Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

The global trading system that promoted free trade and underpinned global prosperity for 80 years now stands at a crossroads.

Recent trade policy developments have introduced unprecedented levels of uncertainty – not least, the upheaval caused by United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime.

This is presenting some fundamental changes to the way nations interact economically and politically.

The free trade ideal

Free trade envisions movement of goods and services across borders with minimal restrictions. That’s in contrast to protectionist policies such as tariffs or import quotas.

However, free trade has never existed in pure form. The rules-based global trading system emerged from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to progressively reduce trade barriers while letting countries maintain national sovereignty.

This system began with the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed by 23 countries in Geneva, Switzerland.

Through successive rounds of negotiation, this treaty achieved substantial reductions in tariffs on merchandise goods. It ultimately laid the groundwork for the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995.

‘Plumbing of the trading system’

The World Trade Organization introduced binding mechanisms to settle trade disputes between countries. It also expanded coverage of rules-based trade to services, intellectual property and investment measures.

Colloquially known as “the plumbing of the trading system”, this framework enabled global trade to expand dramatically.

Merchandise exports grew from US$10.2 trillion (A$15.6 trillion) in 2005 to more than US$25 trillion (A$38.3 trillion) in 2022.

Yet despite decades of liberalisation, truly free trade remains elusive. Protectionism has persisted, not only through traditional tariffs but also non-tariff measures such as technical standards. Increasingly, national security restrictions have also played a role.

Trump’s new trade doctrine

Economist Richard Baldwin has argued the current trade disruption stems from the Trump administration’s “grievance doctrine”.

This doctrine doesn’t view trade as an exchange between countries with mutual benefits. Rather, it sees it as as a zero-sum competition, what Trump describes as other nations “ripping off” the United States.

Trade deficits – where the total value of a country’s imports exceeds the value of its exports – aren’t regarded as economic outcomes of the trade system. Instead, they’re seen as theft.

Likewise, the doctrine sees international agreements as instruments of disadvantage rather than mutual benefit.

---

Read more:
No, that’s not what a trade deficit means – and that’s not how you calculate other nations’ tariffs

---

The US retreats from leadership

Trump has cast himself as a figure resetting a system he says is rigged against the US.

Once, the US provided defence, economic and political security, stable currency arrangements, and predictable market access. Now, it increasingly acts as an economic bully seeking absolute advantage.

This shift – from “global insurer to extractor of profit” – has created uncertainty that extends far beyond its relationships with individual countries.

Trump’s policies have explicitly challenged core principles of the World Trade Organization.

Examples include his ignoring the principle of “most-favoured nation”, where countries can’t make different rules for different trading partners, and “tariff bindings” – which limit global tariff rates.

Some trade policy analysts have even suggested the US might withdraw from the World Trade Organization. Doing so would complete its formal rejection of the global trading rules-based order.

China’s challenge and the US response

China’s emergence as the world’s manufacturing superpower has fundamentally altered global trade dynamics. China is on track to produce 45% of global industrial output by 2030.

China’s manufacturing surpluses are approaching US$1 trillion annually (A$1.5 trillion), aided by big subsidies and market protections.

For the Trump administration, this represents a fundamental clash between US market-capitalism and China’s state-capitalism.

How ‘middle powers’ are responding

Many countries maintain significant relationships with both China and the US. This creates pressure to choose sides in an increasingly polarised environment.

Australia exemplifies these tensions. It maintains defence and security ties with the US, notably through the AUKUS agreement. But Australia has also built significant economic relationships with China, despite recent disputes. China remains Australia’s largest two-way trading partner.

This fragmentation, however, creates opportunities for cooperation between “middle powers”. European and Asian countries are increasingly exploring partnerships, bypassing traditional US-led frameworks.

However, these alternatives cannot fully replicate the scale and advantages of the US-led system.

Alternatives won’t fix the system

At a summit this week, China, Russia, India and other non-Western members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization voiced their support for the multilateral trading system. A joint statement reaffirmed World Trade Organization principles while criticising unilateral trade measures.

This represents an attempt to claim global leadership while the US pursues its own policies with individual countries.

The larger “BRICS+” bloc is a grouping of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and Indonesia. This group has frequently voiced its opposition to Western-dominated institutions and called for alternative governance structures.

However, BRICS+ lacks the institutional depth to function as a genuine alternative to the World Trade Organization-centred trading system. It lacks enforceable trade rules, systematic monitoring mechanisms, or conflict resolution procedures.

Where is the trading system headed?

The global trading system has been instrumental in lifting more than a billion people out of extreme poverty since 1990. But the old system of US-led multilateralism has ended. What replaces it remains unclear.

One possible outcome is that we see a gradual weakening of global institutions like the World Trade Organization, while regional arrangements become more important. This would preserve elements of rules-based trade while accommodating competition between great powers.

“Coalitions of like-minded nations” could set high policy standards in specific areas, while remaining open to other countries willing to meet those standards.

These coalitions could focus on freer trade, regulatory harmonisation, or security restrictions depending on their interests. That could help maintain the plumbing in a global trade system.

Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Peter Draper 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. As Trump abandons the rulebook on trade, does free trade have a future elsewhere? – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-abandons-the-rulebook-on-trade-does-free-trade-have-a-future-elsewhere-264338

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University

Some 15 people have died after the Gloria funicular railway car in Lisbon, Portugal, derailed and crashed on Wednesday local time.

Emergency services have also confirmed that more than 18 people were also injured, five of them seriously, in the tragedy, which occurred at the start of the evening rush hour.

