Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By William M. LeoGrande, Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs

A boat carrying 10 heavily armed men entered Cuban territorial waters on Feb. 25, 2026, intent, according to officials in Havana, on infiltrating the island nation and undermining the communist government through acts of sabotage and terrorism. When the men opened fire on an approaching Cuban Border Guard patrol boat, the border guards returned fire, killing four and wounding the other six. Another Cuban American who had allegedly flown to Cuba from the United States to meet the infiltration team on the beach was later arrested.

While details about the incident continue to come out, the gun battle comes at a time of heightened tensions between Cuba and the United States, which for weeks has been pursuing a de facto total oil blockade of the island. The latest episode is also reminiscent of the early 1960s, when Cuban exiles, trained and armed by the CIA, tried to infiltrate Cuba to conduct acts of sabotage and assassinate the leaders of the Cuban Revolution.

As a longtime expert on U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America and co-author of a history of the bilateral diplomacy between the United States and Cuba, I know that Cuba’s exile community has long contained paramilitary elements. Encouraged by Washington’s intensified sanctions and heated rhetoric, and a weakened government in Havana, these elements seem to sense an opportunity now.

Cuba’s exiled paramilitaries

Following the triumph of the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro’s rise to power in 1959, U.S. policy toward the new government was antagonistic almost from the start.

In 1961, the CIA under President John F. Kennedy organized the Bay of Pigs invasion – a military operation by exiled Cubans aimed at overthrowing the young Castro government.

The attempted invasion was a “perfect failure,” in the words of author Theodore Draper, after which the agency recruited a number of the invaders to continue to wage irregular war against Cuba. They were part of Operation Mongoose, the Kennedy administration’s multifaceted program of diplomatic, economic, political and paramilitary pressure aimed at overthrowing the Cuban government.

The CIA’s financial support for exile paramilitary groups continued into the late 1960s, until it was phased out because of their ineffectiveness. Although the CIA gave up on overthrowing Castro by force of arms, the paramilitary exile groups did not.

Two of the most prominent groups – Alpha 66 and Omega 7 – continued their war against the Cuban government for years with tacit U.S. support. “We should not inhibit Cuban exile activity against their homeland,” President Richard Nixon wrote in 1971 in response to Coast Guard efforts to arrest members of Alpha 66. Five years later, two of the most prominent paramilitary leaders, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, orchestrated the bombing of a civilian airliner, Cubana Flight 455, killing all 73 people on board.

A change in attitudes

Frustrated by their inability to depose the Cuban government, the paramilitary groups turned their attention inward. In the late 1970s, these groups launched a campaign of terrorist bombings and assassinations mainly targeting Cuban Americans who dared speak out in favor of rapprochement with their homeland. In 1979, two members of the Committee of 75, Cuban Americans who traveled to Cuba to meet with Castro to secure the release of political prisoners, were assassinated by Omega 7.

President Ronald Reagan was certainly no friend of Castro’s Cuba, but his Justice Department launched a major crackdown on the U.S.-based paramilitary groups, winning convictions against a number of their members.

The terrorist attacks subsided, but the martial impulse has remained alive among some Cuban American extremists. Small groups have continued to hold weekend military training exercises in the Everglades in Florida, home to the world’s largest Cuban diaspora. Periodically over the years, some of these weekend warriors have tried to infiltrate Cuba. Almost always, they are quickly captured by Cuban police. The most recent firefight seems to be the latest of these incidents, albeit an unusually violent one.

Ratcheting up US hostility to Cuba

The number of these incursions, along with attempts by Cuban Americans to solicit acts of sabotage over social media, have increased in recent years as relations between Cuba and the U.S. have deteriorated, now at their lowest point in decades.

In his first administration, President Donald Trump reversed President Barack Obama’s 2014 Cuban thaw by imposing the toughest economic sanctions since the 1960s. President Joe Biden left most of those sanctions in place, even as the Cuban economy suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now in his second term, Trump has turned the screws even tighter by cutting off Cuba’s oil supply from Venezuela and threatening other countries if they send oil to Cuba. The result is a profound, unprecedented economic decline on the island that threatens to precipitate a humanitarian crisis.

Both Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who built his political career by being the most vocal anti-Cuban government member of Congress, have declared Cuba a failed state and predict its imminent collapse almost daily.

These predictions from the White House, along with the seemingly unsustainable economic crisis on the island, have created an expectation that the Cuban government cannot survive. In this atmosphere, Cuban American militants might well conclude that the long-awaited moment has arrived, and those who fancy themselves soldiers might well decide to take up arms and head south to witness, participate in or even catalyze the demise of the government they have hated so much and for so long.

But Cuba is not a failed state, claims from the White House notwithstanding. The Cuban government is still fully capable of maintaining public order and defending its coastline, as the 10 people that allegedly tried to infiltrate the island found out.

Trump and his hawkish advisers, including Rubio, appear to want to force Cuba into submission, much as they have tried to do in Venezuela.

But there are no visible signs of cracks in the regime and no organized opposition to it. Many Cubans remain fiercely nationalistic and are not likely to accept any deal that requires them to surrender their national sovereignty by remaking their political or economic system to please the United States.

Absent some kind of diplomatic agreement between Washington and Havana, the Cuban economy will continue to deteriorate under the weight of the ongoing oil blockade and all the other elements of the U.S. economic embargo. This will deepen the misery of people living in Cuba and risks prompting other exiles into launching paramilitary adventures in hopes of exploiting Havana’s weakness.

William M. LeoGrande is affiliated with The Quincy Institute as a Non-resident Fellow

– ref. Cuba’s speedboat shootout recalls long history of exile groups engaged in covert ops aimed at regime change – https://theconversation.com/cubas-speedboat-shootout-recalls-long-history-of-exile-groups-engaged-in-covert-ops-aimed-at-regime-change-277049

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nicholas Morieson, Research Fellow, Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

Artificial intelligence (AI) is at a very Chinese time in its life. Recent moves from Chinese AI labs are throwing the dominance of American “frontier labs” such as Google and OpenAI into question.

