Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alizée Pillod, Doctorante en science politique, Université de Montréal

Italy is preparing to host the 25th Winter Olympic Games next month — from Feb. 6 to the 22nd, followed by the Paralympic Games from March 6 to the 15th.

After the excitement of the Paris Summer Games in 2024, which had sustainability at the heart of its planning strategy, the Milan Winter Games will be decisive in determining whether there’s truly a major shift happening within the Olympic movement.

Will the organizing committee be able to keep its green promises?

As a doctoral student in political science at the University of Montréal, my work focuses on both climate communication and environmental policy development, including in the sports sector.

Winter Games in the climate era

It should be noted that few sectors are as dependent on weather conditions as outdoor sports.

The climate crisis is making it increasingly difficult to practise sports, especially winter sports. The cancellation of the Alpine Ski World Cup in Mont Tremblant last year due to lack of snow is just one striking example of what’s happening.

According to a study by the University of Waterloo, only 10 former Olympic sites will remain viable for hosting future Winter Games by the year 2050. By 2080, that number could drop to just six.

At the same time, hosting mega sporting events such as the Olympics generates a considerable carbon and environmental footprint.

Although generally smaller than the Summer Games, the Winter Games have been the subject of many environmental controversies, particularly in relation to the destruction of preserved nature reserves.

For the most recent Games in Beijing in 2022, more than 20,000 ancient trees were felled to make room for an expanded ski area and the construction of infrastructure, including access roads, car parks and lodging facilities.

High-level sport is therefore caught in a conflict of both being affected by and contributing to global warming.

Agendas set new standards

In light of these challenges, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has adopted several policies in recent years to reduce the footprint of the Games, such as the Olympic Agenda 2020, with strategic objectives that were reiterated in 2021 with the Olympic Agenda 20+5.

After Paris 2024, the Milan-Cortina Games will be the first Winter Games to have to comply with these requirements.

Two of the goals are to promote sustainable Games and to make the Games a springboard for achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

To this end, the IOC now requires host cities to reduce their CO₂ emissions and promote the concept of legacy to encourage the reuse or converstion of existing venues when the event is over.

Milan-Cortina on the green track

Fortunately, it looks like the Italian organizing committee has decided to make the fight against global warming a central part of its strategic plan. From the outset, it implemented a rigorous process for assessing its greenhouse gas emissions.

In its second report on its sustainability strategy, published in September 2025, the committee also presented several measures to further reduce the carbon footprint of the event.

The flagship initiatives include a commitment to use 100 per cent renewable energy and limit food waste by redistributing any surplus food to local charities. In an effort to encourage the circular economy, more than 20,000 pieces of equipment from the Paris Games were repurchased.

In terms of infrastructure, the focus is once again on reusing existing facilities and using temporary structures that will be dismantled after the Games, as they were in Paris. In total, nearly 90 per cent of the venues will fall into this category.

The few new permanent buildings being built will become training centres for Italy’s future elite athletes, or be converted for other uses. Like the one in Paris, the new Olympic Village in Milan will become a university residence, for example.

The plan also includes adaptation measures. With global warming, natural snowfall is becoming increasingly rare and the use of artificial snow is becoming the new norm to offer athletes optimal performance conditions. The organizing committee has therefore decided to modernize its artificial snow production systems to respond more effectively to needs in the event of abnormally warm temperatures this winter.

An ambitious plan, but not flawless

While the plan looks reassuring on paper, its implementation still presents a number of challenges.

Beyond the chronic delays in the progress of the work and colossal budget overruns (spending so far is at least double the initial budget), the construction of new infrastructure in the mountains necessarily has a significant environmental footprint.

It’s also worth noting that the Milan-Cortina Games will take place at venues spread across four areas in northern Italy: Milan, Cortina, Valtellina and Val di Fiemme. Together, these venues cover an area of more than 20,000 square kilometres, making these the most widely dispersed Games in history. As a result, there will be not one but six resort sites for athletes.

This undoubtedly explains why most of the budget is allocated to the development of public transport, particularly the rail network, in order to facilitate travel between the various venues. Sports infrastructure, meanwhile, accounts for less than a quarter of the total budget.

In addition, some of the construction projects have been controversial. The brand new bobsled track in Cortina, for example, has been heavily criticized because it required the felling of several hundred trees. Although these numbers are far lower than those in Beijing, the fact remains that hosting the Games leads to the disruption of local biodiversity.

