Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Edwell, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Macquarie University

A new statue unveiled in recent days in Iran depicts a Roman emperor in subjection to a Persian king.

Erected in Tehran’s Enghelab Square, the statue titled Kneeling Before Iran shows the emperor grovelling before Shapur I (who ruled around 242–270 CE).

But where did this imagery come from? And why has this statue gone up now?

The rise of Shapur

In the third century CE, a new dynasty known as the Sasanians came to power in ancient Iran.

Within a few years, the first Sasanian king, Ardashir I, threatened Roman territory in Mesopotamia (in modern-day Turkey, Iraq and Syria). The Romans had captured this territory from the Parthians, the predecessors of the Sasanians.

Now Ardashir wanted to recover some of the territory previously lost to the Romans. He met with some successes in the 230s. But his son and successor, Shapur I, took this to another level.

Shapur defeated an invading Roman army in 244 CE, leading to the death of the teen Roman emperor Gordian III.

In the 250s CE, Shapur invaded Roman territory across Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Two large Roman armies were defeated and dozens of cities were captured.

In 253 CE, Shapur captured the city of Antioch, one of the most important cities in the Roman empire. Some of its citizens were at the theatre and fled in terror as arrows rained down from above.

Capture of an emperor

While the Persian capture of Antioch was a major loss for the Romans, the events of 260 CE were earth-shattering.

After a battle between the Romans and Persians at Edessa (modern-day southern Turkey), the emperor Valerian was captured. This was the first and only time a Roman emperor was taken alive by the enemy.

Valerian was taken back to Persia, along with thousands of other captives.

Legendary stories about his fate as a captive later emerged. In one, Valerian and captive soldiers were forced to build a bridge over the river Karun at Shushtar. The remains, known as the Band-e Qayṣar (emperor’s bridge) can still be seen today.

In another tale, Shapur demanded Valerian stoop on all fours to be used as a footstool so the Persian king could mount his horse.

Shapur supposedly ordered Valerian’s body preserved, stuffed and placed in a cabinet after his death.

With this, Valerian’s humiliation was complete.

Depictions of Shapur’s victories over Rome were put up all over the Persian empire. A number of carved rock reliefs celebrating these victories survive.

Perhaps the most famous is at Bishapur in southern Iran, where Shapur built a magnificent palace.

In this image, Shapur is spendidly dressed and sits on a horse. Underneath the horse is the dead Gordian III. Behind is the captive Valerian clasped by Shapur’s right hand. The figure in front is the emperor Philip I (ruled 244–249 CE) who replaced Gordian. He is begging for the release of the defeated Roman army.

Shapur also carved an enormous inscription in three languages, which partly celebrated his great victories over the Romans. Known today as the SKZ Inscription, it can still be seen at Naqsh-i Rustam in southern Iran.

The great Roman empire had been thoroughly humiliated. The Persians took huge resources (including skilled people such as builders, architects and craftsmen) from the captured cities. Some cities in the Persian empire were populated with these captives.

A new statue celebrating an old victory

The new statue recently unveiled in Tehran appears to be a partial copy of a celebratory Sasanian rock relief at Naqsh-i Rustam.

The kneeling figure is reported to be Valerian. If it is indeed modelled on the Naqsh-i Rustam relief, then the kneeling figure is usually identified as Philip I (as in the original relief Valerian is standing before Shapur). Nevertheless, official statements identify the kneeling figure as Valerian.

Mehdi Mazhabi, head of Tehran’s Municipal Beautification Organization, is quoted in one report as saying:

The Valerian statue reflects a historical truth that Iran has been a land of resistance throughout history […] By implementing this plan in Enghelab Square, we aim to forge a bond between this land’s glorious past and its hopeful present.

Shapur’s great victories over the Romans are still a source of national Iranian pride.

The statue has been described as a symbol of national defiance following the American bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June.

While Shapur’s victories occurred more than 1,700 years ago, Iran still celebrates them. The statue is clearly aimed at an internal audience following the American attacks. Only time will tell if it is also a warning to the west.

Peter Edwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. A Roman emperor grovelling to a Persian king: the message behind a new statue in Tehran – https://theconversation.com/a-roman-emperor-grovelling-to-a-persian-king-the-message-behind-a-new-statue-in-tehran-269367

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jill Vaughan, Senior Lecturer, Monash University

Northern Irish hip hop trio Kneecap have been making waves, not just as musicians, but as language activists who rap in both English and their native Irish. In Belfast’s Gaeltacht Quarter, Irish is a living language. It is also a political statement – a form of resistance against British cultural dominance.

Kneecap’s music is having a big impact, particularly on young Irish people. While language study in Northern Ireland is declining overall, the number of students taking Irish at the GCSE level has increased in recent years.

This isn’t an isolated trend. Indigenous communities the world over are working to save and strengthen their own languages. Languages don’t die on their own. They are driven to endangerment by colonialism and assimilation – actively minoritised.

In the modern nation of Australia, all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are now under threat. Australia suffers from a bad case of “monolingual mindset” which can blind us to the cultural and social benefits of multilingualism.

About 120 First Nations languages are spoken here today. A dozen traditional and several new languages are still learned by Aboriginal children.

Many other “sleeping” First Nations languages are being revitalised through inspiring work around the country.

Resistance through language and music

Kneecap’s impact shows music can be a powerful force for language revival. Songs are the crown jewels of cultural heritage, and a common way to connect with a treasured heritage language.

They belong to the family and community domains, which are crucial for passing on language. Songs can make language more visible, memorable, and even help it go viral.

From punta-rock in Belize to pop-folk in Chulym (Siberia), communities are using old and new songs to revitalise their languages.

In Australia, song has always been central to language keeping and storytelling. This is felt powerfully among the Yorta Yorta people, including co-author Josef Tye.

