Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angélica Durán-Martínez, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass Lowell

The death of a major cartel boss in Mexico has unleashed a violent backlash in which members of the criminal group have paralyzed some cities through blockades and attacks on property and security forces.

At least 73 people have died as a result of the operation to capture Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, or “El Mencho.” The head of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel was seriously wounded during a firefight with authorities on Feb. 22, 2026. He later died in custody.

As an expert in criminal groups and drug trafficking in Latin America who has been studying Mexico’s cartels for two decades, I see the violent aftermath of the operation as part of a pattern in which Mexican governments have opted for high-profile hits that often lead only to more violence without addressing the broader security problems that plague huge swaths of the country.

Who was ‘El Mencho’?

Like many other figures involved in Mexico’s drug trafficking, Oseguera Cervantes started at the bottom and made his way up the ranks. He spent some time in prison in the U.S., where he may have forged alliances with criminal gangs before being deported back to Mexico in 1997. There, he connected with the Milenio Cartel, an organization that first allied, and then fought with, the powerful Sinaloa Cartel.

Most of the information available points to the Jalisco New Generation Cartel forming under El Mencho around 2010, following the killing of Ignacio “Nacho” Coronel Villarreal, a Sinaloa Cartel leader and main link with the Milenio Cartel.

Since 2015, Jalisco New Generation Cartel has been known for its blatant attacks against security forces in Mexico – such as gunning down a helicopter in that year. And it has expanded its presence both across Mexico and internationally.

In Mexico, it is said to have a presence in all states. In some, the cartel has a direct presence and very strong local networks. In others, it has cultivated alliances with other trafficking organizations.

Besides drug trafficking, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel is also engaged in oil theft, people smuggling and extortion. As a result, it has become one of the most powerful cartels in Mexico.

What impact will his death have on the cartel?

There are a few potential scenarios, and a lot will depend on what succession plans Jalisco New Generation had in the event of Oseguera Cervantes’ capture or killing.

In general, these types of operations – in which security forces take out a cartel leader – lead to more violence, for a variety of reasons.

Mexicans have already experienced the immediate aftermath of Oseguera Cervantes’ death: retaliation attacks, blockades and official attempts to prevent civilians from going out. This is similar to what occurred after the capture of drug lord Ovidio Guzmán López in Sinaloa in 2019 and his second capture in 2023.

Violence flares in two ways following such high-profile captures and killings of cartel leaders.

In the short term, there is retaliation. At the moment, members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel are seeking revenge against Mexico’s security forces and are also trying to assert their regional authority despite El Mencho’s death.

These retaliatory campaigns tend to be violent and flashy. They include blockades as well as attacks against security forces and civilians.

Then there is the longer-term violence associated with any succession. This can take the form of those who are below Oseguera Cervantes in rank fighting for control. But it can also result from rival groups trying to take advantage of any leadership vacuum.

The level and duration of violence depend on a few factors, such as whether there was a succession plan and what kind of alliances are in place with other cartels. But generally, operations in which a cartel boss is removed lead to more violence and fragmentation of criminal groups.

Of course, people like Oseguera Cervantes who have violated laws and engaged in violence need to be captured. But in the long run, that doesn’t do anything to dismantle networks of criminality or reduce the size of their operations.

What is the current state of security in Mexico?

The upsurge in violence after Oseguera Cervantes’ killing occurs as some indicators in Mexico’s security situation seemed to be improving.

For example, homicide rates declined in 2025 – which is an important indicator of security.

But other measures are appalling. Disappearances are still unsettlingly high. The reality that many Mexicans experience on the ground is one where criminal organizations remain powerful and embedded in the local ecosystems that connect state agents, politicians and criminals in complex networks.

Criminal organizations are engaged in what we academics call “criminal governance.” They engage in a wide range of activities and regulate life in communities – sometimes coercively, but sometimes also with some degree of legitimacy from the population.

In some states like Sinaloa, despite the operations to take out cartel’s leaders, the illicit economies are still extensive and profitable. But what’s more important is that levels of violence remain high and the population is still suffering deeply.

The day-to-day reality for people in some of these regions is still one of fear.

And in the greater scheme of things, criminal networks are still very powerful – they are embedded in the country’s economy and politics, and connect to communities in complex ways.

How does the El Mencho operation fit Mexico’s strategy on cartels?

The past two governments vowed to reduce the militarization of security forces. But the power of the military in Mexico has actually expanded.

The government of President Claudia Sheinbaum wanted a big, visible hit at a time when the U.S. is pushing for more militarized policies to counter Mexico’s trafficking organizations.

But this dynamic is not new. Most U.S. and Mexican policy regarding drug trafficking organizations has historically emphasized these high-profile captures – even if it is just for short-term gains.

It’s easier to say “we captured a drug lord” than address broader issues of corruption or impunity. Most of the time when these cartel leaders are captured or killed, there is generally no broader justice. It isn’t accompanied with authorities investigating disappearances, murders, corruption or even necessarily halting the flow of drugs.

Captures and killings of cartel leaders serve a strategic purpose of showing that something is being done, but the effectiveness of such policies in the long run is very limited.

