Etikett: Theconversation.com

With Donald Trump returning to the White House, the relationship between the US and Iran could change significantly.

Trump’s unconventional foreign policy led to a period of heightened confrontation with Iran during his first term in office. However, the regional dynamics have evolved over the past four years, and Trump’s approach to Iran may shift as a result.

Tensions are running high between the two adversaries. Last Friday, the US Department of Justice unveiled federal charges in what it said was a thwarted Iranian plot to assassinate Trump. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed the allegations as “fabricated”.

In a report in the Wall Street Journal, Iranian officials also told the US government in a secret exchange last month that the country wouldn’t seek to kill Trump.

So, will these tensions continue in a second Trump term? Or might there be an opportunity for Iran and the US to actually improve relations?

How did the ‘maximum pressure’ policy work?

During his first term, Trump enacted a so-called “maximum pressure” policy aimed at curbing Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East.

Iran had grown much stronger after sanctions were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by the Obama administration.

Trump withdrew from this agreement in 2018. The US re-imposed severe sanctions on Iran and an embargo on its oil exports. This had severe impacts on Iran’s economy and contributed to social unrest within the country.

A man reads the Iranian daily newspaper Sazandegi in 2019, with pictures of then-Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and US President Donald Trump on its front page.
Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA

In January 2020, tensions between the US and Iran culminated in the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani by a US drone strike. This led to reprisal attacks by Iran on a US military base in Iraq.

In response to these mounting pressures, Iran scaled back its adherence to the JCPOA. It barred International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from monitoring its nuclear program and enriched uranium to near-weapons-grade level.

Regional dynamics have changed

Over the past four years, there have been substantial shifts in Iran’s relationships with Arab states in the region.

Most significantly, Iran and its chief rival, Saudi Arabi, resumed diplomatic relations in March 2023, marking a historic end to a long period of hostility.

Relations between the two nations quickly progressed to a level of co-operation unthinkable just years ago. And as Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon have continued, Saudi Arabia has drifted away from Israel and closer to its biggest foe, Iran.

Although some scepticism remains, the foreign ministers of both countries met last month in Riyadh, followed by a meeting this week between the general chief of staff of Saudi Arabia’s armed forces and his counterpart in Tehran.

And at a summit of regional leaders in Riyadh this week, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman urged Israel to respect Iranian sovereignty and accused Israel of “collective genocide” in Gaza. The summit resolution also warned of the danger of Israel’s “expansion of aggression” against Iran and other regional countries.

The latest confrontations between Iran and Israel have underscored both nations’ destructive capabilities. A war between them would likely trigger a catastrophic broader conflict that could draw in the United States, Russia and other players. Such a scenario would have profound economic and security repercussions worldwide.

Trump’s stance towards Iran

In his campaign for a second term, Trump has consistently spoken out against prolonged US involvement in wars. He also signalled a more conciliatory approach to Iran. Rejecting the idea of US-driven regime change in Tehran, he remarked:

I would like to see Iran be very successful. The only thing is, they can’t have a nuclear weapon.

He further expressed a hope for improved relations: “I’m not looking to be bad to Iran, we’re going to be friendly, I hope.”

Elon Musk, the tech billionaire closely allied with Trump, also met with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations earlier this week in a bid to defuse tensions in the next administration, The New York Times reported.

However, other reports indicate that Trump’s top advisers are planning to reinstate the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. It would include increasing sanctions again and choking off Iran’s oil income by “going after foreign ports and traders who handle Iranian oil”.

Trump’s unpredictable policymaking style suggests it is too early to know what approach he might take.

Iran’s stance toward a second-trump Term

Iran is now led by a reformist government (by Iranian standards), whose tenure would overlap with much of Trump’s second term.

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration has voiced its desire to improve relations with the West and resume nuclear talks. And contrary to previous reformist governments in Iran, it generally enjoys the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the ultimate power in the country.

Despite its military strength, Iran faces deep economic challenges, with public dissatisfaction growing. Therefore, Iran may seek to prioritise diplomatic solutions with the new Trump administration, knowing any escalation could destabilise the region.

In a sign of openness towards Trump, Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has urged him to reassess the policy of “maximum pressure”, saying: “Trump must show that he is not following the wrong policies of the past.”

In the same vein, Araghchi, the foreign minister, has sent positive signals to Trump, saying:

The path forward is also a choice. It begins with respect […] Confidence-building is needed from both sides. It is not a one-way street.

He also emphasised that Iran is “NOT after nuclear weapons”.

Iran has yet to respond to Israel’s latest direct attack in late October. Though Iran has launched two direct attacks of its own on Israel this year, it may seek to de‑escalate tensions. In a statement in late October, Iran’s military said a ceasefire in the Gaza and Lebanon conflicts is more important than retaliation against Israel.

If a ceasefire were to occur, the region could enter a period of relative calm after a year of heightened tensions. This would present a valuable opportunity for the US to work with Israel, Arab states and potentially Iran towards a more permanent regional peace framework. Läs mer…

Justin Welby resigned as archbishop of Canterbury following a damning report about a prolific child abuser in the Church of England. The report into decades of abuse of more than 100 boys perpetrated by the barrister John Smyth QC in the UK, South Africa and Zimbabwe detailed the Church of England’s cover-up of the abuse.

It found that Welby failed to act on safeguarding concerns after he was notified of the abuse in 2013. This, and the fact that he had an acquaintanceship with Smyth since they were briefly colleagues in the 1970s, left his position untenable.

“It is very clear that I must take personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period between 2013 and 2024,” Welby said in his resignation statement. There have since been more calls for church figures to resign.

Thousands of survivors of institutional child abuse all over the UK will have watched the unfolding news with a mixture of wearied recognition and horror. Many will be retraumatised.

