MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zena Assaad, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, Australian National University

The United States is set to become “the world’s undisputed [artificial intelligence-enabled] fighting force”.

At least that’s the view of the country’s Department of War, which earlier this month released a new strategy to accelerate the deployment of AI for military purposes.

The “AI Acceleration Strategy” sets an unambiguous objective of setting up the US military as the frontrunner in AI warfighting. But all of the hype in the strategy ignores the realities and limitations of AI capabilities.

It can be thought of as a kind of “AI peacocking” – loud public signalling of AI adoption and leadership, which clouds the reality of unreliable systems.

What does the US AI strategy entail?

Several militaries around the world, including China and Israel, are incorporating AI into their work. But the AI-first mantra of the US Department of War’s new strategy sets it apart.

The strategy seeks to make the US military more lethal and efficient. It suggests AI is the one way to achieve this goal.

The department will encourage experimentation with AI models. It will also eliminate what it calls “bureaucratic barriers” to implement AI across the military, support investment in AI infrastructure and pursue a set of major AI-powered military projects.

One of these projects seeks to use AI to turn intelligence “into weapons in hours not years”. This is concerning, given how this kind of approach has been used elsewhere.

For example, there are ongoing reports about the increased civilian death toll in Gaza resulting from the Israeli military’s use of AI-enabled decision support systems, which essentially turn intelligence into weaponised targeting information at an unprecedented speed and scale. Further accelerating this pipeline risks unnecessary escalation of civilian harm.

Another major project seeks to put American AI models – presumably ones intended to be used in military contexts – “directly in the hands of our three million civilian and military personnel, at all classification levels”.

It is not made clear why three million civilian Americans need access to military AI systems. Nor what the impacts would be of widely disseminating military capabilities across a civilian population.

The narrative vs the reality

In July 2025, an MIT study found 95% of organisations received a zero return on investment in generative AI.

The main reason was technical limitations of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and Copilot. For example, most can’t retain feedback, adapt to new contexts or improve over time.

This study was focused on generative AI in business contexts. But the findings apply more broadly. They point to the shortcomings of AI, which are too often hidden by the marketing hype surrounding the technology.

AI is an umbrella term. It’s used to encompass a spectrum of capabilities – from large language models to computer vision models. These are technologically different tools with different uses and purposes.

Despite varying significantly in their applications, capabilities and success rates, most AI applications have been bundled together to form a globally successful marketing agenda.

This is reminiscent of the dotcom bubble from the early 2000s, which treated marketing as a valid business model.

This approach now seems to have bled into how the US wants to posture itself in the current geopolitical climate.

A guide to ‘AI peacocking’

The Department of War’s AI-first strategy reads more like a guide to “AI peacocking” than a legitimate strategy to implement technology.

AI is posited as the solution to every problem – including those which do not exist. The marketing behind AI has created a fabricated fear of falling behind. The Department of War’s new AI strategy feeds off of that fear by alluding to a technically advanced military strategy.

However, the reality is these technology capabilities fall short of their claimed effectiveness. And, in military settings, these limitations can have devastating consequences, including increased civilian death tolls.

The US is leaning heavily into a marketing-led business model to implement AI across its military without technical rigour and integrity.

This approach will likely expose a vulnerable vacuum across the Department of War when these brittle systems fail – and likely in moments of crisis when deployed in military settings.

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

– ref. The United States’ new military strategy is a case of ‘AI peacocking’ – https://theconversation.com/the-united-states-new-military-strategy-is-a-case-of-ai-peacocking-273803

By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

The signing of a new agreement on New Caledonia’s political and financial future has triggered a fresh wave of reactions from across the French territory’s political chessboard.

The Elysée-Oudinot agreement was signed on Monday, January 19, in the presence of French President Emmanuel Macron as well as most of New Caledonia’s politicians.

But the pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front), the largest component of the pro-independence movement, had chosen not to travel to Paris.

The new deal, signed by parties represented at New Caledonia’s Congress (its local parliament), including members of the moderate pro-independence PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party) and UPM (Union Progressiste en Mélanésie), who have split from FLNKS, all signed the agreement.

PALIKA and UPM are formed into a Parliamentary caucus called “UNI” (Union Nationale pour l’Indépendance).

The Elysée-Oudinot text was described as being a “complement” bearing “clarifications” to a previous agreement project, signed in July 2025 in the small city of Bougival, west of Paris.

The FLNKS, even though it initially signed the Bougival text, rejected it in bloc a few days after returning to New Caledonia.

As French President Macron called all politicians back to the table to refine the July 2025 talks, FLNKS announced it would not travel to Paris, saying the project which would serve as the basis for further talks did not meet their short-term goals of full sovereignty.

They said the Bougival text and all related documents were in substance “lures” of independence and that they regarded the French state as being responsible for a “rupture of dialogue”.

As the Bougival initial text, its Elysée-Oudinot complement maintains the notion of creating a “state of New Caledonia”, its correlated “nationality” and introduces a new set of commitments from France, including a package to re-launch the local economy, severely damaged as a result of the riots that broke out in May 2024.

The new text also mentions granting more powers to each of New Caledonia’s three provinces (North, South and the Loyalty Islands group), including in terms of revenue collection by way of taxes.

This, the FLNKS protested, could erode the powers of New Caledonian provinces and reinforce economic and social inequalities between them.

Reacting to the signing in Paris in their absence, the FLNKS, in a media release on Wednesday, condemned and rejected the new text “unequivocally”.

FLNKS President Christian Téin, in the release, said the new agreement endorses a “passage en force” (forceful passage) and is “incompatible” with the way the FLNKS envisages Kanaky’s “decolonisation path”, including in the way it is defined under the United Nations decolonisation process.

It also criticises a document signed “without the Indigenous people” of New Caledonia.

The pro-independence party also expressed its disapproval of what it calls a “pseudo-accord”.

“We will use every political tool available to us to re-alert, again and again the public”, FLNKS politburo member Gilbert Tyuienon told public broadcaster Nouvelle-Calédonie La Première at the weekend.

French Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou had reiterated, even after the signing in Paris, that the door remained open to FLNKS.

In reaction to the signing, other parties have also expressed their respective points of view.

“Why didn’t they come [to Paris] to defend their positions, since they were invited?” Southern Province President (pro-France) Sonia Backès wrote on social networks.

“Does UNI not represent the Kanak people too?” she added.

French Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou said this new set of agreements reflected a “shared will to look at the future together”.

“Now the territory can walk on its two legs”.

Some of the pro-France parties, who want New Caledonia to remain a part of France, have however acknowledged that even though the new documents were signed, the road ahead remained rocky in terms of its implementation in the French Parliament, through a local referendum and related constitutional amendments.

‘We’ve done the easiest part’ — Metzdorf
New Caledonia’s MP at the French National Assembly, Nicolas Metzdorf said a huge challenge still remained ahead.

“We’ve done the easiest, the hardest part remains . . .  This is to obtain the [French] Parliament’s support, both Houses, to enact the accords in the French Constitution.”

Following a very tight schedule in the coming weeks, the texts will be submitted to the vote of both Parliament Houses, first separately, then in a joint chamber format (the Congress, for constitutional amendment purposes).

Then the text is also to be submitted to New Caledonia’s population for approval through a referendum-like “consultation”.

In a way of foretaste of what promises to be heated debates in coming weeks, with a backdrop of strong divisions in the French Parliament, Moutchou and far-left MP Bastien Lachaud (La France Insoumise, LFI) waged a war of words on Tuesday in the National Assembly.

Responding to Lachaud’s accusations which echoed those from FLNKS, Moutchou denounced the “passage en force” claim and the absence of “consensus”.

“FLNKS was never excluded from anything. It was invited, it was approached, it was awaited, just like the other ones. It chose not to turn up,” Moutchou said.

“The politics of empty chair was never conducive to a compromise,” she said as Assembly Speaker Yaël Braun-Pivet had to call the LFI caucus back to order.

Strong financial component
Some of the financial aspects of the deals include a five-year “reconstruction” plan for New Caledonia, for a total of 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion), presented to New Caledonia’s politicians by French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu.

This chapter also comes with revisiting previous French loans for more than 1 billion euros, which New Caledonia found almost impossible to repay (with an indebtedness rate of 360 percent).

The loans, under the agreement’s financial chapter, would be renegotiated, re-scheduled and possibly converted into non-refundable grants.

Meanwhile a two-year repayment holiday (2026-2027) would be applied, while a far-reaching reform programme is expected to be pursued.

“What people really expected was [economic] prospects. This is the main part of this accord, the economic refoundation,” commented Vaimu’a Muliava, from Wallis-based Eveil Océanien party after the Paris talks.

The new financial arrangements would also provide a much-needed lifebuoy to critically threatened mechanisms in New Caledonia, such as its retirement scheme or the power supply company.

More injections for the nickel industry
Another 200 million euros is also earmarked to bail out several nickel mining companies facing critical hardships.

This includes assistance aimed at supporting business and employment for French historical Société le Nickel (SLN), Prony Resources and NMC (Nickel Mining Company, which has ties to Korea’s POSCO).

The French government has also pledged to follow-up on a request to New Caledonia’s nickel mining and refining declared a “strategic” sector by the European Union.

“The agreement’s economic chapter was as necessary as the political one,” said New Caledonia’s President Alcide Ponga after the signing.

Another cash injection was directed to this year’s budget for New Caledonia, which benefits from a direct cash injection of 58 million euros.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The federal Coalition is dead, with Nationals leader David Littleproud on Thursday morning declaring it “untenable” after Liberal leader Sussan Ley stared down the Liberals’ minor partner.

This followed all Nationals frontbenchers resigning from the shadow ministry on Wednesday night, in protest at Ley’s retaliation against three Nationals senators, Bridget McKenzie, Ross Cadell and Susan McDonald, breaking shadow cabinet solidarity.

“We can not be part of a shadow ministry under Sussan Ley”, Littleproud told a news conference early Thursday.

“No one in our ministry could work in a Sussan Ley ministry.”

This leaves the Liberals alone as the opposition, with the Nationals as a crossbench party with no role in the official opposition.

Littleproud said the parties would be “two different armies” going forward for “the time being”.

The crisis dramatically increases the threat to Ley’s leadership, which was already unstable and not expected to last. Although Littleproud would not acknowledge it, the Nationals are encouraging a change in the Liberal leadership.

Most immediately, Ley will have to reshuffle her frontbench with Liberal members only.

Littleproud said the “sovereign position of the National party had been disrespected” and the three senators had been “courageous”.

“We were not going to stand by and have three of our senators be made scapegoats. We were going to stand with them because they did the right thing.”

The senators voted against the government’s hate crimes legislation, which passed with Liberal support. Their action was in accord with the Nationals’ decision to oppose the legislation. The Nationals disagreed in particular with the bill’s provision to enable the banning of hate-spruiking organisations. The party argued it was too wide and would endanger free speech.

Ley insisted there had been a shadow cabinet decision to obtain changes to the bill and then support it. Littleproud said a final decision on the legislation had not been made by the shadow cabinet or the joint parties.

