MIL-OSI Publisher – Page 850 – MIL Submissions Engine

July 17, 2025

Reform spent just £5.5m on the 2024 election, while Labour’s majority cost £30m – new data

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Power, Lecturer in Politics, University of Bristol

The 2024 election was the most expensive in British political history, new figures confirm. Across parties, candidates and third parties, a whopping £94.5 million was spent. This compares with £72.6 million in 2019, which was a record high.

Some parties got a fantastic return on their investment. Others, to put it mildly, didn’t. I wouldn’t let those in charge of Conservative party coffers run your household, for example. They spent £23.9 million in 2024 to record their worst electoral showing in recent history.

Given that they won, Labour will consider the £30.1 million they spent on a huge – but shallow – majority money well spent. It is also easily the most they’ve ever spent on an election (although spending limits have recently been increased).

The real winners in 2024 though, certainly in terms of bang for their respective bucks, are Reform and the Lib Dems, both of which only spent around £5.5 million. To put that in direct context, the Lib Dems spent £14.4 million in 2019 for a far poorer result.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

This also means that Reform entered parliament for the first time, won five seats and came second in 98 others on a relatively shoestring budget. They laid the groundwork for completely upending the British political system while only spending a fraction of what the established parties did.

A striking thing about the Reform spending is quite how much they used traditional media. Although they have a reputation for social media success, they spent £900,000 advertising with the Mail Online, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and the Telegraph – and £300,000 advertising with The Sun. In fact, at a time when we talk of the power of data-driven microtargeting on social networks, it seems they spent £2.2 million (40% of their total expenditure) on what we would understand as “traditional” media advertising.

Money does not reflect reality

These elections were fought under different rules and significantly higher spending limits than in previous contests. In 2023, the Conservatives raised how much parties could spend by 80%, to bring it in line with inflation (the prior spending limit was set in the year 2000). This meant parties could spend just over £34m in 2024 – but only Labour came close to this limit.

It’s clear, looking at these figures, that the money spent does not reflect political reality. The two traditional parties continue to spend far more than others, but the results from 2024 make a mockery of the spending limits currently in place.

Spending limits are implemented by those regulating money in politics to prevent money playing an outsize role. It is supposed to level the playing field in the same way that wage caps in certain sports intend to.

But if only two parties can even get close to the spending limit, with others fighting for scraps – albeit much more effectively – what is the need for the limit to be so high? And, as Reform and the Liberal Democrats have shown, a party can get its message out very well without coming anywhere near the spending limit.

Perhaps, given concerns about the rising power of mega-donors in UK politics – especially after Elon Musk’s threat of a £70 million donation to Reform – we should be thinking more carefully about limiting donations in UK politics. The financial story of the 2024 election, at least from a first glance, is one of complete profligacy from Labour and the Conservatives.

The wrong reforms ahead

On the same day as these figures were released, the government announced major reforms for the next election. These include votes at 16 and new rules on donations. My view, however, is that these reforms represent about the least ambitious approach one could take if the stated aim (which it apparently is) is the restoration of public trust. They wouldn’t, for example, prevent Musk from donating £70 million through X if he so pleased.

Spending limits are no longer fit for purpose. Instead, limits on donations are the only game in town. At the very least, corporate donations should be tied to profits in the UK – but above and beyond this, a cap of £1 million to £2 million should be on the table.

Recent experience from the US has shown how quickly an unregulated system can turn into an oligarchy. In 2024, the top 0.01% of donors accounted for over 50% of all money candidates raised. Many donors bankrolled parties to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, crowding out everything else. At least one of those donors went on to run a (quasi) government department.

Finally, it should also be noted that it is over a year after the election, and only now is the lid being lifted on what was spent during it. This is a significant (and unnecessary) failure in a system that holds transparency as its foundational ideal.

The Electoral Commission should be empowered to implement semi-automated AI tools of analysis, to move us closer to the ideal of real-time analysis of election spending (and any potential violations therein).

The 2024 figures show how much the landscape has changed. In the forthcoming elections bill, Labour need to meet the challenges where they actually are, not where they want them to be, if they are serious about restoring trust in politics.

Sam Power receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. Reform spent just £5.5m on the 2024 election, while Labour’s majority cost £30m – new data – https://theconversation.com/reform-spent-just-5-5m-on-the-2024-election-while-labours-majority-cost-30m-new-data-261341

July 17, 2025

Israel: Netanyahu considering early election but can he convince people he’s winning the war?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Brian Brivati, Visiting Professor of Contemporary History and Human Rights, Kingston University

Benjamin Netanyahu’s fragile coalition is fracturing. Gil Cohen Magen / Shutterstock

One of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties, Shas, has announced it will resign from prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The party said its decision was made due to the government’s failure to pass a bill exempting ultra-Orthodox students from military service.

Its exit increases the political pressure on Netanyahu. Days earlier, six members of another ultra-Orthodox coalition partner, the United Torah Judaism party, also quit the government citing the same concerns. The moves leave Netanyahu with a minority in parliament, which will make it difficult for his government to function.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid says the government now “has no authority”, and has called for a new round of elections. But even before these developments, Netanyahu was reportedly considering calling an early election in a bid to remain in power despite his unpopularity.

To win another term he would, in my view, have to spin a narrative of victory on three fronts: securing the release of the hostages, defeating Hamas and delivering regional security. It is a tall order.

In his visit to Washington in early July, Netanyahu emphasised his pursuit of a ceasefire in Gaza that facilitates the return of the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

Israelis have grown increasingly weary of the war, with recent surveys showing popular support for ending it if this brings back those still held captive. A ceasefire that sees hostages released would probably help Netanyahu generate support during an election campaign.

But Netanyahu has insisted that, while he wants to reach a hostage-ceasefire deal, he will not agree to one “at any price”. This indicates not only Israel’s refusal to compromise on security but also that any deal Netanyahu does make – whether or not it sees the release of all the hostages – will be presented as a victory to Israeli voters.

To provide the electorate with further hope of an end to the fighting, Netanyahu will also have to claim that the military campaign in Gaza is nearing its goals. Senior military officials stated recently that they have “almost fully achieved” their objectives – namely, defeating Hamas.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Netanyahu has, so far, prolonged the war to remain in power. But he will now need to spin the military campaign as a victory if he wants to win votes. This will be especially hard as critics like Yitzhak Brik, a retired Israeli general, claim that the number of Hamas fighters is now back to its pre-war level.

The hard-right members of Netanyahu’s government add another dimension to this equation. His two ultranationalist coalition partners, Jewish Power and Religious Zionism, oppose ending the war entirely. They insist on fighting Hamas to the finish.

