Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catherine Norton, Associate Professor Sport & Exercise Nutrition, University of Limerick

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has stirred debate by calling the familiar five-a-day message “a lie”. Speaking to the Times, he argued that the real health benefits of fruit and vegetables only start to add up at seven, eight or even 11 portions a day.

He’s not wrong that more is better. Research shows us that the more servings of fruit and veg we eat per day, the more benefits we see to our health. But the story of how five servings became the standard recommendation is one of science meeting pragmatism.

When the five-a-day campaign was launched in the UK and Ireland more than 20 years ago, it was never meant to be the “perfect” target. Instead, it was a compromise – a number that struck a balance between the nutritional evidence and what public health experts thought people might realistically manage. Five portions was judged by researchers and marketeers to be a simple, memorable and achievable slogan – one that wouldn’t scare people off.

Today, five-a-day is one of the most recognisable public health messages – even if most UK adults still fall short of it.

But it may be time for this messaging to change, as a growing body of research shows that higher fruit and vegetable intakes are associated with lower risk of chronic diseases.

A meta-analysis of over 2 million people found that while five portions lowered risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, the greatest benefits were seen at around ten portions of fruit and veg daily. Another UK study found that people eating seven or more portions of fruit and veg each day had a 42% lower risk of death compared to those eating less than one portion.

Excellence rarely comes from doing the bare minimum – and the evidence suggests we should be aiming higher.

Japan has long recommended ten (and more) portions of fruit and vegetables a day. Mediterranean countries, too, traditionally eat diets rich in fresh produce, beans, and legumes. Research suggests that populations that follow these dietary patterns tend to have lower rates of heart disease and longer life expectancy. Similar associations between higher intakes of fruit and vegetables and lower risk of death from any cause are reported in Japan, too.

The research is clear: higher intake of fruits and vegetables everyday brings tangible health benefits. So while five portions is a good starting point, aiming to include more fruits and vegetables into your daily diet will bring even greater health benefits.

What counts as a portion?

But some confusion lies in what a “portion” really means. The World Health Organization defines one portion as about 80g – roughly a handful. That could be an apple, two broccoli spears, three heaped tablespoons of peas or half a tin of beans. When you break it down like this, eight to 11 portions across three meals and snacks becomes less intimidating.

There are also many easy ways to add more fruit and veg every day. For breakfast, try adding berries to your cereal, a banana to your porridge or spinach in your omelette. For lunch, add salad to sandwiches, beans to your soup or extra veg into wraps.

Double up portions at dinner by eating two or three sides of veg, or bulk up sauces and curries with lentils, peppers or mushrooms. Snack smart by reaching for fruit, veggie sticks with hummus or roasted chickpeas instead of crisps.

You should also aim to eat a rainbow of different fruits and vegetables across the week, as variety is associated with even greater health benefits.

There’s a common myth that only fresh fruit and vegetables count. In reality, frozen, tinned (in water or natural juice) and dried all have a place. They can be cheaper, last longer and often retain just as many nutrients as fresh produce.

Juices and smoothies count too – but only as one portion a day because of their sugar content.

The five-a-day message is a starting point, but not the finish line. Anything is better than nothing – and if you’re eating just one or two portions now, getting to three or four is progress.

But the science is clear: more really is better. Jamie Oliver may be ambitious in suggesting 11 portions, but he’s right that aiming higher could bring big health gains.

Catherine Norton 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. Jamie Oliver is right – this is how much fruit and veg we really should be eating every day – https://theconversation.com/jamie-oliver-is-right-this-is-how-much-fruit-and-veg-we-really-should-be-eating-every-day-264533

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Klaus Dodds, Professor of Geopolitics, Royal Holloway University of London

Irfaan Ali, the leader of the People’s Progressive party (PPP), says he has secured a second term as Guyana’s president. The official results from the election on September 1 are yet to be published, but Ali claims his party has won by a “remarkable margin”.

Vote tallies published by Guyana’s elections commission suggest the PPP has secured more than 240,000 votes, which equates to roughly 55% of the popular vote. The party has also won seven of the country’s ten electoral districts. It appears to have trounced its longtime opponent, A Partnership for National Unity.

Guyanese voters seem to have endorsed Ali’s approach. His campaign was dominated by promises to use oil-related revenue to alleviate chronic poverty and support further social and economic development.

The run-up to the election was tense. Guyana’s elections commission warned voters and parties to behave responsibly when it came to producing and circulating disinformation and fake news.

