NewzIntel.com

Category: Global

  • MIL-OSI Global: Insects are everywhere in farming and research − but insect welfare is just catching up

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bob Fischer, Professor of Philosophy, Texas State University

    Employees sort crickets by size at a farm in Thailand. AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit

    Did you know your lipstick might be made from beetles? Or that some cat food may soon be made from flies?

    People farm insects for all sorts of reasons: Farmers rear bees to pollinate billions of dollars of crops, textile companies raise silkworms for their cocoons, and cosmetic companies use cochineal beetles for dyes. Researchers also put insects to work in labs: Fruit flies have revolutionized genetics, cockroaches provide insights into neurobiology, and ants inspire AI-driven robots.

    On top of that, medical companies raise blowfly larvae to clean wounds, desert locusts for compounds that might help reduce the risk of heart disease, and lac insects for their secretions, which are used to coat pills.

    All told, trillions of insects are farmed each year across the globe – more than all other livestock combined. Each year, producers rear some 2.1 trillion black soldier flies alone – and, if industry trends hold, will be rearing three times as many in 2035. Currently, roughly 30 times as many insects are produced as the most-farmed “traditional” farm animal: the chicken.

    As an ethics professor, I think this raises pressing questions about what it means to treat insects humanely. Several years ago, I was skeptical that these questions were worth asking, as most questions about animal welfare center on pain – and I didn’t think there was much chance that insects could feel it. However, as science has uncovered more about insects’ abilities, the emerging field of insect welfare seems increasingly important.

    Dried, crushed female insects known as Dactylopius coccus, which will be used to produce natural red dye, at a farm in Mexico.
    AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo

    New science of animal minds

    In the 17th century, many scientists believed that all nonhuman animals were mere machines that behaved as if they felt pain but didn’t actually experience it.

    While most scientists have long abandoned this view, researchers have not identified a definitive test for the capacity to feel pain in any nonhuman animal. There is no known brain structure or pattern of neural activity whose presence or absence settles the question. There’s no single behavior that decisively establishes pain, either.

    So, researchers look for several markers of pain that, taken together, support taking this possibility seriously. Some of these markers are neurobiological, such as specialized damage receptors and regions of the brain that integrate those signals with information from other senses. Some are behavioral, such as an animal making trade-offs between avoiding harm and pursuing rewards.

    Fruit flies, for example, are willing to cross electrical barriers that give them mild shocks to reach food. However, they won’t cross barriers that give them stronger shocks, even when very hungry. This suggests that there’s something more than simple reflexes at work: The animal is weighing different motivations to make a decision.

    Evidence like this keeps accumulating. Some bees can remember experiencing high heat and weigh this against the reward of sugar when it’s offered in hot containers. They also display emotion-like states, in that they respond to cognitive bias tests the way other animals do. These tests are used to assess how animals’ emotions influence their cognitive processes: Like people, animals handle uncertain situations differently if stressed or satisfied.

    Fruit flies become averse to temperatures that were once innocuous after researchers amputate their legs, just as some injuries in humans can lead to heightened pain sensitivity. Tobacco hornworm moth larvae and cockroaches tend to their wounds when hurt. And contrary to a common myth, many male praying mantises try to avoid being eaten by females; they don’t always just continue mating.

    Again, no single marker – or even the lot of them – proves that insects can feel pain. However, the accumulated evidence suggests that there’s at least a realistic possibility. This position is reflected in two scientific consensus statements: the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and the 2024 New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, which are attempts to summarize the state of knowledge about many groups of animals.

    Humane practices?

    It’s widely acknowledged that it’s wrong to cause unnecessary pain in animals – an imperative codified in the ethical principles that U.S. federal agencies consult when making regulations about research. So, if insects can feel pain, as most Americans believe, then there is an ethical reason to protect their welfare.

    Of course, it isn’t certain that they can feel pain. So, precautionary reasoning becomes important: taking steps to reduce the risk of causing harm that are, in some sense, proportional to the magnitude of the risk. In other words, people who rear insects should take modest steps to reduce the risk that they are causing more pain than they need to cause.

    On some insect farms, a potential concern is injuries from cannibalism and aggression, which occur at greater rates when animals such as crickets are crowded together. The issue crops up in other farming systems as well: Chickens harm their flockmates when they don’t have sufficient room.

    There are also worries about slaughter. Typically, a humane death is fast, but many insects are killed using very slow methods, such as baking and microwaving. Grinding and boiling, by contrast, may be much quicker.

    Black soldier flies being grown as fish food live in laying-and-rearing aviaries at a factory in France.
    AP Photo/Aurelien Morissard

    In lab research, one potential concern is performing live dissections, once known as vivisection, without anesthetics or analgesics. The practice has been almost universally abandoned for vertebrate animals but is still routine with some insects. People have described many cases of insect neglect to me, including times when researchers have accidentally let insects starve or become fatally dehydrated after experiments conclude, rather than euthanizing them.

    Granted, it’s hard to be sure that any particular practice causes pain. If there’s a realistic possibility, however, then it’s worth considering alternative practices.

    As scientists have suggested, insect producers could reduce the number of animals in each container to reduce problems associated with crowding. They could investigate strategies for stunning insects before processing them, just as other animals are stunned before slaughter.

    In most countries, insect researchers are not legally required to follow the standard ethical guidelines for other animal researchers. But there is nothing to prevent insect researchers from following them voluntarily. These international guidelines recommend avoiding the use of live animals entirely when possible; using fewer live animals when they do need to be used; and refining practices to minimize the risk of pain and distress, such as giving insects anesthesia before dissection.

    It’s possible to treat insects more humanely. And since they may be able to feel pain, I believe it’s important to take reasonable steps to do so.

    Bob Fischer is on the board of the Insect Welfare Research Society and the Arthropoda Foundation.

    – ref. Insects are everywhere in farming and research − but insect welfare is just catching up – https://theconversation.com/insects-are-everywhere-in-farming-and-research-but-insect-welfare-is-just-catching-up-249585

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hormone therapy may cut cardiovascular risk in younger menopausal women

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Nudy, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Penn State

    Hormone therapy relieves many symptoms of menopause. Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    Menopause can have profound effects on heart health, yet many people are unaware of this important connection.

    The hormonal shifts occurring during menopause mark the end of a woman’s reproductive years and contribute to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the most common cause of death among women globally. As estrogen levels drop, changes in cholesterol, blood pressure, inflammation and fat distribution can lead to plaque buildup in blood vessels, which is a major cause of heart disease.

    Hormone therapy has long been prescribed to relieve bothersome menopausal symptoms, but research published in 2002 and 2004 raised concerns about its safety, especially regarding cardiovascular health. Those findings led to years of confusion and debate. Although hormone therapy was also previously prescribed to prevent chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, medical guidelines today no longer recommend it for this purpose based on this prior research.

    As a cardiologist studying the prevention of heart disease in menopausal women, I investigate how hormone changes affect heart health and how treatments can be improved to lower cardiovascular disease risk. As research continues to shed light on menopause and heart health, it is becoming increasingly clear that hormone therapy used to treat menopausal symptoms in younger, healthy women is not only safe for the heart but may even offer some cardiovascular benefits.

    The estrogen-cardiovascular link explained

    Menopause, defined as 12 consecutive months without a menstrual period, marks the end of a woman’s reproductive years and typically occurs between ages 45 to 55. The transition leading to menopause, known as perimenopause, can last several years and is characterized by fluctuating levels of hormones, including estrogen and progesterone. These hormonal changes often cause symptoms such as hot flashes, night sweats and sleep disturbances.

    Hormone therapy got a bad rap in the early 2000s.

    What’s less widely known is that menopause and lack of estrogen also drive changes to the heart and blood vessels. Estrogen has protective effects on the cardiovascular system, and its decline can lead to increased blood vessel stiffness, resulting in high blood pressure, higher cholesterol levels, more inflammation, and shifts in fat deposition, which lead to a greater risk of heart disease.

    One reason for this is that estrogen helps keep blood vessels flexible and supports the production of nitric oxide, a molecule that allows vessels to relax and maintain healthy blood flow. Estrogen also influences how the body processes cholesterol, helping to make changes to cholesterol to reduce plaque buildup in artery walls. When estrogen levels drop during menopause, these protective factors diminish, making arteries more susceptible to stiffening, plaque buildup and inflammation. These biological processes raise the risk of long-term cardiovascular disease.

    Hormone therapy’s rocky history

    Hormone therapy using estrogen alone or a combination of estrogen and progestin, a synthetic derivative of progesterone, restores estrogen levels and effectively treats menopausal symptoms. It comes with some risks, though, which depend on factors such as a woman’s age, time since menopause began and overall health.

    The medical community’s view on hormone therapy has shifted dramatically over the years. In the 1970s, hormone therapy was widely promoted as a fountain of youth and was prescribed commonly to prevent age-related chronic diseases such as heart attack and stroke.

    Then, in the early 2000s, the Women’s Health Initiative, one of the largest clinical trials testing oral hormone therapy in women, found an increased risk of stroke and breast cancer in those who used hormone therapy. Doctors abruptly stopped prescribing it, and medical guidelines shifted their recommendations, saying the treatment had more risks than benefits.

    However, additional analyses of data from the Women’s Health Initiative along with results from further studies pointed researchers to a theory called the timing hypothesis, which suggests that the risks and benefits of hormone therapy depend on when treatment begins.

    According to the timing hypothesis, hormone therapy may lower the risk of heart disease in menopausal women who start it before age 60 and within 10 years of menopause onset, and who are otherwise in good health. Women who begin hormone therapy much later – after age 60 or more than 10 years after menopause onset – may instead face increased cardiovascular risks.

    Studies show that estrogen can support heart health.
    Adam SmigielskiE+ via Getty Images

    A personalized approach to treating menopause

    My research supports this idea. In a 2019 study, my colleagues and I analyzed data from 31 clinical trials of women who started hormone therapy at different ages, and we found that women under 60 who used hormone therapy tend to live longer and are less likely to die from heart disease. However, our study did find an increased risk in blood clots and stroke with hormone therapy. This risk was present in menopausal women under 60 years old and continuously increased as women got older.

    Additionally, research has shown that different methods of taking hormone therapy may affect its impact on cardiovascular health. For example, using estrogen patches worn on the skin may have a lower risk of blood clots compared with hormone therapy taken as a pill.

    This is due to a phenomenon called first pass metabolism. Hormone therapy taken by mouth is processed by the liver before entering the bloodstream. The liver produces clotting factors, which raises the risk of blood clots. In contrast, estrogen patches deliver the medication into the bloodstream, bypassing the liver, and do not increase this risk.

    Overall, we found that women who took oral hormone therapy tended to have lower cholesterol levels, and this effect persisted over many years. For healthy younger women who are within 10 years of menopause onset, hormone therapy is safe from a cardiovascular standpoint and may even provide benefit.

    However, hormone therapy is still not recommended for women with existing heart disease, history of blood clots, prior stroke, gallbladder disease or certain types of cancers.

    Medical experts now recognize that blanket recommendations for or against hormone therapy are not appropriate. Instead, treatment decisions should be individualized, considering factors such as age, time since menopause began and overall health.

    If you are considering hormone therapy, discussing risks and benefits with your health care provider is vital.

    Here are questions to consider asking your health care provider:

    • Am I a good candidate for hormone therapy based on my health history?

    • What are the risks and benefits of starting hormone therapy at my age?

    • What type of hormone therapy, such as pills, patches or gel, is safest and most effective for me?

    • How long should I stay on hormone therapy?

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

    – ref. Hormone therapy may cut cardiovascular risk in younger menopausal women – https://theconversation.com/hormone-therapy-may-cut-cardiovascular-risk-in-younger-menopausal-women-243561

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Being alone has its benefits − a psychologist flips the script on the ‘loneliness epidemic’

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Virginia Thomas, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Middlebury

    Studies show that choosing ‘me time’ is not a recipe for loneliness but can boost your creativity and emotional well-being. FotoDuets/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Over the past few years, experts have been sounding the alarm over how much time Americans spend alone.

    Statistics show that we’re choosing to be solitary for more of our waking hours than ever before, tucked away at home rather than mingling in public. Increasing numbers of us are dining alone and traveling solo, and rates of living alone have nearly doubled in the past 50 years.

    These trends coincided with the surgeon general’s 2023 declaration of a loneliness epidemic, leading to recent claims that the U.S. is living in an “anti-social century.”

    Loneliness and isolation are indeed social problems that warrant serious attention, especially since chronic states of loneliness are linked with poor outcomes such as depression and a shortened lifespan.

    But there is another side to this story, one that deserves a closer look. For some people, the shift toward aloneness represents a desire for what researchers call “positive solitude,” a state that is associated with well-being, not loneliness.

    As a psychologist, I’ve spent the past decade researching why people like to be alone – and spending a fair amount of time there myself – so I’m deeply familiar with the joys of solitude. My findings join a host of others that have documented a long list of benefits gained when we choose to spend time by ourselves, ranging from opportunities to recharge our batteries and experience personal growth to making time to connect with our emotions and our creativity.

    Being alone can help remind people who they are.

    So it makes sense to me why people live alone as soon as their financial circumstances allow, and when asked why they prefer to dine solo, people say simply, “I want more me time.”

    It’s also why I’m not surprised that a 2024 national survey found that 56% of Americans considered alone time essential for their mental health. Or that Costco is now selling “solitude sheds” where for around US$2,000 you can buy yourself some peace and quiet.

    It’s clear there is a desire, and a market, for solitude right now in American culture. But why does this side of the story often get lost amid the warnings about social isolation?

    I suspect it has to do with a collective anxiety about being alone.

    The stigma of solitude

    This anxiety stems in large part from our culture’s deficit view of solitude. In this type of thinking, the desire to be alone is seen as unnatural and unhealthy, something to be pitied or feared rather than valued or encouraged.

    This isn’t just my own observation. A study published in February 2025 found that U.S. news headlines are 10 times more likely to frame being alone negatively than positively. This type of bias shapes people’s beliefs, with studies showing that adults and children alike have clear judgments about when it is – and importantly when it is not – acceptable for their peers to be alone.

    This makes sense given that American culture holds up extroversion as the ideal – indeed as the basis for what’s normal. The hallmarks of extraversion include being sociable and assertive, as well as expressing more positive emotions and seeking more stimulation than the opposite personality – the more reserved and risk-averse introverts. Even though not all Americans are extroverts, most of us have been conditioned to cultivate that trait, and those who do reap social and professional rewards. In this cultural milieu, preferring to be alone carries stigma.

    But the desire for solitude is not pathological, and it’s not just for introverts. Nor does it automatically spell social isolation and a lonely life. In fact, the data doesn’t fully support current fears of a loneliness epidemic, something scholars and journalists have recently acknowledged.

    In other words, although Americans are indeed spending more time alone than previous generations did, it’s not clear that we are actually getting lonelier. And despite our fears for the eldest members of our society, research shows that older adults are happier in solitude than the loneliness narrative would lead us to believe.

    It’s all a balancing act – along with solitude, you need to socialize.

    Social media disrupts our solitude

    However, solitude’s benefits don’t automatically appear whenever we take a break from the social world. They arrive when we are truly alone – when we intentionally carve out the time and space to connect with ourselves – not when we are alone on our devices.

    My research has found that solitude’s positive effects on well-being are far less likely to materialize if the majority of our alone time is spent staring at our screens, especially when we’re passively scrolling social media.

    This is where I believe the collective anxiety is well placed, especially the focus on young adults who are increasingly forgoing face-to-face social interaction in favor of a virtual life – and who may face significant distress as a result.

    Social media is by definition social. It’s in the name. We cannot be truly alone when we’re on it. What’s more, it’s not the type of nourishing “me time” I suspect many people are longing for.

    True solitude turns attention inward. It’s a time to slow down and reflect. A time to do as we please, not to please anyone else. A time to be emotionally available to ourselves, rather than to others. When we spend our solitude in these ways, the benefits accrue: We feel rested and rejuvenated, we gain clarity and emotional balance, we feel freer and more connected to ourselves.

    But if we’re addicted to being busy, it can be hard to slow down. If we’re used to looking at a screen, it can be scary to look inside. And if we don’t have the skills to validate being alone as a normal and healthy human need, then we waste our alone time feeling guilty, weird or selfish.

    The importance of reframing solitude

    Americans choosing to spend more time alone is indeed a challenge to the cultural script, and the stigmatization of solitude can be difficult to change. Nevertheless, a small but growing body of research indicates that it is possible, and effective, to reframe the way we think about solitude.

    For example, viewing solitude as a beneficial experience rather than a lonely one has been shown to help alleviate negative feelings about being alone, even for the participants who were severely lonely. People who perceive their time alone as “full” rather than “empty” are more likely to experience their alone time as meaningful, using it for growth-oriented purposes such as self-reflection or spiritual connection.

    Even something as simple as a linguistic shift – replacing “isolation” with “me time” – causes people to view their alone time more positively and likely affects how their friends and family view it as well.

    It is true that if we don’t have a community of close relationships to return to after being alone, solitude can lead to social isolation. But it’s also true that too much social interaction is taxing, and such overload negatively affects the quality of our relationships. The country’s recent gravitational pull toward more alone time may partially reflect a desire for more balance in a life that is too busy, too scheduled and, yes, too social.

    Just as connection with others is essential for our well-being, so is connection with ourselves.

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

    – ref. Being alone has its benefits − a psychologist flips the script on the ‘loneliness epidemic’ – https://theconversation.com/being-alone-has-its-benefits-a-psychologist-flips-the-script-on-the-loneliness-epidemic-250742

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hard work feels worth it, but only after it’s done – new research on how people value effort

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Piotr Winkielman, Professor of Psychology, University of California, San Diego

    How many stairs would you climb for that payoff? Ozgur Donmaz/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    When deciding if something is worth the effort, whether you’ve already exerted yourself or face the prospect of work changes your calculus. That’s what we found in our new research, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

    When you consider a future effort, more work makes the outcome less appealing. But once you’ve completed the work, more effort makes the outcome seem more valuable. We also discovered that hiding behind this general principle of timing there are individual differences in how future and past effort shapes people’s value for the fruits of their labor.

    What’s it worth to you?

    In our experiment, we gave participants a choice between a fixed amount of money and a household item – a mug – that they could take home if they exerted some amount of physical effort, roughly equivalent to walking up one, two or three flights of stairs.

    This setup allowed us to determine the value each person placed on the effort – did it add to or subtract from the value of the item? For instance, if putting in a little more effort made someone switch their decision and decide to go with the cash instead of the mug, we could tell that they valued the mug plus that amount of effort less than that sum of money.

