English – Page 151 – MIL Submissions Engine

January 14, 2026

Amid a rocky truce, Israel and Hamas prepare to resume fighting

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

Progress towards achieving Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza is stalling. Israeli strikes across the territory on January 9 killed 13 Palestinians, with new raids days later claiming three more lives. The situation has now reached a critical juncture, with both Israel and Hamas reportedly preparing for a resumption in fighting.

The first phase of the US-brokered ceasefire, which came into effect in October, has mostly been completed. Israel’s military has withdrawn to the eastern half of the Gaza Strip, as required by the agreement. And dozens of Israeli hostages, living and dead, have been exchanged with hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

However, some elements still need to be finalised. This includes the return of the remaining Israeli hostage, Ran Gvili, whose remains are still unaccounted for. And while humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza, the southern Rafah border crossing has yet to be opened fully.

This is restricting the flow of goods at a time when the inhabitants of Gaza face an acute humanitarian crisis. Harsh weather conditions, limited shelter, severe food shortages and continued military actions continue to exacerbate the situation. The UN said on January 12 that at least 1.1 million people in Gaza still urgently need assistance.

Advancement towards a permanent end to the war and the reconstruction of Gaza is thus urgent. However, later phases of the peace plan will need to address thorny issues such as Gaza’s post-war governance, Palestinian calls for a state and Israel’s demand that Hamas disarms. The potential for the negotiations to derail are high.

Trump is reportedly set to announce the Gaza “peace board”, which will be formed of global leaders to administer his post-war plan for the territory. Nickolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian diplomat and former UN envoy to the Middle East, has been named as the board’s director general.

But any progress towards realising Trump’s vision for Gaza, and permanently ending Israeli military action, hinges on the issue of the disarmament of Hamas.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has conditioned any progress in the peace plan on the demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip. This requires Hamas to relinquish all of its arms and hand over its governance of Gaza. These are non-negotiable demands from Israel for maintaining the ceasefire.

Hamas has said it will dissolve its existing government in Gaza once a committee of Palestinian technocrats takes over the territory. This committee will be headed by Ali Shaath, who previously served as the Palestinian Authority’s deputy transportation minister in the West Bank, and also includes Gaza chamber of commerce chairman Ayad Abu Ramadan.

But Hamas has so far publicly rejected giving up its arms. Some reports suggest that Hamas is ready to discuss “freezing or storing” its arsenal, while others have reported that Hamas would be willing to decommission its short- and long-range missiles. However, the group is not willing to give up its small arms and light weapons.

This is because Hamas believes it has a right to armed resistance as long as Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, with complete disarmament representing what the New York Times calls an “existential unravelling”. Unless resolved, the issue of disarmament will most likely lead to a resumption in fighting in the near future.

Plans for renewed hostilities

According to an unnamed Israeli official interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, if Hamas “doesn’t willingly give up its weapons, Israel would force it to do so”. Trump, following a meeting with Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago resort in December, has also said “there will be hell to pay” if Hamas does not agree to disarm.

But contrary to these directives, reports suggest that Hamas is focusing on rebuilding the infrastructure that was destroyed in Gaza during the past two years of war. This includes rebuilding its military capabilities and maze of tunnels, as well as replenishing its cash reserves through revenues generated by taxing goods and services coming into Gaza.

In early January, the Israel National News media network reported that Israeli intelligence has identified three main channels through which Hamas is attempting to rebuild its military capabilities. The first channel is the local production of weaponry, second is cooperation with the Iranian “axis of resistance” to leverage aid channels for military purposes, and third is using drones from Egypt to transfer weapons.

Further evidence of this is limited. However, Hamas was quick to reassert its power in Gaza after the ceasefire. And the New York Times reported in December that more than half of the group’s underground tunnel network is still intact and at least 20,000 Hamas fighters remain. This highlights the potential capacity for the group to reengage in fighting.

Expecting Hamas to refuse full disarmament, Israel has now reportedly drawn up plans to launch a renewed intensive military operation in Gaza in the spring. The focus of this operation would be on Gaza City, which remains largely under the control of Hamas.

Unless both sides engage in some pragmatism, or significant pressure is imposed on them to show restraint, the resumption of fighting seems inevitable. It will once again be the 2 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, who have already faced unimaginable loss and destruction and are struggling through a harsh winter, that will suffer.

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

– ref. Amid a rocky truce, Israel and Hamas prepare to resume fighting – https://theconversation.com/amid-a-rocky-truce-israel-and-hamas-prepare-to-resume-fighting-273268

January 14, 2026

Searching reporters’ homes, suing journalists and repressing citizen dissent are well-known steps toward autocracy

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Konstantin Zhukov, Assistant Professor of Economics, Indiana University; Institute for Humane Studies

Neither of these men — US President Donald Trump, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin — likes being held accountable by the press. Contributor/Getty Images

The FBI search of a Washington Post reporter’s home on Jan. 14, 2026, was a rare and intimidating move by an administration focused on repressing criticism and dissent.

In its story about the search at Hannah Natanson’s home, at which FBI agents said they were searching for materials related to a federal government employee, Washington Post reporter Perry Stein wrote that “it is highly unusual and aggressive for law enforcement to conduct a search on a reporter’s home.”

And Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told The New York Times the raid was “intensely concerning,” and could have a chilling effect “on legitimate journalistic activity.”

Free speech and independent media play a vital role in holding governments accountable by informing the public about government wrongdoing.

This is precisely why autocrats like Russia’s Vladimir Putin have worked to silence independent media, eliminating checks on their power and extending their rule. In Russia, for example, public ignorance about Putin’s responsibility for military failures in the war on Ukraine has allowed state propaganda to shift blame to senior military officials instead.

While the United States remains institutionally far removed from countries like Russia, the Trump administration has taken troubling early steps toward autocracy by threatening – and in some cases implementing – restrictions on free speech and independent media.

A large building with the words 'The New York Times' emblazoned on its lower floors. — Trump sued the New York Times in 2025 for $15 billion for what he called ‘malicious’ articles; a judge threw out the case.
Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Public ignorance, free speech and independent media

Ignorance about what public officials do exists in every political system.

In democracies, citizens often remain uninformed because learning about politics takes time and effort, while one vote rarely changes an election. American economist Anthony Downs called this “rational ignorance,” and it is made worse by complex laws and bureaucracy that few people fully understand.

As a result, voters often lack the information needed to monitor politicians or hold them accountable, giving officials more room to act in their own interest.

Free speech and independent media are essential for breaking this cycle. They allow citizens, journalists and opposition leaders to expose corruption and criticize those in power.

Open debate helps people share grievances and organize collective action, from protests to campaigns.

