Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By John Kerr, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Public Health, University of Otago

Four percent of Americans – roughly 12 million people – believe that “lizard people” secretly control the Earth. At least, that was the finding of an infamous 2013 public opinion survey.

Do so many people really believe such outlandish claims? Or do results like these partly reflect people giving silly answers or deliberately skewing surveys for fun?

US psychiatrist Alexander Scott believes the latter plays a significant role.

Using the survey as an example, he coined the term “the Lizardman constant” to describe the idea that a certain amount of noise and trolling will always exist in surveys about unusual beliefs.

As Scott warned: “Any possible source of noise – jokesters, cognitive biases, or deliberate misbehaviour – can easily overwhelm the signal.”

As researchers who study uncommon beliefs such as conspiracy theories, we wanted to investigate how this kind of cheeky trolling can muddy the waters.

Trolls and true believers

Building on earlier Australian research, we surveyed New Zealanders to test how common dishonest or joking responses were in conspiracy theory surveys.

We did this in two ways. First, we directly asked people a yes/no question at the end of the survey:

“Did you respond insincerely at any earlier point in this survey? In other words, did you give any responses that were actually just joking, trolling, or otherwise not indicating what you really think?”

Second, we included in the survey a “conspiracy theory” so ridiculous we could assume most, if not all, people who said they believed it were taking the mickey.

We asked them if they believed:

The Canadian Armed Forces have been secretly developing an elite army of genetically engineered, super intelligent, giant raccoons to invade nearby countries.

In our representative online sample of 810 New Zealanders, 8.3% of respondents confessed to being insincere in the survey.

Another 7.2% said they thought the Canadian raccoon army theory was probably or definitely true. That proportion – similar to findings from Australia – would equate to more than 300,000 adult New Zealanders.

To complicate things slightly, there was some overlap between those admitting to insincere answers and those claiming to believe the raccoon conspiracy. Combined, 13.3% of respondents fell into one or both groups – roughly one in eight people not appearing to take the survey seriously.

Importantly, these respondents were also much more likely to endorse other conspiracy theories, inflating estimates of how widespread those beliefs really are.

For instance, 6.5% of the full sample endorsed the claim that governments around the world are covering up the fact that 5G mobile networks spread coronavirus.

But once we removed the insincere responders, that figure dropped by more than half to 2.7%.

Across 13 different conspiracy theories, the estimated proportion of believers fell substantially once those respondents were excluded.

Another interesting insight from our study was that people endorsing contradictory conspiracy theories were much more likely to show signs of responding insincerely.

Previous studies have found some people appear to believe conspiracy theories that directly contradict each other. In our survey, for example, some participants agreed both that COVID-19 is a myth and that governments are covering up the fact that 5G networks spread the virus.

But nearly three-quarters of those respondents also showed signs of joking or dishonest answers.

This suggests genuinely believing contradictory conspiracy theories may be less common than previously thought.

Not every conspiracy believer is joking

Our findings add further weight to the idea that surveys may overestimate how many people truly believe some conspiracy theories – thanks, in part, to trolls.

But does that mean all conspiracy theory research is bunk?

Fortunately not. Most research in this area is not focused on counting conspiracy believers, but on understanding why people hold these beliefs and what effects they can have.

We tested several well-established findings from earlier conspiracy theory research to see whether they still held up once insincere respondents were removed from the data.

For example, previous studies have found that people who endorse conspiracy theories are more likely to see the world as a dangerous and threatening place.

We found the same pattern. In fact, removing insincere respondents made little difference to the broader relationships identified in earlier research.

Nevertheless, we recommend that future surveys include ways to gauge whether respondents are answering sincerely and account for this in the analysis. At the very least, researchers should acknowledge that trolls and joking responses can distort their results.

While our research suggests some people are taking the mickey in surveys, it also shows a significant minority genuinely appear to believe some of these claims.

In some cases – such as believing authorities are covering up the fact that the Earth is flat – this may be relatively harmless. But other conspiracy beliefs can lead to real-world harm.

Good-quality research is essential for understanding how sincere believers end up down these rabbit holes, and how those beliefs influence real-world behaviour.

Research into why people embrace conspiracy theories – and the real-world consequences of those beliefs – remains important.

But when surveys suggest millions may believe in lizard overlords or genetically engineered raccoon armies, it is also worth remembering the “Lizardman constant”: some respondents may simply be having us on.

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Rob Ross, Mathew Ling and Stephen Hill to this article.

John Kerr is supported by a Royal Society Te Apārangi Mana Tūānuku Research Leader Fellowship.

This research was supported by the Marsden Fund Council from Government funding, managed by Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Mathew Marques 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. Conspiracy theories: do 300,000 Kiwis really believe Canada is building an army of mutant super-raccoons? – https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-do-300-000-kiwis-really-believe-canada-is-building-an-army-of-mutant-super-raccoons-282478

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Joel Scanlan, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Law; Academic Co-Lead, CSAM Deterrence Centre, University of Tasmania

As of May 8 end-to-end encryption is no longer available on direct messages on Instagram.

Meta, in announcing the policy reversal, said it had done so because few people used the feature. But this has raised questions about its impact on user privacy and whether it will improve child safety on the platform.

Instagram has long been a focal point for discussion about online safety – whether in relation to body image concerns, cyberbullying or sexual extortion. This policy change by Meta directly affects how safety and moderation are implemented in private messages.

This is important considering research has found that perpetrators first contacted roughly 23% of Australian sexual extortion victims on Instagram, the second most frequent method of contact, behind Snapchat (at 50%).

What is end-to-end encryption?

End-to-end encryption is a way of scrambling a message so only the sender’s and recipient’s devices can read it. The platform carrying the message, in this case Instagram, can’t access it.

This same technology is present by default on WhatsApp, Signal, iMessage, and (since late 2023) Facebook Messenger.

Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg first promised to bring end-to-end encryption across Meta’s messaging products back in 2019, under the slogan “the future is private”.

Instagram tested encrypted direct messages in 2021. It rolled them out as an opt-in feature in 2023.

End-to-end encrypted direct messages never became the default, and the low adoption rate of opting in to use the feature is Meta’s justification for removing it. As a spokesperson told The Guardian:

Very few people were opting in to end-to-end encrypted messaging in DMs, so we’re removing this option from Instagram.

There is a circular logic to this: Meta has killed off a feature it buried so deep that most users never knew it existed, then cited low usage as the reason for its removal.

What does this mean for Instagram users?

In practical terms, every message you send on Instagram now travels in a form Meta can read.

Meta’s privacy policy lists the content of messages users send and receive among the data it collects. In principle, this enables the company to use this data to personalise features, train artificial intelligence (AI) models, and deliver targeted advertising.

While Meta has publicly committed not to train its AI models on private messages unless users actively share them with Meta AI, it has made no equivalent public commitment about advertising.

That leaves open the possibility that Meta could use unencrypted Instagram direct messages for ad targeting. And without encryption, Meta’s AI commitment is now backed by policy alone, not by the technology itself.

A clear reversal

This reads as a clear reversal of Meta’s privacy-first posture which Zuckerberg announced seven years ago.

Meta has been under sustained pressure from law enforcement, regulators and child protection organisations who argue end-to-end encryption creates spaces where platforms can’t detect child sexual exploitation and grooming. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has been clear that the deployment of end-to-end encryption “does not absolve services of responsibility for hosting or facilitating online abuse or the sharing of illegal content”.

This argument deserves to be taken seriously. The harms are real and disproportionately fall on young people.

However, sexual extortion research shows perpetrators don’t tend to stay on the platform where they make first contact, with more than 50% of sexual extortion victims saying perpetrators asked them to switch platforms.

Meta still uses end-to-end encryption on its other platforms, such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, and it needs to apply a consistent approach to child safety. Predators routinely ask victims to switch platforms, so the company’s safety approach needs to work for Instagram and their end-to-end encrypted services.

A false choice

Meta and privacy advocates often frame this as a choice between end-to-end encryption or child safety. But that’s a false choice. It’s not an “either-or” situation, even if they make it sound like one.

The technology already exists to detect harmful content while keeping messages encrypted in transit. It just has to run in the right place: on the user’s device, before the device encrypts and sends the message, or after it receives and decrypts it.

On-device approaches have a contested history, and any deployment must be genuinely privacy-preserving by design. But technology companies must weigh the objection against the harms that continue to occur. A safety by design approach is needed.

On-device safety measures have been demonstrated at scale with Apple’s on-device nudity detection for images sent or received via Messages, AirDrop and FaceTime. A 2025 study demonstrated high-accuracy grooming detection using Meta’s AI model designed specifically for on-device deployment on mobile phones.

Recently, both Apple and Google have started to take measures towards app store–based age verification in some jurisdictions.

The highest-profile real-world deployment of these is Apple enabling device-level privacy-preserving age verification in the UK.

Social media and private messaging companies, along with operating system vendors (Microsoft, Apple, and Google), all have a role to play in ensuring harmful content is detected, whether or not end-to-end encryption is used. Progress has been slow. But we, as a community, need to demand more from these companies.

Joel Scanlan is the academic co-lead of the CSAM Deterrence Centre, which is a partnership between the University of Tasmania and Jesuit Social Services, who operate Stop It Now (Australia), a therapeutic service providing support to people who are concerned with their own, or someone else’s, feelings towards children. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, the eSafety Commissioner, Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Internet Watch Foundation.

– ref. Instagram can now read all users’ private messages. Will this make kids safer or just boost ad targeting? – https://theconversation.com/instagram-can-now-read-all-users-private-messages-will-this-make-kids-safer-or-just-boost-ad-targeting-282496

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Vanessa Pirotta, Postdoctoral Researcher and Wildlife Scientist, Macquarie University

In the Strait of Gibraltar – a famous marine road connecting the Mediterranean and the Atlantic – lives a critically endangered sub-population of a few hundred long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas).

Despite their name, these dark and blubbery marine mammals aren’t technically whales – they’re large oceanic dolphins which are believed to have a navigator or lead for each pod. Hence the “pilot” part of their name.

There are two types of pilot whales – short and long-finned. They’re generally found in deep offshore waters but can appear in coastal areas. And like other dolphins, they use high frequency sounds to talk to each other in their pods. These clicks and squeaks travel shorter distances compared with the melodic songs of humpback whales.

And as a new paper led by Milou Hegeman from Aarhus University in Denmark and published in the Journal of Experimental Biology shows, the pilot whales that live in the Strait of Gibraltar are having to shout at the upper limit of their range in order to hear each other over human noises.

What’s making all that noise?

The ocean is full of sounds.

Some of these are natural, such as the sounds from fish, seals and waves. Other sounds are produced by human activities, either deliberately (for example seismic and sonar exploration) or unintentionally (for example, the sound of moving ships or other vessels).

The ocean continues to get noisier because of human-made sound – even in isolated Arctic regions. And because of its strategic location, the Strait of Gibraltar is especially noisy with the drone of cargo ships.

Spying on pilot whales

To investigate the communication and behaviour of the population of pilot whales in the Strait of Gibraltar, scientists used 6-metre poles to attach small tags to the creatures (kind of like an Airtag used to track your suitcase) with sterile suction cups positioned between the dorsal fin and blowhole.

Between 2012 to 2015, the steam attached tags to 23 different long-finned pilot whales who live in the region year-round.

These tags remained on pilot whales for up to 24 hours collecting sounds and tracking individual behaviour. The tags then floated to the surface where scientists could locate them using an antenna and collect the data from their diving activities.

More than 84 hours of recordings were made, with 1,432 pilot whale calls extracted. The tags also recorded ship noise in the area.

The researchers found there was a scarcity of pilot whale calls during periods of shipping noise. And the volume of the calls they did make were louder by about half the increase in background noise.

This means the animals are adapting to communicate in times when it is noisy – kind of like having a conversation in a crowded place and you having to raise your voice to be heard.

Other noises, other impacts

This study focuses on just one location in the ocean. But there’s increasing evidence that human-made noise is also impacting other species in other places.

For example, a 2012 study found that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Another study from 2024 found sea turtles travelling in the Galapagos were more vigilant because of increased ship noise.

But it’s not just ship noise that is impacting the animals that live in the ocean. Sonar disrupts whale diving behaviour and feeding behaviour, sometimes even potentially resulting in strandings.

Thankfully, work is being done to reduce noise pollution in the ocean – from building quieter ships to rerouting ship activity, helping ship operators drive more quietly and dialling down the noise from all human activities.

This new study is just one of many scientific contributions to learning more about our impact on our blue backyard. We can only protect what we know. And as we celebrate the 100th birthday of Sir David Attenborough, it’s worth remembering one of his many pieces of wisdom: “If we save the sea, we save our world”.

Part of this involves being more aware of sound in our sea. Because sometimes, it’s not always the visible impacts such as plastic pollution that need our attention. It might also be the impacts we can only hear.

Vanessa Pirotta 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. Squeak up! I can’t hear you: pilot whales are shouting to hear themselves over ship noise – https://theconversation.com/squeak-up-i-cant-hear-you-pilot-whales-are-shouting-to-hear-themselves-over-ship-noise-282394

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Victoria Lorrimar, Director, Centre for Technology and Human Futures, University of Notre Dame Australia

Some time earlier this year, an employee at tech giant Meta built a system to track how much each staff member was using artificial intelligence (AI).

Named “Claudeonomics” after the Claude chatbot, the system created a leaderboard ranked by the number of tokens each user was exchanging with AI models, with leaders given titles such as “Token Legend”. (Tokens are tiny chunks of text, each around four characters long, that language models use for processing.)

Meta is not alone in its fascination with “tokenmaxxing”: AI labs OpenAI and Anthropic, e-commerce company Shopify, and tech investment firm Sequoia capital are all reportedly monitoring AI usage and rewarding heavy users, some of whom burn billions of tokens in a week.

Reducing a person’s performance to a single metric can be appealing for management in large corporations. But the choice of what to measure isn’t a neutral one – and if we’re not careful, it can start to rewrite our vision of what we actually value.

The score keeps the score

One of the more full-throated advocates of tokenmaxxing is Jensen Huang, chief executive of chipmaker Nvidia, who envisions a future in which tech employees negotiate high token budgets and consume tokens at rates commensurate with their salaries. Around 80% of those tokens are currently processed via Nvidia’s chips, so Huang’s enthusiasm makes sense.

But is token consumption a helpful metric for those of us who do not profit directly from AI processing volume?

In a recent book, The Score, philosopher C. Thi Nguyen analyses the rise of metrics throughout modern society and offers some helpful insights.

As Nguyen emphasises, what we measure shapes our goals. We develop metrics as tools of convenience; they standardise our measurement of values so we can compare large numbers of otherwise disparate things.

This standardisation comes at the expense of variation and distinctiveness, Nguyen argues. In business, it can make workers seem interchangeable.

Determining which employees in a large organisation are consuming the most tokens in a week is fairly straightforward. But it tells us nothing about the quality or impact of their work.

Bad metrics, bad results

In the past, questionable metrics have contributed to dramatically bad outcomes.

Prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, for example, many financial institutions had sophisticated systems of measures designed to incentivise selling as many loans as possible, as quickly as possible. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of those loans turned out to be far riskier than anyone realised.

Nguyen emphasises that these types of metrics can tempt us into thinking they are unavoidable. But one of the central lessons of moral philosophy is that we ought to pause at moments like these and ask a couple of basic questions: what is a good life, and what values are actually worth chasing?

Huang and others usually don’t present tokenmaxxing as an answer to these question. But that’s how it functions. What is worth devoting your professional and creative energy to? Simple: grinding through tokens.

A new vision of the good life?

Silicon Valley has, of late, produced a striking number of manifestos and quasi-constitutions.

Consider Anthropic’s Claude’s Constitution, published in January 2026, which sets out the company’s aspirations for its model’s values and speech. Or look at venture capitalist Marc Andreessen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto, which makes the case for ambitiously accelerating technological advancements in the service of promoting human flourishing.

Some of the most influential texts in the history of moral and political philosophy take this form. Thomas Jefferson wrote one – the US Declaration of Independence. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote another – The Communist Manifesto.

One way to view these Silicon Valley proclamations, and trends like tokenmaxxing, is as repackaging familiar commonplaces of corporate life – recasting mission statements and key performance indicators in a loftier register. But another is to see them as attempts to do something far more ambitious: sketch the outlines of a new and far-reaching vision of the good life.

On that view, the metrics used to measure progress against the vision matter. Tokenmaxxing, for example, is already creeping beyond the bounds of the tech industry – one report from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania suggests many organisations are prioritising staff AI usage and spending as metrics.

Metrics can be useful – if we’re careful

Metrics do have their place in an ordered and complex society. There are many instances in which we might happily defer to the scores produced by simple metrics, trading nuance for convenience. Aggregate ratings on product or restaurant review sites, for example, can simplify our decision-making, even if they aren’t tailored to our specific preferences.

The problem is what Nguyen calls “value capture” – when we uncritically allow external metrics to determine our own goals and behaviour. Resisting this process involves questioning what is being measured and reframing it.

Instead of counting tokens, for example, we might use an equivalent metric such as energy consumption. Energymaxxing might sound more like conspicuous wastage, rather than improved performance.

Counting tokens is one measure of AI activity, which is itself intended as a measure of productivity, which in turn leaves aside the question of what is being produced. Not only is tokenmaxxing a dubious metric in itself, but it may also distort our vision of what matters.

Victoria Lorrimar receives funding from the John Templeton Foundation.

Tim Smartt 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. Silicon Valley’s AI ‘tokenmaxxing’ obsession has a big problem – and philosophers saw it coming – https://theconversation.com/silicon-valleys-ai-tokenmaxxing-obsession-has-a-big-problem-and-philosophers-saw-it-coming-281530

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ciara Smart, Staff member, History and Classics, University of Tasmania

Irish hip-hop group Kneecap recently released their latest album, called “Fenian”.

A proud reclamation of a painful derogatory slur, Fenian is a word that connects Irish people to a history in which they were sometimes seen as less than human.

A title packed with meaning

The word originally comes from “Fianna”, which is linked to an ancient Irish mythology. The Fianna were small groups of male Irish warriors led by the legendary hero, Fionn mac Cumhaill.

Today, however, the term is more commonly known for its association with Irish nationalism.

Since at least the 17th century, Irish people have endured religious and cultural oppression under British rule – which largely targeted the Irish Catholic population.

In the 19th century, various nationalist groups fought for Irish independence, sometimes violently. This included the Irish Republican Brotherhood, whose members were called Fenians.

The word’s meaning eventually expanded to become a derogatory term for supporters of Irish independence.

Anti-Irish stereotyping

But there’s more to this word than just its political significance. It is also entwined with a history of anti-Irish racism, also known as “hibernophobia”.

In the 19th century, interest in human evolution led to a pseudo-scientific theory called social Darwinism.

This discredited theory claimed all human “types” could be placed along a hierarchy of evolution. White Europeans were at the top, as the most “evolved”. This twisted logic was used to justify the subjugation of people in colonised territories worldwide, including Australia.

Irish Catholic people were given a position in this hierarchy – towards the bottom. Historians argue the designation of Irish Catholic people as a backwards “race” was used to rationalise their oppression. If they were an inherently “savage” people, then they were unfit to run their own government.

Fenians supposedly embodied the worst elements of the Irish character: stupidity, violence and brutishness. From this viewpoint, Fenian violence became seen as an expression of a supposedly inherent Irish character – not as a response to the British rule in Ireland.

Cartoons were published that dehumanised Fenians and drew on centuries of anti-Irish stereotyping. Fenians were drawn as “terrorists” with exaggerated facial features, making them look like chimpanzees.

In one typical example from 1866, a thuggish, simianised Fenian man menaces a beautiful feminised version of “Britannia”. Anti-Irish cartoons were even published in Australia.

This history of anti-Irish racism still normalises anti-Irish jokes today.

Who are Kneecap?

Kneecap is a rap and hip-hop trio from Northern Ireland.

The group shot to fame following the release of their 2024 semi-autobiographical film. Their music is gritty, rude and defiantly anti-colonial – belonging to a long line of Irish activists fighting to get “Brits out” of Ireland.

Kneecap want to bring Irish people together, regardless of religion, and reunite Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. The six counties of Northern Ireland were separated from the rest of Ireland in the 1921 Partition. They remain part of the United Kingdom.

Kneecap rap in English and Irish, and have been credited for revitalising the Irish language. Irish only achieved official language status in Northern Ireland in 2022, after being suppressed for much of the 20th century.

The chorus in Kneecap’s latest title song, also called Fenian, features a crowd jubilantly chanting “F-E-N-I-A-N”. The messaging is clear: they accept the label. In fact, they celebrate it.

The track was written as one of the band members, Mo Chara, faced charges of terrorism brought against him by the British government. In November 2024, Mo Chara allegedly committed a terrorist act by waving a Hezbollah flag at a London concert.

Kneecap is outspoken in its support for the Palestinian people, connecting the group to a longer history of Irish nationalists advocating for other colonised peoples.

The charges were dismissed. As Mo Chara observed in a recent interview, he’s not “the first Irish person to be called a terrorist”.

Who can use ‘Fenian’?

Although Kneecap celebrate being called “Fenians”, this word can still be understood as a cultural slur.

Recently, the band claimed it was forced to “censor” its album posters by blanking out the word Fenian. London transport authorities allegedly refused to publish the uncensored version.

Kneecap knows the power and the pain of this label, and they use it with intention. With a sense of tongue in cheek, they explain their use of the term refers to members of “a secret socialist society of sound cunts”. But they also acknowledge it can be weaponised as a derogatory slur. Context is everything.

“Fenian” can’t be untangled from a painful history of anti-Irish racism, which arguably lingers today.

It is appropriate for Kneecap to reclaim the word as a statement of cultural defiance. They use it as an empowering rejection of stigma. But it is problematic for others to use it without thinking of its deeper meaning.

Ciara Smart 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. Fenian: the anti-Irish history behind Kneecap’s defiant new album title – https://theconversation.com/fenian-the-anti-irish-history-behind-kneecaps-defiant-new-album-title-282271

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amra Lee, PhD candidate in Protection of Civilians, Australian National University

In late April, Amal Khalil, a 43-year-old Lebanese journalist, was killed in a double-tap Israeli strike in southern Lebanon. When rescue teams tried to reach her and another injured journalist, they reportedly also came under fire.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said Israel’s “deliberate and consistent targeting of journalists” was “aimed at concealing the truth of its aggressive acts against Lebanon”, despite a ceasefire that had been agreed to by Israel days earlier.

Both Aoun and Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam declared they would pursue international accountability for her death. Khalil was the ninth journalist to be killed in Lebanon so far this year. Israel says the incident is under review.

The incident had parallels to the killing of six-year-old Hind Rajab in Gaza in March 2024. She and her family were fired on by Israeli forces while trying to evacuate Gaza City by car. Hind survived the initial attack, but remained trapped for hours, on the phone with Palestinian Red Crescent workers trying to reach her.

Even after following an approved route, the two medics sent to rescue Hind in a clearly marked ambulance were killed, as was Hind herself. A subsequent investigation by Forensic Architecture found 355 bullet holes in the car carrying her and her family.

These are not isolated incidents. This is a clear pattern across war zones in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and Lebanon. Militaries using drones and AI-assisted weapons systems – marketed for their precision – are changing the face of war and driving increasing numbers of civilian deaths.

These growing attacks on civilians, journalists and humanitarian personnel are leading many to fear a new normal setting in: war without rules.

Performative adherence to law

At a Chatham House event in London last month, UN Humanitarian Chief Tom Fletcher spoke plainly: “1,000 dead humanitarians in three years – when did that become normal?”

Fletcher identified the absence of legal accountability as an enabler of escalating attacks on aid workers.

Part of this is the performative adherence to international humanitarian law – often repeated in political statements and media coverage – as militaries simultaneously carve out exceptions for the use of force.

For example, Israel has continued to issue evacuation orders for residents of southern Lebanon in recent weeks. It has cited its compliance with international humanitarian law, while also expanding its control over territory there.

When evacuation orders primarily serve to shift populations, rather than protect them, it is a violation of the rules of war.

Self-assessments of legal compliance have also enabled systematic attacks on civilian infrastructure in Lebanon to continue, such as healthcare and food and water systems. Some 1.2 million people now facing crisis levels of food insecurity.

Ceasefires, too, have become performative. Experts argue they are merely serving to divert public attention from Israel’s broader goals in both Gaza and Lebanon.

Six months on, for instance, the Gaza ceasefire is failing to meet its stated objectives. There is no peace or safety for residents. More than 800 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire came into effect and 60% of people have lost their homes. Humanitarian aid continues to be obstructed, while children suffer from acute malnutrition.

The ‘Gaza playbook’

Last month, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly threatened to make Dahiyeh, a suburb of southern Beirut, look like Khan Younis in Gaza.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has also said all “houses in villages near the Lebanese border will be destroyed, in accordance with the model used in Rafah and Beit Hanoun in Gaza”.

This is precisely what is happening now, despite the ceasefire. Israel created a “buffer zone” in Gaza where it has expanded territorial control, and the same thing is taking place in southern Lebanon.

There were countless warnings, including from the UN secretary-general, that insufficient action over Gaza would have consequences – not only for Palestinian civilians and international law, but wider peace and security.

What can be done?

Now is the time for more principled confrontation from political leaders and concerned states to clearly call out performative adherence to international law and ceasefires.

The normalisation of Israel’s “Gaza playbook” strategies in Lebanon, without sustained outside political pressure, will only continue to escalate the threats to civilians and wider international peace and security.

Middle powers have important roles to play, too. Practically speaking, states can use what’s called “universal jurisdiction” to bring domestic legal action against Israeli leaders and individuals accused of crimes. This could include legal action for the targeting of aid workers and journalists.

A broad coalition of UN member states must also come together to reinforce international law against the forces and practices undermining it.

The “Hague Group” is one such path forward. Formed in early 2025, its membership has expanded to include more than 40 nations aimed at supporting international law, the right to self-determination and the prohibition on taking territory by force.

From Gaza to Lebanon to Iran, greater political action is needed to reinforce international law. The world cannot afford the reverberating human and security costs of continued impunity and war without rules.

Amra Lee 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. Israel’s destructive actions in Lebanon are normalising war without rules – https://theconversation.com/israels-destructive-actions-in-lebanon-are-normalising-war-without-rules-281538

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

Sir David Attenborough turns 100 this week.

Very few people have the good fortune to live for a century. Fewer still achieve so much and touch so many lives.

Across his seven decade career with the BBC, Attenborough ushered in the transition from black and white to colour television. He gave the now legendary comedy troupe Monty Python their lucky break, greenlighting their Flying Circus. His keen eye and care for viewers is in part why tennis balls are yellow, not white – they’re much easier to see on screen.

But Attenborough is, of course, most famous for his nature documentaries. For decades, he has fronted the camera to educate, entertain and inspire billions of people about the complexity, wonder and majesty of the natural world, and the many threats it faces. It wasn’t a given – Attenborough was told early in his career his teeth were too big for television!

For ecologists like myself, Attenborough’s work has been a source of deep inspiration. It was instrumental in my decision to pursue a life and a career dedicated to understanding, caring and fighting for the protection of nature. For this gift, I am eternally grateful.

A career driven by curiosity

Attenborough’s connection with nature came early, forged in no small part through an insatiable fascination with fossils – including his childhood joy at discovering an ammonite in the Leicestershire countryside.

He went on to study geology and zoology at Cambridge University, graduating in 1947. He served in the navy and worked in an educational publishing house. Notably, the BBC rejected his first job application as a radio producer in 1950. But he tried again, and joined the BBC as a trainee producer in 1952.

His career in nature documentaries began to bud almost immediately, with his Zoo Quest series beginning in 1954. But it burst into full bloom with the landmark Life on Earth series in 1979, which brought distant locations, extraordinary wildlife and evolution and ecology to TV. It instilled a sense of wonder and awe in audiences, while maintaining and respecting scientific accuracy.

The master storyteller

One reason Attenborough has had such success as a communicator is his understated, calm but authoritative demeanour. When you sit down to watch an Attenborough documentary, you feel in safe hands.

His approach isn’t the norm. In other nature documentaries, wildlife can often seem secondary, as props for the presenter.

In series such as The Living Planet, The Trials of Life, The Blue Planet, The Planet Earth, and scores of others, Attenborough took us across the globe, revealing nature’s beauty, oddities and extraordinary complexity, as well as its macabre and brutal aspects. The habitats home to the world’s species are brought to life in extraordinary detail. We watch with laughter, trepidation, sadness, anger, excitement and awe, ebbing and flowing as nature’s stories unfold.

Who can forget the first time they saw and heard the extraordinary vocal repertoire and mimicry of a lyrebird, or a curious mountain gorilla’s desire to connect with a fellow great ape? The epic battle for survival between a hatchling iguana and hungry hordes of racer snakes? Or the breathtaking explosion of colour and complexity of a coral reef? Each of these was captured by master cinematographers and the story told to us by Attenborough.

Over his long career, Attenborough has become an icon. He was voted the UK’s best TV presenter of all time. But his prodigious output has come at a personal cost too. One of his regrets is how much time he has spent away from his family.

He is also not off limits to criticism. For a long time, Attenborough focused on the glory of nature, largely omitting the damage humans do through overfishing, deforestation, pollution, spreading exotic species, and other threats. He has also shied away from assigning blame to those most responsible for the harms inflicted on nature.

In 2018, he said too much focus on why so much wildlife is threatened was a “turn-off” for some viewers. Ecologists and conservation scientists can sympathise. We know bombarding people with doom and gloom invites apathy and despair, not a desire to act. It’s a hard line to walk between harsh realities and hope.

To his credit, Attenborough has belatedly focused on these issues in recent years. Footage of plastic pollution in Blue Planet II and the ravages of industrial fishing in Ocean have brought a sharp focus on these issues.

In 2020, he released A Life On Our Planet, which he describes as a “witness statement” to the startling losses of biodiversity he has seen over his lifetime. Rather than just spell out the problems, Attenborough laid out how to solve them – and the role we can all play in fixing the two biggest and deeply interwoven problems nature faces: climate change and biodiversity declines and extinctions.

While Attenborough’s earlier work largely avoided these difficult conversations, they succeeded in bringing nature’s wonder to millions of people. This shouldn’t be overlooked. At a time when more and more of us are cut off from nature, Attenborough’s documentaries forged a new connection. For people to care about losing nature, they first have to know and love it.

Conservation relies on stories

Scientific research rarely leads to the behavioural changes we might hope for. Accumulating facts and evidence is vital. But it’s not enough. What humans respond to is stories.

Alongside other globally renowned voices such as the late, great Jane Goodall, Attenborough’s work telling the stories of nature has shaped public opinion. In turn, it has galvanised conservation efforts such as the push to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.

As he celebrates his centenary, it’s encouraging to see a new generation and diversity of voices in the media and science communication, advocacy, and scientific community. They speak and share their messages with great clarity, confidence, and passion.

Attenborough is just one person. He can’t replace the vital role of scientists, community leaders, conservationists and policymakers in conserving nature. But no one will ever replace David’s distinctive voice. As he has said:

it seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living

Hear, hear. Happy birthday for May 8th, David Attenborough.

Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. Euan is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council.

– ref. From fossicking for fossils to a champion for life on Earth: Sir David Attenborough at 100 – https://theconversation.com/from-fossicking-for-fossils-to-a-champion-for-life-on-earth-sir-david-attenborough-at-100-281229

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jon Richardson, Visiting Fellow, Centre for European Studies, Australian National University

Russia has dramatically scaled back its annual Victory Day parade in Red Square on May 9, with no heavy military hardware for the first time in 20 years. There will also be fewer foreign or Russian dignitaries present.

In addition, the government has shut down airports and temporarily suspended mobile internet access ahead of the holiday.

The Kremlin says the security measures are intended to guard against Ukrainian “terrorism”. It has declared a unilateral “truce” for May 8-9, warning that any Ukrainian attacks during the celebrations could trigger a massive strike on Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected the proposal, calling it a “theatrical performance”.

As the war grinds on in Ukraine, the Kremlin’s precautions at home are remarkable – a sign that Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities have punctured one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most important political rituals, as well as the country’s seeming impregnability from the war.

Ukraine’s momentum

Under Putin’s rule, Victory Day has become more than just a commemoration of the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany. The parade, a showcase of Russian military might, has been elevated into a core ritual of legitimising his regime.

The symbolism has taken on even greater meaning since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The defeat of Nazi Germany has been fused with Putin’s bogus claim that Russia needs to defeat fictitious Nazis in Ukraine.

Last year, Putin welcomed two dozen world leaders, including Xi Jinping of China, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt.

It was seen as an attempt to project Russia’s global power and show the West’s attempts to isolate Moscow were failing.

What a difference a year makes.

Ukraine has steadily expanded its ability to hit targets far inside Russia, including oil terminals, refineries, military infrastructure and defence industries. Some targets in the Baltic Sea near St. Petersburg and in the Ural Mountains are hundreds of kilometres from Ukraine.

The mere threat of drones has prompted dozens of airport closures and hundreds of flight delays in recent months, especially in Moscow.

At the same time, Ukraine has become much more adept at repelling Russian drone attacks on its own territory, reportedly shooting down 33,000 Russian drones in March of this year alone – a record for one month.

The expansion of its unmanned ground robotic systems and deep-strike capabilities – including its Flamingo missile, which hit a defence plant 1,500 kilometres from Ukraine on May 5 – have helped Ukraine offset its disadvantages in manpower (which remains a big constraint) and ammunition.

Ukraine’s defence industrial base is a big part of the story. Kyiv says its capacity has grown 50-fold since 2022, and now accounts for 70% of its weapons procurement.

Its successes have won the admiration of its European partners and others around the world. In recent days, for example, it signed a 10-year defence export deal with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, all three of which were attacked by Iran.

And there are signs Ukraine is gaining momentum on the frontlines. Analysts say Ukrainian forces actually gained more territory than they lost in February, for the first month since 2023.

Estimates of Russian death tolls are difficult to come by, but NATO chief Mark Rutte said Russia is losing 30-35,000 soldiers per month, while Zelensky said 35,000 Russian troops were either killed or wounded in the month of March.

Cracks at home

Meanwhile, Putin has only grown more paranoid about a potential coup or assassination attempt with drones. He has reportedly sharply reduced his movements, spends more time in bunkers, and is surrounded by tighter security.

Domestic strains are growing, as well. Russia’s rate of recruitment has begun to fall short of its battlefield losses. The quality of recruits has plummeted, as well, with alcoholics reportedly being duped or pressured into signing up.

It is becoming harder to sustain recruitment without another politically risky mobilisation. That matters because Putin has long tried to convince Russians the war can be fought at a distance, without demanding too much from society at large.

Russia’s economy is suffering, too, from chronic labour shortages, negative growth, and high inflation and interest rates.

And there are increasing signs of discontent. One critic, Ilya Remeslo, a former Kremlin propagandist, for instance, publicly accused Putin of being a “war criminal”. He was arrested, but in a surprise move, was released after just 30 days and has vowed to continue his campaign against the Russian leader.

Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of Russia’s Communist Party (loyal to Putin), has warned the country’s faltering economy risks stoking a 1917-style revolution. And an anonymous former senior official wrote in The Economist that grumbling among the elite shows Putin is losing his grip on Russia.

Rising popular anger has also been triggered by the tightening of controls on the internet, including WhatsApp and Telegram, aimed at curbing dissent and criticism.

It’s too early to claim the war has turned decisively in Kyiv’s favour. The current stalemate may prevail for some time.

But the recent trends suggest Russia can no longer assume it can simply outlast Ukraine through attrition. This may well cause Putin to adjust his calculations about peace talks and his unwavering pursuit of maximalist goals.

Despite US President Donald Trump’s unfounded recent claim that Ukraine has been “militarily defeated”, Kyiv is more than holding its own. It continues to have Europe’s backing, as well, with the EU recently finalising a massive 90 billion euro (A$145 billion) loan.

As eminent strategic analyst Lawrence Freedman argues, Ukraine is succeeding by not losing. He argues Ukraine’s “Micawber strategy” – hoping that something will turn up, like the character Wilkins Micawber in Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield – could very well pay off.

Jon Richardson 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 doesn’t have much to celebrate on Victory Day, as Ukraine brings the war home to Putin – https://theconversation.com/russia-doesnt-have-much-to-celebrate-on-victory-day-as-ukraine-brings-the-war-home-to-putin-282254

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Guilherme Casarões, Associate Professor of Brazilian Studies, Florida International University

For about three hours of closed-door talks between Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and US President Donald Trump at the White House on May 7, 2026, many observers in the two countries held their breath. Since there was no official joint statement or press conference, they did not know what to expect. Despite the reported “chemistry” between both presidents at the United Nations General Assembly last September, bilateral tensions were far from resolved.

The meeting between both presidents could have gone many ways: on the surface, Brazil and the US currently stand more as geopolitical rivals than allies. Over the last few months, Lula has made several criticisms to what he saw as a renewed US unilateralism. The Trump administration, in turn, seems to be responsive to the former President Jair Bolsonaro family’s demands regarding free speech or organized crime.

But Lula wanted the conversation to succeed, not so much because of diplomatic concerns, but because he faces an uphill battle ahead of the October elections. His trip to Washington was, above all, a domestic political operation. Even if the meeting lacked specific results, the positive atmosphere reported by both presidents was a victory for Lula in the context of a presidential race that is already shaping up to be one of the most consequential in Brazil’s recent history.

Flávio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of the jailed former President Jair Bolsonaro, has mounted a formidable electoral challenge. Polls now show him in a statistical tie with Lula in a hypothetical runoff, which is a remarkable position for a candidate whose political inheritance includes a father convicted of attempting a coup d’état.

The far-right senator has made several trips to the United States over recent months, including an appearance at the conservative CPAC summit, projecting himself as the candidate who can restore Brazil’s relationship with Washington after years of what he characterizes as Lula’s anti-American drift. His pitch to Brazilian voters is simple and powerful: only a Bolsonaro can work with Trump.

That narrative has found purchase in a Brazilian electorate that is increasingly attentive to geopolitical alignments. This is not the Brazil of previous electoral cycles, where foreign policy was a footnote.

Trump as a lifeline

Since Trump’s return to the White House, the Bolsonarist movement has portrayed the U.S. president as a lifeline, not only capable of keeping Jair Bolsonaro out of jail but also helping his movement’s political comeback. Flávio has reportedly pledged significant concessions to Washington on rare earth minerals, narcoterrorism designations, and trade, presenting these as proof of loyalty to an administration that the Bolsonaro family views as friendly and like-minded.

Whether or not Trump reciprocates that loyalty in any meaningful way is almost beside the point. The image of members of the Bolsonaro dynasty in Washington, welcomed by the MAGA establishment, is itself an electoral asset.

This is precisely the vulnerability that Lula traveled to Washington to neutralize. By securing a White House meeting, the Brazilian president sent a clear signal to his domestic audience: the relationship with Washington is not broken, and it does not require a Bolsonaro to fix it. The Brazilian-only press conference that followed the meeting only served to reinforce this point.

But the trip serves a second, equally important function. Each item on the bilateral agenda maps directly onto a domestic electoral fault line for Lula. On trade and tariffs, Lula returns home able to claim that he is fighting to protect Brazilian exporters and consumers from the inflationary pressures of a trade war. On organized crime – specifically the potential US designation of drug gangs PCC and Comando Vermelho as foreign terrorist organizations – the president can portray himself as a defender of Brazilian sovereignty and judicial autonomy, resisting external interference in domestic security policy. On rare earth minerals and strategic resources, Lula can reframe what is, in essence, a negotiation over economic dependency as a story of Brazil’s rising geopolitical clout.

And on democracy itself, the contrast with the Bolsonaro family could not be starker: while the father languishes under house arrest for plotting a coup, they were not able to prevent Lula from being welcomed in Washington as a legitimate (and friendly) head of state.

Political pragmatism

It would be a mistake, however, to reduce Trump’s willingness to meet Lula to a mere diplomatic courtesy. The Trump administration has shown a consistent pragmatism beneath its ideological posturing. Its management of relations with Claudia Sheinbaum’s Mexico, its intermittent engagement with Venezuela, and now its reception of Lula all suggest that the White House can work with ideological opponents when strategic interests demand it.

Brazil, the largest economy in South America and a country with substantial reserves of the critical minerals that Washington covets for its industrial and defense supply chains, is too significant to be held hostage to electoral sympathies for the Bolsonaro family. There is also a broader regional calculus: as the United States asserts primacy across Latin America through what has become known as the “Trump Corollary”, having a cooperative Brazilian government is considerably more useful than a destabilized one.

None of this means that Lula’s Washington gambit will succeed electorally. Flávio Bolsonaro has proven to be a more disciplined and adaptable candidate than his father, and the transnational networks that animate the Bolsonarist movement extend well beyond Washington. A single White House photo-op carries only so much weight.

What the trip does illustrate, however, is the degree to which Brazilian electoral politics has become inseparable from the global contest over alignment, sovereignty, and great-power patronage. In that contest, Lula has made his move. It will hardly change the minds of those who, left or right, have already made up their minds about their candidates. But it shows to the centrist voter, if anything, that a pragmatic defense of Brazilian sovereignty can be much more efficient than ideological submission to foreign interests.

Guilherme Casarões não presta consultoria, trabalha, possui ações ou recebe financiamento de qualquer empresa ou organização que poderia se beneficiar com a publicação deste artigo e não revelou nenhum vínculo relevante além de seu cargo acadêmico.

– ref. Trump and Lula at the White House: a relationship built on pragmatism and a broader regional calculus – https://theconversation.com/trump-and-lula-at-the-white-house-a-relationship-built-on-pragmatism-and-a-broader-regional-calculus-282470

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

After weeks of blockades by Iran and the United States in the Strait of Hormuz, it’s clear the narrow waterway is now pivotal to the outcome of the conflict.

The US has begun to escort ships through the narrow passage, but behind the military manoeuvring lies a deeper development: energy security in the Persian Gulf is in a state of profound flux.

As well as the desire by both Iran and the US to control the global flow of oil, gas, helium and fertilisers from the region, the United Arab Emirates (a key US ally) has withdrawn from OPEC in what’s been called a major blow to the oil cartel.

On top of this, Iran has announced plans to introduce tariffs in the Strait of Hormuz as a form of reparations for the damage caused by the war.

If imposed, these tariffs are estimated to be worth between US$40 billion and $50 billion a year to Iran, and would potentially allow it to mitigate the impact of US economic sanctions.

Crucially, tariffs would be a way to cultivate stronger relations with China because they would be denominated in Chinese yuan, not US dollars. This has the potential to significantly alter regional and global power balances.

In fact, such payments have reportedly already been made by vessels going to China, India and Japan, with the Iranian parliament working to formalise the process. (Iran has also begun accepting payments in cryptocurrency.)

50 years of dominance

If Iran can continue to charge these tariffs it could tilt regional influence away from the US towards China and Asia by eroding the historical dominance of the petrodollar.

Essentially, the petrodollar system has seen the pricing and trading of oil in US dollars. The term dates from the 1970s when the US asked Saudi Arabia to exclusively price its oil in US dollars in return for military aid.

This spread across OPEC (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), becoming the benchmark of the global oil trade, bolstering the US dollar as the global reserve currency and underwriting US power.

Oil-producing nations amassed huge petrodollar surpluses – too much to invest only in their own economies – which were funnelled or “recycled” back into US securities and stocks, and other countries’ sovereign wealth funds.

They have become the primary source of revenue for OPEC members, as well as non-member oil exporters Qatar and Norway. This ties these countries to Washington and gives the US significant financial leverage in global affairs. The flow of petrodollars helps finance US deficits and reduce US borrowing costs.

A new paradigm?

If major regional players such as the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia pay Iranian tariffs in “petroyuans”, economist Antonio Bhardwaj has said, it would mark:

the systematic erosion of the petrodollar system and the emergence of the petroyuan as a credible, institutionally embedded alternative framework for settling global energy transactions.

It’s a sizeable “if”, but the introduction of tariffs would also pose a dilemma for countries that supported Iran in the conflict (implicitly or explicitly) and those that didn’t.

As internatinoal relations analyst Pakizah Parveen has written, we would see the emergence of:

a bifurcated global oil market: barrels from compliant parties would move through Hormuz in yuan. In contrast, non-compliant parties would incur significantly higher costs in dollar-denominated barrels.

Such a choice would affect major US allies such as Pakistan, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines, all of which have faced severe economic pressures as a result of the upheavals in the Gulf and Middle East.

Paying tariffs in petroyuan would draw them towards China and play into Beijing’s narrative of being a reliable and more stable economic force. It also mirrors Russia’s request for payment in yuan for its oil since 2025.

Decline of the petrodollar

It would be premature to argue Iranian tariffs will lead to a general “de-dollarisation” of the world economy. But they may be a step towards a devaluing of the US dollar.

By extension, any move by other countries away from the US dollar is a move away from dependence on the US financially and politically. It would also aid China’s push to internationalise the yuan.

For the first time since 1996, global central banks hold more gold in their reserves than US debt securities. The BRICS group of countries may move further away from US influence, with China, India and Brazil having all reduced their US holdings in 2025.

Overall, Iranian tariffs denominated in yuan would be another sign of an emerging multipolar world in which US preeminence is no longer a given. It would mean more strategic flexibility for all countries, great and small, but also more uncertainty.

Chris Ogden is affiliated with the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Iran wants oil tariffs paid in Chinese yuan – is the power of the US petrodollar in decline? – https://theconversation.com/iran-wants-oil-tariffs-paid-in-chinese-yuan-is-the-power-of-the-us-petrodollar-in-decline-281858