The Church of England’s response contains rhetoric about “victim-centred” and “trauma-informed” responses to Smyth’s victims, and the promise of future reform that will act on the advice of experts.

This is a familiar story cycle for those of us who study abuse in institutions: scandal, pressure on a figurehead to resign (initially resisted and then succumbed to), followed by a promise of root-and-branch reform. But what it can often miss is the enduring, corrosive impact these scandals have on all abuse survivors.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

At the heart of institutional child abuse are three parties. First, the victim (or victims). Second, the shadowy figure of the abuser (or abusers). Third, and crucially, the organisation that fails to protect and then compounds the abuse by dismissing, denying or minimising it.

The psychoanalyst Sandor Ferenczi, writing more than 100 years ago, suggested that it is the witnessing of the abuse by a third party (sometimes described as a bystander), that is key to making the abuse traumatic to the victim.

In other words, the institution is every bit as responsible for the long-term psychological harm as the original abuser. It is in their betrayal in failing to protect and in communicating the shamefulness of what has happened through the cover-up that carries additional traumatic impacts.

From this perspective, the Church of England in this case not only failed to safeguard these children, but was an active partner in causing harm to them. Survivor scepticism about promises of institutional reform may appear cynical to well-intentioned reformists. But this is a way to manage what victims see as an ongoing threat from the institution by not taking what they say at face value.

What is so saddening about the Church of England’s response so far is that it also fits into a survivor worldview that can deepen their trauma. The focus on the institution, which has already failed survivors, makes the prospect for real change feel even more hopeless. This sense of a “foreshortened future” – where survivors feel that life will not improve for them, that their life is already behind them and hope of positive change and growth have disappeared – is a key feature of trauma.

A clerical response

Religious institutions are particularly poorly placed to make the changes they need to in the wake of abuse scandals, to prevent future harms and to deliver the justice that victims demand.

While there is no doubt genuine contrition, there is also a recognisably religious tone to the solutions proposed. This is evident when religious orders seek to manage serious child abusers through internal mechanisms and using prayer and other religious practices as a solution to both alleviate harm to victims and promote the rehabilitation of abusers.

There is a clericalism in these responses that mirrors the conditions that led to abusers like Smyth being able to act with impunity in the first place.

Clericalism refers to a phenomenon in religious institutions whereby the theological foundation on which institution operates is according to church law and connected to divine providence, and therefore given primacy. Secular law is left necessarily subordinate.

Clearly, when it comes to safeguarding children, this is not an approach that has worked well for the church. And yet it is a belief so deeply ingrained it is difficult for it to be recognised by those subject to it.

A sense of hopelessness and a ‘foreshortened future’ is a key feature of trauma.
Bricolage/Shutterstock

One suggestion for the Church of England is to take a break from focusing on scripture and have a read of the poet and activist Audre Lorde, who observed that: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

Above all, what needs to be communicated is a message of realistic hope, followed by action that realises the promise of that fragile hope. A demonstration that institutions can learn from examples of others that have responded well to their failures, without trying to locate them in a distant past. Evidence that survivors can heal from child abuse and can be supported to talk about their experiences in a way that feeds into substantive institutional change. And a willingness for the institution to subject itself to external regulation and to act in partnership with survivor-led groups who understand the differences between shallow and meaningful reform.

This is painstaking work, and it will necessitate the loss of privilege in religious institutions, and of long-held beliefs about their divine right to regulate themselves. But without it, all talk of being victim-centred is just that – talk. Läs mer…

This is the one time of year where the eyes of the world are all on climate change. When it makes the news every single night, and everyone hopes that, miraculously, almost 200 countries will somehow put aside insurmountable differences to come together and solve this crisis in a tidy two-week period. Then, we can all stop worrying about how our family and friends will survive the largest threat to civilisation.

Another UN climate summit is upon us as negotiators, world leaders and professional hangers-on have gathered for more talks, this time in Baku, Azerbaijan. Once again, thousands of people attempt to move action on climate change forward at glacial speed (hopefully not retreating at glacial speed which is happening considerably faster).

These UN conferences can feel far removed from the daily life of the average person switching on the news or reading an article, only to be relentlessly bombarded the most complicated and impenetrable jargon and acronyms imaginable. So, do you know your NDC from your NCQG?

Obviously, these acronyms are perfectly fine and well-intentioned from an internal UN perspective, where they are used daily by climate experts and national representatives. But as soon as they enter the wider world, they become utterly meaningless to most people.

I spend a lot of time speaking to non-experts because, alongside lecturing, I am a comedian who talks about climate change. Which I realise is an odd combination, but not as odd as being Cop president and chief executive of an oil company.

I am well versed in trying to make jargon more accessible and dare I say, funny, to the public. So, I’ve got a game for you to make understanding this all a bit more fun – get your pens ready for Cop29 acronym bingo. Six points if you come across all of them in the next news bulletin you read or listen to.

UNFCCC

A sailor went to the UN F triple sea sea sea. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the process for a global response to tackle climate change. The international treaty was initially signed in 1992 and since then, this organisation has been the party host for Cop, bringing all these countries together.

The UNFCCC headquarters is in Bonn, Germany.
International Development Issues / Alamy Stock Photo

Cop

Emergency. Emergency. Call 999. The Conference of the Parties is the annual meeting of the countries or regions signed up to the UNFCCC. Here the negotiations dictate the world’s plan of action to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It is often referred to as the UN climate talks, summit or conference – that’s more informative than referring to Cop. Perhaps the name could incorporate the year in question, rather than the number of times that Cops have happened. So “climate talks 24 in Baku” would be much more self-explanatory than Cop29 (the 29th climate Cop). Especially when there’s an equivalent biodiversity Cop (currently numbered at Cop16, but that’s another story).