Last week ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, released an AI video-generating tool called Seedance 2.0 which produces high-quality film-like clips from text prompts, with a casual disregard for copyright concerns. This week Anthropic, the US company behind the chatbot Claude, said three Chinese AI labs created thousands of fake accounts to harvest Claude’s answers in a practice called “distillation” which can be used to improve AI models.

These events have led to suggestions that China may be gaining the upper hand in the battle to dominate AI. So, is China winning the “AI race”?

Cheap, widely used tools

While most advanced frontier models are still made by American companies, China is pushing hard to develop cheap, widely used AI tools, which could create global dependence on Chinese platforms.

Reuters reports the industry is bracing for a “flurry” of low-cost Chinese AI models, with Chinese systems repeatedly driving usage costs down.

What’s the plan? China’s official AI policy documents suggest China sees AI as “a new engine for building China into both a manufacturing and cyber superpower”, and “a new engine of economic development”.

Since 2017, China has recognised that the technology is at the centre of “international competition”. “By 2030,” one key policy document says, China’s AI “technology and application should achieve world-leading levels, making China the world’s primary AI innovation center”.

This focus on becoming the dominant player in AI helps explain why Chinese firms are pushing hard on price. If you can make your AI cheap enough, you might just make it globally ubiquitous.

Cost helps determine who adopts AI first, and which models are first implemented in software and services. Even if the United States remains ahead on most elite benchmarks, Chinese products could still become globally influential if they are widely used and widely depended upon.

High-tech soft power

But China does not present its AI technology to the world as only benefiting itself. Instead, it’s pitched as a contribution to humanity.

A 2019 statement of “governance principles” from a national AI governance expert committee argues that AI development should enhance “the common well-being of humanity” and “serve the progress of human civilization”.

These phrases portray AI as a technology that advances the human story itself, rather than only serving Chinese interests. It suggests Chinese AI leadership is good for everyone.

This is an example of Chinese soft power. Tools such as Seedance may threaten Hollywood’s business model, but they do something else too. High-quality, low-cost generative media can spread quickly.

If Chinese systems become widespread, they can influence creators, developer habits, and platform dependencies, especially in non-Western markets that need affordable tools and may dislike American tech dominance.

The spread of the ‘Chinese model’

For liberal democracies such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, the growth of Chinese AI tools creates a strategic headache. It will not be easy to manage security concerns about Chinese technology while avoiding technological isolation if Chinese AI tools become widely adopted.

There is a darker side to China’s AI tools. US think-tank Freedom House describes China as having the world’s “worst conditions for internet freedom”, and suggests other nations are now “embracing the ‘Chinese model’ of extensive censorship and automated surveillance”.

In 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued rules for the algorithms that curate news feeds and short video platforms. Providers are required to “uphold mainstream value orientations” and “vigorously disseminate positive energy”.

These algorithms are important because they shape what people see and what is suppressed. As a result, these rules suggest the Chinese government is deeply concerned with controlling information across its social media platforms and AI tools.

A dilemma for third parties

Not every Chinese AI tool is a propaganda weapon. Rather, China is building world-class AI technology within an authoritarian system that prioritises the control of information.

This means China’s ability to make generative AI commercially powerful will likely also, despite its claims about serving “human civilisation”, make censorship and narrative management cheaper and easier.

China’s business and soft-power model is a much bigger story than just Seedance’s cavalier attitude towards copyright or Anthropic’s concerns about intellectual property. China’s goal is to build AI tools that rival those created by America’s tech giants, and to make them inexpensive and adopted globally.

For other countries, this may create a dilemma. Once a technology becomes a standard, it can be difficult to justify using a different product.

The question that remains is whether liberal democracies can adopt China’s low-cost products without drifting into dependence on systems shaped by an authoritarian political model.

Nicholas Morieson 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. How China is betting cheap AI will get the world hooked on its tech – https://theconversation.com/how-china-is-betting-cheap-ai-will-get-the-world-hooked-on-its-tech-276878

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amy Hume, Lecturer In Theatre (Voice), Victorian College of the Arts, The University of Melbourne

Few actors are imitated as often as Michael Caine. Even Michael Caine has imitated Michael Caine.

His voice has been used in birthday card greetings and been the source of jokes in various comedy sketches. It is synonymous with a certain type of Britishness.

Last week, artificial intelligence company ElevenLabs announced Caine has licensed his voice to the company. It will be available on their ElevenReader app, which allows you to listen to any text in a voice of your choosing, as well as being available on their licensing platform, Iconic Marketplace.

To understand why Caine’s voice is so iconic (and wanted by AI) we need to look deeper at what people actually hear in it.

Why do people love listening to Michael Caine?

Caine was born in London in 1933. His mother was a cook and a cleaner, and his father worked in a fish market. Caine speaks with a Cockney accent, setting him aside from most other actors of his generation.

Cockney hails from London’s East End and is often associated with London’s working class – think Eliza Doolittle from My Fair Lady, the Artful Dodger from Oliver!, or Bert the Chimney Sweep from Mary Poppins (although Dick van Dyke’s accent is not the most accurate, it’s still recognisably Cockney).

Traditionally, you were said to be a true Cockney if you were born within earshot of the Bow Bells – the bells of St. Mary-le-Bow church on Cheapside.

That distinctiveness matters because the accent carried heavy class meaning in mid-20th century Britain.

We don’t hear many contemporary examples of Cockney. Accents change and evolve over time and it has gradually been replaced by a new dialect called Multicultural London English (MLE).

While most actors of his age acquired a “stage accent” – known as Received Pronunciation (RP) – Caine made a conscious decision to hold onto his working-class roots and not change his accent. Instead, he built his career on it.

He once said,

I could’ve gone to voice lessons, but I always thought if I had any use […] I could fight the class system in England.

His accent became cultural capital and helped him land roles in Alfie (1966), The Italian Job (1969) and Jack Carter (1971). By the 1970s, he was a British cultural icon.

