Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher and Sustainable Future Lead, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

Yesterday, the Australian federal government released new expectations for data centres and artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure.

The message is simple: if companies want faster federal approvals, they must show their projects are in Australia’s national interest, support the clean energy shift, use water responsibly, create local jobs, and build local capability.

The government states it will prioritise projects that line up with those goals. Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy, Andrew Charlton, said

we will do what is necessary to ensure the growth of AI is sustainable and underpinned by a strong social license.

This is a big shift. It means data centres in Australia are no longer being treated as just another property or tech investment. They’re now being treated as major infrastructure, with real effects on the power grid, water systems, land use and local communities.

What is a data centre again?

Data centres are large buildings packed with computing equipment that stores, processes and moves data. These sites help run cloud services, video calls, online banking, research and the growing wave of AI tools.

The International Energy Agency says a typical AI-focused data centre can use as much electricity as 100,000 households. The largest ones under construction today could consume 20 times as much.

While Australia already has more than 250 data centres, that number is set to grow as the AI boom continues. These facilities help power modern life and they can bring jobs, investment and digital capability.

But essential infrastructure still needs public trust. And that trust will depend on whether these facilities pay their own way, or whether nearby communities end up carrying the hidden costs through more pressure on electricity, water and scarce urban land.

Read more: Australia is set to get more AI data centres. Local communities need to be more involved

Electricity is the first big issue

A report prepared for the Australian Energy Market Operator found data centres in Sydney already use about 4% of New South Wales’ grid-supplied electricity. By 2030, that could rise to 11%.

Nationally, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation says data centres could account for up to 11% of Australia’s total electricity use by 2035.

The same report states Australia would need another 3.2 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation and 1.9 gigawatts of battery storage by 2035 to contain price rises and avoid extra emissions.

That doesn’t mean data centres are automatically bad for the energy system. In fact, they could help fund new renewable energy, storage and grid upgrades if the rules around that are right. But that is the key point: if the rules are right and the government enforces them.

Water is the second issue

Not all data centres use the same amount, because water demand depends heavily on their cooling systems and what water source they use. But water can no longer be treated as a side issue.

A Water Services Association of Australia report on data centre water use in Australia says estimates for Sydney range from about 1.9% of water supply by 2030, to around 15–20% by 2035.

The water question is not just local. Australia’s water utilities say current data-centre use is still low, but future centres are likely to be much larger, with developers already seeking 5 to 40 million litres a day. One industry estimate puts current use at less than 0.1% of Australia’s total water, but future demand will depend on cooling choices and water source.

Hence the new federal expectations: data centres must use water sustainably, work early with utilities and communities, use non-potable water where possible, pay their share of infrastructure costs, and report water use transparently.

Then there is land

Many data centres are drawn to major cities because they need strong power, fibre links, water, site access and, in some cases, proximity to end users. But that also means they often compete for industrial land

In New South Wales, industrial land is already under pressure and is needed for logistics, urban services, jobs close to home and the construction supply chains that help deliver housing.

In January, NSW set up a parliamentary inquiry into data centres. It’s looking at electricity demand, grid impacts, water use, drought risk, noise, heat, traffic, land-use conflicts and whether data centres’ resource demands are impinging on new housing supply.

It is also asking who gets the benefits, who carries the costs and how transparent the approval process really is. In other words, NSW is already treating data centres as a public interest issue. Other states may need to follow, because federal expectations alone cannot resolve state planning and land-use conflicts.

What can we expect from the new federal policy?

At best, the new expectations should end the idea that any data centre is a good data centre simply because it brings private investment.

If the government adheres to its own rules, new data centre projects should bring their own clean power or help fund it. They should use water efficiently and, where possible, use recycled or non-drinking water. They should create real local jobs and skills. And they should be open about their energy, water and environmental performance.

The way forward is not to block data centres – Australia will need more of them. The answer is to be much more selective about where they go, how they are powered, how they are cooled and what they give back.

If they are essential infrastructure, they should meet the same test as any other big piece of infrastructure: serve the public, not just the market.

– ref. Australia has set new expectations for AI data centres – they should serve the public – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-set-new-expectations-for-ai-data-centres-they-should-serve-the-public-278988

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Salinger, Adjunct Research Fellow, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

After the planet’s 11 hottest years on record, scientists are warning the return of an El Niño climate pattern could push global temperatures even higher.

Today, the World Meteorological Organisation reported that the past decade has been the warmest observed, with rising greenhouse gas emissions driving record ocean heat, melting ice and more extreme weather.

On top of those findings comes the growing prospect of El Niño, which could emerge by New Zealand’s spring and amplify the effects of global warming in the months beyond.

At this stage, the event is expected to be moderate, resulting in global mean sea surface temperatures of around 1C warmer than average. However, there is still considerable uncertainty in how it will develop.

For the planet, El Niño can bring a wide range of damaging impacts, from wildfires and drought in some regions to heavy downpours and flooding in others.

It can also have significant impacts for New Zealand and its primary sector. Some stand-out events – such as in 1982–83, 1997–98 and 2015–16 – caused severe droughts that cost the economy hundreds of millions of dollars.

Notably, it follows a rain-soaked start to the year across much of New Zealand, partly owing to the lingering, warm-and-wet influence of El Niño’s climate driver counterpart: La Niña.

As that La Niña fades out over coming weeks, as it is forecast to, scientists will be monitoring the potential seesaw-like shift to El Niño.

But, in New Zealand’s part of the world particularly, such swings do not play out in isolation: other large-scale patterns are likely to influence how El Niño’s effects are felt.

El Niño explained

The name El Niño – meaning “Christ Child” – was given by Peruvian fishers who noticed warm waters appearing off their coast around Christmas. Its global significance was recognised over time.

It occurs when the usual trade winds across the tropical Pacific weaken, sometimes reversing direction, allowing warmer water to spread eastward and raise sea surface temperatures. In contrast, La Niña features stronger trade winds and cooler waters.

Together, these phases form the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which typically cycles every two to seven years and is measured by sea surface temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific.

