Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament and is liable to prosecution — not that government will lift a finger to enforce the law, reports Michael West Media.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Michael West
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament. In a submission to the Senate, the company claimed, “Foxtel also pays millions of dollars in income tax, GST and payroll tax, unlike many of our large international digital competitors”.
However, an MWM investigation into the financial affairs of Foxtel has shown Foxtel was paying zero income tax when it told the Senate it was paying “millions”. The penalty for lying to the Senate is potential imprisonment, although “contempt of Parliament” laws are never enforced.
The investigation found that NXE, the entity that controls Foxtel, paid no income tax in any of the five years from 2019 to 2023. During this time it generated $14 billion of total income.
The total tax payable across this period is $0. The average total income is $2.8 billion per year.
Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill. Image: MWM screenshot
Why did News Corporation mislead the Parliament? The plausible answers are in its Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment.
In May 2021 — which is also where the transgression occurred — the media executives for the American tycoon were lobbying a Parliamentary committee to change the laws in their favour.
By this time, Netflix had leap-frogged Foxtel Pay TV subscriptions in Australia and Foxtel was complaining it had to spend too much money on producing local Australian content under the laws of the time. Also that Netflix paid almost no tax.
Big-league tax dodger They were correct in this. Netflix, which is a big-league tax dodger itself, was by then making bucketloads of money in Australia but with zero local content requirements.
Making television drama and so forth is expensive. It is far cheaper to pipe foreign content through your channels online. As Netflix does.
The misleading of Parliament by corporations is rife, and contempt laws need to be enforced, as demonstrated routinely by the PwC inquiry last year. Corporations and their representatives routinely lie in their pursuit of corporate objectives.
If democracy is to function better, the information provided to Parliament needs to be clarified, beyond doubt, as reliable. Former senator Rex Patrick has made the point in these pages.
Even in this short statement to the committee of inquiry (published above), there are other misleading statements. Like many companies defending their failure to pay adequate income tax, Foxtel claims that it “paid millions” in GST and payroll tax.
Companies don’t “pay” GST or payroll tax. They collect these taxes on behalf of governments.
Little regard for laws Further to the contempt of Parliament, so little regard for the laws of Australia is shown by corporations that the local American boss of a small gas fracking company, Tamboran Resources, controlled by a US oil billionaire, didn’t even bother turning up to give evidence when asked.
This despite being rewarded with millions in public grant money.
Politicians need to muscle up, as Greens Senator Nick McKim did when grilling former Woolies boss Brad Banducci for prevaricating over providing evidence to the supermarket inquiry.
Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is reopublished with permission.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeannette Wicks-Lim, Research Professor, Political Economy Research Institute, UMass Amherst
A Massachusetts ballot initiative would get rid of the state’s tipped minimum wage.AP Photo/Marta Lavandier
The federal minimum wage for tipped workers has stood at US$2.13 an hour since 1991. Back then, it amounted to half the $4.25 regular minimum wage. But Congress has failed to increase the tipped minimum while periodically raising the regular wage floor. Today, the tipped rate is less than one-third of the $7.25 federal full minimum wage.
As of October 2024, 30 states and Washington, D.C., had instituted their own, higher, regular minimum wages. The number of states taking this step keeps rising in part because Congress hasn’t raised the federal minimum wage since 2009. Over the years, many states have also adopted higher wages for tipped workers. Seven states have no tipped minimum wage at all, which means that employers must pay at least the state-mandated minimum wage to all workers, including those who earn tips.
If Massachusetts voters approve a ballot initiative on Nov. 5, 2024, their state will gradually raise the state’s tipped minimum wage until it matches the state minimum wage. That is, it will rise from $6.75 to $15 per hour by 2029.
Massachusetts would be joining eight states that require – or are on their way to requiring – the full minimum wage for tipped workers: Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Michigan. Two major cities, Chicago and Washington, D.C., have similar measures on their books, too.
To inform the debate about tipped wages, we – a labor economist and a sociologist – analyzed the potential impacts of implementing a full minimum wage for workers, businesses and consumers in Massachusetts. We found more evidence of potential upsides than downsides.
Tipped minimum earners’ demographics
For our study, we analyzed labor market data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We found that tipped workers are largely waiters, bartenders, hosts and bussers employed in bars and restaurants. They tend to earn low wages. Most are women, and they are disproportionately people of color.
In Massachusetts, tipped workers typically earn low pay: On average, they take home $20.30 per hour, including what they get in gratuities. That’s about two-thirds of the state average hourly pay of $31.50.
About 66% of tipped workers are women, compared with 49% in the state’s workforce as a whole. Some 43% are people of color, compared with 29% of all people employed in Massachusetts.
Teens also make up a disproportionate share of Massachusetts’ tipped workers: 15%, versus 4% for the broader workforce. But the vast majority of tipped workers are at least 20 years old.
Opponents argue that scrapping the lower minimum wage could backfire for tipped workers if their customers give smaller tips once they know employers have to pay tipped workers more – or some jobs are eliminated. They also worry that business costs would spike, raising prices. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, opposes the measure.
In Arizona, voters will cast their ballots on another ballot initiative that calls for a different type of tipped minimum wage reform. It calls for pegging the state’s tipped minimum wage to 25% below the full minimum wage. If approved, Arizona would effectively lower its tipped minimum wage, which currently stands at $11.35 an hour, to $10.76. Today, Arizona’s tipped minimum wage is $3.00 below the state’s full minimum wage of $14.35.
Prone to wage theft
When tipped workers’ base wages plus their tips do not add up to at least the state’s minimum wage, employers are supposed to make up the shortfall. This makes these workers particularly vulnerable to being underpaid, a form of wage theft.
The consequences of this vulnerability are plain to see in restaurants and hotels. The hospitality industry, which employs the highest share of tipped workers, accounts for less than 6% of employed workers in Massachusetts.
However, it accounts for nearly 14% of all complaints workers lodged with the Massachusetts attorney general’s office in 2023, including disproportionately high levels of complaints about minimum wage violations, the nonpayment of wages and tip violations.
The hospitality industry also accounts for over 36% of all enforcement actions – investigations that produced evidence of labor violations – found by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office.
The Massachusetts ballot initiative has stirred controversy in the state.
Effects on earnings
Two peer-reviewed economicstudies that examined three decades of data found that tipped workers earn measurably more money as subminimum wage rates increase.
Consider, for example, the $18.79 average hourly wage of tipped workers in states that treat tipped employees like other workers. This is 21.2% higher than the average $15.50 among tipped workers in states where the federal $2.13 subminimum wage remains in effect.
Only part of this difference can be explained by the 15.7% difference in average wages for all workers in those different clusters of states.
What could happen with business costs
To be sure, more than doubling the $6.75 tipped rate in Massachusetts to $15.00 may sound like it could cause business costs to soar. A couple of factors, however, would soften the blow.
First, we have calculated that the average tipped worker in Massachusetts restaurants earns about $11.75 an hour, before tips. Raising this rate to $15.00 is equal to a 28% increase – a much smaller lift than increasing the wage from $6.75 to $15.00. In addition, raising a worker’s wage from $11.75 to $15.00 by 2029 is equivalent to raising it to $13.00 in today’s dollars, or a 10% boost, after adjusting for projected inflation.
Second, as we explained in our study, since tipped workers make up about 30% of Massachusetts restaurant workers, and the payrolls of these businesses typically amount to about 30% of their revenue, these numbers imply that eliminating the tipped minimum wage by 2029 would increase the average Massachusetts restaurant’s costs by 1%.
If the average Massachusetts restaurant were to pass its entire labor cost increase onto the consumer through higher prices, this would mean that restaurant prices would rise about 2%.
This is equal to a $50 restaurant meal instead costing $51 – arguably a small price increase.
The two studies mentioned above, which reviewed decades of data to see whether tipped workers earned more, also looked at whether businesses in states that increased their tipped minimum wage cut more jobs compared with businesses in states that didn’t.
Although both research teams looked at basically the same data, one study found evidence of more job losses and the other did not, due to the different statistical choices they made. These studies, that is, produced inconclusive results about what raising the tipped minimum wage does to employment.
There’s far more research on whether increasing the regular minimum wage has caused significant job losses. Studies have found that when it has gone up, employers have faced cost increases that are similar to what we’ve estimated for Massachusetts employers, if the state were to eliminate its tipped minimum wage. And that evidence points to no significant job losses.
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.
Uncertainty about the election getting to you? Is anxiety the dominant feature of your emotional landscape, maybe with a small sprinkling of impending doom?
It’s difficult not to be worked up about politics in today’s polarized climate. Regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit on, you may find yourself glued to your browser or TV, gobbling up every tiny tidbit of news and feeling your stress levels skyrocket.
I’m a psychologist who develops and tests strategies for combating anxiety. As I constantly tell my stressed-out clients, when it comes to election news, there’s a fine line between being well informed and being oversaturated with information.
If you’re ready to short-circuit your stress spiral, here are three science-backed strategies for coping with anxiety in times of uncertainty.
Approach your emotions with mindfulness
Being mindful refers to the quality of awareness you bring to your experiences – specifically, nonjudgmental attention focused on what’s happening right now.
Mindfulness practices originated in Eastern spiritual traditions, including Buddhism. Over the past several decades, mindfulness has gained popularity as a powerful tool for managing anxiety. For instance, meditation apps such as Headspace and Calm incorporate it. Even if meditation isn’t your thing, though, you can still apply nonjudgmental awareness, focused on the present, to election-related anxiety.
Be present. Anxiety can draw you into an uncomfortable spiral of “what-ifs” about the future. When you make a point to be present, you remind yourself what is actually happening right now, rather than letting hypothetical fears take over.
Although you may have serious concerns about the fate of the nation, those outcomes have not yet come to bear. As I tell my patients, “We’ll cross that bridge if we come to it. For now, focus on the step right in front of you.”
If you notice yourself getting carried away by thoughts of the future, you can pull yourself back to the present by bringing awareness to simple sensations – the feel of your feet on the floor, the rhythm of your breath, or the sounds around you – and remind yourself that you are safe in the current moment.
Pay nonjudgmental attention. Many people are hard on themselves for feeling strong emotions. This critical mindset might look like telling yourself that you’re overreacting, or that it’s weak to let others see that you’re upset. You might even view that uncomfortable feeling in the pit of your stomach as evidence that negative outcomes are right around the corner.
Making judgments about your emotions only serves to make you feel worse. In fact, researchers find that pushing away emotions or beating yourself up for having them leads to more frequent and stronger anxiety.
Instead, try giving yourself a break. Tell yourself, “This election is high stakes, so it makes sense I’m anxious.” Then, notice if your anxiety is driven by a fear about the future, and bring yourself back to the present.
Cognitive flexibility is the ability to shift away from rigid, all-or-nothing thinking about the future.
When people are anxious, they tend to focus on the worst-case scenario. For example, you might be telling yourself, “With this candidate in office, things will be terrible and I won’t be able to cope.”
In this scenario, I encourage my patients to move past that initial thought of how awful it will be and instead consider exactly how they will respond to the inauguration, the next day, week, month and so on.
Cognitive flexibility allows you to explore how you will cope, even in the face of a negative outcome, helping you feel a bit less out of control. If you’re experiencing a lot of anxiety about the election, try thinking through what you’d do if the undesirable candidate takes office – thoughts like “I’ll donate to causes that are important to me” and “I’ll attend protests.”
Choose your actions with intention
Another tool for managing your anxiety is to consider whether your behaviors are affecting how you feel.
Remember, for instance, the goal of 24-hour news networks is to increase ratings. It’s in their interest to keep you riveted to your screens by making it seem like important announcements are imminent. As a result, it may feel difficult to disconnect and take part in your usual self-care behavior.
Try telling yourself, “If something happens, someone will text me,” and go for a walk or, better yet, to bed. Keeping up with healthy habits can help reduce your vulnerability to uncontrolled anxiety.
It’s not on your shoulders to solve every single problem in the world. AP Photo/John Hanna
Post-Election Day, you may continue to feel drawn to the news and motivated to show up – whether that means donating, volunteering or protesting – for a variety of causes you think will be affected by the election results. Many people describe feeling guilty if they say no or disengage, leading them to overcommit and wind up overwhelmed.
If this sounds like you, try reminding yourself that taking a break from politics to cook, engage with your family or friends, get some work done or go to the gym does not mean you don’t care. In fact, keeping up with the activities that fuel you will give you the energy to contribute to important causes more meaningfully.
Shannon Sauer-Zavala receives funding from the National Institute of Mental Health.
I’m standing in a basement kitchen prodding at a sheep’s liver, looking for marks on its smooth surface. People crowd around to film the proceedings, since I’m here to ask a question that everyone wants to know the answer to: will Donald Trump win the US election?
I’m following instructions that were first written down by the ancient Babylonians 4,000 years ago, and still survive today. Every crease on the liver has a meaning, and cuneiform tablets discovered in modern-day Iraq explain how to interpret them.
Armed with this knowledge, it’s possible to calculate the answer to any question, so long as it is yes or no, by adding up the number of positive or negative signs and seeing which comes out on top.
Since this liver had an overwhelming number of bad omens in it, I concluded that it declared no for Trump this time. Though in 2016 this method predicted a win well before he had won the Republican nomination, and in 2020 foretold that he would not be reelected that year.
Will Trump win the US election?
What started as an entertaining talk for a university open day has since become a serious part of my research – not because I sincerely believe in it, but because it gives us some of the earliest evidence in history for how human beings reason and think.
Looking at livers also makes a serious underlying point about how humans have coped with uncertainty throughout history, and still struggle to today. People have developed techniques as varied as astrology, tarot cards and even peering into entrails in response to the agony of not knowing, or the strain of trying to make a difficult decision.
Given the level of feeling invested in this election, it’s a unique moment where perhaps we can appreciate that, in this respect, we are not so different from those who lived thousands of years ago, even if our methods of looking into the future are different.
Asking the entrails
Developed in its classic form in Babylon, entrail divination was practised throughout ancient Mesopotamia, the written history of which spans from the 3rd millennium BC to the 1st century AD.
It was enormously important in all sections of society – a standard part of political decision-making at the royal court, but accessible to all. Budget options were even available for those who could not afford a sheep.
People addressed their questions directly to the gods and believed that at the moment of asking, the answer would be written on the entrails. This could then be “read” by a diviner trained in this esoteric language.
Sitting in the British Museum is an archive of real questions that were asked by the king of Assyria (a kingdom in northern Mesopotamia) in the 7th century BC. All kinds of affairs of state were put before the gods. Are the Egyptians going to attack? Has the enemy taken the town under siege? And will the governors return home safely?
Reading the archive, you get a real sense of nerves on a knife-edge as the king waited for news from far away, wanting to know what had happened to his troops and trying to decide what to do next.
Not only did he ask them about what would happen in the future, but he also consulted them on possible courses of action. Should the Assyrian army go to war? Should the king send a messenger to make peace? Asking the opinion of the gods would have helped him feel more confident in his next steps.
The Babylonians did not have elections. But that did not mean the king could do whatever he wanted. It was important for his public image to have the gods onside, as well as for his own reassurance.
Whenever a powerful official was appointed, the entrails would be read to ensure the gods approved. The head of the army, high priests and other important positions were all subject to this requirement. On one occasion, even the choice of crown prince – and hence the future king of Assyria – was put to this test.
Interpreting the entrails was held to almost scientific standards of exactitude. Diviners worked in pairs or groups of up to 11, checking each other’s work to make sure they got it right. This was not a vague or woolly process, but a real attempt to ensure “accuracy” that could not be manipulated to simply come up with the answer that the king wanted to hear.
Modern forecasting
We all want to know what the future has in store, and have come up with ingenious ways of trying to find out, from opinion polls and data modelling to Paul the octopus, who developed a reputation for picking the winners of football matches during the 2010 World Cup. But are our methods really any better than looking inside a sheep?
As all investors are warned, past performance does not guarantee future results. Yet the only data we have to inform our predictions comes from the past, and most of our models can’t take into account “unknown unknowns”.
As many experts have found, predicting the future is a difficult business: opinion polls can lie and people change their minds, while economists have often been blindsided by a sudden crash.
Since liver divination only answers “yes” or “no”, it is going to be right 50% of the time just through the law of averages. Despite its randomness, its success rate may well have seemed convincing at the time.
And when we trust the authority of the source, it’s easy to find a way to explain away a wrong result – the prediction got halfway there, answered a different question, or would have been right if x hadn’t happened.
We shouldn’t be blind to the weaknesses of our own methods. We are often wrong, and the Babylonians could sometimes be right.
Selena Wisnom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In 2021, Ireland’s then Taoiseach (prime minister), Enda Kenny, delivered a formal apology to the survivors of the Magdalene laundries. The laundries were religious institutions where unmarried mothers and other “fallen” women were forced into slave labour.
“It struck me,” he said, “that for generations Ireland had created a particular portrait of itself as a good living God-fearing nation. Through this and other reports we know this flattering self-portrait to be fictitious … by any standards it was a cruel, pitiless Ireland distinctly lacking in a quality of mercy.”