What do we hear when we hear celebrity voices?

Hearing a person’s voice is never just about acoustics. We hear social meaning: culture, identity, character and story.

Sociolinguist Asif Agha coined the term “enregisterment” to describe how a way of speaking becomes publicly recognised as signalling particular social types and values.

Over time, Caine’s voice has become enregistered as a recognisable Cockney accent associated with East London and historically linked to a working-class identity. Hearing his voice activates a socially shared register of meanings attached to Cockney.

This contrasts with, say, Queen Elizabeth II, whose accent was enregistered with royalty, prestige and wealth.

Another useful concept here is what sociolinguists sometimes call “dialectal memes”: the images and character types that circulate around particular accents. These memes are transmitted through books, television, film, and even celebrity figures themselves.

Caine has been a carrier of Cockney dialectal memes in popular culture.

When you look at it this way, AI voice licensing commodifies not just the acoustic properties of Caine’s voice, but the enregistered social meanings audiences recognise in it.

What AI licensing means for Caine

ElevenLabs describes its Iconic Marketplace platform as “the performer-first approach the entertainment industry has been calling for”. Through licensing, actors maintain ownership of their voices in a digital, AI landscape.

Caine licensing his voice theoretically ensures he receives credit and compensation, and prevents unauthorised clones appearing elsewhere.

It is possible this is exactly the direction actors want AI to go in – for use of their voice to be controlled by themselves, with clear credit and payment.

However, this model is not without risk to the actor or the listener. We should ask: do we need to hear something in Caine’s voice? Will we process information differently or hear it with more authority if it’s delivered in the voice of a cultural icon like Caine?

Giving power over to machines

People who admire Caine may want him to read to them. Some will be willing to pay for it. We need to remain conscious of the decisions we are making here.

In the 1960s, computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum, creator of the world’s first chatbot, Eliza, warned about the dangers of forming relationships with machines. He was alarmed to see users confiding in Eliza and responding to the chatbot as if it actually understood them, even when they knew it did not.

What happens if an AI voice is not actually generic, but recognisably tied to a real human?

An actor’s likeness and voice may be protected with licensing, but their human self is not. That creates a pathway to attachment or even infatuation.

Caine is not just licensing his voice, but also the Cockney persona audiences recognise in it. Suddenly, a machine speaks with the authority of a real human behind it.

Amy Hume 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. Michael Caine’s voice is iconic. Why would he sell that to AI? – https://theconversation.com/michael-caines-voice-is-iconic-why-would-he-sell-that-to-ai-276506

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Simon Theobald, Research Fellow, University of Oxford; University of Notre Dame Australia

As Iranian and US diplomats meet in Geneva for crucial negotiations to avoid a potential war, opposition groups in exile are sniffing an opportunity.

The Islamic Republic faces its greatest political crisis since its inception. US President Donald Trump is threatening an imminent attack if Iran doesn’t capitulate on its nuclear program. And anti-regime protesters continue to gather, despite a brutal government crackdown that has killed upwards of 20,000 people, and possibly more.

Talk of a future Iran after the fall of the Islamic regime has grown increasingly fervent. And buoyed by cries heard during some of the protests in Iran of “long live the shah” (the former monarch of Iran), the voices of royalists in the Iranian diaspora are everywhere.

But is a return of the shah really what Iranians want, and what would be best for the country?

What are the monarchists promising?

Iran’s monarchy was ancient, but the Pahlavi dynasty that last ruled the country only came to power in 1925 when Reza Khan, a soldier in the army, overthrew the previous dynasty.

Khan adopted the name Pahlavi, and attempted to bring Iran closer to Western social and economic norms. He was also an authoritarian leader, famous for banning the hijab, and was ultimately forced into exile by the British following the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941.

His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, attempted to continue his father’s reforms, but was similarly authoritarian. Presiding over a government that tolerated little dissent, he was ultimately forced out by the huge tide of opposition during the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

---

Read more:
How Iran’s current unrest can be traced back to the 1979 revolution

---

Now, the exiled crown prince, 65-year-old Reza Pahlavi, is being touted by many in the diaspora as the most credible and visible opposition figure to be able to lead the country if and when the Islamic Republic collapses.

Pro-monarchy groups such as the US-based National Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI) have become vocal supporters of Pahlavi.

In early 2025, the NUFDI launched a well-coordinated and media savvy “Iran Prosperity Project”, offering what the group claimed was a roadmap for economic recovery in a post-Islamic Republic Iran. Pahlavi himself penned the foreword.

Then, in July, the group released its “Emergency Phase Booklet”, with a vision for a new political system in Iran.

Although the document is mostly written in the language of international democratic norms, it envisions bestowing the crown prince with enormous powers. He’s called the “leader of the national uprising” and given the right to veto the institutions and selection processes in a transitional government.

One thing the document is missing is a response to the demands of Iran’s many ethnic minority groups for a federalist model of government in Iran.

Instead, under the plan, the government would remain highly centralised under the leadership of Pahlavi, at least until a referendum that the authors claim would determine a transition to either a constitutional monarchy or democratic republic.

But students of Iranian history cannot help but note echoes of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had promised a more democratic Iran with a new constitution, and without himself or other clerics in power.

After the revolution, though, Khomeini quickly grasped the reigns of power.

Online attacks against opponents

Pahlavi and his supporters have also struggled to stick to the principles of respectful debate and tolerance of different viewpoints.

When interviewed, Pahlavi has avoided discussing the autocratic nature of his father’s rule and the human rights abuses that occurred under it.

But if Pahlavi tends to avoid hard questions, his supporters can be aggressive. At the Munich Security Conference in February, British-Iranian journalist Christiane Amanpour interviewed the crown prince.

After the interview, Amanpour’s tough questions resulted in an explosion of anger from his supporters. In a video that has been widely shared on X, royalists can be seen heckling Amanpour, saying she “insulted” the crown prince.