Netanyahu will most likely want to keep his options open during an election campaign to then form a coalition with whatever he can pull together at the time. He may calculate that a short-term pause in fighting to free hostages can be spun as a victory to win votes, after which military operations could resume to appease hardliners if he needs them.

A final part of Netanyahu’s electoral strategy will be to push the message that he has delivered regional security. He has declared the war with Iran in June a success, saying “we sent Iran’s nuclear program down the drain”.

And Israel has also continued its campaign of strikes to assert its military dominance in the region, the latest in Syria and Lebanon.

Slim peace prospects

Observers warn that Netanyahu’s approach is about political survival, and will come at the expense of long-term peace prospects for Israelis and Palestinians. According to New York Times, he seems to be “kicking the Palestinian issue once again down the road”.

Indeed, part of Netanyahu’s mooted strategy for claiming victory in Gaza involves supporting a constrained political outcome for the Palestinians that ends the fighting without Israel conceding on core issues.

In this scenario, the Gaza Strip would be carved up and demilitarised under prolonged Israeli security oversight. Some areas would be annexed by Israel. Remaining parts of Gaza, along with fragments of the West Bank, would be handed over to an interim authority to create the appearance of a nascent Palestinian state.

The goal would be to declare that Israel has facilitated Palestinian statehood – but strictly on Israel’s terms – while eliminating Hamas’s rule in Gaza. The reality would probably be a designed chaos to force as many Palestinians as possible to leave.

Such a state, lacking full sovereignty and territorial continuity, would fall far short of the independent state that Palestinians seek. Crucially, this imposed outcome would also bypass substantive negotiation of issues like borders, refugees and Jerusalem, which both Israel and Palestine claim as their capital.

Palestinian leaders would almost certainly reject a curtailed state. And if they did not then ordinary Palestinians – reeling from the war’s devastation – are unlikely to view it as a just peace. A new cycle of violence would probably begin and the Palestinian population will have been heavily concentrated into restricted spaces that would be wide open to Israeli bombardment.

As Netanyahu weighs pulling the election trigger, he is effectively writing the next chapter of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The outcome of this manoeuvring is highly uncertain.

If his three-pronged victory narrative convinces Israeli voters, he could return to power with a fresh mandate and perhaps a retooled coalition. He might seek a broader unity government after an election, sidelining his most hardline partners in favour of centrist voices to navigate post-war diplomacy.

But if the public deems his victories hollow or indeed false, an election could sweep him out of office. This would open the door for opposition leaders who may take a different approach to Gaza and the Palestinians.

Brian Brivati is executive director of the Britain Palestine Project. He is writing this article in a personal capacity.

– ref. Israel: Netanyahu considering early election but can he convince people he’s winning the war? – https://theconversation.com/israel-netanyahu-considering-early-election-but-can-he-convince-people-hes-winning-the-war-261141

July 17, 2025

Why employees hesitate to disclose mental health concerns – and what employers can do about it

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Zhanna Lyubykh, Assistant Professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University

About one in four employees has a diagnosable mental health condition, and up to 65 per cent say mental health concerns interfere with their ability to work.

The economic toll is staggering. In the United States alone, mental health concerns cost over $280 billion annually. Worldwide, that figure reaches an estimated US$1 trillion annually.

Mental health is increasingly being recognized as critical to workplace functioning. Organizations invest substantial resources in wellness programs, mental health training and employee assistance programs. Some even offer on-site therapy sessions at no cost to their employees.

Yet despite these efforts, many employees remain hesitant to seek help or disclose their mental health conditions. This reluctance can leave employees under-supported and contribute to increased absenteeism and turnover. Those who choose not to disclose often miss out on access to workplace accommodations and support, which can exacerbate their conditions and even increase the risk of job loss.

Disclosure can be a gateway to vital support, but questions remain about how to facilitate such disclosures. Our research, recently published as an open-access article, shows the decision to disclose a mental health condition isn’t purely personal and can depend on the broader workplace environment.

Supportive workplaces lead to better mental health

Across two samples, we surveyed 1,232 employees from Canada and the U.S. We recruited participants from Qualtrics, an online panel provider, and a large financial institution in Canada that operates across multiple locations. We asked employees — both with and without mental health concerns — to indicate the extent to which they perceived their organization as supportive of disclosing mental health concerns.

Employees with mental health concerns shared whether they had disclosed their condition to their employer, how willing they were to disclose in the future, their levels of anxiety and depression, and a range of work-related attitudes and behaviours.

We found that a work environment that was safe and supported the disclosure of mental health concerns was extremely beneficial for both employees and organizations.

First, employees working in highly supportive environments were 55 per cent more likely to disclose their mental health concerns. These environments were also linked to greater willingness to disclose current or potential mental health concerns.

Second, supportive environments were associated with lower levels of anxiety and depression, both of which are important indicators of mental health. This suggests that organizations can contribute to employee mental health by fostering supportive environments.

Third, employees who felt their organization supported disclosure reported higher job satisfaction, greater work engagement, and more organizational citizenship behaviours, such as helping co-workers or going above and beyond their job duties. These kinds of behaviours help create healthy, high-performing workplaces.

In one of our samples, we matched employee responses with their organizational records of absenteeism. We found that when employees rated their organizational environment as supportive of mental health disclosure, they were less likely to miss work due to illness.

Supporting mental health disclosure

Our study identified three elements of a workplace that support mental health disclosure. The first is the absence of stigma and anticipated discrimination. Many employees choose to conceal their concerns because they are fearful of being stigmatized, facing unfair treatment or being passed over for promotions.

Employees often pick up on subtle cues in their environment — consciously or not — to estimate the risk of stigma. If they observe colleagues with disclosed mental health conditions being treated negatively, this signals low organizational support and makes disclosure appear risky.

The second element is the availability of organizational resources. Disclosing one’s mental health concerns should unlock access to organizational supports, such as time off or counselling programs. These supports need to be tangible and go beyond mere mentions in the employee handbook. Employees form perceptions about how seriously their organization takes mental health based on whether these resources are present and accessible.

The third element is the presence of social support. Our research found that social support was an important indicator of informal culture around mental health concerns. Such support may include emotional support from peers or supervisors, and the ability to openly discuss mental health.

Employees notice whether, and how, mental health is discussed at work. When employees are encouraged to talk openly about it, the workplace appears more conducive to disclosure. In contrast, when concerns are dismissed or met with unhelpful advice such as “stay positive” or “toughen up,” the environment is unlikely to be seen as supportive.

How organizations can support disclosure

Our research points to four main strategies organizations can use to foster an environment that signals support for disclosing mental health concerns.

1. Identify areas for improvement.

Our research provides a list of survey items that organizations can use to track employee perceptions and identify priority areas for improvement. For example, employees might be asked whether they feel safe disclosing a mental health concern, or whether they believe the organization responds supportively when others do. These items can be include in annual employee surveys, with anonymity ensured to encourage honest responses.

