Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Myles Allen, Head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford

A few years ago, one of us (Myles Allen) asked a Chinese delegate at a climate conference why Beijing had gone for “carbon neutrality” for its 2060 target rather than “climate neutrality” or “net zero”, both of which were more fashionable terms at the time.

Her response: “Because we know what it means.”

It was a revealing answer: China, unlike many other countries, tends not to make climate commitments that it doesn’t understand or intend to keep. And that’s why its latest pledge – cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 7%–10% by 2035, as part of its commitments under the Paris agreement – matters more than the underwhelmed response might suggest.

To be fair on those other countries, lofty goals have played a role in driving the climate conversation about what is possible: there is always the argument that it is better to aim for the moon and miss than aim for the gutter and hit it.

But the climate crisis needs more than aspirations. It needs concrete, plausible plans.

That’s what makes China’s pledge so significant: Beijing has form in only promising what it plans to deliver. Having promised to peak emissions this decade, barely 50 years after it began to industrialise in earnest, it looks set to achieve that. And in the process, become a world leader in wind power, solar energy and electric vehicles.

Meanwhile, in the scientific literature…

A paper appeared in the journal Nature Communications at the end of August that provides some context for China’s announcement and ought to have received much more attention.

In it, climate scientists Junting Zhong and co-authors describe what they call a “reality-aligned scenario”. This means a pathway for emissions over the coming century that is consistent with emissions to date and countries’ near-term commitments.

The paper is provocatively titled “Plausible global emissions scenario for 2°C aligned with China’s net-zero pathway” (provocative because of the implication that some other scenarios out there are, well, less plausible).

In their scenario, global carbon dioxide emissions peak this decade and reach net zero around 2070, accompanied by immediate, sustained but not particularly dramatic reductions in emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases. In response, global warming is expected to peak at just over 2°C towards the end of this century before declining below 2°C early in the next.

Crucially, Zhong and his colleagues break out China’s contribution. In their scenario, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions would peak in the next few years before a steady decline brings them close to zero by 2060. Methane emissions would begin to decline immediately.

There is much to discuss in the relationship between this scenario and China’s latest emission pledge. How much of that 7%-10% reduction in all greenhouse gases by 2035 will be delivered by (very welcome) cuts in methane emissions? Breaking out separate contributions of long-lived (CO₂) and short-lived (like methane) greenhouse gases would be helpful to understand the implications of China’s pledges for global temperature.

Zhong and colleagues see land use changes (such as reforestation) playing only a minimal role in China’s long-term climate plan. So why does Beijing’s new pledge put so much emphasis on planting trees? Is this just a stopgap, or the start of a bigger reliance on land-based carbon dioxide removal?

And while renewables are central to China’s strategy, the country will also need to store captured carbon (from power plants or factories) on a massive scale. The real question may be around how China is going to deliver all this.

That’s why the phrase “while striving to do better” in President Xi’s announcement is so important. The world has a keen interest in China over-delivering.

Why the silence?

But perhaps the most remarkable aspect of all this is how little discussion there has been of the work by Zhong and his colleagues. It was clearly relevant: it came out just as China was preparing its pledge, it was published in one of the world’s top scientific journals, and one co-author has a prominent role in the IPCC. Yet despite all that, it received almost no online attention.

Perhaps most climate commentators were too preoccupied with responding to a very different document: a “critical review” commissioned by the US Department of Energy of greenhouse gas impacts on the US climate.

Whether or not you agreed with their conclusions, Zhong and his team’s paper was rigorous, transparent and peer-reviewed. The US review was none of those things, and already widely criticised as flawed. Yet it dominated headlines and commentary for weeks.

While the world’s second-largest emitter was debating a dodgy dossier, a carefully presented and comprehensive scenario, directly relevant to the climate policies of the world’s largest emitter, passed largely unnoticed.

That’s a missed opportunity. China’s targets aren’t just slogans or aspirations – they are statements of intent, grounded in what the country believes it can deliver. And where China goes, others will follow. Paying attention to analyses like the one from Zhong and his colleagues help us understand both China’s role and the world’s chances of keeping warming below 2°C.

That’s why President Xi’s call to “do better” applies not just to countries, but to scientists, commentators and climate policy-watchers too. Don’t be distracted by the usual suspects flooding the zone.

---

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.

---

Myles Allen’s research receives funding from UKRI, the Oxford Martin School, Horizon Europe and VietJet Air. He chairs the scientific advisory board of Puro.Earth.

Kai Jiang 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. When China makes a climate pledge, the world should listen – https://theconversation.com/when-china-makes-a-climate-pledge-the-world-should-listen-266346

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jamie Hinch, PhD Candidate in Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford

The woman’s eyes blazed as I scanned the feedback form she was showing me. “UN-BELIEVE-ABLE”, read her last word in the form’s final section. It was underlined. An incensed crescendo stabbed and dragged across the page. “Flatty and Pointy are part of us. How could they think about destroying them?” she said, shaking her head in disbelief.

She, like me, had received the form at Cornish Lithium’s recent community consultation. This consultation provided updated details of the mineral exploration company’s plans to reopen Trelavour Pit, a former China clay mine at the top of the Cornish village of St Dennis.

Once mined for kaolin, this time, a new “white gold” is being extracted. Lithium is a critical mineral for the green transition, with demand expected to triple over the next decade due to the increasing electrification of the energy system and the electric vehicles sector.

In west Cornwall, Cornish Lithium are pioneering the mining of lithium from geothermal waters. Pumped from deep in the granite below, the company plans to use a technique known as direct lithium extraction to extract the lithium dissolved in the water, while also capturing the heat for geothermal energy.