In online forums, the language can be even more intimidating. Amanpour asked Pahlavi point-blank if he would tell his supporters to stop their “terrifying” attacks on ordinary Iranians.

While saying he doesn’t tolerate online attacks, he added, “I cannot control millions of people, whatever they say on social media, and who knows if they are real people or not.”

---

Read more:
The rise of Reza Pahlavi: Iranian opposition leader or opportunist?

---

Do Iranians want a monarchy?

As I’ve noted previously, the monarchist movement also talks as though it is speaking for the whole nation.

But during the recent protests, some students could be heard shouting: “No to monarchy, no to the leadership of the clerics, yes to an egalitarian democracy”.

The level of support for the shah within Iran is unclear, in part because polling is notoriously difficult.

A 2024 poll by the GAMAAN group, an organisation set up by two Iranian academics working in the Netherlands, attempted to gauge political sentiment in Iran. Just over 30% of those polled indicated Pahlavi would be their first choice if a free and fair election were held.

But the poll doesn’t indicate why people said they wanted to vote for him. It also showed just how fragmented the opposition is, with dozens of names getting lower levels of support.

The future of Iran is very unclear at the moment. Even if the Islamic Republic were to be dislodged – a very big “if” – the transition could very well be chaotic and violent.

Would Pahlavi make a good leader? For many critics, his behaviour, and that of his supporters, call into question the royalists’ promises of a more liberal and tolerant Iran.

Simon Theobald receives funding from the University of Oxford and the University of Notre Dame Australia.

– ref. Iran’s exiled crown prince is touting himself as a future leader. Is this what’s best for the country? – https://theconversation.com/irans-exiled-crown-prince-is-touting-himself-as-a-future-leader-is-this-whats-best-for-the-country-276629

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

After toppling Venezuela’s leader earlier this year, the Trump administration has turned its sights on Cuba. The near-total blockade of the island is now posing the greatest challenge to the government since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Cuba is quickly running out of oil, creating a dire political and economic crisis for the island’s 11 million residents.

US President Donald Trump’s embargo has prevented any oil tankers from reaching the island for months. A ship carrying Russian fuel is now reportedly on the way to the island to attempt to break the blockade, but the US has seized other ships that have previously tried.

The Trump administration has also threatened tariffs on any nation that tries to send Cuba fuel, putting Latin American leaders in an uncomfortable position. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has called out the embargo as “very unfair”, but she’s been careful not to antagonise Trump by putting an emphasis on the Cuban “people”, not the government.

This is not the first time the US has isolated Cuba, or coerced Latin American leaders to take part. Cuba has been under a US embargo for the past 66 years, which has stunted its economy and caused widespread human suffering.

The island has always found a way to get by, but can it survive this new round of American pressure?

Animosity grows in the 1950s

The Cuban Revolution caught the United States by surprise in 1959. During the Cold War, the US had supported dictatorships in Latin America, such as Cuba’s Fulgencio Batista, with political, financial and military support, creating widespread anti-US activism across the region.

After coming to power, revolutionary leader Fidel Castro instituted modest reforms to land tenure and infrastructure to support the impoverished people. Then-US President Dwight Eisenhower opposed these moves because of their impact on US commercial interests on the island. This opposition turned into a US embargo of Cuban sugar imports in 1960.

In response, Castro looked to the Soviets as an export alternative. Eisenhower retaliated by refusing to ship oil to Cuba, leading Castro to sign an oil deal with the Soviets and eventually nationalise American and British refineries. In 1961, Castro declared his adherence to “Marxism-Leninism”.

Castro and Cuba were hugely popular throughout Latin America. When the Cuban military defeated the CIA-trained force of exiled Cuban fighters at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, Castro was lauded for standing up to the US, though few knew of the military and intelligence support coming from the Soviets.

And when President John F. Kennedy began the campaign to remove Cuba from the Organisation of American States (OAS) in 1961, most Latin American democracies moved to block it.

To bring those leaders to his side, Kennedy used a carrot-and-stick approach. He proposed an “alliance for progress” to meet the “basic needs of the [Latin] American people for homes, work and land, health and schools”. But his government also passed the Foreign Assistance Act, which established a total blockade of the island and prohibited US aid to any country providing assistance to Cuba.

The OAS removed Cuba as a member the following year and, in 1964, voted to embargo all trade to Cuba, except food and medicine.

Life under the embargo

The embargo prevented Cuba from reaching the modern technological age. Instead, it existed in socialist bubble, emphasising the care of its people over economic development.

Nonetheless, Cuba’s Cold War economic growth was comparable to its neighbours. In 1970, the nominal GDP per capita for Cuba was US$645 (A$900), slightly lower than Mexico and about double the Dominican Republic. By 1990, it was US$2,565 (A$3,600), about 80% of Mexico’s and more than triple the Dominican Republic’s.

Cuba was not industrialised, but the country did reach full literacy before any other Latin American nation and extended health care to all Cubans. Cuba then exported its teachers and doctors throughout Latin America, and beyond.

However, life on the island was still difficult, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

With no clear replacement for Soviet imports and subsidies, the economy began to buckle. From 1990 to 1994 (a time known as the “Special Period”), food production decreased by 40%, leading to food rationing, malnutrition and other health issues.

Protests broke out across the island in 1994 and some 35,000 Cubans fled on boats for Florida.

Cuba and the US after the Cold War

However, the end of the Cold War brought newfound sympathy and assistance from Cuba’s neighbours. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, for example, provided Cuba with oil in exchange for Cuban doctors.

Then, in 2009, the OAS voted to readmit Cuba and allow for regional trade and tourism again.

US President Barack Obama followed suit in 2014, saying the US embargo of Cuba had “failed”.

His administration then initiated what would become known as the “Cuban thaw”. Then-President Raul Castro visited Washington in 2015 and, the following year, Obama became the first US president to visit Cuba since 1928.

Obama did not end the embargo, but he did open the door to US tourism, providing a lifeline for Cuba’s economy.

