Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By James Trapani, Associate Lecturer of History and International Relations, Western Sydney University

After a week of speculation, the US Department of Justice has officially indicted Raúl Castro, the 94-year-old ex-president of Cuba.

The charges relate to a 1996 incident in which the Cuban military allegedly shot down two unarmed civilian planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue.

The news comes amid mounting US pressure on the ailing Cuban Republic to change its system of government after 67 years of revolutionary rule.

So why did the United States act now, and what will happen next?

Who is Raúl Castro?

Raúl Castro is the younger brother of Cuban revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro. He joined Fidel’s movement to overthrow the authoritarian US ally, Fulgencio Batista, starting in 1952. He participated in the assault on the Moncada Barracks on July 26 1953, becoming a founding member of the M-26-7 guerrilla movement, the leading organisation in the Cuban revolution.

In 1958, he rose to the rank of comandante of the Second Eastern Front. He came to Washington’s attention in June when he kidnapped a group of 50 US Marines to prevent the continued aerial bombardment of his troops and local villagers.

This was a pivotal moment when Raúl become more than Fidel’s brother – he was now a key leader of the revolution.

By late 1958, Raúl Castro’s army had liberated much of eastern Cuba from the Batista regime and began marching on Havana to conclude the revolution.

From January 1959, Castro became the defence minister at a time when fighting was ongoing. For decades, he was the face of Cuba’s military and the island’s defence.

When, in April 1961, a group of 1,400 Cuban exiles, supported by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), attacked Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, Castro’s military secured a famous victory against the exiles, and the US.

He would also rise through the civilian and party ranks in Cuba. From 1976, he served as vice president and then succeeded his ageing brother as president from 2008, a position he would hold until 2019.

Raúl Castro remained atop the Communist Party until 2021 and is still viewed as influential in Cuba’s politics. Castro is a soldier, a politician and, above all, a revolutionary who toppled a pivotal US ally and resisted US pressure for decades.

However, Cuba is an authoritarian state that does not tolerate dissent. In 2003, Fidel Castro’s government, of which Raúl Castro was apart, detained dozens of pro-democracy advocates in an event dubbed the “black spring”. One of those detained, José Daniel Ferrer, founder of the Patriotic Union of Cuba, called on the US to stand with the opposition forces in 2025.

What is he accused of doing?

Cuba has been subject to a blockade by the US since 1960. It was also subject to an embargo by the members of the Organisation of American States (OAS), which includes almost all the countries in the Western Hemisphere, between 1964 and 2009.

The economic survival of Cuba has always been dependent on the support of a large nation willing to supply it with fuel.

During the Cold War, that was the Soviet Union, whose 1991 collapse was devastating for Cuba and its government. The “Special Period” following 1991 saw fuel shortages, declining food production, social unrest and large-scale emigration from Cuba.

Cuban exiles boarded unstable flotillas in their tens of thousands, hoping to join other exiles in Florida. The Clinton administration in the US eventually allowed for mass migration and the US Coast Guard was regularly helping to save stranded Cubans. Despite this, dozens of people drowned at sea.

A group of Cuban exiles, led by self-declared “Bay of Pigs veteran”, José Basulto, flew reconnaissance flights and reported the location of stranded Cubans to the Coast Guard.

But the flights had other motives. On several occasions, the planes flew into Cuban airspace, ignored warnings and dropped propaganda designed to trigger anti-government activity.

Records made public by William LeoGrande and Peter Kornbluh, authors of a book on the topic, reveal the US knew of these operations and feared Cuba would eventually shoot down the planes, creating an international incident.

On February 24 1996, the Cuban military indeed shot down two planes, killing all four people on board.

Now, 30 years later, the US Department of Justice alleges that Castro, the then-defence minister, and six others are criminally responsible for the murders of the four men, three of whom were US citizens.

The US attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason A Reding Quiñones, said “this passage of time does not erase murder”.

Why is the US acting now?

Cuba is again suffering under a US blockade, this time initiated following the removal of its fuel guarantor, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January.

New Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez was pressured into ending oil shipments to the island, as were Mexico and other regional partners under the threat of crippling tariffs.

Cuba declared last Thursday it had no fuel or diesel remaining at all. Meanwhile, the humanitarian conditions worsen. Amnesty International reported in 2025 that most Cubans were struggling to find sufficient food and medicine.

In a historic visit in recent days, CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke with members of the Cuban government in a sign of potential regime change.

President Donald Trump has also highlighted his motives on Cuba this week, saying “to a lot of people it’s going to be one of the most important things, they’ve been looking for this moment for 65 years”.

Cuban-Americans have indeed been pushing for the removal of the Castros since the 1960s.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a Cuban-American, commemorated Cuba’s 1902 Independence Day by delivering the following message to the Cuban people, in Spanish:

and I want to tell you that we, in the US, are offering to help you not only to alleviate the current crisis but also to build a better future.

The message condemned the Cuban government, and Raúl Castro, as corrupt. He called for regime change, referring to the current Cuban president, Miguel Díaz-Canel.

The indictment of Castro is about more than justice for one man. It’s about Cuban-American politics in Florida, and it’s about the looming potential of regime change in Cuba, America’s primary regional foe for the past 67 years.

James Trapani 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. Why has the US indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-the-us-indicted-former-cuban-president-raul-castro-283467

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

In a video posted by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Wednesday night, detained activists from dozens of countries are shown kneeling on the ground with their foreheads on the floor and hands zip-tied behind their backs.

Some of the activists, who had been intercepted by Israeli forces on a flotilla in the Mediterranean Sea, are then pushed and dragged by Israeli personnel. Ben-Gvir is seen waving an Israeli flag and taunting them.

The video on his X account had a simple message in English: “Welcome to Israel”.

The video sparked widespread international condemnation. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong called it “shocking and unacceptable”, while the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said the treatment of the detainees was “degrading and wrong”.

Even Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel and a stalwart supporter of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, called Ben-Gvir’s actions “despicable”, saying he had “betrayed the dignity of his nation”.

Netanyahu himself also publicly rebuked Ben-Gvir. He said Israel had the right to stop the flotilla, but the minister’s behaviour had damaged Israel’s image and did not reflect the country’s values.