It follows another accident on the same line in May 2018, when one of the cars derailed due to flaws in the maintenance of its wheels. No one was killed in that incident.

The exact cause of the most recent accident is not yet known. Witnesses have reported that the yellow-and-white tram appeared out of control as it sped downhill, before derailing as it rounded a bend and crashing into a building. Photos of the aftermath show a crumpled heap of cables and steel.

These cable car–like transport systems are rare relics of the 19th century, found in only a few very hilly places around the world. So how do they work? And why are they still in use?

How do funicular railways work?

Trains and trams typically only work on flat terrain. That’s because their steel wheels can’t get enough traction on steel rails on steep hills. As a workaround, railway engineers often build tunnels through steep mountainsides.

Funicular railways, however, can go up very steep hills.

They usually feature two counterbalanced cars that are attached via a haulage cable.

As one car descends, it helps pull the ascending car up the hillside. The weight of the ascending car also prevents the descending one from careening out of control. Some now have electric motors to help power them and some are able to engage a one-way mechanical drive just for steep hills.

Even though funicular systems are typically quite slow and clunky, they are still popular with both tourists and residents in the places where they’re found.

Where are they found?

The Gloria funicular railway line in Lisbon opened in 1885. One of three funicular lines in Lisbon, it connects the city’s downtown area with the Bairro Alto (Upper Quarter).

But there are other examples of these transport relics around the world.

Switzerland has several funicular railways. The most notable is the Stoosbahn – the steepest funicular in the world. It covers a total ascent of around 744 metres, reaching a gradient of 47 degrees. It is a very popular tourist trip.

In Hong Kong, the Peak Tram is a funicular railway that has operated since 1888 and takes people to near the top of Hong Kong Island.

Last year, there was also some discussion about installing a new funicular railway system in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, Australia, that would travel 14 metres every second.

The rise of trackless trams

Funicular railways still serve a purpose for people living in – or visiting – steep areas where they’re found. However, newer technology means more conventional forms of rail transport are now far less limited in travelling up and down hills.

For example, trackless trams are kind of a combination between a tram and a bus. They use GPS and digital sensors to move precisely along an invisible track and have rubber wheels, enabling them to ascend gradients of up to 15%. However, these have not yet been built for steeper hills.

I have enjoyed riding such funicular trams in a range of hilly cities, but this crash is likely to take the shine off the tourist experience. It’s about time we had a 21st-century option that is clearly safer.

Peter Newman receives funding from the CRC RACE.

– ref. Tragedy has struck Lisbon’s funicular railway. A transport expert explains how these old-fashioned trains work – https://theconversation.com/tragedy-has-struck-lisbons-funicular-railway-a-transport-expert-explains-how-these-old-fashioned-trains-work-264574

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

Google will not have to sell its Chrome web browser in order to fix its illegal monopoly in the online search business, a United States federal judge has ruled. It will, however, need to do a few other things, such as sharing data with rival companies, in order to improve competition.

The remedies ruling was handed down by DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who last year found Google had violated antitrust laws in relation to its online search business.

This was not the worst-case scenario for Google, and the share price of its parent Alphabet rose 8% after the news. But the ruling could still have a significant impact on the tech giant – and the entire internet.

What was the case actually about?

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its antitrust suit against Google in 2020, arguing the tech giant had used exclusive agreements with device makers such as Apple and Samsung to unfairly box out competitors from the search engine market.

For years, Google accounted for reportedly 90% of all search queries in the US, using what the DOJ called “anticompetitive tactics” to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising.

In August 2024, Judge Mehta ruled in the DOJ’s favour, finding Google had maintained an illegal monopoly.

The case centred on Google’s practice of entering into exclusionary agreements that collectively locked up the primary avenues through which users access online search, making Google the pre-set default general search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers – and particularly on Apple devices.

The remedies – proposed and actual

The DOJ urged the sell-off of the Chrome browser and possibly its Android operating system, and the sharing of search data. It said these remedies would limit Google’s ability to monopolise the search market and prevent it from gaining an unfair advantage in other markets, notably artificial intelligence (AI).

The DOJ also demanded an end to its multibillion-dollar agreements with Apple and other partners.

Judge Mehta’s remedies ruling fell significantly short of the DOJ’s harshest demands.

Under the remedies ordered, Google will be barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the AI-powered Gemini app.

Google cannot enter agreements that condition the licensing of any Google application on the distribution or placement of these products, or condition revenue share payments on maintaining these products on any device for more than one year.

Google must also provide competitors with access to its search results and advertising services at standard rates. This will help them to deliver quality search results to their own users while building their own technology.

However, Google will not be barred from paying device makers to preload its products, including Google Search and generative AI products.

A technical committee will be established to help enforce the final judgment, which will last six years and go into effect 60 days after entry. Judge Mehta ordered the parties to meet by September 10 for the final judgment.

Shortly after the judge’s ruling, Google released a statement reiterating its opposition to the initial ruling in August 2024, which it still plans to appeal.

Today’s decision recognises how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information. This underlines what we’ve been saying since this case was filed in 2020: competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want.

More cases to come

This decision opens up competition in the search market while allowing Google to maintain its core business structure. The data-sharing requirements could particularly benefit AI competitors who need large datasets to train their models.

Google faces additional antitrust pressure beyond this search case. In April 2025, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google illegally monopolised advertising technology markets. The remedies trial for that case is scheduled for later this month.

As William Kovacic, a global competition law professor at George Washington University and former Federal Trade Commission commissioner, told TechCrunch:

We’ve never had a circumstance in which the Department of Justice has had two largely parallel cases involving major elements of alleged misconduct against the same dominant firm with two parallel remedy processes going ahead.