Guyanese officials pointed to neighbouring Venezuela as the main mischief-maker. This was to be expected. Over the past decade, relations between Caracas and Georgetown have been strained.

The Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, who has long been criticised by his US counterpart Donald Trump, is an outspoken proponent of trying to regain lost territory. Under his dictatorial rule, Venezuela has been pursuing its claim to Guyana’s Essequibo region.

Venezuela’s unhappiness stems from an 1899 international arbitration ruling in Paris that settled the border between Venezuela and what was then British Guiana. Successive Venezuelan governments and dictatorial regimes have disputed the positioning of that international boundary.

If Venezuela is successful, Guyana would be reduced by two-thirds such is the scale of this territorial claim. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is involved in this matter. It warned Venezuela in 2023 to refrain from taking any actions that “modify that situation that currently prevails” in Essequibo.

Venezuela, which does not recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ, held a national referendum on the dispute. Voters overwhelmingly supported the establishment of a new Venezuelan province called Guyana Esequiba.

The following year, Venezuela passed a law prohibiting maps of the country without Essequibo. And the ICJ has since reaffirmed its ban on Venezuela holding any “elections” in Guyanese territory.

The discovery of oil on the Guyanese side of the border a decade ago made all the above worse. Maduro has issued decrees and statements disputing Guyana’s right to do exploration deals with oil corporations such as Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and the China National Offshore Company.

Yet Guyana has continued to develop its oil industry. In August 2025, it declared that 900,000 barrels of oil were now being harvested from its oil fields each day. One million barrels will surely be hit sometime soon.

Maduro is determined to be as disruptive as possible, hoping that by generating border-related tension with Guyana international companies will be deterred from continuing their operations onshore and offshore.

He has deliberately sought to mobilise domestic opinion around this issue and has mobilised the Venezuelan military to carry out training exercises, incursions and confront Guyanese border forces.

In March 2025, a Venezuelan coastguard vessel entered Guyana’s waters and sailed close to a floating production storage and offloading platform owned and operated by Exxon-Mobil. The Venezuelan vessel transmitted a radio message claiming it was operating in “disputed international waters”.

Ali’s electoral victory does not alter the fact that his country remains under threat from Venezuela.

US interests

While Venezuela is harassing a smaller neighbour to the east of the country, there are significant developments taking place to the north of Caracas. The Trump administration has deployed a naval task force in the southern Caribbean composed of eight vessels and around 4,000 sailors and marines.

The focus is very much on Maduro’s actions and interests, with the US convinced that the Venezuelan leader is aiding and abetting drug cartels and enabling the operation of narco-terrorism. Trump issued an executive order in January designating cartels such as Tren de Aragua, an organisation from Venezuela, as foreign terrorist groups.

While Maduro complains that the US is preparing to invade Venezuela, the naval task force has been intercepting suspect vessels and maintaining a high-profile presence in southern Caribbean waters.

It recently carried out a strike on a boat that allegedly departed from Venezuela carrying drugs bound for the US. The White House says the strike killed 11 drug traffickers. Venezuela alleged the images of the assault were AI-generated.

There are plenty of reasons why a US task force might be operating in the southern Caribbean. Among these are the fact that the US has commercial interests in Guyana, so is keen to deter hostile action from Venezuela. The US is the top destination for Guyanese oil, and there are also plans to encourage US firms to get involved in digital and fintech projects in Guyana.

Washington is the most important element in Guyana’s future security. Secretary of state, Marco Rubio, visited the country in March 2025 as part of a short regional tour. The worry for Ali is that Guyana acts merely as a strategic platform from which the US can exert further geopolitical pressure on Venezuela.

However, Trump’s focus on energy security and the enhancement of commercial advantages for US companies means that the appeal of Guyana is not hard to discern. President Ali’s second term is not going to be straightforward.

Klaus Dodds 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. Guyana’s president wins another term in election watched keenly by Venezuela and US – https://theconversation.com/guyanas-president-wins-another-term-in-election-watched-keenly-by-venezuela-and-us-264553

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alison Smith, Lecturer in European Film Studies, University of Liverpool

The Courageous opens with dense greenery, as sunlit and idyllic as it is discouragingly impenetrable. Then, with barely the rising sound of an engine to warn us, we cut back to urban humanity: a hand slams a glove compartment shut, with the tense “merde” of a woman on edge. And so we meet the protagonists of the film: Julia, or Jule, at the wheel of the car, and her three children giggling on the back seat because mum just said a naughty word.