His words might well serve as a prologue to the new film adaptation of Claire Keegan’s 2020 novella, Small Things Like These. So too might a brief moment in the equally excoriating, if less nuanced film, The Magdalene Sisters (2002). In it, one of the young women begs a local delivery boy to help her escape, but in the end he lets her down.
History films work in various ways. One is to comfort the viewer that such a time is consigned to the past. Melodramas like The Magdalene Sisters and that other notable Magdalene story, Philomena (2013), find a form of closure when their victims confront their oppressors.
Another is to refuse a neat ending, to force us to imagine what might happen in the lives of the protagonists after the final credits have rolled. In Small Things Like These, that protagonist is coal-man, Bill Furlong (Cillian Murphy), who finds himself inexplicably troubled as he is finishing off his delivery business in the days before Christmas 1985.
All is well at home, where his five daughters quarrel amicably around the kitchen table as they do their homework under the eye of his wife, Eileen (Eileen Walsh). Money is tight but they’re getting by.
Making a delivery to the local convent, he comes across a young woman, Sarah (Zara Devlin), locked in the coal shed. The discovery sets off his own memories of being brought up by a single mother, and, after her death, by a wealthy landowner, Mrs Wilson (Michelle Fairley). The film confronts kindly Bill with a dilemma: to shut his eyes, as do the other inhabitants of New Ross, to what is going on in the convent, or to aid the young woman.
The mother superior, Sister Mary (Emily Watson), knows that the stooped coal-man standing uneasily in her office is no match for her. As she warns him, the future education of his younger daughters in the school adjacent to the convent is not guaranteed. Other of the villagers, who sense his confusion, tell him not to involve himself. His wife, even as she doesn’t fully understand what is going through his head, is horrified by the merest suggestion that he will disrupt the status quo.
The price of compassion
In a less nuanced film, this advice might prompt the viewer to further empathise with Bill, egging him on to action. But here, the suffocating moral blanket that lies over the city – visually rendered as a thick fog that merges into a drizzle and occasional snow, and the narrow, constricting streets through which he moves – remind us that nonconformity comes with a heavy price.
The community may pile into the church for Christmas mass but, as Eileen admonishes Bill, there is no point in helping the starving child he meets on the road with the spare coins from his pocket – his father will only drink the money. What small closure comes at the film’s end is fragile and contingent.
The trailer for Small Things Like These.
Another risk of telling stories from history is to sacrifice the particular for the universal. Small Things Like These manages, through its visuals and its achingly believable performances (Murphy’s most of all) to be a film rooted in the Ireland that Kenny evoked in his speech. At the same time, it prompts us to question the limits of compassion – how much easier is it to conform to social norms than step outside them.
The film ends fittingly with a tribute to the more than 56,000 young women who were sent to Magdalene institutions for “penance and rehabilitation” between the years 1922 and 1996. And the children who were taken from them.
It is not history’s job to impose lessons on the present. But at the same time, it would be inadequate for viewers not to ask what we would have done in Bill’s place. And, more uncomfortably, what, faced with the knowledge of the multiple injustices of our own society, we ourselves are doing now.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Ruth Barton 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.
From the ports of Los Angeles to the cornfields of Iowa, the U.S.’s international trade policy is a force that shapes the lives of every American. With the presidential election looming in November 2024, discussing trade policy isn’t just an academic exercise – it’s a civic responsibility.
As an economist, I have spent years studying this topic. Trade policy has profound effects on how industries operate, from production locations to competitive dynamics. These changes impact everyday life, from the cost of your morning coffee to the job security in your local community.
And, because the president has extensive control over trade policy, every presidential election is a referendum on the issue.
The two most recent administrations – President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence from 2017 to 2021 and President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris from 2021 to today – have had starkly different approaches to trade policy. The contrast shows how a president’s economic philosophy can reshape the nation’s global business strategy.
Both Trump and Harris are on the ballot in November. Harris is expected to carry on Biden’s trade policies if she wins. This comparison offers insight into how the next U.S. president will govern on trade.
2017-2021: Trump and Pence on trade
Trump pursued a protectionist trade agenda during his time in office.
Protectionism refers to government policies that limit international trade to benefit domestic industries. These measures include tariffs – taxes on imported goods – quotas and regulations that make imports more expensive.
One of Trump’s first acts in office was withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a colossal 12-nation pact that would have covered 40% of global output. His decision cost America both access to lucrative Asian markets and a powerful counterweight to China’s economic influence.
Closer to home, Trump renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement,
tightening rules for automakers. The effect? While wages for workers in the automotive industry and vehicle prices for American consumers increased, it barely spurred any additional domestic car production.
Trump also launched a tariff-driven trade war with China and the European Union, asserting it would address unfair practices and reduce the U.S. trade deficit. The strategy, however, prompted retaliatory tariffs, resulting in higher consumer prices and job losses in U.S. industries dependent on imported components. While some sectors benefited from the approach, American farmers suffered due to export losses, necessitating government subsidies.
The administration also launched initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, or IPEF, signaling a return to Obama-era trade strategies prioritizing regional partnerships in the Pacific. The IPEF aims to strengthen economic ties with Asian countries by coordinating policies to enhance supply chain resilience and promote clean energy rather than focusing solely on tariff reductions.
The Biden-Harris approach emphasizes international cooperation while valuing domestic job creation, particularly in clean energy and manufacturing. However, maintaining many of Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, steel and aluminum has kept costs high for some U.S. businesses and consumers.
Building on the Biden administration’s policies, the Harris campaign has signaled its aim to shield lower- and middle-income households from new tariffs that could raise prices while maintaining a tough stance on China through existing tariffs and trade restrictions.
Presidential powers and influence on trade
The president plays a critical role in setting America’s trade policy.
The president can negotiate international trade deals, although Congress must approve them to become law. The executive branch also controls tariffs; under statutes such as the Trade Act of 1974, the president can impose them without congressional approval.
In addition, the president can declare national emergencies related to trade, appoint trade representatives, issue executive orders to manage federal trade policies, and impose sanctions that can influence global trade dynamics.
Free trade agreements can boost exports and promote economic growth, but they may also displace certain workers. In contrast, tariffs on imports protect some domestic industries but raise prices for American consumers. Studies show that tariffs imposed under Trump, and continued by Biden, have led to higher prices, reduced output and lower employment, harming the U.S. economy.
Trade policies also affect diplomatic relationships and global supply chains. So, as voters sift through the candidates’ trade policy positions, they must look beyond the soundbites. Understanding how each approach affects job markets, consumer prices and global competitiveness will help voters cast an informed ballot that aligns with their vision for the country’s future.
In the world of trade, every vote counts.
Bedassa Tadesse 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.
One of the more surprising developments in recent American politics has been the backlash against free trade.
As recently as a decade ago, Democrats and Republicans alike generally favored free trade. But with the 2024 presidential election just days away, both Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris are leaning hard on protectionism. The Trump campaign in particular is promoting tariffs that would be difficult to imagine coming from a Republican presidential candidate just a decade ago.
This new post-neoliberal moment might seem confounding. But it hearkens back to economic policies – and political parties – from around the time of the nation’s founding, and it offers clues to our divided present.
Back in the late 18th century, the Founding Father Alexander Hamilton helped put in place a set of policies designed to encourage U.S. industry and to promote economic development and innovation.
That arrangement, which laid the groundwork for what became known as the “American System,” emerged in part as a counterbalance to British conceptions of free trade. And the American System quickly grew as accepted economic policy as a young America developed its industrial strength.
Hamilton’s economic nationalism
In the early years of the republic, the U.S. didn’t have much of a trade policy at all.
When the U.S. officially achieved independence in 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the Articles of Confederation – the nation’s first constitution – greatly limited the federal government’s powers, including its ability to regulate foreign trade.
These restrictions reflected the reality of 13 very different states that had been more united against the British – and their trade controls – than in support of a common vision of economic development.
The economic conditions within this loosely connected nation quickly worsened. A deepening economic crisis, rising debt, inflation, cheap British manufactured goods and rising bankruptcy soon emerged. Such changing conditions gave rise to calls for a new national economic policy.
This economic strain was an important factor leading to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1789. The Constitution gave the federal government the capacity to regulate trade with foreign countries and, for the first time, to collect taxes. Both were privileges once held exclusively by sovereign American states.
The ‘second American revolution’
A strengthened American Congress made passing a national Tariff Act one of its first tasks. When it was ratified in 1789, a national import tax replaced customs previously enacted by the states. Perhaps indicating the magnitude of this change, supporters called it “the Second American Revolution,” passed as it was on July 4, 1789. In effect, it helped create a new conception of the American political and economic system, with a much stronger role for the state in economic matters.
Duties were levied on 30 commodities, including hemp and textiles. Perhaps foreshadowing trade policy of a future era, the Tariff Act also placed duties of 12.5% on goods imported from China and India.
The main architect of this new industrial policy was Hamilton, who released his seminal work on economic policy, Report on Manufactures, in 1791. Hamilton’s ideas were based on transforming a predominantly agricultural nation into one defined, at least in part, by growing and diversified industry.
Though often overlooked, Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures also contained a grander vision – it sought to encourage the development of American invention and ingenuity as a form of economic policy and argued for unlocking “the genius of the people” so that “the wealth of a nation may be promoted.”
To promote this spirit of national enterprise, Hamilton encouraged promoting technological progress, subsidizing research, attracting migrants, supporting a new financial system and implementing a patent system to promote invention. Such policies were in many ways an extension of previous policy enshrined in Section 8 of the Constitution.
Tariffs and their discontents
As the use of tariffs continued in the decades following Hamilton’s plan, policymakers turned increasingly protective in an attempt to more directly promote American industry. They enacted tariffs to insulate growing American industries from foreign competition, primarily from the U.K.
When crisis appeared during the Panic of 1819, a collapse in cotton prices, a tightening of credit, widespread foreclosures and rising unemployment followed. In response, Clay and his allies raised tariff rates again, to 50% in 1828.
The increasing use of tariffs provoked a fierce response from some in the nation’s agricultural and slave-owning class, who objected to perceived Northern dominance and a strong federal government. One prominent Southern critic at the time referred to the 1828 tariff as the “tariff of abominations.”
Indeed, opposition to elements of the American System was one of the chief policy goals of early Democratic politicians such as Andrew Jackson, and fights over the system presaged later sectional fights leading up to the Civil War.
As an industrial revolution took root in American society in the decades that followed, tariffs remained a cornerstone of U.S. economic policy. By the late 1850s, tariffs had become integrated into the policy of the newly formed Republican Party and an important plank of Abraham Lincoln’s economic platform.
Toward the end of the 19th century, a changing Democratic Party, supported increasingly by a strong agricultural populist movement, continued to largely oppose the tariff system, arguing it benefited powerful industrialists at the expense of the working class while offering little to counter economic crisis.
The breakup of the American System − and why it matters today
Between 1861 and 1933, tariffs were a standard tool of U.S. economic policy. During this period, tariffs on dutiable goods often averaged 40% to 50%, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. U.S. policymakers didn’t seriously question tariffs as a form of industrial policy until the deepening of the Great Depression in the 1930s.
Following World War II, the U.S. decisively shifted away from tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was widely blamed for deepening the Great Depression and contributing to the international conflicts of the 1930s and 1940s, effectively ending the protectionist era of U.S. industrial history.
The establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 provided policymakers with a novel tool – monetary policy – to deal with economic downturns. The Keynesian revolution provided still another policy response for governments to consider during periods of economic crisis: spending as fiscal stimulus to create jobs and income.
Finally, as postwar American policy embraced open global trade, American economic policy pursued more direct mechanisms to foster national innovation and entrepreneurship – effectively breaking up policy once dependent on activist trade intervention. With the elimination of tariffs, one of the great periods of American economic growth and innovation followed.
In 2024, the Republican platform has, in many ways, returned to its origins by offering tariffs as a key economic strategy. Likewise, the Democratic platform, with its skepticism of concentrated corporate power, coupled with a renewed focus on financial support for small businesses and entrepreneurship, echoes its own earlier generation.
As Americans head to the polls, it’s worth asking how current economic proposals with deep roots in the American System of old might help shape economic policy in the future.
Erik Guzik 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.
First graders led the desegregation of New Orleans’ public schools in November 1960.Bettmann via Getty
Sixty-four years ago this November, public schools in New Orleans began to desegregate. School buildings once designated as “white” opened their doors to Black students. The integration process, which deeply divided the city, was led by four first-grade girls.
Tessie Prevost, Leona Tate and Gail Etienne were the first Black students to attend the McDonogh 19 School. Ruby Bridges was assigned to the previously all-white William Frantz Public School. Newspapers worldwide ran photographs of the girls walking past protesters and entering the schools accompanied by federal marshals.
Prevost herself did not realize her role in history until high school, when a teacher assigned the class a project on Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that desegregated American schools. As she researched, she discovered her own name and story. She took this discovery to her parents, and they gave her a box of photographs and letters about her place in history, including a note from Eleanor Roosevelt praising her courage.
To some, Prevost represents the promises of the Civil Rights Movement: integration and equality. As our research on New Orleans Public Schools shows, however, neither of these promises has ever been fully realized.
New Orleans’schools resegregated in the late 20th century, and the city’s predominantly Black schools still lag behind white schools in many ways.
New Orleans schools did not begin desegregating for six years. Even then, only four first-grade girls out of thousands of Black students were permitted to enroll in white schools.
The New Orleans district would subsequently desegregate one additional grade per year. As a member of that first desegregated class, Prevost was always in the grade being integrated. As such, all the grades above her remained segregated.
Indeed, McDonogh 19 remained segregated during the first year of integration because all its white students immediately stopped attending. By December 1960, the school’s only students were the three Black girls. Two white students briefly enrolled in January, but their family succumbed to the pressure of the boycott and soon withdrew their children.
When Prevost, Etienne and Tate entered second grade, McDonogh 19 still had very low enrollment. In third grade, in 1962, the girls transferred to T.J. Semmes Elementary School, where enrollment of white students was much higher.
Within that white student majority, the girls encountered many cruel classmates. White students, encouraged by some teachers and parents, tormented their Black peers. Prevost recalled this as the worst time in her life.
“The white teachers and students did not want us there,” she said. “Every day there were beatings and cursing. They spat on us and ripped off our clothes.”
After several years, Prevost’s parents recognized the impact of this heinous racism on their daughter and transferred her into a predominantly Black junior high school. Prevost would again be separated from most of her white peers.
Equality in name only
The Brown ruling also promised an equal education regardless of race. In practice, that has yet to happen.
Most white teachers in New Orleans opposed desegregation, and the district initially allowed teachers to choose where they would teach. In 1972, however, the district reassigned many teachers to work in desegregated schools, and many quit in protest. Other white teachers struggled to connect and engage with their Black students, leading to disaffection among Black students. Their academic achievement declined, and dropout rates began to rise.
Simultaneously, white flight was working against integration. Between 1960 and 1980, the white population of New Orleans dropped 20%, resegregating many New Orleans schools. By 2004, 50 years after the Brown ruling, McDonogh 19 – which by then had been renamed Louis Armstrong Elementary – was again effectively segregated by race: Nearly 100% of its students were Black.
Across the district, academic performance declined in predominantly Black schools. By the 1990s, student achievement became increasingly measured by standardized tests known to be biased against students of color and poor students. Black students were also more likely to be taught by teachers with fewer years of experience and less education.
The abandoned school building sustained heavy wind damage and flooding. Water reached halfway up the walls of the first floor, leaving toxic mud, peeling chalkboards and mold-encrusted furniture.
A legacy
Following Katrina, the State Board of Education stripped New Orleans Public School District of its authority to manage public education.
The state of Louisiana and charter organizations took over city schools, making New Orleans Public Schools the first all-charter school district in the U.S. Despite the change in governance, New Orleans schools remained segregated by race. Over a decade later, in 2017, roughly 75% of schools had populations of 95% students of color, and test scores showed only incremental improvement.
Prevost, whose married name was Tessie Williams, lived in New Orleans her whole life, working at Louisiana State University for over two decades.
She returned to McDonogh 19 in 2022, when the restored building opened as the Tate, Etienne and Prevost Center. The site, once a symbol of resistance to civil rights, is now a community center and museum committed to advancing the unfulfilled promises of the Brown ruling.
As an adult, when Prevost spoke publicly about desegregation, she recalled the difficulty and disappointment she and others faced. But she tended to emphasize her hope for the future.
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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Christabel Devadoss, Assistant Professor in Global Studies and Human Geography, Middle Tennessee State University
Wisconsin voters lining up to cast their ballots in the 2022 midterm election, Oct. 25, 2022, in Milwaukee.Scott Olson/Getty Images
Every four years, national media turn their attention to the Rust Belt, a term that describes Midwestern industrial and manufacturing states whose economies were decimated by the decline of those industries in the 1970s. This region contains the coveted states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Yet when reporters descend on the rural Rust Belt to understand voters, the people they talk to are almost exclusively white.