Google’s competitors, however, believe the remedies should have been more severe in this case.

In a statement, Gabriel Weinberg, the chief executive of search engine competitor DuckDuckGo, claimed Google “will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search”. He also called on the US congress to step in “to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field”.

It seems likely the DOJ will need to demonstrate abuse of dominance in the AI search field in order to get a remedy that will satisfy DuckDuckGo.

The full resolution of these cases likely won’t occur until late 2027 or early 2028, as Google has indicated it will appeal both the liability and remedy decisions.

Rob Nicholls receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Google just dodged a major penalty in the courts – here’s what happens next – https://theconversation.com/google-just-dodged-a-major-penalty-in-the-courts-heres-what-happens-next-264473

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

Many of us are guilty of scrolling our smartphones on the toilet. But a new study from the United States, published today, has found this habit may increase your risk of developing haemorrhoids by up to 46%.

So, what’s the link? How can time on your phone lead to these painful lumps in and around your anus? Here’s what we know.

What are haemorrhoids?

Every healthy person has haemorrhoids, sometimes called piles. They are columns of cushioned tissue and blood vessels found close to the opening of the anus.

Haemorrhoids have a really important role in maintaining bowel continence or, to put it simply, keeping your poo in.

When all is well, we don’t notice them. But haemorrhoids can get swollen and this can lead to symptoms such as pain, bleeding or feeling a lump just inside your anus (internal haemorrhoids) or protruding outside (external haemorrhoids).

So when someone “has haemorrhoids”, it means they have become inflamed or symptomatic.

This is extremely common: more than one in two of us will experience symptomatic haemorrhoids at some point in our lives.

You are more likely to get haemorrhoids if you:

• are older (over 45)
• are pregnant
• are overweight
• have persistent constipation or diarrhoea
• regularly lift heavy objects
• spend a lot of time on the toilet.

The link between toilet time and haemorrhoids

Prolonged sitting in general has not been linked to developing haemorrhoids.

However, a standard toilet seat – unlike a chair or couch – has a large internal opening that provides no support for the pelvic floor (the group of muscles and ligaments that support the bladder, bowel and uterus).

Prolonged sitting on a toilet seat is believed to increase pressure inside the pelvic floor and lead to blood pooling in the vascular cushions of the anus. This makes haemorrhoids more likely to develop.

What the new study looked at

The new US study recruited 125 adults, aged 45 and older, who were undergoing a colonoscopy at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical centre.

Researchers surveyed them about their smartphone habits while using the toilet, including how often they checked their phone and for how long. Participants also reported on other behaviours such as straining, their fibre intake, and how much physical activity they did.

The researchers recorded whether they had haemorrhoids. Since the participants were all having a colonoscopy, the presence of internal haemorrhoids could be directly confirmed visually.

What did the study show?

Two-thirds (66%) of all participants used smartphones while on the toilet. The most common activity was reading news (54.3%), followed by social media (44.4%).

Those who used their smartphones spent longer on the toilet than those who didn’t. More than one in three (37.3%) toilet smartphone users spent over five minutes on the toilet, compared to just over one in 20 (7%) of those who didn’t use their smartphones.

The smartphone users had a 46% higher risk of haemorrhoids, compared to those who didn’t use their smartphone. To calculate this, researchers took into account other known risk factors for haemorrhoids such as gender, age, body mass index, exercise activity, straining and fibre intake.

However, unlike some other research, this study did not find a link between straining and haemorrhoids.

As a result, the researchers concluded that time spent on the toilet poses a more significant risk for haemorrhoids than straining. However, we can’t rule out straining as a risk factor, based on one study.

Some other limitations to consider

The study relied on participants remembering whether or not they strained, and how long they spent on the toilet.

This kind of recall is subjective, and may also be influenced by taking part in the study. For example, if the participants thought they had haemorrhoids, they may be more likely to report straining.

The study’s small sample size and the participants’ age (all over 45) also mean it is unlikely to be representative of the broader population.

Toilet sitting time

The new study is not the first to study the link between time spent on the toilet and developing haemorrhoids. In 2020, a Turkish study found spending more than five minutes on the toilet was associated with haemorrhoids.

Another 2020 study from Italy of 52 people with diagnosed internal or external haemorrhoids noted the longer they spent on the toilet, the more severe their haemorrhoids.

---

Read more:
Do men really take longer to poo?

---

So, what are we doing on the toilet?

Defaecation itself usually doesn’t take long. One study found it took healthy adults an average two minutes when sitting, but only 51 seconds when squatting.

The majority of “toilet sitting time” usually means just that – sitting on the toilet, doing other activities aside from pooing (or weeing).

One 2008 study from Israel surveyed 500 adults and found more than half (52.7%) read books or newspapers while on the toilet. It also found toilet readers spent significantly more time on the toilet.

How to avoid haemorrhoids

The usual advice is to increase the amount of fibre in your diet (eating more fruit, vegetables and wholegrains) and ensure you drink enough water. This makes it easier to pass a stool and reduces straining – which you should also try to avoid.

However, the new research confirms previous evidence that cutting down toilet sitting time may also help. So, avoiding distractions by leaving your smartphone outside the bathroom is a good idea (and as a bonus, will expose your device to fewer germs).

---

Read more:
Your phone is covered in germs: a tech expert explains how to clean it without doing damage

---

If you have any concerning symptoms, such as blood in your stool, a new lump in the anal region, or pain when passing a bowel motion then you should see your local doctor for further investigations and treatment.

Vincent Ho 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. Scrolling on the toilet increases your risk of haemorrhoids, new study shows – https://theconversation.com/scrolling-on-the-toilet-increases-your-risk-of-haemorrhoids-new-study-shows-264107

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Theresa Larkin, Associate Professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

Most of us can hold our breath for between 30 and 90 seconds.

A few minutes without oxygen can be fatal, so we have an involuntary reflex to breathe.

But freediver Vitomir Maričić recently held his breath for a new world record of 29 minutes and three seconds, lying on the bottom of a 3-metre-deep pool in Croatia.

This is about five minutes longer than the previous world record set in 2021 by another Croatian freediver, Budimir Šobat.

Interestingly, all world records for breath holds are by freedivers, who are essentially professional breath-holders.
They do extensive physical and mental training to hold their breath under water for long periods of time.

So how do freedivers delay a basic human survival response and how was Maričić able to hold his breath about 60 times longer than most people?

Increased lung volumes and oxygen storage

Freedivers do cardiovascular training – physical activity that increases your heart rate, breathing and overall blood flow for a sustained period – and breathwork to increase how much air (and therefore oxygen) they can store in their lungs.

This includes exercise such as swimming, jogging or cycling, and training their diaphragm, the main muscle of breathing.

Diaphragmatic breathing and cardiovascular exercise train the lungs to expand to a larger volume and hold more air.

This means the lungs can store more oxygen and sustain a longer breath hold.

Freedivers can also control their diaphragm and throat muscles to move the stored oxygen from their lungs to their airways. This maximises oxygen uptake into the blood to travel to other parts of the body.

To increase the oxygen in his lungs even more before his world record breath-hold, Maričić inhaled pure (100%) oxygen for ten minutes.

This gave Maričić a larger store of oxygen than if he breathed normal air, which is only about 21% oxygen.

This is classified as an oxygen-assisted breath-hold in the Guiness Book of World Records.

Even without extra pure oxygen, Maričić can hold his breath for 10 minutes and 8 seconds.

Resisting the reflex to take another breath

Oxygen is essential for all our cells to function and survive. But it is high carbon dioxide, not low oxygen that causes the involuntary reflex to breathe.

When cells use oxygen, they produce carbon dioxide, a damaging waste product.

Carbon dioxide can only be removed from our body by breathing it out.

When we hold our breath, the brain senses the build-up in carbon dioxide and triggers us to breathe again.

Freedivers practice holding their breath to desensitise their brains to high carbon dioxide and eventually low oxygen. This delays the involuntary reflex to breathe again.

When someone holds their breath beyond this, they reach a “physiological break-point”. This is when their diaphragm involuntarily contracts to force a breath.

This is physically challenging and only elite freedivers who have learnt to control their diaphragm can continue to hold their breath past this point.

Indeed, Maričić said that holding his breath longer:

got worse and worse physically, especially for my diaphragm, because of the contractions. But mentally I knew I wasn’t going to give up.

Mental focus and control is essential

Those who freedive believe it is not only physical but also a mental discipline.

Freedivers train to manage fear and anxiety and maintain a calm mental state. They practice relaxation techniques such as meditation, breath awareness and mindfulness.

Interestingly, Maričić said:

after the 20-minute mark, everything became easier, at least mentally.

Reduced mental and physical activity, reflected in a very low heart rate, reduces how much oxygen is needed. This makes the stored oxygen last longer.

That is why Maričić achieved this record lying still on the bottom of a pool.

Don’t try this at home

Beyond competitive breath-hold sports, many other people train to hold their breath for recreational hunting and gathering.

For example, ama divers who collect pearls in Japan, and Haenyeo divers from South Korea who harvest seafood.

But there are risks of breath holding.

Maričić described his world record as:

a very advanced stunt done after years of professional training and should not be attempted without proper guidance and safety.

Indeed, both high carbon dioxide and a lack of oxygen can quickly lead to loss of consciousness.

Breathing in pure oxygen can cause acute oxygen toxicity due to free radicals, which are highly reactive chemicals that can damage cells.

Unless you’re trained in breath holding, it’s best to leave this to the professionals.

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

– ref. The science behind a freediver’s 29-minute breath hold world record – https://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-a-freedivers-29-minute-breath-hold-world-record-264020

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meredith Oyen, Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

World War II casts a very long shadow in East Asia. Eighty years after ending with Japan’s surrender to Allied forces on Sept. 2, 1945, the conflict continues to stir debate over the past, in the context of today’s geopolitical tensions.

China’s high-profile military parade commemorating the conclusion of what Beijing calls the “War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression” is a case in point.

In the run-up to the Sept. 3, 2025, event, the Chinese Communist Party has been criticized in Tokyo for stoking anti-Japanese sentiment and in the U.S. for downplaying America’s role while playing up Russia’s.

But as an expert on Taiwan-China relations, I’m interested in the battle over the narrative between Taipei and Beijing. During World War II, China’s communists and nationalists became uneasy internal allies, putting their civil war on pause to unite against Japan. Afterward, the communists prevailed and the nationalists fled to Taiwan, where they set up their own government – one the mainland has never recognized. Months of bickering over the commemorations shine a light on how both sides view their respective roles in defeating Japan – and what the show of military force by Beijing signals today.

To whom did Japan surrender?

A peculiarity of the current commemorations is that Japan did not actually surrender to Communist China, or technically to China at all. On Sept. 9, 1945, a week after agreeing to the terms laid out by the Allied forces, Japan, at a ceremony in Nanjing, formally surrendered to China’s National Revolutionary Army – the military wing of the nationalist Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek.

And this gets to the heart of why many in Taiwan – where the nationalists fled at the conclusion of China’s civil war in 1949 – are unhappy with Beijing’s projection of Communist China as the victors against Japan.

By the time that war in East Asia took hold, in 1937, China was a decade into its own civil war between the nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong’s communists.

The nationalists and communists fell into an uneasy truce with the creation of the second united front in 1937. But the role of both sides in fighting the Japanese has long been the source of disagreement.

The nationalist army bore the brunt of conventional warfare. But it was criticized for being disorganized and too dependent on men forced into service. Those soldiers were often ill-trained and underfed.

To the communists, the army – and its failings – were the product of the corrupt government under Chiang. And it was largely responsible for China’s inept response to Japan’s initial advances.

In Beijing’s telling today, it was the communist forces, which relied more on guerrilla tactics, that helped push back the Japanese.

Conversely, the nationalists cast events during World War II very differently. China’s nationalist administration under Chiang was the first government in the world to fight a fascist power.

For eight or even 14 years, depending on whether you date the start of the conflict to 1937 or 1931, the nationalist army fought hard and sacrificed a lot as it put up the bulk of the resistance against Japan. To Taiwan’s Chinese nationalists, the Chinese communist contribution was minimal.

Worse, to them, the communists took the opportunity of Japan’s invasion to further their own position against the nationalists. Indeed, when the civil war began again after Japan’s defeat, Mao’s communists had the upper hand, leading to the nationalists’ retreat to Taiwan four years later.

From Japanese to Chinese rule

The status of Taiwan at the end of World War II presents another wrinkle.
By then, the island had been under Japanese colonial control since 1895. Indeed, a second surrender ceremony took place on Oct. 25, 1945, when the Japanese forces in Taiwan surrendered to a nationalist official who had come over from the mainland.

What followed was a period of Chinese nationalist takeover of Taiwan and a corresponding Japanese retreat – it took several years for all Japanese officials and families to be repatriated to Japan.

Meanwhile, the nationalist Kuomintang that came into Taiwan were not terribly well received by the local population, many of whom were hoping for independence and resisted a Chinese nationalist, authoritarian takeover.

Complicating matters was that a 1943 agreement between the leaders of the Allied nations in Cairo declared that in the event of Japan’s defeat, Formosa, as Taiwan was then called, would be returned to the Republic of China.

But now you had two claimants to being “China” – the communists on the mainland and the nationalists on Taiwan. Either way, the Cairo Declaration served the interests of the “One-China” principle – under which both Beijing and Taipei view Taiwan as part of unified China, but differ over which is the country’s legitimate government – over that of those seeking the island’s formal independence from the mainland.

From the past to the future

The conflicting war narratives from Communist China, pro-unification nationalists in Taiwan and those seeking the island’s independence have been present since the end of World War II – and they tend to flare up around commemorations and anniversaries.

They did so, for example, when China held a big military celebration in 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Japan’s surrender.

This year’s event seeks to do a couple of things. First, Beijing is using it to reshape the memory of the Chinese Communist Party’s role in the world as a result of World War II.

The war is seen as a critical moment in Chinese history – not just in the context of defeating Japan and its role in the subsequent founding of the People’s Republic, but because in Asia it marked the end of the colonial era. During the war, foreign powers in China gave up their concessions and ended a century of partial colonial control over port cities such as Shanghai.

The war also marked China’s emergence as a major player on the world scene. As a result of its contributions in World War II, China gained a role on the United Nations Security Council. The Republic of China on Taiwan maintained that seat and that vote until 1971, when U.N. recognition finally shifted to the People’s Republic of China.

In recent years, promoting a prominent role in defeating fascism and shaping the postwar world order has been particularly important as China looks to carve out a space for itself in a multipolar world and show an alternative to a world dominated by the United States and Western Europe.

For these reasons, Beijing is keen to keep focus on its preferred narrative, highlighting communist contributions to the war effort.

But given Beijing’s adherence to the one-party principle, Taiwan – as part of China – could not be ignored. So, invites to Taiwanese officials to the commemorative events were sent out.

Representatives from the pro-independence ruling Democratic People’s Party and the main opposition party, the pro-unification Kuomintang, have largely declined to attend. The executive government has said that no current government officials in Taiwan should attend the military parade. Nonetheless, on Sept. 2, former Kuomintang chairperson Hung Hsiu-chu announced that she would be in Beijing for the event.

For its part, Taiwan has opted for more low-key commemorations of the end of Japanese rule of the island.

Many Taiwanese are much more concerned about current events than those of 80 years ago. The anniversary comes at a time of increased tension across the Taiwan Strait. Echoing concern over Chinese military might and potential intent, earlier this year “Zero Day Attack” – a new series depicting a future, fictionalized invasion of the island by the People’s Republic of China – dropped and has since become hugely popular.

Its streaming launch date in Japan was Aug. 15 – the 80th anniversary of the announcement of Japan’s surrender in World War II.

This article is based on a conversation between Meredith Oyen and Gemma Ware for The Conversation Weekly podcast that will be available later this week. Subscribe to The Conversation Weekly podcast.

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

– ref. China’s WWII anniversary parade rekindles cross-strait battle over war narrative − and fears in Taiwan of future conflict – https://theconversation.com/chinas-wwii-anniversary-parade-rekindles-cross-strait-battle-over-war-narrative-and-fears-in-taiwan-of-future-conflict-264401

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ger Post, Lecturer Neuroscience, PhD student collaborative reasoning, The University of Melbourne

With the AFL finals approaching, discussions about the league’s clutch players – those who excel under pressure – will soon appear in the media and be debated among fans.

Last year, Gold Coast captain Noah Anderson was ranked highest in a list of AFL clutch players, followed by more established names including the Western Bulldogs’ Tom Liberatore and Geelong’s Patrick Dangerfield.

But what does clutch really mean and is it possible for athletes to be “clutch”?

The power of labels and narratives

While most people struggle when the pressure rises – they may even “choke”, where they lose the ability to perform a skill in front of an audience – clutch players seem to excel in these circumstances.

They thrive when the heat is on and seem to save something special for these moments.

The label of being a clutch player is often shaped by stereotypical narratives of, as some media commentary has put it, “hardened, stubborn men” who will “take themselves to the next level through sheer guts and an iron will”.

In 2018, former Port Adelaide great and outspoken media pundit Kane Cornes earmarked Bulldogs champion Marcus Bontempelli as a clutch player:

The one player who I want with the ball in their hands, when the game is on the line is “The Bont”. For me, Marcus Bontempelli, is right now the best clutch performer in the competition.

More recently, Carlton’s Blake Acres was described as “intense, desperate and completely unwilling to give an inch” in the finals:

Acres was the big moment player, full of desperation, intensity and a relentless attack on the ball.

But are these players really clutch?

Blindspots and biases

These character sketches and rankings of clutch players mask many blind spots and biases in how the data are compiled and interpreted.

For example, the data tend to favour players who generate impact with eye-catching and easily measurable actions (such as Bontempelli, who often brilliantly takes marks and kicks goals) while undervaluing those who do the less glamorous grunt work that helps the rest of the team (such as Liberatore, who plays a more selfless role).

More importantly, the data don’t reflect whether a player actually improves under pressure (the definition of clutch).

In the case of Anderson, is he indeed performing better than others in the final quarters of tight games? Or is he just more talented than others and ranks higher in all quarters of games?

Or maybe he is better in the first three quarters of the game and then declines in the fourth quarter – yet he is he still better than the rest?

We don’t know solely from assessing his performances in final quarters.

Studies from other team sports including basketball, soccer and baseball cannot definitely prove players excel under pressure.

No one saves something special for when it’s needed most.

It seems more likely that clutch performances simply stick in our memories: game-deciding moments are more memorable than efforts that fail to seal victory.

There could be other reasons, too.

The power of opportunity

Statistics from many sports show even if athletes are involved in more goals or baskets when the game is on the line, it doesn’t necessarily mean they excel in these moments.

When late-game performances by basketball legends including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant were analysed, another option surfaced: clutch performers seem to be doing more instead of better in the last minutes of tight games.

Their scoring accuracy doesn’t improve in these moments (they miss, on average, just as much as most players) but they do get more scoring opportunities.

These opportunities are created by many involved, not in the least the teammates who pass the ball to the clutch player.

These teammates often follow the instructions from their coaches to get the clutch player in scoring position in the dying seconds.

Opponents can, unintentionally, assist by making more fouls on clutch players when the heat is on, giving them more free throws to seal the victory.

Finally, there are fans and pundits who label these players as the ones who should decide the game.

So to get more opportunities to decide a match, an athlete needs to build a reputation that they will take themselves “to the next level” when it matters most. Tattooing “CHOSEN1” on your back might help build these reputations, as LeBron James did.

Even better is when others talk about your confidence, hunger for victories, or hardened, stubborn competitiveness. This signals to fans, teammates and coaches that you are the one who should be getting the ball to decide the game.

More opportunities means more game-winning shots, which reinforces the idea you are a clutch player.

Being listed as one of the most clutch players of the competition might be the best assist an athlete can get to decide a final.

Ger Post 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. So-called ‘clutch’ athletes might be more hype than nerveless match-winners – https://theconversation.com/so-called-clutch-athletes-might-be-more-hype-than-nerveless-match-winners-263111

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

If you follow wellness content on social media or in the news, you’ve probably heard that processed food is not just unhealthy, but can cause serious harm.

Eating a diet dominated by highly processed foods means you’re likely to consume more kilojoules than you need, and greater amounts of salt, sugar – as well as food additives.

But not all processed foods are equal, nor bad for you. Here’s what to look out for on food labels if you want to buy processed, but convenient, foods.

What do the processing categories mean?

Researchers use the Nova processed food classification system to group foods into four processing levels.

Group 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods are either in their natural state or have minimal processing. They’re basic foods you could eat straight away, such as vegetables and fruit, or foods that only need minimal processing to make them safe and palatable, such as eggs, meat, poultry, fish, oats, other grains, plain pasta, legumes, milk, plain yoghurt, ground herbs and spices, or nuts with shells.

Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients are derived from group 1. These are used in cooking to enhance flavour and texture, and include oils, sugar and honey.

Group 3: Processed foods are treated using traditional processing methods such as canning, bottling, fermenting, or salting to extend shelf life. These include canned fruits, tomato paste, cheese, salted fish, and breads with minimal ingredients. You could make these foods in a home kitchen.

Group 4: Ultra-processed foods are industrially produced with ingredients and additives not normally found in home kitchens, and have little, if any, group 1 items left intact. These foods are engineered to be hyper-palatable, meaning you can’t stop eating them, and have long shelf lives. Products include factory-made biscuits, snack foods, instant meals, frozen desserts, preserved meats, instant noodles, margarine, some breakfast cereals and sugar-sweetened drinks.

However, group 4 products vary greatly in their nutritional quality and the number and type of food additives used to manufacture them.

What’s the concern about eating lots of ultra-processed foods?

About 42% of Australians’ total energy intake comes from ultra-processed foods. These are relatively cheap and are energy-dense, but nutrient-poor. This means they can contain a lot of kilojules, salt and added sugars but are poor sources of nutrients the body needs such as vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre.

Studies have linked higher intakes of ultra-processed foods with poorer diet quality and worse health outcomes. A review of 122 observational studies found people with the highest intakes (compared with the lowest) were about 25% more likely to have had a decline in kidney function. They were 20% more likely to be overweight, or have obesity or diabetes, and were 40% more likely to have common mental health conditions such as depression.

However, a recent review highlighted that the health impact of these foods and drinks varies depending on their category. Products such as sugar-sweetened drinks can negatively affect health, while others – such as cereals with added vitamins and minerals and some dairy products – can be neutral or even protective.

Some level of food processing can improve food safety, extend shelf life and reduce food waste. This is likely to include the use of additives, such as emulsifiers, flavour enhancers, preservatives, food acids, colours and raising agents. Additives need to be approved by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) after a safety assessment, with the lowest amount added to achieve the specific purpose in the food product.

However, some adults and children eat a lot of ultra-processed foods. This means they have high intakes of food additives, in terms of total amount and different types.

Researchers have raised concerns about a potential link between high intakes and increased risks of some health conditions, ranging from mental health disorders to heart disease and metabolic disorders such as diabetes. The researchers called for transparent use of evidence to ensure public health messaging is kept up to date.

An observational study in more than 100,000 French adults also raised concerns about potential “cocktail” effects of food additive combinations. Although more research is needed, they found some additive combinations were associated with a higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes.

Finally, a recent review highlighted the potential for additives, particularly emulsifiers, to damage the gut lining and alter the balance of healthy versus unhealthy gut microbes. This could potentially increase the risk of developing inflammatory bowel conditions.

What processed foods should you choose?

It depends on how they’re made, the additives used, how often you eat them, and how much you have.

When choosing processed foods:

1. Read the ingredient list on the food label. It tells you a lot about the level of processing and additives used. Look for products that contain minimal to no additives, and ingredients that could be found in a home kitchen. Note that additives could be listed by name or number.

2. If there are a number of products in the same category, choose the one with more Health Stars as it will contain less salt, saturated fat and added sugars, compared to products with fewer Health Stars.

3. Think about how often you eat the product. If you do eat it weekly or more often, spend more time comparing products before making a final choice.

While you might expect all Nova 3 processed foods to be healthier than Nova group 4 (ultra-processed), this isn’t always the case. Nova group 3 items don’t necessarily meet the nutrient criteria that deems them “healthy”. They could still contain excessive amounts of added salt, saturated fat or sugars.

For help to review the level of processing alongside the nutrient criteria, consider using an app such as Open Food Facts. This assigns food products a Nova group score, a nutrition score, and another to rate its impact on the environment.

---

Read more:
Ultra-processed foods might not be the real villain in our diets – here’s what our research found

---

Clare Collins AO is a Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of Newcastle, NSW and a Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) affiliated researcher. She is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Fellow and has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, HMRI, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, WA Dept. Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute, Dietitians Australia and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines update, the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns and was Co-Chair of the Guidelines Development Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Obesity 2025.

– ref. Not all processed foods are bad for you. Here’s what you can tell from reading the label – https://theconversation.com/not-all-processed-foods-are-bad-for-you-heres-what-you-can-tell-from-reading-the-label-260818

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lucia McCallum, Senior Scientist in Geodesy, University of Tasmania

On Sunday, a plane carrying European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen was reportedly forced to land in Bulgaria using paper maps after its GPS navigation systems were jammed. Bulgarian authorities claim the jamming was deliberate Russian interference, though a Kremlin spokesperson told the Financial Times this was “incorrect”.

GPS interference is on the rise, so you might be wondering how it works. And can anything be done about it? And – perhaps most importantly – do you need to worry?

How does GPS jamming work?

The Global Positioning System (GPS) and other satellite navigation systems use radio signals from satellites to calculate position. To determine position, a GPS needs a direct line of sight to at least four satellites.

There are two ways to disrupt satellite navigation.

The first is jamming. This works by simply broadcasting high-intensity radio noise in the same frequency band used by the navigation satellites.

Jamming drowns out the satellite signal, like a person shouting loudly in your ear stops you hearing what someone is saying on the other side of the room. This appears to be what happened in Bulgaria.

The second way to interfere with satellite navigation is called spoofing, and it’s a little more elegant. Spoofing involves sending radio signals that pretend to be coming from the navigation satellites.

Where jamming stops the satellite navigation system from producing any location, spoofing tricks it into giving a false location – with potentially catastrophic results.

Are jamming and spoofing becoming more common?

Jamming and spoofing do appear to be growing more common, especially in conflict zones in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

A clandestine Russian base near the Polish border is reportedly responsible for satnav interference in the Baltic region.

Ships in the Red Sea report frequent interference, likely from Houthi rebels in Yemen.

These increasingly common incidents highlight how vulnerable our reliance on satellite navigation makes us.

What can be done about interference?

The best response to interference is to have backup navigation options in place. The US-run GPS is the best known and most commonly used satellite navigation system, but there are others.

The EU runs a parallel system called Galileo, while Russia has one called GLONASS and China operates its own BeiDou satellites.