In terms of temporary facilities, the committee has pledged to restore ecosystems and, more broadly, offset all residual emissions, in particular by buying carbon credits. However, pessimists will argue that what has been destroyed can never be fully restored, and that no financial or ecological compensation can truly erase the impact.

In terms of adaptation, it should be noted that the production of artificial snow, even when it’s optimized, uses a lot of water and energy, in addition to degrading soil quality. So this solution, which is supposed to mitigate the effects of global warming, paradoxically ends up contributing to it, highlighting the importance of better thinking about adaptation solutions.

Finally, residents fear gentrification. In Milan, the construction of the Olympic Village led to the eviction of residents, and the rents planned once the site is converted into student accommodation are considered too high. From a social justice perspective, therefore, it’s worth asking who will truly benefit from the new facilities in the longer term.

A genuine turning point?

Overall, the Milan-Cortina strategy shows a real evolution in the way we think about the sustainability of the Winter Games. The organizers have learned from previous Games and are now proposing even more innovative approaches.

Although the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in Beijing or in Pyeongchang, those for Milan-Cortina are still estimated at nearly one million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. In this context, hopefully the committee will succeed in implementing all the measures planned to offset as much as possible.

Furthermore, the next Winter Games will take place in the French Alps. The brand new organizing committee for the 2030 Games is no doubt closely monitoring the choices that were made on the Italian side, aware of the growing climate challenges that await it.

In the meantime, we can count on the athletes and para-athletes, who, as I write these lines, are already hard at work getting ready to dazzle us once again, if only for a moment.

Alizée Pillod is affiliated with the Centre d’Études et de Recherches Internationales de l’Université de Montréal (CERIUM), the Centre de recherche sur les Politiques et le Développement Social (CPDS) and the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship (CSDC). Her research is funded by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec (FRQ). Alizée has also been awarded the Departmental Recruitment Scholarship in Public Policy (2021), the Rosdev Scholarship for Excellence in Environmental Studies (2023), and the Scholarship for Excellence in Public Policy from the Maison des Affaires Publiques et Internationales (2025). She has previously collaborated with the Ouranos consortium, the Quebec Ministry of the Environment, and the INSPQ.

– ref. As the Milan Winter Olympics approach, what are the environmental expectations? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-milan-winter-olympics-approach-what-are-the-environmental-expectations-270626

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matt Wilde, Lecturer in Human Geography, University of Leicester

When the news broke of Nicolás Maduro’s arrest following a US attack on Venezuela on January 3, que locura (“what madness”) was the line that seemed to capture the moment. As Venezuelans around the world reached for their phones and anxiously followed the news, they grappled to make sense of what they were seeing.

Drawing on our long-term ethnographic research with Venezuelans living in Spain, the US and Venezuela itself, the insider accounts and interviews detailed below show the diverse ways in which these events are being experienced and understood.

In the Spanish capital of Madrid, many Venezuelan migrants celebrated what they saw as a long-awaited turning point. But across Venezuela’s diaspora and inside the country, others described an uneasy quiet and deep fears about what might come next. These contrasting reactions reveal a moment shaped as much by uncertainty and suspicion as by relief and hope.

At the Puerta del Sol square, home of Madrid’s regional government, we joined hundreds of Venezuelans as they met to celebrate the news that Maduro had been taken into US custody. After beginning as a small gathering, the numbers soon swelled and a party atmosphere took hold.

Anti-government chants such as y ya cayó, y ya cayó, este gobierno ya cayó (“it fell, it fell, this government fell”) and se fue, se fue, (“he’s gone, he’s gone”) reverberated around the square.

Venezuelans, many of whom have claimed political asylum in Spain, hugged, shouted, cried and danced under a 32-metre-high Christmas tree, enjoying a welcome moment of reprieve. One older Venezuelan woman dressed as the US president, Donald Trump, handed out fake dollar bills as a “reward” for capturing Maduro.

Another attendee, a 26-year-old delivery rider, described how he partied until the early hours of the morning in a bar hung with Venezuelan flags. “I’m very, very happy,” he said. “They finally captured that dictator.”

But these jubilant scenes were not the only reaction. Other Venezuelans we spoke to expressed a more cautious and contingent hope. In an interview conducted over the weekend in Madrid, a Venezuelan woman called Araceli described how she didn’t feel comfortable attending the Puerta del Sol celebrations.