Littleproud accused Ley of mismanaging the situation.

He stressed he had warned Ley of the consequences if she accepted the three senators’ resignations.

He spoke to her again early Thursday morning before announcing the decision. She held to her position.

This is the second break in the Coalition since the election.

Michelle Grattan 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. Nationals break Coalition, declaring it ‘untenable’ and blaming Ley – https://theconversation.com/nationals-break-coalition-declaring-it-untenable-and-blaming-ley-274025

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

Australia’s Labor government has successfully passed a “hate speech” bill that’s plainly aimed, at least in part, at suppressing pro-Palestine organizations as “hate groups”.

Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about the new laws, saying their extremely vague wording, lack of procedural fairness and low thresholds for implementation mean groups can now be banned if they make people feel unsafe or upset without ever actually posing any physical harm to anyone.

For me the most illuminating insight into what these laws are actually designed to do came up in an ABC interview with Attorney-General Michelle Rowland on Tuesday.

Over and over again throughout the interview Rowland was asked by ABC’s David Speers to clarify whether the new laws could see activist groups banned for criticising Israel and opposing its genocidal atrocities in a way that causes Jewish Australians to feel upset feelings, and she refused to rule out the possibility every single time.

Australia’s hate speech law            Video: ABC 7.30

“Let’s just go to what it means in practice: would a group be banned if it accuses Israel of genocide or apartheid, and as a result, Jewish Australians do feel intimidated?” Speers asked.

Rowland didn’t say no, instead saying “there are a number of other factors that would need to be satisfied there” and saying that agencies like the AFP and ASIO would need to make assessments of the situation.

“Okay, just coming back to the practical example though, if a group is suggesting that Israel is guilty of genocide, what other measures or factors would need to be met before they can be banned?” Speers asked.

“Under the provisions that are now before the Parliament, there would also need to be able to demonstrate that there are for example, some aspects of state laws that deal with racial vilification that have been met as well,” Rowland responded, again leaving the possibility wide open.

Australia’s frightening new ‘hate speech’ law         Video reading by Tim Foley

(It should here be noted that Greens justice spokesperson David Shoebridge has pointed out that “state laws that deal with racial vilification” can include “tests like ‘ridicule’ and ‘contempt’,” meaning people could wind up spending years in prison for associating with groups that were essentially banned for upsetting someone’s feelings.)

The only reason the Attorney General wouldn’t rule out the criminalisation of dissent and criticism of foreign countries and heads of state is if that’s exactly what Labor intends to cover here. pic.twitter.com/rV3e8TRB0l

— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) January 20, 2026

“Just to be clear, if a group is saying Israel is engaged in genocide, or they’re saying that Israel should no longer exist, that is not enough for that group to be banned?” asked Speers.

“Well, again, that would depend on the other evidence that is gathered, David, so I would be reluctant to be naming and ruling in and ruling out specific kinds of conduct that you are describing here,” Rowland replied.

All this waffling can be safely interpreted as a yes. Rowland is saying yes.

Speers pushed this question three different times from three different angles because it’s the most immediate and obvious concern about these new laws, and instead of reassuring the public that they can’t be used to target pro-Palestine groups and aren’t intended for that purpose, the nation’s Attorney General confirmed that it was indeed possible.

So that’s it then. Under the new laws we can expect to see the Israel lobby crying about Jewish Australians feeling threatened and unsafe by every pro-Palestine group under the sun, and then from there all it takes is the thumbs-up from ASIO to put the group on the banned list and cage anyone who continues associating with it for up to 15 years.

The bill that ended up making it through Parliament is actually a narrowed down version of an even scarier bill that was scrapped by Labor due to lack of support which went after individuals as well as groups.

The earlier version contained “racial vilification” components which could have been used to target any individual who voices criticisms of Israel or Zionism – so it doesn’t look like I’ll be doing any prison time for my writing any time soon. The new version moved its crosshairs to groups with the obvious intent to disrupt pro-Palestine organising in Australia.

And we’re already seeing the Israel lobby pushing to resurrect the laws targeting individuals. A new ABC article titled “Jewish leaders call for vilification offence to be revisited as Coalition splits over watered-down hate laws” cites Zionist Federation of Australia president Jeremy Leibler and Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim arguing that the new laws don’t go far enough.

So we can expect the Australian Israel lobby to both (A) push to get pro-Palestine groups classified as “hate groups” under the new laws and (B) keep pushing to make it illegal for individuals to criticize Israel in the form of new “racial vilification” laws.

They’ll keep trying over and over again, from government to government to government, until they get their way.

This comes after Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council executive manager Joel Burnie publicly stated that he wants to ban pro-Palestine protests and criticism of Israel throughout the nation, and as prosecutors drag an Australian woman to court for an antisemitic hate crime because she accidentally butt-dialed a Jewish nutritionist and left a blank voicemail.

So things are already ugly, and they’re getting worse.

It’s so creepy knowing I share a country with people who want to destroy my right to normal political speech. It would never occur to me to try to kill Zionists’ right to free speech, but they very openly want to kill mine.

They want to permanently silence me and anyone like me. I find that profoundly disturbing.

Israel supporters are horrible people. And I hope my saying that hurts their feelings.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Stevens, Professor in Ocean Physics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)

Beneath Antarctica’s Ross Ice Shelf lies one of the least measured oceans on Earth – a vast, dark cavity roughly twice the volume of the North Sea.

This hidden ocean matters because it is the ice sheet’s Achilles heel. The ice sheet is the continent’s enormous, kilometres-thick mass of land-based ice, while the ice shelf is the floating platform that fringes it.

If warmer water reaches the underside of the shelf, it can melt the ice that holds back millions of cubic kilometres of Antarctic ice, with consequences for global sea levels.

Yet almost everything we know about this cavity has come from brief snapshots at its edges. Until now, no one had captured a long, continuous record from its central heart. Our newly published study set out to change that.

Inside Antarctica’s least-measured ocean

Ice shelves act as buttresses for Antarctica’s 30 million cubic kilometres of ice, built up over millions of years. The Ross Ice Shelf is the largest, among the coldest and most southerly, and perhaps the most sheltered from a warming ocean.

It spans both West and East Antarctica, where dozens of giant glaciers merge to form a wedge of ice 300 to 700 metres thick that flows northward, melting from below and calving the world’s largest icebergs.

When studying the ocean, snapshots are useful, but long time series are far more powerful. They reveal the rhythms of currents, eddies, tides and mixing, and how these interact with a warming climate. Beneath Antarctic ice shelves, where measurements are vanishingly rare, developing such records is essential.

Our study describes a four-year record of ocean processes beneath the middle of the Ross Ice Shelf, where the ice is 320 metres thick and the ocean below it 420 metres deep.

Most expeditions focus on the edges of ice shelves. We needed to understand what happens at their centre: so that is where we went.

The work was part of a large, multi-year project that began in 2016 with exploratory missions and ice-drilling trials and ended in 2022 when we finally lost contact with instruments suspended from the underside of the ice.

Once the drilling team reached the ocean – despite bad weather and the technical challenges of working in such a remote, extreme environment – we were able to deploy our instruments. These precision devices reported temperature, currents and salinity via satellite. We expected them to last two years before succumbing to cold or transmission failure. Instead, most continued to operate for more than four years, producing a uniquely long and remote record.

The new analysis shows that water properties vary systematically through the year, far from the open ocean and its seasons. The changes in temperature and salinity are subtle, but in a cavity shielded from winds and cold air even small shifts can have large implications.

Our work also reveals how variations in the central cavity align with changes in the Ross Sea Polynya – a wind-swept, ice-free area hundreds of kilometres away where high-salinity water forms. As Antarctic sea ice changes, this connection to the cavity will respond in ways we have not yet fully considered.

---

Read more:
From sea ice to ocean currents, Antarctica is now undergoing abrupt changes – and we’ll all feel them

---

Perhaps most intriguingly, the data show persistent layering of water with different properties within the cavity. This unusual structure was detected in the very first measurements collected there in 1978 and remains today. While much remains to be learned, our results indicate the layers act as a barrier, isolating the ice shelf underside from deeper, warmer waters.

What melting ice brings home

Much recent cavity research has treated the ice shelf as a middleman, passing ocean warming through to the ice sheet. Work like ours is revealing a more complex set of relationships between the cavity and other polar systems.

One of those relationships is with sea ice. When sea ice forms around the edges of an ice shelf, some of the cold, salty water produced as a by-product flows into the cavity, moving along the seafloor to its deepest, coldest reaches. Paradoxically, this dense water can still melt the ice it encounters. We know very little about these currents.

Changes to the delicate heat balance in ice-shelf cavities are likely to accelerate sea-level rise. Coastal communities will need to adapt to that reality. What remains less understood are the other pathways through which Antarctic change will play out.

Impacts from ice sheets unfold over decades and centuries. On similar timescales, changes around Antarctica will alter ocean properties worldwide, reshaping marine ecosystems and challenging our dependence on them.

In the near term, we can expect shifts in southern weather systems and Southern Ocean ecosystems. Fisheries are closely linked to sea-ice cover, which in turn is tied to ocean temperatures and meltwater.

Weather and regional climate feel even closer to home. A glance at a weather map of the Southern Ocean shows the inherent wobble of systems circling the globe. These patterns influence conditions in New Zealand and southern Australia and they are already changing.

As ice shelves and sea ice continue to evolve, that change will intensify. Ice shelves may seem distant, but through their ties to the atmosphere and ocean we share a common future.

Craig Stevens receives funding from the NZ Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and its Strategic Science Investment Fund, and the Antarctica New Zealand Antarctic Science Platform. He is a Council member of the New Zealand Association of Scientists.

Christina Hulbe receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the Antarctica New Zealand Antarctic Science Platform, and the Ōtākou Whakaihi Waka Foundation Trust. They are a member of the Board of the Waitaki Whitestone Unesco Global Geopark.

Yingpu Xiahou receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment to support her PhD research. She is affiliated with NIWA, and is a postgraduate member of the Antarctic Science Platform team and a SCAR INSTANT team member.

– ref. Beneath Antarctica’s largest ice shelf, a hidden ocean is revealing its secrets – https://theconversation.com/beneath-antarcticas-largest-ice-shelf-a-hidden-ocean-is-revealing-its-secrets-273219

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yanyan Hong, Adjunct Fellow in Communication, Media and Film Studies, Adelaide University

In Hamnet, Agnes Hathaway (Jessie Buckley) asks William Shakespeare (Paul Mescal) to introduce himself by telling her a story. It is her way of seeing who this man really is.

Here, storytelling becomes a mirror held up to the heart. Are we, as human beings, moved by the same things? Are our hearts shaped from the same material?

Chloé Zhao knows how to make people feel. Hamnet sees a new phrase in her artistry, turning a Western literary classic into a quiet meditation on grief, love and the enduring power of art.