Even though international lawyers like myself have expressed concern about this on multiple occasions, it bears repeating: international law matters in conflict zones.

So, what obligations does Israel have to treat those detained by its forces, and did the country violate the law?

Why were the activists detained?

Israeli forces began intercepting the Gaza-bound Global Sumud flotilla on Monday in international waters off the coast of Cyprus. Dozens of boats were stopped as they attempted to challenge Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza.

The flotilla reportedly carried more than 400 activists from over 40 countries. Those on board included humanitarian volunteers, medical personnel, peace activists and civil society figures. Organisers said the vessels were carrying humanitarian relief supplies, including food, medicine and other aid intended for Palestinian civilians affected by the war and blockade of Gaza.

Israel disputed the flotilla’s aid-delivery purpose and described it as “a PR stunt at the service of Hamas”.

After those on board were arrested, they were reportedly subjected to violence, with some suffering suspected broken ribs and other injuries.

In a post on X, the Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed Israel was acting in full accordance with international law.

What does the law say?

Under international humanitarian law, those involved in the transport and distribution of relief supplies must be respected and protected during armed conflict. They are to be treated as civilians so long as they do not directly take part in hostilities.

Bringing aid to the civilians of Gaza does not amount to “direct participation in hostilities”. In fact, the International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to allow aid into Gaza given their obligations under the Genocide Convention.

International humanitarian law also says civilians may not be detained arbitrarily in conflict zones. If civilians are detained, however, they have certain rights under international law. They must:

• be informed of the reasons for their detention

• be able to challenge the detention decision

• receive adequate food, hygiene and medical care

• be given access to lawyers and consular representatives, in addition to contact with their families, and

• be held in conditions consistent with health and humanity.

Internment of civilians is only permitted when “absolutely necessary” for security reasons. It must end once those reasons no longer exist.

In addition, civilians detained during armed conflict must be treated humanely at all times.

They are to be protected from:

• violence and torture

• cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment

• intimidation and insults, and

• “public curiosity” or degrading public exposure.

The phrase “public curiosity” has historically been understood to prohibit humiliating displays of detainees for propaganda, intimidation or public spectacle.

Intentional attacks against humanitarian personnel can amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Why does this matter?

The public humiliation and degrading treatment of the activists shown in the footage must be scrutinised and investigated. And Israeli officials must comply with their obligations under the law.

These protections exist precisely to preserve a minimum standard of humanity during conflict, and to ensure civilians and humanitarian actors are not stripped of their dignity for political theatre, intimidation or punishment.

When such conduct is normalised or left unchallenged, it risks undermining the broader international legal framework designed to protect all civilians caught up in armed conflict.

Shannon Bosch 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. Taunting and degrading civilians in armed conflict is a clear violation of international law – https://theconversation.com/taunting-and-degrading-civilians-in-armed-conflict-is-a-clear-violation-of-international-law-283472

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sara Ali, Research Fellow and Academic Database Advisor, Auckland University of Technology

We’ve heard a lot about the artificial intelligence (AI) boom and how enormous amounts of money are being poured into companies building ever more powerful technologies.

That boom is now taking a new turn as major AI players edge closer to becoming publicly-traded companies.

According to reports, OpenAI is preparing to file confidentially for a public listing that could value the ChatGPT maker at hundreds of billions of dollars.
Rivals including Anthropic (Claude) and Elon Musk’s SpaceX – which just absorbed xAI (Grok) – are also moving toward the stock market.

What many people may not realise, however, is that, through retirement funds, pensions and other managed investments, they could end up owning shares in these giants – whether they choose to or not.

And while people might have moral concerns with the AI companies they’re tied to, the greater issue at play is about money, risk and who ends up holding it.

Where AI’s billions go

Building a cutting-edge AI system requires vast numbers of specialised computer chips, running nonstop in data centres that consume enough electricity to power a small city.

OpenAI plans to spend around US$50 billion on computing power in 2026 alone. In 2017, that same company spent roughly US$30 million, a 1,600-fold increase in less than a decade. OpenAI is targeting roughly US$600 billion in compute spending – or that in areas such as processing power, data storage and cloud infrastructure – through to 2030.

It’s not just OpenAI. The big technology companies are collectively expected to invest around US$650 billion in AI infrastructure in 2026. That’s roughly one-third of Australia’s annual GDP – or two-and-a-half times New Zealand’s – being committed to one technology bet in a single year.

All these expenses must be covered before the companies earn consistent profits. This is why they keep raising money – and why the question of where that money will eventually come from is enormously important.

In 2025, total investment in AI companies reached US$217 billion. Then, in just the first three months of 2026, private AI companies raised a further US$226 billion, surpassing the entire 2025 total in a single quarter.

Much of this was concentrated in three transactions: US$122 billion for OpenAI, US$30 billion for Anthropic and US$7.5 billion for xAI.

Together, these three deals alone accounted for 71% of all AI funding that quarter. Mega-rounds above US$100 million now make up 94% of all AI investment by value.

The funding has mostly come from large institutions: venture capital firms, sovereign wealth funds, and technology giants that can afford to take the risk. The gains and the losses stay within a small, specialist group.

When the AI sector goes public

Once a company is publicly listed, anyone can buy its shares.

More importantly, large index-tracking funds – widely used in Australia’s Super system and New Zealand’s KiwiSaver funds – automatically gain exposure to companies once they become large enough to enter the indices those funds follow.

In other words, they don’t get to decide whether it looks like a good investment; the index simply decides for them.

That matters for ethical investors, too. The thought of AI raises concerns about privacy, labour, misinformation and security. But unlike tobacco or gambling, it may prove difficult to exclude because it is being increasingly woven into the world’s largest listed companies.

There is, therefore, a case for asking whether these companies should trigger an opt-out mechanism for fund managers and regulators before the listings arrive.

Neither OpenAI, Anthropic, nor xAI has formally announced a stock market listing, and timelines remain uncertain. When that shift comes, the risk also shifts. The investors who funded the early stages of this race knew what they were getting into.

The people who will end up holding the shares through their pension funds or index trackers may not.

