Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Olga Oleinikova, Associate Professor and Director of the SITADHub (Social Impact Technologies and Democracy Research Hub) in the School of Communication, University of Technology Sydney

“I didn’t come here to get rich. I came because I had no other way to keep my son safe and care for my displaced family”.

Anna is a 28-year-old woman from eastern Ukraine. She fled the country in 2023 after Russian troops invaded. Two years later, she agreed to become a surrogate in Georgia for wealthy foreign couples.

We met Anna, who was already pregnant, in a quiet apartment that had been rented for her by a surrogacy agency on the outskirts of the capital, Tbilisi.

Our multidisciplinary team was in Georgia to conduct a pilot research project examining the small country’s rapidly expanding surrogacy industry.

We conducted in-depth interviews with Ukrainian women to better understand their motivations for entering surrogacy arrangements, their experiences within the system, and the social, economic, and legal factors shaping their decision-making and wellbeing.

We also analysed publicly available policy and regulatory documents from the government to examine how the sector operates. We paid particular attention to emerging regulatory challenges, gaps in oversight and the state’s efforts to balance economic opportunity with ethical and human rights considerations.

The shifting geography of surrogacy

Surrogacy laws vary widely around the world. Some countries, including Australia, prohibit commercial surrogacy. Others allow it under specific conditions. These differences create cross-border markets, where intended parents travel abroad to access services that are restricted, expensive or unavailable at home.

Before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine was one of the world’s largest commercial surrogacy hubs. Estimates suggest between 2,000 and 2,500 babies were born each year through surrogacy arrangements.

War disrupted the industry. Clinics closed or relocated. Travel became dangerous. Media outlets reported on intended parents struggling to reach newborns and surrogates displaced by fighting. Georgia became a safe alternative.

International surrogacy has been legal in Georgia since 1997. That’s when the country adopted legislation allowing both gestational (a woman carrying an embryo not genetically related to her) and traditional surrogacy (a woman carrying an embryo for another couple using her own egg). The first children were born through gestational surrogacy around 2007.

The country’s clear legal framework – recognising intended parents as the child’s legal guardians from birth and granting no parental rights to the surrogate – has been a key factor in its appeal.

Costs are also significantly lower than in the United States. As independent international surrogacy consultant Olga Pysana told us:

In the last year, surrogacy in Georgia cost approximately US$55,000 to $85,000 (A$78,000 to A$120,000), whereas surrogacy in the United States can cost as much as US$250,000 (A$350,000).

With international demand surging in the 2010s, Georgia (a small country of 3.7 million people) quickly became unable to meet the needs of so many parents with local women alone. So clinics began recruiting potential surrogates from abroad, including from Ukraine, Central Asian countries, Russia, Belarus, Thailand and the Philippines.

Mobile surrogates

Several of the women we interviewed had previously worked with Ukrainian agencies. After the invasion, recruiters contacted them again – this time offering placements in Georgia.

Displacement has produced a new and economically vulnerable workforce. We describe these women as “mobile surrogates”: women who move across borders to provide reproductive labour in response to war, economic crises or changing surrogacy laws. “If there was no war, I would never have left,” Anna told us.

Most of the women we interviewed had lost homes, jobs or partners. Many were supporting children and extended family members across borders. Anna had worked in a shop before the war, then cleaned houses in Poland. “Surrogacy in Georgia pays in nine months what I would earn in years,” she said.

Our research found that surrogates are typically paid around US$20,000 (A$35,500) in instalments. For families displaced by war, this amount of money can cover rent, relocation costs and schooling.

But the arrangements come with strict contractual conditions. Women may face limits on travel, their diets and daily routines. Some live in shared apartments organised by agencies.

Independent legal advice is rare. Anna signed a contract in a language she did not fully understand, but felt she had little alternative: “I just needed something stable. I couldn’t keep moving from place to place”.

Georgia’s legal framework says little about labour standards, housing conditions or long-term health support for surrogates after birth. The result is an imbalance: strong protections for intended parents, and weaker safeguards for the women carrying babies.

A draft bill was introduced in 2023 aimed at curbing paid surrogacy for foreigners, due to growing concerns about the commercialisation of the industry and potential exploitation of surrogate mothers. However, it is still pending. As of early 2026, surrogacy remains legal in Georgia for foreign heterosexual couples.

Three trends we are seeing

First, reproductive markets are highly responsive to crises. When Ukraine’s industry became unstable, demand shifted rapidly to Georgia. Global fertility markets operate like other transnational industries: when one site contracts, another expands.

Second, economic inequality shapes who participates. Displacement and financial insecurity increase women’s willingness to enter demanding reproductive arrangements.

Third, the surrogates bear the brunt of regulatory ambiguities and associated risks and challenges. This includes dealing with contracts and medical procedures in languages they don’t understand.

Reform is needed

In Georgia, clearer labour protections are essential: minimum housing standards, transparent payment schedules, and mandatory, independent legal advice in a language surrogates understand. Health coverage for the women should also extend beyond birth.

The major markets for surrogacy services, including China, the US, Australia, Israel, Germany and others, should also review how their citizens engage in overseas surrogacy. This includes stronger regulation of agencies marketing abroad and clearer ethical guidance for intended parents.

Finally, greater international coordination is needed. Shared standards for cross-border surrogacy would improve transparency and accountability in a rapidly expanding and loosely regulated global market.

As demand grows, the central question is not whether cross-border surrogacy will continue, but whether it can be governed in ways that safeguard fairness, transparency and the rights of the women whose bodies sustain it.

Nothing to disclose.

Olga Oleinikova and Polina Vlasenko 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. ‘I didn’t come here to get rich’: new research on the lives of Ukrainian women in Georgia’s surrogacy boom – https://theconversation.com/i-didnt-come-here-to-get-rich-new-research-on-the-lives-of-ukrainian-women-in-georgias-surrogacy-boom-276173

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

This is the point of absurdity we have reached: on March 15, US President Donald Trump, in a Truth Social post, asserted that American news organisations were running AI-generated Iranian propaganda, and should be charged with treason for the dissemination of false information. One of the instances he cited was coverage of Iranians at a rally to support new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, which he said was totally AI-generated, and the event never took place, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

The most powerful man in the world is making large and important claims, one palpably false, the others without offering any evidence, and it seems few if any people take him seriously. Then he blithely threatens to charge unnamed people with treason, which in the United States is potentially a capital offence, and again it is not clear anyone takes him seriously. Despite the all-but-universal dismissal of his statements, he will probably suffer no political consequences. It is just another drop in an ocean of unaccountability.