Another cut, this time behind Jule’s head, reveals the breathtaking mountain scenery of the Swiss Valais. In just over a minute we meet the people and places, the tensions and contrasts, that drive the film, even if full understanding will only come to us gradually. Jule, a rebellious young woman bringing up her children alone, is fundamentally at odds with the ordered society of rural Switzerland, and in consequence her life is a constant struggle.

The Courageous is director Jasmin Gordon’s first feature film. It lies within the strong tradition of engaged social realism that, in Britain, we associate with Ken Loach, but the genre has its own life across the channel too, with eminent exponents like Laurent Cantet in France or the brothers Jean Pierre and Luc Dardenne in Belgium.

These are films that depend on their close attention to the particular circumstances of particular individuals in a particular place, and so they are always unique – as well as being extremely varied in their directors’ chosen styles and narrative choices. Still they follow a recognisable pattern, drawing us into the struggles of marginalised protagonists trapped by a hostile world.

Gordon involves us in Jule’s world largely through her canny management of the children’s viewpoint. From the start they are always observing their mother, and so are we: Gordon quickly encourages us to feel that we are reading her along with the children. But this is an illusion. We know less than they do, we judge according to our own stereotypes and we misunderstand.

The film knows that we will misunderstand, and takes pleasure in baiting our anxieties, gradually revealing our mistakes, and so involving us ever more closely in the family’s difficult life. Jule is not perfect, but she has an iron determination, and we feel her love for her children and her humiliation as every attempt to better her life through the “proper” channels is systematically beaten down.

Outside the close family group, people exist entirely as cogs in the system that doesn’t care for a woman like Jule. This is to some extent a characteristic of the genre, but Gordon takes it to an extreme: these cogs are always individuals, and sometimes you can see that Jule is putting them in an impossible situation too, but they act according to their place in the social machine, excluding and humiliating Jule because they must, some reluctantly, some with bitter pleasure.

While Loach’s characters usually maintain some alliances and tentative solidarity with groups outside the family, Gordon denies Jule any complicities at all, which in turn denies her any space to articulate her situation. She will not even confide in her daughter, despite the latter’s assurances that she’s old enough to understand. So it’s up to us to make sense of Jule’s experiences, and, in our programmed role of audience, we can only watch helplessly.

Gordon’s only tentative route to hope, and one of the film’s great structuring contrasts, is in fact the setting – and so we return to that puzzling opening shot. The place is of paramount importance.

On the one hand there’s the urban network, and the cheap modern buildings, all cubes and corridors, in which the family’s life is mostly spent. It is, paradoxically, easy to move around, and the obstacles it presents are quite negotiable: even the motorway can be crossed with no more than a brief intake of breath. Jule is good at circulating in it, finding its cracks and corners, knowing where it hides its treasures – but it forms a continuous closed system in which the guardians will catch up with you eventually.

But, opening out from within this urban space, there is nature: not so much the picture-postcard mountains, which are more enclosing than liberating (no question here of that immortal trope of British social realism, the “view of our town from that hill”), but a more intimate nature that offers the family its happiest moments – a swim in a lake, a fortuitous fruit tree. The green woods do offer an exit, but they are worryingly fragile and utopian.

This is a powerful film but it offers little hope of an outlet for Jule’s undoubted courage. I was gripped by the family’s story, even if, thinking it over at more leisure later on, some doubts crept in as to how far this social despair may get us. At least, perhaps, it will take us to understanding, which is precious.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

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

– ref. The Courageous: a powerful work of social realism about a rebellious mother searching for her place in the world – https://theconversation.com/the-courageous-a-powerful-work-of-social-realism-about-a-rebellious-mother-searching-for-her-place-in-the-world-264535

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Westlake, Lecturer, Environmental Psychology, University of Bath

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has described her plan to “maximise extraction” of the UK’s oil and gas from the North Sea as a “common sense” energy policy.

Politicians are using language like this increasingly often – calling themselves “pragmatic” on climate change and invoking “common sense”. It sounds reasonable, reassuring, and grownup – the opposite of “hysterical” campaigners or “unrealistic” targets.

But new research my colleagues and I conducted, calling on a decade of interviews with UK MPs, shows that political “pragmatism” is fast becoming a dangerous form of climate delay. By framing urgent action as “extreme” and steady-as-she-goes policies as “pragmatic”, leaders across the political spectrum are protecting the fossil-fuel status quo at the very moment scientists warn we need rapid, transformative change.

Badenoch’s latest intervention is a perfect example. She said “common sense” dictates that every drop of oil must be extracted from the North Sea, and that net zero by 2050 was a policy pushed by “bullies”. This came just a day after the UK Met Office declared summer 2025 as the hottest on record.

We found that members of parliament deploy the same language of pragmatism to defend fossil fuel companies and to insist to their constituents that nothing needs to change too fast. The paradox, of course, is that more urgent social and economic change is precisely what the world’s climate scientists say is necessary to avert climate breakdown.

In our recent interviews with politicians, MPs from across the political spectrum tended towards gradual change in order to maintain political and public support. One said:

First and foremost be pragmatic. Accept incremental change, because incremental change often accelerates, but you take people with you. If you didn’t take people with you, you’ll start getting resistance.

Another MP contrasted a pragmatic approach with the calls from some campaign groups for more rapid action:

There are campaigns that say we’ve got to be net zero by 2025, or 2030. [laughing incredulously] … do you realise what the consequences of that will be … you’d have a revolution in Britain if you tried to do that, in terms of destroying people’s quality of life.

Interestingly, despite rejecting more ambitious targets, later in the interview the same MP acknowledged that faster change was needed:

We need to do more, we could do more, we are, you know, I’m sure the government will do more. I’m certainly pushing it to do more. But fundamentally we’ve halved our emissions since 1990.

Here we see the nuance, and the danger, of the language of pragmatism. It allows politicians to hold two positions at once. They can acknowledge the need for rapid change, while promoting a “pragmatic” position against it.

The calls for pragmatism appeared to stem from MPs’ desire to present a reasoned and rational case for climate action that does not impinge on constituents’ lives. They also used pragmatism to distance themselves from arguments they portrayed as “extreme” or “shrill”.

The flawed assumption underlying these calls to pragmatism is that the public will not support ambitious, transformative climate policies. We concluded that whereas a few years ago MPs promoted climate policies “by stealth”, meaning they did it on the quiet, now they turn to ideas of pragmatism in an attempt to maintain a fragile political consensus in favour of net zero – a consensus that is already fracturing.

Top-down pragmatism

This turn to pragmatism can now be seen at the very top of British politics, threatening the UK’s steady ratcheting up of climate ambition to date.

Former Labour prime minister Tony Blair recently wrote in the Blair Institute’s report on climate change: “People know that the current state of debate over climate change is riven with irrationality.”

Blair then asserted: “Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.” This is despite the widespread consensus among scientists that both phasing out fossil fuels and reducing consumption of at least some products are essential.

The report goes on to say: “A realistic voice in the climate debate is required, neither ideological nor alarmist but pragmatic.” This language is intended to sound rational, reasonable and even scientific. The problem is that it can be used to justify actions that appear to ignore what the science is telling us.

Former Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak warned against treating climate change as an “ideology” . Notably, Sunak referred to “pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic” climate action shortly after his government announced hundreds of new licences for oil and gas fields in the North Sea.

His message coincided with ongoing road-building programmes, plans for airport expansion, and insufficient action to insulate the UK’s housing stock, all of which could jeopardise the UK’s climate targets. Again we see the language of pragmatism working against the rapid societal changes that are necessary.

The pragmatic road ahead

In general, the MPs we spoke to were not using pragmatism in bad faith. Rather it was a way of navigating the complexities of climate politics where the huge changes demanded by climate mitigation are deemed too challenging to sell to constituents. But this political strategy is a very risky one and underestimates the public’s appetite for “strong and clear” climate leadership from government.

The current government is already struggling to reconcile net zero commitments with its economic growth agenda, which includes a new runway at Heathrow airport. Not only is prime minister Keir Starmer facing divisions within the ruling Labour party over net zero ambitions, he is also dealing with increasingly prominent net zero scepticism from the leaders of the Conservative and Reform parties.

The political language of “pragmatism” therefore risks spreading from Badenoch to Starmer, becoming a discourse of delay that promotes non-transformative solutions.

---

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

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

---

Steve Westlake and co-researcher Rebecca Willis received funding from the Centre of Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) to conduct this research. CAST is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Westlake also received a post-doctoral fellowship from ESRC from 2023-2025.

– ref. Politicians now talk of climate ‘pragmatism’ to delay action – new study – https://theconversation.com/politicians-now-talk-of-climate-pragmatism-to-delay-action-new-study-264317

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Millie Horton-Insch, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, History of Art Department, Trinity College Dublin

Britain appears to be a nation on the verge of Norman-conquest mania. In July, the prime minister and the French president announced that the Bayeux tapestry – the epic 11th-century embroidery that depicts the 1066 conquest of England – would be loaned to the British Museum in 2026-27.

