Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Fabricio Pamplona, Doutor em Farmacologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)

As the world’s population ages, the number of people living with dementias such as Alzheimer’s disease increases. Given the lack of curative treatments and the limited effectiveness of available medications, interest in new therapeutic approaches is growing. Among them are cannabinoids from the cannabis plant.

A small new Brazilian study published in the international Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease investigated the effects of microdoses of cannabis extract on patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease. The results found positive effects, without the associated “high” of cannabis.

The logic of microdoses

The study, led by professor Francisney Nascimento and colleagues at the Federal University of Latin American Integration (UNILA), recruited 24 elderly patients (60-80 years) diagnosed with mild Alzheimer’s. It evaluated the effects of daily use of an oil prepared from Cannabis extract containing THC and CBD in similar proportions and extremely low concentrations (0.3 mg of each cannabinoid). These sub-psychoactive doses do not cause the “high” associated with recreational use of the plant.

The extract used was donated by ABRACE, Brazil’s biggest patient association and had no contribution from cannabis companies or other funding sources.

“Microdosing” is a term usually associated with recreational use of psychedelics. Given the size of the dose, it would be easy to question whether it could have any effect at all.

Doses below 1 mg of the cannabinoid compounds are not frequently reported in the literature of clinical practice. However, the researchers’ decision to use microdosing did not come out of nowhere. In 2017, the group led by Andreas Zimmer and Andras Bilkei-Gorzo had already demonstrated that very low doses of THC restored cognition in elderly mice, reversing gene expression patterns and brain synapse density in the hippocampus to levels similar to those of young animals.

Subsequently, other studies in mice reinforced that the endocannabinoid system, which is important for neuroprotection and regulates normal brain activity (ranging from body temperature to memory), undergoes a natural decline during ageing.

Inspired by these findings, the group initially tested microdosing of cannabis extract in a single patient with Alzheimer’s disease for 22 months. They found cognitive improvement, assessed using the Adas-Cog scale, a set of tasks using things like word recall to test cognitive function. This triggered the decision to run a more robust clinical trial in human volunteers to verify the cognitive-enhancement effects observed in the volunteer. The second study was a properly controlled randomised and double-blinded clinical trial.

What we found

Several clinical scales were used to objectively measure the impact of cannabis treatment. This time, the improvement was observed in the mini-mental state exam (MMSE) scale, a widely used scale for assessing cognitive function in patients with dementia. It’s a validated set of questions that are asked to the patient, with the aid of an accompanying person (typically a family member of helper). After 24 weeks of treatment, the group receiving the cannabis extract showed stabilisation in their scores, while the placebo group showed cognitive deterioration (worsening of Alzheimer’s symptoms).

The impact was modest but relevant, patients using cannabis microdosing scored two to three points higher than their placebo counterparts (full points on the MMSE is 30). In patients with preserved or moderately impaired cognitive function, it may be unrealistic to expect major changes in a few weeks.

Cannabis extracts did not improve other non-cognitive symptoms, like depression, general health or overall quality of life. On the other hand, there was no difference in adverse side effects. This was likely due to the extremely low dose used.

This result echoes findings from my 2022 study which found a reduction in endocannabinoid signalling during ageing, meaning ageing brains are more prone to cognitive degradation without the protection of the cannabinoids. Among other mechanisms, cannabinoids seem to protect cognition by reducing drivers of inflammation in the brain.

A new paradigm: cannabis without the ‘high’

The biggest obstacle to the acceptance of cannabis as a therapeutic tool in brain ageing is perhaps not scientific, but cultural. In many countries, the fear of “getting high” deters many patients and even healthcare professionals. But studies such as this show there are ways to get around this problem by using doses so low they do not cause noticeable changes in consciousness, but which can still modulate important biological systems, such as inflammation and neuroplasticity.

Microdoses of cannabis can escape the psychoactive zone and still deliver benefits. This could open the door to new formulations focused on prevention, especially in more vulnerable populations, such as elderly people with mild cognitive impairment or a family history of dementia.

What now?

Despite its potential, the study also has important limitations: the sample size is small, and the effects were restricted to one dimension of the cognition scale. Still, the work represents an unprecedented step: it is the first clinical trial to successfully test the microdose approach in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. It is a new way of looking at this plant in the treatment of important diseases.

To move forward, new studies with a larger number of participants, longer follow-up times, and in combination with biological markers (such as neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers) will be necessary. Only then will it be possible to answer the fundamental question: can cannabis slow down the progression of Alzheimer’s disease? We have taken an important step towards understanding this, but for now, the question remains unanswered.

Fabricio Pamplona não presta consultoria, trabalha, possui ações ou recebe financiamento de qualquer empresa ou organização que poderia se beneficiar com a publicação deste artigo e não revelou nenhum vínculo relevante além de seu cargo acadêmico.

– ref. Small study finds microdoses of cannabis stalled cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s patients – https://theconversation.com/small-study-finds-microdoses-of-cannabis-stalled-cognitive-decline-in-alzheimers-patients-271170

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kate Cantrell, Senior Lecturer, Writing, Editing and Publishing, University of Southern Queensland

The Terror of War, commonly known as “Napalm Girl”, is one of the most enduring and influential images of the 20th century.

Captured on June 8 1972, the photograph shows nine-year-old Kim Phúc running naked toward a camera. She has her arms outstretched, and is flanked by other children screaming in terror after a napalm strike on their village during the Vietnam War.

For five decades, the photo has been credited to Nick Út, a then 21-year old Vietnamese photographer working for the Associated Press (AP) in Saigon.

The image earned Út the Pulitzer Prize and World Press Photo of the Year in 1973, and the National Medal of Arts (America’s highest honour for artists) in 2021.

His account of the moment – how he photographed Phúc, then rushed her to hospital to save her life – has become inseparable from the photo’s legacy. But a new documentary calls this narrative into question.

Recently released on Netflix, The Stringer is directed by Bao Nguyen and narrated by photojournalist Gary Knight. It claims the iconic image was actually taken by a local freelance photographer – a “stringer” – paid just US$20 by the AP and given a print of the photo, before his contribution was erased from history.

If true, Napalm Girl becomes not only a damning indictment of war’s brutality, but also of the systematic exploitation of non-Western journalists by Western media organisations – a pattern that persists today.

The first media war

The Vietnam War, dubbed the living room war, was the first conflict fought in the global media spotlight.

While reporters were embedded in military units during the World Wars, the horrors of those conflicts remained carefully curated – limited by the technological constraints of monochrome print and government censorship.

By the late 1960s, everything had changed. War’s violence arrived in full colour, broadcast on the evening news and splashed across the pages of magazines. America’s failure in Vietnam was increasingly apparent. And media coverage of the 1968 Mai Lai massacre turned the tide of public opinion, intensifying the anti-war movement.

By 1972, the writing was on the wall. Australian troops withdrew following massive protests during the 1970 moratoriums.

In the United States, anti-war sentiment reached fever pitch. The publication of an image showing a young Vietnamese girl naked and severely burned as she fled a misdirected attack by South Vietnamese forces only accelerated the inevitable.