I am a geographer who studies the experiences of communities of color in the rural Rust Belt. Rural is a relative term, but when it comes to policy research, it usually refers to nonmetropolitan areas. From 2021 to 2023, I interviewed 35 people who live or lived in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana and identified as Black, Indigenous or people of color.
I found that these Rust Belt residents have pressing concerns of political importance. Some of these issues are shared by white residents – and, as such, are well documented. But Rust Belt residents of color have additional problems that politicians and the media have long overlooked.
Local impacts
My interviewees described typical rural Rust Belt struggles.
They complained of limited internet access, few or no grocery stores, declining roads and other infrastructure-related challenges. Jobs and opportunities for career advancement were scarce in their communities, while death and suicide rates were high.
These difficulties are faced by white Rust Belt residents as well. But other struggles they mentioned are less often considered part of the rural experience.
They described feeling socially isolated and discriminated against at work and school. Many had experienced racial or ethnic profiling by potential employers and police and been verbally harassed.
One man, Miguel, who worked in carpentry, said his colleagues openly used racial slurs against him.
“I was putting away some boxes, and they said, ‘Oh that’s because you w–backs are good at packing things in trucks,’” he told me.
All names used here are pseudonyms; research ethics require me to protect the identity of my subjects.
“A lot gets brushed under the rug,” said Bao, a Vietnamese American woman whose father also works in a hostile environment. “All the management folks are white,” so “if you speak up, you lose your job or are ignored.”
These comments conveyed an overall sense of not “belonging.”
As one woman from rural Pennsylvania explained, people regularly ask her, “No, really, where you from?”
“They want to hear ‘Asian’ or ‘Korean,’” she said. “It’s very uncomfortable for me.”
These racial tensions worsen during election periods. Some people I interviewed reported having been turned away or threatened at voting stations – harassment they attributed to their religious, cultural and political backgrounds, or the way they looked.
Many Rust Belt voters of color already lack political power because they live in racially gerrymandered districts. When news coverage of the region ignores their voices, too, it compounds that feeling of not belonging.
In 2017, The Washington Post visited the small town of Jefferson, Ohio, in Ashtabula County, to interview voters described as “rural Americans who fear they’re being forgotten” after Donald Trump’s election. Their coverage focused almost exclusively on white residents.
“How did you go to Ashtabula County and not see Black people?” asked Belle, a resident who identified as African American.
Not always Republican
In the past three presidential elections, Ashtabula County has followed state trends: It backed Obama in 2008 and 2012, then voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.
Trump won Ashtabula with 60% of the vote in 2020. That’s 26,890 votes, which means that 16,497 people still voted for Democrat Joe Biden. In the years since, Ashtabula County residents have also voted with the state in two Democratic-backed initiatives: to protect abortion rights and legalize marijuana.
In other words, just because a state or district backs a Republican for president doesn’t mean everyone is Republican, or that Republican voters always vote the party line. They can split their votes, and have.
Even Ohio’s largely Republican delegation in the House of Representatives is misleading about the state’s political makeup. Ohio is a heavily gerrymandered state where voting districts have been drawn to benefit Republican candidates.
U.S. Senate elections show more diversity in Ohio’s voting base.
In 2018, Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown won 53% of all votes in Ohio, including 51% of those cast in Ashtabula County. Four years later, both the state and Ashtabula County picked Republican JD Vance over Democrat Tim Ryan to replace the outgoing Republican Sen. Rob Portman.
In my interviews, several participants mentioned how local restaurants and stores owned by Asian Americans had been vandalized. One woman, Lanh, who lived outside Springfield, said her favorite restaurant had to close.
“They started vandalizing the restaurant, writing graffiti and set the restaurant on fire,” she said.
The owners were from Thailand, but, Lanh said, the vandals “thought they were Chinese. Folks around the local community like my parents didn’t feel safe,” she added. “I didn’t feel safe.”
The emergence of Black-owned bee farms in northeast Ohio, for instance, is one small example in a host of businesses started by people of color. Together, they are helping to boost the region’s beleaguered economy, much as Haitian immigrants have been fueling Springfield’s growth.
That figure is probably low because the census tends to undercount nonwhite respondents – a problem that was particularly evident in 2020. Even so, that’s a quarter of rural residents who don’t fit the national stereotype of rural America.
Rural America is white and Republican. It’s also trans, queer, Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, South Asian, Democratic and much more. Even if some are Republican, they still aren’t the rural Rust Belt Republicans portrayed in the national media.
Ignoring these nuances reinforces stereotypes that the rural Rust Belt is the exclusive domain of white conservativism. But this region isn’t now, and never has been, simply red and white.
Christabel Devadoss received funding from the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS).
In the 2024 election, the two major-party campaigns and many news reporters are spending a lot of time talking about independent voters – those who are neither aligned with the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party. Despite the power that political independents are anticipated to have over the election results, there’s a lot that remains unknown about this group.
The Conversation U.S. has published several articles about what is known, and why it’s hard to know much more. Here are selections from some of those articles:
1. How many independent voters are there?
It’s very hard to answer that question, wrote Thom Reilly, a professor of public affairs at Arizona State University. Part of the problem is figuring out how to define who independent voters are. Surveys often ask people if they are Republicans, Democrats or independents, and if they answer that they are independents, the surveys ask how strongly they might lean toward one party or the other. But this muddies the waters of political identity, Reilly wrote:
“It’s possible that some voters identify as independent but really just have weaker political preferences than party die-hards, while still maintaining some loyalty to one party or the other. And some independent voters change their political identification from one cycle to another. That makes it hard to tell who an independent voter is and how many of them exist.”
Those changing alignments, Reilly wrote, “may require scholars, media outlets and the public to shift their traditional two-party view of American politics.”
Independent voters exhibit a key quality that most Americans expect of their fellow citizens: They base their views on their life experiences.
Unfortunately, as politics scholars Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz at the University of Maryland and Joshua J. Dyck at UMass Lowell explained, this is an attribute almost unique to political independents:
“In contrast, Democrats’ and Republicans’ ideas of what problems deserve government attention and how to solve them are much less likely to be based on their own life experiences, and instead simply mirror the information they have gained from leading political figures on social media, on cable news networks or through other partisan information outlets.”
For instance, independents living in neighborhoods with high levels of gun violence are far more likely to report being concerned about gun violence than independents who live in safer areas. But, Pearson-Merkowitz and Dyck wrote,
“for Democrats and Republicans, there is no relationship between where they live and their level of concern about gun violence: Whether they live in a relatively dangerous community or a relatively safe one, their views on gun violence reflect their party’s messages on the issue.”
3. Independents less likely to engage in any politics
Research into independents’ political activity finds them tending to stay away from politics, wrote Julio Borquez, a political science scholar at the University of Michigan-Dearborn:
“Perhaps most importantly, pure independent voters are simply less likely to vote than those who express any degree of partisan attachment. In the 2020 presidential election, reported turnout among pure independents was about 20 percentage points lower than turnout among other voters, including independents who lean toward a party.”
Research has found members of this group “tend to be genuinely put off by partisan conflict and party labels,” Borquez wrote. Different studies have found, for instance, that they prefer photos of neighborhoods that did not show political yard signs over the same photos of the same neighborhoods with homes displaying political yard signs. And they pay less attention to campaigns and partisan social media than people with partisan affiliations.
So they are indeed independent – but the question remains whether they will be uninvolved in 2024 or motivated to cast their ballots and make their views known.
Gun ownership in the United States is widespread and cuts across all sorts of cultural divides – including race, class and political ideology. Like all mass experiences in American life, owning a gun can mean very different things to different people.
One thing that American gun owners tend to agree on, no matter their differences, is that guns are for personal protection. In a 2023 Pew survey, 72% of gun owners reported that they owned a firearm at least in part for protection, and 81% of gun owners reported that owning a gun helped them to feel safer. This perspective contrasts to that of gun owners in other developed economies, who generally report that guns are more dangerous than safe and that they own a gun for some other reason.
I’m a psychologist who studies contemporary society. In the lab, my colleagues and I have been investigating this feeling of safety that American gun owners report. We’re trying to get a more complete sense of just what people are using their firearms to protect against. Our research suggests it goes much deeper than physical threats.
By combining social-scientific research on firearms ownership with a raft of interviews we’ve conducted, we’ve developed a theory that gun owners aren’t just protecting against the specific threat of physical violence. Owners are also using a gun to protect their psychological selves. Owning a gun helps them feel more in control of the world around them and more able to live meaningful, purposeful lives that connect to the people and communities they care for.
This sort of protection may be especially appealing to those who think that the normal institutions of society – such as the police or the government – are either unable or unwilling to keep them safe. They feel they need to take protection into their own hands.
Gun owners may end up perceiving the world as a more dangerous place, institutions as more uncaring or incompetent, and their own private actions as all the more important for securing their lives and their livelihoods.
How gun owners feel during daily life
What does this cycle of protection and threat look like in everyday life? My colleagues and I recently ran a study to investigate. We’re still undergoing peer review, so our work is not final yet.
We recruited a group of over 150 firearms owners who told us that they regularly carry their guns, along with over 100 demographically matched Americans who have never owned a gun. Over two weeks, our research team texted the participants at two random times each day, asking them to fill out a survey telling us what they were doing and how they were feeling.
To get a sense of how guns change the psychological landscape of their owners, we divided our gun-carrying group into two. When we texted one half of the group, before we asked any other questions, we simply asked whether they had their gun accessible and why they’d made that decision. For the other half of our gun-owning participants, and for our non-gun-owning control group, firearms and firearm carrying never came up.
When subtly reminded of guns in general – regardless of whether their gun was accessible – our participants reported feeling more safe and in control and that their lives were more meaningful. Thanks to our random-assignment procedure, we can be pretty confident that it was thinking about guns, as opposed to any differences in the underlying groups themselves, that caused this particular increase in psychological well-being.
About half of the times that we texted, the gun owners told us that they had a gun accessible at that moment. When a gun was handy, our participants told us that they were feeling more vigilant and anxious, and that their immediate situation was more chaotic. This result didn’t seem to be driven by owners choosing to have guns available when they were putting themselves into objectively more dangerous situations: We found the same pattern when we looked just at moments when our participants were sitting at home, watching television.
Raising fear and promising rescue
Contemporary American gun ownership may have conflicting messages embedded within it. First, a gun is a thing you can use to bolster your fundamental psychological needs to feel safe, to feel in control and to feel like you matter and belong. Second, having a gun focuses your attention on the dangers of the world.
By both fueling a sense of danger and holding out the promise of rescuing you from the fear, messaging around guns may end up locking some owners into a sort of doom loop.
My collaborators and I are currently exploring whether stressing other parts of gun ownership may help owners to move beyond this negative spiral. For instance, while owners often talk about “danger,” they also talk frequently about “responsibility.”
Being a responsible gun owner is central to many owners’ identities. In one study, 97% of owners reported that they were “more responsible than the average gun owner,” and 23% rated themselves as being in the top 1% of responsibility overall. This, of course, is statistically impossible.
To more fully understand the many ways responsible firearm ownership can look, we are in the process of interviewing gun owners from all around the state of Wisconsin, a notably diverse state when it comes to gun ownership. We’re tapping into as many of the ways of owning a gun as we can, talking with protective owners, hunters, sport shooters, collectors, folks in urban areas, folks in rural areas, men, women, young people, old people, liberals, conservatives, and, of course, trying to capture the complex ways that race shapes ownership.
Who do gun owners feel they are responsible for? What kinds of actions do they think responsible owners take?
We hope to learn more about the many different ways that people conceptualize what a gun can do for them. American gun cultures are complex and distinct things. By exploring the worldviews that support firearm ownership, we can better understand what it means to live in the U.S. today.
Nick Buttrick receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the Wisconsin Department of Justice.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kelsey Coffman, Assistant Professor of Entomology & Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee
Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, a parasitoid wasp that helps control pests.Sheina Sim, CC BY
Take a stroll along one of the beaches on Hawaii Island in late summer, and you’ll likely stumble upon almond-shaped fruits lying in the sand. Known as false kamani nuts, or tropical almonds, they fall from tall, shady Terminalia catappa trees that line the many picturesque ocean views on the island.
But what may not be clear to the casual beachgoer is that there’s a fight for survival occurring within the flesh of these unassuming fruits. Tropical almonds are one of many active battlegrounds in a war between a global agricultural pest, a parasitic wasp and a beneficial virus.
As an entomologist who studies insect viruses, I want to untangle the complex interactions that insects have evolved with microbes. The findings might help researchers tackle global food security issues.
One reliable method of control has been to release tiny insects called parasitoid wasps into the wild that can hunt down immature fruit flies and target them for annihilation. The term parasitoid describes an organism that spends its development as a parasite and eventually kills its host.
Parasitoid wasps use an elongated stinger, known as an ovipositor, to drill into fruits where flies are developing and pierce the fly’s body to lay an egg within. Wasp eggs hatch inside the fly host and gradually devour the entire fly from the inside out.
Human use of parasitoid wasps or other natural enemies to control pest populations is known as biological control, or biocontrol. It was so successful in Hawaii that several species of parasitoid wasp have established wild populations on the islands. They have helped continuously suppress multiple fruit fly pests to this day.
The release of nonnative insects for biocontrol could have unforeseen negative consequences for local ecosystems. Therefore, federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture have strict regulations for new and existing biocontrol programs.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
So, how do wasps achieve the impressive feat of reducing fruit fly pest populations? Once laid inside a fly host, the wasp must face the fly’s immune system, which will try to suffocate the egg before it hatches.
This inhospitable environment has forced wasps to evolve an arsenal of microscopic substances, also known as molecular factors, to combat fly defenses. These include a cocktail of different molecules introduced by the wasp mother at the time of egg-laying.
The goal of these factors is to manipulate the fruit fly’s physiological processes, like its development from egg to adult and its immune response to invading parasites. By interacting with molecular components, like proteins, that make up insect physiological pathways, parasitoid wasp factors can delay insect host development and suppress host immunity to allow the wasp offspring to feed on fly tissue unharmed.
This is the origin story of an unlikely partnership that many species of parasitoid wasp have formed with beneficial viruses. Virus particles multiply to massive quantities within the reproductive organs of female wasps during their development. Wasp mothers then use their ovipositor like a hypodermic needle to inject virus particles into host insects during egg-laying.
The virus particles turn into biological weapons that infect cells of the wasp’s host. This infection disrupts processes like the fly’s immune response. Developing wasps benefit from the virus’s activity and return the favor by passing on the virus to future wasp generations.
Not all heroes wear capes
Diachasmimorpha longicaudata is a small, bright orange wasp with a distinctively long ovipositor. The literal translation of longicaudata is “long-tailed” in Latin. But don’t let its charismatic appearance fool you.
D. longicaudata is ferocious in its ability to feast on several species of fruit fly pests, such as the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, and the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. Because of D. longicaudata’s ability to attack a wide variety of fruit fly pests, pest management specialists around the world have released the wasps into agricultural ecosystems, where they dependably establish new populations and provide sustained pest control.
Like many parasitoids, D. longicaudata has formed an alliance with a virus known as Diachasmimorpha longicaudata entomopoxvirus, or DlEPV.
DlEPV replicates within the venom gland of female wasps, which stores billions of virus particles. Virus particles are so densely packed in there that they often cause the venom gland to appear iridescent blue.
DlEPV particles are highly lethal when injected into flies in the lab. The virus freezes the fly’s development and replicates with abandon until the fly’s ultimate demise.
In contrast, the alliance between wasp and virus is so strong that curing D. longicaudata wasps of their resident DlEPV infection causes the wasp offspring to die inside the fly hosts.
A new potential path forward
My colleagues and I published a study showing that DlEPV may play a critical role in helping D. longicaudata make a meal out of so many different fruit fly pests. We found a link between D. longicaudata survival and DlEPV lethality within different fruit fly host species.
When we infected C. capitata and B. dorsalis flies with DlEPV, the virus successfully replicated and killed large swaths of fly hosts. However, DlEPV couldn’t replicate within the melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae, a fly species that D. longicaudata wasps cannot use as hosts.
These findings shine new light on the effect viruses have on host-parasite rivalries. The presence of these viruses could influence how useful parasitoid wasps are in getting rid of fruit fly pests. In the case of D. longicaudata, its associated virus may be responsible for the decades of reliable aid this wasp has provided to fruit fly biocontrol programs around the world.
This work has also revealed a new potential tool in the war against fruit fly pests. DlEPV is now known as a lethal enemy for several of the world’s most destructive pest species. If researchers can determine precisely how DlEPV exploits fly hosts at a molecular level, they could one day incorporate the same strategies that this virus uses into new fruit fly pest control methods.
Kelsey Coffman receives funding from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Christopher Isike, Director, African Centre for the Study of the United States, University of Pretoria
In his first year in office, US president Joe Biden committed to resetting US-Africa relations based on a doctrine of equal partnership.