    We also manipulated the time aspect of effort. When the effort was in the future, participants decided whether they wanted to go with the cash or get the mug with some effort. When the effort was in the past, participants decided whether they wanted to cash in the mug they had already earned with effort.

    As we had expected, future effort generally detracted from the value of the mug, but the past effort generally increased it.

    But these general trends do not tell the whole story. Not everyone responds to effort the same way. Our study also uncovered striking individual differences. Four distinct patterns emerged:

    1. For some people, extra effort always subtracted value.
    2. Others consistently preferred items with more work.
    3. Many showed mixed patterns, where moderate effort increased value but excessive effort decreased it.
    4. Some experienced the opposite: initially disliking effort, then finding greater value at higher levels.

    These changing patterns show that one’s relationship with effort isn’t simple. For many people, there’s a sweet spot – a little effort might make something more valuable, but push too far and the value drops. It’s like enjoying a 30-minute workout but dreading a 2-hour session, or conversely, feeling that a 5-minute workout isn’t worth changing clothes for, but a 45-minute session feels satisfying.

    Our paper offers a mathematical model that accounts for these individual differences by proposing that your mind flexibly computes costs and benefits of effort.

    Why violate the ‘law of less work?’

    Why should timing even matter for effort? It seems obvious that reason and nature would teach you to always avoid and dislike effort.

    A hummingbird that puts in lots of extra work to get the same amount of nectar won’t last long.
    Juan Carlos Vindas/Moment via Getty Images

    A hummingbird that prefers a hard-to-get flower over an easy equal alternative might win an A for effort, but, exhausted, would not last long. The cruel world requires “resource rationality” – optimal, efficient use of limited physical and mental resources, balancing the benefits of actions with the required effort.

    That insight is captured by the classic psychological “law of less work,” basically boiling down to the idea that given equivalent outcomes, individuals prefer easier options. Anything different would seem irrational or, in plain language, stupid.

    If so, then how come people, and even animals, often prize things that require hard work for no additional payoff? Why is being hard-to-get a route to value? Anyone who has labored hard for anything knows that investing effort makes the final prize sweeter – whether in love, career, sports or Ikea furniture assembly.

    Could the answer to this “paradox of effort” be that in the hummingbird example, the decision is about future effort, and in the Ikea effect, the effort is in the past?

    Our new findings explain seemingly contradictory phenomena in everyday life. In health care, starting an exercise regimen feels overwhelming when focusing on upcoming workouts, but after establishing the habit, those same exercises become a source of accomplishment. At work, professionals might avoid learning difficult new skills, yet after mastering them, they value their enhanced abilities more because they were challenging to acquire.

    John F. Kennedy supported space exploration efforts, ‘not because they are easy, but because they are hard.’
    Robert Knudsen. White House Photographs. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston, CC BY

    What still isn’t known

    Sayings like “No pain, no gain” or “Easy come, easy go” populate our language and seem fundamental to our culture. But researchers still don’t fully understand why some people value effortful options more than others do. Is it physical aptitude, past experiences, a sense of meaning, perception of difficulty as importance or impossibility, moralization of effort, specific cultural beliefs about hard work? We don’t know yet.

    We’re now studying how effort shapes different aspects of value: monetary value; hedonic value, as in the pleasure one gets from an item; and the aesthetic value, as in the sense of beauty and artistry. For instance, we’re investigating how people value artful calligraphy after exerting different amounts of effort to view it.

    This work may shed light on curious cultural phenomena, like how people value their experience seeing the Mona Lisa after waiting for hours in crowds at the Louvre. These studies could also help researchers design better motivation systems across education, health care and business.

    Piotr Winkielman received funding for this research from the University of California, San Diego, Academic Senate.

    Przemysław Marcowski received funding for this research from the National Science Centre Poland.

    – ref. Hard work feels worth it, but only after it’s done – new research on how people value effort – https://theconversation.com/hard-work-feels-worth-it-but-only-after-its-done-new-research-on-how-people-value-effort-252684

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Faced with new tariffs and a truculent Trump, Japan and South Korea toe a cautious line

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sebastian Maslow, Associate Professor, International Relations, University of Tokyo

    Two months into US President Donald Trump’s second term, the liberal international order is on life support.

    Alliances and multilateral institutions are now seen by the United States as burdens. Europe and NATO are framed as bad business, “ripping off” the US. On his so-called “Liberation Day”, Trump also imposed 20% tariffs on all European Union imports.

    The Trump administration has been far less critical of the US’ alliances in the Indo-Pacific region. On a visit to Tokyo this week, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described Japan as America’s “indispensable partner” in deterring Chinese aggression.

    Yet, Japan and South Korea fared even worse than the EU with Trump’s new tariffs. Trump slapped Japan with 24% tariffs and South Korea 25%. (Both countries enjoy a trade surplus with the US.)

    So, how are the US’ two main allies in the Indo-Pacific dealing with the mercurial US leader? Will they follow Europe’s lead in reassessing their own security relationships with the US?

    Japan: a positive summit but concerns remain

    America’s post-war security strategy in Asia differs from Europe. While NATO was built on the premise of collective defence among its members, the US adopted a “hub-and-spokes” model in Asia, relying on bilateral alliances to contain the spread of communism.

    Japan and South Korea have long sheltered under the US nuclear umbrella and hosted major US military bases. Both are also highly sensitive to changes in the US’ Indo-Pacific policies.

    Japan, in particular, has a long history of careful alliance management with the US, epitomised by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s courting of Trump.

    During Trump’s first term in office, Abe’s policy goals aligned closely with the US: transforming Japan’s security posture to make it a serious military and diplomatic power. Japan increased military spending, lifted arms export restrictions and deepened ties with India and Australia.

    Prime Minister Fumio Kishida continued to raise Japan’s security profile from 2021-24, again increasing military spending and taking a tough line on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He emphasised “Europe today could be Asia tomorrow”.

    His successor, Shigeru Ishiba, had a successful summit with Trump in February, immediately after his inauguration. The joint statement reaffirmed US security guarantees to Japan, including over the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China.

    Japan also agreed to import American liquefied natural gas, and later committed to working with South Korea to develop a US$44 billion (A$70 billion) plan to export LNG from Alaska.

    However, these positive developments do not mean the relationship is on firm ground.

    In early March, Trump complained the US-Japan security agreement signed in 1960 was “one-sided” and a top administration official again called for Japan to increase its defence spending to 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) – a huge increase for a country facing serious demographic and fiscal pressures.

    Reports also emerged the US was considering cancelling a new joint headquarters in Japan aimed at deeper integration between US and Japanese forces.

    South Korea: extremely vulnerable on trade

    South Korea faces similar pressures. Ties between the two countries were strained during Trump’s first term over his demand South Korea increase the amount it pays to host US forces by
    nearly 400%. A 2021 agreement restored some stability, but left Seoul deeply worried about the future of the alliance.

    South Korea’s acting president, Choi Sang-mok, has expressed a desire to strengthen ties with the US, though Trump has reportedly been cool to his advances.

    With a US$66 billion (A$105 billion) trade surplus with the US, South Korea is considered the country most vulnerable to trade risk with the Trump administration, according to a Swiss research group.

    Trump’s past suggestions that both South Korea and Japan develop nuclear weapons or pay for US nuclear protection has also rattled some nerves. As confidence in the US alliance erodes, both countries are engaging in an urgent public debate about the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Tensions moving forward

    Potential for conflict is on the horizon. For example, Tokyo and Washington are set to renegotiate the deal that dictates how much Japan pays to host US troops next year.

    Both allies pay huge sums to host US bases. South Korea will pay US$1.14 billion (A$1.8 billion) in 2026, and Japan pays US$1.72 billion (A$2.7 billion) annually.

    A trade war could also prompt a reassessment of the costs of US efforts to decouple from China, potentially leading to closer economic ties between Japan, South Korea and China. The three countries have agreed to accelerate talks on a trilateral free trade agreement, which had been on hold since 2019.

    Another challenge is semiconductors. Japan’s new semiconductor revitalisation strategy is prioritising domestic investment, raising questions about whether Trump will tolerate “friendshoring” if Japan diverts investments from the US.

    In 2024, Japan outspent the US in semiconductor subsidies (as a share of GDP), while Taiwan’s TSMC, the world’s largest contract chipmaker, expanded its production capacity in Japan.

    Seoul remains an important partner to Washington on semiconductors. Samsung and SK Hynix are both boosting their investments on new semiconductor plants in the US. However, there is now uncertainty over the subsidies promised to both companies to invest in America under the CHIPS Act.

    Ultimately, the strength of these alliances depends on whether the Trump administration views them as long-term bulwarks against China’s rise in the region, or merely vassals that can be extorted for financial gain.

    If the US is serious about countering China, its regional alliances are key. This would give Japan and South Korea some degree of leverage – or, in Trump terms, they’ll hold valuable cards. Whether they get to play them, however, depends on what Trump’s China policy turns out to be.

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

    – ref. Faced with new tariffs and a truculent Trump, Japan and South Korea toe a cautious line – https://theconversation.com/faced-with-new-tariffs-and-a-truculent-trump-japan-and-south-korea-toe-a-cautious-line-244172

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Russia and China both want influence over Central Asia. Could it rupture their friendship?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

    As he looks to solidify his territorial gains in Ukraine in a potential ceasefire deal, Russian President Vladimir Putin has one eye trained on Russia’s southern border – and boosting Russian influence in Central Asia.

    Following his 2024 re-election, Putin made Uzbekistan his third foreign visit after China and Belarus. The visit signalled the region’s continued importance to Moscow.

    In response to Western sanctions on Moscow over the Ukraine war, trade and investment between Russia and Central Asian countries have grown significantly.

    Russia’s Lukoil and Gazprom are now the dominant foreign players in Uzbekistan’s energy fields. In Kazakhstan, Moscow controls a quarter of the country’s uranium production.

    But as Russia tries to reaffirm its role in the region, China has also been quietly expanding its influence.

    Could this growing competition over Central Asia affect Beijing and Moscow’s broader relationship?

    Central Asia drifting apart from Moscow

    The Central Asian region is home to approximately 79 million people spread across five nations. It was part of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. Its strategic location between Russia and China, on the doorstep of the Middle East, has long made it a “grand chessboard” for great power politics.

    While Russia has traditionally dominated the region, Central Asian leaders have made efforts to somewhat distance themselves from Moscow recently.

    At the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) summit in October 2022, for example, Tajikistan’s president publicly challenged Russian President Vladimir Putin. He demanded respect for smaller states like his.

    Similarly, during Putin’s 2023 visit to Kazakhstan, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev made a symbolic statement at the press conference by delivering his speech in Kazakh rather than Russian. This was a rare move that seemed to catch Putin’s delegation off guard.

    In another striking moment, Tokayev declared at an economic forum in Russia in 2022 that Kazakhstan does not recognise Russia’s “quasi-states”, referring to its occupied territories of Ukraine.

    Yet, all Central Asian states remain part of at least one Russia-led organisation, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, or the Eurasian Economic Union.

    Three states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) rely on Russian security guarantees through the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

    And the region’s economic dependency on Russia remains significant. Of the 6.1 million migrants in Russia, the largest groups come from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. These countries depend heavily on remittances from these migrant workers.

    China’s growing influence

    With Russia preoccupied with Ukraine and constrained by Western sanctions, China has seized the opportunity to deepen its engagement in the region.

    Beijing’s involvement in Central Asia has long been economic. In 2013, for instance, China unveiled its ambitious, global Belt and Road Initiative in Kazakhstan. And by 2024, it was China, not Russia, that was the largest trading partner of every Central Asian country except Tajikistan.

    But in recent years, China has expanded its influence beyond economic ties, establishing itself as a key player in regional politics.

    At the inaugural China-Central Asia Summit in 2023, for example, Chinese leader Xi Jinping pledged support for the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the region. This is traditionally a role played by Russia.

    Xi has also been making high-profile visits to Central Asian states, signalling Beijing’s growing strategic interests here.

    Local populations, however, remain wary. Public opinion surveys indicate China is viewed more negatively than Russia.

    Many Chinese-funded projects bring their own workers, limiting job opportunities for locals and fuelling resentment. There is also anxiety about potential “debt trap” diplomacy. Civil society groups have called for economic diversification to avoid over-reliance on Beijing.

    Further complicating matters is Beijing’s treatment of the Muslim minority Uyghur population in the Xinjiang region of western China. This has reinforced suspicions in Muslim-majority Central Asia about China’s long-term intentions in the region.

    Growing competition

    The increasing competition raises questions about the potential impact on the broader, “no limits” relationship between Moscow and Beijing.

    At a recent forum, Putin acknowledged Beijing’s growing economic role in the region. However, he insisted Russia still has “special ties” with Central Asian states, rooted in history. And he notably dismissed concerns about China’s expansionist aims, saying:

    There is nothing about domination in the Chinese philosophy. They do not strive for domination.

    On the ground, however, things aren’t so simple. So far, China and Russia have managed to avoid stepping on each other’s toes. How long that balance remains, however, is an open question.

    Central Asian countries, meanwhile, are courting both sides – and diversifying their ties beyond the two powers.

    Many of the region’s educated elite are increasingly looking toward Turkey – and pan-Turkic solidarity – as an alternative to both Russian and Chinese dominance.

    Russia’s historical influence in the region remains strong. But the days of its unquestioned dominance appear to be over.

    Russia may try to reassert its preeminent position, but China’s deepening economic presence is not going anywhere.

    With both countries pushing their own regional agendas, it’s hard to ignore the overlap – and the potential for a future clash over competing interests.

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

    – ref. Russia and China both want influence over Central Asia. Could it rupture their friendship? – https://theconversation.com/russia-and-china-both-want-influence-over-central-asia-could-it-rupture-their-friendship-251023

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Myanmar military’s ‘ceasefire’ follows a pattern of ruling generals exploiting disasters to shore up control

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tharaphi Than, Associate Professor of World Cultures and Languages, Northern Illinois University

    Myanmar’s military chief, Min Aung Hlaing, called for elections on March 27, 2025 – a day before an earthquake devastated the country. STR/AFP via Getty Images

    After a 7.7 magnitude earthquake struck Myanmar on March 28. 2025, the country’s military and the myriad resistance groups fighting a yearslong civil war faced international calls for an immediate ceasefire. A pause in the fighting would enable vital aid to enter the major quake zones and allow rescuers to assist victims in a disaster that has already killed more than 3,000 people.

    The first to heed the call was the opposition National Unity Government, which unilaterally announced a two-week pause on attacks by its armed wing, the People’s Defense Force, on March 29. The Three Brotherhood Alliance – a coalition of three ethnic resistance groups: the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, the Ta’ang National Liberation Army and the Arakan Army – likewise agreed to a temporary truce.

    But Myanmar’s military demurred. Just hours after the quake, as rescuers continued to dig through rubble in search of survivors, the generals ordered airstrikes on enemy positions in Shan state and Karen state in the country’s east – a decision that United Nations special rapporteur Tom Andrews described as “nothing short of incredible.”

    The generals eventually yielded to pressure late on April 2 – some five days after the earthquake hit – announcing that they would halt fighting until April 22. But the statement appeared to be hollow, with reports just a day later that the military’s bombing campaign and ground offensive were continuing unabated in Kachin state in Myanmar’s north.

    Mandalay buildings, like Myanmar’s democracy, lie in ruins.
    STR/AFP via Getty Images

    As an expert on the political history of Myanmar, I believe the behavior of the country’s military is of no surprise. The generals who have had a grip on the country for much of the past six decades have a track record of exploiting disasters for political gain. Weakened by years of entrenched civil war, they are now seeking an opportunity in the earthquake to rehabilitate their image overseas, while consolidating power at home.

    From disasters to elections

    Myanmar’s ruling junta has tried this tactic before. In 2008, a week after the deadly cyclone Nargis killed more than 100,000 people in Myanmar, the military proceeded to hold a constitutional referendum that would guarantee the military’s control of government by reserving 25% of all parliamentary seats for officers while requiring 75% of votes for any future constitutional reform. It also allowed for the military to take over the country “in the event of an emergency.”

    The referendum took place while much of Myanmar was still reeling from disaster, yet the junta announced a 98.12% turnout, of which 92.48% voted in favor of the new pro-military constitution.

    It paved the way to elections in 2010, which the military’s Union Solidarity and Development Party won. Though that vote was boycotted by the opposition National League for Democracy, or NLD, Washington had by then signaled a shift in policy toward “pragmatic engagement” with the then-ruling junta. This U.S. shift forced the recalcitrant NLD to cooperate in subsequent elections, giving legitimacy to a process that was stacked in favor of the generals.

    Using a fig leaf of legitimacy

    The latest disaster comes as the junta is again attempting to push for elections. Just a day before the earthquake, Myanmar’s military chief, Min Aung Hlaing, confirmed plans for a December national vote and called on opposition parties to participate.

    But the proposed election in Myanmar is widely seen as a face-saving strategy for both the Myanmar military and, I would argue, an international community that has done little of any significance to end the civil war. In this context, elections would allow the generals to cover their 2021 power grab with a fig leaf of legitimacy.

    The entrenched civil war that was sparked by that military takeover – a coup that ended a 10-year experiment with limited democracy – derailed the military’s initial plan to return to full control of the country.

    Anti-military soldiers sit in a long-tailed boat on the Salween River.
    Thierry Falise/LightRocket via Getty Images

    Four years of fighting a broad-based opposition that includes ethnic minority groups like the Karen National Union, Kachin Independence Army, Arakan Army, Ta’ang National Liberation Army, Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, People’s Defense Force and Bamar People’s Liberation Army has taken its toll on the military.

    It has lost territorial control in many regions to the myriad resistance groups. Internationally, it has become more isolated through sanctions, and its largest trading partner, China, concerned over instability on its border, has slowed investments as it tries to play all sides of the conflict.

    In desperation, the generals have resorted to forced conscription for foot soldiers, while looking to Russia for arms and investment.

    The failure of the generals

    What the military desperately needs now is a lifeline and a civil war exit plan. The earthquake could provide both, with a ceasefire – no matter how badly observed – providing a cover for allowing for a national vote.

    But as has been evident in the days surrounding the announcement of a truce, the military is likely to exploit the disaster to weaken the resistance along the way. It has said that it will take “necessary” measures against any resistance group found to be regrouping or attacking the state during the ceasefire. Yet it has reportedly continued its own offensive.

