Johansen.se

Cinnamon has been long used around the world in both sweet and savoury dishes and drinks.

But a new TikTok trend claims adding a teaspoon of cinnamon to your daily coffee (and some cocoa to make it more palatable) for one week can help you burn fat. Is there any truth to this?

Not all cinnamon is the same

There are two types of cinnamon, both of which come from grinding the bark of the cinnamomum tree and may include several naturally occurring active ingredients.

Cassia cinnamon is the most common type available in grocery stores. It has a bitter taste and contains higher levels of one of the active ingredient cinnamaldehyde, a compound that gives cinnamon its flavour and odour. About 95% of cassia cinnamon is cinnamaldehyde.

The other is Ceylon cinnamon, which tastes sweeter. It contains about 50-60% cinnamaldehyde.

Does cinnamon burn fat? What does the research say?

A review of 35 studies examined whether consuming cinnamon could affect waist circumference, which is linked to increased body fat levels. It found cinnamon doses below 1.5 grams per day (around half a teaspoon) decreased waist circumference by 1.68cm. However, consuming more than 1.5g/day did not have a significant effect.

A meta-analysis of 21 clinical trials with 1,480 total participants found cinnamon also reduced body mass index (BMI) by 0.40kg/m² and body weight by 0.92kg. But it did not change the participants’ composition of fat or lean mass.

Another umbrella review, which included all the meta-analyses, found a small effect of cinnamon on weight loss. Participants lost an average of 0.67kg and reduced their BMI by 0.45kg/m².

The effect appears small.
Radu Sebastian/Shutterstock

So overall, the weight loss we see from these high-quality studies is very small, ranging anywhere from two to six months and mostly with no change in body composition.

The studies included people with different diseases, and most were from the Middle East and/or the Indian subcontinent. So we can’t be certain we would see this effect in people with other health profiles and in other countries. They were also conducted over different lengths of time from two to six months.

The supplements were different, depending on the study. Some had the active ingredient extracted from cinnamon, others used cinnamon powder. Doses varied from 0.36g to 10g per day.

They also used the two different types of cinnamon – but none of the studies used cinnamon from the grocery store.

How could cinnamon result in small amounts of weight loss?

There are several possible mechanisms.

It appears to allow blood glucose (sugar) to enter the body’s cells more quickly. This lowers blood glucose levels and can make insulin work more effectively.

It also seems to improve the way we break down fat when we need it for energy.

Finally, it may make us feel fuller for longer by slowing down how quickly the food is released from our stomach into the small intestine.

What are the risks?

Cinnamon is generally regarded as safe when used as a spice in cooking and food.

However, in recent months the United States and Australia have issued health alerts about the level of lead and other heavy metals in some cinnamon preparations.

Lead enters as a contaminant during growth (from the environment) and in harvesting. In some cases, it has been suggested there may have been intentional contamination.

Some people can have side effects from cinnamon, including gastrointestinal pain and allergic reactions.

One of the active ingredients, coumarin, can be toxic for some people’s livers. This has prompted the European Food Authority to set a limit of 0.1mg/kg of body weight.

Cassia cinnamon contains up to 1% of coumarin, and the Ceylon variety contains much less, 0.004%. So for people weighing above 60kg, 2 teaspoons (6g) of cassia cinnamon would bring them over the safe limit.

High doses of cinnamon come with risks.
Grusho Anna/Shutterstock

What about the coffee and cocoa?

Many people may think coffee can also help us lose weight. However there isn’t good evidence to support this yet.

An observational study found drinking one cup of regular coffee was linked to a reduction in weight that is gained over four years, but by a very small amount: an average of 0.12kg.

Good-quality cocoa and dark chocolate have also been shown to reduce weight. But again, the weight loss was small (between 0.2 and 0.4kg) and only after consuming it for four to eight weeks.

So what does this all mean?

Using cinnamon may have a very small effect on weight, but it’s unlikely to deliver meaningful weight loss without other lifestyle adjustments.

