Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jorge Heine, Outgoing Interim Director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, Boston University

In 2020, as Latin American countries were contending with the triple challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, a global economic shock and U.S. policy under the first Trump administration, Jorge Heine, research professor at Boston University and a former Chilean ambassador, in association with two colleagues, Carlos Fortin and Carlos Ominami, put forward the notion of “active nonalignment.”

Five years on, the foreign policy approach is more relevant than ever, with trends including the rise of the Global South and the fragmentation of the global order, encouraging countries around the world to reassess their relationships with both the United States and China.

It led Heine, along with Fortin and Ominami, to follow up on their original arguments in a new book, “The Non-Aligned World,” published in June 2025.

The Conversation spoke with Heine on what is behind the push toward active nonalignment, and where it may lead.

For those not familiar, what is active nonalignment?

Active nonalignment is a foreign policy approach in which countries put their own interests front and center and refuse to take sides in the great power rivalry between the U.S. and China.

It takes its cue from the Non-Aligned Movement of the 1950s and 1960s but updates it to the realities of the 21st century. Today’s rising Global South is very different from the “Third World” that made up the Non-Aligned Movement. Countries like India, Turkey, Brazil and Indonesia have greater economic heft and wherewithal. They thus have more options than in the past.

They can pick and choose policies in accordance with what is in their national interests. And because there is competition between Washington and Beijing to win over such countries’ hearts and minds, those looking to promote a nonaligned agenda have greater leverage.

Traditional international relations literature suggests that in relations between nations, you can either “balance,” meaning take a strong position against another power, or “bandwagon” – that is, go along with the wishes of that power. The notion was that weaker states couldn’t balance against the Great Powers because they don’t have the military power to do so, so they had to bandwagon.

What we are saying is that there is an intermediate approach: hedging. Countries can hedge their bets or equivocate by playing one power off the other. So, on some issues you side with the U.S., and others you side with China.

Thus, the grand strategy of active nonalignment is “playing the field,” or in other words, searching for opportunities among what is available in the international environment. This means being constantly on the lookout for potential advantages and available resources – in short, being active, rather than passive or reactive.

So active nonalignment is not so much a movement as it is a doctrine.

It’s been five years since you first came up with the idea of active nonalignment. Why did you think it was time to revisit it now?

The notion of active nonalignment came up during the first Trump administration and in the context of a Latin America hit by the triple-whammy of U.S. pressure, a pandemic and the ensuing recession – which in Latin America translated into the biggest economic downturn in 120 years, a 6.6% drop of regional gross domestic product in 2020.

ANA was intended as a guide for Latin American countries to navigate those difficult moments, and it led us to the publication of a symposium volume with contributions by six former Latin American foreign ministers in November 2021, in which we elaborated on the concept.

Three months later, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the reaction to it by many countries in Asia and Africa, nonalignment was back with a vengeance.

Countries like India, Pakistan, South Africa and Indonesia, among others, took positions that were at odds with the West on Ukraine. Many of them, though not all, condemned Russian aggression but also wanted no part in the West’s sanctions on Moscow. These sanctions were seen as unwarranted and as an expression of Western double standards – no sanctions were applied on the U.S. for invading Iraq, of course.

And then there were the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the resulting war in the Gaza Strip. Countries across the Global South strongly condemned the Hamas attacks, but the West’s response to the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians brought home the notion of double standards when it came to international human rights.

Why weren’t Palestinians deserving of the same compassion as Ukrainians? For many in the Global South, that question hit very hard – the idea that “human rights are limited to Europeans and people who looked like them did not go down well.”

Thus, South Africa brought a case against Israel in the International Court of Justice alleging genocide, and Brazil spearheaded ceasefire efforts at the United Nations.

