Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gokcay Balci, Lecturer in Sustainable Freight Transport and Logistics, University of Leeds

While recent global attention has focused on the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively held closed since late February in a move that has disrupted world energy supplies, a quieter but also important development has been taking shape in south-east Asia.

On April 14, the US and Indonesia announced a “major defence cooperation partnership”, strengthening their military ties. According to reports, the US is also seeking to gain wider access to Indonesian airspace. Several media outlets say Indonesia’s president, Prabowo Subianto, has approved the proposal.

These developments matter because Indonesia’s vast archipelago sits astride some of the most critical sea routes in the world. These include the Strait of Malacca, an important chokepoint for global shipping and trade. The region surrounding Malacca has seen growing military attention from outside powers in recent years.

Both the US and China have been steadily expanding their military presence around the strait and its approaches. The US has largely done so through base access and naval deployments, and China through its port network and naval buildup. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands, located near the strait’s western approaches, also provide India with a strategic presence in the region.

South-east Asia is becoming more explicitly tied into great-power competition, with the new US-Indonesia defence partnership adding the latest layer. Should this competition intensify – whether through a crisis in Taiwan, a spillover from Hormuz or a shift in alliances – the Strait of Malacca would be at the centre of it.

The strait is the shortest sea route connecting the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean, making it the default corridor for trade between east Asia and the west. It stretches roughly 900km from the Malay Peninsula to the Indonesian island of Sumatra. At its narrowest point, the Phillips Channel near Singapore, it is barely 2.8km wide.

Almost 24% of global seaborne trade by volume flows through the strait. It carries 45% of the world’s seaborne oil, over 25% of all cars traded internationally and 23% of dry bulk cargo including key agricultural commodities like grains and soybeans. A large portion of European imports of electronics, consumer products like footwear and toys, machinery and industrial goods pass through the strait in sea containers as well.

The strait is also home to some of the world’s most critical port infrastructure. Singapore, located at the strait’s southern entrance, is the second-busiest container port and the busiest container transshipment hub on the planet. It handles over 40 million containers a year and is the world’s largest ship refuelling hub. Port Klang in Malaysia ranks among the world’s top ten container ports too, handling 14 million containers annually.

Why Malacca is irreplaceable

The most commonly cited detours around the Strait of Malacca, the Sunda and Lombok Straits, both lie within Indonesian territory and neither is a straightforward substitute. Rerouting through either adds roughly 1,000 to 1,500 nautical miles to the journey – three to five extra days at sea – along with higher fuel costs and the loss of Singapore’s refueling infrastructure.

Beyond Indonesia, the Torres Strait near Papua New Guinea is too shallow for large commercial vessels with a draft of over 12 metres. Ships avoiding all these routes would face a detour around the entire Australian continent, adding another ten to 15 days of transit time. These geographical features are the reason why the Strait of Malacca is so difficult to bypass.

China understands the risk of relying on Malacca perhaps better than anyone. In 2003, the then-president of China, Hu Jintao, coined the phrase “Malacca dilemma” to describe a strategic exposure that has continued since. Between 75% and 80% of China’s imported oil still passes through the strait.

Beijing has invested heavily in alternatives, but none come close to matching the scale of what transits Malacca. Pipelines running from Kyaukpyu on the Bay of Bengal in Myanmar into Yunnan province in China bypass Malacca entirely. However, their capacity is only around 440,000 barrels per day, a small fraction of China’s roughly 11 million barrels of daily oil imports.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor plans to link Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea to Xinjiang in north-west China through road, rail and energy infrastructure. But it remains only partially developed, with its completion affected by difficult terrain and security challenges in parts of Pakistan. China has also diversified through Central Asian oil and gas pipelines, which provide about 10% of its total imported oil.

There are rail freight corridors connecting China to Europe, which avoid maritime chokepoints entirely and are faster than shipping. However, they are far more expensive and very limited in capacity. Arctic shipping routes along Russia’s northern coast offer a longer-term hedge, cutting the distance between Asia and Europe, but remain seasonal and marginal in global trade terms.

For now, there is no clear indication that the growing military presence around the Strait of Malacca will have any impact on commercial shipping. But if a conflict does arise in the future, it will be trade-dependent economies like China that will suffer.

Gokcay Balci receives funding from UK National Clean Maritime Research Hub

Ebru Surucu-Balci 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. Could the Strait of Malacca be the next global flashpoint? – https://theconversation.com/could-the-strait-of-malacca-be-the-next-global-flashpoint-281190

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chloe Casey, Lecturer in Nutrition and Behaviour, Bournemouth University

Beer could come with a “surprising health benefit”, according to a new report from the BBC. This must be pleasing news for beer drinkers everywhere. But what did the new study the BBC report was based on actually say? And does it stand up to scrutiny?

The study, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, set out to assess the vitamin B6 content of alcohol-free and full-strength beers. Vitamin B6 is an essential nutrient with important roles in the body, but there are problems with how these findings are framed.

The numbers are technically true but misleading in context. Saying that a beer provides 15% of your daily vitamin B6 sounds impressive, but it ignores the wider dietary picture.

Most people in the UK are not deficient in vitamin B6. And the same amount, or more, can easily be obtained from a standard healthy diet. A number of foods, such as potatoes, chickpeas, fortified cereals, grains, meat and vegetables, provide vitamin B6 without the need for alcohol.

The paper also links vitamin B6 to important neurological functions, but does not provide evidence that beer consumption meaningfully improves brain health. It correctly states that vitamin B6 is involved in making the brain chemicals serotonin and dopamine, and confirms that beer contains measurable amounts of B6. However, the interpretation that beer is therefore “brain boosting” is problematic.

The study does not measure brain health outcomes of any kind (not cognition, mood or neurological effects), so such conclusions are not supported by the data. The B6 intake from beer is modest, and this narrative overlooks the well established harms associated with alcohol consumption.

The serving size framing is also concerning. The study refers to “a serving” and, in some cases, volumes of up to a litre. Drinking at those levels on a regular basis would clearly conflict with NHS guidance on alcohol consumption. A typical half-litre serving was reported to provide around 13–16% of daily vitamin B6 requirements. A beer would need to provide about one whole day’s worth of vitamin B6 in a standard pint to qualify for a health claim. None of the beers in the study came close to that.

The study also does not adequately emphasise alcohol’s downsides, including risks to the liver, brain and increased cancer incidence. In recognition of these harms, the World Health Organization states that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. Although this is acknowledged in the paper, highlighting a small vitamin content without properly weighing it against these risks is misleading.

When drinks brands latch on to studies like this to make their products seem good for you, they’re putting marketing ahead of public health. At worst, they’re nudging people to drink more.

A familiar story: the red wine myth

This is not the first time narratives about the health benefits of alcohol have found their way into the media. The idea that a glass of red wine a day is good for your heart is one of the most enduring examples. While this claim has some scientific roots, it is now heavily debated.

The belief largely traces back to the so-called “French paradox”, coined following observations that people in France appeared to have relatively low rates of heart disease despite diets rich in saturated fat and regular alcohol consumption. Red wine, in particular, has been suggested to offer some health benefits because it contains natural compounds called polyphenols – especially one called resveratrol – which can act as antioxidants and help protect the body’s cells.

Later studies, however, have raised serious concerns about these claims. Researchers pointed out that other factors – like people’s diet, how active they are and their access to healthcare – may have influenced the results. There has also been a wider rethink of alcohol’s effects, with growing evidence that it can increase the risk of harm, especially from certain types of cancer.

Taken together, these issues help explain a pattern known as the “healthy user effect”. At first glance, observational data suggest that moderate alcohol consumption may be protective. Some studies report lower rates of heart disease among moderate drinkers compared with non-drinkers. But observational data can only show correlations, not cause and effect.

In reality, moderate wine drinkers often differ from non-drinkers in important ways. They are, on average, more likely to eat healthier diets, be more physically active, be wealthier, have more friends, and see their doctor more often.

Each of these factors independently reduces the risk of heart disease and stroke. When they are not fully accounted for, alcohol itself can mistakenly appear to be the protective factor.

When the wider body of evidence is considered, particularly research linking alcohol to cancer, liver disease and mental health problems, most reviews conclude that any potential benefits are small and probably outweighed by the risks. The nutritional contributions of beer and wine do exist, but they are minor and unlikely to translate into meaningful health improvements.

Polyphenols, antioxidants, vitamins and minerals can all be obtained more safely and reliably from fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, olive oil and other whole foods, without the risks associated with alcohol.

Chloe Casey 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. Claim check: does your pint of beer really come with a ‘surprising health benefit’? – https://theconversation.com/claim-check-does-your-pint-of-beer-really-come-with-a-surprising-health-benefit-281399

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simona Palladino, Senior Lecturer in Social Sciences, Liverpool Hope University

Just days before the Battle of Britain began in July 1940, more than 800 civilians were killed off the coast of Ireland when a German U-Boat sank a converted five-star cruise ship.

The people on board were German, Austrian and Italian internees – deemed enemy aliens by the UK government – who were being deported to Canada.