Take the song Ngarra Burra Ferra, a Yorta Yorta translation of the African-American spiritual Turn Back Pharoah’s Army. It was introduced in 1887, at the Maloga mission in New South Wales, by the African-American travelling Fisk Jubilee Singers. The song’s theme of escaping enslavement resonated with the Yorta Yorta’s own experiences of colonisation.

Translated by Yorta Yorta Elder Theresa Clements, and transposed by Tye’s great-great Grampa Thomas Shadrach James, Ngarra Burra Ferra became a powerful act of defiance and language preservation. It would go on to feature in the 2012 film The Sapphires.

In the Victorian context, language revitalisation is a key component of resistance to colonial oppression. It also plays a crucial role in implementing our Peoples’ ambitions around Truth Telling and Treaty.

Many Victorians are unaware they’re speaking terms from Indigenous languages every day. The linguistic landscapes of Victoria and Naarm are rich with Indigenous names and words, and should serve as a reminder of the First Peoples of this continent.

Activating languages through song

Many contemporary Australian artists are centring First Nations languages in their music. Earlier acts such Yothu Yindi, Warumpi Band and Saltwater Band paved the way for newer artists including Baker Boy, King Stingray and Electric Fields.

The public’s enthusiastic response suggests a bright future for musicians who look beyond English in their work. Here are five artists leading the way:

Emily Wurramara

A Warnindhilyagwa woman, Wurramara sings blues and roots in Anindilyakwa – the language of Groote Eylandt – and English. Her 2024 album Nara won the ARIA Award for Best Adult Contemporary Album, making Wurramara the first Indigenous woman to win the award. She was also named Artist of the Year at the National Indigenous Music Awards.

Ripple Effect

This all-female rock band from Maningrida (north-central Arnhem Land) sings about country, bush food, local animals and mythological beings in five languages: Ndjébbana, Burarra, Na-kara, Kune and English. Ripple Effect broke new ground in bringing female voices into Maningrida’s already prolific music scene. Their song Ngúddja (“language”) explicitly celebrates Maningrida’s linguistic diversity.

Neil Morris (also known as DRMNGNOW)

A Yorta Yorta, Dja Dja Wurrung and Wiradjuri yiyirr (“man”), Morris weaves together hip-hop, experimental electronic elements and sound design to explore Indigenous rights and culture in his work as DRMNGNOW. A passionate language advocate, he entwines Yorta Yorta language revitalisation with muluna (“spirit”), Yenbena (“ancestors”) and Woka (“Country”). His latest release Pray is out now.

Aaron Wyatt

Noongar man Wyatt is a violist, composer, conductor and academic, as well as the first Indigenous Australian to conduct a major Australian orchestra. He has conducted works that have been trailblazers of language revitalisation, such as Gina Williams and Guy Ghouse’s opera Wundig Wer Wilura in Noongar and Deborah Cheetham Fraillon’s children’s opera Parrwang Lifts the Sky, sung partly in Wadawurrung.

Jessie Lloyd

A musician, historian and song-keeper, Lloyd founded the Mission Songs Project to collect songs from the Aboriginal mission era. She recently launched the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Songbook to support schools in bringing Indigenous music into the classroom.

For First Nations languages to thrive in the music scene and beyond, they need support through grassroots initiatives in communities, schools and public life. One such example is an award-winning song project run by Bulman School in the Northern Territory.

This project is revitalising the local Dalabon and Rembarrnga languages, showing music can be a powerful and fun way to keep languages strong.

Where communities are supported to strengthen, use and teach their languages, the benefits for cultural and emotional wellbeing are clear.

Jill Vaughan receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme.

Josef Noel Tye serves on the Yorta Yorta Traditional Owner Land Management Board and is a member of the Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation.

– ref. Kneecap is revitalising Irish. These 5 artists are doing the same for Indigenous languages – https://theconversation.com/kneecap-is-revitalising-irish-these-5-artists-are-doing-the-same-for-indigenous-languages-261754

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

The resignations of BBC Director-General Tim Davie and CEO of BBC News Deborah Turness over dishonest editing of a speech in 2021 by US President Donald Trump raise several disturbing questions.

These concern the effectiveness and integrity of the BBC’s internal editorial procedures for investigating complaints, and the pressure being brought to bear on the BBC by conservative political and media forces in the United Kingdom.

The Trump controversy originated from the editing of a BBC Panorama documentary called “Trump: A Second Chance?” It went to air a week before the 2024 US presidential election, and contained replays of sections of the speech Trump had made to his supporters just before the insurrection in Washington on 6 January 2021.

In the speech, Trump said at one point: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer our brave senators and congressmen and women.” Fifty minutes later, in the same speech, he said: “I’ll be with you. And we fight. Fight like hell.”

According to the BBC’s own account, these two quotes were spliced together to read: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol […] and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

The effect was to give the impression Trump was egging on his supporters to violence.

At that time, a journalist called Michael Prescott was working as an independent external adviser to the BBC’s editorial standards committee. According to The Guardian, Prescott’s appointment to this role had been pushed by a BBC board member, Robbie Gibb, who had been communications chief for the former Conservative prime minister Theresa May and had also helped set up the right-wing broadcaster GB News.

Prescott left the BBC in June 2025, but during his time there he wrote a letter to the BBC board drawing their attention to what he saw as problems of “serious and systemic” editorial bias within the broadcaster. The dishonest editing of the Trump speech was one example he gave to support his case.

He wrote that when these lapses had been brought to the attention of editorial managers, they “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards”.

That letter came into the possession of London’s Daily Telegraph, a conservative newspaper. On November 3 it published a story based on it, under the headline: “Exclusive: BBC doctored Trump speech, internal report reveals”. The sub-heading read: “Corporation edited footage in Panorama programme to make it seem president was encouraging Capitol riot, according to whistleblower dossier”.

It is not known who the whistleblower was.

The Trump White House was on to this immediately, a press secretary describing the BBC as “100% fake news” and a “propaganda machine”. Trump himself posted on his Truth Social platform that “very dishonest people” had “tried to step on the scales of a Presidential Election”, adding: “On top of everything else, they are from a Foreign Country, one that many consider our Number One Ally. What a terrible thing for democracy!”

News Corporation’s British streaming service TalkTV predicted Trump will sue the BBC. As yet there have been no developments of that kind.

The Prescott revelations come only three weeks after the BBC reported that the British broadcasting regulator Ofcom had found another BBC documentary, this time about the war in Gaza, had committed a “serious breach” of broadcasting rules by failing to tell its audience that the documentary’s narrator was the son of the Hamas minister for agriculture.

Ofcom concluded that the program, called “Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone” was materially misleading by failing to disclose that family link.

These are egregious errors, and the journalists who made them should be called to account. But the resignation of the director-general and the CEO of news is so disproportional a response that it raises questions about what pressures were brought to bear on them and by whom.

The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail ran hard for a week on the Trump story, and this generated pressure from the House of Commons culture committee to extract explanations from the BBC.

Politically, the timing was certainly inconvenient. The BBC is about to begin negotiations with the government over its future funding, and perhaps a calculation was made that these might proceed more fruitfully with a new director-general and head of news after a procession of controversies over the past couple of years.

On top of that was the Trump factor. Were there diplomatic pressures on the British government from the White House to see that some trophy scalps were taken?

Davie and Turness have each said that mistakes had been made, that the buck stopped with them, and that they were resigning on principle. Perhaps so, but the sources of pressure – the White House, the House of Commons, the conservative media – are such as to invite a closer scrutiny of the reasons for their departure.

They also seemed unable to respond effectively to the week-long onslaught from The Telegraph and Mail, either by defending their journalists or admitting mistakes had been made and that they had taken remedial steps.

It is also a reminder to public broadcasters like Australia’s ABC, that in the current political climate they are high-priority targets for right-wing media and politicians. The ABC has had its crisis with the Antoinette Lattouf case, which cost it more than $2.5 million for its management’s failure to stand up for its journalists against external pressure.

Fortunately it coincided with the planned departures of the chair and managing director, giving it the opportunity of a fresh start. The BBC is about to get a similar opportunity. Clearly it needs to more effectively enforce its editorial standards but it also needs to stand up for its people when they are unfairly targeted.

Denis Muller 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. BBC resignations over Trump scandal show the pressures on public broadcasters – and why they must resist them – https://theconversation.com/bbc-resignations-over-trump-scandal-show-the-pressures-on-public-broadcasters-and-why-they-must-resist-them-269388

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jacqueline Peel, Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne

Along with delegates from all over the world, I’ll be heading to the United Nations COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém. Like many others, I’m unsure what to expect.

This year, the summit faces perhaps the greatest headwinds of any in recent history. In the United States, the Trump administration has slashed climate science, cancelled renewable projects, expanded fossil fuel extraction and left the Paris Agreement (again). Trump’s efforts to hamstring climate action have made for extreme geopolitical turbulence, overshadowing the world’s main forum for coordinating climate action – even as the problem worsens.

Last year, average global warming climbed above 1.5°C for the first time. Costly climate-fuelled disasters are multiplying, with severe heatwaves, fires and flooding affecting most continents this year.

Climate talks are never easy. Every nation wants input and many interests clash. Petrostates and big fossil fuel exporters want to keep extraction going, while Pacific states despairingly watch the seas rise. But in the absence of a global government to direct climate policy, these imperfect talks remain the best option for coordinating commitment to meaningful action.

Here’s what to keep an eye on this year.

A smaller-than-usual COP?

A persistent criticism of the annual climate summits is that they have become too big and unwieldy – more a trade show and playground for fossil fuel lobbyists than an effective forum for multilateral diplomacy and action on climate change. One solution is to deliberately make these talks smaller.

The Belém conference may end up having a smaller number of delegates, though not by design so much as logistical headaches.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva backed the decision to invite the world to the Amazon to display how vital the massive rainforest is as a carbon sink. But Belém’s remote location on the northeast coast, limited infrastructure and shortage of hotels have seen prices soar, putting the conference out of reach for smaller nations, including some of the most vulnerable. These constraints could undermine the inclusive “Mutirão” (collective effort on climate change) sought by organisers.

Show me the money

Climate finance is a perennial issue at COP meetings. These funding pledges by rich countries are intended to help poorer countries reduce emissions, adapt to climate change or recover from climate disasters. Poorer countries have long called for more funding, given rich countries have done vastly more damage to the climate.

At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan last year, a new climate finance goal was set for US$300 billion (~A$460 billion) to be raised annually by developed countries by 2035, with the goal of reaching $US1.3 trillion (~A$2 trillion) in funding from both government and private sources over the same period.

To deliver the second goal, negotiators laid out a “Baku to Belém” roadmap. The details are due to be finalised at COP30. But with the US walking away from climate action and the European Union wavering, many eyes will be on China and whether it will step into the climate leadership vacuum left by developed countries. The EU has only just reached agreement on a 2040 emissions reduction target and an “indicative” cut for 2035.

Climate finance will be the priority for many countries, as worsening disasters such as Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica and Typhoon Kalmaegi in the Philippines once again demonstrate the enormous human and financial cost of climate change.

The latest UN assessment indicates the need for this funding is outpacing flows by 12–14 times. In Belém, poorer countries will be hoping to land agreement on greater finance and support for adaptation. Work on a global set of indicators to track progress on adaptation – including finance – will be key.

Brazilian organisers hope to rally countries around another flagship funding initiative set to launch at COP30. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility would compensate countries for preserving tropical forests, with 20% of funds directed to Indigenous peoples and local communities who protect tropical forest on their lands. If it gets up, this fund could offer a breakthrough in tackling deforestation by flipping the economics in favour of conservation and protecting a huge store of carbon.

2035 climate pledges

Belém was supposed to be a celebration of ambitious new emissions pledges which would keep alive the Paris Agreement goal of holding warming to 1.5°C. Nations were originally due to submit their 2035 pledges (formally known as Nationally Determined Contributions) by February, with an extension given to September after 95 per cent of countries missed the deadline.

When pledges finally arrived in September, they were broadly underwhelming. Only half the world’s emissions were covered by a 2035 pledge, meaning the remaining emissions gap could be very significant. Australia is pledging cuts of 62–70% from 2005 emissions levels.

That’s not to say there’s no progress. A new UN report suggests countries are bending the curve downward on emissions but at a far slower pace than is needed.

How negotiators handle this emissions gap will be a litmus test for whether countries are taking their Paris Agreement obligations seriously.

Rise of the courts

Even as some countries back away from climate action, courts are increasingly stepping into the breach. This year, the International Court of Justice issued a rousing Advisory Opinion on states’ climate obligations under international law, including that national targets have to make an adequate contribution to meeting the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. The court warned failing to take “appropriate action” to safeguard the climate system from fossil fuel emissions – including from projects carried out by private corporations – may be “an internationally wrongful act”. That is, they could attract international liability.

It will be interesting to see how this ruling affects negotiating positions at COP30 over the fossil fuel phase-out. At COP28 in 2023, nations promised to begin “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. If countries fail to progress the phase-out, accountability could instead be delivered via the courts. A new judgement in France found the net zero targets of oil and gas majors amount to greenwashing, while lawsuits aimed at making big carbon polluters liable for climate damage caused by their emissions are in the pipeline.

An Australia/Pacific COP?

A big question to be resolved is whether Australia’s long-running bid to host next year’s COP in Adelaide will get up. The bid to jointly host COP31 with Pacific nations has strong international support, but the rival bidder, Turkey, has not withdrawn.

If consensus is not reached at COP30, the host city would default back to Bonn in Germany, where the UN climate secretariat is based.

Outcome unknown

As climate change worsens, these sprawling, intense meetings may not seem like a solution. But despite headwinds and backsliding, they are essential. The world has made progress on climate change since 2015, due in large part to the Paris Agreement. What’s needed now on its tenth anniversary is a reinfusion of vigour to get the job done.

Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council under a 2024 Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellowship.

– ref. Geopolitics, backsliding and progress: here’s what to expect at this year’s COP30 global climate talks – https://theconversation.com/geopolitics-backsliding-and-progress-heres-what-to-expect-at-this-years-cop30-global-climate-talks-268662

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ray Laurence, Professor of Ancient History, Macquarie University

At its height, the Roman empire covered some 5 million square kilometres and was home to around 60 million people. This vast territory and huge population were held together via a network of long-distance roads connecting places hundreds and even thousands of kilometres apart.

Compared with a modern road, a Roman road was in many ways over-engineered. Layers of material often extended a metre or two into the ground beneath the surface, and in Italy roads were paved with volcanic rock or limestone.

Roads were also furnished with milestones bearing distance measurements. These would help calculate how long a journey might take or the time for a letter to reach a person elsewhere.

Thanks to these long-lasting archaeological remnants, as well as written records, we can build a picture of what the road network looked like thousands of years ago.

A new, comprehensive map and digital dataset published by a team of researchers led by Tom Brughmans at Aarhus University in Denmark shows almost 300,000 kilometres of roads spanning an area of close to 4 million square kilometres.

The road network

The Itiner-e dataset was pieced together from archaeological and historical records, topographic maps, and satellite imagery.

It represents a substantial 59% increase over the previous mapping of 188,555 kilometres of Roman roads. This is a very significant expansion of our mapped knowledge of ancient infrastructure.

About one-third of the 14,769 defined road sections in the dataset are classified as long-distance main roads (such as the famous Via Appia that links Rome to southern Italy). The other two-thirds are secondary roads, mostly with no known name.

The researchers have been transparent about the reliability of their data. Only 2.7% of the mapped roads have precisely known locations, while 89.8% are less precisely known and 7.4% represent hypothesised routes based on available evidence.

More realistic roads – but detail still lacking

Itiner-e has improved on past efforts with improved coverage of roads in the Iberian Peninsula, Greece and North Africa, as well as a crucial methodological refinement in how routes are mapped.

Rather than imposing idealised straight lines, the researchers adapted previously proposed routes to fit geographical realities. This means mountain roads can follow winding, practical paths, for example.

Although there is a considerable increase in the data for Roman roads in this mapping, it does not include all the available data for the existence of Roman roads. Looking at the hinterland of Rome, for example, I found great attention to the major roads and secondary roads but no attempt to map the smaller local networks of roads that have come to light in field surveys over the past century.

Itiner-e has great strength as a map of the big picture, but it also points to a need to create localised maps with greater detail. These could use our knowledge of the transport infrastructure of specific cities.

There is much published archaeological evidence that is yet to be incorporated into a digital platform and map to make it available to a wider academic constituency.

Travel time in the Roman empire

Itiner-e’s map also incorporates key elements from Stanford University’s Orbis interface, which calculates the time it would have taken to travel from point A to B in the ancient world.

The basis for travel by road is assumed to have been humans walking (4km per hour), ox carts (2km per hour), pack animals (4.5km per hour) and horse courier (6km per hour).

This is fine, but it leaves out mule-drawn carriages, which were the major form of passenger travel. Mules have greater strength and endurance than horses, and became the preferred motive power in the Roman empire.

What next?

Itiner-e provides a new means to investigate Roman transportation. We can relate the map to the presence of known cities, and begin to understand the nature of the transport network in supporting the lives of the people who lived in them.