A third development is the expansion of the BRICS bloc of economies from its original five members – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – to 10 members. Although China and Russia are not members of the Global South, those other founding members are, and the BRICS group has promoted key issues on the Global South’s agenda. The addition of countries such as Egypt and Ethiopia has meant that BRICS has increasingly taken on the guise of the Global South forum. Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a leading proponent of BRICS, is keen on advancing this Global South agenda.

All three of these developments have made active nonalignment more relevant than ever before.

How are China and the US responding to active nonalignment – or are they?

I’ll give you two examples: Angola and Argentina.

In Angola, the African country that has received most Chinese cooperation to the tune of US$45 billion, you now have the U.S. financing what is known as the Lobito Corridor – a railway line that stretches from the eastern border of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Angola’s Atlantic coast.

Ten years ago, the notion that the U.S. would be financing railway projects in southern Africa would have been considered unfathomable. Yet it has happened. Why? Because China has built significant railway lines in countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia, and the U.S. realized that it was being left behind.

For the longest time, the U.S. would condemn such Chinese-financed infrastructure projects via the “Belt and Road Initiative” as nothing but “debt-trap diplomacy” designed to saddle developing nations with “white elephants” nobody needed. But a couple of years ago, that tune changed: The U.S. and Europe realized that there is a big infrastructure deficit in Asia, Africa and Latin America that China was stepping in to reduce – and the West was nowhere to be seen in this critical area.

In short, the West changed it approach – and countries like Angola are now able to play the U.S. off against China for its own national interests.

Then take Argentina. In 2023, Javier Milei was elected president on a strong anti-China platform. He said his government would have nothing to do with Beijing. But just two years later, Milei announced in an Economist interview that he is a great admirer of Beijing.

Why? Because Argentina has a very significant foreign debt, and Milei knew that a continued anti-China stance would mean a credit line from Beijing would likely not be renewed. The Argentinian president was under pressure from the International Monetary Fund and Washington to let the credit line with China lapse, but Milei refused to do so and managed to hold his own, playing both sides against the middle.

Milei is a populist conservative; Brazil’s Lula a leftist. So is active nonalignment immune to ideological differences?

Absolutely. When people ask me what the difference is between traditional nonalignment and active nonalignment, one of the most obvious things is that the latter is nonideological – it can be used by people of the right, left and center. It is a guide to action, a compass to navigate the waters of a highly troubled world, and can be used by governments of very different ideological hues.

The book talks a lot about the fragmentation of the rules-based order. Where do you see this heading?

There is little doubt that the liberal international order that framed world politics from 1945 to 2016 has come to an end. Some of its bedrock principles, like multilateralism, free trade and respect for international law and existing international treaties, have been severely undermined.

We are now in a transitional stage. The notion of the West as a geopolitical entity, as we knew it, has ceased to exist. We now have the extraordinary situation where illiberal forces in Hungary, Germany and Poland, among other places, are being supported by those in power in both Washington and Moscow.

And this decline of the West has not come about because of any economic issue – the U.S. still represents around 25% of global GDP, much as it did in 1970 – but because of the breakdown of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

So we are moving toward a very different type of world order – and one in which the Global South has the opportunity to have much more of a role, especially if it deploys active nonalignment.

How have events since Trump’s inauguration played into your argument?

The notion of active nonalignment was triggered by the first Trump administration’s pressure on Latin American countries. I would argue that the measures undertaken in Trump’s second administration – the tariffs imposed on 90 countries around the world; the U.S. leaving the Paris climate agreement, the World Health Organization and the U.N. Human Rights Council; and other “America First” policies – have only underscored the validity of active nonalignment as a foreign policy approach.

The pressures on countries across the Global South are very strong, and there is a temptation to give in to Trump and align with U.S. Yet, all indications are that simply giving in to Trump’s demands isn’t a recipe for success. Those countries that have gone down the route of giving in to Trump’s demands only see more demands after that. Countries need a different approach – and that can be found in active nonalignment.