One reason it will pass with negligible consequences is that these accusations have become so commonplace. Republicans have long railed against the “liberal” news media, but the Trump administration has brought such attacks to a new level of intensity.

In 2017, his first year in office, Trump denounced “fake news” and called the media the enemy of the American people. He said he had a “running war” with the media, and described journalists as “among the most dishonest human beings on Earth”.

Trump’s standard response to a question he doesn’t want to answer is to call the reporter (especially female reporters) a nasty person, or to denounce the organisation they work for. Recently his response to a US ABC reporter’s question was that her employer “may be the most corrupt news organisation on the planet. I think they’re terrible.”

As the war with Iran threatened to become more politically contentious, the administration has trained its rhetorical sights on the media. Trump endorsed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s threat to revoke broadcast licences of “the corrupt and highly unpatriotic media”:

They get billions of Dollars of FREE American airwaves, and use it to perpetuate LIES, both in news and almost all of their shows, including the Late Night Morons, who get gigantic Salaries for horrible Ratings.

Far more than any of his predecessors, Trump concerns himself with individuals and media organisations. For example, he thought Netflix should dismiss one of its board members who had worked for his Democrat predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden: “Netflix should fire, racist, Trump deranged Susan Rice IMMEDIATELY.”

A history of legal action

Trump has gone beyond rhetorical denunciations, however. He is the first US president, in recent times at least, to sue a news organisation. His targets so far have included the Pulitzer Prize Board, the Des Moines Register and its pollster Ann Selzer, the Wall St Journal, the New York Times, Penguin Random House and the BBC.

Without exception, his writs have no legal merit. (He has already lost suits against the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN). They are a means of harassment or perhaps just a threat: Trump sued CBS in 2024 over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Initially CBS said the case had no merit. However, in July 2025 it agreed to settle for $16 million.

The agreement came amid CBS parent company Paramount’s $8.4 billion merger with Skydance, which received regulatory approval weeks later. Stephen Colbert, host of its top-rating night show, called it “a big fat bribe”. Three days later Colbert’s show was cancelled, which the network said was purely a financial decision.

Trump congratulated himself in a post on his Truth Social site under the headline “President Trump is reshaping the media”. He listed 12 media organisations and individuals who are “gone”, such as CNN reporter Jim Acosta and Colbert. Then he listed a dozen “reforms”, such as CNN having new ownership. He finished the post with the word “Winning”.

Apart from the president, the most enthusiastic member of the cabinet in harassing the media is former Fox News presenter, now secretary of war, Pete Hegseth. Last year he announced that journalists who solicited unauthorised military information would have their access revoked and be deemed a security risk. Fifty-five out of 56 accredited journalists refused to sign the new agreement. In March a judge ruled the policy was unconstitutional but the government has said it will appeal.

Recently, Hegseth thought photos of him were “unflattering”, so photographers were banned from his next two briefings.

So it is not surprising Hegseth has been a vocal critic of media coverage. He finished one recent tirade by saying: “The sooner David Ellison takes over [CNN], the better.”

Ellison at the wheel

What is new and alarming about this is the reference to Ellison. It follows one of the biggest corporate takeovers in history. Ellison’s company, Paramount Skydance, has just succeeded in taking over Warner Bros Discovery. CNN is part of the package Ellison has acquired.

David is the son of Larry Ellison, the sixth-richest person in the world, who founded Oracle, a wildly successful software company. After Trump became president, the Ellisons moved into media in a big way.

The family first attracted public prominence when it was a central part of Trump choreographing the formation of a US TikTok company. Biden, with the approval of Congress, had sought to ban the popular video-sharing platform because of worries about security with the Chinese company ByteDance. Instead, Trump, on his first day of this second term, started a process to make it US-based, to remove the security risk.

In the end, Ellison’s Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX became the three managing investors, each holding a 15% share in the new company. The Chinese company ByteDance retained 19.9% of the joint venture. Oracle would also handle all the software aspects. All up, a very Trump-friendly outcome.

The Ellisons next attracted attention in July 2025, when their niche media company Skydance merged with Paramount to form Paramount Plus. This made them the owner not only of one of the biggest film studios but also of TV network CBS. The consequences for CBS news have already been far-reaching.

Ellison began by pledging to end the company’s “diversity equity and inclusion” initiatives. He appointed as ombudsman the former head of a conservative think tank and named Bari Weiss, a centre-right advocate, as editor-in-chief of CBS News.

An early controversy hit with a CBS 60 Minutes episode on a notorious prison in El Salvador, where the US government is sending migrant detainees. Although it was cleared through all the normal internal processes, the story was blocked at the last minute in what the reporter called an act of censorship. It was shown four weeks later.

Six out of 20 evening news producers have left CBS, with one, Alicia Hastey, saying the kind of work she came to do was increasingly impossible, as stories were now evaluated not just on their journalistic merit but on whether they conform to a shifting set of ideological expectations.

In a missive to the newsroom, Weiss declared “we love America” should be the guiding principle for the relaunch of CBS Evening News. Putting this into practice, the new anchor of the evening news, Tony Dokoupil, finished one program by saying “[Secretary of State] Marco Rubio, we salute you”.

Ellison’s early acquisitions were dwarfed by the recent battle between Paramount Plus and Netflix to take over Warner Bros Discovery, which Paramount finally won in February 2026. Paramount’s final, winning offer valued the company at US$111 billion (A$159 billion), paying US$31 (A$44) per share. Months earlier, Netflix’s original offer was US$19 (A$27) per share. Assuming the deal goes through, Paramount will carry an estimated US$90 billion (A$128.6 billion) of debt, but it will also have a conglomerate of media-related holdings like no other company in history.

Despite the size of the takeover, which has several implications for reduced competition, commentators are confident it will achieve regulatory approval. This is principally because in the Trump era there is a strong, shall we say, transactional flavour about when regulation is enforced and when not. Trump has described the Ellisons as “two great people”. “They’re friends of mine. They’re big supporters of mine. And they’ll do the right thing.”

Media monsters

In the 1950s, looking at the way Australian newspaper companies came to control the new commercial radio and television stations, journalist Colin Bednall referred to “media monsters”. Around 1990, British media commentator Anthony Smith wrote a book titled The Age of Behemoths, looking especially at the way large corporations such as News Corp had gone international.

But both were talking about media pygmies compared with the new mega-corporation owned by the Ellisons. Apart from their software business and extensive real estate holdings, they now have a central player, TikTok, in social media. They own two of the biggest five US movie studios, they have two of the biggest five streaming services, they have large entertainment producing corporations in Discovery, Warner Bros and CBS, and they own two of the most important TV news services – CBS and CNN.