At a global scale, El Niño events make for warmer years by raising air temperatures and reducing the rate at which the ocean absorbs heat.

They tend to bring warmer conditions to parts of Asia and North America, wetter weather to parts of the United States and South America, and drier conditions in Australia and parts of Africa.

In New Zealand, El Niño typically shifts atmospheric circulation patterns. Winters tend to feature more southerly winds, spring more south-westerlies and summer more westerlies.

This generally leads to cooler conditions overall, although eastern areas such as Wairarapa, Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne can still experience warmer than average summers.

Rainfall patterns also change. El Niño is often associated with drier conditions in the north and east of both islands, and wetter conditions in Southland and along the West Coast of the South Island.

By contrast, La Niña tends to bring warmer temperatures and different regional rainfall patterns, often with wetter conditions in the north and east. Because El Niño produces a clearer signal for New Zealand, it is usually more predictable.

The wider picture

Alongside ENSO, longer-term climate variability also plays a role.

Another cycle called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) resembles ENSO and similarly influences patterns across the Pacific Basin, but operates on timescales of 20 to 30 years.

In its positive phase, warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures occur in the central equatorial Pacific, while cooler conditions prevail elsewhere in the basin. The opposite occurs in the negative phase.

The IPO can either amplify or dampen the effects of global warming. In New Zealand, positive phases have tended to slow regional warming, while negative phases have accelerated it.

Since 1998, the IPO has been in a negative phase. During this period, New Zealand’s warming rate has increased markedly, from about 0.14°C per decade in earlier decades to around 0.27°C per decade more recently.

Another important influence is the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), which affects the strength and position of westerly winds around New Zealand.

In its positive phase, high-pressure systems tend to dominate, pushing the westerly winds further south and bringing calmer, warmer conditions. This can lead to drier weather in the west and south, but wetter conditions in the north.

In its negative phase, lower pressure dominates, bringing stronger westerlies, cooler temperatures and wetter conditions, particularly in western regions.

SAM operates year-round but has its strongest effects in summer, interacting with both ENSO and the IPO.

How these three drivers play off one another will ultimately influence what unfolds in the coming seasons.

With El Niño expected to develop over winter, warmer sea surface temperatures will spread across the Pacific. The IPO, meanwhile, remains firmly in its negative phase, meaning warmer conditions are likely to persist around New Zealand.

At the same time, SAM is expected to fluctuate between positive and negative phases, although it has shown a tendency toward more positive conditions as the climate warms.

Together, these influences point toward the possibility of a significant El Niño event unfolding against the backdrop of a steadily warming planet.

Whether this evolves into another severe event for New Zealand remains to be seen. The climate of each season, after all, carries its own distinct personality.

But, coming on the back of the world’s warmest period on record, it warrants our close attention.

– ref. What the coming El Niño climate pattern means for NZ in a warming world – https://theconversation.com/what-the-coming-el-nino-climate-pattern-means-for-nz-in-a-warming-world-278201

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eliza Crosbie, Research Fellow in Migration and Health, The University of Melbourne

While most Australians embrace multiculturalism, migration remains a contentious topic in Australia. Negative opinions, often unsubstantiated, are regularly aired in public debate.

Our new report, Settling well in regional Australia: experiences of people from refugee backgrounds, uncovers a different picture.

Our team surveyed 628 people from refugee backgrounds in cities and towns across regional Australia. We also interviewed more than 300 people, including refugees and members of the broader community.

Consistently, we encountered stories of welcome, belonging, and regional Australian towns embracing refugee communities – and benefiting from their contributions.

Regional focus

Refugees make up just a small proportion of Australia’s annual migration intake — approximately 20,000 arrive each year through the refugee and humanitarian program.

Refugees are people who’ve been forced to flee their countries due to conflicts and fear of persecution for reasons including ethnicity, religion, gender, political opinion and sexuality.

Historically, most refugees who have come to Australia have settled in major cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane.

Since the early 2000s, however, Australian government policy has encouraged migrants and refugees to settle regionally, to reduce population pressure in cities and boost regional economies.

The Settling Well project

Settling Well investigates the impacts of refugee settlement in regional Australia, for people from refugee backgrounds and the communities where they live.

Unlike other large studies on refugee settlement, we focus on regional Australian cities and towns: Albury, Wodonga, Mildura, Nhill, Orange, Cowra, Rockhampton and Townsville.

Our project involves 15 local community researchers who have experienced both forced migration and settling in regional Australia. We also benefit from the guidance of Gumbaynggir, Bundjalung and Dunghutti Custodian, Bernard Kelly-Edwards, around First Nations’ engagement in refugee settlement.

What we found

We found that regional towns generally support wellbeing and belonging for former refugees. Specifically:

• 81% of survey respondents felt welcome most or all of the time when they arrived
• 97% said their experience of living in their town has been good
• 76% of respondents want to stay long term
• 93% are satisfied with how safe they feel in their town.

One former refugee told us:

Every day when I walk the streets of Albury, you see people saying, “G’day. Good morning”. People are giving you a new life or birth – I call it birth because I lost hope in humanity, but I now call myself human.

Others noted how living in regional Australia makes it easier to learn to drive, find work and buy a home. One told us:

There’s still that psychology that this isn’t actually our country. But I think having a home changes that […] It’s a sense of security.

Another said:

I want to live in a tranquil place […] a quiet and peaceful place where I don’t have to deal with noise, pollution and all that […] I’m very happy in Mildura […] It’s very quiet and small and lovely […] I love it, actually.

Regional towns benefit, too

Long-time locals of the towns where our research is taking place noted that refugees boost the working age population, fill workforce gaps and allow businesses to remain open. One said:

It’s just a breath of fresh air, wanting to work, to do the overtime, to learn new skills […] without these blokes, your [business is] dead in the water.

Essential services, schools, and sporting clubs told us refugee communities make them viable. One person said:

There’d be probably four kids in our under-17 football […] To be blunt, if we didn’t have them playing we wouldn’t have a team.