A theatre of conflict

The Stringer is a kind of detective story that hinges largely on testimony from Carl Robinson, the AP’s photo editor in Vietnam at the time the photo was taken.

Now in his eighties, Robinson claims once the photo was developed, AP’s Saigon bureau chief Horst Faas ordered the credit be changed to Nick Út instead of the actual freelance photographer, Nguyễn Thành Nghệ, ensuring the image remained AP property.

The filmmakers build their case methodically through archival footage and witness accounts, including an interview with the stringer.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence emerges at the film’s climax, when French independent forensic-investigation company, Index, presents a visual-spatial timeline of the day’s events using aerial photographs, video recording and satellite imagery.

Through 3D modelling, the investigators propose Út was not in the right position to take the photo. In fact, 15 seconds after the photo was taken, Út was standing 250 feet away.

To have taken the shot, he would have needed to sprint about 75 metres in seconds, while somehow remaining outside the frame of another camera crew filming the scene.

Index concludes Út’s authorship is “highly unlikely” and editorially “doesn’t really make sense”, since Út, if he had taken the photograph, would have then moved away from the action rather than toward it.

The stringer too is unequivocal:

Nick Út came with me on that assignment, but he didn’t take that photo […] That photo was mine.

Út declined to be interviewed for the film. In a statement posted to Facebook, he called the accusation “a slap in the face”.

The fallout

Following The Stringer’s premiere at Sundance in January this year, both World Press Photo and the AP launched investigations into the documentary’s claims.

In May, World Press Photo suspended the attribution of authorship to Út, concluding that “based on analysis of location, distance, and the camera used on that day, photographers Nguyễn Thành Nghệ or Huỳnh Công Phúc may have been better positioned to take the photograph than Nick Út”.

The statement went on:

Importantly, the photograph itself remains undisputed, and the award for this significant photo […] remains a fact. Only the authorship is suspended and under review. This remains contested history, and it is possible that the author of the photograph will never be fully confirmed.

At the same time, the AP published a 97-page report concluding there is no definitive evidence Út did not take the photo, and therefore retained the attribution to him.

In the same report, however, the AP conceded its internal investigation raised “unanswered questions”, and that it “remains open to the possibility” Út did not take the photo.

The image remains available from the AP under Út’s byline. But World Press Photo now lists the photograph’s author as “indeterminate/unknown”.

Attribution in the AI age

Questions of authorship and attribution have taken on new urgency in a world of generative AI, where fabricated images, text and video are virtually indistinguishable from human-made work.

Despite huge technological advances since the 1970s, the underpinning systems remain unchanged: large corporations still appropriate the work of the less powerful without attribution or compensation.

The filmmakers claim “this was something that happened to Nick” as well, and that he had no agency in the AP’s reported decision to change the photo credit. The documentary concludes:

What we accept as the official record is often shaped more by power than perspective […] even the most entrenched histories deserve to be reexamined.

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. Who really photographed Napalm Girl? The famous war photo is now contested history – https://theconversation.com/who-really-photographed-napalm-girl-the-famous-war-photo-is-now-contested-history-267440

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By James Ley, Deputy Books + Ideas Editor, The Conversation

Claims that democracy is in crisis are certainly not new, but recent history has given the claim a new urgency. Over the past decade or so, there has been no shortage of people expressing concern that democratic institutions are under strain.

Recent studies have indeed shown declining levels of trust in democratic systems around the world. The trend is evident in the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. In Australia, too, a recent study found that trust in politics was at record lows.

We asked 5 experts to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of democratic governance, taking as their prompt Winston Churchill’s famously backhanded observation that “democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others that have been tried”.

---

Adele Webb

“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise,” Churchill told the House of Commons in 1947, before delivering his famous line.

Democracy is not meant to rest on blind faith. It makes room for wariness, disappointment and ambivalence. Once we accept its built-in flaws and its tendency to decay from within, a lot of the anxious commentary about “eroding public trust” starts to look misplaced.

For a start, people are mostly losing trust in the governments of the day, not in democracy itself – 95% of Australians say living in a democracy is important to them. And a certain level of scepticism toward whoever currently holds temporary power is not a crisis; it’s a safeguard.

That kind of circumspection is what a living democracy depends on. Slowing down and asking how our democratic institutions are working in practice can put real limits on those who currently benefit from the status quo.

If sceptical or mistrusting citizens are not democracy’s transgressors, but its canaries in the coal mine – warning us that current democratic institutions need recalibrating – the real question is how well are we listening to the dissatisfied.

Those who benefit from the current rules have weak incentives to acknowledge the flaws, let alone rewrite them.

Adele Webb is research fellow, democracy and citizen engagement, at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, University of Canberra.

---

Russell Blackford

In today’s world, democracy refers to a system of representative government with free, fair and relatively frequent elections. The particular institutions and the rationales for them vary greatly, but the essential criterion for a country to count as a genuine democracy is that it holds elections with realistic opportunities to remove unpopular governments through a non-violent process.

Where democratic institutions are in place, they provide a strong incentive for the incumbent government to avoid being seen as corrupt, tyrannical or simply incompetent. In practice, this should encourage governments to make efforts to avoid corruption and govern effectively in the common interest of the people. It isn’t foolproof, but it does give democracy one huge advantage over other systems.

Alas, democracy is fragile and it’s almost miraculous that it ever survives. The government of the day is expected to take a psychologically unnatural attitude to its opponents.

It has to maintain, firstly, that it is objectively better at governing than its opponents, whom it is justified in criticising without mercy. But then it must accept that, if it should lose an election, it will graciously hand over control of the treasury, the military, and all the agencies and powers of the state to those same opponents.

I suspect that the conditions in which this attitude seems rational and commendable are very rare, and that they are all too easy to erode. We ought to give them more thought if we really care about preserving democracy.

Russell Blackford is conjoint senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Newcastle

---

Jill Sheppard

When Churchill spoke of democracy he spoke of a particular form: representative democracy. Political scientists and philosophers will take pains to tell you there are many forms of democracy: deliberation until we reach something close to consensus; random selection of citizens to decide laws; regular plebiscites to approve or veto policies.

None of them are perfect, but elections – even when they feel tedious and produce frustrating results – strike the best compromise.

Supporting democracy means supporting the idea that citizens will have some degree of oversight of the people making laws on their behalf. But oversight takes time and effort. As a citizen, I don’t want to have to learn about and vote on every act before the parliament. I also don’t want to be randomly recruited to deliberate on complex policies. I want to spend time with my family, my pets, on my hobbies and my job.

Sending representatives to Canberra to negotiate laws on our behalf and holding them to account every three years is a good deal for citizens. Do political parties work to undermine this accountability? Absolutely. Are the candidates we are offered the best available? Absolutely not. But this form of democracy hits the sweet spot of accountability and everyday life.

Jill Sheppard is senior lecturer in politics and international relations, Australian National University

---

Matthew Sharpe

Winston Churchill’s record dealing with colonised people merits review, but there are many reasons to support his claim about democracy.

Democracy is, above all, a system enshrining the accountability of leaders to the people who are affected by their decisions. The accountability is embodied principally in elections for public office, in which leaders who have failed their constituents can be thrown out.

When the democratic franchise extends to all adults, it is the system most true to the basic fact – long denied or obscured in history – that all adult men and women are capable of thinking for themselves. People have an intrinsic dignity which means they can and should have a say in decisions which affect their lives.

All other political systems hold that there are morally salient distinctions between people which mean entire classes, races or genders should have no say in how they are governed, nor means (short of revolution) to overthrow bad governments. Democracy is thus the least worst system in a stronger sense than Churchill granted.

That said, other political systems are easier to sustain. Democracies, over time, stand or fall on their ability to foster a public that is engaged, materially secure and educated enough to decide wisely. For this reason, democracy requires an independent media, willing and supported to fearlessly hold the feet of the powers of money and government to the fires of critical publicity.

There is a need for ongoing critical vigilance, so that the media and public offices remain free from capture by interested lobbies who support policies which so disadvantage so many ordinary people as to make law and governance, in all but name, their own exclusive prerogative.

Matthew Sharpe is associate professor in philosophy, Australian Catholic University

Jean-Paul Gagnon

Churchill’s father was an aristocrat and “meteoric conservative”. His mother was the daughter of a wealthy New York financier. He attended a private all-boys school called Harrow – today its annual fees are £63,735.

Its mottos – Stet fortuna domus (May the fortune of the House stand) and Donorum dei dispensatio fidelis (The faithful dispensation of the gifts of God) – put family (think war-won crests and land that can be inherited) and the Anglican Christian God at the forefront.

I offer this brief genealogy to ask one question: why should we care about a quip by an elite man during a sitting of the UK Parliament in 1947? Especially one who surely understood democracy to mean the mid-20th century’s inheritance of Edward Longshanks’ model parliament, founded in 1295?

This was very same Edward Longshanks who colonised Wales and began the colonisation of Scotland. Churchill himself thought well of the two-and-a-half years or so he spent with the 4th Hussars in British occupied India.

So what did Churchill know of democracy? Not much. He knew of a bicameral system held hostage by a duopoly of major parties that was overseen by hereditary peers and lords. In his career, he was surrounded almost entirely by white men of means, who were elected to parliament in a medieval plurality system that permitted voting by men and women of at least 21 years of age.

Maybe he recognised this. If he did, he would have still been right to say democracy is bad, but better than all other known non or less democratic options.

Today we know there are many other ways of being democratic and developing our respective democracies.

Jean-Paul Gagnon is senior lecturer in democracy studies, University of Canberra

– ref. Is democracy the worst form of government – apart from all the others? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/is-democracy-the-worst-form-of-government-apart-from-all-the-others-we-asked-5-experts-271293

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

US President Donald Trump has signalled in an interview with the Wall Street Journal he is close to announcing his pick for the next chair of the US Federal Reserve.

With inflation again increasing amid widespread focus on the crisis of affordability, Trump’s appointment will be closely watched by financial markets and consumers alike.

The central bank has become a battleground as Trump seeks to extend his influence over Federal Reserve policy.

But the last time a US president attempted to interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve provides a strong cautionary tale of the dangers of presidential interference.

Trump’s tumultuous relationship with the Fed

Trump has a tumultuous relationship with the Federal Reserve and its current Chair Jerome Powell. Powell was first appointed chair by Trump in 2018, but the relationship quickly turned sour, with Trump repeatedly threatening to fire Powell for not cutting interest rates quickly enough.

Just last month, Trump called Powell a “clown” with “some real mental problems”, adding “I’d love to fire his ass”.

Existing protections mean Trump cannot fire Powell “without cause”, which the US Supreme Court has interpreted to mean corruption or misconduct. Trump has been forced then to wait for the end of Powell’s second term to replace him.

In the meantime, Trump has attempted to fire Lisa Cook, one of the seven Fed governors, by having his Justice Department investigate claims of mortgage fraud against her. The charges however appear to be baseless, and Cook continues to serve as a Fed governor.

At the heart of the dispute with the Federal Reserve is Trump’s view that as president, he should be consulted on the setting of interest rates. With Americans facing a deepening affordability crisis, and Trump taking the blame, he is feeling the pressure to cut interest rates to boost growth.

Accordingly, Trump has insisted that the next chair of the Fed must be someone who is prepared to immediately and significantly cut interest rates, and listen to Trump’s views on monetary policy going forward.

Central bank independence

Reduced interest rates might provide short-term juice to spur spending. However, in the long-term artificially low interest rates cause inflation, only worsening any cost-of-living crisis. For this reason, most developed countries maintain strictly independent central banks.

Central bank independence ensures short-term political considerations like elections and polling numbers do not interfere with long-term planning of monetary policy.

Back to the 70s?

In 1970, during a growing inflation crisis, President Richard Nixon appointed economist Arthur Burns as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Like Trump, Nixon demanded that Burns reduce interest rates and listen to the president’s advice in crafting monetary policy. At Burns’ swearing in, Nixon said he would meet with Burns regularly, adding:

You see, Dr Burns, that is a standing vote of appreciation in advance for lower interest rates and more money […] I respect his independence. However, I hope that independently he will conclude that my views are the ones that should be followed.

Under pressure from the president, who threatened to pass legislation diluting Fed independence if Burns did not comply, Burns repeatedly cut interest rates. However, prematurely low interest rates and the perception that the president was influencing monetary policy only deepened the economic crisis facing the US in the 1970s.

The result was stagflation, the dismal economic situation in which both inflation and unemployment increase simultaneously. Under Burns’ watch, annual inflation peaked at 11% and unemployment at 8.5%.

The “Great Inflation” of the 1970s was eventually ended by another Fed chief, Paul Volcker. Recognising that Burns had created a spiral of inflationary expectations, in 1980 Volcker drastically increased interest rates to 19%. Volcker then kept interest rates in double digits until inflation permanently fell.

The so-called “Volcker shock” did eventually tame inflation, but at the cost of cripplingly high interest rates and surging unemployment.

The Great Inflation of the 1970s, and the price paid to end it, stands as a strong warning against the short-term sugar hit of reducing interest rates in response to political pressure.

Will Trump learn the lessons of history?

With some economists warning signs of stagflation are once more emerging, Trump must now pick the next chair of the Federal Reserve.

Prediction markets suggest the most likely candidate is Kevin Hassett, an economist appointed last year by Trump as director of the National Economic Council.

Like Trump, Hassett believes interest rates should be much lower. Having served in both Trump administrations, Hassett also appears likely to offer loyalty and compliance with Trump’s demands.

The second candidate under consideration by Trump is economist Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor and bank executive. Warsh brings a reputation as an inflation hawk from his time at Federal Reserve during the Global Financial Crisis.

However, a recent interview with the president appears to have assured Trump that Warsh shares his goals, and he is now “at the top of the list” of candidates.

Regardless of who Trump appoints, the crucial question remains whether the next Fed chair will pursue an independent monetary policy free from political interference.

With the president continuing to concentrate power in the hands of the executive, the Federal Reserve remains an important site for the exercise of independent power.

The stagflation crisis of the 1970s stands as a clear warning of what might happen if that independence is compromised.

The spectre of stagflation means financial markets, consumers, and the rest of the world remain unwilling participants in the political drama continuing to play out between the Federal Reserve and the White House.

Henry Maher 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 is close to naming the new Federal Reserve chief. His choice could raise the risk of stagflation – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-close-to-naming-the-new-federal-reserve-chief-his-choice-could-raise-the-risk-of-stagflation-272052

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matthew L. Druckenmiller, Senior Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado Boulder

The Arctic is transforming faster and with more far-reaching consequences than scientists expected just 20 years ago, when the first Arctic Report Card assessed the state of Earth’s far northern environment.

The snow season is dramatically shorter today, sea ice is thinning and melting earlier, and wildfire seasons are getting worse. Increasing ocean heat is reshaping ecosystems as non-Arctic marine species move northward. Thawing permafrost is releasing iron and other minerals into rivers, which degrades drinking water. And extreme storms fueled by warming seas are putting communities at risk.

The past water year, October 2024 through September 2025, brought the highest Arctic air temperatures since records began 125 years ago, including the warmest autumn ever measured and a winter and a summer that were among the warmest on record. Overall, the Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the Earth as a whole.

For the 20th Arctic Report Card, we worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an international team of scientists and Indigenous partners from across the Arctic to track environmental changes in the North – from air and ocean temperatures to sea ice, snow, glaciers and ecosystems – and the impacts on communities.

Together, these vital signs reveal a striking and interconnected transformation underway that’s amplifying risks for people who live there.

A wetter Arctic with more extreme precipitation

Arctic warming is intensifying the region’s water cycle.

A warmer atmosphere increases evaporation, precipitation and meltwater from snow and ice, adding and moving more water through the climate system. That leads to more extreme rainstorms and snowstorms, changing river flows and altering ecosystems.

The Arctic region saw record-high precipitation for the entire 2025 water year and for spring, with the other seasons each among the top-five wettest since at least 1950. Extreme weather – particularly atmospheric rivers, which are long narrow “rivers in the sky” that transport large amounts of water vapor – played an outsized role.

These wetter conditions are reshaping snow cover across the region.

Snow and ice losses accelerate warming, hazards

Snow blankets the Arctic throughout much of the year, but that snow cover isn’t lasting as long. In 2025, snowpack was above average in the cold winter months, yet rapid spring melting left the area covered by snow far smaller than normal by June, continuing a six-decade decline. June snow cover in recent years has been half of what it was in the 1960s.

Losing late spring snow cover means losing a bright, reflective surface that helps keep the Arctic cool, allowing the land instead to be directly warmed by the sun, which raises the temperature.

Sea ice tells a similar story. The year’s maximum sea ice coverage, reached in March, was the lowest in the 47-year satellite record. The minimum sea ice coverage, in September, was the 10th lowest.

Since the 1980s, the summer sea ice extent has shrunk by about 50%, while the area covered by the oldest, thickest sea ice – ice that has existed for longer than four years – has declined by more than 95%.

The thinner sea ice cover is more influenced by winds and currents, and less resilient against warming waters. This means greater variability in sea ice conditions, causing new risks for people living and working in the Arctic.

The Greenland Ice Sheet continued to lose mass in 2025, as it has every year since the late 1990s. As the ice sheet melts and calves more icebergs into the surrounding seas, it adds to global sea-level rise.

Mountain glaciers are also losing ice at an extraordinary rate – the annual rate of glacier ice loss across the Arctic has tripled since the 1990s.

This poses immediate local hazards. Glacial lake outburst floods – when water that is dammed up by a glacier is suddenly released – are becoming more frequent. In Juneau, Alaska, recent outburst floods from Mendenhall Glacier have inundated homes and displaced residents with record-setting levels of floodwater.

Glacier retreat can also contribute to catastrophic landslide impacts. Following the retreat of South Sawyer Glacier, a landslide in southeast Alaska’s Tracy Arm in August 2025 generated a tsunami that swept across the narrow fjord and ran nearly 1,600 feet (nearly 490 meters) up the other side. Fortunately, the fjord was empty of the cruise ships that regularly visit.

Record-warm oceans drive storms, ecosystem shifts

Arctic Ocean surface waters are steadily warming, with August 2025 temperatures among the highest ever measured. In some Atlantic-sector regions, sea surface temperatures were as much as 13 degrees Fahrenheit (7.2 Celsius) above the 1991-2020 average. Some parts of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas were cooler than normal.

Warm water in the Bering Sea set the stage for one of the year’s most devastating events: Ex-Typhoon Halong, which fed on unusually warm ocean temperatures before slamming into western Alaska with hurricane-force winds and catastrophic flooding. Some villages, including Kipnuk and Kwigillingok, were heavily damaged.

As seas warm, powerful Pacific cyclones, which draw energy from warm water, are reaching higher latitudes and maintaining strength longer. Alaska’s Arctic has seen four ex-typhoons since 1970, and three of them arrived in the past four years.

The Arctic is also seeing warmer, saltier Atlantic Ocean water intrude northward into the Arctic Ocean. This process, known as Atlantification, weakens the natural layering of water that once shielded sea ice from deeper ocean heat. It is already increasing sea ice loss and reshaping habitat for marine life, such as by changing the timing of phytoplankton production, which provides the base of the ocean food web, and increasing the likelihood of harmful algal blooms.

From ocean ‘borealization’ to tundra greening

Warming seas and declining sea ice are enabling southern, or boreal, marine species to move northward. In the northern Bering and Chukchi seas, Arctic species have declined sharply – by two-thirds and one-half, respectively – while the populations of boreal species expand.

On land, a similar “borealization” is underway. Satellite data shows that tundra vegetation productivity – known as tundra greenness – hit its third-highest level in the 26-year record in 2025, part of a trend driven by longer growing seasons and warmer temperatures. Yet greening is not universal – browning events caused by wildfires and extreme weather are also increasing.

Summer 2025 marked the fourth consecutive year with above-median wildfire area across northern North America. Nearly 1,600 square miles (over 4,000 square kilometers) burned in Alaska and over 5,000 square miles (over 13,600 square kilometers) burned in Canada’s Northwest Territories.

Permafrost thaw is turning rivers orange

As permafrost – the frozen ground that underlies much of the Arctic – continues its long-term warming and thaw, one emerging consequence is the spread of rusting rivers.

As thawing soils release iron and other minerals, more than 200 watersheds across Arctic Alaska now show orange discoloration. These waters exhibit higher acidity and elevated levels of toxic metals, which can contaminate fish habitat and drinking water and impact subsistence livelihoods.

In Kobuk Valley National Park in Alaska, a tributary to the Akillik River lost all its juvenile Dolly Varden and slimy sculpin fish after an abrupt increase in stream acidity when the stream turned orange.

Arctic communities lead new monitoring efforts

The rapid pace of change underscores the need for strong Arctic monitoring systems. Yet many government-funded observing networks face funding shortfalls and other vulnerabilities.

At the same time, Indigenous communities are leading new efforts.

The Arctic Report Card details how the people of St. Paul Island, in the Bering Sea, have spent over 20 years building and operating their own observation system, drawing on research partnerships with outside scientists while retaining control over monitoring, data and sharing of results. The Indigenous Sentinels Network tracks environmental conditions ranging from mercury in traditional foods to coastal erosion and fish habitat and is building local climate resilience in one of the most rapidly changing environments on the planet.

The Arctic is facing threats from more than the changing climate; it’s also a region where concerns of ecosystem health and pollutants come sharply into view. In this sense, the Arctic provides a vantage point for addressing the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.

The next 20 years will continue to reshape the Arctic, with changes felt by communities and economies across the planet.

Matthew L. Druckenmiller receives funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to serve as an editor for the Arctic Report Card.

Rick Thoman receives funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to serve as an editor for the Arctic Report Card.

Twila A. Moon receives funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to serve as an editor for the Arctic Report Card.

– ref. From record warming to rusting rivers, 2025 Arctic Report Card shows a region transforming faster than expected – https://theconversation.com/from-record-warming-to-rusting-rivers-2025-arctic-report-card-shows-a-region-transforming-faster-than-expected-271572

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Yao-Tai Li, Senior Lecturer of Sociology and Social Policy, UNSW Sydney

This week, after a 156-day trial, the Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigner and media tycoon Jimmy Lai was convicted of sedition and collusion with foreign or external forces.

Now facing life in prison, Lai was convicted under the country’s National Security Law, introduced in 2020.

During the 2019 protests in Hong Kong, Lai and the media outlet he owned — Apple Daily — regularly presented the views of pro-democracy activists.

It openly criticised the Hong Kong and Beijing governments, and encouraged readers to participate in pro-democracy rallies and protests.

Apple Daily and Lai came to symbolise the democratic ideal of a free press, able to criticise those in power without fear of censorship or sanction.

His conviction represents a major blow to those ideals.

The end of press freedom in Hong Kong?

In the years since the introduction of Hong Kong’s National Security Law, press freedom has slowly been limited. Lai’s conviction symbolises it has now ended altogether.

In 2002, Hong Kong was ranked 18th globally for press freedom in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index. It fell to 39th in 2005, and then to 73rd in 2019.

After the introduction of the national security law in 2020, a chilling effect soon took hold. Many pro-democracy media outlets and NGOs quickly disbanded.

This included Apple Daily and Hong Kong’s last opposition party, the Democratic Party.

Hong Kong has now plummeted to 140th place in the world press freedom rankings. Press freedom conditions are “bad” or “very serious”, according to Reporters Without Borders.

However, Lai’s trial symbolises a shift from self-censorship to an official view that certain media outlets are illegal.

It comes across as a clear message from the government that dissenting views will not be tolerated.

The Hong Kong media no longer serves as a vehicle for alternative views and airing of different political positions.

From rule of law to ruled by law

In the common law tradition, it is not uncommon for legislation to contain some degree of ambiguity. This is so courts can consider the “spirit” or “purpose” of the law as they pertain to each unique case. It allows flexibility as circumstances change.

In the 2020 National Security Law, however, what counts as violating national security is left completely undefined. This means virtually anything could be construed as violating national security.

In July 2022, the United Nations Human Rights Committee raised concerns about this law and the lack of clarity around the definition of “national security”.

This ambiguity means Hong Kongers are left in a state of uncertainty over which activities will or will not be perceived as undermining Beijing’s political authority.

Lai’s conviction (along with the conviction of 47 pro-democracy advocates) signifies that one possible definition of “national security” could be anything against Beijing’s agenda.

A blow to public trust in the courts

Lai’s conviction also represents a significant blow to public trust in Hong Kong’s judicial system.

In Hong Kong, judicial independence is constitutionally described in what’s known as the Basic Law. Various articles of this law mention that:

• Hong Kong courts are independent and free from interference
• members of the judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions
• judges shall be appointed by the chief executive based on the recommendation of an independent commission composed of local judges, persons from the legal profession and eminent persons from other sectors.

In reality, however, problems soon become apparent.

The Bar Human Rights Committee – an independent, international human rights arm of the bar of England and Wales – has flagged major concerns regarding the lack of transparency about how cases are assigned within the Hong Kong judiciary.

Tribunal procedures are also separate for national security cases, which are presided over by a designated panel of judges. These judges are selected by the chief executive in consultation with the politically appointed National Security Committee.

Surveys show a significant drop in Hong Kong citizens’ perceptions of the fairness of the judicial system, the impartiality of the courts, and the rule of law. This drop has been observed since the introduction of the National Security Law in 2020.

Lai’s trial symbolises that the public trust and confidence in Hong Kong’s courts no longer exists. In fact, one of the main slogans in support of Lai on social media is “rule of law is dead!”

The end of ‘one country, two systems’?

Lai’s conviction represents a failed attempt to challenge the Chinese political regime.

It shows any action that may be perceived as interfering with the legitimacy of the Chinese government could be deemed as “illegal” and in violation of “national security”.

Yao-Tai Li 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. Hong Kong pro-democracy publisher convicted of sedition, in major blow to press freedom – https://theconversation.com/hong-kong-pro-democracy-publisher-convicted-of-sedition-in-major-blow-to-press-freedom-272079

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nolan Fahrenkopf, Research Fellow at Project on International Security, Commerce and Economic Statecraft, University at Albany, State University of New York

Two years after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, families of the victims filed suit against Binance, a major cryptocurrency platform that has been plagued by scandals.

In a Nov. 24, 2025, filing by representatives of more than 300 victims and family members, Binance and its former CEO – recently pardoned Changpeng Zhao – were accused of willfully ignoring anti-money-laundering and so-called “know your customer” controls that require financial institutions to identify who is engaging in transactions.

In so doing, the suit alleged that Binance and Zhao – who in 2023 pleaded guilty to money laundering violations – allowed U.S.-designated terrorist entities such as Hamas and Hezbollah to launder US$1 billion. Binance has declined to comment on the case but issued a statement saying it complies “fully with internationally recognized sanctions laws.”

The problem the Binance lawsuit touches upon goes beyond U.S.-designated terrorist groups.

As an expert in countering the proliferation of weapons technology, I believe the Binance-Hamas allegations could represent the tip of the iceberg in how cryptocurrency is being leveraged to undermine global security and, in some instances, U.S. national security.

Cryptocurrency is aiding countries such as North Korea, Iran and Russia, and various terror- and drug-related groups in funding and purchasing billions of dollars worth of technology for illicit weapons programs.

Though some enforcement actions continue, I believe the Trump administration’s embrace of cryptocurrency might compromise the U.S.’s ability to counter the illicit financing of military technology.

In fact, experts such as professor Yesha Yadav, professor Hilary J. Allen and Graham Steele, anti-corruption advocacy group Transparency International and even the U.S. Treasury itself warn it and other legislative loopholes could further risk American national security.

A tool to evade sanctions

For the past 13 years, the Project on International Security, Commerce, and Economic Statecraft, where I serve as a research fellow, has conducted research and led industry and government outreach to help countries counter the proliferation of dangerous weapons technology, including the use of cryptocurrency in weapons fundraising and money laundering.

Over that time, we have seen an increase in cryptocurrency being used to launder and raise funds for weapons programs and as an innovative tool to evade sanctions.

Efforts by state actors in Iran, North Korea and Russia rely on enforcement gaps, loopholes and the nebulous nature of cryptocurrency to launder and raise money for purchasing weapons technology. For example, in 2024 it was thought that around 50% of North Korea’s foreign currency came from crypto raised in cyberattacks.

A digital bank heist

In February 2025, North Korea stole over $1.5 billion worth of cryptocurrency from Bybit, a cryptocurrency exchange based in the United Arab Emirates. Such attacks can be thought of as a form of digital bank heist. Bybit was executing regular transfers of cryptocurrency from cold offline wallets – like a safe in your home – to “warm wallets” that are online but require human verification for transactions.

North Korean agents duped a developer working at a service used by Bybit to install malware that granted them access to bypass the multifactor authentication. This allowed North Korea to reroute the crypto transfers to itself. The funds were moved to North Korean-controlled wallets but then washed repeatedly through mixers and multiple other crypto currencies and wallets that serve to hide the origin and end location of the funds.

While some funds have been recovered, many have disappeared.

The FBI eventually linked the attack to the North Korean cyber group TraderTraitor, one of many intelligence and cyber units engaging in cyberattacks.

Lagging behind on security

Cryptocurrency is attractive because of the ease with which it can be acquired and transferred between accounts and various digital and government-issued currencies, with little to no requirements to identify oneself.

And as countries such as Russia, Iran and North Korea have become constricted by international sanctions, they have turned to cryptocurrency to both raise funds and purchase materials for weapons programs.

Even stablecoins, promoted by the Trump administration as safer and backed by hard currency such as the U.S. dollar, suffer from extensive misuse linked to funding illicit weapons programs and other activities.

Traditional financial networks, while not immune from money laundering, have well-established safeguards to help prevent money being used to fund illicit weapons programs.

But recent analysis shows that despite enforcement efforts, the cryptocurrency industry continues to lag behind when it comes to enforcing anti-money-laundering safeguards. In at least some cases this is willful, as some crypto firms may attempt to circumvent controls for profit motives, ideological reasons or policy disputes over whether platforms can be held accountable for the actions of individual users.

It isn’t only the raising of these funds by rogue nations and terrorist groups that poses a threat, though that is often what makes headlines. A more pressing concern is the ability to quietly launder funds between front companies. This helps actors avoid the scrutiny of traditional financial networks as they seek to move funds from other fundraising efforts or firms they use to purchase equipment and technology.

The incredible number of crypto transactions, the large number of centralized and decentralized exchanges and brokers, and limited regulatory efforts have made crypto incredibly useful for laundering funds for weapons programs.

This process benefits from a lack of safeguards and “know your customer” controls that banks are required to follow to prevent financial crimes. These should, I believe, and often do apply to entities large and small that help move, store or transfer cryptocurrency known as virtual asset service providers, or VASPs. However, enforcement has proven difficult as there are an incredibly large number of VASPs across numerous jurisdictions. And jurisdictions have fluctuating capacity or willingness to implement controls.

The cryptocurrency industry, though supposedly subject to many of these safeguards, often fails to implement the rules, or it evades detection due to its decentralized nature.

Digital funds, real risk

The rewards for rogue nations and organizations such as North Korea can be great.

Ever the savvy sanctions evader, North Korea has benefited the most from its early vision on the promise of crypto. The reclusive country has established an extensive cyber program to evade sanctions that relies heavily on cryptocurrency. It is not known how much money North Korea has raised or laundered in total for its weapons program using crypto, but in the past 21 months it has stolen at least $2.8 billion in crypto.

Iran has also begun relying on cryptocurrency to aid in the sale of oil linked to weapons programs – both for itself and proxy forces such as the Houthis and Hezbollah. These efforts are fueled in part by Iran’s own crypto exchange, Nobitex.

Russia has been documented going beyond the use of crypto as a fundraising and laundering tool and has begun using its own crypto to purchase weapons material and technology that fuel its war against Ukraine.

A threat to national security

Despite these serious and escalating risks, the U.S. government is pulling back enforcement.

The controversial pardon of Binance founder Changpeng Zhao raised eyebrows for the signal it sends regarding U.S. commitment to enforcing sanctions related to the cryptocurrency industry. Other actions such as deregulating the banking industry’s use of crypto and shuttering the Department of Justice’s crypto fraud unit have done serious damage to the U.S.’s ability to interdict and prevent efforts to utilize cryptocurrencies to fund weapons programs.

The U.S. has also committed to ending “regulation by prosecution” and has withdrawn numerous investigations related to failing to enforce regulations meant to prevent tactics used by entities such as North Korea. This includes abandoning an admittedly complicated legal case regarding sanctions against a “mixer” allegedly used by North Korea.

These actions, I believe, send the wrong message. At this very moment, cryptocurrency is being illicitly used to fund weapons programs that threaten American security. It’s a real problem that deserves to be taken seriously.

And while some enforcement actions do continue, failing to implement and enforce safeguards up front means that crypto will continue to be used to fund weapons programs. Cryptocurrency has legitimate uses, but ignoring the laundering and sanctions-evasion risks will damage American national interests and global security.

Nolan Fahrenkopf is a research fellow at the Center for Policy Research at the University at Albany, which receives grants related to nonproliferation from the U.S. Department of State and Department of Energy.

– ref. How rogue nations are capitalizing on gaps in crypto regulation to finance weapons programs – https://theconversation.com/how-rogue-nations-are-capitalizing-on-gaps-in-crypto-regulation-to-finance-weapons-programs-269060

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Daniel E. Esser, Associate Professor of International Studies, American University

The year 2025 has not been a great one for U.S.-Chinese relations. Tit-for-tat tariffs and the scramble over rare earth elements has dampened economic relations between the world’s two leading economies. Meanwhile, territorial disputes between China and American allies in the Indo-Pacific region have further deepened the intensifying military rivalry.

This rift has often been portrayed as a clash of opposing ideological systems: democracy versus autocracy; economic liberalism versus state-led growth; and individualism versus collectivism.

But such framing relies on a top-down look at the two countries premised on statements and claims of powerful leaders. What it obscures is that both superpowers are administered by the same kind of professionals: career bureaucrats.

We are an international team of researchers investigating bureaucratic preferences and behavior. Earlier this year, we hosted a two-day workshop with participants from China, the United States and other countries to compare bureaucratic agencies’ responses to global challenges.

Our research and that of others shows that, despite the ideological standoff at the leadership level, officials in China and the U.S. are shaped by comparable incentives and dynamics that lead them to act in surprisingly similar ways. In other words, when it comes to the women and men who carry out the actual work of government – from drafting regulation to enforcing compliance – China and the U.S. aren’t really that different.

Separated by politics, not practice

That’s not to suggest there aren’t differences in aspects of China’s and the U.S.’s bureaucratic base.

China’s system is more centralized, with a larger civil service of around 8 million employees as of 2024. The U.S. bureaucracy is more decentralized across federal, state and local levels and employs fewer bureaucrats, with around 3 million federal employees in 2024.

Still, comparative research on bureaucracies around the world shows that civil servants act similarly when confronted with complex problems, regardless of political system or policy field.

Whether they are municipal bureaucrats in Brazil, foreign aid officials in Germany, Norway and South Korea, or international civil servants at the United Nations, they all operate within the constraints of politically embedded organizations while pursuing their individual careers. In other words, they want to get ahead in their jobs while navigating constantly changing political winds.