Each of these systems operates using slightly different radio frequencies. Some navigation systems can tune in to more than one set of satellites – so even if one is jammed, others may be available.

Galileo also has a “safety of life” feature, which allows users to detect spoofing. Australia’s in-development SouthPAN system will also offer a similar feature.

Another common feature of navigation systems is inertial sensing. This relies on sensors such as gyroscopes and barometers to directly detect movement and calculate position.

Most car navigation systems use inertial sensors to track location in cities or tunnels where there is no direct line of sight to satellites. Inertial sensing works well for short periods of time, but quickly becomes inaccurate and needs to be recalibrated by checking in with satellite systems.

Many researchers around the world are trying to develop new alternatives to satellite navigation using extremely precise sensors. One recent development uses tiny fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic field to detect position, for example.

---

Read more:
Quantum navigation could transform how we travel. So what is it, and how does it work?

---

Should you be worried about flying?

Everyday air passengers have no need to worry about jamming or spoofing. For one thing, it’s very rare – especially outside conflict zones.

For another, the aviation industry is highly regulated and extremely safe. Even where satellite navigation doesn’t work, there are backup options.

What all of us can take away from this latest incident is how dependent we have become on satellite navigation. What matters is that we have a diverse range of systems so we are not dependent on just one.

Lucia McCallum 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. Russia’s GPS interference: do I need to worry when flying? – https://theconversation.com/russias-gps-interference-do-i-need-to-worry-when-flying-264334

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Callum Jones, Associate research fellow, Deakin University

Over the weekend, rallies were staged across various Australian cities under the branding “March for Australia”. The rallies, which were attended by avowed neo-Nazis and elected politicians alike, called for an end to mass migration.

These protests are not unique to Australia. Recently, the United Kingdom has seen its own wave of anti-migrant demonstrations in cities such as London, Bristol and Birmingham.

Despite claims by some that the Australian rallies were “hijacked” by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Network (NSN), they were deeply rooted in the far-right, white nationalist ideas of “remigration” and the Great Replacement theory.

An ABC investigation in the lead-up to the rallies found that “remigration” was listed on the organisers’ website as a key reason for marching, before later being deleted.

Significantly, the March for Australia rallies also received high-profile, online support from far-right figures overseas, including Alex Jones, Tommy Robinson, Jack Posobiec and Elon Musk.

Musk retweeted a post erroneously claiming 150,000 people took part in the rallies, while Jones retweeted a post claiming a crowd size of half a million.

For the rally organisers, public support from figures such as these greatly expands the reach of their message, and repositions them from isolated fringe events to vital parts of a global anti-immigration movement.

This is not the first time Musk has inserted himself in the domestic politics of a foreign country to bolster the far right. The tech billionaire notably gave his support to Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party in recent elections, describing it as the “best hope”“ for the country.

In recent days, he also posted the phrase ”remigration is the only way“ in response to a post about foreigners in the UK.

Remigration refers to the mass deportation of non-white immigrants to their so-called countries of origin.

It is an ideological cornerstone of ”identitarianism“, a European far-right movement centred on preserving white European identities. These are perceived to be under attack by immigration, globalisation and multiculturalism.

Global growth of the far right

This online support for March for Australia underscores the growing transnational links among far-right movements.

These movements increasingly see themselves as united by shared concerns over the defence of so-called “Western Civilisation”, opposition to mass immigration, the preservation of white identity, and beliefs in conspiratorial narratives such as the Great Replacement theory.

And this transnational growth wouldn’t be possible without the proliferation of social media in recent years.

In Australia, for example, research shows how “indispensable” mainstream social media platforms have been in the development of anti-Islamic far-right movements such as the United Patriots Front, going back to the 2010s.

The far right also capitalises on virality and humour to extend the dissemination of their ideology online. In particular, this is done through memes.

Research has found, for example, that one particularly prominent transnational far-right meme, Pepe the Frog, has been localised for an Australian audience through the addition of a Ned Kelly mask.

Research also shows how international slogans travel across borders. US President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” mantra, for instance, has been adapted into a distinctly local form for Australians: “Make Australia Grouse Again”.

The online space makes it easier for extreme views and rhetoric to permeate into mainstream political discourse, as well.

When elements of the far right get removed from mainstream social media platforms— a process known as “deplatforming” — they often find a new home on alternative platforms such as Telegram. Research shows they now host a range of Australian neo-Nazi groups.

It’s noteworthy that many of the key figures lending support for March for Australia, including Robinson and Jones, were previously deplatformed from Twitter before Musk acquired the company and reinstated them.

Social media has also allowed neo-Nazis such as Tom Sewell, who is essentially persona non grata in Australian mainstream media, to build a large and highly influential profile among international far-right audiences.

With Musk’s vows to defend “free speech” on X, and Mark Zuckerberg’s dramatic shift in Meta’s approach to content moderation, the mainstream social media environment is becoming even more hospitable to far-right movements. This is a worrying trend.

For the Australian far right, the support of figures such as Musk and Robinson signals an opportunity to increase their mobilising potential. It could also lead to the transnational exchange of information, resources and tactical support.

As the far right becomes increasingly emboldened, mainstreamed and normalised, we should expect to see more public and increasingly violent demonstrations across Australian cities – and support for these among a global audience online.

Kurt Sengul has received funding from the NSW Government’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) and Social Cohesion Research Program.

Callum Jones 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 Australia’s anti-immigration rallies were amplified online by the global far right – https://theconversation.com/how-australias-anti-immigration-rallies-were-amplified-online-by-the-global-far-right-264269