Meanwhile, in mid-Cornwall’s Clay Country, Cornish Lithium is proposing more conventional hard rock mining in an existing open pit. However, in revealing the size of the expanded Trelavour Pit, the consultation confirmed the fears of many people in St Dennis: “To enable the proposed development of the site and deliver the economic benefits for Cornwall, these sky tips will need to be removed.”

Sky tips are the sandy waste mounds formed by the China clay industry. But they are heritage as much as waste. Part of the “Cornish Alps”, the sky tips affectionately known as “Flatty” and “Pointy” are emblems for St Dennis, having loomed above the village since the 19th century.

These sky tips have also loomed over my PhD research, which looks at how local communities are experiencing the UK’s new dawn of mining. As the woman’s reaction exemplifies, strong sentiments attached to Flatty and Pointy mean their future is at the core of local responses to the Trelavour Lithium Project. They had been a source of speculation and contention throughout the eight months I lived in St Dennis in 2024.

Outside of the village, critical minerals are the subject of long overdue excitement. As the UK government prepares to release its new critical minerals strategy, there’s renewed enthusiasm for domestic exploration projects for critical minerals such as lithium, tin and tungsten.

Domestic extraction is increasingly considered by western nations as essential for the security and sustainability of mineral supply chains. The return or reshoring of mining to the UK also promises jobs in regions experiencing the decline of employment opportunities through the loss of industry, including Cornwall’s clay country.

As Cornish Lithium highlights, 300 jobs will be created over the Trelavour Lithium Project’s 20-year operation, plus 800 during the construction phase.

Job creation is appreciated in St Dennis, as is Cornish Lithium’s community fund which provides financial support for the vibrant community groups and initiatives in the area. While I lived in the village, locals often lamented the decline of the clay industry, once the primary employer and centre of the community.

This is one of Cornwall’s most deprived areas. Among some, I found a tempered optimism that lithium could rejuvenate the village.

Yet, it is Flatty and Pointy tempering this optimism. While the Clay Country has long been a shifting landscape of pits and tips, blasting and collapsing hills, and villages coming and going, Flatty and Pointy have seemingly transcended this dynamism. In St Dennis residents’ living memory, they have always been there.

For some, the sky tips are dangerous, unsolicited waste. For others, they are gatekeepers to a valuable lithium resource. But in St Dennis, Flatty and Pointy represent unprotected heritage, iconic monuments, access to nature, and a wild, unruly playground. They may not be natural, but they’ve become naturalised within this clayscape as a much-loved landmark.

Yet, not removing the sky tips would present an “ongoing safety risk and make the project unviable”, Cornish Lithium explain. This justification makes sense.

But so too does the injustice felt by many in this village where “all the shit gets dumped in St Dennis” is an oft-repeated, ironic slogan. Lithium mining certainly presents opportunities, but with the loss of Flatty and Pointy, locals worry that it might contribute to this area’s demise too.

The hype for reshoring critical minerals extraction cannot wash over it’s very real consequences for local communities and landscapes. These need not be negative by default. If the mourning period for Flatty and Pointy can be sensitively navigated, a new, more sustainable, mining industry can be reinvigorated in tandem with local communities.

---

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.

---

Jamie Hinch receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council’s Grand Union Doctoral Training Partnership.

– ref. As mining returns to Cornwall, lithium ambitions tussle with local heritage – https://theconversation.com/as-mining-returns-to-cornwall-lithium-ambitions-tussle-with-local-heritage-260525

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jessica Douthwaite, Historian and curator, University of Oxford

To what do we owe our conscience? John le Carré once stated that all his fictional characters were, one way or another, navigating a world where duty to self is not necessarily duty to society.

A new exhibition at the Bodleian Library in Oxford explores John le Carré’s conscience – his personal, political and professional visions. Taking a global angle, the exhibition draws on an abundance of archival material bequeathed to the Bodleian Library special collections and made available to researchers, of whom I am one of the first.

The exhibition, which I curated with Professor of Criminology Federico Varese, takes le Carré’s methodology as a starting point, exploring how he built fictions from real events, people and places. Of the nine novels chosen for this exhibition, each sits within a broader global context and each – whether implicitly or explicitly – pursues a political or social debate.

---

Read more:
John Le Carré: authentic spy fiction that wrote the wrongs of post-war British intelligence

---

Reading le Carré towards the end of his career it’s hard to believe that he was once viewed as a mouthpiece of the British establishment: the upper class, Oxbridge-educated, writerly former spy. And yet, many fondly remember him in nostalgic sepia tones that hark back to an era of plummy post-war accents, tweed suits and quintessentially British (poorly-executed) spy manoeuvres.

However, as he aged, he was increasingly criticised for being too leftwing and outspoken. This was especially the case with Donald Trump’s first presidency and the Brexit referendum.

Le Carré’s privileged position as one of the UK’s best-known, most profitable spy authors made him a ripe target for criticism. Also, with increased publicising of his real past as a spy, working for both MI5 and MI6, came accusations of hypocrisy.

Despite his misdemeanours, le Carré has always questioned how global systems and structures facilitate immorality, profit the richest, exploit the poorest, promote self-interest, and destroy the liberties that are supposed to constitute a “free” society.

This exhibition showcases items and ephemera that have never been on public display. Visitors can see doodles and notes that reveal the inception of his characters and plots, and last minute amendments that chime with the designs of his book covers. Through photography, field notes, handwritten drafts, correspondence, sketches and illustrations it charts le Carré’s life and times through his practices.

Many have speculated on how his own experiences of betrayal, deceit and secrecy fuelled the imagined worlds of his novels. Yet, beyond those interpretations, while curating this exhibition, I realised that le Carré’s method embodied the political points he wanted to make. His worldview is borne out in the idiosyncrasies of his factual research, acute observations, obsession with accuracy, compulsion to travel and interest in the humans behind the news events.