We also need to remember these trials used products that differ from the cinnamon we buy in the shops. How we store and how long we keep cinnamon might also impact or degrade the active ingredients.

And consuming more isn’t going to provide additional benefit. In fact, it could increase your risk of side effects.

So if you enjoy the taste of cinnamon in your coffee, continue to add it, but given its strong taste, you’re likely to only want to add a little.

And no matter how much we’d like this to be true, we certainly won’t gain any fat-loss benefits by consuming cinnamon on doughnuts or in buns, due to their high kilojoule count.

If you want to lose weight, there are evidence-backed approaches that won’t spoil your morning coffee. Läs mer…

In recent years, a new “space race” has intensified between the United States and China. At a campaign rally last weekend, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump invoked this rivalry when declaring the US will “lead the world in space”, echoing Democratic counterpart Vice President Kamala Harris.

Meanwhile, the president of China, Xi Jinping, has said becoming “a space power is our eternal dream”.

But what is this latest “race” about, and are there pathways to common ground? History suggests these do exist. As a space governance specialist, I argue our future depends on it.

The ‘race’ to the Moon

Lunar missions have become synonymous with a “space race”. During the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union’s competition to achieve that first “one small step” on the Moon was a symbolic and strategic quest for political, technological, military and ideological dominance on Earth.

Geopolitical tensions are again moving off-Earth. The US and China are leading separate missions which aim to return humans to the Moon. One goal is to further scientific research. But space mining and economic expansionism are also driving these efforts.

This new “race” may give rise to new conflicts, especially over prime landing sites and valuable and scarce resources speculated to be located on the lunar south pole.

Mining water ice could produce oxygen, drinking water and rocket fuel – all vital for sustaining lunar exploration and beyond. The Moon may also contain rare earth metals used in everyday electronics, and a rare non-radioactive isotope, helium-3, for nuclear power.

Space mining could lead to a concerning “lunar gold rush” or trade war with nations and private actors in space. Resources mined off-Earth are predicted to be worth trillions of dollars.

The US has a longer history of demonstrated space-faring capabilities, investments and partnerships. Yet China is catching up. While the US made its first uncrewed landing on the lunar south pole this year, China has made several landings. In June this year, China’s Chang’e 6 mission returned with the first rock and soil samples from this sought-after region of the Moon.

International Space Station’s Expedition 72 crew pose for a portrait on September 29 2024. For the past two decades, the ISS has been a great example of space collaboration.
NASA Johnson

How are nations working together on space?

Both superpowers have invited other nations to join them in realising their lunar visions. This week the Dominican Republic became the 44th signatory to the US-led NASA Artemis Accords.

Thirteen other nations are participating in the China-led International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) in collaboration with Russia. Senegal joined last month.

With no membership overlap between the two initiatives, new “space blocs” are emerging, reflective of global power dynamics.

The Artemis Accords and ILRS are currently not legally binding, but they will be influential in shaping space governance in the 21st century. This is because treaty-making in the United Nations’ Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS, established in 1959) hasn’t kept pace with the latest developments and actors in space.

Nor has space governance adequately engaged with growing ethical questions, including on space colonisation and light pollution caused by satellites.

We’re at a critical juncture. It’s important the emergence of these new “space blocs” doesn’t escalate into a contest over whose space governance approach prevails. Not only could this increase the risk of conflict on the lunar surface itself, but it could even fuel geopolitical instability and military competition on Earth.

History shows we can work together

Space has fostered cooperation even between superpower rivals during tense geopolitical times. During the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union cooperated on space governance, laws, science and technologies. This built mutual trust and eased tensions.

Within COPUOS, nations worked together to agree on what became the first of multiple foundational space law treaties, the Outer Space Treaty in 1967. It prohibits placing nuclear weapons in space and national appropriation claims over celestial bodies like the Moon.