From Beijing to the world

Born in Beijing in 1982, as a child Chloé Zhao (赵婷, Zhào Tíng) loved manga, drawn to Japanese Shinto ideas, where every object carries a spirit.

She wrote fan fiction, went to movies and fell in love with Wong Kar-wai’s Happy Together (1997), a life-changing film she still rewatches.

At 14, she was sent to a boarding school in England, speaking almost no English. The isolation forced her to look beyond language. “A smile is a smile, a touch is a touch,” she later told the BBC. That attentiveness to gesture and silence became a signature of her filmmaking.

Allured by Hollywood, Zhao moved to Los Angeles for high school, then studied political science at college. She eventually found her way to cinema at New York University, where Spike Lee encouraged her to trust her own voice.

Open landscapes to inner lives

In 2015, Zhao started directing small-scale, slow-burn features set in the American heartland.

Songs My Brothers Taught Me (2015) and The Rider (2017) capture the vast, lunar beauty of South Dakota’s badlands and the dignity of the people who live there. She often used non-professional actors, achieving a documentary-like naturalism.

Nomadland (2020), her third film, brought this style to a global audience. The story is about a stoic, hard-working widow in her early 60s who loses everything in the Great Recession and finds a new life on the road.

Receiving the Oscar for best director, she quoted a classic Chinese text teaching Confucian morality, history and basic knowledge: “people at birth are inherently good (人之初，性本善)”.

By focusing on nomads, cowboys and Indigenous communities, her first three films make space for those who are rarely seen.

“I’ve spent my whole life telling stories about people who feel separated, who feel they don’t belong,” she said, linking that to her own experience as “an outsider”.

With Hamnet, that sensibility turns inward. The immense skies and wide-open landscapes are replaced by forests, quiet rooms and the raw inner world of parental grief.

Through East and West

That Shakespeare, the wellspring of Britain’s national mythology, is being reinvented by an Asian director is striking.

Zhao initially turned down adapting and directing Hamnet, as she neither grow up with Western reverence for Shakespeare nor felt a cultural connection to his grief-filled family life. But after reading Maggie O’Farrell’s book, she felt something intimate and universal that drew her in.

Her approach to demystifying that feeling reflects a sensibility shaped equally by Eastern and Western philosophy.

From the Chinese practice of qi (气, life force), Zhao shows life flowing through wind, breath and Agnes’s bond with the forest, where she gives birth to her first child.

From the Hindu Tantra, she blurs the line between the actors and their surroundings, showing the world as an extension of the self.

From the ideas of Carl Jung, she explores opposing forces within the self, guiding the actors to reveal both masculine and feminine qualities in Agnes and William.

All three of these philosophies talk of accessing deeper wisdom within the self and the symbolic nature of creation.

Zhao also assigns chakra colours to Hamnet’s protagonists. In Hindu and Buddhist traditions, chakras are energy centres in the body, each linked to a colour and connected to physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing.

In Zhao’s telling, Shakespeare often appears in blue, echoing the colour of throat and third-eye chakras, which symbolises openness, clarity and intuition. Agnes appears in red, reflecting the root chakra: the beating heart of the earth. This visual language also draws from Taoist philosophy, which understands humans as existing within nature.

Like Ang Lee, Zhao brings an East Asian sensitivity to interiority and emotional restraint. Both filmmakers have bridged art-house cinema and mainstream Hollywood, achieving rare critical recognition while remaining deeply focused on human experience.

The deeply human

Hamnet imagines the world surrounding Shakespeare and his wild-hearted wife, Agnes, and the tragic death of their 11-year-old son from the plague.

In the final sequence of the film, we watch the first performance of Hamlet. Their son returns on stage as the prince, speaking lines Shakespeare has written out of loss.

As Hamlet is poisoned, the audience inside the theatre – nobles and labourers alike – break into tears. They do not know the child behind the character, but they feel loss all the same.

Among them stands Agnes. Through her eyes, we see how art turns personal sorrow into something others can share. She alone recognises that the story being told is a memory. The woman history remembers merely as “Shakespeare’s wife” becomes the very soul of Hamnet.

Hamnet, in Zhao’s retelling, is not an escape from pain but a way of living with it. Buckley’s stirring performance feels not only Oscar-worthy, but emblematic of Zhao’s humanist cinema.

Her cinema reminds us of what cannot be automated: the deeply human capacity to feel, to grieve and to love.

Yanyan Hong 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. Shakespeare reinvented: how Chloé Zhao blends East and West philosophies in Hamnet – https://theconversation.com/shakespeare-reinvented-how-chloe-zhao-blends-east-and-west-philosophies-in-hamnet-273352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Scholar, NCAR; Affiliate Faculty, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

For many people this summer – especially those across Northland Auckland and Coromandel – showery days and bursts of heavy rain have become all too familiar.

This week, fresh downpours on already saturated ground have again triggered flood warnings and road closures across the upper North Island. These are individual weather events, but they are unfolding against unusually warm seas that load the atmosphere with extra moisture and energy.

Understanding ocean heat – and how it shapes rainfall, storms and marine heatwaves – is central to explaining what we experience on land.

Looking beyond the surface

For decades, scientists have recognised sea surface temperatures as a key influence on weather and climate. Warmer surfaces mean more evaporation, altered winds and shifting storm tracks.

But surface temperatures are only the skin of a deeper system. What ultimately governs how those sea surface temperatures persist and evolve is the ocean heat content stored through the upper layers of the ocean.

A clearer global picture of that deeper heat began to emerge in the early 2000s with the deployment of profiling floats measuring temperature and salinity down to 2,000 metres worldwide.

Those observations made it possible to extend ocean analyses back to 1958; before then, measurements were too sparse to provide a global view.

While sea surface temperatures remain vital for day-to-day weather, ocean heat content provides the foundation for understanding climate variability and change. It determines how long warm surface conditions last and how they interact with the atmosphere above.

Recent analysis by an international team, in which I was involved, show ocean heat content in 2025 reached record levels, rising about 23 zettajoules above that of 2024’s. That increase is equivalent to more than 200 times the world’s annual electricity use, or the energy to heat 28 billion Olympic pools from 20C to 100C.

Ocean heat content represents the vertically integrated heat of the oceans, and because other forms of ocean energy are small, it makes up the main energy reservoir of the sea.

The ocean’s huge heat capacity and mobility mean it has become the primary sink for excess heat from rising greenhouse gases. More than 90% of Earth’s energy imbalance now ends up in the ocean.

For that reason, ocean heat content is the single best indicator of global warming, closely followed by global sea-level rise.

This is not a passive process. Heat entering the ocean raises sea surface temperatures, which in turn influence exchanges of heat and moisture with the atmosphere and change weather systems. Because the ocean is stably stratified, mixing heat downward takes time.

Warming of the top 500 metres was evident globally in the late 1970s; heat in the 500–1,000 metre layer became clear in the early 1990s, the 1,000–1,500 metre layer in the late 1990s, and the 1,500–2,000 metre layer around 2004. Globally, it takes about 25 years for surface heat to penetrate to 2,000 metres.

Ocean heat content does not occur uniformly everywhere. Marine heatwaves develop, evolve and move around, contributing to impacts on local weather and marine ecosystems. Heat is moved via evaporation, condensation, rainfall and runoff.

As records are broken year after year, the need to observe and assess ocean heat content has become urgent.

What happens in the ocean, matters on land

It is not just record high OHC and rising sea level that matter, but the rapidly increasing extremes of weather and climate they bring.

Extra heat over land increases drying and the risk of drought and wildfires, while greater evaporation loads the atmosphere with more water vapour. That moisture is caught up in weather systems, leading to stronger storms – especially tropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers, such as one that has soaked New Zealand in recent days.

The same ocean warmth that fuels these storms also creates marine heatwaves at the surface.

In the ocean surrounding New Zealand and beyond, these marine heatwaves are typically influenced by the El Niño–Southern Oscillation. This Pacific climate cycle alternates between El Niño, La Niña and “neutral” phases, strongly shaping New Zealand’s winds, temperatures and rainfall from year to year.

During 2025, a weak La Niña, combined with record high sea surface temperatures around and east of New Zealand, has helped sustain the recent unsettled pattern. Such warm seas make atmospheric rivers and moisture-laden systems more likely to reach Aotearoa, as seen in early 2023 with the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle.

For these reasons, continued observations – gathering, processing and quality control – are essential, tested against physical constraints of mass, energy, water and sea level.

Looking further ahead, the oceans matter not only for heat but also for water. Typically, about 40% of sea-level rise comes from the expansion of warming seawater; most of the rest is from melting glaciers and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Sea levels are also influenced by where rain falls. During El Niño, more rain tends to fall over the Pacific Ocean, often accompanied by dry spells or drought on land. During La Niña, more rain falls on land – as seen across parts of Southeast Asia in 2025 – and water stored temporarily in lakes and soils can slightly reduce the amount returning to the ocean.

A striking example occurred in Australia in 2025, when heavy rains from May through to late in the year refilled Lake Eyre, transforming the desert saltpan into a vast inland sea. Such episodes temporarily take water out of the oceans and dampen sea-level rise.

Monitoring sea-level rise through satellite altimetry is therefore an essential complement to tracking ocean heat content. Tracking both heat and water is crucial to understanding variability and long-term trends.

Kevin Trenberth 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. NZ is again being soaked this summer – record ocean heat helps explain it – https://theconversation.com/nz-is-again-being-soaked-this-summer-record-ocean-heat-helps-explain-it-274013

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maxime Aubert, Professor of Archaeological Science, Griffith University

When we think of the world’s oldest art, Europe usually comes to mind, with famous cave paintings in France and Spain often seen as evidence this was the birthplace of symbolic human culture. But new evidence from Indonesia dramatically reshapes this picture.

Our research, published today in the journal Nature, reveals people living in what is now eastern Indonesia were producing rock art significantly earlier than previously demonstrated.

These artists were not only among the world’s first image-makers, they were also likely part of the population that would eventually give rise to the ancestors of Indigenous Australians and Papuans.

A hand stencil from deep time

The discovery comes from limestone caves on the island of Sulawesi. Here, faint red hand stencils, created by blowing pigment over a hand pressed against the rock, are visible on cave walls beneath layers of mineral deposits.

By analysing very small amounts of uranium in the mineral layers, we could work out when those layers formed. Because the minerals formed on top of the paintings, they tell us the youngest possible age of the art underneath.

In some cases, when paintings were made on top of mineral layers, these can also show the oldest possible age of the images.

One hand stencil was dated to at least 67,800 years ago, making it the oldest securely dated cave art ever found anywhere in the world.

This is at least 15,000 years older than the rock art we had previously dated in this region, and more than 30,000 years older than the oldest cave art found in France. It shows humans were making cave art images much earlier than we once believed.

This hand stencil is also special because it belongs to a style only found in Sulawesi. The tips of the fingers were carefully reshaped to make them look pointed, as though they were animal claws.

Altering images of human hands in this manner may have had a symbolic meaning, possibly connected to this ancient society’s understanding of human-animal relations.