    The earthquake has revealed the failures and brutalities of the military in other ways, too. In the aftermath of the disaster, the military shut down private clinics and hospitals in badly hit Mandalay for allegedly employing rebel doctors and nurses who were treating members of the resistance. As it was, many health care workers have been in hiding since the coup, and young people who could have been on the front lines of relief efforts have either joined the resistance groups or fled the country.

    The earthquake will also further hurt a Myanmar business community already suffering from the pullout of international businesses after the 2021 coup.

    On unsecure foundations

    Yet, the military may be hoping that it can use the disaster to rebuild its brand overseas. The surprise announcement of a ceasefire by the generals is part of that process. So, too, is the decision to allow in international rescue teams, after initially blocking relief workers from entering the country. It is the military’s way of showing willingness to cooperate with the wider world.

    In short, disaster diplomacy has kicked in for Myanmar’s military, as it did after 2008’s Cyclone Nagris. That earlier cyclone provided an opportunity for the junta to present a different face to the international community. Elections were held, not once, but twice – encouraged by the U.S. and others – and investments rushed into Myanmar as the country was touted as “Asia’s next Tiger.”

    But the foundations of military-backed reform in Myanmar were built on fault lines that cracked and crumbled amid the 2021 coup. The military’s exploitation of the 2025 earthquake will, I fear, result in similar ends.

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

    – ref. Myanmar military’s ‘ceasefire’ follows a pattern of ruling generals exploiting disasters to shore up control – https://theconversation.com/myanmar-militarys-ceasefire-follows-a-pattern-of-ruling-generals-exploiting-disasters-to-shore-up-control-253577

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ’s refreshingly candid ex-envoy Phil Goff – why I spoke out on Trump

    Now that Phil Goff has ended his term as New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, he is officially free to speak his mind on the damage he believes the Trump Administration is doing to the world. He has started with these comments he made on the betrayal of Ukraine by the new Administration.

    By Phil Goff

    Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.

    As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.

    I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.

    Phil Goff speaking as Auckland’s mayor in 2017 on the nuclear world 30 years on . . . on the right side of history. Image: Pacific Media Centre

    Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.

    Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?

    That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.

    It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.

    Withdrew satellite imaging
    It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.

    Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
    What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.

    Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.

    Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.

    As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.

    They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.

    The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.

    Silence condoning Trump
    By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.

    It was in this context, at the Chatham House meeting, that I asked a serious and important question about whether President Trump understood the lessons of history. It was a question on the minds of many. I framed it using language that was reasonable.

    The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.

    Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.

    Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.

    As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

    The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.

    A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.

    Question central to validity, ethics
    “The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.

    The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.

    The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.

    Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.

    They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.

    In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.

    We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.

    Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why was South Africa’s ambassador to the US expelled? A view of the Ebrahim Rasool affair

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Peter Vale, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria., University of Pretoria

    In a rare move, the Trump administration expelled Ebrahim Rasool, South Africa’s ambassador to Washington, in mid-March 2025. In a post on X, US secretary of state Marco Rubio accused Rasool of hating the US and President Donald Trump, and said the ambassador was “no longer welcome in our great country”. The expulsion came after comments Rasool had made during a webinar organised by a South African think-tank, the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Studies. Rasool had said he thought that Trump was “mobilising a supremacism” and trying to “project white victimhood as a dog whistle” as the white population faced becoming a minority in the US.

    Relations between the two countries had reached a new low in the first weeks of the Trump administration. Trump had lashed out at South Africa for taking Israel to the International Court of Justice on accusations of genocide in Gaza; frozen all funding to South Africa; and offered asylum to white Afrikaners from South Africa, emboldening fringe far-right groups in the country. Peter Vale, regarded as an authority on South Africa’s place in the world, answers questions about the ambassador’s expulsion.

    What was your initial reaction to the Rasool appointment?

    I know and respect Ebrahim Rasool – we worked together at the University of the Western Cape 30 years ago – and I also thought he had done a fine job as ambassador to the US during the Obama years.

    Remember, his appointment under the Trump administration was announced a week after the November poll. Preparations for this would have been months in the making. So, one question was, did the South African government think Joe Biden would win? If so, they were not following the polls very closely. South Africa’s relations with the US under Biden, although at times testy, were managable and Rasool was familiar with the individuals responsible for their making.

    More importantly, both Rasool and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation seemed to ignore the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus’ warning:

    Never step into the same river twice, for it is not the same river, and he is not the same man.

    Politics in the US has changed in paradigmatic proportions since Obama.

    Then there was the fact that Rasool’s politics are rooted at the sharpest edge of the African National Congress: the United Democratic Front faction. Speaking plainly in the language of the country’s streets was the gift the United Democratic Front gave national politics. It was the most important internal anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s, bringing together youth, student and civic organisations.

    Nevertheless, this, the language of the heart (as we might call it), has been eclipsed by the rise of techno-speak of the 2020s – a language that consists of buzzwords, esoteric language, or technical jargon and has become a kind of diplo-speak: diplomatic language in which the careful use of euphemism and noncontroversial language obscures points that might cause contention. Both bedevil South Africa’s domestic politics and mute the country’s foreign policy because racial justice, gender equality and compensation for colonialism seemingly have no place in everyday political discourse.

    What happened at the Mapungubwe seminar?

    The fracas arose during a virtual seminar organised by a leading South African think-tank which discussed the deepening tension in the relations between Pretoria and Washington.

    The late South African politician Frederik van Zyl Slabbert, who was brilliant with words, used to distinguish between (what he called) a conspiracy and a cock-up. Sometimes, however, it can be a mix of both.

    I think that Rasool was confounded by the audience to which he spoke – was it local or was it local and foreign?

    If there was deceit in the gathering itself, this was not to Rasool’s account. This points instead to a journalist looking to trip up any position South Africa took in the matter seemingly to advance his career. This is said to be the Breitbart journalist Joel Pollack, who made no secret of his desire to be the US ambassador in South Africa. He was registered as “Anonymous” on the webinar call. He did not disclose his name, or profession, when he asked Rasool a question.

    In my opinion, disclosure is a professional responsibility.

    Interestingly, there is no indication that the meeting was operating under the well-known Chatham House Rule by which

    participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor any other participant, may be revealed.

    Although not without its critics, myself included, this rule binds participants to non-disclosure by creating a safe space for candid and honest discussion.

    Where does the responsibility of an ambassador lie?

    The consensus among observers and commentators that’s emerged since the expulsion is that it was Rasool’s responsibility to hold his tongue – a kind of golden rule in diplomacy.

    There is another way of thinking about this.

    There have been many cases where the professional responsibility of diplomatic representation should follow a higher standard than that set by the incumbent government.

    This choice faced diplomats in the country during apartheid. So, for instance, in 1986, the apartheid government expelled the Swedish ambassador following that country’s strong opposition to apartheid. There were other expulsions, too. These moves were part of the broader international pressure surrounding apartheid, where responsibility of the diplomats shifted from the minority incumbent government to the country’s people.

    However, most famously, this understanding emerged in the writing of Thomas Paine, the American pamphleteer, that Benjamin Franklin (then the ambassador of the fledgling United States to Paris) was “not the diplomat of a Court, but (that the Ambassador) represented MAN (KIND)”.

    This intervention is regarded as the first recognition that human – as opposed to state – rights enjoyed currency in international relations.

    The age of turbulence through which we live has further muddied this water.

    What do you make of the reaction to Rasool’s explusion?

    A cacophony of voices, both within and without the country, have debated the pros and cons of the American decision.

    Much has been predictable in content and source. Some garbled. Former South African president Thabo Mbeki was schoolmasterish during a lecture he gave following Rasool’s expulsion, but he reminded the country of the tremendous power that ambassadors had at hand.

    Of concern to those with an ethical interest in international relations was that the trope “the national interest” appeared again and again and that, as it did so, the form it took was economic. So, it is in the national interest that South Africa “grow the economy”, “create jobs” and “fight HIV” with American money.

    Nevertheless, le affaire Rasool has reminded South Africans that the country also has other “national interests” like fighting climate change and defending human rights worldwide.

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

    – ref. Why was South Africa’s ambassador to the US expelled? A view of the Ebrahim Rasool affair – https://theconversation.com/why-was-south-africas-ambassador-to-the-us-expelled-a-view-of-the-ebrahim-rasool-affair-253640

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Jewish students chain themselves to Columbia gates to protest over ICE jailing of Mahmoud Khalil

    Democracy Now!

    Jewish students at Columbia University chained themselves to a campus gate across from the graduate School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) this week, braving rain and cold to demand the school release information related to the targeting and ICE arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a former SIPA student.

    Democracy Now! was at the protest and spoke to Jewish and Palestinian students calling on the school to reveal the extent of its involvement in Khalil’s arrest.

    Transcript:

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

    Here in New York City, Jewish students chained themselves to gates at Columbia University on Wednesday in support of Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia student protest leader now in an ICE jail in Louisiana.

    On March 8, federal agents detained Khalil at his university-owned apartment building, even though he is a legal permanent resident of the United States. They revoked his green card.

    I went up to Columbia yesterday and spoke to some of the students at the protest.

    PROTESTERS: Release Mahmoud Khalil now! We want justice! You say, “How?” We want justice! You say, “How?” Release Mahmoud Khalil now!

    CARLY: Hi. My name is Carly. I’m a Columbia SIPA graduate student, second year. And I’m chained to this gate today as a Jewish student and friend of Mahmoud Khalil’s, demanding answers on how his name got to DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and which trustee specifically handed over that information.

    We believe that there is a high chance that our new president, Claire Shipman, handed over that information. And we, as Jewish students, demand transparency in that process.


    Protesting Jewish students chain themselves to Columbia gates.  Video: Democracy Now!

    AMY GOODMAN: What makes you think that the new president, Shipman, gave over his [Khalil’s] information?

    CARLY: There was a Forward article with that leak. And there has not been transparency from the Columbia administration to Jewish students, when they claim that they are doing all of this to protect Jewish students.

    We would like to be consulted in that process, instead of being spoken for. You know, as Jewish students and to the Jewish people at large, being political pawns in a game is not a new occurrence, and that’s something that we very much are here to say, “Hey, you cannot weaponise antisemitism to harm our friends and peers.”

    AMY GOODMAN: And talk about being chained. Are you willing to risk arrest or suspension or expulsion from Columbia?

    CARLY: Yeah, I mean, just for speaking out for Palestine on Columbia’s campus, you know that you’re risking arrest and expulsion. That is the precedent they have set, and that is something that we all know at this point.

    We are now in a situation where, for many of us, our good friend is in ICE detention. And as Jewish students, we feel we need to do more.

    AMY GOODMAN: How did you know Mahmoud Khalil? You said you’re at SIPA. What are you studying there?

    CARLY: Yeah, so, I’m a human rights student, and we were classmates. We were classmates and friends. And it’s been a deeply troubling few weeks. And, you know, everyone at SIPA, the students at SIPA, we really are just hoping for his safe return.

    For me as a graduate in May, I truly hope we get to walk together at graduation.

    AMY GOODMAN: Did he hear that you were out here? And did he send you a message?

    CARLY: Yes. So, it has gotten back to Mahmoud that Jewish students are out here chained to the gate, and he did send a message that I read earlier that expressed his gratitude.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell me what he said?

    CARLY: Yes, I can pull up the message. I don’t want to misquote him. OK.

    “The news of students chaining themselves to the Columbia gates has reached Mahmoud in the detention center in Louisiana, where he’s currently being held. He knows what’s happening. He was very emotional when he heard about it, and he wanted to thank you all and let you know he sees you.”

    SARAH BORUS: My name is Sarah Borus. I am a senior at Barnard College.

    AMY GOODMAN: Why a Jewish action right now?

    SARAH BORUS: So, the government, when they abducted Mahmoud, they literally put — Donald Trump put out a post that said, “Shalom, Mahmoud.”

    They are saying that this is in the name of Jewish safety. But there is a reason that it is four white Jews that were on that fence or that were on that gate, and that’s because we are not the ones that are being targeted by the government.

    It is Muslim students, Arab students, Palestinian students, immigrant students that are being targeted.

    AMY GOODMAN: How do you respond to those who say the protests here are antisemitic?

    SARAH BORUS: I have been involved in these protests for my last two years here. The community of Jewish students that I have found is one of the most wonderful in my life. To call these protests antisemitic, honestly, degrades the Jewish religion by making it about a nation-state instead of the actual religion itself.

    SHEA: My name is Shea. I’m a junior at Columbia College. I am here for the same reason.

    AMY GOODMAN: You’re wearing a keffiyeh and a yarmulke.

    SHEA: Yes. That’s standard for me.

    AMY GOODMAN: Are you willing to be expelled?

    SHEA: If the university decides that that is what should happen to me for doing this, then that is on them. I would love to not be expelled, but I think that my peers would also have loved to not be expelled.

    I think Mahmoud would love to not be in detention right now. This is — I obviously worked very hard to get here. So did Mahmoud. So did everyone else who has been facing consequences.

    And, like, while I obviously would prefer to, you know, not get expelled, this is bigger than me. This is about something much more important. And it ultimately is in the hands of the university. If they want to expel me for standing up for my friend, for other students, then that is their choice.

    PROTESTERS: ICE off our campus now! ICE off our campus now! We want justice! You say, “How?” We want justice! You say, “How?” Answer our demands now! Answer our demands now!

    MARYAM ALWAN: My name is Maryam Alwan. I’m a senior at Columbia. I’m also Palestinian, and I’m friends with Mahmoud. I’m here in solidarity with my Jewish friends, who are in solidarity with all Palestinian students and Palestinians facing genocide in Gaza.

    We are all here today because we miss our friend, and it’s inconceivable to us that the board of trustees are reported to have handed his name over to the federal government, and the fact that these board of trustees have now taken over the university.

    Just yesterday, the University Senate at Columbia released an over 300-page report called the Sundial Report, which reveals that the board of trustees has completely endangered both Palestinian and anti-Zionist Jewish students in the name of quashing dissent and cracking down on protests like never before, eroding shared governance, academic freedom.

    And so this has been a long-standing process over 1.5 years to get us to the point where we are today, where people are getting kidnapped from their own campuses. And we can’t just sit by and let the federal government do whatever they want to our own university without standing up against it.

    So, whatever we can do.

    AMY GOODMAN: And what does it mean to you that it’s Jewish students who have chained themselves to the gates?

    MARYAM ALWAN: It means a lot to me, especially because of all of the rhetoric that surrounds these protests saying that we’re violent or threatening, when, from day one, I was part of Students for Justice in Palestine when it was suspended, and we were working alongside Jewish Voice for Peace from day one.

    The media just completely twisted the narrative. So, the fact that my Jewish friends are still to this day fighting, no matter what the personal cost is to them — I’ve seen the way that the university has delegitimised their Jewish identity, put them through trials, saying that they’re antisemitic, when they are proud Jews, and they’ve taught me so much about Judaism.

    So it just means a lot to see, like, the solidarity between us even almost two years later now.

    AHARON DARDIK: My name’s Aharon Dardik. I’m a junior here at Columbia. And we’re here to protest the trustees putting students in danger and not taking accountability.

    AMY GOODMAN: Why the chains on your wrists?

    AHARON DARDIK: We, as Jewish students, chained ourselves earlier today to a gate on campus, and we said that we weren’t going to leave until the university named who it was among the trustees who collaborated with the fascist Trump administration to detain our classmate, Mahmoud Khalil, and try and deport him.

    AMY GOODMAN: Where are you originally from?

    AHARON DARDIK: I’m originally from California, but my family moved to Israel-Palestine.

    AMY GOODMAN: And being from Israel-Palestine, your thoughts on what’s happening there?

    AHARON DARDIK: There’s never a justification for killing innocent civilians and for war crimes and genocide that’s being committed now. And I know many, many other people there who are leftist Israeli activists who are doing their best to end the occupation, to end the war and the genocide and to end Israeli apartheid.

    But they need more support from the international community, which currently sees supporting Israel as synonymous with supporting the fascist Israeli government that’s perpetrating this genocide, that’s continuing the occupation.

    AMY GOODMAN: Voices from a protest on Wednesday when Jewish students at Columbia University chained themselves to university gates in support of Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia student protest leader now detained by ICE in a Louisiana jail.

    Students continued their action into the early hours of yesterday morning through the rain, even after Columbia security and New York police arrived on the scene to cut the chains and forcibly remove protesters.

    Special thanks to Laura Bustillos.

    Republished from Democracy Now! under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Not an extension of Australia’ – Trump’s tariffs ‘reinforces’ Norfolk Island’s independence hopes

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Norfolk Island sees its United States tariff as an acknowledgment of independence from Australia.

    Norfolk Island, despite being an Australian territory, has been included on Trump’s tariff list.

    The territory has been given a 29 percent tariff, despite Australia getting only 10 percent.

    It is home to just over 2000 people, sitting between New Zealand and Australia in the South Pacific

    The islands’ Chamber of Commerce said the decision by the US “raises critical questions about Norfolk Island’s international recognition as an independent sovereign nation” and Norfolk Island not being part of Australia.

    “The classification of Norfolk Island as distinct from Australia in this tariff decision reinforces what the Norfolk Island community has long asserted: Norfolk Island is not an extension of Australia.”

    Norfolk Island previously had a significant level of autonomy from Australia, but was absorbed directly into the country’s local government system in 2015.

    Norfolk Islanders angered
    The move angered many Norfolk Island people and inspired a number of campaigns, including appeals to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, by groups wishing to re-establish a measure of their autonomy, or to sue for independence.

    The Chamber of Commerce has taken the tariff as a chance to reemphasis the islands’ call for independence, including, “restoration of economic rights” and exclusive access to its exclusive economic zone.

    The statement said Norfolk Island is a “sovereign nation [and] must have the ability to engage directly with international trade partners rather than through Australian officials who do not represent Norfolk Island’s interests”.

    Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters yesterday: “Norfolk Island has got a 29 percent tariff. I’m not quite sure that Norfolk Island, with respect to it, is a trade competitor with the giant economy of the United States.”

    “But that just shows and exemplifies the fact that nowhere on Earth is safe from this.”

    The base tariff of 10 percent is also included for Tokelau, a non-self-governing territory of New Zealand, with a population of only about 1500 people living on the atoll islands.

    US President Donald Trump’s global tariffs . . . “raises critical questions about Norfolk Island’s international recognition as an independent sovereign nation.” Image: Getty/The Conversation

    US ‘don’t really understand’, says PANG
     Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) deputy coordinator Adam Wolfenden said he did not understand why Norfolk Island and Tokelau were added to the tariff list.