NDC

As easy as ABC, it’s an NDC. This is a nice simple one. Nationally determined contributions are the promises that each party (country) of the UNFCCC makes to all the other countries about what they plan to do about climate change. It includes their pledges to adhere to the legally binding Paris agreement goals. It is decided by each party themselves, and they basically say “we’re going to try our best and this is what we’re going to do”.

NCQG

With a lack of vowels, this one is a mouthful – it sounds like a company that runs a multi-storey car park. NCQG refers to the new collective quantified goal on climate finance. And if you think the acronym is dry then you should see the negotiations. (I actually sat in on the negotiations for these last year for an afternoon because I am an absolute nerd).

Matt Winning signalling the number of times the annual transfer in the NCQG needs to be multiplied at a bare minimum.
Matt Winning, Author provided (no reuse)

The NCQG determines how much money rich countries should be sending to poorer countries to actually help them, given that they are the countries who’ve contributed the least to causing climate change, the main countries impacted by climate change, and have the least amount of money to spend on dealing with the impacts or reducing their emissions.

Nap

True to their name, reading them will often put you to sleep. The national adaptation plans are developed by countries to prepare for the current and coming climate impacts such as droughts, floods and extreme weather in their own countries and how their people and economies will deal with a shift in climate.

Bicfit

Not a watch that measures your daily steps and heart rate. This was actually a new one to me this year. It is the Baku initiative for climate finance, investment and trade. It appears to be a voluntary initiative that aims to bring together various elements of climate trade, finance and investment that has been introduced this year at the Azerbaijan summit. Basically, nobody knows how this will work yet. It might be useful, it might not. But boy is that a long acronym.

So, making dry climate negotiations relevant and engaging to the general public is hard. There should be more focus on simply using the negotiations to tell good climate stories during this annual two-week period. About why the negotiations are important, rather than the ins and outs of possible policies and agreements. We have people’s attention. Let’s improve climate literacy to use it to better effect.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

At the end of Michael Bond’s Paddington Marches On (1964), Paddington is preparing for a trip to Peru to visit Aunt Lucy. By the start of the next book, Paddington at Work (1966), he’s already en route back to England. Although Bond’s series hints at Paddington’s Peruvian origins, readers are never actually taken there.

So, it was a major departure when the writers of the recent Paddington films decided to take the bear there in the latest instalment. The recent recipient of a (shiny, blue) British passport, Paddington embarks upon a search for his Aunt Lucy, who appears to have disappeared into the Peruvian jungle.

Long before Paddington’s adopted British family, the Browns, have set foot in Peru, the audience has already seen many images of the country of Paddington’s birth. The film opens with a prologue set in Peru’s vast, misty rainforests, where we see Paddington as a cub being swept along a river.

Later, the Browns’ conversations reinforce stereotypes, painting Peru as a wild and dangerous place. Mr Brown says it’s a “land of altitude sickness and uncharted jungles” with scary animals, while Mrs Bird, the Browns’ live-in housekeeper and distant relative, describes it as home to three of the most dangerous roads in the world.

This perception continues when the Browns arrive in the country, with a Peruvian driver smiling as he says “nice view, uh?” – as they look down nervously at narrow mountain roads.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

The Peruvian setting and characters in Paddington in Peru often feel like background decor. Scenes feature busy towns, daily routines and children in bright, traditional clothing posing with Paddington. Yet, only a few local characters (including the taxi driver) have speaking parts.

Among those with lines are Hunter Cabot (Antonio Banderas), his daughter Gina (Carla Tous), and Mother Superior (Olivia Colman). Although early scenes show Peru’s towns and cities, only these characters have substantial roles, and none are portrayed by Peruvian actors.

Both Banderas and Tous are Spanish, while Colman is British. Aunt Lucy’s retirement home, previously located in Lima, is now in a jungle, isolating her from any modern, urban representation of Peru. This differs from Paddington’s London, where his interactions with locals shape his journey. In Peru, these interactions feel minimised.

The film is structured as a “quest narrative”. Paddington is ostensibly searching for Aunt Lucy, yet soon discovers clues leading him and the Browns toward the mythical city of gold, El Dorado, hinting at a colonial-era fascination with the “exotic” and “unknown”.

This premise aligns with 19th- and early 20th-century European adventure tales, where the protagonist confronts wild, unfamiliar landscapes that serve as obstacles to overcome. As children’s literature professor Evelyn Arizpe notes, in these narratives, the land often functions as a backdrop for European characters to prove themselves, rather than a place with its own agency.

Similarly, in Paddington in Peru, the country becomes a tool for the Browns’ self-growth, helping resolve family issues and personal doubts without conveying whether Peru itself benefits. It’s significant that Paddington and Aunt Lucy, the two Peruvian figures with whom audiences are familiar, lack agency or enthusiasm for the quest to find El Dorado. Instead, they’re drawn in by European explorers’ ambitions.

Nicholas Daly, a professor of English and American literature, has argued that treasure maps in such narratives perpetuate European fantasies of mastery, presenting exotic spaces as mysterious-yet-conquerable puzzles. And this sense of control is reinforced by the visual metaphors employed by the three Paddington films.

While London is depicted in 3D pop-up books and dollhouses in the first two films, Peru appears only as flat aerial maps or an endless jungle canopy, rendering it an undifferentiated wilderness. The quipu, a record of information, is presented as a mystical form of communication, and Incan ruins are shown without any modern cultural continuity, leaving the impression that ancient Peruvian history is detached from the present.