In earlier research in Sulawesi, we found images of human figures with bird heads and other animal features, dated to at least 48,000 years ago. Together, these discoveries suggest that early peoples in this region had complex ideas about humans, animals and identity far back in time.

Not a one-off moment of creativity

The dating shows these caves were used for painting over an extraordinarily long period. Paintings were produced repeatedly, continuing until around the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago – the peak of the most recent ice age.

After a long gap, the caves were painted again by Indonesia’s first farmers, the Austronesian-speaking peoples, who arrived in the region about 4,000 years ago and added new imagery over the much older ice age paintings.

This long sequence shows that symbolic expression was not a brief or isolated innovation. Instead, it was a durable cultural tradition maintained by generations of people living in Wallacea, the island zone separating mainland Asia from Australia and New Guinea.

What this tells us about the first Australians

The implications go well beyond art history.

Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests modern humans reached the ancient continent of Sahul, the combined landmass of Australia and New Guinea, by around 65,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Getting there required deliberate ocean crossings, representing the earliest known long-distance sea voyages undertaken by our species.

Researchers have proposed two main migration routes into Sahul. A northern route would have taken people from mainland Southeast Asia through Borneo and Sulawesi, before crossing onward to Papua and Australia. A southern route would have passed through Sumatra and Java, then across the Lesser Sunda Islands, including Timor, before reaching north-western Australia.

Until now, there has been a major gap in archaeological evidence along these pathways. The newly dated rock art from Sulawesi lies directly along the northern route, providing the oldest direct evidence of modern humans in this key migration corridor into Sahul.

In other words, the people who made these hand stencils in the caves of Sulawesi were very likely part of the population that would later cross the sea and become the ancestors of Indigenous Australians.

Rethinking where culture began

The findings add to a growing body of evidence showing that early human creativity did not emerge in a single place, nor was it confined to ice age Europe.

Instead, symbolic behaviour, including art, storytelling, and the marking of place and identity, was already well established in Southeast Asia as humans spread across the world.

This suggests that the first populations to reach Australia carried with them long-standing cultural traditions, including sophisticated forms of symbolic expression whose deeper roots most probably lie in Africa.

The discovery raises an obvious question. If such ancient art exists in Sulawesi, how much more remains to be found?

Large parts of Indonesia and neighbouring islands remain archaeologically unexplored. If our results are any guide, evidence for equally ancient, or even older, cultural traditions may still be waiting on cave walls across the region.

As we continue to search, one thing is already clear. The story of human creativity is far older, richer and more geographically diverse than we once imagined.

---

The research on early rock art in Sulawesi has been featured in a documentary film, Sulawesi l’île des premières images produced by ARTE and released in Europe today.

Maxime Aubert receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Google Arts & Culture and The National Geographic Society.

Adam Brumm receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Adhi Oktaviana receives funding from The National Geographic Society.

Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Humanity’s oldest known cave art has been discovered in Sulawesi – https://theconversation.com/humanitys-oldest-known-cave-art-has-been-discovered-in-sulawesi-273364

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The federal Coalition was imploding on Wednesday night, with all Nationals frontbenchers, including leader David Littleproud, quitting the shadow ministry.

They were retaliating against Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s insistence three Nationals senators must resign for defying shadow cabinet solidarity.

The Nationals ratified the mass walkout in a special party hook up at 6pm. This followed Ley accepting the resignation of the trio – Bridget McKenzie, Ross Cadell and Susan McDonald – who voted, in accordance with their party’s decision, against the government’s hate crime bill, which passed with Liberal support on Tuesday night.

The chaos deepened further when Ley declined to accept the latest batch of resignations.

As she desperately tries to hold the disintegrating opposition together, she said in a 9pm statement,

This evening, I spoke with Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, and strongly urged him not to walk away from the Coalition.

I have received additional offers of resignation from National Party Shadow Ministers, which I and my Liberal Leadership Group have determined are unnecessary.

The Liberal Party supports the Coalition arrangements because they deliver the most effective political alliance for good government. I note that in David’s letter, he has not indicated that the Nationals are leaving the Coalition.

No permanent changes will be made to the Shadow Ministry at this time, giving the National Party time to reconsider these offers of resignation.

The crisis plunges Ley’s leadership into fresh turmoil, and is also putting Littleproud under pressure.

While the resignations do not automatically break the Coalition, its future appears untenable in the present circumstances. Ley sent Littleproud a message on Wednesday evening, asking him to pass it on to Nationals colleagues, in which she said maintaining a strong and functional Coalition “is in the national interest”.

Early Wednesday Littleproud warned Ley of the walkout if the Senate trio was forced off the frontbench.

The Nationals had put the Liberal leader in a diabolical position. The party’s Senate frontbenchers had defied the principle of shadow cabinet solidarity, and convention would indicate they should resign or be sacked. As Cadell told Sky early Wednesday, “I understand if you do the crime you take the time”.

But the question for Ley was: should she press the convention, or let the “crime” go unpunished, to avoid a blow up?

To turn a blind eye, however, would be seen as weakness and further harm her fragile leadership. To let the Nationals get away with their defiance would be interpreted as a dramatic case of the tail wagging the dog.

Liberals, who are now getting blowback for voting for the hate crime legislation, would have been infuriated if the Nationals had been shown lenience.

Former Liberal prime minister John Howard backed Ley, telling The Australian, “She had no choice. She behaved absolutely correctly.”

After hours of public silence in which she consulted with her senior colleagues, Ley issued a statement just before 3pm, indicating the three Nationals would pay the price for their action.

“Shadow Cabinet solidarity is not optional. It is the foundation of serious opposition and credible government,” she said.

She said shadow cabinet had on Sunday night examined the government’s hate crime legislation. “The unanimous Shadow Cabinet decision was to negotiate specific fixes with the government and having secured those amendments, members of the Shadow Cabinet were bound not to vote against the legislation.”

Ley said that when the Coalition re-formed after last year’s brief split, “the foundational principle underpinning that agreement was a commitment to Shadow Cabinet solidarity”.

She said she’d made it clear on Tuesday to Littleproud “that members of the Shadow Cabinet could not vote against the Shadow Cabinet position”.

Littleproud understood action was now required, she said.

But a letter Littleproud sent Ley early Wednesday made it clear the Nationals’ leader disputed her version of events.

He wrote that there was “also a conventíon of shadow cabinet that a final bill position must be approved by shadow cabinet”.

“This did not take place for this bill, nor was the position presented to the joint partyroom,” he said.

Littleproud wrote that, “If these [three] resignations are accepted, the entire National Party ministry will resign to take collective responsibility.

“Opposing this bill was a party room decision. The entire National Party shadow ministry is equally bound.”

In her statement Ley said the three senators had offered their resignations from the shadow cabinet, “as is appropriate, and I have accepted them”.

“All three Senators have written to me confirming that they ‘remain ready to continue serving the Coalition in whatever capacity you consider appropriate,’” and she’d asked them to continue serving “in the Coalition team”, outside the frontbench.

She’d also asked Littleproud to nominate replacements.

Last year, Ley was seen as emerging well in her post-election tussle with the Nationals, even though Littleproud extracted concessions.

Anthony Albanese, who a week ago had been on the defensive over his legislation has now had passed much (albeit not all) of what he initially wanted, and had the additional advantage of seeing the opposition thrown into chaos. The political wheel can turn very fast.

Michelle Grattan 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. View from The Hill: Coalition crisis explodes after Sussan Ley wields the whip against defiant Nationals – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-coalition-crisis-explodes-after-sussan-ley-wields-the-whip-against-defiant-nationals-272438

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Clarke, Research Associate, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University

Ask people how Stonehenge was built and you’ll hear stories of sledges, ropes, boats and sheer human determination to haul stones from across Britain to Salisbury Plain, in south-west England. Others might mention giants, wizards, or alien assistance to explain the transport of Stonehenge’s stones, which come from as far as Wales and Scotland.

But what if nature itself did the heavy lifting in transporting Stonehenge’s megaliths? In this scenario, vast glaciers that once covered Britain carried the bluestones and the Altar Stone to southern England as “glacial erratics”, or rocks moved by ice, leaving them conveniently behind on Salisbury Plain for the builders of Stonehenge.

This idea, known as the glacial transport theory, often appears in documentaries and online discussions. But it has never been tested with modern geological techniques.

Our new study, published today in Communications Earth and Environment, provides the first clear evidence glacial material never reached the area. This demonstrates the stones did not arrive through natural ice movement.

While previous research had cast doubt on the glacial transport theory, our study goes further and applies cutting-edge mineral fingerprinting to trace the stones’ true origins.

A clear mineral fingerprint

Giant ice sheets are messy, leaving behind piles of rock, scratched bedrock and carved landforms.

However, near Stonehenge, these tell-tale clues are either missing or ambiguous. And because the southern reach of ice sheets remains unclear, the glacial transport idea is open to debate.

So, if no big and obvious clues are present, could we look for tiny ones instead?

If glaciers had carried the stones all the way from Wales or Scotland, they would also have left behind millions of microscopic mineral grains, such as zircon and apatite, from those regions.

When both minerals form, they trap small amounts of radioactive uranium – which, at a known rate, will decay into lead. By measuring the ratios of both elements using a technique called U–Pb dating, we can measure the age of each zircon and apatite grain.

Because Britain’s rocks have very different ages from place to place, a mineral’s age can indicate its source. This means that if glaciers had carried stones to Stonehenge, the rivers of Salisbury Plain, which gather zircon and apatite from across a wide area, should still contain a clear mineral fingerprint of that journey.

Searching for tiny clues

To find out, we got our feet wet and collected sand from the rivers surrounding Stonehenge. What we discovered was striking.

Despite analysing more than seven hundred zircon and apatite grains, we found virtually no mineral ages that matched the bluestone sources in Wales or the Altar Stone’s Scottish source.

Zircon is exceptionally tough: grains can survive being weathered, washed into a river, buried in rocks, and recycled again millions of years later. As such, zircon crystals from Salisbury Plain rivers span an enormous stretch of geological time, covering half the age of the Earth, from around 2.8 billion years ago to 300 million years ago.

However, the vast majority fell within a tight band, spanning between 1.7 and 1.1 billion years old. Intriguingly, Salisbury River zircon ages match those from the Thanet Formation, a blanket of loosely compacted sand that covered much of southern England millions of years ago before being eroded.

This means zircon in river sand today is the leftovers from ancient blankets of sedimentary rocks, not freshly delivered sand from glaciers during the last Ice Age 26,000 to 20,000 years ago.

Apatite tells a different story. All grains are about 60 million years old, at a time when southern England was a shallow, subtropical sea. This age doesn’t match any potential source rocks in Britain.

Instead, apatite ages reflect the squeezing and uplifting caused by distant mountain-building in the European Alps, causing fluids to move through the chalk and “reset” apatite’s uranium-lead clock. In other words, the heating and chemical changes erased the mineral’s previous radioactive signature and started the clock ticking again.

Much like zircon, apatite isn’t a visitor brought in by glaciers but is local and has been sitting on Salisbury Plain for tens of millions of years.

A new piece of the Stonehenge story

Stonehenge sits at the crossroads of myth, ancient engineering and deep-time geology.

The ages of microscopic grains in river sand have now added a new piece to its story. This gives us further evidence the monument’s most exotic stones did not arrive by chance but were instead deliberately selected and transported.

Anthony Clarke receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Chris Kirkland 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. Grains of sand prove people – not glaciers – transported Stonehenge rocks – https://theconversation.com/grains-of-sand-prove-people-not-glaciers-transported-stonehenge-rocks-271310

By Sarah Hathway in Djilang/Geelong

A group of Australian Palestine supporters in the state of Victoria have been attacked as tensions continue over the right to protest against Israel’s genocide in Gaza in the wake of the Bondi massacre last month.

As Geelong and Victoria Southwest branch members of Independent Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) were packing up their “Peak Hour for Peace in Palestine” action — the first for the year on Friday — they were attacked.

A lone provocateur, on foot, snatched a Palestinian flag from one, ripping it and clipping the activists’ ear with the flagpole, before taunting and pushing another onto the road, before fleeing the scene.

Police and an ambulance were called and an older activist was transported to hospital — they needed hip replacement surgery for a broken hip.

IPAN said the attack was “unprovoked”, given the network was “peacefully exercising their democratic, legal right to protest against the continuing genocide in Gaza”.

One IPAN member, who tried to retrieve the Palestine flag, told Green Left the attacker had called them “a bunch of terrorist bastards”.

IPAN Geelong and Victoria Southwest organiser Jaimie Jeffrey told GL that politicians and the media have whipped up a “blame game” that is “dangerously divisive”.

Blaming protest movement
“They have tried to blame the Palestine movement for the horrific Bondi massacre. This is outrageous, because the Palestine movement opposes violence, opposes all forms of racism, including antisemitism and is trying to stop a genocide.”

The group started a weekly action in April 2024 with three activists; it has now grown to a regular group of 15–20 activists flying Palestinian flags and holding signs opposing genocide and local weapons manufacturing that assists in arming Israel.

IPAN said that, before the cowardly attack, it had noticed “more supportive toots and less abuse than . . .  towards the end of last year”.

It said government and media spin about “hate speech” and “improving social cohesion” is “having the opposite effect”, by “tacitly encouraging violence against those of us campaigning to stop the genocide”.

“We have never let aggression from those who disagree with our views deter us from protesting the Israeli genocide of Palestinians or any other injustice,” IPAN said.

“We won’t be deterred after this latest incident. Because we are on the right side of history and our commitment is unshakeable.”

Tough hate speech law
Meanwhile, the Parliament in Canberra today passed the toughest federal hate speech laws in Australia’s history.

The Albanese government’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026 faces growing criticism over the risk of restricting the ability of ordinary Australians to protest.

Republished from Green Left.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita in Constitutional Law, University of Sydney

What impact will the criminal hate provisions in the Albanese government’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026 have on the ability of ordinary Australians to protest?

An earlier version contained a criminal offence of promoting or inciting racial hatred. The government dropped this part of the legislation after both the Coalition and the Greens opposed it.

However, inciting racial hatred remains relevant to the other key provisions, which permit the banning of “prohibited hate groups”.

How can a group become a prohibited hate group?

A group can be prohibited under the new law if the governor-general makes a regulation prohibiting it. The governor-general acts on the advice of the minister for the Australian Federal Police. There are a number of conditions that must be met before a group can be banned.

First, the minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in conduct constituting a “hate crime”, or has been associated with a hate crime, by preparing, planning, assisting, or advocating engaging in such conduct. This is the initial trigger for banning a group.

Second, the minister must be satisfied that banning the group is reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community from social, economic, psychological and physical harm.

The bill was altered to water down this requirement in two ways. It now also applies to protecting “part of the Australian community” from such harm. In addition, it says this social, economic, psychological and physical harm can simply be the continued presence in Australia of the group that has engaged in or been associated with the conduct constituting a hate crime. The minister would therefore have little difficulty being satisfied of this second condition.

The third condition is that the minister must have received advice from the director-general of security (who is the head of ASIO) recommending consideration of banning the group. The director-general must be satisfied the group has engaged in activities that are likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or communal violence, and has either itself advocated for or engaged in such violence, or there is a risk that it may do so in the future.

In addition, the minister must get the attorney-general’s agreement to ban the group, and arrange a briefing for the opposition leader about it. Any regulation banning a group could be disallowed (that is, overturned) by either House of Parliament.

Banning a group is therefore not easy. However, as we have seen in other countries, such protections could be overcome by appointing politically motivated cronies to positions, and contending that all opposition or dissent increases the risk of politically motivated violence and community harm.

What is a ‘hate crime’?

The key issue is whether action is a “hate crime”, as this is necessary to satisfy the initial trigger. A hate crime is defined as including acts of violence against people based on their race, colour or national or ethnic origin, or serious damage to their property. It includes threatening or advocating such violence or damage. Displaying Nazi or terrorist organisation symbols also qualifies as a hate crime.

The original bill made promoting or inciting racial hatred a hate crime. This raised concerns, due to uncertainty about the scope of the offence. While the government dropped it as a standalone offence, it slipped inciting racial hatred back in as a “hate crime” for the purpose of banning groups.

It did so by saying that a hate crime includes conduct that involves publicly inciting racial hatred that would constitute an offence against a Commonwealth law (for example, it might also breach a law about sending offensive communications by post). It would also include conduct that would constitute a specified state or territory offence. The conduct must also cause a reasonable person from the targeted racial group to be intimidated, fear harassment or violence, or fear for their safety.

This reliance on state offences makes the law very messy. This is because in the listed offences from Queensland, South Australia and the ACT, incitement to racial hatred is tied to threatening physical harm, whereas in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, no threat of harm is required. No relevant laws are listed for Tasmania or the Northern Territory. This means that whether a group can be banned on this basis may depend on where the conduct took place.

To complicate matters, the act says no crime need actually have been committed, and no one needs to have been convicted. In addition, conduct can be a “hate crime” even though it happened in the past when it wasn’t a crime. It is enough for the minister to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in or been associated with the conduct constituting a “hate crime”.

This leaves it up to the minister to decide what was done and by whom, whether they had the necessary intent, whether their conduct can be attributed to the group, whether any defences apply, and whether the conditions of the law of the relevant jurisdiction have been met.

Ordinarily, we leave such assessments to independent courts and judges. For example, should a minister be the one deciding whether a defence of acting in good faith should apply, when the minister has a political interest in banning a particular group?

Would criticism of a country’s actions amount to a hate crime?

Is it a “hate crime” under the act to criticise the actions or policies of another country? Ordinarily, one would assume such criticism, which is a political communication, would not be regarded as inciting hatred against a group because of their race, colour, ethnic or national origin.

But in recent times, contrary arguments have been made.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland was asked on the ABC’s 7.30 program whether a group could be banned if it accuses Israel of genocide or apartheid, and as a result, Jewish Australians feel intimidated. She replied that a number of other factors would need to be satisfied. This would include advice by the director-general of security. She also noted it would depend on the evidence gathered.

The attorney-general was asked again whether, if protesters were saying “Israel is engaged in genocide, or condemning Israel, saying it shouldn’t exist” and it led to Jewish Australians feeling harassed or intimidated, they could be banned. She replied “If those criteria are satisfied, then that is the case”. This seems to suggest she would consider the initial trigger of engaging in a hate crime by inciting racial hatred would be satisfied by such public criticism, but that the other parts of the test would still need to be satisfied.

Concern about such an interpretation and its consequential impact on the freedom of Australians to criticise the conduct of foreign governments, led to amendments to the bill being moved in the Senate. Senator Lidia Thorpe moved several amendments to the bill, including inserting the following statement:

As per the judgement of the Federal Court in Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720, criticism of the practices, policies, and acts of the state of Israel, the Israeli Defence Forces or Zionism is not inherently criticism of Jewish people and is protected political speech, and not hate speech.

This amendment was rejected by 43 to 12, with the major parties opposing it.

This leaves uncertain what conduct is intended to be caught. Freedom of political communication by those who wish to protest against the conduct of a nation’s government could potentially be chilled.

If the minister were satisfied that such conduct did constitute a hate crime and a regulation was made that a group was a prohibited hate group, that decision might be challenged on administrative law grounds. There might also be a constitutional challenge to the relevant provisions in the act. Until then, one can only speculate about the potential impact of this new law.

Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and occasionally does consultancy work for governments, Parliaments and intergovernmental bodies. She also has a YouTube channel, Constitutional Clarion, which discusses constitutional issues, including this one.

– ref. Hate crime laws may have unintended consequences – including chilling free speech – https://theconversation.com/hate-crime-laws-may-have-unintended-consequences-including-chilling-free-speech-274016

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Markus Wagner, Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong

The renewed campaign by United States President Donald Trump to acquire Greenland has escalated, with tariff threats against European allies. Asked on Tuesday how far he is willing to go to “acquire” Greenland, Trump replied: “You’ll find out”.

This is the latest episode in a long-running effort under Trump 2.0 to remake the international order with major geopolitical implications:

• the potential rupture of NATO
• further pressure on transatlantic trade
• a shock to stock and bond markets.

There is a chance of both escalation and de-escalation when Trump holds meetings this week on Greenland with European leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

US–Greenland relations and the ownership question

Trump first floated the idea of acquiring Greenland during his first presidency, which at the time was dismissed as “absurd” and a diplomatic curiosity.

Greenland, while part of the Danish realm, is a self-governing territory with its own parliament and a right to self-determination under international law. Under a 1951 agreement, the US already has extensive rights to install and operate military bases in Greenland.
Trump’s arguments around Greenland have shifted from access to resources to defence arguments.

Trump has now explicitly linked the acquisition of Greenland to trade sanctions against eight – ostensibly allied – European countries unless they cooperate in facilitating a deal. He is using trade as a weapon.

Tariffs as foreign policy coercion

Trump announced tariffs of 10% on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland beginning February 1, rising to 25% by June 1, until the “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland” has been achieved.

These tariffs are in addition to the so-called Liberation Day tariffs announced in April 2025. The legality of these tariffs under US law is currently under scrutiny by the US Supreme Court. The outcome is important: if Trump loses, he would not be able to impose tariffs over Greenland without Congressional involvement.

This is not regular trade policy. Tariffs are traditionally imposed as remedies against trade measures by other governments. Here, they are being used outside any international legal constraints as leverage to extract unrelated territorial concessions from allies. While national security exceptions exist, its use against close allies – and in pursuit of territorial objectives – pushes that exception well beyond its limits.

What is the EU’s trade ‘bazooka’?

European leaders are forced to choose between multiple unattractive options.
They strongly rejected this latest round of US coercion, emphasising Greenland’s sovereignty and self-determination.

French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking in Davos, said the “endless accumulation of new tariffs […] are fundamentally unacceptable, even more so when they are used as leverage against territorial sovereignty”.

“We do prefer respect to bullies. And we do prefer rule of law to brutality,” Macron said. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was more conciliatory.

European leaders warned of a “dangerous downward spiral” in transatlantic ties and possible retaliatory measures. Such counter tariffs had already been drafted up in response to Trump’s 2025 tariff threats, up to a value of €93 billion (A$162 billion).

While such tit-for-tat trade measures are already concerning, the EU has another measure at its disposal: its Anti-Coercion Instrument or ACI, sometimes referred to as its “trade bazooka”. This was initially designed to deter economic coercion by China.

Macron has raised the spectre of using the Anti-Coercion Instrument against the US. This would allow the EU to select from a range of measures, including:

• the imposition of tariffs on US goods
• restrictions on imports and exports of good and services such as banking or insurance
• investment screening, such as preventing US investors from buying companies in the defence or energy sectors
• restrictions on intellectual property rights, which would put pressure on US tech giants.

The decision over whether to impose such measures has to be taken by EU member governments in the Council of the European Union.

In addition to the time it takes to reach such a decision (officials indicated it could take up to six months), it would also test the ability of EU leaders to resist opposition from within. Hungary’s Victor Orban, a close Trump ally, could try to play the role of spoiler. Although even for him, Trump’s power play over Greenland may be a step too far into unknown waters.

In financial markets, Europeans are also large holders of US government bonds. One Danish pension fund on Tuesday announced plans to sell off its holdings of US Treasuries worth US$100 million (A$148 million). Any broader sell-downs could put pressure on the US bond market.

For the time being, European leaders appear to want to keep the EU trade bazooka dry, indicating a path of de-escalation bordering on appeasement rather than outright confrontation despite Trump’s tactics.

If the EU retaliates, it is likely Trump will respond in kind, possibly resulting in a ratcheting up of trade measures on both sides of the Atlantic. This would have devastating consequences for consumers and exporters alike.

NATO’s greatest test

Trump’s antagonism is not just an odd foreign policy episode, but a test of the strength and depth of the NATO alliance, international legal norms, and trade governance.

The outcome of this conflict – which is entirely of Trump’s making – will signal whether the post-Cold War order can withstand transactional geopolitics cloaked as national security.

Trump has had multiple off-ramps, none of which he appears to be willing to take. His actions will determine whether the US can retain its status as a reliable superpower or will be seen as a pariah in international relations.

Markus Wagner receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence as principal investigator for the Weaponised Trade project.

– ref. As Trump’s threats over Greenland escalate, will Europe use its ‘trade bazooka’? – https://theconversation.com/as-trumps-threats-over-greenland-escalate-will-europe-use-its-trade-bazooka-273797

US cybersecurity company Palantir has received a high-level Australian government security assessment despite concerns about its surveillance and complicity in the Gaza genocide in occupied Palestine.

In November 2025, Palantir Technologies was assessed as meeting the protected level under the Australian Information Security Registered Assessors Programme (IRAP). This protection is a key requirement for companies seeking to handle sensitive government information.

The assessment enables a broader range of Australian government agencies and commercial organisations to use Palantir’s Foundry and artificial intelligence platform, AIP.

In a statement, Palantir said the assessment was conducted by an independent third party assessor in line with requirements set by the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), and demonstrated its ability to meet “stringent national security and privacy standards”.

The company described Australia as an “important market”, saying the clearance would open “new opportunities” across the public and private sectors.

Mass surveillance without accountability
Palantir has been mired in controversy internationally over how its data analysis and AI tools are deployed by government and military clients, with experts warning that the company’s technology enables mass surveillance and data collection with limited accountability.

An ASD spokesperson stated that IRAP status should

not be interpreted as government approval or endorsement of a company’s broader conduct or use of data.

“IRAP assessments are third-party commercial arrangements between IRAP assessors (or companies offering ‘IRAP assessment’ services) and assessed entities,” an ASD spokesperson said.

“ASD does not sign off or approve IRAP assessments.”

Lobbying push amid political pressure
Palantir’s expanded access to Australian government work comes amid growing political scrutiny. According to reporting by Capital Brief, in July 2025, the company hired lobbying firm CMAX Advisory, after the Greens called for an immediate freeze on government contracts with the company.

I want to talk to you about Palantir and its expanding footprint in Australia. TLDR: You should be worried.

This US surveillance tech company has secured multiple Defence contracts worth over $11 million. We need transparency about what data they’re accessing & why. 🧵

— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) July 7, 2025

CMAX Advisory was founded by Christian Taubenschlag, a former chief of staff to Labor Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, who is a special counsel at the lobby firm. CMAX Advisory represents a number of major defence contractors, including EOS and Raytheon.

Gaza, ICE and Coles
Palantir has faced sustained criticism globally over how its software is used by government clients.

In April 2025, CEO Alex Karp dismissed accusations that Palantir’s technology had been used to target and kill Palestinians in Gaza, saying those killed were “mostly terrorists”.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, has said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe Palantir had “provided automatic predictive policing technology, core defence infrastructure for rapid and scaled-up construction and deployment of military software, and its Artificial Intelligence Platform, which allows real-time battlefield data integration for automated decision-making”.

In the United States, Palantir has long worked with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). An investigation by 404 Media revealed that the company was developing a tool that generated detailed dossiers on potential deportation targets, mapped their locations and assigned “confidence scores” to their likely whereabouts.

The company has also attracted attention in Australia for its work with private sector clients, including Coles, where they were hired to cut costs and “optimise” the company’s workforce.

‘We kill enemies’
Karp has been blunt about Palantir’s mission. Speaking to shareholders and investors last week, he described the company’s purpose as helping the West “scare enemies” and, “on occasion, kill them”.

Karp also joked about “getting a drone and having light fentanyl-laced urine spraying on analysts that tried to screw us”.

Millions in government contracts
Despite the controversy, Palantir has quietly built a substantial footprint in Australia.

According to Austender data, the company has secured more than $50 million in Australian government contracts since 2013, largely across defence and national security-related agencies.

The 2024 financial report of its Australian subsidiary, Palantir Technologies Australia Pty Ltd, show $25.5 million in revenue from customer contracts in 2024, though the company’s local financial reports are not audited.

In 2020, Palantir recommended that the Australian government consider “expanding the exemption from public access to disclosure documents”, arguing that filing financial reports with ASIC “is expensive” and “gives competitors access to confidential information”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Johnny Blades, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor

In an otherwise mixed month for the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP), its leadership is hailing a win for Pacific conservation efforts with the UN Treaty on the High Seas coming into effect.

The legally binding UN High Seas Treaty officially received more than 60 ratifications, and following years of negotiations, has this month become international law.

It is a welcome positive development for Pacific conservation in a month when the US announced it was going to leave SPREP.

SPREP’s Director-General Sefanaia Nawadra described the treaty coming into effect as a testament to the long-running work by Pacific Island countries on ocean governance.

The treaty will give Pacific Island countries the ability to better manage high seas pockets in between their national waters, he said.

“The Pacific is peculiar in that within the national jurisdictions of countries in the Pacific, in between, there are what I call donut type spaces, international waters,” he said.

“So this [treaty] allows us to implement management measures beyond our national jurisdictions into these areas that are of particular concern to countries within our region.”

“So it’s a very important agreement for us, and is the continuation of the global leadership that Pacific Island countries have shown on oceans throughout the history of global oceans management, starting off with UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea], which is the primary instrument that governs oceans.”

Asked whether the treaty might make it easier for deep sea mining to take place in the Pacific, Nawadra said: “Primarily it’s meant to be a conservation or sustainable management instrument. So you would allow conservation and protection in some cases, but in other cases, you would allow for managed activities”.

He said the onus would be on Pacific countries to work together in groups or sub-groups to settle on what activity is allowed.

The US retreat
Nawadra was philosophical about the US withdrawal from SPREP, but uncertainty lingers over what it means for the various programmes which the Pacific community cooperates with the US on.

He said he was not worried about the removal of US funding, but indicated the greater impact is likely to be on the work SPREP does with various US government agencies.

“We do a lot of joint activities with NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration], with US CPA, US Department of Agriculture, Geological Service,” Nawadra explained.

“Those are joint activities that benefit the US as much as it benefits the Pacific. I’m not sure how that will pan out going forward over technical cooperation. That’s something that we have to work through with the US.”

Meanwhile, the director-general denied media reports that China’s latest funding offer to SPREP was about filling the gap left by the US.

Shortly after the US announcement, China, which is not a member of SPREP, announced a donation to the organisation of US$200,000 — which is approximately the amount of the funding shortfall created by the US departure.

The timing and amount of China’s donation was merely coincidental, Nawadra said.

“They didn’t step in because of the US. We’ve received funding from China for almost 10 years now,” he said.

“So it’s just a continuation of the annual contribution that they voluntarily give to SPREP. So it wasn’t additional to what they normally donate.”

He said the US retreat was not because of anything outside SPREP’s mandate that the organisation had done.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Analysis by Keith Rankin, 21 January 2026

Truth in world affairs is not a single expert-narrated story.

National Politics

In our ‘official’ ‘United Nations’ world – the world referenced by the expression the international rules-based order – there are about 200 sovereign nation states (ie ‘countries’) which are equal members of the global community of nations. We mean equal in a juridical sense, not an economic or demographic sense; as recognised by ‘one nation, one vote’ in the United Nations General Assembly. Further, in this sanctioned and sanctified view – using the verb ‘sanction’ in its original old-fashioned sense – neither history nor geographical proximity matter; Mexico is as independent of the United States as it is of India.

Before moving on to geopolitics, there are four exceptions allowed within this official view. First is that there are numerous pieces of territory which are understood as too small – in population and/or land area – to be viable independent sovereign nation states. Second, some sovereign nation states – usually neighbours – may form a voluntary Union, whereby certain aspects of their sovereignty are ceded to centralised institutions. Third is that many citizens do not reside in the territories associated with their nationalities. And three exceptions not allowed for, but acknowledged to varying extents: countries that don’t exist but do exist; territories subject to internationally tolerated military occupation; and territories within recognised nation-states pushing for secession, though falling well short of either self-government or union with similarly-placed neighbouring territories.

An example of the first type of exception is Greenland, accounted for as a ‘realm’ territory of Denmark. (Other familiar realm territories are: Cook Islands [in the realm of New Zealand], American Samoa, and New Zealand’s closest foreign neighbour [Norfolk Island, in the realm of Australia].) The second exception is the European Union (noting that, in some circumstances – consider FIFA – the United Kingdom is also a Union of [four] nations). Might Canada join the European Union this century?

The third exception – the diaspora exception – applies to a degree to all nation states; and it applies particularly to New Zealand. New Zealand possibly has more citizens resident outside of New Zealand relative to citizens resident inside New Zealand; at least if we only consider countries with resident populations in excess of one million. Is New Zealand its citizenry or its territory? Given the realities of dual-citizenship, it is probably better defined as its territory along with its residentcitizens and denizens.

The fourth generally accepted exception is territories that are formally non-sovereign. Our example here is Antarctica. We may add the Moon.

Re the unsanctioned exceptions, Taiwan is the obvious example of the first type (other examples include Abkhazia and Somaliland) and Palestine is the obvious example of the second type. For the third (secessionist) type, I would cite Eastern Congo in which substantial domestic forces are in reality more aligned to nearby Kigali than faraway Kinshasa; I would also mention Myanmar’s Rakhine state, home to the Rohingya people.

Geopolitics

While the above ‘national politics’ narrative is real and contains a legal structure satisfying to its liberal architects, it is overlaid by an equally real (and quite different) geopolitical layer. Conflicts of big ego and big ideology can neither be understood nor resolved without substantial reference to geopolitics. Geopolitics is tied to both contested histories and geographical proximity. More than anything geopolitics is about empire (formal and informal), the unequal coalitions and powerplays among and between identities of people beyond and within territorial boundaries.

Geopolitics is about the centres of political power – the ‘great powers’ to use an expression from World War One – and their rival claims over the planet and its people. Geopolitical texts commonly refer to cities that are power centres, such as Washington and Berlin, rather than the countries in which those cities are located. Most conflict in the world can only be understood with recourse to geopolitics, which is largely the sociopathic politics of power masquerading as a set of struggles of ‘Good versus Evil’.

At least the president of the United States, DJT, is in a sense more honest than most ‘democratic’ leaders of powerful countries, in that he frames his acquisitive sentiments in the name of America rather than in the name of Good or in the name of God. Coveted Greenland looms larger in geopolitics than in national politics; in national politics it successfully hides in plain sight, as a large appendage of a semi-sovereign nation with a population barely larger than New Zealand.

Greenland: History

Greenland presently – at least formally – lies within the realm of Denmark, noting that ‘realm’ is itself a sanctioned rules-based exception. Denmark, as a member of the European Union, has delegated aspects of its sovereignty; from Copenhagen to Brussels and Paris and Berlin.

The first question to ask about Greenland is: why is it in the possession of the Kingdom of Denmark? Greenland was never conquered or colonised by Danes or by Denmark. Over 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonised by Norse (ie Norwegian) Vikings. Greenland’s first people were Inuit, and the present population is substantially an Inuit/Norse mix. Around 500 years ago, Norway and Denmark formed a political union – a kingdom in which Denmark was the dominant partner – which lasted around 300 years. In that age of imperialism, Greenland became formally subject to that kingdom. This was a marriage between Denmark and Norway during the constrained period of the Little Ice Age. Greenland was ‘matrimonial property’ in this Union.

In 1814, Norway was passed on to Sweden through the Treaty of Kiel, in an era in which the wife was regarded as the property of the husband. Thus, Denmark formally gained Greenland as part of the divorce settlement. That remains the historical basis for Denmark’s claim over Greenland today. Though we remind ourselves that today’s reality is that Denmark is a somewhat junior partner in the polyamorous European Union. (Would Denmark get to keep Greenland if Denmark was to do a ‘Dexit’? Or would Greenland be passed on to the other husbands and wives?)

Greenland: Geography

Functionally, at least in geo-environmental terms, Greenland is the northern land-analogue of Antarctica. Arctica. While it doesn’t literally cover the North Pole (except that a large sheet of sea-ice extends from northern Greenland), it is near enough; and its land ice-sheet is certainly the northern analogue of the West Antarctica ice sheet. Based on this analogy, Greenland could become subject to a similar extranationalism to that which governs Antarctica. The difference of course is that Antarctica has no formally resident population; almost nobody was born there. The model could be adapted, with authentic Greenlanders becoming limited-power-landlords over an essentially international territory.

When I was a child, it was very common for families to have a globe in their living rooms, somewhere between the mantlepiece and the piano. About 15 years ago, I was lucky enough to have acquired a 3D jigsaw puzzle of the world; indeed, a small self-assembly globe. To see Greenland in perspective, it’s necessary to look at a globe. Short of that, see this satellite picture of North America from the Turtle Island page on Wikipedia.

(I was privileged to learn about Turtle Island when I visited Winnipeg in May 2019. When I walked through the Peace Park at The Forks, I learned for the first time about Turtle Island. See on YouTube: Winnipeg – the heart of Turtle Island. [And note this 16 December 2025 BBC story FBI foils New Year’s Eve terror plot across southern California, officials say relating to the Turtle Island Liberation Front.] I have a personal story about Greenland. While never having set foot there, I remember having a window seat flying from London to Los Angeles one October day. I saw the sun set somewhere northwest of Scotland; then a couple of hours later I saw it rise again, from the west, over Greenland. This was only possible because at such polar latitudes, an east-west flight is fast enough to be able to reverse the sunset.)

The map, in correct perspective, very much shows Greenland as a not-very-green part of North America. Its closest neighbour is of course Canada; indeed since 2022 Greenland has shared a land border with Greenland, on Hans Island in the Kennedy Channel, following the resolution of the Whisky War between Canada and Denmark. (It is unknown whether the Kennedy Channel was named after a Canadian fur-trader and politician, or the guy who was United States Secretary of the Navy in 1852 and 1853. If the latter, this might give false credence to DJT’s claim on Greenland for the United States.)

Greenland certainly looks to be geographically American – just as Norfolk Island geographically connects to New Zealand (on the Zealandia continent). But a geographical argument must also based on the connectivity between population centres. The flight distances from Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, to other capital cities are: Reykjavik, Iceland (1,430 km); Ottawa, Canada (2,560km); Dublin, Ireland (2,800km); Oslo, Norway (3,150km); London, UK (3,250km); Washington DC, US (3,260km); Brussels, EU (3,520km); Copenhagen, Denmark (3,530); Berlin, Germany (3,820); Moscow, Russia (4,630km); Beijing, China (8,400km).

Washington is closer to Nuuk than is Copenhagen. Dublin is the closest EU capital city to Nuuk, and is a more economically connected city to the North Atlantic than is Copenhagen. Brussels, formal capital of the EU is the same distance from Nuuk as is Copenhagen. Berlin, the geopolitical capital of the EU, is nearly 4,000 km from Nuuk (whereas New York, the power capital of the US is less than 3,000km from Nuuk). Moscow and Beijing are both much further from Greenland, have had no geopolitical influence there, and constitute no plausible geopolitical threat; future security issues in Greenland are more likely to emanate from piracy than from power centres in Asia.

While there is no argument in favour of the United States annexing or otherwise acquiring Greenland, the case for European Union control of Greenland is even weaker than that of the United States. The only European countries with credible claims to form a Union with Greenland are Norway and Iceland, on the basis of shared history and shared maritime geography.

Greenland: Demography

Greenland’s population of just under 60,000 is only slightly higher than the populations of the American realm territories of American Samoa and the Northern Marianas Islands. Guam has three times more people than Greenland. The American Virgin Islands, with 100,000 people, is more populated than Greenland. The largest American realm territory, Puerto Rico, has 300 times as many people as Greenland. Of these ‘countries’, only Puerto Rico is a serious candidate to become the 51st state of the United States. The Virgin Islanders don’t even drive on the same side of the road as the rest of the United States.

I suspect that the DJT vision for Greenland is for it to become something like the former Panama Canal Zone; a former American territory that existed when I sailed through the Panama Canal in 1974. Of course we are aware that DJT would like to re-acquire that Panamanian territory for the United States.

Greenland is different though, in the same way that Antarctica is. It has many potentially valuable mining resources; and it lies on economically significant sea channels which are becoming more navigable thanks to climate change. And it has global environmental values. A collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet would drown all of Manhattan and most of the rest of New York; as well as much of other cities mentioned above such as Dublin, London and Copenhagen.

Greenland as Arctica

Greenland’s people can become landlords – but not landlords with monopoly power – able to procure citizens’ royalties (public property rights) from both extractive industries and the use of its sea-lanes. Greenland requires a Treaty of Nuuk, with a limited concession of sovereignty in return for those benefits; but a concession that leaves property rights in Greenland essentially the same as property rights in Antarctica.

Antarctica today represents geopolitics done quite well.

The Greenland question needs to be addressed. It is not sufficient for it to become a de facto territory of Europe – which eventually means Berlin. And it is too large a landmass to be independent in the way that Iceland is.

Warning

By understanding Greenland essentially as an inhabited Anti-Antarctica – as Arctica – we have to realise that the present United States regime may seek to undermine (literally and metaphorically) current arrangements for Antarctica. And when DJT turns his gaze southwards, he may look upon independent sovereign countries in the South Pacific as parts of his growing fiefdom. The South Pacific is America’s gateway to McMurdo Sound, in Antarctica. A number of ‘independent’ and proud countries in the South Pacific – Tonga, for example – already dutifully vote largely according to the United States’ say-so in the United Nations.

If Antarctica becomes a template for Greenland, that’s a definite improvement on the present accidental and unsustainable arrangement; but only if Antarctica’s present governance arrangements are preserved.

Watch what happens if Nasa’s Artemis Program successfully re-lands American men on the Moon. The Washington regime may lay claim to privileged property rights over the Moon – much as Wentworth acquired New Zealand’s South Island in 1839, requiring a treaty (Treaty of Waitangi) to repudiate that claim. If the United States believes it owns the Moon, it may stake a similar claim on Antarctica; and also seek to extend its Pacific realm. Citing America’s security! And breaking the Seventh and Tenth Commandments.

While current American-led geopolitics poses a deeply problematic story for resource-rich and low-populated territories, the expert-led official story of international politics is problematic too. The status-quo is not necessarily the best solution.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on January 21, 2026.

Jeremy Rose: Mexico – the revolution isn’t being televised
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s support for resettling Palestinian children orphaned by Israel’s genocide in Gaza barely rates a mention, reports Towards Democracy. COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose At the beginning of last month, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stood in front of an estimated 600,000 supporters in Zócalo Square and reflected on the achievements of her first

Period pain and heavy bleeding cost the Australian economy billions every year in lost productivity: study
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University Photo by Karola G/Pexels While period pain and heavy menstrual bleeding are common, they’re often dealt with privately. Yet they take a profound toll on a person’s health – and finances. Now, our new study has calculated

We interviewed Australian women who sexually abused children. This is what we learnt
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bricklyn Priebe, Associate Lecturer in Criminology and Justice, School of Law and Society, University of the Sunshine Coast Hoi An and Da Nang Photographer/Unsplash Child sexual abuse cases involving female perpetrators are confronting and distressing. When these cases make the news, they often provoke shock and outrage.

Rob Hirst was not the figurehead of Midnight Oil – but he was its backbone
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Nichols, Professor of Urban Planning, The University of Melbourne The death of Rob Hirst from pancreatic cancer at the age of 70 is the close of a long and, in many ways, surprising career. Hirst was the drummer and songwriter who, though far from the figurehead

Morgan poll has One Nation surging at Coalition’s expense; Trump’s net approval in negative double digits
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne One Nation continues to surge after the Bondi terror attack, as a Morgan poll has them gaining six points at the Coalition’s expense. A national Australian Morgan

New study sheds light on the threat of ‘marine darkwaves’ to ocean life
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By François Thoral, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Marine Ecology, University of Waikato Surfers caught in a marine darkwave. Jean Thoral, CC BY-NC-SA Life in the ocean runs on light. It fuels photosynthesis, shapes food webs and determines where many marine species can live. Gradually, that light is fading.