He sent his secretary of state, Antony Blinken, to Kenya, Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria. The visit was used to outline the administration’s policy outlook towards Africa. It laid the ground for the official US-Africa policy commitment that Blinken launched the following year in South Africa.
Since then, there have been high level engagements between the US and African countries to deepen ties. They included visits by top cabinet members of the administration: vice-president Kamala Harris, secretary of defence Lloyd Austin and treasury secretary Janet Yellen. First lady Jill Biden also came.
Biden hosted a well attended US-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington DC in December 2022. Kenyan president William Ruto paid a state visit to the White House in May.
Yet our view, which is based on years of studying and writing on US and Africa relations, is that the Biden administration has not fulfilled its commitment to resetting US-Africa relations based on an equal partnership. It hasn’t recognised Africa’s growing agency in international affairs.
We argue that there has been a mismatch between the rhetoric and practice of an equal partnership. For example, African leaders or the African Union were not consulted about the agenda of the 2022 US-Africa Leaders Summit. This was also the case with the US’s Africa strategy.
This reflects the traditional paternalistic relationship of the US with Africa.
Biden is due to visit Angola in December – his only African visit as president. A much more encouraging message of equal partnership would have been delivered if the US-Africa Leaders Summit, for example, had been held at the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia. Biden would have then been able to engage with African leaders in the continent early in his term.
A full diary of engagements
There are a number of positive indicators of Biden’s commitment to reset relations with Africa.
Priorities included fostering open societies, delivering democratic and security dividends, advancing pandemic recovery and economic opportunity, and supporting the climate agenda.
December 2022: The US-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington DC was attended by 49 African leaders, three months after the release of the Africa strategy. The focus was on
strengthening ties with African partners based on principles of mutual respect and shared interests and values.
Biden pledged US$55 billion in investments until 2025 to advance goals that aligned with shared priorities. The US is said to have allocated 80% of said funds.
November 2023: Biden hosted Angolan president João Lourenço at the White House on an official visit. They discussed cooperation on the economy, security, energy, transport, telecommunications, agriculture and outer space.
September 2024: US ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield announced US support for Africa getting two permanent seats on the UN security council.
It’s possible to see serious flaws in the US approach towards Africa set against the expectation of an equal partnership.
Firstly, the US has attempted to undermine African agency through its bid to pressure African countries to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Many African countries chose non-alignment.
Secondly, the US championing two seats for Africa on the security council looks commendable on the surface. But the lack of veto power perpetuates power imbalances between Africa and the current permanent security council members – the US, France, the UK, Russia and China.
The question again is how equal the partnership is if Africa will be a junior member of the security council.
Thirdly, there has been a lack of joint agenda setting. African countries have made no input into US-Africa strategy or the US-Africa Leaders Summit.
Failing to consult African leaders, institutions and civil society on the continent’s own priorities reflects the same old practice of imposing priorities on African states. It looks like a continuation of the usual passing off of American national interests as African interests.
Fifth, the Biden administration has used the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) as diplomatic leverage over African countries. For example, in October 2023 it announced the removal of Uganda, Niger, Gabon and Central African Republic from the beneficiaries. Earlier, the administration removed Ethiopia, Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso. These countries were removed from Agoa for not complying with US human rights and political demands.
Lastly, the fact that Biden is only visiting Africa in the last days of his presidency suggests Africa is not a priority. The fact that only one African head of state has been afforded a state visit to Washington reinforces this thinking.
If the US is serious about equal partnership, it mustn’t treat Africa as an afterthought. It must always consult African states in shaping policies that affect them and the continent.
Ruth Kasanga, a postgraduate student in the Department of Political Sciences and Research Assistant at the African Centre for the Study of the United States, University of Pretoria, made contributions to this article.
Samuel Oyewole is affiliated with Federal University Oye-Ekiti, Nigeria.
Christopher Isike 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.
There was frustration in some corners of the media when it was announced that a new drug to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s was not going to be made available on the NHS.
In late August, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), which provides clinical guidance for the NHS, rejected another Alzheimer’s treatment called lecanemab. The media response at that time was similar.
One million people in the UK have dementia, and this figure is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. We have no drugs that slow the disease progression – so-called “disease-modifying drugs” – for this mind-robbing disease, only drugs to treat symptoms. It is clear that we need new drugs, so has Nice made the wrong decision?
Let’s dig a bit more into the rationale for Nice’s decision.
The “wonder” drug (or “miracle drug”) that some newspapers referred to is donanemab, an antibody that latches onto amyloid plaques in the brain and removes them. These plaques are the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s, but it is not known if they are the cause of Alzheimer’s or a consequence of it. (Some people have an abundance of these plaques but no Alzheimer’s.)
At the end of October, Nice declined to approve this drug for use on the NHS for treating early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. This was despite the UK’s drugs regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) approving donanemab.
How can we explain the different decisions of the two public bodies? And which one was right?
We can understand the decisions in the context of the different roles of the MHRA and Nice. Essentially, the MHRA reviews the scientific evidence and decides whether the drug is safe and effective. It aims to assess whether the benefits outweigh the risks. If they do, then the drug is approved for use in the UK.
Nice focuses on developing guidelines to support the adoption of new treatments, while considering value for money for the taxpayer alongside safety and effectiveness.
We don’t know how much donanemab will cost in the UK. In the US, the list price is £25,000 per patient per year. It is thought that about 70,000 people in the UK would be eligible for treatment with donanemab.
These drugs, donanemab and lecanemab, are given by infusion every two or four weeks and there are additional costs related to this and the monitoring needed.
To successfully treat patients in the very early stages of Alzheimer’s, these people first need to be identified. So new specialist diagnostic clinics would need to be created to test and confirm potential underlying disease. This might include genetic tests and lumbar puncture tests (to look for elevated amyloid in spinal fluid).
The drug infusions need to be started in specialist clinics with trained staff and facilities available for routine administration. This will all potentially increase the medication management burden on the patient and any family carer, which already can be difficult.
Nice concluded that donanemab slows the rate of decline in symptoms, but is not a cure. We don’t know enough about the long-term effects or the cost-effectiveness of this treatment. Nice consulted various expert groups on how well donanemab works, and the consensus was that it is modest at best.
The main outcome measurement used in the clinical trial was the integrated Alzheimer’s disease rating scale at 76 weeks. The scale, which measures both cognition and daily functioning, ranges from 0 to 144. A meaningful change is considered to be five points for people with Alzheimer’s who have mild cognitive impairment and nine points for people with Alzheimer’s who have mild dementia.
The change in the scale from the start of the trial to 76 weeks was −10.19 in patients receiving donanemab compared with −13.11 in patients receiving a placebo. This difference of 2.92 is less than what is considered to be a meaningful change for patients. Given this, donanemab is certainly not a “wonder” drug or a “miracle” drug, and describing it as such may give false hope to vulnerable people with dementia and their family carers.
Substantial side-effects
The side-effect burden of donanemab is substantial and like all new drugs, more side-effects may be identified when it is used in day-to-day practice. One particular concern is swelling and bleeding on the brain.
In human trials, brain swelling and bleeds occurred in 37% of patients on donanemab compared with 15% on the placebo. Overall, 13% of patients on donanemab stopped treatment because of the side-effects compared with 4% on placebo. Although the consequences are generally mild, it can lead to serious problems, such as seizures.
Hypersensitivity reactions, including swelling of the lips, face, tongue, throat and other parts of the body and breathing difficulties, are also a risk.
Many families in the UK have been touched by Alzheimer’s and fully understand the need for effective care. For families, one clear need is social care and support. Government after government has identified the need to invest in and reform social care. This, rather than spending money on drugs of questionable benefit, needs to be the priority.
Ian Maidment does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Research Group Leader, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Further warming hugely increases the risk we will pass climate tipping points, such as the collapse of Greenland’s ice sheet. Michal Balada / shutterstock
The global response to climate change has gained momentum since the 2015 Paris agreement, yet it remains inadequate to meet the scale of the challenge. That agreement established the goal of holding global warming to well below 2°C, and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. To achieve this, greenhouse gas emissions should peak and decline as soon as possible.
The latest reports of the UN Environment Programme, the International Energy Agency and others have suggested that we are on the cusp of global emissions peaking. However, halting the increase in annual emissions is only the first step. Failure to act earlier and more decisively to bring emissions down to net zero has made limiting global warming to 1.5°C an uncomfortably close call.
The IPCC has looked at “pathways” to keeping 1.5°C in reach. In nearly all of these, temperature rises will exceed 1.5°C, after which warming is reversed by humanity removing more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits. This temporary breach of 1.5°C for at least a few decades is referred to as “overshoot”.
In a recent study in the journal Nature, we discuss the pitfalls of being overly optimistic about the feasibility and safety of such temperature overshoot scenarios. Excessive confidence could lead to underestimating the risks associated with going over 1.5°C – even temporarily.
There is a need to be clear about what climate science does and does not know about overshoot, and plan accordingly. This means that, while some risks can be directly reduced by global climate action, others may require additional measures. A responsible strategy to limit near- and long-term climate risks requires both stringent near-term emission reductions and to develop a large-scale carbon removal capacity.
What if the planet warms more than we expect?
Even if warming goes below 1.5°C after the overshoot, the impacts of climate change will not automatically and uniformly reverse. Overshoot comes with irreversible consequences for people and ecosystems, such as species extinction, and the world we return to will be different from the one we failed to safeguard.
We can’t be certain how much warming a given amount of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to, and overshoot projections are often based on a best estimate. The IPCC, for instance, talks about high overshoot pathways exceeding 1.5°C “by 0.1–0.3°C”.
But those numbers are just the middle of a wide range of possible outcomes. In reality, uncertainty about how some features of the Earth system will respond to warming, such as the carbon cycle, means that peak warming could be substantially higher – by up to 1°C or more. We cannot even rule out continuous warming after reaching net zero carbon emissions. Every fraction of a degree of warming counts – exceeding 1.5°C by as much as an additional 1°C would come with grave repercussions.
We may have to remove billions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere. TR STOK
A capacity to remove several hundred billion tonnes of CO₂ in this century might be needed to hedge against the risks of high warming outcomes, and to ensure we can bring warming back to 1.5°C once this has been exceeded.
In fact, our results imply we might need close to 10 billion tonnes of CO₂ removal a year after 2050 (about 25% of current annual emissions). This would require a massive effort, but might just be possible with the rapid scaling up of a range of methods.
These include well-known strategies such as restoring forests and wetlands and managing the soil better. But it also includes novel methods such as direct air capture technology, in which carbon would be sucked directly from the sky, or bioenergy and carbon capture and storage, which involves extracting CO₂ from the atmosphere and storing it underground.
Some of these methods may not work out as envisioned due to technological, economic, social or sustainability limitations. But even if they do not work at the scale envisioned, or not at all, we still need to try.
Limiting near- and long-term climate risks
Because we can’t be certain exactly how much the climate will warm, we’ll need to limit the risks as much as possible.
First, we must reduce emissions as fast as possible to slow down Earth’s temperature increase, limit peak warming, and reduce how dependent we ultimately are on removing large amounts of CO₂ to achieve net zero emissions.
The Paris agreement accommodates such temperature reversal. Even if 1.5°C is exceeded, countries are obliged to hold peak temperatures to “well below 2°C” and to aim for long-term temperature decline.
However, every fraction of warming will disproportionately make poor and vulnerable people suffer greater hardship, so delaying stringent emissions cuts is not a resilient strategy. The urgency to reduce emissions now should guide the next round of countries’ targets for cutting emissions that are due early next year.
Second, we should consider hedging against high-risk, high-warming outcomes by building up our capacity to remove carbon and reverse warming. Just as governments hold strategic food and water reserves to weather unexpected disruptions, the world needs to develop the ability to remove large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. But, given potential limits to how much carbon removal we can scale up in time, we also cannot afford to squander this capacity on any emissions that could be avoided in the first place.
Investing in this kind of removal capability, on top of pursuing the most ambitious emissions cuts possible, is a no-regrets strategy. Should we have certainty that a more fortunate climate outcome will materialise, being able to remove this scale of carbon would enable us to bring temperatures down faster. And if the warmer side of our projections are realised, we will have put ourselves in a position in which we are best equipped to make temperatures decline again.
Achieving temperature decline in the long run would limit longer-term climate impacts. For instance, in our study we showed that temperature decline could shave off about 40cm (and potentially up to 1.5 metres) of global sea level rise in 2300. This could be the difference between having a future or not for whole nations of people. It may also limit risks from triggering tipping points in the Earth system, such as the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet or currents in the Atlantic ocean.
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner received funding from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 101003687 (PROVIDE).
Gaurav Ganti received funding from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Joeri Rogelj received funding from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amy Eaglestone, PhD Candidate, University of Birmingham; Visiting Lecturer, Institute of Political Science, Leiden University
Recent votes in the former Soviet states of Georgia and Moldova have been dogged by interference from Russian-backed elements. Both countries had previously aspired towards closer ties with western Europe and future membership of the EU. And in both countries there is a strong suggestion of influence from Moscow that could jeopardise those aspirations.
On the same day, the first round of Moldova’s presidential election saw pro-European incumbent Maia Sandu secure 41% of the vote. This was insufficient for an outright win. Sandu now faces a run off against her closest rival, pro-Russian Alexandr Stoianoglo, who garnered 26% of the first vote.
In the run-off, Stoianoglo will be backed by the two other candidates, both them pro-Russian populists. This makes a Sandu reelection far from inevitable.
Meanwhile, in Georgia’s parliamentary elections on October 26, Georgian Dream won its fourth consecutive term with 54% of the vote, its best result to date. It will allow the pro-Russia party to retain control of the government and continue the process of pulling the country further away from Europe and towards closer ties with Moscow.
The difference between public opinion as expressed by independent polling in both Moldova and Georgia and the outcomes of these votes has raised suspicions of interference. These suspicions have been further corroborated by international and domestic election monitoring organisations raising concerns that the elections were not entirely free and fair.
The pro-European camps in both Moldova and Georgia say Russia is behind this. There is a suggestion that these efforts are part of Russia’s multifaceted hybrid warfare. It’s a campaign aimed at destabilising these countries and hindering their European integration.
Russia has long manipulated domestic fears and grievances. The Kremlin and its agents have strong influence over media, civil society organisations and the orthodox church.
Both Moldova and Georgia also have a Russian military presence. In Moldova this is in the breakaway region of Transnistria, where there is a “peacekeeping force” of about 2,000 troops. Georgia has two pro-Russia breakaways making up 20% of the total land area of the country, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The war in Ukraine has also heightened concerns in both both countries about Moscow’s ambitions towards them. Georgia’s ruling Georgian Dream party campaigned for a closer relationship with Russia.
Its slogan, “No to war! Choose peace!” contrasted peace and alignment with Russia with being dragged into a war by the west. In Moldova opposition parties used similar rhetoric, calling for Russian protection and framing EU integration as a threat to national sovereignty. This resonated particularly among Russian-speaking populations.
Russia’s influencers have also escalated cultural tensions in both countries. In Moldova, Moscow-backed opposition groups have rallied conservative segments of society to fight against governments efforts to introduce EU-aligned anti-discrimination legislation.
Similarly, the Georgian Dream party introduced Russian-style anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in Georgia to appeal to the traditional family values of conservative and religious voters. By leveraging such issues, Russia has aimed to exploit people’s cultural concerns, to increase political polarisation, and to affect political choices.
Follow the money
But the most important way the Kremlin, or people associated with Russia, is interfering in the domestic politics of Georgia and Moldova is money. In the case of Moldova, fugitive pro-Moscow tycoon Ilan Shor (who lives in Moscow after being found guilty of fraud in Moldova) has been accused of bribery and helping orchestrate electoral fraud. Shor has denied any wrongdoing connected to the election.
Georgian banking and tech billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili one of the country’s wealthiest oligarchs, founded Georgian Dream in 2012. He has been described in one article as “the man who bought a country”. With a fortune worth the equivalent of 25% of Georgia’s GDP, he is thought to wield an outsize influence in the country’s politics, influence he reportedly uses to “tilt the country towards Moscow” (although some say he primarily furthers his own interests).
Ivanishvili himself, announcing his return to mainstream politics in 2023 as the honorary chair of Georgian Dream, said the party’s role was to “protect our national identity, restore state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and transform Georgian into a high-income state till 2030 and bring it into the European Union”.
In the conditions in these countries, individuals’ vast resources can be used unchecked for political activities. The influx of funds disadvantages opposing parties, who don’t have access to similar financial backing. They have created a lopsided political environment that favours Russian-aligned candidates.
There is also a risk that informal or unchecked financing could also have funded election day irregularities. Reports of vote buying, ballot stuffing and violence at polling stations were observed in both countries.
In one incident in Moldova captured by the BBC, a woman from Transnistria, where people still hold Moldovan citizenship, was filmed openly inquiring where she should go to receive payment for her vote.