This gives them the usual commercial advantages over smaller newcomers trying to break in. It also means the news services are owned by a conglomerate that has many other interests, including some that demand negotiation with the government.

In trying to understand the moment we are living through, it is often difficult to disentangle what is of momentary significance and what of lasting importance. What are egomaniacal histrionics that will fade into history with Trump? And which signal ongoing threats to the fabric of democratic institutions?

The unprecedented media empire built by the Ellisons will not disappear, no matter who wins the next election.

Rodney Tiffen 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 remaking the US media in his own image – and smashing accountability with it – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-remaking-the-us-media-in-his-own-image-and-smashing-accountability-with-it-279107

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brent Keogh, Lecturer in the School of Communications, University of Technology Sydney

The release of the first FIFA World Cup 2026 song Lighter by American country artist Jelly Roll, Mexican singer Carín León and Canadian producer Cirkut, has left an odd taste in the mouth of fans, like waking up in the back of a Chevy truck after accidentally downing a bottle of bargain-bin bourbon.

As the United States, Canada and Mexico prepare to host the World Cup in June, the change in genre from “world-infused” pop to Bible Belt-style country-rock reflects the awkwardness of the tournament being hosted in an increasingly isolationist America.

Themes of unity and diversity

Since the early 1990s, FIFA World Cup songs and anthems have usually reflected something of the local flavour of the host country while simultaneously promoting the ideals of global unity.

For example, the 2022 song Hayya Hayya promotes the ideal that “we are better together”. It vibrates with the rhythmic complexity of North African folk traditions, before moving into a more commercial reggae groove.

Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull’s 2014 song, We are One, incorporates Brazilian inflections in an otherwise characteristically in-your-face Pitbull dance track. Nevertheless, the global sentiment remains: “it’s your world, my world, our world today, and we invite the whole world, whole world to play”.

Similarly, Jason Derulo’s 2018 World Cup track Colors (also a Coca Cola promotional song), celebrates national pride – “I’m going to wave my flag” – while also declaring “there’s beauty in the unity we’ve found”.

Where is the excitement?

Though Lighter is a collaboration between the three host countries, it marks a significant musical shift from the characteristic European, Latino and “World” inflected pop of previous songs.

There have been other stylistic shifts in the past. The 2006 World Cup track was Time of Our Lives, a slow operatic pop ballad by Il Divo and Toni Braxton.

But Lighter isn’t another example of this. It isn’t a ballad – yet it still lacks the high energy buzz of fan favourites such as Shakira’s Waka Waka (2010 South Africa World Cup), Santana’s Dar Um Jeito (We Will Find a Way) (2014 Brazil World Cup) and Ricky Martin’s The Cup of Life (1998 France World Cup).

The usual rhythmic vitality of a World Cup song is stripped back to a country-rock dirge with an odd, almost tokenistic Spanish bridge – an offering that might more appropriately feature in a Trolls World Tour. Fans are not having it.

As one user in the YouTube comments asks: “La emoción, la pasión y el ritmo mundialista, dónde está todo eso?” (“The excitement, the passion and the World Cup rhythm, where is all that?”).

Roll between the Lord and the Devil

Lighter has also been criticised for its religious allusions. One listener bemoans: “It’s a football tournament, but let’s make a song about church choirs, Chevy trucks, chains and muddy boots”.

Although past World Cup songs have contained religious allusions, Lighter’s odd sense of the sacred is more like trying to pass off a Lord Elrond action figure as a statue of Saint Anthony.

The song is replete with the forced language of a sinner’s conversion (“chains don’t rattle no more”, “lay my burdens down”), as analogous to the flow-state of a footballer, free from whatever personal or collective trials that might have been holding them back.

As in many a good country song, the protagonist is involved in a cosmic battle for his soul.

Jelly Roll is “praying [his] way out of […] hell”. He even has a run in with the Devil, although he doesn’t trade his soul for musical talent. Rather, he escapes the Devil’s attempts to “catch” him as his boots have left the ground.

You could be forgiven for questioning whether this song was about football at all, or whether it is more reflective of Jelly Roll’s own personal conversion story (he has recently been open in proclaiming his faith in Jesus).

In Lighter, the collective “we” of previous World Cup songs has been replaced with the individualistic “I” – the local taking precedence over the global.

The elephant in the room

Now, to be fair, there are some aspects of Lighter that align with the values of its predecessors. One key theme of the song is the sense of the fight, of overcoming obstacles, and gaining individual freedom. This aligns with FIFA’s stated purpose of the song, which it says was “created for the most inclusive FIFA World Cup in history”.

However, with ICE agents likely to be haunting football stadiums like dementors – and strained relationships between the US and neighbours such as Venezuela, Mexico, Canada and Cuba (not to mention Iran) – it is questionable whether FIFA’s goals of inclusivity will be felt and realised.

Instead, Jelly Roll and Carín León’s country-rock tune seems to more accurately reflect the current US administration’s isolationist approach to global foreign policy: we know we’re in the world, but we’d rather not be.

Perhaps the next World Cup song in 2030 will bring back the excitement, passion and rhythm that fans love, and reiterate the globalist ideals of the game. For now, Lighter remains a missed penalty shot.

Brent Keogh 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. A Bible Belt track without a pulse – it’s no surprise fans hate the 2026 FIFA World Cup song Lighter – https://theconversation.com/a-bible-belt-track-without-a-pulse-its-no-surprise-fans-hate-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-song-lighter-279111

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rand Low, Associate Professor of Quantitative Finance, Bond University

Gold has long enjoyed a reputation as a financial “safe haven” during stormy times. But over the past few months of geopolitical chaos and market panic, the precious metal has moved more like a roller coaster than a steady ship at anchor.

In late January, the gold price surged to an all-time high near US$5,600 per ounce – effectively double what it was a year earlier. It’s lost about 20% since then, sliding sharply while major conflict broke out in the Middle East.

To be clear, gold is still at lofty heights by historical standards, up almost 300% over the past decade. Much of this surge has been driven by “financialisation”.

Put simply, more ways of investing in gold on paper – with complex financial products called derivatives and funds that track its price – have seen a boom in speculation by institutional and retail investors.

But this year’s wild swings in price should shatter any remaining illusion that gold is always a safe haven. To understand why, we need to look at how modern financial markets work – and in particular, why an oil shock is different to other crises.

Umbrellas and storm shelters

To protect their wealth, investors often seek assets that are either “hedges” or “safe havens”.

A hedge is an investment that generally moves in the opposite direction to the rest of the market on average over a normal, long-term period.

Think of a hedge like holding an umbrella above your head every single day. You’ll stay drier than everyone else when it rains, but you’ll also block out on some of the sunshine (potential gains) when it doesn’t.