4.87 tonnes of cocaine seized in French Polynesian waters – bound for Australia
RNZ Pacific France’s High Commission in French Polynesia has reported the seizure of 4.87 tonnes of cocaine in its maritime zone. The armed forces in French Polynesia (FAPF), the national gendarmerie and the local branch of the anti-narcotics office (OFAST) were involved in the intercept. A statement from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have congratulated

A stronger focus on prevention could help governments rein in health care and social spending
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angela Jackson, Social Policy Commissioner, Productivity Commission, and Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Tasmania Deb Cohn-Orbach/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images At the start of the new year, many of us will commit to joining a gym, eating healthier or cutting back on drinking and smoking. We

How to cut down on trans fats if cooking from scratch isn’t an option
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Beckett, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition and Food Science, Australian Catholic University RDNE Stock project/Pexels Work is finished, and you’re tired and hungry. Maybe you’re rushing home or to daycare pickup. You know you should be cooking dinner from scratch for the healthiest choice but that isn’t going

A stronger focus on prevention could help governments rein in healthcare and social spending
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angela Jackson, Social Policy Commissioner, Productivity Commission, and Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Tasmania Deb Cohn-Orbach/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images At the start of the new year, many of us will commit to joining a gym, eating healthier or cutting back on drinking and smoking. We

What Evil Influencer: The Jodi Hildebrandt Story tells us about Mormonism
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Academic Status in the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University Netflix The new Netflix documentary Evil Influencer: The Jodi Hildebrandt Story, directed by Skye Borgman, seeks to understand the shocking crimes of both Hildebrandt and business partner Ruby Franke. In 2023, Hildebrandt

How NZ can survive – and even thrive – in Trump’s new world of great-power rivalry
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Ross Smith, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury Sean Gallup/Getty Images In the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela and Donald Trump’s repeated threats towards Greenland, a wave of pessimism has swept the western world. For countries wedded

How NZ can survive – and even thrive – in Trump’s new world of great-power rivalry
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Ross Smith, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury Sean Gallup/Getty Images In the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela and Donald Trump’s repeated threats towards Greenland, a wave of pessimism has swept the western world. For countries wedded

How NZ can survive – and even thrive – in Trump’s new world of great-power rivalry
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Ross Smith, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury Sean Gallup/Getty Images In the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela and Donald Trump’s repeated threats towards Greenland, a wave of pessimism has swept the western world. For countries wedded

How NZ can survive – and even thrive – in Trump’s new world of great-power rivalry
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Ross Smith, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury Sean Gallup/Getty Images In the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela and Donald Trump’s repeated threats towards Greenland, a wave of pessimism has swept the western world. For countries wedded

The world is in water bankruptcy, UN scientists report – here’s what that means
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaveh Madani, Director of the Institute for Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University The world is now using so much fresh water amid the consequences of climate change that it has entered an era of water bankruptcy, with many regions no longer able to bounce back

The world is in water bankruptcy, UN scientists report – here’s what that means
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaveh Madani, Director of the Institute for Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University The world is now using so much fresh water amid the consequences of climate change that it has entered an era of water bankruptcy, with many regions no longer able to bounce back

The world is in water bankruptcy, UN scientists report – here’s what that means
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaveh Madani, Director of the Institute for Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University The world is now using so much fresh water amid the consequences of climate change that it has entered an era of water bankruptcy, with many regions no longer able to bounce back

The world is in water bankruptcy, UN scientists report – here’s what that means
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaveh Madani, Director of the Institute for Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University The world is now using so much fresh water amid the consequences of climate change that it has entered an era of water bankruptcy, with many regions no longer able to bounce back

View from The Hill: defiant Nationals break with Liberals over hate bill, putting strain on Coalition
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Nationals have defied shadow cabinet solidarity, voting in the Senate against the government’s hate crime legislation, which passed late Tuesday night with the support of the Liberals. The Nationals’ action puts new strain on Coalition relations, and is destabilising

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s support for resettling Palestinian children orphaned by Israel’s genocide in Gaza barely rates a mention, reports Towards Democracy.

COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose

At the beginning of last month, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stood in front of an estimated 600,000 supporters in Zócalo Square and reflected on the achievements of her first year in office and the seven years since the Morena Party, which she heads, came to power.

It was quite a list: 13 million people lifted out of poverty; the minimum wage increased by 125 percent; Indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities allocated budgets to run their own affairs; a locally produced people’s electric car about to roll off production lines; a new fast rail system crossing the country; a national park spanning 5.7 million hectares across Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala; a 37 percent drop in homicides — and on it went.

Sheinbaum is Mexico’s first woman president, its first Jewish president, and a climate scientist who was part of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize–winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change team.

In short, she has a story to tell, but it’s not one our media pays enough attention to.

That speech — where she declared the end of neoliberalism in Mexico — barely rated a mention in the world’s English-language press.

The grope that trumped the anti-Trump
In fact, Sheinbaum’s extraordinarily popular first year in office — El País reports she has an approval rating of over 70% — has been largely ignored by the English-language media, with three notable exceptions: when she was groped by a man on the streets of Mexico City last November, it made front-page news around the globe; a much-hyped series of “Gen Z” protests; and her dignified, and at times witty, responses to bellicose threats to Mexico’s sovereignty from the US president — which have seen her labelled the anti-Trump.

So why the lack of interest? Some possibilities, none of them edifying, spring to mind: if it doesn’t involve violence, Latin America rarely rates a mention in the media; Sheinbaum is a woman; and she’s leftwing.

But for each of those, there’s at least one counter-example that suggests this isn’t always the case.

Argentina’s right-wing libertarian president, Javier Milei, is widely reported on despite coming from a country with little over a third of Mexico’s population and GDP. Milei is a poster boy for right-leaning pundits from Auckland to London.

Former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern — leader of a country of just five million people compared to Mexico’s 130 million — was widely reported on while in office, and with the recent publication of her memoir has been the subject of more feature articles in recent months than Sheinbaum has generated in a year in office.

And finally, and perhaps most interestingly, there was the saturation coverage of Zoran Mamdani’s run and eventual victory in the New York mayoral election.

Sheinbaum’s successful campaign to become the equivalent of mayor of Mexico City — with a population significantly larger than New York’s — in 2018 was barely reported, despite running on a similarly leftwing, if notably more ambitious, platform.

Mamdani’s campaign and victory were newsworthy but, on any metric, less significant than Sheinbaum’s time in office.

World’s most popular leader
She is arguably the world’s most popular leader, delivering on promises more far-reaching and consequential than anything on offer in the Big Apple.

A promise by Mamdani to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he visit New York — something he almost certainly cannot deliver on — was widely reported, while Sheinbaum’s support for resettling Palestinian children orphaned by Israel’s genocide in Gaza barely rated a mention. (Mexico has also joined South Africa’s International Court of Justice genocide case against Israel.)

The contrast between the saturation coverage of Mamdani and the paucity of coverage of Sheinbaum holds true for both conservative and liberal media.

The Wall Street Journal ran 50-plus editorials and op-eds criticising Mamdani in the run-up to his election but just three or four on Sheinbaum in her first year in office, all focusing on her alleged failure to tackle violence and the cartels. (In fact, homicides are down, though still extremely high.)

Even Jacobin magazine, one of the few US outlets to provide in-depth coverage of Mexico’s so-called “Fourth Transformation,” has given far more coverage to Mamdani, with a recent podcast declaring New York the epicentre of global socialism.

Whatever the explanation for the scant coverage of Sheinbaum, the achievements and popularity of the Morena movement are worth talking about.

The Donroe Doctrine’s threat to Mexico
There’s little doubt we’ll be hearing more about Mexico over the coming months, but the focus will almost certainly be on the threat from the north, not the achievements and promise of the Fourth Transformation.

After the illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, President Trump turned his sights on Mexico, declaring Sheinbaum to be a “tremendous woman, she’s a very brave woman, but Mexico is run by the cartels”.

Having designated the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels as terrorist organisations at the beginning of his second term in office, Trump had already signalled the possibility of military intervention in Mexico.

Sheinbaum’s response to both the Venezuelan intervention and the implied threat to Mexican sovereignty was resolute and principled:

“We categorically reject intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. The history of Latin America is clear and compelling: intervention has never brought democracy, never generated well-being, nor lasting stability.

“Only the people can build their own future, decide their path, exercise sovereignty over their natural resources, and freely define their form of government.”

Trump has other ideas, recently declaring that the US military could attack the cartels without congressional approval.

“I don’t think we’re necessarily going to ask for a declaration of war,” he said. “I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. We’re going to kill them. They’re going to be, like, dead.”

Trump has dubbed the new era the Donroe Doctrine — a reference to his regime’s embrace of the Monroe Doctrine, named for President James Monroe, who declared the Western Hemisphere an area of US influence in the 1820s.

200 years of brutal interventions
It was the beginning of more than 200 years of brutal interventions by the US state, including a war on Mexico that resulted in the US taking over approximately 1.36 million sq km of Mexican territory — about 55 percent of the country.

Last year Trump hung a portrait of the country’s 11th president James Polk in the White House. Polk was responsible for the Mexican-American war of 1846-1848 which ended with the ceding of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming to the USA, in exchange for $15 million.

Trump has pointed to the portrait and told visitors: “He got a lot of land.”

His play on words with the Donroe Doctrine is characteristically narcissistic but also painfully accurate. It is the geopolitics of a gangster state.

In a world reeling from the criminal actions of that gangster state — from its continued bankrolling of genocide, to the extrajudicial killing of alleged drug smugglers, to SS-like round-ups of “foreigners” on its city streets, to threats to take over the sovereign territory of an ally — Mexico and its president, Claudia Sheinbaum, are a beacon of hope.

There is plenty I haven’t even touched on:

• The election of an Indigenous lawyer, Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, as head of the Supreme Court;
• The construction of 1.1 million affordable homes over the next six years, generating hundreds of thousands of jobs;
• The launch of SaberesMX, a free national online platform designed to democratise access to knowledge and provide lifelong learning opportunities across Mexico; and
• Sheinbaum’s daily morning press conferences, where she speaks directly to the nation.

If past experience is anything to go by, the mainstream media’s ignoring of Morena’s successes is unlikely to end any time soon.

The good news is that there are alternatives. Mexico Solidarity Media is a great source of original articles, translations from local media, and podcasts, and Substack writer and former Boston Globe and LA Times journalist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez regularly writes about Mexico from a progressive perspective.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and broadcaster and his Towards Democracy blog is at Substack. This article was first published at Towards Democracy and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz