear tests in the region.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Dr Russel Norman speaking at the ceremony on board Rainbow Warrior III today. Image: Te Ao Māpri News

    In 1987, the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act officially declared the country a nuclear-free zone.

    This move angered the United States, especially due to the ban on nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships entering New Zealand ports.

    Because the US followed a policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons, it saw the ban as breaching the ANZUS Treaty and suspended its security commitments to New Zealand.

    The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage before it was bombed was Operation Exodus, during which the crew helped relocate more than 320 residents of Rongelap Atoll in the Marshall Islands, who had been exposed to radiation from US nuclear testing between 1946 and 1958.

    The evacuation of Rongelap Islanders to Mejatto by the Rainbow Warrior crew in May 1985. Image: Greenpeace/Fernando Pereira

    The legacy of Operation Exodus
     Between 1946 and 1958, the United States carried out 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands.

    For decades, it denied the long-term health impacts, even as cancer rates rose and children were born with severe deformities.

    Despite repeated pleas from the people of Rongelap to be evacuated, the US government failed to act until Greenpeace stepped in to help.

    “The United States government effectively used them as guinea pigs for nuclear testing and radiation to see what would happen to people, which is obviously outrageous and disgusting,” Dr Norman said.

    He said it was important not to see Pacific peoples as victims, as they were powerful campaigners who played a leading role in ending nuclear testing in the region.

    Marshallese women greet the Rainbow Warrior as it arrived in the capital Majuro in March 2025. Image: Bianca Vitale/Greenpeace

    Between March and April this year, Rainbow Warrior III returned to the Marshall Islands to conduct independent research into the radiation levels across the islands to see whether it’s safe for the people of Rongelap to return.

    What advice do you give to this generation about nuclear issues?
     “Kia kotahi ai koutou ki te whai i ngā mahi uaua i mua i a mātou ki te whawhai i a rātou mā, e mahi tūkino ana ki tō mātou ao, ki tō mātou kōkā a Papatūānuku, ki tō mātou taiao,” hei tā Tui Warmenhoven.

    A reminder to stay united in the difficult world ahead in the fight against threats to the environment.

    Warmenhoven also encouraged Māori to support Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    Tui Warmenhoven and the captain of the Rainbow Warrior, Ali Schmidt, placed a wreath in the water at the stern of the ship in memory of Fernando Pereira. Image: Greenpeace

    Dr Norman believed the younger generations should be inspired to activism by the bravery of those from the Pacific and Greenpeace who campaigned for a nuclear-free world 40 years ago.

    “They were willing to take very significant risks, they sailed their boats into the nuclear test zone to stop those nuclear tests, they were arrested by the French, beaten up by French commandos,” he said.

    Republished from Te Ao Māori News with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why a surprise jump in unemployment isn’t as bad as it sounds

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Borland, Professor of Economics, The University of Melbourne

    New figures show Australia’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate unexpectedly rose to 4.3% – its highest level since late 2021 – in June this year, up from 4.1% in May.

    While this is bad news, it’s not as bad as it might seem. Higher unemployment came from more people looking for work. In the long run, that’s good for the economy.

    And these figures also make it more likely we’ll see an interest rate cut next month – which is now looking overdue.

    What’s the bad news?

    This is the second month in a row we’ve seen no growth in total employment, while total hours worked (the number of hours worked by employed individuals, regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time or overtime) in the past month has gone backwards.

    All this adds to the picture of a slowing labour market since the start of the year, after surprisingly strong growth in the second half of 2024.

    The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics release also includes data on where extra hours worked during 2025 have come from.

    Employment growth has come entirely from the “non-market sector” – which is healthcare and social assistance, education and training, and public administration and safety. And the big driver of those extra jobs has been in social assistance and health care, which is largely government-funded.

    That means employment has gone backwards in the rest of the economy, adding to a picture of a jobs market being propped up by government investment in the caring economy.

    Why it as bad as you might think

    The reason unemployment rose is that more people were looking for work – so it’s not because employment fell.

    Of course, we’d prefer those people to have found jobs. But it does mean people weren’t losing jobs for the unemployment rate to rise.

    The growth in labour force participation in June continues the trend of strong growth since late 2021. In the long run, that’s a good thing – it means the country can produce more output, and more people gain an income from work.

    An interest rate cut now looks more certain

    A fortnight ago, the Reserve Bank surprised most people by keeping the cash rate on hold at 3.85%.

