Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

On Sunday, a gunman launched a horrifying attack on people at a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc, Michigan.

Thomas Jacob Sanford allegedly rammed his pickup truck, adorned with American flags, into the doors of the chapel as a service was taking place. Authorities stated he shot at worshippers with an assault weapon, then set fire to the building. Four people died, and police killed Sanford at the scene shortly afterwards.

Media reports and government spokespeople suggest Sanford was motivated by a pronounced hatred of followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), widely known as Mormons.

According to a childhood friend, Peter Tersigni, Sanford became fixated with the church when he started dating one of its members while living in Utah:

He started dating this girl and then investigated and learned about Mormons because she was a Mormon. And I know that also, he got into meth really hardcore. It messed his life up and it messed his head up. And it just happened to be at the time he was around Mormons.

The language Sanford is reported to have used to describe Mormons – calling them “the antichrist” and saying “they are going to take over the world” – taps into a conspiracist suspicion of Mormons that has existed in America since the LDS church was founded in 1830, and which is still widespread in some subcultures today.

Anti-Mormonism in American history

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, had enemies from the beginning. New Christian sects were proliferating in America, but Smith went further than most. He declared himself a “prophet” and claimed to have a new religious scripture that was equal to the Bible.

Many denounced Smith as a fraud, and his neighbours feared the political power he wielded over his growing community of followers. After the Mormons were forced out of Missouri by a state Extermination Order and a subsequent massacre, Smith was assassinated by an anti-Mormon militia in Illinois in 1844.

The Mormons fled to Utah in 1847 under the leadership of Brigham Young. There they endured decades of federal government pressure to abandon the practice of polygamy and submit to the authority of the United States, which sometimes brought in armed forces.

This may seem like remote history, but to this day many evangelical Christians fear the fast-growing but “false religion” of Mormonism will lure people away from true Christianity. There is a cottage industry of YouTubers, some of them ex-Mormons, dedicated to disproving the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Nor has the violent past been forgotten. Earlier this year Netflix released a series depicting the Mountain Meadows Massacre, perpetrated by a Mormon militia in 1857.

Jon Krakauer’s 2003 bestselling book, Under the Banner of Heaven, also made into a streaming series, explored 1980s murders in a Mormon splinter sect. The book emphasised the prevalence of violence in early LDS history.

Anti-Mormonism today

Anti-Mormon violence is relatively rare in America today, but aversion to Mormons is not.

A 2022 YouGov poll of Americans found 39% of respondents held unfavourable views of Mormons, compared to just 17% with favourable views. This net negative approval was comparable to American attitudes towards Muslims, and more negative than American attitudes towards atheists.

I argued in a 2014 study that Mormons face hostility from both sides of America’s culture wars. Many conservative Christians believe Mormons are not real Christians. At the same time, many liberal and secular-minded people associate Mormons with the Christian-right.

In 2012, the high-profile Mormon Mitt Romney became the Republican candidate for the presidential election. The number of liberal and non-religious people who said they would not vote for a Mormon for president increased significantly between 2007 and 2012, despite the fact Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was also a Mormon.

The LDS church was also prominent in campaigns against same-sex marriage in western states in the late 2000s. This led to protests and some acts of vandalism at LDS houses of worship, prompting expressions of solidarity by other conservative religious groups.

The bipartisan nature of anti-Mormonism arguably makes it one of the more socially acceptable biases in the US. But there is a world of difference between not wanting a Mormon president, or enjoying such mockery as the Book of Mormon musical, and physically attacking Mormons.

From prejudice to violence

Between 2015 and 2024, the FBI counted 160 hate crimes reported against LDS victims. These included 63 acts of vandalism and property destruction and 29 assaults. The states with the most incidents were Utah (25), California (23), Washington (14), Tennessee (12), Georgia (10) and Nevada (10).

A 2019 report in the LDS-owned Deseret News expressed concern over rising anti-Mormon hate crimes. But it pointed out this was part of a larger trend of rising hate crime in the US, and that anti-LDS incidents were dwarfed by hate crimes targeting Jews and Muslims during the same period.

Immediately after the Grand Blanc killings, President Donald Trump called the incident “yet another targeted attack on Christians in the United States of America”.

This fits his culture-war framing of Christians being under constant attack. But it glosses over the specific animus Mormons face in American society, often from other Christians and conservatives (the alleged Grand Blanc shooter wore a Trump 2020 shirt in a social media post).

Since 2000, there have been nearly 500 homicides in American places of worship, three quarters of them by firearm. This is a bigger problem than the violence facing any one religious group.

David Smith 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 Michigan church shooting sits within a long history of hatred against Mormons in America – https://theconversation.com/the-michigan-church-shooting-sits-within-a-long-history-of-hatred-against-mormons-in-america-266481

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

With the passing of Dr Jane Goodall, the world has lost a conservation giant. But her extraordinary achievements leave a profound legacy.

Goodall was a world-leading expert in animal behaviour and a globally recognised environmental and conservation advocate. She achieved all this at a time when women were commonly sidelined or ignored in science.

Her work with chimpanzees showed it was wrong to assume only humans used tools. She showed us the animals expressed emotions such as love and grief and have individual personalities.

Goodall showed us scientists can express their emotions and values and that we can be respected researchers as well as passionate advocates and science communicators. After learning about how chimpanzees were being used in medical research, she spoke out: “I went to the conference as a scientist, and I left as an activist.”

As childhood rights activist Marian Wright Edelman has eloquently put it, “You can’t be what you can’t see”.

Goodall showed what it was possible to be.

Forging her own path

Goodall took a nontraditional path into science. The brave step of going into the field at the age of 26 to make observations was supported by her mother.

Despite making world-first discoveries such as tool use by non-humans, people didn’t take her seriously because she hadn’t yet gone to university. Nowadays, people who contribute wildlife observations are celebrated under the banner of citizen science.

Goodall was a beacon at a time when science was largely dominated by men – especially remote fieldwork. But she changed that narrative. She convinced famous paleoanthropologist Louis Leakey to give her a chance. He first employed her as a secretary. But it wasn’t long until he asked her to go to Tanzania’s remote Gombe Stream National Park. In 1960, she arrived.

This was not easy. It took real courage to work in a remote area with limited support alongside chimpanzees, a species thought to be peaceful but now known to be far stronger than humans and capable of killing animals and humans.

Goodall is believed to be the only person accepted into chimpanzee society. Through calm but determined persistence she won their trust. These qualities served Goodall well – not just with chimps, but throughout her entire career advocating for conservation and societal change.

At Gombe, she showed for the first time that animals could fashion and use tools, had individual personalities, expressed emotions and had a higher intelligence and understanding than they were credited with.

Goodall was always an animal person and her love of chimps was in part inspired by her toy Jubilee, gifted by her father. She had close bonds with her pets and extended these bonds to wildlife. Goodall gave her study subjects names such as “David Greybeard”, the first chimp to accept her at Gombe.