Why the Nazis sank a civilian ship has never been fully explained.

But the sinking of the Arandora Star remains one of the lesser known war crimes of the second world war.

My research has examined the oral histories of some of the Italian families, based in the UK, who remember the second world war. My latest project has looked into the long-term effects of Arandora Star sinking as it was experienced and transmitted across generations.

The attack

The Arandora Star was a first class cruise liner built in 1927 by the Cammell Laird Company Ltd, in Birkenhead, near Liverpool. It was one of the best-known ships in the world at the time.

When the war broke out, the Arandora, like many commercial ships, was placed at the disposal of the British government. Under the command of Captain E.W. Moulton, the Arandora was ordered to carry German, Austrian and Italian internees from Liverpool to Canada.

More than 1,600 men were forced onto the ship which was actually designed to carry 500. Internees were crammed below decks and the exits were guarded by barbed wire.

On July 2 1940 – the morning after it embarked on its voyage – the Arandora was torpedoed by a German U-boat, 100 miles northwest of Ireland.

Around 805 men, over 50 percent of the total number drowned, were Italian. About 100 British soldiers and crew members also lost their life, including the ship’s captain.

One British sailor told the press in 1940 that the Arandora Star turned half over on her side and sank, carrying down the occupants of several life rafts. “When the ship disappeared,” the sailor said, “there were hundreds of men on her decks … A cloud of steam rose a hundred feet in the air, and the suction dragged rafts and men underneath with her”.

But the ship’s traumatic final moments were just the start of the story for the families of those involved.

---

Read more:
From World War II ‘enemy’ internment to Windrush: Britain quickly forgets its gratitude to economic migrants

---

Part of my study involved making a 15-minute documentary, entitled The Arandora Star Sinking, to raise awareness about the xenophobia and discrimination faced by the people and communities who were left behind.

The film captures memories of the incident from the perspective of one of the descendants.

Vincenzo Margiotta

Vincenzo Margiotta is a third generation Italian based in Liverpool, whose grandfather was interned and died on the Arandora Star.

Margiotta’s family migrated to Scotland at the beginning of the 20th century, from Picinisco, Lazio, and established businesses in catering.

“Things were great. Life was good,” he said – until the outbreak of the second world war. Following Benito Mussolini’s declaration of war, on June 10 1940, anti-Italian feeling erupted among British citizens.

Around 4,500 Italian men between the ages of 16 and 70 with less than 20 years’ residence in Britain were ordered to be interned, including Margiotta’s grandfather.

Research has shown how Italian internees were regarded as the most “dangerous characters”. They were deported even though their degree of loyalty to the fascists had not been assessed.

Public opinion in the UK was initially in favour of the internment of “enemy aliens”. However, after the tragedy of the Arandora Star – and as a result of campaigns by various members of parliament – opinion changed and supported the release of “loyal” internees. Eventually internees were able to apply for release and many of them served in the armed forces.

Information vacuum

Over the years, Margiotta heard many stories about what happened to his grandfather.

One reason for this is because the official history was unclear. Why, for example, were none of the deportation transport ships marked as carrying prisoners of war? Instead, they set sail unaccompanied, equipped with anti-submarine guns, and employing a zigzag pattern in their movements – making the ships obvious targets for German U-boats.

Research has also shown that next of kin of internees were not informed about the Arandora disaster for weeks and only some families received a notification of “missing presumed drowned”, in April 1941, when the Home Office missing list was finalised.

Consequently, memories transmitted via word of mouth among family and community members were the main sources this group had available to them.

Margiotta said: “My knowledge of the incident was hearing stories around the table from other families”, adding:

Somebody pushed my grandfather off the ship, and told him to jump into the water … he was frightened, as he couldn’t swim – screaming in disbelief at what was happening around him … and then was never seen again.

This spoken mode of transmission of memories might have contributed to speculation and intrigue. The sinking has been subject to divergent tales and invention.

Gold bullion?

Margiotta said conspiracy theories included, “stories of it carrying gold bullion to take to Canada to fund the war chest for the UK … it was carrying soldiers; lots of stories. All have been unfounded. But I guess there is a story somewhere that needs to come out”.

It is evident how the lack of official information and records caused a sense of injustice for the loss of civilians. As Margiotta told me at the end of our interview:

…Why would the enemy wish to torpedo a ship like that? Why was a converted five-star cruise ship … torpedoed? There’s a lot of unanswered questions.

Margiotta represents just one of the many victims’ relatives who expressed the need to find answers to these basic questions.

In my previous research I spoke to Anglo-Italian families in the north-east of England who all shared the same pain and frustration. It’s time these questions were answered.