2. Combat stigma by role modelling.

Workplace leaders are well-positioned to make positive change and role model appropriate behaviours. Employees often look to leaders and model their behaviour. Providing leaders with training about implicit biases, and equipping them with tools to provide support to employees with mental health concerns, can help start the cycle of positive change. Leaders who receive mental health training tend to be more supportive, more likely to encourage disclosure and are better able to guide employees toward appropriate help.

3. Make resources visible and easily accessible.

Even when organizations have resources available, employees may not know about them or may find them difficult to access. Organizations and managers need to frequently communicate about the availability of mental health resources and ensure they are easy to access. Red tape and bureaucracy can deter employees from accessing organizational supports.

4. Talk openly about mental health.

Talking about mental health can help normalize it and encourage employees to share their concerns. This can include intentionally creating opportunities for such discussions, such as mental health days. In addition, when senior leaders share their experiences with mental health concerns, it can help normalize such discussions.

Ultimately, a disclosure-supportive environment benefits employee mental health and encourages positive work behaviours. In other words, when employees feel safe enough to speak up, both employees and organizations benefit from it.

Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Justin Weinhardt receives funding fromHaskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

– ref. Why employees hesitate to disclose mental health concerns – and what employers can do about it – https://theconversation.com/why-employees-hesitate-to-disclose-mental-health-concerns-and-what-employers-can-do-about-it-261158

July 17, 2025

Why male corporate leaders and billionaires may need financial therapy more than anyone

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Prince Sarpong, Associate professor, University of the Free State

Corporate leaders and billionaires are often viewed as visionaries and wealth creators. But beneath the surface, many are trapped in an invisible financial “crisis” – one rooted not in market volatility or poor investments but in their psychological relationship with money.

As a finance professor and editor of the forthcoming book “Financial Therapy for Men,” I study this often overlooked aspect of financial psychology. Money is far more than numbers on a balance sheet – it carries emotional, psychological and social meaning. People’s relationships with money are shaped by childhood experiences, cultural beliefs and personal triumphs and failures. This emotional baggage can influence not only their sense of safety and self-worth but also how they manage power and status.

The field of financial therapy emerged in the mid-2000s to address these dynamics. Drawing from behavioral economics, financial psychology, family systems theory and clinical therapy, it aims to help people understand how their thoughts, feelings and experiences shape financial behavior. Foundational academic work began at Kansas State University, home to one of the first graduate-level programs in the field.

Since then, financial therapy has gained traction in the U.S. and globally: It’s supported by a peer-reviewed journal and is increasingly integrated into professional practice by financial advisers and licensed therapists. Studies have shown that financial therapy can improve relationships and reduce emotional distress.

Yet much of the field focuses on people who are emotionally open and reflective – neglecting executives, who are often socialized to view themselves as purely rational decision-makers. I think this is a mistake.

Research shows that people often project their unconscious anxieties onto markets, experiencing them as mirrors of competence, failure or control. This means that public valuations and capital flows may carry deeply symbolic weight for corporate leaders.

My research suggests that people at the highest levels of wealth and power have deeply complex emotional relationships with money – but the field of financial therapy has largely overlooked them. This isn’t an accident. It reflects a broader assumption that wealth insulates people from psychological distress. In reality, emotional entanglements can intensify with greater wealth and power – and research suggests that men, in particular, face distinct challenges. True inclusion in financial therapy means recognizing and responding to these needs.

When distress becomes a leadership crisis

In a 2023 study – When and why do men negotiate assertively? – Jens Mazei, whose research focuses on negotiations and conflict management, and his colleagues found that men become more aggressive in negotiations when they think their masculinity is being threatened. This was especially true in contexts viewed as “masculine,” such as salary negotiations. In “nonmasculine” contexts, such as negotiations over flexible work and child care benefits, participants weren’t significantly more aggressive when their masculinity was challenged.

On male-coded topics, many men in the study reinforced gender norms by rejecting compromise, using hardball tactics or even inflating financial demands to reassert their masculinity. These behaviors reflect an unconscious need to restore a sense of masculine identity, the researchers suggest. If this reaction occurs in salary negotiations, how might it manifest when the stakes are exponentially higher?

Emerging research in organizational psychology shows that financial stress is linked to abusive supervision, particularly among men who feel a loss of control. Further, traits such as CEO masculinity have been linked with increased risk-taking, while female CEOs tend to reduce risk. Together, these findings point to a dangerous intersection of psychological stress, masculinity and executive decision-making.

As Elon Musk memorably said, “I’ll say what I want to say, and if we lose money, so be it.”

M&A as a masculinity battleground

Financial distress doesn’t always look like bankruptcy or bad credit. Among powerful men, it can manifest as overconfidence, rigidity or aggression – and it can sometimes lead to very uneconomical outcomes.

Consider the research on M&A. Most mergers and acquisitions are value killers – in other words, they destroy more economic value than they create – and the field of M&A is deeply male. These two facts suggest that some mergers are driven more by threatened masculinity than by strategic logic. If men become more aggressive in negotiations when their masculinity is threatened, then CEOs and corporate leaders, who are overwhelmingly male, may react similarly when their companies, and by extension their leadership, are challenged.

Target companies rarely take a passive approach to acquisition attempts. Instead, they deploy defensive measures such as poison pills, golden parachutes, staggered boards and scorched-earth tactics. In addition to serving financial goals, these may also act as symbolic defenses of masculine authority.

Mergers and acquisitions, by their nature, create a contest of power between dominant figures. The very language of M&A – for example, “raiders,” “hostile takeovers,” “defenses” and “white knights” – is combative. This reinforces an environment where corporate leaders may view acquisition attempts as challenges to their authority rather than as just financial transactions.

A growing body of behavioral-strategy research confirms that boardroom decisions are often shaped by emotional undercurrents rather than purely rational analysis. While this research stops short of naming it, the dynamics it describes align closely with what Mazei and colleagues call “masculinity threat.”

This has direct implications for corporate M&A. The overwhelming majority of top CEOs are men, and the language of M&A often evokes siege, power struggles and conquest. In such a symbolic arena, acquisition attempts can trigger deep, emotionally charged responses, as the identity stakes are high. What appear to be strategic financial decisions may actually be reflexive defenses of masculine authority.

On a related note, researchers in behavioral finance have long studied the “endowment effect,” or the tendency for people to value assets more simply because they own them. While the endowment effect has been studied primarily among retail investors making ordinary financial decisions, it could be particularly important for corporate executives and billionaires, who have more to lose.