Of course, taking out a drug lord is not a bad thing. But if it does not come with a broader dismantling of criminal networks and an accompanying focus on justice, then the main crimes that these groups commit – homicides, disappearances and extortion – will continue to affect the daily life of people. And the effect on illicit flows is, at best, meager.

– ref. Violent aftermath of Mexico’s ‘El Mencho’ killing follows pattern of other high-profile cartel hits – https://theconversation.com/violent-aftermath-of-mexicos-el-mencho-killing-follows-pattern-of-other-high-profile-cartel-hits-276728

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Trapani, Associate Lecturer of History and International Relations, Western Sydney University

After toppling Venezuela’s leader earlier this year, the Trump administration has turned its sights on Cuba. The near-total blockade of the island is now posing the greatest challenge to the government since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Cuba is quickly running out of oil, creating a dire political and economic crisis for the island’s 11 million residents.

US President Donald Trump’s embargo has prevented any oil tankers from reaching the island for months. A ship carrying Russian fuel is now reportedly on the way to the island to attempt to break the blockade, but the US has seized other ships that have previously tried.

The Trump administration has also threatened tariffs on any nation that tries to send Cuba fuel, putting Latin American leaders in an uncomfortable position. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has called out the embargo as “very unfair”, but she’s been careful not to antagonise Trump by putting an emphasis on the Cuban “people”, not the government.

This is not the first time the US has isolated Cuba, or coerced Latin American leaders to take part. Cuba has been under a US embargo for the past 66 years, which has stunted its economy and caused widespread human suffering.

The island has always found a way to get by, but can it survive this new round of American pressure?

Animosity grows in the 1950s

The Cuban Revolution caught the United States by surprise in 1959. During the Cold War, the US had supported dictatorships in Latin America, such as Cuba’s Fulgencio Batista, with political, financial and military support, creating widespread anti-US activism across the region.

After coming to power, revolutionary leader Fidel Castro instituted modest reforms to land tenure and infrastructure to support the impoverished people. Then-US President Dwight Eisenhower opposed these moves because of their impact on US commercial interests on the island. This opposition turned into a US embargo of Cuban sugar imports in 1960.

In response, Castro looked to the Soviets as an export alternative. Eisenhower retaliated by refusing to ship oil to Cuba, leading Castro to sign an oil deal with the Soviets and eventually nationalise American and British refineries. In 1961, Castro declared his adherence to “Marxism-Leninism”.

Castro and Cuba were hugely popular throughout Latin America. When the Cuban military defeated the CIA-trained force of exiled Cuban fighters at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, Castro was lauded for standing up to the US, though few knew of the military and intelligence support coming from the Soviets.

And when President John F. Kennedy began the campaign to remove Cuba from the Organisation of American States (OAS) in 1961, most Latin American democracies moved to block it.

To bring the those leaders to his side, Kennedy used a carrot-and-stick approach. He proposed an “alliance for progress” to meet the “basic needs of the [Latin] American people for homes, work and land, health and schools”. But his government also passed the Foreign Assistance Act, which established a total blockade of the island and prohibited US aid to any country providing assistance to Cuba.

The OAS removed Cuba as a member the following year and, in 1964, voted to embargo all trade to Cuba, except food and medicine.

Life under the embargo

The embargo prevented Cuba from reaching the modern technological age. Instead, it existed in socialist bubble, emphasising the care of its people over economic development.

Nonetheless, Cuba’s Cold War economic growth was comparable to its neighbours. In 1970, the nominal GDP per capita for Cuba was US$645 (A$900), slightly lower than Mexico and about double the Dominican Republic. By 1990, it was US$2,565 (A$3,600), about 80% of Mexico’s and more than triple the Dominican Republic’s.

Cuba was not industrialised, but the country did reach full literacy before any other Latin American nation and extended health care to all Cubans. Cuba then exported its teachers and doctors throughout Latin America, and beyond.

However, life on the island was still difficult, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

With no clear replacement for Soviet imports and subsidies, the economy began to buckle. From 1990 to 1994 (a time known as the “Special Period”), food production decreased by 40%, leading to food rationing, malnutrition and other health issues.

Protests broke out across the island in 1994 and some 35,000 Cubans fled on boats for Florida.

Cuba and the US after the Cold War

However, the end of the Cold War brought newfound sympathy and assistance from Cuba’s neighbours. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, for example, provided Cuba with oil in exchange for Cuban doctors.

Then, in 2009, the OAS voted to readmit Cuba and allow for regional trade and tourism again.

US President Barack Obama followed suit in 2014, saying the US embargo of Cuba had “failed”.

His administration then initiated what would become known as the “Cuban thaw”. Then-President Raul Castro visited Washington in 2015 and, the following year, Obama became the first US president to visit Cuba since 1928.

Obama did not end the embargo, but he did open the door to US tourism, providing a lifeline for Cuba’s economy.

Why is Trump punishing the island again?

Now, Trump is reimposing the Cold War-era embargo on the island and ramping up the pressure on President Miguel Díaz-Canel’s government.

The White House claims Cuba presents a “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States, saying the island is cooperating with “dangerous adversaries” on intelligence activities, chief among them Russia and China.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned Trump’s embargo, saying “we do not accept anything like this”.

