Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Lamont, Research Fellow, Marine Biology, Lancaster University

Why do people care about coral reefs? Why does their damage cause such concern and outrage? What drives people to go to great lengths to protect and restore them?

Of course, it’s partly because of their ecological importance and economic value – but it’s also because they are beautiful. Healthy coral reefs are among the most visually spectacular ecosystems on the planet – and this beauty is far from superficial. It underpins cultural heritage value, supports tourism industries, encourages ocean stewardship and deepens people’s emotional connections to the sea.

But how can such beauty be measured? And when it is destroyed, can it be rebuilt?

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

Traditionally, many coral reef monitoring and restoration programmes overlook their beauty, considering it too subjective to measure. And as a team of scientists, that frustrated us. We knew that to most effectively draw on this key motivator for coral conservation, we had to be able to measure beauty.

In some ways, it’s an impossible task. But our new study grapples with this challenge, delivering a way of quantifying the aesthetic value of a coral reef, as well as measuring its recovery when previously damaged reefs are restored.

Our international team of marine scientists has been working at the Mars coral restoration programme (the largest project of its kind) in central Indonesia. Here, local communities and international businesses have collaborated for over a decade, rebuilding reefs that were once decimated by dynamite fishing. This illegal fishing method uses explosives to stun and kill fish for easy collection, while shattering coral reefs into rubble – wiping out entire reef communities in seconds.

This Indonesian project has already successfully regrown coral reefs. But we wanted to explore whether this programme had been able to recreate the visual appeal of a natural reef ecosystem.

We took standardised seabed photos using settings that automatically adjust white balance and colour to compensate for underwater light conditions. This enabled us to capture accurate colours under consistent shallow-water conditions across healthy, degraded and restored reef sites.

Then we conducted online surveys with more than 3,000 participants, asking them to compare pairs of photographs and choose which they found more beautiful – enabling us to derive a rating for each photograph. Our results showed that people from very different backgrounds consistently shared similar opinions on which reefs were beautiful.

Whether respondents were young or old, from countries with coral reefs or without, or had different levels of education and familiarity with the ocean, they tended to favour images with high coral cover, vibrant colours and complex coral structures. This suggests there is a shared human appreciation for the beauty of thriving reefs.

We also used these ratings to train a machine-learning algorithm based on AI to reliably predict people’s visual preferences for photographs of different coral habitats.

The results of people’s survey responses and the machine learning algorithm were the same. Images of restored reefs were consistently rated just as beautiful as those of healthy reefs, and far more aesthetically pleasing than degraded reefs. This is encouraging, and important. It shows that efforts to rebuild these charismatic ecosystems can recreate the beauty that makes them so highly valued.

Tracking recovery

We found that beauty was strongly linked to the number of colours present in the picture, the proportion of the image taken up by living coral, and the complexity of shapes exhibited by the corals. Meanwhile, images showing grey rubble fields of dead corals with little life were consistently rated lowest.

Our results suggest that promoting a range of different coral colours and shapes will not only help marine life, but also restore the visual, cultural and tourism value of thriving coral reefs. Reef restoration experts can achieve this by choosing donor corals – healthy corals transplanted to degraded sites to aid recovery – to add colour and variety to the reefs they plant.

This also means that coral reef recovery can be tracked using simple photo-based monitoring, like that used in our study.

Coral reefs need long-term care to help them survive, thrive and maintain their beauty and ecological function. To ensure that initial restoration gains are not quickly lost, such efforts need to be paired with ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Any tourism development around restored reefs also needs to be managed carefully and sustainably.

Restoration and sustainable tourism practices can help protect and sustain the ecological and social benefits of beautiful, healthy reefs. Ultimately, restoring beautiful reefs will be crucial for communities that rely on marine tourism, and for inspiring people to care for the ocean.

---

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

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Tim Lamont receives funding from the Royal Commission of 1851 and the Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

Gita Alisa receives funding from Friends of Lancaster University in America and Sheba Hope Advocate Program.

Tries Blandine Razak receives funding from the Pew Charitable Trust and the Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

– ref. The beauty of coral reefs is key to their survival – so we came up with a way to measure it – https://theconversation.com/the-beauty-of-coral-reefs-is-key-to-their-survival-so-we-came-up-with-a-way-to-measure-it-261013

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robyn Klingler-Vidra, Vice Dean, Global Engagement | Associate Professor in Political Economy and Entrepreneurship, King’s College London

Governments around the world are hustling. European policymakers, for example, are eager to boost the region’s industrial relevance in a world where the US and China dominate cutting-edge technologies. They want to move beyond the adage that “the US innovates, China replicates and the EU regulates”.

As part of this, policymakers worldwide are striving to foster their own versions of Silicon Valley. They have invested to create ecosystems abundant with ambitious startups backed by venture capital investors. Their ultimate aim is to see these firms develop into what are known as scale-ups and compete in global markets.

But if governments – from Berlin and Brussels to Ho Chi Minh City – are to find their edge, I argue they should follow a model closer to Seoul or Tokyo’s playbook than that of Silicon Valley.

South Korean and Japanese policymakers have long understood that the proliferation of startup activity should not be an isolated aim. In our 2025 book, Startup Capitalism, my colleague Ramon Pacheco Pardo and I revealed that the approach of these countries sees national champion firms like Samsung and Toyota use startups as resources to help them compete internationally.

As the head of a government-backed startup centre in Seoul told me, a key aim of South Korean government policy for startups is to “inject innovative DNA” into the country’s large firms. Policies attempt to embed startups into the fabric of lead firms, and do not try to disrupt their competitive positions.

For this objective, the Silicon Valley playbook is sub-optimal. US government policy has enabled venture capital investment through regulatory changes and has ensured that talented people are free to challenge their former employers. Classic examples include the so-called “traitorous eight” who left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957 to found Fairchild Semiconductor.

A more recent example is Anthony Levandowski, who left Google’s self-driving car project to start his own company, Otto, in 2016. The competition was so close that Google sued Uber – as it had acquired Otto – in 2019 over the trade secrets Levandowski allegedly used to develop his self-driving truck company. Uber eventually paid Google a “substantial portion” of the US$179 million (£134 million) it was awarded initially in arbitration.

Injecting innovative DNA

The Japanese and Korean formula is distinct. South Korea’s 17 Centres for the Creative Economy and Innovation, established about ten years ago to drive innovation and entrepreneurship, each have one of the country’s large firms (chaebol) as an anchor partner. The chaebol’s industrial focus – whether it’s shipbuilding, electronics or heavy machinery – is reflected in the focus of the startups engaging with that centre.

The startups work on issues “that keep the large firm up at night” and, in return, the startups have unparalleled access to distribution channels, marketing and proof-of-concept testing. While the centres have not produced volumes of globally competitive scale-ups, they have delivered on the aim of injecting innovative ideas and talent into large companies like Hyundai, LG Electronics and SK Group.

In Japan, tax incentives encourage big businesses to acquire startups. The “open innovation tax incentive” allows a 25% deduction from the price of the acquisition. The aim here is to encourage Japan’s national champion firms to integrate startups into their core businesses. In 2024, for example, Toyota integrated high-tech wheelchair startup, Whill, into its mobility services offering.

Various government initiatives also aim to provide coaching and mentoring for startups around raising venture capital funding and sharpening a pitch for demo day. In Japan and Korea, these initiatives embed big business throughout.

In J-Startup, an initiative aimed at creating a cohort of so-called unicorns (startups valued at over US$1 billion), the Japanese government involves industrial leaders as judges that help select applicants for the programme. These people then act as coaches and mentors to the startups. Japan’s lead firms are, in return, exposed to innovative technologies and startup culture.

In a similar way, Korea’s K-Startup Grand Challenge connects participating foreign startups with the country’s chaebol for proof-of-concept development. The Korean government cites partnership and licensing agreements between the parties as an important outcome of the programme. Through these connections, Korea’s big businesses have another mechanism for accessing innovative ideas and talent from abroad.

Governments that want to compete with China or the US cannot continue on their existing path. They need to do something different, and Japan and South Korea’s approach offers an alternative.

These approaches are not without downsides. There is, of course, the risk of well-resourced corporations operating “kill zones” around their business lines. This might involve early low-value mergers and acquisitions, or even copying their products in a bid to eliminate them.

The central position of large firms to the economy also means that the innovation agenda of startups is set by incumbent firms. This fosters complementary products, and not those that disrupt – and ultimately improve – domestic firms or technologies. There’s also the worry of perceived corruption.

But I argue that pursuing a half-committed strategy is riskier. If governments maintain a wall between big business and startups, believing this is essential to minimise corruption and that large firms will innovate just as startups will scale-up into larger firms, they risk underwhelming outcomes on all levels.

We may see flailing productivity in the sectors in which countries have excelled. And scale-ups will fail to materialise while populations of “zombie startups”, that simply stagnate while propped up on state largesse, increase.

Startups should be considered as resources to boost nationwide industrial capabilities, not efforts aimed at seeding a country’s answer to Silicon Valley’s Google or OpenAI.

Robyn Klingler-Vidra 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. Japan and South Korea can show governments how to compete with China and US – https://theconversation.com/japan-and-south-korea-can-show-governments-how-to-compete-with-china-and-us-260623

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Wanja Kimani, Associate Curator, The Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge

In Reframing Blackness, writer and curator Alayo Akinkugbe explores the way that art history is taught, and the impact this has had on what we see in national museums in western cities. This teaching has often led to the exclusion of blackness from mainstream art spaces. Akinkugbe challenges this by shifting our gaze – to see blackness first.

Her book interrogates the place of blackness in relation to art history in several ways. First, she observes that the lack of black curators within national museums in western cities means that blackness is subject to “reactive responses”.

For example, when there was a global outcry after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, institutions reacted by foregrounding their efforts to support black artists and pledging commitments for future initiatives.

But many of these initiatives remain on the surface level and temporary, rather than permanently embedded into the institutional fabric. In my experience, long-term change is unlikely to occur when progress is measured by individual projects, while the decision-making remains in the same hands.

Next, the book draws on Akinkugbe’s experience as a history of art student at the University of Cambridge, during which time there was a call to “decolonise” the curriculum.

She then explores the intersection of race, gender and class, highlighting the double-bind of racial and gender bias that black women may encounter. She suggests ways to shift the gaze by focusing on people of colour depicted in historic artworks, including Portrait d’une Femme Noire (Portrait of a Black Woman) (1800) by Marie-Guillemine Benoist.

Along the way, we are acquainted with figures that have always been present on museum and gallery walls – albeit often ignored or faded into obscurity. Akinkugbe speculates about who some of these unnamed figures were, and what worlds they inhabited.

In Jacques Amans’ painting, Bélizaire and the Frey Children (1837), for example, Bélizaire, a black enslaved child, was over time painted over and faded into the background.

---

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.

---

Akinkugbe provides an overview of exhibitions held between 2022 and 2024 at the Royal Academy in London and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. And she has conversations with curators at other museums, whose work contributes to the understanding of the complexity of black life experiences reflected in contemporary art.

These include Antwaun Sargent (curator of The New Black Vanguard: Photography Between Art and Fashion) and Ekow Eshun (curator, In the Black Fantastic and The Time is Always Now: Artists Reframe the Black Figure). Akinkugbe also discusses the late Koyo Kouoh’s When We See Us: A Century of Black Figuration exhibition. Kouoh, who died in May, was the first African woman to curate the Venice Biennale.

By engaging in dialogue with the curators of these pivotal exhibitions, Akinkugbe demonstrates a shared commitment to uncovering what has been overlooked – and a commitment to deepening the discourse around blackness.

Cautious optimism

Reframing Blackness draws attention to important considerations for museums, curators and higher education institutions. There’s also food for thought for students who are keen to understand some of the factors that have contributed to the historic exclusion of blackness within museum walls and art education.

The book raises key questions that black cultural producers have grappled with in the UK since the 1960s, at the height of the Caribbean artists movement, and during the British black arts movement of the early 1980s. These movements created vital opportunities for discussion around issues of racial justice, visibility and representation.

Following the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in mainstream media in 2020, institutions reacted with pledges for self-reflective work that would lead to more black artists’ work being exhibited and collected. Numerous large exhibitions across national museums followed – some of which are discussed in the book, as are the departmental overhauls of art curricula within higher education.

I share in some of Akinkugbe’s optimism – but I do so cautiously.

Following the call to decolonise the curriculum, some art departments in UK higher education have expanded their geographic focus beyond the west. Others have stated their intention to address the legacies of enslavement and colonialism through a commitment to diversity and equality in their job advertisements. Some have done both.

But there are a few hurdles that may limit these efforts. First, newer courses that may not attract sufficient interest are often the first to be cut when budgets are constrained.

Second, if courses offer additional modules that attempt to cover vast areas in the global south, there is a risk of overgeneralising entire continents, marginalising them further. Such symbolic gestures fall short in an attempt to challenge art historical frameworks.

Finally, by adding works by black scholars to reading lists as supplementary instead of core reading, their contributions are treated as being on the margins rather than key producers of knowledge.

Museums have a responsibility to reflect the communities they serve, in a way that respects the individual and collective autonomy of that community. This may be counterintuitive to the museum’s original purpose, which may have been to serve the upper class, showcasing its founders’ interests.

Museums are better equipped to engage communities as partners in shaping their future when permanent staff reflect the diversity of these communities across the intersections of race, gender, class, sexuality and disability. Museum directors have a duty to serve these communities with a long-term commitment to care and accountability.

This book asks us to see blackness first. Akinkugbe guides us closer to a vision that does not require black people to reinsert ourselves, but insists on our resolute presence – both then and now.

---

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Wanja Kimani 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. In Reframing Blackness, Alayo Akinkugbe challenges museums to see blackness first – https://theconversation.com/in-reframing-blackness-alayo-akinkugbe-challenges-museums-to-see-blackness-first-260734

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel James Jolly, PhD candidate, University of East Anglia

Have you felt disgust when taking a walk along the riverside or plunging into the sea to escape the summer heat, only to spy a used wet wipe floating along the surface? Or shock at finding out that animals have died choking on plastic products or that the seafood we eat may be contaminated with microfibres?

These pollutants are common in our waterways because of the mismanagement of sewage and inappropriate disposal that flush hygiene products and microfibres into rivers and oceans. In the UK alone, more than 11 billion wet wipes are thrown away annually. Wet wipe litter was found on 72% of UK beaches in 2023.

They persist because they’re made of plastic, a durable material that won’t easily degrade. Plastic can last for decades to hundreds of years. Therefore, governments and manufacturers are eagerly encouraging the use of non-plastics as more “sustainable” alternatives, with the UK banning plastic in wet wipes in 2024.

These textiles can be made from plant or animal fibres such as cotton and wool, or they may be chemically and physically modified, such as rayon or viscose. They are often labelled “biodegradable” on product packaging, suggesting they are environmentally friendly, break down quickly, and are a safe alternative to plastics. But is this really the case?

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

My research focuses on investigating the environmental impact of these non-plastic textiles and their persistence in waterways. My colleagues and I have found that some non-plastic microfibres can be just as problematic or even more harmful than plastic.

While non-plastic textiles are not as long-lived as plastics, with many composting within weeks to months, they can last long enough to accumulate and cause damage to plants, animals and humans. Studies by scientists at the University of Stirling show that biodegradable wet wipes can last up to 15 weeks on beaches, where they can act as a reservoir for faecal bacteria and E.coli. Other studies have highlighted non-plastic textiles lasting for two months or more in rivers and oceans, where they break up into hundreds of thousands of microfibres.

These microfibres are so prevalent in waterways that they have contaminated animals across the food chain, from filter-feeding mussels and oysters to top predators such as sharks and the seafood we eat.

They are also found in remote locations as far away as the Arctic seafloor and deep sea, thousands of miles from civilisation. These discoveries highlight that non-plastics last longer than we think.

The dangers of non-plastics

Once exposed to aquatic life, non-plastic microfibres can be easily ingested or inhaled, where they can become trapped in the body and cause damage. During their manufacture, textile fibres can be modified with various chemical additives to improve their function, such as flame retardants, antibacterials, softeners, UV protection and dyes.

It is known that several toxic synthetic chemicals, including the plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), are used for this purpose. These additives can be carcinogenic, cause neurotoxic effects or damage hormonal and reproductive health.

Researchers like me, have only just begun to explore the dangers of non-plastics. Some have shown that non-plastic microfibres and their additives can damage the digestive system, cause stress, hinder development and alter immune responses in animals such as shrimp, mussels, and oysters. However, other studies have shown little to no effect of non-plastic microfibres on animals exposed to them.

We do not yet know how much of a threat these materials are to the environment. Only the manufacturers know exactly what’s in the textiles we use. This makes it hard to understand what threats we are really facing. Nevertheless, assumptions that non-plastics are environmentally friendly and an easy alternative to plastic materials must be challenged and reconsidered.

To do this, we need to push for greater transparency in the contents of our everyday items and test them to make sure that they are truly sustainable and won’t harm the world around us. So next time you are browsing the supermarket aisles and come across a pack of “biodegradable” or “environmentally friendly” wet wipes, just question, are they really?

---

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

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Daniel James Jolly receives funding from the University of East Anglia, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and the NERC ARIES doctoral training pathway as part of his PhD studentship.
He is a student member of the UK Green Party.

– ref. Why some ‘biodegradable’ wet wipes can be terrible for the environment – https://theconversation.com/why-some-biodegradable-wet-wipes-can-be-terrible-for-the-environment-258836

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

---

You know when the Kremlin is worried about something – it starts talking about nuclear weapons. And so it was, just two days after Donald Trump revealed he had decided to lift his administration’s pause on the supply of US-made weapons to Ukraine, that Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, raised Russia’s nuclear doctrine. In response to a handy question from a friendly reporter as to whether Russia’s nuclear doctrine was still active, Peskov said: “Russia’s nuclear doctrine remains in effect, and thus, all its provisions continue to apply.”

By saying “all its provisions”, he was emphasising the changes made in December last year which significantly lowered the bar for Russia to use its nuclear deterrent. It states that Russia “reserves the right to employ nuclear weapons” in response to nuclear weapons or “other types of weapons of mass destruction” against itself or its allies.

Whether Putin and his team consider the sorts of weapons the US is prepared to allow Ukraine to use against Russia as weapons of mass destruction is not clear as yet. The US president specifically said that a fresh supply of Patriot systems was already en route to Ukraine from Germany. But he also hinted that other more offensive weapons could also be in the mix. And in a July 4 phone call he is reported to have asked the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, whether he could hit Moscow or St Petersburg, to which Zelensky replied: “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”

Trump is reported to have gone on to say that it was important to “make [Russians] feel the pain”.

At the beginning of the week, the US president was also keen for Russia to feel the economic pain of indirect sanctions, with 100% tariffs promised against any country buying Russia’s oil. Could this be a turning point?

---

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

---

Interesting question, says David Dunn. Dunn, professor of international relations at the University of Birmingham, says Trump’s decision – if he follows through with it – pretty much brings the US back in line with its policy under the Biden administration. Particularly now that Trump appears to have ruled out, for the time being, allowing Ukraine to use long-range offensive missiles against targets in Moscow.

As Dunn points out, there’s no sense that Trump has changed his overall tack on what he is looking for from Putin: a ceasefire, rather than, as Biden repeatedly insisted, a settlement that respects Ukrainian sovereignty and restores the land occupied illegally by Russian troops.

Meanwhile the economic pain he promised to inflict on Russia has been scheduled to begin in 50 days. This – as many commentators have been quick to point out – has irresistible echoes of his off-again, on-again tariff regime. So will these sanctions actually happen?

---

Read more:
What Trump’s decision to send more weapons to Ukraine will mean for the war

---

The Russian stock market certainly wasn’t that worried. Shortly after trump made his announcement, the Moscow stock exchange increased by 2.7% and the rouble strengthened. Oil markets also appear to have relaxed, suggesting traders see no imminent risks. Maybe this is another case of “Taco” (Trump always chickens out)?

Patrick O’Shea, an international relations and global governance specialist at the University of Glasgow, believes that the markets’ reaction is more than just indifference to what Trump was threatening. It was relief.

“Trump’s threat isn’t just non-credible, the positive market reaction in Russia suggests it is a gift for Moscow,” O’Shea writes. “The 50-day ultimatum is seen not as a deadline but as a reprieve, meaning nearly two months of guaranteed inaction from the US.”

What has not been widely reported in the UK is that a bipartisan bill making its way through the US congress would have been far more punitive that anything Trump is threatening. Now this has been paused pending Trump’s initiative in 50 days’ time.

---

Read more:
Why Russia is not taking Trump’s threats seriously

---

Back in Europe, meanwhile, Ukraine’s allies got together in Rome last weekend to discuss what will be needed to rebuild the war-torn country and how to raise the necessary funds. Stefan Wolff was watching proceedings and believes that while countries in the “coalition of the willing” are ready to open their coffers to help Ukraine get back on its feet, the funds so far pledged will not touch the sides.

Ukraine’s allies at the conference have pledged more than €10 billion (£8.7 billion). But, Wolff – an expert in international relations at the University of Birmingham who has contributed regular analysis of the war in Ukraine – points out that this sum looks minuscule alongside the World Bank’s latest assessment that Ukraine will need at least US$524 billion (£388 billion) over the next decade to fund its recovery.

There have been some fairly upbeat forecasts about Ukraine’s potential for growth. The IMF forecasts growth for Ukraine of between 2% and 3% for 2025, which is likely to grow to over 4% in 2026 and 2027. But it cautions that this will not happen without considerable overseas support. And an end to the war. Neither is certain anytime soon.

---

Read more:
Over €10 billion has now been pledged for Ukraine’s recovery. It’s nowhere near enough

---

Maga moves – but will Trump take responsiblity?

To Washington, where the US president is having what would probably count as the worst week of his second administration so far. Large sections of his faithful Maga base are in almost open revolt at his seeming reluctance to release what have become known as the “Epstein files”. You may remember he littered his election campaign last year with dark hints about the revelations the files must surely contain about the possible involvement of the rich and powerful in child-sex exploitation. But this week he essentially said it was old news, which was “pretty boring”, adding that “I think, really, only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.”

This is not only at odds with what he spent much of 2024 saying. It also flies in the face of what his own attorney general, Pam Bondi, said in February when she said Epstein’s client list was “sitting on [her] desk right now to review”. Now of course, the justice department says there is no list. This is not what much of his base wants to hear.

Rob Dover, an intelligence specialist at the University of Hull who has researched conspiracy theories and the people who obsess about them, says this is a dangerous moment for the Trump presidency. He points to Maga unrest over Trump’s decision to bomb Iran and to resume military aid to Ukraine, both of which appear to contradict his pledge to keep the US out of foreign conflicts. Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, which has cut medicaid and other benefits to the poorest people in the US, will also inflict hurt on many is his base. Even his recent musing that he agrees with his health secretary’s questionable assertion that Coca-Cola should be made with sugar cane not corn syrup to “make America healthy again” is sure to anger corn farmers in the Midwest, another core Trump constituency.

“Maga is not a uniform group in belief or action. But if Trump loses either the loyalty of some or they refuse to flex their beliefs as they have done before, it will be politically dangerous for him,” Dover concludes.

---

Read more:
Trump’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base

---

Trouble brewing in Bosnia

I had the great good fortune to visit Sarajevo in December last year where I spent a few days exploring, taking a walking tour of the old town and a wider tour of the whole city which took us across the notional border with the Republika Srpska, one of the two main constituent parts of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The country was created by the Dayton accord, bringing an end to the ethnic conflict in the mid-1990s that saw whole populations displaced as ethnic Serbs and Croats sought to create new pure mini-states by expelling mainly Muslim Bosniaks.

When visiting, I felt a pervading sense that the two parts of the new country sit uncomfortably next to each other – and in recent months the friction has intensified considerably. Birte Julia Gippert of the University of Liverpool, who has researched extensively the conflict in the Balkans and the attempts to bring peace to the region, explains how the situation has become so tense.

---

Read more:
Bosnia and Herzegovina in crisis as Bosnian-Serb president rallies for secession

---

Why is Israel bombing Syria?

Conflict in Syria escalated again this week, with Israeli warplanes launching airstrikes against government buildings in Damascus this week. A Netanyahu government minister, Amichai Chikli, referred to Syria’s leader, Ahmed al-Shara, as “a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay”.

Mixed up in all this is sectarian fighting in southern Syria was has been going on sporadically since al-Shara took power at the end of last year. But, as Ali Mamouri of Deakin University explains, Israel wants to see the emergence of a federal Syria, which the new regime has ruled out. It also want to retain influence in the region and secure its northern border with Syria.

While a ceasefire is in place for now, Mamouri sees the situation as extremely fragile with further clashes “not only possible but highly probable”.

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

---

– ref. Will Donald Trump get Vladimir Putin (before Maga gets Trump)? – https://theconversation.com/will-donald-trump-get-vladimir-putin-before-maga-gets-trump-261416

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Mycock, Chief Policy Fellow, University of Leeds

The UK government has announced that the voting age will be lowered to 16 at the next election as part of a wider effort to restore trust in and “future-proof” democracy.