Independent media also act as watchdogs, investigating wrongdoing and raising the political cost of abuse – making it harder for leaders to get away with corruption or incompetence.

Public ignorance in autocracies

Autocrats strengthen their grip on power by undermining the institutions meant to keep them in check.

When free speech and independent journalism disappear, citizens are less likely to learn about government corruption or failures. Ignorance becomes the regime’s ally – it keeps people isolated and uninformed. By censoring information, autocrats create an information vacuum that prevents citizens from making informed choices or organizing protests.

This lack of reliable information also allows autocrats to spread propaganda and shape public opinion on major political and social issues.

Most modern autocrats have worked to silence free speech and crush independent media. When Putin came to power, he gradually shut down independent TV networks and censored opposition outlets. Journalists who exposed government corruption or brutality were harassed, prosecuted or even killed. New laws restricted protests and public criticism, while “foreign agent” rules made it nearly impossible for the few remaining independent media to operate.

At the same time, the Kremlin built a vast propaganda machine to shape public opinion. This control over information helped protect the regime during crises. As I noted in a recent article, many Russians were unaware of Putin’s responsibility for military failures in 2022. State media used propaganda to shift blame to the military leadership – preserving Putin’s popularity even as the war faltered.

The threat to independent media in the US

While the United States remains far from an autocracy, the Trump administration has taken steps that echo the behavior of authoritarian regimes.

Consider the use of lawsuits to intimidate journalists. In Singapore, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, routinely used civil defamation suits to silence reporters who exposed government repression or corruption. These tactics discouraged criticism and encouraged self-censorship.

Two men in suits, one older, one younger, shaking hands. — In Singapore, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, left, and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, routinely used civil defamation suits to silence reporters who exposed government repression or corruption.
Roslan Rahman/AFP via Getty Images

President Donald Trump has taken a similar approach, seeking US$15 billion from The New York Times for publication of several allegedly “malicious” articles, and $10 billion from The Wall Street Journal. The latter suit concerns a story about a letter Trump reportedly signed in Jeffrey Epstein’s birthday book.

A court dismissed the lawsuit against The New York Times; that’s likely to happen with the Journal suit as well. But such lawsuits could deter reporting on government misconduct, reporting on the actions and statements of Trump’s political opponents, and the kind of criticism of an administration inherent in opinion journalism such as columns and editorials.

This problem is compounded by the fact that after the Jimmy Kimmel show was suspended following a threat from the Trump-aligned chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the president suggested revoking the broadcast licenses of networks that air negative commentary about him.

Although the show was later reinstated, the episode revealed how the administration could use the autocratic technique of bureaucratic pressure to suppress speech it disagreed with. Combined with efforts to prosecute the president’s perceived enemies through the Justice Department, such actions inevitably encourage media self-censorship and deepen public ignorance.

The threat to free speech

Autocrats often invoke “national security” to pass laws restricting free speech. Russia’s “foreign agents” law, passed in 2012, forced nongovernmental organizations with foreign funding to label themselves as such, becoming a tool for silencing dissenting advocacy groups. Its 2022 revision broadened the definition, letting the Kremlin target anyone who criticized the government.

Similar laws have appeared in Hungary, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. Russia also uses vague “terrorist” and “extremist” designations to punish those who protest and dissent, all under the guise of “national security.”

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, the Trump administration took steps threatening free speech. It used the pretext of the “violence-inciting radical left” to call for a crackdown on what it designated as “hate speech,” threaten liberal groups, and designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.

The latter move is especially troubling, pushing the United States closer to the behavior characteristic of autocratic governments. The vagueness of the designation threatens to suppress free expression and opposition to the Trump administration.

Antifa is not an organization but a “decentralized collection of individual activists,” as scholar Stanislav Vysotsky describes it. The scope of those falling under the antifa label is widened by its identification with broad ideas, described in a national security memorandum issued by the Trump administration in the fall of 2025, like anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity. This gives the government leeway to prosecute an unprecedented number of individuals for their speech.

As scholar Melinda Haas writes, the memorandum “pushes the limits of presidential authority by targeting individuals and groups as potential domestic terrorists based on their beliefs rather than their actions.”

Konstantin Zhukov 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. Searching reporters’ homes, suing journalists and repressing citizen dissent are well-known steps toward autocracy – https://theconversation.com/searching-reporters-homes-suing-journalists-and-repressing-citizen-dissent-are-well-known-steps-toward-autocracy-268747

January 14, 2026

How street vendors and waste pickers can help cities manage growth

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gisèle Yasmeen, JW McConnell Professor of Practice, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University

The Milan Urban Food Policy Pact recently renewed global commitments to sustainable and equitable urban food systems. The pact has been signed by 330 cities around the world that have pledged to improve food production and distribution and to reduce waste.

Cities are now home to 45 per cent of the world’s 8.2 billion people, and that figure is expected to rise to 68 per cent by 2050. As they grow, cities are becoming key to shaping a sustainable future. Across the world, urbanization affects how food is grown, distributed and consumed, and cities are primary drivers of change in food systems.

As the Committee on World Food Security reaffirmed in October 2025, without intentional policy, this growth will not fuel the needed transformation to keep food systems sustainable.

Street foods and vendors are an essential component of the urban foodscape, providing affordable nutrition and critical income for many city residents. However, vendors are frequently met with hostility from municipal authorities who cite traffic and public health concerns.

In addition, at least one-third of food produced globally spoils, ending up in landfills, and wasting valuable resources, energy and labour. Urban waste pickers can play a vital role in reducing waste.

Addressing these issues requires the political will and investment to change our food systems for the better and make them more sustainable into the future.

Street food vendors

Many cities around the world feature vibrant street food scenes that provide livelihoods for vendors and high-quality, varied and delicious food for their customers. Scholars and advocates have argued that street foods are an essential part of the urban food system and often a healthier alternative to highly processed fast foods.

However, tensions with municipal authorities can disrupt this foodscape. For example, in Bangkok, tens of thousands of vendors have been displaced due to a municipal drive to refurbish the city’s pavements.

Furthermore, there’s a recent controversial push to move toward Singapore-style hawker centres to ostensibly create order and improve hygiene.

In New York City, an organization called the Street Vendor Project aims to balance traffic and pedestrian safety with the need to maintain these vital urban services and livelihoods. The group was instrumental in advocating for the New York City Council’s repeal of misdemeanor criminal penalties for mobile food vendors in September 2025. Equitable policy and planning means supporting, rather than further marginalizing, food vendors.

Urban waste pickers

In many cities, waste pickers collect, sort and sell discarded materials like plastic, metal and paper for recycling or reuse. While waste pickers are more common in the cities of low and middle-income countries, they are also a feature of urban areas in wealthy countries.

Food loss and waste is responsible for eight to 10 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Much of this due to poor storage, poor supply chains, last-kilometre logistics, overly restrictive regulations and wasteful practices by wealthy consumers. A 2020 study estimated that nearly 60 per cent of all plastic collected for recycling was undertaken by informal waste pickers.

Much of this plastic is related to food and beverage packaging discarded in urban areas. The United Nations Environment Program recommends that the estimated 20 million waste pickers around the world become an integral part of municipal waste management.

Improved waste management, particularly in the cities of the Global South, requires significant investments in infrastructure. But waste management systems should not simply mimic the models of the Global North.

A review of approaches and outcomes around the world for integrating waste pickers into municipal waste management systems provided several recommendations. However, a barrier remains due to stigmatization of these livelihoods.

Nonetheless, a growing number of waste picker organizations — as well as a worldwide coalition — provides a glimmer of hope to have these unsung heroes of urban recycling recognized. Some initiatives include partnerships between waste pickers and Brazilian local governments, the Binners Project in Vancouver building on the United We Can depot, Les Valoristes in Montréal, the National Street Vendor Association of India and the Linis-Ganda initiative in Manila, which partners with educational institutions and industry. These examples demonstrate how integrating informal recyclers can manage waste and help create a more circular food economy.

As the world continues to urbanize, more of us will rely on the vital roles played by street vendors and waste pickers. Inclusive policy and planning to recognize the contributions of these two livelihoods is essential to achieving a sustainable urban food future for all.

Gisèle Yasmeen has consulted for the World Bank to produce background papers that have, in part, fed into this work with permission.

Julian Tayarah and Umme Salma 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. How street vendors and waste pickers can help cities manage growth – https://theconversation.com/how-street-vendors-and-waste-pickers-can-help-cities-manage-growth-271164

January 14, 2026

Why the burden of leadership is really about managing relationships

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Julian Barling, Distinguished Professor and Borden Chair of Leadership, Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Ontario

Management is often painted as a discipline of strategy, efficiency and resource allocation. Leadership, in this view, is largely about positioning people effectively — much like moving pieces on a chessboard — and success is won by promotions and annual bonuses.

This understanding is also reflected in how leadership roles are typically described and evaluated. Job status and responsibility are often inferred from the number of direct reports a manager oversees, with larger teams signalling greater prestige and organizational importance.

More than three decades ago, however, management scholar Henry Mintzberg challenged the main conceptions of managerial work. He argued that the role of managers goes beyond planning and control, and instead involves dealing with information, making decisions and managing relationships.

Despite this longstanding critique, the image of management and leadership as a largely technical and hierarchical activity remains influential, particularly as organizations undergo changes. One such change is “delayering” — a flattening of organizational structures by removing layers of middle management.

In 2025 alone, approximately 41 per cent of organizations reduced their middle management. This places more burden on leaders to manage larger and more complex teams.

While these changes may reduce administrative costs, doing so leaves little to no time for leaders to foster complex relationships among employees or their own peers.

Leading relationships, not people

As it turns out, leading relationships, not people, is more complex than we first think.

Consider a simple example of a leader who oversees eight employees. This leader is not merely supervising eight units of work, but is overseeing up to 28 different dyadic relationships — relationships between two employees, or between a leader and an employee.

The nature of dyadic relationships dramatically increases the cognitive and emotional complexity and workload inherent in leadership roles.

Once the broader network of workplace relationships — including coalitions and alliances — is considered, the complexity moves far beyond leader-employee pairs. Leaders manage interpersonal relationships and political dynamics, not just individuals, along with the provision of resources and task co-ordination.

Leaders should encourage friends at work

Workplace relationship complexity is further intensified by what are known as “multiplex relationships.” These are relationships in which people share both instrumental and emotional ties with each other.

These relationships involve co-workers who support each other professionally while also serving as sources of genuine friendship and support. Such relationships are widespread in organizations and have been shown to be associated with higher work performance than either instrumental or social relationships alone.

These relationships are beneficial because employees are more willing to share complex and important information with peers who they trust.

An important caveat remains: the maximum number of multiplex ties for enhanced organizational performance is between five and seven. Beyond this point, the competing demands that make up emotional and instrumental relationships place further emotional and cognitive burdens on managers leading these relationships.

Leaders themselves can have multiplex ties with their employees, which is especially useful for team performance among teams that don’t get along.

Rethinking leadership

Given their prevalence and potential benefits for employee job performance, leaders need to pay more, not less, attention to relationships between employees. Leaders can play a role in shaping positive workplace dynamics within teams and across organizations.

Leaders who are better at fostering relationships inside and outside of organizations are more likely to improve their reputations and improve group performance than those who micromanage interactions within and between teams.

This requires a change in mindset. Management has long been framed as the act of managing people. Increasingly, it needs to be better understood as the work of leading relationships.

Ironically, delayering provides an opportunity to rethink and replace “management” with “leadership.” But leaders will only encourage and build multiplex relationships among their teams when they have received the training and resources to succeed in this new environment.

Yet, organizations have traditionally failed their leaders when it comes to training and development. Far too many people still get placed in leadership positions before they receive the training and development to enable them to succeed.

The new workplace reality demands that organizations support leaders not only to manage environments that reward individual performance, but in settings where complex and often messy relationships are central to leadership effectiveness.

Julian Barling receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.

Kaylee Somerville receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.

– ref. Why the burden of leadership is really about managing relationships – https://theconversation.com/why-the-burden-of-leadership-is-really-about-managing-relationships-270664

January 14, 2026

Seagrass meadows could be good for your health – yet they’re disappearing fast

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard K.F. Unsworth, Associate Professor in Marine Biology, Swansea University

The wellbeing benefits of nature are often linked to forests or habitats that support diverse pollinators. Spending time in green spaces reduces stress and anxiety, for example.

By contrast, the benefits of the ocean are more commonly associated with fishing, exciting creatures such as whales and dolphins, or adventure watersports, rather than as a living system that directly supports human wellbeing. Yet growing scientific evidence shows that marine biodiversity is fundamental to the health of people, animals and the planet.

The “one health” concept (a term now widely used by the World Health Organization) captures this connection by recognising that human health, animal health and environmental health are inseparable. Our new paper in the journal BioScience applies this idea to seagrass meadows for the first time. We argue that healthy coastal ecosystems such as seagrass meadows are not optional extras, but essential infrastructure for resilient societies.

Coastal seas host some of the most biologically rich ecosystems on Earth. Kelp forests, oyster reefs, saltmarshes and seagrass meadows form the foundation of complex food webs that support fisheries, regulate water quality and protect shorelines. These habitats influence everything from food security and livelihoods to exposure to pollution and disease.

Take seagrass meadows as one example. These underwater flowering plants stabilise sediments, reduce wave energy and filter nutrients from coastal waters. The benefits ultimately reduce coastal flooding and make the environment cleaner. They also support young fish and invertebrates that later populate offshore fisheries.

Seagrass and water quality exist in a delicate balance. When the quality becomes too poor the seagrass becomes less abundant, and it’s then less able to act as a filter. This further exacerbates the water quality problems with implications for fish and other wildife.

Similar patterns are seen when kelp forests collapse or shellfish reefs are lost. This is why we need better recognition for the important roles these habitats play.

Marine biodiversity also helps regulate the Earth’s climate. Coastal habitats such as seagrass capture and store carbon and can reduce the negative effects of storms and flooding.

While saving these ecosystems can’t replace the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions, their loss can accelerate climate impacts at local and regional scales increasing risks to coastal communities.

Despite their importance, many marine ecosystems have been severely degraded. Pollution, overfishing, coastal development and warming seas have reduced biodiversity along coastlines around the globe.

These losses are rarely visible to the public as they’re hard to see. This is because these losses occur underwater and gradually. Yet their consequences are increasingly felt through declining fisheries, poorer water quality and greater vulnerability to extreme weather. These factors all ultimately affect our health and wellbeing.

Our new paper argues that restoring marine biodiversity requires a shift in how success is measured. Conservation and restoration efforts are often judged by the amount of hectares of habitat planting planted or short-term project outcomes. While these metrics are easy to calculate, they can obscure the real goal: the recovery of ecological function and long-term resilience.

A collaborative approach

This is where the one health perspective becomes particularly valuable. By linking environmental condition to human and animal health, it encourages collaboration across disciplines that rarely interact. Coastal management, public health, fisheries policy and climate adaptation are often treated separately yet they all depend on the same underlying ecosystems.

Examples from around the world show that biodiversity can do miraculous things, such as seagrass meadows trapping pathogens, reducing harmful bacteria in coastal waters that kills corals and contaminates seafood. That’s nature directly buffering human and animal health.

We also know that when habitat is degraded and lost, it displaces associated wildife. This can lead to greater interactions between wild and farmed animals. In the case of seagrass loss, typically we know that geese become displaced to farmland to graze. This has the potential to increase interactions with farmed animals and could enhance spread of diseases such as bird flu.

Recovery of our ocean habitats and the wildlife, plants and microbes that live there is possible. Where water quality improves and physical disturbance is reduced, marine habitats can rebound, bringing measurable benefits for biodiversity fisheries and coastal protection.

Importantly, the benefits then extend to people – cleaner water, a more affable environment and better, more abundant food. However restoration of these habitats alone cannot compensate for ongoing damage. Protecting what remains is consistently more effective and less costly than rebuilding ecosystems after they collapse.

Marine biodiversity may feel distant from everyday life but it quietly supports many of the systems that societies depend on. Recognising oceans and coasts as part of our shared health system rather than as separate from it could transform how we manage and value the marine environment. In a changing climate, this shift may prove essential not only for nature but for our own resilience.

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

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

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. Seagrass meadows could be good for your health – yet they’re disappearing fast – https://theconversation.com/seagrass-meadows-could-be-good-for-your-health-yet-theyre-disappearing-fast-273120

January 14, 2026

Sharks and rays get a major win with new international trade limits for over 70 species

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gareth J. Fraser, Associate Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, University of Florida

Watching a whale shark swim at the Georgia Aquarium. Zac Wolf/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The world’s oceans are home to an exquisite variety of sharks and rays, from the largest fishes in the sea – the majestic whale shark and manta rays – to the luminescent but rarely seen deep-water lantern shark and guitarfishes.

The oceans were once teeming with these extraordinary and ancient species, which evolved close to half a billion years ago. However, the past half-century has posed one of the greatest tests yet to their survival. Overfishing, habitat loss and international trade have cut their numbers, putting many species on a path toward extinction within our lifetimes.

Scientists estimate that 100 million (yes, million) sharks and rays are killed each year for food, liver oil and other trade.

The volume of loss is devastatingly unsustainable. Overfishing has sent oceanic shark and ray populations plummeting by about 70% globally since the 1970s.

A manta ray gliding with fish. — A manta ray’s wingspan can be 12 to 22 feet, and some giant ocean rays can grow even larger.
Jon Hanson/Flickr, CC BY-SA

That’s why countries around the world agreed in December 2025 to add more than 70 shark and ray species to an international wildlife trade treaty’s list for full or partial protection.

It’s an important move that, as a biologist who studies sharks and rays, I believe is long overdue.

Humans put shark species at risk of extinction

Sharks have had a rough ride since the 1970s, when overfishing, habitat loss and international trade in fins, oil and other body parts of these enigmatic sea dwellers began to affect their sensitive populations. The 1975 movie “Jaws” and its portrayal of a great white shark as a mindless killing machine didn’t help people’s perceptions.

One reason shark populations are so vulnerable to overfishing, and less capable of recovering, is the late timing of their sexual maturity and their low numbers of offspring. If sharks and rays don’t survive long enough, the species can’t reproduce enough new members to remain stable.

Losing these species is a global problem because they are vital for a healthy ocean, in large part because they help keep their prey in check.

The bowmouth guitarfish, shown here at the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, is considered critically endangered.

Endangered and threatened species listings, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List, can help draw attention to sharks and rays that are at risk. But because their populations span international borders, with migratory routes around the globe, sharks and rays need international protection, not just local efforts.

That’s why the international trade agreements set out by the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, are vital. The convention attempts to create global restrictions that prevent trade of protected species to give them a chance to survive.

New protections for sharks and rays

In early December 2025, the CITES Conference of the Parties, made up of representatives from 184 countries, voted to initiate or expand protection against trade for many species. The votes included adding more than 70 shark and ray species to the CITES lists for full or restricted protection.

The newly listed or upgraded species include some of the most charismatic shark and ray species.

The whale shark, one of only three filter-feeding sharks and the largest fish in the ocean, and the manta and devil rays have joined the list that offers the strictest restrictions on trade, called Appendix I. Whale sharks are at risk from overfishing as well as being struck by ships. Because they feed at the surface, chasing zooplankton blooms, these ocean giants can be hit by ships, especially now that these animals are considered a tourism must-see.

A manta ray swims with its mouth open. You can see the gill structure inside — Manta rays are filter feeders. Their gills strain tiny organisms from the water as they glide.
Gordon Flood/Flickr, CC BY

Whale sharks now join this most restrictive list with more well-known, cuddlier mammals such as the giant panda and the blue whale, and they will receive the same international trade protections.