In Georgia, Ivanishvili’s influence allegedly extends to civil servants and the electoral commission as well as the judiciary, which rules on complaints of vote rigging. Claiming victory shortly after polls closed, Ivanishvili said: “It is a rare case in the world that the same party achieves such success in such a difficult situation.”
The exact impact of Russian interference remains difficult to prove. But the dramatic apparent shifts in electoral sentiment are highly suggestive. This kind of election interference opens the door for autocratic leaders to gradually dismantle democratic institutions.
This then allows them to enact further illiberal policies, such as the hated recent “foreign agents” law modelled after similar Russian legislation, which targets pro-democracy civil society organisations critical of the government.
Moldovans are now preparing to vote in the run-off election on November 3, which will determine the immediate future of the country and could affect its future relationship with Europe. Many Georgians, meanwhile – led by the country’s president, Salome Zourabichvili – have taken to the streets to protest what Zourabichvili has called the “total falsification” of the vote.
If she and Sandu are right, Russia – along with its supporters – appears to be trying to achieve, through this “hybrid warfare” in Georgia and Moldova, what it is striving for on the battlefield in Ukraine: regaining control over currently free nations that used to be Russia’s obedient satellites.
Amy Eaglestone 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.
“Where is the UN?” is a question that has often been asked since the start of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. As the death toll rises and the conflict spreads, the UN appears woefully unable to fulfil its mandate to save humanity “from the scourge of war” – as it was set up to do.
While the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, has repeatedly condemned Israel – and been banned from the country for his pains – his pleas have been ignored. Attempts by the UN to sanction Israel have also failed. UN sanctions require the UN security council’s consent. The US has used its power as a permanent member to veto draft resolutions seeking to do so.
There have also been calls to suspend Israel from the UN. On October 30, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, called on the UN general assembly to suspend Israel’s membership because, as he said: “Israel is attacking the UN system.”
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories is reported to have told a news conference the same day that the UN should “consider the suspension of Israel’s credentials as a member of the UN until it ends violating international law and withdraws the ‘clearly unlawful’ occupation.”
But suspending a member is more complicated and politically fraught than many appreciate.
Israel and the UN
For decades, Israel’s relationship with the UN has been fractious. This is primarily because of the UN’s stance on what it refers to as Israel’s “unlawful presence” in what it defines as
“occupied territories” in Palestine. In the past 12 months of the latest conflict in Gaza, this relationship has deteriorated further.
Many have argued that Israel has repeatedly violated UN resolutions and treaties, including the genocide convention during its campaign in Gaza. Some UN officials have accused Israel – and certain Palestinian groups – of committing war crimes. Israel has also come into direct conflict with UN agencies – some 230 UN personnel have been killed during the offensive, and many governments and UN officials have alleged that Israel deliberately targeted UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
But the enmity between Israel and the UN came to a head on October 28, when the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, banned the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (Unrwa) from operating inside Israel, sparking a wave of condemnation.
The UN’s powers
Given this open hostility towards the UN, it is not surprising that some are now calling for Israel’s membership to be suspended.
But can the UN legally suspend a member? The answer is yes. Under articles 5 and 6 of the UN charter a member state may be suspended or expelled if it is found to have “persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter”.
But articles 5 and 6 both state that suspension and expulsion require the consent of the general assembly as well as “the recommendation of the security council”. As such, suspending Israel requires the consent of the five permanent security council members: the US, UK, China, Russia and France.
And, given the US’s past record and current president Joe Biden’s affirmation of his “ironclad support” for Israel, this is effectively inconceivable. But while it is, therefore, highly unlikely that articles 5 or 6 will be invoked against Israel, there remains a potentially feasible option.
The South Africa precedent
At the start of each annual general assembly session, the credentials committee reviews submissions from each member state before they are formally admitted. Usually, this is a formality, but on September 27 1974, the credentials of South Africa – which was then operating an apartheid system – were rejected.
Tanzanian ambasador to the UN, Salim A. Salim, announces that South Africa has been suspended fdrom the UN, November 1974. Teddy Chen/photograph courtesy of the United Nations
Three days later, the general assembly passed resolution 3207 which called on the security council to, “review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa in light of the constant violation by South Africa of the principles of the Charter”.
A draft resolution calling for South Africa’s expulsion was eventually put to the security council at the end of October, but it was vetoed by the US, the UK and France.
However, on November 12, the president of the general assembly, Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika, ruled that given the credentials committee’s decision and the passing of resolution 3207, “the general assembly refuses to allow the delegation of South Africa to participate in its work”. South Africa remained suspended from the general assembly until June 1994 following the ending of apartheid.
It is important to note that South Africa was not formally suspended from the UN, only the general assembly. Nonetheless, it was a hugely significant move.
A viable solution?
Could the same measure be applied against Israel and would it be effective? The South Africa case shows it is legally possible. It would also undoubtedly send a powerful message, simultaneously increasing Israel’s international isolation and restoring some much needed faith in the UN.
The 79th session of the UN general assembly began in September, so it’s too late for the credentials committee to reject Israel. But this could conceivably happen prior to the 80th session next year, if there was sufficient political will. But this is a big “if”.
Though a majority of states in the general assembly are highly critical of Israel, many do not want the credentials committee to become more politically selective because they fear this could be used against them in the future. Likewise, few want to incur the wrath of the US by suspending its ally.
As ever, what is legally possible and what is politically likely are two very different things.
Aidan Hehir 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.
Israel’s relationship with the United Nations has historically been strained, but over the past year, tensions have reached new levels. On October 28, the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) passed a law to prohibit operations of the UN’s relief and works agency (Unrwa) – the UN body responsible for Palestinian refugees – within the territory it controls. It’s a legal and political development which many fear will have grave humanitarian consequences for Palestinians in Gaza and beyond.
The decision also prompts questions about what lies ahead for the increasingly divisive relationship between the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the UN. There is even speculation that the Unrwa ban could lead to Israel being expelled from the UN general assembly.
Israel’s relations with the UN have long been fractious. But Unrwa has come in for particular criticism from successive Israeli governments over the years.
The agency was set up in 1949 to support Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. What was originally intended to be a temporary agency has now operated for more than seven decades, thanks to the unending hostilities between Israel and the Palestinian people. In addition to humanitarian assistance, Unrwa provides education, healthcare and a range of social services to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
Unrwa’s schools have been a particular bugbear for Israeli critics. It has been pointed out that textbooks provided by the Palestinian Authority and used in some Unrwa schools were “pivotal in radicalising generations of Gazans”. There have also been allegations that money intended to support Unrwa relief works has been finding its way to Hamas.
But it was the alleged involvement of Unrwa employees in the October 7 attack on Israel, spearheaded by Hamas, that brought the issue to a head earlier this year. In January, Israel presented Joe Biden’s US administration with a dossier that purported to present evidence that 12 Unrwa staff had taken an active part in the attack. The UN announced it had dismissed the surviving staff named in the dossier – but the accusations led several countries to suspend their Unrwa funding.
Unrwa’s commissioner-general, Philippe Lazzarini, described the suspension of funding as a “collective punishment”. He said it would have grave consequences for Gaza’s civilians who were – and remain – at high risk of famine.
An independent review set up by Lazzarini reported in April and found no evidence that the agency had been infiltrated by Hamas. Instead, it stressed how Unrwa’s work was an “indispensable lifeline” for civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. As a result, international funding of Unrwa was resumed by all countries but the US.
At loggerheads
Now Israel has gone a step further and banned Unrwa operations. This appears to be the latest blow in a campaign of hostility against the UN that has been years in the making.
In recent years, Netanyahu’s anti-UN rhetoric has escalated considerably. In 2022, the UN general assembly (UNGA) voted in favour of a resolution calling for the International Court of Justice to give its opinion on Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of Palestinian territory”. Netanyahu called the decision “despicable”. He refused to recognise the vote, saying:
Like hundreds of the twisted decisions against Israel taken by the UNGA over the years, today’s despicable decision will not bind the Israeli government. The Jewish nation is not an occupier in its own land and its own eternal capital, Jerusalem.
Netanyahu condemns ‘despicable’ UN vote.
During the past year, as it has continued its assault on Gaza, Israel’s efforts to delegitimise the UN have also intensified. At the beginning of October, after Iran had launched a barrage of rockets at Israeli military installations, Israel barred the UN secretary general, António Guterres, from entering the country. Foreign minister Israel Katz commented: “Anyone who cannot unequivocally condemn Iran’s heinous attack on Israel … does not deserve to set foot on Israeli soil.”
Meanwhile, units of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have been involved in a number of incidents which have threatened the safety of UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon (Unifil). The peacekeepers are there under a mandate to safeguard Lebanese civilians in the area, where Israel has been conducting what it calls its “military operation” since the beginning of October. Many scholars of international law believe the IDF’s actions could be interpreted as war crimes.
This in turn led to a public spat with the French president, Emmanuel Macron. Calling on Israel to respect the neutrality of Unifil peacekeepers, Macron said Netanyahu should “not forget that his country was created by a decision of the UN” – to which Netanyahu replied:
It was not the UN resolution that established the state of Israel, but rather the victory achieved in the war of independence with the blood of heroic fighters, many of whom were Holocaust survivors, including from the Vichy regime in France.
The last clause was a pointed reminder that a section of the French government collaborated with the Nazi regime in the extermination of French Jews.
International condemnation
But it’s the decision to bar Unrwa from Israel that has drawn the harshest international criticism, and which threatens to further isolate the country diplomatically. The UN secretary general has been joined by the EU and US in urging Israel to reconsider.
Washington has already been highly critical of what it describes as “Israeli efforts to starve Palestinians” in parts of Gaza, and the US and UK are both reported to be considering suspending arms sales to Israel.
Amnesty International, meanwhile, said the law “amounts to the criminalisation of humanitarian aid and will worsen an already catastrophic humanitarian crisis”. But Israel has signalled it intends to hold firm, while insisting it will “continue to do everything in its power” to ensure that aid continues to reach “ordinary Gazans”.
But the vast majority of Gaza’s population is now displaced. Most of the built infrastructure – including hospitals – has been destroyed. And Israel’s military operations are forcing most civilians out of the north of the Gaza Strip. So, the question now is whether the effective crippling of the largest international aid agency working in Gaza will simply make matters worse for the people living there.
Lisa Strömbom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Suzanne Shoush, Indigenous Health Faculty Lead, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
As a physician, I remember the first time I saw a child dying.
She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, flown in from a remote First Nations community with her family on the way. Intubated and sedated to cope with the blisters covering her little body, she’d had three of her four limbs amputated — the result of a horrific meningococcal infection.
I remember standing rooted to the ground, unable to walk away from her bedside, wanting more than anything to undo her suffering. This was long before I became involved in academic medicine as Indigenous Health Faculty lead for the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto, yet it profoundly shaped my understanding of suffering and the fragility of life.
I was a medical student without a magic cure, but I needed to stay close to her simply so she wouldn’t be alone. I remember everything about those moments, from the rhythm of her breath to the stillness of her body.
Around the world, health-care workers are trained to be observers and meticulously examine those before us, monitoring life and death with intense attention. We witness with a required objectivity, documenting and responding with specificity. We encounter incredibly difficult moments, but the ones involving children are particularly engraved in our minds.
These images came from health-care providers, documenting the time they spent in Gaza to provide desperately needed medical care in a place where nearly half the population is children.
Over the past year, health-care professionals have had to learn new terminology to describe what is happening in Palestine: scholasticide, sophicide, domicide and ecocide.
My work focuses on examining and understanding health practices and structures to better understand how to create anti-racist and anti-oppressive spaces for colleagues, learners and patients within our health-care systems, including how to engage Indigenous communities to propose and shape strategies.
Many of the atrocities against Indigenous people in Canada were carried out against Indigenous children, legitimized and legalized under the Indian Act — the blueprint for racial oppression within a democracy — and further enabled and enforced through secrecy, segregation and silence.
They have a direct impact in areas of conflict due to their ability to provide care — and bear witness. What health-care workers are experiencing in Gaza is becoming incompatible with human life.
An immediate ceasefire and the lifting of the illegal blockade of Gaza are essential to enable health-care teams to provide critical life-saving care and to bear witness to the ongoing suffering.
For me, personally, I carry the legacy of my ancestors as they watch down on me. Their survival of the horrors of the residential school system compel me — as a health-care professional — to break the silence around those suffering in Gaza.
Suzanne Shoush 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.
After the crowd erupted with cheers and applause, Carlson continued:
“Dad comes home and he’s pissed. Dad is pissed. He’s not vengeful. He loves his children. Disobedient as they may be, he loves them. Because they’re his children. They live in his house. But he’s very disappointed in their behavior. And he’s going to have to let them know.”
Initially, to a political communication scholar like me who studies gender and political leadership, the riff sounded like it was shaped by a political philosophy identified by linguist George Lakoff in the 1990s. That philosophy embraced the “strict father” model of governance, in which the government is akin to a stern patriarch who enforces obedience through punishment and cultivates the self-reliance necessary for people to live without a social safety net.
But Carlson’s strict father departed from Lakoff’s version in an important way. According to Lakoff, the strict father’s moral authority is rooted in a personal ethic of self-discipline, temperance and restraint – characteristics he seeks to impart to those he is charged with protecting.
Carlson’s strict father morphed into an unrestrained leader who takes pleasure in the pain of those he subordinates. As the crowd egged him on, Carlson role played:
“And when Dad gets home, you know what he says? You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl and you’re getting a vigorous spanking, right now. And, no, it’s not going to hurt me more than it hurts you. No, it’s not. I’m not going to lie. It’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You’re getting a vigorous spanking because you’ve been a bad girl.”
In Carlson’s re-telling, the MAGA Republican patriarch becomes a sadist who achieves pleasure by inflicting pain on an infantilized, feminized and vulnerable Democratic opponent. It was a perversion of an already sexist theory of governance.
Tucker Carlson at a Turning Point rally on Oct. 23, 2024, in Duluth, Ga., said that when ‘dad gets home,’ he’ll tell his daughter ‘You’ve been a bad little girl, and you’re getting a vigorous spanking right now.’
‘Sexism, sadism and sexualization’
In my research, I’ve examined how sexism, sadism and sexualization often coalesce in mainstream political discourse aimed at women candidates and women voters.
On October 25, Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC posted an ad to the @America X account that Musk commandeered, with the warning: “America really can’t afford a ‘C-Word’ in the White House right now.”
The ad opens with a content advisory: “WARNING: THIS AD CONTAINS MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF THE ‘C WORD.’ VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.”
The narrator announces, “Kamala Harris is a C word,” as an off-screen audience gasps. The voice continues: “You heard that right. A big ole C word.”
The ad accuses Harris of being a “tax-hiking, regulation-loving, gun-grabbing” – then the narration pauses to reveal a cat in a Soviet military uniform against a bright red background. The cat swiftly transforms into a picture of Harris in a Soviet-style fur hat while the ad reveals that the “C word” is “Communist” for “Comrade Kamala.” So she’s a tax-hiking, regulation-loving, gun-grabbing … Communist.
The New York Times reported that, despite the final reveal, “the setup is an obvious play on a far more vulgar term that begins with the same letter – an insult against women that is one of the most obscene words in American English.” The ad’s depiction of Harris as a cat – a pussycat – is a decidedly unsubtle echo of the implied insult.
A history of insulting women
It’s not the first time that a Trump ally has invoked “the C word” to insult a woman running for president.
In 2008, Trump’s friend, associate and future campaign strategistRoger Stone launched a PAC called “Citizens United Not Timid: a 527 Organization To Educate the American Public About What Hillary Clinton Really Is.” The important letters were bolded on the image Stone emblazoned on T-shirts: “C-U-N-T.”
The anecdote was more than a casual aside. It was a performance of patriarchal authority.
Trump said, “Arnold Palmer was all man, and I say that in all due respect to women.” His voice then turned guttural as he insisted, “And I love women, but this guy, this guy, this is a guy that was all man. This man was strong and tough.” Trump then explained, “when he took showers with the other pros they came outta there they said ‘oh my god, that’s unbelievable.’”
Trump’s choice to inject “locker room talk” into his campaign discourse is a reminder of the Access Hollywood recording that surfaced in 2016 and featured Trump bragging about “try[ing] to f—” a married woman, “mov[ing] on her like a bitch,” and grabbing women “by the pussy,” without consent.
‘You will be protected’
Trump flouts consent whether he is the aggressor or the ostensible protector. In an attempt to appeal to women voters, Trump recently added a promise to his stump speech: “You will no longer be abandoned, lonely or scared. You will no longer be in danger … You will be protected, and I will be your protector.”
Trump’s response was telling. On Oct. 30, he told a rally audience that he refused his staff’s suggestion, saying, “I said, well, I’m gonna do it whether the women like it or not.”
Doing it whether women like it or not is MAGA Republicans’ closing argument in the 2024 campaign. They’ve abandoned the “strict father” and become the creepy uncle.