When combined with threatened masculinity, the endowment effect can produce combustible reactions to declining valuations, missed earnings or takeover bids – even for individuals who remain vastly wealthy after marginal losses. While the research at this intersection is still emerging, the underlying behavioral patterns are well established.

What does financial therapy for the ultrarich look like?

Financial therapy for high-net-worth individuals rarely looks like sitting on a couch discussing childhood trauma. Instead, it takes an interdisciplinary approach involving financial advisers, therapists and sometimes executive coaches. Sessions tend to focus on legacy planning, control issues, guilt over wealth, or strained family relationships.

Many high-net-worth men display behaviors that don’t look like like stereotypical “financial distress.” These can include compulsive deal-making, emotionally driven investment decisions, workaholism and difficulty trusting advisers. In some cases, unresolved financial trauma shows up as chronic dissatisfaction and the sense that no achievement, acquisition or net worth is ever “enough.”

While financial therapy is intended to help individuals, I think it could actually be a tool for global economic stability.

After all, when masculinity is threatened in corporate decision-making, the consequences can extend far beyond the boardroom. These actions can destabilize industries, fuel economic downturns and disrupt entire labor markets. Unchecked financial anxiety among corporate elites and billionaires isn’t just their own problem – it can cascade and become everyone’s problem.

From this perspective, financial therapy isn’t just a personal good. It’s a structural necessity that can prevent unchecked financial distress from driving destructive corporate decisions and broader economic disruptions.

If financial therapy helps people navigate financial distress and make healthier money decisions, then no group needs it more than male corporate leaders and billionaires.

Prince Sarpong 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 male corporate leaders and billionaires may need financial therapy more than anyone – https://theconversation.com/why-male-corporate-leaders-and-billionaires-may-need-financial-therapy-more-than-anyone-252094

July 17, 2025

Torre Pacheco: cómo comprender el odio que nace del prejuicio y la deshumanización

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Sergio García Magariño, Investigador de I-Communitas, Institute for Advanced Social Research, Universidad Pública de Navarra

Por mucho odio y violencia que aparezca en los medios al reflejar la actualidad, los seres humanos somos seres sociales interdependientes. La supervivencia del Homo sapiens como especie y la aparición de la civilización han dependido, principalmente, de la colaboración y la solidaridad.

Entonces, ¿qué hace que haya tanto odio, que se generen polos violentos opuestos, que se orquesten cacerías de unos grupos contra otros en un pueblo como Torre Pacheco? Y más importante aún: puesto que la ciencia no solo describe las realidades y sus causas tal cuales son, sino que explora soluciones tras realizar diagnósticos, ¿cómo se puede evitar y reconducir una situación así?

En Torre Pacheco –que nos sirve de muestra, de indicador de algo que lleva tiempo gestándose en España y en otras democracias liberales– confluyen, al menos, tres procesos:

Una gestión de la diversidad y una política de integración defectuosa.
Una reificación –reificar una relación consiste en considerarla como una entidad– de las categorías que describen las identidades grupales que deshumaniza y favorece la violencia estructural y directa.
Una vinculación problemática y poco atendida entre polarización y radicalización ideológica violenta.

Problemas grandes en lugares pequeños

En primer lugar, la emergencia de “un Torre Pacheco” visibiliza tanto el déficit de gobernanza global, europea y nacional de los flujos migratorios como la poca efectividad de las políticas de integración y de gestión de la diversidad.

Los problemas globales e internacionales se sienten con mayor crudeza en los ámbitos locales: las islas pequeñas son las más afectadas por el cambio climático, el tráfico internacional de diamantes golpea las aldeas de la República Democrática del Congo y la especulación mundial con criptomonedas depende de “criptomineros” asentados en una finca consumiendo gran cantidad de energía.

Hoy es Torre Pacheco, pero mañana puede ser otra localidad como Marcilla, en Navarra, un barrio de Sabadell (Barcelona) o la zona de San Francisco, en Bilbao. La diversidad incrementa la riqueza cultural, pero también trae conflictos si no hay una buena gestión de la diversidad y promoción de la convivencia.

Aquí, las personas, las instituciones y las comunidades son responsables de encontrar un modelo satisfactorio que tenga como umbral mínimo moral el respeto de los derechos humanos.

En segundo lugar, el prejuicio, el odio de unos grupos hacia otros, la deshumanización del diferente (ya sea racial, nacional o ideológicamente) es la antesala de la violencia.

Las teorías más consolidadas sobre la violencia muestran que los seres humanos tendemos a condolernos con lo que les pasa a otras personas. Sin embargo, cuando percibimos injusticias y dolor ajeno también generamos narrativas de justificación y culpabilización contra quienes las víctimas, lo que disipa esa empatía natural. De lo contrario, ante mucho sufrimiento nos desmoronaríamos, salvo que nos levantáramos a actuar decididamente para atajar dichos males.

El sociólogo noruego y el principal fundador de la disciplina de los estudios sobre la paz y los conflictos, Jonathan Galtung, habla de la violencia cultural. Esta puede dirigirse hacia innumerables direcciones: “los migrantes”, “los de derechas”, “los progres”, “las mujeres”, “los jóvenes”, “los ricos”, “los pobres”, “los del Barcelona” o “los gitanos”.

La Escuela de Frankfurt también hablaba de reificación para describir las categorías de identidad grupal que nos orientan, pero que, con el uso, se cosifican y nos impiden ver a quien está enfrente como igual en dignidad.

El gran problema es que, de un lado, apelamos al sentido común (construido socialmente) para justificar dicho rechazo y, de otro, el odio y el rechazo suelen canalizarse hacia la persona que está objetivamente más oprimida, tiene menos derechos y vive una vida menos digna. En breve, todo prejuicio y odio hacia un grupo contribuye a la violencia más cruel y legitima la opresión económica y estructural de dicho grupo.

Vivir en un clima de crispación permanente

En tercer y último lugar, la polarización de la sociedad –azuzada desde las campañas políticas y las redes desde hace décadas–, la polarización ideológica y la polarización política tienen al menos dos costes: afectan paulatinamente la calidad democrática y alimentan procesos de radicalización violenta de individuos y organizaciones.

La conexión entre polarización y radicalización violenta en Estados Unidos ha sido clara desde hace años, pero en Europa se ha tendido a separar ambos fenómenos y a encomiar el efecto estimulante y movilizador de la polarización político-afectiva.

No obstante, vivir en un clima permanente de crispación, de campaña, de descalificación, de demagogia, de lucha despiadada por llegar al poder o por mantenerlo, nutre los extremos ideológicos e impulsa a personas a unirse a ellos. Y los polos, cuando se tensan demasiado, traspasan los límites de lo estrictamente democrático y pacífico, haciendo aparecer grupos que justifican la violencia desde uno y otro flanco ideológico.

Incluso los diagnósticos que demonizan, desde un espectro, a los colectivos sin estatus legal y los no nativos y, desde el otro, a los ultras, probablemente hayan caído inadvertidamente en dicha lógica polarizada que contribuye a la persistencia del problema. Esta constatación no exime de responsabilidades, sino que evita la simplificación.

Caminos a seguir

En definitiva, mejorar la gobernanza global de los flujos migratorios, las políticas de integración y de gestión de la diversidad; abordar las causas culturales y económicas de los prejuicios, que nos insensibilizan hacia el dolor ajeno; y elevar el debate político y mediático para que se acerque a unos estándares mínimos de decoro, sobresalen como tres de las avenidas más prometedoras, y a largo plazo, que deberían recorrerse.

Y un recordatorio final: cada persona, cada comunidad y cada institución tiene la oportunidad y el deber de contribuir al fortalecimiento de la convivencia pacífica y democrática de una sociedad que cada vez es más diversa, como también lo fue en el pasado.

Sergio García Magariño no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Torre Pacheco: cómo comprender el odio que nace del prejuicio y la deshumanización – https://theconversation.com/torre-pacheco-como-comprender-el-odio-que-nace-del-prejuicio-y-la-deshumanizacion-261324

July 17, 2025

Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

Prime Minister Mark Carney has suggested a new trade deal with the United States is now most likely to include tariffs. There is, in his own words, “not a lot of evidence right now” that the Donald Trump administration is willing to stand down from imposing levies on Canadian imports.

In making this acknowledgement, Carney has backed down from his previous insistence that Canada would “fight to bring these tariffs to an end.”

But rather than continuing to retaliate with tariffs of its own, the government has begun to confess that such a tactic may be a losing battle.

Carney has instead announced Canada will restrict the tariff-free import of cheap, foreign steel to help domestic manufacturers reeling from American tariffs.

In the wake of the federal government’s recent concession on the Digital Services Tax levied against big American tech companies, it’s another indicator that — unlike the hawkish “elbows up” rhetoric used throughout the federal election campaign — the Canadian government has taken on a more conciliatory tone in advance of the Aug. 1 deadline for a new economic and security deal between Canada and the U.S..

Dual purposes

The timing of Carney’s comments can be interpreted two ways.

Their first and primary purpose is about message control and the need to manage expectations. In announcing this now, the government is not only better able to keep its justification for conceding to Trump at the forefront of media narratives, but it can also prepare Canadians for any further potential concessions in the course of trade negotiations.

The fact that these comments were made prior to a cabinet meeting could be seen as Carney’s attempt to isolate any cabinet ministers who may still favour a more aggressive stance.

More substantively, however, the pivot is also a reflection of the realities of both Canada’s actual position vis-à-vis the U.S. and the pragmatism needed to accomplish real trade agreements.

Although Trump is unpredictable, it increasingly seems that levies on imports are among his genuinely held and signature policy commitments. As Carney noted, the administration’s recent trade deals with both the United Kingdom and Vietnam included tariffs. And, despite the president’s talk of annexing Canada, Carney’s new stance suggests a more reasonable, albeit very costly, deal is possible — even amid Trump’s bluster.

Still, for all the attention they’ve received, tariffs are only part of the ongoing negotiations on the economic and security deal.

What does Trump want?

The U.S. administration, for example, continues to justify higher tariff threats not just for economic purposes, but ostensibly to counter the illegal drug trade.

The fact that the Canadian government has already allotted $1 billion to border defence makes it difficult to assess what would satisfy American negotiators.

More broadly, Trump has expressed a desire to push Canada for changes in security, supply management of the dairy industry, fresh water use and access to rare earth minerals, among others.

Regardless of how the trade talks proceed in the coming weeks, though, the domestic consequences for Carney will be determined by how willing Canadians are to continue trusting and supporting him.

On the one hand, his comments that tariff-free trade deals with the U.S. aren’t realistic could be costly given the fact that more than two-thirds of Canadians continue to favour a hard-line stance with little to no concessions on key files.

This could result in voters viewing Carney as weak and shifting their support to other leaders. No incumbent stands to benefit from the detrimental effects on economic growth, investments and employment rate Trump’s tariffs will cause.

But support also depends on Carney’s legitimacy. He could maintain public support despite the fact that, on paper, they oppose his actions. Taking a “hard” versus “soft” line in negotiations is itself an ambiguous and fluid set of designations.

A major reason why Canadians elected Carney is because they viewed him as having sound personal judgment and the skill set to deal with Trump. This is why, rather than challenging the value of the decision to compromise on tariffs, the Conservatives and other opponents have focused on conveying him as an unreliable and dishonest leader.

What’s ahead for federal politics?

At this point, polls suggest that Canadians are generally split down the middle on Carney. While around 50 per cent of Canadians are supportive, the other half remain divided between those strongly opposed and those with a more ambiguous position.

Could Carney win over the support of those with an unambiguous view? It seems unlikely. Leaders are the usually the most impactful when they enter office. And while rally-around-the-flag effects are real, they are short-lived. That means the long-term challenge for Carney remains maintaining the support of the voters that brought him to power.

The Canada-U.S. relationship will continue to develop in a dynamic and unpredictable fashion, even if the economic and security deal is reached soon.

After voters dramatically consolidated around the Liberals and Conservatives in the 2025 election, the most important question for federal Canadian politics moving forward in this shifting global environment is which electoral coalition will endure.

Carney seeks to preserve trust, while the Conservatives search for a compelling alternative. Who will come out on top in the Trump 2.0 era?

Sam Routley 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. Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/elbows-down-why-mark-carney-seems-to-keep-caving-to-donald-trump-261304

July 17, 2025

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a big threat to women’s health, but it’s still under-recognized, under-diagnosed and under-treated

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamie Benham, Endocrinologist & Assistant Professor, Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is a hormonal imbalance that affects ovaries, periods and fertility in about one in 10 Canadian women. Different from ovarian cysts, PCOS is associated with infertility, pregnancy complications, heart disease and a general decreased quality of life, and yet fewer than half of those affected even know they have it.

This under-recognition and under-diagnosis is a significant problem, because a recent Canadian study suggests these women are 20 to 40 per cent more likely to experience negative health outcomes during their lifetime than the general population, including hypertension (high blood pressure), kidney disease, gastrointestinal disease, eating disorders, depression and anxiety.

Heart disease risk

The Canadian researchers also found obesity, dyslipidemia (abnormal levels of fat in your blood) and Type 2 diabetes to be two to three times more common for women with PCOS. And most importantly, cardiovascular disease, which causes heart failure and stroke, was not only 30 to 50 per cent more likely, but occurred three to four years earlier than average in women with PCOS.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide, so when PCOS symptoms are missed and untreated, women’s health is at risk.

A model of a uterus and ovaries in the foreground with tiles spelling PCOS, and a woman in a white coat blurred in the background — Women with PCOS are more likely to experience negative health outcomes.
(Photo: Colourbox.com)

High cost

There is undoubtedly a personal cost to individual women, both physically and mentally, and living with PCOS can be a significant financial, health-care and work-life burden for many women, too, which may disproportionately affect those in lower socioeconomic groups.

These experiences are further compounded by a system failure to properly diagnose and manage their symptoms. Women report doctors ignoring or dismissing their concerns, not believing them and struggling to make a diagnosis. In fact, a large international survey reported it can take several months, and even several years, before women are diagnosed.

Common PCOS symptoms

PCOS symptoms can vary between different women, but it is important to discuss the possibility of PCOS with your doctor, because careful management and/or treatment can help protect against developing more serious related health issues. Common symptoms include:

Irregular periods
Excess body hair, called hirsutism (usually darker hair on the face, arms, chest or abdomen)
Thinning or loss of hair (like excess body hair, this is caused by high levels of male hormones, or androgens)
Acne and/or oily skin
Weight gain

Managing and treating PCOS

Despite PCOS first being diagnosed almost a century ago, there is no single test to confirm whether a woman has it, and there is no cure. If your doctor suspects you may have PCOS, they may order blood work to check your hormone levels and an ultrasound to check your ovaries.

Unlike ovarian cysts, which are fluid-filled sacs that develop on or inside an ovary and can be painful, polycystic ovaries are enlarged, with multiple follicles that can be seen on ultrasound.

Two women and child seen from behind, standing on a beach — PCOS is a chronic condition that needs lifelong management.
(Photo: Colourbox.com)

If PCOS is diagnosed, further testing for cholesterol and glucose levels is likely in order to manage heart disease and diabetes risk.

Researchers also suggest ways women with PCOS can help manage their condition, which include:

Eating a healthy diet
Exercising regularly (including strength training with weights)
Sleeping for at least seven hours each night
Reducing stress (work-life balance; deep breathing exercises)
Relaxing in your favourite way (such as yoga, mindfulness and meditation, hobbies)

PCOS research underway

Despite the current problems, improvement is possible, and there have been sustained efforts in recent years — all over the world — to advocate for women with this condition and invest in PCOS research.

In 2023, an International PCOS Guideline, led from Australia, was published. It recommends an individualized approach to PCOS treatment, including lifestyle modifications (for example, healthy eating and exercising), medical management to treat symptoms and regular checkups to provide support and screen for related complications.

In Canada, the province of Alberta recently launched a much-needed clinical pathway to recognize, treat and advocate for PCOS that could be adopted more widely.

At the University of Calgary, Dr. Jamie Benham, one of the authors of this story, leads EMBRACE (Endocrine, Metabolic and Reproductive Advancements), a new women’s health research lab where a team of clinical researchers is focusing on reproductive disorders across the whole of a woman’s life system, including PCOS and gestational diabetes.

This work, supporting patients’ PCOS care, includes a current online needs-assessment survey, and focus groups beginning later this year, to inform the development of a co-designed patient tool to support PCOS management.

Patient engagement

With such a huge demand for answers, the EMBRACE team works closely with a PCOS Patient Advisory Council, chaired by Robyn Vettese, another author of this story, to uncover complex connections between hormones and health, promote screening, find solutions and provide answers. Importantly, the lab’s research questions come directly from clinic patients, and the answers the lab finds go back to those patients and are then shared more widely.

Other recent PCOS advocacy events include Dr. Benham’s presentation at the inaugural Sex, Gender and Women’s Health Research Hub’s Women’s Health Symposium event in Calgary, and her interview with the Libin Cardiovascular Institute.

PCOS awareness

Another exciting research program in Alberta is PCOS Together. Researchers with this group are working to establish methods that will detect early disease risk in all women with PCOS, as well as clinical interventions that will help prevent disease in high-risk women.

Similar organizations exist in the United Kingdom and Australia, including Verity PCOS, a volunteer-based charity, and Ask PCOS, a researcher- and clinician-led organization. Both organizations provide a wealth of information online.

This is a critical (albeit often overlooked) area of women’s health that needs greater awareness and attention so that we can improve and save women’s lives.

Jamie Benham receives funding from the M.S.I. Foundation, Diabetes Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Robyn Vettese receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Pauline McDonagh Hull 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. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a big threat to women’s health, but it’s still under-recognized, under-diagnosed and under-treated – https://theconversation.com/polycystic-ovary-syndrome-pcos-is-a-big-threat-to-womens-health-but-its-still-under-recognized-under-diagnosed-and-under-treated-259602

July 17, 2025

¿Por qué los migrantes altamente cualificados no logran sentirse parte del país de acogida?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Miguel Morillas, Assistant professor in Business and Management (ICADE), Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Todos los países compiten por atraer a migrantes altamente cualificados: ingenieros, científicos, analistas de datos y otros profesionales cuya experiencia impulsa economías basadas en la innovación. Sin embargo, mientras los programas de visado y los esfuerzos de reclutamiento se vuelven cada vez más competitivos, una pregunta suele pasar desapercibida: ¿qué hace realmente que estos migrantes decidan quedarse en el país de acogida?

En nuestro estudio reciente sobre migrantes profesionales que trabajan en empresas multinacionales líderes afincadas en Copenhague, entrevistamos a 21 migrantes. Cada uno fue entrevistado dos veces para abarcar su vida profesional y personal, con el fin de comprender cómo se desarrollan sus vidas después de obtener empleo.

No nos centramos únicamente en el éxito profesional, sino en cómo sus vidas personales y laborales se entrelazan para moldear su satisfacción a largo plazo.

Los resultados de dicho estudio lanzan una advertencia a países de la Unión Europea: incluso cuando los migrantes altamente cualificados reciben sueldos competitivos, tienen una alta formación y ocupan cargos ejecutivos, muchos aún se sienten a la deriva, socialmente aislados, profesionalmente infravalorados y con dudas sobre si su futuro realmente está en Europa.

Una fuga de cerebros silenciosa puede no deberse a la falta de atracción de talento, sino a la incapacidad de integrarlo de forma significativa.

El nuevo rompecabezas de la migración global

Muchos migrantes altamente cualificados llegan con credenciales ya validadas y experiencia internacional previa. No buscan seguridad básica ni acceso a oportunidades, sino que eligen entre varias buenas opciones. Para muchos, esto implica comparar la vida en Europa con entornos acelerados como Estados Unidos, donde los clústeres tecnológicos y los ecosistemas de investigación de élite siguen siendo muy atractivos.

Lo que importa a estos migrantes ya no es solo el salario o el estatus, sino la posibilidad de vivir una vida donde sus habilidades sean reconocidas, sus voces escuchadas y sus vidas personales no se sacrifiquen por su carrera.

Aquí está la paradoja: incluso cuando los países ofrecen beneficios generosos, protecciones laborales sólidas y autonomía en el trabajo, eso no siempre basta. Muchos siguen sintiéndose, como decía la canción, “extraños en el paraíso”.

Cuatro patrones que moldean su experiencia

En nuestro estudio, identificamos cuatro dinámicas recurrentes que afectan a cómo los migrantes altamente cualificados evalúan sus países de acogida y la decisión quedarse o marcharse:

Exclusión pese al empleo. Incluso con empleos bien remunerados, muchos afirman sentirse cultural y socialmente marginados. Las barreras lingüísticas y normas sociales sutiles dificultan la integración. Esto no es solo un asunto social: socava directamente su motivación y lealtad.
Flexibilidad como libertad y trampa. Los esquemas laborales flexibles les permiten mantener vínculos transnacionales y gestionar su tiempo de forma autónoma. Pero esa misma libertad conlleva costes: largas jornadas alineadas con husos horarios distantes, vidas sociales erosionadas y progresos laborales estancados.
Conciliación entre vida laboral y personal es valiosa pero desigual. Algunos migrantes adoptan nuevas rutinas y priorizan su vida más allá del trabajo. Pero otros encuentran que las expectativas de las directivas o las estructuras corporativas internacionales los atan a cargas laborales intensas, lo que neutraliza los beneficios de culturas laborales progresistas.
Los valores importan, pero solo cuando se viven. Muchos migrantes altamente cualificados se sienten atraídos por países que promueven la equidad, la inclusión y la meritocracia. Pero cuando la experiencia diaria no refleja esos ideales, cuando el ascenso se percibe opaco o las normas sociales son rígidas, la desconexión puede empujarlos a mirar hacia otro lugar.

¿Fuga o circulación de cerebros?

Para los países receptores, la fuga de cerebros plantea una preocupación estratégica: ganar la carrera del talento no termina con la contratación. Lo que más importa es la retención, lo cual depende de hasta qué punto las sociedades de acogida y los lugares de trabajo cumplen la promesa de la integración profesional y personal.

Los migrantes altamente cualificados de hoy se mueven por el mundo con facilidad. Si se sienten infrautilizados o culturalmente alienados, no esperan: migran de nuevo, a menudo hacia países donde sus aspiraciones profesionales y valores personales estén más alineados.

Durante el tiempo que duró este estudio Miguel Morillas trabajó como investigador postdoctoral en la Universidad de Copenhague.

Durante el tiempo que duró este estudio trabajó como investigador postdoctoral en la Universidad de Copenhague.

– ref. ¿Por qué los migrantes altamente cualificados no logran sentirse parte del país de acogida? – https://theconversation.com/por-que-los-migrantes-altamente-cualificados-no-logran-sentirse-parte-del-pais-de-acogida-261315

July 17, 2025

Trump’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

During his 2024 US presidential election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly said he would declassify and release the files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting his sex trafficking trial.

The so-called Epstein files are thought to contain contacts, communications and – perhaps most crucially – flight logs. Epstein’s private aircraft was the means by which to visit what has been later termed “paedophile island”, where he and his associates allegedly trafficked and abused children.

Conspiracy-minded Trump supporters, many of whom believe Epstein was murdered by powerful figures to cover up their roles in his child sex crimes, think the Epstein files will provide them with a who’s who of the supposed elites involved in child-sex exploitation.

During his campaign, Trump hinted that the Epstein files would compromise powerful people – suggesting he knew their identities and what they had done. It was simultaneously a warning shot to these individuals and a way to energise his “Make America Great Again” (Maga) support base. It also validated part of the so-called QAnon conspiracy theory around a “deep-state” cover-up of an elite child sex abuse network.

But the justice department recently announced that its review of these papers revealed no client list of politically important men, and also that Epstein had died by suicide. This struck down two of the most important beliefs of Trump’s base. For a large section of the Maga movement, this somewhat dull set of conclusions has felt like a betrayal.

Musk smells opportunity

Trump’s former close ally, funder and adviser, Elon Musk, has used the Epstein files imbroglio to go on the attack via social media. Musk has, without offering evidence, repeatedly insinuated that Trump’s name is in the files. Trump has responded by accusing Musk of “losing his mind” and used evidence from Epstein’s former lawyer, David Schoen, to refute Musk’s accusations.

Musk’s allegations could be toxic for Trump. A good portion of the Maga movement think the QAnon conspiracy has some truth to it. So being potentially tied to a child sex exploitation ring would damage Trump’s reputation with his base on a subject they care about strongly. Musk has caused some Maga activists to wonder if Trump is part of a cover up.

The Maga base largely remains loyal to Trump. But this loyalty has required considerable pragmatism since Trump was reelected. A key position supported by Maga voters, Trump’s opposition to foreign military adventures, was reversed by his attack on Iranian military sites in June.

Maga-aligned spokespeople justified these actions on the grounds they were limited and a response to exceptional provocation. They are portrayed as a counterpoint to the near open-ended commitment of former US president George Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s.

Further Maga pragmatism has been required over the so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act, which will add trillions of US dollars to national debt, as well as the cuts to healthcare and food stamp funding. These latter actions have removed coverage and aid from a good portion of Maga-aligned voters.

Despite the personal financial pain, Maga loyalists have couched their support in terms of reducing waste and shrinking the size of the government. These loyalists have faith in Trump’s word that they will ultimately not be disadvantaged – though the implementation phase will be the test of this.

Trump has also stretched the patience and loyalty of corn farmers in mid-western states, a natural base for him. He has called for Coca-Cola to use cane sugar rather than corn syrup in the full-sugar version of its drink. Trump and his controversial health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, have argued that cane sugar is healthier – which is open to question – and will “make America healthy again”.

While the question of which sweetener is used in Coke is marginal, supporting something that damages mid-western farmers will be difficult for Maga loyalists to reconcile. In having to find a way of overcoming the tensions in the policy, they may begin to question Trump’s wisdom.

A Trump supporter sporting a red 'Keep America Great' hat. — A Trump supporter sporting a red ‘Keep America Great’ hat at a rally in Des Moines, Iowa.
Aspects and Angles / Shutterstock

The arguments surrounding the Epstein files might be uniquely dangerous for Trump and his relationship with his Maga base. The QAnon paedophile ring conspiracy is core to a great number of Maga loyalists, and Trump was their man to reveal “the truth”.

But the justice department has now effectively rejected that part of their world view. And the response of some has been to question whether Trump is also part of a cover up.