A safe haven, on the other hand, is an investment that generally moves in the opposite direction to the rest of the market only during sudden periods of extreme stress or crashes.

It’s like a storm shelter you only run to during a hurricane.

Where does gold fit?

In a 2016 research study, colleagues and I found gold had some of the qualities of a safe haven, particularly for share markets in Australia, the United States, Germany and France.

During the 2008 global financial crisis, gold was the most stable commodity among the precious metals we studied. Its price did drop, but it avoided the catastrophic losses seen in other precious metals.

It had similar safe haven qualities in 2011, when ratings agency Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgraded the US’ AAA credit rating to AA+ for the first time in history and many global stock markets fell.

Importantly, those market shocks came out of the financial system itself (a banking system failure and a credit downgrade).

Today, the world faces something fundamentally different: a massive energy shock due to interrupted oil supplies and major damage to oil and gas facilities in the Middle East.

Why an oil shock is different

Traditional finance textbooks will tell you that when a war breaks out, inflation spikes or stock markets crash, investors typically engage in what’s called a “flight to quality” – fleeing riskier assets and moving their money somewhere seen to be safer (such as gold).

In a 2025 research paper, colleagues and I offer a more nuanced view. Crucially, we incorporated data from more recent periods of stock market turbulence, including the COVID pandemic, where gold’s safe haven properties were more muted.

We found gold is still a go-to choice for investors moving out of riskier investments. But it is not an untouchable storm shelter.

Instead of standing completely separate from the panic during a crisis, gold absorbs some of the volatility from both the stock market and energy markets, which can cause its price to fall.

Ripple effects

Why? For one, market chaos means some large investors may be forced to sell gold to cover other losses or meet financial obligations, such as margin calls (where a lender demands funds to cover the falling value of an asset).

For other large investors, the recent price rally may have created an opportunity to sell high and take profits, or rebalance their investment portfolios.

But there is also the fact gold does not have as much essential intrinsic value as something like oil. There is not much industrial demand for it compared to other commodities.

In a severe crisis, forced to chose between a commodity like oil and gold, what does global industry really need? Oil.

Rock, paper, gold

The different ways people are investing in gold is another important factor. Over several decades, gold has become increasingly “financialised”.

Now, it can be bought and sold with ease on “paper” via speculative, complex financial instruments called derivatives, or in increasingly popular exchange traded funds which track the price of gold.

With these funds, you aren’t buying gold itself. You’re buying an asset whose price is designed to track the price of gold in some way.

Today, a massive rise in speculative investment means that commodity prices depend on far more than real-world supply and demand.

Because global investors now hold gold derivatives and conventional stocks at the same time, the risk of exposure to common market shocks has drastically increased.

Rand Low 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. Gold is meant to be a ‘safe haven’ in uncertain times. Why is it crashing amid a war? – https://theconversation.com/gold-is-meant-to-be-a-safe-haven-in-uncertain-times-why-is-it-crashing-amid-a-war-279095

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Laura Panza, Associate Professor, Economic History, The University of Melbourne

On October 6 1973, the Yom Kippur War – mainly involving Egypt, Syria and Israel –triggered one of the biggest energy crises of the 20th century. Eleven days later, several Arab members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced they would stop selling oil to countries supporting Israel and would cut production.

The effect was immediate. Within a few months, global oil prices quadrupled.

After decades of price stability, the world faced a severe shortage. Petrol stations ran dry, with some displaying a red flag to signal empty pumps; drivers queued for hours.

In parts of the US, fuel was rationed by licence plate number. By March 1974, time spent waiting in line had raised the cost of petrol by around 50%, because drivers were also “paying” through lost time — hours that could otherwise have been spent working.

Across Europe, governments imposed fuel-saving measures. The Netherlands and West Germany introduced car-free Sundays, while Britain cut speed limits to reduce petrol consumption.

Today, as the United States and Israel continue a widening war against Iran, energy markets have again reacted: disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil, have pushed prices above US$100 per barrel, echoing the supply shocks of the 1970s.

These pressures make it timely to revisit 1973 and why its effects were so economically severe.

When OPEC gained influence

The scale and persistence of the 1973 oil shock reflected not just the embargo itself, but how it interacted with the economic system at the time.

One important shift was that the US stopped being the world’s main “backup supplier” of oil. For decades, American production had been large enough that output could increase when global supply tightened, but production peaked around 1972.

Without this buffer, markets became far more sensitive to disruptions. At the same time, oil-producing countries in the Middle East gained political leverage by coordinating production through OPEC, strengthening their influence over prices.

Moreover, the international monetary system that had kept postwar inflation under control had collapsed in 1971. This agreement, known as Bretton Woods, had tied currencies to the US dollar. The result was that oil prices, like most commodity prices, were already rising before the embargo began.

Inflation surged, and so did wages

Higher oil prices pushed up the cost of almost everything. Transport became more expensive. Electricity bills increased. Businesses faced higher production costs and passed these costs onto consumers.

Inflation surged across many advanced economies. Workers tried to protect their living standards by asking for higher pay. In many countries, strong labour unions negotiated big wage increases to keep up with rising prices.

Expectations made the shock worse: fearing shortages, firms and households stocked up, reducing available supply and pushing prices even higher.

At the same time, economic growth slowed sharply. Factories produced less, unemployment rose and investments fell.

The economic consequence of this shock was a decade of stagflation: high inflation amid stagnating growth.

Governments tried several ways to respond. Some countries, such as the US, introduced price controls to limit how much petrol companies could charge. Others, such as the UK and France, imposed rationing rules to manage shortages.

Trouble for central banks

Central banks also faced difficult choices: raising interest rates could reduce inflation by slowing borrowing and spending. But higher rates also risked pushing the economy deeper into recession.

During the 1970s, many central banks including the US Federal Reserve struggled to strike the right balance. The Fed kept cutting interest rates to support the economy, but this only added to inflation.

The result was an “inflationary psychology” where expectations of higher prices become self-fulfilling.

The world today has stronger defences against an oil shock. Central banks now have clear mandates to keep inflation low and the credibility to act quickly. Research suggests the economic impact of oil price shocks has declined over time because wages adjust faster, central banks act decisively to keep inflation in check, and oil now makes up a smaller share of the economy.

Recent shocks confirm this transformation: the Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed up energy prices and inflation, but did not trigger a deep recession.

There is another difference as well. Today, high oil prices may encourage investment in renewable energy, and have the potential to accelerate the shift toward cleaner energy sources.

Modern economies are better prepared

The events of 1973 still offer an important lesson.

The damage caused by an energy shock depends not only on the size of the disruption but also on the economic environment in which it occurs. In the 1970s, heavy dependence on oil, rigid wage systems and uncertain economic policy amplified the crisis.

Modern economies are better prepared. Constraints on energy supply, however, remain real and the disruption to the Strait of Hormuz highlights this uncertainty. The duration and objectives of the current conflict remain unclear, and uncertainty itself is costly to businesses and the economy.

History is therefore less useful for prediction than for perspective. The size of a supply shock is only one piece of the puzzle; what matters is the system it hits, how long the shock persists and how it affects expectations.

Laura Panza 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. This is how the 1970s oil shock played out. There are lessons for the economy today – https://theconversation.com/this-is-how-the-1970s-oil-shock-played-out-there-are-lessons-for-the-economy-today-278876

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rob Nicholls, Senior Research Associate in Media and Communications, University of Sydney

Social media platforms Instagram and YouTube have a design defect which means they are addictive, a jury in the United States has ruled.

The Los Angeles jury took nearly nine days to reach its verdict in the landmark case brought by a woman known as KGM against social media platforms. It awarded US$3 million (A$4.3 million) in damages, with Meta (owner of Instagram) being 70% responsible and Google (owner of YouTube) 30%. The jury later awarded a further US$3 million in punitive damages.

Both TikTok and Snap settled on confidential terms before the six-week trial commenced.

This is Meta’s second big loss in the US courts this week, with a New Mexico jury finding the company guilty on March 24 of concealing information about the risks of child sexual exploitation and the harmful effects of its platforms on children’s mental health.

KGM’s case is the first of its kind, but won’t be the last: it is one of more than 20 “bellwether” trials due to go to court soon. These are essentially test cases used to gauge juries’ reactions and set a legal precedent.

As such, the verdict is set to have far reaching ripple effects. It could be big tech’s big tobacco moment, with thousands more similar cases waiting in the wings.

Machines designed to addict

KGM – now 20 years old – said she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, and allegedly developed compulsive use patterns, including up to 16 hours in a single day on Instagram. The platforms’ design features, she argued, contributed to her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation.

Her case argued that Meta and YouTube made deliberate design choices – for example, “infinite scroll” – to make their platforms more addictive to children in order to boost profits. It alleged the companies borrowed heavily from the behavioural and neurobiological techniques used by poker machines and exploited by the cigarette industry to maximise youth engagement and drive advertising revenue.

KGM’s lawyer Mark Lanier told the jurors:

These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose.

Lanier cited an internal Meta study called “Project Myst”. This allegedly found that children who had experienced “adverse effects” were most likely to get addicted to Instagram, and that parents were powerless to stop the addiction.

He said:

The moment [KGM] was locked into the machine, her mom was locked out.

The jury heard that Meta’s internal communications compared the platform’s effects to pushing drugs and gambling. The jury found this internal awareness was the kind of corporate knowledge that supports liability.

In addition, a YouTube memo reportedly described “viewer addiction” as a goal, and an Instagram employee wrote the company was staffed by “basically pushers”.

Mark Lanier drew a direct parallel to tobacco litigation, arguing that where there is corporate knowledge, deliberate targeting, and public denial, liability follows.

Pointing the finger at the family

Meta argued KGM faced significant challenges before she ever used social media, and that the evidence did not support reducing a lifetime of hardship to a single factor.

Meta’s lawyer highlighted KGM’s family dynamics as responsible for her mental health struggles, and argued social media may have actually provided a healthy outlet for her when she faced difficulties at home.

Meta’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence for the defence:

I’m not trying to maximise the amount of time people spend every month.

On safety tools Meta added in recent years Zuckerberg said:

I always wish we could have gotten there sooner.

In closing arguments, YouTube’s lawyer argued there was not a single mention of an addiction to YouTube in KGM’s medical records.

The companies centred part of their defence on Section 230 protections, arguing they cannot be held liable for content posted on their platforms.

However, the judge instructed the jury that the way content is delivered is a separate consideration to what the content is. This limited Meta and Google’s ability to rely on Section 230 protections.

---

Read more:
What is Section 230? An expert on internet law and regulation explains the legislation that paved the way for Facebook, Google and Twitter

---

Challenging a legal protection

This was one of the first cases against big tech which was a jury trial – something companies have previously been keen to avoid.

For example, in June 2024, a few months ahead of a scheduled jury trial in the Department of Justice’s challenge to Google’s advertising technology monopoly, Google paid more than US$2 million (A$2.8 million) to the Department of Justice.

---

Read more:
Google loses online ad monopoly case. But it’s just one of many antitrust battles against big tech

---

This was treble the damages claimed, plus interest.

In the US, a jury trial is only required when monetary damages are at stake. By paying the full damages amount upfront in that case, Google eliminated the damages claim and with it, the right to a jury.

Until now, US courts have largely denied motions that focused on design.

This includes infinite scroll and notification systems. The distinction between “platform design” and “content curation” has been central to how courts have analysed First Amendment arguments in this litigation.

The effect of the jury’s verdict in KGM’s case is to demonstrate the limitations of the Section 230 protection.

The first – but not the last

This is the first big tech case, on a global basis, that has examined addiction as a cause of damage. Other cases have focused on breaches of law.

For example, in the case in New Mexico against Meta, the jury concluded the company made false or misleading statements and engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that exploited children’s vulnerability and inexperience. It identified thousands of individual violations, resulting in a total penalty of US$375 million (A$539 million).

KGM’s case paves the way for the many other actions seeking damages from social media platforms for the effects of addiction.

There is logic for these cases to be heard concurrently in a class action in the US. The verdict could also be used as the basis for both class actions and individual actions on a global basis.

Meta and Google have said separately they plan to appeal the verdict.

Rob Nicholls is a part of the University of Sydney Centre for AI, Trust, and Governance and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Meta and Google just lost a landmark social media addiction case. A tech law expert explains the fallout – https://theconversation.com/meta-and-google-just-lost-a-landmark-social-media-addiction-case-a-tech-law-expert-explains-the-fallout-278409

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Daryl Adair, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Technology Sydney

On March 11, Iranian Sports Minister Ahmad Donyamali announced he saw “no possibility” of the country’s men’s national soccer team taking part in the World Cup scheduled for North America in June and July this year.

That prognosis came in the wake of US and Israeli military attacks on Iran, which have triggered a crisis across the Middle East.

Never before has a World Cup host nation been at war with one of the countries participating in the tournament.

The failure to find a diplomatic solution to longstanding multilateral tensions has not only impacted the supply of oil and trade routes, it has complicated one of the world’s largest sporting events.