Bureaucrats in the U.S. and China also navigate changing demands from their political leaders while seeking to gain expertise and progress in their careers.

Managing public expectations

Foreign aid, environmental management and pandemic governance in the U.S. and China provide telling examples of these parallels.

At first glance, the approaches of China and the U.S. to the use of foreign aid may appear as complete opposites. The former established the China International Development Cooperation Agency in 2018. Since then it has expanded and evolved its engagement abroad.

By contrast, the U.S. abolished USAID earlier in 2025, slashed its foreign aid budget, and moved remaining staff members into the State Department.

It would therefore seem that the U.S. and China are on opposing trajectories. Yet, the current moment obscures similarities between foreign aid bureaucrats in the two countries. Their tasks entail satisfying political objectives, overseeing taxpayer-funded projects abroad, and managing domestic public expectations.

The expertise required of these bureaucrats is to increase their country’s “soft power” while avoiding the appearance of wasting scarce funds abroad amid looming domestic needs.

With foreign aid admonished by the Trump administration as wasteful politics, officials in Washington are under unprecedented pressure to pursue financial diplomacy that recognizably serves U.S. interests while supporting foreign leaders whom the president considers allies. This agenda shift moves the U.S. closer to the Chinese foreign aid principle of seeking mutual benefits.

Meanwhile, Chinese aid officials are pivoting away from prioritizing large-scale infrastructure projects and toward a purported “small but beautiful projects” approach that centers on the well-being of beneficiaries. This pivot aligns their thinking with “softer” topics emblematic of U.S. foreign aid until 2024.

The logic of blame avoidance

The case of bureaucratic responses to environmental pollution scandals is equally instructive. Again, one might expect bureaucrats in the U.S. and China, operating within different governance systems, to approach the problem differently.

In practice, however, bureaucrats in both countries are often motivated by an urge to avoid blame.

Rather than building on policy success stories, they tend to seek to deflect criticism for policy failures onto others. The underlying reason is so-called asymmetric payoffs: Success stories may lead to short-term public acclaim; policy failures jeopardize entire careers.

In China, the anti-air pollution measures introduced in Hebei province, which borders the capital Beijing, provide a prime example of the logic of blame avoidance. When the central government in 2017 urged provincial officials to reduce air pollution by banning coal heating, the officials’ overzealous implementation was motivated by a desire to shield themselves from potential blame from national leadership.

As a result, the needs of Hebei residents were ignored, with schoolchildren shivering in unheated classrooms. Rather than assuming the blame, both national and local officials shifted the focus onto middle-class Beijing residents, who were pilloried in the media for prioritizing clean air over the well-being of others.

Meanwhile in the U.S., the city of Flint, Michigan, had been reeling from decades of industrial decay and financial distress. The state government appointed an emergency manager who implemented cost-cutting measures, including switching the city’s water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River. This change resulted in lead contamination and widespread health impacts, escalating into a national scandal. As in Hebei, all parties – from state regulators to local officials and environmental agencies – blamed each other in an attempt to avoid responsibility.

Careerism as constraint

Parallel bureaucratic behaviors also became apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. In China and the U.S. alike, public officials worked at the forefront of implementing public health guidelines. The Chinese response was said to benefit from an “authoritarian advantage,” allowing its authorities to impose drastic measures rapidly and comprehensively.

However, evidence-based policymaking was constrained by political preferences and bureaucratic careerism – the drive of officials to prioritize actions that help them get promoted.

It produced similar dynamics to those observed in the more decentralized U.S. setting. In both China and the U.S., bureaucrats were risk averse and anxious not to fall out with supervisors and political leaders.

The Chinese approach resulted in a decrease in public trust, a phenomenon that has also been unfolding in the U.S.

And much like their American counterparts, Chinese bureaucrats initially scrambled together information from a cacophony of political and expert voices. This indecision blunted their response to the viral outbreak in the decisive early days of the pandemic, even though it was eventually replaced by an official narrative emphasizing efficiency and success. In both systems, bureaucratic delays had detrimental consequences for public health.

An anchor of stability

Amid the heightened geopolitical tensions between Beijing and Washington, it is important to remember that all powers rely on capable administrations to implement political directives. Politics set the tone, but bureaucrats shape reality.

And the modus operandi of Chinese and American bureaucrats has remained strikingly stable over the years – driven primarily by incentives rather than ideology. This similarity is increasingly being reflected by converging leadership styles at the top of each political system.

U.S. President Donald Trump resembles Chinese President Xi Jinping in his campaign-style politics and the cult of personality that many political observers see developing around him.

There is a definite upside to similar bureaucratic behavior. It renders the two superpowers more predictable in periods of increasingly heated political rhetoric.

For national leaders’ proclamations to have any effect, large bureaucratic organizations need to translate political content into national and international action. Not only does this take time and resources, but erratic announcements are dissipated by bureaucratic routines.

And that provides an anchor of stability in volatile times.

While working for the German Institute of Development and Sustainability, Daniel E. Esser received funding from the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Heiner Janus works for the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), which receives funding from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Mark Theisen works for the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), which receives funding from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Tim Röthel works for the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), which receives funding from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

– ref. 2 superpowers, 1 playbook: Why Chinese and US bureaucrats think and act alike – https://theconversation.com/2-superpowers-1-playbook-why-chinese-and-us-bureaucrats-think-and-act-alike-266305

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Federal, state and territory governments have agreed to the biggest overhaul of Australia’s gun laws since the Howard government’s post-Port Arthur reforms, in a response to the Bondi massacre that has claimed the lives of 15 victims so far and one of the perpetrators.

After a late Monday afternoon meeting of national cabinet, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the leaders had commissioned police ministers and attorneys-general to develop options for extensive changes. These include:

• accelerating work on standing up the National Firearms Register

• allowing for additional use of criminal intelligence to underpin firearms
  licensing that can be used in administrative licensing regimes

• limiting the number of firearms to be held by any one individual

• limiting open-ended firearms licensing and the types of guns that are legal,
  including modifications and,

• a condition of a firearm license is holding Australian citizenship.

Albanese said, in a statement after national cabinet, leaders had agreed “that strong, decisive and focused action was needed on gun law reform as an immediate action”.

This included “renegotiating the National Firearms Agreement, first established after the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy, to ensure it remains as robust as possible in today’s changing security environment”.

As an immediate priority, the federal government will prepare further customs restrictions for the import of firearms and other weapons. This will include 3D printing, novel technology and firearms equipment that can hold large amounts of ammunition.

Before the national cabinet meeting Albanese said, “People’s circumstances change, people can be radicalised over a period of time. Licences should not be in perpetuity.”

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns earlier flagged that NSW was looking to make changes to its gun laws.

“We need to make sure the firearms legislation in New South Wales is fit for purpose. That does mean restricting firearms for the general public, for the people of New South Wales,” Minns said.

The shootings were carried out by a father and son. The father, Sajid Akram, 50, was killed, while his son, Naveed Akram, 24, is in hospital. The father, who came to Australia in 1998 on a student visa, had a gun licence and six weapons.

Names and details of victims emerged during the day. They included a 87-year-old Holocaust survivor, Alexander Kleytman, and a 10-year-old girl, Matilda. Other victims were Rabbi Eli Schlanger, 41, local Jewish volunteer Marika Pogany, 82, and former NSW police officer Peter Meagher, 78. French National Dan Elkayam and one Israeli national were also killed.

Late Monday NSW Health confirmed 27 patients were receiving care in Sydney hospitals.

In a day of crisis talks, federal cabinet also met, as well as its national security committee.

Albanese declared, “We will do whatever is necessary to stamp out antisemitism”.

But pressed on the recommendations of the government’s envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who reported some months ago, Albanese did not commit to implementing her more radical proposals

Segal on Monday reiterated antisemitism needed to be attacked “through education, through very clear guardrails in relation to what’s acceptable in terms of our laws, through carrying through with prosecutions and penalties, through what’s happening on social media and through community speaking out.

“It means bringing that definition of antisemitism alive through the public sector. It means making sure our immigration settings are appropriate at a state level. I think we obviously need to review gun licenses.”

The Bondi attack attracted attention around the world.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly attacked Albanese.

“Your government did nothing to stop the spread of antisemitism in Australia.

“You did nothing to curb the cancer cells that were growing inside your country. You took no action. You let the disease spread and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today.”

Netanyahu made special reference to Ahmed Al Ahmed who disarmed one of the gunmen: “a brave man, turns out a Muslim […] and I salute him”.

Local Jewish leaders condemned what they regard as inadequate past action against antisemitism and called for renewed efforts to combat it.

Josh Frydenberg, former Liberal treasurer in the Morrison government and a leader in the Jewish community said: “our governments, federal and state, our leadership in our civil institutions have not done enough.

“And the questions must be asked, why didn’t they act? Why didn’t they listen to the warnings, including from those who were heading up our intelligence and security agencies like ASIO, who said the rising antisemitism was their number one concern?” Frydenberg said.

The opposition was highly critical of the Albanese government.

Opposition leader Sussan Ley said, “We’ve seen a clear failure to keep Jewish Australians safe. We’ve seen a clear lack of leadership in keeping Jewish Australians safe. We have a government that sees antisemitism as a problem to be managed, not evil that needs to be eradicated.”

Former shadow home affairs spokesman Andrew Hastie claimed the government’s attention on gun reform was “a massive deflection” by the prime minister.

Hastie said the question was why when ASIO had identified Naveed Akram in 2019, his father been allowed to keep six guns.

“Let’s be clear here, it looks like radical militant Islam, who used guns to cut down people, innocent people, during a very significant religious festival, Hanukkah.” Hastie said.

He also stressed the need for screening people’s values as well as their views in relation to antisemitism.

“I want to see people coming to this country who speak English, who support Australian values of faith, reason, inquiry and debate […] we are a Judeo-Christian country, in the sense that that’s the basis on which our democracy works,” he told Sky.

Michelle Grattan 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. National cabinet agrees to sweeping overhaul of Australia’s gun laws in response to Bondi massacre – https://theconversation.com/national-cabinet-agrees-to-sweeping-overhaul-of-australias-gun-laws-in-response-to-bondi-massacre-271949

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Daniel, Associate Lecturer in Communication, Western Sydney University

Rob Reiner, the celebrated Hollywood director whose diverse filmography was loved by a broad array of audiences, was found dead on Sunday in Los Angeles. He was 78.

Authorities have described the deaths of Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, as suspected homicide. Their son, Nick, has been arrested in relation to their death.

Despite this tragic and shocking news, the many tributes to Reiner that have emerged overnight have celebrated the evident warmth, intelligence and humour of the man and his work.

From my perspective, Reiner’s career stands as one of the clearest demonstrations of a director moving fluidly across genres while maintaining a consistent worldview.

Whether they were romantic comedies (When Harry Met Sally…, The American President, The Sure Thing), thrillers (Misery), courtroom dramas (A Few Good Men) or coming-of-age fables (Stand By Me), Reiner’s films return again and again to deeply humanist beliefs: that people, however flawed, are capable of growth and connection; that care and empathy for each other is vital; and that cinematic stories can help us recognise this in one another.

Taking comedy seriously

First entering the cultural imagination as Meathead on TV’s All in the Family (1971–79), Reiner’s performances as an actor often concealed his sharp political intelligence beneath blunt humour.

This tension between surface comedy and underlying seriousness would also become a defining feature of his work as a director.

From the outset of his directing career with This Is Spinal Tap (1984), Reiner used comedy as a way of revealing character, contradiction and vulnerability.

This Is Spinal Tap became one of the most influential comedies ever made and my personal favourite comedy of all time.

Often celebrated for its improvisational brilliance and satirical sharpness, I think the film is equally remarkable for its affection towards its characters. It treats the titular band’s absurdity as inseparable from their sincerity.

In doing so, Reiner also helped define a new comedic grammar in the mockumentary format that was incredibly influential for future generations of comedy filmmakers.

---

Read more:
Why This Is Spinal Tap remains the funniest rock satire ever made

---

A huge emotional range

Across the late 1980s and early 1990s, Reiner’s extraordinary run of films demonstrated not only technical versatility but an emotional range that was rare among his peers.

The Princess Bride (1987) fused fairy-tale romance, adventure and meta-humour. When Harry Met Sally… (1989) remains one of the great comedic explorations of love, intimacy and relationships in American cinema.

Perhaps most striking was Reiner’s comfort with tonal complexity.

Stand by Me (1986), adapted from a Stephen King novella, looks back on childhood with both nostalgic memory and an acknowledgement of the darkness underneath suburban adolescence. Misery (1990), another King adaptation, examines toxic fandom and obsession in a taut and compelling thriller with splashes of dark humour.

A Few Good Men (1992) brings courtroom theatrics into conversation with questions of authority and ethical responsibility in the military, and gave us two iconic performances from Hollywood superstars Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson.

What unites these films is not a particular style or subject matter, but perspective.

Reiner’s direction often privileged performance and emotion. Even when working within genre frameworks, he never accepted genre as a cage. Instead, he understood the pleasures of genre and how to utilise their tropes to explore broader questions of humanity.

Sincerity as a strength

Politically outspoken and unapologetically engaged, Reiner also never separated civic responsibility from artistic practice.

However, his films resisted dogma. In an industry that often privileges cynicism or ironic distance, Reiner’s work insisted on sincerity as a strength.

If there was a through-line to Rob Reiner’s legacy, I would argue it is a desire for audiences to feel deeply without embarrassment. His films demonstrated that laughter could be one of the most humane forces storytelling has to offer.

As an adolescent cinephile raised in the 1980s and 1990s, Reiner’s work opened my eyes to how important emotional connection was in the pact between audience and film.

His ability to work effectively across genres was due to the masterful and sincere way he made us care for his characters, be they buffoonish rock stars, princes and princesses, military lawyers and generals, or teenage boys facing their first exposure to mortality.

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

– ref. In a cynical industry, Rob Reiner’s films taught us the power of sincerity – https://theconversation.com/in-a-cynical-industry-rob-reiners-films-taught-us-the-power-of-sincerity-272164