---

Read more:
John le Carré’s archivist: papers reveal a painstaking literary craftsman

---

Le Carré embraced ambiguity: tension caused by ideological, political and romantic conflict was at the heart of the interactions between his characters. This blurring of moral lines was produced in part from the research that he did with expert collaborators. These experts were people who may not have agreed with each other, but through whom le Carré chose to accumulate and amalgamate knowledge in the lead up to drafting his novels.

His network comprised diverse informants, from corporate whistleblowers to humanitarian aid workers. Such breadth of intelligence, gave le Carré an unrivalled insight into the contentions and discord produced by topics like healthcare in the or war developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Weaving real life events with fantasy, le Carré gave equal weight to academic expertise and ordinary experience. Such an approach suggests that to an extent the realities of everyday life mattered more than theory.

His emphasis on interviewing people who knew more than him allowed their stories to reach a much larger audience. He made field trips to experience events and cultures himself. Travel was an exercise in humility, exposing gaps in his knowledge. The act of sharing his work with people for their thoughts and criticism was similarly humbling. Le Carré was glad to be told a description was wrong, a detail inaccurate or a dialogue phoney. He strove for credibility because it underscored the realities of his themes.

The integrity of le Carré’s writing approach was always consistent with his eye for immorality, injustice and lawlessness. Does it matter, then, that with age le Carré became progressively more passionate about the issues he deemed most threatening to global stability: health inequalities, financial transparency, or ethical resource mining, for example?

---

Read more:
John le Carré, MI6 and the fact and fiction of British secret intelligence

---

In 2003, le Carré marched with thousands of protestors against the British government’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq and wrote a polemical article in The Times decrying a new era of paranoid American warfare. For some time after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2004, le Carré even refused to visit the United States.

In a memo written around the same time, le Carré jotted down his thoughts on the purpose of a “political novel”, conversely, he wrote, a “non-political novel accepts the status quo”. Though he was thinking specifically of the contemporary moment of America’s foreign affairs, the status quo has always been under attack in his novels; so, in a sense they have all been political.

John le Carré: Tradecraft is open at The Bodleian Library in Oxford from October 1 2025 to April 6 2026

---

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.

---

Jessica Douthwaite received funding from the AHRC from 2014-2017 and 2021-2024.

– ref. A new exhibition explores John le Carré’s writing process and what it says about his political conscience – https://theconversation.com/a-new-exhibition-explores-john-le-carres-writing-process-and-what-it-says-about-his-political-conscience-264927

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

In a world that rarely slows down, a new wave of “functional beverages” is promising to help us do exactly that. So-called “chill-out drinks”, marketed as natural stress relievers, are appearing in supermarkets and online stores as a calming alternative to caffeinated energy drinks or alcohol. But do they work and are they safe?

These drinks typically combine herbal extracts, amino acids and adaptogens – compounds believed to help the body cope with stress. Popular ingredients include L-theanine, a naturally occurring amino acid in green tea, ashwagandha, lion’s mane mushroom and CBD (cannabidiol). Each has a different scientific story.

L-theanine has been shown to promote relaxation and reduce stress without causing drowsiness. Research suggests it influences brain chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine while lowering cortisol, the body’s primary stress hormone, creating a sense of calm that doesn’t blunt alertness.

Magnesium, a mineral essential for healthy heart and brain function, has also been linked to better sleep and reduced insomnia. Studies indicate that it supports melatonin production and binds to Gaba receptors, which help quiet nerve activity and promote relaxation. Low magnesium levels have been associated with a higher risk of depression, and several trials hint that supplementation may ease depressive symptoms, though more research is needed.

Ashwagandha, a traditional ayurvedic herb, has been shown in clinical trials to lower cortisol and reduce anxiety, though long-term safety data remain limited. The amounts used in those studies are also higher than the doses typically found in ready-to-drink products.

Lion’s mane, a mushroom native to east Asia, has demonstrated stress-reducing effects in small clinical studies, but the evidence base is still relatively slim.

Another popular ingredient, CBD, the non-psychoactive compound derived from cannabis, has shown early promise in reducing anxiety and stress scores compared with placebo, although large, high-quality trials are still lacking.

Part of the appeal of chill-out drinks is their branding. They present a natural, non-intoxicating way to unwind; designed for regular use without the crash of caffeine or the fog of alcohol. For young professionals or anyone seeking a midday mental reset, the idea of cracking open a can of calm can be tempting. And sometimes the ritual matters as much as the recipe: the very act of slowing down to enjoy a drink can create its own sense of pause.

---

Read more:
Why do smart people get hooked on wellness trends? Personality traits may play a role

---

Despite their wholesome image, these beverages are not risk-free. Herbal compounds can interact with prescription medicines or cause side-effects, especially when consumed in high doses or alongside other supplements.

Ashwagandha can interfere with thyroid medications and immunosuppressants. CBD may alter liver enzyme activity and interact with drugs such as antidepressants.

High intakes of magnesium can lead to diarrhoea and may clash with certain antibiotics or osteoporosis medicines. Lion’s mane appears to be well tolerated so far, but researchers still know little about its long-term effects.

Another concern is quality control. The functional beverage market is only lightly regulated, so the potency and purity of ingredients can vary considerably from brand to brand. That’s a particular worry for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding or managing chronic health conditions, and it underscores the importance of checking labels and seeking medical advice before making chill-out drinks part of a daily routine.

---

Read more:
Do wellness patches work? How to tell the good from the bad

---

A can of calm may offer a brief sense of relief, but these drinks are no substitute for professional mental health care. Chronic anxiety, depression or ongoing sleep problems require proper diagnosis and treatment. While chill-out drinks might help take the edge off a hectic day, they cannot address the underlying causes of stress.

These beverages tap into a broader wellness trend that reflects our collective desire to slow down and feel better. Their ingredients show some promise and, when used mindfully and in moderation, they may play a small part in managing everyday stress. Just don’t mistake them for a cure-all: a chilled drink can be a pleasant pause, but lasting calm still depends on the habits and support systems that lie beyond the can.

Dipa Kamdar 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. Calm in a can? Here’s what the evidence says about the chill-out drink craze – https://theconversation.com/calm-in-a-can-heres-what-the-evidence-says-about-the-chill-out-drink-craze-263934

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Hardy, Postdoctoral research associate, University of Liverpool

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced that all UK citizens and legal residents are to have a mandatory digital ID to prove their right to live and work in the country.

Starmer and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey have cited Estonia as an example of where digital IDs have proven successful. Davey noted that “times have changed” since the unsuccessful ID card plan under the Blair government.

He also enthused about the liberal Estonian government that had delivered digital IDs while maintaining liberal values. He has now chosen to row back on that position due to pressure from within his party.

The government has, driven by political necessity, led with claims about how the digital ID can minimise illegal working and misuse of public services as it seeks to build a consensus with the public for its plans.

Nevertheless, it needs to navigate concerns from both the political left and right. The Estonian case remains perhaps the leading example of digital ID in Europe, and is a particularly mature case, with more than two decades of success to highlight.

I have a long track record researching the politics of digitalisation, and spent several years living in Estonia. Drawing from that experience, there are various opportunities and pitfalls the UK government needs to be aware of.

Opportunities include enhanced public service delivery through efficiency. No more
arduous need to prove who you are with paper bills, driving licences and different
authentication processes for each service. In Estonia, a technology system, dubbed “X-Road”, allows all relevant organisations to securely interact with digital ID holders.

The UK could potentially emulate this model. It can minimise the grey economy (economic activities that are not taxed or monitored by the government). It can also prevent illegal work and tax avoidance, prevent false benefit claims and speed up interactions with the state.

Digital society

Estonia saves around 2% GDP annually thanks to the use of digital signatures to cut bureaucracy. “E-Estonia” (the Estonian term for their “digital society”) is closely associated with stimulating economic growth by empowering business creation.

Estonia has the highest per capita number of start-up unicorns – tech companies now valued at over US$1 billion (£743 million). Given the UK government’s focus on AI and the tech industry as a way to “turbocharge” the economy, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the potential for digital IDs in Britain.

Amid widespread scepticism from the left and right, trust can be built through positive experience. If a service works, evidence from Estonia has suggested that it enhances public trust and can be expanded further.

A popular critique is that digital ID represents a security and privacy risk. Of course, any data can be potentially hacked or leaked. However, security and privacy is built into the system in the form of a decentralised data exchange, the X-Road, that provides timestamps and records of access.

This ensures only appropriate people have access to digital ID data and is designed to reassure the user. In Estonia, people can identify themselves in various ways, for example using a physical ID card inserted into a card reader or SmartID – another system for authenticating users online – using a mobile device.

There’s also plenty of evidence that shows this system works well. It can also be complimented by positive experiences once the system is actually working. General research on technological acceptance shows that users judge any given innovation on its perceived usefulness and attitudes toward it.

In Estonia, the public quickly adapted to services that made a demonstrable positive impact. However, Estonia proved that it could work with and adapt the technology at pace.

The UK government has promised to roll out the scheme by the “end of parliament”, which contrasts with Estonia passing a bill in the Riigikogu – Estonia’s unicameral parliament – in 2000, having a working pilot in 2001 and progressing to national deployment on December 17 2001. Ensuring that development does not run over time and budget could enhance trust, perhaps by adapting existing technology.

Transparency vital

Beyond usefulness, transparency is vital. Transparency in how the digital ID will
work, who will be able to access data and accountability for misuse must be carefully considered, communicated and rules rigorously enforced.

Estonia has established strong legislation to this effect and punished those who have broken these laws. It has also been transparent in events of failure. Ultimately, the devil will be in the detail and the success of Britain’s digital ID may be determined as much by politics as by the technology.

Nevertheless, key questions remain around authentication processes (to ensure people are who they say they are) and systems. Who will develop, implement and maintain the project? Crucially, how much will it cost and when will it be ready? The British state has a poor recent record of project delivery generally, including in the realm of major digital investment.

Public spending has frequently run over schedule and over budget. The NHS track and trace app, for example, was extremely costly, not widely used and marred by claims that it did not actually help prevent the spread of Covid-19.

Estonia is far from the only nation using digital ID, and much criticism in the UK relates to ID in general. Many functioning democracies across Europe and beyond
mandate ID in some form, often digitally. This will increase with the EU’s eIDAs (electronic identification, authentication and trust services) 2.0 regulation – which is designed to ensure secure cross-border monetary transactions, with a focus on electronic identification.

Yet in Estonia, users are not mandated to use it by law. In Estonia, you can throw your card in a drawer and not bother with any aspect of the digital state, if you like. Nor do you need to produce it on command.

The lesson from the Baltic nation is that a functional digital ID will not necessarily turn Britain into a police state. But if implemented quickly, efficiently and transparently, it could modernise the British state.

Alex Hardy 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 the UK plans to introduce digital IDs, what can it learn from pioneer Estonia? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-uk-plans-to-introduce-digital-ids-what-can-it-learn-from-pioneer-estonia-266303

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin

The US president, Donald Trump, unveiled a 20-point proposal to end the war in Gaza on September 29. The plan proposes an immediate end to the fighting and the release of all Israeli hostages held by Hamas in exchange for hundreds of detained Gazans. It also includes the promise of humanitarian aid for Palestinians and reconstruction in Gaza.

Whether Israel and Hamas ultimately reach a deal remains to be seen. Trump’s proposal has been accepted by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, though it has been rejected by hard-right members of Israel’s governing coalition. Hamas is yet to respond.

More unanimous has been the response of leaders elsewhere in the Arab or Muslim world, who say they are ready to engage with the US to finalise and implement the agreement. We spoke to Scott Lucas, a Middle East expert at Dublin City University, about where these states fit into the peace plan.

Which Arab and Muslim countries support Trump’s peace plan?

Most Arab and Muslim countries are backing the 20-point sketch. Officials from these states reportedly met their US counterparts on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York last week to discuss Trump’s framework to end the war.

The foreign ministers of eight states – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt – then welcomed Trump’s “sincere efforts” towards ending the war in a joint statement on September 29. They asserted their “confidence in his ability to find a path to peace”.

There are multiple reasons for their backing. Arab and Muslim leaders may just want the mass killing of Gaza’s civilians to stop. The Gaza Health Ministry says over 66,000 Palestinians have now been killed since the war began two years ago.

At the same time, they are concerned about regional security. Israel has launched strikes on Lebanon, Syria and Yemen in recent weeks. And it smashed Qatar’s sovereignty on September 9 with an airstrike in the capital, Doha, trying to assassinate Hamas negotiators.

These leaders are not fans of Hamas, with some of them perceiving the organisation as a threat to internal stability in their countries. Privately, they may welcome the degradation of the group. But publicly they have to express solidarity with the Palestinian people.

So, how can these countries curb Israel’s military operations? The approach cannot come directly from them. Even as Qatar was mediating peace talks, Netanyahu’s ministers were declaring that it was a supporter of “terrorism” because of its role in hosting Hamas political leadership. Israel had to be reached through its essential backer: Donald Trump.

Feeding ideas to Trump officials such as his envoy, the real estate developer Steve Witkoff, the Arab and Muslim countries could get some leverage against Netanyahu. And chasing lucrative economic, technological and AI deals with the US, they could play up Trump’s self-declared image of peacemaker.

What role have these states agreed to play as part of the plan?

Like the 20-point sketch, the role of Arab and Muslim states in delivering peace to Gaza is far vaguer than their motives. They would have input into the international “Board of Peace”, nominally headed by Trump, supervising the “temporary, transitional government of Palestinian technocrats”.

They would also be involved in the development of an “international stabilisation force”. The Trump proposal states that this force will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will work to secure border areas. But it is unclear if Arab states will contribute security personnel.

There could be economic benefits for these countries from the reconstruction of Gaza with a long-term ceasefire and stability. But those possibilities are unclear in the interim. Trump’s sketch talked only about “the convening of experts with experience in constructing modern Middle East cities” to consider plans “attracting investments and creating jobs”.

---

Read more:
Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza is deeply flawed but it may be the best offer Hamas can expect

---

Are these governments out of step with public sentiment in their countries?

Arab and Muslim governments have been manoeuvring between Israel, the US and Palestine for many years. They have also been walking a tightrope between external relationships and their publics.

Chide Israel too strongly and risk the loss of the “normalisation” project, with its economic and political benefits. Appear weak in the face of the Netanyahu government, and risk discontent and a loss of legitimacy with their constituents.

Those calculations have fed into the sketch. For the first time, there is a specific clause that Gazans should not be displaced for the development of Trump’s envisioned “Riviera of the Middle East” or for the vision of Netanyahu’s hard-right ministers of long-term Israeli occupation.

Arab and Muslim officials recently highlighted the danger of those Israeli ministers – and possibly Netanyahu – declaring annexation of the West Bank in response to the march of countries recognising a Palestinian state. The Trump administration responded by telling their Israeli allies that annexation was a red line which could not be crossed.

---

Read more:
The UK, France, Canada and Australia have recognised Palestine – what does that mean? Expert Q&A

---

Does the two-state solution remain a red line for the Arab states?

Historically, Arab States have not necessarily put a priority on a two-state resolution. It was the US that propelled the Oslo process, which was supposed to bring about Palestinian self-determination in the form of a Palestinian state, all the way to failure at the Camp David summit in 2000.

Then, in 2002, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia made a proposal for all Arab states to recognise Israel in exchange for its complete withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories. However, it was the US that again led publicly for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement until another failure in 2009 during the Obama administration.

There has also arguably been more emphasis in recent years among some Arab states on “normalisation” rather than the two-state solution. But Israel’s campaign in Gaza, combined with the Trump administration’s fervent backing of the Netanyahu government, may have altered this.

Arab states have to evaluate if they are going to ride the international wave towards an emphasis on recognition of Palestine as a state. Alongside France, Saudi Arabia led a forum in New York in September on a two-state outcome.

Trump wants more states to normalise relations with Israel, naming Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia as candidates. How likely is this?

This one is easy. The Netanyahu government’s military approach towards Hamas, rather than an emphasis on political and economic measures to isolate the group, has put normalisation beyond the acceptable for Middle Eastern states.

As long as Israel is killing, starving, displacing and dehumanising Gaza’s civilians, the UAE and Bahrain will be cautious about their recognition of Israel in 2020. Any talk of expanding that recognition with other states – despite the bluster of Trump and Netanyahu – is a wish at best.

More likely, it is deceptive politics as Netanyahu banks on Hamas accepting the ultimatum – or having the pretext of a Hamas rejection for even more intense Israeli military operations in Gaza and an occupation for the foreseeable future.

Scott Lucas 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. Where does the Arab and Muslim world stand on Trump’s Gaza peace plan? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/where-does-the-arab-and-muslim-world-stand-on-trumps-gaza-peace-plan-expert-qanda-266393

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nando Sigona, Professor of International Migration and Forced Displacement and Director of the Institute for Research into International Migration and Superdiversity, University of Birmingham

In her address to the Labour party conference, the new home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, confirmed plans to overhaul the rules for indefinite leave to remain (ILR). These include increasing the time someone must live in the UK to be eligible for ILR from five years to ten.

ILR is the immigration status that grants non-citizens the right to live and work in the UK without time restrictions. For many, it is the final step before naturalisation as a British citizen.

Mahmood said that the government will soon consult on changes to ILR eligibility: “I will be proposing a series of new tests such as being in work, making National Insurance contributions, not taking a penny in benefits, learning English to a high standard, having no criminal record, and finally, that you have truly given back to your community such as by volunteering your time to a local cause.”

Labour is seeking to outflank Reform UK on migration. Nigel Farage’s party has embraced a Trumpian style of anti-migration populism – mixing hardline rhetoric about “taking back control” with attacks on elites and institutions acting against the interests of “ordinary people”.

Labour’s counter is to accuse Reform of racism while adopting restrictive policies of its own, dressed in the language of fairness and contribution. The aim is to reassure voters tempted by Reform that Labour will be just as tough, but without the overt scapegoating of foreigners.

But in doing so, Labour risks a migration politics that divides society into the fully entitled and the permanently probationary. In this hierarchical system of belonging, migrants are kept on extended probation and judged by standards never applied to British nationals.

For decades, integration has been understood as a two-way process: migrants adapt to life in Britain, while institutions and communities adapt to diversity. Mahmood’s proposals change this understanding.

---

Read more:
Homelessness, fear of starvation and racism – destitute migrant mothers and their children on the reality of life in the UK

---

Under the current rules, settlement comes after five years of lawful residence. Applicants must meet conditions such as stable residence, English language and passing the “Life in the UK” test.

The new proposals significantly raise the bar, doubling the qualifying period from five to ten years. Eligibility requirements – from avoiding any benefits to volunteering time in the community – would impose a more stringent performance of moral worth.

These changes would have a negative impact on migrants and their families. Doubling the time period prolongs insecurity, leaving parents and children unable to plan their futures with confidence, from buying a home to pursuing education. It risks entrenching precariousness across generations.

It creates a tiered model of membership: citizens at the top, enjoying unconditional rights; long-term migrants below, required to constantly demonstrate they are “good enough” to remain.

As Mahmood’s own words show, some may even be “barred from indefinite leave to remain entirely”. This would create a class of residents allowed to remain only on a lesser tier of permission, never able to settle or feel secure. Politically, this approach may even hand ammunition to Reform, which can claim that if people are not “good enough” to stay permanently, they should not be here at all.

It echoes temporary migration regimes such as those in Asia. In such schemes, migrants are deliberately kept in a state of conditionality – useful as workers, but never recognised as members of society.

Mahmood’s reform moves away from the idea of integration as a two-way process towards a top-down, one-way demand for assimilation: to be accepted, foreigners must become “like us” and behave better than “us”. Yet there is little clarity about who this “us” refers to, or what values it is meant to embody. Such ambiguity allows policymakers to set shifting and arbitrary standards of belonging.

Never good enough

Rather than building cohesion, such insecurity risks producing the opposite: disenfranchisement among those left in limbo, and heightened suspicion among the wider public, who are encouraged to believe that migrants must continually prove themselves. Far from calming anxieties, this strategy risks fuelling them.

Research consistently shows that insecure legal status is one of the greatest barriers to social integration. It limits migrants’ ability to invest in housing, education and long-term community ties, while also feeding mistrust and exclusion.

The proposals also raise serious practical questions. How will a “high standard” of English be measured, and by whom? What counts as “giving back” to a community? Does working double shifts in a hospital carry the same weight as volunteering in a charity shop?

Those who cannot meet every test – because of illness, disability, insecure employment, caring responsibilities, or simply long hours that leave no time for volunteering – may find themselves waiting even longer for settlement, or excluded entirely.

Migrants already contribute in innumerable ways – through taxes, essential labour, caregiving and community life. Non-UK nationals make up 16% of the health and social care workforce, and more than a quarter of NHS doctors. During the pandemic, migrants were disproportionately represented in frontline “essential jobs” that kept the country running.

Experience also suggests that such conditions will be applied inconsistently, producing confusion, costly appeals and injustice. The UK immigration system already generates high rates of error.

For asylum applications submitted between 2019-2022, 54% of asylum appeals were upheld by the tribunal. Adding vague and subjective tests of “contribution” will only multiply these problems.

By shifting the goalposts on ILR, Labour turns integration into an endless exam. Belonging becomes a privilege for the few, rather than recognition of shared life and contribution over time. The cost will be borne not just by migrants but by their children and families – left in prolonged insecurity, unable to plan their futures.

Nando Sigona receives funding from UKRI/ Horizon Europe for “Improving the living and working conditions of irregularised migrant households in Europe” (I-CLAIM).

– ref. Labour’s plan for migrants to ‘earn’ permanent residency turns belonging into an endless exam – https://theconversation.com/labours-plan-for-migrants-to-earn-permanent-residency-turns-belonging-into-an-endless-exam-266382

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Kelly, Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry, Sheffield Hallam University

The UK government has announced plans to expand its trial of using drugs to reduce the libido of male sex offenders. The approach, often described as “chemical castration”, is controversial. But how does it work – and what are the risks?

Castration traditionally meant removing or disabling the testes, a man’s main source of testosterone, to blunt the hormone’s masculinising effects. Historically, this was done to create castrati – singers castrated before puberty to preserve their high voices – or eunuchs, often used in royal courts and religious institutions to dampen sexual desire.

Modern castration still has a medical role, particularly in prostate cancer. This disease is fuelled by testosterone, and lowering hormone levels can slow its growth. While surgical removal of the testes was once common, doctors now usually rely on drugs to block testosterone production instead – a method known as chemical castration.

Normally, testosterone is regulated by a feedback loop between the brain, pituitary gland and testes called the hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis. The brain signals the pituitary to release hormones that stimulate the testes. Once levels rise, the brain senses it and dials production back down.

Anti-androgen drugs disrupt this system, either by blocking testosterone’s effects or by shutting down the brain’s signals. Drugs such as medroxyprogesterone acetate and cyproterone acetate work by switching off the body’s testosterone supply.

Testosterone is central to libido. It acts on brain regions like the hypothalamus and limbic system, which help drive sexual thoughts, desire and arousal. Reducing testosterone can lower these urges, while also affecting physical aspects of sex, such as the ability to achieve and maintain an erection.

The government’s proposals include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), drugs more commonly prescribed for depression and anxiety. SSRIs increase serotonin in the brain, which can lift mood, but they also reduce sexual desire and performance as a side-effect by interfering with dopamine.

Dopamine is the brain’s main “reward” chemical, strongly linked to pleasure, motivation and sexual behaviour. Serotonin, on the other hand, tends to calm and regulate emotions, often dampening sexual drive. By boosting serotonin, SSRIs can tip this balance – reducing dopamine activity and lowering sexual interest.

When combined with anti-androgens, the two treatments can act on both hormonal and neurological pathways, blunting both the physical and psychological aspects of sex drive.

This dual approach has already been used in other countries. Poland introduced it as a mandatory punishment for certain offenders in 2009, while in south-west England it has been trialled on a voluntary basis, with “successful outcomes” reported.

Not without risks

The UK’s current proposal is also voluntary, aimed at people struggling with persistent and distressing sexual thoughts that they do not want and actively seek help to control. But while it may reduce reoffending, the treatment is not without risks.

Testosterone plays a vital role in many aspects of health. Long-term suppression has been linked to early death, higher risk of heart attacks and strokes, type 2 diabetes, loss of muscle and bone strength, as well as possible links with Alzheimer’s and breast tissue growth in men.

There are also psychological risks. Testosterone influences mood, and its suppression has been associated with higher rates of depression and even suicidal thoughts and behaviour.

Chemical castration may well prove useful in preventing future sexual offences. But policymakers must weigh its benefits against serious health risks. And given the already high rates of mental health problems among offenders, there is concern that some may not fully understand the consequences of long-term testosterone suppression – physically, psychologically and socially.

Daniel Kelly 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 expands chemical castration pilot programme for sex offenders – but what are the risks? – https://theconversation.com/uk-expands-chemical-castration-pilot-programme-for-sex-offenders-but-what-are-the-risks-266026

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Prior, Lecturer in Politics with International Relations, London South Bank University

At Labour’s 2025 conference, Starmer’s chosen political narrative has been to draw a line between himself and Nigel Farage, between Labour and Reform – a choice between “decency and decline”. Labour represents a progressive patriotism and national renewal – and Reform a backwards-facing “politics of grievance”.

Establishing a clear line that separates Reform from Labour (and from as much of the electorate as possible) is all the more urgent a task since the latest polling suggests 29% of voters choose Reform and only 21% Labour. Judging by how often Reform were mentioned in Starmer’s speech, in contrast with the Tories (about whom Starmer quipped, “Remember them?”), Labour appears to have accepted Reform as the main opposition.

While this decision is partly due to polling, it may also derive from a broader perception of Reform as Labour’s biggest existential threat. “The politics of grievance,” Starmer told the audience, clearly referring to Reform, “is the biggest threat we face.”

Starmer’s conference speech welded Labour’s narrative to Reform: for him, victory for the former must come at the expense of the latter. Starmer would probably avoid this terminology personally, but the narrative is very much “us versus them”. Talk of a “dividing line” may be putting it too mildly, after all. Starmer now speaks of a “a fight for the soul of our country”.

And what sort of country does the prime minister want the UK to be? On the morning of Starmer’s speech, his senior minister Darren Jones promised conference attendees that the PM would explain the “journey” that we are all about to go on. Lest we forget – as BBC chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman pointed out – we are only 14 months after an enormous Labour election win.

Keep your enemies close

Labour’s narrative is defined by Reform to a huge extent, not just in electoral strategy but in basic rhetoric. If you saw a transcript of a speech about “national renewal”, and heard a politician attack complacent adherence to a status quo of globalisation and free movement, you’d perhaps assume it came from the political right.

Starmer clearly wants to wrestle a narrative of “renewal”, “patriotism”, “national pride”, away from the right-wing and rebrand them as traditional Labour values. He attached related terms were to the NHS – and presented Reform as an immediate threat to that institution.

It is significant that, for all the abstract talk of a struggle for the soul of the country, the antagonists were specific. A left-right struggle was done away with for a battle on a different front. Starmer took aim at “snake oil merchants on the right, and on the left”, fully aware that threats to his premiership (and to Labour itself) exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

Starmer also argued that he’d heard “enough lectures from self-appointed champions of working people”. Though this was explicitly directed towards figures like former prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, it can also be understood as a rebuke to some on the left.

This is, on some level, also a battle for the working class – and class was explicitly mentioned many times. Starmer said he made no apology if his plans “lean towards the working class” and stated that too often, people have been overlooked and ignored by politicians specifically because of their class.

In the past, Starmer has drawn on his own life story when talking about class, but this time pulled away from that, sometimes for comic effect, for example saying that the audience probably already knew what his father did for a living. This was very much a speech about the party’s future, and the country’s future, not about Starmer’s past.