Another noted:

They bring more children for the school [and] the school gets […] more funding for a support person – that’s good for everyone.

Refugee communities also introduce diversity to regional towns. One community member said:

Like anywhere else once you start to bring in more diversity it enriches a community […] the community is better for it. [There are] new ideas, new things [and] people enjoy that.

Challenges remain

Challenges include a lack of suitable rental housing, patchy public transport, discrimination, and limited access to diverse higher education opportunities:

• 53% of survey respondents said it’s hard or very hard to find housing in their town
• 45% have experienced racial discrimination, often on public transport or at work.

One former refugee told us:

I think the homeowners […] are worried, especially when they see many kids, they think [we] are going to trash or destroy, damage their home […] you just know it’s going to be hard.

Some former refugees told us they might need to relocate in the future for better housing, employment, or education opportunities, or to live closer to friends and family.

How can these findings be used in practice?

Overall, our research shows that regional settlement is working well in many places.

Former refugees are settling well in regional Australia, many want to stay, and local communities are reaping the benefits.

Efforts from policy makers, settlement practitioners and community stakeholders to address the challenges we have identified can ensure these benefits are sustained.

– ref. ‘I lost hope in humanity, but I now call myself human’: what refugees told us about settling in regional Australia – https://theconversation.com/i-lost-hope-in-humanity-but-i-now-call-myself-human-what-refugees-told-us-about-settling-in-regional-australia-277246

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Woessner, Associate professor, Victoria University

Child abuse in Australian sport can happen to anyone, in any sport, at any level – during practice, in competition and online.

At community level, volunteers play an essential role. But some are not able to recognise when a child is in danger, and many don’t know how to respond when a young person tries to speak up.

Our just-published research found many volunteers had minimal confidence and organisational support, and points to the need for urgent reforms.

Read more: What parents and youth athletes can do to protect against abuse in sport

Abuse at the top levels

In recent years, several reports of abuse in elite sport have captured national media attention in Australia.

In 2021, an independent review into Gymnastics Australia found evidence of bullying, harassment, abuse, neglect, racism, sexism and ableism.

A 2022 investigation into Australian swimming was sparked by Maddie Groves quitting the Tokyo Olympic trials after saying she was sexually abused as a teenager by a man who was still working in the sport.

In 2024, Sports Integrity Australia reviewed the volleyball program at the Australian Institute of Sport and revealed systemic verbal and physical abuse of athletes, excessive punishments, body shaming, and forced isolation from family or friends.

These high-profile issues unfolded at the top levels of Australian sport. The picture at community levels is just as confronting.

Our previous research sparked questions

In 2022, we researched what was happening in community sports. We found more than 80% of Australian adults surveyed had experienced at least one type of abuse (psychological, physical, sexual) when playing youth community sport in Australia.

Most never disclosed those experiences to an adult because they feared they would not be believed or would be removed from sport.

Australia’s huge volunteer workforce – about three million people – includes coaches, team managers, committee members and canteen workers, among others. In youth sport, it is overwhelmingly made up of parents whose children play sport.

Despite the essential role volunteers play, we know very little about whether they feel prepared, confident, or supported to act when a child discloses abuse.

These realities made us ask a simple but important question: how prepared are these volunteers to notice when a child is being harmed and to respond when a young person tries to speak up?

What we found in our national survey

We surveyed more than 200 volunteers across 50 different sports nationally, examining their knowledge, confidence, beliefs and support to recognise and respond to disclosures of child abuse.

While most were highly motivated to respond to child abuse in sport, only half said their club made it clear that responding was part of their role.

One respondent shared:

In the 12-odd years of active coaching and refereeing, I have never had a face-to-face or group induction to the child reporting responsibilities I have in my sport roles.

One in five volunteers feared repercussions from their club if they raised concerns of child abuse and fewer than 40% believed current reporting systems were effective.

One volunteer shared a poignant example:

Last season, a coach made the entire team walk across a player’s back as a punishment. I spoke up. My child was then not selected … (the) coach was not stood down.

One in five volunteers also held damaging assumptions including the belief that children lie about abuse, despite evidence it is extremely rare.

Finally, 7.8% of respondents said there had been a time they suspected child abuse in sport but did not report it.

The issues were consistent across sports, highlighting a sector-wide challenge rather than isolated problems in individual clubs.

These issues existed despite the fact 65% of the respondents had undergone some form of child safeguarding training within the past 12 months.

While it’s easy to assume this is simply a training or policy gap, the reality is child safeguarding in sport cannot fall solely on the shoulders of volunteers.

So what can be done?

Insights from those who have experienced abuse

After the survey closed, our team established a committee of seven people who had experienced abuse in sport to co-develop reflections and recommendations.

In their initial response to the survey findings, the committee members collectively stated:

Overall, we’re surprised, frustrated and disappointed about the lack of progress on child safeguarding practices in sport, in light of the learnings from the 2017 Royal Commission on Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse.

Working with the committee members and a small cohort of community sport volunteers, we developed some priority actions for the sport sector as a whole, clubs, and volunteers.

The sport sector needs to strengthen safeguarding through targeted initiatives (education/public campaigns) that support volunteers to recognise and respond to all forms of abuse and challenge harmful myths. These must be underpinned by trauma-informed practices.

Volunteers are encouraged to take a few simple but powerful actions such as normalising conversations with kids and their parents about the club’s practices, and emailing club members about relevant child safeguarding policies.

Independent community sport platform Play by the Rules has some great templates and resources for volunteers, while we have also developed a resource to help sports organisations apply trauma-informed principles.

More is needed

These findings align with national efforts such as the Australian Sports Commission’s Play Well strategy and the Sport Volunteer Coalition Action Plan which aim to build capability, transform culture and strengthen systems that ensure safe, inclusive sport.

Our research indicates achieving this relies not only on volunteers being trained and supported to act when they see harm or hear a disclosure, but also on strong system and leadership-level commitment to create environments where safe responses are enabled, reinforced and prioritised.

– ref. Community sport volunteers need better support to keep children safe from abuse – new research – https://theconversation.com/community-sport-volunteers-need-better-support-to-keep-children-safe-from-abuse-new-research-278199

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

Good rainfall across much of Australia in the past year has kept the vegetation green and rivers flowing. For the fifth year in a row, our national environment scorecard for Australia’s landscapes in 2025 rated them as “above average”.

Queensland had an exceptionally wet year. The Channel Country river systems in southwest Queensland flooded spectacularly, sending water surging toward Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre in South Australia. The biggest floods in at least 15 years, this flush of water triggered fish breeding and the arrival of waterbirds from across the continent.

But underneath the ocean waves, it was a different story. Marine heatwaves and the algal bloom in South Australia were a disaster for Australia’s underwater ecosystems and their unique animals and plants.

How we assess environmental health

To create this scorecard we analysed large amounts of data from satellites, weather stations, river gauges and ecological surveys. For the eleventh year running we gathered information on topics like climate change, oceans and weather, and summarised it with a score between zero and ten.

This score gives a relative measure of how favourable conditions were for nature, agriculture and the Australian quality of life, compared to all years since 2000.

Conditions varied enormously by region this year, so for the first time we have calculated environmental condition scores right down to the suburb and locality level. You can look up your own area at ausenv.tern.org.au.

A good year but uneven on land

The country’s environmental health was split between a wetter, greener north and east, and a dry south and west. Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory all recorded notable declines in environmental condition.

But beyond the rainfall, there were real signs of progress. New detailed data on native forest loss and gain — a first in this year’s report — showed forest loss has declined for five consecutive years, with tree cover increasing nationally.

The amount of land cleared for grazing and native forest logging continued to fall. Vegetation canopy area and soil surface protection against erosion was at near record levels. And Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by 1.9%, even as the economy grew 2.6% and the population by 1.5% — a sign growth and environmental damage are slowly being decoupled. Emissions per person have fallen 30% since 2000, though Australians still emit around three times the global average.

These improvements didn’t happen by accident. They reflect real improvements in land management and nature conservation and policy changes on emissions reduction, forest logging and land clearing accumulated over years.

Bushfires under the sea

What our scorecard doesn’t capture is what happened in our oceans in 2025 — and there the story was very different.

The Black Summer fires of 2019–20 were a climate-driven catastrophe. More than a prolonged drought, it was an extreme heat event that turned the forest into a tinderbox and caused fires of unprecedented scale. Marine heatwaves are doing the same thing underwater.

Sea surface temperatures around Australia reached their highest-ever level in 2025, breaking the record set just the year before. Our new analysis of heat stress across 24 monitored reef locations found that nearly 80% exceeded their once-in-a-decade heat threshold — more than in any previous year of the 40-year record. A sixth mass bleaching event struck the Great Barrier Reef in early 2025, following the fifth just months earlier.

Read more: Synchronised bleaching: Ningaloo and the Great Barrier Reef are bleaching in unison for the first time

The damage extended well beyond the reef. A toxic algal bloom, fuelled by a marine heatwave that pushed water temperatures well above average, spread across nearly a third of South Australia’s coastline and persisted for most of the year, killing more than 80,000 animals of 500 different species and causing respiratory symptoms in coastal residents. Elsewhere, tropical fish appeared far outside their normal ranges.

Marine heatwaves are the underwater equivalent of bushfires: large-scale, climate-driven mass mortality events that used to be rare and are now happening repeatedly. The difference is that most of us don’t see what’s happening below the ocean surface.

The extinction crisis deepens

According to the federal government’s threatened species list, 2,175 species are now listed as threatened – a 54% increase since 2000. Climate change is identified as a threat to nine in ten of the newly listed species. And the legacy of the Black Summer bushfires continues – more than half of all species listed or uplisted since 2019 were affected by those fires.

The Threatened Species Index, which tracks population trends of listed species, shows threatened species have declined by an average of 59% since 2000. In 2025 we published Australia’s first Threatened Reptile Index. Based on the monitoring data included in the index, reptile populations have declined by an average of 88% since 2000, and frogs by 67%, the steepest long-term declines of any group we have measured.

Reasons for hope

There are some reasons for hope. The index shows that trends for threatened mammal populations have stabilised in recent years. This may reflect both wetter conditions and the impact of conservation management, such as fenced sanctuaries, predator control and habitat restoration. The data show that sustained conservation effort can make a difference.

In many respects, Australia’s environment is in better shape than it was a decade ago, and progress on emissions and land management is real. But global climate change operates on a different scale entirely. Decades of warming are already locked in, and the damage to our oceans and wildlife will worsen until global warming is brought under control.

Reducing our own emissions matters more than ever. This will also make us more resistant to the kind of energy shocks the world is experiencing right now. We cannot reverse all the damage already done, but we can certainly do much better.

– ref. Australia’s forests are finally doing better — but ‘underwater bushfires’ hit oceans hard – https://theconversation.com/australias-forests-are-finally-doing-better-but-underwater-bushfires-hit-oceans-hard-278780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joseph J. Gonzalez, Associate Professor of Global Studies, Appalachian State University

The U.S. and Cuban governments have been at odds since the conclusion of the Cuban Revolution 67 years ago. Yet despite pressure, embargoes and various CIA plots, the communist government in Havana has resisted the wishes of its very powerful neighbor separated by just 90 miles (145 kilometers) of water.

From my perspective as an expert on Havana-Washington ties, however, this moment seems different.

For the first time since 1959, an American president, Donald Trump, appears on the verge of doing what so many of his predecessors have longed to do: depose a Cuban president and compel the Cuban government to align itself with American economic and strategic interests.

If Trump succeeds – either through military might or negotiation – then Cuba looks set to become something less than a sovereign nation and more akin to an American client state.

A partnership of unequals?

At first glance, the possibility of such a change looks epic, even monumental: an end to the Cuban Revolution as we have known it.

But deep in the annals of U.S.-Cuban history, there are echoes of Trump’s demands.

From 1898 to 1959, the American government essentially ran Cuba as a colony within its empire.

Americans repeatedly decided who would occupy the presidential palace, while Cuban politicians protected U.S. investments and supported U.S. supremacy in the Caribbean. American gangsters ran the hotels and the gambling.

That relationship ended with the revolution and Fidel Castro’s assumption of power. But if Trump has his way, the future of the U.S. and Cuba will look very much like it did in the pre-Castro era: a partnership of unequals.

Heightened tensions

During his first term, Trump turned away from President Barack Obama’s “Cuban Thaw,” which had established diplomatic relations, eased travel restrictions and raised hopes of an end to the decades-old U.S. embargo.

In place of engagement with the Cuban government, Trump strengthened the embargo, all but closed the U.S. Embassy in Havana and further restricted travel by American citizens to the island.

Trump also returned Cuba to the State Department’s list of nations that support terrorism, where it resides today.

Now, one year into his second term, Trump is using coercion backed with a tacit military threat to increase pressure on the Cuban government.

On Jan. 3, 2026, U.S. forces, seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, bringing them to New York to stand trial.

During the raid, U.S. forces killed between 75 and 100 Venezuelans and a coterie of Cubans providing security to Maduro.

Venezuela was Cuba’s closest ally, providing the island with oil at vastly reduced prices in exchange for doctors and advisers for Venezuela’s security and intelligence services.

Following Maduro’s arrest, Trump made it clear that the U.S. would no longer permit any country to supply Cuba with oil.

Without oil, Trump predicted that the Cuban government would soon collapse and suggested that Marco Rubio, his Cuban American Secretary of State, could become president of Cuba.

Secret negotiations

Cuba was in severe distress long before Maduro’s arrest.

In the years since the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has found it almost impossible to maintain adequate electricity, water, public health and public transport.

Then came the Trump administration’s oil embargo, which may push Cuba into the worst economic crisis in its history, prompting longer, deeper blackouts and further reductions in public services.

Hunger is now a widespread concern, garbage is piling up and mosquito-borne illnesses are skyrocketing. Dissent is also becoming more public – and more violent.

Publicly, the communist government responded defiantly to the Trump administration’s aggressive actions, pledging to resist American pressure just as it had for the better part of 60 years.

Privately, however, the Cuban government agreed to talks with the Trump administration, hoping to find a way to ease American pressure.

The White House reportedly no longer considers the collapse of the Cuban government desirable, as it would precipitate a migration crisis that threatens the stability of the Caribbean, including to a South Florida that is home to the world’s largest Cuban diaspora community.

The ‘Venezuelan Solution’

Cuba’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, has publicly acknowledged talks with the U.S. But the particulars remain obscure.

The U.S. government reportedly wants Díaz-Canel to leave the country and permit American investment in Cuba, particularly from Cuban Americans, which has long been prohibited.

The Cuban government has already reportedly acceded to this latter demand.

The Trump administration also wants more political prisoners released and a purge of officials who were close to Fidel and Raúl Castro, his successor as president, and remained powerful after the Cuban revolutionary leader’s death in 2016. According to Amnesty International, Cuba has at least 1,000 prisoners of conscience.

In exchange, the White House would be willing to permit members of the Castro family to remain in Cuba and allow for the importation of oil. The rest of the Cuban government would also remain intact.

Cubans I know are calling this deal the “Venezuela Solution.” Much like Maduro’s successors, Cuba’s leaders would remain rulers of Cuba – provided they accept diminished political sovereignty and respect U.S. policy priorities.

Back to the future

Such a deal, if it happens, would return Cuba to the status of an American client state, the status it held long before Castro seized power and allied himself with the Soviet Union.

In 1898, the U.S. intervened in the Cuban War of Independence, the last in a series of wars fought by Cubans against their onetime Spanish colonizers.

The United States kicked out the Spanish, occupied Cuba and proclaimed its desire to turn Cuba into an independent, sovereign nation-state.

But that never happened.

Distrusting the Cubans’ ability to govern themselves, the U.S. retained the legal right to intervene in Cuban politics.

Between 1898 and 1959, the U.S. government, through its ambassador in Havana, determined who would be president of Cuba whenever a dispute arose.

Cuban politicians, eager to preserve their positions, guarded American property, despite Cuban resentments, and supported U.S. foreign policy throughout Latin America and the world.

On the eve of the revolution, Americans owned more than US$800 million in property in Cuba — the equivalent of at least $9 billion today.

Americans dominated not only the sugar industry but also public utilities, mining and tourism, which American organized crime came to control.

What’s next?

For more than 60 years, pre-revolutionary Cuba endured independence without sovereignty as an American client state.

Could such a relationship reemerge? For now, the situation between the U.S. and Cuba remains fluid, and the terms of discussions are shrouded in secrecy.

Trump, publicly, promotes a “friendly takeover of Cuba,” insisting that he could do with Cuba “anything I want.”

But one thing remains certain. While Trump remains in the White House and Rubio heads the State Department, U.S. maximum pressure on Cuba will not cease.

The Trump administration is committed to ending the Cuban government’s resistance to American power and American investment, regardless of the direct humanitarian costs in the form of the oil embargo and other penalties.

Any deal with Trump will be a bitter pill for Cuba’s political elite to swallow.

But absent an oil-rich ally, like Russia or Venezuela, and faced with an implacable enemy, Cuban officials may have no choice but to bring Cuba back into the orbit of American power, at least for now.

– ref. Trump’s ‘Venezuela solution’ to Cuba would see the island nation returned to a client state – https://theconversation.com/trumps-venezuela-solution-to-cuba-would-see-the-island-nation-returned-to-a-client-state-278710

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Costanza Musu, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Since the start of the ongoing United States–Israeli military campaign against Iran, the human toll of the conflict has mounted relentlessly.

Civilian casualties have been reported across the country, and the bombing campaign has caused widespread destruction to infrastructure. Alongside military targets, thousands of civilian buildings have been damaged or destroyed in the first weeks of the war.

Amid this destruction, another dimension of the conflict is increasingly drawing international concern: the damage inflicted on Iran’s cultural heritage.

Several historically significant sites, including UNESCO landmarks, have been affected. Blasts in Tehran have damaged the Golestan Palace, while strikes in Isfahan hit structures around Naqsh-e Jahan Square, including Ali Qapu Palace, Chehel Sotoun and the Masjed-e Jameh.

The destruction of such sites highlights a frequently overlooked consequence of warfare: when the rules governing the conduct of war are stretched or ignored, cultural heritage, like civilian lives, becomes collateral damage.

Rules of engagement

Warfare is not meant to be unconstrained. It is governed by international humanitarian law, which sets limits on how military force can be used once hostilities begin. These rules are intended to reduce the human and material devastation of armed conflict by protecting civilians and civilian objects.

Read more: Israeli strikes on Tehran oil depot highlight gaps in international law

States implement these legal obligations through rules of engagement, which guide how and when force may be used in compliance with international humanitarian law: what U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has dismissively called “stupid rules of engagement.”

International humanitarian law protects cultural heritage. After the widespread destruction of the Second World War, states adopted the 1954 Hague Convention, recognizing monuments, museums and archeological sites as specially protected cultural property, and requiring warring nations to refrain from attacking them except in cases of imperative military necessity.

Ignoring cultural property protections runs counter to a lesson many military forces, including the United States, have come to recognize: that safeguarding cultural heritage is not only a legal obligation, but also strategically smart.

Over the past two decades, this approach has increasingly been integrated into military doctrine. By protecting monuments and historic sites, military forces signal respect for a society’s identity, build trust with local populations and advance broader political objectives by fostering local civilian support.

Shifting public sentiment

In the current conflict, American officials have argued that the military campaign is aimed not at Iran’s people but at the regime that has ruled the country since the 1979 revolution.

Read more: What happens next in US-Iran relations will be informed by the two countries’ shared history

U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that the future of Iran now lies in the hands of its citizens, implying that the weakening of the regime could allow Iranians to shape a different political future.

Initially, some voices in the Iranian diaspora and within Iran welcomed the strikes in the hope that they might open the door to political change.

Yet the scale of the destruction inflicted on cities, infrastructure and cultural landmarks appears to be shifting public sentiment, allowing the Iranian leadership to rally the population around a narrative of national unity against foreign aggression.

At the same time, the conflict is threatening cultural heritage beyond Iran. Iranian missiles have struck areas in and around Jerusalem, where its Old Town contains some of the most significant religious and historical sites in the world within barely one square kilometre. These sites are sacred to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

If the stated objective of the military campaign is to weaken the Iranian government and open the possibility for political change, the destruction of cultural heritage will produce the opposite effect. Cultural monuments, historic cities and religious sites are not simply architectural artifacts; they are powerful symbols of collective identity and historical continuity.

When they’re damaged or destroyed by foreign military force, the attack is often perceived not only as a strike against a government but an assault on the nation itself.

Rallying citizens

History offers many examples of how damage to cultural heritage during wars can galvanize nationalist sentiment and strengthen the legitimacy of governments under pressure. Examples include the destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar during the Bosnian War, which became a powerful symbol of national loss and identity, to the levelling of Palmyra’s ancient temples by ISIS, which the Syrian government invoked to reinforce claims of cultural guardianship and political legitimacy.

Rather than weakening the Iranian leadership, widespread destruction, particularly when it affects cultural landmarks, may instead help it mobilize public anger and rally citizens around the defence of the country.

Both international law and historical experience point in the same direction: protecting cultural heritage is not only a humanitarian obligation, but a strategic consideration in conflicts with long-term outcomes that depend on the attitudes of the people affected.

– ref. War in Iran: Why destroying cultural heritage is such a foolish strategic move in any conflict – https://theconversation.com/war-in-iran-why-destroying-cultural-heritage-is-such-a-foolish-strategic-move-in-any-conflict-277922

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Waya Quiviger, Professor of Practice of Gobal Governance and Development, IE University

The war in Iran has yet again exposed the tensions between Spain’s Pedro Sánchez and Donald Trump. The two leaders have clashed repeatedly over the last year, including over Spain’s ongoing opposition to Israel’s conduct in Gaza, its refusal to raise Nato spending above 2% of GDP, and now its refusal to support the US war in Iran.

In late February, Spain barred the US from using its joint military bases in Rota and Morón for operations linked to the Iran war. As a result, an incensed Trump stated “We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain.”

Read more: Could the US cut off trade with Spain? Here’s what international law says

Sánchez has since doubled down on his opposition in a nationally televised address, where he emphatically stated the Spanish government’s position: “No a la guerra”, no to war. On social media he also asserted: “NO to violations of international law” and “NO to the illusion that we can solve the world’s problems with bombs.”

Such pointed defiance of the Trump administration could carry political risks for Sánchez. Indeed, reactions to the war from other European states have been a lot more muted. Why, then, has Sánchez adopted such an unusually confrontational stance?

The clash is being presented as a question of geopolitics or international law, but it is better understood as domestic politics shaping foreign policy. Spain’s historical anti-war political culture, the dynamics of Sánchez’s left-leaning governing coalition, and electoral incentives at home all help account for Madrid’s unusually firm position.

The shadow of Iraq

In his recent address, Sánchez made a specific reference to the 2003 war in Iraq: “Twenty-three years ago, another US Administration dragged us into a war in the Middle East,” he said. “A war which, in theory, was said at the time to be waged to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, to bring democracy, and to guarantee global security but… it unleashed the greatest wave of insecurity that our continent had suffered since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

In 2003, Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar joined the US-led coalition to topple Saddam Hussein. The decision triggered massive protests across the country and partly led to Aznar’s defeat in the 2004 elections. His opponent, the Socialist Party’s José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, campaigned on a promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, which he fulfilled immediately after taking office.

The Iraq war fundamentally shaped Spanish public attitudes toward military intervention in the Middle East, and its legacy explains Sánchez’s instinct to distance Spain from the Iran war. His stance is not only ideological – it reflects the memory of how politically damaging it can be for a Spanish government to align itself with US interventions.

Coalition politics and early electoral signals

Sánchez’ position on the war in Iran can also be analysed in the light of current political developments at home. Sánchez governs with support from left-wing parties strongly opposed to US military intervention. Backing Washington, or even facilitating the war through US bases, could risk destabilising that coalition. But the political calculation may go even further.

Sánchez has earned a reputation for repeatedly surviving political crises. Despite declining poll numbers and ongoing scandals within his party and inner circle, he appears to be betting that Trump’s deep unpopularity in Spain will ultimately work to his advantage, particularly among his left-leaning base.

Recent electoral results suggest the strategy may be resonating with voters. In much anticipated regional elections in Castilla y León held on Sunday, Sánchez’ Socialist Party (PSOE) increased its representation, gaining two additional seats despite polls suggesting the party might lose significant ground.

While one election cannot determine national trends, the result offers an early indication that a firm anti-war stance may not carry the domestic political costs critics predicted. If anything, it may have reinforced Sánchez’s appeal across party lines among voters sceptical of military escalation, critical of Donald Trump, and supportive of a more independent European foreign policy.

If Sánchez is proven right, it would also vindicate the Spanish government’s stance on Nato. In June 2025, Spain refused to raise defence spending toward Trump’s proposed 5% Nato target, prompting harsh criticism from the US president. The dispute reflects a broader political reality: higher defence spending is unpopular among the Spanish electorate.

Seen in this context, the Iran war confrontation is part of a longer pattern in which domestic political considerations shape Spain’s position within the transatlantic alliance.

Read more: NATO has deep divisions – but why is Spain its most openly critical member?

Domestic pressures across Europe

Spain’s stance may appear unusually confrontational, but Europe’s response to the Iran war has been far from unified. Much of the variation reflects different domestic political pressures facing European leaders.

In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz initially avoided direct criticism of the US strikes and has generally emphasised transatlantic unity. Nevertheless, he has warned against a prolonged conflict and stressed that Germany “is not a party to this war” and does not want to become one, highlighting concerns about economic disruption and regional instability.

The UK has taken a similarly careful stance. Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted on clarity about US objectives and legal justification before committing military support, emphasising diplomacy and maritime security rather than direct involvement in the conflict.

Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has raised concerns about the legality of the war, but avoided outright condemnation of Washington. Her government has emphasised respect for existing agreements governing US military bases rather than blocking their use outright, reflecting both Italy’s strong security ties with the United States and Meloni’s own political alignment with transatlantic conservatives.

The overall picture is of a fragmented European response. Across the continent, governments are balancing their own domestic political constraints against broader international strategic calculations.

A litmus test for Europe

Spain’s response to the Iran war may offer the clearest example yet of how domestic politics is shaping Europe’s reaction to the conflict. Time will tell whether Sánchez’s stance proves politically sustainable at home, and whether it makes Spain the champion of a more assertive European approach toward Washington or just an outlier.

If the strategy proves successful, it could encourage other European leaders to push back against Washington. If it backfires, however, Europe’s cautious response will likely become more entrenched.

Either way, the episode illustrates a broader reality of international relations. Foreign policy decisions may be presented as matters of international law or principle, but in democratic systems they are often shaped first and foremost by the pressures of politics at home.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

– ref. Spain-US rift: Pedro Sánchez’ defiance of Trump is dictated by domestic politics – but it’s also a litmus test for Europe – https://theconversation.com/spain-us-rift-pedro-sanchez-defiance-of-trump-is-dictated-by-domestic-politics-but-its-also-a-litmus-test-for-europe-278557

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duyen Vo, Sessional Lecturer and Researcher, Faculty of Education, Monash University

Victorian public school teachers are walking off the job today. Tens of thousands of school staff, including support staff and principals, are expected to strike.

Teachers in Tasmania are also striking this week. Public schools will be closed in the state’s northwest on Tuesday, the north on Wednesday and the south on Thursday.

Public debate has understandably focused on issues around salaries and workloads, including staff shortages and unpaid overtime.

But industrial action of this scale can also signal something deeper – a breakdown of trust between teachers and the systems they work within.

Teachers want a significant pay increase

During nine months of negotiations with the state government, Victorian school staff have asked for a 35% pay increase over four years, alongside measures to improve workloads.

Teachers argue this rise is needed to keep pace with inflation and bring salaries into line with their interstate colleagues.

The Victorian government’s latest offer includes a 17% pay increase over several years, with limited practical changes to working conditions. On Monday, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan described the offer as “strong”.

How does Victoria compare with other states?

Teachers argue the Victorian government offer falls well short of what is needed to retain teachers and stabilise the workforce.

Currently, Victorian teachers are among the lowest paid in Australia, with gaps of A$10,000–15,000 per year compared with some other states.

For example, in 2025, entry-level teachers in Victoria were paid $79,589. Over the border, in New South Wales, their colleagues earned $90,177. Victorian school principals were paid $156,335. In NSW they earned $178,812.

Teacher salaries in Australia are set at the state level. In recent years, Victorian pay scales – which are influenced by earlier industrial agreements and relatively lower school funding overall – have not kept up with larger increases in other states.

Tasmanian teachers are so far rejecting a pay rise offer of less than 9% over three years from their state government.

Concerns around workloads

Victorian teachers are also calling for improvements to work conditions. This includes smaller class sizes and increased support staff and allied health resources for students.

Class sizes in Victoria are generally capped at around 25–26 students, with smaller classes in the early years of schools and flexible arrangements in specialist schools.

Teachers say smaller class sizes are key to both equity and effective student learning, particularly if there are students with extra needs.

Class sizes in Victoria are roughly equivalent to those in NSW. But class size is an issue around the country.

On top of this, teachers are seeking measures to address administrative burden and burnout. A 2025 study found nine out of ten Australian teachers are experiencing severe stress, and nearly 70% say their workload is unmanageable.