    “I think this reflects the approach that’s been taken, which seems very rushed and very divorced from a common sense approach,” Wolfenden said.

    “The inclusion of these territories, to me, is indicative that they don’t really understand what they’re doing.”

    In the Pacific, Fiji is set to be charged the most at 32 percent.

    Nauru has been slapped with a 30 percent tariff, Vanuatu 22 percent, and other Pacific nations were given the 10 percent base tariff.

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

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: World Affairs Briefing: World considers response to Trump’s tariffs – and Israel launches new Gaza offensive

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Phelps, Commissioning Editor, International Affairs

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

    Donald Trump has announced a massive package of trade tariffs on some of America’s largest trading partners. In a speech on the White House lawn, Trump said that America had been “looted, pillaged and raped” by these countries for decades, adding that “in many cases, the friend is worse than the foe”.

    Trump claims that April 2, which he has called “liberation day”, will “forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn”. The tariffs include 20% on imports from the EU, 24% on those from Japan, 27% for India, and 34% for China. The UK got off comparatively lightly, with tariffs of 10%.

    Renaud Foucart, a senior lecturer in economics at Lancaster University, explores how the world may react. In his view, there are three possible scenarios.



    Read more:
    How the UK and Europe could respond to Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs

    First, countries may seek to forge trade deals with the US that, as Foucart puts it, “give Trump enough rope to climb down”. This is the approach favoured by British prime minister Keir Starmer. But it does send the message that the US can obtain concessions from its international partners by bullying them.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    Second, countries may retaliate. Whether through reciprocal tariffs or tools like the European Commission’s “anti-coercion instrument”, the goal will be to force the US to back down. If this scenario plays out, new modelling by Niven Winchester of Auckland University of Technology suggests it is probably the US that stands to lose the most, while some countries may actually gain.



    Read more:
    New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

    Third, in what is the most dramatic scenario, we may see a reorganisation of the world order that more or less avoids the US. This would take the world to uncharted economic and political territories.

    A renewed offensive

    Meanwhile, Israeli officials have announced a major expansion of military operations in Gaza. In a statement released on Wednesday, Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, said that “troops will move to clear areas of terrorists and infrastructure, and seize extensive territory that will be added to the state of Israel’s security areas”.

    The country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, later confirmed the plans. In a video message, he announced that Israel would be building a new security corridor called the “Morag Route” to “divide up” the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu says carving Gaza will add pressure on Hamas to return the remaining 59 hostages.

    We spoke to Scott Lucas, a Middle East expert at University College Dublin and a regular contributor to our coverage of the war in Gaza, about Israel’s renewed offensive and some of the other key issues involved.

    In his view, the resumption of the ground offensive in Gaza was largely inevitable once Netanyahu’s government refused to move from phase one of the ceasefire to phase two. The second phase would have involved the establishment of a permanent ceasefire and a complete Israeli military withdrawal. This, as Lucas explains, was never going to be agreed by Netanyahu.

    “Beyond his personal opposition to the requisite Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, powerful hard-right ministers in his government had made clear that their acceptance of phase one was conditioned on no phase two and on a return to military operations,” Lucas writes. Netanyahu’s political survival depends on the continuation of the war.



    Read more:
    Why is Israel expanding its offensive in Gaza and what does it mean for the Middle East? Expert Q&A

    But according to Leonie Fleischmann, a senior lecturer in international politics at City St George’s, University of London, the decision to launch another ground offensive in Gaza remains a high-risk strategy.

    Netanyahu is already unpopular among many Israeli citizens, as is the continued assault on Gaza. And his recent attempts to bend Israel’s legal system to his will by pushing through a law that would give the government the power to appoint new members of the supreme court have certainly not endeared him to many.

    The move has the potential to undermine the country’s system of checks and balances which, as in many western democracies, rests largely on the separation of powers. But in Fleischmann’s view, it was not unexpected.

    Netanyahu has done anything he can to try to gain control of the country’s judiciary over the past few years. He was charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust in 2019, which he denies, and has consistently sought to delay legal proceedings.

    It remains to be seen whether pressure from the Israeli public can check Netanyahu’s power. Widespread unrest over the weekend caused Netanyahu to pause plans for judicial reform, though he has maintained that the overhaul is still needed.



    Read more:
    As Israel begins another assault in Gaza, Netanyahu is fighting his own war against the country’s legal system

    Elsewhere, we have reported on the recent endorsement of Trump’s policies by Aleksandr Dugin, who is sometimes referred to as “Putin’s brain” because of his ideological influence on Russian politics.

    “Trumpists and the followers of Trump will understand much better what Russia is, who Putin is and the motivations of our politics,” Dugin said in an interview with CNN on March 30.

    His endorsement should be a warning of the disruptive nature of the Trump White House, says Kevin Riehle of Brunel University of London.



    Read more:
    ‘Putin’s brain’: Aleksandr Dugin, the Russian ultra-nationalist who has endorsed Donald Trump

    And China may be making preparations for an invasion of Taiwan. As naval history expert Matthew Heaslip of the University of Portsmouth reports, a handful of so-called Shuiqiao barges were filmed at a beach in China’s Guangdong province in March.

    The barges, the name of which translates to “water bridge”, were working together to form a relocatable bridge to enable the transfer of vehicles, supplies and people between ship and shore.

    Heaslip points out that, as there is no obvious commercial role for such large vessels, the most likely purpose is for landing armed forces during amphibious operations. But, as he reassures in this piece, their appearance does not guarantee that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is imminent.



    Read more:
    What these new landing barges can tell us about China’s plans to invade Taiwan

    There are reported to be three completed prototype landing barges ready for deployment and three under construction. This would offer just one or two beach bridges, which would be of minimal value in a major invasion.

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

    – ref. World Affairs Briefing: World considers response to Trump’s tariffs – and Israel launches new Gaza offensive – https://theconversation.com/world-affairs-briefing-world-considers-response-to-trumps-tariffs-and-israel-launches-new-gaza-offensive-253647

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How a lone judge can block a Trump order nationwide – and why, from DACA to DOGE, this judicial check on presidents’ power is shaping how the government works

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

    The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ power to issue what legal experts call ‘nationwide preliminary injunctions.’ Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    When presidents try to make big changes through executive orders, they often hit a roadblock: A single federal judge, whether located in Seattle or Miami or anywhere in between, can stop these policies across the entire country.

    These court orders have increasingly become a political battleground, increasingly sought by both Republicans and Democrats to fight presidential policies they oppose.

    This explains why the Trump administration recently asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ power to issue what legal experts call “nationwide preliminary injunctions.” Congress also held hearings on curtailing judges’ ability to issue the injunctions.

    But what exactly are these injunctions, and why do they matter to everyday Americans?

    Immediate, irreparable harm

    When the government creates a policy that might violate the Constitution or federal law, affected people can sue in federal court to stop it. While these lawsuits work their way through the courts – a process that often takes years – judges can issue what are called “preliminary injunctions” to temporarily pause the policy if they determine it might cause immediate, irreparable harm.

    A “nationwide” injunction – sometimes called a “universal” injunction – goes further by stopping the policy for everyone across the country, not just for the people who filed the lawsuit.

    Importantly, these injunctions are designed to be temporary. They merely preserve the status quo until courts can fully examine the case’s merits. But in practice, litigation proceeds so slowly that executive actions blocked by the courts often expire when successor administrations abandon the policies.

    Legislation introduced by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley would ban judges from issuing most nationwide injunctions.
    Sen. Chuck Grassley office

    More executive orders, more injunctions

    Nationwide injunctions aren’t new, but several things have made them more contentious recently.

    First, since a closely divided and polarized Congress rarely passes major legislation anymore, presidents rely more on executive orders to get substantive things done. This creates more opportunities to challenge presidential actions in court.

    Second, lawyers who want to challenge these orders have gotten better at “judge shopping” – filing cases in districts where they’re likely to get judges who agree with their client’s views.

    Third, with growing political division, both parties aim to use these injunctions more aggressively whenever the other party controls the White House.

    Affecting real people

    These legal fights have tangible consequences for millions of Americans.

    Take DACA, the common name for the program formally called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects about 500,000 young immigrants from deportation. For more than 10 years, these young immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” have faced constant uncertainty.

    That’s because, when President Barack Obama created DACA in 2012 and sought to expand it via executive order in 2015, a Texas judge blocked the expansion with a nationwide injunction. When Trump tried to end DACA, judges in California, New York and Washington, D.C. blocked that move. The program, and the legal challenges to it, continued under President Joe Biden. Now, the second Trump administration faces continued legal challenges over the constitutionality of the DACA program.

    More recently, judges have used nationwide injunctions to block several Donald Trump policies. Three different courts stopped the president’s attempt to deny citizenship to babies born to mothers who lack legal permanent residency in the United States. Judges have also temporarily blocked Trump’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military and to freeze some federal funding for a variety of programs.

    While much of the current debate focuses on presidential policies, nationwide injunctions have also blocked congressional legislation.

    The Corporate Transparency Act, passed in 2021 and originally scheduled to go into effect in 2024, combats financial crimes by requiring businesses to disclose their true owners to the government. A Texas judge blocked this law in 2024 after gun stores challenged it.

    In early 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect, but the Trump administration announced it simply wouldn’t enforce it – showing how these legal battles can become political power struggles.

    A polarized Congress rarely passes major legislation anymore, so presidents – including Donald Trump – have relied on executive orders to get things done.
    Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

    Too much power or necessary protection?

    Some critics say nationwide injunctions give too much power to a single judge. If lawyers can pick which judges hear their cases, this raises serious questions about fairness.

    Supporters argue that these injunctions protect important rights. For example, without nationwide injunctions in the citizenship cases, babies born to mothers without legal permanent residency would be American citizens in some states but not others – an impossible situation.

    Congress is considering legislation to limit judges’ ability to grant nationwide injunctions.

    The Trump administration has also tried to make it expensive and difficult to challenge its policies in court. In March 2025, Trump ordered government lawyers to demand large cash deposits – called “security bonds” – from anyone seeking an injunction. Though these bonds are already part of existing court rules, judges usually set them at just a few hundred dollars or waive them entirely when people raise constitutional concerns.

    Under the new policy, critics worry that “plaintiffs who sue the government could be forced to put up enormous sums of money in order to proceed with their cases.”

    Another way to address the concerns about a single judge blocking government action would be to require a three-judge panel to hear cases involving nationwide injunctions, requiring at least two of them to agree. This is similar to how courts handled major civil rights cases in the 1950s and 1960s.

    My research on this topic suggests that three judges working together would be less likely to make partisan decisions, while still being able to protect constitutional rights when necessary. Today’s technology also makes it easier for judges in different locations to work together than it was decades ago.

    As the Supreme Court weighs in on this debate, the outcome will affect how presidents can implement policies and how much power individual judges have to stop them. Though it might seem like a technical legal issue, it will shape how government works for years to come – as well as the lives of those who live in the U.S.

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

    – ref. How a lone judge can block a Trump order nationwide – and why, from DACA to DOGE, this judicial check on presidents’ power is shaping how the government works – https://theconversation.com/how-a-lone-judge-can-block-a-trump-order-nationwide-and-why-from-daca-to-doge-this-judicial-check-on-presidents-power-is-shaping-how-the-government-works-252556

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Blue Origin’s all-female space flight urges women to shoot for the stars – but astronaut memoirs reveal the cost of being exceptional

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jasleen Chana, PhD Candidate, Science and Technology Studies, UCL

    For the first time since Russian cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova’s solo flight in 1963, a spacecraft will enter orbit with only women aboard. Blue Origin’s all-female space flight crew, which includes popstar Katy Perry, is set to take off this spring.

    Jeff Bezos’ crew is assembled from successful and well-known women, also including television presenter Gayle King, producer Kerianne Flynn, former Nasa scientist Aisha Bowe, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen and journalist Lauren Sanchez. Promotional material for the flight, claims that Perry “hopes her journey encourages her daughter and others to reach for the stars, literally and figuratively”.

    The glamorous optics of this spaceflight are supposedly designed to encourage women to strive for their dreams. The glossy narrative tells others that they can be just like these extraordinary women. Yet, behind this aspirational ideal, there is a more problematic story regarding successful women in science and their roles in public.

    My PhD research examines memoirs written by women astronauts. They construct appealing depictions of women who are successful and exceptional. But in practice their success stories are nigh on impossible for ordinary women to emulate.

    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.

    This is epitomised in astronaut Catherine Coleman’s reaction to wearing a spacesuit designed for men. In her 2024 memoir, she wrote: “Most of the time, I took the approach that if the suit didn’t fit, I would simply wear it anyway – and wear it well. Wear it better than anyone expected.”

    Mae Carol Jemison was the first black woman to travel to space.
    Nasa

    As this quote shows, women who have travelled to space tend to construct themselves as having worked exceptionally hard to deny the norms of what is expected of them and to offset systemic biases.

    From the outset of her memoir, Coleman emphasises that she’s always had to be an “exception” from the rest of humanity, which feels alienating. But she also consistently suggests that her life was destined to be this way. “Space felt like home to me,” she says, tacitly acknowledging that she was always meant to be there.

    Jemison, who was the first African American woman in space, also expresses this sense of destiny in her 2001 memoir. “I perched quietly, looking out of the windows on the flight deck,” she writes. “Strange, but I always knew I’d be here. Looking down and all around me, seeing the Earth, the moon, and the stars, I just felt like I belonged.”

    The crew set to board the Blue Origin flight want to be storytellers in the same way that women astronauts are in their memoirs. But the well-known members of its crew are a reminder that hard work is only part of this particular story – fortune and privilege also play a part.

    Eileen Collins was the first woman to pilot and command a space shuttle. In her 2021 memoir, she details the pressures and expectations of working in a male-dominated field. She found that it exacerbated already tricky decision-making and the need to perform critical actions correctly.

    When she says “current and future women pilots are counting on me to do a perfect job up here,” she exemplifies the harsh scrutiny that women astronauts are often subject to when they are the first of their gender.

    Behind the cover

    The issue with popular scientific memoirs is that they are consistently marketed as honest and truthful works. These books promise to reveal who the astronaut actually is, but they are, in fact, carefully curated images of the women they portray.

    So while they intend to motivate and inspire others, the memoirs don’t always do so in a totally honest way. This draws a parallel with the Blue Origin flight.

    Perry discusses her space flight.

    Many of these narratives seek to rewrite past stereotypes of scientists while also functioning as a response to the contemporary appetite for memoirs that reveal the interior emotional world of their subjects. For example, Kathryn Sullivan discusses “wrestling” with visceral “pangs” of pain at being unable to launch her mission due to technical issues.

    This concept reflects why there is a fevered public expectation that the Blue Origin flight crew will embark on a perspective-shifting journey and experience “deep emotions from space”.

    While current coverage surrounding the launch frames it as a celebration of collective advancement, the people comprising this spaceflight crew do not reflect most women.

    If the Blue Origin mission is to be a lodestar for a universal feminist narrative, using women’s spaceflight as a measure of progress, then it should also be considered in tandem with the incongruities and uniqueness of women’s experiences. Ultimately, it is important to move away from narratives that inform us that science, spaceflight and success are only synonymous with fame and exceptionalism.

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

    – ref. Blue Origin’s all-female space flight urges women to shoot for the stars – but astronaut memoirs reveal the cost of being exceptional – https://theconversation.com/blue-origins-all-female-space-flight-urges-women-to-shoot-for-the-stars-but-astronaut-memoirs-reveal-the-cost-of-being-exceptional-251880

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Consecutive El Niños are happening more often and the result is more devastating – new research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Zhengyao Lu, Researcher in Physical Geography, Lund University

    El Niño, a climate troublemaker, has long been one of the largest drivers of variability in the global climate. Every few years, the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean seesaws between warm (El Niño) and cold (La Niña) phases. This reshuffles rainfall patterns, unleashing floods, droughts and storms thousands of miles from the Pacific origin.

    The 1997-98 and 2015-16 El Niño events, for instance, brought catastrophic flooding to the eastern Pacific while plunging Africa, Australia and southeast Asia into severe droughts.

    These disruptions don’t just alter weather, but devastate crops, collapse fisheries, bleach coral reefs, fuel wildfires, and threaten human health. The 1997-98 El Niño alone caused an estimated US$5.7 trillion (£4.4 trillion) in global income losses.

    Now, something more alarming is unfolding: both El Niño and La Niña are lingering longer than ever before, which is amplifying their destructive potential.

    Traditionally, El Niño events lasted about a year, alternating with La Niña in an irregular cycle every two to seven years.

    And normally when an El Niño or La Niña event ends, the disturbance to global weather patterns gradually subsides. But when these anomalies persist or re-emerge, the damage compounds and complicates recovery efforts. For instance, a single-year El Niño-driven drought can challenge agricultural systems, but consecutive years of drought could overwhelm them.

    In recent decades, these climate patterns have been persisting longer and recurring more often. A striking example is the 2020-2023 La Niña, a rare “triple-dip” event that lasted for three years. Rather than returning to neutral conditions, these anomalies are prolonging devastation and making recovery increasingly difficult.

    In a recent study, my colleagues and I revealed that multi-year Enso (El Niño-southern oscillation, or both warm El Niño and cold La Niña) events have been steadily increasing over the past 7,000 years, and are now more frequent than ever. This is due to a fundamental shift in Earth’s climate system.

    Clear proof of this shift comes from ancient corals in the central Pacific. These fossilised time capsules preserve a climate record stretching back thousands of years. By analysing oxygen isotopes in their skeletons, scientists can reconstruct past ocean temperatures and Enso activity.

    What we’ve found is remarkable: in the early Holocene (7,000 years ago), single-year Enso events were the norm. But over time, multi-year events have become five times more common.

    To confirm this, we turned to sophisticated computer simulations that replicate Earth’s climate system. The latest advancements in these global climate models allow us to simulate Enso dynamics stretching back hundreds of millions of years, across vastly different climate conditions and continental arrangements.

    In our study, we used a group of models contributed by international research teams to track Enso evolution over millennia, incorporating factors such as ocean circulation, atmospheric conditions, vegetation changes and solar radiation. The results align with coral records: Enso events have grown more prolonged over time.

    Look at the graphs below. On the left are black circles which represent fossilised coral slice records (bigger circles contain data for longer periods). The increasing trend (blue dashed line) shows the ratio of multi-year Enso events to single-year events increasing over the past 7,000 years (a ratio of 0.5 means one multi-year Enso event for every two single-year events). On the right, climate model simulations also show this ratio increasing.