Simona Palladino 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. Arandora Star sinking: a lesser known Nazi war crime that spawned generations of conspiracy theories – https://theconversation.com/arandora-star-sinking-a-lesser-known-nazi-war-crime-that-spawned-generations-of-conspiracy-theories-281069

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kristina Shea, PhD Candidate, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

You will probably recognise toxic leaders when you encounter them. They are the ones whose presence shifts the atmosphere, whose emails create unease, or whose behaviour limits the thinking of others. They often interrupt, frequently overlook contributions and hamper other people’s growth. While this behaviour is often seen as unfortunate but acceptable, the impact on employee wellbeing is corrosive.

Leadership shapes not only what people do, but how they experience their work and how they see themselves. In other words, leaders are responsible for the psychological environments they create. Research has highlighted leadership as a central influence on employee wellbeing.

Unfortunately, most employees report having experienced at least one toxic manager at some point. Even well-intentioned leaders may, at times, engage in toxic behaviour that diminishes others.

Our new research shows consistent declines across all dimensions of the wellbeing of employees who report to toxic leaders. Results from 273 employees highlighted negative impacts on emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning and accomplishment. The most pronounced effects showed up in their mindset and physical health, and affected employees said they experienced less enjoyment in their work and less sense of purpose.

From a psychological perspective, our findings are concerning. Positive emotions, engagement, healthy relationships, meaning and accomplishment are central to humans’ ability to thrive. Without these, work becomes something to endure rather than a context for growth.

These experiences rarely remain confined to the workplace; they tend to influence broader aspects of life. The happiness of employees has been found to have an impact on an employer’s bottom line – employees who experienced joy at work achieved 25% higher sales per hour, according to one analysis.

In fact, research has found that having emotional needs met, feeling valued and doing meaningful work could even be stronger predictors of performance than pay.

How toxic energy spreads

Leaders contribute to the energy of a workplace through their everyday interactions in what is known as “emotional contagion”. This is the process by which emotions and moods transfer between people through everyday interaction. When that energy is toxic, it can spread through teams and organisations, shaping how people feel and relate to one another.

The good news is that emotional contagion works both ways. Our research also looked at something known as “positively energising leadership” (PEL). This offers a way of understanding leadership as a force that enhances the capacity of others. Positively energising leaders are capable of producing extraordinary results and can drive positive outcomes in the workplace.

These leaders can be defined by two dimensions. The first is relational energy – the kind of energy that arises through interaction. For example, a manager who greets team members by asking about their weekend, listens to the answers and remembers them the next week can generate more relational energy in three minutes than a leader who sends dozens of emails over the course of a day.

Unlike physical energy, relational energy can be created and shared through attention, connection and presence.

The second is virtuous behaviour. This includes expressing gratitude, demonstrating integrity, offering support and treating others with respect. Taking time to listen to colleagues is a powerful way of building connection and strengthening relationships.

For leaders, there are three key practical implications. The first is to approach interactions thinking about how you might help the other person feel capable and valued. The second is to attend to your own wellbeing. The third is to invite feedback on your impact, asking employees how you can be a better leader and enhance their wellbeing. This information allows you to refine and enhance your leadership skills.

For employees working under a toxic leader, the situation is more difficult. However, there are a few things that you can do. Where possible, seek out positive relational energy from other sources: supportive peers or colleagues in other teams. This can buffer the negative effects of a toxic leader.

It is also helpful to allocate time for recovery and small wellbeing practices outside the work context. Finally, consider raising your concerns through trusted people like coaches, mentors or HR colleagues. It is important to reflect honestly on whether you will be able to sustain your performance and wellbeing under a toxic leader.

Leadership is expressed through everyday moments. In every interaction, leaders contribute to an environment in which people can thrive or one in which they feel diminished. These moments shape whether workplaces become spaces where people realise their potential or just places they must endure.

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. The cost of toxic leadership in the workplace – and how to avoid it – https://theconversation.com/the-cost-of-toxic-leadership-in-the-workplace-and-how-to-avoid-it-280761

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Jones, Director of Journalism, Politics and Contemporary History, University of Salford

The BBC has announced the end of one of its longest-running programmes, Football Focus.

It’s been a fixture of Saturday lunchtimes since 1974. But the final whistle will blow when this season finishes. The BBC has blamed a decline in audience for the BBC One broadcast as fans now get their pre-match news and views from a wider range of sources.

This isn’t a sign that the BBC is moving away from football. Research in my forthcoming book Sports Journalism in the UK, shows that 60% of the content on the BBC Sport X account is now about football, compared to 39% in its traditional sports bulletins on Radio 5 Live.

The BBC is also transforming its previously cautious approach to YouTube, with new video-first sports podcasts and channels, as it seeks to meet younger audiences on their favourite platforms. The old Football Focus slot will be going to Kelly Somers’ The Football Interview, a more in-depth weekly conversation on iPlayer that you’re already as likely to watch on your phone as the TV.

Another venerable BBC football programme, Match of the Day, suffered a similar drop in ratings in its traditional Saturday night slot. The BBC responded by making its valuable clips of Premier League highlights available online earlier. But one effect of the expansion of the Match of the Day brand has been to make Football Focus a less visible part of the BBC’s extensive football coverage.

Some online commentary has blamed declining ratings on a so-called “woke” takeover of Football Focus, pointing to the appointment in 2021 of its first regular female host Alex Scott and the introduction of more items about women’s football. Some male critics have argued the BBC is part of a conspiracy to give the women’s game a prominence it doesn’t deserve.

Yet the BBC and others have argued that women’s football drives audiences and engagement. The public broadcaster’s coverage of women’s football has been rewarded with rising viewing figures of England’s success at major tournaments. In the year to 2024, the government’s participation survey found women’s football was the second most watched sport on British television, behind only men’s football.

In the era of pay TV networks, which outbid terrestrial broadcasters for the rights to many of the major sports leagues, tournaments and events, sport tended to be pushed to the margins of free-to-air television, relegated to weekend afternoons and nighttime highlights. But this is not to say it is not still an important part of the free-to-air offer: by 2024, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, spent £700 million between them on sport, more than any other genre of new, original programming. Yet it is live sport, not related shows such as Football Focus, which we’re mainly tuning in for.

The BBC faces a difficult broader context. It is under pressure to limit spending and BBC Sport is no exception. The BBC is not showing this summer’s Commonwealth Games live from Glasgow on television, a decision that would have been unthinkable in the past. All broadcasters now regularly have their commentators sitting in studios or at home describing the action from television pictures, to cut production costs.

The legacy of Football Focus

While it may now look like a holdover from a bygone age, Football Focus will go down as an important programme in British sports media history. An earlier version, Football Preview, began in September 1967 as part of the BBC’s old multi-sport magazine show, Grandstand. It was an innovative development, bringing regular football discussion and analysis from the pages of newspapers onto the screen.

Extended and relaunched seven years later with host Bob Wilson, Football Focus was often directly up against ITV rivals On The Ball (1965-1985, then 1998-2004) and Saint & Greavsie (1985-1992). These shows helped pioneer the now familiar diet of football previews, interviews and punditry. Each enjoyed the sort of pre-match access to players and managers now often restricted by clubs and leagues keen to keep their best material for themselves.

When the BBC briefly lost the rights to Premier League highlights in 2001, both Football Focus and results show Final Score were spun out as separate programmes to help maintain the prominence of football on the BBC. It worked: Football Focus lasted almost two decades after its mothership Grandstand finally came off the air in 2007. The falling number of top flight 3pm kick offs certainly didn’t help though, and that trend might in time make it harder for even Final Score to endure, too.

Intense competition in a sport environment saturated by media, meant Football Focus struggled to remain distinctive. Fans can now get everything from detailed tactical analysis to outrageous hot takes from content creators large and small. These offer the sort of depth and partisan approach the BBC, constrained by limitations of time, resources and objectivity, cannot.

Ghosts of the past have come back to haunt the BBC. That Peter Crouch Podcast, launched by the BBC, is the UK’s most popular football podcast, according to Edison Research. The only problem is that it’s been on commercial platform Acast since 2022. Meanwhile, ex-Football Focus host Gary Lineker’s Goalhanger stable includes three of the UK’s top six podcasts overall, including his own The Rest is Football, coming soon to Netflix.

Then there’s the sometime Dragon’s Den star, Gary Neville. The footballer turned entrepreneur recently signed Mark Goldbridge to his expanding media network, The Overlap. As the face of YouTube channel The United Stand, Goldbridge has become arguably the most successful exponent yet of fan media, delivering unfiltered opinions on Manchester United from his home studio rather than the stadium. In true football transfer style, the deal was for an “undisclosed” fee.

All this adds up to a much busier football media market than the one Football Focus first entered. BBC Sport’s focus remains on football, perhaps increasingly so. But on Saturday lunchtimes at least, it’s going to be taking a different form.

Richard Jones 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 BBC is axing Football Focus – here’s what it means for sports broadcasting – https://theconversation.com/the-bbc-is-axing-football-focus-heres-what-it-means-for-sports-broadcasting-281472