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

– ref. Nations are increasingly ‘playing the field’ when it comes to US and China – a new book explains explains why ‘active nonalignment’ is on the march – https://theconversation.com/nations-are-increasingly-playing-the-field-when-it-comes-to-us-and-china-a-new-book-explains-explains-why-active-nonalignment-is-on-the-march-260234

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tyrell Haberkorn, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra is currently feeling the sharp end of the country’s powerful judiciary.

On July 2, 2025, Thailand’s Constitutional Court suspended Paetongtarn from office as a result of a leaked phone conversation in which she was heard disparaging Thailand’s military and showing deference to former the prime minister of Cambodia, Hun Sen, despite an ongoing border dispute between the two countries. Initially set for 14 days, many onlookers believe the court’s suspension is likely to become permanent.

Meanwhile, far from the prime minister’s office is Arnon Nampa, another Thai national whose future is at the mercy of the Thai judiciary – in this case, the Criminal Court.

Arnon, a lawyer and internationally recognized human rights defender, is one of 32 political prisoners imprisoned over “lèse majesté,” or insulting the Thai monarchy. He is currently serving a sentence of nearly 30 years for a speech questioning the monarchy during pro-democracy protests in 2020. Unless he is both acquitted in his remaining cases and his current convictions are overturned on appeal, Arnon will likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

The plights of Paetongtarn and Arnon may seem distant. But as a historian of Thai politics, I see the cases as connected by a judiciary using the law and its power to diminish the prospects for democracy in Thailand and constrain the ability of its citizens to participate freely in society.

Familiar troubles

The Shinawatra family is no stranger to the reach of both the Thai military and the country’s courts.

Paetongtarn is the third of her family to be prime minister – and could become the third to be ousted. Her father, Thaksin Shinawatra, was removed in a 2006 military coup. Her aunt, Yingluck Shinawatra, was ousted prior to the May 22, 2014, coup. In common with past coups, the juntas who fomented them were shielded from the law, with none facing prosecution.

For now, it is unclear whether Paetongtarn’s suspension is the precursor to another coup, the dissolution of parliament and new elections, or a reshuffle of the cabinet. But what is clear is that the Constitutional Court’s intervention is one of several in which the nine appointed judges are playing a critical role in the future of Thai democracy.

Protecting the monarchy

The root of the judiciary’s power can be found in the way the modern Thai nation was set up nearly 100 years ago.

On June 24, 1932, Thailand transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. Since then, the country has experienced 13 coups, as the country has shifted from democracy to dictatorship and back again.

But throughout, the monarchy has remained a constant presence – protected by Article 112 of the Criminal Code, which defines the crime and penalty of lese majesté: “Whoever defames, insults, or threatens the king, queen, heir-apparent or regent shall be subject to three-to-fifteen years imprisonment.”

The law is widely feared among dissidents in Thailand both because it is interpreted broadly to include any speech or action that is not laudatory and innocent verdicts are rare.

Although Article 112 has been law since 1957, it was rarely used until after the 2006 coup.

Since then, cases have risen steadily and reached record levels following a youth-led movement for democracy in 2020. At least 281 people have been, or are currently being, prosecuted for alleged violation of Article 112, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.

Challenging the status quo

The 2020 youth-led movement for democracy was sparked by the Constitutional Court’s dissolution of the progressive Future Forward Party at the beginning of that year, the disappearance of a Thai dissident in exile in Cambodia, and economic problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In protests in Bangkok and in provinces across the country, they called for a new election, a new constitution and an end to state repression of dissent.

On Aug. 3, 2020, Nampa added another demand: The monarchy must be openly discussed and questioned.

Without addressing such a key, unquestionable institution in the nation, Arnon argued, the struggle for democracy would inevitably fail.

This message resonated with many Thai citizens, and despite the fearsome Article 112, protests grew throughout the last months of 2020.

Students at Thammasat University, the center of student protest since the 1950s, expanded Arnon’s call into a 10-point set of demands for reform of the monarchy.

Making it clear that they did not aim to abolish the monarchy, the students’ proposal aimed to clarify the monarchy’s economic, political and military role and make it truly constitutional.

As the protests began to seem unstoppable, with tens of thousands joining, the police began cracking down on demonstrations. Many were arrested for violating anti-COVID-19 measures and other minor laws. By late November 2020, however, Article 112 charges began to be brought against Arnon and other protest leaders for their peaceful speech.

In September 2023, Arnon was convicted in his first case, and he has been behind bars since. He is joined by other political prisoners, whose numbers grow weekly as their cases move through the judicial process.

Capricious courts

Unlike Arnon, Paetongtarn Shinawatra is not facing prison.

But the Constitutional Court’s decision to suspend her from her position as prime minister because of a leaked recording of an indiscreet telephone conversation is, to many legal minds, a capricious response that has the effect of short-circuiting the democratic process.

So too, I believe, does bringing the weight of the law against Arnon and other political prisoners in Thailand who remain behind bars as the current political turmoil plays out.

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

– ref. Thailand’s judiciary is flexing its muscles, but away from PM’s plight, dozens of activists are at the mercy of capricious courts – https://theconversation.com/thailands-judiciary-is-flexing-its-muscles-but-away-from-pms-plight-dozens-of-activists-are-at-the-mercy-of-capricious-courts-260408

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kirsten Banks, Lecturer, School of Science, Computing and Engineering Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology

This week, astronomers spotted the third known interstellar visitor to our Solar System.

First detected by the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) on July 1, the cosmic interloper was given the temporary name A11pl3Z. Experts at NASA’s Center for Near Earth Object Studies and the International Astronomical Union (IAU) have confirmed the find, and the object now has an official designation: 3I/ATLAS.

There are a few strong clues that suggest 3I/ATLAS came from outside the Solar System.

First, it’s moving really fast. Current observations show it speeding through space at around 245,000km per hour. That’s more than enough to escape the Sun’s gravity.

An object near Earth’s orbit would only need to be travelling at just over 150,000km/h to break free from the Solar System.

Second, 3I/ATLAS has a wildly eccentric orbit around the Sun. Eccentricity measures how “stretched” an orbit is: 0 eccentricity is a perfect circle, and anything up to 1 is an increasingly strung-out ellipse. Above 1 is an orbit that is not bound to the Sun.

3I/ATLAS has an estimated eccentricity of 6.3, by far the highest ever recorded for any object in the Solar System.

Has anything like this happened before?

The first interstellar object spotted in our Solar System was the cigar-shaped ‘Oumuamua, discovered in 2017 by the Pan-STARRS1 telescope in Hawaii. Scientists tracked it for 80 days before eventually confirming it came from interstellar space.

The second interstellar visitor, comet 2I/Borisov, was discovered two years later by amateur astronomer Gennadiy Borisov. This time it only took astronomers a few weeks to confirm it came from outside the Solar System.

This time, the interstellar origin of 3I/ATLAS has been confirmed in a matter of days.

How did it get here?

We have only ever seen three interstellar visitors (including 3I/ATLAS), so it’s hard to know exactly how they made their way here.

However, recent research published in The Planetary Science Journal suggests these objects might be more common than we once thought. In particular, they may come from relatively nearby star systems such as Alpha Centauri (our nearest interstellar neighbour, a mere 4.4 light years away).

Alpha Centauri is slowly moving closer to us, with its closest approach expected in about 28,000 years. If it flings out material in the same way our Solar System does, scientists estimate around a million objects from Alpha Centauri larger than 100 metres in diameter could already be in the outer reaches of our Solar System. That number could increase tenfold as Alpha Centauri gets closer.

Most of this material would have been ejected at relatively low speeds, less than 2km/s, making it more likely to drift into our cosmic neighbourhood over time and not dramatically zoom in and out of the Solar System like 3I/ATLAS appears to be doing. While the chance of one of these objects coming close to the Sun is extremely small, the study suggests a few tiny meteors from Alpha Centauri, likely no bigger than grains of sand, may already hit Earth’s atmosphere every year.

Why is this interesting?

Discovering new interstellar visitors like 3I/ATLAS is thrilling, not just because they’re rare, but because each one offers a unique glimpse into the wider galaxy. Every confirmed interstellar object expands our catalogue and helps scientists better understand the nature of these visitors, how they travel through space, and where they might have come from.

Thanks to powerful new observatories such as the NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, our ability to detect these elusive objects is rapidly improving. In fact, during its first 10 hours of test imaging, Rubin revealed 2,104 previously unknown asteroids.

This is an astonishing preview of what’s to come. With its wide field of view and constant sky coverage, Rubin is expected to revolutionise our search for interstellar objects, potentially turning rare discoveries into routine ones.

What now?

There’s still plenty left to uncover about 3I/ATLAS. Right now, it’s officially classified as a comet by the IAU Minor Planet Center.

But some scientists argue it might actually be an asteroid, roughly 20km across, based on the lack of typical comet-like features such as a glowing coma or a tail. More observations will be needed to confirm its nature.

Currently, 3I/ATLAS is inbound, just inside Jupiter’s orbit. It’s expected to reach its closest point to the Sun, slightly closer than the planet Mars, on October 29. After that, it will swing back out towards deep space, making its closest approach to Earth in December. (It will pose no threat to our planet.)

Whether it’s a comet or an asteroid, 3I/ATLAS is a messenger from another star system. For now, these sightings are rare – though as next-generation observatories such as Rubin swing into operation, we may discover interstellar companions all around.

Kirsten Banks 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. Astronomers have spied an interstellar object zooming through the Solar System – https://theconversation.com/astronomers-have-spied-an-interstellar-object-zooming-through-the-solar-system-260422

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Justin Alger, Associate Professor / Senior Lecturer in Global Environmental Politics, The University of Melbourne

Deep-sea mining promises critical minerals for the energy transition without the problems of mining on land. It also promises to bring wealth to developing nations. But the evidence suggests these promises are false, and mining would harm the environment.

The practice involves scooping up rock-like nodules from vast areas of the sea floor. These potato-sized lumps contain metals and minerals such as zinc, manganese, molybdenum, nickel and rare earth elements.

Technology to mine the deep sea exists, but commercial mining of the deep sea is not happening anywhere in the world. That could soon change. Nations are meeting this month in Kingston, Jamaica, to agree to a mining code. Such a code would make way for mining to begin within the next few years.

On Thursday, Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, released research into the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining. It aims to promote better environmental management of deep-sea mining, should it proceed.

We have previously challenged the rationale for deep-sea mining, drawing on our expertise in international politics and environmental management. We argue mining the deep sea is harmful and the economic benefits have been overstated. What’s more, the metals and minerals to be mined are not scarce.

The best course of action is a ban on international seabed mining, building on the coalition for a moratorium.

Managing and monitoring environmental harm

Recent advances in technology have made deep-sea mining more feasible. But removing the nodules – which also requires pumping water around – has been shown to damage the seabed and endanger marine life.

CSIRO has developed the first environmental management and monitoring frameworks to protect deep sea ecosystems from mining. It aims to provide “trusted, science-based tools to evaluate the environmental risks and viability of deep-sea mining”.

Scientists from Griffith University, Museums Victoria, the University of the Sunshine Coast, and Earth Sciences New Zealand were also involved in the work.

The Metals Company Australia, a local subsidiary of the Canadian deep-sea mining exploration company, commissioned the research. It involved analysing data from test mining the company carried out in the Pacific Ocean in 2022.

The company has led efforts to expedite deep-sea mining. This includes pushing for the mining code, and exploring commercial mining of the international seabed through approval from the US government.

In a media briefing this week, CSIRO Senior Principal Research Scientist Piers Dunstan said the mining activity substantially affected the sea floor. Some marine life, especially that attached to the nodules, had very little hope of recovery. He said if mining were to go ahead, monitoring would be crucial.

We are sceptical that ecological impacts can be managed even with this new framework. Little is known about life in these deep-water ecosystems. But research shows nodule mining would cause extensive habitat loss and damage.

Do we really need to open the ocean frontier to mining? We argue the answer is no, on three counts.

1. Minerals are not scarce

The minerals required for the energy transition are abundant on land. Known global terrestrial reserves of cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum and nickel are enough to meet current production levels for decades – even with growing demand.

There is no compelling reason to extract deep-sea minerals, given the economics of both deep-sea and land-based mining. Deep-sea mining is speculative and inevitably too expensive given such remote, deep operations.

Claims about mineral scarcity are being used to justify attempting to legitimise a new extractive frontier in the deep sea. Opportunistic investors can make money through speculation and attracting government subsidies.

2. Mining at sea will not replace mining on land

Proponents claim deep-sea mining can replace some mining on land. Mining on land has led to social issues including infringing on indigenous and community rights. It also damages the environment.

But deep-sea mining will not necessarily displace, replace or change mining on land. Land-based mining contracts span decades and the companies involved will not abandon ongoing or planned projects. Their activities will continue, even if deep-sea mining begins.

Deep-sea mining also faces many of the same challenges as mining on land, while introducing new problems. The social problems that arise during transport, processing and distribution remain the same.

And sea-based industries are already rife with modern slavery and labour violations, partly because they are notoriously difficult to monitor.

Deep-sea mining does not solve social problems with land-based mining, and adds more challenges.

3. Common heritage of humankind and the Global South

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international seabed is the common heritage of humankind. This means the proceeds of deep-sea mining should be distributed fairly among all countries.

Deep-sea mining commercial partnerships between developing countries in the Global South and firms from the North have yet to pay off for the former. There is little indication this pattern will change.

For example, when Canadian company Nautilus went bankrupt in 2019, it saddled Papua New Guinea with millions in debt from a failed domestic deep-sea mining venture.

The Metals Company has partnerships with Nauru and Tonga but the latest deal with the US creates uncertainty about whether their agreements will be honoured.

European investors took control of Blue Minerals Jamaica, originally a Jamaican-owned company, shortly after orchestrating its start up. Any profits would therefore go offshore.

A wise investment?

It is unclear whether deep-sea mining will ever be a good investment.

Multiple large corporate investors have pulled out of the industry, or gone bankrupt. And The Metals Company has received delisting notices from the Nasdaq stock exchange due to poor financial performance.

Given the threat of environmental harm, the evidence suggests deep-sea mining is not worth the risk.

Justin Alger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

D.G. Webster receives funding from the National Science Foundation in the United States and various internal funding sources at Dartmouth University.

Jessica Green receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Kate J Neville receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

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

– ref. We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-need-deep-sea-mining-or-its-environmental-harms-heres-why-260401

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andy Nguyen, Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering, University of Southern Queensland

The Story Bridge, with its sweeping steel trusses and art deco towers, is a striking sight above the Brisbane River in Queensland. In 2025, it was named the state’s best landmark. But more than an icon, it serves as one of the vital arteries of the state capital, carrying more than 100,000 vehicles daily.

But a recent report revealed serious structural issues in the 85-year-old bridge. These included the deterioration of concrete, corrosion and overloading on pedestrian footpaths.

The findings prompted an urgent closure of the footpath for safety reasons. They also highlighted the urgency of Brisbane City Council’s planned bridge restoration project.

But this example – and far more tragic ones from around the world in recent years – have also sparked a broader conversation about the safety of ageing bridges and other urban infrastructure. A simple, proactive step known as structural health monitoring can help.