The member countries of CITES agree to the terms of the treaty, so they are legally bound to implement its directives to suspend trade. For the tightest restrictions, under Appendix I, import and export permits are required and allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II species, which aren’t yet threatened but could become threatened without protections, require export permits. However, the treaty terms are essentially a framework for each member government to then implement legislation under national laws.

Another shark joining the Appendix I list is the oceanic whitetip shark, an elegant, long-finned ocean roamer that has been fished to near extinction. Populations of this once common oceanic shark are down 80% to 95% in the Pacific since the mid-1990s, mostly due to the increase in commercial fishing.

A large shark with several stripped fish swimming with it. — An oceanic whitetip shark (*Carcharhinus longimanus*) swims with pilot fish. Whitetip sharks are threatened in part by demand for their fins and being caught by commercial fisheries.
NOAA Fisheries

Previously the only sharks or rays listed on Appendix I were sawfish, a group of rays with a long, sawlike projection surrounded by daggerlike teeth. They were already listed as critically endangered by the IUCN’s Red List, which assesses the status of threatened and endangered species, but it was up to governments to propose protections through CITES.

Other sharks gaining partial protections for the first time include deep-sea gulper sharks, which have been prized for their liver oil used for cosmetics. Gulper shark populations have been decimated by unsustainable fishing practices. They will now be protected under Appendix II.

Gulper sharks are long, slim, deep-water dwellers, typically around 3 to 5 feet long.
D Ross Robertson/Smithsonian via Wikimedia Commons

Appendix II listings, while not as strong as Appendix I, can help populations recover. Great white shark populations, for example, have recovered since the 1990s around the U.S. after being added to the Appendix II list in 2005, though other populations in the northwest Atlantic and South Pacific are still considered locally endangered.

Tope and smooth-hound sharks were also added to the Appendix II list in 2025 for protection from the trade of their meat and fins.

Several species of guitarfishes and wedgefishes, odd-shaped rays that look like they have a mix of shark and ray features and have been harmed by local and commercial fishing, finning and trade, were assigned a CITES “zero-quota” designation to temporarily curtail all trade in their species until their populations recover.

A fish with a triangular head and long body that looks like a mix between a ray and a shark. — An Atlantic guitarfish (*Rhinobatus lentiginosus*) swims in the Gulf of Mexico.
SEFSC Pascagoula Laboratory; Collection of Brandi Noble/Flickr, CC BY

These global protections raise awareness of species, prevent trade and overexploitation and can help prevent species from going extinct.

Drawing attention to rarely seen species

Globally, there are about 550 species of shark today and around 600 species of rays (or batoids), the flat-bodied shark relatives.

Many of these species suffer from their anonymity: Most people are unfamiliar with them, and efforts to protect these more obscure, less cuddly ocean inhabitants struggle to draw attention.

So, how do we convince people to care enough to help protect animals they do not know exist? And can we implement global protections when most shark-human interactions are geographically limited and often support livelihoods of local communities?

Increasing people’s awareness of ocean species at risk, including sharing knowledge about why their numbers are falling and the vital roles they play in their ecosystem, can help.

The new protections for sharks and rays under CITES also offer hope that more global regulations protecting these and other shark and rays species will follow.

Gareth J. Fraser is an Associate Professor at the University of Florida, and receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

– ref. Sharks and rays get a major win with new international trade limits for over 70 species – https://theconversation.com/sharks-and-rays-get-a-major-win-with-new-international-trade-limits-for-over-70-species-271386

January 14, 2026

Grok fallout: Tech giants must be held accountable for technology-assisted gender-based violence

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kyara Liu, PhD Candidate, Public Health, University of Toronto

The new image and video editing feature for xAI’s chatbot, Grok, has generated thousands of non-consensual, sexually explicit images of women and minors since Grok announced the editing feature on Christmas Eve. It was promoted as enabling the addition of Santa Claus to photos.

The growing ease of perpetrating sexual violence with novel technologies reflects the urgent need for tech companies and policymakers to prioritize AI safety and regulation.

I am a PhD candidate in public health. My research has largely focused on the intersection of gender-based violence and health, previously working on teams that leverage AI as a tool to support survivors of violence. The potential and actual harms of AI on a such a wide scale require new regulations that will protect the health of mass populations.

‘Nudifying’ apps

Concern about sexually explicit “deepfakes” has been publicly debated for some time now. In 2018, the public heard that Reddit threads profiled machine learning tools being used to face-swap celebrities like Taylor Swift onto pornographic material.

Other AI-powered programs for “nudifying” could be found in niche corners of the internet. Now, this technology is easily accessible at anyone’s fingertips.

Grok can be accessed either through its website and app or on the social media platform, X. Some users have noted that when prompted to create pornographic images, Grok says it’s programmed not to do this, but such apparent guardrails are being easily bypassed.

xAI’s owner, Elon Musk, released a statement via X that
the company takes action against illegal content on X by removing it, “permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary.”

However, it’s unclear how or when these policies will be implemented.

This is nothing new

Technologies have long been used as a medium for sexual violence. Technology-facilitated sexual violence encompasses a range of behaviours as digital technologies are used to facilitate both virtual and face-to-face sexually based harms. Women, sexual minorities and minors are the most often victimized.

One form of this violence that has received significant attention is “revenge porn” — referring to the non-consensual distribution of an individual’s images and videos on the internet. Victims have reported lifelong mental health consequences, damaged relationships and social isolation.

Some social media websites have policies forbidding the distribution of non-consensual intimate content and have implemented mechanisms for reporting and removing such content.

Search engines like Google and Bing will also review requests to remove links from search results if they’re in violation of their personal content policies. Canada has criminalized “revenge porn” under the Criminal Code, which is punishable by up to five years in prison.

Similar to revenge porn, victims of deepfakes have reported mental distress, including feelings of helplessness, humiliation and embarrassment, while some have even been extorted for money.

Creators of sexually explicit deepfakes have also targeted prominent female journalists and politicians as a method of cyberbullying and censorship.

Now what?

This latest Grok controversy reflects a predictable major lapse in AI safeguards. Prominent AI safety experts and child safety organizations warned xAI months ago that the feature was “a nudification tool waiting to be weaponized.”

On Jan. 9, xAI responded by moving the image-editing feature behind a subscription for X users (though it can still be accessed for free on the Grok app) and has stopped Grok from automatically uploading the generated image to the comments.

However, X users are still generating sexualized images with the Grok tab and manually posting them onto the platform. Some countries have taken action to block access to Grok.

Looking to the future

This isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last time, a tech company demonstrates such a major lapse in judgment over their product’s potential for user-perpetrated sexual violence. Canada needs action that includes:

1. Criminalizing the creation and distribution of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes.

Legal scholars have advocated for the criminalization of creating and distributing non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes, similar to existing “revenge porn” laws.

