Latest news with #TheConversationUK
Canada Standard
2 days ago
- Politics
- Canada Standard
Trump breaks from western allies at G7 summit as US weighs joining Iran strikes
Working alongside western democratic allies has not been a natural fit for Donald Trump. The US president left the recently concluded G7 summit in Canada early, with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron assuming this was to work on addressing the most severe escalation between Iran and Israel in decades. But Trump offered little communication with other G7 members, which include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK, of what his plans were. He said he had to leave the summit "for obvious reasons", though failed to elaborate on what he meant. After exiting the summit, he lambasted Macron on social media. Trump wrote: "Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire". Trump continued by saying his exit was due to something "much bigger than that", adding: "Emmanuel always gets it wrong." This has prompted discussion over whether US forces may join Israel's strikes on Iran. Despite initially distancing the US from the Israeli attacks, Trump said on June 17: "We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran." Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. He has since demanded Tehran's "unconditional surrender", while also issuing a chilling threat to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describing him as an "easy target". The pressure campaign employed by Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to convince Trump that the time is right for a military assault on Iran seems to be working. Exploiting Trump's impulsive nature, Netanyahu may soon be able to convince Trump to give Israel what it needs to destroy Iran's underground uranium enrichment sites: a 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bomb and a B-2 bomber to carry it. The US's western allies have been left scrambling to interpret Trump's social media posts and figure out the real reason he left the G7 summit early. This wasn't the first time that Trump has left a G7 forum early. In 2018, the last time such a meeting was held in Canada, Trump also left early after Macron and the then Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, promised to confront Trump over the imposition of tariffs on US allies. The latest G7 summit also wasn't the first time Trump has treated traditional US allies with suspicion. Trump has cast doubt on US willingness to defend Nato allies if they don't pay more for their own defence. He has repeatedly threatened to leave the alliance and has frequently denigrated it - even calling alliance members "delinquent". Trump thinks the US gains an advantage by abandoning relationships with "free riders". But experts have made clear alienating allies makes the US weaker. While the alliance system has given the US unprecedented influence over the foreign policies of US allies in the past, Trump's pressure to increase their defence spending will make them more independent from the US in the long-term. Trump seems to prefer a world guided by short-term self-interest at the expense of long-term collective security. Indeed, with an "America first" agenda, multilateral cooperation is not Trump's strong suit. With the G7, Trump is yet again making clear that he does not fit in, nor does he want to. Because the G7 is small and relatively homogenous in membership, meetings between members are supposed to promote collective and decisive decision-making. However, even the task of coming up with a joint statement on the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel proved challenging. Trump eventually joined other leaders in calling for deescalation in the Middle East, and the G7 was in agreement that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. But Trump's social media activity since then has left US allies in the dark over what role the US might play in the conflict. Trump also alarmed G7 members with calls for Russia to return to the forum. He claimed that the war in Ukraine would not have happened had Moscow not been ejected from the former G8 grouping in 2014. Then, on his way out of the summit, Trump bragged to reporters that Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, "doesn't speak to anybody else" but him. Trump added that Putin was insulted when Russia was thrown out of the G8, "as I would be, as you would be, as anybody would be". Following weeks of frustration over Russia's refusal to engage in serious peace talks about ending the war in Ukraine, Trump seems to have returned to being Putin's most loyal advocate. During Trump's first term, he pushed multilateralism to the brink. But he did not completely disengage. The US withdrew from the Paris climate accords, the nuclear deal with Iran, negotiations for a trade deal with Pacific nations, and imposed sanctions against officials of the International Criminal Court. However, when multilateral initiatives served Trump's short-term objectives, he was willing to get on board. A trade deal struck with Canada and Mexico that Trump described as "the most important" ever agreed by the US. He said the deal would bring thousands of jobs back to North America. The second Trump administration has been even more hostile to multilateralism. Not only has the trade deal with Canada and Mexico been undermined by Trump's love of tariffs, his administration has been more antagonistic toward almost all of the US's traditional allies. In fact, most of Trump's ire is reserved for democracies not autocracies. In contrast to the G7, where he clearly felt out of place, Trump was in his element during his May trip to the Middle East. Trump has a more natural connection to the leaders of the Gulf who do not have to adhere to democratic norms and human rights, and where deals can get done immediately. Trump left the Middle East revelling in all of the billion dollar deals he made, which he exaggerated were worth US$2 trillion (Pound 1.5 trillion). The G7, on the other hand, doesn't offer much to Trump. He sees it as more of a nuisance. The G7 forum is supposed to reassure the public that the most powerful countries in the world are united in their commitment to stability. But Trump's antics are undermining the credibility of that message. It is these antics that risk dragging the west into a dangerous confrontation with Iran.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Could faecal transplants cause long-term health problems?