Some argue we shouldn’t place a human persona on animals by naming them. But Goodall showed it was not only acceptable to see animals as individuals with different behaviours, but it greatly aids connection with and care for wildlife.

Goodall became an international voice for wildlife. She used her profile to encourage a focus on animal welfare in conservation, caring for both individuals and species.

A pioneer for women in science

With Goodall’s passing, the world has lost one of the three great “nonagenarian environmental luminaries”, to use co-author Vanessa Pirotta’s phrase. The other two are the naturalist documentary maker, Sir David Attenborough, 99, and famed marine biologist Dr Sylvia Earle, who is 90.

Goodall showed us women can be pioneering scientists and renowned communicators as well as mothers.

She shared her work in ways accessible to all generations, from National Geographic documentaries to hip podcasts.

Her visibility encouraged girls and women around the world to be bold and follow our own paths.

Goodall’s story directly inspired several authors of this article.

Co-author Marissa Parrott was privileged to have spoken to Goodall several times during her visits to Melbourne Zoo and on her world tours. Goodall’s story was a direct inspiration for Parrott’s own remote and international fieldwork, supported by her mother just as Goodall’s mother had supported her. They both survived malaria, which also kills chimpanzees and gorillas. Goodall long championed a One Health approach, recognising the health of communities, wildlife and the environment are all interconnected.

Co-author Zara Bending worked and toured alongside Goodall. The experience demonstrated how conservationists could be powerful advocates through storytelling, and how our actions reveal who we are. As Goodall once said:

every single one of us matters, every single one of us has a role to play, and every single one of us makes a difference every single day.

From the forest floor to global icon

Goodall knew conservation is as much about people as it is about wildlife and wild places.

Seventeen years after beginning her groundbreaking research in Gombe, Goodall established the Jane Goodall Institute with the mission of protecting wildlife and habitat by engaging local communities.

Her institute’s global network now spans five continents and continues her legacy of community-centred conservation. Researchers have now been studying the chimps at Gombe for 65 years.

Goodall moved from fieldwork to being a global conservation icon who regularly travelled more than 300 days a year. She observed many young people across cultures and creeds who had lost hope for their future amid environmental and climate destruction. In response, she founded a second organisation, Roots & Shoots, in 1991. Her goal was:

to foster respect and compassion for all living things, to promote understanding of all cultures and beliefs, and to inspire each individual to take action to make the world a better place for people, other animals, and the environment.

Last year, Roots & Shoots groups were active in 75 countries. Their work is a testament to Goodall’s mantra: find hope in action.

Protecting nature close to home

One of Goodall’s most remarkable attributes was her drive to give people the power to take action where they were. No matter where people lived or what they did, she helped them realise they could be part of the solution.

In a busy, urbanised world, it’s easier than ever to feel disconnected from nature. Rather than presenting nature as a distant concept, Goodall made it something for everyone to experience, care for and cherish.

She showed we didn’t have to leave our normal lives behind to protect nature – we could make just as much difference in our own communities.

One of her most famous quotes rings just as true today as when she first said it:

only if we understand, can we care. Only if we care, will we help. Only if we help shall all be saved.

Let’s honour her world-changing legacy by committing to understand, care and help save all species with whom we share this world. For Jane Goodall.

Euan Ritchie is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society.

Marissa Parrott works for Zoos Victoria, a not-for-profit conservation organisation. Zoos Victoria and partner zoos raise funds to help support the Jane Goodall Institute Australia, Gorilla Doctors and others organisations.

Zara Bending is affiliated with the Jane Goodall Institute as a resident expert on wildlife crime and international law.

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

– ref. ‘Only if we help shall all be saved’: Jane Goodall showed we can all be part of the solution – https://theconversation.com/only-if-we-help-shall-all-be-saved-jane-goodall-showed-we-can-all-be-part-of-the-solution-266572

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Fred Stauffer, Curator, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève (CJBG)

Palm trees grace the landscape across Africa, thriving in environments as diverse as deserts and rainforests. Central Africa holds the richest variety, home to 52 species, while west Africa has 38 and east Africa 18. They form part of a global family of 2,600 palm species.

Africa is home to relatively few palm species when compared with other tropical regions of the world. However, palms play a central role in the social and economic life of the continent’s people. They’re consumed as food and beverages for people and animals, used in healthcare and medicine and fashioned into construction material. They have spiritual and cultural importance too.

---

Read more:
The loss of Madagascar’s unique palm trees will devastate ecosystems

---

Several botanical studies have placed the palm family, along with the grass and legume families, among the most economically and culturally important plant groups in many rural parts of the continent.

We are a group of botanists from Benin, Côte d’Ivoire and Switzerland who collectively have decades of knowledge about Africa’s native palm diversity. Our research aims to come up with suitable strategies for conserving the palms, and ways for communities to use them sustainably.

At a recent African flora conference in Ghana, we launched a new pan-African network for palm specialists from the continent to study and protect palms. Researchers from Guinea, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Gabon, Congo, Ethiopia and Tanzania signed up for projects related to palm biology, uses and conservation.

We officially called this new network the African Network of Palm Scientists.

---

Read more:
Red gold: the rise and fall of West Africa’s palm oil empire

---

The network places palms at the centre of conservation projects. This is important because African palms are disappearing due to deforestation, overexplotation, and human-induced habitat loss. Some, such as Hyphaene guineensis or Sclerosperma profizianum, are rare. Their extinction would harm not only ecosystems but also the people who rely on them.

The African Network of Palm Scientists therefore also aims to pool expertise, document traditional knowledge about palms, and train the next generation of palm experts.

The slow life cycle of a threatened tree

Although only a few palm species in Africa currently face extinction, most palm species across the continent are now in decline. Ghana hosts the Sclerosperma profizianum, and Sierra Leone and Liberia host several species of Eremospatha that are among the most threatened.

The oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) and coconut (Cocos nucifera) are farmed, but other species that are harvested are mostly wild.

---

Read more:
Africa’s tropical forests could be next in line as global food demand grows

---

Even under undisturbed conditions, the natural regeneration of palms is slow. Seeds can take months or even years to germinate, and the young plants also grow very slowly. They need very specific conditions to grow, such as high temperature and elevated humidity. Some – rattan palms, for example – need decades before they reach the necessary size to be harvested.

This is one of the main goals of our research: to find out exactly how much time it takes for palms to germinate and be ready for sustainable harvesting.

Missing pieces in the palms’ puzzle

Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm), Cocos nucifera (coconut palm) and Phoenix dactylifera (date palm) have been widely studied because they are used a lot in food and cosmetics.

However, other African palm species such as Borassus aethiopum (African fan palm), Raphia hookeri (raffia palm), Hyphaene compressa (doum palm), or the group of rattan palms (Laccosperma, Eremospatha, Calamus), remain poorly documented. This is despite their uses for starch, fibre, wine extraction and building materials, and in local cultures. The fruits of Borassus aethiopum, for example, are edible and this palm is tapped for wine, but unsustainable tapping techniques could endanger it.

---

Read more:
Africa’s plants: a database project has recorded 65,000 species – and is still growing

---

Overall, scientists still do not fully understand how diverse African palms are, how they are spread across different landscapes, or how well they can cope with environmental changes. This means we have not yet been able to figure out how best to manage them in a sustainable way.

As climate change progresses, it is likely that some palms won’t be able to adapt. Extremely high temperatures will reduce water availability and increase the levels of salt content in the soil beyond what the palms can tolerate.

What needs to happen next

First, the African Network of Palm Scientists will evaluate the threats that some palms face. We’ll then propose measures adapted to local realities to promote palm conservation.

Second, classifying all African palm species and listing where they are found is crucial. We estimate that at least 15% of native African palms are incompletely documented (no flowers or fruits that are potentially useful for humans or animals have ever been seen and collected from those palms).

Botanists in Africa also need to conduct more research into how African palms reproduce, what’s needed for their seeds to germinate, and their genetic diversity, so that they know the best ways to conserve the trees.

---

Read more:
Burkina Faso and Mali’s fabulous flora: new plant life record released

---

Third, more research is needed to see how the palms could contribute to food security, climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation. Palms are not only important for humans, but also for many herbivores (mammals, birds) that strongly rely on palm leaves and fruits for their daily feeding.

Fourth, a domestication plan is needed. Domestication means planting and promoting the growth of palms in a controlled way that provides economic benefits. This can be done in farm plots. However, we also propose it should happen in semi-controlled conditions in the forest. This could reduce the harvesting pressure on wild palms, boost the livelihoods of rural people and bring palms into agroforestry (growing trees with crops).

---

Read more:
Mistletoes, locust bean trees and birds work together in Nigeria’s forest ecology

---

Although the new African Network of Palm Scientists only concentrates on African palm diversity, the conservation strategies we develop will be useful for conserving other plants. Biodiversity loss disrupts the delicate balance of ecosystems worldwide. Protecting Africa’s palms could be vital for the survival of both people and wildlife.

Fred Stauffer receives funding from the Conservatory and Botanic Garden of Geneva for his research activities and field missions. He is affiliated to this institution, as well as the University of Geneva, where he is lecturer in botany

Doudjo Noufou Ouattara receives funding from Fondation Audemars Piguet pour les arbres. He is affiliated with Université Nangui ABROGOUA and Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques en Côted’Ivoire.

Kifouli Adéoti receives funding from Fondation Audemars Piguet pour les arbres. He is affiliated with Université d’Abomey-Calavi in Benin’ Republic.

– ref. Palm trees in Africa are in decline: these botanists made a plan to do something about it – https://theconversation.com/palm-trees-in-africa-are-in-decline-these-botanists-made-a-plan-to-do-something-about-it-264705

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

The Israel Defence Force has intercepted a flotilla of humanitarian vessels seeking to deliver aid to Gaza, taking control of multiple vessels and arresting activists, including Greta Thunberg.

The interceptions took place in the Mediterranean Sea between 70-80 nautical miles off the Gazan coast. These are international waters where international law recognises high seas freedom of navigation for all vessels.

Israel has countered by arguing it has a maritime blockade which prohibits entry to Gaza by foreign vessels. Israel has also suggested the flotilla was supported by Hamas – an assertion the flotilla organisers have rejected.

Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas

The Global Sumud Flotilla was comprised of more than 40 boats carrying humanitarian aid (food, medical supplies and other essential items), along with several hundred parliamentarians, lawyers and activists from dozens of countries.

The flotilla departed Spain in late August and has been making its way eastwards across the sea, with stops in Tunisia, Italy and Greece. Along the way, the Italian and Greek governments deployed naval escorts to ensure their safe passage.

Passengers on the boats alleged they had been harassed by drones at mulitple points in the voyage.

This flotilla campaign is the latest iteration of a movement that has existed for over 15 years to challenge Israel’s long-running blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Earlier this year, a ship called the Conscience carrying activists and aid bound for Gaza was hit by explosions off the coast of Malta.

Israel then intercepted the Madleen, with Thunberg and other activists on board, in June, and the Handala in July.

And in 2010, a flotilla tried to reach Gaza carrying humanitarian relief and hundreds of activists. Israeli commandos boarded the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, leading to a violent confrontation that resulted in the deaths of ten activists. The deaths drew widespread condemnation and strained Israeli-Turkish ties for years.

---

Read more:
There are clear laws on enforcing blockades – Israel’s interception of the Madleen raises serious questions

---

The legality of Gaza’s naval blockade

The international law related to the actions of the flotilla vessels and Israel’s capacity to intervene is complex.

Israel has imposed blockades of Gaza in various forms for nearly 20 years.

The legal basis for the blockades and their consistency with international law, particularly the law of the sea, has been contentious, which was highlighted during a UN inquiry that followed the Mavi Marmara incident.

While Israel’s legal relationship with Gaza has varied during this time, Israel is now considered an occupying power in Gaza under international law.

The roles of occupying powers were codified in the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949 and built upon the legal obligations that Allied powers assumed in Germany and Japan at the end of the second world war. The Geneva Convention outlines the clear legal framework for occupying powers.

In recent decades, Israel has been both a de jure (recognised under the law) and de facto occupying power in Palestine.

In 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories was illegal under international law.

As an occupying power, Israel controls all access to Gaza whether by land, air or sea. Aid trucks are only permitted to enter Gaza under strict controls. Foreign air force aid drops that have occurred in recent months have only been permitted under strict Israeli control, as well.

Very little aid has arrived by sea since the war began because Israel has severely restricted maritime access to Gaza. The United States built a floating pier off the coast to deliver aid in 2024, but this was soon abandoned because of weather, security and technical issues.

This clearly indicated, however, that Israel was prepared to permit the flow of maritime aid from its closest ally, the US. This exception to the blockade was not applied to other humanitarian actors.

Intercepting ships in international waters

While delivery of aid by sea is legally problematic at the moment, there are limits to Israel’s ability to disrupt flotillas. The freedom of navigation is central to the law of the sea. As such, the flotilla is entitled to sail unimpeded in the Mediterranean Sea.

Any harassment or stopping of the flotilla within the Mediterranean’s international waters is therefore a clear violation of international law.

Crucial to this is the actual location where Israeli forces intercept and board flotilla vessels.

Israel can certainly exercise control over the 12 nautical mile territorial sea off Gaza’s shores. Its closure of the territorial sea to foreign vessels would be justified under international law as a security measure, as well as to ensure the safety of neutral vessels due to the ongoing war.

Flotilla organisers said their ships were intercepted between 70 to 80 nautical miles from shore, well beyond Gaza’s territorial sea.

No doubt this was done for operational reasons. The closer the flotilla came to the Gazan coast, the more difficult it would be for the Israel Defence Force to successfully intercept each ship, raising the possibility that at least one vessel may make landfall.

Scores of activists onboard the ships have reportedly been detained and will be taken into custody in the Israeli port of Ashdod. They will then likely be quickly deported.

