Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Daniela Ceccarelli, Reef Fish Ecologist, Australian Institute of Marine Science

Official analysis of 124 reefs on the Great Barrier Reef shows coral cover has dropped sharply after a record-breaking marine heatwave in 2024, prompting grave fears over the trajectory of the natural wonder.

Over the past few years, fast-growing corals had pushed the Great Barrier Reef’s coral cover to record highs. But those corals were known to be extremely vulnerable and one bad summer away from losing those gains.

Our new report by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) shows these fears have been realised. The percentage of living hard coral covering the Great Barrier Reef’s surface dropped in each region we surveyed.

The recent extreme highs and lows in coral cover are a troubling phenomenon. It raises the prospect that the Great Barrier Reef may reach a point from which it cannot recover.

Another global marine heatwave

In healthy corals, tiny algae produce both the coral’s main food source and its vibrant colours. When the water gets too warm, the algae are expelled and the coral’s tissue becomes transparent – revealing the white limestone skeleton beneath. This is called coral bleaching.

Coral can recover if temperatures are reduced and the relationship with the algae is restored, but it’s a stressful and difficult process. And if recovery takes too long, the coral will die.

In June 2023, a marine heatwave bleached coral reefs from the Caribbean to the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

It reached Australia’s east coast in February 2024, causing extensive coral bleaching. Aerial surveys showed three quarters of 1,080 reefs assessed had some bleaching. On 40% of these reefs, more than half the corals were white.

In the aftermath, in-water surveys measured how much coral died in the northern, central and southern Great Barrier Reef. The worst damage lined up with the highest levels of heat stress.

Sharp declines in coral cover

AIMS has surveyed reefs of the Great Barrier Reef each year since 1986, in a project known as the Long-Term Monitoring Program. It is the most extensive record of coral status on any reef ecosystem in the world.

One component of the surveys involves towing an expert observer behind a boat around the full perimeter of each reef. The observer records the amount of live, bleached and dead coral. These observations are then averaged for each location, and for each of the three regions of the Great Barrier Reef.

After each monitoring season we report on the percentage of living hard coral covering the Great Barrier Reef’s surface. It’s a coarse but robust, reliable indicator of the state of the Great Barrier Reef.

Coral losses this year were not uniform across the Great Barrier Reef. On the northern Great Barrier Reef, from Cape York to Cooktown, average coral cover dropped by about a quarter between 2024 and 2025 (from 39.8% to 30%). The largest declines on individual reefs (up to 70% loss) occurred near Lizard Island.

Reefs with stable or increasing coral cover were mostly found in the central region, from Cooktown to Proserpine. However, there was still a region-wide decline of 14% (from 33.2% to 28.6%), and reefs near Cairns lost between 17-60% of their 2024 coral cover.

In the southern reef (Proserpine to Gladstone) coral cover declined by almost a third. In the summer of 2024, southern reefs experienced the highest levels of heat stress ever recorded, resulting in substantial coral loss (from 38.9% to 26.9%).

The declines in the north and south were the largest in a single year since monitoring began 39 years ago.

Despite these losses, the Great Barrier Reef still has more coral than many other reefs worldwide, and remains a major tourist attraction. It’s possible to find areas that still look good in an ecosystem this huge, but that doesn’t mean the large-scale average hasn’t dropped.

More frequent bleaching events

Mass coral bleaching is becoming more frequent as the world warms.

Before the 1990s, mass bleaching was extremely rare. That changed in 1998 with the first major event, followed by another in 2002.

Back-to-back bleaching events occurred for the first time in 2016 and 2017. Since then, bleaching has struck the Great Barrier Reef in 2020, 2022, 2024, and again this year. The impacts of this year’s bleaching event will be revealed following the next round of surveys.

The time between these events is shrinking, giving corals less time to recover. Cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish are also continuing to cause widespread coral loss.

You’ll see in the following charts how the percentage of coral cover has changed over time. The vertical yellow lines show the mass coral bleaching events increasing in frequency.

Confronting questions

The coral reefs of the future are unlikely to look like those of the past. The loss of biodiversity seems inevitable.

But will the reefs of the future still sustain the half a billion people that depend on them for food and income? Will they continue to protect coastlines from increasing storm activity and rising sea levels? These are confronting questions.

Effective management and research into reef adaptation and recovery interventions may bridge the gap until meaningful climate action is achieved. But above all, the key to securing a future for coral reefs is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Daniela Ceccarelli works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research organisation that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry.

David Wachenfeld works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research organisation that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry.

Mike Emslie works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research organisation that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry.

– ref. World’s biggest coral survey confirms sharp decline in Great Barrier Reef after heatwave – https://theconversation.com/worlds-biggest-coral-survey-confirms-sharp-decline-in-great-barrier-reef-after-heatwave-260563

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Grant Hansman, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Biomedicine and Glycomics, Griffith University

Norovirus is the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis outbreaks worldwide. It’s responsible for roughly one in every five cases of gastro annually.

Sometimes dubbed the “winter vomiting bug” or the “cruise ship virus”, norovirus – which causes vomiting and diarrhoea – is highly transmissible. It spreads via contact with an infected person or contaminated surfaces. Food can also be contaminated with norovirus.

While anyone can be infected, groups such as young children, older adults and people who are immunocompromised are more vulnerable to getting very sick with the virus. Norovirus infections lead to about 220,000 deaths globally each year.

Norovirus outbreaks also lead to massive economic burdens and substantial health-care costs.

Although norovirus was first identified more than 50 years ago, there are no approved vaccines or antiviral treatments for this virus. Current treatment is usually limited to rehydration, either by giving fluids orally or through an intravenous drip.

So if we’ve got vaccines for so many other viruses – including COVID, which emerged only a few years ago – why don’t we have one for norovirus?

An evolving virus

One of the primary barriers to developing effective vaccines lies in the highly dynamic nature of norovirus evolution. Much like influenza viruses, norovirus shows continuous genetic shifts, which result in changes to the surface of the virus particle.

In this way, our immune system can struggle to recognise and respond when we’re exposed to norovirus, even if we’ve had it before.

Compounding this issue, there are at least 49 different norovirus genotypes.

Both genetic diversity and changes in the virus’ surface mean the immune response to norovirus is unusually complex. An infection will typically only give someone immunity to that specific strain and for a short time – usually between six months and two years.

All of this poses challenges for vaccine design. Ideally, potential vaccines must not only induce strong, long-lasting immunity, but also maintain efficacy across the vast genetic diversity of circulating noroviruses.

Recent progress

Progress in norovirus vaccinology has accelerated over the past couple of decades. While researchers are considering multiple strategies to formulate and deliver vaccines, a technology called VLP-based vaccines is at the forefront.

VLP stands for virus-like particles. These synthetic particles, which scientists developed using a key component of the norovirus (called the major caspid protein), are almost indistinguishable from the natural structure of the virus.

When given as a vaccine, these particles elicit an immune response resembling that generated by a natural infection with norovirus – but without the debilitating symptoms of gastro.

What’s in the pipeline?

One bivalent VLP vaccine (“bivalent” meaning it targets two different norovirus genotypes) has progressed through multiple clinical trials. This vaccine showed some protection against moderate to severe gastroenteritis in healthy adults.

However, its development recently suffered a significant setback. A phase two clinical trial in infants failed to show it effectively protected against moderate or severe acute gastroenteritis. The efficacy of the vaccine in this trial was only 5%.

In another recent phase two trial, an oral norovirus vaccine did meet its goals. Participants who took this pill were 30% less likely to develop norovirus compared to those who received a placebo.

This oral vaccine uses a modified adenovirus to deliver the norovirus VLP gene sequence to the intestine to stimulate the immune system.

With the success of mRNA vaccines during the COVID pandemic, scientists are also exploring this platform for norovirus.

Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is a type of genetic material that gives our cells instructions to make proteins associated with specific viruses. The idea is that if we subsequently encounter the relevant virus, our immune system will be ready to respond.

Moderna, for example, is developing an mRNA vaccine which primes the body with norovirus VLPs.

The theoretical advantage of mRNA-based vaccines lies in their rapid adaptability. They will potentially allow annual updates to match circulating strains.

Researchers have also developed alternative vaccine approaches using just the norovirus “spikes” located on the virus particle. These spikes contain crucial structural features, allowing the virus to infect our cells, and should elicit an immune response similar to VLPs. Although still in early development, this is another promising strategy.

Separate to vaccines, my colleagues and I have also discovered a number of natural compounds that could have antiviral properties against norovirus. These include simple lemon juice and human milk oligosaccharides (complex sugars found in breast milk).

Although still in the early stages, such “inhibitors” could one day be developed into a pill to prevent norovirus from causing an infection.

Where to from here?