    The increasing trend (blue dashed lines) of mult-year ENSO occurrence over the last 7,000 years. Ancient coral reconstructions on the left, climate model simulations on the right.
    Lu et al. (2025)/Nature

    The role of Earth’s orbit and humans

    This trend of Enso events lasting longer started gradually in the Holocene and is linked to changes in the Pacific Ocean’s thermocline, which is the boundary between warm surface waters and cooler deep waters. Over millennia, the tropical Pacific’s thermocline has become shallower and more stratified, enabling more efficient interaction between the atmosphere and ocean that allow El Niño and La Niña events to persist for longer.

    The primary driver of this stratification has been the slow change in Earth’s orbit, which alters the distribution of solar energy our planet receives. These orbital variations have subtly influenced upper ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific, nudging Enso towards longer phases. This slow process has unfolded naturally, but now there’s a new and powerful force accelerating it: human-driven climate change.

    Greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly from burning fossil fuels, are turbocharging this trend. The extra heat trapped in the atmosphere and ocean is making conditions even more favourable for persistent Enso events, and possibly more intense. What was once a slow, natural evolution is now accelerating at an alarming rate. Unlike past climate shifts, this one is happening in our lifetimes, with consequences we can already see.

    The implications are staggering. If Enso events keep lasting longer, we can expect more frequent and prolonged droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, floods and back-to-back intense hurricane seasons driven by multi-year Enso. Agriculture, fisheries, water supplies and disaster response systems will face increasing strain. Coastal cities, already struggling with rising seas, could face even more destructive storm surges fuelled by extended El Niño conditions.

    This is less a scientific puzzle than a growing crisis. While we can’t change Earth’s orbit, we can cut carbon emissions, strengthen climate resilience efforts and prepare for more persistent extreme weather. The science is clear: El Niño and La Niña are sticking around longer, and their consequences will be felt across the globe. The time to act is now, before the next multi-year Enso shockwave hits.

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

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

    Zhengyao Lu receives funding from the Swedish Research Council, FORMAS and the Crafoord Foundation.

    – ref. Consecutive El Niños are happening more often and the result is more devastating – new research – https://theconversation.com/consecutive-el-ninos-are-happening-more-often-and-the-result-is-more-devastating-new-research-251504

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As Israel begins another assault in Gaza, Netanyahu is fighting his own war against the country’s legal system

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

    The Israel Defense Forces has launched a further major ground assault in Gaza – this time with the intention of taking and holding significant amounts of territory as a “security buffer”. This appears unlikely to endear the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to many of the families of the remaining 59 Hamas hostages, who may well fear the worst for their loved ones.

    It’s a high-risk strategy on Netanyahu’s part. But the prime minister is already walking a political tightrope as he simultaneously attempts to bend his country’s legal system to his will.

    Thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets to protest the prime minister’s recent attempts to bring the country’s supreme court under government control. The saga started when he sacked the country’s most important spy chief, the head of Shin Bet, Ronen Bar, in mid-March.

    This was the first time a government had dismissed a serving head of Shin Bet, and the supreme court stepped in to freeze the order until it had the chance to hear opposition objections.

    The attorney-general, Gali Baharav-Miara, a vocal critic of Netanyahu, accused the prime minister of ignoring the law. This led the government to pass a no-confidence motion in her as well.

    Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, subsequently passed a law which would give the government the power to appoint new members of the supreme court.

    The move was criticised by the Israel Democracy Institute, which described the new law as a “broader shift toward subordinating legal and security institutions to political authority” in Israel. It certainly has the potential to undermine the country’s system of checks and balances which – as in many western democracies – rests largely on the separation of powers.

    Israel does not have a single written constitution. What it has is a set of “Basic Laws” which provide the rules of governance. Within these are checks and balances, which aim to prevent any one institution or individual from exercising untrammelled control. Putting the make-up of the supreme court into the hands of the government would threaten this basic democratic principle on which Israel has always operated.

    On March 19, Netanyahu posted on X from the prime ministerial account: “In America and Israel, when a strong right-wing leader wins, the leftist Deep State weaponizes the justice system to thwart the people’s will. They won’t win in either place!” He later removed the post and reposted the same thing from his personal account.

    The post linked his efforts to control the judiciary with the Trump administration’s loudly voiced campaign against state barriers to its power.

    But anyone who has followed Netanyahu’s decision-making in recent years will discern a pattern. Since being charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust in 2019 (which he denies) he has done anything he can to try to gain control of the country’s judiciary – for his own political preservation.

    Netanyahu’s motivations

    At the same time, many critics believe Netanyahu’s conduct of the war in Gaza had been with one eye to prolonging hostilities to delay proceedings in his own trials. Now it appears that the Israeli prime minister is attempting a frontal assault on Israel’s judiciary.

    His decision to sack Bar came as the Shin Bet chief was supervising an investigation into allegations concerning, as he put it in a letter to the cabinet before his sacking: “Qatar’s involvement at the highest levels of Israeli decision-making, including the Prime Minister’s Office.”

    Equally questionable is the attempted ousting of Attorney-General Baharav-Miara, who is overseeing the criminal case against him. Replacing them with more compliant and loyal individuals would help ensure that Netanyahu and the policies of his government are protected.

    All of this drew a strong response from the former consul general of Israel in New York, Alon Pinkas. Writing in the opposition paper Haaretz on March 21, Pinkas argued that Israeli “democracy’s guardrails” are being brought “crashing down fast and furious by Netanyahu’s design”.

    He concluded that the only two remaining checks on Netanyahu’s power are “the supreme court and the Israeli public” – adding that the court can only act when it is permitted. “So the Israeli public becomes the only potentially effective check.”

    An active civil society is an important marker of democracy and my research shows that Israel has a strong history of protest and extra-parliamentary action across a range of social, economic and political issues.

    There has been a continuous stream of anti-Netanyahu protests in Israel since the “black flag protests” in 2020 in opposition to Netanyahu’s continuing in power despite facing serious criminal charges. The protests grew ever stronger, despite COVID safeguarding regulations.

    When the government attempted wide-ranging reforms which many critics feared would fundamentally weaken the independence of the judiciary, hundreds of thousands took to the streets weekend after weekend, forcing the government eventually to shelve its plans.



    Read more:
    Israel protests: Netanyahu delays judicial reforms over fears of ‘civil war’ – but deep fault-lines threaten future of democracy

    Since the start of the war in Gaza, the political focus of protests shifted to broad consensus in calling the government to do everything in its power to ensure the release of the October 7 hostages. Now the protests will focus more centrally back on the considerable public discontent with the prime minister himself.

    It remains to be seen, now, whether Alon Pinkas is right and whether the Israeli public can be an effective check against a leader who appears now to be governing solely in his own interests.

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

    – ref. As Israel begins another assault in Gaza, Netanyahu is fighting his own war against the country’s legal system – https://theconversation.com/as-israel-begins-another-assault-in-gaza-netanyahu-is-fighting-his-own-war-against-the-countrys-legal-system-253568

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Would you join the resistance if stuck in an authoritarian regime? Here’s the psychology

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Magnus Linden, Associate Professor of Psychology, Lund University

    Female activist protesting with megaphone during a strike with group of demonstrator in background. Jacob Lund/Shuttestock

    Most of us like to believe we would have opposed the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany. We may even like to imagine that we would have bravely fought for the resistance to Nazism in the 1940s. But would we? Our ability to take a stand may be put to the test as authoritarianism is increasing worldwide.

    All electoral democracies can transform into autocracies. These are governments that restrict political and civil rights, centralise executive power, manipulate elections and minimise the diversity of political views.

    In western democracies, a move toward autocracy is often led by would-be strongmen whose focus is to reinstate traditionalist values and nationalism. They typically target the free media, opponents and stigmatised social groups without moral compunction.

    Moves to deepen autocracy are always resisted, however. Depending on how autocratic a country is, this resistance will differ. Early in the autocratisation process, resistance is common within formal state institutions. It may be expressed in overt actions, including public statements condemning government actions.

    In closed autocracies, however, resistance is exercised more by covert social movements. One reason for this is the personal risk connected to resistance. In Vladimir Putin´s autocratic Russia, for example, political dissenters know they risk being either murdered or imprisoned if they’re caught.

    In the United States, on the other hand, where the new administration has taken steps that increase the level of autocracy, dissonant views may effectively be silenced because of fear of retribution. Many people are scared of losing their jobs or having their companies harmed.

    Psychological profile

    The science about the choices made by those who resist autocratic regimes, and the strategies they apply in resisting, is evolving.

    Interviews with resisters in Myanmar suggest that personal moral commitments, being compassionate and feeling compelled to act when witnessing violations of rights, are all factors motivating resistance.

    These factors are also evident in those who helped Jews survive during the Holocaust. For example, studies suggest that rescuers were more empathic and morally conscious than others. They had essentially been socialised into being ethical in childhood and were also more inclusive of people from other social groups.

    People who join resistance groups also tend to be more open to taking risks. That makes sense: the more driven you are by a need to feel safe, the less likely you are to engage in anything that could jeopardise that – even if your moral compass suggests you should.

    Beyond resisting autocratic steps, research on moral courage in everyday settings shows that believing you can succeed, that you have the necessary knowledge and skills, is an important predictor for intervention when people witness norm violations, whether this means addressing a perpetrator or protecting a victim.

    Leadership characteristics

    That said, it’s not all down to individual followers. No autocratic leader can gain power without influencing their followers. The same is true of resistance: resistance cannot exist without effective leadership.

    Research suggests that followers are influenced by leaders who create a positive ethical climate, which in turn influences their own ethical behaviour.

    For fighting autocracy, one important aspect of this process is to communicate that inclusive moral values, such as universalism (the idea that things like liberty, justice, fraternity and equality should apply to everyone) and benevolence (helping, forgiving, being responsible) are a prominent part of the group’s identity.

    Members of the French resistance group Maquis in La Tresorerie, September 14 1944, Boulogne.

    For example, when the Danish Jews were persecuted by the Nazis in 1943, representatives of morally-grounded institutions, including bodies representing the Protestant clergy and hospital physicians, started to actively resist the regime. They became effective leaders as they were already in jobs perceived to be morally “committed”, and people trusted their judgement.

    Research on nonviolent resistance also shows that strong resistance organisations, and their leaders, tend to embrace diversity among people. And when they are successful, they often include the pillars in society that have the power to disrupt, such as military forces or economic elites.

    Research on the underground railroad, the network of activists helping enslaved people escape to the northern states in America or Canada, has shown that influential church leaders played a crucial role. They refused to follow federal legislation that obliged them to help slave owners capture enslaved people that had escaped.

    Knowing that ethical role models are taking a stand is important for a resistance movement’s followers. Stanley Milgram gave evidence for this in his much-debated psychological obedience studies, showing that 90% of the participants who had been asked to give others electrical shocks stopped immediately if two assistant teachers stopped first.

    Building resistance

    In a world where autocracy is on the rise, how can we foster traits in people that promote appropriate forms of resistance?

    Teaching others about morally courageous figures can work, but heroism is not the key for all learners. The science suggests a number of other – perhaps surprising – objectives which can move ordinary people to stand up for democracy. In particular, educational initiatives that boost contact between different groups may be useful.

    To be able to resist autocratic regimes, and help people who are persecuted under them, we ultimately need empathy for people who are different to ourselves. There’s plenty of research showing that white people who move to more diverse areas, within cities, for example, become less racist.

    So perhaps the more time we spend with people who are unlike us, the more we are growing our potential as resistance fighters.

    We may also want to boost our self-efficacy, or self-confidence. One technique is to repeatedly expose ourselves to situations that evoke fear, but which force us to act courageously, such as standing up to bullies. This is a crucial part of ethical police training, for example.

    Learning about moral values can also help build confidence. Educators who are given the challenge to teach good moral behaviour can do this effectively by focusing on universal principles – rather than those that are based on culture or social class – such as treating others how we wish to be treated.

    These are building blocks for a group identity which favours empathy with all and expectations of good behaviour.

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

    – ref. Would you join the resistance if stuck in an authoritarian regime? Here’s the psychology – https://theconversation.com/would-you-join-the-resistance-if-stuck-in-an-authoritarian-regime-heres-the-psychology-252533

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Doom loops’ are accelerating climate change – but we can break them

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, UK edition

    Surasak Jailak/Shutterstock

    Vicious cycles are accelerating climate change. One is happening at the north pole, where rising temperatures caused by record levels of fossil fuel combustion are melting more and more sea ice.

    Indeed, the extent of Arctic winter sea ice in March 2025 was the lowest ever recorded. This decline in sea ice means the Earth reflects less of the Sun’s energy back into space. So, more climate change leads to less sea ice – and more climate change.

    Human behaviour is not immune to this dynamic either, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). It identified another troubling feedback loop: demand for coal rose 1% globally in 2024 off the back of intense heatwaves in China and India, which spurred a frenzy for air-conditioners and excess fuel to power them.

    The need to cool ourselves, and briefly escape the consequences of climate change, is driving more climate change. Thankfully, there are ways to break these cycles and form greener habits. Today, we’ll look at one in particular.

    This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.

    The Sun can cool you down

    “As the climate crisis deepens, close to half of the world’s people have little defence against deadly heat,” says Radhika Khosla, an associate professor of urban sustainability at the University of Oxford.



    Read more:
    COP28: countries have pledged to cut emissions from cooling – here’s how to make it happen

    “At the same time, energy demand from cooling – by those who can afford it – could more than double by 2050.”

    If wealthy countries paid the enormous climate finance debt they owe the developing world, it could help finance the closing of this gap. And thankfully, advancements in renewable energy technology mean no one should need to contribute to a spike in fossil fuel use just to keep cool.



    Read more:
    Wealthy nations owe climate debt to Africa – funds that could help cities grow

    “The absurdity of resorting to coal to power air conditioners … is difficult to miss”, say a team of engineers and energy experts at Nottingham Trent University and Coventry University, led by Tom Rogers. They recommend rooftop solar panels instead, which can soak up sunshine during heatwaves and turn it into electricity for air-conditioning units.

    “Rooftop solar can also reduce demand for cooling by keeping buildings in the shade,” the team say. “A study conducted by Arizona State University found that even a modest group of solar panels that shade about half a roof can lead to anything from 2% to 13% reduction in cooling demand, depending on factors such as location, roof type and insulation levels.”



    Read more:
    Rising temperatures mean more air conditioning which means more electricity is needed – rooftop solar is a perfect fit

    Of course, solar panels are less helpful for powering air conditioners in the evening, when lots of people turn them on after work or school.

    “Researchers in Australia have proposed a clever solution to address this imbalance, by programming air-conditioning units to work in tandem with solar systems to pre-cool buildings before people arrive home,” Rogers and his colleagues add.

    There is huge untapped potential for generating electricity from rooftop solar – even in the dreary UK. It could ensure that future heatwaves are a boon for solar energy, not coal power.

    “Consider the possibilities for Nottingham and Coventry, two cities in England’s Midlands where we work,” they say.

    “If Nottingham were to maximise its rooftop potential, all those panels could generate nearly 500 megawatts (MW) of electricity, about the same as a medium-sized gas power plant. Coventry has greater potential, with 700MW.

    “These capacities would equate to nearly one-third of Nottingham’s electricity demand and almost half of Coventry’s – from their rooftops alone.”

    Doom loops

    Installing solar panels on top of buildings worldwide will need massive investment in equipment and training. It will require new means of incentivising the uptake of this technology and, as mentioned earlier, the redistribution of wealth to allow low-emitting but highly vulnerable nations to make the switch.

    But there are likely to be virtuous cycles as well as vicious ones. Once a certain threshold has been crossed, like the price and capacity of batteries or the number of homes with heat pumps installed, “a domino effect of rapid changes” takes effect such that green alternatives swiftly become the established norm.



    Read more:
    Climate ‘tipping points’ can be positive too – our report sets out how to engineer a domino effect of rapid changes

    However, the prospect of harmonising these efforts across borders butts against a trend moving in the opposite direction. As the world warms, relations between nations are becoming more fraught and war, trade tensions and internal strife are obscuring the universal threat of climate change.

    A Trump yard sign during the 2024 election campaign.
    Dlbillings_Photography/Shutterstock

    Climate risk expert Laurie Laybourn and earth system scientist James Dyke, both at the University of Exeter, say that extreme weather in 2022 caused crop failures that made food more expensive and stoked headline inflation rates. Climate-sceptic Donald Trump made hay with these high prices in the 2024 US election.

    “The risk is that this ‘doom loop’ runs faster and faster and ultimately derails our ability to phase out fossil fuels fast enough to avoid the worst climate consequences,” they say.



    Read more:
    A ‘doom loop’ of climate change and geopolitical instability is beginning

    However, Laybourn and Dyke are not wholly pessimistic. History shows that periods of instability and crisis like the one we are living through also provide fertile ground for positive change, they argue, and the chance to accelerate virtuous circles.

    “For example, out of the crises of the interwar period and the devastation of the second world war came legal protections for human rights, universal welfare systems and decolonisation.”

    – ref. ‘Doom loops’ are accelerating climate change – but we can break them – https://theconversation.com/doom-loops-are-accelerating-climate-change-but-we-can-break-them-253457

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Replacing gas vehicles with electric cars could prevent new cases of childhood asthma

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Harshit Gujral, Ph.D. Student, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

    Up to one-third of all new asthma cases each year are attributed to the harmful air pollutants that are emitted by gas-powered automobiles.

    To address this, our recent study has found that replacing around half of all gas-powered vehicles with electric vehicles could be sufficient to minimize childhood asthma cases linked to pollution from vehicle exhausts.

    As researchers studying the intersection of transportation, climate change and public health, we wanted to understand whether electric vehicle sales were having any impact on human health. Given the growing electric vehicle market in the United States, we investigated the impact this growth is having on population health.

    We chose childhood asthma as a proxy due to its widespread impact on the population. Around five million American children suffered from asthma in 2019. This statistic hasn’t changed considerably since then.

    Numerous studies have shown that exposure to air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, which are emitted from the tailpipe of gas-powered automobiles when they burn fossil fuels, is linked with an increased risk of developing asthma. Our study builds on this by examining the number of gas-powered and electric vehicles on the road, and the number of new childhood asthma cases annually.

    Numerous studies have found a link between gas-powered automobiles and increased asthma risk.
    (Shutterstock)

    Examining vehicle sales

    We used publicly available data on childhood asthma from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Then, we built a burden-of-disease model to isolate new cases of childhood asthma that were linked to traffic-related air pollution. We included data collected between 2013 and 2019 from all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

    We found that for every 1,000 new gas-powered vehicles sold, there was one new case of childhood asthma. Our research revealed that replacing approximately 21 per cent of these sales with electric vehicles appears to be sufficient to halt rising asthma rates caused by new vehicle sales. However, this number varied depending on the state and various factors — such as population density and the number of existing gas-powered vehicles on the road.