A joint Moon landing never eventuated. But in 1975, the Apollo and Soyuz spacecrafts docked while in orbit. This marked the first international human spaceflight partnership, a historic feat made possible thanks to technical cooperation and diplomacy. COPUOS heralded this as inspiring ongoing cooperation.

More recently, NASA’s International Space Station (ISS) has been an orbiting testament to coexistence. Astronauts from the US, Russia and other partners have conducted over 3,000 experiments in microgravity.

At the recent UN Summit of the Future, video messages from the ISS and China’s Tiangong space station astronauts reaffirmed the importance of international cooperation and the peaceful uses of space.

From rhetoric to practice

Humanity has much to lose if global superpowers don’t cooperate on space governance. There is a real and growing risk of exporting and exacerbating our earthly conflicts in space. This will invariably increase tensions on Earth.

The US and China need to explore opportunities to open dialogue between the Artemis Accords and ILRS. There are some similarities in their separate planned activities, governing principles and guidelines already.

To make this happen, the US will need to revisit the 2011 Wolf Amendment, a law that restricts NASA from using its funding to cooperate with China, without congressional approval. But China has no equivalent and recently expressed its willingness to cooperate, including sharing its rock and soil samples.

Sharing scientific information may help find initial common ground before further discussions on space governance. This could even move towards agreeing on landing sites or a lunar time zone. If a rescue mission is ever necessary on the Moon, having some compatible technology through interoperability would make it much easier.

The US and China do actively engage in COPUOS, including in the working group on space resources. Yet treaty-making is often slow moving. This means greater opportunities for communication, consistency and certainty on space governance are imperative. This could even support multilateral efforts.

Perhaps a joint lunar research mission between the US and China – in the spirit of the Apollo-Soyuz docking – can still happen in the future.

In the meantime, the world needs to see space not only in terms of a “race”. It’s also an opportunity to improve international relations, benefiting our future humanity on Earth and, one day, beyond. Läs mer…

The federal government’s controversial plan to limit international student numbers is now almost certain to win parliamentary approval. But it looks like there will be some changes to the original bill introduced in May.

A Senate committee, which has a Labor majority, has recommended the bill be passed with amendments. The government is expected to accept the committee’s suggestions.

What did the committee find and what does this mean for caps on international student numbers?

Clashing views in parliament

In the inquiry report, Coalition senators criticised the government’s handling of international education. But they continued to support the idea of putting a limit on international students.

The Greens’ dissenting report completely rejected the idea of caps. The Greens don’t have the Senate numbers to block them, but they may find common ground with the Coalition on some amendments to influence the final outcome.

Changes to caps on courses

The government’s original legislation would let the minister set international student caps by education provider, location and course.

Caps by provider and location are meant to reduce pressure on accommodation and other services, especially in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. This is a key goal of the bill and other recent changes to international student policy.

But course-level enrolment caps are not necessary to achieve this.

As the inquiry report notes, most international students do not stay in Australia permanently. So they should be allowed to choose courses based on their own interests and job opportunities in their home countries.

The report also notes significant administrative issues involved with setting and monitoring caps for the more than 25,000 courses on offer to international students.

But the report does not take these points to the logical conclusion of recommending no caps on courses. Instead, it proposes no course caps for universities or TAFEs. Non-university higher education providers and non-TAFE vocational education providers could still be subject to course-level caps.

After the report was released, Education Minister Jason Clare cited advice about some vocational providers offering courses that “don’t give [students] a real qualification”.

Coalition senators may seek the full removal of course caps from the bill – in the Senate report, they criticise what they call the “appalling treatment of many private higher education and [vocational education and training] providers”. With support from the Greens, course caps could be stopped.

Coalition education spokesperson, Sarah Henderson says Labor has ‘mismanaged’ the numbers of international students in Australia.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

A new power to exempt some categories of students

The government has flagged it wants to exempt students from the Pacific or Timor-Leste and some students on government scholarships from the new cap regime.