---

Read more:
Trump’s war language is aggressive and extreme. It also offers some insight into his thinking

---

Prizing peace, enacting war

In 2025, Gianni Infantino, president of soccer’s governing body – Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) – announced the inaugural “FIFA Peace Prize”.

FIFA, he said, intended to recognise:

the enormous efforts of those individuals who unite people, bringing hope for future generations.

In January 2026, US President Donald Trump was deemed the most worthy recipient of this accolade.

That is despite a litany of conduct at odds with the award, such as the US partnering Israel in the Gaza conflict, as well as the Trump administration’s “rapid authoritarian shift”, which has brought a substantial decline of civic freedoms at home.

Two months after Trump received his “peace prize”, the US partnered with Israel to provoke war against Iran.

Little wonder some critics have argued Trump’s award ought to be revoked.

Will Iran be welcome at the World Cup?

After meeting Infantino on March 10, Trump provided assurance the Iranian team would be “welcome to compete”.

Soon after, though, Trump wrote on his Truth Social media platform there would not be a welcome mat:

I really don’t believe it’s appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety.

This veiled warning prompted a rebuke from the Iranian team, which insisted: “no individual could exclude a country from the World Cup”, and that it was the responsibility of a host nation to provide security guarantees for participants.

The players want to take part, even if their national sports minister feels it is a forlorn hope.

At this stage, scheduled friendly games against Nigeria and Costa Rica in Turkey, intended as preparation for the World Cup, are going ahead.

Pitch perambulations

Iran is scheduled to play three group-stage games in California and Seattle at the World Cup.

Competing in the United States is a sticking point for the Iranian Football Federation (FFIRI), which is responsible for the team.

FFIRI head Mehdi Taj stated:

We will prepare for the World Cup. We will boycott the United States but not the World Cup.

The Iranian hope, therefore, is the team be permitted to play in either Canada or Mexico, which are co-hosting with the US.

Mexico appears willing to play ball: on March 17, President Claudia Sheinbaum stated: “the nation stands prepared to host Iran’s group-stage matches should circumstances require”.

FIFA though said it was unwilling to move Iran’s matches from the US.

For the Iranians, the ability to take part seems more important than chasing a trophy: teams that make the final will play at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium and Iran does not wish to play in the US.

Meanwhile, FIFA is privately pondering contingency arrangements should Iran not take part.

This includes making Iran’s place in the tournament vacant – which would mean a walkover for opponents – or replacing it with a team from either Iraq or the United Arab Emirates, both of which narrowly missed qualifying via the Asian Football Confederation pathway.

That said, Iraq is already scheduled to play the winner of a match between Bolivia and Suriname for a spot in the World Cup.

The UAE lost to Iraq in the relevant Asian Confederation match, yet should Iraq win its intercontinental playoff match, the team from the Emirates might be given a FIFA free kick into the World Cup.

Political football

FIFA states it is a “politically neutral” body.

But this has not stopped it excluding Russia from qualifying matches for the 2026 World Cup.

FIFA insists it did so for operational reasons: many countries refused to play against Russia, and if games were scheduled there would be concerns about security.

Privately, Infantino might be relieved Israel did not qualify for the World Cup, as both of these considerations may have come to light in the wake of the Gaza war and more recent attacks against Lebanon and Iran.

The withdrawal (or banning) of a team from the World Cup or qualifying matches has happened on a few occasions:

• in 1950, travel costs to South America were a problem for India, Turkey and France, who all withdrew from that tournament, while Scotland declined to participate after losing the British Home Championship to England
• in 1958, Indonesia withdrew from qualifying after refusing to play Israel
• in 1994, Yugoslavia was banned from qualifying matches after the United Nations instituted a sport boycott against Serbia and Montenegro in respect of the Balkan conflict.

In each of these cases there were no follow-up penalties by FIFA.

If Iran withdraws from the World Cup, will FIFA sanction the FFIRI and, by extension, the national men’s team? A yellow card is feasible – a financial penalty. A red card is also possible – such as exclusion from the 2030 World Cup.

However, FIFA has the discretion not to impose any penalty, especially as the circumstances go beyond sport and have no parallel in World Cup history.

Daryl Adair 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. A host nation at war with a participant: uncertainty and tension swirl around soccer’s World Cup – https://theconversation.com/a-host-nation-at-war-with-a-participant-uncertainty-and-tension-swirl-around-soccers-world-cup-278191

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Marianne Hanson, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

Israel’s avowed goal in the Middle East war is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, the double standard associated with this is hardly sustainable in the long run.

The worst-kept secret in the world of nuclear politics is that Israel possesses a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons. It began developing these in the 1950s and reached a fully operational capability by the late 1960s.

Although Israel refuses to confirm or deny this fact, arms control organisations have assessed that the country has some 80–90 nuclear weapons.

In recent days, Iran targeted Israel’s nuclear facility in the southern town of Dimona, injuring more than 100 people. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called for restraint to avoid a “nuclear accident”.

A program shrouded in secrecy

There is much evidence to support the existence of Israel’s arsenal.

In 1963, then-Deputy Defence Minister Shimon Peres famously stated Israel would not be the first to “introduce” nuclear weapons to the Middle East. What this actually meant was spelled out a few years later by the Israeli ambassador to the US. For a weapon to be “introduced”, he said, it needed to be tested and publicly declared. Merely possessing them did not constitute introducing them.

Several whistleblower accounts, intelligence reports and satellite imagery confirm the extent of the Israeli program and its capabilities.

More recently, Amichai Eliyahu, a far-right minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, alluded to using nuclear weapons in Gaza – a tacit acknowledgement of Israel’s capabilities. He was later reprimanded by Netanyahu.

And in 2024, Avigdor Lieberman, a former defence and foreign minister, threatened to “use all the means at our disposal” to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. He added: “It should be clear at this stage it is not possible to prevent nuclear weapons from Iran by conventional means.”

It is important to remember that Israel not only developed its nuclear weapons in secret – employing subterfuge, misleading claims, and even the suspected theft of bomb-grade nuclear material from the United States – it has also rejected international inspections of its facilities and refused to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This treaty has been signed by almost every state in the world.

Concerns over Iran’s program

Iran, meanwhile, has never had a nuclear weapon, though its program has been the source of international concern for more than a decade.

In 2015, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as the Iran nuclear deal) with the US, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany, which imposed restrictions on its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. This included inspections by IAEA monitors.

However, Trump scuppered the plan in 2018. Since then, Iran has enriched uranium to levels well above those needed for its energy program. And last year, the IAEA said Iran was non-compliant with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations for failing to provide full answers about its program.

But since the current war began, US and international officials have confirmed that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon and did not pose an imminent nuclear threat to the US or Israel.

In short, there is no truth to the claim, made for almost 40 years by Israel, that Iran is “weeks away” from acquiring the bomb. The IAEA made clear two years ago that a nuclear weapon requires “many other things independently from the production of the fissile material”.

Getting close to nuclear threshold status, but stopping short of developing an actual bomb, likely provides a fall-back position for Iran. If Iran were to feel pushed or threatened, it could, in time, accelerate its energy program towards a weapons program. Or it could use this enriched uranium as leverage in negotiations with the US.

Nuclear powers need to show restraint

This brings us back to a major question: can double standards about who can and cannot develop a nuclear weapon be sustained indefinitely?

Israel’s nuclear arsenal has been tacitly accepted by the West, implying there are “right hands” and “wrong hands” for nuclear weapons. But this is a risky and ultimately unsustainable position.

As Australia’s Canberra Commission noted in 1996, as long as any one state has nuclear weapons, other states will want them, too.

This is precisely why many states voted in 2017 to adopt the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty’s purpose is to make the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons illegitimate for all states, not just for some, on the basis of international humanitarian law.

Signed by 99 states so far, the treaty recognises that nuclear weapons promise massive destruction to civilians and combatants alike, and that even a “small” nuclear war will cause catastrophic damage.

At the end of the day, a consistent approach to nuclear weapons is more likely to prevent nuclear proliferation (by Iran or other states) than the current mess, where some states are tacitly permitted to have these weapons (and wage war on others), while other countries are not.

It is possible we are at a tipping point when it comes to nuclear proliferation, with some countries suspected of wanting to develop nuclear weapon capabilities. This includes US allies South Korea and Japan.

Are the nuclear weapons states ultimately willing to accept the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and disarm in the interest of global peace and security? If they don’t, then the current trajectory of keeping one’s own nuclear weapons and waging war against states that don’t have them will only weaken an already crumbling rules-based international order.

Marianne Hanson has previously received funding from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the UK Foreign Office and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs. She is currently co-chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Australia.

– ref. Israel wants to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. But should it have nuclear weapons itself? – https://theconversation.com/israel-wants-to-destroy-irans-nuclear-program-but-should-it-have-nuclear-weapons-itself-278801

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew King, ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor in Climate Science, ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather, The University of Melbourne

It’s no secret our planet is heating up.

And here’s the evidence: we’ve just experienced the 11 hottest years on record, with 2025 being the second or third warmest in global history.

The annual State of the Climate report, published today by the World Meteorological Organization, suggests we’re still too reliant on fossil fuels. And that’s pushing us further from our goal to decarbonise.

So what is happening to our climate? And how should we respond?

The climate picture

Unfortunately, the most recent climate data makes for grim reading.

Let’s look back at 2025, through the lens of four climate change indicators.

Carbon dioxide

We now have a record amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, about 50% higher than pre-industrial levels. And we’re still emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide through our use of fossil fuels. In 2025, global emissions reached record high levels. The carbon dioxide we emit can stay in the atmosphere for a long time. So each year we keep emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide, the more concentrated it will be in our atmosphere.

Temperature

In 2025, the world experienced its second or third warmest year on record, depending on which dataset you use. The average temperature was about 1.43°C above the pre-industrial average.

This is particularly unusual given we observed slight La Niña conditions in the Pacific region. La Niña is a type of climate pattern characterised by temperature changes in the Pacific Ocean. It typically creates milder, wetter conditions in Australia and has a cooling effect on the global average temperature. But even with La Niña conditions, the planet stayed exceptionally hot.

And each of the last 11 years were hotter than any of the previous years in the global temperature series. This is true across all the different datasets used in the report. However, this does not mean a new record was set each year.

Oceans and ice

In 2025, the heat held within the world’s oceans reached a record high. And as our oceans continue to warm, sea levels will also rise. Hotter oceans also speed up the process of acidification, where oceans absorb an increased amount of carbon dioxide with potentially devastating consequences for some marine animals.

The amount of Arctic and Antarctic ice is also well below average. This report shows sea ice extent, a measure of how much ocean is covered by at least some sea ice, is at or close to record low levels in the Arctic. Meanwhile, the amount of ice stored in glaciers has also significantly decreased.

Extreme weather

Research shows many of the most devastating extreme weather events of 2025 were exacerbated by human-driven climate change. The heatwaves in Central Asia, wildfires in East Asia and Hurricane Melissa in the Carribean are just three examples. Through attribution analysis, which is how scientists determine the causes of an extreme weather or climate event, this report highlights how our greenhouse gas emissions are making severe weather events more common and intense.

How does Australia stack up?

Compared to most other countries, Australia has a disproportionate impact on the global climate.

This is largely because our per capita carbon dioxide emissions are about three times the global average. That means on average, each of us emits more carbon dioxide than people in all European countries and the US.

Emissions matter because they exacerbate the greenhouse effect. That is the process by which greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat near Earth’s surface. So by emitting more greenhouse gases, we contribute to global warming. And research suggests Earth is warming twice as fast today, compared to previous decades.

However, Australia is also experiencing first-hand the adverse effects of human-induced climate change.

In 2025, we lived through our fourth-warmest year on record. The annual surface temperatures of the seas around Australia reached historic highs, beating the record temperatures set in 2024. And last March was the hottest March we’ve seen across the continent.

Here in Australia, we are also battling longer and hotter heatwaves and bushfire seasons. And scientists warn these extreme weather events will only become more common.

So what can we do?

The 2025 State of the Climate Report shows how much, and how quickly, we are changing our climate. And it is worryingly similar to previous reports, highlighting the need for urgent action.

The priority should be decreasing our emissions. This would slow down global warming, which will only continue if we keep the status quo. Some countries are already decarbonising rapidly, in part through transitioning to renewable electricity supplies. Others, including Australia, need to move much faster to reduce emissions.

Crucially, we must also meet our net zero targets. In Australia, as in many other countries, we are aiming to reach net zero by 2050. The sooner we reach net zero, the more likely we are to avoid harmful climate change impacts in future. To achieve net zero, we need to significantly reduce our emissions while also increasing how much carbon we remove from the atmosphere.

Even if we meet our net zero targets, climate change will not magically disappear. However, by turning away from fossil fuels and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions now, we may spare future generations from its worst effects. That’s the least we can do.

Andrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century and a Future Fellowship) and the Australian government National Environmental Science Program.

– ref. The latest world climate report is grim, but it’s not the end of the story – https://theconversation.com/the-latest-world-climate-report-is-grim-but-its-not-the-end-of-the-story-278886

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Joseph J. Gonzalez, Associate Professor of Global Studies, Appalachian State University

The U.S. and Cuban governments have been at odds since the conclusion of the Cuban Revolution 67 years ago. Yet despite pressure, embargoes and various CIA plots, the communist government in Havana has resisted the wishes of its very powerful neighbor separated by just 90 miles (145 kilometers) of water.

From my perspective as an expert on Havana-Washington ties, however, this moment seems different.

For the first time since 1959, an American president, Donald Trump, appears on the verge of doing what so many of his predecessors have longed to do: depose a Cuban president and compel the Cuban government to align itself with American economic and strategic interests.

If Trump succeeds – either through military might or negotiation – then Cuba looks set to become something less than a sovereign nation and more akin to an American client state.

A partnership of unequals?

At first glance, the possibility of such a change looks epic, even monumental: an end to the Cuban Revolution as we have known it.

But deep in the annals of U.S.-Cuban history, there are echoes of Trump’s demands.

From 1898 to 1959, the American government essentially ran Cuba as a colony within its empire.

Americans repeatedly decided who would occupy the presidential palace, while Cuban politicians protected U.S. investments and supported U.S. supremacy in the Caribbean. American gangsters ran the hotels and the gambling.

That relationship ended with the revolution and Fidel Castro’s assumption of power. But if Trump has his way, the future of the U.S. and Cuba will look very much like it did in the pre-Castro era: a partnership of unequals.

Heightened tensions

During his first term, Trump turned away from President Barack Obama’s “Cuban Thaw,” which had established diplomatic relations, eased travel restrictions and raised hopes of an end to the decades-old U.S. embargo.

In place of engagement with the Cuban government, Trump strengthened the embargo, all but closed the U.S. Embassy in Havana and further restricted travel by American citizens to the island.

Trump also returned Cuba to the State Department’s list of nations that support terrorism, where it resides today.

Now, one year into his second term, Trump is using coercion backed with a tacit military threat to increase pressure on the Cuban government.

On Jan. 3, 2026, U.S. forces, seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, bringing them to New York to stand trial.

During the raid, U.S. forces killed between 75 and 100 Venezuelans and a coterie of Cubans providing security to Maduro.

Venezuela was Cuba’s closest ally, providing the island with oil at vastly reduced prices in exchange for doctors and advisers for Venezuela’s security and intelligence services.

Following Maduro’s arrest, Trump made it clear that the U.S. would no longer permit any country to supply Cuba with oil.

Without oil, Trump predicted that the Cuban government would soon collapse and suggested that Marco Rubio, his Cuban American Secretary of State, could become president of Cuba.

Secret negotiations

Cuba was in severe distress long before Maduro’s arrest.

In the years since the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has found it almost impossible to maintain adequate electricity, water, public health health what? care? and public transport.

Then came the Trump administration’s oil embargo, which may push Cuba into the worst economic crisis in its history, prompting longer, deeper blackouts and further reductions in public services.

Hunger is now a widespread concern, garbage is piling up and mosquito-borne illnesses are skyrocketing. Dissent is also becoming more public – and more violent.

Publicly, the communist government responded defiantly to the Trump administration’s aggressive actions, pledging to resist American pressure just as it had for the better part of 60 years.

Privately, however, the Cuban government agreed to talks with the Trump administration, hoping to find a way to ease American pressure.

The White House reportedly no longer considers the collapse of the Cuban government desirable, as it would precipitate a migration crisis that threatens the stability of the Caribbean, including to a South Florida that is home to the world’s largest Cuban diaspora community.

The ‘Venezuelan Solution’

Cuba’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, has publicly acknowledged talks with the U.S. But the particulars remain obscure.

The U.S. government reportedly wants Díaz-Canel to leave the country and permit American investment in Cuba, particularly from Cuban Americans, which has long been prohibited.

The Cuban government has already reportedly acceded to this latter demand.

The Trump administration also wants more political prisoners released and a purge of officials who were close to Fidel and Raúl Castro, his successor as president, and remained powerful after the Cuban revolutionary leader’s death in 2016. According to Amnesty International, Cuba has at least 1,000 prisoners of conscience.

In exchange, the White House would be willing to permit members of the Castro family to remain in Cuba and allow for the importation of oil. The rest of the Cuban government would also remain intact.

Cubans I know are calling this deal the “Venezuela Solution.” Much like Maduro’s successors, Cuba’s leaders would remain rulers of Cuba – provided they accept diminished political sovereignty and respect U.S. policy priorities.

Back to the future

Such a deal, if it happens, would return Cuba to the status of an American client state, the status it held long before Castro seized power and allied himself with the Soviet Union.

In 1898, the U.S. intervened in the Cuban War of Independence, the last in a series of wars fought by Cubans against their onetime Spanish colonizers.

The United States kicked out the Spanish, occupied Cuba and proclaimed its desire to turn Cuba into an independent, sovereign nation-state.

But that never happened.

Distrusting the Cubans’ ability to govern themselves, the U.S. retained the legal right to intervene in Cuban politics.

Between 1898 and 1959, the U.S. government, through its ambassador in Havana, determined who would be president of Cuba whenever a dispute arose.

Cuban politicians, eager to preserve their positions, guarded American property, despite Cuban resentments, and supported U.S. foreign policy throughout Latin America and the world.

On the eve of the revolution, Americans owned more than US$800 million in property in Cuba — the equivalent of at least $9 billion today.

Americans dominated not only the sugar industry but also public utilities, mining and tourism, which American organized crime came to control.

What’s next?

For more than 60 years, pre-revolutionary Cuba endured independence without sovereignty as an American client state.

Could such a relationship reemerge? For now, the situation between the U.S. and Cuba remains fluid, and the terms of discussions are shrouded in secrecy.

Trump, publicly, promotes a “friendly takeover of Cuba,” insisting that he could do with Cuba “anything I want.”

But one thing remains certain. While Trump remains in the White House and Rubio heads the State Department, U.S. maximum pressure on Cuba will not cease.

The Trump administration is committed to ending the Cuban government’s resistance to American power and American investment, regardless of the direct humanitarian costs in the form of the oil embargo and other penalties.

Any deal with Trump will be a bitter pill for Cuba’s political elite to swallow.

But absent an oil-rich ally, like Russia or Venezuela, and faced with an implacable enemy, Cuban officials may have no choice but to bring Cuba back into the orbit of American power, at least for now.

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

– ref. Trump’s ‘Venezuela solution’ to Cuba would see the island nation returned to a client state – https://theconversation.com/trumps-venezuela-solution-to-cuba-would-see-the-island-nation-returned-to-a-client-state-278710