Keeping a healthy mix of friendly microbes in the gut – known as eubiosis – is crucial for good health. When that delicate balance is thrown off – often by antibiotics, diet or illness – the result can be a range of issues, from digestive problems to more serious conditions like Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and even neurological and metabolic disorders. One increasingly popular way to try to restore gut health is through faecal microbiota transplantation. This involves taking stool from a healthy person, isolating the beneficial microbes and putting them in a capsule (jokingly referred to as 'crapsules' or 'poo pills'). The hope is that the beneficial microbes in the pill will establish themselves in the patient's gut, thereby improving microbial diversity and function. Faecal transplants have been used to treat a wide array of conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome, Parkinson's disease, obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Although generally viewed as safe and effective, a new international study published in the journal Cell has raised some concerns. The scientists found that when the donor's microbes do not properly match the recipient's gut environment – a situation they describe as a 'mismatch' – the treatment can disrupt the body's metabolic and immune systems, possibly with long-lasting consequences. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. The term 'mismatch' comes from the world of organ transplants, where the recipient's body rejects the donor organ. In this case, the problem is that microbes from the donor's large intestine may not be suitable for other parts of the recipient's gut, especially the small intestine, where the microbial makeup is very different. To test this, researchers gave antibiotics to mice to disturb their natural gut microbes, then treated them with faecal transplants. They also tried transplanting microbes specifically from different parts of the small intestine. The mice were monitored for one to three months to track changes. They found that faecal transplants often led to regional mismatches – the wrong microbes ending up in the wrong place. This altered the mix and behaviour of the gut microbes in unexpected ways, disrupting energy balance and other functions. Biopsies from the gut and liver showed significant, lasting changes in how certain genes – particularly those linked to metabolism and immunity – were being expressed. The study did not specify exactly what kind of health issues might result from these genetic shifts. But the researchers are urging doctors to take greater care when using faecal transplants, particularly when it comes to dose, timing and possible side-effects. There may, however, be a better way forward. A newer method known as the 'omni microbial approach' involves transferring microbes from all parts of the intestine, not just the colon. This could help recreate a more balanced and natural gut environment, avoiding the local mismatches seen in standard faecal transplants. There is also growing interest in techniques that aim to 'terraform' the gut: deliberately reshaping specific regions with carefully selected microbes to restore normal function. This new research has certainly sparked debate around the safety of faecal transplants. But with alternative approaches already being developed, there is real hope that the benefits of gut-based treatments can still be delivered, without the risks. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Georgios Efthimiou 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.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Declining soil health is a global concern – here's how AI could help
One-third of the Earth's land surface is already degraded. The UN estimates that more than 2.6 billion people are harmed by land degradation, with countries losing up to US$10.6 trillion (£7.8 trillion) a year because of damage to 'ecosystem services', including the benefits people get from nature such as water and food. Unhealthy soil is a major contributor to land degradation. This can lead to loss of biodiversity, harm plants and animals, cause sand and dust storms and affect crop yields. These consequences affect the regulation of the planet's climate and water cycle, socioeconomic activities, food security and forced migration of people. Emerging smart technologies such as artificial intelligence, satellite remote sensing and big data analysis offer a chance to protect our soils. These tools can help track soil health in real time. This will support farmers, landowners, government agencies and local communities in making better decisions to care for the soil. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. As a professor of geo-hydroinformatics – a field that combines geoscience, hydrology and information technology – my research focuses on using AI, algorithms and advanced modelling tools to better analyse and predict soil health. My team and I have developed the first global map of soil salinisation (accumulation of salt in soil) under various climate scenarios using AI-powered techniques. Soil salinisation is one of the leading contributors to soil degradation and can happen naturally or because of human activities, such as using salty irrigation water or poor drainage systems. With increasing climate uncertainty, our models help identify regions most vulnerable to salinisation. Our AI-driven analysis predicts that by the year 2100, dryland regions in South America, southern and western Australia, Mexico, the southwestern US and South Africa will be key hotspots of soil salinisation. In another key study, we used satellite data, AI and big data tools to investigate the interaction between soil salinity and soil organic carbon – an important part of healthy soil that stores nutrients, holds water and supports plants. Part of this analysis revealed a general negative correlation between salinity levels and soil organic carbon content. As salinity increased, we found that the soil organic carbon content tended to decrease. Our two studies underscore the transformative potential of AI technologies and big data analytics in understanding soil degradation. With a deeper understanding, land can be better managed through more effective mitigation policies and sustainable land use planning. Large-scale land restoration can transform degraded soils. In the Loess plateau in China, centuries of deforestation and unsustainable farming have led to significant ecological challenges. Loess soils (a type not limited to this location in China, formed essentially by the accumulation of wind-blown dust) are easily eroded because they are made up of fine and loose particles. Degradation here has led to more frequent floods, droughts and dust storms because soil degradation is often associated with compaction. This reduces the ability of soil to absorb and hold water. In the 1990s, this prompted the Chinese government to invest in reforestation and sustainable agriculture. This led to the landmark Loess plateau watershed rehabilitation project, with the main goal of boosting farming and incomes on 15,600km² of land in the Yellow River's tributary area. The total project cost of US$150 million, partly funded by the World Bank, was approved in 1994. Elsewhere, in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, the EthioTrees project was launched in 2016 to tackle land degradation through community-based reforestation, enclosures to limit grazing, and reinvestment of funds generated through climate finance mechanisms. Despite challenges including drought and limited financial resources, these large-scale restoration projects have transformed the landscape and lives of people living there. But the Loess plateau and Tigray projects have been complex and expensive. A lot of coordination between people across huge regions and in different sectors is required to ensure a successful, integrated approach. AI can take these successful but resource-intensive restoration efforts and help scale them up. I'm also involved with a European Commission-funded project called AI4SoilHealth, which aims to advance the use of AI to monitor and quantify soil health across Europe. This project shows how data-driven initiatives can support more sustainable land management policies by providing timely, actionable information to governments, farmers and other stakeholders such as landowners, agribusiness companies and local communities. By integrating satellite imagery with accurate data about soil properties in different locations, AI can help develop robust, scalable models that cross local boundaries. Knowing where best to invest money, resources and effort in scaling up soil health solutions will help protect people, businesses and ecosystems from extreme events in the future. Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Nima Shokri receives funding from European Commission for the AI4SoilHealth project.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Israel's air strength is giving it a free hand over Iran
Israel's initial attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, alongside its assassination of top military officials and nuclear scientists, on June 13 has been followed by days of escalating strikes. Iran threatened 'severe punishment' and quickly launched what were, in relative terms, smaller-scale missile attacks against Israeli territory. Israel's military then expanded its assault on Iran, with the Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, saying 'Tehran will burn' if Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 'continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front'. Israel hit dozens of targets in the Iranian capital, Tehran, on June 15, and has since issued evacuation orders for significant areas of the city. The exchange of attacks has put the varying military and defensive capabilities of Israel and Iran on stark display. In particular, it appears that Israel has been able to exercise a high degree of air superiority over Iran. Israel was able to use more than 200 manned aircraft in its initial attack, with its air force reportedly suffering zero casualties. Within 48 hours of starting the conflict, Israel said it had gained control of the skies above Tehran. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This superiority has largely been gained through concerted efforts over the past year to destroy or degrade Iran's air defence systems. In October 2024, for example, Israeli strikes targeted air defences protecting Iranian oil and gas facilities as well as those defending sites linked to Tehran's nuclear programme and ballistic missile production. With a weakened air defence system, the Iranian military has been less able to prevent missile attacks and Israeli aircraft from entering its air space. This has given the Israeli military greater freedom of action in terms of the targets it chooses to attack – and greater freedom of choice when planning operations. Israeli aircraft have been dropping bombs from within Iran, instead of relying on long-range missiles. Iran, on the other hand, has been restricted to using its arsenal of missiles to strike Israel from distance. Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made reference to the strategic importance of this aerial superiority on June 16. While confirming evacuation orders for the Iranian capital, he said: 'The Israeli air force controls the skies over Tehran. This changes the entire campaign.' Netanyahu later did not rule out killing Khamenei, saying it would 'end the conflict'. Katz repeated the threat the following day, warning Khamenei of a 'fate similar to Saddam Hussein'. Iran has been far less effective than Israel in its response – which is no great surprise. Israel says it has destroyed 'one-third' of the surface-to-surface missile launchers possessed by Iran. And the majority of the missiles and drones that have been fired by Iran into Israeli territory have been intercepted before striking their targets. But the strength of Israel's so-called iron dome air defence system has, somewhat counter-intuitively, also offered Iran some advantages. In order to maintain the Iranian regime's own internal security and stability, as well as its wider political aims of being a regional power, Tehran had to respond with a certain level of force. However, Iran is also fully aware of the protection the iron dome provides to the Israeli population. The Iranian government will still be able to point to the few missiles and drones that have reached their target, and the destruction they have caused, as evidence that it is able to project its power beyond its own borders and respond in the face of aggressive Israeli action. It is able to do so in the knowledge that the level of destruction and deaths of Israeli civilians, which so far stands at around 24 people, will be limited to such a degree that any further escalation by Israel will be seen as unjustified by the wider international community. However, as the destruction and death toll rises, it will become harder for either government to follow this path of logic. Iran has already criticised the Israeli military's claim that it has conducted strikes in a precise manner and only against military targets, reporting that over 200 civilians have been killed in the strikes. It is here where mistakes and missteps could see events spiral out of control. This may lead to a wider and larger-scale conflict that neither side wants but is unable to prevent occurring. Iran, for its part, is reportedly signalling that it is seeking an end to hostilities and the resumption of talks over its nuclear programme. If the conflict does escalate, Israel will probably target Iranian military production facilities. The Israeli military has already issued a warning on social media, telling the Iranian people to stay away from all weapons manufacturing facilities. Other targets may include nuclear installations – though at least one, the heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site in central Iran, will not be targeted. Fordow is hidden in a mountain, with centrifuges located possibly as deep as 80 metres underground. Only the US military has the hardware capable of reaching this facility, so attacking the site would require US intervention. This is something the current Washington administration has proved reluctant to do, so far. But any escalation could have ramifications beyond the Middle East. Iran has supplied Shahed-type drones to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine, with them becoming a key part of Russia's military strategy. However, Russia is now largely producing its own supplies of Shahed drones internally. A much more likely effect is the prolonging of the war in Ukraine as international attention shifts to de-escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. The international community has focused on trying to prevent further attacks, with the US president, Donald Trump, advocating for talks rather than more strikes. On June 15, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social: 'Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal, just like I got India and Pakistan to make.' Whether Israel and Iran take heed of his request will become clear over the coming days and weeks. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Matthew Powell 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.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Why people become drug mules – and why harsh sentences don't deter them
Thousands of British nationals are charged with drug smuggling abroad every year. The UK charity Prisoners Abroad reports a rise in the number of British people imprisoned abroad for drug offences in 2024-25, compared to the previous year, especially women under 34. Two recent examples making headlines are Bella May Culley, an 18-year-old woman from County Durham, and Charlotte May Lee, a 21-year-old from south London. Culley was arrested in Georgia with 14 kilos of cannabis. Lee was arrested in Sri Lanka, with 46 kilos of synthetic cannabis (she has denied knowing it was in her bag and has yet to be charged). If they are convicted, Culley and May face very long sentences. Reports suggest that Culley could receive up to 20 years or life imprisonment in Georgia. In Sri Lanka, May faces a sentence of up to 25 years. And another three young Britons face the death penalty after being charged with smuggling nearly a kilo of cocaine into Indonesia. All of these cases are ongoing and the suspects have not been found guilty of any crime. Why would people take the risk of such harsh punishments? Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. For my book Drug Mules: Women in the International Cocaine Trade, I spent over a year visiting prisons in Ecuador to speak to people convicted of drug trafficking. I spoke to drug mules as well as people who recruited and managed them to understand how the business works. I spoke to people from the UK, Europe, the US, southeast Asia and Africa. My research sheds light on how drug mules end up carrying such massive quantities, and why harsh punishments are an ineffective deterrent. The abiding stereotype of the drug mule is someone who is motivated by poverty, often a woman from a drug-producing country. In fact, like most areas of crime, the majority of people arrested for smuggling drugs worldwide are men. People's motivations for trafficking drugs are extremely varied. In my research, I came across people motivated by grinding poverty, debts or a chance to make a change in their lives. The sums they were promised ranged from £5,000 to £10,000. Some people didn't expect to get paid at all, however. They became involved through debt (theirs or a family member's), and carrying drugs was offered as a way to repay the debt. In rare cases, people became involved through threats and coercion. There are, broadly, two kinds of people arrested at international borders with drugs. The first is carrying drugs that they have bought (and packed) themselves, and probably only a small quantity which they might use or sell for a modest profit. They probably also bought their own tickets to travel. One trafficker I interviewed recalled that he carried only a few hundred grams of cocaine in a talc bottle. If caught, they can face custody, depending on the type and amount of drugs. The second kind is carrying drugs that someone else has paid for – they are drug mules. The person paying for the drugs (we could call them the investor) decides what is smuggled, where to and how it will be concealed – not the mule. Investors are, of course, motivated by profit: five kilos will be more profitable than just the one. And so, mules tend to carry much larger amounts than those carrying their own drugs. Drug mules typically do not know what they are carrying, or how much. When people working as drug mules receive the drugs, they arrive ready to evade customs. In some cases, more professional groups might pay a specialist to conceal the drugs more effectively. Traffickers have been known to evade detection by concealing cocaine in clear plastic products. Many people working as drug mules are misled about where they are travelling to, or may not know they are carrying drugs. Understanding more about the role of drug mules sheds light on the harsh sentences that people accused of drug importation – like Culley and May – are facing. Possible sentences are very long, not only because Sri Lanka and Georgia have extremely tough drug laws, but also because of the large quantities of drugs involved. When it comes to sentencing people for drug offences, the quantity of the drug (or, in some countries the monetary value) has long been taken as a proxy for harm. As I have argued in my research, this is a disproportionate and unfair punishment. The key UN treaty on narcotic drugs requires countries to criminalise and punish activities relating to illegal drugs. The convention labels drug addiction as 'evil', paving the way for very harsh punishments for those who sell or transport drugs. Drug trafficking can even be punished by death in some countries – over 600 people were executed globally in 2024. In many cases, people were executed even though they were in possession of relatively small quantities of an illegal drug – often less than 100g. Each nation makes its own laws, but broadly speaking, more drugs means more punishment. This seems logical and proportionate, unless the person being charged with drug trafficking hasn't made those decisions. And, as my research found, drug mules tend to be carrying larger quantities, paid for by investors or even groups of investors. The job of the drug mule is characterised by exploitation rather than choice. If they don't choose where they travel to, or what they are carrying, then deterrent sentences will simply fail to deter. They only serve to punish those who are most powerless and most exploited in the international drug trade. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Jennifer Fleetwood has previously receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.