Index providers are rewriting the rules

Here is where the picture becomes more complex. Major index providers are changing their rules so newly listed mega-cap AI companies can enter key benchmarks much faster.

Nasdaq has already adopted a fast-track rule that allows a newly listed mega-cap company to join the Nasdaq-100 after just 15 trading days. S&P Dow Jones Indices is consulting on similar changes that would reduce the waiting period and waive profitability requirements for mega-caps.

These changes are reshaping the index system to funnel passive money into AI giants almost as soon as they list – and before most investors have had time to decide whether they belong in their portfolios at all.

So, what can ordinary investors do?

As they likely won’t be making the call themselves on whether to invest in an AI stock market float, they can put questions to the fund managers doing so on their behalf.

Those might be questions about whether the company is becoming more efficient, what their customer retention looks like, or how their leadership holds up under pressure.

OpenAI’s 2023 board crisis showed how unusual governance structures can create sudden instability.

There is no doubt the AI revolution is real and is changing economies in the same way it is changing our everyday lives.

But whether the AI boom will create lasting value for ordinary investors – or mainly provide an exit for early-stage insiders – is a question fund managers and regulators cannot afford to leave unanswered.

Before the listings arrive, they need to decide: should ordinary investors be automatically swept into the AI gamble, or should they have a choice?

Sara Ali 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 AI giants go public, will ordinary investors know if they are along for the ride? – https://theconversation.com/when-ai-giants-go-public-will-ordinary-investors-know-if-they-are-along-for-the-ride-282963

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Krista Fisher, Research Fellow, Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne

Interest in the manosphere has recently surged yet again, with the recent Louis Theroux documentary catapulting the term “manosphere” back to the forefront of our cultural psyche.

The term has become a catchall for the most inflammatory content and communities in young men’s digital worlds. Alarm bells are ringing, but our understanding of what the manosphere actually is – where it begins and ends – has more questions than answers.

As concern grows, so does the ambiguity around how to define the manosphere and how young men actually experience it. Our policy responses, interventions and public discourse assume it’s one thing, one ideology, populated by one type of young man: a singular algorithmic journey from loneliness to radicalisation. It isn’t, and overlooking the complexity and nuance misses large parts of the problem.

So what is it instead? Our new research answers this question.

Simulations vs reality

Addressing ambiguity matters, whether you’re a researcher trying to measure the full spectrum of harm being experienced, or part of a community trying to talk about it with sons, brothers and friends. You cannot diagnose a problem without truly understanding it, and that means going into these online ecosystems to explore their bounds.

Previous research has included the use of dummy accounts to simulate internet use. These have been criticised by social media companies, who say the simulations don’t reflect the real experiences of users on their apps.

In response, our new research looked at the real TikTok viewing histories of 142 young men across Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. We watched what they watched, 2,000 videos over the past month, and built a framework to map the full spectrum of masculinity content that young men encounter online.

It’s the first time academic research has used real user data in this space. It means we can respond to what young men and boys are actually seeing, rather than simulations of user experiences and what we think they’re seeing.

Almost half of the videos we analysed (44%) contained masculinity-related themes. Masculinity content fell into three distinct categories. Understanding these categories, how they escalate and who’s watching it makes tailored intervention possible, from policymakers to support services, and even the platforms themselves.

---

Read more:
How boys get sucked into the manosphere

---

Beginning the journey

The journey can start somewhere ordinary. Three videos. Same young man. Same day. Same algorithm.

In the first video, a young, buff man located in a gym, demonstrating to his audience the correct technique when completing the “perfect lying tricep extension”.

We called this tier “cultural touchpoints”. It includes gym, sport, fashion and dating tips content. It made up 38% of what young men in our study watched, making it the most common type of content.

On the surface, none of it raises alarm. But it quietly sets a norm. One type of male body, one set of male interests, one way of moving through the world.

Travelling deeper

In the second video, a shirtless young man delivers a motivational-style speech about gym and discipline. He argues that physical commitment produces results in other areas of life, such as earning admiration from his girlfriend and becoming a “superhero” to his future children.

We called this tier “masculine status” content. It constituted 6% of the videos we analysed.

Outwardly, it looks like self-improvement, motivational and informative content with messages of discipline, ambition, levelling up as a man.

Underneath, the rigid moulds become clear: muscularity, emotional suppression, financial abundance, the “high-value” male archetype.

Women are framed as rewards to be earned. The content is ideologically hardened, but also easy to miss.

The destination

In the third video, a male creator sarcastically warns his audience against peptides. He then proceeds to list the side-effects of “getting leaner, shredded and getting more bitches”, while showing the vials to the audience.

We called this tier “degrading health” content. It made up less than 1% of content.

Most of it violates TikTok’s own community guidelines prohibiting the promotion of peptide hormones, testosterone boosters, and content that demeans, endangers or advocates for self-harm.

This category includes overt misogyny and graphic depictions of violence against women.

It’s infrequent, but not isolated. This content sits at the end of a journey that began with a tricep extension tutorial.

Three videos. Three very different messages about masculinity and health. This is how the manosphere finds young men: through platforms they’re already on, creators they already follow and in a cultural language they appreciate.

Cultural touchpoints lay the foundation that make messages of misogyny, risk-taking, violence and hate not just palatable, but reasonable. Ideological shifts happen because it feels like much of the same.

Exploiting insecurities

The manosphere doesn’t create these pressures – it finds genuine unmet needs and exploits them for profit and views. Often girls, women and other minority groups are at the receiving end of that harm, as well as the boys and men themselves.

Our broader framework, in which these classifications are a part, gives researchers, regulators, and platforms a tool to identify and intervene across the full spectrum of young men’s digital lives, not just at the extremes.

Current moderation and regulation approaches are reactive. Content is removed once platform guidelines are violated, but often that comes too late, after thousands if not millions of users have already seen it.

This research makes early and tailored intervention possible, disrupting the masculinity content pipeline at different points along the spectrum, before young men reach the most extreme end.

For example, tech companies could embed this classification framework into the design of recommender systems to ensure an age appropriate user experience. Cultural touchpoint content may be appropriate for a 16-year-old, but masculine status and degrading health videos may not be, and thus should not be recommended to them. Our work provides a defensible evidenced standard for appropriate moderation and digital platform design.