2. Regulate AI companies and hold them accountable.

Canada has yet to pass any legislation to regulate AI, with the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and Online Harms Act dying when Parliament was prorouged in January 2025. Canada’s AI minister referenced this in his response to these Grok issues, but the response lacks a dedicated timeline and a sense of urgency.

As AI progresses, major regulatory actions need to be taken to prevent further harms of sexual violence. Tech companies need to undergo thorough safety checks for their AI products, even if it comes at the expense of slowing down.

It also raises questions about who should be responsible for the harms caused by the AI’s outputs.

Three American senators have called on Apple and Google to remove Grok from their app stores for its clear policy violations, citing the recent examples of these companies’ abilities to promptly remove apps from their store.

3. Expand the scope of sexual violence social services to support those affected by non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes.

As the perpetration of sexual violence via AI technologies becomes more prevalent, sexual violence organizations can expand their scope to support those affected by non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes. They can do so by leveraging existing services, including mental health care and legal supports.

4. Dismantle the underlying rape culture that perpetuate these forms of violence.

The root of sexual violence is the dominance of rape culture, which is fostered in online environments where sexualized abuse and harassment is tolerated or encouraged.

Dismantling rape culture requires holding perpetrators accountable and speaking out against behaviour that normalizes such behaviours.

Kyara Liu 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. Grok fallout: Tech giants must be held accountable for technology-assisted gender-based violence – https://theconversation.com/grok-fallout-tech-giants-must-be-held-accountable-for-technology-assisted-gender-based-violence-273093

January 14, 2026

Human-wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe is a crisis: who is in danger, where and why?

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Blessing Kavhu, Research Fellow, Remote Sensing & GIS Data Scientist I Conservationist I Transboundary Water Modeler I Technical Advisory Board Member I UCSC Climate Justice Fellow I UCSC Coastal Climate Resilience Fellow, University of California, Santa Cruz

In the fishing villages along Lake Kariba in northern Zimbabwe, near the border with Zambia, everyday routines that should be ordinary – like collecting water, walking to the fields or casting a fishing net – now carry a quiet, ever-present fear. A new national analysis shows that human-wildlife conflict in rural Zimbabwe has intensified to the point where it has become a public safety crisis, rather than simply an environmental challenge.

Between 2016 and 2022, 322 people died in wildlife encounters. Annual fatalities climbed from 17 to 67: a fourfold increase in just seven years. These fatal encounters are concentrated in communities that live closest to protected areas and water bodies. Here, people and wildlife compete for space and survival.

Protected areas and rivers provide water, forage and shelter for wildlife. Rural households rely on the same landscapes for farming, fishing and domestic water. The study shows that this overlap between human activity and wildlife movement sharply increases the risk of fatal encounters.

Historically, human-wildlife conflict research and policy in southern Africa focused on economic losses such as destroyed crops, livestock predation and damaged infrastructure. Fatal attacks on people were often treated as rare or incidental. This study shifts that perspective by showing that human deaths are not isolated events, but a growing and measurable pattern that demands urgent attention.

I am a US-based Zimbabwean scientist working with Zimbabwean conservationists. We analysed national wildlife-related fatality records from the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. The central questions were: how many people are dying from wildlife encounters, where are these deaths occurring and which species are responsible?

The findings were stark. Fatal encounters are rising rapidly, are geographically clustered in the north and western districts, and are driven primarily by two species: crocodiles and elephants (not lions, as people might expect). The implications extend beyond conservation to include trauma, fear, retaliatory killings of wildlife and the need for targeted, locally specific interventions.

Patterns in the data

The study reveals that more than 80% of recorded deaths involved only two species, elephants and crocodiles. Crocodiles alone were responsible for slightly more than half of all fatalities. Many of these incidents happened during activities people cannot avoid: fishing, crossing rivers, bathing, or washing clothes in rivers and lakes. These encounters are sudden and often impossible to anticipate, especially in places where visibility is poor and safe water access is limited.

Elephants were responsible for nearly a third of the deaths. These happened mainly during crop-raiding incidents or when communities attempted to chase elephants from fields and homesteads, or when people were walking to school and work. These confrontations often occur at night or in the early morning when visibility is low. Lions, hyenas, hippos and buffalo contributed only 17% of fatal incidents during the study period.

The rise in lethal encounters appears to be driven by several overlapping forces. Zimbabwe still holds one of Africa’s largest elephant populations, estimated at over 80,000 animals. This is second only to Botswana. In dry years elephants move over long distances in search of water and forage, increasing their presence in communal lands. Shrinking natural habitats and growing rural populations mean that human populations are expanding into wildlife corridors. Climate change, particularly recurring droughts, intensifies the competition for water and space.

The geography of the fatalities reveals a clear pattern. Most deaths occurred in Kariba, Binga and Hwange. These are districts along the country’s northern and western frontier, with a combined population of about 343,264 people. They have large water bodies that support abundant crocodile populations; they are close to protected areas with high elephant numbers; and people there depend heavily on farming, fishing and natural resource use.

How people feel

These encounters leave people with fear. Parents become anxious about children walking to school, farmers worry about tending crops at dawn and communities may avoid crossing rivers.

But people aren’t getting mental health support. So grief and fear can turn into anger, often resulting in killings of wildlife. A destructive cycle undermines conservation and damages trust between communities and authorities.

What to do about it

Different places face different dangers, and solutions should reflect that.

Areas near crocodile-prone rivers need safe water access and crossing points and redesigned community washing areas. Districts where elephants are responsible for most fatalities require better early-warning systems, community-based monitoring networks and low-cost methods to deter elephants from crop fields. These measures must be paired with community education and consistent follow-up support.

The findings highlight that coexistence will not be possible without recognising the emotional and psychological dimensions of living alongside wildlife. The responsibility lies with government agencies working with communities. These must be supported by conservation organisations and health services. Counselling, community healing processes and long-term engagement can help break the retaliatory cycle.

Research from other African settings shows that targeted solutions grounded in community involvement and local risk patterns are key to reducing conflicts. In northern Kenya, community-based early warning systems that alert villagers to elephant movements have significantly reduced fatal encounters. Beehive fences and chili-based barriers have helped protect crops without harming wildlife.

In Uganda’s Murchison Falls area, surveys found that local people preferred physical exclusion measures and the relocation of specific crocodiles as ways to lower the risk of attacks. In South Sudan’s Sudd wetlands, communities identified crocodile sanctuaries as one way to reduce dangerous interactions. In Zambia’s lower Zambezi valley, villagers highlighted the need for more alternative water access points (such as boreholes).

These examples show that fatal encounters are not inevitable. When interventions are matched to the species involved and the daily realities of local communities, both human deaths and retaliatory killings of wildlife can be reduced.

Zimbabwe’s wildlife remains a source of national pride and a cornerstone of tourism. But conservation cannot succeed if the people who live closest to wildlife feel unprotected or unheard. A future where people and wildlife thrive together depends on acknowledging that human wellbeing is inseparable from the wellbeing of the ecosystems they share.

Blessing Kavhu 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. Human-wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe is a crisis: who is in danger, where and why? – https://theconversation.com/human-wildlife-conflict-in-zimbabwe-is-a-crisis-who-is-in-danger-where-and-why-271117

January 14, 2026

Early humans relied on simple stone tools for 300,000 years in a changing east African landscape

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Niguss Gitaw Baraki, Postdoctoral scientist, George Washington University

Our prehistoric human ancestors relied on deliberately modified and sharpened stone tools as early as 3.3 million years ago. The selection of rock type depended on how easily the material could be flaked to the desired shape and form.

The resulting product proved invaluable for everyday tasks. Sharp-edged rock fragments were manufactured to suit various needs, including hunting and food processing.

The Stone Age period lasted from about 3.3 million years ago until the emergence of metalworking technologies. Throughout this time, diverse tool-making traditions flourished. Among them is the Oldowan tradition, one of the earliest technological systems created by our early ancestors. The tools are not shaped to have “fancy looks”. Still, they represent a huge step in human evolution. They show that our ancestors had begun modifying nature intentionally, creating tools with a purpose rather than just relying on naturally sharp stones.

Evidence from Homa Peninsula on the Kenyan side of Lake Victoria and Koobi Fora, Kenya’s Lake Turkana, places the origins of the Oldowan between 2.6 million and 2.9 million years ago at these sites. For nearly a million years, this technology stayed within Africa, becoming a key part of how early humans survived.

Over time, the knowledge of how to produce and use stone tools spread. By about 2 million years ago, Oldowan toolmaking had spread across north Africa and southern Africa. It eventually extended into Europe and Asia as our ancestors expanded their geographic range.

Although these tools appear basic, their manufacture required skill, planning, and a thorough understanding of stone fracture mechanics. Hominins made sharp flakes by striking rocks against other rocks to break them. The resulting sharp edges could then be used for butchering animals, processing plants, and breaking bones for marrow.

Until recently, the oldest known evidence of tool use found on the eastern shore of Lake Turkana, in Kenya, was dated to around 2 million years ago. The region is one of the world’s richest areas for early human fossils and archaeological remains, yet it lacked a secure, long-term sequence of early Oldowan occupation.

That picture has now changed dramatically.

We are researchers who study ancient life and landscapes, and we have now documented some of the oldest evidence yet of Oldowan tools. They are 2.75 million years old and come from East Turkana, at a site called Namorotukunan in Kenya. They are nearly 700,000 years older than other Oldowan sites from this part of Lake Turkana (and older than Oldowan tools from the Afar, Ethiopia, by about 150,000 years).

Namorotukunan: 300,000 Years of Innovation and Survival in Kenya.

At this site, there were three distinct archaeological horizons (layers of sediment that record separate events of tool making activities), spanning 300,000 years. But throughout this long period, during which the climate and landscape changed, our hominin ancestors continued to make and use the same kind of tools. Our findings tell us something about their ability to make choices that enabled them to adapt, survive and evolve.

A landscape in constant transition

Today, the Turkana Basin experiences hot, arid to semi-arid conditions with daily average temperature of around 35°C. The vegetation cover is heterogeneous and includes bushland, shrubland and sparse grasslands with distribution influenced by seasonal drainage systems and groundwater.

Between 3 million and 2 million years ago, the region experienced major landscape transformations due to strong climatic fluctuations. Evidence from Namorotukunan shows that it shifted from a lakeshore setting to a dry semidesert, then to open savannah, and eventually became submerged again as the lake expanded. Along its banks, early human ancestors gathered stones, striking them with precision to make stone fragments, sharp enough to use as implements that allowed them to access different types of foods.

Before approximately 2.8 million years ago, the Turkana Basin had lush floodplains with abundant standing water, palm trees, and wetland vegetation. Approximately 2.75 million years ago, the region began to dry out as grasslands expanded and subsequently replaced forests. Despite this increasing aridity, early toolmakers remained in the landscape. Our ancestors took advantage of river gravels that provided good-quality stone (especially chalcedony) for manufacturing sharp-edged stone tools.

By approximately 2.58 million years ago, the climate had become even drier and more variable. Nevertheless, early humans continued to produce the same style of tools, demonstrating technological persistence despite fluctuating environmental conditions.

At about 2.44 million years ago, semi-arid conditions persisted, followed by flooding of the lake, eventually submerging the region again. However, as landscapes changed once again, toolmakers continued to return to this same region, producing Oldowan tools that remained unchanged in form.

This persistence suggests that these early humans had developed a successful survival strategy that worked across a wide range of ecological settings.

Selecting and using the best rocks

The stone tools at Namorotukunan were not made from just any rock. Nearby outcrops offered a variety of raw materials, but early humans selected the most suitable types of rock for their needs. They chose high-quality stones that break easily to produce sharper edges.

This kind of selectivity suggests an understanding of how different rocks behaved during breakage and reflects the cognitive capabilities of the early humans who made and used these stone tools.

Understanding the functional importance of these stone tools from this site is crucial to evaluating their evolutionary significance.

One clue comes from a fossilised animal bone found at the site, bearing cut marks made by sharp-edged stone tools. These marks reveal that the toolmakers were cutting animal tissues and likely accessing meat or marrow from animal carcasses.
Such evidence supports previous studies that early humans were beginning to rely more heavily on meat and marrow, a dietary shift that played a major role in human evolution. Eating meat may have provided critical calories and nutrients that fuelled the growth of larger brains. The tools might also have been used to dig for underground plant parts or process other foods.

This suggests that early hominins were experimenting with various ways of surviving in the ever-changing environment around them.

Adapting to instability

The technological continuity at the site shows that Oldowan toolmaking was more than a simple craft. It was a dependable survival strategy, one that likely became essential during dry periods, when plant foods were scarce and it was vital to eat meat and marrow.

The ability of the early toolmakers to select high-quality stone, produce sharp flakes, and return to familiar raw-material sources suggests a deep understanding of their landscapes. It allowed early hominins to survive ecological uncertainty over hundreds of generations.

This research would not have been possible without the continued support of the Daasanach community of Ileret, who welcome researchers onto their land each year, and the National Museums of Kenya, whose leadership and collaboration underpin archaeological and geological work across the Turkana Basin.

Niguss Gitaw Baraki receives funding from the Leakey Foundation and the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Dan V. Palcu Rolier’s work was supported by NWO Veni grant 212.136, FAPESP grants 2018/20733-6 and 2024/21420-2, and the PNRR C9-I8 grant 760115/23.05.2023.