    For instance, in some states, replacing just seven per cent of gas car sales with electric vehicles might be enough to halt rising asthma rates caused by new vehicle sales. But in other states, 42 per cent of new car sales had to be electric vehicles in order to have any impact.

    States with a higher population density and a larger proportion of older, gas-powered vehicles on the road would likely see the greatest health gains from switching to electric vehicles.

    Our findings indicate there’s already a measurable public health benefit being seen in the U.S. from the increase of electric vehicles on the road. This impact would be profound in states with a zero-emission vehicle program, because 63 per cent of all new electric vehicles were sold in states with these mandates between 2013 and 2019.

    In 2021 (at the time of this study), 10 American states had rules promoting electric vehicles, including: California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.

    Our findings underscore the urgent need for policies that accelerate the replacement of older, fossil-fuel powered vehicles with electric vehicles. It will also be important for policymakers to find ways of making electric vehicles more accessible for lower-income households, as they’re disproportionately affected by traffic-related air pollution.

    Not the only solution

    We don’t want readers to assume that putting more electric vehicles on the road is the only solution for improving children’s health.

    First, it’s important to note that a reduction in childhood asthma rates only manifests when electric vehicles are sold as replacements for gas-powered vehicles. This means that when people buy an electric vehicle as a second car, it won’t be linked to the same health benefits.

    Second, electric vehicles — as with any other vehicle — still contribute to air pollution emissions in other ways. This is why our research doesn’t point towards completely replacing all gas-powered automobiles with electric vehicles for the sake of public health.

    Replacing half of gas-powered cars with electric vehicles appears to minimize childhood asthma caused by traffic-related air pollution.
    (Shutterstock)

    While a 36-77 per cent fleet share of electric vehicles should minimize the asthma burden due to reducing the amount of nitrogen dioxide emitted from gas-powered automobiles, this doesn’t eliminate all the pollutants that are produced by vehicles.

    For example, particulate matter from brake wear, tire wear and road dust are all linked with adverse health impacts — such as respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. The actual reduction in pollution also depends on driving behaviours, as plug-in hybrids can operate on both gas and electricity.

    Alternative forms of transportation are still important for reducing the total number of cars on the road and ultimately improving public health.

    For electric vehicles to be truly beneficial, it’s also important to ensure the electricity needed to charge their batteries comes from clean sources. If the electricity comes from coal or other fossil-fuel-based sources, then we’re just moving the pollution from the urban centres to communities living near power plants.

    Other critical limitations of electric vehicle technology include battery recycling, social injustices in acquiring raw materials for battery production and restrictions on the right to repair.

    The bottom line is that while electric vehicles are needed to move away from fossil fuel-based vehicles, they aren’t the whole solution. We need to promote and invest more in public transit and biking infrastructure to improve air quality and public health.

    This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, RGPIN-2019-07042) and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto (grant no. DSIDSFY3R1P22).

    Meredith Franklin received funding from NSCERC for this research.

    Steve Easterbrook received funding from NSCERC and UofT DSI for this research.

    – ref. Replacing gas vehicles with electric cars could prevent new cases of childhood asthma – https://theconversation.com/replacing-gas-vehicles-with-electric-cars-could-prevent-new-cases-of-childhood-asthma-252244

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s trade war represents a big opportunity for Canadian Conservatives

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Charlie Buck, PhD Candidate, Politics, University of Toronto

    A well-known saying in politics is to never let a good crisis go to waste. The governing Liberals have embraced this idea, calling a snap election for April 28. Their decision came amid United States President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Canadian goods and threats of annexation.

    This moment presents a rare opportunity for Canadian Conservatives to rethink their approach. They can do this by tapping into their own party’s history of opposing American domination over Canada.

    Canadians are often presented as mild-mannered patriots. But Trump’s mockery of Canadian sovereignty has upended that perception.

    A recent Angus Reid poll found a surge in national pride. The percentage of Canadians who were “very proud” to be Canadian jumped from 34 to 44. At hockey games, Canadians are booing the American national anthem. And in grocery stores, shoppers are boycotting American products in favour of domestic goods.



    Read more:
    Trump tariffs have sparked a ‘Buy Canadian’ surge, but keeping the trend alive faces hurdles

    Once the party of anti-Americanism

    This rising nationalism is an opening for Conservatives to draw on their own history.

    Up until the 1980s, Canadian conservatism was the ideology most closely tied to anti-Americanism. From the United Empire Loyalists to John A. MacDonald’s National Policy, conservatism was about resisting American control.

    Robert Borden’s 1911 election win, for example, was fuelled by nationalist opposition to free trade with the U.S. Borden’s motto, evoking MacDonald, was: “Keep Canada for the Canadians.”

    Conservatives were also the party of Britishness. They supported the monarchy, the Red Ensign flag featuring the Union Jack and a strong central government. In contrast, the Liberals were the party of continentalism, hoping to achieve further economic and cultural integration with the U.S.

    This dynamic reversed in the 1980s with the rise of neoliberalism. During the 1988 election, the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney, not John Turner’s Liberals, favoured free trade. The Liberal campaign even ran a memorable ad warning that free trade would erase the Canadian-U.S. border.

    Since then, Canadian Conservatives have often been accused of wanting to “Americanize” Canada. Conservatives favour an elected Senate modelled on its U.S. equivalent. Economically, they mirror the market fundamentalism of American Republicans.

    On foreign policy matters, Conservatives also align closely with American interests. When Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it was met with strong criticism by opposition leader Stephen Harper.

    Canadian uniqueness

    Trump’s attack on Canadian sovereignty creates a chance for Canadian conservatism to return to its nationalist roots. Classical Canadian Tory thinkers — from George Grant to Donald Creighton, John Farthing and W. L. Morton — espoused a strong strain of anti-Americanism that animated all of their work. Indeed, it was this defence of Canadian uniqueness that defined their conservatism.



    Read more:
    Facing annexation threats, should Canadians lament for a nation — like George Grant did in 1963?

    If there is one lesson to be taught from their work, it’s that Conservatives must champion Canadian identity in the face of American aggression.

    Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre should heed this lesson. He has pledged to “put Canada first” and continue the Conservative legacy of “warding off American designs to dominate our continent.” Yet he seems more eager to tear down Liberal Leader Mark Carney than to defend Canada from Trump.

    These pro-Canada sentiments can’t just come from the leader. Nor should they be a short-term election strategy — they must represent a long-term vision.

    The current crisis is an opportunity for the intellectual leaders of the conservative movement in Canada to reorient their ideology away from the Americanization of Canada. They can best do this by drawing from the tradition of British-style Toryism that defined the conservative ideology for the first century of Canadian nationhood.

    Canadians are hungry for a party that celebrates Canadian patriotism and that builds up, rather than tears down, Canada’s heritage. They want a party that stands up to the American bully and strengthens national security by properly funding the country’s military.

    Dialing it down

    That means Poilievre must tone down his libertarian instincts in favour of the national collective good. Uninspiring commitments like increasing the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts doesn’t match the required urgency. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are worried they won’t have a job or the money to contribute to a tax-free savings account due to this trade war.

    Market capitalism and the free flow of goods and people across borders creates wealth, but it also makes Canada more economically dependent on America.

    Defunding the CBC might make good economic sense. However, it may also weaken Canadians’ sense of national identity and drive them further into the grips of American cultural influence.



    Read more:
    From dog whistles to blaring horns, Poilievre makes his case

    Poilievre, and the conservative movement more broadly, should consider rekindling some of the anti-Americanism that has long been a key component of Canadian conservatism. Doing so might allow his party to seize upon Canadians’ renewed sense of patriotism and result in a Conservative win on April 28.

    There might be a few Trump-loving conservatives alienated by this approach. But there are far more moderate voters to be gained by fighting for Canada under a truly conservative banner.

    As the saying goes, don’t let a good crisis go to waste.

    Charlie Buck receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. Trump’s trade war represents a big opportunity for Canadian Conservatives – https://theconversation.com/trumps-trade-war-represents-a-big-opportunity-for-canadian-conservatives-252997

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Love in the age of conspiracy: 5 tips to deal with disinformation and political polarization in relationships

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kara Fletcher, Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Regina

    The current socio-political environment has created a context where conspiracy narratives about COVID-19, vaccines, election fraud and other misinformation appear to be flourishing everywhere. (Shutterstock)

    If you’re in a relationship with someone who believes in a conspiracy theory, you might find yourself feeling like you don’t know the person you’re in a relationship with anymore. And you might be thinking about whether things will get better or wondering if you should leave them.

    The World Health Organization has declared we are living in an infodemic, where misinformation is spreading like an infectious disease. A Leger opinion poll conducted in November 2023 found that nearly 80 per cent of Canadian respondents and almost 85 per cent of Americans believed at least one conspiracy theory.

    While older adults often struggle to detect online misinformation, the poll found people between the ages of 18 and 34 were also likely to believe some conspiracies. Recent research has also found youth aged 13-17 are more susceptible to misinformation than adults.

    The current socio-political environment has created a context where conspiracy narratives about COVID-19, vaccines, election fraud and other misinformation appear to be flourishing everywhere. However, there are steps you can take if you see your partner going down a conspiratorial rabbit hole.

    No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.

    Read more from Quarter Life:

    Conspiratorial beliefs

    Conspiracy theories refer to beliefs relating to secret plots orchestrated by groups who are considered to hold power and have bad intentions. Misinformation refers to information that contradicts the best expert evidence available at the time. Lastly, political polarization describes ideological conflict between two (or more) opposing groups. Political polarization can create antipathy and prejudice among groups that don’t agree with one another.

    One of the authors of this article, Kara Fletcher, is a couples and family therapist. In her practice, she has noticed an increase in clients sharing their confusion and hopelessness at their partner’s gradual adoption of conspiracy theories and misinformation. They’ve shared that their partners’ viewpoints initially became more conservative and then escalated into believing misinformation and conspiracy theories over time.

    Clients have reported that their romantic partner has started to follow movements like QAnon, a far-right American political conspiracy theory. Or, more insidious and less obvious initially, their partners have started to consume podcasts like Infowars, Joe Rogan’s podcast or conservative websites like the Daily Wire. These podcasts and news sites have all come under scrutiny for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.

    Our research team has undertaken multiple projects to better understand the impact of misinformation and conspiracy theories on couple well-being. While existing research is slim, there is some evidence of relationship disruption and harm.

    We are currently conducting a scoping review of studies assessing the impact of QAnon involvement on interpersonal relationships. Participants in one research study described QAnon as a “malignant force in their relationship” which caused distance and distress. Participants however, reported a desire to understand their loved one and attempt to heal the relationship.

    Similarly, emerging research also indicates that loved ones experienced emotional distress and a negative impact on their relationship since their “QPerson” started following the beliefs of QAnon. Anecdotally, the Reddit forum QAnonCasualties has more than 280,000 members.

    A Leger opinion poll conducted in November 2023 found that nearly 80 per cent of Canadian respondents believed at least one conspiracy theory.
    (Shutterstock)

    What you can do

    So, what can you do if you just don’t recognize your romantic partner anymore? If this sounds like a familiar experience for you, or someone you love, here are a few tips to try:

    1. Keep your feet on the grass. Stay connected to family and friends. Living with or dating someone who espouses conspiracy beliefs and misinformation can be confusing and disorienting. You may start to question your own belief system when your partner is so convinced of theirs. Maintain your social supports and relationships outside of your romantic relationship. This will help keep you connected with other viewpoints and ideas and ground you.

    2. Model and maintain a healthy social media and news diet. If your partner is only listening to far-right news sources, put on the radio, leave a newspaper on the table. Expose them gently to a wide range of ideas, while maintaining your own exposure to legitimate news sources.

    3. Try not to shame and blame. Emotional arguments do not work and may cause the opposite intended effect. Your partner may feel that you are unsupportive and judgmental and not understand your well-intentioned concern. Individuals who feel judged for their beliefs may double down on adherence to those beliefs while under pressure.

    4. Prevention. Where possible, encourage and practise critical thinking skills. One study found that teaching critical thinking to college students for a period of three months lowered students’ beliefs in conspiracy theories. Teaching critical thinking appears to be the best inoculation against adopting conspiracy theories and misinformation.

    5. Get support if needed. You may love your partner deeply but find navigating this situation alone to be too much. You can speak to a therapist or connect with supports such as the Evolve Program and Life After Hate.

    As our research develops, we hope to offer support that will bring couples with these experiences together to find solutions for their divergent belief systems and experiences.

    Kara Fletcher receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation.

    Carlos Alberto Rosas-Jiménez and Jiaxing Li do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Love in the age of conspiracy: 5 tips to deal with disinformation and political polarization in relationships – https://theconversation.com/love-in-the-age-of-conspiracy-5-tips-to-deal-with-disinformation-and-political-polarization-in-relationships-251797

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada’s labour market is failing racialized immigrant women, requiring an urgent policy response

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Marshia Akbar, Director of the BMO Newcomer Workforce Integration Lab and Research Lead on Labour Migration at the CERC Migration and Integration Program at TMU, Toronto Metropolitan University

    Despite Canada’s commitment to gender equity through human rights legislation and policies, the country ranked eighth in gender pay disparity among 43 nations in 2018.

    While gender wage gaps affect all women, they are particularly pronounced for those from marginalized communities. A 2015 United Nations Human Rights report raised concerns about “the persisting inequalities between women and men” in Canada, highlighting the gender pay gap and its disproportionate impact on low-income, racialized and Indigenous women.

    Historical data reflects the persistence of these inequalities. The 2001 and 2016 censuses reveal that labour market inequalities in Canada have remained both gendered and racialized over the past two decades.

    Racialized immigrant women are among the most disadvantaged groups in Canada’s labour force. They experience higher unemployment rates and lower incomes than racialized men, non-racialized men and non-racialized women, regardless of whether they are immigrants or Canadian-born.

    Building on this evidence, my recent analysis of the 2021 census further illustrates the ongoing disparities racialized immigrant women face in the Canadian labour market — even among those with university education.

    A triple disadvantage

    As of 2021, immigrants comprised about 23 per cent of Canada’s population, with racialized women making up 36 per cent of all immigrants. Their presence plays a critical role in Canada’s demographic composition and economic growth.

    However, systemic barriers continue to limit their economic potential. Racialized immigrant women face a triple disadvantage due to their race, immigrant status and gender, making it harder for them to secure employment.

    Data from 2021 highlights these disparities. Racialized immigrant women aged 25 to 54 had the lowest labour force participation and employment rates, and the highest unemployment rates.

    The labour force participation rate measures the percentage of the working-age population that is either employed or actively seeking work, while the employment rate is the percentage of the working-age population that is employed.

    The labour force participation rate of racialized immigrant women was 77 per cent, the lowest among all immigrant groups. Their employment rate was 68 per cent, significantly lower than that of racialized immigrant men (82 per cent) and non-racialized immigrant women (74 per cent).

    Additionally, their unemployment rate reached 12 per cent, exceeding racialized immigrant men by seven percentage points and non-racialized immigrant women by three percentage points.

    In contrast, Canadian-born women face fewer employment disparities between racialized and non-racialized groups. This suggests that labour market barriers are particularly harsh for immigrant women of colour.

    Wage gaps reflect the triple disadvantage

    Wage disparities in Canada vary significantly across demographic lines, with immigrant women facing the greatest disadvantages.

    In 2020, racialized immigrant women aged 15 and over had the lowest median employment income of $30,400. Their earnings lagged behind racialized immigrant men, and non-racialized immigrant men and women.

    While higher education improves earnings, it does not eliminate these disparities.

    University-educated racialized immigrant women earned an average of $41,200 in 2020, compared to $57,200 for their male counterparts — a gender wage gap of 28 per cent.

    Additionally, they earned 19 per cent less than non-racialized immigrant women ($50,800) and 32 per cent less than non-racialized Canadian-born women ($60,400). This placed them at the bottom of the earnings hierarchy.

    These figures indicate that educational attainment alone is not enough to overcome the structural barriers that limit economic opportunities for racialized immigrant women. More deliberate actions are needed.

    The road ahead

    Despite initiatives like the Racialized Newcomer Women Pilot, which the federal government launched in 2018 to support career advancement for racialized newcomer women, employment and wage disparities persist.

    Research has identified several structural factors that limit their access to meaningful economic opportunities. These barriers include gender biases, institutional racism, disproportionate caregiving responsibilities, the non-recognition of foreign credentials, gender gaps in skill development and job transitions, and occupational segregation.

    To address these challenges, future research should adopt a problem-solving approach to address the root causes. Simultaneously, a comprehensive policy response is needed to tackle the systemic barriers in the labour market.

    Targeted solutions are needed to help racialized immigrant women. Strengthening credential recognition, for instance, can help employers assess transferable skills across countries. Implementing equitable hiring practices and workplace integration policies are also essential.

    Digital technology and artificial intelligence can also help eliminate bias in hiring and job matching. Settlement programs should account for the intersecting identities of racialized immigrant women to provide tailored support.

    Most importantly, it’s crucial to recognize that ensuring equitable access to meaningful employment is not only vital for advancing gender and racial equity, but also essential for unlocking Canada’s full economic potential.

    Marshia Akbar receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. Canada’s labour market is failing racialized immigrant women, requiring an urgent policy response – https://theconversation.com/canadas-labour-market-is-failing-racialized-immigrant-women-requiring-an-urgent-policy-response-251792

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Tiffany earrings to mobile phones – this is what happens when you swallow something you shouldn’t

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

    Even small items, such as earrings or keys, can become lodged in the body. Anzay/ Shutterstock

    A man in Florida recently visited a Tiffany & Co jewellery store posing as a buyer for a professional US athlete. While viewing the items, together worth well over £1 million, the thief tried to grab them and run from the store.

    The ensuing struggle saw one diamond ring get dropped – but the thief still made off with two pairs of diamond earrings valued at £600,000. In a bid to avoid arrest, the suspect consumed a different kind of “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” – swallowing the jewellery. After he was later taken into custody some 340 miles away, he was quoted as saying: “Am I going to be charged for what is in my stomach?”

    This certainly isn’t the first time a thief has hoped that swallowing stolen valuables would help them get away with their crime. One of the UK’s most notorious jewel thieves, whose exploits were captured in the ITV series Joan, also consumed jewels in order to steal them.