If Russian oil makes it to Cuba, more aid could follow. If that eventuates, the US will have invited Russia into its backyard again, laying the foundation for another Cold War-style stalemate, with the Cuban people once more trapped in the middle.

– ref. Cuba has survived 66 years of US-led embargoes. Will Trump’s blockade break it now? – https://theconversation.com/cuba-has-survived-66-years-of-us-led-embargoes-will-trumps-blockade-break-it-now-276065

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

Two new federal polls by DemosAU and Fox & Hedgehog have the combined primary vote for Labor and the Greens dropping as One Nation continues to surge. There’s no sign of a boost for the Coalition from Angus Taylor replacing Sussan Ley.

At the 2025 federal election, the combined primary vote share for Labor and the Greens was 46.8%, while the combined share for the Coalition, One Nation and Trumpet of Patriots was 40.1%. In the two polls below, the total right vote is 49% and the total left vote 41–42%.

A national DemosAU poll for Capital Brief, conducted February 16–20 from a sample of 1,551, gave Labor 29% of the primary vote (down one since a mid-January DemosAU poll), One Nation 28% (up four), the Coalition 21% (steady), the Greens 12% (down one) and all Others 10% (down two).

No two-party estimate was given, but seat projections had Labor winning 76–85 of the 150 House of Representatives seats, still enough for a majority but down from 87–95 in January. One Nation was winning 43–54 seats, up from 29–38, the Coalition 9–20 (10–22 previously), the Greens an unchanged 0–2 and all Others 3–7 (6–11 previously).

Anthony Albanese’s net positive rating was down three points to -17, with 46% giving him a negative rating and 29% positive. Taylor’s initial net positive was -4 (28% negative, 24% positive), up 14 points on Ley. Pauline Hanson’s net positive improved four points to -1 (38% negative, 37% positive).

In a three-way preferred PM question, Albanese led with 37% (down two), followed by Hanson at 25% (down one) and Taylor at 19% (up three from Ley).

Cost of living was rated the most important issue by 45%, followed by housing at 18% and immigration at 13%. Respondents were asked which of Labor, the Greens, One Nation or the Coalition were best for various issues.

Combining One Nation and the Coalition against the combined Labor and Greens gives the right a 44–32 lead over the left on cost of living, a 41–32 lead on housing and a 53–26 lead on immigration.

Read more: Can One Nation turn its polling hype into seats in parliament? History shows it will struggle

Fox & Hedgehog poll: Labor down to 51–49 lead

A national Fox & Hedgehog poll for the News Corp papers, conducted February 17–19 from a sample of 1,625, gave Labor 30% of the primary vote (up one since an early January Fox & Hedgehog poll), One Nation 25% (up four), the Coalition 24% (down one), the Greens 12% (down two) and all Others 9% (down two).

In a “three party preferred”, where Greens and Other voters are asked which of Labor, One Nation or the Coalition they prefer, Labor had 44% (down two), One Nation 29% (up four) and the Coalition 27% (down two). Respondent preferences gave Labor just a 51–49 lead over the Coalition, a two-point gain for the Coalition. Labor led One Nation by 53–47, a three-point gain for One Nation.

Albanese’s net approval was an unchanged -15 (47% disapprove, 32% approve). Taylor’s initial net approval was +3 (26% approve, 23% disapprove) (Ley’s net approval was -13). Albanese led Taylor by 40–35 as preferred PM (39–31 vs Ley). Hanson’s net approval was up 12 points to +9 (44% approve, 35% disapprove).

On reducing the capital gains tax discount, 35% both supported and opposed. By 59–17, respondents supported an immigration ban from “high risk” areas. By 64–15, respondents did not think “ISIS brides” should be allowed to return to Australia.

Resolve poll on international relations

I previously covered the mid-February federal Resolve poll for Nine newspapers. In further questions, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a net likeability with Australians of -60, United States President Donald Trump -41, Chinese President Xi Jinping -26, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu -20, United Kingdom PM Keir Starmer -5 and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky +22.

The US’s net likeability was -17, down 21 since October and 34 from two years ago. China’s was -24, the UK’s +41, Japan’s +53 and New Zealand’s +67.

Read more: The Coalition leads in Victorian DemosAU poll, with One Nation posting 21% support

On the greatest threat to Australia in the next few years, 31% said China (down 23 since January 2023), 17% the US, 5% Russia and 31% all equally.

By 62–11, respondents thought Taiwan was a sovereign nation rather than a region of China. On any conflict between China and Taiwan, 36% thought Australia should support Taiwan, 7% support China and 38% not take sides.

On the Ukraine-Russia war, 40% thought Australia should maintain its current support for Ukraine, 16% increase its support (down nine since March 2025) and 21% decrease or withdraw support for Ukraine (up seven).

Tasmanian federal EMRS poll

A Tasmanian federal EMRS poll, conducted February 16–19 from a sample of 1,000, gave Labor 30% of the primary vote, One Nation 24%, the Liberals 18%, the Greens 13%, independents 12% and others 2%. One Nation only received 6.0% at the 2025 federal election in Tasmania.