While the film acknowledges colonial violence through the Cabot family, their “curse” of seeking El Dorado only minimally addresses colonial impacts. Hunter Cabot is depicted as the descendant of European colonists including a conquistador, prospector and priest, demonstrating an understanding of the range of methods by which imperial power over South America was exerted.

It is perhaps significant these colonisers are coded as Spanish rather than British. While this does reflect the real colonial history of the continent, it also partially absolves the Browns and the British audience of any connection with these historical crimes.

Hunter’s pursuit of treasure is portrayed as madness, contrasting with the Browns’ supposedly innocent curiosity – though their search for El Dorado follows the same problematic template. The film doesn’t ask if viewers are complicit in such a colonial gaze, hinting instead that only the Cabots’ overt greed is wrong.

As we explore in our forthcoming book about the Paddington series, his roots in “Darkest Peru” are, in any case, a colonial accident. Bond had originally envisioned Paddington coming from Africa, but changed it to Peru after his agent, Harvey Unna, pointed out “there are no bears in Africa, darkest or otherwise”. This shift didn’t erase colonialist connotations, and the “darkest” label retains colonial-era stereotypes.

Peru, in fact, has never mattered much to the series beyond being a vague “elsewhere” in the tradition of exotic and racially coded origins. In this sense, Paddington in Peru isn’t a departure from Bond’s original setup so much as a continuation of it. Peru exists as a backdrop for a British adventure, rather than as a place in its own right.

What can Paddington Bear’s citizenship journey teach our leaders?
Join The Conversation UK and migration experts in London on November 16 for a screening of Paddington in Peru and a discussion on migration, citizenship and belonging.
Click here for more information and tickets. Läs mer…

The hotly anticipated second series of the late Hilary Mantell’s Wolf Hall trilogy has finally hit our screens, nearly ten years after the first. The six episodes adapt the trilogy’s last book, The Mirror and the Light, and cover the years from the execution of Henry VIII’s second wife, Anne Boleyn, in 1536, to the climax of Thomas Cromwell’s execution in 1540.

In the first episode, we see the sensational drama of Boleyn’s execution. It also features tensions mounting as the king threatens his daughter, Princess Mary, with the same fate.

Mary is devoted to her recently deceased mother, Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII’s first wife. Her father had divorced Catherine, claiming the marriage was incestuous and illegal because she had previously been married to his dead brother, Arthur.

Mary refuses to accept these claims, leaving herself open to the full penalties of the law. Played by Lilit Lesser, the princess is portrayed as vulnerable and alone when Cromwell visits her – he is the only man at court who wants to rescue her.

In the peril in which she stands, Mary bemoans that “no other lord has spoken for me … not even the Poles or the Courtenays” – to which a sympathetic Cromwell responds: “They have left you to bear the risk.”

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

It seems that Cromwell, the blacksmith’s son from Putney, is the only one striving to do what is right, at great risk to himself, while surrounded by conniving and unscrupulous individuals. However, this is not true. As someone who has researched the lives of the Poles and Courtenays, I can tell you they did try to help Mary.

Mary’s second mother

Margaret Pole, played by Harriet Walter, is countess of Salisbury and niece of Kings Edward IV and Richard III. She is depicted as defiant and disdainful, a woman who has to be threatened into writing to Mary in a bid to save the princess from the axe.

In reality, Pole had been Mary’s governess from May 1520. In July the following year, she was removed from the post after the execution of her son-in-law, the duke of Buckingham, for treason. But she was re-appointed in 1525, and remained at Mary’s side until 1535.

As I write in my book on Pole, she was regarded as the princess’s second mother, and needed no prompting from Cromwell to act in Mary’s defence in 1536. She had already done much to shield Mary from the consequences of her parents’ disintegrating marriage, and had incurred the king’s wrath before.

Margaret Pole, countess of Salisbury, came to Mary’s aid time and again.
National Portrait Gallery

When Mary’s household was broken up in the autumn of 1535 – due to her refusal to accept her illegitimacy and the loss of her title as princess – Pole was discharged and Mary was placed in the household of her baby sister, Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn.

The king refused Pole’s offer to follow and serve the princess at her own expense, so the distressed countess returned to her own residence, where it appears she suffered some sort of collapse.

While she evaded punishment at the time, Pole would be arrested in 1538 and executed in 1541 due to the treasonous activities of her sons, and Henry VIII’s fears that her extensive estates in the south of England might be used as an entry point for a foreign invasion. It is most likely that Cromwell fabricated evidence against her to ensure her conviction.

The king’s first cousin and his wife

Unlike the Pole family, the Courtenays have mostly been airbrushed out of the show. All that remains are unflattering references in episode one, as Cromwell tells Mary they are among those who “have practice of scuttling into cover”, leaving Mary exposed.

Like the Poles, they were of royal descent. Henry Courtenay, earl of Devon and marquis of Exeter, was the king’s first cousin.

In a dramatic scene, the incredulous imperial ambassador for the holy Roman emperor (and Catherine of Aragon’s nephew) Charles V, Eustace Chapuys, asks Cromwell if he will risk his life for Mary. In reality, the Courtenays had already beaten him to it.

Gertrude Courtenay, marchioness of Exeter, had taken a great risk by visiting Chapuys in person in November 1535, needing the protection of a disguise to do so. Warning him of the danger in which the princess and her mother stood, she begged him “with the greatest possible speed” to write to his master and ask for “a prompt and efficacious remedy to these many evils”. Chapuys would recount this exchange in a letter to Charles V, adding that he considered the danger to them imminent.

Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light trailer.

Henry Courtenay, unlike many, had a genuine affection for Henry VIII, but also remained loyal to Mary. He was a member of the privy council, the governmental group who advised the king. When the council went into emergency session in the summer of 1536 following Mary’s refusal to accept the invalidity of her parents’ marriage, Courtenay was removed because of his known loyalty to her. In the TV series, however, he is not depicted in the scene that dramatises this event.

In January 1539, Chapuys reminded Charles V of the love that Henry Courtenay had born the princess – “in whose service he would willingly, as he has often sent to tell me, shed his blood.” But by this time, Courtenay’s blood had indeed been shed. In December 1538, as his cousin Henry VIII partied at Westminster, he faced a trial and execution as shocking as that of Anne Boleyn’s. Once again, Cromwell savoured another victory over his enemies.

While the writers of the TV series might have chosen to forget the loyalty these players showed Mary, she did not forget them. When she became queen in 1553, she made grants to Margaret Pole’s granddaughters “in consideration of the service to the queen in her tender age of the said countess of Salisbury”. And Gertrude, marchioness of Exeter, was immediately welcomed to her court as one of her closest companions.

Some may grudge at historians holding forth about the fact or fiction of an enjoyable TV series, when it is understood that dramatic licence must be taken. But I believe such points of contention should be welcomed. After all, The Mirror and the Light is doing what every good historical drama should do – making us all want to know more. Läs mer…

In the aftermath of the US election, much focus has been on the consequences for abortion rights across the US, and whether this will affect state-led initiatives to roll back restrictive legislation.

What has received much less attention is what will happen next to abortion services, sexual and reproductive health, and health more widely across many parts of the world, as a direct result of a decision President Trump is likely to take on his first day in office.

The US is by far the largest donor of aid for global health, providing US$15.8 billion (£7.8 billion) in 2022, compared to the next three largest donors Germany (US$4.4 billion), Japan ($3.2 billion) and the UK (US$2 billion). That means restrictions and reductions on that aid can have enormous consequences around the world.

In 1984, President Reagan implemented the Mexico City Policy (which became widely known as the global gag rule), under which any organisation providing abortion services (defined widely from actual abortion provision to basic advice) was banned from receiving US aid – even if that funding was not being spent on abortion services. Since then, Democratic administrations have removed this rule, only for succeeding Republican presidents to reinstate it.

Based on his track record in his first presidency, Trump is likely to bring back this kind of restriction on aid when he returns to the White House. His first administration reintroduced this policy and vastly expanded the scope of its focus well beyond family planning services to include HIV/AIDS treatment, sanitation and public health more widely.

The amount of funding affected by these rules rose from around $600 million under Bush-era workings of the global gag rule to around US$12 billion. The ruling will apply not just to the organisations directly receiving USAID funding, but to any organisation they work with, even if using non-USAID funds for that work.

The potential impact of these restrictions on how countries can use their public health funding is significant; the performance of the previous Trump administration suggests health organisations are right to be worried about what may be coming.

Research over decades shows that when the global gag rule is in place the health of women and children in particular are put at risk.

A study in Kenya, for example, found sexual and reproductive health services (which may include abortion services, but also offer critically important services for pregnant and new mothers, infants and children) were closed. Stocks of contraceptives also declined as a consequence of these restrictions on how aid was spent. In Uganda, organisations reportedly stopped providing services designed to reduce death from unsafe abortions, worried even this might fall into the vague definitions of “abortion services”.

Leading international reproductive health charity Marie Stopes International saw its overall funding fall by 17% in 2017 during Trump’s first term, over its refusal to agree to the terms of the global gag rule. In some countries abortion rates rose by up to 40%, with many expected to be unsafe, as US funding for safe abortion facilities disappeared.

There’s likely to be an increase in maternal and child mortality. The death rate from safe abortions is very small (around 1 per 100,000 births). Unsafe abortions, by contrast, are incredibly dangerous, with a death ratio of 200 per 100,000 abortions.

This type of restriction on how US aid can be spent doesn’t just affect abortion services. It also undermines wider sexual and reproductive health services, including family planning access and information. The result is that unwanted pregnancy rates increase at the same time as abortion service provision is reduced, with the inevitable consequence of pushing many women into dangerous unsafe abortion procedures. One study suggested an additional 30,000 maternal and child deaths occurred annually as a direct result.

A review of research findings on the impact of these public health restrictions carried out by policy organisation KFF, showed declines in usage of modern contraception, increases in pregnancies and rates of unsafe abortions.

The affect on advice on and availability of modern contraception, especially condoms, also brings with it additional health challenges. Best practice has long suggested integrating sexual health services with other health services including HIV testing and treatment, screening for some cancers and antenatal care, can improve health outcomes.

Undermining one aspect of these services has a knock-on effect on all of them. A 2022 study suggested that across highly US-aid dependent countries, there have been an additional 90,000 new HIV infections every year when the global gag rule has been in force.

Reduced access to contraception

Nepal, which enshrined the right to abortion and requires all government health facilities to offer free abortion services in its 2018 Safe Motherhood and Reproductive Health Rights Act, is one country that could be particularly badly affected. The US is the largest bilateral donor for health in Nepal and has provided more than three-fifths of aid for family planning and reproductive health under President Biden. One study found maternal and child health services in Nepal as a whole worsened under Trump’s last term, not just those parts linked to abortion services.

Access to contraception and women’s health services are expected to be drastically reduced if US aid to the country is cut.
AP/Alamy

Contraception services declined and stocks frequently ran out, increasing risks of unwanted pregnancies. Organisations working on abortion were also often excluded from ministry of public health consultations, despite abortion being legal in the country, over government fears of the consequences for US aid flows.

When these kind of restrictions are in place the number of abortions has increased. And much of that increase is happening in unregulated, dangerous places, adding to the risk of death for pregnant women.

What might happen next?

Under previous US presidents, other donors have increased their commitments in order to try and protect sexual and reproductive health services and wider public health from the devastating impact of US policy.

It is critical that donors, especially those in Europe (including the UK), announce their plans now for how they will step up their support to protect women’s health and access to safe abortions, in order to prevent the closure of these vital services. Not just for the next four years but for the longer term.

These restrictions create the precise opposite of what they set out to achieve, resulting in more abortions and more deaths. But more than that, they are deeply harmful and dangerous to women who have no say over a policy that presents a danger to their lives. Läs mer…

The US election was not just about Donald Trump v Kamala Harris, Republicans v Democrats. In a simple sense it was also about men v women. The results show that more men voted for Trump, and more women for Harris.

The discrepancies are particularly notable among young voters. In the 18-29 age group, 58% of women voted for Harris, while 56% of men voted for Trump. This reflects the growing partisan divide in gen Z, where studies suggest young men are becoming more conservative, while young women are becoming more liberal.

Gender played a significant role in the campaign itself, with Harris and the Democrats focusing their message on women’s rights and reproductive health. Trump, on the other hand, courted young men who feel disenfranchised and disillusioned in a changing society.

The president-elect represents a particular type of masculinity: he is seen as brash and straight-talking, and can appear domineering or patronising around women – for example when he famously lurked behind Hillary Clinton during a debate in 2016. For some women who voted for him, this might be a familiar personality that they’ve seen in their fathers and husbands.

For men, Trump represents “hegemonic masculinity”, the exalted position of men at the top. In this view, aggression, control and dominance are all admirable traits and highly socially valued.

As my research has highlighted, oppressing and subordinating others is not the only way of proving masculinity. But it is certainly one of the more obvious ways, and it is particularly dangerous for women’s rights.

Trump has surrounded himself with men who promote the stereotype of the alpha male, demean childless women and promote a version of family values that takes away from women’s autonomy.

Read more:
The ’Lost Boys’ of Gen Z: how Trump won the hearts of alienated young men

During the campaign, Trump vowed to protect women “whether they like it or not”. This implies that women are not considered to be men’s equals and that men are in control of everything, including women themselves.

This kind of “protective masculinity”, and the idea that women need to be protected by men has had a resurgence in US society over the past few decades. This was identified by political scientist Iris Marion Young in the early noughties.

“The stance of the male protector … is one of loving self-sacrifice, with those in the feminine position as the objects of love and guardianship,” she wrote in a paper on the subject. “Chivalrous forms of masculinism express and enact concern for the wellbeing of women, but they do so within a structure of superiority and subordination.”

This structure of superiority and subordination is evident in popular culture and social media movements. Ideas of protection are espoused by “manosphere” influencers who promote this very traditional form of masculinity, such as Andrew Tate (who has been charged with rape and human trafficking, which he denies).

Popular ideas around dating, holding doors for women, paying for meals and general submission to men hark back to a time when women were less able to work or earn as much money, and had fewer rights.

This view of masculinity is also harmful for men, whose emotional and mental health and relationships with women are constrained by its stringent views of gender.

What women are concerned about now

The American feminist Susan Faludi argued in her 1992 book Backlash that throughout history, women’s gains in public and private life have later been used against them.

It could be argued that this phenomenon is evident in the rise of Trump. Women, particularly young women, have made notable gains in education, employment, politics and other rights in recent years.

After the 2022 overturning of Roe v Wade – the court ruling that established the right to an abortion in the US and which represented freedom and rights for many women – and the election of Trump, it is very difficult to see how there will be any strengthening of women’s rights in the US in the coming years.

In the week since the election, blatant misogyny against women has spread on social media in response to Trump’s victory. One of the most viral posts has been from far-right influencer Nick Fuentes, who wrote “Your body, my choice. Forever”, on X (formerly Twitter).

And Trump ally John McEntee joked in a video that the 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote, “might have to go”.

A women’s march in Washington, D.C. following Trump’s first election.
Heidi Besen/Shutterstock

Women around the world have expressed feeling scared, angry and saddened by his victory. One reason behind this is, of course, Trump’s own behaviour.

Throughout his career, Trump has made countless derogatory comments about women. Last year, he was found liable in a civil trial for sexually abusing the writer E. Jean Carroll in 1996, and of defaming her ahead of the trial. He also faces accusations of two dozen incidences of sexual harassment and assault including rape, which he has denied.

Read more:
Project 2025: what is it and why does Trump say he knows nothing about it?

But some of the responses to Trump’s victory also speak to the wider concerns and fears about personal safety and bodily autonomy that women have tried to express for years, only to not be taken seriously by men.

Women around the world are sexually harassed, raped and killed every day. Women are afraid to go out in the dark, and always have been.

There is evidence that even when men do think about women’s fears, that they think those fears are exaggerated or unfounded. Arguably, some men only seem to express concern about women when they have daughters.

What women need from men now is not their protection – they need men to listen to their concerns. Läs mer…

Has the bell finally tolled for Shakespeare and Byron? New research conducted by philosophers of science Brian Porter and Edouard Machery suggests that the latest AI-generated poetry is “indistinguishable from human-written poetry” and “rated more favourably”.

Ten poets, from the medieval Geoffrey Chaucer to modern writer Dorothea Lasky, were successfully impersonated by AI chatbots, with most of the 696 participants slightly preferring the imitation to the real thing.

Porter and Machery conclude that “the capabilities of generative AI models have outpaced people’s expectations of AI”. But they don’t say AI has been proven an adequate replacement for human poets – and rightly so, as such a conclusion would require a great deal more testing.

That the research participants were fooled is not particularly worrying. Porter and Machery set out to include a wide range of poem types, which meant choosing poets who mostly belong to ages past. In such cases, modern readers are likely to have a hard time looking past the obvious signs of antiquity – outdated diction, rigid formalism, and obscure cultural references. It’s not so hard to disguise yourself as someone when that person is chiefly known for the odd clothes they wear.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

But what about the matter of preference? As well as overall quality, the researchers asked participants to rate poems on a range of qualitative dimensions. How was the imagery, rhythm, sound or beauty? How “inspiring”, “lyrical”, “meaningful”, “moving”, “original”, “profound”, “witty” (and so on) was it? AI won out over Shakespeare and company in nearly every category.

Does this mean human poets have been supplanted? Not really. Participants in the research overall reported “a low level of experience with poetry”. Lack of familiarity with any artform severely limits our ability to get the most out of it. All the AI has to do is sand off the more challenging elements – ambiguity, wordplay, linguistic complexity – in order to produce a version which is more palatable to those with little interest in the art.

If that sounds snobbish, think of it this way: when we aren’t used to eating a foreign cuisine, most of us gravitate toward the blandly familiar end of the menu.

But poetry is not a medium many look to for instant gratification. The reason poets of the calibre of Byron and Walt Whitman (both of whom were included in this study) continue to command respect is because their poetry rewards extended, rather than cursory, attention. The report agrees on this point, noting that participants complained more often of the human-authored poems that they “don’t make sense”.

For now, then, poets have little reason to fret. Is it possible, though, that we aren’t too far off the point where seasoned readers of poetry are able to discover a richness and depth in AI poetry that outstrips similar efforts by humans? I think so – not least because a substantial contributor to the emotional and intellectual impact of a poem is the reader’s own imagination.

Could AI develop emotional depth that outstrips that of huamans?
Oleg Nesterov/Shutterstock

It is the reader who, through the act of reading, brings the words to life. For decades now, the concept of “found poetry” – as well as collage poetry and other related techniques – has rested on the fact that all language can be recontextualised as poetry, if arranged with care. For the skilled reader of poetry, the poem is a construction kit, or playground, for the mind to revel in.

But we must then ask, how many readers will choose to repeatedly commit the time and effort needed to draw meaning from AI-created texts? Is the pleasure of reading reward enough in itself?

For some, it will be. But I suspect for the majority, the real point of poetry is to put you in touch, in a very specific way, with other human minds. It is more social activity than technical feat.

In many cultures, the rituals that have grown around it are collaborative, participatory. Poetry is made not because we need poems to exist, but because we seek a keener, fuller awareness of each other – of the sense each of us makes of the world.

That does not mean AI won’t change poetry. Every recent generation of poets has been deeply interested in adapting and absorbing new technologies, along with shifts in cultural mood. Film poets continue to explore combinations of spoken word and moving image. Flarf poetry collected and reconfigured search engine detritus. And my own research into video game poetry has uncovered rapidly growing interest in a form of poetry that is restlessly interactive, playable, slippery.

Already, poets like Dan Power and Nick Flynn are collaborating in different ways with AI to uncover new avenues of possibility. And AI’s ability to approximate Shakespeare’s style is a technological marvel.

But art that merely imitates and iterates on what has come before is art at its most trivial. The goal of the poet is not to be mistaken for Shakespeare, but much the opposite: to make something never seen before. Läs mer…

In England, rising concerns around escalating costs of living during last winter prompted the development of local initiatives aimed at creating “warm spaces”. The idea was to provide a warm environment, often with the addition of a hot drink, internet access and support services, to assist those affected by increased financial pressures.

These warm spaces were organised and managed by local authorities and communities within the voluntary sector. But of all organisations, I believe this year cinemas should be leading the charge in this movement.

Beyond their role in entertainment, cinemas are textbook warm spaces for those who lack adequate heating or home energy, particularly the elderly, during the winter months. That’s because they tend to be equipped with heating systems designed to maintain comfortable temperatures throughout the year, ensuring that customers enjoy films in a cosy environment, shielded from the weather outside.

For those who struggle with regulating home temperatures or have limited access to resources, the consistent warmth provided by cinemas can be a crucial relief. And in addition, the welcoming ambience of a cinema can help to promote relaxation and comfort, as well as reduce isolation, anxiety and stress.

The deluxe seating, muted lighting and immersive sound systems create an inviting atmosphere conducive to unwinding and escaping both the literal and metaphorical chill outside.

The one thing going against cinemas as warm spaces is that they often demand high ticket prices. The average price for a standard UK cinema ticket in 2023 was £7.92. Special two-for-one screenings are commonplace and matinees and reruns can be more affordable, while community cinema tickets average £5. Designated warm spaces, however, are typically free or very low cost.

If cinemas need financial support to make opening their doors as warm spaces more accessible to people on low incomes, funding is available from local authorities and community foundations, which the Warm Welcome Campaign and The Community Foundation can help them to access.

This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.

Creating warm community

Cinemas also provide emotional warmth by fostering a sense of community. Watching a film with others encourages social interaction and companionship, which can be uplifting for those who are lonely or isolated during the winter months.

For elderly people, many of whom may face social isolation, the opportunity to engage with others in a shared activity can have significant mental and emotional benefits.

From my own research, having co-founded the Cinema and Social Justice Project, it is clear that there is a transformative power in cinema. This underscores the potential of films to create change, reaffirming the idea that storytelling possesses the power to challenge, inspire and mobilise people towards a more just and equitable society.

Accessibility is another key advantage of cinemas as warm spaces. Cinemas have a legal duty to make their services accessible to all people with disabilities. Cinema is one of the most accessible forms of experience for audiences on a tight budget. Many cinemas are located in central areas with easy access to public transport, making them convenient destinations for people with limited mobility or who rely on public transport.

Warm spaces are particularly important for isolated elderly people.
bbernard/Shutterstock

Despite big chains like Cineworld having the largest portion of the UK market share (23%), or Odeon, who made £264 million, in 2023, it is independent organisations leading the way for cinemas as warm spaces.

Cinema For All is a national organisation dedicated to supporting and developing volunteer-led community cinemas and film societies across the UK. Cinema For All builds on almost a century of volunteer-led film exhibition, which began with the founding of the first film society in 1925. Today, even when accessing a city centre may pose financial or physical barriers, 31% of these community cinemas and film societies can be found in rural areas.

Initiatives like My Community Cinema make it easier for audiences to find and to support these local volunteer-led cinemas. My Community Cinema also helps organisers promote their events, grow their audiences and engage more film lovers – providing essential warm spaces when they are most needed.

Cinemas are struggling as admissions are still well below pre-pandemic levels. Getting more people into the building, and keeping them warm in difficult times, can only be good for business.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here. Läs mer…

Smart homes have become increasingly popular in recent years. Where once they simply referred to automated systems for things like lighting and heating, nowadays the definition has expanded to include voice assistants and a wide variety of sensors and remotely programmable devices. In the UK, ownership of smart-home devices has doubled in the past five years.

However, many experts believe that the true potential of smart homes lies in helping those with special needs, such as older people or those with dementia. The vision is that by helping with daily activities, detecting problems, providing assistance and calling for human backup when required, smart homes can help people to live independent lives who currently need alternative arrangements.

The best homes of this kind are in the US, Germany and South Korea. Voice assistants help residents to manage their medication, while sensors can detect falls and summon emergency services as appropriate. Users also wear sensors to track vital signs such as heart rate and blood pressure, whose data is transmitted to healthcare professionals.

But there are relatively few homes of this type and the technology is still quite basic. For instance, despite advances in artificial intelligence (AI), it is still rarely used for more sophisticated monitoring, such as recognising activities like making breakfast or putting groceries away, and, say, reminding a user to turn off the hob or spotting if they’ve put things in the wrong places.

As a researcher who has been working in this space for a number of years, I see numerous challenges that are preventing progress.

1. The camera problem

The most accurate way to monitor residents is to install lots of cameras in their homes. These come with complications, such as restricted viewpoints and having to sometimes work in darkness, but the main problem is privacy.

It has become increasingly clear that individuals don’t want to live in houses where people can potentially see what they’re doing, so cameras are not really a viable option. Unfortunately most of the research in this field has been based on them, so it’s not useful.

Without cameras to capture information, it also means that the best training data for AI is unavailable, making it harder to move the technology forward. Instead, researchers like myself are having to develop technologies for these smart homes that are based on sensors and RFIDs embedded everywhere.

2. Endless complexity

One thing that AI still finds very difficult in this context is to recognise more complex activities or behaviours. This includes where more than one person is doing things at the same time, or where one person is carrying out a sequence of activities or an activity with lots of small parts, such as making breakfast or washing the dishes.

It also doesn’t help that all houses are configured differently, plus it’s challenging to optimise where sensors should be placed and which types to use. Different sensors pick up different information, such as movement, pressure, motion and so on, and it’s not always clear what will be most useful in each location.

Choosing the most appropriate sensor is not easy.
Gorodenkoff

Another challenge is known as “data drift”, when data from sensors changes because the behaviour of people has changed. Suppose one resident has a stint in hospital – if the system doesn’t know this, it might flag the need for an intervention because less food is being consumed.

Similarly, smart systems have to cope with variations in data caused by natural fluctuations in, say, the weather. There’s no point in making sure that the resident hangs out their washing if it’s raining, for instance. Research into all these issues is still at an early stage.

3. Changing needs

Even once sensors are able to accurately recognise what activities are taking place and when something is wrong, they also need to cope with residents’ needs changing over time. As people get older or their dementia gets worse, the system has to recognise that what might have been normal three months ago isn’t normal now, and respond accordingly. That too is a huge technical challenge.

4. The user experience

Many studies have found that potential users find it difficult to use these technologies and feel “nervous”, “worried”, “uncomfortable” and “confused”. I’m currently working on a paper exploring ways to improve the user experience, and one of my key proposals is that these people need to be involved at the design stage. Believe it or not, this hasn’t tended to happen.

5. Trust issues

Users have to be convinced that assisted smart homes are reliable if they’re going to live in them. Particularly if the system uses advanced AI for analysing their behaviour, they may fear not being in control. They may resent a lack of transparency over how decisions are made, especially if it affects their daily routine. They’ll also have similar fears to the rest of us as to how their personal data might be used. This all points to a big challenge in educating customers and anticipating their concerns.

Convincing users is a huge challenge.
Peopleimages.com – Yuri A

6. Costs

Smart technology is not cheap. An analysis in 2023 by English smart homes specialist Chris Lewis Group put the cost of a fully set up regular smart home at anything from £75,000 to £150,000. For assisted living, particularly with the latest AI, it’s going to cost even more – at least until there are enough customers to bring prices down. Even then, there will be maintenance and upgrade costs on top.

It underlines how important it will be to make a compelling case to the relevant public bodies or to individual customers that these smart homes can genuinely enhance someone’s quality of life.

7. No joined-up thinking

When it comes to developing these technologies, there’s very little collaboration between tech developers, end users, researchers and public bodies such as local councils and healthcare providers. This is a significant barrier to building effective assisted smart homes, since those involved don’t share their expertise, struggle to raise funding and misunderstand the needs of users.

This is the single biggest issue in this field. We’re still some way away from developing systems capable of making the most of state of the art technology, but we’ll get there a lot faster if the various stakeholders step out of their silos and properly collaborate. Läs mer…