    But while in this recent instance the stolen jewels were recovered after naturally passing through the thief’s body, this isn’t always the case when things are swallowed that shouldn’t be. Foreign body ingestion, as it’s called, accounts for approximately 1,500 deaths per year in the US alone.

    Although most of the time, ingested foreign bodies pass naturally, around 10-20% of cases require endoscopic retrieval (a camera and small tools entering your mouth to get to your stomach) – and 1% require emergency surgery. In adults, the most commonly ingested foreign bodies are fish or chicken bones. In children, it’s coins, button batteries and toy parts.

    Small items, such as earrings, aren’t too difficult for the body to pass if swallowed accidentally or on purpose. This is because the oesophagus, which carries food to the stomach, is up to 3cm in diameter.



    Read more:
    Weird and wonderful things lost then found inside the human body

    But if objects are too large and get stuck in the oesophagus, they can tear and perforate it. A tear to the oesophagus requires immediate medical intervention – without emergency care, this tear has a mortality rate of up to 40%.

    The stomach, a J-shaped sac, has a much larger diameter than the oesophagus. It then connects to the small intestines and subsequently the large intestines. But because of the stomach’s unique shape and the way it tightly narrows as it joins the small intestines, objects can easily get lodged in this join.

    In one case study, doctors in Iran removed more than 450 metallic items from a man’s stomach – including screws, keys, nuts and other metal parts. These objects weren’t able to pass naturally due to the narrowing of the digestive tract – subsequently building up in the stomach, leading to abdominal pains and digestive issues in the patient that required immediate surgery.

    Just as problematic are prisoners who swallow mobile phones, as these are too large to progress beyond the stomach, so they get stuck. The only way to remove the phone in these instances is by endoscopy or surgery – which is what had to happen when a prisoner in India swallowed four mobile phones.

    If the phone isn’t removed, the stomach’s acid may dissolve many of the phone’s components. This could potentially expose its battery, which contains chemicals that can burn the stomach lining or cause it to rupture.

    In one case study, a diamond earring got lodged inside a patient and caused appendicitis.
    AKpicartist/ Shutterstock

    Should an item manage to pass through the stomach, it then has to move through 12 feet of small intestines before entering the large intestines. The appendix is located where these intestines meet – and any foreign objects that enter this tube are unlikely to get back out the way they came. So, this is another site where items can easily become stuck, causing infection and the need for emergency surgical removal.

    In one rare case, a diamond earring caused appendicitis in a person who had swallowed it by accident. There are also cases of this happening after screws, stones and pins became lodged in the appendix.

    The large intestines, where faeces begin to form, gradually begin to narrow in diameter, especially near the rectum. This makes it even more likely that the intestinal wall may be perforated by foreign objects – particularly sharp things such as the post of an earring or even packets of smuggled drugs.

    Perforation of the bowel anywhere through the gastrointestinal tract is a surgical emergency, as it means the contents of the tract – which includes billions of bacteria – can leak into the membrane that lines your pelvis and abdomen. This can cause serious and often fatal infections such as peritonitis and sepsis, which can have mortality rates of almost 50%.

    Spare a thought

    Putting anything that isn’t food or drink into your body carries a significant risk of getting stuck, tearing through delicate walls of the digestive tract, or reacting with the lining in a way that damages your intestines.

    As ever in these cases, spare a thought for the poor person who has to “check through what came out” – or the person who had to clean the recovered jewellery.



    Read more:
    Whether inserted, ingested or implanted, batteries are a matter of life and death

    The good news for thieves who are desperate enough to try this route of “acquisition” is that valuable metals such as gold, silver and many of the precious stones embedded in them don’t change when touched by stomach acid.

    However, it’s hard to say whether these particular Tiffany earrings will go up or down in value, given the journey they’ve endured.

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

    – ref. From Tiffany earrings to mobile phones – this is what happens when you swallow something you shouldn’t – https://theconversation.com/from-tiffany-earrings-to-mobile-phones-this-is-what-happens-when-you-swallow-something-you-shouldnt-252962

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: A brief history of dance music – from basements to beaches, dancefloors have mirrored social change

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Morrison, Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader for Music Journalism, University of Chester

    When US rock’n’roll arrived in the UK in the mid-1950s, there were few places for British teenagers to dance to this exciting new genre. But by the early 1960s, dance venues specifically aimed at teenagers began to open in towns and cities.

    Unlike the sometimes grand and opulent ballrooms that had been the stomping grounds of their parents, the new teen-oriented discotheques of the 1960s tended to be located in altogether contrasting spaces, in terms of architecture and atmosphere.

    Several of these new youth nightclubs were in cellars of somewhat dilapidated buildings. They were often unlicensed and aimed at teenagers younger than the legal drinking age.

    Sometimes described as “coffee dance clubs” or “continental style”, the novelty of these new spaces was reflected an the uncertainty of how to describe them. The dancing was predominantly fuelled by recorded music. This allowed British teenagers, many of them identifying as mods (the stylish youth subculture that flourished in the early to mid 1960s) to hear electrifying rhythm and blues artists from America.

    In our new book, Transatlantic Drift: The Ebb and Flow of Dance Music, we discuss these pioneering clubs and the innovative musicians, performers and DJs that have inspired people to congregate and dance.

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

    In the basement

    Being based underground enhanced the atmosphere in the clubs. Attendees were simultaneously part of an underground movement and also literally hidden from view from the adult world.

    For a few years between 1963 and 1966, subterranean hedonism existed under the surface – and the mod club scene flourished. The architecture of these spaces provided distinctive environments for the young dancers which led to notably visceral experiences. These were hot, dimly lit, crowded, smoke and sweat-filled spaces where the music ricocheted off surfaces and fed directly back into the dancing bodies.

    The subterranean location sometimes emphasised in the choice of name for these clubs – Cavern, Dug Out, Dungeon, Catacombs, Heaven and Hell.

    The Sinking Ship club in Stockport was located in a cave carved out of red sandstone rocks. The condensation that dripped back on to the dancers was infused with red mineral deposits, leaving a particularly vibrant sensory memory of an all-night dance session.

    At the tail end of the mod club era, in 1966 US R&B stars Etta James and Sugar Pie DeSanto released the track In the Basement – Part 1. Although the song refers to a house party rather than a nightclub, it captured the zeitgeist of the mid 1960s mod dance era, and the locations in which it flourished. DeSanto, in particular, was hugely popular with the mod crowd.

    Alongside the trend for naming the clubs in reference to their below-ground location, another tendency was for clubs to be named with reference to places outside of the UK, giving a sense of escapism and glamour.

    This was often in the form of words of Latin origin, such as La Discotheque, The Bodega and El Partido. This reference to Europe chimed with the mod passion for continental European style. It was also arguably a portent of what was to come as these locations transformed.

    Let there be light

    The latter part of the 20th century finally brought club culture into the light. A glorious confluence of musical, meteorological and pharmaceutical effects combined to form, it might be argued, the last great “spectacular” subculture.

    In the 1980s, raw, electronic beats filtered out of American cities such as Chicago and Detroit and travelled across the Atlantic, first in trickles then ultimately in waves, consuming willing European DJs.

    In Ibiza, for instance, Argentinian Alfredo Fiorito (having fled the restrictions of the junta in his native Argentina), played Chicago house and Detroit techno along with his usual Euro pop and electronica. His canvas was the dance floor of the nightclub Amnesia, where he deejayed through the night and into morning. It was not so much that his deejaying blew the roof off the place – more that Amnesia had no roof in the first place.

    In the sunshine, vitamin D mingled and reacted to the rather less natural flow of drug E around the body. MDMA or ecstasy and shortened to E, presented another intriguing combination – this time of German engineering and American appropriation. For users, it became the perfect pharmaceutical filter to enjoy house music through.

    Brits holidaying on Ibiza in 1987 experienced something of an epiphany and took the party drug culture back to the UK. Back home, parties erupted like magical crops with illegal raves in farms and fields around the M25 orbital motorway.

    Events like Sunrise, Energy and Biology eschewed nightclubs completely, preferring to set up in the great outdoors. Ravers found that partying in the sunshine took them back to something primal and pagan. They celebrated in, and with, nature in a reconstituted Shakespearean Arden, powered by the sun from above and the energy from the ground beneath.

    In this way, the story of club culture emerged from the cellars and basements of a subterranean, nocturnal world and found its way into the light.

    The repercussions of this transatlantic drift, this musical flow of beats and ideas, then spread out further like sonic waves across the planet. We can see traces in festivals like the Notting Hill Carnival. We can further trace that beat as it broke out of the weekend and then the UK completely – a neo-hippy trail taking in the free party scene across Europe, and particularly eastern Europe, and on, to the trance scene in Goa and Thailand’s full-moon parties.

    In Ibiza, new laws and noise regulations means that they have literally been able to put the roof back on, but elsewhere the spirit of raves and rays, of disco al fresco, seems unstoppable.

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

    – ref. A brief history of dance music – from basements to beaches, dancefloors have mirrored social change – https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-dance-music-from-basements-to-beaches-dancefloors-have-mirrored-social-change-251509

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How the UK and Europe could respond to Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

    In a carefully choreographed address from the White House Rose Garden, US president Donald Trump announced a massive package of trade tariffs. These include 20% on imports from the European Union, 24% on those from Japan, 27% for India, and 34% for China. The UK gets the lowest rate, at 10%.

    A tariff is a tax on imports, paid by producers and consumers of the importing country.

    US producers will pay more for their inputs – the things they need to produce their goods – from the rest of the world. US consumers will pay more for foreign products. But they will also pay more for US-made goods, because production costs will increase, and US producers will face higher demand from consumers seeking to substitute imports.

    Tariffs serve a role in protecting nascent industries, or in countries with limited state capacity. They may protect some strategic or politically powerful firms and workers from international competition. But mostly they just hurt everyone directly or indirectly involved.

    So what is the Trump administration trying to achieve?

    The official goal is to have a tax that is sufficiently high to reduce the trade imbalance between the US and the rest of the
    world. Every month, the US imports goods and services worth tens of billions of US dollars more than those it sells to other countries.

    Since Donald Trump returned to office, US firms have anticipated future tariffs by importing more. This has increased this deficit to a record-high of US$131 billion (£99.7 billion) in January, twice as large as it was only a year ago.

    The way the US trade deficit works is simple. US consumers buy cheap products from other countries in exchange for printing money at little cost. The trick is that the rest of the world buys US currency as a reserve of value, or to invest in US assets. This seems like the dream deal. Americans get richer and the country is flooded with investment, making it the technological centre of the world. This in turn keeps the dollar strong.

    But there is a counterpoint, increasingly prevalent in the circles that surround the US president. This dream deal is bad for US manufacturing and creates a dependency on foreign producers and investors. Crucially, it depends on the US remaining the ultimate currency in perpetuity.

    So, will Trump’s plan help him achieve his goal of reducing US imports relative to exports? Tariffs will not increase exports. But by making foreign products more expensive, they can massively decrease imports.

    In practice, this is only sustainable if the US wants to become permanently poorer. If the US economy becomes weak enough that the US dollar is not a desirable investment, it could become the factory of the world and sell cheap products, while not being able to afford what foreigners produce. This was China’s development strategy in the mid-2000s.

    Time to choose a response

    Whether this is what US citizens want to achieve is a question for them. As for the rest of the world, the time has come to decide how to react.

    The reasonable take, favoured by British prime minister Keir Starmer, is this: if tariffs are bad, adding more in retaliation will not be better.

    The UK is therefore poised not to retaliate, but to seek a trade deal with the US instead and to give Trump enough rope to climb down.

    Removing bilateral trade barriers would be good for both economies. But it would also send a message that the way to obtain concessions from the UK is to bully it. The US and everyone else will learn the lesson, and act accordingly in future.

    A deal will also end the embryonic tax collected since April 2020 on the revenues of tech giants like Amazon, Google and Meta. Given their increasing importance, such a de facto tax exemption would mean ever-increasing rates on British workers and businesses.

    The tit-for-tat path, taken by the European Commission, is to retaliate and hope that it will force the US to climb down.

    As happened during Trump’s first administration, the EU will tax a chosen subset of US products like Harley Davidson motorbikes and bourbon. But the goal is to do much more and to use the size of the EU’s single market to attack the driving force of US economic growth: its tech giants.

    The boldest tool is the new “anti-coercion instrument”, developed by the European Commission in anticipation of a second Trump mandate. This is a very slow but potentially devastating legislative process that goes as far as allowing the suspension of intellectual property rights for companies based in countries that attempt to coerce member states through economic warfare. What this could mean, in effect, is the EU choosing not to enforce international laws protecting the intellectual property of American firms.

    No password required. EU retaliation could see US tech firms powerless to fight back against piracy.
    wisely/Shutterstock

    In essence, the EU would say: if you do not respect the international order, from the rules of trade to international law and climate agreements, we do not respect your rules either. In practice, no one within the EU would be sued for pirating a Netflix show, or for creating a free clone of US software or apps, until the US returns to a more cooperative pattern of behaviour.

    The obvious problem with this approach is what to do if the US does not embrace more cooperative behaviour.

    This may lead to the most dramatic path – a reorganisation of the world order that more or less avoids the US. Chinese media have reported, for instance, that China is trying to work with US allies Korea and Japan to overcome global tariffs.

    A sort of “coalition of the willing” with a larger group of countries to recreate global cooperation seems far-fetched today. But it would end the US dollar dominance, allowing the country to balance its trade deficit. It would also take the world to uncharted economic and political territories.

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

    – ref. How the UK and Europe could respond to Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs – https://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-and-europe-could-respond-to-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-253650

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Industrial chicken farms are trashing Britain’s rivers – and planning reforms could make things worse

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rosalind Malcolm, Professor of Environmental Law, Director of Environmental Regulatory Research Group (ERRG), University of Surrey

    Once voted the UK’s favourite river, the River Wye flows from the Welsh mountains to the Severn estuary – 150 miles through an officially recognised “national landscape”. But this idyllic picture is changing, as the river is gradually choked by waste from industrial chicken farming.

    The Wye is perhaps the most extreme example, but the nearby River Severn, the UK’s longest river, is also at risk, along with rivers in places such as Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Yorkshire.

    In the land that feeds into these rivers, millions of chickens are being reared in intensive units to supply supermarkets with cheap meat and eggs. But all those chickens produce vast amounts of manure which can end up in the rivers.

    This floods the river with excess nutrients causing algal blooms to flourish. The algae blocks out sunlight and consumes oxygen, which kills other creatures in the water. For instance the number of Atlantic salmon passing through the River Wye each year has plummeted from 50,000 in the 1960s to less than 3,000.

    The problems caused by chicken farming have led to legal action against US food company Cargill and its subsidiary Avara Foods (both firms deny the allegations). Meanwhile food outlets including Nando’s have denied sourcing their products from polluting farms.

    Described as a “dying river” in a Channel 4 News report, in 2023 the Wye’s conservation status was downgraded by Natural England to “unfavourable – declining”.

    Measures to deal with excess nutrients have led to so-called nutrient neutrality policies. These prevent new developments that would cause a net increase in nutrients. But the knock-on effect is that development (including housebuilding) may be blocked.

    Much of the River Wye flows through the English county of Herefordshire. There, the council, exasperated by the failure of these plans to reverse the decline, took the unusual step of controlling the pollution through planning laws.

    Its Minerals and Waste Local Plan declared that any new chicken farms must demonstrate that the manure would be properly managed and the project would overall be nutrient neutral. That would form part of an environmental impact assessment during the planning process.

    This was unusual because agricultural activities are not usually subject to planning control and what you do on your farm is generally regulated by non-planning statutory regimes. So, the step taken by Herefordshire Council was unusual and the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) challenged it in court.

    What was also new, was the categorisation of manure as “waste”.

    Is manure ‘waste’?

    Agriculture mainly gets a pass on waste controls. Faecal matter (including chicken manure) is not treated as waste in law as long as it does not harm the environment or endanger human health, even though it is not the farmers’ primary product. A farmer breeds chickens for meat and eggs but chickens also produce manure. But that manure can still be useful as a fertiliser, for energy or as compost. So far so good. The problem comes when that by-product is not managed carefully and it ends up polluting rivers.

    So should it be defined as waste – and therefore subject to strict controls – or treated as a valuable byproduct and managed as a commodity just like the eggs?

    The answer is: it depends. Case law indicates that the test for whether the manure would be waste is whether it can harm the environment.

    In the High Court case, the NFU argued that agricultural activities should not be subject to planning controls and that manure should not be treated as “waste”. In effect its argument was that the economic endeavours of farmers should outweigh the additional environmental protections introduced by the council.

    The judge did not agree with the NFU. She said that chicken manure could indeed be waste and the council could control it through the planning regime.

    Symbolic slurry

    This is a symbolic battle between those tricky pillars of sustainable development: economy, society and environment.

    In any planning case, the elements need to be balanced and one will dominate over the others. Housing for people? Industrial development for economic growth? Industrial farming for (cheap) food? Protecting the river and its ecosystem from pollution? Every decision made represents a trade-off.

    As the courts move to prioritise protecting the environment, the UK government is favouring economic growth. Its Planning and Infrastructure Bill plans to replace individual environmental impact assessments with broad based “environmental delivery plans” produced by a government body (not the developer) but funded by developers.

    These delivery plans will set out conservation measures addressing environmental impacts of development. They might focus on protected species or habitats or on issues like nutrient neutrality.

    But there is no shortage of plans already in the government armoury. Environmental Improvement Plans were set up by a previous government. Among these, the Wyescapes landscape recovery project is aimed at developing “sustainable, future-proof business models working with nature along the floodplain”. The River Wye nutrient management plan aims to halt nutrient pollution. The River Wye action plan aims to stop the decline of the river system by making the catchment a pilot for transforming how manure is managed.

    However, as the judge in the NFU v Herefordshire Council case said, all the evidence demonstrates that these plans have so far failed to stop the decline. This left the council to implement drastic and immediate action.

    The NFU is considering an appeal. But the council’s win at the high court may be in vain when government proposals outlaw the requirement for individual environmental impact assessments.

    It remains to be seen how effective the new government ideas on protecting the environment will be. For now, it appears that anything that blocks development is not a government priority.

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

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

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

    – ref. Industrial chicken farms are trashing Britain’s rivers – and planning reforms could make things worse – https://theconversation.com/industrial-chicken-farms-are-trashing-britains-rivers-and-planning-reforms-could-make-things-worse-253463

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why has Trump launched so many tariffs and will it cause a recession? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Linda Yueh, Fellow in Economics/Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Oxford

    Donald Trump has always talked about how much he likes tariffs. And on April 2 2025, he showed that he meant it. For the president it was “liberation day”, but for his fellow world leaders it was a tense wait to see what percentage figure would be attached to their country’s vital exports.

    Those tariff rates ranged from 10% for the UK to 49% for Cambodia, charges which Trump says will raise trillions of dollars for the US economy and “make America wealthy again”.

    “Our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered,” he said, before unveiling the tariffs which will cause headaches for business leaders and politicians across the world. We asked Linda Yueh, an economist at the University of Oxford, to answer some of the most pressing questions the tariffs pose.

    What is Trump thinking?

    Economically speaking, the president of the US says he wants to make international trade fairer – by equalising tariffs. He said that if countries want these “reciprocal tariffs” removed (on top of the 10% baseline tariff on all US imports), then they also need to remove non-tariff barriers, such as opening more of their markets to US companies.

    As with his first administration, he also wants companies to bring production and manufacturing jobs back to the US. Basically, he views current international trade as unfair and is using tariffs in a way that’s unprecedented in modern times to try to level the playing field.

    Why such a broad range of tariffs?

    The formula used by the White House to calculate the various tariff rates is apparently based on the trade balance – what each country sells and buys from the US. The Trump administration views a trade surplus (where the US buys more than it sells) as a proxy for unfair trade, so is imposing “reciprocal tariffs” to retaliate.

    And some countries do indeed levy higher tariffs than the US. For instance, some developing countries do so in accordance with their level of development. But tariffs are generally governed by the World Trade Organisation, so that’s where countries would normally go to resolve trade disputes.

    But because no tariff is set below 10%, there will be tariffs levied even on countries with whom the US runs a trade surplus (those which do more buying from the US than selling). These include the Netherlands, Australia and Brazil.

    A complex relationship.
    Tomas Ragina/Shutterstock

    Over 100 countries will have tariffs imposed, including small countries like Fiji (32%) and poor economies like Haiti (10%). Those are also likely to be the ones which will find it most challenging to get into the queue to negotiate a lower tariff any time soon.

    What options do countries have in terms of their response?

    The EU (20%) has said it will retaliate, while the UK (10%) says it will keep talking though all the options on the table. Trump has said he is open to negotiations before the baseline tariffs are imposed on April 5, and the extra reciprocal tariffs land on April 9.

    Engaging in a tit-for-tat trade war is economically damaging – as the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) set out in its latest assessment of the UK economy. Each government will take its own view on the appropriate approach, but with the knowledge that it’s highly unlikely that everyone will be able to negotiate a better deal conclusively within a week.

    Will there be a recession?

    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that Trump’s tariffs could reduce global economic growth by 0.5% through next year, which is significant. But, it also believes that a global recession is not on the horizon.

    That said, the economic impact of these tariffs is highly uncertain and unpredictable. The effects will vary from country to country, and a lot will depends upon how long the tariffs are levied for, how other countries respond and how companies manage the tariffs and the uncertainty of trade policy.



    Read more:
    How the UK and Europe could respond to Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs

    And it remains a big gamble for Trump too. For a president who considers himself to be the master of deals, there are risks of rising inflation, falling stock markets and potentially denting the US economy.

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

    – ref. Why has Trump launched so many tariffs and will it cause a recession? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/why-has-trump-launched-so-many-tariffs-and-will-it-cause-a-recession-expert-qanda-253765

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why is Israel expanding its offensive in Gaza and what does it mean for the Middle East? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin

    Israel resumed its military offensive in Gaza in March, blaming Hamas for rejecting a new US proposal to extend the ceasefire and free the remaining hostages. Since then, the Israeli military has launched waves of airstrikes on the besieged territory, killing hundreds of Palestinians and forcing many more to evacuate.

    Israel now says it is expanding its offensive. In a video statement released on April 2, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said the Israeli military had “shifted gears” in the Gaza Strip, “seizing territory, hitting the terrorists and destroying the infrastructure”. Earlier that day, his defence minister, Israel Katz, had announced that troops would “seize extensive territory” in Gaza for “security zones”.

    We asked Scott Lucas, an expert in the Middle East conflict at University College Dublin, to explain the key issues that led to the renewed offensive and what the prospects are for Gaza.

    Was a new ground offensive always on the cards, even with the ceasefire in place?

    The Netanyahu government’s resumption of the ground offensive in Gaza was almost inevitable once it refused to move from phase one of the ceasefire, which involved the exchange of hostages held by Hamas for Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons, to phase two.

    A second phase was never going to be agreed by Netanyahu. Beyond his personal opposition to the requisite Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, powerful hard-right ministers in his government had made clear that their acceptance of phase one was conditioned on no phase two and on a return to military operations.

    But with no phase two, the requirement for a functioning government in the Strip has been abandoned, even as Hamas remains.

    So Israel either had to maintain its “open-ended” war in Gaza of bombing without end, or establish an occupation of at least part of the besieged territory. That suits the hard right and those officials who had always favoured an Israeli military government in the area.

    Does Netanyahu care about the legality of what he’s doing?

    Netanyahu cares about his political and legal survival. Throughout the 18-month-long Israeli assault, I have said that if Netanyahu stops without achieving his stated goal of “destroying” Hamas and returning the hostages, he faces early elections and his trial on bribery charges.

    It is therefore in his interests to hesitate, waver and confuse. That is still true today. So, amid the demands by the hard right, Netanyahu has to maintain his government with the claim that he has established “security” through indefinite occupation.

    Can he sell this to the Israeli public?

    That’s the big question. At this point, Netanyahu can only be stopped from within Israel, not from outside it.

    A portion of the Israeli public will continue to support the war. Some will support occupation in lieu of a war. Some even back the hard-right’s goal of “cleansing” Gaza of its residents.

    But others will see this move as Netanyahu abandoning the priority of securing the return of the 59 hostages who are still held in Gaza. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which represents most captives’ relatives, fear that the decision to resume the war has put the hostages at possibly grave risk.

    In a statement, the group said it was “horrified” to wake up to “the defence minister’s announcement about expanding military operations in Gaza”. “Our highest priority must be an immediate deal to bring ALL hostages back home – the living for rehabilitation and those killed for proper burial – and end this war.”

    The problem for Netanyahu is that 70% of Israelis, whatever their position on the war, say that they do not trust his government. Even among voters who support the coalition, only 51% have faith in it, and 36% do not.

    Almost 70% of respondents want a return of all the hostages in return for an end to the war. And just over 20% favour a continued assault as the priority.

    Where is the Trump White House in all this?

    Fully supporting the Netanyahu government. In October, Donald Trump told Netanyahu in a phone call: “Bibi, do what you have to do.” This effectively gave Netanyahu a blank cheque to pursue the destruction of Hamas in Gaza once Trump returned to the White House.

    There was a brief interlude when Trump took full credit for the limited truce between Israel and Hamas in January. Through his envoy, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, Trump pressed Netanyahu to accept a deal.

    But once phase one of the ceasefire had dissolved, Trump and his officials were going to be fully behind the resumption of Israel’s assault on Hamas, with the highest price to be paid by the Gazan people.

    Trump posted a “last warning” to Hamas in early March via his Truth Social platform: “I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say.”

    He added: “Release all of the hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you.”

    What about the Arab states?

    When Israel renewed airstrikes in mid-March, Saudi Arabia stressed “the urgent need for an immediate cessation of Israeli killings, violence and destruction, as well as the protection of Palestinian civilians from the unjust Israeli war machine.” Jordan denounced the “extremely dangerous step”.

    Egypt concentrated on trying to revive the ceasefire process and other states, such as the United Arab Emirates remained silent – a reticence that has continued as the Netanyahu government announced the resumption of the ground offensive.

    Even if the Arab states wanted to get involved beyond rhetorical tut-tutting, I am not sure what they can do to check the Israelis.

    Resisting occupation would have to be done either through the backing of Hamas’s resistance or through the establishment of an alternative administration. The former is anathema to most Arab states, and there is no prospect of the latter.

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

    – ref. Why is Israel expanding its offensive in Gaza and what does it mean for the Middle East? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/why-is-israel-expanding-its-offensive-in-gaza-and-what-does-it-mean-for-the-middle-east-expert-qanda-253667

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: This mucus-loving gut bacteria is important for health – here’s how to keep it happy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Crouch, Research Fellow, Institute of Microbiology and Infection, Department of Microbes, Infection and Microbiomes, School of Infection, Inflammation and Immunology, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham

    _A muciniphila_ needs fibre-rich foods for fuel. marilyn barbone/ Shutterstock

    The microbial community living within our large intestine is a highly dense and complex ecosystem. While some of these microbes cause illness and disease (such as bacteria and viruses), others are friendlier to us and help keep us in good health.

    Akkermansia muciniphila is one of these friendly bacteria.

    Researchers have known for years that A muciniphila is associated with good health. One of the important roles it plays in our gut is maintaining the function of our gut barrier. This keeps the bad bugs out while making sure we can still absorb the important nutrients from our diet that keep our cells working as they should. But when there’s an imbalance of A muciniphila in the gut, it can lead to problems with our health.

    This unusual bacteria lives in our large intestine and survives off of mucin — the layer of mucus that covers the large intestine’s surface.

    Mucin provides a small but important separation between the human cells and microbial cells that call the large intestine home. If this mucus layer is disrupted, microbes can come into direct contact with the human cells. This may result in inflammation as the human cells react to the bacteria – potentially leading to the development of disease, such as inflammatory bowel disease.

    Akkermansia muciniphila is a very fussy eater. It only uses the glycoproteins (molecules containing protein and carbohydrates) in mucin as an energy source. But just how this bacteria extracted energy from glycoproteins was a mystery until recently. Research conducted by myself and colleagues discovered that A muciniphila deploys a range of different enzymes that work together in order to unlock the sugar found in mucin.

    Using mucin taken from a pig, we analysed both enzyme activity on the surface of cells alongside their genes to understand which enzymes were involved in breaking the glycoproteins in mucin down.

    We discovered that A muciniphila uses 66 different enzymes to extract the important energy it needs from the glycoproteins in order to do its important work. We are the first group to describe this process.

    Important for health

    Studies looking at A muciniphila’s interaction with the immune system in mice have revealed that it calms the immune system down and may prevent obesity and diabetes from developing.

    Researchers have highlighted specific peptides (a type of molecule) that it secretes which have this effect on the immune system. Due to its friendly nature and calming effect on the immune system, Akkermansia muciniphila has even been used to develop probiotics.

    Akkermansia muciniphila lives in the large intestine.
    nobeastsofierce/ Shutterstock

    Researchers have also found that people who have a metabolic disease, such as diabetes or fatty liver disease, have fewer Akkermansia muciniphila in their large intestine. The more lean and athletic you are, the more A muciniphila you have.

    Although Akkermansia muciniphila only eats mucus, our diet does still affect it – though indirectly.

    Colon-dwelling bacteria such as A muciniphila use the carbohydrates they extract from the fibre-rich foods in our diet as fuel. In return they produce substances called short-chain fatty acids. These compounds feed the top layer of human cells in the colon. In fact, 10% of our energy comes from this process.

    Akkermansia muciniphila also supports other bacterial species in the microbiome by giving them broken-up mucus so they can survive – a process known as “cross feeding”. But, if we don’t eat enough fibre as part of our diet, mucins become a much more heavily used source of nutrition.

    This can lead to the depletion of the large intestine’s mucus layer – throwing the microbiome’s delicate ecosystem out of balance. This increases the chance of developing inflammatory diseases. So, although Akkermansia muciniphila is not a pathogen, it can remove too much mucus under the wrong conditions.

    Our research is the first complete example of how mucus is broken down by this bacterial species. It’s important to understand this process, as it’s key in the way our microbes interact with each other – and with us. The enzymes that we described from Akkermansia muciniphila can now also be used as tools to analyse how these complex mucin structures vary across different body sites and between people.

    The more researchers learn about Akkermansia muciniphila and the other microbes that live in the colon, the more we understand the importance of eating a variable, high-fibre diet.

    Lucy Crouch receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences.

    – ref. This mucus-loving gut bacteria is important for health – here’s how to keep it happy – https://theconversation.com/this-mucus-loving-gut-bacteria-is-important-for-health-heres-how-to-keep-it-happy-248829

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The bizarre-looking dinosaur challenging what we know about the evolution of fingers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Milly Mead, PhD student in Palaeontology and Evolution, University of Edinburgh

    The oviraptorosaur looked like a large bird. Danny Ye/Shutterstock

    Oviraptorosaurs are weird dinosaurs, which look a bit like flightless birds. But these ancient animals aren’t just funny looking fossils. As my team’s new research shows, they can help us understand how our own forelimbs evolved and challenge what scientists think about the T rex.

    Covered in feathers and equipped with a strong, sharp beak, oviraptorosaurs ranged in size from a house cat to a giraffe. They could easily be mistaken for birds if not for the sharp claws on their hands. The oviraptorosaurs lived during the Cretaceous period (between 145 and 66 million years ago) and belonged to a group of dinosaurs called theropods. This is a group of mainly meat-eating dinosaurs with hollow bones that includes the T rex and velociraptor.

    Theropod dinosaurs and humans share a common feature: we walk on two legs and use our front limbs for functions other than walking. Although some dinosaurs – the birds – stretched their forelimbs into wings and used them for flight, others, shrunk them instead. Short forelimbs, missing one or more fingers are most famous in the T rex, but many other theropods also evolved shorter arms and hands.

    Fossil of an oviraptorosaur.
    vipinrajmg/Shutterstock

    The widespread view among scientists of their shrunken forelimbs as “useless” comes from a 1979 paper. It argues evolution selected for increased head and hindlimb size in the T rex and the arms became smaller as an evolutionary byproduct. So, when my team at the University of Edinburgh analysed patterns of arm evolution in a group of oviraptorosaurs, we expected to find that forelimb reduction and finger loss would be linked.

    Instead, we found the opposite. Our study is the latest example of growing evidence that the reduced forelimbs of certain theropods retained some kind of function. Until now, many palaeontologists assumed dinosaurs which evolved shorter arms and lost their fingers did so because they weren’t using them.

    Oviraptorosaurs are the perfect group to study finger loss in theropods. Although modern birds did not evolve directly from oviraptorosaurs, they share many features with them. Oviraptorosaurs had toothless beaks, they were covered in feathers, and they sat on carefully constructed nests, with their eggs arranged in neat rings and partly buried. Most of these dinosaurs had long arms with three clawed fingers on each hand, perfect for grasping prey. With one exception.

    Oksoko avarsan had stumpy arms and only two functional fingers. It lived in Mongolia during the Late Cretaceous period (about 72-66 million years ago) and would have shared its habitat with a gigantic relative of the T rex called Tarbosaurus. Oksoko did – technically – have a third digit but it was a useless leftover from a time when their ancestors needed all three fingers. In fact, Oksoko’s hands and forelimbs are far more similar to a T rex or a Tarbosaurus than to any of its oviraptorosaurian cousins.

    Oksoko avarsan had stumpy arms.
    Ddinodan/Wikimedia, CC BY-NC

    It’s important to understand how theropod forelimbs evolved because they are some of the only animals, alongside humans, to become bipedal. This means they no longer rely on their forelimbs for moving around, whether that’s by walking, climbing, or flying. Their arms were free to evolve new functions. Many of them used their long arms and fingers for grasping. Others, like Oksoko, explored different and more specialised functions.

    My team’s research, which analysed how the length of each arm bone changed over time, shows that these dinosaurs lost their third finger in a separate process to the shortening of their arms. This goes against the idea that their arms were functionless. If their forelimbs shrunk because the oviraptorosaurs were not using them, their fingers and forelimbs should have become shorter at the same time. Instead, their arms seem to have shrunk first.

    Previous research shows one group of oviraptorosaurs, called the Heyuanninae, expanded their range during the Late Cretaceous (about 100-94 million years ago). They moved from the area that is now southern China into the Gobi Desert in northern China and southern Mongolia. The reduction in arm length coincided with this expansion in their range.

    Then Oksoko lost its third finger. Although some other closely related oviraptorosaurs had relatively short third fingers, in none of them was it as reduced as in Oksoko.

    Forelimb reduction and finger loss in this group of dinosaurs could have been caused by the new habitat. Once they had moved into the Gobi Desert, they would have come up against new survival challenges. For example, they might have had to adapt to new food sources or different predators. Something about their new habitat favoured dinosaurs with shorter arms and fewer fingers, causing them to evolve their stumpy, two-fingered forelimbs.

    We think they started using their arms for a whole new purpose. It’s possible Oksoko used its arms for digging. Oksoko might have lost its third finger, but its first finger is another story. This digit is thick and strong-looking, with a large claw on the end. We can see scars and ridges where its muscles used to be attached to its bones. These show that Oksoko had strong arms.

    Rather than reaching and grasping like other oviraptorosaurs, Oksoko could have used its small but mighty forelimbs for scratch-digging. This could have been useful for finding food, such as plant roots and burrowing insects, or for building nests in the ground.

    The holotype fossil (the fossil which leads to the naming of a new species) of Oksoko was the most important fossil in our analysis. Originally found by poachers in Mongolia, this fossil was nearly lost to science. Authorities rescued it at the border of Mongolia in 2006 and it was taken to the Institute of Palaeontology, but wasn’t fully studied until 2020. It was Oksoko’s strange two-digit forelimbs that made us want to investigate finger evolution.

    Despite the similarities in the size and shape of their forelimbs, it unlikely that T rex and Oksoko used their arms for the same thing. Oksoko was a small herbivore. T rex was a giant carnivore – it was so massive that it couldn’t have reached the ground to dig, even if it tried. But Oksoko shows us that theropod forelimbs can get shorter and lose digits without becoming functionless. And that begs the question: are T rex’s arms as useless as they’re often portrayed?

    My team’s new research shows that our initial assumption – that forelimb and digit reduction are caused by function loss in oviraptorosaurs – is probably wrong. Instead, arm-shrinking and finger loss seem to be caused by adaptation to a new environment and the adoption of a new function. This is an example of how evolution can mould forelimbs to suit different habitats and uses.

    It is also a step forward in understanding how theropods evolved such an amazing diversity of forelimb shapes and sizes.

    Milly Mead receives funding from the Swedish Research Council.

    – ref. The bizarre-looking dinosaur challenging what we know about the evolution of fingers – https://theconversation.com/the-bizarre-looking-dinosaur-challenging-what-we-know-about-the-evolution-of-fingers-253259

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –