Category: Report

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why does Mark Zuckerberg want more ‘masculine energy’ in the corporate world? The patriarchy is still in charge

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ashley Morgan, Masculinities Scholar, Cardiff Metropolitan University

    Fabrizio Canneti/Shutterstock

    Out of Mark Zuckerberg’s three-hour interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast, one comment stood out to me. The Meta CEO said that large companies needed more “masculine energy”, because the corporate world was becoming “culturally neutered”.

    “I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive,” he told Rogan. After the interview, numerous commentators rushed to accuse the Meta CEO of toxic masculinity, and of having a “toxic revamp”.

    Zuckerberg has previously discussed his love of martial arts and butchering his own meat – anecdotes that can be seen to promote a view of masculinity steeped in archaic rhetoric about male aggression and strength.

    Toxic masculinity is generally defined as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence”. This definition was used to describe men in prison by psychiatrist Terry Kupers in 2005, but he also argued that these traits were present in the male population at large.

    Yet arguably, Zuckerberg’s comment is reflective of a certain form of patriarchy rather than simply toxic masculinity.

    In a patriarchy, men’s power over women is the norm, embedded in the cultural and economic systems that men have built and in which they thrive, and from which women are frequently excluded. Many academics, myself included, have been at pains to define toxic masculinity as distinctive from patriarchy – not all qualities associated with male power (think leadership, strength) are necessarily “toxic”.

    Indeed, research has shown that in many circles, masculinity has become more inclusive of different views of “how to be a man”. But Zuckerberg’s comments show that a specific view of masculinity as aggressive still holds power in the most influential spaces. As a result, the distinction between toxic masculinity and patriarchy becomes blurred.

    How patriarchy harms men and women

    In a patriarchy, even if only a few men are in charge, all men benefit from the unequal treatment of women, which is known as the patriarchal dividend. Even if some men are not obviously powerful, they will benefit from things like certain jobs or university courses being more male-orientated.

    Patriarchy has a long history, and as men began wars and fought for domination, ideas about differences between men and women became more pronounced. These ideas are reflected today in gender stereotypes, like the view that women are more caring and nurturing, and men are naturally violent and aggressive.

    These norms, which are perpetuated by parents and society from birth, harm men as well as women, for example by communicating to boys that they must be aggressive and cannot share their emotions. It also makes things more difficult for people of all genders who challenge norms of gender and sexuality.

    They also create a smokescreen around what men and women are “good at” in terms of the workplace. That there are more men in the tech industry doesn’t mean that men are better at technologically sophisticated work than women are. It’s simply that men have greater opportunities than women do.

    This is arguably evident in statistics that show women are vastly underrepresented in computing, maths and IT roles. By saying that companies need more “aggression” and “masculine energy”, Zuckerberg sends an even stronger message that women aren’t welcome.




    Read more:
    Mark Zuckerberg thinks workplaces need to ‘man up’ − here’s why that’s bad for all employees, no matter their gender


    Threats to patriarchy

    It is difficult to argue that Zuckerberg’s business has been “neutered”, when Meta made a net profit of US$62 billion (£50 billion) in 2024. But this is a compelling narrative to men who feel that their position at the top might be under threat.

    One of the things that men who benefit from patriarchy fear is losing power. This is reflected in recent political trends. In the US, this fear has been abated by Donald Trump winning the election, while displaying traditionally strong-man practices of misogyny, entitlement and wealth.

    This might further explain why in the UK, self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate claims he is interested in running for prime minister. In many cases, whoever is in power sets the tone for what brand of patriarchy is considered dominant.




    Read more:
    Trump represents a specific type of masculinity – and it’s dangerous for women


    Much of this is part of a backlash to the apparent gains women have made. A recent survey of young people in the UK found that 45% of male respondents aged 13 to 27 said “we have gone so far in promoting women’s equality that we are discriminating against men”.

    Indeed, Zuckerberg commented to Rogan that the world had “swung culturally” to a view that “masculinity is toxic and we have to get rid of it completely”. I would argue that it’s not about getting rid of masculinity, but about recognising that there can be more than one way of being a man.

    Patriarchy is a hegemonic system, meaning that men being in a more powerful position than women is accepted by both as “the natural order of things”. It is also bolstered by views on race and ability that hold white, rich, able-bodied men at the top. That this is socially valued in US politics today is evident in who was given pride of place at Trump’s inauguration: Zuckerberg and his fellow “broligarchs” Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

    But what figures like Zuckerberg should remember is that a rigid view of masculinity and “masculine energy” is harmful to men as well, despite the ways in which they benefit from patriarchy. It is known to lead to shutting down emotions in men and even suicide. Not to mention that hypermasculine energy can have a negative effect on workplaces, including leading to burnout and bullying.

    Zuckerberg himself took paternity leave after the birth of his first daughter. He must know that it is possible for masculinity to be composed of things other than aggression – but perhaps he needs reminding.

    Ashley Morgan 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 does Mark Zuckerberg want more ‘masculine energy’ in the corporate world? The patriarchy is still in charge – https://theconversation.com/why-does-mark-zuckerberg-want-more-masculine-energy-in-the-corporate-world-the-patriarchy-is-still-in-charge-248600

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine: prospects for peace are slim unless Europe grips the reality of Trump’s world

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

    When EU leaders gathered for their first ever meeting solely dedicated to defence issues on February 3, in Brussels, the war in Ukraine was uppermost on their minds. Yet, three weeks before the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine is only the tip of an iceberg of security challenges that Europe faces.

    War on a scale not seen in Europe since 1945 has returned to the continent. Russian sabotage of everything from critical infrastructure to elections is at levels reminiscent of the cold war. And the future of the EU’s most important defence alliance, Nato, is uncertain.

    In light of these challenges alone, let alone the ongoing instability in the Middle East, western Balkans and south Caucasus, it’s hard to disagree with the observation by EU council president António Costa that: “Europe needs to assume greater responsibility for its own defence.”

    But it’s hardly a groundbreaking statement. And at the end of proceedings, the outcome of what was ultimately only an informal meeting, was underwhelmingly summarised by Costa as “progress in our discussions on building the Europe of defence”.

    This does not bode well for Ukraine. US support is unlikely to continue at the levels reached during the final months of the Biden administration. In fact, ongoing debates in the White House on Ukraine policy have already caused some disruption to arms shipments from Washington to Kyiv.

    Building blocs

    If there is a silver lining for Ukraine here, it is Trump’s continuous search for a good deal. His latest idea is that Ukraine could pay for US support with favourable concessions on rare earths, and potentially other strategic resources.

    These would include preferential deals to supply the US with titanium, iron ore and coal, as well as critical minerals, including lithium. Whether this is a sustainable basis for US support in the long term is as unclear as whether it will make any material difference to Trump thinking beyond a ceasefire.

    The other ray of hope for Ukraine is that there is a much greater recognition in EU capitals now about the need for a common European approach to defence. A greater focus on building a “coalition of the willing” including non-EU members UK and Norway is a potentially promising path.

    But hope, as they say, is not a winning strategy. In a Trump-like transactional fashion, Brussels – in exchange for a deal on defence with London – is insisting on UK concessions on youth mobility and fishing rights. It’s unlikely that this will prove an insurmountable stumbling bloc, but it will create yet more delays at a moment when time is of the essence for Europe as a whole to signal determination about security and defence.

    This is further complicated by two factors. On the one hand, there is the looming threat of a trade war between the US and the EU. That the UK may still be able to avoid a similar fate, according to Trump, feels like good news for London. But it will also put the UK in a potentially awkward position as it seeks an ambitious post-Brexit reset with the EU and harbours hopes to improve relations with China.

    With Trump clearly hostile towards both Brussels and Beijing, this may become an impossible balancing act for the British government to pull off.

    Europe’s fragile unity

    On the other hand, EU unity has become more fragile. Trump’s victory has emboldened other populist leaders in Europe – notably the significantly more pro-Russian Slovak and Hungarian prime ministers, Robert Fico and Viktor Orbán. The same applies to the UK, where Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party – which has overtaken the ruling Labour party in the latest public opinion polls – is known for his Ukraine-sceptical views.

    To that equation add a weak government in France and the likelihood of protracted coalition negotiations in Germany after hotly contested parliamentary elections at the end of February. The prospects for decisive EU and wider European action on strengthening its own security and defence capabilities right now appear vanishingly slim.

    Seen in the light of such multiple and complex challenges, it is astonishing how much the EU is still trapped in a wishful thinking exercise – and one that appears more and more disconnected from reality. Contrary to Costa’s fulsome pronouncements after the EU leaders’ meeting, there is little evidence that the US under Trump will remain Europe’s friend, ally and partner.

    There’s also little to suggest that the American president shares the values and principles that once underpinned the now rapidly dismantling international order. Other countries’ national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of their borders are not at the forefront of Trump’s foreign policy doctrine.

    If, as Costa proclaimed, “peace in Europe depends on Ukraine winning a comprehensive, just and lasting peace”, then the future looks bleak indeed for Europe and Ukraine. At this point the EU and its member states are a long way off from being able to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to win. This is not just because they lack the military and defence-industrial capabilities. They also lack a credible, shared vision of how to acquire them while navigating a Trumpian world.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    ref. Ukraine: prospects for peace are slim unless Europe grips the reality of Trump’s world – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-prospects-for-peace-are-slim-unless-europe-grips-the-reality-of-trumps-world-248911

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Democrats are switching off the news – a psychologist explains

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Many Democrats appear to be switching off mainstream news channels and other media, following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election.

    Around 72% of Democrats say they feel a need to limit their consumption of news about politics and government, according to a recent poll by AP-NORC.

    Research has highlighted the negative effects of news avoidance (resistance to, or avoidance of, news) on people’s political knowledge and civic engagement, the cornerstones of democratic thought and action.

    Research also shows what prompts news avoidance generally – and the return of Trump may be increasing the percentage of people in the US who are turning away from news and current affairs.

    Research from the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland measured how news avoidance varied across several nations between 2016 and 2019. It also attempted to identify the drivers of news avoidance.

    Researchers found the proportion of consumers who actively avoided the news varied significantly from one country to another – and for some, it was temporary.

    In their sample of five countries, they found news avoidance was highest in Argentina (45%) and the US (41%) and lowest in Finland (17%) and Japan (11%), with Israel somewhere in between. The US, it seems, has always been high but there are some suggestions it is getting worse.

    People made conscious decisions about what news to consume and what to avoid, given the amount of news available. News overload and cognitive fatigue (where people feel worn out by the amount of news they feel they should listen to) were especially important when there was intense national news focus on certain individuals. Examples of this could be coverage of the corruption case involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, or Trump’s recent stream of executive orders.

    But factors can vary. The study found that in Japan, the main cognitive driver was “a reluctance to discuss or be exposed to subjective and often extreme opinions”. In Argentina, it was a distrust of politicians generally.

    However, emotional factors were also critical to news avoidance. Many interviewees reported feeling emotional distress, sadness, fear and anger with certain types of negative news, to the extent that it sometimes affected their mental health.

    But emotional factors also affect specific behaviour. News avoidance can become “news aversion” (more emotional, more visceral), turning away from the news not because of some deliberate rational judgment (“I’ll reduce my viewing a little, according to American Psychological Association guidelines”) but because of overwhelming feelings of anxiety or disgust when confronted by certain stories or individuals.

    Disgust is a powerful negative emotion linked to very quick responding, and could create a need to turn away from something immediately. Feelings of anxiety may be linked to images of political figures, for instance.

    I have just finished writing a book exploring climate anxiety. For some, this can be a debilitating form of anxiety, and it is growing globally especially among young people. It can be overwhelming, affecting study, work and sleep.

    What can you do about news avoidance?

    The recent image of Trump yelling that “we’re going to drill, baby, drill” has been implanted in the minds of many who suffer from climate anxiety, possibly intensifying their distress.

    For many Democrats, the aftermath of Trump’s victory was emotionally devastating. On October 24 2024 (two weeks before the election), an open letter was published in the New York Times signed by 233 mental health professionals with the following warning: “We have an ethical duty to warn the public that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy. His symptoms of severe, untreatable personality disorder – malignant narcissism – makes him deceitful, destructive, deluded and dangerous. He is grossly unfit for leadership.”

    For Democrats in particular, Trump may display many negative features including his lack of remorse or self-awareness, his break from traditional political norms and use of populist, nationalist rhetoric, or his rejection of civil discourse in favour of divisive and inflammatory language.

    So Trump’s victory seemed, to many Democrats, to signal the triumph of ignorance, bigotry and authoritarianism. An emotional response from them was always likely, and chimes with this avoiding of news.

    Cognitive dissonance

    Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that when individuals are confronted with information (in this case from Trump) that contradicts their deeply held beliefs but they still sit and listen dutifully, this can create considerable psychological discomfort.

    To reduce this discomfort, people often engage in behaviour that avoids or minimises this conflict. But they can’t change their political views, and they can’t change Trump or his policies (he has got an incredibly powerful mandate), so that leaves few other options. Or perhaps just one: avoiding the relentless media cycle of Trump’s tweets, policies, pronouncements, presidential pardons, and executive orders.

    By switching off, Democrats – and even some Republicans – can temporarily ease the cognitive dissonance they feel, and this may allow some emotional relief.

    Moreover, this avoidance might help protect them against the further erosion of their political and social identity. They might feel that if they continue to consume news that reaffirms Trump’s power, or as if they are accepting their defeat and their misreading of the American public and, by extension, the legitimacy of his presidency.

    But where will that disengagement take them? And how easy will it be for them to overcome their visceral response to reengage, to reassert themselves and fight back? It’s always more difficult when thoughts and emotion are so tightly intertwined like this.

    But for US Democrats, engagement based on accurate information is critical for the ongoing democratic process, regardless of how painful this might feel right now.

    Geoff Beattie 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 Democrats are switching off the news – a psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/why-democrats-are-switching-off-the-news-a-psychologist-explains-248512

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How citizen science is shaping international conservation

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sasha Woods, Director of Science and Policy, Earthwatch Institute (Europe)

    Testing the River Gade in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Citizen science is a powerful tool for involving more people in research. By influencing policy, it is transforming conservation at global, national and local levels.

    Citizen science actively encourages non-scientists to be a part of the scientific research process. Sometimes the terminology gets confusing. We say “non-scientists” but through taking part in citizen science projects, people become scientists – they’re just not professionally involved in the research.

    It’s also worth noting that the “citizen” in citizen science is completely unrelated to ideas of national citizenship. Put simply, it’s science by the people for the people.

    Citizen scientists can take part in every stage of the research process. Depending on the project, participants can write the research questions, choose the methods, collect the data, analyse and interpret the results, and share the research as widely as possible. By broadening people’s understanding of scientific problems and solutions, citizen science can act as a powerful catalyst for change.

    It is already making an impact across lots of disciplines, including conservation, by addressing barriers to policy change such as lack of evidence and low levels of public engagement and input. While it’s not yet common for citizen science to directly influence policy, in our research we’ve seen how citizen science can shape policy at every scale: through promoting policy, monitoring progress towards policy or advocating for policy enforcement.

    At a local level, citizen science can influence policy and transform conservation science. The clean air coalition of western New York is a group of citizens concerned about smells and smoke, and their connection to chronic health problems in the community. The group collected samples in 2004 to determine what was in the air and presented this data to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

    In response, the DEC monitored air pollutants in four locations in the city of Tonawanda for a year between 2007 and 2008 – an investigation which formed the basis for compliance monitoring and regulatory actions. As a direct result of citizen science, the Tonawanda Coke Corporation agreed to improve its operations, monitor for leaks and upgrade pollution controls. By December 2019, levels of carcinogenic benzene had dropped 92% since the end of DEC’s sampling in 2008.

    Citizen science can also run at the national level. For example, the annual Big Butterfly Count, run by the Butterfly Conservation charity, encourages people in the UK to advocate for conservation policy by counting butterflies.

    Over 25 days in July and August 2024, 85,000 volunteers recorded their sightings, with alarming results. Average butterfly numbers were at their lowest in the survey’s 14-year history.

    The charity and its citizen scientists called on the UK government to ban pesticides that can harm butterflies and bees. And on January 23 2025, the government confirmed that, for the first time in five years, an emergency application for the use of a neonicotinoid pesticide on sugar beet in England will not be granted.

    The government highlighted that the decision was “based on robust assessments of environmental, health and economic risks and benefits” and, although not explicitly stated, it is clear that citizen scientists contributed to those assessments.

    Going global

    Citizen science also contributes data to international conservation policies. For example, the UN incorporates citizen science data into two of its largest environmental policy frameworks: the sustainable development goals (SDGs) – a set of targets to end poverty, protect the environment, and promote prosperity for all people – and the Kunming-Montreal agreement, which aims to halt and reverse biodiversity decline.

    As part of our work at the European branch of the Earthwatch Institute research organisation, we’re involved with a global water quality monitoring project called FreshWater Watch. This project has successfully engaged communities and governments in Sierra Leone and Zambia to collect data on the proportion of rivers and lakes with good water quality within a country. Over time, this indicator can be used to measure progress towards the SDG for clean water and sanitation.

    A volunteer tests water quality at Faendre Reen near Cardiff.
    Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Currently, only five of the 231 indicators used to measure progress for the SDGs include citizen science data. But recent research suggests such projects could contribute to up to 33% of these indicators and over half of the 365 indicators for the global biodiversity framework.

    And even where citizen science data is not used in official monitoring towards policy, it can still transform conservation science by educating people and empowering them to advocate for change.

    The Great UK WaterBlitz is a national example of this. WaterBlitzes are four-day campaigns in which volunteers assess the water quality of local rivers, ponds and lakes, using simple-but-reliable testing kits for nitrates and phosphates.

    Nitrates and phosphates occur naturally in the environment and are essential for plant growth. But high concentrations found in sewage and agricultural runoff trigger a process called eutrophication: an overgrowth of algae which leads to increased levels of bacteria and, therefore, decreased oxygen concentrations, which harms aquatic plants and animals.

    Citizen scientists used these simple testing kits to assess water quality.
    Sasha Woods/Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Our team has used such testing kits in river catchments for over 10 years, but recently expanded to a UK-wide campaign. In September 2024, we ran our largest event to date, with 4,500 participants investigating 2,300 locations. This created a national snapshot of freshwater health at a granular scale, which we have used to highlight pollution hotspots to the Environment Agency (EA).

    Although this data is not yet used for official monitoring or the development of conservation policy, its contribution to improving water ecosystems is increasingly acknowledged. As the EA’s deputy director for monitoring, insight and innovation told the Guardian: “The Environment Agency values the contribution of England’s growing network of citizen scientists and welcomes the Great UK WaterBlitz and other initiatives that complement our own research, monitoring and assessment work.”

    Despite demonstrating valuable contributions to research – particularly by providing robust datasets – citizen science still faces multiple challenges. The engagement, motivation and retention of volunteers is resource-intensive, and citizen science is not particularly well funded.

    And even though citizen science methods are frequently validated by laboratory scientists, policymakers can still be hesitant to integrate this into their monitoring frameworks, due to often unfounded concerns about the data’s quality and reliability.

    But citizen science is already influencing conservation. This will only increase as policymakers recognise it as a legitimate and valuable scientific approach. And because there are citizen science projects all over the world, anyone can be a part of this positive change.


    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.


    Sasha Woods works for Earthwatch Europe.

    Stephen Parkinson works for Earthwatch Europe.

    ref. How citizen science is shaping international conservation – https://theconversation.com/how-citizen-science-is-shaping-international-conservation-247033

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: September 5: tense and taut drama vividly recreates the Munich massacre

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Barry Langford, Professor of Film Studies, Royal Holloway University of London

    In the 21st-century, it’s become horrifyingly normal for terrorist atrocities to play out over live visual media. Countless millions watched the fall of the twin towers on television in September 2001. The 2019 Christchurch mass murderer live streamed his assault on Facebook Live. Hamas commandos on October 7 wore bodycams.

    Director Tim Fehlbaum’s new film September 5 vividly recreates the historical moment when this relationship arguably snapped into sharp focus for the first time. The US network ABC’s live coverage of the Black September attack on the Israeli team at the 1972 Munich Olympics introduced the term “terrorist” to many viewers for the first time.

    The Munich attack unfolded over a single day and culminated in the murder of all nine Israeli hostages. Two athletes were also killed during the initial attack on their residence, as were all of the Palestinian gunmen during a firefight with West German police.

    There have been numerous film and television treatments of the Munich attack. One of the best-known is Kevin Macdonald’s Oscar-winning 1999 documentary One Day in September, which prosecutes the negligence and incompetence of the German authorities. Another is Steven Spielberg’s drama Munich (2005). A heavily fictionalised account of the Mossad reprisals against Palestinians allegedly associated with the Munich attack, it includes a detailed and graphic flashback of the massacre itself.

    The trailer for September 5.

    Fehlbaum opts against providing another synoptic overview of this well-known sequence of events. Instead, September 5 focuses exclusively on the ABC Sports team whose assignment switched in an instant from broadcasting the achievements of record-breaking athletes to covering the unfolding crisis and its bloody denouement.

    Running a tense and taut 94 minutes, the drama unfolds almost entirely within the cramped, sweaty confines of the ABC control room. Located adjacent to the athletes’ village, the sports reporters must suddenly adapt to documenting actual, not sporting, disaster. We share their perspective on the unravelling catastrophe, from a distance, trying to cut through the chaotic and confused stream of conflicting information, all filtered through the cumbersome broadcast technologies of the time.

    Decades before smartphones and the internet, ABC Sports chief Roone Arledge (Peter Sarsgaard) and inexperienced director Geoffrey Mason (John Magaro) battle myriad challenges. They haggle with rival networks for scarce satellite time (live satellite transmission was used for the first time at the Munich Games). They struggle to manoeuvre a weighty studio camera rig outdoors to gain a precious live feed on the apartment where the athletes are being held hostage. They even have to turn around magazines of 16mm film (in 1972 still the standard format for TV news reporting) in just minutes from negative to broadcast-ready clips.

    The meticulous period recreation, low-light filming and handheld camerawork lend the film an immediacy and a grainy intensity. It recalls classic journalistic 1970s thrillers such as All the President’s Men (1976).

    The unit transforms from a hardworking but relaxed outfit choosing whether to cover water polo or “soccer” to a team covering a grimly determined band of brothers (and one crucial sister, German translator Marianne, played by Leonie Benesch). Overcoming the odds to pursue the story to its bitter end, the story takes on the quality of a classic platoon movie.

    The film’s real focus is not so much the technical, but rather the novel ethical challenges the team must confront and decide, live and on-air. The young Peter Jennings (an uncanny impersonation by Benjamin Walker) is their sole trained news correspondent. But the sports crew need to parse the complex contexts of the conflict for a home audience far less steeped than today’s in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

    At the same time, they must fend off the intrusions of West German authorities increasingly panicked by the unfolding PR catastrophe, as Jews once again fall victim on German soil, less than three decades after the Holocaust.


    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.


    Meanwhile, it becomes increasingly clear that the Palestinian guerrillas have chosen the Olympics precisely because of the opportunity to stage their cause to a global audience. Hence, the broadcasters are inescapably complicit in the crisis. They’re not simply reporters, but participants.

    In the film’s highest stakes sequence – and a moment of head-spinning reflexivity – the team become aware the terrorists are watching their live broadcast. It means they are able to see the German police manoeuvring into place as they ineptly prepare a rescue.

    Predictably, the pressure to nail the story in an era of scarce information collides with the ethical imperative to get the story right. This leads to the film’s grim climax, where Arledge initially directs anchor Jim McKay (seen only in archive broadcast footage) to repeat the German authorities’ claim that the hostages have been successfully rescued. Only to have to go back on his words when the awful truth emerges and McKay is forced into his famous declaration: “They’re all gone.”

    In the aftermath, the reporters must prepare for another day’s work, while wondering to what degree they may have contributed to the disaster. September 5 is all the more powerful for leaving us, like its protagonists, without ready answers to the weighty questions it so deftly raises, and which have become only more pressing over half a century later.

    Barry Langford 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. September 5: tense and taut drama vividly recreates the Munich massacre – https://theconversation.com/september-5-tense-and-taut-drama-vividly-recreates-the-munich-massacre-248725

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to outwit gambling adverts by ‘inoculating’ people against them

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jamie Torrance, Lecturer and Researcher in Psychology, Swansea University

    Gambling companies spend an estimated £1.5 billion annually on ad campaigns in the UK alone. Maxx-Studio/Shutterstock

    In a world awash with enticing promises of quick riches and thrilling wins, gambling advertisements have practically become inescapable. These meticulously crafted promotions aim to tap into the hearts and minds of consumers persuading them to gamble – whether that means starting or keeping going.

    With gambling advertising showing no signs of abating, and gambling addiction an ongoing problem across the UK, it is vital that consumers are given tools to resist. Our recent research has found that a targeted approach using “counteradvertising” videos can help people combat these persuasive tactics.

    Gambling advertisements portray gambling in a consistently positive light. They emphasise wins over losses and integrate logos into sporting events, exploiting fans’ emotional bonds with their teams and favourite athletes. For example, our previous research found that an average of 1,565 gambling logos were visible via pitch-side hoardings and on players’ kit during each English Premier League match in the 2022-23 season.

    They also widely promote financial incentives like “free bets”. These are promotions typically giving customers a chance to place a bet without using their own money.

    These incentives often come with opaque terms and conditions, encouraging riskier and potentially more harmful betting behaviour. Social media influencers and affiliates also play a role, disguising promotions as expert advice while profiting from players’ losses.

    The scale of the gambling industry’s investment in advertising is staggering. In the UK alone, companies spend an estimated £1.5 billion annually on ad campaigns spanning television, sports sponsorships and social media.

    While much attention has focused on the effects of gambling ads on children and people with gambling disorders, young adults aged 18 to 29 represent another vulnerable demographic. With lower levels of advertising literacy, young adults are less equipped to recognise and resist manipulative techniques. They also face heightened risks of gambling-related harm when exposed to legal gambling.

    A 2023 study showed that the “safer gambling” messages displayed at the end of gambling ads, such as “take time to think”, are ineffective at reducing harm. Even the term “safer gambling” itself is often seen by viewers, academics and some policymakers as an industry-favoured concept. Research has shown how it can downplay risks, leading to less regulatory oversight by implying that gambling is inherently “safe”. So, it is vital that consumers have the tools to resist the persuasive techniques used in gambling advertising.

    Inoculation theory

    To address this issue, we designed a seven-minute counteradvertising video informed by “inoculation theory”, which is a concept similar to vaccination. By exposing viewers to weakened forms of persuasive gambling tactics, the video aimed to build resistance to these strategies when encountered in the real world.

    Our video targeted five common advertising strategies: the positive portrayal of gambling, demographic targeting, embedding gambling in sports, “free” offers and affiliate marketing. Input from people who had experienced harm from gambling helped ensure the video’s relevance and effect.

    In the video, viewers saw real-world examples of these advertising strategies. Expert narration helped to unpack the manipulative tactics involved. In the segment on “free” offers, the narrator dissected the fine print of a real “free £10 bet” ad. Viewers learned that the offer’s terms were so restrictive that withdrawing the “free” £10 was nearly impossible. It required a £300 deposit of their own money and 50 wagers on slots before any withdrawal was allowed.

    We then conducted a randomised online experiment involving 1,200 young adult gamblers (aged 18 to 29). Half of the participants watched the counteradvertising video, while the other half viewed a video on healthy eating. Participants completed surveys before and after the video and again one month later, measuring their scepticism toward gambling ads, awareness of persuasive tactics and engagement with “free” offer promotions.

    Can counteradvertising videos help to ‘inoculate’ people against harmful gambling?
    REDPIXEL.PL/Shutterstock

    The participants who watched the counteradvertising video reported significantly higher levels of scepticism and awareness of gambling advertising strategies compared to the control group. These effects persisted over time. Even a month later, those who viewed the video maintained their heightened resistance to gambling ads.

    The intervention also led to tangible behavioural changes. Participants who watched the video showed a statistically significant decrease in their use of “free offers”. And 21% of them reported completely ceasing their engagement with such promotions within a month.

    Our findings highlight the potential for counteradvertising to complement broader harm reduction efforts in gambling, such as education and awareness campaigns. In autumn 2024, the UK government announced a statutory levy on gambling operators. It’s expected to generate approximately £100 million annually for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. But there’s not enough attention on tackling gambling advertising specifically.

    Empowering consumers

    Counteradvertising could be scaled up and delivered alongside independent “safer gambling” messages. By empowering consumers to critically evaluate gambling promotions, our videos have the potential to reduce gambling-related harm at its source.

    Future research could explore alternative delivery formats, such as shorter videos tailored for social media platforms. Or they could examine the long-term effects of repeated exposure to counteradvertising messages.

    With gambling ads dominating our screens, it’s time to level the playing field. Counteradvertising offers a powerful way to help consumers see through the allure of “free bets” and “wins”. And it could help people make more informed choices about their gambling behaviour.

    In the last three years, Jamie Torrance has received: Open access publication funding from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO), Conference travel and accommodation funding from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG), and an exploratory research grant from the ASFG and GREO.

    Philip Newall is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling – an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain. In the last three years, Philip Newall has contributed to research projects funded by the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, Clean Up Gambling, Gambling Research Australia, and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. Philip Newall has received honoraria for reviewing from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling and the Belgium Ministry of Justice, travel and accommodation funding from the Alberta Gambling Research Institute and the Economic and Social Research Institute, and open access fee funding from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling and Greo Evidence Insights.

    ref. How to outwit gambling adverts by ‘inoculating’ people against them – https://theconversation.com/how-to-outwit-gambling-adverts-by-inoculating-people-against-them-247637

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friendship, a covenant, romance – no matter what you call it, David’s love for Jonathan is one of the Bible’s most beautiful

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jacob F. Love, Lecturer in Religious Studies, University of Tennessee

    An illustration of David and Jonathan from ‘Sunday at Home – A Family Magazine for Sabbath reading, 1883,’ published by the Religious Tract Society in London. whitemay/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    For the idea of love, biblical Hebrew has precious few synonyms. Yet the Hebrew of the Bible can communicate a rich sensation of love: the love of a man for a woman, the love of any human being for their fellow human, the love of Israel for Israel’s God, and the love of God for all people.

    As a religion scholar, however, I believe one of the greatest loves in the Bible is a story of friendship: the intense devotion between the warrior Jonathan and David, who later became king of Israel and Judah. For many readers, their relationship represents a platonic ideal, while others see something more.

    ‘With all your heart’

    The main word for expressing love in the Hebrew Bible is “ahavah,” from the root “ahav.” It appears, for example, in the classic description of the relationship between God and Israel in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 6: “You shall love (v’ahavta) the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”

    There are several places in the Hebrew Bible that demand that people care for one another, regardless of membership in any group, such as a tribe. Consider Leviticus 19:34, which invokes the Israelites’ suffering as slaves in Egypt: “you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

    The word “ahav” is also used to express emotional, romantic and sexual love, as in Genesis 29, the story of Jacob and Rachel. The young man serves Laban, Rachel’s father, for seven years in exchange for her hand in marriage – which seem “but a few days because of his love for her.” But Laban tricks Jacob into marrying Rachel’s sister, Leah, first – then working another seven years for Rachel.

    A steadfast love

    Among the more passionate poems in the Hebrew Bible is one David is said to have pronounced for Jonathan and his father, Saul, the Israelite king.

    A 14th century illustration of David and Jonathan’s first meeting.
    National Manuscript Center/Wikmedia Commons

    The three first meet when David, portrayed as a young shepherd, volunteers to fight Goliath, who is portrayed as a towering giant of a soldier, a champion of the Philistines battling Israel. Shockingly, David slays him with a simple sling and stone, and Saul meets with the boy.

    “After David finished speaking to Saul,” the author of 1 Samuel relates, “the body of Jonathan was bound to the body of David, and Jonathan loved him as he loved his own self.” The Hebrew word I translate as “body” here is a famously ambiguous one, “nefesh,” usually rendered as “soul,” “life” or “personality.”

    Many translators read this passage to mean that Jonathan and David form a covenant, a pact. Jonathan immediately removes his clothing and weapons and gives them to the other young man.

    Their loyalty is tested as Saul becomes jealous of David’s increasing success. Yet the young men’s bond is steadfast.

    Jonathan eventually dies in battle, and Saul commits suicide. David composes a beautiful eulogy poem mourning both men, but his description of Jonathan is particularly striking:

    Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

    How the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished!

    The passage uses a rare synonym for “ahav” when it describes Jonathan as “greatly beloved”: “na’am,” suggesting “love,” “affection” or “pleasantness.”

    Labeling love

    What could David have meant by “your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”? It is not surprising that many have wondered whether this suggests an intimate relationship.

    That would appear to contradict prohibitions on homosexuality found in the Book of Leviticus. One thing to consider, however, is that Leviticus is devoted to priestly concerns. The prohibition is not found in the Book of Deuteronomy, which repeats so many of the prohibitions found in Leviticus. Another question is whether we really know what the Levitical language means: What exactly is being prohibited here?

    Rembrandt’s painting of the pair, after Jonathan warns David of Saul’s plan to kill him.
    Hermitage Museum via Wikimedia Commons

    One thing we can say with certainty is that LGBTQ+ love and identities have existed throughout human history, regardless of what they are called. Various cultures have been more or less sympathetic to sexual variation, but that variation has always been there.

    David had many wives. Indeed, one of the most famous stories about him is his depravity in condemning a soldier, Uriah the Hittite, to a brutal death so that David could take Uriah’s wife, Bat-Sheva, as his own. But who’s to say whether David might have been open to an intimate relationship with a man he essentially called his lover?

    David’s life was fraught with tragedy, and his family infamous for scandal – perhaps none greater than the tale of his son Amnon raping his half-sister Tamar. Nevertheless, tradition reveres him as the greatest king of Israel and Judah, the author of beautiful poetry and the father of King Solomon, who is credited with the ultimate biblical love poem, the Song of Songs.

    I’d like to give the final word to the sages of the Mishnah, rabbinic literature written around the year 250 C.E.:

    “All love that depends on something, when that something ceases, the love fails; but all love that does not depend on anything will never cease. What is an example of love that depended on something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.”

    Jacob F. Love is affiliated with Marble City Opera.

    ref. Friendship, a covenant, romance – no matter what you call it, David’s love for Jonathan is one of the Bible’s most beautiful – https://theconversation.com/friendship-a-covenant-romance-no-matter-what-you-call-it-davids-love-for-jonathan-is-one-of-the-bibles-most-beautiful-248080

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Nigeria’s Brics partnership: economist outlines potential benefits

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stephen Onyeiwu, Professor of Economics & Business, Allegheny College

    During its 16th annual summit in Kazan, Russia, Brics – a group of emerging economies determined to act as a counterweight to the west and to whittle down the influence of global institutions – invited Nigeria and eight other countries to join it as “partner” countries. Nigeria formally accepted the invitation in January 2025. That invitation has generated questions about how Nigeria stands to benefit, especially when US president Donald Trump is threatening to sanction members of the group if they replace the US dollar as reserve currency. It was established in 2006 and initially composed of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. South Africa joined in 2010 and the bloc added four new members (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) in 2023. In this interview, development economist Stephen Onyeiwu argues that Nigeria stands to gain from a Brics partnership, but would have to carefully balance its domestic interests with those of its western allies and Brics.

    What does it mean to be a Brics ‘partner’ country?

    The introduction of Brics partnership is an expansion mechanism designed to bring in more participants without giving them full membership. It is akin to “observer” status.

    Brics partners can participate in special sessions of summits and foreign ministers’ meetings, as well as other high-level events. Partners can also contribute to the organisation’s official documents and policy statements.

    But partners cannot host annual Brics summits or determine the venue. Neither can they select new members and partners.

    How beneficial is Brics partnership to Nigeria?

    The main benefit would be access to finance offered by Brics’ New Development Bank.

    The New Development Bank was established as an alternative to western-dominated international financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These institutions are sometimes used by the leading western countries to keep developing countries in line on global issues.

    Some developing countries are reluctant to criticise western countries for fear of losing access to funding by western-backed international financial institutions.

    Nigeria has been running a budget deficit of about 5% of GDP since 2019, and it needs funding to pay for the deficits. The New Development Bank could be an important source of funding for investment in Nigeria’s infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, and so on.

    New Development Bank loans are also available in member countries’ local currencies. They don’t have to earn foreign exchange to repay the loans. This fosters exchange rate stability and promotes economic growth. The New Development Bank raises funds in member countries’ local currencies, and lends them to member countries.

    Nigeria could use its Brics partnership to garner the group’s support in matters that affect Nigeria globally. For instance, there have been requests for African countries to be included as permanent members (without veto power) of the UN security council. South Africa and Nigeria have been touted as potential candidates. Should this issue be raised at the UN, Nigeria can count on the support of its Brics allies, which includes two permanent members (China and Russia) of the security council.

    Mutual understanding and cooperation with other Brics members and partners might spill over into economic, trade and investment agreements. Friendly countries are more likely to trade with each other and invest in each other’s economy.

    How can Nigeria maximise its status as a Brics partner?

    Nigeria should use it to attract foreign direct investment in strategic sectors of the economy, such as infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture and technology.

    Some Brics members, like China, India, and the UAE, have investors that are seeking investment outlets abroad. Nigeria could use the bloc’s annual summits to showcase investment opportunities.

    The global economy is transitioning into “frontier industries and technologies”, such as big data, artificial intelligence, solar, drones, gene editing, 3D printing, blockchains, Internet of Things (IoT), 5G, robotics and nanotechnology. China, India and Brazil are already well advanced in these technologies.

    Nigeria should use its partnership with these countries to build capabilities in frontier industries and technologies. It could get favourable terms in the transfer of these technologies.

    Nigeria seeks to diversify its economy from reliance on the export of hydrocarbons. But Nigerian producers have had a hard time accessing global markets. The country should negotiate trade deals that provide access to Brics markets, especially agricultural and agro-processed products, arts and crafts.

    But Nigeria has to promote economic growth and structural transformation at home. If the Nigerian economy falters, it is unlikely the country will be invited to become a full member of Brics.

    Would adding new members and partners reduce western dominance?

    Brics has so far not been able to significantly change the dynamics of the international political economy. Adding new members and partners, while symbolic, will not act as an effective counterweight to the influence of the G7 and G20 groups of nations.

    Most of the countries and partners in Brics are either allies of western countries or neutral on global issues. They are unlikely to support decisions or actions that are grossly inimical to western interests.

    Egypt and the UAE, for instance, receive military aid from the United States. Ethiopia and Nigeria are top recipients of foreign aid in Africa, much of it from western-backed financial institutions.

    The only outlier in the mix is Iran, whose membership was promoted by Russia. But Iran has no leverage to influence others in the bloc.

    On balance, therefore, Brics will not be a threat to western countries.

    Brics aspires to weaken the dominance of the US dollar for international transactions. Close to 90% of international trade transactions are conducted with the US dollar.

    Brics countries plan to reduce dollar dominance by encouraging member countries to settle their trade and financial transactions using their domestic currencies. For instance, South African businesses could purchase Chinese goods using the South African rand, while the Chinese could do the same for South African goods using the Chinese yuan. The more members you have in Brics swapping their currencies, the less important the US dollar will be.

    It is unlikely, however, that an increase in the number of Brics members and partners will weaken the dollar. Most will continue to have significant economic relationships with the west, including trade and foreign aid.

    They will also continue to conduct business with many non-Brics countries, which also have economic relationships with the west. They will need the US dollar to transact with many other countries.

    So increasing the number of Brics members and partners does not pose a threat to dollar dominance.

    Stephen Onyeiwu 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. Nigeria’s Brics partnership: economist outlines potential benefits – https://theconversation.com/nigerias-brics-partnership-economist-outlines-potential-benefits-248943

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Trump’s rage defies historical and literary comparisons, according to a classics expert

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rachel Hadas, Professor of English, Rutgers University – Newark

    Donald Trump’s anger has been building and now seems volcanic. Abstract Aerial Art/Getty Images

    The Greek divinity Nemesis, rarely depicted in art, has no place in the Olympian pantheon of a dozen gods and goddesses. But she’s an omnipresent force of retribution, an implacable force of punishment that arrives, if not sooner, then later.

    Nemesis can bide her time for generations, but there’s no escaping her.

    So too, it seems, with President Donald Trump, who is “clearly not a man who discards his grudges easily,” William Galston of the Brookings Institution said recently. This observation is an understatement.

    Trump’s resentment has been steaming since the 2020 presidential election. Now that he is again president, he’s far from appeased; his ire is boiling over.

    Flooding the zone,” a term borrowed from football, was former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s way of describing the Trumpian tactic of issuing a barrage of statements whose sheer pace and multiplicity, not to mention contents, are intended to stymie any impulse at rational response.

    As he has gained fame and power, Trump’s contemptuous rage at his opponents and his appetite for vengeance appear to have sharpened.

    Like Nemesis, Trump is now pursuing his perceived enemies, using the power of the presidency. Among his recent retribution: He has
    fired Department of Justice officials and staff who worked on criminal investigations and prosecutions of him; he has revoked security clearances for intelligence officials to “punish his perceived opponents,” as one news story put it. And he has removed the portrait of Gen. Mark Milley from the Pentagon wall that traditionally features portraits of the retired chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as Milley was. In 2024, journalist Bob Woodward reported that Milley had told him, “No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump. Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country” – clearly sparking Trump’s ire.

    As a poet and student of the classics, my impulse is to find analogs for this behavior, this temperament – precedents that might help provide some perspective.

    Trump displays his anger during a rally on Nov. 3, 2024, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

    Tyrants, heroes and horses

    Historians, I thought, would be able to come up with analogs. For example, Trump’s initial choice of a political ally, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, as attorney general – widely seen as unqualified for the post and who later withdrew – was likened to the Roman emperor Caligula, who made his horse a senator. Figures from Greek history, from the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus to Alexander the Great, could be famously power-hungry and vindictive.

    Classical epic and drama furnish plenty of rage, which is the first word of the Homeric epic “The Iliad.”

    Since epic and tragic heroes are in positions of power, temperament and action mesh. The Greek hero Achilles’ clash with the Greek army’s commander Agamemnon at the outset of “The Iliad” is psychologically plausible. Each man feels insulted and slighted by the other; both have cause for resentment.

    Achilles nurses his rage at all his fellow Greeks until, much later in the epic, his grief at the death of his beloved Patroklos sends him back into battle. This larger-than-life hero is vulnerable, changeable and human.

    Perhaps the most famous example of vengeance in Greek tragedy is Aeschylus’ trilogy, “The Oresteia.” When Clytemnestra murders her husband, Agamemnon, on his return from Troy, she has three comprehensible motives. Agamemnon has sacrificed their daughter; he has brought home a mistress, Cassandra; and Clytemnestra feels loyalty, both personal and political, to Aegisthus, her husband’s cousin, whom she has taken as a lover in her husband’s absence and who has his own reasons for hating Agamemnon.

    So vindicated does Clytemnestra feel in having murdered Agamemnon – and Cassandra as well – that she proudly compares her action to rain that fertilizes the crops. As rain is part of the cycle of the seasons, her act has righted the balance of justice.

    Agamemnon was murdered in cold blood by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, in vengeance for Iphigenia’s death and all the grief he’d given them both.
    Flaxman, artist, from The Print Collector/Getty Images

    Cunning rage leads to death

    Turning to a few of Shakespeare’s more vengeful characters, Iago in “Othello” is an embodiment of a cunning rage that leads him to systematically destroy the innocent Othello’s marriage. He does this by falsely hinting – and then planting a chain of evidence suggesting – that Othello’s bride, Desdemona, is unfaithful.

    Othello eventually kills both Desdemona and himself. But the Romantic critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge famously referred to Iago’s “motiveless malignancy,” since it’s hard to be sure exactly why Iago is so set on destroying Othello.

    Hamlet himself is a reluctant avenger who keeps putting off the act of revenging his father’s murder. In the history play named for him, Richard III’s resentment, going back to having been a deformed and unloved child, makes more sense. Richard lusts after power; he systematically and clandestinely murders his own brother and nephews, who would stand between him and his elder brother Edward’s throne.

    Whether motivated by political ambition, generalized rancor or an inherited assignment, none of these figures ends well. They all have enemies, and they all – except Iago, who will be tortured and executed – die on stage. All have done plenty of damage; none survives long to feel vindicated. Even Clytemnestra’s triumph is short-lived, since her own son, Orestes, will soon avenge his father’s death by murdering his mother – Clytemnestra.

    But all these figures seem to feel personal passion. Even the opaque Iago has one chief target: Othello. They don’t present compelling parallels to Trump, whose anger appears to be simultaneously private and public.

    Easily offended, Trump is quick to strike back with insults; but he also seems to have an insatiable appetite for broader and deeper punishment, meted out to more people and even after a lapse of time. Hence literary parallels are less than compelling.

    Trump’s anger seems more general than personal. His aggrieved sense of having been wronged, victimized by his enemies, is a constant in his career. But his targets shift. One day it’s judges; another day it’s election officials. Yet another day, it’s the “deep state.”

    And Trump’s implacable resentment has struck a chord among many Americans whose resentment has a more rational basis. Trump’s base may believe he is speaking for them – “I am your warrior. I am your justice,” he said in a speech at a conservative forum, but his first priority has always been himself.

    A spirit, ranging for revenge

    The damage done by Trump is often inflicted by others. Their threats, harassment and even violence are done in the name of Trump.

    He has pardoned almost all of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, some of whom have now boasted they will acquire guns.

    Trump has removed government protection from figures who have dared to disagree with him and have received death threats, including Dr. Anthony Fauci.

    Shakespeare, turning history into great poetry, comes to mind after all. In “Julius Caesar,” knowing that his funeral oration over the body of the assassinated Caesar will stir up an angry mob, Mark Antony muses:

    “And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
    With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
    Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
    Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war”

    Antony imagines Caesar’s vengeful spirit rising from the underworld to incite further violence. Not only will Caesar’s assassins be punished, but the hell of civil war will be let loose to cause widespread suffering. Precisely who Trump wants to punish appears secondary to his delight in releasing precisely those hellish dogs. Everyone is a potential enemy and a potential victim.

    “I am your retribution,” Trump has said. Nothing in Trump’s continuing story more clearly echoes the classics than this ominous melding of self with a superhuman principle of revenge.

    Such a merging of a mortal individual with a pitilessly abstract power like Nemesis is closer to myth than to history. Or so it would be comforting to assume.

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

    ref. Why Trump’s rage defies historical and literary comparisons, according to a classics expert – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-rage-defies-historical-and-literary-comparisons-according-to-a-classics-expert-248510

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: As Trump tries to slash US foreign aid, here are 3 common myths many Americans mistakenly believe about it

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joannie Tremblay-Boire, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland

    U.S. lawmakers and employees and supporters of the U.S. Agency for International Development speak outside the agency’s headquarters on Feb. 3, 2025. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    U.S. foreign aid is in disarray.

    The Trump administration froze most aid disbursements on Jan. 20. According to billionaire Elon Musk, an adviser to President Donald Trump with “special government employee status,” the U.S. Agency for International Development, widely known as USAID, had been shut down as of Feb. 3, 2025.

    Although the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to do this, hundreds of people on the agency’s staff have been put on unpaid leave or fired, according to news reports.

    And the agency’s official website wasn’t working. A partial replacement, however, had appeared within the State Department’s website.

    I’m a scholar of public policy who researches nonprofits, which in the foreign aid sphere are often called nongovernmental organizations. These groups are responsible for carrying out many programs funded by foreign aid from governments such as the United States.

    In light of the Trump administration’s attack on the government’s main foreign aid agency and the disruption of this funding, I believe it’s important to debunk three common myths:

    1. The U.S. spends too much on foreign aid.
    2. The U.S. spends more than its fair share on foreign aid compared with other countries.
    3. Corrupt governments squander U.S. foreign aid.

    What is foreign aid?

    Foreign aid consists of money, goods and services – such as training – that government agencies provide to other countries. Foreign aid falls into two broad categories: economic assistance and military – sometimes called security – aid.

    Economic assistance includes all programs with development or humanitarian objectives. That tends to include projects related to health, disaster relief, the promotion of civil society, agriculture and the like. Most U.S. economic aid dollars come from the State Department budget, including spending allocated by USAID, which has operated as an independent agency since the Kennedy administration.

    On Feb. 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that he was serving as USAID’s acting director, indicating that the agency was no longer independent of the State Department.

    While U.S. taxpayers have long spent just a few bucks each on foreign aid every year, the impact is profound, saving millions of people from hunger, averting the worst of natural disasters such as droughts and flooding, tackling life-threatening diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria, and more.

    Myth No. 1: US spends too much on foreign aid

    The United States consistently spends only about 1% of its budget on foreign aid, including military and economic support. The 2023 aid managed by USAID totaled about US$40 billion.

    Americans tend to believe that their government spends a far bigger share of its budget on foreign aid than it does.

    In a survey the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted in 2015, it found that, on average, Americans believed that foreign aid accounts for nearly one-third of the budget. Only 3% of those polled answered correctly that foreign aid constituted 1% or less of total federal spending.

    Myth No. 2: US spends more than its fair share

    According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States is by far the leading national source of economic assistance dollars. In 2023, it contributed $64.7 billion in overseas development assistance, far outpacing the $37.9 billion spent by Germany, the second-biggest source of that kind of aid. Some of this assistance is managed by USAID, some by the Department of State, and a small portion by other government agencies, such as the Treasury and Health and Human Services departments.

    That tells only part of the story, however. The United States spends very little on foreign aid relative to the size of its economy, particularly compared with other rich countries. The U.S. spent about 0.24% of its gross national income on overseas development assistance in 2023. By comparison, Norway, the top contributor by this metric, gave 1.09% of its gross national income in overseas development aid that year. The United States ranks toward the bottom of OECD countries, close to Portugal and Spain, by this measurement.

    In 1970, the United Nations General Assembly agreed that “economically advanced countries” would aim to direct at least 0.7% of their national income to overseas development assistance. Although developed countries have repeatedly mentioned this target in agreements and at summits since then, very few countries have reached that goal. In 2023, only five countries met the 0.7% target.

    The OECD average was just 0.37% in 2023 – far higher than the 0.24% the U.S. provided that year.

    Myth No. 3: Corrupt governments squander US aid

    You may think that foreign aid consists of government-to-government transfers of money. But governments channel most aid through nonprofits such as Catholic Relief Services, public-private partnerships, private companies such as Chemonics International and Deloitte, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank.

    In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, between 2013 and 2022, most U.S. foreign assistance bypassed governments altogether: NGOs received 24% of the money, for-profit companies 21%, multilateral organizations 34%, and other organizations, such as universities, research institutes and faith-based organizations, 7%.

    When the political scientist Simone Dietrich researched this question, she found that the United States outsources a lot of its foreign aid to NGOs. This is especially the case with the support it provides countries with bad governance and rampant corruption such as Sudan and Sri Lanka, which could be likely to squander or swipe those funds.

    To be sure, corrupt governments sometimes do squander U.S. foreign aid. But it is important to understand that most aid never enters the coffers of those corrupt governments in the first place.

    Even without Trump’s proposed cuts, US fails to lead

    Even if Trump fails at his current bid to greatly reduce foreign aid spending, other countries, including the United Kingdom and Denmark, are spending far more on economic assistance for the world’s poorest people, as a share of their economies, than the U.S. does.

    Slashing foreign aid would damage U.S. credibility with American allies, reduce U.S. influence around the globe and – as a group of more than 120 retired generals and admirals predicted when Trump tried to slash foreign aid in his first administration – make Americans less safe.

    Parts of this article appeared in a story first published on April 6, 2017, and have been updated.

    Joannie Tremblay-Boire 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. As Trump tries to slash US foreign aid, here are 3 common myths many Americans mistakenly believe about it – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-tries-to-slash-us-foreign-aid-here-are-3-common-myths-many-americans-mistakenly-believe-about-it-248979

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Water is the other US-Mexico border crisis, and the supply crunch is getting worse

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gabriel Eckstein, Professor of Law, Texas A&M University

    View of the Rio Grande flowing through Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, photographed from the Paso Del Norte International Bridge. Paul Rarje/AFP via Getty Images

    Immigration and border security will be the likely focus of U.S.-Mexico relations under the new Trump administration. But there also is a growing water crisis along the U.S.–Mexico border that affects tens of millions of people on both sides, and it can only be managed if the two governments work together.

    Climate change is shrinking surface and groundwater supplies in the southwestern U.S. Higher air temperatures are increasing evaporation rates from rivers and streams and intensifying drought. Mexico is also experiencing multiyear droughts and heat waves.

    Growing water use is already overtaxing limited supplies from nearly all of the region’s cross-border rivers, streams and aquifers. Many of these sources are contaminated with agricultural pollutants, untreated waste and other substances, further reducing the usability of available water.

    As Texas-based scholars who study the legal and scientific aspects of water policy, we know that communities, farms and businesses in both countries rely on these scarce water supplies. In our view, water conditions on the border have changed so much that the current legal framework for managing them is inadequate.

    Unless both nations recognize this fact, we believe that water problems in the region are likely to worsen, and supplies may never recover to levels seen as recently as the 1950s. Although the U.S. and Mexico have moved to address these concerns by updating the 1944 water treaty, these steps are not long-term solutions.

    The Rio Grande flows south from Colorado and forms the 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) Texas-Mexico border.
    Kmusser/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    Growing demand, shrinking supply

    The U.S.-Mexico border region is mostly arid, with water coming from a few rivers and an unknown amount of groundwater. The main rivers that cross the border are the Colorado and the Rio Grande – two of the most water-stressed systems in the world.

    The Colorado River provides water to more than 44 million people, including seven U.S. and two Mexican states, 29 Indian tribes and 5.5 million acres of farmland. Only about 10% of its total flow reaches Mexico. The river once emptied into the Gulf of California, but now so much water is withdrawn along its course that since the 1960s it typically peters out in the desert.

    The Rio Grande supplies water to roughly 15 million people, including 22 Indian tribes, three U.S. and four Mexican states and 2.8 million irrigated acres. It forms the 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) Texas-Mexico border, winding from El Paso in the west to the Gulf of Mexico in the east.

    The Colorado River flows through seven U.S. states and crosses into Mexico at the Arizona-California border.
    USGS

    Other rivers that cross the border include the Tijuana, San Pedro, Santa Cruz, New and Gila. These are all significantly smaller and have less economic impact than the Colorado and the Rio Grande.

    At least 28 aquifers – underground rock formations that contain water – also traverse the border. With a few exceptions, very little information on these shared resources exists. One thing that is known is that many of them are severely overtapped and contaminated.

    Nonetheless, reliance on aquifers is growing as surface water supplies dwindle. Some 80% of groundwater used in the border region goes to agriculture. The rest is used by farmers and industries, such as automotive and appliance manufacturers.

    Over 10 million people in 30 cities and communities throughout the border region rely on groundwater for domestic use. Many communities, including Ciudad Juarez; the sister cities of Nogales in both Arizona and Sonora; and the sister cities of Columbus in New Mexico and Puerto Palomas in Chihuahua, get all or most of their fresh water from these aquifers.

    A booming region

    About 30 million people live within 100 miles (160 kilometers) of the border on both sides. Over the next 30 years, that figure is expected to double.

    Municipal and industrial water use throughout the region is also expected to increase. In Texas’ lower Rio Grande Valley, municipal use alone could more than double by 2040.

    At the same time, as climate change continues to worsen, scientists project that snowmelt will decrease and evaporation rates will increase. The Colorado River’s baseflow – the portion of its volume that comes from groundwater, rather than from rain and snow – may decline by nearly 30% in the next 30 years.

    Precipitation patterns across the region are projected to be uncertain and erratic for the foreseeable future. This trend will fuel more extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, which could cause widespread harm to crops, industrial activity, human health and the environment.

    Further stress comes from growth and development. Both the Colorado River and Rio Grande are tainted by pollutants from agricultural, municipal and industrial sources. Cities on both sides of the border, especially on the Mexican side, have a long history of dumping untreated sewage into the Rio Grande. Of the 55 water treatment plants located along the border, 80% reported ongoing maintenance, capacity and operating problems as of 2019.

    Drought across the border region is already stoking domestic and bilateral tensions. Competing water users are struggling to meet their needs, and the U.S. and Mexico are straining to comply with treaty obligations for sharing water.

    Cross-border water politics

    Mexico and the United States manage water allocations in the border region mainly under two treaties: a 1906 agreement focused on the Upper Rio Grande Basin and a 1944 treaty covering the Colorado River and Lower Rio Grande.

    Under the 1906 treaty, the U.S. is obligated to deliver 60,000 acre-feet of water to Mexico where the Rio Grande reaches the border. This target may be reduced during droughts, which have occurred frequently in recent decades. An acre-foot is enough water to flood an acre of land 1 foot deep – about 325,000 gallons (1.2 million liters).

    Allocations under the 1944 treaty are more complicated. The U.S. is required to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to Mexico at the border – but as with the 1906 treaty, reductions are allowed in cases of extraordinary drought.

    Until the mid-2010s, the U.S. met its full obligation each year. Since then, however, regional drought and climate change have severely reduced the Colorado River’s flow, requiring substantial allocation reductions for both the U.S. and Mexico.

    In 2025, states in the U.S. section of the lower Colorado River basin will see a reduction of over 1 million acre-feet from prior years. Mexico’s allocation will decline by approximately 280,500 acre-feet under the 1944 treaty.

    This agreement provides each nation with designated fractions of flows from the Lower Rio Grande and specific tributaries. Regardless of water availability or climatic conditions, Mexico also is required to deliver to the U.S. a minimum of 1,750,000 acre-feet of water from six named tributaries, averaged over five-year cycles. If Mexico falls short in one cycle, it can make up the deficit in the next five-year cycle, but cannot delay repayment further.

    The U.S. and Mexico are struggling to share a shrinking water supply in the border region.

    Since the 1990s, extraordinary droughts have caused Mexico to miss its delivery obligations three times. Although Mexico repaid its water debts in subsequent cycles, these shortfalls raised diplomatic tensions that led to last-minute negotiations and large-scale water transfers from Mexico to the U.S.

    Mexican farmers in Lower Rio Grande irrigation districts who had to shoulder these cuts felt betrayed. In 2020, they protested, confronting federal soldiers and temporarily seizing control of a dam.

    U.S. President Donald Trump and Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum clearly appreciate the political and economic importance of the border region. But if water scarcity worsens, it could supplant other border priorities.

    In our view, the best way to prevent this would be for the two countries to recognize that conditions are deteriorating and update the existing cross-border governance regime so that it reflects today’s new water realities.

    Gabriel Eckstein is affiliated with the Permanent Forum on Binational Waters, International Association for Water Law, and International Water Resources Association.

    Rosario Sanchez receives funding from the USGS under the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program Act. She is affiliated with Texas A&M University and the non-profit as a volunteer to the Permanent Forum of Binational Waters, the International Association of Hydrogeologists, and the International Water Resources Association.

    ref. Water is the other US-Mexico border crisis, and the supply crunch is getting worse – https://theconversation.com/water-is-the-other-us-mexico-border-crisis-and-the-supply-crunch-is-getting-worse-244722

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Reverence for the sacred waters of the Ganga and belief in its power to wash away sins bring millions to India’s Maha Kumbh festival

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sudipta Sen, Professor of History, University of California, Davis

    Pilgrims take a dip in the sacred waters of Sangam, at the confluence of Ganga, Yamuna and mythical Saraswati rivers during the Maha Kumbh festival in Prayagraj on Jan.13, 2025. Niharika Kulkarni/AFP via Getty Images

    Millions of people have been visiting Prayagraj, a city in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, to take part in the Maha Kumbh festival – a six-week-long event that began on Jan. 13, 2025.

    Called the world’s largest religious gathering, the event has already drawn 148 million people. Attendance is expected to exceed 400 million by the time it ends on Feb. 26, and surging crowds have already claimed dozens of lives at the sacred site.

    Attendees range from Indian business tycoons and members of parliament to social media personages, film stars and celebrities, including the philanthropist billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, who is a member of an ashram in Prayagraj.

    As a historian of the Ganga and its ecology, I am captivated by the enduring power of unwavering devotion that continues to drive pilgrims to this sacred site, despite the dangers posed by surging crowds and the spread of contagion. At least 30 people have been trampled to death and 60 have been injured in the stampede that followed this year.

    Ritual bathing at the confluence of large rivers has always had a special significance in Hindu rituals. Of such places, the Sangam, or confluence, at the city of Prayagraj is the most revered because this is where the rivers Ganga and Yamuna meet with the fabled Saraswati, also known as the goddess of learning and the arts – the unseen, mythical river that flows underneath.

    Hindus believe that bathing at the pilgrimage of Prayag has the power to wash away every sin known to humankind.

    Mythology behind the Kumbh

    The Kumbh festival is named after the celestial pitcher or “kumbha” that held the much coveted “amrita,” the nectar of immortality. In Hindu mythology, during what is known as the Age of Truth, the powerful clans of the asuras (demons) and devas (gods) fiercely battled over the source of eternal life.

    The cosmic ocean then was filled with milk, which they churned to draw out the nectar that would make them immortal. According to mythology, the asuras succeeded in the beginning, but their exertions disturbed Vasuki, the coiled, eternal snake at the Earth’s core, releasing a deadly poison that threatened to destroy the heavens. When the turn of the devas came, nectar was finally released from the depths of the netherworld. They drank the elixir and defeated the asuras.

    An illustration of the cosmic churning of the ocean.
    245CMR via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

    During this epic battle, four drops of the nectar fell to the Earth in places that are held scared. Two are cities in present-day northern India, Haridwar and Prayag, and two in central India, Nashik and Ujjain – all located along meeting points of rivers.

    An overwhelming multitude of people

    The festival of the Kumbh also marks the 12-year orbital circuit of the planet Jupiter, or Brihaspati, the harbinger of good fortune and wealth.

    The present gathering commemorates the Maha Kumbh, or “Great” Kumbh, which is an exceptionally rare and auspicious event that takes place once every 144 years, following the completion of 12 regular Kumbh cycles. This sacred gathering is celebrated exclusively at Prayag.

    A gathering of this immense scale presents a monumental challenge for local and national authorities, testing their ability to coordinate the arrival and departure of hundreds of millions of people and housing them in thousands of tents in a city that is assembled just for the few weeks of the gathering.

    It serves as a showcase of the nation’s organizational prowess while striving to preserve the sanctity of this ancient festival. Not only have sandbags been laid for miles along the banks where pilgrims are congregating, local authorities have deployed 2,760 CCTV cameras to keep track of the throngs, prevent stampedes and prevent families from being separated.

    The 2025 event has been dubbed the first digital Maha Kumbh, where police and volunteers are using artificial intelligence-based software to locate missing people and deliver emergency alerts during unexpected crowd surges. They have also installed underwater drones to monitor bathers and prevent drowning. The state government allocated US$765 million (64 billion rupees) for infrastructure and support of police, medical staff and ambulances.

    Despite extensive preparations, the early rush for a bathing spot in the Ganga spiraled out of control just before dawn on Jan. 26 and many people were trampled. Such tragedies are not new to the Kumbh gathering. During the 1954 Kumbh, a much more devastating stampede resulted in the deaths of nearly 800 people. A melee at the train station during the 2013 Kumbh killed 36 people.

    The enduring appeal

    Over the centuries, countless pilgrims have bathed and prayed in the Ganga, driven by the enduring belief that its waters possess the power to cleanse the spirit and cure diseases.

    However, throngs of people wading into the Ganga often stoked the dread of infection and disease. In the latter half of the 19th century, during the heyday of British colonial rule, administrative officials considered mass ritual bathing at festivals such as Kumbh a great threat to public sanitation and hygiene and a potential source of cholera outbreaks. The colonial empire grew increasingly concerned after the number of pilgrims arriving in Prayag rose exponentially after the advent of the railways in the 1860s.

    Despite such fears, barring isolated episodes of cholera – the last one being in 1906, attributed to pilgrims drinking water from polluted pools – there has been little evidence of a major epidemic at the Kumbh in recorded history.

    Faith in the river’s purity has also been emboldened by research on high levels of oxygenation of the river water from algae and concentrations of the bacteriophage virus in the Ganga’s shallow pools, capable of eliminating harmful bacteria like E. coli.

    The magnificent celebration of the Kumbh and the enduring reverence for the sacred waters of the Ganga reflect a live connection to both myth and history across the great subcontinent of India.

    For the millions of pilgrims who bathe in the sacred waters, it is a continuation of the enduring belief in healing and spiritual redemption, both in this life and the next.

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

    ref. Reverence for the sacred waters of the Ganga and belief in its power to wash away sins bring millions to India’s Maha Kumbh festival – https://theconversation.com/reverence-for-the-sacred-waters-of-the-ganga-and-belief-in-its-power-to-wash-away-sins-bring-millions-to-indias-maha-kumbh-festival-247676

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s administration seems chaotic, but he’s drawing directly from Project 2025 playbook

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Zachary Albert, Assistant Professor of Politics, Brandeis University

    The Heritage Foundation flag flies over its building in July 2024 in Washington. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    In his first few days back in office, President Donald Trump engaged in a whirlwind of executive actions, from exiting the World Health Organization, to deploying military personnel and National Guard troop to the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Many of these actions are unprecedented. Some appear to be illegal and unconstitutional, according to legal experts and judges. But none of them should come as a surprise – nearly all of them were outlined in 2022 in a plan called Project 2025.

    A Heritage Foundation representative attends a Moms for Liberty National Summit in Washington on Aug. 30, 2024.
    Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Project 2025 is top of Trump’s to-do list

    Project 2025 is a multifaceted strategy to advance conservative policies in the federal government. Part of this effort revolves around the “Mandate for Leadership,” a 922-page document published in April 2023 that outlines a slew of proposed governmental policy changes.

    The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank and advocacy group, organized the collaborative effort. A long list of other right-leaning research organizations and interest groups, like Moms for Liberty and Turning Point USA, also participated in Project 2025.

    In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Project 2025 participants wrote on the plan’s website that “to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left,” they would “need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration.”

    In my research on think tanks, I’ve investigated how these research organizations can influence public policymaking. The most potent strategy is to ally with a political party and support its objectives through research and advocacy. This is exactly what the Heritage Foundation has done via Project 2025.

    Even though Trump said during his 2024 campaign that he was not affiliated with the project, evidence of Project 2025’s agenda can be seen throughout the beginning of his second term – as well as in his first administration.

    For example, on Jan. 20, 2025, Trump echoed the plan’s statement that “men and women are biological realities” when he signed an executive order that, in part, recognizes “two sexes, male and female” that are “not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” This order led to the removal of transgender references from government websites.

    Other orders are similarly aligned with Project 2025. Take Trump’s executive order that, in part, eliminated the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or OFCCP, a government office previously charged with ensuring companies working with the government did not discriminate against any employees. Project 2025 recommended, quite simply, to “eliminate OFCCP.”

    Some news reports have found that there are already many other examples of Trump policy decisions and executive orders that appear to mirror Project 2025 recommendations.

    One CNN analysis from Jan. 31 found that more than two-thirds of the 53 executive orders Trump issued during his first week in office “evoked proposals outlined in [the] ‘Mandate for Leadership.‘”

    Heritage Foundation’s decades of activism

    Project 2025’s influence on Trump reflects the Heritage Foundation’s growing importance to the Republican Party.

    In my forthcoming book about the polarization and politicization of policy research organizations, I show the many ways that think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have become embedded within partisan networks and intimately connected to politicians. Increasingly, Heritage and other partisan-aligned think tanks, including progressive groups like the Center for American Progress, use their research to consistently support partisan agendas that align with their policy goals.

    The relationship between the Heritage Foundation and the GOP represents the most extreme version of this dynamic. The think tank has supported Republican presidents as far back as Ronald Reagan, using another policy document – also called the “Mandate for Leadership” – to secure significant policy gains through his administration. But the symbiosis between the Heritage Foundation and the GOP has been particularly notable since Trump gained more influence in the party.

    At the start of Trump’s first term, as one Heritage Foundation researcher told me in 2017, the think tank recognized that the “administration didn’t have much policy depth, so when they won the election they were sort of like, ‘Now what do we do?’ And that’s where Heritage comes in. … We work on these issues year-round, so we’ll stand by your side.”

    The Heritage Foundation also vetted potential staffers for federal government positions. This led to more than 66 Heritage employees or former employees working for the Trump administration by the middle of 2018.

    But Heritage has not entirely dictated Trump’s agenda. While the group did say that Trump “embraced 64 percent of our 321 recommendations” by the end of 2017, the think tank has also revamped its agenda to align with Trump on the issues he cared most about, like trade and culture wars.

    As the think tank’s president, Kevin Roberts, said in 2024, Heritage views its job as “institutionalizing Trumpism.”

    The people connecting Trump to Project 2025

    Many of the contributors to the “Mandate for Leadership” had been Trump administration officials, like Russ Vought, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget and current nominee for the same position.

    This list also includes John Ratcliffe, the former director of National Intelligence and incoming CIA director, and Tom Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and current border czar.

    In all, more than half of the plan’s 312 authors, editors and contributors previously worked in the first Trump administration.

    An incredibly important but often underappreciated part of Project 2025 was its staffing effort: The coalition worked to identify, vet and train potential staffers and appointees who are now making their way into the Trump administration and executive agencies.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer gestures toward a visual aid about Project 2025 during a news conference in September 2024 in Washington.
    Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

    What people – and the law – say about Project 2025

    Polling from January 2025 shows that a majority of Americans oppose many of Trump’s actions since retaking office, sometimes by large margins.

    Even during the presidential campaign, both Project 2025 itself and the policy ideas it advocated were broadly unpopular. Democrats consistently warned about the plan in their attacks against Republicans.

    The lack of popular approval for Project 2025 and its proposals is notable because the Heritage Foundation has historically invested time and money into gaining public support for its work. It even operates an initiative that polls citizens on how they “interpret arguments for and against our policy recommendations and how we can best gain their understanding and support.”

    There are also legal considerations.

    Many of Trump’s actions – like saying the government will deny citizenship to children born to some immigrants in the U.S. – rest on potentially unconstitutional interpretations and expansions of presidential power.

    This represents another about-face for the think tank, which has historically opposed efforts to empower the president at the expense of congressional authority. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation was founded to work through Congress to accomplish its goals. But with Project 2025, it seems it is pursuing a new strategy.

    How successful the Heritage Foundation is in helping Trump implement Project 2025 proposals will partially depend on how the public reacts. Whether Congress asserts its control over budgetary matters and exercises general oversight of the executive branch will also matter, as will the decisions made by the American judicial system.

    These checks and balances have helped sustain American democracy for nearly 250 years – whether they will continue to do so remains to be seen.

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

    ref. Trump’s administration seems chaotic, but he’s drawing directly from Project 2025 playbook – https://theconversation.com/trumps-administration-seems-chaotic-but-hes-drawing-directly-from-project-2025-playbook-248821

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Lightning strikes link weather on Earth and weather in space

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Lauren Blum, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado Boulder

    Lightning, when coupled with solar flares, can knock electrons flying above the Earth out of place. AP Photo/David Zalubowski

    There are trillions of charged particles – protons and electrons, the basic building blocks of matter – whizzing around above your head at any given time. These high-energy particles, which can travel at close to the speed of light, typically remain thousands of kilometers away from Earth, trapped there by the shape of Earth’s magnetic field.

    Occasionally, though, an event happens that can jostle them out of place, sending electrons raining down into Earth’s atmosphere. These high-energy particles in space make up what are known as the Van Allen radiation belts, and their discovery was one of the first of the space age. A new study from my research team has found that electromagnetic waves generated by lightning can trigger these electron showers.

    A brief history lesson

    At the start of the space race in the 1950s, professor James Van Allen and his research team at the University of Iowa were tasked with building an experiment to fly on the United States’ very first satellite, Explorer 1. They designed sensors to study cosmic radiation, which is caused by high-energy particles originating from the Sun, the Milky Way galaxy, or beyond.

    James Van Allen, middle, poses with a model of the Explorer 1 satellite.
    NASA

    After Explorer 1 launched, though, they noticed that their instrument was detecting significantly higher levels of radiation than expected. Rather than measuring a distant source of radiation beyond our solar system, they appeared to be measuring a local and extremely intense source.

    This measurement led to the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, two doughnut-shaped regions of high-energy electrons and ions encircling the planet.

    Scientists believe that the inner radiation belt, peaking about 621 miles (1000 kilometers) from Earth, is composed of electrons and high-energy protons and is relatively stable over time.

    The outer radiation belt, about three times farther away, is made up of high-energy electrons. This belt can be highly dynamic. Its location, density and energy content may vary significantly by the hour in response to solar activity.

    Charged particles, with their trajectories shown as blue and yellow lines here, exist in the radiation belts around Earth, depicted here as the yellow, green and blue regions.

    The discovery of these high-radiation regions is not only an interesting story about the early days of the space race; it also serves as a reminder that many scientific discoveries have come about by happy accident.

    It is a lesson for experimental scientists, myself included, to keep an open mind when analyzing and evaluating data. If the data doesn’t match our theories or expectations, those theories may need to be revisited.

    Our curious observations

    While I teach the history of the space race in a space policy course at the University of Colorado, Boulder, I rarely connect it to my own experience as a scientist researching Earth’s radiation belts. Or, at least, I didn’t until recently.

    In a study led by Max Feinland, an undergraduate student in my research group, we stumbled upon some of our own unexpected observations of Earth’s radiation belts. Our findings have made us rethink our understanding of Earth’s inner radiation belt and the processes affecting it.

    Originally, we set out to look for very rapid – sub-second – bursts of high-energy electrons entering the atmosphere from the outer radiation belt, where they are typically observed.

    Many scientists believe that a type of electromagnetic wave known as “chorus” can knock these electrons out of position and send them toward the atmosphere. They’re called chorus waves due to their distinct chirping sound when listened to on a radio receiver.

    Feinland developed an algorithm to search for these events in decades of measurements from the SAMPEX satellite. When he showed me a plot with the location of all the events he’d detected, we noticed a number of them were not where we expected. Some events mapped to the inner radiation belt rather than the outer belt.

    This finding was curious for two reasons. For one, chorus waves aren’t prevalent in this region, so something else had to be shaking these electrons loose.

    The other surprise was finding electrons this energetic in the inner radiation belt at all. Measurements from NASA’s Van Allen Probes mission prompted renewed interest in the inner radiation belt. Observations from the Van Allen Probes suggested that high-energy electrons are often not present in this inner radiation belt, at least not during the first few years of that mission, from 2012 to 2014.

    Our observations now showed that, in fact, there are times that the inner belt contains high-energy electrons. How often this is true and under what conditions remain open questions to explore. These high-energy particles can damage spacecraft and harm humans in space, so researchers need to know when and where in space they are present to better design spacecraft.

    Determining the culprit

    One of the ways to disturb electrons in the inner radiation belt and kick them into Earth’s atmosphere actually begins in the atmosphere itself.

    Lightning, the large electromagnetic discharges that light up the sky during thunderstorms, can actually generate electromagnetic waves known as lightning-generated whistlers.

    Lightning strikes generate electromagnetic waves, which can travel into the radiation belts above the Earth’s atmosphere.
    mdesigner125/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    These waves can then travel through the atmosphere out into space, where they interact with electrons in the inner radiation belt – much as chorus waves interact with electrons in the outer radiation belt.

    To test whether lightning was behind our inner radiation belt detections, we looked back at the electron bursts and compared them with thunderstorm data. Some lightning activity seemed correlated with our electron events, but much of it was not.

    Specifically, only lightning that occurred right after so-called geomagnetic storms resulted in the bursts of electrons we detected.

    Geomagnetic storms are disturbances in the near-Earth space environment often caused by large eruptions on the Sun’s surface. This solar activity, if directed toward Earth, can produce what researchers term space weather. Space weather can result in stunning auroras, but it can also disrupt satellite and power grid operations.

    We discovered that a combination of weather on Earth and weather in space produces the unique electron signatures we observed in our study. The solar activity disturbs Earth’s radiation belts and populates the inner belt with very high-energy electrons, then the lightning interacts with these electrons and creates the rapid bursts that we observed.

    These results provide a nice reminder of the interconnected nature of Earth and space. They were also a welcome reminder to me of the often nonlinear process of scientific discovery.

    Lauren Blum receives funding from NASA and the NSF.

    ref. Lightning strikes link weather on Earth and weather in space – https://theconversation.com/lightning-strikes-link-weather-on-earth-and-weather-in-space-243772

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump wants the US to ‘take over’ Gaza and relocate the people. Is this legal?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tamer Morris, Senior lecturer, international law, University of Sydney

    In an astonishing news conference in Washington, US President Donald Trump proposed the United States “take over” the Gaza Strip and permanently relocate the nearly two million Palestinians living there to neighbouring countries.

    Trump has previously called on Egypt and Jordan to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, which both countries firmly rejected.

    His new comments – and the possibility of a US takeover of a sovereign territory – were immediately met with criticism and questions about the legality of such a move.

    When asked what authority would allow the US to do this, Trump did not have an answer. He only noted it would be a “long-term ownership position”. He also did not rule out using US troops.

    So, what does international law say about this idea?

    Can the US take over a sovereign territory?

    The quick answer is no – Trump can’t just take over someone else’s territory.

    Since the end of the second world war in 1945, the use of force has been prohibited in international law. This is one of the foundations of international law since the creation of the United Nations.

    The US could only take control of Gaza with the consent of the sovereign authority of the territory. Israel can’t cede Gaza to the US. The International Court of Justice has ruled that Gaza is an occupied territory – and that this occupation is illegal under international law.

    So, for this to happen legally, Trump would require the consent of Palestine and the Palestinian people to take control of Gaza.

    And what about removing a population?

    One of the biggest obligations of an occupying power comes under Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. This prohibits an occupying power from forcibly transferring or removing people from a territory.

    All other states also have an obligation not to assist an occupying power in violating international humanitarian law. So that means if the US wanted to move the population of Gaza by force, Israel could not assist in this action. And likewise, the US cannot assist Israel in violating the rules.

    Occupying powers are allowed to remove a population for the reason of safety.

    Trump and his Middle East envoy who visited Gaza last week have repeatedly referenced how dangerous it is. Trump questioned how people could “want to stay” there, saying they have “no alternative” but to leave.

    However, removing people for this reason has to only be temporary. Once it’s fine for someone to return, they must be returned.

    What if people voluntarily leave?

    Transferring a population has to be consensual. But in this specific case, it would mean the consent of all Palestinians in Gaza. The US could not force anyone to move who does not want to.

    Further to this, a government, such as the Palestinian Authority, cannot give this consent on behalf of a people. People have a right to self-determination – the right to determine their own future.

    A perfect example is migration – if a person migrates from one state to another, that is their right. It’s not displacement. But forcefully displacing them is not permitted.

    And using what sounds like a threat would arguably not be consensual, either. This could be saying, for instance, “If you stay, you’ll die because there’s only going to be more war. But if you leave, there’s peace.” This is the threat of force.

    Would forcing people to leave be ethnic cleansing?

    Ethnic cleansing has not been defined in any treaty or convention.

    However, most international law experts rely on the definition in the Commission of Experts report on the former state of Yugoslavia to the UN Security Council in 1994. It defined ethnic cleansing as:

    rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.

    So, under that definition, what is being suggested by Trump could be classified as ethnic cleansing – removing the Palestinian people from a certain geographical area through force or intimidation.

    What can be done if Trump follows through?

    If Trump follows through with this plan, it would be a violation of what is known as jus cogens, or the paramount, foundational rules that underpin international law.

    And international law dictates that no country is allowed to cooperate with another in violating these rules and all countries must try to stop or prevent any potential violations. This could include placing sanctions on a country or not providing support to that country, for example, by selling it weapons.

    A perfect example of this is when Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, very few countries recognised the move. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was then followed by sanctions and the freezing of Russian assets, among other actions.

    If Trump pursued this course of action, he too could be personally liable under international criminal law if he’s the one instigating the forcible transfer of a population.

    The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli defence minister and a Hamas commander in relation to the conflict.

    The risk of this kind of language

    One of the dangers of this kind of rhetoric is the potential to dehumanise the enemy, or the other side.

    Trump does this through statements such as, “You look over the decades, it’s all death in Gaza”, and resettling people in “nice homes where they can be happy” instead of being “knifed to death”. This language implies the situation in Gaza is due to the “uncivilised” nature of the population.

    The risk at the moment, even if Trump doesn’t do what he says, is that the mere vocalisation of his proposal is dehumanising to the Palestinian people. And this, in turn, could lead to more violations of the rules of war and international humanitarian law.

    The nonchalant way Trump is discussing things such as taking over a territory and moving a population gives the impression these rules can easily be broken, even if he doesn’t break them himself.

    Tamer Morris 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. Trump wants the US to ‘take over’ Gaza and relocate the people. Is this legal? – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-the-us-to-take-over-gaza-and-relocate-the-people-is-this-legal-249143

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: South Africa’s food poisoning crisis: the government’s response isn’t dealing with the real issues

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Mamokete Modiba, Researcher, Gauteng City-Region Observatory

    The South African government declared a national disaster towards the end of 2024 in response to an outbreak of food-borne illnesses. The outbreak had led to the tragic deaths of over 20 children and hospitalisation of hundreds.

    Investigations by the National Institute for Communicable Diseases attributed the outbreak to hazardous pesticides such as Terbufos and Aldicarb. The pesticides, used in agriculture, have infiltrated the informal market as unregulated “street pesticides” for rat control, resulting in food contamination.

    In response, the government announced several measures. One was that all food handling outlets, including informal retailers known as spaza shops, had to register with their respective municipalities. It also introduced widespread inspection of these outlets for compliance with regulations and health standards.

    The measures are a step in the right direction. However, based on our research work at the Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO) over the past decades, they fall short of what is required. In addition, certain aspects, such as mandatory registration and mass inspection of food outlets, may prove difficult to implement effectively.

    The Gauteng City Region is a cluster of cities, towns and urban nodes that make up the economic heartland of South Africa. The Gauteng City-Region Observatory is a partnership between the Gauteng provincial government, the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Johannesburg and Gauteng South African Local Government Association. It has been researching the development dynamics of the region since 2008, providing data-driven insights and strategic guidance to support sustainable development.

    The government response to the outbreak of food-borne illnesses addresses the immediate crisis but does not address underlying factors affecting low-income settlements.

    Research by GCRO has identified the underlying factors as poor infrastructure and services. Rat infestations stem from poor waste management. This is caused by inadequate public services, failing infrastructure and irregular waste collection.

    Dumping, littering and burning waste worsen the public health and environmental risks, including disease transmission and pest infestations.

    Based on this evidence, we conclude that the government’s response does not adequately address some of the root causes of the outbreak, due to insufficient understanding of the context. Addressing these systemic failures is not just a public health matter. It also highlights the challenges faced by these communities and emphasises the importance of supporting local economies.

    Survey findings

    The GCRO’s flagship Quality of Life Survey, conducted every two years since 2009, is one of South Africa’s largest social surveys. It measures various aspects such as Gauteng residents’ socio-economic dynamics, service delivery experiences, and satisfaction with government. It provides longitudinally comparable data to inform decision-making.

    The survey covers various topics that have a bearing on the food-borne illnesses outbreak, like basic services, income sources and food security. According to the latest survey (2023/24), access to refuse removal and satisfaction with service delivery has declined in Gauteng.

    In the 2023/24 survey, 74% of respondents reported weekly refuse removal, down from 83% in the 2020/21 period. Satisfaction with services dropped from 75% to 64% over the same period – a worrying trend since 2017/18. The survey also shows that over half (57%) of businesses in Gauteng are informal.

    Household hunger has increased across ten years of the survey. More than one in ten households experience severe food insecurity: hunger, poor access to food and insufficient spending on nutritious food.

    Measures to address the crisis

    We now turn to the three government interventions:

    Registration of spaza shops

    All food handling outlets, including spaza shops, are required to register with their municipalities between November 2024 and February 2025. This is a step in the right direction, towards regulatory compliance and monitoring of the safety of goods being sold to the public. However, it might not be achievable, especially within the specified period.

    There are minimum requirements for the registration of spaza shops. These include (re)zoning certificates or consent use, certificates of acceptability (health standards), approved building plans, registration with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, and tax clearance. However, many of these businesses operate informally and therefore lack the required documentation.

    Any spaza shop that fails to register in time will be closed. This will affect livelihoods and food security, especially in low-income communities where these shops play a vital role.

    Spaza shops are a way for many people to make an income, and they supply essential food items to local communities. Households buy from them for a variety of reasons: they are nearby and affordable, open for long hours and offer credit.

    Inspection of food outlets

    A campaign to inspect all food handling outlets, focusing on spaza shops and informal traders, is underway. Law enforcement is important to remove contaminated food from the market and prevent future outbreaks. But municipalities have limited capacity to conduct such widespread inspections and ensure compliance with health regulations and standards.

    The outbreak was partly a result of municipalities’ inability to enforce the rules. If inspections had been regular and thorough, food contamination issues would have been picked up before the current crisis.

    The focus on punitive measures, such as closing businesses and prosecuting owners, does not help them to register, reopen and comply. It might harm the informal economy, reflecting a broader trend of criminalising the poor.

    Joint fund to support township and rural businesses

    Government has set aside R500 million (US$26 million) to support township and rural enterprises, including spaza shops. The fund is intended to improve business infrastructure and build capacity.

    But in our view, its eligibility criteria require reconsideration. To qualify, a business owner must be a South African citizen, their business must be registered in the municipality and they must have have valid tax registration. The majority of businesses in these settlements are informal and would not meet the requirements, so the criteria exclude many that need support.

    Next steps

    The government’s response to the food-borne illness outbreak focuses on the immediate crisis and related symptoms. It overlooks underlying structural factors. The formalisation and compliance of informal businesses may contribute to the solution but will not tackle the root causes.

    These include essential infrastructure and services such as water, sanitation and waste management facilities.

    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. South Africa’s food poisoning crisis: the government’s response isn’t dealing with the real issues – https://theconversation.com/south-africas-food-poisoning-crisis-the-governments-response-isnt-dealing-with-the-real-issues-245951

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Bacteria in your mouth may hold clues to your brain health and dementia risk – new study

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joanna L’Heureux, Postdoctoral Researcher, Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter

    Could the bacteria in your mouth predict whether you are at risk of dementia? Emerging research suggests that the bacteria living on your tongue and gums may affect how the brain works and how it changes as we age. In turn, this could affect whether someone ages normally or develops dementia.

    Scientists are uncovering surprising connections between the oral microbiome, which is the bustling ecosystem of bacteria in our mouths, and brain health. A new study my colleagues and I conducted suggests that certain bacteria may help memory and thinking skills, while others could be early warning signs of a decline in brain function.

    This raises the possibility that diet and treatments that change our oral bacteria could one day play a role in helping to preserve brain health as we age.

    For our investigation, we analysed saliva samples from 115 adults over 50 years old. Among these people, 52% had healthy brain function, and the other 48% had early signs of decline in memory and other brain functions.

    We examined the bacteria in these samples and showed that people who had large numbers of two groups of bacteria called Neisseria and Haemophilus performed better in brain health tests. In particular, people with these bacteria had better memory, and better ability to pay attention and perform complex tasks.

    These people also had higher levels of the ion nitrite in their mouths. Nitrite is made by bacteria when they break down nitrate, which is a natural part of a vegetable-rich diet.

    Bacteria can also break down nitrite to produce nitric oxide, which improves circulation, including blood flow to the brain. This suggests that eating lots of nitrate-rich vegetables, such as leafy green spinach and rocket, could boost levels of healthy bacteria and help improve brain health, which might be especially important as people age.

    We are now investigating whether nitrate-rich beetroot juice can improve brain function in older adults by hijacking bacteria in the mouth.

    On the other hand, a different group of bacteria may be causing more harm than good. Our study found two groups of bacteria that are potentially linked to worse brain health.

    One group called Porphyromonas, which is often associated with gum disease, was more common in people with memory problems than people who were healthy.

    A second group called Prevotella was linked to low nitrite, which in turn could mean poorer brain health. Prevotella was also more common in people who carry the gene APOE4, which is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s.

    These findings suggest that some bacteria might play a detrimental role in changes in brain health as people age. It also raises the question of whether routine tests to measure levels of these bacteria could be used to detect very early signs of declining brain health as part of dental checkups in the future.

    Profound implications

    The implications of this research are profound. If certain bacteria support brain health while others contribute to decline, then treatments to change the balance of bacteria in the mouth could be part of a solution to prevent dementia.

    Encouraging the growth of nitrite-producing bacteria like Neisseria, while reducing Prevotella and Porphyromonas, could help maintain brain function as we age. This could be achieved through dietary changes, probiotics, oral hygiene routines, or even targeted treatments that reshape the microbiome.

    While we’re still in the early stages of understanding the intricate links between the mouth bacteria and the brain, our findings provide a strong rationale for further research.

    If future studies confirm that the oral microbiome plays a role in maintaining a healthy brain, then by paying closer attention to the bacteria in our mouths we may unlock new possibilities for detecting and potentially delaying dementia.

    In the meantime, the best advice is to keep your teeth clean, see the dentist regularly and eat food with lots of nitrate, like leafy green vegetables, to keep feeding the good bacteria in your mouth.

    Dr L’Heureux’s PhD scholarship was supported by the Wellcome Trust’s Institutional Strategic Support Fund.

    This paper represents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Exeter
    Biomedical Research Centre, UK. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR
    (UK) or the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. It was also supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South-West Peninsula, UK. Genotyping was performed at deCODE Genetics. This work was funded in part through the MRC Proximity to Discovery: Industry Engagement Fund (External Collaboration, Innovation and Entrepreneurism: Translational Medicine in Exeter 2 (EXCITEME2, ref. MC_PC_17189) awarded to Dr Creese. This project utilized equipment funded by the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund (WT097835MF), Wellcome Trust Multi User Equipment Award (WT101650MA) and BBSRC LOLA award (BB/K003240/1).

    ref. Bacteria in your mouth may hold clues to your brain health and dementia risk – new study – https://theconversation.com/bacteria-in-your-mouth-may-hold-clues-to-your-brain-health-and-dementia-risk-new-study-248625

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s tariff gambit: As allies prepare to strike back, a costly trade war looms

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bedassa Tadesse, Professor of Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth

    On Saturday, Feb. 1, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a plan to slap steep tariffs on imports from key American trading partners – 25% on goods from Mexico and Canada and 10% on imports from China. His stated reason? To curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

    Both Mexico and Canada managed to buy some time. After urgent phone calls with Trump on Feb. 3, their leaders each secured a one-month reprieve. But Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum and Canada’s Justin Trudeau also made it clear to their U.S. counterpart: If these tariffs go through, they’ll hit back with their own trade restrictions. The world is watching the opening moves of what could become another costly trade war.

    As a professor of economics, I can explain why this poses significant risks to the U.S. economy and American consumers. Economic theory suggests that tariffs distort market efficiency, raising production costs while limiting consumer choice and increasing prices.

    Who really pays for tariffs?

    While politicians often frame tariffs as a way to punish other countries, they actually hit domestic consumers and businesses hardest. Whether they’re facing higher grocery bills or disruptions in manufacturing, Americans will feel the strain.

    When tariffs are imposed, companies must either absorb the additional costs – cutting into profits and potentially threatening jobs – or pass these costs to consumers through higher prices. Small businesses operating on thin profit margins are particularly vulnerable, as many lack the resources to quickly switch suppliers.

    Tariffs trigger costly retaliation

    Worse yet, such measures commonly set off a cycle of retaliation. During past trade disputes involving the U.S., affected nations have responded with counter-tariffs on American products, including textiles, steel and agricultural goods. Such retaliatory efforts have led to sharp declines in U.S. exports.

    During the first Trump administration, for example, China imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports. As a result, the U.S. farmers lost billions of dollars, and the U.S. spent billions in government aid to offset those losses. China has already issued new tariffs on imports of U.S. goods and export controls on some of its exports to the U.S. to retaliate for Trump’s current move.

    History also shows that trade wars are self-defeating. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which imposed tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, prompted swift retaliation from trading partners and contributed to deepening the Great Depression.

    Modern trade wars have other consequences

    Modern trade wars hit closer to home than most Americans realize. The recent tariff threat against Colombia reveals why. In 2023, Colombian farmers supplied US$1.14 billion worth of fresh-cut flowers to U.S. florists. In a near-crisis that lasted a weekend, Trump threatened to slap steep tariffs on the South American nation, right when flower shops across America were stocking up for one of their busiest seasons: Valentine’s Day.

    The same tariffs would have hit Colombian coffee too, affecting everything from neighborhood cafes to grocery store prices. This shows how modern trade disputes can instantly disrupt the everyday purchases Americans make.

    Other key trading partners, including the European Union, have also come into the crosshairs. On Jan. 30, 2025, the president issued a stark warning to Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – the so-called BRICS nations – threatening 100% tariffs if they continued efforts to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar as their reserve currency.

    These threats can do more than alienate strategic partners; they risk accelerating dedollarization – pushing nations to develop alternative financial systems that weaken U.S. influence in global trade.

    A more effective approach

    Beyond causing immediate economic pain, constant tariff threats risk damaging America’s credibility as a reliable trading partner. The U.S. helped establish the rules-based international trading system, but regular tariff threats erode global trust and push trading partners to seek alternatives to the U.S. market.

    The reality is clear: No country in the modern era has successfully used tariffs to grow its economy or improve the well-being of its people. The countries that are most dependent on tariff revenues for their national budgets are among the world’s poorest and least developed economies.

    I believe the path to maintaining America’s economic leadership lies in embracing a smarter, more strategic trade policy – one that builds alliances instead of breaking them. A strategy that prioritizes negotiation, fosters innovation and enhances competitiveness – and that doesn’t rely on protectionist tactics more often used by developing nations – would strengthen cooperation and stability, ensuring long-term economic prosperity.

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

    ref. Trump’s tariff gambit: As allies prepare to strike back, a costly trade war looms – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tariff-gambit-as-allies-prepare-to-strike-back-a-costly-trade-war-looms-248980

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s opening tariff salvo will hurt US consumers − following through on Canada, Mexico threats will increase the price pain

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame

    If U.S. voters reelected Donald Trump hoping for relief from higher prices, his recent threats to impose tariffs on America’s three largest trade partners might make them think again.

    On Saturday, Feb. 1, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on China, which he said would take effect on Tuesday, Feb. 4. While markets braced for the news to some degree, they still saw a steep premarket sell-off on Monday, Feb. 3, followed by morning volatility.

    While Canada and Mexico negotiated monthlong reprieves on Monday, the new tariffs on China went into effect as expected Tuesday, Feb. 4. And while the ultimate shape of Trump’s tariff policy remains to be seen, the president warned that American consumers could feel “some pain” as a result.

    Given my training as an economist and finance professor, I think Trump could be right on that score. In fact, if the tariffs go into effect, they could spell disaster for the Federal Reserve’s inflation reduction efforts.

    From grocery stores to homes

    U.S. consumers might be surprised to find out that almost every economic sector could be affected by this opening salvo of tariffs, should they go ahead in March. Imports from Mexico and Canada reached close to US$1 trillion in 2024, almost double the amount the U.S. imports from China.

    The U.S. is particularly reliant on Mexico for fresh fruits and vegetables, and on Canada for lumber. So if the tariffs go into effect, Americans who have been waiting for home prices to ease may have to continue waiting, as tariffs on lumber and other building materials could worsen the affordable-housing crunch. And let’s not even talk about avocado prices.

    Meanwhile, the 10% tariffs on Chinese goods will likely boost the price of electronics, and China has already imposed retaliatory measures. Trump has also proposed 25% tariffs on Taiwan and its semiconductor industry, in an attempt to push Taiwanese companies to invest more in U.S. manufacturing. If that tariff were to go into effect, prices for U.S. consumers would be even higher.

    A tax by any other name …

    Tariffs are an import tax. They’re passed through the supply chain in the form of higher prices and are eventually paid by consumers. Traditionally, governments have used tariffs as a fiscal tool to encourage businesses and consumers to move away from foreign-made products and support domestic businesses instead.

    In theory, new tariffs could encourage foreign businesses to invest in the U.S. and make more stuff on American soil. Unfortunately, domestic manufacturing has seen a systemic decline since the 1980s, resulting in lower prices for consumers but severely limiting U.S.-produced products. In the short term, at least, import taxes on Canadian, Mexican and Chinese products would ultimately be paid by U.S. consumers.

    Although this round of tariff threats may seem arbitrary to some, the Trump administration says it considers tariffs deeply intertwined with national security concerns. Stephen Miran, Trump’s pick to chair the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, has laid out a path for Trump’s tariff plan, which he says is aimed at putting American industry on fairer ground against the rest of the world.

    In the long term, it’s unclear whether Trump’s threatened trade war will bring domestic manufacturing back to the U.S. and start a new industrial renaissance. In the meantime, American consumers will likely be stuck holding the bag.

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

    ref. Trump’s opening tariff salvo will hurt US consumers − following through on Canada, Mexico threats will increase the price pain – https://theconversation.com/trumps-opening-tariff-salvo-will-hurt-us-consumers-following-through-on-canada-mexico-threats-will-increase-the-price-pain-248991

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who are immigrants to the US, where do they come from and where do they live?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer Van Hook, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Demography, Penn State

    Immigrants to the U.S. increasingly arrive like these people, seeking asylum at a formal border crossing, rather than trying to sneak across the border. Carlos Moreno/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Undocumented immigration is a key issue in American politics, but it can be hard to nail down the basic facts about who these immigrants are, where they live and how their numbers have changed in the past few decades.

    I study the demographics of the U.S. immigrant population and have seen how the data has changed over time. Here are some basics to set the stage as President Donald Trump begins his second term in office vowing to crack down hard on immigrants, including by conducting mass deportations.

    Immigration status

    My analysis of the Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey data, in collaboration with the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit immigration research group, finds that as of the middle of 2023, approximately 51 million foreign-born people lived in the United States.

    Most immigrants are in the U.S. legally. About 49% have become U.S. citizens by a process known as naturalization. Another 19% hold lawful permanent resident status and are eligible to become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Still another 5% are in the country on temporary visas, like those for international students, diplomats and their families, and seasonal or temporary workers.

    The remaining 27% – around 13.7 million people – are outside those categories and therefore generally considered to be undocumented.

    My analysis shows that the number of undocumented immigrants held steady at around 11 million between 2007 and 2019. In the next four years, the numbers increased by nearly 3 million. This recent growth is mostly attributable to large increases in border crossings by migrants from Central and South America who were seeking asylum or other forms of humanitarian relief. Starting in June 2024, however, the number of people entering across the U.S.-Mexico border fell back to normal levels when the Biden administration implemented the Secure the Border rule, which suspends asylum applications at the border when crossings reach a seven-day average of 2,500.

    These changes were accompanied by changes in the undocumented migration process itself. In the past, undocumented immigrants often entered the country by slipping undetected across the U.S. border with Mexico. But increased border enforcement made the journey more dangerous and expensive.

    Instead of paying smugglers or risking their lives in the desert, growing numbers of undocumented immigrants now either directly approach immigration officials at airports or land-border crossings and seek asylum in the U.S. Others are initially admitted to the country legally on a temporary tourist, student or work visa – but then overstay the time period for which they have permission.

    Additionally, growing numbers of undocumented immigrants occupy what might be called a “liminal” or “in-between” status. The Migration Policy Institute analysis estimates this encompasses a range of groups as of the middle of 2023, including:

    • About 2.1 million people awaiting a decision on their asylum claims.
    • 521,000 parolees, allowed into the U.S. for humanitarian or national security reasons, like those paroled recently from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
    • 654,000 people who hold temporary protected status because it would be unsafe for them to return home due to armed conflict, natural disasters and other emergencies.
    • 562,000 who are protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program because they were brought to the United States as children by their parents.

    The report estimates that just over one-quarter of undocumented immigrants currently occupy this type of “in-between” status. These immigrants are protected from deportation. Some even have a legal right to work in the U.S. Yet they do not possess a durable legal immigration status, and their rights could be threatened by policy changes.

    While Trump says he wants to deport as many as 11 million immigrants, analyses published by The New York Times and The Washington Post indicate that it may be difficult to remove many of them under existing U.S. law. The one group that is easy to remove – those with a criminal record – is relatively small, numbering about 650,000.

    Shifting countries of origin

    Since 1980, Mexicans have been the largest single national origin group in the United States. I found that 10.9 million Mexican-born individuals were living in the country in 2023, making up 23% of all immigrants. The second-largest group, immigrants from India, numbered just 2.9 million, or 6% of all immigrants living in the U.S.

    However, immigrants’ origins have been shifting away from Mexico.

    With the onset of the Great Recession of 2007-2009, work opportunities in U.S. construction and manufacturing evaporated. Many Mexican laborers had been working in construction at the time but went back to Mexico when the U.S. housing market collapsed.

    At that same time, Mexico’s economic conditions improved, its population growth slowed, and many would-be migrants opted to stay home. For the first time in decades, from 2007 to 2022 the number of Mexicans who returned home exceeded the number coming to the United States.

    This trend was especially pronounced among undocumented immigrants. I found that Mexicans made up about 51% of the undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country 10 or more years ago. Central Americans made up 20%, and the remaining originated from other regions.

    However, undocumented migrants now come from across the globe. Among undocumented immigrants who arrived within the past 10 years, 19% came from Mexico. Larger shares came from Central America and South America. While some of these new migrants seek work, others flee crime, economic and ecological disasters, and political persecution in their home countries.

    Duration of residence

    Most immigrants, whether they are in the U.S. legally or illegally, have lived in the United States for many years. Just under half of foreign-born individuals have lived in the country for two decades or more, and more than two-thirds have lived in the country for at least 10 years. Only 20% arrived within the past five years.

    This is a dramatic change from the early 2000s, when less than 10% of immigrants had been in the U.S. for more than two decades, and more than one-third had arrived within the previous five years.

    That means many of the people who are likely to be targeted for deportation in the coming months are settled, long-term members of American society.

    Place of residence

    As of 2023, 6.6 million immigrants reported on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey that they moved to the United States in the past five years.

    However, the effects of these new immigrants on American communities has been uneven. Although most communities are more racially and ethnically diverse now than in the past, the numbers of newly arrived immigrants are relatively low in most places.

    Fifteen states host fewer than 20,000 immigrants, and 33 states are home to fewer than 100,000. In contrast, over half of new arrivals live in just five states: California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas are the home of over half of new arrivals yet have only 37% of the U.S. population. Other states such as Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington also are home to large and growing immigrant populations.

    The U.S. immigrant population is changing rapidly. In the early years of the 21st century, Mexican immigrants dominated undocumented immigration flows to the United States. Decades later, many of these people continue to live in the country.

    In the past four years, however, the flow of undocumented people increased dramatically. These new arrivals tend to come from troubled nations in Central and South America, many of whom are protected from deportation and have a legal right to work in the U.S. Altogether, most undocumented immigrants either have lived in the country for decades or have legal protections.

    Neither of these groups fit the profile of undocumented immigrants who are typically targeted for deportation.

    Jennifer Van Hook receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. She is a nonresident fellow of the Migration Policy Institute.

    ref. Who are immigrants to the US, where do they come from and where do they live? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-immigrants-to-the-us-where-do-they-come-from-and-where-do-they-live-247430

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Dementia: why prescription drugs like antibiotics and vaccines have been linked to lower risk of the disease

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rahul Sidhu, PhD Candidate, Neuroscience, University of Sheffield

    Antibiotics, antivirals and anti-inflammatory drugs were all associated with reduced dementia risk Slladkaya/ Shutterstock

    There’s currently no cure for dementia. Although some recently developed drugs show promise in slowing the progress of the disease, these are both costly and may have limited benefit for many patients.

    However, a recent Cambridge-led study has found a link between commonly used prescription drugs – including antibiotics, antivirals and vaccines – and a lower risk of dementia.

    Given these drugs are already licensed and their safety profiles well established, this could enable faster and more cost-effective clinical trials in the search for a cure.

    The study analysed health data from 130 million people, including one million people who had been diagnosed with dementia. Having identified possible links with prescription drugs and dementia risk, the researchers conducted a systematic review of 14 studies to explore these links further and understand which prescription drugs might affect dementia outcomes.

    This led them to the conclusion that antibiotics, antivirals and anti-inflammatory drugs were all associated with reduced dementia risk. The researchers also found a link between the hepatitis A, typhoid and diphtheria vaccines and lower dementia risk.

    It’s unknown how long participants had been taking any of these prescription drugs or how many times they’d been prescribed them during their lifetime, so it will be important for future studies to investigate these factors.

    Immune reponse and brain health

    Based on their findings, the researchers suggest that the protective effects that these prescription drugs appear to have may be because they reduce inflammation, control infections and improve overall brain health.

    This supports the theory that common types of dementia could be triggered by viral or bacterial infections. We know that infections that last a few days to several weeks, whether bacterial or viral, can cause great damage to the brain. This is because infections cause an enhanced immune response from the body, which can damage brain cells – disrupting brain connections and accelerating memory decline.

    Antibiotics and antivirals help to combat infections.

    Antivirals and antibiotics help combat infections, which in turn may dampen this excessive immune response. Meanwhile, vaccines can prevent these infections from occurring in the first place. In both cases, this can significantly reduce the risk of prolonged infections and their potentially devastating consequences for brain health.

    It’s also worth noting that other studies have also shown an association between the BCG vaccine, which protects against tuberculosis, and a decreased risk of Alzheimer’s (a type of dementia).




    Read more:
    My work investigating the links between viruses and Alzheimer’s disease was dismissed for years – but now the evidence is building


    Inflammation and dementia risk

    Regarding the new study’s finding of a link between the use of anti-inflammatory medications and a reduced risk of dementia, notably non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen were identified as potentially protecting against memory decline.

    Again, this is another piece of evidence suggesting that inflammation plays a central role in dementia.Inflammation is the body’s natural way of defending itself against injury or infection. But when inflammation lasts too long, it can cause harm – particularly to the brain. Long-lasting inflammation releases chemicals that can damage healthy tissue. These chemicals can damage brain cells and disrupt communication between them, which leads to memory loss.

    Anti-inflammatory drugs work by blocking the production of certain molecules that cause inflammation. By doing this, they might help protect brain cells from damage caused by long-term inflammation.

    Next steps

    The evidence for the benefits of other types of drugs on dementia risk was less consistent. The study found that certain blood-pressure drugs, antidepressants and diabetes drugs were linked to both a lower and higher risk of dementia.

    One possible reason is that these prescription drugs affect different biological processes. Even drugs designed to treat the same condition may target different biological mechanisms, which might explain the varying results.

    For example, some blood pressure medications – such as ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) – improve brain health by enhancing blood flow and reducing inflammation. On the other hand, beta-blockers primarily lower heart rate and may not provide the same neuroprotective benefits.

    Diabetes drugs also had mixed associations with dementia risk. But as people with diabetes are already at a higher risk of developing dementia, this makes it difficult to determine whether this association was due to the effects of the drugs themselves, or if diabetes is the main factor at play.

    Overall, more research is needed to confirm this study’s findings and better understand how all these drugs appear to influence dementia risk. Randomised controlled trials will be crucial to see if these prescription drugs really can be repurposed to prevent dementia effectively. At the same time, looking into the biological mechanisms that are potentially affected by these drugs could shed light on the causes of dementia.

    This research highlights the importance of addressing inflammation and infections as part of a broader strategy for maintaining brain health. And by finding new uses for existing drugs, scientists could deliver treatments to patients more quickly – offering hope in the fight against dementia.

    Rahul Sidhu 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. Dementia: why prescription drugs like antibiotics and vaccines have been linked to lower risk of the disease – https://theconversation.com/dementia-why-prescription-drugs-like-antibiotics-and-vaccines-have-been-linked-to-lower-risk-of-the-disease-248041

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: USAid shutdown isn’t just a humanitarian issue – it’s a threat to American interests

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

    The website for the United States Agency for International Development (USAid), the world’s biggest aid donor, has gone dark.

    Donald Trump’s new administration plans to place the autonomous agency under the control of the state department. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has now declared himself as head of the agency to “align” it with Trump’s priorities.

    Several days ago, on January 26, Rubio said: “Every dollar we spend, every programme we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

    But the decision to freeze USAid, which is part of Trump’s policy to put “America first”, places everyone at risk. Organisations that provide vital care for vulnerable people around the world are being forced to halt operations. The boss of one such organisation said: “People will die.”

    Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a close adviser to Trump, is playing an active role in the destruction of USAid. He has claimed – without providing any evidence – that the agency is “beyond repair”. “It needs to die,” Musk wrote on X.

    Musk, who leads the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), is gearing to cut trillions of dollars from the US budget. However, by seeing cuts to USAid as a solution, Trump and Musk are catering to an audience that has a fundamental misunderstanding about US foreign aid more generally.

    Surveys demonstrate that Americans believe 25% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. In reality, the US gives about 0.2% of its gross national product (GNP), the total value of goods and services produced by a country, to foreign aid – or less than 1% of its federal budget. This is far below the UN target of 0.7% of GNP.

    But, despite this, USAid provided 42% of all humanitarian aid globally in 2024. This included about US$72 billion (£58 billion) in aid in a wide range of areas, from helping people access clean water, sanitation, healthcare and energy, to providing disaster relief, shelter and food.

    USAid also delivered programmes aimed at supporting democracy, civil society, economic development and landmine clearance in war zones, as well as working to prevent organised crime, terrorism and conflict. The gutting of USAid will have a profound impact on human security.

    The Trump administration has granted a waiver for the continuation of “life-saving humanitarian assistance”. This includes a programme that helps 20 million people living with HIV/Aids access anti-retroviral drugs. But there are questions about the future of US Aids organisation, the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar).

    To date, over 43 million people worldwide have died from Aids. But one of the biggest success stories of the George W. Bush administration was its launch of Pepfar in 2003. The World Health Organization says that Pepfar, working in partnership with USAid, has saved 26 million lives.

    Pepfar employs more than 250,000 doctors, nurses and other staff across 55 countries. One of the functions that USAid performs is ordering and procuring the drugs used by Pepfar to keep the millions infected with HIV alive. It remains to be seen whether federal payments to USAid’s locally run partner organisations will be stopped.

    We are, in any case, likely to see an uptick in other infectious diseases. USAid had been working to prevent current outbreaks of mpox and Marburg virus from spreading beyond Africa. It is not clear what the future is for these programmes.

    And USAid’s work with malaria, a disease that kills about 450,000 children under the age of five each year, is facing uncertainty. From 2000 to 2021, USAid’s work helped to prevent 7.6 million deaths from malaria. Also in doubt is USAid’s work to develop and implement the malaria vaccine, which was considered a gamechanger for combating the disease.

    At the same time, USAid responds to an average of 65 natural disasters each year. In 2024 alone, it responded to 84 separate crises across 66 different countries. The government is letting go all of the staff important for implementing these types of programmes.

    Dozens of senior USAid officials have been placed on leave, while contractors working on the agency’s programmes have been furloughed. Up to 3,000 aid workers in Washington DC could reportedly be laid off this week.

    What Trump’s team misunderstand is that the work of USAid is also vital for preserving American interests. China, which has poured more than US$1 trillion of assistance into infrastructure projects in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America since 2013, will now be given an opportunity to exert more influence around the world. The void in US aid is a gift for China in the battle for soft power.

    White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, lists some of what she calls the ‘insane priorities’ that USAid has been spending money on.

    Global aid sector in disarray

    Foreign aid relies on certainty and transparency about the future of aid programmes. But the Trump administration has offered little clarity while US foreign aid programmes are all being reviewed. One aid organisation referred to the situation as an “absolute dumpster fire” due to the uncertainty.

    There have already been reports of total confusion in health clinics previously supported by USAid, which were shut down without warning. Africa will probably be the region most negatively affected. Local workers in healthcare-related projects on the continent will lose their jobs, while nurses, doctors and healthcare workers across clinics will be unable to continue their vital work.

    The Democrats have claimed that Trump does not have the legal authority to eradicate a congressionally funded independent agency. They have said court challenges are already in motion and have pledged to try to block approval of Trump’s state department nominations until the shutdown is reversed.

    Trump did try to cut US foreign aid during his first term, but Congress refused. He then tried – and ultimately failed – to freeze the flow of aid appropriated by Congress. This time, Trump is not bothering to play by the rules.

    Natasha Lindstaedt 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. USAid shutdown isn’t just a humanitarian issue – it’s a threat to American interests – https://theconversation.com/usaid-shutdown-isnt-just-a-humanitarian-issue-its-a-threat-to-american-interests-248939

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ofsted report cards are a superficial change – the inspectorate needs a culture shift

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Clapham, Associate Professor of Education Policy, Nottingham Trent University

    Ofsted, England’s education inspectorate, has released proposals for a new approach to inspecting schools and other education providers. The proposals are now under consultation, with parents, teachers, education professionals and learners invited to share their views.

    These proposals mark the latest changes to Ofsted after the public outcry following the suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry in January 2023. The coroner’s report in December 2023 ruled that the Ofsted inspection had contributed to Perry’s suicide. But the proposals neglect key areas that we, having researched people’s experiences of Ofsted, believe should change. These include the behaviour of inspectors and the process of inspecting schools.

    Crucially, the proposal document emphasises the continuing importance and authority of Ofsted in raising achievement in the school system. And in a recent speech on the proposals, education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “The improvements in inspection and accountability starting in the 90s have been instrumental for raising standards in our schools. With Ofsted’s role right at its heart. And to those who call for the abolition of a strong, independent, effective inspectorate, I have said before and I will say again: never.”

    Our current research work, analysing written submissions of experiences of Ofsted to the education select committee, has found a stark picture of the inherently unfair and unhealthy nature of Ofsted inspections and the toll they take on teachers.

    Ofsted’s chief inspector Martyn Oliver explains the proposed report cards.

    Anticipating an Ofsted inspection informs almost everything teachers do, and under these proposals, this will not change. If Ofsted’s position of power and authority over schools remains and these problems stay unaddressed, it will continue to cause risk and harm to those working in the state education sector in England.

    Report cards

    Central to the proposed changes is the introduction of report cards, which will replace a system which gave schools a headline judgement of “inadequate”, “requires improvement”, “good” or “outstanding”. Instead, a range of aspects of a school’s remit – including leadership and governance, achievement, inclusion, attendance and personal development and wellbeing – will each be assessed on a five-point scale.

    These range from “causing concern” (red on the report card) to “attention needed” (amber), “secure” (light green), “strong” (green) and “exemplary” (dark green).

    These grading scales will also focus on how schools support disadvantaged and vulnerable pupils, and there will be more emphasis on the local circumstances which schools operate in. Whether a school meets its safeguarding responsibilities will be assessed not on a scale but as either “met” or “not met”.

    Ofsted will also publish contextual data on the school. These data will include categories such as the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities, performance data, attendance and absence data along with socio-economic indicators for the area the school serves.

    But concerns are already being raised. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders’ union the NAHT, has argued that the new system will repeat the high stakes of the previous single-word judgements.

    Inspector behaviour and accountability

    There are two specific areas where we believe the new proposals have particularly failed. The first concerns inspectors’ conduct.

    Ofsted’s chief inspector Martyn Oliver has maintained that Ofsted needs to become more empathic and respectful, emphasising the moral and professional duty of inspectors.

    The consultation document states that “professional dialogue between inspectors and leaders will be a priority”. But the appalling behaviour that has been alleged of some inspectors is not acknowledged, and there is no indication as to how this culture of harm is being addressed.

    The second concerns the inspection process. There is no mention of Ofsted becoming more accountable. In her independent learning review for Ofsted, former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert recommended the institution of an improved complaints system for when a school believes an inspection outcome is unfair. But this is not mentioned in the proposals.

    Neither is there any consideration of sharing the evidence base – the information gathered by Ofsted inspectors during their visit to a school – on which an inspection judgement is made. Presumably this would be too time consuming, as suggested by Amanda Spielman, another previous chief inspector of Ofsted.

    It is perhaps unsurprising that Ruth Perry’s sister, Julia Waters, has commented that the risk of harm from Ofsted remains.

    We would therefore seek far more than a simple rebrand of the previous Ofsted model. Only a root and branch reform of the inspectorate would address the fundamental issues affecting teachers and schools.

    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. Ofsted report cards are a superficial change – the inspectorate needs a culture shift – https://theconversation.com/ofsted-report-cards-are-a-superficial-change-the-inspectorate-needs-a-culture-shift-249037

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK would be lucky to avoid US tariffs – but a global trade war would hurt everyone

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

    Below the Sky/Shutterstock

    The first weeks of the Donald Trump’s administration have been marked by a flurry of announcements and U-turns on US trade policy.

    One of the first decrees centred on Trump’s favourite word: tariffs. He announced that US consumers and businesses would be taxed an extra 25% when they bought Canadian or Mexican products. (Canadian oil got off more lightly, with a 10% tariff.)

    But because this is Donald Trump we’re talking about, it later emerged that none of this was actually happening, for now. It might be next month, or later, or maybe not at all.

    However, US residents definitely face an additional 10% on the cost of products from China. There is also a plan for a 100% tax on semiconductors from Taiwan.

    And President Trump announced new import taxes will “definitely happen” on products from the European Union. If these do ever come to pass, it’s possible there may be a better deal for the UK.

    The reason for the possible Great British exemption from new US import taxes is that the stated goal of these taxes is to reduce the US trade deficit. This deficit refers to the fact that the US buys much more from the rest of the world than the rest of the world buys from it.

    And, depending on how we measure the financial flows coming in and out of tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, the UK is one of the few countries in a position to make the case that it actually has a trade deficit with the US (the UK buys more from the US than the US buys from it).

    What about consumers?

    Being able to avoid new US tariffs would be very good news for the UK. If the US imposed import taxes on UK products and services, it would be bad for their consumers, who end up paying more. But it would also be bad for UK industry. Moreover, the UK would likely retaliate and tax US products, ultimately hurting British consumers as well.

    In theory, the UK miraculously escaping new US import taxes might even mean it indirectly benefits from a trade war between the US and the EU. If the UK can sell and buy more cheaply to both sides while they tax each other, it becomes more competitive. The UK would also get its imports more cheaply, and international businesses may want to establish subsidiaries in the UK.

    It is interesting to imagine a world in which a medium-sized, free trade supporting country like the UK ends up the winner of a global commercial war between its two most important trading partners.

    Things are not that simple however. Research shows that a major impact of tariffs is changes in global supply chains.

    As the UK has learned the hard way with Brexit, modern supply chains are increasingly interconnected. British exports are typically made with components from the European continent, which are themselves made with Chinese inputs.

    Additional costs anywhere in the chain result in more expensive products. Moreover, it is not clear that UK products made with EU and Chinese components would be exempt from US import tax.

    Disruption to supply chains could force up the cost of UK exports.
    Peter Titmuss/Shutterstock

    This is a global problem. For every final product a UK consumer ends up buying, there are many firms trying to source the best possible components and materials to make it with. If the US levies a 100% tax on chips and semiconductors from Taiwan, this means that products from the US tech industry will become more expensive for UK firms to use. This is even more pertinent given that China has retaliated to the new 10% US tax on its products by limiting the export of metals the US uses to produce its own chips.

    In this way it is easy to underestimate how sensitive supply chains are to small shocks, and what the butterfly effect of a trade war between two other countries might be on products bought and sold in the UK. So, while the UK would definitely be better off not being subject to US taxes, the main focus should be on helping to avoid global trade wars.

    How to do this is not clear, because no one seems to understand what Trump really wants from his tariffs. One theory is that he wants to pass for a madman and bully other countries into committing to buy more US-manufactured products.

    Or, in the case of Europe, to increase military spending by buying more US military equipment. In that case, tariffs would be short-lived and the impact limited. It will simply increase the incentives for international firms not to depend too much on the US.

    Or perhaps Trump really has no idea what he is doing, seemingly pursuing the two opposing goals of keeping domestic prices low while attempting to reduce its trade imbalance with ever-increasing import taxes. In that case, the consequences for consumers all over the world would be very bad. This is in part because of the effect on supply chains, but also because when the US economy is in bad shape the entire world suffers.

    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. The UK would be lucky to avoid US tariffs – but a global trade war would hurt everyone – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-would-be-lucky-to-avoid-us-tariffs-but-a-global-trade-war-would-hurt-everyone-248963

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: The 30-plants-a-week challenge: you’ll still see gut health benefits even if you don’t meet this goal

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aisling Pigott, Lecturer, Dietetics, Cardiff Metropolitan University

    Plant foods can have many benefits for our health. marilyn barbone/ Shutterstock

    The more plants you include in your diet, the more health benefits you’ll notice. This is why public health guidelines have long encouraged people to eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables per day.

    But the 30-plants-a-week challenge circulating online suggests that, instead of only aiming to eat five servings a day, we should instead aim to eat 30 different plant foods per week to improve our health. Fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, wholegrains, herbs and spices would all count as a plant serving.

    Some advocates of the approach have even created some ground rules and have generated a points system that gives a point to each different type of plant you consume. However, not every plant counts as a full point. For instance, herbs and spices only count as one-quarter of a plant point. Refined plant products, such as fruit juices or processed wholegrains (such as white bread), don’t count at all.

    Current NHS dietary recommendations around fruits and vegetables (such as the five-a-day message) place the emphasis on quantity – ensuring people eat enough fruit, vegetables and wholegrains to get all the essential nutrients and fibre their body needs. But, the 30 plants approach shifts the focus to diversity – arguing that eating a wide variety of plant foods provides greater health benefits than eating the recommended amount of only a few select fruits and vegetables.

    So does eating 30 plants a week offer any additional health benefits over eating five servings a day?

    Exploring the science

    The 30 plants a week challenge is based on the American Gut Project – a citizen science study of 10,000 participants from across the US, UK and Australia. The findings suggest that people who eat a greater variety of plant-based foods each week have a more diverse gut microbiome compared to those who eat fewer plants. The gut microbiome refers to the trillions of bacteria, viruses, fungi and microorganisms that live in our digestive tract.

    Research shows a more diverse microbiome is associated with a lower risk of chronic disease, better immune function and even improved mental health.

    So in simple terms, it looks like the more plant diversity we eat, the more diverse the population of microbes living in our gut are. This leads to better overall health.

    But does eating 30 plants really provide a greater number of benefits compared to current public health messages? These recommend we eat at least five portions of fruit and veg daily, choose wholegrain carbohydrates and limit refined sugar, processed meats and foods as much as possible.

    Incidentally, research shows that following these recommendations also leads to a more diverse gut microbiome and better health outcomes compared to those who do not meet recommendations.

    So, it looks like following either current public health recommendations or the 30 plants diet will improve microbial diversity and have benefits for health. While 30 is a meaningful and realistic target, it’s important to recognise that small, sustainable changes can also have a lasting health impact.

    Diet changes

    Like any trend, the 30 plants message isn’t without its drawbacks. One major concern is accessibility. Buying 30 different plant foods each week can be expensive – which could exacerbate existing health inequalities.

    The 30-plants-a-week challenge has benefits and limitations.
    Kulkova Daria/ Shutterstock

    There are ways around these limitations, such as buying in bulk and freezing portions, using canned and frozen fruits, veggies, pulses and lentils and meal planning to reduce food waste.

    However, these solutions often require extra resources such as storage, cooking space and time – which may not be possible for everyone.

    There’s also a risk that the message could oversimplify the complexity of public health guidance – potentially overlooking the importance of individual nutrients and overall dietary balance.

    On the other hand, there’s a strong argument that the 30 plants per week challenge is simply the same, old public health advice packaged in a slightly different, more engaging way. As a dietitian, I quite like that.

    Current public health messages around food, nutrition and lifestyle are not landing. Despite the evidence for these guidelines, rates of lifestyle-related health problems are increasing. It’s not that these recommendations don’t work – it’s that as a population we struggle to follow them.

    The 30-plants-a-week challenge is a positive message that encourages adding more variety – rather than restricting foods. If people are encouraged to eat more plant-based foods, they may naturally displace less nutritious choices – which is a win for health.

    If you’re thinking of trying the 30-plants-a-week challenge, here are some easy ways to increase variety in your diet:

    1. Swap your carbs: Swap white bread, rice or pasta for wholegrain bread, rice or pasta. You can also consider alternative wholegrain carbohydrates such as quinoa or wholegrain couscous.
    2. Include nuts and seeds: Easily overlooked, but an effortless way to add diversity. A small handful is a portion.
    3. Add pulses and lentils: Add lentils to a meat dish (such as spaghetti bolognese) for extra protein and more plant points.
    4. Buy tinned and frozen foods: Stock up on frozen berries, mixed vegetables, canned beans and chickpeas to make plant variety easier to achieve and more affordable.

    The challenge to eat 30 different plants is an exciting and positive way to potentially encourage nutritious choices. However, we don’t yet fully understand its acceptability or impact on food choices in real-world settings. While the scientific evidence strongly supports the benefits of plant diversity for health, it would be valuable to gather more research on its practical effectiveness before incorporating it into public health messaging.

    Aisling Pigott receives a research award from RCBC Wales/Health Care Research Wales
    Aisling Pigott is a non-executive director for the British Dietetic Association

    ref. The 30-plants-a-week challenge: you’ll still see gut health benefits even if you don’t meet this goal – https://theconversation.com/the-30-plants-a-week-challenge-youll-still-see-gut-health-benefits-even-if-you-dont-meet-this-goal-248491

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How AI imagery could be used to develop fake archaeology

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colleen Morgan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Archaeology and Heritage, University of York

    Generative AI is often seen as the epitome of our times, and sometimes even as futuristic. We can use it to invent new art or technology, analyse emerging data, or simulate people, places and things. But interestingly, it is also having an impact on how we view the past.

    AI imagery has already been used to illustrate popular articles, such as covering scientific discoveries about Neanderthals. It was employed to animate the Mesolithic period (from about 9,000 to 4,300 years ago) in a museum. TikTok users have adopted it to make realistic short videos about archaeology and history. It’s even been used in a TV documentary about Stonehenge.

    Yet there are many issues with using AI imagery in archaeology – some of which are also found more broadly within generative AI use. These include its environmental impact and the violation of intellectual property (using training data created by humans).

    But others are more specific to archaeology. As an academic who has worked extensively on “resurrecting” the past through digital technology, generative AI has both fascinating potential and enormous risk for archaeological misrepresentation.

    Even before the use of AI, it was widely accepted within archaeology that visualisations of the past are highly fraught and should be treated with extreme caution. For example, archaeologist Stephanie Moser examined 550 reconstructions published in academic and popular texts on human evolution. Her review found highly biased depictions, such as only males hunting, making art and tools and performing rituals, while women were in more passive roles.

    A similar study by Diane Gifford-Gonzalez revealed that “not one of 231 depictions of prehistoric males shows a man touching a child, woman, or an older person of either sex … no child is ever shown doing useful work.” These reconstructions do not reflect scientists’ nuanced understanding of the past. We know humans organised themselves in an incredible array of variety, with a multitude of gender roles and self-expression.

    A recent DNA-based study, for example, showed that women were actually at the centre of societies in the iron age.

    The stakes of representation in archaeology are high. For example, the hotly-debated, dark-skinned reconstruction of “Cheddar Man”, originally found in south-west England, was based on ancient DNA analysis. It made headlines for disrupting the perception that all human ancestors in the north were light-skinned.

    Reconstructed head of the Cheddar Man based on the shape of his skull and DNA analysis, shown at the Natural History Museum in London.
    wikipedia, CC BY-SA

    This and similar controversies reveal the iconic power of reconstructions, their political implications, and their ability to shape our understanding of the past.

    While the Cheddar Man reconstruction demonstrates that research is iterative, such reconstructions are sticky. They have profound visual legacies and are not easily supplanted when new data becomes available.

    This is exacerbated as they are incorporated into generative AI data sets.
    Beyond the use of outmoded data, generative AI visualisations of the past can be extremely poor.

    Even when more plausible details are included, they can be seamlessly integrated with other highly inaccurate elements. For example, it is impossible for viewers to disentangle the data-led from the so-called hallucinations (mistakes) produced by AI.

    Highlighting uncertainty is of central importance and concern among archaeologists. Archaeological illustrator Simon James noted that reconstruction artists have used strategically placed clouds of smoke to obscure unknown elements.

    As a digital archaeologist, I have made virtual reconstructions of many different sites and subjects. I know there is often estimation and guesswork involved in making holistic representations.

    Indeed, photo-realistic accuracy is not always the paramount consideration in visualisation – particularly when exploring different hypotheses or addressing young audiences. But knowing what is backed by archaeological data and what is more speculative is key for authentic visual communication.

    Pseudoarchaeology

    This is particularly important at a time when pseudoarchaeology is increasingly prevalent in popular media, such as the Ancient Apocalypse show on Netflix. The celebrity host and author Graham Hancock asserts there was a lost ice age civilisation of Atlantis, with advanced technology. But this claim has been thoroughly repudiated by archaeologists.

    Arguably, hoaxes will be much easier to perpetuate using generative AI.
    Beyond the high potential for misinformation about archaeology, the use of generative AI for archaeological visualisations can actually be harmful for archaeological knowledge production.

    My research has shown that crafting reconstructions and illustrations in archaeology is incredibly important for understanding and interpreting the past. Creating visualisations based on science – and indeed soundscapes, smellscapes and other interpretations based on multiple senses – is very helpful for generating new questions.

    Drawing allows archaeologists to create more detailed mental models and therefore a better understanding of archaeological remains. By delegating this creation to AI, archaeologists lose a powerful tool for knowledge generation. Moreover, my collaborative work with artists has demonstrated the intriguing possibilities that creative approaches open up to tell new stories about the past.

    Even with all of these problems, I encourage an engaged, critical, applied approach to understanding the impact of digital technologies on our investigation of the past. And this includes exploring the uses of generative AI for archaeological visualisation.

    Archaeologists and non-specialists are able to leverage generative AI to creatively produce interpretive media. Indeed, some archaeologists are already exploring AI to generate hypotheses about ancient life. And we are teaching critical uses of AI to our archaeology students.

    But what remains imperative is that archaeologists engage with and critique all visualisations – both those created by generative AI and using other media.

    Colleen Morgan 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 AI imagery could be used to develop fake archaeology – https://theconversation.com/how-ai-imagery-could-be-used-to-develop-fake-archaeology-247838

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Go Back to Where You Came From: Channel 4’s social experiment makes a spectacle of empathy for refugees

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fiona Murphy, Assistant Professor in Refugee and Intercultural Studies, Dublin City University

    The White Cliffs of Dover have become associated with irregular migration via small boat. DaisyKDesigns/Shutterstock

    The new Channel 4 programme Go Back to Where You Came From is unsettling viewing, almost unbearable at times. It takes six British citizens – some staunchly anti-immigration, others more open – and drops them into lives shaped by conflict and displacement.

    The premise is to cultivate understanding of the refugee experience, to make the unimaginable tangible. But in doing so, the show risks turning forced displacement into spectacle, reducing suffering to an immersive learning experience for those with the privilege of ignorance.

    The show opens with participants offering their views – filmed in their homes or standing at the cliffs of Dover, where one man declares: “What I’d do is, I’d set landmines up, and then any boat that comes within 50m of this beach, they’d get blown up.”

    Then, two teams, two journeys. One is sent to Somalia, the other to Syria.

    In Mogadishu, Nathan, Jess and Matilda navigate a city carved up by checkpoints, escorted by an American security team. Nathan surveys the streets like a man assessing a lost cause: a “shithole”, he mutters. Jess, fiercely anti-immigration, feels exposed – her fear magnified by the weight of unfamiliar eyes, the choreography of a life not her own. She wants to leave.

    At a camp for internally displaced people, women speak of gender-based violence, of female genital mutilation, of lives spent in spaces never built for them. Jess listens, nods and files their words neatly into the folder of convictions she brought with her. She does not question; she confirms. The mindsets of Somalian men, she concludes, are the problem.

    In Raqqa, Bushra, Chloe and Dave pick their way through streets reduced to rubble. Chloe complains about the rubbish, as if it were neglect rather than obliteration. “They should stay and clean it up,” she says. The children sifting through debris do not register. In a bombed-out home, a father speaks of safety, the only thing he wants for his children. The children do not speak.

    The violence of ‘refuge’

    Watching the show, I thought of the conversations I’ve had with asylum seekers and refugees on the island of Ireland as part of my research. Many speak of the quiet violence of exclusion – how “welcome” is so often a hollow gesture, how refuge can feel like another form of exile.

    Many recount racial hatred in the streets, the fear woven into daily movements, the gnawing sense that they are barely tolerated, not wanted. Some have told me, with devastating clarity, that had they known what awaited them here – homelessness, suspicion, a life in bureaucratic limbo – they might never have fled at all. Not because home was safe, but because this isn’t living either.

    These experiences are not anomalies. They are built into the asylum systems in the UK and Ireland, where deterrence is policy. As of mid-2024, 122.6 million people have been forcibly displaced worldwide, yet the UK hosts just 1% of them.

    And “hosting” often takes the form of offshore detention, indefinite waiting and policies designed to make seeking refuge as inhospitable as possible. In Ireland, the failure is just as insidious: asylum seekers sleeping rough, vulnerability assessments in name only, the quiet withdrawal of care until people simply disappear from view.




    Read more:
    ‘When you get status the struggle doesn’t end’: what it’s like to be a new refugee in the UK


    After the first episode of the Channel 4 show, I am left wondering: what is the point of each participant’s journey? The documentary trades in empathy – tracking transformation by how much the participants feel, learn and change. But empathy, when it stops at the self, is just another performance. It asks: how have I been altered? Instead of: what must I do with what I now know?

    This is the trap of a genre that packages suffering into something neatly consumable. As film researcher Pooja Rangan argues, humanitarian documentaries often render asylum seekers passive, their worth measured by how much sympathy they can elicit. Go Back to Where You Came From follows this script, focusing not on the agency of the displaced, but on the moral awakenings of those who continue to look away.

    The real question is not whether the participants feel something, but whether feeling will ever translate into action – by them, or by us as viewers. To hold governments to account. To insist that refuge is a right, not a privilege. To refuse the quiet, grinding violence of neglect.

    “Go back to where you came from” is a phrase hurled not just at refugees, but at anyone deemed out of place. The programme inverts it, sending its wielders on a reckoning. But in the end, they return. To safety, to comfort, to homes untouched by war or exile. Or, as one put it, back to the pub.

    And yet, for those seeking refuge, the journey drags on – through border camps, detention centres, doorways, the freezing cold and the bureaucracy of the asylum system – while the world watches, then turns off their televisions.

    Fiona Murphy receives funding from British Academy and the Irish Research Council

    ref. Go Back to Where You Came From: Channel 4’s social experiment makes a spectacle of empathy for refugees – https://theconversation.com/go-back-to-where-you-came-from-channel-4s-social-experiment-makes-a-spectacle-of-empathy-for-refugees-248803

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump wants Greenland – but here’s what the people of Greenland want

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gustav Agneman, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

    Kulusuk village in East Greenland. Shutterstock/Muratart

    In 2018, a colleague and I, together with a team of Greenlandic research assistants, conducted one of the most comprehensive surveys to date on public opinion in Greenland. We travelled to 13 randomly selected towns and settlements across the island nation, conducting in-person interviews with a representative sample of adult residents.

    The survey explored a wide range of topics. We asked for views on climate change, economic matters – and the prospect of independence from Denmark. Until recently, this was the latest poll on what the people of Greenland thought about this issue.

    Greenland, a former Danish colony, is currently an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. This political arrangement grants Greenland extensive self-rule, including control over most domestic affairs, as well as its own prime minister and parliament. However, Denmark retains authority over foreign policy, defence and monetary policy.

    While our survey results were covered in Greenlandic and Danish media upon their release, they received scant international attention. This changed abruptly on January 15, when newly re-elected US president Donald Trump reposted an old news article about our results. The headline stated that two-thirds of Greenlandic citizens support independence.

    Trump posting the 2018 poll in 2025.
    Truth Social

    Trump did not add a comment in the post but the insinuation was clear given his recent statements about annexing Greenland from Denmark: Greenlandic residents want independence from Denmark, and therefore, they might be open to other political or economic arrangements with the US.

    “I think we’re going to have it,” Trump recently said after a phone call with the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, who told him the land was “not for sale”. Trump has in the past spoken of somehow “purchasing” Greenland but has since moved on towards speaking in more assertive terms about taking control of the territory.

    Back in 2018, when we conducted the survey, Trump had not yet revealed any plans to annex the island nation. It was a scenario we could hardly even have imagined and therefore did not ask our participants about. As such, regardless of how Trump framed them, the survey results in no way indicated that the population harboured a desire to join the US.

    In fact, a recent survey conducted by Sermitsiaq (a Greenlandic newspaper) and Berlingske (a Danish newspaper) directly addressed this question and found that only 6% of respondents wanted Greenland to leave Denmark and instead become part of the US.

    In the study I published based on the 2018 data collection, I reported that a majority of the Greenlandic population aspired to independence. Two-thirds of the participants thought that “Greenland should become an independent country at some point in the future”.

    Opinions were more divergent regarding the timing of independence. When asked how they would vote in an independence referendum if it were held today, respondents who stated a preference were evenly split between “yes” and “no” to independence.

    The Act on Greenland Self-Government, passed in 2009, grants the Greenlandic government the legal authority to unilaterally call a referendum on separating from the political union with Denmark. According to the law, “the decision regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland”.

    During the 15 years since its passage, the option to call a referendum has not been exercised. This is likely due to the potential economic consequences of leaving the union with Denmark.

    Each year, Denmark sends a block grant that covers approximately half of Greenland’s budget. This supports a welfare system that is more extensive than what is available to most Americans. In addition, Denmark administers many costly public services, including national defence.

    This backdrop presents a dilemma for many Greenlanders who aspire to independence, as they weigh welfare concerns against political sovereignty. This was also evident from my study, which revealed that economic considerations influence independence preferences.

    For many Greenlanders, the island nation’s rich natural resources present a potential bridge between economic self-sufficiency and full sovereignty. Foreign investments and the associated tax revenues from resource extraction are seen as key to reducing economic dependence on Denmark. Presumably, these natural resources, which include rare earths and other strategic minerals, also help explain Trump’s interest in Greenland.

    As Greenland’s future is likely to remain at the centre of a geopolitical power struggle for some time, it is crucial to remember that only Greenlanders have the right to determine their own path. What scarce information is available on their views suggests that while many aspire to independence, it is not driven by a desire to join the US.

    Gustav Agneman 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. Trump wants Greenland – but here’s what the people of Greenland want – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-greenland-but-heres-what-the-people-of-greenland-want-248745

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Emilia Pérez: the film’s wildly unrealistic representation of Mexican narco-violence and trans lives is insulting

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ailsa Peate, Lecturer in Latin American and Museum Studies, University of Westminster

    You would think that Jacques Audiard’s 13-time Oscar-nominated Emilia Pérez was the most watched film of the year given the discussion it has generated. The Mexican-set, French-made film’s opening weekend in Mexico tells a different story.

    Emilia Pérez sees the eponymous antagonist-heroine experience a transformation, undergoing gender-affirming procedures in order to leave behind her former dangerous, violent life as a cartel leader in Mexico.

    It came eighth at the box office in Mexico, which is hardly surprising. The effects of narco violence saw 613 murders and 626 disappearances between September and December 2024 in Sinaloa State in northwestern Mexico as its eponymous cartel’s factions fight for territory.

    Considering the context in which it was released, little positive noise has been made about Emilia Pérez within Mexico given its sensationalist, reductive representations of violence. Internationally, its representation of trans experiences has been criticised.

    Though well acted, it is thoughtless. The luxurious life Emilia lives as a trans woman is far detached from reality of most trans people in Mexico, where the average life expectancy for a trans person is 35.


    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.


    We follow Rita Mora Castro (Zoe Saldaña), an underappreciated lawyer who works hard only for men to take the credit. Rita is hired by cartel head Juan “Manitas” del Monte (Karla Sofía Gascón) to find a surgeon for her transition to start again as Emilia Pérez. After the transition, Emilia has Manitas declared dead, leaving behind her mourning wife, Jessi (Selena Gómez) and their two young sons who she has relocated to Switzerland for their safety.

    After four years, Emilia tracks down Rita to have Jessi and the children moved back to Mexico, posing as Manitas’ distant relative. Emilia then works with Rita to launch a non-profit, “La Lucecita”, that helps the families of missing persons after Emilia becomes appalled by how many disappeared people there are in Mexico.

    Emilia’s immediate reaction to such social injustice demonstrates a naivety on Audiard’s part. Despite Manitas having destroyed lives, Emilia wants to dignify them. We are asked to believe that she had no idea about these wretched, miserable souls. But thankfully, Emilia’s “La Lucecita” is here to rescue them. The NGO will find the remains of the disappeared, making them visible again. Good thing Emilia made all that (drug) money to fund the work…

    Trailer for Emilia Pérez.

    The sheer unbelievability of Pérez not knowing about the violent reverberations of her work aside, I was gratified to see the disappeared of Mexico centralised in the film. The stories of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala and Colombia usually dominate when it comes to the consequences of human rights abuses in the region.

    Political prisoners, state terrorism, death flights and extrajudicial murders date back at least as far as the 1960s in Mexico, with the Indomitable Memory Museum in Mexico City doing fantastic work to highlight this history and dignify victims. In particular, the story of the Ayotzinapa 43, who were disappeared en route to Mexico City for an annual march against state corruption and human rights abuses in 2014.

    But, considering its direction, Emilia Pérez takes on a white saviour narrative and our heroine simply throws (drug) money at the problem. Audiard’s (admitted) lack of serious thought given to violence ,wealth and power in this context is laughable. Ask “searcher” groups, who go looking for the remains of their disappeared loved ones, like Las Rastredoras de El Fuerte to conjure up money for their work at a fancy gala (and watch I Called for You in Silence, a heartbreaking documentary on their struggles) and see what the reaction is.

    Emilia Pérez had the chance to add some nuance to the violence in Mexico today, to demonstrate that this does not exist in a vacuum. It had a chance to go beyond what the transfeminist philosopher Sayak Valencia and the expert in feminist visual culture Sonia Herrera Sánchez would term a kind of sensationalist, colonialist “pornomisery” to present gender fluidity and sexuality in a troubled and troubling context.

    I was disappointed. I found it impossible to watch the film without seeing constant instances of what Sayak Valencia deems gore capitalism in action. “Death has become the most profitable business in existence,” according to Valencia.

    She outlines that in the era of drug war Mexico (2006 to the present) power is the new capital in a moment where hyper-masculinity and levels of violence are out of control. The lifeless body signifies a capital of fear and power.

    Rather than Emilia Pérez forming any coherent commentary on this, the film contributes to it – how much will Audiard make from a film about bodies, what is done to them and how they are destroyed by Mexico’s drug war? How many awards? How much (more) power gained?

    Zoe Saldaña sings “El Mal” from Emilia Pérez.

    Bodily transition – from living to dead; from male to female – is a motif in the film, and one used as a lazy plot device. Emilia is no longer Manitas; in fact, she’s Manitas’ antithesis, who, therefore, does good for society. This dichotomy between “giving woman” and “violent man” only serves to perpetuate outdated views of womanhood. Karla Sofía Gascón was strong in this role, though I must ask why a Mexican trans actress couldn’t have played Pérez. For instance, Nava Mau of Baby Reindeer.

    We know that Emilia Pérez isn’t that bothered about nuance, being one reason the film has been so ripe for satire. It is a narco-telenovela-cum-queer musical from the perspective of a 72-year-old white French man.

    If you are looking for a show or film that does what Emilia Pérez should have, I can only recommend the one-off series Somos, a thoughtful take on the 2011 Allende massacre to temper such thoughtless representation.

    Ailsa Peate 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. Emilia Pérez: the film’s wildly unrealistic representation of Mexican narco-violence and trans lives is insulting – https://theconversation.com/emilia-perez-the-films-wildly-unrealistic-representation-of-mexican-narco-violence-and-trans-lives-is-insulting-249066

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Putting DeepSeek to the test: how its performance compares against other AI tools

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Thorne, Senior Lecturer in Computing and ​Information Systems, Cardiff Metropolitan University

    Mojahid Mottakin / Shutterstock

    China’s new DeepSeek Large Language Model (LLM) has disrupted the US-dominated market, offering a relatively high-performance chatbot model at significantly lower cost.

    The reduced cost of development and lower subscription prices compared with US AI tools contributed to American chip maker Nvidia losing US$600 billion (£480 billion) in market value over one day. Nvidia makes the computer chips used to train the majority of LLMs, the underlying technology used in ChatGPT and other AI chatbots. DeepSeek uses cheaper Nvidia H800 chips over the more expensive state-of-the-art versions.

    ChatGPT developer OpenAI reportedly spent somewhere between US$100 million and US$1 billion on the development of a very recent version of its product called o1. In contrast, DeepSeek accomplished its training in just two months at a cost of US$5.6 million using a series of clever innovations.

    But just how well does DeepSeek’s AI chatbot, R1, compare with other, similar AI tools on performance?

    DeepSeek claims its models perform comparably to OpenAI’s offerings, even exceeding the o1 model in certain benchmark tests. However, benchmarks that use Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) tests evaluate knowledge across multiple subjects using multiple choice questions. Many LLMs are trained and optimised for such tests, making them unreliable as true indicators of real-world performance.

    An alternative methodology for the objective evaluation of LLMs uses a set of tests developed by researchers at Cardiff Metropolitan, Bristol and Cardiff universities – known collectively as the Knowledge Observation Group (KOG). These tests probe LLMs’ ability to mimic human language and knowledge through questions that require implicit human understanding to answer. The core tests are kept secret, to avoid LLM companies training their models for these tests.

    KOG deployed public tests inspired by work by Colin Fraser, a data scientist at Meta, to evaluate DeepSeek against other LLMs. The following results were observed:

    The tests used to produce this table are “adversarial” in nature. In other words, they are designed to be “hard” and to test LLMs in way that are not sympathetic to how they are designed. This means the performance of these models in this test is likely to be different to their performance in mainstream benchmarking tests.

    DeepSeek scored 5.5 out of 6, outperforming OpenAI’s o1 – its advanced reasoning (known as “chain-of-thought”) model – as well as ChatGPT-4o, the free version of ChatGPT. But Deepseek was marginally outperformed by Anthropic’s ClaudeAI and OpenAI’s o1 mini, both of which scored a perfect 6/6. It’s interesting that o1 underperformed against its “smaller” counterpart, o1 mini.

    DeepThink R1 – a chain-of-thought AI tool made by DeepSeek – underperformed in comparison to DeepSeek with a score of 3.5.

    This result shows how competitive DeepSeek’s chatbot already is, beating OpenAI’s flagship models. It is likely to spur further development for DeepSeek, which now has a strong foundation to build upon. However, the Chinese tech company does have one serious problem the other LLMs do not: censorship.

    Censorship challenges

    Despite its strong performance and popularity, DeepSeek has faced criticism over its responses to politically sensitive topics in China. For instance, prompts related to Tiananmen Square, Taiwan, Uyghur Muslims and democratic movements are met with the response: “Sorry, that is beyond my current scope.”

    But this issue is not necessarily unique to DeepSeek, and the potential for political influence and censorship in LLMs more generally is a growing concern. The announcement of Donald Trump’s US$500 billion Stargate LLM project, involving OpenAI, Nvidia, Oracle, Microsoft, and Arm, also raises fears of political influence.

    Additionally, Meta’s recent decision to abandon fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram suggests an increasing trend toward populism over truthfulness.

    DeepSeek’s arrival has caused serious disruption to the LLM market. US companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic will be forced to innovate their products to maintain relevance and match its performance and cost.

    DeepSeek’s success is already challenging the status quo, demonstrating that high-performance LLM models can be developed without billion-dollar budgets. It also highlights the risks of LLM censorship, the spread of misinformation, and why independent evaluations matter.

    As LLMs become more deeply embedded in global politics and business, transparency and accountability will be essential to ensure that the future of LLMs is safe, useful and trustworthy.

    Simon Thorne 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. Putting DeepSeek to the test: how its performance compares against other AI tools – https://theconversation.com/putting-deepseek-to-the-test-how-its-performance-compares-against-other-ai-tools-248368

    MIL OSI – Global Reports