Worse still, Trump has gone on the attack. He has said the Epstein conspiracy was never real and has described some of his supporters as “gullible weaklings” for continuing to believe in it. For some supporters this has been too much, and they have aired their frustration on Trump’s Truth Social media platform as well as on right-leaning blogs and podcasts.

Trump has begun to soften his critique of those believing in the Epstein conspiracies, saying he would want to release any credible information. He has also returned to a campaigning tactic of whataboutery, pointing at what he says is the unfair treatment he receives compared to his predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The Epstein files episode might well pass. But the question of whether Maga is now bigger than Trump will not. For a president who once joked that his support was so strong he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing voters, the loyalty and pragmatic flexibility of his supporters is important.

Maga is not a uniform group in belief or action. But if Trump loses either the loyalty of some or they refuse to flex their beliefs as they have done before, it will be politically dangerous for him. From beyond the grave, Epstein might have helped begin a new era in American politics.

Robert Dover 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’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base – https://theconversation.com/trumps-changing-stance-on-epstein-files-is-testing-the-loyalty-of-his-maga-base-261406

July 17, 2025

Bosnia and Herzegovina in crisis as Bosnian-Serb president rallies for secession

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Birte Julia Gippert, Reader in International Relations, University of Liverpool

The country of Bosnia and Herzegovina is embroiled in a crisis that may affect its political future and the stability of the western Balkans. Recent events in the bitterly divided country read a little like a spy novel. But the tensions that threaten three decades of tenuous peace since the region was torn apart by ethnic strife in the 1990s are only too real.

On February 26, 300 armed Hungarian police officers in civilian clothes crossed into Republika Srpska without approval from the Sarajevo state government. Republika Srpska is one of the two territorial entities that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Hungarian police were there, ostensibly, to train local police.

But they were reportedly sent to be ready to extract Republika Srpska president, Milorad Dodik, who had the same day been convicted by a Bosnian court for “separatist actions”. These included suspending rulings of the Bosnian constitutional court and refusing to publish decisions by the Bosnian high representative, which prevents them from becoming law in contravention of Bosnia’s constitution.

He was sentenced to 12 months in prison and handed a six-year ban from all political activities. Within days of the verdict, Dodik reacted by banning all Bosnian state prosecutorial, police and court institutions from Republika Srpska, in what the Bosnian constitutional court ruled was a move to “effectively abolish state authority over part of its territory”.

In March, Bosnia’s state court issued an arrest warrant against Dodik for ignoring a court summons over his alleged secessionist activity. In April, the Bosnian state investigation and protection agency, Sipa, attempted to arrest him in East Sarajevo, which is part of Republika Srpska.

An armed stand-off followed between Sipa officers and local police. Eventually the Sipa officers withdrew.

So it came as a surprise for many when Dodik and his lawyer attended a scheduled hearing for his case on July 4. The court duly lifted its arrest warrant pending further proceedings with a requirement that he report in on a periodical basis.

Two days later, despite only being on conditional release, Dodik restated his claim for the unification of Republika Srpska with Serbia, saying: “Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a state of Serbs but only a temporary refuge.”

The burden of history

The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged from the horrors of the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. The country’s political form was part of the 1995 Dayton peace agreement, which was both a peace deal and a state-building blueprint.

To accommodate, rather than solve, the tensions between the three main ethnic groups – Bosniak Muslims, Serbs and Croats – the state was divided into two entities: the Serb-majority Republika Srpska and the Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Both parts of the country hold considerable autonomous powers, but are bridged by the weak federal political institutions. Like many power-sharing deals, Dayton ended the fighting but failed to build an integrated state.

The two entities guard their autonomy fiercely. Attempts by the European Union to push for constitutional changes to pave the way to closer relations with the Bosnian state, for example by reforming the country’s police force, have been rebuffed by nationalist politicians.

The Republika Srpska has been vocal in defence of its autonomous rights. And the most prominent voice among them has been Dodik, who consistently portrays Republika Srpska as a bulwark for Serbs against a hostile Bosnian-majority state imposing its will.

Serbs only account for about 30% of the total population of Bosnia, and clearly chafe at the power-sharing arrangement. Ever since the Dayton accords brought a halt to the fighting, Serb nationalist politicians have toyed with the idea of a “Greater Serbia”.

This encompasses Serbs living in Serbia, Republika Srpska and Serbia’s breakaway province in Kosovo. Dodik’s statement from July 6 has stirred up these sentiments once more, almost to the day on the anniversary of the first-ever pan-Serbian assembly held in Belgrade on June 8 2024 and co-hosted by Dodik and and the Serbian president, Aleksandar Vučić.

At a crossroads

Bosnia is at a crossroads. Internally divided in whether populations see their future in their past, retaining a semi-autocratic, ethno-nationalist government, or whether they see their future as a democratic, accountable and multiethnic state. The former, of course, would look to – and remain within the sphere of influence of – Russia. The latter prefer to look westward for their future.

Bosnia, like its neighbours, is an EU candidate country. It began accession negotiations in March 2024, but many of the reforms required to meet EU accession criteria clash with Bosnia’s constitution.

Among other things, this restricts who can join the tripartite federal presidency and the House of Peoples, the upper-chamber of the federal parliament, excluding Jews, Roma and other minorities. This would have to change for Bosnia to join.

But the Bosnian constitution is anchored in the Dayton peace agreement, so nationalist politicians threaten that constitutional reform will endanger Bosnia’s peace and integrity.

Embracing constitutional reforms to fulfil EU entry requirements is risky for nationalist politicians as it undercuts their ethnic powerbase. However, turning fully away from the EU, and possibly towards Russia, carries a hefty price-tag in foregone direct financial support and economic integration. So far, Dodik and Vučić have managed to somewhat balance these seemingly contradictory courses of action. However, they are facing increasing headwinds.

Both the ongoing Serbian protests and recent polls from Bosnia showing that 70% of Bosnians (but only 50% of Bosnian Serbs) want to join the EU, question whether this course remains viable. With increased popular calls for democracy, accountability and fair elections, the recent actions by Dodik and his allies may be a reaction to these demands, rather than a separate agenda.

An old elite desperately clinging to power? Given the political fragility of Bosnia, reform appears inevitable. But the choice is a contested one.

One way the country breaks into its constituent parts along ethnic lines. The other prospect is that Bosnia embraces reform and progresses to become a democratic multi-ethnic state with a European future. Either way may spell turbulent times ahead.

Birte Julia Gippert 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. Bosnia and Herzegovina in crisis as Bosnian-Serb president rallies for secession – https://theconversation.com/bosnia-and-herzegovina-in-crisis-as-bosnian-serb-president-rallies-for-secession-260618