The activists have protections under international human rights law, as well, including access to foreign diplomats exercising consular protection for their citizens.

Donald Rothwell receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Israel’s interception of the Gaza aid flotilla is a clear violation of international law – https://theconversation.com/israels-interception-of-the-gaza-aid-flotilla-is-a-clear-violation-of-international-law-266254

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Robert Muggah, Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow na Bosch Academy e Co-fundador, Instituto Igarapé

For many in Venezuela, the question is no longer whether tensions with Washington will reach a boiling point – they already have. Rather, the big unknown now is whether the U.S. will follow up on threats and the sinking of drug boats with something more drastic: direct military engagement or even regime change.

Certainly, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is preparing for all eventualities. On Sept. 29, 2025, the leftist leader signed a decree granting him additional powers. The following day, Maduro threatened a “state of emergency.” Already, Caracas has carried out military drills amid talk of being a “republic in arms.”

It follows a month in which Washington has positioned warships, an attack submarine and aircraft in the Caribbean and destroyed at least four suspected “go-fast” drug boats. At the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23, U.S. President Donald Trump warned of more to come, vowing to blow drug traffickers “out of existence” while repeating his assertion that Maduro was behind the trafficking networks.

Maduro and his generals deny that charge. Nonetheless, Washington has set a US$50 million dollar bounty on Maduro’s arrest and has rejected Venezuela’s appeals for talks.

As an expert on international security and U.S.-Latin American relations, I believe the U.S. position appears to be inching toward regime change from a prior position of ambiguity that has fallen short of an outright pledge to remove Maduro.

But Washington will be aware that any direct military engagement in Venezuela will be a messy affair. Despite increasing international isolation, Maduro still has friends in Moscow and Beijing, as well as closer to home in Havana. And such factors may force the Trump administration to continue to walk a fine line between maximum pressure on the Maduro government without full commitment to armed conflict.

US ramps up pressure

Recent deployments by the U.S. Southern Command demonstrate a shift in posture by the U.S. administration.

The USS Stockdale became the ninth U.S. Navy vessel and third destroyer – alongside USS Gravely and USS Jason Dunham – to join the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group maneuvering between Puerto Rico and the Lesser and Leeward Antilles, and the waters north of Venezuela. In all, at least 4,500 Marines and sailors are positioned in the area.

Meanwhile, at least 10 F-35 fighters and multiple MQ-9 drones are reportedly operating from Aguadilla and Ceiba airports in Puerto Rico, offering the capacity for persistent surveillance and strike options.

These forces are more powerful than the entire Venezuelan navy but reportedly fall short of the forces needed for a full-scale invasion.

For the moment, SouthCom is framing the campaign as enhanced counternarcotics operations, rather than a prelude to a blockade or invasion. Statements have highlighted joint patrols and interdiction efforts with the Royal Netherlands Navy, Canada, the Dominican Republic and the United Kingdom, and the humanitarian or information-sharing nature of missions.

SouthCom has described its position as one of readiness, not war. But this could change, especially with the much-anticipated 2025 national defense review expected to prioritize countering the perceived threat of Chinese interference in the Western Hemisphere.

And it is worth recalling that the U.S. has long maintained a light but steady military footprint in the region.

Caracas pushes back

Caracas has staged military displays of its own.

Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López announced on Sept. 15 three days of drills involving naval units, aircraft air-defense assets and militia participation. Maduro has declared “maximum preparedness” and threatened to mobilize a “republic in arms” if attacked.

If enacted, the state of emergency would be effective for 90 days and centralize military control in the office of the president. The aim is clear: to project resolve and raise the cost for Washington of any further escalation.

Venezuela’s military is not negligible, but readiness has been eroded by decades of economic crisis, sanctions and maintenance shortfalls. It is no match for U.S. military dominance at sea or in the air, although it could inflict damage through asymmetric tactics and militia mobilization.

On the U.S. side, the means for coercion through targeted strikes, interdictions, cyberattacks and sanctions are already at hand. Further escalation may, however, hinge on a catalyzing event, such as an attack resulting in the killing of Venezuelan or U.S. military personnel.

Adversaries and allies

Regionally, most governments have avoided taking sides. One exception is Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who at the United Nations General Assembly called for “criminal proceedings” over the recent U.S. strikes.

In the Caribbean, there is little appetite for hosting a U.S. invasion force. The president of Dominica noted in her speech at the General Assembly that “there is no place in the Caribbean for war.” One exception is Guyana, which is locked in a territorial dispute with Venezuala over the oil-rich Essequibo region and has welcomed U.S. security cooperation.

Yet, an attack on Venezuela or an attempt at regime change risks rallying the country’s allies.

First among them in the region is Cuba. Cuban intelligence and security advisers have long been embedded across Venezuela’s military and security services. This gives Maduro some resilience against internal coups and complicates U.S. efforts to precipitate elite defections from Maduro’s inner circle.

While expressing political support for Maduro, it is highly unlikely that Cuba would ever be in a position to supplement any Venezuelan combat forces given Havana’s own weak position, struggling economy and relatively modest military capabilities.

And despite fresh affirmations of solidarity and the continued presence of Russian “military experts,” Moscow also lacks the political military bandwidth for large, new deployments. Still, long-standing military and technical ties such as training, maintenance, weapons sales and selective systems support offer Maduro a modest but valuable hedge against external pressure.

Even a token port call or bomber overflight could add political friction – and pause for thought in Washington. Russia has sent nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela in the past, and its navy made a publicized visit to La Guaira in July 2024.

Oil in the balance

One much more consequential factor could be the position of China.

Beijing plays a consequential role as a buyer of Venezuelan oil. As Western sanctions have set in, a growing share of Venezuelan hydrocarbon exports is now funneled through “shadow fleet” tankers and complex rerouting schemes, allowing crude to reach Chinese refineries despite sanctions and export restrictions.

Any U.S. campaign that disrupts these flows would hit Chinese refiners first. This would likely prompt Beijing to push back diplomatically and commercially.

In late September, China stressed that it “opposes the use of force” and decried external interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs – a clear rebuke of the U.S. military buildup.

The Chinese ambassador in Caracas has also conveyed solidarity to his host, emphasizing that Beijing will “firmly support Venezuela in safeguarding sovereignty, national dignity and social stability.”

China is offering diplomatic support but has stopped short of any pledge of force.

For now, America’s most likely path is, I believe, coastal policing and military pressure. At sea, this means the U.S. continuing to lead counternarcotics operations, but with Navy cover close at hand. The U.S. buildup could well boost underground opposition networks in Venezuela, increasing pressure on the Maduro regime from within.

This will be paired with increased financial pressure in the form of sanctions aimed at further squeezing Venezuela’s state oil industry, but calibrated to avoid a global energy shock. Measures also include restricting dollar-clearing and maritime insurance, blacklisting intermediaries and dark fleet tankers, and targeting front companies.

Pressure short of war

Nonetheless, expectations of a military clash are edging upward. Several forecasters now put the odds of some form of U.S. strike against Venezuela before year’s end at roughly 1 in 3, with the chances rising further into 2026.

Yet the prospect of an outright invasion remains, I believe, remote. U.S. domestic politics may act as a brake: Opinion polls show most Americans oppose military action to topple Maduro, and an even larger majority reject the idea of a full-scale invasion.

Even so, three factors could shape if and when Washington steps up its action: a deadly incident at sea involving civilians or U.S. personnel; hard evidence that Venezuelan officials are directly tied to large-scale trafficking to the U.S.; and regional governments lining up behind stronger action.

While the odds of a strike and even regime change are rising, Washington’s strategy in the very near term appears to remain one of pressure without full commitment, using shows of force, sanctions and selective strikes to weaken Caracas while avoiding being dragged into a messy war or sparking an oil shock.

Dr. Robert Muggah is affiliated with the Igarapé Institute and SecDev.

– ref. Venezuela and US edge toward war footing − but domestic concerns, international risks may hold Washington back – https://theconversation.com/venezuela-and-us-edge-toward-war-footing-but-domestic-concerns-international-risks-may-hold-washington-back-266509

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

It is downright eerie to read, right now, Kamala Harris’ memoir of her 2024 presidential campaign. These events feel so far away now, when we read them from within the frequent shocks of the Trump presidency, from troops on the streets of Washington to the indictment of former FBI director James Comey. But the chapter titles – beginning “July 21. 107 Days to the Election” – remind us the election was just last year.

“It says a lot about how traumatised we both were by what happened that night that Doug and I never discussed it with each other until I sat down to write this book,” Harris reflects about election night: her campaign at an end and Trump triumphant.

The book is not the whole story – not by a long shot. But her words about these events resonate with a ring of truth.

---

Book review: 107 Days – Kamala Harris (Simon & Schuster)

---

The first chapter, Sunday July 21, covers the day Joe Biden – who disintegrated before our eyes in his catastrophic debate with Trump – withdrew from the race, with no road to victory.

He did want to endorse Harris, but “not for a day, maybe two”. She told him that would be “ruinous”. She argued that she was not just “the candidate in the strongest position to win”, but “the only person” who would preserve Biden’s legacy. “At this point, anyone else was bound to throw him – and all the good he had achieved – under the bus.”

She draws on her call notes to supply the reactions of various senior Democrats to the news that day, from Bill Clinton (“Oh my god, I’m so relieved!”) to Gavin Newsom:

Hiking. Will call back. (He never did.)

Throughout, Harris is relentlessly sharp in recollecting the campaign – and very candid on all the principals, including the love of her husband, Doug Emhoff.

It takes courage to write about such an agonising, devastating defeat – after an historic, exhilarating campaign – so quickly and so personally. Memoirs are rarely written this quickly. (We are still waiting, five years later, for the second volume of Barack Obama’s memoirs.)

In writing this book, she got by with a little help from a “special friend”: Pulitzer prize winning Australian author Geraldine Brooks. Harris’ acknowledgements note her deep appreciation of working with Brooks, whose “ferocious and brilliant artistic insights were indispensable.”

The book fully reflects that. And who knows? Brooks one day might collaborate with Kamala on an inaugural address.

Candid, but loyal about Biden

Harris is candid about Biden’s decline, but still essentially loyal.

“On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump at his best,” she writes. “There was a distinction between his ability to campaign and his ability to govern.”

Bob Woodward, the dean of presidential journalists, reached the same conclusion in his last book, War.

Harris writes:

of all the people in the White House, I was in the worst position to make the case that he should drop out. I knew it would come off to him as incredibly self-serving if I advised him not to run. He would see it as naked ambition.

The choice, she says, should not “have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.”

In other words, this was a decision his family and associates did not want to make. But it was imperative the national interest be placed above Biden’s personal interest.

The Harris campaign kept the core of Team Biden. “I didn’t have time to build a new plane; I had to fly the aircraft available.”

One of Biden’s closest advisors, Mike Donilon (criticised in Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s recent Biden book, Original Sin) left Harris’ campaign two weeks in.

She describes him, during Biden’s 2024 campaign, filtering poll data and presenting “the numbers in soothing terms […] really there was nothing to see here”. At these briefings (which “made no sense to me”), she writes, “Doug had wanted to stop sitting next to me because he got tired of me kicking him under the table when I asked a question and got a nonanswer.”

Pete Buttigieg ‘too big of a risk’ as VP

Harris delivers the goods on her vice-presidential search. She admits Pete Buttigieg (a personal friend) was her first choice and the “ideal partner” – but the then transportation secretary, with his husband and children, was “too big of a risk” for “a Black woman married to a Jewish man”.

Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania, came across to her as wanting a co-presidency. “At one point, he mused that he would want to be in the room for every decision […] I had a nagging concern that he would be unable to settle for a role as number two.”

She viewed senator and retired astronaut Mark Kelly of Arizona very favourably, but was afraid the Trump attack machine would try to take him down on his (excellent) military service record – just like the Republicans did to John Kerry in 2004. The man who led that effort, Chris LaCivita, was now a top Trump campaign aide.

Could a captain, used to deference and respect, adapt to an opponent’s national campaign specifically designed to disrespect him, to cut a hero down to something small?

Of course, the military service slander she feared with Kelly was employed against her eventual choice. Minnesota governor Tim Walz, who served in the National Guard for 24 years, was accused by vice president JD Vance of “stolen valor” for his misstatement, while arguing for an assault weapons ban, that “these weapons of war that I carried in war” had no place on civilian streets, though he didn’t serve in combat.

Harris found the chemistry she wanted with the “genuinely self-deprecating” Walz: an all-American decent guy next door, with great values and common sense. “He had no fixed ideas about what the role of vice president would be, saying he would do whatever I found was most useful for him to do.”

She writes that her senior staff favoured Walz, “to a person”, as did her sister – while husband Doug Emhoff, interestingly, leaned towards Shapiro.

We will never know if Shapiro or Kelly would have carried their swing states, perhaps changing the outcome of the election.

‘Don’t ever let them make you cry’

Trump’s outrages on the campaign trail were rife. Harris takes us behind the scenes to reveal her reactions to key moments, like Trump’s infamous statement to the National Association with Black Journalists: “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black.” (Her mother is Indian; her father Jamaican.)

To campaign aide Brian Fallon, who wanted her to “punch back with a big speech about my racial identity”, she retorted:

Today he wants me to prove my race. What next? He’ll say I’m not a woman and I’ll need to show my vagina?

Harris takes us into her July 25 meeting with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu during her campaign. She also tells us she believes Israel was right to respond to “the atrocities of October 7”, but criticises the “ferocity” of Netanyahu’s response, including “the number of innocent Palestinian women and children killed and his failure to prioritize the lives of the hostages”. She was tough.

“I interrupted to reiterate the need for an immediate ceasefire and a day-after plan that gave Palestinians some kind of political horizon.” Netanyahu did not like what he was hearing – especially from her. “He wanted Trump in the seat opposite him. Not Joe. Not me.”

Harris does acknowledge Biden gaffes, like when he put on the MAGA hat of a Trump supporter he was joking with, who offered it to him. Her internal monologue went: “Don’t take it […] Don’t put it on.” Then: “He put it on.” That photo carried the caption, “Biden endorses Trump over Harris.” A bad day on a trail that had only 107 days.

When Harris talks about being a woman in politics, she sounds a lot like Julia Gillard.

“As any woman in a public-facing job knows, it takes us longer,” she writes about the two hours she needed to get ready on the campaign trail – make-up, hairstyling, “more complicated apparel choices”. Women are still judged on these seeming trivialities, she writes, over “the consequential matters we’re engaged in”.

She relates a conversation with German chancellor Angela Merkel. “They used to call me this – this ugly bird. And at first it hurt me deeply.” Angela leant towards Kamala. “Don’t ever let them make you cry.”

Harris never does.

‘I know Donald Trump’s type’

Harris’ speeches hit Trump where it hurts. As California’s attorney general, she told crowds:

I took on predators of all kinds […] Predators who abused women, who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own game. So hear me when I say […] I know Donald Trump’s type.

The crowds “exploded” at this line, she writes.

There are phrases in English that do a lot of work for you. “I know his type” is one of them. We’ve all said it about someone of low character whom we’ve personally known.

She had big rallies. And big money. She was fully competitive.

Harris told America what Day One of President Kamala Harris would look like. “When elected, I will walk in with a to-do list full of priorities on what I will get done for the American people.”

By contrast: “On day one, if elected, Donald Trump would walk into that office with an enemies list.” Does anyone following American politics today doubt that?

By her own account, the wisest advisor in her campaign was David Plouffe, who ran Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign. But like a Shakespearean ghost, Plouffe’s warnings haunt this play. He counselled her Trump was doing better than in 2016 and 2020, and the assassination attempt had pushed his turnout up 20%. “Whatever you think his turnout will be, add ten per cent.”

Her campaign strategists were not happy about Harris’ continued praise for Biden in her speeches, urging her to stop. Plouffe put it bluntly: “People hate Joe Biden.” Harris quotes those words twice.

Why does she believe she lost?

This is her verdict: “One hundred and seven days were not, in the end, long enough to accomplish the task of winning the presidency.”

Maybe.

Trump got three million more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. Harris got six million fewer votes than she and Biden did in 2020.

All that Harris was proud of – the landmark legislation on infrastructure, health care and clean energy – would not deliver their full benefits before the election. In the run up to November, she writes, inflation and interest rates were high, and there was no immediate relief.

Harris wanted to talk directly to Trump supporters, but it never happened. She wrote:

I wished I could ask every one of them. What are you angry about? What about me makes you angry? Is it your health care, your grocery bills, a backbreaking job that doesn’t pay what you’re worth – and what can I do to help you?

She did not reach them.

She combated Trump’s strength on immigration and border issues, and the issue of Gen Z facing a future without good prospects. An anti-trans campaign ripped across the country: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” It was reported more than US$21 million was spent by Trump and Republicans on anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ television ads as of October 9 2024.

Harris peaked in mid-September. She never had a lead clear of the polls’ margin of error.

On election day, she believed she would win.

Bruce Wolpe donated to the Biden-Harris campaign. He has served on the staffs of the Democrats in Congress and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

– ref. Kamala Harris’ candid memoir reveals her ‘ideal’ vice president – and why she thinks she lost – https://theconversation.com/kamala-harris-candid-memoir-reveals-her-ideal-vice-president-and-why-she-thinks-she-lost-266047

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher, Digital Wellbeing, Western Sydney University

Walk into a shop, board a plane, log into your bank, or scroll through your social media feed, and chances are you might be asked to scan your face. Facial recognition and other kinds of face-based biometric technology are becoming an increasingly common form of identification.

The technology is promoted as quick, convenient and secure – but at the same time it has raised alarm over privacy violations. For instance, major retailers such as Kmart have been found to have broken the law by using the technology without customer consent.

So are we seeing a dangerous technological overreach or the future of security? And what does it mean for families, especially when even children are expected to prove their identity with nothing more than their face?

The two sides of facial recognition

Facial recognition tech is marketed as the height of seamless convenience.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the travel industry, where airlines such as Qantas tout facial recognition as the key to a smoother journey. Forget fumbling for passports and boarding passes – just scan your face and you’re away.

In contrast, when big retailers such as Kmart and Bunnings were found to be scanning customers’ faces without permission, regulators stepped in and the backlash was swift. Here, the same technology is not seen as a convenience but as a serious breach of trust.

Things get even murkier when it comes to children. Due to new government legislation, social media platforms may well introduce face-based age verification technology, framing it as a way to keep kids safe online.

At the same time, schools are trialling facial recognition for everything from classroom entry to paying in the cafeteria.

Yet concerns about data misuse remain. In one incident, Microsoft was accused of mishandling children’s biometric data.

For children, facial recognition is quietly becoming the default, despite very real risks.

A face is forever

Facial recognition technology works by mapping someone’s unique features and comparing them against a database of stored faces. Unlike passive CCTV cameras, it doesn’t just record, it actively identifies and categorises people.

This may feel similar to earlier identity technologies. Think of the check-in QR code systems that quickly sprung up at shops, cafes and airports during the COVID pandemic.

Facial recognition may be on a similar path of rapid adoption. However, there is a crucial difference: where a QR code can be removed or an account deleted, your face cannot.

Why these developments matter

Permanence is a big issue for facial recognition. Once your – or your child’s – facial scan is stored, it can stay in a database forever.

If the database is hacked, that identity is compromised. In a world where banks and tech platforms may increasingly rely on facial recognition for access, the stakes are very high.

What’s more, the technology is not foolproof. Mis-identifying people is a real problem.

Age-estimating systems are also often inaccurate. One 17-year-old might easily be classified as a child, while another passes as an adult. This may restrict their access to information or place them in the wrong digital space.

A lifetime of consequences

These risks aren’t just hypothetical. They already affect lives. Imagine being wrongly placed on a watchlist because of a facial recognition error, leading to delays and interrogations every time you travel.

Or consider how stolen facial data could be used for identity theft, with perpetrators gaining access to accounts and services.

In the future, your face could even influence insurance or loan approvals, with algorithms drawing conclusions about your health or reliability based on photo or video.

Facial recognition does have some clear benefits, such as helping law enforcement identify suspects quickly in crowded spaces and providing convenient access to secure areas.

But for children, the risks of misuse and error stretch across a lifetime.

So, good or bad?

As it stands, facial recognition would seem to carry more risks than rewards. In a world rife with scams and hacks, we can replace a stolen passport or drivers’ licence, but we can’t change our face.

The question we need to answer is where we draw the line between reckless implementation and mandatory use. Are we prepared to accept the consequences of the rapid adoption of this technology?

Security and convenience are important, but they are not the only values at stake. Until robust, enforceable rules around safety, privacy and fairness are firmly established, we should proceed with caution.

So next time you’re asked to scan your face, don’t just accept it blindly. Ask: why is this necessary? And do the benefits truly outweigh the risks – for me, and for everyone else involved?

Joanne Orlando receives funding from NSW Department of Education and previously from office of eSafety Commissioner.

– ref. How safe is your face? The pros and cons of having facial recognition everywhere – https://theconversation.com/how-safe-is-your-face-the-pros-and-cons-of-having-facial-recognition-everywhere-265753

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

The 20-point plan announced by US President Donald Trump at a joint news conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comes close to living up to Trump’s hype. It is a bold attempt to address all of the issues that need to be resolved if there is to be lasting peace in Gaza.

Could it work? Both sides are tired of the war. Throughout history, quite a number of wars have simply come to an end when both sides were too exhausted to continue. Two-thirds of Israelis want the war to end, and though polling of Palestinians is difficult, they clearly want the devastation and suffering in Gaza to stop, too.

So, this plan, despite its limitations, could come at the right time.

However, there are many outstanding questions about the feasibility of the plan and to what extent it is likely to be successful. Given the Middle East’s violent history, it’s impossible to be optimistic at this point.

Here are five main reasons for concern.

1. Trust is lacking

There’s zero trust between both sides right now. And several aspects of the plan are so vague, there is a big risk both sides could accuse the other of breaking their promises.

The last ceasefire between the two sides only lasted two months before Netanyahu backed out, blaming Hamas for not releasing more hostages before negotiations on the next phase could proceed.

2. The plan is asymmetrical

The deal favours Israel more than it does Hamas. Hamas is essentially being asked to give up all of the remaining Israeli hostages it holds and all of its weapons at the same time, rendering it entirely defenceless.

Hamas, with its lack of trust in Israel and Netanyahu, in particular, may fear the Israeli leader could use this as an opportunity to attack it again without worrying about harming the hostages.

Hamas was also not invited to negotiate the terms of the agreement. And it now faces an ultimatum: accept the terms or Israel will “finish the job”.

Given the asymmetry of the plan, Hamas may decide the risks of accepting it outweigh the potential benefits, despite its offer of amnesty for Hamas fighters who lay down their arms.

Israel is being asked to make some compromises in the plan. But how realistic are these?

For example, the deal envisions a future when the Palestinian Authority (PA) can “securely and effectively take back control of Gaza”. Netanyahu has previously said he would not accept this.

Likewise, it would also be very difficult for Netanyahu to accept “a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”, as outlined in the plan. He has firmly rejected this in the past, most recently in his defiant address to the UN General Assembly last week.

3. Important details are lacking

The implementation strategy of the plan is extraordinarily vague. We know nothing at this stage about the “International Stabilisation Force” that would take the place of the Israeli military after it withdraws from Gaza.

Which countries would participate? It would obviously be a mission fraught with danger to the personnel involved. Netanyahu has previously mentioned an Arab force taking over in Gaza, but no Arab states have yet put their hands up for this.

There is also no timeframe in the plan for the Palestinian Authority reforms, nor any details on what these reforms would entail.

Presumably, there would need to be new elections to install a credible leader in place of current President Mahmoud Abbas. But how that would be done and whether the people of Gaza would be able to take part is still unknown.

In addition, the details of the civil authority that would oversee the reconstruction of Gaza are very unclear. All we know is that Trump would appoint himself chair of the “Board of Peace”, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would also somehow be involved.

This board would need the absolute confidence of the Netanyahu government and Hamas to be effective. Trust is always in short supply in the Middle East.

---

Read more:
The Palestinian Authority is facing a legitimacy crisis. Can it be reformed to govern a Palestinian state?

---

4. No mention of the West Bank

The West Bank is clearly a flashpoint. There are disputes and clashes every day between the Israeli settlers and Palestinian residents, which are only likely to get worse.

Just last month, the Israeli government gave final approval to a controversial plan to build a new settlement that would effectively divide the West Bank in two, making a future, contiguous Palestinian state unviable.

The West Bank must be central to any overall settlement between Israel and Palestine.

5. Israel’s right-wing cabinet remains an obstacle

This could be the ultimate deal breaker: the hardline right-wing members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, have said they will not accept anything less than the complete destruction and elimination of Hamas.

And although Hamas would be disarmed and politically sidelined under this plan, its ideology would remain intact, as would a significant number of its fighters.

So, does it have a chance?

If Hamas accepts Trump’s plan, we could soon have the answers to several of these questions.

But it is going to require a great deal of work by the United States to maintain the pressure on Israel to stick to the deal. The chief Palestinian mediators, Qatar and Egypt, would also need to maintain pressure on Hamas so it doesn’t breach the conditions, as well.

Netanyahu is likely assuming there will be sufficient off-ramps for him to get out of the agreement if Hamas doesn’t live up to it. Netanyahu has already done this once when he backed out of the ceasefire in March and resumed Israel’s military operations.

In his forceful speech to a partially empty UN General Assembly hall last week, Netanyahu didn’t indicate he was thinking of walking away from any of the red lines he had previously set to end the war. In fact, he condemned the states recognising a Palestinian state and vowed, “Israel will not allow you to shove a terror state down our throats.”

Given this, Netanyahu would not have agreed to Trump’s plan at all if the US leader hadn’t put pressure on him. At the same time, Trump said at his news conference with Netanyahu that if Hamas fails to live up to the agreement or refuses to accept it, Israel would have his full backing to finish the job against Hamas.

This promise may be enough for Netanyahu to be able to persuade Smotrich and Ben-Gvir to support the plan – for now.

Ian Parmeter 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 5 big problems with Trump’s Gaza peace plan – https://theconversation.com/the-5-big-problems-with-trumps-gaza-peace-plan-266355

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Maria Guagnin, Director, Ha’il Archaeology Identification Project, University of Sydney; Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology

About 12,000 years ago, high up on a cliff in the desert of northern Arabia, an artist – or perhaps artists – was hard at work.

Standing on a narrow ledge and with primitive tools, they engraved into the rock an image of a life-sized camel. This wasn’t the first artwork of its kind: in fact, there was already an entire row of fresh camel engravings on the 39-metre-high cliff face, below which a shallow lake sparkled in the sunshine.

Over thousands of years, these engravings weathered the elements. They gradually eroded until they were almost invisible and had been forgotten.

That is, until our international team discovered them and more than 170 others while on a field trip to the region, which sits near the southern edge of the Nefud Desert in Saudi Arabia, roughly two years ago.

As we explain in a new study, published today in Nature Communications, the engravings would have marked important desert water sources – and demonstrate the resilience and innovation of people who lived in such a harsh, arid environment.

Searching for clues

Our earlier research had shown that between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago Arabia was much wetter than it is today.

Grasslands had spread into areas that are now desert, and cattle herders used these pastures for their herds.

The rock art they left behind is well known from two UNESCO World Heritage sites.

We could see there was also older rock art at these UNESCO sites. It was much larger and more detailed, showing life-sized and naturalistic camels and wild donkeys. But it was not clear how old it was. So in May 2023 we set out to find more of this ancient rock art in the hope of finding clues about its age.

Life-sized engravings

In total, we identified more than 60 rock art panels containing 176 engravings in three previously unexplored areas – Jebel Arnaan, Jebel Mleiha and Jebel Misma. The engravings include 130 images of large, life-sized animals – camels, ibex, wild donkeys, gazelles and aurochs. Some are almost three metres long and more than two metres high.

We reached the first panel via a long off-road track which cut through a beautiful mountain landscape. A cool breeze made the heat of the emerging Saudi summer bearable.

The rock art panel showed two large camels, one on top of the other. The older camel looked as though it was in motion and about to stand up, the other like it was striding across the rock surface.

We were excited to find undisturbed archaeological layers directly beneath the engraved camels. In one sealed layer we even found an engraving tool that was once used to make rock art.

Luminescence dating – a dating method that measures when sediment was last exposed to sunlight – revealed the layer in which the tool was found is about 12,000 years old.

The same layer also contained artefacts that are typical for this time, including small arrowheads, stone beads and even a bead made from a seashell.

A far-reaching network

These artefacts tell us the people who made the rock art were part of a far-reaching network. They used the same stone tools and jewellery as communities in the Levant, 400 kilometres further north.

Significantly, our team also discovered the rock art was placed near ancient seasonal lakes.

At the end of the last ice age, during the Last Glacial Maximum, the climate was extremely dry.

These lakes, dated at roughly 15,000 years, are the first evidence of surface water returning to Arabia following the extremely arid period. And they move the timeline of the returning humid conditions back thousands of years, enlarging the opportunity window for humans to settle in these dry inland conditions.

Our results show 12,000 years ago, humans were able to use these seasonal lakes to survive in the desert. They marked these water sources, and the paths leading to them, with monumental rock art.

We don’t know why they did this. But even for us today, the camel is a striking symbol for survival in the desert.

Maria Guagnin received funding from a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant (SRG2223231473) for fieldwork and research.

Ceri Shipton, Frans van Buchem, and Michael Petraglia do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. 12,000-year-old rock art marked ancient water sources in Arabia’s desert – https://theconversation.com/12-000-year-old-rock-art-marked-ancient-water-sources-in-arabias-desert-266144

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University

From the earliest year of school, children begin learning how to express ideas in different ways. Lines across a page, a wobbly letter, or a simple drawing form the foundation for how we share meaning beyond spoken language.

Over time, those first marks evolve into complex ideas. Children learn to combine words with visuals, express abstract concepts, and recognise how images, symbols and design carry meaning in different situations.

But generative artificial intelligence (AI), software that creates content based on user prompts, is reshaping these fundamental skills. AI is changing how people create, edit and present both text and images. In other words, it changes how we see – and how we decide what’s real.

Take photos, for example. They were once seen as a “mirror” of reality. Now, more people recognise their constructed nature.

Similarly, generative AI is disrupting long-held assumptions about the authenticity of images. These can appear photorealistic but can depict things or events that never existed.

Our latest research, published in the Journal of Visual Literacy, identifies key literacies at each stage of the AI image generation process, from selecting an AI image generator to creating and refining content.

As the way people make images changes, knowing how generative AI works will let you better understand and critically assess its outputs.

Textual and visual literacy

Literacy today extends beyond reading and writing. The Australian Curriculum defines literacy as the ability to “use language confidently for learning and communicating in and out of school”. The European Union broadens this to include navigating visual, audio and digital materials. These are essential skills not only in school, but for active citizenship.

These abilities span making meaning, communicating and creating through words, visuals and other forms. These abilities also require adapting expression to different audiences. You might text a friend informally but email a public official with more care, for example. Computers, too, demand different forms of literacy.

In the 1960s, users interacted with computers through written commands. By the 1970s, graphical elements like icons and menus emerged, making interaction more visual.

Generative AI is often a mix between these two approaches. Some technologies, like ChatGPT, rely on text prompts. Others, like Adobe’s Firefly, use both text commands and button controls.

Software often interprets or guesses user intent. This is especially true for minimalistic prompts, such as a single word or even an emoji. When these are used for prompts, the AI system often returns a stereotypical representation based on its training data or the way it’s been programmed.

Being more specific in your prompt helps to arrive at a result more aligned with what you envisioned. This highlights that we need “multimodal” literacies: knowledge and skills that cut across writing and visual modes.

What are some key literacies in AI generation?

One of the first generative AI literacies is knowing which system to use.

Some are free. Others are paid. Some might be free but built on unethical datasets. Some have been trained on particular datasets that make the outputs more representative or less risky from a copyright infringement perspective. Some support a wider range of inputs, including images, documents, spreadsheets and other files. Others might support text-only inputs.

After selecting an image generator, you need to be able to work with it productively.

If you’re trying to make a square image for an Instagram post, you’re in luck. This is because many AI systems produce images with a square orientation by default. But what if you need a horizontal or vertical image? You’ll have to ask for that or know how to modify that setting.

What if you want text included in your image? AI still struggles with rendering text, similarly to how early AI systems struggled with accurately representing human fingers and ears. In these cases, you might be better off adding text in a different software, such as Canva or Adobe InDesign.

Many AI systems also create images that lack specific cultural context. This lets them be easily used in wider contexts. Yet it might decrease the emotional appeal or engagement among audiences who perceive these images as inauthentic.

Working with AI is a moving target

Learning AI means keeping pace with constant change. New generative AI products appear regularly, while existing platforms rapidly evolve.

Earlier this year, OpenAI integrated image generation into ChatGPT and TikTok launched its AI Alive tool to animate photos. Meanwhile, Google’s Veo 3 made cinematic video with sound accessible to Canva users, and Midjourney introduced video outputs.

These examples show where things are headed. Users will be able to create and edit text, images, sound and video in one place rather than having to use separate tools for each.

Building multimodal literacies means developing the skills to adapt, evaluate and co-create as technology evolves.

If you want to start building those literacies now, begin with a few simple questions.

What do I want my audience to see or understand? Should I use AI for creating this content? What is the AI tool producing and how can I shape the outcome?

Approaching visual generative AI with curiosity, but also critical thinking is the first step toward having the skills to use these technologies intentionally and effectively. Doing so can help us tell visual stories that carry human rather than machine values.

T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

Daniel Pfurtscheller previously received funding from the Tyrolean Science Fund and the Austrian Science Fund, for research unrelated to this article.

Katharina Christ works in a project funded by the Klaus Tschira Foundation. This research is unrelated to the content of this article.

Katharina Lobinger has previously received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Federal Office of Communications in Switzerland.

Nataliia Laba has previously received Research Training Program funding from the Australian Government Department of Education.

– ref. We teach young people to write. In the age of AI, we must teach them how to see – https://theconversation.com/we-teach-young-people-to-write-in-the-age-of-ai-we-must-teach-them-how-to-see-259283