“I just feel very sad. I am happy Maduro’s going to be in jail, but I know the repercussions. I know what a war means.” She continued through tears: “I just want my family to be safe. I just want the simple things. I can’t celebrate until I know my family are safe.”

Such sentiments were echoed by Guillermo, a Venezuelan man we interviewed online who is currently living in the US city of Chicago. “It’s confusing. I’m happy that Maduro has lost power, but scared because I fear the consequences of the US taking over my country.”

---

Read more:
Donald Trump’s raid on Venezuela foreshadows a new ‘great power’ carve-up of the world

---

Many Venezuelan migrants want the chance to return home to a stable country, but are concerned about how Venezuela’s heavily militarised regime will respond to the US attack. Since Maduro’s capture, security forces and pro-government motorcycle gangs known as colectivos have patrolled the streets of Venezuela’s capital, Caracas.

They are also deeply suspicious of Trump’s motives. In the aftermath of Maduro’s abduction, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela, though several prominent Republicans swiftly backpedalled on this assertion.

Reaction inside Venezuela

This sense of caution is playing out on Venezuela’s streets as well. Ernesto, a small business owner in the central city of Barquisimeto, described to us how his friends and neighbours are responding to Maduro’s arrest.

“A lot of anticipation and uncertainty. There’s joy that Maduro has been taken away, but no one is celebrating in public. Lots of people won’t go out because they’re worried that they’ll be stopped and robbed of their car and money if they’re out on the street. Others have gone out to stock up on groceries and gas in case of shortages.”

The removal of Maduro is also bringing longstanding political tensions to the fore. Luis, originally from the Venezuelan city of Valencia, sent us a voice note describing how he had to leave family WhatsApp groups to avoid political arguments. “Oh, you’re the best Donald Trump, oh thank you so much! Make Venezuela Great Again! It makes me so sad and angry,” he recounted sarcastically.

Anger at what many perceive to be naked imperialism from the US is expressed by Venezuelans across the political spectrum, including those who never supported the Bolivarian Revolution that was initiated by Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez.

“I am sceptical,” says Jaime, a resident of Caracas. “I don’t know if I should be happy because I don’t like Trump’s tone. He continues with his theory that we stole his oil and it sets a terrible precedent. Losing our sovereignty over the resource that sustains Venezuela would be something terrible.”

Such concerns are shared by Valentina, a retired academic based in Valencia. She told us: “Imagine, we’re being invaded by the US! It’s horrible but we can’t do anything, just wait and see what their administration will be like.”

These diverse reactions show how geopolitical ruptures are lived through families, friendships and daily routines, shaping intimate decisions and relationships in the process. As Venezuela becomes the focal point for a seismic realignment of the global political order, ordinary Venezuelans once again find their lives being restructured by forces beyond their control.

Across Venezuela’s transnational population, the present moment is marked simultaneously by hope, fear and profound uncertainty about what the future holds.

The research for this article was funded by the British Academy (SRG2324240415) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/2878167).

– ref. Venezuelans are reacting to Maduro’s capture with anger, fear, hope and joy – https://theconversation.com/venezuelans-are-reacting-to-maduros-capture-with-anger-fear-hope-and-joy-272717

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kamran Talattof, Professor of Near Eastern Studies, University of Arizona

A familiar slogan has echoed through the streets of various Iranian cities in recent days: “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I sacrifice my life for Iran.”

That phrase has been chanted at protests that have sprung up around Iran since Dec. 28, 2025. The spark of the uprising and bazaar strikes has been economic hardship and government mismanagement.

But as an expert of Iranian history and culture, I believe the slogan’s presence signals that protests go deeper than economic frustration alone. When people in Iran chant “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon,” they are, I believe, rejecting the theocratic system in Iran entirely. In other words, the current crisis isn’t just about bread and jobs, it’s about who decides what Iran stands for.

The origins of the slogan

The phrase “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I sacrifice my life for Iran” first gained prominence during the 2009 Green Movement, when hundreds of thousands of people protested a disputed presidential election in Iran.

It has since appeared in successive major demonstrations, from the 2017-18 economic protests to the 2019 fuel price uprising. It was also prominent during the 2022 “Women, Life, Freedom” movement, sparked by the death of an Iranian-Kurdish woman, Mahsa Amini, following her detention by Iran’s morality police for not wearing a “proper” hijab.