    Today’s unemployment data is extra evidence that the labour market isn’t contributing to inflation pressure – in fact, it’s the opposite.

    It shows an interest rate cut is now overdue. The Reserve Bank board meets again in mid-August, with a decision on rates announced on August 12.

    When will we know if this is a blip or a trend?

    One possibility is that some of the extra people who became unemployed in June have a job to go to in the next month. Ups and downs in that group have at times been influential in driving unemployment numbers in recent times. In that case, this month’s figures may partly turn out to be a blip. We’ll be able to tell that when we see next month’s figures.

    But the blip is unlikely to explain all of the rise in June. This is also about a labour market that is slowing.

    Jeff Borland receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Why a surprise jump in unemployment isn’t as bad as it sounds – https://theconversation.com/why-a-surprise-jump-in-unemployment-isnt-as-bad-as-it-sounds-261375

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • From coal to crops: Dayak women lead a just transition through backyard farming

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Aidy Halimanjaya, Associate lecturer, Universitas Katolik Parahyangan

    The global shift toward renewable energy is no longer a choice but a necessity: the climate crisis intensifies, with 2024 confirmed as the warmest year on record.

    Yet in Indonesia, coal remains an economic lifeline for several regions. In East Kutai, East Kalimantan, coal mining accounts for nearly 75% of the district’s gross regional domestic product (GRDP).

    The end of the coal mining era will come at a cost to local residents, many of whom risk losing their current jobs — especially after their traditional forest-based livelihoods have already been eroded by environmental degradation tied to fossil fuel extraction.

    Aulia, 31, a Dayak women from East Kutai, admitted:

    We’re heavily dependent on mining—it’s the only thing that gives us a substantial income.

    Yet, amid this dilemma, indigenous Dayak women are unfolding a quiet revolution.

    By growing food crops in their backyards, these women not only generate income but also demonstrate that sustainable agriculture can align with local traditions. Their initiative is an inspiration, especially for communities near mining sites seeking alternative sources of income.

    Mining’s hidden toll on women and indigenous communities

    While coal fuels East Kalimantan’s economy, its benefits are unevenly distributed. In 2024, Kutai Kartanegara and East Kutai regencies were ranked first and third among the province’s poorest regions.

    Instead of prosperity, many residents face environmental degradation and the loss of traditional livelihoods (land-based livelihood). This is especially true for women, who are often marginalised in decision-making and excluded from the mining sector.

    Since the forest was converted into a mining pit, the indigenous Dayak Basap community, which once relied on the forest for its livelihood, has lost its traditional living space and been forced to adapt to survive.

    Many men have turned to mining, while women have sought other ways to support their families: some teach, others run small businesses, and many now grow chillies, spinach, and watercress in their backyards.

    From backyards to resistance: A community’s fight for survival

    With the changing economic landscape, Basap Dayak women are turning to their yards as a source of alternative income. There, they grow food crops that yield quick harvests, are in high demand, and may influence local inflation — such as chillies. Spinach and watercress are also among the popular choices.

    This shift is driven by a 2024 pilot project from Just Transition Indonesia and Parahyangan University, supported by Energi Muda, a local NGO focused on energy transition issues.

    On a 700-square-metre plot, local residents have learned to blend traditional farming with modern permaculture techniques, including composting and crop rotation. Permaculture is a holistic approach to agriculture and land management that mimics patterns found in surrounding natural ecosystems. Local youth are also engaged as community mobilisers to support the post-coal transition.

    The results are promising. With agricultural science and technological support from the startup HARA, Dayak Basap women have overcome challenges such as acidic soil and water pollution caused by mining. Through seed cultivation, their crop yields have even outperformed those of conventional farming methods previously tested.

    They’ve also learned to sell their harvests directly to consumers — such as restaurants and cracker producers — cutting out middlemen and increasing their bargaining power. This combination of traditional knowledge and modern innovation is not only enhancing community capacity but also delivering tangible economic benefits.

    When innovation meets tradition: Overcoming barriers

    However, the journey is far from easy. Formerly mined land takes a long time to recover. Acidic soil and water contaminated with heavy metals pose serious challenges, while limited access to tools and fertilisers remains a significant barrier. In some cases, communities must purchase pre-grown seedlings to speed up the planting process.

