Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By John Hart, Emeritus Faculty, US government and politics specialist, Australian National University

US President Donald Trump’s efforts to deploy the military for law enforcement duties in selected American cities is likely to end up before the US Supreme Court.

If it does, the nine justices will be faced with sorting out a dog’s breakfast of constitutional and statutory laws full of contradictions and ambiguities.

Given the propensity of the current Supreme Court to support and even extend the scope of presidential authority, it could very well rule in Trump’s favour. And this would have far-reaching implications for civil liberties and democracy in the United States.

How did we get to this point, and what does the law actually say about using the National Guard in US cities?

What is Trump attempting to do?

The National Guard is made up of part-time reservists assigned to units in each state. These soldiers are typically called into service by the governors of the states where they serve to respond to disasters or large protests.

In certain circumstances, presidents can also “federalise” National Guard troops, though it rarely happens against a governor’s wishes. Before this year, the last time this happened was in Selma, Alabama, in 1965, to protect civil rights protesters.

In recent months, Trump has attempted to “federalise” the National Guard units belonging to several states and dispatch them to cities (Los Angeles, Memphis, Washington DC, Portland and Chicago) that he claims are out of control.

The troop deployments have been opposed by the Democratic governors in some of these states, then blocked or restricted by temporary restraining orders issued by federal district court judges. (The order in California was subsequently stayed by the US Court of Appeals, pending a further appeal).

There are several issues being contested:

• the conditions under which the National Guard can be mobilised by the federal government
• the degree of collaboration between federal and state governments in issuing orders to the National Guard, and
• the prohibition on the military being used for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Trump’s moves are testing the uncertain boundaries of all these constraints on executive power. But, more significantly, he is also challenging the long-standing American tradition of keeping the military out of domestic politics.

What are the legal issues at play?

The constitutional authority to deploy the National Guard is actually assigned to Congress, not the president. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to “provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”. Militias have been interpreted to include the National Guard.

However, the Constitution also charges the president with two very significant duties. The first is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; the second is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. These two duties can amount to a significant grant of power in times of crisis.

The Trump administration will almost certainly argue he is deploying the National Guard in these US cities to carry out these duties.

There’s a bigger issue for Trump, though. Another law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, makes it illegal for federal troops to engage in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorised by the Constitution or the law.

Trump is currently acting without this explicit legal authorisation. However,
as the Brennan Center for Justice has recently pointed out, there are 26 different laws that allow for the military to execute the law in specific situations. These exceptions undermine the purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act, making the case for urgent reform of the law.

What about the Insurrection Act?

One of these exceptions is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which gives the president the power to use the military or federalise National Guard troops to put down domestic uprisings. Since the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the act has seldom been used.

Trump said this week he would consider invoking the act to “get around” any court decisions blocking his move to deploy National Guard troops in US cities.

He also claimed the demonstrations against the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Portland amounted to a “criminal insurrection”.

Trump then ramped up the rhetoric and the hyperbole even further by calling for the jailing of Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson for failing to protect ICE agents in that city.

The demonstrations against Trump’s immigration policies in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago are nowhere near meeting the definition of insurrection.

But, as the president told the meeting of military generals in Virginia last week, he is keen to push the bounds on using the military in domestic affairs. Or, as he put it, to use these cities as “training grounds” for the armed forces.

If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favour on this issue, it would be tantamount to saying the president is the only arbiter on whether a political protest amounts to an insurrection and when it’s necessary to use the military to quell it.

It would also expand the scope for Trump to use the military in other areas of domestic politics.

The president has already deployed the military for border protection, so patrolling universities or even the lines outside polling stations on election day could be next.

John Hart 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. Explainer: what powers does Trump actually have to deploy the military to US cities? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-powers-does-trump-actually-have-to-deploy-the-military-to-us-cities-267109

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

[…]we took the freedom of speech away.

We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military[…]

They’re poisoning the blood of our country.

Stand back and stand by.

The president has been saying it out loud all along.

During his first administration, in 2019, US President Donald Trump said the Constitution gave him “the right to do whatever I want”. Five years later, the Supreme Court affirmed that view when it ruled the president has quasi-regal powers of immunity for “official acts”.

And then last week at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, Trump’s existential threat to American democracy escalated significantly.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had assembled around 800 of the United States military’s top leaders. Hegseth convened the conference in an attempt to impose an ex-National Guard major’s authority on America’s professional military leadership. He reduced professionalism to physical appearance and fitness standards dressed up as “the warrior ethos” and “lethality”.

His speech was a charge of far-right talking points. Obesity and beards are out. Hyper-masculinisation and misogyny are in.

No more identity months, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) offices, dudes in dresses, no more climate change worship, no more division, distraction or gender delusions – we are done with that shit.

Trump commandeered the event. The president’s stream-of-consciousness, campaign-style speech took an even more radical turn.

His disdain for the admirals and generals was clear from the outset. “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room – of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future.”

From both Hegseth and Trump, the message was clear. The military leaders in the room – who have all sworn an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution (not, it should be noted, the commander-in-chief) – should consider themselves nothing more than obedient servants of the president.

That in itself would represent a radical shift in civil-military relations.

But Trump, as he always does, took things even further.

He said:

I told Pete [Hegseth] we should use some of these dangerous cities [Washington DC, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Portland] as training grounds for our military.

The president of the United States has decided that the US military, which is now meant to be more focused than ever on “lethality”, should include American cities and the people who live in them in their operational plans.

‘Do whatever the hell you want’

Trump’s main audience for this speech, as usual, was not really the people in the room. It was his MAGA (Make America Great Again) base, a movement that he knows well and plays like a virtuoso. The same base he told to “stand back and stand by” in 2020, just before the January 6 insurrection.

We can bet they are listening. That base knows, instinctively – as does the leadership of the movement – that Trump’s promise of no consequences extends beyond the military. He showed them that when he pardoned those that had tried to overthrow a democratically elected government on his behalf.

This context matters, because Trump, Hegseth and the rest are reshaping not just the military but the entire federal government in their ideological image. Through mass layoffs and recruitment – all laid out in Project 2025 – they are consolidating their power everywhere.

The cities Trump wants the military to use as “training grounds” are the same cities being targeted by violent, oppressive enforcement of the Trump administration’s “mass deportations” policy, led by the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In practice, those operations include the arbitrary arrest and detention of American citizens and the denial of legal rights and due process. In Chicago, where Trump has just deployed the National Guard, raids have reportedly included pulling children naked from their beds in the middle of the night and separating them from their mothers. Those same agencies using these practices are clashing with protesters in increasingly violent confrontations, and the National Guard is being deployed as reinforcement.

At times during his speech, Trump spoke directly to “border patrol, ICE” saying that if they were spat at or had bricks thrown at their vehicles, “you get out of that car and you can do whatever the hell you want to do”.

The president then went on to immediately compare this to the administration’s attacks on Venezuelan boats in international waters, which the New York City Bar Association has described as “unlawful executions”. As Trump put it: “we take them out.”

ICE is currently engaged in a program of mass recruitment, spending $30 billion to find 10,000 new deportation officers, even going so far as to offer $50,000 bonuses. In July, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that recruits were needed because “Together, we must defend the homeland”.

This blood-and-soil style violent nationalism infuses everything the administration is doing, from its recruitment to its firings, from its promises to crackdown on the “radical left” to its suppression of free speech.

The president has repeatedly told the movement behind him, and the military and law enforcement agencies, directly and indirectly, that they are free to impose this radical vision for America violently – without fear of consequence.

An American tragedy

Trump has long mused about using the military against his own people. According to former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, during his first administration, enraged at Black Lives Matter protests, Trump reportedly asked “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?”

On Thursday US time, NBC reported that officials in the White House were having “increasingly serious discussions” about invoking the Insurrection Act, which would allow the President to deploy the military domestically for civilian law enforcement. That process is now, according to an unnamed source, on its way up “an escalatory ladder”.

As has been noted many times, Trump is now surrounded by people who are all-in on his agenda. The guardrails have been dismantled.

What Trump suggested in Quantico would mean the use of unaccountable, unsanctioned force against American citizens delivered by the all-volunteer personnel of the US military.

None of the assembled generals or admirals walked out when he said that.

In the absence of resistance, this transforms the US military into a domestic political tool of the executive and turns American military leaders into the enforcers of presidential political will against the American people themselves.

The meeting at Quantico was a transformation point in the second Trump presidency. It turned the assembled admirals and generals into a de facto enemy of the people.

It transforms the United States into an autocracy and the presidency into a dictatorship.

This is the tragedy of Trump’s America.

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. Trump’s tragedy: the US becomes an autocracy and the presidency, a dictatorship – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tragedy-the-us-becomes-an-autocracy-and-the-presidency-a-dictatorship-266675

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michael J. I. Brown, Associate Professor in Astronomy, Monash University

A proposed constellation of satellites has astronomers very worried. Unlike satellites that reflect sunlight and produce light pollution as an unfortunate byproduct, the ones by US startup Reflect Orbital would produce light pollution by design.

The company promises to produce “sunlight on demand” with mirrors that beam sunlight down to Earth so solar farms can operate after sunset.

It plans to start with an 18-metre test satellite named Earendil-1 which the company has applied to launch in 2026. It would eventually be followed by about 4,000 satellites in orbit by 2030, according to the latest reports.

So how bad would the light pollution be? And perhaps more importantly, can Reflect Orbital’s satellites even work as advertised?

Bouncing sunlight

In the same way you can bounce sunlight off a watch face to produce a spot of light, Reflect Orbital’s satellites would use mirrors to beam light onto a patch of Earth.

But the scale involved is vastly different. Reflect Orbital’s satellites would orbit about 625km above the ground, and would eventually have mirrors 54 metres across.

When you bounce light off your watch onto a nearby wall, the spot of light can be very bright. But if you bounce it onto a distant wall, the spot becomes larger – and dimmer.

This is because the Sun is not a point of light, but spans half a degree in angle in the sky. This means that at large distances, a beam of sunlight reflected off a flat mirror spreads out with an angle of half a degree.

What does that mean in practice? Let’s take a satellite reflecting sunlight over a distance of roughly 800km – because a 625km-high satellite won’t always be directly overhead, but beaming the sunlight at an angle. The illuminated patch of ground would be at least 7km across.

Even a curved mirror or a lens can’t focus the sunlight into a tighter spot due to the distance and the half-degree angle of the Sun in the sky.

Would this reflected sunlight be bright or dim? Well, for a single 54 metre satellite it will be 15,000 times fainter than the midday Sun, but this is still far brighter than the full Moon.

The balloon test

Last year, Reflect Orbital’s founder Ben Nowack posted a short video which summarised a test with the “last thing to build before moving into space”. It was a reflector carried on a hot air balloon.

In the test, a flat, square mirror roughly 2.5 metres across directs a beam of light down to solar panels and sensors. In one instance the team measures 516 watts of light per square metre while the balloon is at a distance of 242 metres.

For comparison, the midday Sun produces roughly 1,000 watts per square metre. So 516 watts per square metre is about half of that, which is enough to be useful.

However, let’s scale the balloon test to space. As we noted earlier, if the satellites were 800km from the area of interest, the reflector would need to be 6.5km by 6.5km – 42 square kilometres. It’s not practical to build such a giant reflector, so the balloon test has some limitations.

So what is Reflect Orbital planning to do?

Reflect Orbital’s plan is “simple satellites in the right constellation shining on existing solar farms”. And their goal is only 200 watts per square metre – 20% of the midday Sun.

Can smaller satellites deliver? If a single 54 metre satellite is 15,000 times fainter than the midday Sun, you would need 3,000 of them to achieve 20% of the midday Sun. That’s a lot of satellites to illuminate one region.

Another issue: satellites at a 625km altitude move at 7.5 kilometres per second. So a satellite will be within 1,000km of a given location for no more than 3.5 minutes.

This means 3,000 satellites would give you a few minutes of illumination. To provide even an hour, you’d need thousands more.

Reflect Orbital isn’t lacking ambition. In one interview, Nowack suggested 250,000 satellites in 600km high orbits. That’s more than all the currently catalogued satellites and large pieces of space junk put together.

And yet, that vast constellation would deliver only 20% of the midday Sun to no more than 80 locations at once, based on our calculations above. In practice, even fewer locations would be illuminated due to cloudy weather.

Additionally, given their altitude, the satellites could only deliver illumination to most locations near dusk and dawn, when the mirrors in low Earth orbit would be bathed in sunlight. Aware of this, Reflect Orbital plan for their constellation to encircle Earth above the day-night line in sun-synchronous orbits to keep them continuously in sunlight.

Bright lights

So, are mirrored satellites a practical means to produce affordable solar power at night? Probably not. Could they produce devastating light pollution? Absolutely.

In the early evening it doesn’t take long to spot satellites and space junk – and they’re not deliberately designed to be bright. With Reflect Orbital’s plan, even if just the test satellite works as planned, it will sometimes appear far brighter than the full Moon.

A constellation of such mirrors would be devastating to astronomy and dangerous to astronomers. To anyone looking through a telescope the surface of each mirror could be almost as bright as the surface of the Sun, risking permanent eye damage.

The light pollution will hinder everyone’s ability to see the cosmos and light pollution is known to impact the daily rhythms of animals as well.

Although Reflect Orbital aims to illuminate specific locations, the satellites’ beams would also sweep across Earth when moving from one location to the next. The night sky could be lit up with flashes of light brighter than the Moon.

The company did not reply to The Conversation about these concerns within deadline. However, it told Bloomberg this week it plans to redirect sunlight in ways that are “brief, predictable and targeted”, avoiding observatories and sharing the locations of the satellites so scientists can plan their work.

The consequences would be dire

It remains to be seen whether Reflect Orbital’s project will get off the ground. The company may launch a test satellite, but it’s a long way from that to getting 250,000 enormous mirrors constantly circling Earth to keep some solar farms ticking over for a few extra hours a day.

Still, it’s a project to watch. The consequences of success for astronomers – and anyone else who likes the night sky dark – would be dire.

Michael J. I. Brown receives research funding from the Australian Research Council.

Matthew Kenworthy receives research funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

– ref. A US startup plans to deliver ‘sunlight on demand’ after dark. Can it work – and would we want it to? – https://theconversation.com/a-us-startup-plans-to-deliver-sunlight-on-demand-after-dark-can-it-work-and-would-we-want-it-to-264323

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

Back in the 1980s, when Shimon Sakaguchi was a young researcher in immunology, he found it difficult to get his research funded. Now, his pioneering work which explains how our immune system knows when and what to attack, has won him a Nobel prize.

Sakaguchi, along with American researchers Mary Brunkow and Fred Ramsdell, were jointly awarded the 2025 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for their work on regulatory T-cells, known as T-regs for short, a special class of immune cells which prevent our immune system from attacking our own body.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, Sakaguchi tells us about his journey of discovery and the potential treatments it could unlock.

Sakaguchi was inspired by an experiment involving newborn mice conducted by his colleagues at the Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute in Nagoya.  They’d removed the thymus from mice three days after they were born. It was already known that the thymus is important in the development of immune self-tolerance: it’s where T-cells, a type of lymphocyte or white blood cell, that could attack the body are isolated and destroyed. Sakaguchi was intrigued by what happened. He said that if you remove the thymus in a normal mouse in the neonatal period, you would expect immune deficiency because the lymphocytes are gone.

But what happened is just the opposite: they developed autoimmune diseases.  This disease is very similar to what we see in humans … but of course, human patients are not removed of the thymus, so there must a common mechanism, which can explain spontaneous autoimmune diseases in humans.

Sakaguchi  decided to try a new experiment to stop the mice’s immune system going into overdrive. When he took some T-cells from genetically identical mice and injected them back into the mice who’d had their thymus removed, he found that autoimmune disease can be prevented. “ This suggests that there must be a T-cell population which can prevent disease development,” he said.

In the 1980s, Sakaguchi said it was not easy to get research funding “because the immunology community were very sceptical about the existence of such cells”. He spent time in the US and he says he was “very fortunate” to be supported by a grant from a private foundation.

After ten years of looking, he published a paper in 1995 setting out his discovery of regulatory T-cells, which act as the body’s security guard, controlling any adverse reactions and keeping the immune system in balance in a process called peripheral tolerance. When these T-regs don’t work properly, this can cause autoimmune diseases. Later work by Sakaguchi, and his fellow laureates Brankow and Ramsdell, discovered the specific gene, called Foxp3 that controlled T-regs.

Cancer, auto-immune treatments and more

When Sakaguchi started out, his interest was in autoimmune diseases and how they occur. “But in the course of my research we have gradually understood that T-regs are more important,” he says. These cells are now implicated in the way cancer attacks the body, as well as the acceptance of organ donations. Sakaguchi is also working on new ways to harness T-regs for treatment, and also on converting other, attacking types of T-cells, into T-regs to target specific autoimmune diseases.

His immediate hope is that some of the clinical trials for cancer immunotherapy can become a reality for treating patients. But he’s also fascinated by recent research which shows the importance of T-regs in diseases which cause inflammation – and what this could mean for potential to repair damaged tissue.

Neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, all involve inflammation. By just targeting that kind of inflammation, we maybe [could] stop the disease progressions, or delay the disease progression. We hope that it is very true and then it really works for such diseases.

Listen to the interview with Shimon Sakaguchi on The Conversation Weekly podcast.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was produced by Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood and is hosted by Gemma Ware. Mixing and sound design by Michelle Macklem and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Shimon Sakaguchi is the scientific founder and a director of RegCell, a Japanese start-up working on treatments based on regulatory T-cells. He is also a scientific advisor for biotechnology company Coya Therapeutics.

– ref. Nobel laureate Shimon Sakaguchi on his immune system breakthrough – and the treatments he hopes it will unlock – https://theconversation.com/nobel-laureate-shimon-sakaguchi-on-his-immune-system-breakthrough-and-the-treatments-he-hopes-it-will-unlock-267054

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dana El Kurd, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond

Tony Blair, the man being tapped by U.S. President Donald Trump to help oversee governance of a postwar Gaza, has ample experience with peace processes.

As British prime minister, Blair helped usher through the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that did much to end decades of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. After leaving office, he was also special envoy to the so-called Quartet – a diplomatic effort to find a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the subsequent devastation in Gaza, described recently as genocide by a U.N. body, make clear, that attempt failed.

The 20-point peace plan that negotiators are currently discussing in Egypt is light on details. But it outlines the return of the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas, the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip and the creation of an international security force to operate on the ground. Notably, the plan does not support the removal of Palestinians from Gaza – something that was present in previous proposals by the Trump administration and which human rights advocates noted amounts to ethnic cleansing.

On Oct. 8, 2025, Trump announced that an initial phase involving the exchange of hostages for prisoners and a pause in fighting had been agreed upon. But negotiations continue on sticking points, including the disarming of the militant group.

Among other things, the deal also provisions a postwar Gaza governed by an interim “technocratic” and “apolitical” Palestinian committee. This temporary body will be overseen by a “Board of Peace” run by Trump himself. Other unspecified members will be added, but the only one mentioned in the proposals is Blair, who according to reports had been in talks with the Trump administration for some time crafting the current peace plan.

As a scholar of international relations and Palestinian politics, I fear the proposal contains the same limitations and failings that plagued previous peace plans pushed on Palestinians from outside bodies – including both Blair’s Quartet efforts and the earlier Oslo Accords – and too little of what made Northern Ireland peace stick.

A plan rooted in ‘illiberal peace’

The biggest shortcoming critics find with the current plan is that it does nothing to definitively address the right of Palestinians to self-determination and sovereignty – a right enshrined in international law.

Nor does the plan include any meaningful Palestinian input, either through legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people or through mechanisms to ensure the Palestinian public’s buy-in.

Instead, the new framework is asymmetric, providing the Israeli government many of its political objectives while imposing multiple layers of international control on and vague assurances to the Palestinian people – and only if they comply.

As such, the plan continues the trend of what political scientists describe as “illiberal peace” in conflict resolution.

In a 2018 paper, scholars described an “illiberal peace” as one in which “cessation of armed conflict is achieved in ways that are … unashamedly authoritarian.” Such a peace is achieved through “methods that eschew genuine negotiations among parties to the conflict, reject international mediation and constraints on the use of force, disregard calls to address underlying structural causes of conflict, and instead rely on instruments of state coercion and hierarchical structures of power.”

Past examples include conflict management in the Kurdish region of Turkey, Chechnya under Russian control and the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Northern Ireland case study

That stands in contrast to peace agreements that have succeeded elsewhere using more inclusive diplomatic frameworks, like in Northern Ireland.

For 30-plus years, the territory was engulfed in sectarian violence between the mainly Protestant “loyalists” who wanted to remain part of the U.K. and the Catholic minority that wished to be part of a united, independent Irish republic.

To end this armed conflict, the peace process included all relevant parties, including militant groups on all sides.

The Northern Ireland peace process also explicitly engaged with the Irish public and offered the people input through two separate referendum votes. People in Northern Ireland voted on whether to support the plan, and people in the Republic of Ireland voted on whether to authorize the Irish state to sign the agreement.

This inclusive and democratic process has been able to sustain a cessation of conflict for the past 27 years.

While Blair didn’t start the Northern Ireland peace process, his government played a pivotal role, and it was he who memorably noted “the hand of history” on the shoulder of those involved in the final days of negotiation.

A failed Oslo counterexample

The Northern Ireland process stands in direct contrast to many of the failed peace processes attempted in the Middle East, which fall more in line with the “illiberal peace” concept.

The most serious push for lasting peace was the Oslo Accords in 1993, in which the Palestine Liberation Organization accepted Israel’s right to exist, forgoing its claims to much of historic Palestine, in return for Israel’s acknowledgment of the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

That process led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority, which was meant to exercise limited governance on an interim basis, and presidential and parliamentary elections in order to facilitate the input of the Palestinian public. But as many former U.S. officials have since admitted, the accords were asymmetric: They offered Palestinians recognition under the PLO but little pathway to achieve a negotiated solution under conditions of occupation by a far more powerful sovereign country.

That peace process fell apart when that asymmetry became clear. The two parties meant very different things when they used the word “state.” The Israel government envisioned some form of limited self-governance for the Palestinians and continued its settlement expansion and military occupation. The Palestinians, on the other hand, envisioned a legitimate state exercising sovereignty.

Adding to the problems, Palestinians never had equal negotiating power, and the accords lacked a neutral arbiter in the U.S., the leading mediator.

Oslo was intended to be a time-limited process to give negotiators space to resolve outstanding conflict issues. In practice, it served to give long-term diplomatic cover for a status quo in which Israeli governments moved away from a two-state solution while Palestinians became more politically and geographically fragmented under worsening hardship and violence.

The Oslo peace process fell apart in the early years of Blair’s government, at the same time as he was helping put the finishing touches on the Good Friday Agreement.

The necessity of public buy-in and an inclusive process was evident to many onlookers to the divergent fortunes of both peace processes.

Repeating failed lessons in Gaza?

In the Israeli-Palestinian context today, Blair risks repeating the mistakes of Oslo. He is poised to sit on an undemocratic international body overseeing a people under a de facto military occupation.

Further, while the Trump plan is reliant on Hamas’ approval, there is no role for the group after the initial stage. In fact, the framework explicitly states that Hamas must be excised from any future discussions of postwar Gaza. Moreover, no other Palestinian group has any direct involvement; Hamas’ main rival Fatah – the party that is in control of the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank – is only briefly mentioned. As for that Palestinian Authority, there is only a vague line about reforming the body.

Similarly, there has been no mention of what the Palestinian people might actually want. In this way, the body being proposed recalls the creation of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority during the invasion of Iraq. That body governed Iraq immediately following the invasion and was criticized for corruption and lack of transparency.

The failure of the Iraq War, and the U.K.’s involvement in it, contributed to Blair’s resignation as prime minister in 2007, after which he took on the role of special envoy to the Quartet. Led by the U.N., U.S., EU and Russia, the Quartet was tasked with preserving some form of the two-state solution and implementing economic development plans in Palestinian cities.

But it, too, failed to address the changing political realities on the ground as Israeli settlements expanded and the military occupation deepened.

The underlying assumption about the Quartet, critics contend, is that it largely ignored the Palestinian right to self-determination and sovereignty; rather, it focused on marginally improving economic conditions and Band-Aid initiatives.

The latest U.S.-backed proposal cribs heavily from the approach. Even if it does bring about a welcome respite from the suffering in Gaza in the short term, I believe a durable, mutually agreed upon resolution to the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires what Trump’s plan sidelines: Palestinian self-determination.

In Northern Ireland, Blair once understood the importance of neutral mediation and the buy-in of all parties to the conflict and the people themselves. The plan he is involved with now appears to be operating with a far different calculus.

Dana El Kurd is affiliated with the Arab Center Washington.

– ref. Gaza peace plan risks borrowing more from Tony Blair’s failures in the Middle East than his success in Northern Ireland – https://theconversation.com/gaza-peace-plan-risks-borrowing-more-from-tony-blairs-failures-in-the-middle-east-than-his-success-in-northern-ireland-266742

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin

After two years of violence and the deaths of 68,000 Palestinians and more than 1,200 Israelis, most of them civilians, it has been reported that Hamas and the Netanyahu government will sign a phase 1 ceasefire agreement. This is the first part of a 20-point plan promoted by the US president, Donald Trump, and supported by the major Arab power brokers in the region.

What we know so far is that Israel will cease it’s military assault in Gaza. Hamas, meanwhile, has agreed to free the remaining 20 Israeli hostages still alive in Gaza.

The Conversation’s international affairs editor Jonathan Este spoke with Scott Lucas, a Middle East expert at University College Dublin, who addressed several key issues.

How is this different to previous ceasefire agreements?

Until we have details, this agreement is similar to the phase 1 60-day ceasefire at the start of 2025. There is a pause in the killing, particularly from the Israeli side, but lasting arrangements remain to be confirmed.

The key difference is that Hamas released only some hostages and bodies in the previous ceasefire. This time they are freeing all hostages and the bodies which can be collected, in return for a still unannounced number of Palestinian detainees released from Israeli prisons.

That gives up Hamas’s main leverage against not only Israeli attacks but also the Netanyahu government’s occupation and veto on aid to Gaza.

So key elements of a lasting deal – the extent of the Israeli military’s withdrawal, the restoration of aid, the establishment of governance and security in the Strip – will rest on guarantees and who provides them.

What are the possible sticking points for the rest of the deal?

The immediate “sticking points” are whether central provisions will be agreed in further discussions.

The Israelis will demand complete disarmament by Hamas and possibly the expulsion of some of its officials. Hamas is likely to respond with rejection of any forced removals and its retention of “defensive” weapons.

The make-up of the international “board” overseeing the strip is vague beyond Donald Trump declaring himself the chair and no provision for any Palestinian representation. Hamas will probably seek some Palestinian membership.

At this point, the International Stabilization Force for the Strip is a wish rather than a plan. Israeli agreement to a force replacing its military in Gaza is far from assured, especially as it is not clear who will contribute personnel. The Italian foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, has offered to send troops to contribute to the force.

The plan for a day-to-day government to administer the Strip is equally sketchy. While the presence of Palestinian technocrats is mentioned in Trump’s “plan”, we do not know who these will be. We know that Hamas is excluded. Israel is also likely to veto the Palestinian Authority in the short-term. And the release from imprisonment of potential Palestinian leaders – such as Marwan Barghouti, who has been held by Israel for more than 20 years – is not confirmed.

And before consideration of all of these, there is the question of the far-right in the Netanyahu cabinet. The finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, have yet to comment on the latest news, but have previously opposed any deal short of the “total” defeat of Hamas and a long-term Israeli occupation. Neither have threatened to block the agreement – so far – but they have expressed opposition.

How much of this is due to pressure from Arab states?

While many headlines are likely to give the credit to Trump and his envoys, son-in-law Jared Kushner and real estate developer Steve Witkoff, the role of Arab states has been vital.

A month after Israel shattered Qatar’s sovereignty with the airstrike trying to assassinate Hamas’s negotiators, the Gulf state and Egypt were the brokers of this Phase 1 agreement. Behind the scenes, other Arab states and Turkey were urging Hamas to accept the Trump “plan” in principle and to reach a deal to release the hostages.

Those states will be needed for the next phase, particularly if Trump threatens to return to his previous position of a blank cheque for Israeli military operations and cut-off of aid.

---

Read more:
Middle East leaders condemn Israel’s attack on Qatar as Netanyahu ends all talk of Gaza ceasefire – expert Q&A

---

Is there a future for Palestinian civilians in Gaza?

I hope so. The immediate issue is survival. The Israeli attacks have been paused. The urgent issue is getting essential aid into the Strip. Then it is a matter of being able to return to what is left of homes. The Trump administration has dropped its talk of displacement, stemming the demand of Netanyahu’s far-right ministers for the removal of many Gazans.

However, after two years of scorched-earth tactics by Israel, little is left of many of those homes. The majority of the health sector has been destroyed, as have many schools and other public buildings. Rafah has been razed, and Gaza City’s high rises have been blown apart.

Recovery cannot just focus on the profits to be made – including for Trump, Kushner, and Gulf state business interests – from the “development” of Trump’s “Riviera of the Middle East”. It has to begin with day-to-day subsistence for the civilians who have paid the heaviest price in this mass killing.

Does Trump get his Nobel peace prize now?

I don’t care. Sometimes good things happen from a convergence of cynical and self-serving motives. Trump is desperate for the Nobel peace prize because Barack Obama received it in 2009. Kushner, whose investment fund is bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and Gulf state entrepreneurs see the possibility of large profits. US-Gulf relations need to be repaired after the shock of Israel’s airstrike inside Qatar.

If that means lives are saved, fine. But those lives need to be saved not just for today or tomorrow. They need to be respected and supported with a lasting agreement for security and welfare.

And that would mean a two-state solution for both Palestinians and Israelis – something which the Netanyahu government and the Trump administration will not countenance. For Netanyahu and his ministers are devoted to expanding Israel’s illegal settlements, with the accompanying threat of violence, in the West Bank.

Celebrate phase 1 on the behalf of the Israeli hostages, their families, and Gaza’s civilians. And be clear about what is needed for phase 2, phase 3 and beyond.

Scott Lucas 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 and Hamas agree ceasefire deal – what we know so far: expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/israel-and-hamas-agree-ceasefire-deal-what-we-know-so-far-expert-qanda-267113

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Reihana Mohideen, Principal Advisor, Just Energy Transition and Health, Nossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne

For the first time, renewables have toppled coal as the world’s leading source of electricity, in keeping with International Energy Agency projections for this historic shift.

But progress is uneven. The shift away from fossil fuels has slowed in the United States and the European Union – but accelerated sharply in developing nations.

China attracts headlines for the sheer scale of its shift. But many smaller nations are now taking up clean energy, electric vehicles and battery storage at remarkable speed, driven by governments, businesses and individuals.

Importantly, these moves often aren’t about climate change. Reasons range from cutting dependence on expensive fossil fuels and international market volatility to reducing reliance on unreliable power grids to finding ways to boost livelihoods.

Pakistan’s enormous solar boom is partly a response to spiking power prices and grid unreliability. Meanwhile Pacific nations see clean energy as a way to slash the crippling cost of importing diesel and expand electricity access.

My research has given me insight into the paths four countries in South Asia have taken to seize the benefits of clean technology, each shaped by unique pressures and opportunities. All are moving rapidly, blending necessity with ambition. Their stories show the clean energy path isn’t one-size-fits-all.

Bhutan: from hydropower giant to diversified energy

The landlocked Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan has long relied on hydroelectricity. But the country faces a persistent challenge: seasonal variability.

Most of Bhutan’s plants are run-of-the-river, meaning they don’t have large dams. As a result, power generation drops sharply during dry winter months when river flows are low, particularly between January and April.

At the same time, rapid industrialisation has driven up demand for power, outstripping winter capacity. Climate change is expected to worsen this variability.

During these months, Bhutan shifts from its role as clean-energy exporter to an importer, buying electricity from India. But imports aren’t a long-term solution.

To secure reliable supply year-round, Bhutan’s government is diversifying energy sources. To that end, up to 300 megawatts of solar is expected to be installed, potentially as soon as next year. Bhutan’s first utility-scale solar farm is under construction.

Over time, Bhutan will blend hydro with solar, wind and biomass to create a more balanced clean energy mix.

Nepal: electric cars in Kathmandu

Nepal has long imported all its petrol from India. But when India launched an unofficial blockade in 2015, vital supplies and fuel tankers stopped coming. Fuel prices surged. People queued for days at petrol stations, while black-market prices soared and public transport collapsed. Households, already enduring many hours of daily blackouts, faced even worse conditions.

The crisis exposed Nepal’s deep vulnerability. The mountainous nation makes its own electricity, largely through hydropower. But it had to import petrol.

In 2018, authorities launched an ambitious program to shift to electric vehicles and free the nation from dependence on imports. Electric vehicles would charge on domestic hydropower and reduce Kathmandu’s well-known air pollution. The plan called for electric vehicles to reach 90% share of new commuter vehicle sales (including popular two-wheelers) by 2030.

This year, the electric vehicle share for new four-wheel vehicles reached 76%, jumping rapidly in just the past year. Exemptions and incentives have supported this growth. As electric vehicles surge, new charging station and maintenance businesses have emerged.

It’s not all smooth sailing. A protest movement recently overthrew Nepal’s government, creating uncertainty. Analysts warn stable government policy and infrastructure investment will be essential.

Sri Lanka: innovation emerging from crisis

Between 2022 and 2023, a serious economic crisis hit Sri Lanka. Citizens reeled from severe energy shocks, such as fuel shortages, 12-hour blackouts and punishing electricity price hikes of over 140%. Half a million people were disconnected from the grid as they were unable to pay.

The crisis showed how fragile the island nation’s energy system was. Authorities looked for better options. Hydroelectricity has long been a mainstay, but solar and wind are growing rapidly.

Sri Lanka runs on about 50% renewables, with hydro the largest contributor by far. By 2030, the goal is to reach 70% renewable energy.

While renewables offer cheap power, they have to be coupled with energy storage and new systems to integrate them into the grid.

In response, universities, international partners and companies have worked to integrate renewable energy in the grid, developing artificial intelligence-based systems to improve reliability and supply to consumers. For instance, they can reduce voltage fluctuations associated with high uptake of rooftop solar. Importantly, some of these projects have a gender focus, prioritising women-led small enterprises and training for women engineers.

The crisis may prove a turning point by exposing vulnerabilities and pushing Sri Lanka to adopt new energy solutions.

Maldives: bringing solar to diesel-dependent islands

Few countries are more vulnerable to fossil fuel dependence than the Maldives. Spread across 1,000 islands, the nation relies on imported diesel for power generation, with high transport costs and exposure to oil price swings.

In 2014, Maldivian authorities launched the Preparing Outer Islands for Sustainable Energy Development project as part of a plan to reach net-zero by 2030. The project focuses on around 160 poorer islands further from the capital, progressively replacing a reliance on diesel generators with solar arrays, battery storage and upgraded power grids.

Women’s economic empowerment is a priority, as women-led enterprises run solar systems and utilities train female operations officers. The Maldives government released a 2030 roadmap, which has a welcome focus on the “just energy transition” – ensuring communities benefit equitably.

For the Maldives, renewables are more than an environmental choice — they are a lifeline for economic survival and resilience.

Lessons from the margins

While these energy transitions rarely make global headlines, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives show how smaller economies are finding their own pathways to cleaner, more resilient energy.

Their reasons to act stem from different crises, from blockades to economic upheaval. But each nation is working to turn challenge into opportunity.

Reihana Mohideen has previously consulted for the POISED project in the Maldives.

– ref. Renewables have now passed coal globally – and growth is fastest in countries like Bhutan and Nepal – https://theconversation.com/renewables-have-now-passed-coal-globally-and-growth-is-fastest-in-countries-like-bhutan-and-nepal-263047

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

A proposed one dollar coin featuring US President Donald Trump is causing ructions across the political divide. It’s also provoking discussion in the world of ancient Roman numismatics (coin studies).

The proposed coin depicts Trump in profile on one side (the obverse). On the other side (the reverse) the president raises his fist in defiance accompanied by the words “fight, fight, fight”.

While only a draft proposal, the coin could be minted in 2026 to mark 250 years since the US declaration of independence. But an old law prohibits the “likeness of any living person” from being “placed upon any of the bonds, securities, notes, fractional or postal currency of the United States.”

More than 2,000 years ago, the depiction of living figures on Roman coins caused similar ructions.

It came at a time when the Roman republic was in trouble. The republic would crumble altogether soon after, ushering in the long period of Rome being led by emperor-kings who saw themselves as almost akin to gods.

Perhaps the American republic is at a similar stage.

Sulla’s image on a coin

Rome was said to be founded by the mythical king Romulus, who killed his own twin (Remus). The fledgling state was led by seven kings before it became a republic in about 509 BCE.

By the late second century BCE it was led by Roman general and politician Gaius Marius. Marius and his later rival, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, broke many of the republic’s long-held conventions. They also fought Rome’s first major civil war.

In 88 BCE, while consul, Sulla marched an army on Rome to defend the city from “tyrants” (by which he meant the faction of Marius, who had ousted him). After Sulla won the civil war that followed, he held the dictatorship from 82-79 BCE. Dictatorships were only to be held for six months in times of emergency. Sulla claimed the emergency was ongoing.

As part of this he ordered a list (known as proscriptions) of enemies drawn up. Hundreds or even thousands were killed and had property confiscated.

In the same year a silver coin (called a denarius) was minted in Sulla’s name. One side featured Sulla himself riding in a four-horse chariot.

This was the first time a living person was depicted on a Roman coin. Up to this point only gods and mythological figures had that honour.

It was highly unusual.

Caesar’s challenge to the old republic

Sulla was the first but he wouldn’t be the last leader of the Roman republic to have his image on a coin.

In 44 BCE Julius Caesar went a step further. Only months before his assassination, coins appeared with Caesar’s bust dominating their obverses. Some included the words dict perpetuo meaning “dictator for life”.

By this time, Caesar and many before him, including Marius and Sulla, had broken the mould of the old republic.

Early in 44 BCE, Caesar took the dictatorship for life.

From 46-44 BCE he held the consulship, which was only meant to be held for a one-year term at a time. (Sulla held the dictatorship three years running, which partly set the scene for Caesar’s later emergence and the final breakdown of the republic.)

For many at the time, it seemed Caesar was moving the republic in the direction of monarchy. In January 44 BCE, when a throng hailed him as “rex” (king) Caesar responded, “I am Caesar and no king”. His very name was by now more powerful.

The coins of 44 BCE containing a profile bust of Caesar were an important part of his public program, and part of his challenge to republican convention.

Sulla paved the way 40 years before.

The parallels with Trump are hard to miss

Some emphasise that Caesar did not directly order his image to be placed on coins. Those wanting to curry favour read the room and Caesar did not object.

A similar scenario appears to be playing out with the coin design bearing Trump’s image.

The parallels with Trump are hard to miss. Trump has signed more than 200 executive orders in less than nine months. His predecessor Joe Biden issued 162 in his entire presidency.

Trump’s deployment of federal troops to US cities under emergency decrees provokes cries of tyranny. Sulla’s march on Rome and the proscriptions that followed drew a similar response.

The possibility of a one dollar coin depicting Donald Trump on both sides echoes the coins of Sulla and Caesar.

They might not technically break the law but they would break convention. In the process they also symbolise a notable shift in the US from democracy to autocracy.

When the “no kings!” demonstrations took place in the US earlier this year, they reminded us of a key motivation for the declaration of independence.

A coin celebrating its 250-year anniversary may well symbolise its journey to demise.

Peter Edwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Trump on a coin? When Julius Caesar tried that, the Roman republic crumbled soon after – https://theconversation.com/trump-on-a-coin-when-julius-caesar-tried-that-the-roman-republic-crumbled-soon-after-266887

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

More than 54,000 children aged under five in Gaza are suffering acute malnutrition, including more than 12,800 who are severely malnourished, according to a study published in The Lancet on Wednesday.

When more than 15% of the population experiences acute malnutrition, the World Health Organization classifies this as “very high” – its most severe category. In August, the overall rate of acute malnutrition among study participants in Gaza was 15.8%.

Rafah consistently had the highest acute malnutrition rate, across the 20-month study period to August 2025, reaching 32% of children in December 2024.

Acutely malnourished children are at higher risk of severe infections and premature death. If malnutrition becomes long term, the child may develop stunting (shortness for their age) and subsequent cognitive impairment.

A child with severe acute malnutrition is also up to 11 times more likely than a healthy child to die of common childhood illnesses such as pneumonia, the single largest infectious cause of death in children worldwide.

How was the study conducted?

The researchers assessed 219,783 children aged 6–59 months for acute malnutrition – also known as wasting – which reflects recent weight loss. This study size accounts for around 64% of children in Gaza in that age group.

It was conducted in 16 UN health centres and 78 medical points established in school shelters and tent encampments across the five local areas of Gaza.

According to the WHO, the gold standard of assessing the nutritional status of a child is to measure their weight (using standard hanging scales) and their height or length. It also recommends measuring arm circumference to detect acute malnutrition in community screening settings, as numerous studies have demonstrated this is an accurate way of detecting acute malnutrition.

The Lancet study measured the children’s height and weight, as well as their mid-upper arm circumference using a standard measuring tape developed by UNICEF.

However, a number of researchers have recommended increasing the diagnostic threshold, which is currently 125 mm, which would mean more children meet the threshold for malnutrition.

The researchers in Gaza calculated what is called the Z-score for each assessed child, as is standard practice. This is the number of standard deviations above or below the median of the WHO reference population. A Z-score between -2 and -3 represents moderate acute malnutrition and a Z-score of less than -3 is severe acute malnutrition.

What did the researchers find?

The monthly prevalence of acute malnutrition ranged from 5% to 7% between January and June 2024.

After around four months of severe aid restrictions, between September 2024 and mid-January 2025, the prevalence increased from 8.8% to 14.3%. The highest prevalence was seen in Rafah (32.2%).

After a six-week ceasefire and a substantial increase in the number of aid trucks entering Gaza, by March 2025, the prevalence of wasting had declined to 5.5%.

However, an 11-week blockade occurred from March to May 2025 and severely restricted entry of food, water, medicines, fuel and other essentials. By early August 2025, 15.8% of screened children were acutely malnourished, including 3.7% who were severely wasted. This equates to more than 54,600 children in need of treatment using ready-to-use therapeutic food – a paste containing high quantities of calories and other nutrients.

Boys were more likely to be malnourished than girls, which was consistent with the pre-war period. Studies across the globe have found malnutrition rates are usually higher in boys than girls.

Was the study well conducted?

This was a longitudinal (conducted over time, in this case 20 months) cross-sectional study, which means the researchers took their measurements at certain intervals (in this case, monthly).

The authors provide extensive details of the numbers of children included, in which local area, what kind of facility (a fixed medical centre or medical point), as well as age and sex.

Two-thirds of the participants were in Khan Younis and Middle governorates, with relatively low numbers in North Gaza and Rafah, which were highly affected by military activities.

The analysis was thorough, preceded by a data cleansing process which excluded values that were implausible. Standard statistical tests were applied to the data.

The paper was peer reviewed before publication.

What do the findings mean?

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, known as the IPC scale, defines famine as a situation in which at least one in five households has an extreme lack of food and faces starvation and destitution, resulting in extremely critical levels of acute malnutrition and death. The IPC uses the same classification of acute malnutrition as the WHO.

The IPC scale defines five phases of food insecurity. Famine (phase 5) is the highest phase of the scale, and is classified when an area has 20% of households facing extreme food shortage and 30% of children are acutely malnourished.

In late August 2025, the IPC released its fifth report on Gaza. It found for the period July 1 to August 15 2025, there was famine (phase 5) for the Gaza governorate and emergency (phase 4) for Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis. It was unable to adequately assess North Gaza because of insecurity.

The food insecurity situation in Gaza is among the worst in the world, comparable with the current situation in Sudan, Yemen and Haiti. It is a man-made disaster and can be reversed by urgent human action.

The Lancet study found spikes in acute malnutrition coincided with aid blockades. A ceasefire and a complete opening to international aid are fundamental to a resolution of the food crisis.

Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council..

– ref. Child famine has reached the highest level in Gaza, with tens of thousands of kids affected – new study – https://theconversation.com/child-famine-has-reached-the-highest-level-in-gaza-with-tens-of-thousands-of-kids-affected-new-study-266988

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michael Rose, Adjuct Lecturer, University of Adelaide

Two decades after Timor-Leste gained its independence, the country is a complicated and qualified success story. Poverty and deep economic problems persist, but the country boasts a thriving democracy. Its ascension to the ASEAN regional bloc will come later this month.

As this milestone approaches, however, a senior official with oversight over the national intelligence agency has gone public with explosive claims that Timorese institutions are allegedly being bought by organised crime.

His concerns come after a recent UN report that describes in vivid detail a sophisticated attempt by figures linked to triad gangs in China and Southeast Asia to allegedly establish a base of operations in the Timorese region of Oecusse-Ambeno.

If the allegations are true, they could pose the one of the greatest tests for Timor-Leste in its short history. Is its democracy robust enough to confront the challenge?

Allegations of corruption

Agio Pereira is the Timorese minister of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. He is one of the most powerful elected officials in his country.

On September 21, Pereira published on Facebook what he called A Manifesto for the Defence of Timor-Leste. In it, he claims to have
“undeniable and damning evidence” that US$45 million (A$68 million) has been brought (in some cases flown) into the country by “transnational criminal syndicates from Cambodia, Malaysia, Macau and Hong Kong”.

He says the money was allegedly used to influence regulatory bodies to grant “fraudulent licences” and set up “protected enclaves” where “illegal gambling, cyber-scam centres and human trafficking would be able to operate under state protection”.

He said the country faces a simple choice:

Will we be a sovereign nation governed by democratic laws and institutions, or will we become a criminal state owned by foreign mafia syndicates?

Pereira also listed numerous demands, including:

• the revocation of any licences that may have been granted to criminal networks
• government cooperation with international law enforcement to dismantle the networks
• an investigation of all officials who have allegedly taken any money.

Pereira did not provide any evidence in the post to back up his claims, but especially given his status and oversight of the national intelligence service, many are taking his claims seriously.

In response to the allegations, President José Ramos-Horta told me via WhatsApp:

I always said Timor-Leste does not have homegrown organised crime. […] But Timor-Leste, being still a fragile country, is very attractive to organised crime from Asia.

I have full confidence in our authorities with support from Australian Federal Police and from Indonesian police in tackling the challenges by organised crime.

Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao also took a measured response to the allegations. He told local media Pereira would be given a chance to raise the issue with the government directly.

On October 1, he was given his chance, addressing a meeting of Timor-Leste’s Counsel of Ministers. This resulted in the swift approval of a draft resolution cancelling all existing licences granted for online gambling and betting operations and prohibiting any new licences from being issued.

But Pereira’s other key demand – an investigation into officials accused of taking money from organised crime syndicates – appears not to have been addressed.

Scammers taking root

Cyber-scammming is a booming industry in Southeast Asia, bringing in billions of dollars in revenue annually.

Illegal gambling and scam centres have proliferated in recent years in “special economic zones” in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and the Philippines. The organised crime groups behind them are constantly looking for new bases of operations where local officials can be persuaded to look the other way, or lack the capacity to stop them.

Although Timor-Leste is small, it’s important due to its strategic location (just a 1.5-hour flight from Darwin) and the fact Australia and its allies are increasingly competing for influence there with China. Australia cannot afford to ignore any threat to the security of a fledgling democracy on its doorstep.

Pereira’s manifesto came in the wake of an August 25 raid on a suspected scam centre in Oecusse-Ambeno, where 30 foreign nationals from Indonesia, Malaysia and China were detained. The head of the regional government, Rogerio Lobato, was given notice two days later.

Oecusse, as it’s commonly known, is a rugged coastal exclave on the western half of Timor island, surrounded by Indonesia. Once extremely isolated, Oecusse was granted autonomy in 2014 and a special economic zone was established to spur foreign investment.

The report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in September described how organised crime groups took advantage of the region’s loose regulatory structures late last year to allegedly establish an “Oecusse Digital Centre”. It reads:

The Special Administrative Region of Oecusse-Ambeno (RAEOA), Timor-Leste appears to have already been targeted by criminal networks through FDI [foreign direct investment].

As Timor-Leste prepares to join ASEAN in October 2025, the reported infiltration of RAEOA and its national ID system by convicted cybercriminals poses a serious security risk.

The report notes that Timor-Leste shares “stark similarities” with the development of the scam industry in Cambodia, Laos and the Philippines, which have now become notorious hubs for cyber fraud, drug trafficking and human trafficking.

In his message to me, Ramos-Horta declined to address the allegations surfaced by the UN report, saying:

I know well the work of UN agencies. They should focus more on solid research and less on allegations against individuals because this is not their mandate.

In his manifesto, Pereira appears to suggest operations like the one recently raided in Oecusse are made possible through the bribery of Timorese officials. He says directly this influence is occurring on a scale that risks state capture.

Reactions to Pereira’s allegations

It’s unclear why Pereira chose to appeal directly to the people rather than take his concerns to others in the government.

Nelson Belo, director of the civil society and security monitoring organisation Fundasaun Mahein, criticised Pereira’s choice to go public. He said as a minister, he should “lead and act within the law”.

Belo’s group had also recently warned of the risks transnational organised crime groups could pose to the country.

Abel Pires, a former government minister and former member of Timor-Leste’s Council of Defence and Security, had a different view.

He reasoned that because “the problem may involve too many people within the system”, Pereira might have had no choice but to go public.

He also called the cancellation of gambling licences a positive step, but said there must be an independent investigation into Pereira’s allegations.

On the street, the allegations have fed into frustration with official greed and incompetence, which fuelled recent student demonstrations against government waste.

That a leading minister felt he needed to go public with the accusations to have them taken seriously by his own government is telling.

The potential subversion of Timor-Leste’s institutions by organised crime is a serious threat to the country’s security. Its government – as well as Australia’s – would do well to pay heed.

Michael Rose 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. Organised crime may be infiltrating Timor-Leste’s government. One minister is sounding the alarm – https://theconversation.com/organised-crime-may-be-infiltrating-timor-lestes-government-one-minister-is-sounding-the-alarm-265879