David R. Braun receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, The Leakey Foundation, and The PAST Foundation.

Emmanuel K. Ndiema and Rahab N. Kinyanjui 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. Early humans relied on simple stone tools for 300,000 years in a changing east African landscape – https://theconversation.com/early-humans-relied-on-simple-stone-tools-for-300-000-years-in-a-changing-east-african-landscape-271433

January 14, 2026

Uganda’s autocratic political system is failing its people – and threatens the region

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Evelyn Namakula Mayanja, Assistant Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies, Carleton University

When he was first sworn in as Uganda’s president in 1986, Yoweri Museveni declared that his victory represented a “fundamental change”. He promised that Ugandans would no longer die at the hands of fellow citizens. He also criticised African leaders who sought international prestige while their people lacked food, healthcare and dignity.

In his books Sowing the Mustard Seed (published in 1997) and What Is Africa’s Problem? (2000), Museveni condemned leaders who overstayed in power.

Now nearly four decades into his rule, Uganda’s promised democratic renewal has been replaced by increasingly autocratic governance. Once the liberator, Museveni has become the strongman, overseeing a deeply repressive system. Political opposition, civil society and ordinary citizens have faced growing human rights violations, violence and intimidation. This is particularly targeted at young people and political dissidents.

In the run-up to Uganda’s 2026 elections, political repression has intensified. Young people, under the leadership of opposition figure Robert Kyagulanyi (popularly known as Bobi Wine), are at the centre of a growing struggle for freedom and democracy. And they are increasingly the targets of state violence.

I teach and research political repression and human rights. My work emphasises the importance of strengthening ethical and democratic leadership and governance. This enables sustainable peace, justice, development and human security to take root.

I have also argued that young people around the world can help save democracy – if they are supported. This is particularly the case in Uganda, which has one of the youngest populations in the world.

This support should come from the African Union (AU) in the first instance. Its peace and security council should make it clear to Museveni that he has obligations to respect people’s rights and freedoms. There is also a need for a standby military force from the AU and/or the UN to protect Ugandans against bloodshed.

The international community can also play a role by ending its supply of weapons and ensuring the implementation of international laws. This includes a commitment to arrest and prosecute those who commit crimes against humanity.

It is also urgent that Bobi Wine be granted special protection during and after the elections. The opposition leader has warned that the regime has plans to assassinate him.

What’s ailing Uganda

Museveni’s Uganda is marked by five key characteristics.

Firstly, authoritarianism and institutional control. To entrench his power, Museveni has rigged votes in every political election.

Authoritarianism is reinforced by personal and family control of institutions, particularly the military, police, the judiciary, the legislature and the electoral commission. The president’s son Muhoozi Kainerugaba is Uganda’s chief of defence forces. Museveni’s wife Janet is the minister of education and a member of parliament. All institutions are headed and monopolised by people from the president’s ethnic group.

Secondly, corruption. Uganda is estimated to lose more than Sh10 trillion (US$2.8 billion) to corruption annually. Senior officials have amassed wealth through corruption.

Museveni’s recent political messaging has centred on protecting the gains of those in power. The president has referred to a national resource like oil, estimated at 6.65 billion barrels, as his.

For their part, the UK and US governments have sanctioned Ugandan officials for corruption.

Third, poverty. As of June 2025, Uganda ranked 157th out of 193 countries on a UN global development index. This index measures standards of living. Children still study under trees and hospitals are dilapidated. According to the World Bank, nearly 60% of the population lives on less than US$3 a day.

Fourth, human rights abuses, with perpetrators going unpunished. Supporters of Bobi Wine have faced beatings, torture, arrests, disappearances, military trials and extrajudicial killings. In 2020, security forces killed dozens of opposition supporters. Bobi Wine himself has survived several assassination attempts. His campaigns are frequently blocked. He has been pepper-sprayed, tear-gassed and denied accommodation.

Lastly, digital repression. The government has suspended internet access, and blocked platforms to prevent citizens from sharing evidence of state violence. This digital clampdown is a central tool of political control.

Opposition remains defiant

Despite repression, Bobi Wine, aged 43, has vowed to proceed with his campaign to unseat Museveni, 81. The opposition leader presents his movement as a fight to restore democracy, constitutionalism and civilian rule.

His political programme focuses on ending corruption and youth employment, healing national divisions, and improving access to public services. His manifesto talks about creating jobs, strengthening education, and restoring respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The youth-led struggle for democracy in Uganda reflects a broader continental reality: young Africans are demanding accountable leadership that reflects national potential rather than elite survival.

Why Uganda’s future matters

Reversing authoritarianism is essential if Uganda’s going to deal with its myriad social and political ills.

The biggest immediate threat is a real risk of mass violence. The president’s son, who is also the military chief, has publicly threatened Bobi Wine. The opposition leader has warned of reports suggesting preparations for mass killings.

A reversal of the current state of affairs would contribute to peace and stability in Uganda, and across the Great Lakes region, one of Africa’s most conflict-affected zones. All six of Uganda’s neighbours (Burundi, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya) face instability of one form or another.

The region has experienced cycles of violence dating back to the 1980s. Museveni’s bush war (1980-1986) was followed by the 1994 Rwanda genocide. In 1996, Uganda and Rwanda invaded the DR Congo, triggering a wave of violence that persists to date. The violence is heightened by Museveni’s militarisation of the DRC and Kagame’s support for militias in the country, including the March 23 Movement (M23).

In addition, some neighbouring countries are experiencing increased internal political tension. For example Tanzania, long seen as relatively peaceful, has experienced lethal crackdowns against political opponents and protesters.

For its part, Kenya’s young people’s protests against government corruption and police brutality have been met with violence and abductions.

In Uganda itself, ethnic and regional tensions are rising. Museveni has said every soldier will have 120 bullets to silence protesters in the January 2026 election. Civilians have previously been kidnapped, tortured, disappeared and killed.

What’s needed

The youth-led struggle for democracy in Uganda reflects a broader continental reality: young Africans are demanding accountable leadership that reflects national potential rather than elite survival.

In Burkina Faso, the people rallied in support of President Ibrahim Traore’s emancipatory leadership. In Kenya, young people have not stopped demanding democratic rule and accountable leadership.

For the wider international community, supporting democratic transitions is not only a moral responsibility. It is also central to long-term peace, security, development and reducing forced migration.

History shows that early international action can prevent atrocities – and its absence can enable catastrophe.

Evelyn Namakula Mayanja 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. Uganda’s autocratic political system is failing its people – and threatens the region – https://theconversation.com/ugandas-autocratic-political-system-is-failing-its-people-and-threatens-the-region-273404