This makes new BBC drama series, King & Conqueror, which depicts the events leading up to the Norman conquest, extremely well timed. The credits of each episode feature the drama’s title overlaid on imagery from the Bayeux tapestry. But how does the drama compare to that most evocative textile account of the conquest?

I could write at length about how the BBC drama variously depicts and diverges from the tapestry’s version of events. And the extent to which King & Conqueror is consistent with 11th-century written and embroidered sources has been explored by historians elsewhere.

As an art historian who has researched the Bayeux tapestry, it is difficult not to regret the relative darkness and lack of colour in King & Conqueror’s depiction of the 11th century, an age which would in reality have been richly furnished, as the tapestry itself attests.

But it is satisfying to see that the narrative devices that are most effective in this new drama are those also included in tapestry. To varying degrees, both the tapestry and the drama are dramatised retellings of history, a reality most obviously signalled by fact that neither tell a perfectly linear account of the events.

In the tapestry sequencing for instance, Edward the Confessor’s funeral is stitched before his death, shocking the viewer with the pomp of a stately funeral before then depicting his deathbed. Similarly, in episode five of King & Conqueror, we see Harold and his wife Edith kidnapped, bound and held in a wagon under attack from archers. Then the chronology leaps backwards to explain that Harold and Edith have travelled on a diplomatic mission to Normandy, landed in Brittany by mistake, and then been taken hostage by bandits.

An unflinching portrayal of the brutality of battle is similarly used in both the BBC drama and the tapestry to maintain suspense, even when the outcome of the Battle of Hastings is well known.

Violence and fear

Blood and gore are dramatically present in King & Conqueror. But arguably, replacing benign patterns of birds and beasts on the margins of the tapestry with mutilated bodies is an even more arresting way to signal the violent disruption to life caused by medieval battle.

The scale of William’s violence off the battlefield is also more fully captured in the tapestry. In the final episode of the drama, William is shown ordering the plundering and burning of every village they pass through: “We move forward like the wrath of God.”

But the fear such an order would have struck in people of all classes is not so explicitly captured as it is in the tapestry, where the battle is preceded by the depiction of an anonymous woman and child fleeing their home as the Normans set it on fire.

In this sense, the tapestry also gives a greater sense of the effect of a conquering army had on ordinary women, than a drama more concerned with the main characters. So much so, that it makes the BBC’s sexed-up trailer shared on social media bewildering.

Suggestive clips of Harold and William are shown with the text: “Want to be served by a king? Or let him conquer you?” Anyone who had viewed the Bayeux tapestry and seen the fate of women portrayed there, would certainly not wish to conquered by William’s forces.

The porousness of the English Channel as a well-trodden diplomatic avenue is a similarly effective leitmotif in both the tapestry and the drama. Boats crossing the Channel are a frequent tableau in King & Conqueror, reaching a crescendo in the final episode, in which the scale of the Norman fleet with its sails raised resembles the white cliffs of Dover.

In the tapestry, boat crossings are shown with equal frequency, though the scale of the Norman fleet is even more evocatively captured by the depiction of its construction: men felling trees to make boats for the invading flotilla. A unprecedented number of boats in the tapestry are then seen crossing the Channel, their overlapping prows powerfully conveying the scale of the invading naval force.

History meets contemporary politics

It is here that the Bayeux tapestry, the BBC’s dramatisation, and contemporary politics intersect. On the day that followed the announcement of the Bayeux tapestry’s loan, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron held a joint press conference in which they announced a bilateral policy engineered to respond to the increase in the number of migrants crossing the English Channel from France in small boats.

In King & Conqueror, the series ends with William’s coronation. However, the tapestry itself appears incomplete and terminates abruptly after the Battle of Hastings.

The current leaders of France and Britain have explicitly sought to frame their new policy as a continuation of the tapestry’s narrative, with Macron commenting:

The story is unfinished and nobody knows the end … But this is our work, our duty and our chance … to finish the tapestry and … take the same road as these warriors but with another state of mind … that together we will build a new … common history and create a new era based on culture, knowledge, respect, science and centuries of enlightenment, creations, and … friendship.

There is, of course, an irony to promoting Anglo-French bilateralism through an object that depicts the invasion and conquering of England by the Normans in 1066.