Lastly, it helps create a shared language and collective understanding of the manosphere. We can talk about masculinity content in a way that aligns with young men’s actual digital experiences, and to build solutions that fit the problem.

The manosphere has spent years speaking directly to young men’s fears and insecurities, building narratives that are fluent, persuasive and hard to counter. We need to be just as fluent, delivering effective responses and alternative narratives grounded in what young men actually see, watch and feel.

This research is the first attempt to do that. Now we need to use these insights to expand our evidence on the manosphere’s harm, develop tailored solutions, call for platform reform and develop community resources to help protect the men and boys exposed to this content online.

Krista Fisher is affiliated with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health. Krista Fisher had support from the Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab (PERIL) and Diverting Hate when conducting this research.

Emily Lewis is affiliated with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health.

Zac Seidler has been awarded an National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant. He is also the Global Director of Research with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health. He advises government on men’s suicide, masculinities, violence prevention and social media policy.

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

– ref. We analysed the TikTok history of 142 men. Here’s what it taught us about the manosphere – https://theconversation.com/we-analysed-the-tiktok-history-of-142-men-heres-what-it-taught-us-about-the-manosphere-282156

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ashwin Nagappa, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Queensland University of Technology

Globally, users of digital media are increasingly locked into a handful of operating systems, app stores, and communication platforms. Most of us must choose between Apple, Windows, or Android. All of these are owned by American tech giants.

Much of private and government IT infrastructure – websites, mobile banking, nearly anything online you can think of – uses cloud services, such as Amazon Web Services, Cloudflare or Microsoft Azure. They might have locations worldwide, but these are also US companies.

Mobile phones, laptops, smartwatches and more are mostly made by American or Chinese companies. And it’s getting worse as tech companies embed artificial intelligence (AI) assistants directly into everyday devices, such as Google’s Gemini or Microsoft’s Copilot. They’re doing this in ways designed to further entrench users within particular ecosystems.

When a single cyber security update brought down Windows computers the world over in 2024, it was a stark reminder nobody should put all their IT eggs in one basket.

But what might that actually look like? The “digital sovereignty” movement in the European Union (EU) can show us the way. European countries are gradually breaking up with American tech giants and pushing for local AI development, all in the name of achieving digital autonomy.

What exactly is ‘digital sovereignty’?

A state’s sovereignty means to be able to govern itself. Extend that to the digital era, and we arrive at a concept that’s difficult to pin down, but broadly means being in charge of your own digital infrastructure.

Let’s take the European digital sovereignty strategy. It provides a roadmap for creating, owning and governing computer hardware, AI, software, and social media within the EU. Any tech providers would have to comply with core EU values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

The ultimate goal here is digital autonomy. It means reducing reliance on systems vulnerable to growing geopolitical and economic risks. If you make your own devices and host your data locally, you’re not at the mercy of multinational corporations whose interests may not align with your own.

Several prominent EU institutions have already ditched the Microsoft Office suite for official communication. Instead, they use European software such as Office EU or free open-source alternatives.

The EU is also making progress on Gaia-X, a local alternative to global cloud providers.

But these efforts come with major challenges. Large tech companies such as Alphabet (Google), Microsoft and Amazon are not watching idly. By promising local governments and organisations greater control, they’re tapping into the digital sovereignty discussion.

Researchers call this “sovereignty-as-a-service”. Through it, big tech is shaping digital sovereignty on terms that are favourable to them.

Alternatives already exist

Europe’s digital sovereignty strategy is a long-term, multi-country initiative that involves major financial, industrial and policy changes. Outside of the EU, countries including India, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa are also pursuing digital sovereignty plans.

But for everyday users, much of it comes down to turning to viable alternatives to dominant tech platforms. Many already exist.

Decentralised social media ecosystems allow independently operated communities to communicate across shared protocols without being controlled by a single corporation. One such example is the Fediverse, which includes platforms like micro-blogging site Mastodon and video sharing site PeerTube.

---

Read more:
Decentralised social media offers an alternative to big tech platforms like X and Meta. How does it work? Podcast

---

Similarly, the AT protocol, which powers micro-blogging sites Bluesky and Eurosky, aims to separate social networking from platform ownership. It enables users to move identities, content and communities between services more freely.

Open-source office suites such as LibreOffice have provided alternatives to Microsoft Office for more than two decades.

It’s also increasingly possible to run AI systems locally on personal devices or private networks. This reduces reliance on cloud-based AI services controlled by big tech.

In other words, many of the technical foundations for greater digital autonomy already exist. The challenge lies with adoption and coordination. When Twitter was bought by Elon Musk, many users fragmented to other sites – from Mastodon and Threads to Bluesky and others. If your friends are all on different social media sites, which do you choose?

---

Read more:
Have you heard of the open source internet? The antidote to a capitalist web already exists

---

What can Australia learn from this?

Australia is in a similar position to the EU. We’re heavily reliant on foreign-owned digital infrastructure. We’re also increasingly exposed to the geopolitical tensions surrounding it.

Australia could take a leaf out of the EU’s book and develop its own roadmap for digital sovereignty. This would have to operate at both the policy and public levels.

Australia’s digital policy shouldn’t be dictated by large platforms or external geopolitical actors. There’s also a pressing need to promote local innovation for the future, such as investing in quantum computing.

Publicly funded organisations have already demonstrated Australia can invent globally significant technology. After all, Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO, patented the technology that led to wifi. Universities and publicly funded institutions should be at the core of future tech innovation as well.

Most importantly, Australia is home to First Nations communities. Their governance systems have long operated through decentralised, relational, and autonomous forms of organisation.

Groups such as Maiam nayri Wingara and the HASS and Indigenous Research Data Commons have already developed internationally significant frameworks for Indigenous data sovereignty. These cover data governance, stewardship, collective benefit, and the rights of communities to control data about their peoples, lands and cultures.

We can learn from these. Respecting Indigenous sovereignty may also open a pathway for all Australians to rethink what our shared digital futures can look like.

Ashwin Nagappa receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a recipient of the 2024 AXA Post-Doctoral Fellowship (for the theme ‘Navigating misinformation and trust erosion in the digital age’).