That would require amendments to the original bill, which the Senate inquiry also recommends. This change is unlikely to face any Senate obstacles.

An earlier date for announcing caps

The bill requires caps to be announced by September 1 in the year before the caps apply, except for this year when the deadline is December 31.

This date was criticised because international students receive offers before September. Education providers need to know their caps before they start making offers.

The Senate report recommends a July 1 announcement instead.

Huge powers for the minister

As drafted, the bill gives the minister extraordinary personal power to set international student caps. It sets no limit on the reasons for setting caps. It requires no consultation prior to setting caps, other than the minister for education consulting the minister for skills.

The Senate report suggests improvements to this process. The education minister would also need to consult the immigration minister and the regulators for vocational education and higher education.

The report also says education providers should be consulted on the initial setting of enrolment limits each year. With around 1,500 providers registered to offer courses to international students, this consultation may need to be with their representative groups.

The Senate inquiry recommended education providers are given more notice about what their caps will be.
Lukas Coch/AAP

More scrutiny for the caps?

The bill has a dual system for setting caps. One of these is via a “legislative instrument”, which the minister makes. This can be disallowed by either house of parliament and is the only limit on the minister’s power.

But the bill also allows the minister to bypass the parliament with a “notice” to education providers. This has the same practical effect as the legislative instrument.

The bill’s explanatory memorandum (the document to help readers understand legislation), offers a benign explanation for this. It says the minister will only exercise the power of using a notice in limited circumstances. Its examples include when the education provider has supplied additional student accommodation, or needs to expand to take students from other providers that have gone out of business.

Nothing in the bill, however, limits the use of capping by notice.

In a submission to the inquiry, I recommended requiring parliamentary scrutiny of the way caps are set. The legislative instrument would set out rules and formulas for calculating the cap. The notice to education providers would have to apply these rules and formulas to their specific circumstances.

The Senate committee majority, however, recommended a much weaker form of scrutiny. It suggested replacing the notice with a “notifiable instrument”. This would ensure the provider’s cap was publicly available. The notices, by contrast, only go to to the affected education provider, the Department of Education, and the relevant regulator.

A notifiable instrument would allow more public scrutiny of the minister’s decisions, for people who keep an eye on the government’s legislation website. But it falls well short of a system in which parliament is always directly notified of caps and given the power to intervene.

A turning point

The Senate inquiry partly answers some criticisms or weaknesses of the bill. It’s likely the bill will next be debated when parliament sits in November.

But whatever views people hold on capping international students – and with the student visa holder population nearing 700,000 there is a case for moderation – we are witnessing a major turning point in higher education.

This bill, in combination with planned controls on domestic student enrolments, signals the demise of student choice and university autonomy. A new era of bureaucratic control from Canberra is arriving. Läs mer…

In 2023, almost a year’s worth of rain fell over ten days in parts of northwestern Australia, leading to catastrophic flooding in the town of Fitzroy Crossing and surrounds. The rainfall was linked to a tropical cyclone, but there were also lesser-known forces at work: huge, planet-scale oscillations called atmospheric waves which bring heavy rain to northern Australia.

While climate drivers such as El Niño and La Niña are becoming more familiar to many Australians, fewer understand the significant role played by atmospheric waves, which are like vast musical notes resonating around the globe. These waves can greatly influence rainfall and extreme weather events in Australia – and we don’t know yet whether they could grow more intense as the world warms.

In our latest research, we discovered how these waves affect Australia’s rainfall, and how they can help us make better weather forecasts. The research is published in the Journal of Climate.

What are atmospheric waves?

You can think of atmospheric waves as huge musical notes that travel through the atmosphere around the equator. Just like a musical note, an atmospheric wave has a frequency (a pitch, or how often it oscillates) and an amplitude (a volume or intensity).

Atmospheric waves can interact with each other to create complex melodies and harmonies in the atmosphere. They affect many aspects of the atmosphere, such as wind, humidity and pressure.