One of the principles of good storytelling is knowing your audience. It is all the more significant that the Labour conference has not been the jubilant atmosphere we might have expected for a party so recently elected to government. Starmer knew that he had to unite the party around a common cause, and in the face of a common threat. We now know exactly who, and what, that is.

Alex Prior 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. Labour conference: Starmer takes aim at political opponents but ties his own future to Reform – https://theconversation.com/labour-conference-starmer-takes-aim-at-political-opponents-but-ties-his-own-future-to-reform-266003

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julie M. Norman, Senior Associate Fellow on the Middle East at RUSI; Associate Professor in Politics & International Relations, UCL

The 20-point Gaza peace plan thrashed out under the leadership of the United States and agreed to by Israel is one of the most comprehensive outlines put forward publicly by the Trump administration for ending the conflict with Hamas.

The plan reportedly has the buy-in of the Arab states as well as the UK and France. It could mark a pivotal point for ending the war.

But Hamas was not involved in developing the plan and has yet to give an answer (although it is reportedly studying the details). And it may be that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has already doomed the project by declaring that Israel would “forcibly resist” a Palestinian state, apparently contradicting the plan he has just endorsed.

But beyond Hamas’s response, plenty of questions remain. The proposal is more a framework than a detailed plan and there are many points that require further negotiations and additional clarification for both parties.

Any agreement to end the war may fracture Netanyahu’s governing coalition. His finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich has already signalled his intention to oppose the plan, calling it a “resounding diplomatic failure” that would “end in tears”. So it is far from clear that Netanyahu can secure the agreement of his own parliamentary backers.

Hamas, meanwhile, is likely to view the plan as less of a proposal and more of an ultimatum. Both Netanyahu and Trump were clear that if Hamas rejects the plan, Israel will – in Trump’s words – “finish the job”, with all the further death and destruction that entails.

What would Hamas gain?

But the plan does include some things Hamas wants. For that reason it’s probably the best offer it is likely to get from the US and Israel. The war will immediately end. Israel will release nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees – including 1,700 Gazans detained since 2023. Hamas members who disarm and accept coexistence with Israel will be given amnesty and allowed to leave if they choose.

Israel will not annex or “occupy” Gaza, the plans says. But it calls for Israel to have a security perimeter around the enclave and it’s not yet clear when Israeli troops will withdraw. Many Palestinians will view any remaining Israeli or international military presence as occupation.

The plan also promises to bring much needed relief to civilians via the restoration of humanitarian aid (on terms agreed in the January 2025 ceasefire). And it recognises the central role of the United Nations (along with the Red Crescent) in administering the aid – a key concession.

And, crucially, nobody will be forced to leave. In fact the plans says that people will be encouraged to stay. And those who do wish to leave will be able to do so and will be free to return.

What are the red flags for Hamas?

But Hamas is likely to see numerous red flags in the plan. Earlier in the year it was reported that some of the group’s leaders were open to phased decommissioning of arms.

But it will be difficult for the organisation to commit to full disarmament and demilitarisation, especially if swaths of Gaza (and other parts of Palestine) remain under Israeli control and the terms of Israeli withdrawal remain unspecified. Hamas will likely push for much clearer timelines for IDF withdrawal before committing to any type of public disarmament process.

The plan is also vague on any guarantees that the war would not just start up again after Hamas releases the hostages. Hostilities will end immediately the agreement is signed, followed by a 72-hour period to allow for all hostages to be released.

Hamas will want to see further assurances from the US and regional partners that the war will not resume once Israel has its hostages back. This has been a stumbling block previously.

It will also be difficult for Hamas to agree to signing over Gaza’s governance and redevelopment to non-Palestinians – especially to a body headed by Donald Trump. The plan envisions a two-tiered model for governance. The day-to-day running of services will be done by an apolitical, technocratic Palestinian committee.

It’s not yet clear who they will be – or who will select them. Sitting above them in an oversight role will be a new international transitional body. The so-called “Board of Peace” will be chaired by Trump and include other members and heads of state – including Tony Blair.

The former UK prime minister appears to have the support of Israel and some regional leaders. But he is a controversial choice for most Palestinians. Not only was he a prime mover in the “coalition of the willing” which accompanied George W. Bush’s Americans into Iraq. But also his leadership from 2007 to 2015 of the Quartet – a mediating body for the Israel-Palestine peace process – has been criticised as ineffective and too pro-western business.

---

Read more:
The 5 big problems with Trump’s Gaza peace plan

---

There’s also ambiguity surrounding the future role of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in governance of Gaza. The 20-point plan specifies that this would not happen until the PA has completed the reform process outlined in Trump’s previous plan.

It is not clear who would define or assess those reforms. And, in any case, Netanyahu has flatly rejected any role for the PA in Gaza.

The plan is also intentionally noncommittal when it comes to Palestinian statehood. There is a carefully worded statement that recognises Palestinian self-determination and statehood as the aspiration of the Palestinian people, and suggests future conditions may allow for a pathway to take shape.

But Netanyahu has been clear that he will resist any moves towards Palestinian statehood. There is no mention of any framework for negotiations towards statehood in this agreement.

Gazans are desperate for the devastation to end. And Hamas is likely well aware that Trump’s plan, however flawed, is the best offer it will get from the US and Israel.

The question is if the parties involved are willing to work through the sticking points, or if they will frame any objections as a rejection and an excuse to continue the war.

Julie M. Norman 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. Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza is deeply flawed but it may be the best offer Hamas can expect – https://theconversation.com/trumps-20-point-plan-for-gaza-is-deeply-flawed-but-it-may-be-the-best-offer-hamas-can-expect-266373