The phrase ties together two key aspects of successive Iranian protest movements: domestic economic, political or social grievances and an explicit rejection of the government’s justification for that hardship – namely, that sacrifice at home is necessary to fulfill ideological goals of “resistance” abroad.

In particular, the slogan targets the Islamic Republic’s decades-long support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Estimates suggest that the regime has channeled between US$700 million and $1 billion annually to regional allies since the 1980s – funds that many Iranians argue should instead address domestic infrastructure, health care and education.

From alliance to resentment

Understanding the full meaning of the slogan requires historical context. Under the U.S.-aligned Pahlavi monarchy, which ruled from 1925 to 1979, Iran maintained diplomatic and economic ties with Israel while pursuing modernization.

The Shah’s opponents, particularly leftist groups, exploited these connections, using slogans like “Iran’s become Palestine, why sit still, O people?” to mobilize against the monarchy.

Indeed, many of the Islamic revolutionary leaders that ousted the Shah in 1979 had ties with Palestinian groups.

After the revolution, the Islamic Republic inverted both its ties to the U.S. and Iran’s relationship with Israel, making anti-Israel rhetoric and support for Palestinian causes central to its identity.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution, declared solidarity with oppressed Muslims worldwide, positioning Iran as the vanguard of resistance against what he called “Western imperialism and Zionism.”

But this ideological commitment came with substantial costs for Iranians.

Iran’s support for Hezbollah during Lebanon’s civil war, its backing of Hamas in the Palestinian group’s fight against Israel, and its involvement in Syrian and Iraqi conflicts have contributed to international sanctions, diplomatic isolation and economic pressure on Iran. And these burdens have fallen disproportionately on ordinary citizens rather than the ruling elite.

Economic crisis and political defiance

“Down with the Islamic Republic” is also chanted alongside “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon” in the current uprising – the most serious that the Iranian government has faced in years.

But neither lethal force – at least 1,203 arrests and more than two dozen deaths thus far – nor supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s Jan. 3 order for a harsher crackdown has quelled the unrest.

Instead, protests have expanded to 110 cities and villages.

The demonstrations illustrate how economic and political grievances intersect in Iran. When demonstrators chant “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon” while protesting bread prices and unemployment, they are not compartmentalizing issues – they are drawing a direct line between foreign policy choices and domestic suffering.

The slogan makes three simultaneous arguments.

First, it rejects imposed solidarity. Many Iranians, including those sympathetic to Palestinian rights, resent being conscripted into conflicts that are not their own. And the government’s insistence that Iranians must make sacrifices for distant causes breeds resentment rather than unity. Take the government’s effort to portray the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025 as a moment of national resistance. Rather, many Iranians instead blamed the leadership for either provoking the conflict or failing to meaningfully defend the country from Israeli – or American – bombs.

The slogan also demands accountability for resource allocation. When state media broadcasts funerals for fighters killed in Syria or Yemen while Iran’s hospitals lack basic supplies, the disconnect between rhetoric and reality becomes glaring.

And finally, the protest message reclaims political belonging rooted in Iranian national history – and not just the ideological concerns of the Islamic Republic. By invoking Iran specifically, “I sacrifice my life for Iran,” protesters assert that their primary allegiance is to their own country, not to transnational ideological movements, regional proxies or the ruling government’s ideology.

The limits of solidarity

For all its longevity, however, the slogan has proven divisive. While some see it as a necessary assertion of self-determination after decades of enforced sacrifice, others – including some Iranian leftist intellectuals and activists – view it as abandoning solidarity with oppressed peoples.

But it doesn’t need to be an either/or. Many protesters risking bullets to demand “Iran first” are not expressing indifference to the suffering of Palestinians. Rather, they are insisting that effective solidarity requires a functioning state capable of supporting its own citizens, and that genuine liberation begins at home.

Regardless, the Islamic Republic’s response has been to frame criticism as betrayal, suggesting that those who question support for Gaza or Lebanon are complicit with imperialism – a narrative enforced through a mix of rhetoric and coercion.

But this framing increasingly fails to persuade a population that has watched living standards decline while billions of dollars flow to foreign conflicts. The effects of sanctions and shrinking foreign-currency revenues have pushed the Iranian state to raise taxes on households while shielding military and ideological spending. Meanwhile, the dollar’s daily surge and the rial’s rapid collapse have accelerated inflation and eroded purchasing power.