Last week, the Allan government announced measures to cut down on teachers’ paperwork, including simpler student reports. But this has not stopped the strike action.

Teacher strikes are rare

Given the disruption strikes cause to student learning, historically, teachers tend to avoid industrial action.

This is the first major statewide strike in Victoria in 13 years, highlighting the seriousness of the current dispute.

The only recent comparison is a statewide teacher strike in Queensland in 2025. This similarly focused on pay, workload and working conditions.

Beyond pay

Teachers’ dissatisfaction about their working conditions goes beyond salaries.

Amid an ongoing teacher shortage around the country, research tells us teachers are dealing with abuse from students and parents.

Research also tells us teachers’ job satisfaction is hampered by overly prescriptive curriculum demands and administrative tasks that take them away from classrooms. This means they don’t have the time and autonomy to decide how best to teach and engage their students.

Is there an even deeper issue?

Across our studies examining teachers’ work and wellbeing in Australian schools, one theme appears repeatedly: teachers want to feel respected and trusted in their workplaces.

For example, in our 2024 study of 994 Australian teachers, they emphasised the importance of feeling valued and trusted at work as well as supported and safe.

This means teachers want to be recognised as the professionals they are. This means having their teaching judgement and expertise valued and respected by parents, education administrators, the media and the broader community.

Ultimately, teachers want a genuine say when it comes to decisions about their teaching. And they want to know the community supports them and values their work.

– ref. Victorian teachers are on strike for the first time in 13 years – it’s about more than pay – https://theconversation.com/victorian-teachers-are-on-strike-for-the-first-time-in-13-years-its-about-more-than-pay-278977

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Macklin (Downes), Senior Research Fellow, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash University

If you’ve topped up your tank at a petrol station recently, did it feel like you were “panic buying”? Or did it feel more like “I’d better buy some, just in case”?

During the COVID pandemic, our research team wrote about the psychological drivers behind Australians buying up toilet paper: scarcity mindset, anticipated regret and regaining “control”. We also warned that politicians or media coverage rebuking people for buying more at the supermarkets actually risked making it worse.

Over recent weeks, some senior politicians have repeated this mistake, berating people as “un-Australian” for “panic buying” fuel.

But one of the lessons we should have learnt from COVID – when supermarket shelves were cleared and some buying limits had to be introduced – is that most people didn’t perceive themselves as “panic buyers”.

‘Just in case’ shoppers

A 2020 survey asked 450 people in the United States and Australia “to what extent did you engage in panic buying in the first few months of the COVID-19 outbreak?”. On average, both the older US participants and mostly university-aged Australians participants scored themselves as only having “low engagement” in panic buying.

A smaller UK study published in 2022 found similar results, concluding “‘panic buying’ is not a useful concept”.

Instead, Australian and other shoppers during COVID saw buying a bit extra as playing it safe, rather than panicking.

Many Australians have lingering memories of times when supply has struggled to meet demand: from banana prices jumping from A$2 a kilogram to $15 a kilo after Cyclone Larry in 2006, to struggling to find eggs last year due to bird flu.

With little sign of the Strait of Hormuz being safe for oil tankers anytime soon, it’s entirely rational for people to think “I’d better get petrol now, before the price jumps further” – sooner than we might have refilled normally.

But when enough people buy more “just in case”, all those individual choices can collectively overwhelm our fuel and food systems.

Read more: Panic buying just makes shortages worse. Why do people do it anyway?

‘A few extras’ can empty shelves

Australia has spent decades pursuing lean supply chains – what’s known as “just-in-time” supplies, with minimal buffer stock sitting around in warehouses.

It’s a hyper-efficient system that uses sophisticated demand forecasting to keep costs low. But it also assumes that tomorrow will look exactly like today.

Supply chains here and in many other countries are now optimised for predictable demand, rather than surges in demand.

In March 2020, market research group Kantar analysed the shopping habits of more than 100,000 UK consumers. It found only a small minority of people were buying far more than usual. For instance, only 3% of shoppers were stockpiling far more packets of pasta than usual.

But a significant number of consumers were adding just a few extra products and shopping more often than usual. Kantar concluded those “just a few extras” shoppers were inadvertently emptying shelves.

For our supply systems to keep working today, we need to resist the instinct to buy more fuel or other essentials than usual – unless there’s a genuine need, like residents in Queensland and the Northern Territory needing supplies before Cyclone Narelle hit.

Buying just what you need

Our work in behavioural theory suggests two approaches that would help Australia avoid repeating some of the mistakes of the early COVID response.

First, we need to highlight what the majority are doing. Focusing on the minority – those emptying shelves of jerry cans at Bunnings – can accidentally create a powerful, negative social norm that can amplify hoarding behaviour.

Most Australians are still buying petrol and shopping as normal. Highlighting sensible behaviour normalises and stabilises it.

Second, we should appeal to people’s collective responsibility. This means emphasising the need for collective effort to keep supplies available for everyone. Bringing values of shared responsibility to mind can encourage more considered choices.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese appears to have realised this. Talking about surging fuel demand late last week, he put greater emphasis on what “a good Australian” would do:

My message to Australians is please do not take more fuel than you need […] It’s the Australian way to think of others, to think of their neighbours, their community and also to think of the national interest. Only take what you need.

At the same time, we also need to build greater responsiveness into our fuel and food distribution systems, balancing efficiency with resilience.

The real lesson of empty petrol stations or supermarket shelves isn’t that people are irrational. It’s that perfectly rational individual behaviour can overwhelm a fragile system.

Until more resilient systems are in place in future, we can all play our part to keep essentials like petrol and food in stock, by shifting from a “just in case” mentality to “just take what you need”.

Read more: It’s not hoarding: farmers need to buy huge amounts of diesel to keep our food secure

– ref. How reducing ‘just in case’ purchases can help avoid empty shelves and fuel bowsers – https://theconversation.com/how-reducing-just-in-case-purchases-can-help-avoid-empty-shelves-and-fuel-bowsers-278307