Daniel Angus receives funding from the Australian Research Council through Linkage Project LP190101051 ‘Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media’. He is a Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

– ref. Nearly everything we use online is owned by big tech. There’s a better way forward – https://theconversation.com/nearly-everything-we-use-online-is-owned-by-big-tech-theres-a-better-way-forward-282969

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC L3 Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is grappling with a rising Ebola epidemic, with almost 600 cases detected so far and more than 130 deaths.

Ebola is a rare virus that initially causes a fever, fatigue, muscle pain, then vomiting and diarrhoea. It can then progress to the hemorrhagic stage, with internal bleeding – which presents as blood in vomit and faeces – as well as bleeding as from parts of the body including the nose, gums, vagina and needle punctures.

Ebola primarily spreads through contact with bodily fluids such as blood, faeces and vomit. It can be contracted from contaminated surfaces or contact with bodies of those who have died, but can also spread by other routes including without contact.

This current outbreak, caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain, was first confirmed as Ebola on May 15. It was already estimated to have 246 cases at the time of this confirmation.

As surveillance efforts stepped up, it became clear the outbreak was more than double that size, with spread to Uganda.

So what are health authorities doing to get the virus under control and why is it such a challenge?

And what can health authorities in Africa, as well as the rest of the world, learn from previous outbreaks?

How did so many people get sick so quickly?

Ebola has a long incubation period of two to three weeks or longer. This means the number of infected people has likely been growing since at least March or April.

Our epidemic early warning system, Epiwatch, saw signals of unknown illness in the DRC on April 13, with reports of hemorrhagic fever noted even earlier on March 13.

The delay in diagnosing Ebola may have been due to initial testing targeting the more common Zaire strain of Ebola. Tests must be specific to Bundibugyo.

The DRC is also experiencing other serious outbreaks including mpox and measles, as well as malnutrition and chronic malaria.

These underlying factors can make epidemics more severe and harder to detect.

---

Read more:
WHO has declared mpox a global health emergency. What happens next?

---

How big did previous outbreaks get?

The worst Ebola epidemic in history was over 28,000 cases in the 2014 West African epidemic. More than 11,000 people died from this Zaire strain, as vaccines were not yet available at the peak of the epidemic.

In the DRC, the last epidemic of 64 cases was in late 2025. The largest epidemic in the DRC was in 2018-2019 with more than 3,000 cases. These were both the Zaire strain.

There have only been two other Bundibugyo outbreaks. The first, in 2007 with 149 cases, was in the Bundibugyo District of western Uganda, near the DRC border. The second, in 2012, was in the DRC, with 57 cases. The current Bundibugyo epidemic is already the largest in history.

While Bundibugyo is not as lethal as the Zaire strain, it can kill 30–50% of infected people. The fatality rate in this epidemic appears close to 30%, with 139 deaths reported from almost 600 cases.

Unlike the Zaire strain, for which there are treatments and vaccines, there are no approved drugs or vaccines for the Bundibugyo strain.

However, the World Health Organization has sponsored clinical trials of a monoclonal antibody and the antiviral remdesivir, a drug which is also used for COVID.

We may see higher fatality rates unless non-pharmaceutical measures ramp up.

How can it be stopped?

The epidemic can be stopped by coordinated surveillance and containment. This is by identifying cases, isolating them so they cannot infect others, tracing their contacts and quarantining them.

In 2014, these measures alone controlled the Ebola epidemic at a time when no treatments or vaccines were available. This means health system capacity is the key to epidemic control.

There were not enough beds for Ebola patients in the 2014 epidemic, so health authorities built tent hospitals to help bring the epidemic under control. This could be considered if hospitals are overwhelmed.

The DRC has limited capacity to diagnose Ebola, so it’s important to scale up surveillance and testing. A clinical case definition (such as “fever and bleeding means a probable case”) can be used if testing is not available.

Simple surveillance systems – such as open-source intelligence, where community chatter and local news reports can provide signals of epidemics – can help. So can providing incentives for communities to report suspected cases.

It’s also essential to communicate and work with communities and community leaders from the ground up. In the 2014 epidemic, locals murdered eight Ebola workers who provided health education, showing how important trust and community relationships are.

Health workers, close contacts and funeral attendants need extra precautions

Ebola is predominantly spread by contact with blood and bodily fluids. Those most at risk are close contacts of patients with Ebola, health workers and people attending funerals, which often involves touching the body.

At least four health workers have been infected, including one American missionary doctor.

Given the high fatality rate, health workers should be provided the highest level of personal protection.

---

Read more:
How are nurses becoming infected with Ebola?

---

What can other countries do?

Ebola is a concern for all of us, because travel can result in infections occurring in any country. During the 2014 West African epidemic, cases also occurred outside the main affected countries, the largest number in Nigeria.

Failure to initially diagnose a case in Texas resulted in four other people becoming infected, including health workers.

Whether facing hantavirus or Ebola, emergency departments need tools to improve their awareness of and ability to prevent hospital outbreaks.

Busy staff in emergency triage may send someone with a fever back to the waiting room for hours, not realising they have travelled recently and may have a serious infectious disease. In South Korea, a person with the deadly Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus was in the emergency department for many hours, and a huge outbreak resulted.

One useful tool for hospitals is a decision-support system used during triage that prompts staff to ask for a patient’s travel history and provides data on disease outbreaks in the country of travel. This means patients with deadly infections may be isolated before they can infect others.

Another concern is that if the outbreak becomes much larger, there may be survivors who still harbour the virus for many months or longer after recovery. They could continue to infect others after this epidemic is over if they come into contact with bodily fluids such as semen, amniotic fluid or breast milk, as well as fluids from the placenta or eye.

The WHO declaring a public health emergency of international concern helps, as it activates a range of additional measures and resources for outbreak control.

---

Read more:
Ebola survivors struggle to return to normal lives: what I found out in Sierra Leone and Liberia

---

C Raina MacIntyre is the founder of EPIWATCH Global Pty Ltd which tracks global epidemics. She receives funding from NHMRC Investigator Grant 2016907 and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence GNT2006595.

Ashley Quigley, Mohana Priya Kunasekaran, and Noor Jahan Begum Bari do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Health authorities are racing to contain Ebola in the DRC and Uganda. Here’s what’s making it so challenging – https://theconversation.com/health-authorities-are-racing-to-contain-ebola-in-the-drc-and-uganda-heres-whats-making-it-so-challenging-283276

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexander Korolev, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, UNSW Sydney

It’s been quite a week for Beijing, with back-to-back visits by the leaders of the United States and Russia. Chinese President Xi Jinping has had his hands full with hosting duties, gun salutes, photo opportunities and high-level talks.

Each visit was important in its own way. US President Donald Trump’s state visit was his first to Beijing since 2017. It came at a moment of strained China-US relations, with the US at war in the Middle East and its foreign policy undergoing a massive transformation under Trump.

For Putin, it was his 25th official visit to China. The trip was intended to further consolidate the China–Russia strategic alignment amid global uncertainty. Putin was also keen to secure China’s continued economic lifeline and diplomatic cover as its war with Ukraine grinds on.

And while the timing of the back-to-back visits should not be over-interpreted – Moscow says there was “no connection” between the two – they do reveal a deeper structural shift in global politics.

Beijing’s rising confidence

First, the United States is clearly no longer the most important country in China’s strategic worldview – and Beijing is increasingly willing to show it.

This was visible in Xi’s posturing and negotiating style with Trump. From his rather distant handshake to his dominant body language throughout their meeting, Xi
sent a message: Washington has a limited ability to influence Beijing anymore.

The modest outcomes of their summit reinforced this dynamic. Trump left China without a formal deal, a press conference or a joint communiqué. Nor was there a breakthrough on either Iran or Taiwan.

Putin, meanwhile, met his “good and old friend” Xi and took home some 20 agreements ranging from trade to technology.

The most striking, if not unsettling, moment was Xi’s invocation of the “Thucydides Trap” during his meeting with Trump. This is the idea that a rising power inevitably threatens an established one, risking war.

Xi asked a pointed question:

Can China and the United States transcend the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’ and forge a new paradigm for major-power relations?

Xi has used this concept before, but his directness this time sent a warning: the US risks creating a major crisis if it continues to rely on a containment strategy to counter China’s rise.

In short, Beijing used the Trump visit to signal confidence, autonomy and the fact that Washington is not the only capital that matters to China.

Russia has new usefulness to Beijing

Second, the China–Russia alignment has become less equal, but it has gained greater strategic depth. And Beijing is now using it to put pressure on the US leadership.

During a private garden stroll through the highly secretive Zhongnanhai leadership compound last week, Trump asked whether Xi often brings other world leaders there. Xi replied that such visits are “extremely rare,” but added that “Putin has been here”.

The innocent reading of this exchange is that Xi was simply noting the depth of his personal rapport with Putin. But in the current geopolitical context, it also served as a subtle reminder to Trump that China’s “no limits” partnership with Russia is not rhetorical. Beijing was signalling Moscow remains a privileged strategic partner – and that China has options.

The deeper message is this: if Washington seeks to isolate China, Beijing can lean even more heavily on its relationship with Moscow.

China does not need to help Russia “win” in Ukraine to make this point. What matters is that Beijing has the ability – if it chooses – to bolster Russia’s war effort through economic, diplomatic and long-term technological and energy cooperation. Beijing’s influence now extends well beyond the Indo-Pacific and reaches into Europe in ways Washington cannot ignore.

Xi didn’t give Putin everything he sought during his meeting, though.

With the turmoil in the Middle East cutting off China’s access to Middle Eastern oil and gas, Moscow sensed an opportunity to push ahead on a new pipeline, called the Power of Siberia-2, to bring Russian gas to China.

While Putin and Xi came to a “general understanding on the parameters” of the project, however, no final deal was signed.

China is now in the driver’s seat

Third, China now sees itself as the central node of great-power politics.

For many decades, the United States sat at the apex of the “great triangle”, balancing between China and the Soviet Union and then Russia.

Today, the geometry has flipped. Both Trump and Putin felt compelled to come to Beijing – for stabilisation, reassurance and strategic signalling – even as they confront each other elsewhere.

China is not playing triangular diplomacy in the classic sense. It is not trying to pit Washington and Moscow against each other. Instead, it is positioning itself as the system’s centre: the place where major-power diplomacy must pass, even if the outcomes are uncertain.

China is not at the apex of this arrangement because it is the strongest militarily or economically, but because it has the confidence to engage the US and Russia on its own terms.

In this new geometry, great-power politics does not revolve around Washington. Increasingly, it runs through Beijing.

Alexander Korolev 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. Playing host to Putin and Trump, China sends a message – it’s now in the driver’s seat – https://theconversation.com/playing-host-to-putin-and-trump-china-sends-a-message-its-now-in-the-drivers-seat-283375

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Stuti Bhatnagar, Lecturer, Indo-Pacific Studies, UNSW Sydney

A year has passed since conflict broke out between India and Pakistan, briefly raising fears of an all-out war between the two nuclear powers.

While violent conflict between the neighbours has been commonplace for the past 80 years, this latest round of fighting felt different.

Both sides used new weapons against one another, including cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and drones. The level of mistrust and sharp rhetoric worsened considerably, significantly testing regional partnerships.

One year later, tensions remain high, with an underlying risk of further escalation.

What happened last year?

The war broke out last May following a terrorist attack that killed 26 civilians in the Pahalgam area of Indian Kashmir on April 22.

Within days, Indian police claimed the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba was behind the attack. Pakistan vehemently denied any involvement.

Then, on May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor against alleged terrorist strongholds in Pakistan, which prompted a Pakistani retaliatory attack, Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos.

Dozens of people are believed to have been killed. As in any India-Pakistan conflict, the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons created further alarm.

The four-day conflict came to an end with a ceasefire on May 10. It was announced by the Trump administration, which claimed to have mediated the deal. This irritated India, but Pakistan nominated US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

India nonetheless claimed victory, boasting of its ability to deliver precise attacks far inside Pakistani territory, exposing weaknesses in its rival’s air defences. Pakistan, meanwhile, claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets (which India denies).

Political ramifications

In Pakistan, the Pakistani military returned to the political mainstream following the conflict. After leading Pakistan’s military response to India, the chief of army staff, Syed Asim Munir, was elevated to field marshal, and then to the post of the country’s first chief of defence forces.

Munir’s influence has only grown since. He has become very close to Trump and has been a key figure in the negotiations between the US and Iran to bring an end to their war.

In India, Operation Sindoor was seen as a win for the Modi government’s decisive foreign policy, and was a moment of rare political consensus in the country.

However, in Kashmir, the terror attack raised fresh questions about the government’s claims of normalcy in the region – and its push to boost tourism – following the controversial revocation of Kashmir’s statehood in 2019.

In the weeks that followed the attack, security operations in the Kashmir valley shut down several tourist sites. This led to a sharp decline in visitor numbers and severely affected local businesses. Security operations also targeted civilians, alarming human rights experts.

Shifting regional dynamics

Perhaps the most significant impact of the conflict has been the difference in diplomatic engagements of both countries.

The war highlighted Pakistan’s operational cooperation with both China and Turkey. The Pakistani military used Chinese-built fighter jets and missiles in its attacks, as well as Turkish-made drones. Its satellite-based intelligence was enabled by China, too.

After the war, Pakistan also signed a new deal with the Trump administration to develop Pakistan’s oil reserves, and a defence pact with Saudi Arabia, a staunch US ally.

India had pursued a decade-long push to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, which made Pakistan’s increasing bonhomie with the US and Gulf states particularly awkward.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s once-close relationship with Trump, meanwhile, began to deteriorate over US tariffs and India’s purchase of Russian oil.

Modi’s ill-timed visit to Israel and the visible lack of influence in the US–Iran war has also raised questions about India’s professed role as a regional leader. It has highlighted the limits to India’s strategy of balancing its strategic partnerships, especially during conflict.

India has tried to engage in proactive diplomacy, dispatching delegations of MPs and former diplomats to more than 30 countries over the past year. While India claims these visits were a success, they haven’t done much to convince the world that Pakistan was the aggressor in their conflict.

Where do things go from here?

One year on, the political rhetoric on both sides is as charged as ever.

Both India and Pakistan have signalled a resolve for further escalation in future conflicts.

Despite a sliver of hope for secret backchannel talks, India continues to give stern warnings to Pakistan over its alleged support to terrorist groups.

India has also reiterated that a major water-sharing treaty between the countries would remain suspended until Pakistan takes steps to end its support for terrorism – leaving a major concern over water security unresolved.

In response, Pakistan has made clear any attempt to target Pakistan again would “trigger consequences” that would not be “geographically confined or strategically or politically palatable for India”.

The shifting geopolitics and heightened rhetoric have narrowed the space for any prospects of meaningful dialogue between the two. As a result, the alarmingly low levels of trust will remain.

The ceasefire holds for now, but the conflict continues unabated.

Stuti Bhatnagar 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. One year after their brief war, how close are India and Pakistan to another conflict? – https://theconversation.com/one-year-after-their-brief-war-how-close-are-india-and-pakistan-to-another-conflict-282243

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nic Rawlence, Associate Professor in Ancient DNA, University of Otago

Today’s announcement by Texas-based de-extinction company Colossal Biosciences about a successful hatching of chicks from an artificial egg would represent a major innovation, if the claims can be verified.

The company says its artificial egg supports the full development of bird embryos outside a biological eggshell, without the requirement for supplemental oxygen. The work is part of its plan to “de-extinct” birds, including the giant moa and dodo.

Colossal’s artificial egg could be groundbreaking science and deliver a useful tool for conservation. But its announcement and slick video include no data or peer-reviewed scientific publications, making it difficult to independently assess the claim.

Artificial egg technology, which involves transferring and growing a developing chick embryo outside a natural eggshell, has been around since the 1980s. Live birds have been hatched from these systems before and grown to adulthood.

The technology is currently used for research purposes such as studying how embryos develop, how tumours grow, and to create genetically modified chickens. It also has applications for drug and vaccine development.

But several stumbling blocks to the widespread use of artificial eggs persist. To improve hatching efficiency, pure oxygen needs to be directly supplied to the developing embryo. This is a double-edged sword because it can also affect chick viability.

Colossal claims to have solved this problem by replacing the hard eggshell and membrane separating the yolk from the shell. Its version is based on the key innovations of an open, latticed half-shell and a transparent, silicone-based membrane that allows oxygen to freely diffuse from the air into the developing embryo.

The company’s plan is to transfer a fertilised embryo and yolk from a real egg to their artificial egg, which would then be housed in incubators. Embryo development would be observed directly through the transparent membrane, as in other artificial systems.

A gene-edited emu

Colossal is planning to genetically modify an emu genome to look more like that of a moa (as they did with grey wolves and dire wolves), create an embryo inside an emu egg, and then bring it to term using this new artificial egg.

The technology could also be used in Colossal’s attempts to genetically engineer a Nicobar pigeon to look more like a dodo.

Key to Colossal’s goal is that its artificial egg could be scaled in size.

However, this still requires a fertilised embryo and yolk. Given the large size differences between chicken eggs and emu (up to 12 times bigger) and giant moa (up to 80 times bigger), there is not enough yolk and egg white in any living birds’ eggs to support the development of a giant moa chick.

An egg yolk is a single cell. It will not be as simple as injecting extra yolk into this fragile cell to make it giant.

Bird embryo development is a complex process, unique to each species. A lot happens in an egg and only time will tell whether this new technology reflects natural processes and produces healthy individuals.

But as our work on other extinct species shows, there is also widespread Māori and public opposition in New Zealand to the company’s plans to “de-extinct” the moa for an ecotourism venture.

A potential conservation tool

The company claims its artificial egg technology “has broad applications for the conservation of threatened species”.

Artificial egg technology requires considerable amounts of funding, which Colossal has mobilised from private sources. This is funding that would not have otherwise been available for conservation.

One area where it could make a significant difference is the captive breeding of critically endangered species (such as kākāpō, kakī black stilt and pukunui southern dotteral) for reintroduction into the wild. This is especially true for long-lived and slow-breeding species which tend to produce fewer eggs.