Karrin Vasby Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City Political Economy Research Centre, City St George’s, University of London
Perhaps the most important long-term change announced in the first Labour budget are the new rules the government has set itself to fund the expansion of public services and increase public investment. These fiscal rules, which set out how much the government can borrow and spend, are seen as critical to reassuring the markets and the public that the government is sensibly managing the economy.
Labour has long claimed that former prime minister Liz Truss casting aside the rules to introduce unfunded tax cuts in 2022 wrecked the British economy and left families worse off with higher mortgage and borrowing costs. Chancellor Rachel Reeves came into office determined to show that Labour would be fiscally responsible.
The government says this budget will make working families better
off. In its own analysis, it shows that only the top 10% of the income distribution are made worse
off (by 1%) by the plans. The poorest households gain the most (by 5%). However, this analysis counts benefits from the big increase in public spending on areas like health and education, which tend to be used more (relative to their income) by poorer households.
Actual cash income offers a different picture. Spending watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) argues that 75% of the change to employers’ national insurance will be passed on to workers in lower wages (although the minimum wage will be boosted by 6.7% to £12.21 an hour). And there is very little for the working poor or those outside the labour market on universal credit (although pensioners have been protected).
This budget was delivered against the background of two big challenges that need urgent action: the parlous state of the public sector after years of austerity, and the very slow growth of the UK economy, which has meant little increase in real incomes.
To deal with these two issues, Reeves made some big changes to the previous government’s fiscal rules. This will give her space to borrow more money to finance public investment – spending on things like roads, hospitals and emerging industries that should feed into economic growth.
Finding the money
She has done this firstly by changing the so-called “fiscal mandate”, which relates to how much the government can borrow in any individual year. Under the new rule, within three years the government must get as much back in taxes as it spends (excluding investment).
It is the need to meet this rule that means the government has to raise taxes by £40 billion (more than half from the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions) to fund the spending needed to run the NHS, education and other public services.
But the government has another rule to prevent the total amount of government debt becoming too large compared to the size of the economy as a whole (GDP). Here the chancellor has chosen to change how government debt is defined, adding some more government financial assets, such as money put aside for local government pensions and student loans, to set against the outstanding amount being borrowed.
This has given her the room to borrow an extra £50 billion a year for investment, although she plans to use only half of that. The hope is that more public investment will both boost the economy (for example, by providing more roads and green energy) and improve public sector productivity (by providing things like more schools, health centres and scanners).
The OBR has judged that Reeves will meet her self-imposed rules within three years, despite the huge £70 billion increase in government spending. But it warns that the margin for error is quite small for both measures. The OBR also suggests that the economic benefits of increased public investment could take a long time to materialise, well beyond the five-year forecast period.
There are other risks to Reeves’ strategy. The cost of borrowing could go up if those financial institutions that lend the government money demand a higher interest rate.
The OBR projects that the government will be spending £100 billion a year on debt interest payments for each of the next five years. While the large increase in government spending and borrowing will initially boost the economy, it also means inflation is likely to stay slightly higher as more money is pumped into the economy. This, of course, could slow the rate at which the Bank of England cuts interest rates.
Gains for the population as a whole over the five-year parliament appear to be modest, with the second smallest rise in household income of any recent parliament of just 0.5%. This is driven by OBR projections that the budget will not initially boost growth very much despite greater borrowing.
And if the economy does not grow as much as hoped, the government may need more money to meet its day-to-day costs – especially as much of the new money has been front-loaded to be spent in the next two years. This would necessarily increase taxes even further.
The fiscal rules mirror Labour’s political dilemma, the need for short-term pain in order to get long-term gains in improved public services, a more productive economy and higher incomes and living standards. What is not clear is how long the public will wait to see results.
If, by the end of the parliament, people don’t feel like they have more in their pockets despite all the additional spending then Labour’s credibility could be in jeopardy.
Steve Schifferes 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.
Mohamed Al Fayed owned the luxury goods department store Harrods from 1985 to 2010.Fred Duval/Shutterstock
On the first anniversary of former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed’s death, more than 20 women accused the billionaire of rape, sexual assault or harassment while they worked at his luxury department store. Many had been in their late teens and early twenties at the time.
Since then, a further 65 women have come forward to the BBC with allegations dating back as far as 1977, and 40 people are reported to have contacted the police.
How did Al Fayed silence potential whistleblowers for such a long time? I’ve researched whistleblowing in organisations for almost 15 years. Looking at the allegations made against him, four apparent strategies stand out as textbook examples of how leaders can suppress dissent to continue their terrible behaviour – even today.
1. The organisation as a fortress
As the chairman-owner of Harrods, Al Fayed could wander around its swanky shopping halls and oak-panelled offices as he pleased. And it appears he looked for women to target as he did so.
Security guards had their role, in some cases reportedly turning a blind eye to distraught and dishevelled women leaving Al Fayed’s apartments and houses after attacks. HR people might likewise focus on recruiting certain women – like the security staff, they were just getting on with their work.
That is the thing about bureaucracies, as philosophers from Hannah Arendt to Max Weber have highlighted. Staff are not responsible for the outcome. They just need to do their job.
My research on whistleblowing in financial services shows clearly that the kind of blind rule-following many organisational roles require stops workers questioning the big picture and acting ethically by stepping in.
2. Hi-tech surveillance
The IRA bomb that exploded in Harrods’ car park in 1983 led to a top-notch system of surveillance being installed by its then owners.
So, when Al Fayed bought the store two years later, his need for control was satisfied with cameras and recording systems. Eventually, everyone working at Harrods apparently knew about the system, which appears to have stopped them talking to each other about Al Fayed’s behaviour.
Shockingly, the former Harrods owner appears to have extended this surveillance to the very bodies of the women he targeted. Doctors associated with the company were said to administer mandatory gynaecological examinations to female staff. Fayed was reportedly sent their test results. This meant he had eyes on his workers, bodies and all.
Today, with things like social media and the ability to share large amounts of data rapidly, it is more difficult for organisations to keep information in-house. And so, we have seen a rapid growth in insider threat detection – using technology like keystroke monitoring, where every keystroke on a computer is tracked without the user’s knowledge, to identify potential leaks.
A byproduct has been a “chill effect” on workers speaking out about wrongdoing they see in their organisations – something that has been highlighted by the UN as a problem for society.
My research alongside other academics into whistleblowing in healthcare, engineering and government shows one thing clearly: if trust in the organisation is lacking and workers do not feel protected against potential reprisals, they stay silent. Overt surveillance deters disclosures of organisational abuses.
Al Fayed was said to prowl Harrods on the hunt for women to target. DaLiu/Shutterstock
3. Legal pressure
The “non-disclosure agreement plus settlement payoff” tactic that Al Fayed employed with a number of Harrods staff was straight out of the Harvey Weinstein playbook. The disgraced film producer used non-disclosure agreements systematically to silence survivors.
While non-disclosure agreements are not allowed to be used to stop workers reporting possible crimes or serious wrongdoings, a frightened 20-year-old is not likely to know this.
In the case of Al Fayed, when Vanity Fair magazine published victims’ testimonies and allegations of serious criminality, his lawyers knew the solution. Keep the legal pressure on until the magazine settled.
The use of legal tools to silence whistleblowers is one of the biggest concerns for researchers today. From “Slapp” suits – strategic lawsuits against public participation, filed against people who speak out – to inappropriate use of non-disclosure agreements, defensive organisations increasingly turn to the law in public whistleblowing cases. As analysis of the case of whistleblowers at the disgraced blood testing firm Theranos made clear, often the threat of legal action is enough to keep a worker silent.
4. Dehumanise targets
Al Fayed, we are told, would chuckle as he openly groped women. One woman reported his laughter after an attempted rape at his Villa Windsor in Paris, when he fell on the floor after she pushed him off.
Most people would not find humour in such situations, unless they don’t see their victims as “real people”.
But the likelihood of targets speaking out is, again, slim. A very young person told they are worthless, treated as such, and reminded of it regularly by colleagues and bosses, is not best placed to speak up. Our research with other survivors in work organisations shows how the experience of sexual violence and harassment can leave them vulnerable. They find disclosure of the abuse intolerable without empathetic and supportive colleagues.
In an organisation designed to prevent workers discussing their concerns together – as Harrods appears to have been – the solidarity required to speak out and be protected through the collective is utterly absent.
Harrods’ current owners have said they are “appalled” at the allegations, and the business has reached settlements with many of the people who have complained.
When executing a campaign of “attack, isolate and silence”, money and influence can buy predators a lot of leeway, as other high-profile abusers like Weinstein and Jimmy Savile figured out. But the key thing is the organisation. With the right PR, surveillance, HR and lawyers to take legal action should stories get published, predators will be safe. The secret stays kept – until, one day, people have finally had enough.
Kate Kenny does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sean Cullen, Lecturer in Engineering Manufacturing, College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Brunel University of London
In the past, spaceflight was the preserve of government-funded astronauts who had to meet stringent physical, cognitive, psychological and social requirements for selection. But in recent years, that has all been changing.
In September 2024, two non-professional astronauts completed the first privately funded spacewalk, using the Crew Dragon spacecraft built by Elon Musk’s company SpaceX. Meanwhile, Houston-based private company Axiom Space is conductingregularflights to the International Space Station (ISS), carrying a mixture of government-funded astronauts and paying customers.
In the last few years, nearly 100 people have become private astronauts through the space tourism companies Blue Origin, operated by Jeff Bezos and Virgin Galactic, by Sir Richard Branson. While the price of a seat on these vehicles remains out of reach for most of us, prices are expected to drop as more players enter the market.
Despite the rapid growth in the number of space travellers, underrepresented population groups are still left behind, particularly those with disabilities. So how can space agencies and “space tourism” companies make spaceflight more inclusive for disabled astronauts?
The European Space Agency (Esa) recently recruited John McFall, who lost his right leg aged 19, as the world’s first disabled astronaut. McFall, who is a surgeon and former paralympic sprinter, will participate in a feasibility study to improve understanding of, and overcome, the barriers that spaceflight presents for astronauts with physical disabilities.
Esa’s most recent selection of astronauts was entirely of white European background, showing how far things still have to go. But its move to recruit McFall marked a significant milestone towards a more inclusive approach to spaceflight.
Designing effective systems for the inclusion of disabled people is a longstanding challenge on Earth – and space presents a whole new paradigm. The very specific demands of spaceflight mean we can’t assume that traditional adjustments and assistive technology will work beyond Earth’s atmosphere. So, making spaceflight more inclusive requires looking at each step of going into space.
Astronaut training is a complex process, designed to simulate the space environment and enable candidates to perform well under a variety of conditions they may encounter in orbit. But in many cases, the training facilities are not well designed for individuals with physical or sensory impairments.
For example, in order to get on the plane that flies in an arc to simulate microgravity (colloquially referred to as the “vomit comet”), astronauts must climb a set of stairs, which presents a hurdle to anyone with a mobility impairment. Ironically, impairments that restrict the use of stairs on Earth might be much less of a restriction once in space.
Spacecraft and space suit design will be another key focus. The space suits onboard the ISS were originally designed with male astronauts in mind, meaning that female astronauts have to “make do” with what is there. This has caused challenges as the number of female astronauts has risen.
Older spacesuits were designed with male astronauts in mind. Nasa / Mike Hopkins
In 2019, Nasa had to postpone the first all-female spacewalk because the torso of a space suit was too large for one of the spacewalkers. The Moon suit developed by Axiom Space in collaboration with Italian fashion house Prada is a step towards inclusivity, with anthropomorphic sizing to accommodate a wide range of crew members. Yet, future disabled astronauts might still encounter challenges if they have differences in their limbs or impairments to their dexterity.
Interestingly, the new SpaceX Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) suits have something called “embedded modularity” – each section of the suit is customised to the intended astronaut, and all sections fit together. While intended to help with joint positioning, these suits present a unique opportunity to support disabled astronauts with limb differences.
Inclusive suits could include a single fixed leg portion for individuals with paralysis, and removable parts for those with limb differences. Haptic gloves could provide tactile feedback through the space suit for astronauts with limb differences.
For individuals with visual impairments, incorporating augmented reality (AR) heads-up displays (transparent displays that show the user data overlaid over their environment) and AI-powered image-to-voice software that can translate purely visual information into audio explanations could make a huge difference.
Technological support similar to the app “Be My Eyes”, pairing sighted assistants with visually impaired people to help explain their environment, could also find uses in spacesuits.
Exercise equipment need adjustments to allow them to be used by disabled astronauts. NASA
Thriving in space
An often overlooked part of astronaut life is maintaining physical fitness through intensive exercise regimes. Exercise is required because both muscle and bone waste away quickly in microgravity – but the fitness equipment aboard the ISS, such as the treadmill and bike, is difficult to adapt for disabled people. Both require use of both feet to operate.
Re-engineering the systems for exercise, eating, working, going to the toilet and other essential activities is critical for enabling disabled astronauts to thrive in space.
Assistive technologies that could be used inside a spacecraft, as opposed to within a spacesuit, are continually evolving and taking many forms. As such, there are always opportunities to improve the environment on a space mission to make it more inclusive for disabled astronauts.
Examples could include virtual reality (VR) for use in ground training, smart prosthetics that enable the completion of complex tasks, and computer vision with AI guiding visually impaired astronauts.
Policies implemented by space agencies have traditionally been exclusionary, focusing on able-bodied individuals and ignoring the potential of those who are different. And while some space agencies are establishing advisory committees and promoting diversity, this work is often limited to narrow purposes within these agencies.
Despite the UK and many other countries having specific laws to reduce discrimination in the workplace, the international nature of the space sector can cause difficulty. For this reason, policies mandating inclusion and equity across the space sector are crucial. Most importantly, space agencies should ensure adequate funding and resources to support any inclusion initiatives and work with disability advocacy groups.
Often, the root causes of inclusion barriers are a lack of understanding or awareness of disabilities. In many cases, consulting and involving disabled people in decision-making processes reduces these barriers. It is essential the space sector recruits individuals from diverse backgrounds to begin with.
Although the concept of “diversity quotas” has historically been divisive, the first place to start is to understand the diversity both of current and potential space travellers. Publicising diversity statistics can help hold agencies accountable, and encourage initiatives aimed at greater inclusion.
There remains a lot to do, but with a collaborative approach, the new commercial space race could act as a shining example to the rest of the world in its approach to disability.
Sean Cullen receives funding from the Engineering Design and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). This project specifically was funded through the Brunel Research Interdisciplinary Lab (BRIL). He is affiliated with the Space 4 All community.
Ezgi Merdin Uygur receives funding from the Marketing Trust and the British Academy / Leverhulme.
Vanja Garaj currently receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) and Research England.
Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP) suffered a severe blow on October 27 when, alongside its smaller coalition partner, Komeito, it lost its majority in a snap general election. The ruling coalition took 215 seats, fewer than the 233 required, with the centre-left opposition Constitutional Democratic party making big gains.
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba called the election after winning his bid for party leadership in September. He had hoped to cement his position and draw a line under the tenure of his predecessor, Fumio Kishida, who had stepped down earlier that month amid a string of corruption scandals and public discontent over the rising cost of living.
Ishiba has admitted that voters, who turned out in their third-lowest numbers in Japan’s post-war era, have dealt the LDP a “severe judgment”. But he has vowed to continue ruling the country.
For its part, the opposition is not unified and therefore not in a position to offer a viable alternative. However, the ability of Ishiba’s government to push through the changes it needs to win back voter support will be severely restricted if the LDP fails to enter into coalition or garner key allies on particular issues.
The LDP sits at the heart of the so-called “1955 system”, which has seen the party retain almost uninterrupted government control since the end of the second world war. But recent events have rocked Japanese politics.
At the end of 2023, the public became aware of funding scandals involving dozens of LDP politicians. They were found to have diverted over ¥600 million (£3 million) of campaign donations into slush funds without recording the transactions as they were legally required to do.
These scandals involved cabinet ministers and close allies of Kishida, who had already faced criticism over their links with the controversial Unification church. The church, whose members are commonly known as the Moonies, has been called a “dangerous cult” by its critics and is accused of exploiting its members financially.
Japan’s former prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was shot dead in July 2022 by a man who said he held the church responsible for bankrupting his family. Abe was not a member of the church, but his grandfather was a key figure in its establishment in Japan in the 1950s. Kishida ordered party members to end their ties with the church in the aftermath of Abe’s assassination.
These scandals have taken place against the backdrop of rising prices, stagnant wages and a generally sluggish economy. Consumer price inflation accelerated to 3% in August, a ten-month high. The dreary outlook contributed to voter disillusionment.
According to a survey by Tokyo-based news agency Kyodo News, the approval rating of Ishiba’s cabinet fell to 32.1% after the vote, from its pre-election rating of 50.7%.
The electorate has expressed its doubt that a new government could end the distrust caused by the scandals. Rebuilding this trust will only become harder as the yen continues to fall, and Japan’s economic uncertainty, ageing population, and disaffection among young voters persist.