Why is Trump punishing the island again?

Now, Trump is reimposing the Cold War-era embargo on the island and ramping up the pressure on President Miguel Díaz-Canel’s government.

The White House claims Cuba presents an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States, saying the island is cooperating with “dangerous adversaries” on intelligence activities, chief among them Russia and China.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned Trump’s embargo, saying “we do not accept anything like this”.

If Russian oil makes it to Cuba, more aid could follow. If that eventuates, the US will have invited Russia into its backyard again, laying the foundation for another Cold War-style stalemate, with the Cuban people once more trapped in the middle.

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

– ref. Cuba has survived 66 years of US-led embargoes. Will Trump’s blockade break it now? – https://theconversation.com/cuba-has-survived-66-years-of-us-led-embargoes-will-trumps-blockade-break-it-now-276065

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Stacey Pizzino, Lecturer, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland

When a war ends and peace agreements are signed, most people assume the danger is over. But for many communities around the world the danger remains in the ground, waiting.

Landmines and other explosives left behind after a conflict can stay active for decades – buried in the paths to school, in the fields that feed families and in the areas where children play.

In some countries, such as Laos and the Solomon Islands, bombs from conflicts decades ago still injure and kill.

This quiet danger isn’t a distant problem. Today, at least 57 countries are contaminated by landmines and other explosive ordnance, including mortars and grenades.

At the same time, some governments are stepping back from the Landmine Ban Treaty, the first comprehensive treaty aimed at eliminating landmines in conflicts. Decisions made in parliaments today can translate into hazards underfoot for years to come.

Our new research is aimed at understanding the ongoing risk landmines pose. The study is the world’s largest analysis of landmine and explosive ordnance casualties. And the data allows us to answer critical questions: who dies from these weapons, and why?

What do the numbers tell us?

In our study, we analysed 105,913 casualties across 17 conflict-affected countries, using operational data. These are the real world operational records routinely collected by national mine action authorities, the UN and other humanitarian organisations.

These records let us see what communities are facing without adding any burden to these often stretched services.

Across all settings, the case fatality rate was 38.8%. Put simply: for every ten people injured by landmines or other explosive ordnance around the world, nearly four die. This is extraordinarily high.

For comparison, the fatality rate for blast injuries among military personnel or civilians treated in well-resourced trauma centres is around 2%.

The gap highlights the brutal disparity between those who are injured in environments with functioning surgical and trauma care and those who are not.

Not all explosive threats are equal, either.

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the most lethal weapon type in our analysis.

IEDs are increasingly used in many modern conflicts and are often remotely detonated to maximise casualties. Their explosive force and unpredictability cause devastating injuries that many local health systems are simply not equipped to manage.

Who is most affected?

Although most casualties from landmines and explosive ordnance are men, women had significantly higher odds of dying from their injuries. This likely reflects unequal access to health care, delayed treatment, and social barriers that limit mobility and decision making in many conflict-affected settings.

Children’s risks are different – they are both vulnerable and resilient.

Children are particularly at risk of detonating landmines when playing, when caught up in active conflict, or simply as bystanders.

The reason is often tragic.
Children tend to play together in groups, meaning when one child encounters an explosive remnant, several are injured at once.

Yet, overall, children in our data were more likely to survive their injuries than adults, perhaps because they sustain different injury patterns or receive care sooner when adults rush to assist.

But survival is only the beginning. Children may need multiple surgeries, new prostheses as they grow up, long-term rehabilitation and lifelong disability support. These are needs that many health systems struggle to meet.

Age also shapes outcomes. The highest odds of death were observed in adults aged 45–64. Older people may have pre-existing health issues and face greater barriers to reaching medical care, yet their needs can often be overlooked.

The human cost of explosives

The impact of landmines and explosive ordnance extends far beyond immediate injuries. These injuries disrupt people’s daily lives in ways that can entrench communities in poverty.

For example, farmers cannot safety cultivate their land because of the threat of landmines. Women gathering water or food can trigger explosives, too.

When injuries occur, families lose breadwinners and care-giving roles change, pushing households deeper into poverty.

How can we strengthen care for survivors?

There are ways to mitigate the impacts of landmines and explosive ordnance, though. This is a preventable public health crisis.

Our findings highlight the urgent need to strengthen emergency, critical and surgical care in conflict-affected areas to reduce preventable deaths.

Reliable pre-hospital care, transport and basic surgical care saves lives. So does long-term rehabilitation and disability support, especially for children who will live with the consequences of these explosive weapons and injuries for decades.

As old conflicts continue and new ones emerge, explosive ordnance keep contaminating the places where people live, play, work and travel.

Understanding who dies, and why, is essential to preventing future deaths and ensuring that peace, when it comes, offers real safety.

Stacey Pizzino received funding from the Australian government Research Training Program.

Michael Waller 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. New global study: long after war, injuries from landmines and explosives kill nearly 4 in 10 victims – https://theconversation.com/new-global-study-long-after-war-injuries-from-landmines-and-explosives-kill-nearly-4-in-10-victims-276062

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Laura Revell, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Canterbury

When we look up at the night sky and see a satellite glide past, we might not consider climate change or the ozone layer.

Space may feel separate from the environmental systems that sustain life on Earth. But increasingly, the way we build, launch and dispose of satellites is starting to change that.

Over the past few years, the number of satellite launches has skyrocketed. There are now nearly 15,000 active satellites in orbit around the Earth, most of them part of “mega-constellations” in which each satellite has a service life of only a few years.

New satellites must be quickly launched as replacements. To avoid leaving old, dead satellites in Earth’s already-crowded low orbits, most satellite operators deliberately de-orbit them into Earth’s upper atmosphere.

Here, they burn up or break apart into smaller pieces: a process known as “demisability”. In effect, satellites have become part of throwaway culture.

That approach is now being taken to a vastly larger scale. We are concerned about the implications for Earth’s climate and atmosphere.

A sleeper risk for our climate and ozone layer

Last month, SpaceX applied to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for permission to launch one million more satellites for untested “AI data centres”.

That sheer number isn’t the only issue. SpaceX’s Starlink V2 “mini” satellites happen to weigh about 800 kilograms (kg) – roughly the mass of a small car – with later versions expected to reach around 1,250 kg. The planned V3 satellites are larger still, comparable in scale to a Boeing 737 airliner.

Rocket launches already contribute to climate change and ozone depletion. Scaling them up to deploy a million aircraft-sized satellites would push upper-atmosphere heating and ozone loss far beyond previous estimates, with the steady burn-up of dead satellites compounding the impacts.

This comes as burnt satellite dust is already being found in the atmosphere. In 2023, scientists studying aerosols in the upper atmosphere found metals from re-entering spacecraft. Just recently, lithium has been detected from the uncontrolled re-entry of a Falcon 9 rocket.

This is just a fraction of what is to come if planned megaconstellations go ahead – and SpaceX is far from the only player. Other operators worldwide have already asked for a combined total of over one million satellites.

All the while, the full environmental consequences remain poorly understood because satellite builders rarely disclose what their spacecraft are made of.

Scientists assume a large fraction is aluminium, which burns up into alumina particles, but the exact mix of materials – and the size of the particles produced – remains poorly constrained.

But we know the very smallest particles, finer than a human hair, can stay suspended in the atmosphere for years, contributing to ozone depletion and climate change.

Following similar assumptions to a previous study, we estimate that a million satellites could mean that a teragram (one billion kgs) of alumina accumulates in the upper atmosphere – enough, alongside launch emissions, to significantly alter atmospheric chemistry and heating in dramatic ways we do not yet understand.

There is no public mandate for a single company in one country to make changes on that scale to the planet’s atmosphere.

The consequences are not confined to the atmosphere. Not all re-entering satellites burn up; debris is already hitting the ground and the chance of a casualty from megaconstellation re-entries is now about 40% per five-year cycle – rising for both people and aircraft as more satellites are added to orbit.

In space, the picture is no less stark: the Outer Space Institute’s CRASH Clock suggests a collision would occur within 3.8 days if satellites stopped avoiding each other.

Many experts agree we are in the early stages of the Kessler Syndrome: a cascading chain reaction of collisions that multiplies space debris.

Our skies are not a dumping ground

Our night sky, especially cherished in New Zealand, is one of the few things everyone on Earth still shares.

According to simulations built by astronomers, constellations on the scale proposed by SpaceX would fill the sky with many thousands of satellites visible to the naked eye anywhere on Earth. Eventually, there could be more visible satellites than visible stars.

For scientists, observing the deaths of stars and searching for new planets would become much harder. Stargazing, astrotourism and cultural astronomy would similarly be disrupted worldwide.

All of this means the FCC’s ruling on the SpaceX proposal, now open to public submissions, could affect everyone – whether through changes to the atmosphere, growing collision risks in orbit or the loss of an unspoilt night sky.

One solution being discussed is to dispose of dead satellites in orbits away from Earth. But this would require much more fuel per satellite to escape Earth’s gravity, increasing both payload and the environmental impact of rocket launches. Some debris would still return to Earth.

With SpaceX and others planning rapid expansion, global regulation is needed: in an uncapped system, regulating one firm just shifts the problem elsewhere. As the largest operator, SpaceX is best placed to lead on an environmentally sustainable solution, just as Du Pont did with phasing out CFCs in the 1980s.

A first step is to define a safe atmospheric carrying capacity for satellite launches and re-entries. Environmental assessments should cover the full lifecycle, including atmospheric effects, and address both orbital safety and impacts on cultural and research astronomy.

Whatever the regulatory outcome, using the atmosphere as a crematorium for satellites at this scale cannot be a solution.

Laura Revell receives funding from the Marsden Fund and Rutherford Discovery Fellowships, administered from New Zealand Government funding by the Royal Society Te Apārangi. She is a member of the International Ozone Commission, UN Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, UN Nuclear War Effects Panel, and a lead author on the IPCC’s 7th Assessment Report.

Michele Bannister receives funding from the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships, administered from New Zealand Government funding by the Royal Society Te Apārangi. She is a member of the International Astronomical Union’s Centre for Dark and Quiet Skies.

Samantha Lawler receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. She is a fellow of the Outer Space Institute, and a Visiting Erskine Fellow at the University of Canterbury.

– ref. A new space race could turn our atmosphere into a ‘crematorium for satellites’ – https://theconversation.com/a-new-space-race-could-turn-our-atmosphere-into-a-crematorium-for-satellites-276366

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anais Möller, Senior Lecturer and ARC DECRA Fellow, School of Science, Computing and Emerging Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology

When you look up at the night sky, it appears unchanging. But if you look deep enough you will find that the sky is in fact constantly shifting. Satellites, asteroids and interstellar objects pass by. Stars not only shine brightly, they can suddenly burst with energy or explode in bright supernovae.

There is a plethora of explosive and cataclysmic phenomena waiting to be witnessed. For physicists, this is an opportunity to study our universe and physics that we can’t reproduce on Earth.

A whole new era of discovery is opening with the NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. For the next ten years, Rubin will create a high-definition video of the southern sky, revealing our universe in an unprecedented way. Many of the objects it finds will have never before been seen by human eyes.

More than 20 years in the making

This moment has been more than 20 years in the making, from the concept to completion of the Rubin Observatory.

Located on a dark sky mountaintop in Chile, the observatory represents a generational leap in astronomy with its ultra-wide, deep and high-resolution imaging capabilities.

Rubin has the largest camera ever built, with 3,200 megapixels. Each image scans an area equivalent to 40 full moons. The resolution of the images is so high that if we pointed the camera toward a lime located 24 kilometres away, it would be able to resolve exactly what type of fruit it is.

Last year, Rubin amazed us with its first test images. These images revealed a swarm of new asteroids never before detected, stars varying in our Milky Way and beautiful deep images of galaxies. This is just a taster on what is to come; this week Rubin started publicly sharing hundreds of thousands changing sky objects per night.