This opens new avenues of inquiry as well. With the network of roads defined, we might be able to estimate the number of animals such as mules, donkeys, oxen and horses required to support a system of communication.

For example, how many journeys were required to communicate the death of an emperor (often not in Rome but in one of the provinces) to all parts of the empire?

Some inscriptions refer to specifically dated renewal of sections of the network of roads, due to the collapse of bridges and so on. It may be possible to investigate the effect of such a collapse of a section of the road network using Itiner-e.

These and many other questions remain to be answered.

Ray Laurence 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. The Roman empire built 300,000 kilometres of roads: new study – https://theconversation.com/the-roman-empire-built-300-000-kilometres-of-roads-new-study-269186

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Philipp Kastner, Senior Lecturer in International Law, The University of Western Australia

Two years ago, a power struggle erupted between two factions of Sudan’s military. Today, this conflict is spiralling out of control, with thousands being killed in what a United Nations report has called “slaughterhouses”.

Last week, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary group battling Sudan’s army, captured the city of El Fasher, the last hold-out in the western Darfur region held by the military.

Soon after, reports of ethnically motivated massacres emerged. The World Health Organization said 460 people were killed in just one incident at the city’s hospital. Witnesses described widespread executions and sexual violence targeting certain ethnic groups.

A UN fact-finding mission found already last year that both sides in the conflict have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Rights groups and analysts are now sounding the alarm about a possible genocide taking place. Some say the killings are reminiscent of the start of the Rwanda genocide in 1994, which killed a staggering 800,000 people.

The atrocities are also following the same troubling pattern as in Darfur 20 years ago, which killed an estimated 300,000 people.

Back then, celebrity activists such as George Clooney helped put Darfur on the map. It became a major foreign policy issue in the United States, Europe, Africa and elsewhere. The genocide in Rwanda was still relatively fresh in people’s minds. The slogan “never again” was still taken somewhat seriously.

The global attention eventually led the International Criminal Court to indict Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for allegedly directing the campaign of mass killings in Darfur, the first sitting head of state to be indicted.

Sudan is now home to the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Hundreds of thousands have been killed since 2023, 12 million people have been displaced and 21 million people face what the UN calls “high levels of acute food insecurity”.

Yet, compared to the early 2000s, the international community has been largely silent.

Why global attention matters

It would be tempting to say the wars and suffering in Gaza and Ukraine have overshadowed Sudan in the minds of global leaders and concerned citizens alike. But this does not mean the world can’t do anything.

Global awareness did not solve anything by itself in Darfur 20 years ago, but it was a first step. It led to the eventual deployment of a peacekeeping mission by the United Nations and the African Union.

The mission was too small and limited, but it showed that international peacekeepers can still have a positive impact in the 21st century. They can monitor ceasefires, implement disarmament programs, protect civilians and prevent further escalations of violence.

More attention – and pressure – also needs to be placed on the external actors supporting both sides in the current conflict. These countries are pursuing their own strategic interests in Sudan and consider the power struggle a chance to increase their influence in the region and exert control over Sudan’s natural resources.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) are backed by Egypt, Turkey, Iran and Russia. The United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, has been accused of funding and providing weapons to the Rapid Support Forces in clear violation of an arms embargo.

While these countries deny arming both sides, rights groups say a flood of weapons has nonetheless entered the country. The United Arab Emirates, in particular, is accused of covertly supplying drones, howitzers, heavy machine guns and mortars to RSF fighters in Darfur.

The United Arab Emirates has only just started to distance itself from the RSF following the recent atrocities in El Fasher.

What’s needed to bring peace

A ceasefire must urgently be agreed to, so humanitarian corridors can be opened to allow aid organisations to do their work.

All outside military support to the warring parties must end immediately. The current arms embargo is too limited and has been poorly implemented – it needs to be strengthened.

And more sanctions should be imposed, especially on the perpetrators reportedly responsible for international crimes. In January, the Biden administration levied sanctions on the RSF commander and several UAE-based companies supporting him – these must now be expanded.

This would make it more difficult for Sudan’s lucrative gold trade to continue to be used by both sides to sustain the war.

For the peace to hold in the long term, both sides must also agree on a mechanism to disarm or integrate the RSF fighters into the regular forces.

Establishing some form of justice and reconciliation process can also contribute to preventing further violence. This sends a clear signal that committing crimes will not be rewarded. It can also help communities heal and give peace a better chance.

Nothing of this sort has really happened in Darfur over the past couple decades. Instead, political actors continued to exploit and aggravate ethnic tensions. The RSF, in particular, has recruited fighters from the infamous Janjaweed militias responsible for the Darfur atrocities in the early 2000s.

A further complication is the increasing fragmentation of the situation, as the Sudanese Armed Forces and RSF are not perfectly integrated armies. They do not have centralised control over their various coalitions of fighters.

This means that while getting the leaders to agree on a ceasefire is important, it may not be sufficient.

As a result, peace initiatives must include local agreements with individual rebel leaders and smaller factions of fighters, which can greatly increase the security of the population in particular areas.

To be clear, lasting peace does not come from some miracle peacemaker. In fact, nothing tangible came out of previous attempts at peace talks aimed at ending the conflict this year.

But this is where other actors can play an important role. The United Arab Emirates, for example, may now feel pressured to exert a more positive influence on the RSF and urge it to come to the negotiating table. The same applies to Egypt and the Sudanese Armed Forces.

And a more comprehensive plan then needs to be worked out, ideally through an international organisation like the United Nations or the African Union, with the goal of empowering the people of Sudan to make their own political decisions.

Sudan is a stark reminder that making lasting peace takes huge efforts. The devastating situation in the country demands the world keep trying.

Philipp Kastner 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. Can the world prevent a genocide in Sudan? – https://theconversation.com/can-the-world-prevent-a-genocide-in-sudan-269088

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Catherine Gascoigne, Macquarie Research Fellow in International Economic Law, Macquarie University

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments overnight on the legality of President Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs on most countries around the world.

The number of sceptical questions posed by the justices in the hearings was striking for a court that is dominated by conservative appointees by six to three.

At stake is not only whether the sweeping tariffs will be upheld, but the extent to which the Supreme Court is willing to extend the limits of presidential power.

So, what will the the court have to consider?

Where’s the emergency?

Trump issued these tariffs in April claiming an economic emergency, using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. So, the two primary legal questions for the court to consider are:

1. whether the IEEPA authorises Trump to issue widespread tariffs; and

2. if the IEEPA does authorise tariffs, whether it delegates authority to the president in an unconstitutional manner.

These questions have already been considered by three lower US courts, including the United States Court of International Trade. All three courts found that Trump’s tariffs were illegal.

Trump claims his power to impose tariffs is derived from the words “regulate … importation” in the IEEPA. However, justices from both sides of politics expressed scepticism about how much authority that implied. The majority in one of the lower courts described the phrase as “a wafer-thin reed”.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said:

Figuring out what ‘regulate importation’ means is – is obviously central here […] One problem you have is that presidents since IEEPA have not done this.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both conservatives, expressed doubt about that phrase authorising tariffs of the scale of the “liberation day” tariffs. Justice Roberts said:

The justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for – in any amount for any length of time. […] that’s major authority, and the basis for the claim seems to be a misfit.

Justice Elena Kagan, a Democratic appointee, seemed to sum up the case when she quipped that the IEEPA “has a lot of verbs … It just doesn’t have the one you want”.

In short, whether such an ambiguous phrase could confer such sweeping powers was sharply questioned by justices on both sides of politics.

Discussion of refunds on tariffs already paid

The fact the Supreme Court went on to consider the question of remedies for potentially striking down the tariffs is also a telling sign.

Specifically, Justice Barrett asked how the process for issuing refunds for the potentially illegally collected tariffs would work.

Counsel for the plaintiffs explained the five businesses that brought the action against Trump’s tariffs would be reimbursed first.

As to the imports from the rest of the world, given the case was not a class action, the process would be “a very complicated thing”. As the lawyers for the businesses elaborated on what the refund process might look like, Justice Barrett interjected with the summation: “So, a mess”.

Counsel for the businesses noted there may be legal precedent for the court to limit its decision to “prospective relief”. This means the Supreme Court’s decision would only affect tariffs collected after the court’s judgement, with no effect on tariffs collected before it.

If this legal precedent were to be followed, refunds would not be issued for tariffs collected before the Supreme Court decision (except for the five businesses that brought the case). The court did not pass any comment on the likelihood of following such a precedent.

Regardless of how the refunds might be issued, it is clear they would result in economic and political upheaval, both for the US and exporters from around the world.

Nonetheless, counsel for the businesses noted the Supreme Court had previously said in a case from 1990, “a serious economic dislocation” was not a reason not to do something. In other words, the fact the reimbursement process would be difficult to administer should not be a block to the Supreme Court ruling the tariffs are illegal.

When will the justices rule?

The court agreed to hear the case on an “expedited” basis, but has not set a date for when it will rule. Betting markets were swift to react, though, with traders marking down the chances of the court ruling in Trump’s favour to 30% after the hearing, from nearly 50% before.

Never one for understatement, Trump has said, “I think it’s the most important decision … in the history of our country”.

Despite Trump’s hyperbole, the case currently before the US Supreme Court is not just about the “liberation day” tariffs. It is also about the role of the judiciary in limiting ever-expanding presidential power. This role is so important that it transcends political lines.

Catherine Gascoigne 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. ‘America’s big case’: the US Supreme Court raises doubts about Trump’s tariff regime – https://theconversation.com/americas-big-case-the-us-supreme-court-raises-doubts-about-trumps-tariff-regime-269178

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Wenzhong Huang, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Tropical cyclones – also known as hurricanes, typhoons or storms, depending on their location and intensity – are among the world’s most destructive and costly climate disasters.

Their direct physical impacts, such as injuries and drowning, are well known.

But what about the wider health effects in the days and weeks after a cyclone? As health systems are disrupted and other issues arise, what happens next?

We analysed 14.8 million deaths in 1,356 communities around the world that had 217 tropical cyclones between them.

In our paper published today in the BMJ, we show what, and who, we should be focusing on if we are to prevent more people dying after these devastating events.

Why we’re interested in this

Each year, tropical cylones affect more than 20 million people and rack up around US$51.5 billion in damage globally.

In recent years, these cyclones have been getting stronger and lasting longer. They are expected to become more intense as our climate warms.

As well as wanting to know the wider health effects of tropical cyclones, we wanted to find out how these differ between countries and territories.

For instance, how do the wider health effects differ in countries such as Australia, which usually see fewer cyclones, compared to cyclone “hot zones”, such as those in East and Southeast Asia, or the eastern coast of the United States?

Understanding these differences is important given the shifting behaviour of tropical cyclones in a changing climate. This may include a greater risk in historically less-affected regions.

What we did

Our research team collected data from 1,356 communities across Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand between 2000 and 2019.

We combined death records with modelling of wind and rainfall patterns for each cyclone. This allowed us to assess relationships of cyclone windspeed and rainfall with the risk of dying from various causes afterwards. We also accounted for seasonal variations in mortality, and other factors.

What we found and what could explain it

The results were striking. Risks of dying from various causes consistently increased after a tropical cyclone. Generally, the risk peaked within the first two weeks of the cyclone, followed by a rapid decline.

Over the first two weeks, the largest increases were seen in deaths from kidney disease (up 92%) and injuries (up 21%) per cyclone-day in the first week. The more cyclone-days, the greater the cumulative risk.

We found more modest increases for deaths from diabetes (15%), neuropsychiatric disorders (such as epilepsy) (12%), infectious diseases (11%), gut diseases (6%), respiratory diseases (4%), cardiovascular diseases (2%) and cancer (2%).

So why is this happening? A combination of disrupted essential health care, limited access to medications, and increased physical and psychological stress likely explain our findings.

For example, power outages, flooding, or transportation disruptions caused by cyclones might stop the regular dialysis for people with kidney disease, creating life-threatening complications.

Rain may be even more deadly

We also found that rainfall from tropical cyclones is more strongly associated with deaths than wind, especially for cardiovascular, respiratory and infectious diseases.

This may be because the hazards associated with heavy rainfall, such as flooding and water contamination, can be more deadly than the direct impacts of strong winds, particularly for certain diseases.

So early warning systems for tropical cyclones may need to place greater emphasis on cyclone-related rainfall as well as windspeed.

Poorer countries were worse off

A similar study in 2022 focused on deaths after cyclones in the US. But when we studied more countries, we found higher risks of cyclone-related deaths.

We also found people living in poorer communities are substantially more likely to die from various causes after tropical cyclones.

These health gaps appeared to be most pronounced for kidney, infectious and gut diseases, as well as diabetes, reflecting existing health inequities.

Notably, countries and communities that rarely experienced cyclones but were now exposed to them were at greater risk of cyclone-related deaths. This may reflect a lack of effective response systems in areas with historically fewer cyclones.

The findings also highlight that many areas in the world that have had few cyclones historically, including Australia and higher-latitude regions, cannot afford to be complacent. With climate change, cyclone tracks and intensity are shifting, and these places may be especially vulnerable.

Where to next?

To reduce the health impacts of tropical cyclones, health departments’ disaster planning must look beyond immediate injuries and infrastructure damage. They need to prepare for a surge in medical needs across a range of diseases.

Emergency management agencies need to invest in poorer communities to reduce the persistent and significant health inequities they face during disasters such as cyclones.

Meteorological departments should also integrate more health data and epidemiological evidence into cyclone early warning and management systems to better protect vulnerable populations.

Wenzhong Huang receives funding from the China Scholarship Council.

Shandy (Shanshan) Li receives funding from the NHMRC.

Yuming Guo receives funding from the NHMRC and ARC.

– ref. We studied 217 tropical cyclones globally to see how people died. Our findings might surprise you – https://theconversation.com/we-studied-217-tropical-cyclones-globally-to-see-how-people-died-our-findings-might-surprise-you-268983

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics and Vice Chancellor’s Fellow, La Trobe University

Differences between men and women in intelligence and behaviour have been proposed and disputed for decades.

Now, a growing body of scientific evidence shows hundreds of genes act differently in the brains of biologically male or female humans. What this means isn’t yet clear, though some of the genes may be linked to sex-biased brain disorders such as Alheizmer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.

These sex differences between male and female brains are established early in development, so they may have a role in shaping brain development. And they are found not only in humans but also in other primates, implying they are ancient.

Gene activity in male and female brains

Decades of research have confirmed differences between men and women in brain structure, function and susceptibility to mental disorders.

What has been less clear is how much of this is due to genes and how much to environment.

We can measure the influence of genetics by looking directly at the activity of genes in the brains of men and women. Now that we have the full DNA sequence of the human genome, it is comparatively easy to detect activity of any or all of the roughly 20,000 genes it contains.

Genes are lengths of DNA, and to be expressed their sequence must be copied (“transcribed”) into messenger RNA molecules (mRNA), which are then translated into proteins – the molecules that actually do the work that underpins the structure and function of the body.

So by sequencing all of this RNA (called the “transcriptome”) and lining up the base sequences to the known genes, we can measure the activity of every gene in a particular tissue – even an individual cell.

When scientists compared the transcriptomes in postmortem tissue samples from hundreds of men and women in 2017, they found surprisingly different patterns of gene activity. A third of our 20,000 genes were expressed more in one sex than the other in one or several tissues.

The strongest sex differences were in the testes and other reproductive tissues, but, surprisingly, most other tissues also showed sex biases. For instance, a subsequent paper showed very different RNA profiles in muscle samples from men and women, which correspond to sex differences in muscle physiology.

A study of brain transcriptomes published earlier this year revealed 610 genes more active in male brains, and 316 more active in female brains.

What genes show sex bias in the brain?

Genes on the sex chromosomes would be expected to show different activity between men (with an X chromosome and a Y chromosome) and women (with two X chromosomes). However, most (90%) sex-biased genes lie on ordinary chromosomes, of which both males and females have two copies (one from mum, one from dad).

This means some sex-specific signal must control their activity. Sex hormones such as testosterone and oestrogen are likely candidates, and, indeed, many sex-biased genes in the brain respond to sex hormones.

How are sex differences established in the brain?

Sex differences in brain gene activity appear early in the development of the foetus, long before puberty or even the formation of testes and ovaries.

Another 2025 study examined 266 post mortem fetal brains and found more than 1,800 genes were more active in males and 1,300 in females. These sets of sex-biased genes overlapped with those seen in adult brains.

This points to direct genetic effects from genes on the sex chromosomes, rather than hormone-driven differences.

Do these differences mean male and female brains work differently?

It would be remarkable if sex differences in the activity of so many genes were not reflected in some major differences in brain function between men and women. But we don’t know to what extent, or which functions.

Some patterns are emerging. Many female-biased genes have been found to encode neuron-associated processes, whereas male-biased genes are more often related to traits such as membranes and nuclear structures.

Many genes are sex-biased only in particular sub-regions of the brain, which suggests they have a sex-specific function only in those regions.

However, differences in RNA levels don’t always produce differences in proteins. Cells can compensate to maintain protein balance, meaning that not all RNA differences have functional outcomes. Sometimes, developmental processes differ between sexes but lead to the same end result.

Brain health

Of particular interest is the finding of a relationship between sex biases and sex differences in the susceptibility to some brain disorders.

Many genes implicated in Alzheimer’s disease are female-biased, perhaps accounting for the doubled incidence of this disease in women. Studies on rodents imply that expression of the male-only SRY gene in the brain exacerbates Parkinson’s disease.

Evolution of sex differences in brain gene function

These sex-biased gene expression patterns are by no means unique to humans.
They have also been found in the brains of rats and mice as well as in monkeys.

The suites of male- and female-biased genes in monkeys overlap significantly with those of humans, implying that sex biases were established in a common ancestor 70 million years ago.

This suggests that natural selection favoured gene actions that promoted slightly different behaviours in our male and female primate ancestors – or perhaps even further back, in the ancestor of all mammals, or even all vertebrates.

In fact, sex differences in the expression of genes in the developing brain look to be ubiquitous in animals. They have been observed even in the humble nematode worm.

Jenny Graves receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Hundreds of genes act differently in the brains of men and women – https://theconversation.com/hundreds-of-genes-act-differently-in-the-brains-of-men-and-women-266352

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aili Langford, Pharmacist, Lecturer, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, Sydney Pharmacy School, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney

Opioids, such as oxycodone, morphine, codeine, tramadol and fentanyl, are commonly prescribed to manage pain. You might be given a prescription when experiencing pain, or after surgery or an injury.

But while opioids may relieve pain in the short term, they provide little to no lasting improvement in pain or function beyond a few weeks for people whose pain isn’t caused by cancer.

Opioids can also cause side effects such as nausea, constipation and drowsiness, as well as serious risks such as dependence and overdose.

Over the past decade, Australia has introduced initiatives to reduce opioid use and related harm. This includes new guidelines that recommend reducing the dose or stopping opioids when the risks of continuing outweigh the benefits.

Many people can reduce or stop opioids without their pain worsening. Some people even experience less pain. However, for some people, reducing or stopping opioids can result in worse pain, mental health crises and even suicide.

Our new research, published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, explains how to safely reduce and stop taking prescription opioids.

How do you know when it’s time to stop? Then what?

Determining whether it is appropriate to reduce or stop opioids depends on several factors unique to each person. These include:

• why opioids were prescribed
• how long they’ve been used
• what other treatments you’ve tried
• how the medication affects your pain, function and quality of life
• your life circumstances.

If it’s appropriate to trial reducing or stopping opioids, guidelines from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States emphasise the following principles:

1) Shared decision-making

Shared decision-making is where health-care professionals and patients work together to set goals, weigh risks and benefits, and make informed choices.

This means collaboratively designing an opioid reduction plan that reflects the person’s needs, preferences and circumstances, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all approach.

Research shows shared decision-making may lead to better outcomes, and patients value this process.

2) Reduce gradually

Stopping opioids suddenly can cause withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, insomnia, and stomach upset. Rapid dose reductions can also increase the risk of overdose, mental distress and suicide.

To avoid these risks, opioids should be reduced gradually over weeks, months or even longer. The process should be flexible, allowing for pauses or adjustments to the reduction plan if needed.

When someone takes lower doses of opioids over time, their body’s tolerance decreases. If they return to a higher dose, there is a risk of overdose. For this reason, health-care professionals may recommend having naloxone available. This is a medication that can reverse an opioid overdose.

---

Read more:
Naloxone can reverse opioid overdose. Here’s why you might need some at home or in your bag

---

3) Set up other supports

Supportive strategies should be used before, during and after reducing opioids. These can include:

• physical therapies such as physiotherapy
• psychological approaches such as mindfulness
• non-opioid medications
• mental health support from health-care professionals, friends and family
• education about pain self-management.

The evidence supporting specific interventions is often limited or uncertain. Choosing a strategy will depend on your individual preferences and access. The best approach is likely a combination of several different supports.

4) See your health-care provider for ongoing monitoring

Regular monitoring from a health-care professional is recommended during and after opioid reduction to assess pain, function, withdrawal symptoms and wellbeing.

This can help to ensure that any issues are identified early and are addressed.

If someone experiences a clear decline in their quality of life, for example, it may be necessary to pause or stop the taper and revisit it later, provide extra supports or implement strategies to manage withdrawal symptoms.

We need a health system that supports this process

Making opioid reduction safer and more effective requires putting these principles into practice. But many patients and health-care professionals still face challenges when doing so.

It’s best practice to access a team-based pain management program with support from a doctor, physiotherapist and psychologist, among other providers, to manage pain and reduce the use of opioids. But access to these services remains limited in many parts of Australia.

Consumer organisations and professional bodies have called for greater access to team-based pain services so more people, especially those living in rural and under-served areas, can access support.

Australian health-care professionals have also requested more education and training in pain management, prescribing and opioid reduction, as well as stronger evidence about what works, for whom and why. This is so they’re better able to tailor their care to each person’s needs.

Other strategies such as reducing the amount of opioids prescribed – including after surgery – have also been proposed to help prevent long-term opioid use and the need for reduction plans later on.

Aili Langford receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council through an Investigator Grant Fellowship. She sits on the Executive Committee of the Australian Deprescribing Network (ADeN). This is an unpaid volunteer role.

Christine Lin receives funding from the National Health and Medical Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. She is a member of the Australian Physiotherapy Association and Fellow of the Australian College of Physiotherapy.

– ref. Taking prescription opioids for too long can be harmful. Here’s how to cut back and stop – https://theconversation.com/taking-prescription-opioids-for-too-long-can-be-harmful-heres-how-to-cut-back-and-stop-265874