Regional insecurity
The electoral body blow could also weaken Japanese foreign policy, with China emerging as the main beneficiary. To its democratic allies, a stable Japan is crucial for securing geopolitical stability in a region that also includes a dominant China, a belligerent Russia and a nuclear-armed North Korea.
The LDP has traditionally always had a hawkish foreign policy stance. And in recent decades it has moved towards a desire to revise Japan’s “pacifist” constitution in favour of enabling the military to take a more flexible approach to security threats.
Kishida was lauded abroad for his foreign policy, having proposed increases in the defence budget and more cooperation with the US in the Indo-Pacific region. And Ishiba has previously advocated for an “Asian Nato” to counter China. He has even visited Taiwan’s capital city, Taipei – much to Beijing’s disapproval.
At the same time, Komeito’s more conservative position on foreign policy has supported an approach towards building diplomatic bridges with China. But should the LDP enter into coalition with the right-wing Japan Innovation party, which is a possibility given it won 38 seats in the recent election, a more assertive stance towards China may arise.
Led by politician Nobuyuki Baba, the party supports the revision of Japan’s constitution and an increase in defence spending as a means of countering China’s regional influence.
That said, a prolonged period of incapacitated politics within Japan presents a good opportunity for China to escalate its incursions into Japanese airspace and military manoeuvres around Taiwan. Japan’s leadership now needs to get its house in order quickly if the balance of security in the Indo-Pacific is to be maintained.
Julie Gilson 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.
A new study published in the journal OneEarth explores how marine biodiversity conservation, human health and wellbeing are connected. The results suggest that marine protected areas can be good for both planet and people. These areas of the ocean are legally recognised by governments as being important for marine conservation. They are protected by putting limits on human activity within and around them.
Once a government declares a marine protected area, you usually can’t live in it, fish, build a beach resort, start a fish farm or drill for oil in it. The rules vary from place to place, but the idea is to allow nature to flourish by limiting human activity as much as possible.
With plans to expand ocean protection under the UN-endorsed biodiversity plan’s “30×30” target (which aims to protect 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030), it’s important to know how this will affect people as well as nature.
The study was conducted by the conservation charity World Wide Fund for Nature, Harvard Institute of Public Health and Duke University’s marine laboratory. The team, led by marine conservation scientist Daniel Viana, reviewed all the scientific articles written since 1973 on marine protected areas and their impacts on people.
They found that, for 234 marine protected areas across the world that have been closely monitored, more than 60% showed improvement in both nature conservation and human wellbeing.
Swimming, sailing, even just building a sandcastle – the ocean benefits our physical and mental wellbeing. Curious about how a strong coastal connection helps drive marine conservation, scientists are diving in to investigate the power of blue health.
This article is part of a series, Vitamin Sea, exploring how the ocean can be enhanced by our interaction with it.
The study included marine protected areas that do allow “sustainable use” through managed and selective fishing activities. These are fishing methods, such as using a hook and line or a fish trap, that don’t cause physical damage to delicate habitats like coral reefs.
The paper suggests that in most cases, investing in marine protected areas directly benefits the health and livelihoods of people who live near them. Increased harvests of fish and other aquatic foods, such as shellfish and seaweeds, are usually the source of the benefits. Fisherfolk’s incomes increase and community access to nutrient-rich aquatic food improves.
The benefits of marine protection for fishing-based livelihoods are largest in small island states that have big marine protected areas, such as Bonnaire, Palau and the Cook Islands, where more than 95% of fish catches are associated with area-based conservation measures.
Despite ample evidence that marine protection improved access to aquatic food, the authors found surprisingly few studies that directly measured the impact to human nutrition. Only three out of the 237 studies reviewed had studied how creating marine protected areas affected the diets of people living around them. Only one study, in the Philippines, made the link between diets and health outcomes, because, when access to fish in diets improved due to marine conservation, there were fewer stunted children from surrounding communities.
Plenty more nutrients in the sea?
Our continents and islands are surrounded by seas, lakes, rivers and floodplains that are populated by edible plants and animals rich in vitamins, minerals and fatty acids. These micronutrients from aquatic foods are highly bioavailable (easily absorbed by the body). If sustainably harvested and made available to nutritionally vulnerable people, they could prevent malnutrition among millions of coastal people.
The new report has quantified the micronutrient contributions to human diets from the aquatic foods that flourish when marine protected areas are set up. It combines data on the nutrient composition of all the aquatic foods harvested in and around marine protected areas, with fish catch data from the surrounding areas.
The existing marine protected area network supports 14% of the global supply of six key micronutrients from marine fishing. This is achieved by protecting only 8% of the world’s oceans. By allowing marine life to grow abundantly inside protected areas, nearby fish populations are replenished. So, by conserving marine wildlife, protected areas help to sustain fish and shellfish stocks.
That means bigger catches, more income from fishing or tourism, and more food. More nutrients means better health. This applies both to marine protected areas with a strict no-take zone, where any form of fishing is banned, and those that allow regulated fishing.
As populations increase, demand for aquatic food rises. Wild harvests are being supplemented by aquaculture and mariculture – these are freshwater and marine equivalents to growing crops and livestock on land. Over half of the aquatic foods consumed directly by humans are now produced from aquaculture, much of it in inland waters rather than the sea.
But in many countries, particularly island and coastal nations in the developing world, harvesting wild food from marine ecosystems remains crucial to nourishing the over 3 billion people who get more than 15% of their animal source proteins from aquatic foods.
Despite their potential to address global micronutrient nutrition, aquatic foods have, until recently, been underrepresented in policies and programmes to end hunger and malnutrition. But with data on the nutritional composition of the world’s fish species now available, studies like this can advance an approach called “nutrition-sensitive fisheries and aquaculture”: Instead of fishing to maximise catch or profit, fisheries could be managed to optimise their contribution to human nutrition.
Linking ocean conservation with human health is an exciting idea but there are gaps in the research. It’s not clear who benefits when income from tourism and fishing increases, or whether increased catches get to those that need it most. In the Maldives for example, more than 80% of reef fish are consumed by tourists, not locals.
Trying to solve malnutrition with marine protected areas is going to be challenging. Many marine protected areas are not effectively managed. By contrast, 77% of catches from the world’s fisheries come from stocks that are managed sustainably, though they have little room for expansion to meet rising demand. Aquaculture can do that, but the sector is still moving towards sustainability.
Many key threats to marine ecosystems and wild fisheries, such as climate change and pollution, are not effectively dealt with by local marine habitat protection alone. Despite these challenges, this study highlights that nature-human relationships can be regenerative, rather than exploitative.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Edward H. Allison currently receives funding from Canada’s International Development Research Center AQUADAPT programme for work on climate adaptive nature-based aquaculture in South East Asia, from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization for work on Implementing ecosystem-based management in S and SE Asia arnd from the multi-donor Trust Fund to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research for work on aquatic food systems.
The true identity of the founder of bitcoin has always been a mystery.(Shutterstock)
In 2008, someone using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto published the design of the cryptocurrency bitcoin, proposed the initial code and was active online for just under two years. In this time, they helped develop the code, answer questions and promote the project. Then, claiming to busy with new things, Nakamoto left working on bitcoin and was probably never heard from again.
The background is this: with bitcoin, users leave tips to have their transactions processed. If the tip is too low, the computers running bitcoin will refuse to process it and the transaction will sit in bitcoin purgatory. Worse, bitcoin users who make this mistake cannot increase the fee without it looking like an attack on the system.
In an online post, Nakamoto posts that transactions could be declared safe if they only changed the amount of the fee.
Not long after, Todd chimes in that this is impossible with how bitcoin transactions work. The increased fee has to come from somewhere, namely a decrease in the amount paid out, which changes the transaction. Todd’s message is short: “Of course, to be specific, the inputs and outputs can’t match *exactly* if the second transaction has a transaction fee.”
Hoback ponders if maybe Nakamoto meant to correct himself, but somehow accidentally used his real account.
The theory plays out well on film but leaves out a few considerations.
Early bitcoin enthusiasts were a self-selecting group, and most were as technically minded as Nakamoto or Todd. This technical background is niche but not rare: more than 100,000 computer science students graduate annually in the United States, while there are over 500,000 certified security experts. And there are many equally capable people who are neither of these things.
Given Hoback’s evidence for Todd is circumstantial, the weight shifts to Todd’s reaction on camera when Hoback outlines his theory: a mix of bemusement, mockery and indignation. The film frames the reaction as incriminating, while others caution against reading anything into it.
Enter Ethereum
Bitcoin is maintained by an open group of volunteered computers (whose operators are paid in new bitcoin for the work of validating transactions and storing them on a ledger called the blockchain) where no one is in charge, and yet maintains high security.
Early bitcoin enthusiasts saw the potential for bitcoin’s blockchain technology to handle more than financial transactions, but the developers helming bitcoin (including Todd) thought it would be best if bitcoin stayed in its lane.
Some bitcoin enthusiasts in Toronto then banded together and launched Ethereum. Led by 21-year-old Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum provides a platform where anyone can run their code on a blockchain simply by paying a fee and pushing a button. The code could be anything from a new digital currency to sophisticated financial technology.
In Hoback’s documentary, many of the interviewees view bitcoin and its developers as competitors and antagonists of Ethereum.
Hoback’s documentary emphasizes Ethereum’s scam tokens but overlooks the innovative financial services that captured US$64 billion of assets in 2021, as well as its advancements in areas like efficiency and cryptography.
Ironically, it is Ethereum technology that runs crypto-betting platform Polymarket, which hosted a US$44 million betting pool on who would be named as Nakamoto in Hoback’s film before it aired.
“Polymarket turned Money Electric into a sporting event,” Hoback enthused. “Even I’m refreshing the betting pool to see how high the total volume gets.”
He picks up this thread again in Money Electric, embedding an earnest message about the potential privacy and surveillance implications of governments — including Canada, the United States and 130 other countries — launching central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), something my research also draws attention to.
In theory, the technology underlying bitcoin can be expanded to provide a CBDC system as private as paper cash. However it will take a strong political will to get there.
Jeremy Clark receives funding from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton and Autorité des Marchés Financiers.
Labour’s first budget in 14 years appears to have avoided the Halloween nightmares that many predicted. Yes, the overall tax burden is at its highest level since 1948, but this budget’s tax and spend distribution is such that it spreads both the pain and the benefit. Most of the pain has been focused on the well off, sparing others from increased taxation.
This was, as is so often the case, a budget that was more about politics than economics.
The political emphasis is naturally very different from the previous Conservative administration. Like the 1990s governments of Tony Blair, Labour is now focusing on improving the public sector rather than cutting taxes.
The government claims there will be no return to austerity. Instead, Reeves’s budget is based not only on investment and growth, but education – which gets a 19% real-terms funding uplift. An extra £22 billion is also available for the NHS. Perhaps more importantly, there is an attempt to shift away from hospital-based provision to preventative approaches and community care.
This is a budget centred on redistribution. Taxes are increasing for employers (through increased national insurance) and on inheritance tax and capital gains. Second home owners, non-doms and parents sending their children to private school will also be taxed more. Beneficiaries include those on a minimum wage, pensions and carers.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
It is, then, very much a Labour budget. It focuses on taking money from what may be called the upper middle class and the very well off, and spending it on the public sector, the lower paid and the worse off in society. Even the hinted-at increases on taxes around pensions and pension pots were not fulfilled for fear of alienating Labour supporting, public sector workers.
Delivering a vision
From this perspective, the budget can be regarded as a political success. It has done what Keir Starmer’s government has hitherto failed to do: set out a new, distinct agenda. Revising the existing fiscal rules to include both new stability and investment rules highlights Labour’s commitment to longer-term growth, which it hopes will secure the investment for renewed public services.
This strategy harks back to the traditional social democracy that runs from Tony Crosland – one of the foremost Labour thinkers on a reformed social democracy – and the Labour governments of the 1960s to New Labour. Economic growth, rather than the radical redistribution of wealth associated with Labour leaders such as Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn, is Labour’s mechanism for enhancing public services and improving the position of the worst off in society.
But therein lies the rub. The initial market reaction was good. Much of Reeves and Starmer’s pre-budget spin was about making sure the markets remained calm. There was no repeat of the Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget debacle, where unfunded tax cuts led to the unstable economic conditions and ultimately Truss’s downfall.
The whole of the Labour government strategy is based on modest but consistent economic growth between a high of 2% and a low of 1.5% between now and 2030. But, of course, economic growth is very difficult to predict and dependent on conditions that the government does not control.
Just this week, Israel’s decision not to target Iranian oilfields led to a 20% drop in oil prices. But any intensification of war in the Middle East could see that situation rapidly reversed.
So while Labour’s promise to increase capital spending and greater investment in science, research and development is important for growing the economy, it is only one factor and others may thwart Labour’s growth plan.
There is though one important lesson from history. All – and that really is all – Labour governments have ended their time in office amidst a financial crisis. Often, it is not directly of their own making, but the plight of the economy has subsequently undermined their original spending plans.
Reeves’s first budget has seen clear benefits for particular sectors. The adaptation of the fiscal rules creates new opportunities for growth through borrowing, capital spending and investment. Yet whether it can trigger the scale of economic takeoff needed to overcome the backlog of investment in public services is to be seen. This may well prove to be the key factor in determining both the longevity and legacy of this Labour government.
Martin Smith receives funding from Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship and Nuffield Foundation.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Elizabeth Scales, Post-Doctoral Researcher, Department of Environmental, Occupational, and Agricultural Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center
The ongoing war in Sudan has often been overlooked amid higher-profile conflicts raging across multiple continents. Yet the lack of media and geopolitical attention to this 18-month-long conflict has not made its devastation in terms of human lives any less stark.
Since fighting broke out in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, both of which had been part of a power-sharing military government, the country has seen the displacement of more than 14 million people and the carving up of the country by geography and ideology.
And while we may never know the exact death toll, the conflict in Sudan is certainly among the deadliest in the world today.
As scholars of public health, conflict and human rights and Sudanese-American health workers, we are keenly aware of how fraught it can be to estimate mortality in war for a slew of practical and political reasons. But such estimates are of critical importance: They allow us to understand and compare conflicts, target humanitarian aid for those still at risk, trigger investigations of war crimes, bear witness to conflict and compel states and armed groups to intervene or change.
Considering a death toll in such a conflict includes counting not only those who are killed as a direct result of violence – itself a difficult thing to determine in real time – but also those who have died by conflict-exacerbated factors, such as the absence of emergency care, the breakdown of vaccination programs and a lack of essential food and medicine. Estimating this latter death toll, called indirect mortality, presents its own challenge, as the definition itself varies among researchers.
In congressional testimony, U.S. special envoy to Sudan Tom Perriello recognized the estimation challenges when noting there had been anywhere between 15,000 and 150,000 deaths in Sudan – an exceedingly wide range that was attributable, in part, to the complexity of determining indirect mortality.
Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), a nonprofit specializing in conflict-related data collection, has recorded an average of more than 1,200 direct conflict deaths per month in Sudan, with nearly 19,000 deaths in the first 15 months of the conflict. This figure is similar to the 20,000 deaths estimated by the Sudan Doctors Union and the 19,000 figure used by the Sudan Protection Cluster, a centralized group of U.N. agencies and NGOs that used World Health Organization data.
ACLED sources its estimates of deaths from traditional media, reports from international NGOs and local observers, supplemented by new media such as verified Telegram and WhatsApp accounts. The Sudan Doctors Union, on the other hand, gives on-the-ground estimates of conflict deaths.
When available, distinct data sources such as surveys, civil registers and official body counts can make an estimation more accurate. However, this data is often available only in retrospect, after the cessation of conflict. It is therefore critical to use both the available data and precedents from previous conflicts to capture a reasonable estimate of the human costs of an ongoing conflict.
A 2010 article in The Lancet estimated that there are 2.3 indirect deaths for every direct conflict death, based on data from 24 small-scale surveys conducted in Darfur from 2003 to 2005. As such, using ACLED’s data of 18,916 direct deaths, we estimate that in the current Sudan conflict, there are an additional 43,507 indirect deaths – or more than 62,000 total deaths.
We believe our estimate is very conservative. When estimating mortality in the ongoing conflict in Gaza, a different group of scholars, also writing in The Lancet, used a multiplier of four indirect deaths for every direct death to estimate the overall mortality there.
Using that latter multiplier, the number of indirect deaths in Sudan would jump to nearly 110,000 – meaning the total deaths in the region amount to 130,000 – double our estimate.
This range is wide, but it acknowledges how difficult it can be to estimate indirect deaths and how they can vary significantly with the shape of a conflict.
The Sudanese conflict in context
For all the tremendous loss of life these numbers reflect, they surely underestimate the true human costs of the conflict.
Much of the violence is ethnically targeted, and the Darfur region – where a full-scale famine has been declared – has suffered disproportionately.
The destruction of civilian infrastructure and interrupted aid mechanisms are preventing medicine, food, clean water and vaccinations from getting to in-need populations.