Votes at 16 has grown from a niche concern to become a salient – if contentious – issue supported by most UK political parties and electoral reform groups. The Conservative party remains a holdout – but has never acknowledged the contradiction of its continued opposition to the universal lowering of the voting age while empowering the Scottish and Welsh parliaments to enact the measure during its time in government.

This is a policy response to concerns about declining youth democratic engagement since the late 1990s. Since 1997, the UK general election turnout rate for those aged 65 years and over has consistently been at least 20 percentage points higher than for those aged 18-24.

---

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.

---

Some opponents argue that the Labour government is lowering the voting age to 16 for its own electoral interest, but we should remember this was a clearly stated election manifesto commitment. Votes at 16 was part of the package that delivered Labour to government in 2024 on a huge majority.

That said, public opinion remains steadfastly opposed. The government will need to handle this tension carefully, ensuring that 16- and 17-years-olds are not treated as second-class members of the electorate as this debate pushes forward.

For and against

As when the voting age was universally lowered to 18 in 1969, the case for change has pivoted on perceptions of maturity and markers of adulthood. There was considerable political and public consensus in the 1960s that 18 was the appropriate age of majority and enfranchisement. This link has endured, and many people continue to think under 18s are too socially and politically immature to vote responsibly or regularly.

Supporters of reform emphasise the need to align enfranchisement with other rights realised before or at age 16 – such as paying tax, medical consent, working, autonomy to make decisions about future education and work lives, and undertaking military (if not frontline) service.

Opponents respond by noting the age of majority remains 18, and that the minimum age for many protective and social rights, such as marriage and leaving full-time education, has been pushed upwards to 18 in the past decade or so.

But while 18 remains the legal marker of adulthood, transitions from youthhood to adulthood have become extended and complex. There is no single age point at which young people realise all the social and economic rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood.

Biological maturation extends from late-stage childhood until early adulthood (mid-20s). Traditional markers of adulthood such as financial independence, owning a property, or getting married and having children are occurring later in life than in previous generations.

It is more than 50 years since parliament last reflected and reviewed how society understands, and frames, issues of adulthood and citizenship linked to the ages of majority and enfranchisement. Lowering the voting age to 16 offers a timely opportunity to do so again.

Extensive parliamentary debate lies ahead as this bill makes its way through to becoming law. MPs should take that time to discuss and build consensus around what British democracy should offer young people, and how enfranchisement should be conceptualised for future generations.

Lowering the age is just the start

Now that 16- and 17-year-olds are part of the electorate, we can hope that political parties will improve their responsiveness to the interests of young people.

Unfortunately, where the voting age has already been lowered, we’ve not yet seen parties address their skewed decision-making, representation or electoral behaviour, which continues to favour older voters. The average age of elected representatives has remained around 50 years of age in all UK national and devolved parliaments, and higher in local government. Few young people join political parties or are active in their campaigning.

There is also significant evidence that, regardless of whether the voting age has been lowered or not, young people are not appropriately supported to be politically and media literate to understand how and when to vote, and to make informed and independent voter choices.

So, lowering the voting age should only be the first step in a more concerted effort to improve political literacy and democratic engagement as young people grow up. This should begin in primary, not secondary, school and continue through further and higher education.

Elected representatives should hold regular school surgeries where they meet children and young people, and listen and respond to their issues and concerns. Young people need to learn to discuss political issues in school settings, and political parties should host election hustings in schools and colleges. Young people should also be involved in decision-making in their schools and communities.

Lowering the voting age offers an opportunity to reinvigorate how we host elections to ensure young people enjoy voting for the first time – and encourage their future participation.

Making electoral registration automatic, as the government has promised, will help. But joining the electoral roll is a significant civic moment in young people’s lives. Schools should host electoral registration ceremonies where pupils are welcomed into the electorate by local elected representatives, and automatically given a voter authority certificate so they have an appropriate piece of voter ID.

Political parties need to embrace this once-in-a-generation opportunity that voting age reform presents to secure the future health of British democracy.

Andrew Mycock 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. UK to lower voting age to 16 – a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure the future health of British democracy – https://theconversation.com/uk-to-lower-voting-age-to-16-a-once-in-a-generation-opportunity-to-secure-the-future-health-of-british-democracy-261411