The telescope will be uniquely used for the Legacy Survey of Space and Time. This ten-year-long survey aims to solve the biggest mysteries of the universe – and the nature of the physics out there.

20 billion galaxies

With its advanced imaging capabilities and its systematic scan of the sky, Rubin will image an incredible number of objects in our universe over the next decade.

Starting in our cosmic backyard, our Solar System, it will make 6 million detections of asteroids. Moving toward our galaxy, it will catalogue 17 billion stars. Farther away, it will gather colour images of 20 billion galaxies.

The same patch of the sky will be imaged up to 100 times each year. With an expected 10 terrabytes of image data per night, the amount of data Rubin will deliver in a single year will be greater than all optical observatories combined.

With this data, we aim to answer fundamental questions. These include the nature of the most mysterious components of our universe: dark matter and dark energy.

I am particularly interested in using the data to measure whether the universe expansion maintains a constant acceleration or changes with cosmic time. This accelerated cosmic expansion is attributed to dark energy, which comprises 70% of our universe. Yet we still don’t know what it is.

By itself, this measurement would be amazing, especially since recent observations have hinted the expansion rate may be changing. From the physics point of view, this will allow us to narrow down which potential theories can explain dark energy.

A firehose of cosmic treasures

To find changing sky objects, we compare a new image to an “old” or reference image. The difference between the two images can reveal a new object or a change of brightness.

So how do we find the most interesting exploding stars or asteroids within this mass of detections?

Rubin has selected seven “community brokers”. A broker is both the infrastructure and the team that receives this data firehose within minutes of detection, processes it to find the most exciting objects, and makes them publicly available.

One of these community brokers is Fink, which I have the privilege of co-leading.

Fink is made up of hundreds of scientists and engineers around the world working together to understand our universe. With the incredible Rubin data, comes a great opportunity but also a big challenge.

We need state-of-the-art technologies such as distributed computing (a network of computers, similar to commercial cloud services) and artificial intelligence tools to process the data very fast. We are talking about analysing thousands of detections from Rubin every minute or two, and up to 10 million every night for ten years.

Become a Rubin citizen scientist

You can also engage with Rubin right now.

Rubin’s first images are available online and you can use apps such as Orbitviewer to track asteroids, as well as look at deep images with SkyViewer.

You can also become a Rubin citizen scientist. For example, you can help to identify changing objects in our universe with Rubin Difference Detectives and find comets with Rubin Comet Catchers.

The data from community brokers is also publicly available. Through our Fink portal, you will be able to inspect the latest detections from Rubin just minutes after an image has been taken.

The data may not look like the stunning Rubin first light images. But they come directly from the telescope and are full of universe treasures.

---

Correction: this article originally stated the Legacy Survey of Space and Time has started. It has been amended to make clear the survey has not yet started but that the Rubin Observatory has started publicly sharing data.

Anais Möller receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

– ref. 20 billion galaxies: new survey of the sky will reveal the universe in unprecedented detail – https://theconversation.com/20-billion-galaxies-new-survey-of-the-sky-will-reveal-the-universe-in-unprecedented-detail-273574

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ashna Gulati, PhD Candidate, Radio Astronomy, University of Sydney

Some of the universe’s most extreme explosions leave behind almost no trace. The original explosion is unseen, but our observations can capture the long-lived echo it leaves behind as the shock front ploughs into its surrounding environment.

In new research accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal, we have discovered what may be the clearest example yet of one of these hidden explosions: the radio afterglow of a powerful gamma-ray burst whose initial blast went unnoticed.

The only other viable explanation for what we see is an extraordinarily rare event in which a star is torn apart by an intermediate-mass black hole: a long-hypothesised, elusive class of black holes that has proven difficult to detect.

Either way, we’re watching the slow-motion aftermath of one of the most extreme, rare events the cosmos can produce.

The explosions we usually miss

Gamma-ray bursts are brief but powerful jets of high-energy radiation. Within seconds, they release as much energy as the Sun will emit over its entire lifetime. They are caused when massive stars die and form black holes.

While these jets are launched in all directions, we only observe the small fraction whose emission is directed towards us. When it is directed away from us, the initial flash goes unseen, and all we can observe is the slowly fading afterglow.

Although these so-called “orphan afterglows” of gamma-ray bursts have been predicted for decades, finding them has proven extraordinarily difficult. Without a high-energy flash to announce their arrival, astronomers have to search thousands of square degrees of sky.

As a result, these cosmic explosions are easy to miss, and hard to recognise when they do appear – until now.

A cosmic ghost appears

Using the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP), a 36-antenna radio telescope at Inyarrimanha Ilgari Bundara in Western Australia, we scanned vast regions of sky for unexpected long-lived radio transients (astronomical objects that appear and change over weeks to years). We were trying to catch rare events that reveal themselves only through their fading radio emission.

In data from one of these wide-field surveys, we noticed a radio source (named ASKAP J005512-255834), that hadn’t been there before.

It brightened rapidly, releasing 10³² Watts of energy into space – comparable to the total radio energy output of billions of Suns – and then began to fade slowly over time.

This behaviour immediately set it apart. Most radio transients either evolve quickly or flare repeatedly. This source did neither. Instead, it behaved like the lingering echo of a single, immensely powerful explosion.

Although ASKAP J005512-255834 was bright at radio wavelengths, it left almost no signal at other wavelengths. We could not see a counterpart in visible light or X-rays.

This is exactly what astronomers expect from an orphan afterglow: the fading, widening glow of a tightly focused cosmic jet that was not initially pointed towards Earth, becoming visible only after it slows and spreads.

A busy neighbourhood, billions of light-years away

This rare transient is located in a small but bright galaxy around 1.7 billion light-years from Earth. The galaxy has an irregular structure and is actively forming stars, making it a natural environment for extreme stellar events such as stellar collapse or violent stellar disruption.

The position of the explosion is off to one side, not aligned with the galaxy’s central nucleus. Instead, it appears to lie within a compact star-forming region, possibly a nuclear star cluster.

This raises new questions about what kinds of environments can host such powerful cosmic events.

Could it be something else?

Because ASKAP J005512-255834 is so unusual, we had to do some detective work to figure out what it might be. We carefully examined (and ruled out) some alternative explanations, including stars, pulsars and supernovae.

The only other scenario capable of reproducing the observed radio behaviour involves a star being torn apart by an intermediate-mass black hole. These are a rare class of black holes that sit between stellar remnants and the supermassive giants found in galaxy centres.

Such events are thought to be extremely rare at radio wavelengths, but we cannot completely rule out this explanation. Confirming it would make this the first example of its kind, a discovery just as interesting as an orphan gamma-ray burst.

A hidden universe revealed by radio waves

Was this discovery a stroke of luck, or the first glimpse of a long-hidden population? Until recently, we simply didn’t have the tools to know.

ASKAP J005512-255834 is the most convincing orphan gamma-ray burst afterglow yet identified. It was found by using our radio telescope to search for the long-lived echo of an explosion we didn’t know had occurred.

Using the same approach, we now hope to uncover many more of these orphan afterglows and finally give them a place in our cosmic story.

In doing so, we may be able to build a full picture of the gamma-ray burst population, including those that never announced themselves with a flash, but lingered quietly as ghosts in the radio sky.

Ashna Gulati receives funding from the Australian Research Training Program and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav).

Tara Murphy receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. A cosmic explosion with the force of a billion Suns went unseen – until we caught its echo – https://theconversation.com/a-cosmic-explosion-with-the-force-of-a-billion-suns-went-unseen-until-we-caught-its-echo-275565

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Stacey Pizzino, Lecturer, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland

When a war ends and peace agreements are signed, most people assume the danger is over. But for many communities around the world the danger remains in the ground, waiting.

Landmines and other explosives left behind after a conflict can stay active for decades – buried in the paths to school, in the fields that feed families and in the areas where children play.

In some countries, such as Laos and the Solomon Islands, bombs from conflicts decades ago still injure and kill.

This quiet danger isn’t a distant problem. Today, at least 57 countries are contaminated by landmines and other explosive ordnance, including mortars and grenades.

At the same time, some governments are stepping back from the Landmine Ban Treaty, the first comprehensive treaty aimed at eliminating landmines in conflicts. Decisions made in parliaments today can translate into hazards underfoot for years to come.

Our new research is aimed at understanding the ongoing risk landmines pose. The study is the world’s largest analysis of landmine and explosive ordnance casualties. And the data allows us to answer critical questions: who dies from these weapons, and why?

What do the numbers tell us?

In our study, we analysed 105,913 casualties across 17 conflict-affected countries, using operational data. These are the real world operational records routinely collected by national mine action authorities, the UN and other humanitarian organisations.

These records let us see what communities are facing without adding any burden to these often stretched services.

Across all settings, the case fatality rate was 38.8%. Put simply: for every ten people injured by landmines or other explosive ordnance around the world, nearly four die. This is extraordinarily high.

For comparison, the fatality rate for blast injuries among military personnel or civilians treated in well-resourced trauma centres is around 2%.

The gap highlights the brutal disparity between those who are injured in environments with functioning surgical and trauma care and those who are not.

Not all explosive threats are equal, either.

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the most lethal weapon type in our analysis.

IEDs are increasingly used in many modern conflicts and are often remotely detonated to maximise casualties. Their explosive force and unpredictability cause devastating injuries that many local health systems are simply not equipped to manage.

Who is most affected?

Although most casualties from landmines and explosive ordnance are men, women had significantly higher odds of dying from their injuries. This likely reflects unequal access to health care, delayed treatment, and social barriers that limit mobility and decision making in many conflict-affected settings.

Children’s risks are different – they are both vulnerable and resilient.

Children are particularly at risk of detonating landmines when playing, when caught up in active conflict, or simply as bystanders.

The reason is often tragic.
Children tend to play together in groups, meaning when one child encounters an explosive remnant, several are injured at once.

Yet, overall, children in our data were more likely to survive their injuries than adults, perhaps because they sustain different injury patterns or receive care sooner when adults rush to assist.

But survival is only the beginning. Children may need multiple surgeries, new prostheses as they grow up, long-term rehabilitation and lifelong disability support. These are needs that many health systems struggle to meet.

Age also shapes outcomes. The highest odds of death were observed in adults aged 45–64. Older people may have pre-existing health issues and face greater barriers to reaching medical care, yet their needs can often be overlooked.

The human cost of explosives

The impact of landmines and explosive ordnance extends far beyond immediate injuries. These injuries disrupt people’s daily lives in ways that can entrench communities in poverty.

For example, farmers cannot safety cultivate their land because of the threat of landmines. Women gathering water or food can trigger explosives, too.

When injuries occur, families lose breadwinners and care-giving roles change, pushing households deeper into poverty.

How can we strengthen care for survivors?

There are ways to mitigate the impacts of landmines and explosive ordnance, though. This is a preventable public health crisis.

Our findings highlight the urgent need to strengthen emergency, critical and surgical care in conflict-affected areas to reduce preventable deaths.

Reliable pre-hospital care, transport and basic surgical care saves lives. So does long-term rehabilitation and disability support, especially for children who will live with the consequences of these explosive weapons and injuries for decades.

As old conflicts continue and new ones emerge, explosive ordnance keep contaminating the places where people live, play, work and travel.

Understanding who dies, and why, is essential to preventing future deaths and ensuring that peace, when it comes, offers real safety.

Stacey Pizzino received funding from the Australian government Research Training Program.

Michael Waller 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. New global study: long after war, nearly 4 in 10 people injured by landmines and explosives die – https://theconversation.com/new-global-study-long-after-war-nearly-4-in-10-people-injured-by-landmines-and-explosives-die-276062