For example, eggs damaged by inexperienced new parents, misadventure or adverse weather events could be rescued into artificial eggs to help developing chicks to survive.

When combined with genome engineering techniques, the use of artificial eggs could help to reintroduce lost genetic diversity or make birds resistant to diseases. The technology may also be able to reverse the impacts of inbreeding on low hatching success in some species.

However, for critically endangered birds with few natural eggs, the development of transgenic birds would be necessary to produce enough chicks.

For example, chickens could provide sperm and egg cells containing genetically modified DNA from a different species. After mating, the fertilised embryo and yolk could be transferred to the artificial egg.

Ethical questions remain about whether such steps should be taken, even if technologically possible.

The use of artificial egg technology in conservation, especially in combination with genome engineering and transgenic birds, would require transparent and increased levels of engagement with Indigenous communities as the kaitiaki (guardians) of endangered species.

It is also vital this technology (and conservation in general) is not privatised. If Colossal’s artificial egg technology is to make a meaningful difference to saving species from extinction, it must be available to conservation organisations in the public sector.

If the technology lives up to the hype, it won’t be a silver bullet or panacea to stopping species declines, but it might just help. In the short term at least, saving species from extinction will still come down to predator control and habitat restoration.

Nic Rawlence receives funding from Te Apārangi Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

– ref. De-extinction company says it’s made an artificial egg – if true, it could help save living species – https://theconversation.com/de-extinction-company-says-its-made-an-artificial-egg-if-true-it-could-help-save-living-species-283138

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jorgo Ristevski, Researcher, Palaeontology, The University of Queensland

The sight of a saltwater crocodile basking on a mudbank is one of the most iconic and intimidating images of northern Australia. Yet the crocodiles that inhabit the region today are just the survivors of a much richer and stranger lost world.

Until recently, Australasia was home not just to the familiar crocodiles found in tropical waterways, but also to a unique cast of crocs unlike any living species.

Our recent review of evidence from the past 129,000 years reveals a dramatic story of extinctions, human encounters, and survival against the odds.

Mekosuchines – the lost rulers of Australasia

Modern crocodiles are members of the genus Crocodyls, but an entirely different group of crocodylians known as mekosuchines once dominated the region.

For more than 50 million years, mekosuchines were the apex predators of Australasia. Some even survived to meet humans.

These remarkable animals came in an astonishing variety of shapes and sizes, inhabiting many different environments.

Some were giant semi-aquatic ambush predators, much like the saltwater crocodiles that still patrol northern rivers today. Others were much smaller “dwarf” species that inhabited islands such as New Caledonia. Most terrifyingly, some species possessed blade-like serrated teeth and probably hunted their prey on land.

A fragmentary puzzle

We pieced together a record of crocodylians over the past 129,000 years from scattered and highly fragmentary remains recovered from more than 20 archaeological and palaeontological sites.

Most are located in Australia, though some are found in New Guinea, and a handful more across the southwest Pacific. At archaeological sites on the Australian mainland, as well as in the Torres Strait and New Guinea, researchers have uncovered the broken bones and teeth of modern crocodile species, showing that these formidable reptiles have shared landscapes with people for thousands of years.

Ancient rock art, some dating back around 20,000 years, reveals that Indigenous Australians were closely observing and depicting these animals for millennia. The distribution of archaeological remains and rock art closely mirrors the modern ranges of crocodiles today. This points to a long and relatively stable coexistence between humans and these powerful predators.

Archaeological evidence shows that humans did occasionally eat crocodiles, and sometimes even crafted pendants from their teeth. Yet such discoveries are quite rare. When ancient archaeological sites do yield crocodile bones, there are usually only a handful of them.

The evidence suggests crocodiles were hunted only rarely. This is not surprising.

Adult saltwater crocodiles are enormous, immensely powerful, and highly lethal to humans. For ancient communities, engaging with these apex predators would have been a hazardous undertaking, and something mostly avoided.

But modern crocodiles weren’t alone in these ancient landscapes. Fossils show they shared them with the mekosuchines.

On mainland Australia, mekosuchines are currently only known from fossils. Most remains date from more than 40,000 years ago. We currently have no evidence of these extinct crocs from archaeological sites or in ancient rock art.

We don’t know if humans and mekosuchines ever directly interacted in Australia. Their disappearance occurred around the same time as the extinction of other Australian megafauna, potentially after a long period of coexistence with humans. The exact cause of their demise in Australia remains a mystery.

Island extinctions

However, the story is different on the islands of New Caledonia, Vanuatu and Fiji. There, some mekosuchine species managed to survive into much more recent times. And humans almost certainly encountered them directly.

The extinct crocs of New Caledonia and Vanuatu were small, reaching less than two metres in length as adults. They also likely lived more on land than today’s semi-aquatic crocodiles. Their small statures and terrestrial lives would have made them far more accessible for human hunters.

Tragically, the known record of these island mekosuchines ends within a few centuries of human settlement. In several cases, their remains were found in association with human artefacts and middens.

In one example from Vanuatu, a mekosuchine limb bone appears to bear the gnaw marks of a rat, an invasive species introduced to the island by humans. While definitive proof is elusive, it seems likely that direct or indirect human involvement may be the reason for the disappearance of these “dwarf” island crocodylians.

Lessons for the Anthropocene

We are now living through the Anthropocene, an age when humans are profoundly influencing the planet and extinctions are accelerating, as is particularly evident in Australia.

The prehistoric past is not just a record of vanished worlds, but a warning for the future. Understanding how apex predators like crocodiles responded to past climatic changes, environmental upheaval, and human impacts provides important clues for their conservation in the future.

To truly unravel these questions will take the combined work of palaeontologists, archaeologists, ecologists and conservationists. Just as crucial will be deep engagement with Indigenous knowledges and land managers, whose long histories of observing and living alongside these animals offer clues for protecting the world’s remaining crocodiles, and the threatened ecosystems they inhabit.

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

– ref. 129,000 years of crocodiles: what we know about Australasia’s ancient apex predators – https://theconversation.com/129-000-years-of-crocodiles-what-we-know-about-australasias-ancient-apex-predators-283253