Labor led the Liberals by 60–40 after preferences (63.3–36.7 at the last election), and they led One Nation by the same 60–40 margin. Figures for the five Tasmanian federal seats were given, based on samples of 200 per seat.

In Braddon, One Nation and Labor were tied 50–50, from primary votes of 34% One Nation, 31% Labor, 16% Liberals, 7% Greens and 10% independents. Labor was winning all other seats easily. Albanese led Taylor as preferred PM by 45–31 statewide.

Queensland DemosAU poll: LNP far ahead

A Queensland state DemosAU and Premier National poll, conducted February 10–20 from a sample of 1,044, gave the Liberal National Party (LNP) 34% of the primary vote (down three since the October DemosAU poll), Labor 28% (down one), One Nation 21% (up seven), the Greens 10% (down two) and all Others 7% (down one).

The LNP led Labor by 56–44 after preferences, a two-point gain for the LNP. All Queensland polls now have the LNP far ahead.

LNP Premier David Crisafulli had a net +16 approval, with 39% positive, 38% neutral and 23% negative. Labor leader Steven Miles was at net -10. Crisafulli led Miles as preferred premier by 43–32 (44–32 previously). By 44–36, respondents thought Queensland was headed in the right direction (42–38 previously).

– ref. Two new federal polls have One Nation gaining on Labor – https://theconversation.com/two-new-federal-polls-have-one-nation-gaining-on-labor-276595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Professor of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Primary care – the kind delivered by general practice (GP) clinics – is the backbone of every health system. When it works, we barely notice it.

It keeps people healthy, detects problems early, coordinates care and keeps people out of hospital.

But across many high-income countries, despite very different health systems, primary care is under unprecedented strain.

Our recently published paper presents case studies from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

All show governments are leaning on primary care to solve increasingly complex health needs. At the same time, bureaucracies are demanding more documentation, compliance, performance metrics and administrative work.

However, very little new investment is going into the four parts of primary care that matter most:

• continuity: seeing the same health provider over time, rather than pinballing from one specialist to another

• comprehensiveness: getting the whole family’s physical, mental and social health care from one place

• coordination: ensuring all the different people and services involved in a patient’s care work together smoothly, information is shared and roles are clear, so patients don’t fall through the cracks

• first-contact care: being able to get an appointment with a doctor or nurse you know, when you need it.

Ballooning administrative burdens

These are the core functions of effective primary care, and they are what reduce hospital visits. But across many countries, the GP workforce is shrinking or stagnating just as populations are ageing and multi-morbidity is increasing.

Medical graduates are turning away from general practice, citing high workloads, lower pay relative to other specialities, and the emotional weight of increasingly complex care.

Many GPs who stay in practice are reducing their hours, not because they lack commitment, but because the amount of unpaid work required outside of the consulting room makes full-time practice untenable.

Administrative burdens have ballooned. Electronic health-record systems generate endless inbox tasks. As hospitals push chronic care back into the community, GPs absorb more responsibility without receiving the resources to match.

The result is predictable: practices stop enrolling new patients, waiting times blow out, and people who cannot get timely care turn instead to emergency departments.

These alternatives are often far more expensive, lack continuity, and do not offer the long-term relationships that help detect disease early and manage chronic conditions effectively.

Quick wins, long-term losses

Many of the countries facing these problems spend less than 6% of their total health budget on primary care. For example, the US spends 4%, New Zealand 5.4% and Australia 6%. But how the money is allocated is as important as the amount itself.

Funding models in many countries fail to support team-based care – a collaborative, coordinated model of healthcare delivery in which multiple health professionals work together with patients and their families.

Governments often finance new roles – for example, physician assistants – in isolation, without ensuring practices have the infrastructure to integrate them safely and effectively. This creates inefficiencies and fragmentation.

Poorly designed “pay-for-performance” measures can make things worse. So, when funding is linked to disease-specific indicators rather than the core functions of high-quality primary care, clinicians end up spending more time on documentation and less on patients.

Continuity and comprehensiveness, the strongest predictors of better health outcomes, remain largely unmeasured and unrewarded.

The benefits of primary care investment accumulate slowly – fewer hospital admissions, better management of chronic disease, reduced premature mortality. But political cycles reward quick wins. Governments are tempted to fund initiatives that reduce waiting lists in months, not strengthen foundations for decades.

The result is a proliferation of short-term “solutions” that crowd out the long-term reforms primary care actually needs. The system that prevents downstream costs is neglected because its benefits are not immediately visible.

Toward a sustainable health system

Primary care is relationship-based. That continuity – knowing patients, their histories, their families and the context of their lives – is what allows efficient decision-making and prevents unnecessary interventions.

When investment flows into standalone or narrow services instead of strengthening general practice, care becomes episodic. This can result in poor followup and patients bouncing between providers who are working without shared information.

This fragmentation increases costs while reducing quality, even though each individual initiative may look beneficial in isolation. Once the foundation cracks, the entire system becomes more expensive to maintain but less effective.

The solutions are clear, and are strikingly consistent across countries. A whole-of-system approach is needed to:

• set explicit investment targets for primary care

• align funding, workforce planning and service delivery

• invest in true multidisciplinary teams, not piecemeal roles

• prioritise continuity, comprehensiveness, and first-contact access in funding models

• and create long-term accountability structures that survive election cycles.

Countries that have strong primary care systems will spend less overall on health, have better population health outcomes, and enjoy greater equity. Those that neglect primary care pay for it many times over in hospital pressures, workforce burnout and widening inequities.

Strengthening primary care is not just another reform. It is the only path to a sustainable health system. Countries that fail to recognise this are already seeing the consequences.

– ref. We studied primary care in 6 rich countries – it’s under unprecedented strain everywhere – https://theconversation.com/we-studied-primary-care-in-6-rich-countries-its-under-unprecedented-strain-everywhere-276617

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Noah Eliot Vanderhoeven, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

The next major international sporting event, the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup hosted jointly by the United States, Canada and Mexico, is already garnering international scrutiny. There have been numerous calls to boycott it.

Calls for a boycott were amplified recently following U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland from Denmark, prompting soccer officials in Germany and France to broach the possibility of both countries boycotting the tournament.

Both countries’ soccer federations have pushed back against calls to boycott the World Cup for now, although recent events in Minneapolis have heightened concerns about the U.S.’ role in hosting the tournament and what that will mean for visitors.

Former FIFA President Sepp Blatter — who was suspended by FIFA in 2015 and replaced by current FIFA president Gianni Infantino amid a corruption scandal he was later acquitted of — recently voiced concerns over the marginalization of political opponents and violent crackdowns on immigration in the U.S.

The World Cup has historically been an event that brings together fans from across the world. Many fans rely on tourist visas, and ICE is expected to be responsible for security at the World Cup. ICE’s director has refused to commit to pausing the agency’s operations during the tournament.

Human rights groups have raised concerns over whether World Cup visitors will be detained and handed to ICE if they engage in actions deemed critical of the U.S. government.

Boycotts at international sporting events

In the history of international sporting events, boycotts have been far less common than bans.

Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were not invited to attend the 1920 Olympic games after losing the First World War.

South Africa was invited to the 1964 Tokyo Games but saw their invitation rescinded due to apartheid, and only rejoined Olympic competition in 1992. Rhodesia saw its invitation to the 1972 Games rescinded due to its government enacting a white supremacist regime.

Notably, both instances of rescinded invitations to the Olympic Games came after other African nations threatened to boycott the Games if South Africa and Rhodesia were invited to participate.

There were also partial boycotts at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. Several nations announced a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics to protest China’s mistreatment of the Uyghur Muslims, prohibiting many government officials from attending in an official capacity, while still permitting athletes to compete. Russia has been banned from most major international sports competitions since it invaded Ukraine in 2022.

However, the most famous boycott of an international sporting event occurred in 1980 ahead of the Summer Olympics in Moscow following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More than 60 countries boycotted those Games, led by the U.S. In turn, 19 countries boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, led by the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries.

Yet there has never been a World Cup boycott by qualified teams on political grounds. In 1934, Uruguay famously chose not to travel to the second-ever World Cup in Italy because several European teams, including Italy, declined to travel to Uruguay for the inaugural tournament in 1930.

Prior to the 1966 World Cup, all African teams withdrew from qualifying in protest because FIFA had only allocated all of the teams from Africa, Asia and Oceania one combined place at the tournament. There were calls for Norway to boycott the 2022 Men’s World Cup in Qatar, but they did not qualify for the tournament.

How likely is a boycott?

As of yet, no leaders of major soccer federations have endorsed calls for their country to boycott the tournament, despite pressure from some executives and politicians. It would likely take decisive action from a federation head, akin to the action President Jimmy Carter took prior to the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, to arrive at a country boycotting.

Furthermore, given the relationship Trump has built up with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, the effect of a boycott, or any credible threats of one, on the United States’ immigration policy or hosting responsibilities would likely be rather limited, making a boycott an unpopular decision that may not achieve the desired goal of any boycotting nation.

Infantino attended Trump’s inauguration and controversially awarded Trump FIFA’s inaugural Peace Prize. More recently, he signed an agreement with Trumps’ Board of Peace on behalf of FIFA.

Infantino was also a staunch defender of Qatar’s building practices in the face of heavy human rights criticism and was willing to change FIFA’s policies at the last minute to acquiesce to Qatar’s demands for limited alcohol sales during the 2022 Men’s World Cup.

Trump could still escalate geopolitical tensions enough to spark further boycott discussions. But for now, a boycott remains unlikely, and even credible threats would likely do little to shift Infantino and Trump from the status quo.

– ref. Calls for a boycott of the 2026 FIFA World Cup are growing, but how realistic is one? – https://theconversation.com/calls-for-a-boycott-of-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-are-growing-but-how-realistic-is-one-275785

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milan Klöwer, NERC Independent Research Fellow, University of Oxford

Air travel is famously one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise, and the number of air passengers keeps increasing. Electric planes and “sustainable” aviation fuels are still a long way off making a dent in the industry’s emissions – if they ever will.

But new research by me and my colleagues shows aviation could still cut its climate impact dramatically, simply by using planes more efficiently. In fact, rethinking cabin layouts alone could slash emissions by up to half.

From 1980 to 2019, the share of occupied seats in commercial air planes increased from 63% to 82%. Airlines already have strong commercial incentives to sell every seat – empty ones cost money as well as carbon.

For any given level of passenger travel, carrying more people on each flight means other planes can stay grounded and fewer flights are needed overall. It’s planes that make the big difference, not people – the additional weight of a passenger and their luggage is negligible relative to the aircraft and its fuel.

Aviation is responsible for 2%-3% of global CO₂, but its contribution to global warming is about 4% when secondary effects like condensation trails (which trap heat) are factored in. This impact is dominated by rich people flying frequently, often long-haul in business and first class or even private.

Efficiency in aviation is often thought of as an engineering challenge: how much thrust an engine generates for a given amount of jet fuel. But operational efficiency – the amount of passenger-kilometres per unit of CO₂ emitted – has received far less attention.

In our research, my colleagues and I calculated this operational efficiency for the year 2023, for every flight route, by airline, aircraft model and airport. We found that efficiency gains available in the short term could reduce aviation’s climate impact by more than half.

Short empty flights are the least fuel-efficient

On average, aviation emissions fell from around 260 grams of CO₂ per paying passenger-kilometre in 1980 to 90 grams in 2019. That’s a big difference, but for comparison, electrified rail powered by low-carbon energy can emit less than 5 grams.

Our analysis shows that CO₂ efficiency varies enormously across routes, regions, airports, airlines and aircraft models. Some flight routes emit more than 800 grams per passenger-kilometre, others less than 50. This variability is staggering but also yields a large potential to reduce emissions if efficiency across the industry increased towards that of the most efficient routes we analysed.

Among the highest emitting countries, many of the least efficient flights start or land in the US, followed by China, Germany and Japan. Inefficient flights are common elsewhere, particularly from or to smaller airports, and in Africa and Oceania, often exceeding 140g per passenger-kilometre.

By contrast, more efficient flights – below 100 grams per passenger-kilometre – are common in Brazil, India and south-east Asia, particularly on high volume routes. Europe contains a mix of both.

These differences can be explained by the share of occupied seats, the aircraft models used on a route and the cabin layout – especially the space allocated for business and first class.

Budget airlines tend to be more efficient as they seat as many passengers as possible. Spacious business or first class seats are often removed and revenue is instead generated through services such as baggage, food or booking flexibility – all of which add little to flight emissions.

We also found a few newer aircraft models to be the most efficient in operation (Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus 320neo, both in several variants) averaging less than 65 grams of CO₂ per passenger-kilometre. However, they are not (yet) the most widely used, partly because aircraft typically remain in service for around 25 years.

Long-haul flights are on average more efficient than shorter flights. Take-off emissions only occur once, and larger aircraft with more seats are typically used on longer routes. For similar reasons, larger airports tend to have lower average emissions per passenger.

Increasing air travel efficiency

We modelled three hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the potential of certain operational changes, recalculating the total emissions after each change.

First, we increased the average passenger load factor from 80% to 95%. This alone would cut emissions by 16%, as fewer flights would be needed to carry the same number of passengers. While this is already in airlines’ interests, creating additional incentives – such as emissions-linked airport charges or fuel taxes – could encourage further gains.

Second, we imagined only the two most efficient aircraft (Boeing 787-9 and Airbus A321neo) were in operation. Aircraft cannot be replaced overnight, given their long service lives, and the industry hasn’t built enough 787-9 or A321neo yet anyway. But choosing already existing aircraft highlights the potential of replacing older aircraft with newer and more efficient ones – in our calculations, it would save between 27% and 34% of global emissions. This would also require overcoming logical and commercial constraints, again potentially incentivised by airport or fuel charges.

Third, we analysed the impact of an all-economy cabin layout. Business and first class seats are up to five times more CO₂-intensive than economy seating because they occupy far more space per passenger. Operating all aircraft at the manufacturers maximum seating capacity would reduce global aircraft emissions by between 26% and 57%.

There are already large differences between airlines. Some chose to set up their Boeing 777-300 ERs with more than 400 economy seats, while others have as few as 200, despite a maximum seating capacity of 550.

Our findings highlight how strongly aviation emissions are shaped by travel inequality between occasional economy fliers and frequent business and first class travellers. Many of those may complain about the inconvenience of economy class. But perhaps that’s not a bad thing: it could create an even stronger incentive to reduce the number of non-essential journeys.

– ref. Scrapping business class could halve aviation emissions – new study – https://theconversation.com/scrapping-business-class-could-halve-aviation-emissions-new-study-275474

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hazell, Professor of British Politics and Government & Founder of the Constitution Unit, UCL

Following the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for possible misconduct in public office, both the palace and the government will be hoping that his case might be brought to a swift conclusion. There are three main reasons why this is unlikely.

1. The vagueness of the offence

The offence Mountbatten-Windsor is being investigated for – misconduct in public office – is famously vague. This complicates the task for the prosecution, who will have to devote more time and effort to understanding the elements of the offence, and then ensuring that they can prove each element.

Misconduct in public office is not set out in an act of parliament, it is an offence under the common law. The public office (accountability) bill (also known as the Hillsborough law) currently going through parliament is meant to give it a statutory definition. But that will be too late for any prosecution of Mountbatten-Windsor, which will have to be for the common law offence, developed in a series of court judgements going back centuries.

In medieval times, the offence was intended to catch those in trusted public office who did something to betray that trust. It later fell into disuse, but was recently revived to catch corrupt police officers whose misconduct (such as selling information to journalists) did not fit easily into well-established offences.

The court of appeal in 2004 reframed the judge-made law for modern times, summarising four elements of the offence. It must be committed by:

• A public officer, acting as such, who

• wilfully misconducts himself

• to such a degree as to abuse the public’s trust in the office holder

• without reasonable excuse or justification.

Readers must judge for themselves whether this makes the offence any less vague. In careful understatement, the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines state that “the offence should be strictly confined, and it can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues”.

2. Multiple police forces involved

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested by Thames Valley Police, but they are not the only force looking into revelations from the millions of documents in the Epstein files. Mountbatten-Windsor denies any wrongdoing in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Metropolitan Police, Essex Police (for flights in and out of Stansted) and Surrey Police are also assessing claims. Some of those investigations are for possible trafficking into or outside the UK for sexual exploitation, which if proved would be offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The National Police Chiefs Council has announced a national group to support the investigating forces.

Police enquiries will inevitably take some time. In addition to the scale of the Epstein files, when looking for evidence of misconduct in public office, the police will want to search through UK government files.

Mountbatten-Windsor was trade envoy from 2001 to 2011. Much of the evidence is likely to be retrieved from his emails and the files of agencies like UK Trade and Investment, and government departments like the Department of Trade (now Business and Trade), the Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Number 10. Government record keeping is not what it was, and records from that long ago will take time to find and produce.

3. Difficulties facing the CPS and the courts

If the police have gathered sufficient evidence, they will submit all the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS in turn will need time to consider whether there is a sufficient case to prosecute, for a common law offence whose definition is still vague and complex.

The CPS code states that they will only prosecute an alleged crime if there is a “realistic prospect of conviction”. This means that a jury, “properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge”.

The main legal difficulties may lie in proving that when acting as trade envoy Mountbatten-Windsor was the holder of a public office, and that his conduct was such as to abuse the public’s trust. In trying to clarify the latter test, the court of appeal said that abuse of trust must amount to “an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”

The CPS will also need to liaise closely with the team investigating Peter Mandelson, who is also under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office, related to evidence that he passed confidential government information to Epstein. If the police pass a file on Mandelson to the CPS, there will be similarities in the evidential and legal difficulties in proving misconduct in each case.

It could be a very long time before any trial takes place. One of the biggest obstacles to a swift conclusion is the state of the courts. The recent review by retired senior judge Brian Leveson found a backlog of almost 80,000 cases awaiting trial in the crown court last September, and forecast the backlog would reach 100,000 cases by November 2027.

Some defendants are already being told their cases will not be heard until 2030. To avoid any further suggestions that Mountbatten-Windsor is above the law, his case may have to wait in the queue, just like everyone else’s.

– ref. Misconduct in public office: three reasons why the case against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is so complex – https://theconversation.com/misconduct-in-public-office-three-reasons-why-the-case-against-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-is-so-complex-276556

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgia Phillips, Lecturer, Creative Writing, Adelaide University

In Burnt Norton, the opening section of T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets, the poet moves down a passage “we did not take” and passes through a door “never opened” to arrive in a mythic rose garden. Here, in the thorny cradle of mournful innocence, a bird delivers the famous line:

                                     humankind
Cannot bear very much reality.

That inability to “bear much reality” reverberates in Claire-Louise Bennett’s experimental new novel, Big Kiss, Bye-Bye.

The novel dissects the mind of a young woman reckoning with the psychological upheaval of a romantic separation. As the unnamed narrator grieves and reflects, she unpicks the patchwork of illusions that sustained her relationship with a peculiar elderly man named Xavier.

At the centre of this thrillingly interior work, almost entirely denuded of sentimentality, is the collision of these two deeply self-involved characters, both of whom are more wedded to their fantasies about one another than their actual selves. One of the most intriguing elements of the novel is witnessing their failure to connect in the middle point between their incongruent psychological worlds.

Review: Big Kiss, Bye-Bye – Claire-Louise Bennett (Fitzcarraldo)

Bennett’s brilliant debut Pond (2015) wove together stories narrated by a reclusive woman living in a remote cottage in Ireland. Her second book, Checkout 19 (2021), was a novel that examined a young woman’s maturation through her engagement with literature, combining elements of autofiction and the Künstlerroman (artist’s novel) to navigate material that might have fallen flat in the hands of a writer with less flair and ambition.

The playfully titled Big Kiss, Bye-Bye is Bennett’s third book and her most desperate, intelligent and irreverent to date. It resonates stylistically with modernist predecessors in its scrutiny of consciousness and often overlooked complexities buried within the quotidian.

This characteristically modernist concern with the mind’s mysterious workings and its convoluted relationship with material reality is reflected in the narrator’s interest in dreams. She takes pleasure in recounting and interpreting her dreams to uncover the self-knowledge she believes they hold in uncanny suspension.

‘Some sort of Hell’

As in Bennett’s previous novels, the unnamed narrator at the centre of Big Kiss, Bye-Bye resembles the author. She is a writer at a similar age and stage of life. In the beginning, however, her occupation is an ancillary detail. The event that monopolises her attention and nervous energy is her recent separation from her beloved Xavier, with his dentures and his time-hardened eccentricities.

Early in the novel, it is revealed that the catalyst for the breakup was an email he sent about the narrator’s recently published book, in which he described her work as “some sort of Hell”.

With this email, a line is crossed. The plainness of Xavier’s lack of regard for her feelings is laid out so clearly and uncompromisingly that nothing can atone for his insensitivity. Any illusions the narrator might have nurtured about him being sensitive (albeit socially clumsy) are shattered.

What follows is a forensic examination of the illusions that fuelled their partnership. As the novel progresses through its solipsistic textual landscape, the narrator’s non-linear recollection of events provides intimate access to her time with Xavier. It is only with the clarity of hindsight that she is able to reconstruct a nuanced portrait.

Xavier is a wealthy Christian scientist with a limp grip on reality. He believes “sickness is an illusion” and that friendship is for children. When he and the narrator are together, he wants to be with her all the time. He cannot seem to fathom “why she did so many things that didn’t involve him”.

Beyond his neediness, Xavier is comically self-interested. He has written a book on the topic of himself, which he affectionately refers to as his “bio”. He dreams of having it made into a film. It contains intimate details about the narrator and he has no regard for why this might concern her.

A polite but painful man, Xavier has a penchant for undermining the narrator with compliments. When she hands him a copy of her book (the one he calls “some sort of Hell”), he notes “how smart it was”. He then turns straight to the author photo on the jacket and says “cute little ears”, shifting the focus away from her intellectual achievement and back to her physical appearance.

The extent to which illusions have sustained the partnership between the novel’s two unlikely lovers is perhaps most explict in their final encounter – depicted at the beginning of the work.

They attend the races. It is Lady’s Day – which, the narrator reflects, Xavier enjoys because “he likes to see women dressed up”. She is nevertheless certain that Xavier won’t stare at them, because “too much scrutiny might spoil the illusion of sophistication and Xavier isn’t interested in having his illusions dispensed with”.

The narrator reflects that Xavier is rather fond of illusions “and is of the opinion that there isn’t much else”:

“Life is an illusion,” he’ll say, “but then you already know that, don’t you.”

Yet he also believes his take on reality is authoritative. “I don’t see you as your friends see you,” Xavier tells the narrator. “I see you as you really are.”

She humours his belief, in what reads as an attempt to remain palatable.

Illusions reinforced

Throughout the novel, the narrator reinforces the illusions Xavier projects onto their relationship. At one point, she reassures him the dress she is wearing was purchased with money he gave her, even though it wasn’t.

She mulls over which flower arrangements she should buy at his expense – a detail makes her appear somewhat petulant. Xavier believes it is normal to spend a significant sum on a routine bouquet; the narrator desires a more modest arrangement. But she panders to his desire to provide for her and, in doing so, assists in preserving his fantasy. She permits him an artificial sense of accomplishment in supplying her with something that is not wanted.

The narrator shares Xavier’s tenuous grip on “reality”. Over the course of the novel, she comes to realise that she was more invested in the ideas she manufactured about Xavier than the man himself.

She confesses that her attachment had been “very much predicated upon” the idea of “staying close during his final days and hours”. Her belief in the statistical likelihood that she was destined to be “his last love” inspires a mock-heroic degree of psychological fortitude.

Along with the exquisite prose, one of the most satisfying elements of Big Kiss Bye-Bye is Bennett’s delicate depiction of the conflict that stems from the narrator’s competing desires. The feminist yearning for equality in a heteronormative partnership is sometimes incompatible with the more universal longing to be loved and desirable.

Beyond her reflections on her inflated sense of responsibility for Xavier, she examines her relationships with other men. This includes ruminating over a letter she receives from a past English teacher, which stirs dormant memories.

Despite her keen awareness of Xavier’s potent self-assuredness, the narrator struggles with her own sense of self-awareness. She confides that she is the type of writer who doesn’t like to be aware of herself when she is writing. She goes on to acknowledge that this is nonsensical, given that so many of her sentences begin with the singular pronoun “I”.

She is also self-aware enough to recognise that she is riddled with anxiety. She recalls a period in her life when she was convinced all the men in her world – even frail old Xavier – were trying to kill her. She acknowledges the creative impulse in this paranoia, reflecting that “all my life I’ve felt something was after me and to my own irritation I looked behind too often and kept seeing things”.

Again, the novel returns to the disjuncture between how things are and how the mind perceives them, and reminds us of the human tendency to seek shelter in illusions.

– ref. Desperate, intelligent, irreverent: in Big Kiss, Bye-Bye, Claire-Louise Bennett breaks up with illusions – https://theconversation.com/desperate-intelligent-irreverent-in-big-kiss-bye-bye-claire-louise-bennett-breaks-up-with-illusions-269905