A number of collapses

In January 2022, the Fern Hollow Bridge in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the United States collapsed and injured several people. This collapse was caused by extensive corrosion and the fracturing of a vital steel component. It stemmed from poor maintenance and failure to act on repeated inspection recommendations. These problems were compounded by inadequate inspections and oversight.

Three years earlier, Taiwan’s Nanfang’ao Bridge collapsed. Exposure to damp, salty sea air had severely weakened its suspension cables. Six people beneath the bridge died.

In August 2018, Italy’s Morandi Bridge fell, killing 43 people. The collapse was due to corrosion in pre-stressed concrete and steel tendons. These factors were worsened by inspection and maintenance challenges.

In August 2007, a bridge in the US city of Minneapolis collapsed, killing 13 people and injuring 145. This collapse was primarily due to previously unnoticed problems with the design of the bridge. But it also demonstrated how ageing infrastructure, coupled with increasing loads and ineffective routine visual inspections, can exacerbate inherent weaknesses.

A technology-driven solution

Structural health monitoring is a technology-driven approach to assessing the condition of infrastructure. It can provide near real-time information and enable timely decision-making. This is crucial when it comes to managing ageing structures.

The approach doesn’t rely solely on occasional periodic inspections. Instead it uses sensors, data loggers and analytics platforms to continuously monitor stress, vibration, displacement, temperature and corrosion on critical components.

This approach can significantly improve our understanding of bridge performance compared to traditional assessment models. In one case, it updated a bridge’s estimated fatigue life – the remaining life of the structure before fatigue-induced failure is predicted to occur– from just five years to more than 52 years. This ultimately avoided unnecessary and costly restoration.

Good structural health-monitoring systems can last several decades. They can be integrated with artificial intelligence techniques and bridge information modelling to develop digital twin-based monitoring platforms.

The cost of structural health monitoring systems varies by bridge size and the extent of monitoring required. Some simple systems can cost just a few thousand dollars, while more advanced ones can cost more than A$300,000.

These systems require ongoing operational support – typically 10% to 20% of the installation cost annually – for data management, system maintenance, and informed decision-making.

Additionally, while advanced systems can be costly, scalable structural health monitoring solutions allow authorities to start small and expand over time.

A model for proactive management

The design of structural health monitoring systems has been incorporated into new large-scale bridge designs, such as Sutong Bridge in China and Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge in the US.

But perhaps the most compelling example of these systems in action is the Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal, Canada.

Opened in 1930, it shares design similarities with Brisbane’s Story Bridge. And, like many ageing structures, it faces its own challenges.

However, authorities managing the Jacques Cartier Bridge have embraced a proactive approach through comprehensive structural health monitoring systems. The bridge has been outfitted with more than 300 sensors.

Acoustic emission monitoring enables early detection of micro-cracking activity, while long-term instrumentation tracks structural deformation and dynamic behaviour across key spans.

Satellite-based radar imagery adds a remote, non-intrusive layer of deformation monitoring, and advanced data analysis ensures that the vast amounts of sensor data are translated into timely, actionable insights.

Together, these technologies demonstrate how a well-integrated structural-health monitoring system can support proactive maintenance, extend the life of ageing infrastructure – and ultimately improve public safety.

A way forward for Brisbane – and beyond

The Story Bridge’s current challenges are serious, but they also present an opportunity.

By investing in the right structural health monitoring system, Brisbane can lead the way in modern infrastructure management – protecting lives, restoring public confidence, preserving heritage and setting a precedent for cities around the world.

As climate change, urban growth, and ageing assets put increasing pressure on our transport networks, smart monitoring is no longer a luxury – it’s a necessity.

Andy Nguyen receives funding from the Queensland government, through the Advance Queensland fellowship. He is on the executive committee of Australian Network of Structural Health Monitoring.

– ref. Ageing bridges around the world are at risk of collapse. But there’s a simple way to safeguard them – https://theconversation.com/ageing-bridges-around-the-world-are-at-risk-of-collapse-but-theres-a-simple-way-to-safeguard-them-260005