    This chilli planting program has been very good. It’s just that the condition of the land was inadequate and hard to improve. If there’s a chance, maybe we can try farming that lasts more than just one season—Indigenous Dayak women.

    Furthermore, the transition from shifting cropping to a long-term management system requires ongoing training. This kind of adaptation certainly cannot be achieved overnight and requires intensive mentoring.

    A just transition must be grassroots-led

    Initiatives like these offer valuable lessons.

    First, the energy transition must involve local communities—especially women—from the outset.

    Second, collective, community-based approaches have proven more sustainable than top-down programmes, which often fail to address real needs on the ground.

    Third, policy support must be directed toward grassroots initiatives like this. The focus should not only be on meeting transition targets, but also on ensuring social and ecological justice.

    In the global context, Indonesia has expressed its commitment through the Paris Agreement and the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP). However, this commitment must be grounded in the lived experiences of communities, particularly indigenous women and those directly impacted by extractive industries.

    A just energy transition requires gradual steps, targeted programme support, inclusive partnerships, and genuine commitment from all stakeholders.

    The story of the Dayak Basap women is more than one of resilience—it is a roadmap for a just energy transition. Their success proves that economic diversification is possible, even in coal-dependent regions. But that success hinges on the quality of support: whether it truly meets community needs and is led by strong local leadership.

    The Conversation

    Aidy Halimanjaya terafiliasi sebagai pendiri dan direktur Yayasan Transisi berkeadilan Indonesia. Ia menerima dana dari Bank Indonesia melalui Universitas Parahyangan.

    – ref. From coal to crops: Dayak women lead a just transition through backyard farming – https://theconversation.com/from-coal-to-crops-dayak-women-lead-a-just-transition-through-backyard-farming-260827

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: From coal to crops: Dayak women lead a just transition through backyard farming

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Aidy Halimanjaya, Associate lecturer, Universitas Katolik Parahyangan

    The global shift toward renewable energy is no longer a choice but a necessity: the climate crisis intensifies, with 2024 confirmed as the warmest year on record.

    Yet in Indonesia, coal remains an economic lifeline for several regions. In East Kutai, East Kalimantan, coal mining accounts for nearly 75% of the district’s gross regional domestic product (GRDP).

    The end of the coal mining era will come at a cost to local residents, many of whom risk losing their current jobs — especially after their traditional forest-based livelihoods have already been eroded by environmental degradation tied to fossil fuel extraction.

    Aulia, 31, a Dayak women from East Kutai, admitted:

    We’re heavily dependent on mining—it’s the only thing that gives us a substantial income.

    Yet, amid this dilemma, indigenous Dayak women are unfolding a quiet revolution.

    By growing food crops in their backyards, these women not only generate income but also demonstrate that sustainable agriculture can align with local traditions. Their initiative is an inspiration, especially for communities near mining sites seeking alternative sources of income.

    Mining’s hidden toll on women and indigenous communities

    While coal fuels East Kalimantan’s economy, its benefits are unevenly distributed. In 2024, Kutai Kartanegara and East Kutai regencies were ranked first and third among the province’s poorest regions.

    Instead of prosperity, many residents face environmental degradation and the loss of traditional livelihoods (land-based livelihood). This is especially true for women, who are often marginalised in decision-making and excluded from the mining sector.

    Since the forest was converted into a mining pit, the indigenous Dayak Basap community, which once relied on the forest for its livelihood, has lost its traditional living space and been forced to adapt to survive.

    Many men have turned to mining, while women have sought other ways to support their families: some teach, others run small businesses, and many now grow chillies, spinach, and watercress in their backyards.

    From backyards to resistance: A community’s fight for survival

    With the changing economic landscape, Basap Dayak women are turning to their yards as a source of alternative income. There, they grow food crops that yield quick harvests, are in high demand, and may influence local inflation — such as chillies. Spinach and watercress are also among the popular choices.

    This shift is driven by a 2024 pilot project from Just Transition Indonesia and Parahyangan University, supported by Energi Muda, a local NGO focused on energy transition issues.

    On a 700-square-metre plot, local residents have learned to blend traditional farming with modern permaculture techniques, including composting and crop rotation. Permaculture is a holistic approach to agriculture and land management that mimics patterns found in surrounding natural ecosystems. Local youth are also engaged as community mobilisers to support the post-coal transition.

    The results are promising. With agricultural science and technological support from the startup HARA, Dayak Basap women have overcome challenges such as acidic soil and water pollution caused by mining. Through seed cultivation, their crop yields have even outperformed those of conventional farming methods previously tested.

    They’ve also learned to sell their harvests directly to consumers — such as restaurants and cracker producers — cutting out middlemen and increasing their bargaining power. This combination of traditional knowledge and modern innovation is not only enhancing community capacity but also delivering tangible economic benefits.

    When innovation meets tradition: Overcoming barriers

    However, the journey is far from easy. Formerly mined land takes a long time to recover. Acidic soil and water contaminated with heavy metals pose serious challenges, while limited access to tools and fertilisers remains a significant barrier. In some cases, communities must purchase pre-grown seedlings to speed up the planting process.

    This chilli planting program has been very good. It’s just that the condition of the land was inadequate and hard to improve. If there’s a chance, maybe we can try farming that lasts more than just one season—Indigenous Dayak women.

    Furthermore, the transition from shifting cropping to a long-term management system requires ongoing training. This kind of adaptation certainly cannot be achieved overnight and requires intensive mentoring.

    A just transition must be grassroots-led

    Initiatives like these offer valuable lessons.

    First, the energy transition must involve local communities—especially women—from the outset.

    Second, collective, community-based approaches have proven more sustainable than top-down programmes, which often fail to address real needs on the ground.

    Third, policy support must be directed toward grassroots initiatives like this. The focus should not only be on meeting transition targets, but also on ensuring social and ecological justice.

    In the global context, Indonesia has expressed its commitment through the Paris Agreement and the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP). However, this commitment must be grounded in the lived experiences of communities, particularly indigenous women and those directly impacted by extractive industries.

    A just energy transition requires gradual steps, targeted programme support, inclusive partnerships, and genuine commitment from all stakeholders.

    The story of the Dayak Basap women is more than one of resilience—it is a roadmap for a just energy transition. Their success proves that economic diversification is possible, even in coal-dependent regions. But that success hinges on the quality of support: whether it truly meets community needs and is led by strong local leadership.

    Aidy Halimanjaya terafiliasi sebagai pendiri dan direktur Yayasan Transisi berkeadilan Indonesia. Ia menerima dana dari Bank Indonesia melalui Universitas Parahyangan.

    – ref. From coal to crops: Dayak women lead a just transition through backyard farming – https://theconversation.com/from-coal-to-crops-dayak-women-lead-a-just-transition-through-backyard-farming-260827

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia got off on a technicality for its climate inaction. But there are plenty more judgement days to come

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

    This week, the Federal Court found the Australian government has no legal duty to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate change. The ruling was disappointing, but it’s not the end of the matter.

    The plaintiffs, Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai, hail from the low-lying islands of Saibai and Boigu, near Papua New Guinea. They argued the Commonwealth was negligent for failing to take strong action on climate change.

    While the judge accepted the devastating effects climate change has wrought on the Torres Strait Islands, he found the Uncles did not prove their case of negligence.

    However, the judge found previous Australian governments had not taken the best available science into account when setting emissions reduction targets. The finding tightens the screws on the Albanese government, which is due to announce Australia’s long-awaited targets to cut emissions out to 2035.

    To protect communities in the Torres Strait, and across Australia, the government must set a 2035 target that is in line with the science.

    And the court finding is unlikely to stem the tide of litigation seeking greater government accountability for climate change – especially for those most vulnerable to its harms.

    Limitations of Australian law

    The Uncles’ case did not fail because there was no merit in their allegations. It failed because Justice Michael Wigney ruled negligence law was not the appropriate vehicle to deal with climate change policy.

    Justice Wigney found the Torres Strait Islanders proved much of their case, including that Australia’s emissions targets set in 2015, 2020 and 2021 were not consistent with the best available science. That science dictates national governments should set emissions reduction targets in line with international efforts to hold global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

    The Coalition was in power during the period in question. Justice Wigney found the government of the day “did not engage with or give real or genuine consideration to the best available science” when setting its targets.

    Looking ahead to our 2035 targets

    The Labor government is currently weighing its 2035 emissions reduction target. The Climate Change Authority, which provides independent advice to government on climate policy, is expected to recommend a target between 65% and 75%.

    But evidence suggests this may not be in line with the best available science.

    For example, according to some scientists, emissions reduction of 90% by 2035, based on 2005 levels, would be required to stay in line with the 1.5°C goal.

    Australia’s 2035 targets are not just crucial to the global effort to tackle climate change. They will also affect our standing in the Pacific at a time of deepening geostrategic competition.

    Australia is bidding to host the UN climate talks next year in partnership with Pacific island countries. Our climate policy for the decade ahead will be a powerful signal to our Pacific neighbours about our commitment to the region, and to climate justice.

    A shifting legal landscape

    Tuesday’s court finding left open the possibility an appeal court may revisit the state of the law, and recognise the duty of care claimed by the Uncles.

    This would require an appeal to the full court of the Federal Court. Wigney was a single judge and considered himself bound by past precedent set by the full court.

    Around the world, courts and human rights bodies are holding governments accountable for climate inaction. It is possible for Australian law to do the same.

    International courts and human rights bodies are holding governments accountable for climate inaction.
    Sjoerd van der Wal/Getty Images

    Courts in the Netherlands and Belgium, for example, have recognised government duties to heed the science to address foreseeable harms of climate change.

    Next week, the International Court of Justice – the world’s highest court – will issue an historic legal opinion on the obligations of nations to tackle climate change.

    This opinion will clarify the obligations of countries to prevent human rights harms caused by climate change, and to limit pollution of the Earth’s oceans and climate system. The opinion will be non-binding, but could influence future climate litigation.

    What’s more, attribution science is improving all the time. This field of science examines how greenhouse gas emissions affect a particular weather event or climate pattern.

    Clearer attribution science will provide courts an ever-stronger basis to consider how government policy decisions on emissions cause climate impacts – and resulting harms to people.

    As the legal responsibilities of governments are clarified, further strategic litigation in Australia is likely.

    Change is coming

    In his judgement, Justice Michael Wigney said the law currently “provides no real or effective legal avenue” for people or communities to seek legal recourse for government inaction on climate change. That will remain the case until the law changes, he said.

    To remain legitimate, legal norms must reflect changing social expectations. History shows laws can adapt when they are challenged repeatedly by those who are harmed by the status quo. Eventually, the dam wall breaks, and law is reinterpreted.

    A clear example is the Mabo case of 1992. The High Court of Australia acknowledged the obvious fact that Indigenous peoples have lived on this continent for tens of thousands of years, and that the “terra nullius” (land belonging to no-one) concept was a legal myth.

    The Mabo decision allowed common law to recognise native title. It was a departure from previous rulings which relied on the terra nullius concept to reject native title claims.

    Australia’s legal norms largely pre-date the scientific consensus on climate change. They must evolve to better recognise climate impacts that are harming Australians. While this week might not have been the time, change is inevitable.

    As Justice Wigney said, until the law adapts, the key avenue for change is public advocacy, protest and voter action at the ballot box.

    Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council.

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

    – ref. Australia got off on a technicality for its climate inaction. But there are plenty more judgement days to come – https://theconversation.com/australia-got-off-on-a-technicality-for-its-climate-inaction-but-there-are-plenty-more-judgement-days-to-come-261305

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Do women really need more sleep than men? A sleep psychologist explains

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amelia Scott, Honorary Affiliate and Clinical Psychologist at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, and Macquarie University Research Fellow, Macquarie University

    klebercordeiro/Getty

    If you spend any time in the wellness corners of TikTok or Instagram, you’ll see claims women need one to two hours more sleep than men.

    But what does the research actually say? And how does this relate to what’s going on in real life?

    As we’ll see, who gets to sleep, and for how long, is a complex mix of biology, psychology and societal expectations. It also depends on how you measure sleep.

    What does the evidence say?

    Researchers usually measure sleep in two ways:

    • by asking people how much they sleep (known as self-reporting). But people are surprisingly inaccurate at estimating how much sleep they get

    • using objective tools, such as research-grade, wearable sleep trackers or the gold-standard polysomnography, which records brain waves, breathing and movement while you sleep during a sleep study in a lab or clinic.

    Looking at the objective data, well-conducted studies usually show women sleep about 20 minutes more than men.

    One global study of nearly 70,000 people who wore wearable sleep trackers found a consistent, small difference between men and women across age groups. For example, the sleep difference between men and women aged 40–44 was about 23–29 minutes.

    Another large study using polysomnography found women slept about 19 minutes longer than men. In this study, women also spent more time in deep sleep: about 23% of the night compared to about 14% for men. The study also found only men’s quality of sleep declined with age.

    The key caveat to these findings is that our individual sleep needs vary considerably. Women may sleep slightly more on average, just as they are slightly shorter on average. But there is no one-size-fits-all sleep duration, just as there is no universal height.

    Suggesting every woman needs 20 extra minutes (let alone two hours) misses the point. It’s the same as insisting all women should be shorter than all men.

    Even though women tend to sleep a little longer and deeper, they consistently report poorer sleep quality. They’re also about 40% more likely to be diagnosed with insomnia.

    This mismatch between lab findings and the real world is a well-known puzzle in sleep research, and there are many reasons for it.

    For instance, many research studies don’t consider mental health problems, medications, alcohol use and hormonal fluctuations. This filters out the very factors that shape sleep in the real world.

    This mismatch between the lab and the bedroom also reminds us sleep doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Women’s sleep is shaped by a complex mix of biological, psychological and social factors, and this complexity is hard to capture in individual studies.

    Let’s start with biology

    Sleep problems begin to diverge between the sexes around puberty. They spike again during pregnancy, after birth and during perimenopause.

    Fluctuating levels of ovarian hormones, particularly oestrogen and progesterone, seem to explain some of these sex differences in sleep.

    For example, many girls and women report poorer sleep during the premenstrual phase just before their periods, when oestrogen and progesterone begin to fall.

    Perhaps the most well-documented hormonal influence on our sleep is the decline in oestrogen during perimenopause. This is linked to increased sleep disturbances, particularly waking at 3am and struggling to get back to sleep.

    Some health conditions also play a part in women’s sleep health. Thyroid disorders and iron deficiency, for instance, are more common in women and are closely linked to fatigue and disrupted sleep.

    How about psychology?

    Women are at much higher risk of depression, anxiety and trauma-related disorders. These very often accompany sleep problems and fatigue. Cognitive patterns, such as worry and rumination, are also more common in women and known to affect sleep.

    Women are also prescribed antidepressants more often than men, and these medications tend to affect sleep.

    Society also plays a role

    Caregiving and emotional labour still fall disproportionately on women. Government data released this year suggests Australian women perform an average nine more hours of unpaid care and work each week than men.

    While many women manage to put enough time aside for sleep, their opportunities for daytime rest are often scarce. This puts a lot of pressure on sleep to deliver all the restoration women need.

    In my work with patients, we often untangle the threads woven into their experience of fatigue. While poor sleep is the obvious culprit, fatigue can also signal something deeper, such as underlying health issues, emotional strain, or too-high expectations of themselves. Sleep is certainly part of the picture, but it’s rarely the whole story.

    For instance, rates of iron deficiency (which we know is more common in women and linked to sleep problems) are also higher in the reproductive years. This is just as many women are raising children and grappling with the “juggle” and the “mental load”.

    Women in perimenopause are often navigating full-time work, teenagers, ageing parents and 3am hot flashes. These women may have adequate or even high-quality sleep (according to objective measures), but that doesn’t mean they wake feeling restored.

    Most existing research also ignores gender-diverse populations. This limits our understanding of how sleep is shaped not just by biology, but by things such as identity and social context.

    So where does this leave us?

    While women sleep longer and better in the lab, they face more barriers to feeling rested in everyday life.

    So, do women need more sleep than men? On average, yes, a little. But more importantly, women need more support and opportunity to recharge and recover across the day, and at night.

    Amelia Scott is a member of the psychology education subcommittee of the Australasian Sleep Association. She receives funding from Macquarie University.

    – ref. Do women really need more sleep than men? A sleep psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/do-women-really-need-more-sleep-than-men-a-sleep-psychologist-explains-259985

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • Do women really need more sleep than men? A sleep psychologist explains

    Source: ForeignAffairs4

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amelia Scott, Honorary Affiliate and Clinical Psychologist at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, and Macquarie University Research Fellow, Macquarie University

    klebercordeiro/Getty

    If you spend any time in the wellness corners of TikTok or Instagram, you’ll see claims women need one to two hours more sleep than men.

    But what does the research actually say? And how does this relate to what’s going on in real life?

    As we’ll see, who gets to sleep, and for how long, is a complex mix of biology, psychology and societal expectations. It also depends on how you measure sleep.

    What does the evidence say?

    Researchers usually measure sleep in two ways:

    • by asking people how much they sleep (known as self-reporting). But people are surprisingly inaccurate at estimating how much sleep they get

    • using objective tools, such as research-grade, wearable sleep trackers or the gold-standard polysomnography, which records brain waves, breathing and movement while you sleep during a sleep study in a lab or clinic.

    Looking at the objective data, well-conducted studies usually show women sleep about 20 minutes more than men.

    One global study of nearly 70,000 people who wore wearable sleep trackers found a consistent, small difference between men and women across age groups. For example, the sleep difference between men and women aged 40–44 was about 23–29 minutes.

    Another large study using polysomnography found women slept about 19 minutes longer than men. In this study, women also spent more time in deep sleep: about 23% of the night compared to about 14% for men. The study also found only men’s quality of sleep declined with age.

    The key caveat to these findings is that our individual sleep needs vary considerably. Women may sleep slightly more on average, just as they are slightly shorter on average. But there is no one-size-fits-all sleep duration, just as there is no universal height.

    Suggesting every woman needs 20 extra minutes (let alone two hours) misses the point. It’s the same as insisting all women should be shorter than all men.

    Even though women tend to sleep a little longer and deeper, they consistently report poorer sleep quality. They’re also about 40% more likely to be diagnosed with insomnia.

    This mismatch between lab findings and the real world is a well-known puzzle in sleep research, and there are many reasons for it.

    For instance, many research studies don’t consider mental health problems, medications, alcohol use and hormonal fluctuations. This filters out the very factors that shape sleep in the real world.

    This mismatch between the lab and the bedroom also reminds us sleep doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Women’s sleep is shaped by a complex mix of biological, psychological and social factors, and this complexity is hard to capture in individual studies.

    Let’s start with biology

    Sleep problems begin to diverge between the sexes around puberty. They spike again during pregnancy, after birth and during perimenopause.

    Fluctuating levels of ovarian hormones, particularly oestrogen and progesterone, seem to explain some of these sex differences in sleep.

    For example, many girls and women report poorer sleep during the premenstrual phase just before their periods, when oestrogen and progesterone begin to fall.

    Perhaps the most well-documented hormonal influence on our sleep is the decline in oestrogen during perimenopause. This is linked to increased sleep disturbances, particularly waking at 3am and struggling to get back to sleep.

    Some health conditions also play a part in women’s sleep health. Thyroid disorders and iron deficiency, for instance, are more common in women and are closely linked to fatigue and disrupted sleep.

    How about psychology?

    Women are at much higher risk of depression, anxiety and trauma-related disorders. These very often accompany sleep problems and fatigue. Cognitive patterns, such as worry and rumination, are also more common in women and known to affect sleep.

    Women are also prescribed antidepressants more often than men, and these medications tend to affect sleep.

    Society also plays a role

    Caregiving and emotional labour still fall disproportionately on women. Government data released this year suggests Australian women perform an average nine more hours of unpaid care and work each week than men.

    While many women manage to put enough time aside for sleep, their opportunities for daytime rest are often scarce. This puts a lot of pressure on sleep to deliver all the restoration women need.

    In my work with patients, we often untangle the threads woven into their experience of fatigue. While poor sleep is the obvious culprit, fatigue can also signal something deeper, such as underlying health issues, emotional strain, or too-high expectations of themselves. Sleep is certainly part of the picture, but it’s rarely the whole story.

    For instance, rates of iron deficiency (which we know is more common in women and linked to sleep problems) are also higher in the reproductive years. This is just as many women are raising children and grappling with the “juggle” and the “mental load”.

    Women in perimenopause are often navigating full-time work, teenagers, ageing parents and 3am hot flashes. These women may have adequate or even high-quality sleep (according to objective measures), but that doesn’t mean they wake feeling restored.

    Most existing research also ignores gender-diverse populations. This limits our understanding of how sleep is shaped not just by biology, but by things such as identity and social context.

    So where does this leave us?

    While women sleep longer and better in the lab, they face more barriers to feeling rested in everyday life.

    So, do women need more sleep than men? On average, yes, a little. But more importantly, women need more support and opportunity to recharge and recover across the day, and at night.

    The Conversation

    Amelia Scott is a member of the psychology education subcommittee of the Australasian Sleep Association. She receives funding from Macquarie University.

    – ref. Do women really need more sleep than men? A sleep psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/do-women-really-need-more-sleep-than-men-a-sleep-psychologist-explains-259985