Authoring one’s own story

Undoubtedly, economic grievances underpin the current protests in Iran. However, the slogans used in Iranian protests – be they over election disputes, economic crises or women’s rights – indicate a broader critique of the Islamic Republic’s governing philosophy.

In the current wave of protests, demonstrators articulate through slogans both what they reject – “Down with the Islamic Republic” – and what many now seek to happen: “This is the final battle; Pahlavi will return,” a reference to the exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

The “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon” chant asks: What does it mean for a government to prioritize foreign conflicts over domestic welfare? How long can imposed solidarity substitute for actual prosperity? And who has the right to determine which causes are worth sacrifice?

Such questions extend beyond Iran. They challenge assumptions about how governments invoke international causes to justify domestic policies and when citizens have the right to say, “Our story comes first.”

As such, the chant “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I sacrifice my life for Iran” is, I believe, both protest and reclamation. It rejects the Iranian state’s narrative of mandatory sacrifice while asserting the right of people to author a national story focused on Iran’s own needs, challenges and aspirations.

Kamran Talattof 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. ‘Neither Gaza nor Lebanon!’ Iranian unrest is about more than the economy − protesters reject the Islamic Republic’s whole rationale – https://theconversation.com/neither-gaza-nor-lebanon-iranian-unrest-is-about-more-than-the-economy-protesters-reject-the-islamic-republics-whole-rationale-265696

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Justin Bergman, International Affairs Editor, The Conversation

The list of people Donald Trump has punished or threatened to punish since returning to office is long. It includes the likes of James Comey, Letitia James, John Bolton, as well as members of the opposition, such as Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly and Kamala Harris.

In fact, he has gone so far as to call Democrats “the enemy from within”, saying they are more dangerous than US adversaries like Russia and China.

According to Lucan Way, a professor of democracy at the University of Toronto, when a leader attacks the opposition like this, it’s a clear sign a country is slipping into authoritarianism.

As Way says in episode 5 of The Making of an Autocrat:

 In other kind of countries with weaker justice systems, you can literally jail members of opposition or bankrupt them. In a country like the United States, where the rule of law is quite robust, this is not possible, you can’t just jail rivals at will.

But Trump has other ways of making the cost of opposing him too high for his critics to bear. This includes investigations, lawsuits, audits, personal attacks – anything to distract and silence them.

The effect is his opponents become much more reluctant to engage in behaviour they know that Trump won’t like, Way says.

So it really has this kind of broader silencing effect that I think is quite pernicious.

Listen to the interview with Lucan Way at The Making of an Autocrat podcast, available at Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This episode was written by Justin Bergman and produced and edited by Isabella Podwinski and Ashlynne McGhee. Sound design by Michelle Macklem.

Newsclips in this episode WCNC, MS NOW, WHAS11, and Radio Free Europe.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Lucan Way has received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Autocrats have long lists of political enemies. This is how Donald Trump has tried to silence his – https://theconversation.com/autocrats-have-long-lists-of-political-enemies-this-is-how-donald-trump-has-tried-to-silence-his-272252

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amani Braa, Assistant lecturer, Université de Montréal

In 2025, youth-led protests erupted everywhere from Morocco to Nepal, Madagascar and Europe. A generation refused to remain silent in the face of economic precariousness, corruption and eroding democratic norms and institutions.

Although they arose in different contexts, all the protests were met with the same playbook of responses: repression, contempt and suspicion towards youth dismissed as irresponsible.

Mobilization across several continents

In Morocco, the #Gen212 movement, which originated on social media, denounced the high cost of living, police violence, muzzling of civil society and lack of opportunities. This mobilization, which began digitally on platforms such as Discord, quickly spilled over from screens into concrete action taken in several cities across the country.

In Madagascar, young people took to the streets at the end of September in a climate of high pre-election tensions to demand real change before being violently repressed. In Nepal, thousands of young people occupyied public spaces, demanding genuine democracy and an end to the corruption that is undermining the country.

---

À lire aussi :
Gen Z protests brought about change in Nepal via the powers — and perils — of social media

---

In Europe, too, youth are mobilizing against authoritarian excesses and persistent inequalities. In Italy, France, and Spain, young people are taking to the streets to protest gender-based violence, unpopular reforms and police repression and to demand recognition of their political rights.