But there is also a poignant, unacknowledged paradox in referencing an object that so evocatively depicts boats crossing the Channel as a means of bolstering policies specifically designed to deter them, and the people they carry. Certainly, it is clear that some visual motifs remain as politically affecting today as they did in the 11th century.

Millie Horton-Insch receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Why the Norman conquest still has a powerful hold over British culture and politics – https://theconversation.com/why-the-norman-conquest-still-has-a-powerful-hold-over-british-culture-and-politics-264464

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

With Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un among 26 world leaders watching, China’s president Xi Jinping made a muscular address to 50,000 people in Tiananmen Square marking 80 years since the end of the second world war. China is “never intimidated by bullies” and would “stand by the right side of history”, Xi said, adding that “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation was unstoppable”.

Absent from the ceremony was Taiwan’s leader, Lai Ching-te, who instead took to Facebook, writing that Taiwan does not “commemorate peace with the barrel of a gun”. Taiwan had barred public officials from attending the event.

 China and Taiwan both claim their forces bore the true burden of Chinese resistance against Japan during the second world war, and use this contested history to lay claim to power and territory. Now China is weaponising this history, pushing for a “correct” perspective of the war as it seeks to reshape the world order and assert its ambitions over Taiwan.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, Meredith Oyen, a historian and expert in China-Taiwan relations, explains how disagreements between China and Taiwan over who fought the Japanese more than 80 years ago are still raging and why China’s military parade raised tensions with Taiwan up another notch.

“The second world war has this very long shadow in all of east Asia because there’s a lot of unfinished business,” says Oyen, an associate professor of history and Asian studies at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

When Japan officially surrendered on September 9 at a ceremony in Nanjing, it was to the Republic of China, then ruled by Chiang Kai-shek. With the war against Japan over, Chiang’s nationalist Kuomintang resumed their civil war against the Chinese Communist Party. In 1949, Chiang and the Kuomintang were pushed to Taiwan as Mao Zedong declared the People’s Republic of China.

As a result, persistent questions about whether China and Taiwan are two separate entities or a divided nation with Taiwan a part of China are a “really significant geopolitical flashpoint” says Oyen, “something that stems directly out of the second world war”.

Listen to the conversation with Meredith Oyen about how disagreements between China and Taiwan over the second world war on The Conversation Weekly podcast. You can also read an text version of this interview.

---

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware with assistance from Katie Flood. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newclips in this episode from Straits Times , BBC News and NBC News and KinoLibrary .

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 on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Meredith Oyen 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. How China uses second world war history in its bid to reshape the global order – podcast – https://theconversation.com/how-china-uses-second-world-war-history-in-its-bid-to-reshape-the-global-order-podcast-264442

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sambit Bhattacharyya, Professor of Economics, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex

Donald Trump’s tariff policy seems to have morphed into as much of a tool of foreign policy as an economic strategy. But the administration’s decision to impose a 50% tariff on India, a key US ally as part of the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) along with the US, Australia and Japan, could have significant repercussions – not just for international trade, but for global geopolitics.

The US rationale for the tariff hike is primarily political. The White House argues that India has been profiteering from buying and reselling Russian oil, in defiance of sanctions imposed after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This has helped Russia weather the effects of the sanctions and continue to fund its war in Ukraine.

Needless to say, the tariff policy and subsequent statements from both Washington and New Delhi have ruined a burgeoning bilateral relationship to the extent that the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, has been refusing to take Trump’s phone calls. For his part, Trump is no longer planning to visit India for the Quad summit later in the year.

India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, from August 31 to September 1, along with the Russian president Vladimir Putin. The three leaders were photographed together in cordial discussion and Modi met separately with both Xi and Putin on the sidelines of the summit, which was billed as presenting an alternative to the US-led hegemonic order.

---

Read more:
What Xi Jinping hosting Modi and Putin reveals about China’s plans for a new world order

---

It now seems clear that raised US tariffs won’t deter India from buying Russian oil. On the contrary, Modi has reaffirmed India’s commitment to not only continue buying Russian oil but to increase volumes.

This is unsurprising. India’s stance on Russia as a net crude oil importer is not driven by any grandiose geopolitical objective but the mundane economic reality of controlling inflation.

When it comes to energy, India is heavily dependent on imports and its consumers, the overwhelming majority of whom are poor and vulnerable, depend on stable and affordable energy prices. No amount of pressure from the US or its G7 allies would change that simple economic reality.

America’s loss is Russia’s gain

One consequence of the US tariffs is that Indian exports of clothing and footwear to the US could decline as big western brands seek to substitute their Indian suppliers with cheaper suppliers from other countries. This will push up prices for consumers in the US.

But it’s unlikely to be that damaging for Indian suppliers as there’s considerable global demand for clothing and footwear. It wouldn’t be difficult for Indian suppliers to find alternative markets.

Another of India’s big exports is gemstones, in which it has a dominant position in the global market. US tariff pressure is unlikely to change that as India exports gemstones to a range of different countries (although the US is a big buyer).

Closer trade ties between India and Russia will open up new opportunities for mutual investment. Russia’s economic position, meanwhile, is likely to improve overall as a result of the tariffs. Not only has India signalled it is likely to increase its oil imports, but Russia is also likely to get the benefit of importing clothing and footwear from Indian suppliers at a favourable price, as Indian suppliers look to redirect their US exports elsewhere.

Closer economic ties with India with the aim to increase bilateral trade to US$100 billion (£74.5 billion) by 2030 will give Russia another large market outside of China to sell its products. Russia will also get access to another major supplier of the sort of consumer goods that it typically imports to keep local prices low for Russian consumers.

An end to US dollar primacy?

There’s a danger for the west that if the tariff situation escalates into harsher financial sanctions, it could divert Indian investment away from the US and G7 countries towards Russia and China. Indian investors have significant presence in the automotive, pharmaceutical, and IT and telecom sectors in the west, which could be directed elsewhere.

But there are growing signs of increasing cohesion, not only from the SCO, but from an expanding Brics group of trading nations. This is now made up of original members, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, plus recent joiners Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates.

These growing economies are already working towards setting up technical mechanisms for mutual investments and trade settlements in their local currencies rather than the US dollar.

The global trade shocks prompted by US imposition of tariffs have led to a short-term decline in the value of the US dollar. While not drastic from a historical trend perspective, these short-term trends mask a broader long-term risk.

Not from trade transactions – trade accounts for only a fraction of dollar transactions. The long-term risks are from a potentially reduced role of the dollar in transactions associated with asset management, investment, finance and international reserves.

In particular, the dollar’s near exclusive status as a reserve currency for Brics and global south nations is at risk.

Any policy that puts that status at risk would compromise US prosperity and security. The concern is that any financial and trade policies that drive the US’s big trading partners closer to Russia and China will do just that.

Sambit Bhattacharyya receives funding from UK Research and Innovation, Economic and Social Research Council, Australian Research Council, and European Research Council.

– ref. Why Trump’s fight with India could have global repercussions – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-fight-with-india-could-have-global-repercussions-258141

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Will de Freitas, Environment + Energy Editor, The Conversation

Summer 2025 was the UK’s hottest on record, the Met Office announced this week. The news somehow felt both inevitable and surprising. There may have been four separate heatwaves, but for many this summer felt pretty normal.

This is because of “shifting baseline syndrome” and the way humans notice – or fail to notice – temperature change.

---

This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.

---

Academics have been warning about shifting baselines for decades: the idea that each generation takes the climate and ecosystems of its youth as the baseline or “normality”.

Back in 2020, Lizzie Jones, then a PhD researcher in conservation psychology at Royal Holloway, said this is why parents and grandparents should talk to children about the natural world of their youth.

“Even my parents”, she writes, “recall clouds of insects while they learned to drive, regular snowfall each winter and now rare bird species filling their back gardens.”

For people struggling to put environmental changes in context, local anecdotes like these can be more useful than news stories. “Older people hold a rich library of knowledge about the past,” says Jones, “and how their corner of the world has changed over the course of their lives.”

As time passes, losses accumulate or temperatures creep up. But because we reset our expectations every generation, the change feels ordinary. This is shifting baseline syndrome, and Jones says it leads us to “underestimate how much the environment has changed”.

She particularly focuses on wildlife changes:

“Whatever you or your generation grew up with is considered normal, but as species continue to go extinct and wild habitats are erased, your children will inherit a degraded environment and accept that as normal, and their children will normalise an even more impoverished natural world.”

---

Read more:
Why grandparents should talk to children about the natural world of their youth

---

My own grandparents were born near Newcastle more than a century ago. Back then, red squirrels still dominated that part of the world but grey squirrels introduced from America were fast taking over. Skip forward two generations, and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a red squirrel in the wild. My baseline is that squirrels are grey.

There’s something similar going on with birds in the UK. I grew up in west London and vividly remember as a teenager my first sighting of a bright green parakeet in Richmond Park. My friend Oscar told me a small colony had established themselves in the city’s suburbs. These days, I see these invasive parakeets (originally from the Himalayan foothills, say scientists) more than any bird aside from pigeons. They’re loud and annoying and keep taking food from native songbirds.

My children will never know a London without parakeets: that’s their baseline.

Altered perceptions

But it’s easy to spot when a chunky colourful parrot has muscled a tiny blue tit out of its usual feeding spot. It’s a lot harder to notice that the hottest summer day might now be 35°C rather than 31°C.

In part, that’s because climate change isn’t just altering the weather – it’s altering our perceptions.

Matthew Patterson is a climate scientist at the University of Reading. Writing in June last year, after supposedly cold and miserable weather still hadn’t moved the month much below the long-term temperature average, he noted that the UK has warmed so fast that: “We have come to normalise extreme heat, while relatively cold or even average conditions feel unusual and thus newsworthy.”

We’re also prone to very human biases here. Our collective memory of the weather in any given summer is hugely influenced by conditions during the daytime on perhaps ten weekends. Few people notice whether it was abnormally hot or cold at 3am on a Tuesday, but that’s part of the average too.

This may explain why the UK’s record hot summer still came as a surprise: we pay attention to outliers and recent events (August was cooler than July this year), not to the relentless upward creep of average temperatures.

---

Read more:
Average months now feel cold thanks to climate change

---

Lost summers, wilder futures

History offers a sobering lesson in averages and outliers. During the little ice age between the 14th and 19th centuries, average global temperatures cooled by a few tenths of a degree. But that had a huge impact, especially in Europe: failed harvests, frozen rivers, famines and storms.

For climate historian Dagomar Degroot of Georgetown University in the US, this was a case of small global trends masking bigger local consequences. “The comparatively modest climate changes of the little ice age,” he says, “likely had profound local impacts.”

And if less than half a degree can do all that, what might two degrees of warming do in the near future?

Degroot does note that: “People who lived through the little ice age lacked perhaps the most important resource available today: the ability to learn from the long global history of human responses to climate change.”

---

Read more:
Small climate changes can have devastating local consequences – it happened in the Little Ice Age

---

The little ice age teaches us how vulnerable we are to climate shifts, but we can reimagine the natural world rather than simply mourn its loss.

Back in 2018, Jones (the conservation psychologist), together with her colleagues Christopher Sandom and Owen Middleton of the University of Sussex, asked young people to imagine what a thriving natural world would look like:

“What they expressed was a desire to see ecosystems with not just more of the wildlife that’s currently there, but the return of species which have disappeared. There was also an undercurrent of sadness about litter and the present absence of wildlife, and hopes for more sustainable lifestyles in the future.”

This is why the authors say we should not simply accept shifting baseline syndrome, as it would mean “progressive damage to the natural world, even with our best efforts”.

Instead, they write, “By broadening our imagination and what we can expect from the environment, we can raise our ambitions for the natural world we leave to future generations.”

While memory loss hides decline, imagination can help reverse it.

---

Read more:
Forget environmental doom and gloom – young people draw alternative visions of nature’s future

---

These stories help explain the paradox of the low-key record-breaking summer. Shifting baselines make us forget the past. Human biases mean we notice cool rainy days more than creeping warmth. And history warns us that even small global changes have huge local effects.

Post-carbon

Lots of responses to our question about air conditioning last week.

Dave Pearson says: “When we were younger my wife and I lived in Chad without air conditioning for 10 years. In the hot season our living room would drop to 40 °C just before dawn, then the sun would rise…” He now has an AC unit in his living room: “We see it as a source of convenient comfort at this point, but potentially life-saving as we get older (and therefore more vulnerable) and heatwaves get hotter”

Marolin Watson says her “brick-built South-facing terrace house” tends to stay fairly cool. “However, with people increasingly being forced to live in flats that often rise a considerable distance into the air and may, depending on their orientation, catch the full sun for most or all of the day, I can see that air conditioners will be a necessity.”

Helen Wood says: “if you want air-conditioning, it should be only operated by battery powered by solar panels and not draw on the national grid”

Anne Heath Mennell grew up in Yorkshire and now lives in Australia. She points out “it is an efficient way to cool down, especially if powered by renewables”, but that people once “dreamed of balmy summers. Be careful what you wish for…”

An obvious question this week: what are some climate or environmental changes you have noticed in your lifetime? Don’t give me data: I want anecdotes.

– ref. When record heat feels strangely normal – https://theconversation.com/when-record-heat-feels-strangely-normal-264515