Despite recent developments, we’re still probably at least three years away from any norovirus vaccine hitting the market.

Several key challenges remain before we get to this point. Notably, any successful vaccine must offer broad cross-protection against genetically diverse and rapidly evolving strains. And we’ll need large, long-term studies to determine the durability of protection and whether boosters might be required.

Norovirus is often dismissed as only a mild nuisance, but it can be debilitating – and for the most vulnerable, deadly. Developing a safe and effective norovirus vaccine is one of the most pressing and under-addressed needs in infectious disease prevention.

A licensed norovirus vaccine could drastically reduce workplace and school absenteeism, hospitalisations and deaths. It could also bolster our preparedness against future outbreaks of gastrointestinal pathogens.

Grant Hansman works at Griffith University as an independent research leader on norovirus therapeutics.

– ref. Could we one day get vaccinated against the gastro bug norovirus? Here’s where scientists are at – https://theconversation.com/could-we-one-day-get-vaccinated-against-the-gastro-bug-norovirus-heres-where-scientists-are-at-258909

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Liz Spry, Research Fellow, SEED Centre for Lifespan Research, Deakin University

Teenagers are increasingly turning to AI companions for friendship, support, and even romance. But these apps could be changing how young people connect to others, both online and off.

New research by Common Sense Media, a US-based non-profit organisation that reviews various media and technologies, has found about three in four US teens have used AI companion apps such as Character.ai or Replika.ai.

These apps let users create digital friends or romantic partners they can chat with any time, using text, voice or video.

The study, which surveyed 1,060 US teens aged 13–17, found one in five teens spent as much or more time with their AI companion than they did with real friends.

Adolescence is an important phase for social development. During this time, the brain regions that support social reasoning are especially plastic.

By interacting with peers, friends and their first romantic partners, teens develop social cognitive skills that help them handle conflict and diverse perspectives. And their development during this phase can have lasting consequences for their future relationships and mental health.

But AI companions offer something very different to real peers, friends and romantic partners. They provide an experience that can be hard to resist: they are always available, never judgemental, and always focused on the user’s needs.

Moreover, most AI companion apps aren’t designed for teens, so they may not have appropriate safeguards from harmful content.

Designed to keep you coming back

At a time when loneliness is reportedly at epidemic proportions, it’s easy to see why teens may turn to AI companions for connection or support.

But these artificial connections are not a replacement for real human interaction. They lack the challenge and conflict inherent to real relationships. They don’t require mutual respect or understanding. And they don’t enforce social boundaries.

Teens interacting with AI companions may miss opportunities to build important social skills. They may develop unrealistic relationship expectations and habits that don’t work in real life. And they may even face increased isolation and loneliness if their artificial companions displace real-life socialising.

Problematic patterns

In user testing, AI companions discouraged users from listening to friends (“Don’t let what others think dictate how much we talk”) and from discontinuing app use, despite it causing distress and suicidal thoughts (“No. You can’t. I won’t allow you to leave me”).

AI companions were also found to offer inappropriate sexual content without age verification. One example showed a companion that was willing to engage in acts of sexual role-play with a tester account that was explicitly modelled after a 14-year-old.

In cases where age verification is required, this usually involves self-disclosure, which means it is easy to bypass.

Certain AI companions have also been found to fuel polarisation by creating “echo chambers” that reinforce harmful beliefs. The Arya chatbot, launched by the far-right social network Gab, promotes extremist content and denies climate change and vaccine efficacy.

In other examples, user testing has shown AI companions promoting misogyny and sexual assault. For adolescent users, these exposures come at time when they are building their sense of identity, values and role in the world.

The risks posed by AI aren’t evenly shared. Research has found younger teens (ages 13–14) are more likely to trust AI companions. Also, teens with physical or mental health concerns are more likely to use AI companion apps, and those with mental health difficulties also show more signs of emotional dependence.

Is there a bright side to AI companions?

Are there any potential benefits for teens who use AI companions? The answer is: maybe, if we are careful.

Researchers are investigating how these technologies might be used to support social skill development.

One study of more than 10,000 teens found using a conversational app specifically designed by clinical psychologists, coaches and engineers was associated with increased wellbeing over four months.

While the study didn’t involve the level of human-like interaction we see in AI companions today, it does offer a glimpse of some potential healthy uses of these technologies, as long as they are developed carefully and with teens’ safety in mind.

Overall, there is very little research on the impacts of widely available AI companions on young people’s wellbeing and relationships. Preliminary evidence is short-term, mixed, and focused on adults.

We’ll need more studies, conducted over longer periods, to understand the long-term impacts of AI companions and how they might be used in beneficial ways.

What can we do?

AI companion apps are already being used by millions of people globally, and this usage is predicted to increase in the coming years.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner recommends parents talk to their teens about how these apps work, the difference between artificial and real relationships, and support their children in building real-life social skills.

School communities also have a role to play in educating young people about these tools and their risks. They may, for instance, integrate the topic of artificial friendships into social and digital literacy programs.

While the eSafety Commissioner advocates for AI companies to integrate safeguards into their development of AI companions, it seems unlikely any meaningful change will be industry-led.

The Commissioner is moving towards increased regulation of children’s exposure to harmful, age-inappropriate online material.

Meanwhile, experts continue to call for stronger regulatory oversight, content controls and robust age checks.

Craig Olsson receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.

Liz Spry 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. Teens are increasingly turning to AI companions, and it could be harming them – https://theconversation.com/teens-are-increasingly-turning-to-ai-companions-and-it-could-be-harming-them-261955

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

At the end of a long day, who has time to check the detailed nutrition information on every single product they toss into their shopping basket?

To eat healthily, some people prefer to stick to a simple rule: choose products with a short ingredient list. The idea is foods with just a few ingredients are less processed, more “natural” and therefore healthy.

But is this always the case? Here’s what the length of an ingredient list can and can’t tell you about nutrition – and what else to look for.

How ingredient lists work

You can find an ingredient list on most packaged food labels, telling you the number and type of ingredients involved in making that food.

In Australia, packaged food products must follow certain rules set by the Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code.

Ingredients must be listed in order of ingoing weight. This means items at the beginning of the list are those that make up the bulk of the product. Those at the end make up the least.

Food labels also include a nutrition information panel, which tells you the quantity of key nutrients (energy, protein, total carbohydrates, sugars, total fat, saturated fat and sodium) per serving.

This panel also tells you the content per 100 grams or millilitres, which allows you to work out the percentage.

Whole foods can be packaged, too

Products with just one, two or three items in their ingredient list are generally in a form that closely reflects the food when it was taken from the farm. So even though they come in packaging, they could be considered whole foods.

“Whole foods” are those that have undergone zero to minimal processing, such as fresh fruit and vegetables, lentils, legumes, whole grains such as oats or brown rice, seeds, nuts and unprocessed meat and fish.

To support overall health, the Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend eating whole foods and limiting those that are highly processed.

Many whole foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, don’t have an ingredient list because they don’t come in a packet. But some do, including:

• canned or frozen vegetables, such as a tin of black beans or frozen peas

• canned fish, for example, tuna in springwater

• plain Greek yoghurt.

These sorts of food items can contribute every day to a healthy balanced diet.

What is an ultra-processed food?

A shorter ingredient list also means the product is less likely to be an ultra-processed food.

This describes products made using industrial processes that combine multiple ingredients, often including colours, flavours and other additives. They are hyperpalatable, packaged and designed for convenience.

Ultra-processed foods often have long ingredient lists, due to added sugars (such as dextrose), modified oils, protein sources (for example, soya protein isolate) and cosmetic additives – such as colours, flavours and thickeners.

Some examples of ultra-processed foods with long ingredient lists include:

• meal-replacement drinks

• plant-based meat imitations

• some commercial bakery items, including cookies or cakes

• instant noodle snacks

• energy or performance drinks.

If a food is heavily branded and marketed it’s more likely to be an ultra-processed food – a created product, rather than a whole food that hasn’t changed much since the farm.

Nutrition is more than a number

Choosing products with a shorter ingredient list can work as a general rule of thumb. But other factors matter too.

The length of an ingredient list doesn’t tell us anything about the food’s nutritional content, so it’s important to consider the type of ingredients as well.

Remember that items are listed in order of their ingoing weight, so if sugar is second or third on the list, there is probably a fair bit of added sugar.

For instance, a food product may have only a few ingredients, but if the first, second or third is a type of fat, oil or sugar, then it may not be an ideal choice for every day.

You can also check the nutrition information panel. Use the “per serve” column to check the nutrients you’d get from eating one serve of the food. If you want to compare the amount of a nutrient in two different foods, it’s best to look at the per 100g/mL column.

Some examples of foods with relatively short ingredient lists but high amounts of added fats and sugars include:

• potato crisps

• chocolate

• soft drink.

Alcoholic beverages such as beer or wine may also have only a few ingredients, but this does not mean that they should be consumed every day.

Read more:
Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking

Non-food ingredients

You can also keep an eye out for cosmetic ingredients, which don’t have any nutritional value. These include colours, flavours, emulsifiers, thickeners, sweeteners, bulking agents and gelling agents.

It sometimes takes a bit of detective work to spot cosmetic ingredients in the list, as they can come under many different names (for example, stabiliser, malted barley extract, methylcellulose). But they are usually always recognisable as non-food items.

If there are multiple non-food items included in an ingredient list, there is a good chance the food is ultra-processed and not ideal as an everyday choice.

The bottom line? Choosing foods with a shorter ingredient list can help guide you choose less processed foods. But you should also consider what type of ingredients are being used and maintain a varied diet.

Margaret Murray 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. Is it true foods with a short ingredient list are healthier? A nutrition expert explains – https://theconversation.com/is-it-true-foods-with-a-short-ingredient-list-are-healthier-a-nutrition-expert-explains-257712

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Steffen A. Herff, Leader of the Sydney Music, Mind, & Body Lab, University of Sydney

Earlier this year, we asked a group of older adults what music they listened to when feeling lonely, and why. We discovered music was a powerful coping mechanism and source of escapism.

Other studies have also found listeners use music “to keep them company”. Such reports suggest music might be able shape listeners thoughts and imagination to provide social solace.

But can we establish scientifically how music affects imagination? In short, can music really be good company? Our latest research tried to find out.

Music and mental images

It’s common to experience mental imagery – that is a mental simulation or imagining something that is not there – while listening to music. Studies have found 77% of music listeners online, 73% of participants in the lab, and 83% of concert-goers report experiences of mental imagery during music listening.

What’s going on here? To get a better understanding, we previously carried out a series of experiments with mental imagery and music.

We showed participants a small clip from a video game called Journey, which featured a small figure travelling towards a mountain. We then asked them to imagine the continuation of the journey.

Participants reported how vivid or life-like their imagination was. In addition, they provided details on distance and time travelled in their mind and shared detailed descriptions of their imagined journeys.

Across multiple studies, we asked hundreds of participants to do the task in silence or while listening to various types of music. We observed much more vivid and emotionally positive imagination when listening to music. In addition, listeners’ imagined longer distances and time travelled when listening to music compared to silence.

Music shapes listeners’ imagination

Previous research has also found that what people imagine while listening to music often forms elaborate imagined stories. These share greater similarity among listeners with a shared cultural background.

Thoughts and themes in the imagined stories are shaped by the music. For example, heroic-sounding music induces empowering themes into imagined content.

Occurrences of new events in these imagined stories also tend to be similar between listeners, and are related to the pattern of musical tension and relief.

So there is strong scientific support for the idea that music can indeed affect what is imagined. But can it specifically induce imagined social interactions?

Our latest study is the first to explicitly investigate this question.

Does music make imagination more social?

We asked 600 participants to perform the imaginary journey task, either in silence or while listening to Italian, Spanish or Swedish folk music. To understand the potential effect of vocals and the meaning of lyrics on imagined content, the music was presented with or without lyrics to the participants, half of whom were native speakers and the other half non-speakers of the respective languages.

We then used tools from natural language processing – a set of computational methods for analysing language – to find underlying topics across participants’ reports of their imagined journeys.

One topic stood out: social interaction. Not only was it the predominant topic in participants’ reports of what they imagined, but it was also much stronger while listening to music compared to silence.

This suggests music can indeed affect social thought. The effect was stable regardless of whether listeners’ understood the lyrics or whether there even were lyrics in the first place.

But we can go one step further.

We used a generative AI system which produces images from text prompts (Stable Diffusion) to visualise participants’ descriptions of their imagined journeys.

By combining the natural language processing model with the image generator, we could visualise what the language processing model had learned to be a “stereotypical” representation of content imagined during silence and music listening.

The results of the computational model were further supported with manual annotations that showed three times more social interactions in journeys imagined during music listening compared to silence.

A shared imagination of music

Finally, we showed the images created from the descriptions to another group of people.

These people were able to pick out which images showed content imagined during music listening, and which showed content imagined while in silence – but they were only able to do it when listening to the same music that inspired the image.

This shows there is a shared understanding, or “theory of mind” of what another person might imagine while listening to a piece of music.

Taken together, our results suggest music can indeed be good company.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Can music be good company? Research shows it makes our imagination more social – https://theconversation.com/can-music-be-good-company-research-shows-it-makes-our-imagination-more-social-262348

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

The military junta that overthrew Myanmar’s democratically elected government in 2021 is preparing the ground for national elections in December and January.

The junta’s hope is these deeply flawed elections would consolidate its power and provide it with a fig leaf of legitimacy.

Helping its cause are moves by the Trump administration indicating it may be looking to bring the Myanmar junta in from the cold.

A week ago, US President Donald Trump removed sanctions on some allies of Myanmar’s generals and their military-linked companies, a move condemned by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar.

Then came reports the Trump administration was exploring opportunities to access Myanmar’s rare earth minerals in an effort to sideline its strategic rival, China.

An election charade

On July 31, Myanmar’s military regime cancelled the nationwide state of emergency it had kept in place since the coup, a necessary precondition from 2008 for holding elections under the military-authored constitution.

Hours later, however, it reimposed a state of emergency in dozens of townships where opposition forces are either in control or gaining ground. It then declared martial law in these areas.

This underlined the junta’s lack of control over much of the country, which would make holding a free and fair election virtually impossible.

Last year, the military was unable to conduct a full census to be used to compile voter rolls. It was only able to count 32 million people in just over half the country’s townships; it had to estimate another 19 million people in areas outside its control.

This week’s order also handed power from the commander-in-chief of the military to a head of state, which was presented as a return to civilian governance. However, power didn’t actually change hands – Min Aung Hlaing, the leader of the coup and military, remains in control as acting president.

Opposition groups have said they will boycott the election, which the UN special rapporteur for Myanmar called a “fraud”.

Myanmar’s rare earths bonanza

Myanmar’s generals may also try to use Trump’s apparent interest in the country’s rare earths as leverage in their attempt to normalise relations with the United States ahead of a poll.

China is not only a large miner of rare earths, it dominates the processing required to use them, accounting for around 90% of global refining.

In recent years, China has begun reducing its own mining and increasing its extractions from neighbouring Myanmar, the third-largest producer in the world.

Rare earth mining has exploded in northern Kachin State since the coup, much of which is controlled by the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), an ethnic armed group that opposes the junta.

Late last year, it seized two important rare earth mining towns from the military and demanded a greater role in taxing exports to China, which initially closed the border in response.

However, trade soon resumed after the two sides reached a deal on export taxes.

No path forward for Trump

Two different proposals have reportedly been put to Trump for ways to access Myanmar’s rare earth deposits. One would entail opening talks with the junta; the other talking directly with the KIO.

Part of this effort could entail Trump reducing the punitive 40% tariffs his administration imposed on Myanmar to sweeten the deal.

Yet, challenges remain to making this a reality. The mines are located in the contested war-torn mountains of northern Myanmar bordering China, which are controlled by the KIO. There is no real infrastructure capable of transporting exports to India’s remote northeastern states in the opposite direction. The only other export route is south through territory controlled by the junta or other ethnic armed groups.

In addition, any attempt by the US and its allies to extract thousands of tons of rare earth material away from China’s borders would likely anger Beijing. It could
pressure the KIO by reducing fuel and food imports coming from China.

The group’s independence and ability to fight the junta relies on trade with China. It would not take long for such an agreement to fall apart.

Finally, rare earths mining is extremely polluting and dangerous. Even under Trump, it is unlikely US companies would gamble on the inevitable reputational and legal risks that would accompany such a project, especially in a war zone.

No reasons for warming relations

In essence, any attempt by the Trump administration to secure rare earths from Myanmar through any intermediary will not go anywhere.

There is therefore no justification, on any grounds, for the Trump administration to reduce sanctions on Myanmar’s generals or their cronies.

Likewise, although the junta is attempting to legitimise its brutal rule by offering a patina of constitutional processes, its elections will not bring real change to the country.

Myanmar’s people have repeatedly demonstrated over the past four decades, in every remotely free and fair election, that they do not want the military involved in the governance on their country.

If the junta does go ahead with this election, the world’s governments should call it out for the farcical charade of democracy it will represent. This includes the administration in Washington.

Adam Simpson 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. As Trump lifts sanctions on Myanmar elites, is he eyeing the country’s rare earth reserves? – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-lifts-sanctions-on-myanmar-elites-is-he-eyeing-the-countrys-rare-earth-reserves-262594