Although the contexts are very different, these mobilizations share the same goal of refusing injustice and demanding that marginalized voices be heard.

Authorities call youth immature and irrational

These movements are often treated as fleeting emotional outbursts, even though they express structured political demands for social justice, freedom, economic security, access to dignity and participation.

Yet the responses by governments have been heading in a totally different direction — towards increased repression. Young protesters are being monitored, arrested, stigmatized and sometimes accused of treason or of being manipulated by foreign powers.

In Morocco, for example, nearly 2,500 young people have been prosecuted, with more than 400 convicted — including 76 minors — since September 2025. The charges include “group rebellion,” “incitement to commit crimes” and participating in armed gatherings. More than 60 prison sentences have been handed down, some of them for up to 15 years.

This mass judicialization of a peaceful movement has been denounced by Amnesty International, which points to excessive uses of force and the increasing criminalization of protest.

In Madagascar, the response was just as brutal: at least 22 deaths, more than 100 injuries and hundreds of arbitrary arrests were recorded during youth demonstrations against corruption and electoral irregularities.

According to the United Nations, security forces used rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the crowds. The crisis culminated in the flight of President Andry Rajoelina, which confirmed that, far from defusing the conflict, the crackdown revealed institutions’ fragility in the face of politicized youth.

---

À lire aussi :
Coups in Africa: how democratic failings help shape military takeovers – study

---

A discourse referring to parental responsibility

The actions of the young people who have been arrested during recent protests are often attributed to lack of parental responsibility.

In Morocco, for example, the Home Office has called on parents to supervise and guide their children. In Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru and Nepal alike, authorities call on parents to supervise, guide or restrain their children, shifting the political conflict into the family sphere.

This trend illustrates what national security researcher Fatima Ahdash calls the “familialization” of politics: instead of addressing the social, economic and ideological causes of protests, governments turn them into a matter of home education, depoliticizing, individualizing and privatizing the protests in the process. Families become the prism through which young people’s political behaviour is interpreted, evaluated and sometimes punished.

This response isn’t new, but it’s taking on unprecedented proportions in a global context of democratic fragility and authoritarian recentring of power marked by the restriction of freedoms, the control of protest and the criminalization of social movements.

States are adopting a defensive stance, treating youth engagement not as a civic resource but as a threat to be neutralized. This hardened stance is symptomatic of a deeper problem: youth are refusing to be satisfied with empty promises and forced compromises, but they face powers unable to recognize the legitimacy of their anger and aspirations..

Silencing criticism

Repression in response to criticism has become a tactic governments use to avoid being questioned. But this strategy is becoming increasingly fragile.

That’s because first, it denies the legitimacy of the anger being expressed. Secondly, it ignores a fundamental reality: that this anger is rooted in collective experiences of social decline, discrimination and political powerlessness. It’s not empty anger. It expresses a demand for social, political and environmental change that institutions are struggling to grasp.

Unlike mobilizations likr the Arab Spring of 2011, the current protests led by Generation Z are horizontal; they are decentralized, have no identifiable leaders, and are rooted in the urgency of the present.

They also originate on social media, organize themselves into autonomous micro-cells, reject structuring ideological narratives, and favour a politics of everyday life — meaning they reject precariousness while calling for immediate dignity and concrete justice.

Their esthetic is fluid, borrowing from digital codes — memes, manga, visual remixes — and their forms circulate through emotional affinities rather than imitation. This makes them elusive to the powers that be, but powerfully viral.

These movements stir up political emotions (anger, but also hope) and create new languages, digital practices and forms of engagement that often lie outside traditional parties.

One unifying visual element keeps coming up: the black flag with a skull and crossbones wearing a straw hat, a symbol taken from the manga One Piece. More than just a nod to pop culture, this Jolly Roger embodies a thirst for justice, freedom and rebellion shared by a globalized youth, from Kathmandu to Rome.

In Serbia, for example, a student uprising in early 2025 with no visible leader united thousands of people around a simple slogan: more democracy. The movement spread to other generations, without any party or hierarchy, challenging a government that tried to stifle the protests through force and stigmatization.

Evading censorship

Meanwhile, the young people of Cuba Decide are mobilizing on digital platforms to demand a democratic referendum in the midst of constant surveillance. Thanks to encrypted tools and alliances abroad, they are circumventing censorship and amplifying their voices beyond borders.

While criminalizing young people and their protests may slow their momentum, it doesn’t solve anything. It only undermines the social contract, fuels political disenchantment and reinforces polarization. What’s more, it risks pushing demands for reform to outright refusal of the status quo.

Recent protests remind us of an obvious fact: young people are not “the future,” but political entities in the present. Governments need to hear not just the noise of protest, but the clarity of the demands: justice, dignity, representation and a future.

Amani Braa received funding from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Sociétés et Culture (FRQ-SC).

– ref. From Kathmandu to Casablanca, a generation under surveillance is rising up – https://theconversation.com/from-kathmandu-to-casablanca-a-generation-under-surveillance-is-rising-up-270624

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University

Iran’s Islamic regime is once again faced with nationwide popular protests and a potential confrontation with Israel and the United States.

Protesters have flooded Tehran and many other major cities in recent days, calling for the downfall of the regime. The US and Israel have also voiced strong support for the protesters.

At least 20 people have reportedly been killed, with around 1,000 arrested.

Despite the regime’s increasing vulnerability, though, it might be too early to write its obituary.

Why Iranians are so angry

Public discontent with the Islamic regime has been building for years.

The current wave of protests was triggered in late December by the collapse of the Iranian currency and the rising cost of living. However, the public’s fury is rooted in wider societal grievances. These include:

• the regime’s theocratic impositions, such as the mandatory headscarf (hijab) rule that women are increasingly flouting in public
• widespread corruption and mismanagement of the economy under severe US-led sanctions
• the costly support for a network of proxy militant groups in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen, and
• the regime’s top-down approach to water governance that has left the country increasingly vulnerable to drought.

The current wave of protests was initially sparked by bazaaris (traditional business owners and shopkeepers). However, in the last week, it has swelled to include university students and those from the “Women, Life and Freedom” movement that took to the streets following the death of a young woman, Mahsa Amini, in the custody of the morality police in 2022.

The regime severely cracked down on those protests, but they have continued in other forms over the past few years.

More threats from Trump

The regime is also facing external pressure from the US and Israel.

US President Donald Trump has warned the Iranian government not to kill protesters, saying the US was “locked and loaded” to act.

In recent days, both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have also threatened another round of military action if Tehran rebuilds its nuclear capability and refuses to curtail its missile industry.

Netanyahu, who has relentlessly castigated the regime as an existential threat, initiated a 12-day war with Iran last June. The US briefly entered the war by bombing Iran’s three main nuclear sites, after which Trump claimed to have “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.

Many experts and the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have since cast doubt on this claim.

The foundations of the Iranian program reportedly survived the US and Israeli bombings. Some 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, still missing, could potentially enable Tehran to assemble a few nuclear bombs in moments of desperation. There also haven’t been new talks between Iran and Western powers to negotiate a new nuclear deal, either.

In recent days, Trump has accused Tehran of seeking new nuclear sites and attempting to replenish its missile stocks, threatening to “eradicate that build-up”.

Prepared to defend itself

While unpopular, the Iranian regime can still rely on many repressive instruments of state power.

These include the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the well-equipped and well-trained Basij paramilitary force used to crack down on dissent. The regime also has intelligence services, revolutionary committees and a network of clerical circles.

The fortunes of these forces are closely tied to the survival of the regime. Many of them are headed by figures who were involved in setting them up following the toppling of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s pro-Western monarchy in the revolution of 1978–79. They are fully cognisant of the fact that if the regime goes down, they will, too.

The regime has also prepared to defend itself long-term against any foreign threats. It has invested heavily in an asymmetrical warfare strategy and developed a potent defence industry. Since the end of the war with Israel, it has reportedly focused on rebuilding its missile capabilities and acquiring fresh supplies of arms and air defence systems from Russia and China.

Yet, the Islamic government still faces a critical situation, especially following the Trump administration’s toppling of Venezuela’s leader in recent days.

Many Iranians both inside and outside the country want to see the fall of the clerical regime and Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last shah, to return from exile to head a transitional government to democratise Iran.

However, Trump has reportedly not favoured regime change in Iran, possibly fearing the political transition may not be orderly and could be as bloody and disruptive as the one that followed the shah’s fall in 1979. He has also made clear his focus is on the Western hemisphere.

Iran is a very complex country with a diverse population of 93 million people. It is also strategically placed, with the longest coastline on the oil-rich Persian Gulf in a traditional zone of major power rivalry. These considerations should be on Trump’s mind when deciding how to handle Iran.

Amin Saikal 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. Facing protests and new threats from Trump, is the Iranian regime on its last legs? – https://theconversation.com/facing-protests-and-new-threats-from-trump-is-the-iranian-regime-on-its-last-legs-272795

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Juliette McIntyre, Senior Lecturer in Law, Adelaide University

The United Nations turned 80 in October last year; a venerable age for the most significant international organisation the world has ever seen.

But events of recent years – from last weekend’s Trumpian military action to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022, to the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza – represent major challenges to the UN system.

Many are now asking whether the United Nations has any future at all if it cannot fulfil its first promise of maintaining international peace and security.

Has the UN reached the end of its lifespan?

The UN Security Council

The organ of the UN that plays the main role maintaining peace and security is the UN Security Council.

Under the rules established by the UN Charter, military action – the use of force – is only lawful if it has been authorised by a resolution from the UN Security Council (as outlined in Article 42 of the Charter), or if the state in question is acting in self-defence.

Self-defence is governed by strict rules requiring it to be in response to an armed attack (Article 51). Even then, self-defence is lawful only until the Security Council has stepped in to restore international peace and security.

The Security Council is made up of 15 member states:

• five permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – also known as the P5)

• ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

Resolutions require nine affirmative votes and no veto from any permanent member, giving the P5 decisive control over all action on peace and security.

This was set up expressly to prevent the UN from being able to take action against the major powers (the “winners” of the second world war), but also to allow them to act as a balance to each other’s ambitions.

This system only works, however, when the P5 agree to abide by the rules.

Could the UN veto system be reformed?

As aptly demonstrated by the Russians and Americans in recent years, the veto power can render the Security Council effectively useless, no matter how egregious the breach of international law.

For that reason, the veto is often harshly criticised.

As one of us (Tamsin Paige) has explained previously, however, self-serving use of the veto power (meaning when a member state uses its veto power to further its own interests) may be politically objectionable but it is not legally prohibited.

The UN Charter imposes no enforceable limits on veto use.

Nor is there any possibility of a judicial review of the Security Council at the moment.

And herein lies one of the most significant and deliberate design flaws of the UN system.

The charter places the P5 above the law, granting them not only the power to veto collective action, but also the power to veto any attempt at reform.

Reforming the UN Security Council veto is thus theoretically conceivable – Articles 108 and 109 of the charter allow for it – but functionally impossible.

Dissolving and reconstituting the UN under a new charter is the only structural alternative.

This, however, would require a level of global collectivism that presently does not exist. One or more of the P5 would likely block any reform or redesign that would see the loss of their veto power.

An uncomfortable truth

It does, therefore, appear as though we are witnessing the collapse of the UN-led international peace and security system in real time.

The Security Council cannot – by design – intervene when the P5 (China, France, Russia, the UK and US) are the aggressors.

But focusing only on the Security Council risks missing much of what the UN actually does, every day, largely out of sight.

Despite its paralysis when it comes to great-power conflict, the UN is not a hollow institution.

The Secretariat, for instance, supports peacekeeping and political missions and helps organise international conferences and negotiations.

The Human Rights Council monitors and reports on human rights compliance.

UN-administered agencies coordinate humanitarian relief and deliver life-saving aid.

The UN machinery touches on everything from health to human rights to climate and development, performing functions that no single state can replicate alone.

None of this work requires Security Council involvement, but all of it depends on the UN’s institutional infrastructure (of which the Security Council is an integral part).

The uncomfortable truth is we have only one real choice at present: a deeply flawed global institution, or none at all.

The future of the UN may simply be one of sheer endurance, holding together what can still function and waiting for political conditions to change.

We support it not because it works perfectly, or even well, but because losing it would be much worse.

Should we work towards a better system that doesn’t reward the powerful by making them unaccountable? Absolutely.

But we shouldn’t throw out all of the overlooked good the UN does beyond the Security Council’s chambers because of the naked hypocrisy and villainy of the P5.

Tamsin Phillipa Paige received an Endeavour Fellowship from the Department of Education in 2014 (in effect through 2015 and 2016), funding her work on the UN Security Council.

Juliette McIntyre 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. Venezuela, Gaza, Ukraine: is the UN failing? – https://theconversation.com/venezuela-gaza-ukraine-is-the-un-failing-272703