Health care workers and facilities, not only in at-risk Darfur but also throughout the country, have been the target of attacks. Nearly 80% of medical facilities have been rendered inoperable. And at least 58 physicians have been killed, in addition to the many that were targeted in previous crises.
Given the persistent targeting of health care systems and restricted access to humanitarian corridors, indirect deaths in Sudan are likely to grow as hospitals shut down, even in the capital Khartoum, due to bombardments, ground attacks and a lack of critical supplies.
The costs for Sudanese children are especially alarming. Thirteen children die per day in Zamzam camp in North Darfur, according to Doctors Without Borders, mostly due to undernutrition and food scarcity.
And nearly 800,000 Sudanese children will face severe, acute malnutrition through 2024, a condition that requires intensive care and supplemental nutrition merely to prevent death. Even before the conflict, children were severely threatened by a lack of access to care, including basic preventive care such as early immunization.
Finally, the transmission of communicable diseases thrives in conflicts like the one in Sudan, where there has been widespread population displacement, malnutrition, limited water and sanitation, and lack of appropriate sheltering. In August, a cholera outbreak led to a spiking death rate of more than 31 deaths per 1,000 cholera cases. And instances of such disease effects are likely underestimates in a country lacking health care penetration and monitoring.
The limitations of estimations
The massive internal displacement of more than 14 million people in Sudan complicates the estimation of death tolls, as shifting populations make establishing baselines nearly impossible.
Even then, estimates will require assumptions about direct deaths, indirect-to-direct death ratio and the quality of existing data.
But as scholars working at the intersection of public health and human rights, we believe such work, however imperfect, is necessary for the documentation of conflict – and its future prevention. And while there are many current global conflicts that require our urgent attention, the conflict in Sudan must not be lost in the mix.
Blake Erhardt-Ohren, Debarati Guha Sapir, Khidir Dalouk, and Sarah Elizabeth Scales 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.
With the clock ticking down to November 5 and what just about everyone agrees is the most consequential US presidential election in living memory, various of the Biden administration’s top brass have jetted out to the Middle East for one last try to get a deal over the line.
The most likely area where progress could be made is the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. The militant group announced the appointment of a new general secretary on October 29. Naim Qassem is, as the BBC puts it, “one of the few senior Hezbollah leaders who remains alive after Israel killed most of the group’s leadership in a series of attacks”. He is reportedly making noises about possible change in Hezbollah policy that would separate any negotiations over the conflict in Lebanon with any talks over Gaza.
If true, it’s a major shift from the policy of recently assassinated leader Hassan Nasrallah, which previously indelibly linked a ceasefire in Gaza with the cessation of Lebanon’s rocket attacks on northern Israel. Full details of the deal remain under wraps, but a draft was leaked to Israel’s state broadcaster Kan.
Post on X by Kann reporter, Suleiman Maswadeh, with details of a proposed Middle East peace deal. X
For Israel’s part, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the initial phase of Israel’s operation inside Lebanon is drawing to a close. As for what comes next, the New York Times reported on October 28 that Netanyahu is “waiting to see who will succeed President Biden before committing to a diplomatic trajectory”.
The diplomatic trajectory has been made more complicated of late by a big spat between Israel and the UN. The two have had a fractious relationship since the very start. But under the Netanyahu government, things have steadily deteriorated to the stage that Israel actually barred UN secretary general António Guterres from entering the country at the beginning of October.
This week Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, passed a new law banning the UN relief and works agency (Unrwa) from operating on any territory it controls. Unrwa was set up after the war of 1948 to help displaced Arabs and has since morphed into what an independent review this year said was an “indispensable lifeline” for civilians in Gaza and the West Bank.
The trouble is that the reason the independent review was reporting at all was that Israel was alleging Unrwa staff had taken part in the October 7 massacres alongside Hamas. Unwra subsequently fired nine staff members. But Israel’s contention that Unrwa is a “rotten tree entirely infected with terrorist operatives” remains unproved.
Lisa Strömbom of Sweden’s Lund University, who has been following the conflict for many years, has traced the deterioration of relations between Israel and Unrwa over several decades. She now believes that Israel’s ban will make it nigh on impossible for Unrwa to fulfil its mission in Gaza. This can only make things worse for a civilian population in Gaza which is already trying to survive in the most difficult circumstances possible.
The Netanyahu government’s decision to ban Unrwa has been roundly condemned on all sides. Some voices have even called for Israel’s membership of the UN to be suspended. That’s a complicated issue, writes Aidan Hehir, who has published widely on conflict resolution and treaty making.
For a start, it would need to get past the UN security council which means being subject to a veto from any one of the five permanent members (P5). We published an article on this issue some years ago with the help of UN expert Emma McClean, which looked at the issues which had prompted members of the P5 to wield their vetos. It found that Israel-Palestine was hands-down the most common issue that led to a veto – and all those vetoes had been instigated by the US.
So suspending Israel from the UN would appear to be a non-starter. But Hehir tells the story of the way the UN managed to circumvent the P5 and suspend South Africa in 1974 over apartheid. Having failed to get the suspension past the security council after the UK and France vetoed the move, the credentials committee of the general assembly simply refused to renew South Africa’s credentials. It remained suspended for two decades until the end of apartheid in 1994.
Meanwhile Israel’s assault on Gaza continues and the death toll continues to mount. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), supported by airstrikes, continue to bombard what the IDF says are Hamas positions in the towns of Beit Lahia and Jabalia but which the Gaza health ministry say are residential buildings sheltering hundreds of civilians. On October 29, the health ministry said at least 93 people, including 25 children, were killed by an Israeli airstrike.
Now, more than ever, it’s vital to be informed about the important issues affecting global stability. Sign up to receive our weekly World Update newsletter. Every Thursday we’ll you expert analysis of the big stories making international headlines.
Much of the population of the north of Gaza has been evacuated south of what is known as the Netzarim corridor. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper claims that it’s part of an operation known as the “generals’ plan”, which calls for the north to be cleared of civilian residents and locked down as a military zone. This is presented as a national security measure, but Leonie Fleischmann reports that there are those who believe the military operation will be followed by an influx of Israeli settlers.
Fleischmann points to a conference held on the Israeli side of the border with north Gaza, attended by members of Netanyahu’s Likud party as well as by several government ministers, which actively promoted the idea of settling north Gaza. Memories and historical legend mingle with ideology that holds Gaza had a Jewish population from biblical times through to 1929, when an Arab revolt killed 133 Jewish people living there and drove the rest out.
The prospect of a land grab is clearly exercising minds at the UK foreign office. UK ambassador to the United Nations, Barbara Woodward said on October 29: “We reiterate that northern Gaza must not be cut off from the south. Palestinian civilians, including those evacuated from northern Gaza must be permitted to return. There must be no forcible transfer of Gazans from or within Gaza, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza Strip.”
It’s highly unlikely that we’ll know by this time next week who has prevailed in the US presidential election. But the Middle East will be one of the first big ticket items on the Resolute desk.
The issue has already proved to be a tricky one for Kamala Harris. Her support base is deeply divided on the issue, with large numbers of Democrats – particularly young people, as well as Muslims and black voters – unsettled by her perceived part in the Biden administration’s “steadfast” support for Israel over the past four years.
It’s hard to tell whether these voters consider that the people of Gaza would fare any better under a Trump White House. But Natasha Lindstaedt and Faten Ghosn believe that Netanyahu’s continuing aggression in Gaza may well play out in the Republican contender’s favour.
Meanwhile, to guide us through how the two candidates are likely to approach the big foreign policy issues, we can turn to Garret Martin of the Transatlantic Policy Center at the American University in Washington.
As a three-day fact-finding mission from a group of Pacific leaders drew to a close in New Caledonia, and with the outcomes report not expected before next year, the visit to the riot-hit French Pacific territory seems to have triggered a new sense of awareness locally about the values of Pacific regional mechanisms of “talanoa” embodied by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
Local President Louis Mapou stressed on several occasions during the visit that New Caledonia’s situation was the “subject of much attention” in the Pacific region.
He suggested that one of the reasons for this could be because of a potential “spillover” effect that could “jeopardise cohesion in the Pacific”.
However, Mapou also stressed that he had received the message conveyed by the PIF “Troika-Plus” group that “they’re ready to take part in [New Caledonia’s] reconstruction”.
‘New Caledonia’s regional integration in its region’ Mapou said that one of the recurrent themes during the PIF visit was “New Caledonia’s regional integration in its region”.
“Whatever might be said, in many ways, New Caledonia does not know its [Pacific] region very well. Because it has this affiliation relationship to Europe and France that has prevailed over all these years,” he told local media.
“So, in a certain way, we’re just discovering our region. And in this process, the Pacific Islands Forum could bring a sort of leverage,” he said.
Kanaky New Caledonia, as well as French Polynesia — both French Pacific entities — became full members of the Pacific Islands Forum in 2016, after several years of “associate members” status.
Mapou said New Caledonia’s current status vis-à-vis France was mentioned during talks with the PIF mission.
“I spoke with them about obstacles that should be removed, that are directly related to our current status. This is part of topics on which we should be working in future,” he said.
“They’re very open-minded, they don’t have any preconceived ideas, they’re happy to talk equally about the concepts of independence, just as they are for keeping [New Caledonia] within the French Republic,” he revealed.
One of the unexpected outcomes, beyond the specific fact-finding mission that brought this PIF “Troika-Plus” leaders’ delegation to New Caledonia, seems to have underlined the values of regionalism, as well as New Caledonia’s long-awaited and genuine integration in its “regional environment”.
These values seem to have been recognised by all sides of New Caledonia’s political spectrum, as well as all walks of life within the civil, economic, educational and religious society.
PIF’s “Troika-Plus” leaders meet with Southern Province President Sonia Backès (third from left) at SPC headquarters last Monday. Image: PIF/RNZ Pacific
Pacific diversity in status During the past few days, informal exchanges with the Pacific leaders have also allowed New Caledonia’s authorities to share and compare possible ways forward regarding the territory’s political status.
“They readily exchanged their own experiences with our government. The Cook Islands, which is a self-governing state in ‘free association’ with New Zealand; Tonga, which has never been colonised; and the Solomon Islands, who have also undergone inter-ethnic conflicts and where the young population was also involved. And Fiji, which obtained independence (in 1970), had decided to withdraw from the Commonwealth and is finally re-discussing its link with Great Britain,” Mapou briefed local media on Tuesday.
The leaders spent three days (October 27-29) in the French Pacific territory to gather information on the ground, after destructive riots broke out in May, resulting in 13 deaths and extensive economic damage estimated at €2.2 billion.
During the three days, the PIF leaders met a wide range of political, business, religious, and civil society leaders to get a first-hand account of the situation.
On Tuesday, the “plus” component of the troika, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, reiterated the mission’s assigned mantra in a manner of conclusion to their mission.
“We were here to understand and make recommendations. We have heard many extremely different attitudes. We hope it will be possible to find a solution for the people and the government,” Rabuka told religious leaders.
Bitterness from civil society The long series of talks, within a particularly tight schedule, also allowed groups within New Caledonia’s civil society — including traditional chiefs, youth, human rights activists, educationists, mayors and women — to express their views directly during the Pacific leaders’ visit.
Some of these groups also took the opportunity to point out that they were not always listened to in other circumstances.
“Today, peace has just been through a rough episode. And we, women, are being asked to help. But when was the last time we were heard?
“We’ve already said women should be part of all levels of decision-making, including on matters of dealing with violence and access for women to economic empowerment.
“We were ignored. And then, when fire breaks out, we’re being asked for help because this is the foundation of Pacific values,” said Sonia Tonga, the president of the Oceania Union of Francophone Women, which groups women’s groups from New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis-and-Futuna and Vanuatu.
Talking about the youth, she said there was an “ill-being”, “they don’t recognise themselves in this system, including for education. We’re trying to fit an Oceanian society into a framework that has not been designed for them.
“When will we be heard in our country?”.
As part of talks with church leaders, it was also pointed out that there were benefits from sharing experiences with Pacific leaders.
“I’ve been many times in Fiji, Tonga, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and other Pacific islands. They too have had their hard times.
“And they too are familiar with the experience of violence which is difficult to bring back to a path of dialogue,” said 80-year-old Nouméa Catholic Archbishop Michel-Marie Calvet, a respected figure.
In terms of earlier crises in the Pacific region, among PIF member island states, in the early 2000s, civil unrest occurred in both Fiji and the Solomon Islands, with shops being targeted and looted.
Under Pacific Islands Forum mechanisms, especially the declaration of Biketawa, this prompted in 2003 the setting up of “RAMSI” (Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands), with mostly Australia and New Zealand military and police as its main contributors, with additional input from other Pacific island countries.
In Fiji, the mission to defuse the crisis, associated with an attempted coup and a MPs hostage situation within Parliament buildings in May 2000, was mainly achieved by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) through protracted negotiations and without violence.
Forum “Troika-Plus” leaders in New Caledonia conducting a fact-finding mission to assess the situation on ground. Image: X /@ForumSEC/RNZ Pacific
Supporting Pacific dialogue In the political sphere, there was a recognition of the benefits of a Pacific perspective.
“There is a Pacific tradition of dialogue and talanoa. So, I think [the PIF leaders] can invite pro-independence parties to come to the [negotiating] table,” said New Caledonia’s Mayors’ Association president Pascal Vittori.
“We’re actually expecting PIF will back this notion of dialogue — that’s what’s important now,” he told local media.
Sonia Backès, one of the staunchest defenders of New Caledonia remaining part of France, told reporters on Monday: “We didn’t ask for this [mission]. Now we’re waiting for this (troika) report based on their observing mission.
“We all know that there are biased views on the part of some, one way or the other.
“So we hope the final report will be as fair and neutral as possible so as not to add fuel to the fire.”
Following their visit to New Caledonia and based on the information gathered, the Forum “Troika-Plus” leaders are expected to compile a “comprehensive report” to be submitted to the next annual Forum Leaders’ Summit in the Solomon Islands in 2025.
“The terms of reference of this mission were discussed beforehand between the government of New Caledonia, the Pacific Islands Forum and the (French) State. We all agreed that what was most important was to have an assessment of the situation.
“There is a need to provide information to the public so that it is an informed opinion leader. It’s important in those times of misinformation and manipulation from one side or the other,” French ambassador for the Pacific Véronique Roger-Lacan told public broadcaster NC la 1ère TV on Tuesday evening.
Business sector now needs Pacific market overtures Even the business sector now seems to believe that, as a result of the widespread destruction caused by the riots, which has left more than 800 companies burnt down and looted, as well as thousands jobless, the wider Pacific region has now become a new potentially attractive market.
“Our local market has just shrunk considerably and so we will need to find new openings for our products. In that perspective, our cooperation with the Pacific is very, very strategic”, said business leaders association MEDEF-NC president Mimsy Daly.
She had once again presented a detailed view of the widespread devastation caused by the recent riots and those who took part.
“‘Were they aware of what they were doing?’ is one of the questions I was asked,” she wrote on social networks after her encounter with the “Troika-Plus”.
“A logical question when you know that what has been destroyed equals about 70 percent of the GDP of the Cook Islands, 100 percent of the GDP of the Solomon Islands and 40 percent of the GDP of Fiji.”
But she admitted the response to this complex question was “primordial” and “every light will have to be shed on the matter”.
In a wrap-up of the three days, President Mapou held a final meeting with the group on Tuesday.
Wide circle of ‘concertation’ needed French High Commissioner Louis Le Franc, after a final meeting with the delegation, said: “They have come here to seek the profound causes of what happened on May 13. They have been listening very closely.
“I understand their view is that a wide circle of concertation [cooperation] will be required to reach an agreement,” he said.
He elaborated, saying that the Pacific Forum leaders seemed to place a lot of hope in the notions of “trust”, the “necessity of living together” and the PIF’s “will to help, while saying that, at the same time, the solution lies in the hands of New Caledonia”.
French President Macron (right) with New Caledonia’s President Louis Mapou (left) and former New Caledonia Congress President Roch Wamytan (centre) earlier this year. Image: RNZ Pacific
Next: another ‘concertation and dialogue’ mission Following the PIF “Troika-Plus” mission, another visit is expected in New Caledonia in the next few days — this time coming from Paris.
This new high-level visit will be headed by the presidents of both houses of Parliament in France (Senate and National Assembly), respectively Gérard Larcher and Yaël Braun-Pivet, from November 9-14.
They will lead what is described as a “mission of concertation and dialogue”.
The dates come as a top-level meeting took place last week, presided by French Head of State Emmanuel Macron and attended by French minister for Overseas François-Noël Buffet (who had just returned from New Caledonia), French PM Barnier, Larcher and Braun-Pivet.
The objective, once again, was to reinforce the signal that the time had come to resume political dialogue.
Macron indicated earlier that he still intended to host a meeting in Paris sometime in November.
Buffet was also in New Caledonia earlier this month for four days to assess the situation and try to restore a path to dialogue between all political stakeholders, both pro-independence and pro-France.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