In the same way musical harmony can evoke emotions, certain combinations of atmospheric waves can lead to complex clusters of clouds that evoke extreme rain events.

Equatorial atmospheric waves were first discovered mathematically in 1966 by Japanese researcher Taroh Matsuno. By solving equations that describe the behaviour of the atmosphere near the equator, he found waves that could be categorised by frequency, structure, speed and direction of movement.

Later research found these waves exist in the real world – and they have been studied ever since.

Some of the most important waves are called Kelvin waves and equatorial Rossby waves. Kelvin waves are centred around the equator, propagate to the east, and take between 2.5 and 17 days to complete one oscillation.

On the other hand, equatorial Rossby waves are structured as a pair of swirls, one north of the equator and one to the south, which propagate to the west. They are also slower than Kelvin waves, taking between 9 and 72 days to complete an oscillation.

There are also two other kinds of equatorial fluctuations, discovered after Matsuno’s original work. These are the Madden–Julian Oscillation, which propagates eastward, and tropical depression-type waves, which propagate to the west. Both of these have their own frequencies and influences on the Australian atmosphere.

Impacts on Australian weather

We studied the relationship between these waves and rainfall in northern Australia from 1981 to 2018. We found the waves had a significant impact on rainfall during the southern summer (December–February) and autumn (March–May).

Equatorial Rossby waves that cross Australia may make heavy rainfall around 1.5 times as likely as normal, while tropical depression-type waves make it 1.3 times more likely.

When waves combine in certain ways, heavy rain events become even more likely.

Atmospheric waves travelling around the equator can increase the chances of heavy rain – and combinations of waves can have an even greater impact.
Fadhlil Rizki Muhammad

For example, a combination of an equatorial Rossby wave and the Madden–Julian Oscillation can make heavy rain in northern Australia two to three times more likely. Similarly, if a tropical depression-type wave and an equatorial Rossby wave cross Australia at the same time, heavy rainfall could be twice as likely as usual.

Due to Australia’s vast landmass and local geography, the impacts of these waves are quite different across the continent. Regions such as the Kimberley, Cape York and the Top End experience the largest impact from these waves, increasing the chance of heavy rain by up to 3.3 times.

Meanwhile, the impacts of these waves on the eastern coast of Queensland and inland Queensland are not as great as in the other regions. However, the change in likelihood is still quite high: the waves can make heavy rain 1.4–2.2 times more likely than it would otherwise be.

What does the future look like?

We have shown that the activity of these “atmospheric melodies” is important and potentially provides room for improvement in weather models.

Currently, a good representation of these waves in weather models can improve forecasts up to two weeks ahead.

A better representation of these waves may improve future weather prediction in the tropics.

In addition, the impact of these waves in a warmer world is still a mystery. Recent research suggests some atmospheric waves, such as Kelvin and the Madden-Julian Oscillation, could become more intense, potentially with more organised cloud clusters and significant impacts on heavy rain events. Läs mer…

It has been 50 years since the cinema release of Peter Weir’s iconic, offbeat, cult classic The Cars That Ate Paris. The film seared the image of a silver Volkswagen Beetle weaponised with deadly spikes into the national imagination. It also helped shape the tropes of Ozploitation filmmaking within the history of Australian cinema.

Main character Arthur Waldo (Terry Camilleri) and his older brother drive through idyllic countryside, filmed like a tourism commercial. But when a sign diverts them off the highway towards the fictitious town of Paris, it soon becomes clear the place survives on a “crash economy”.

Older men in the community orchestrate car crashes on the road into Paris and survivors are taken to a hospital where a psychopathic doctor experiments on them. The townsfolk trade luggage from the cars for food and clothing and wrecks are salvaged by youths who terrorise the community.

The mayor of Paris (John Meillon) pities Arthur and adopts him into his family. Arthur is eventually forced to work as the town’s sole parking inspector, gripped by a phobia of driving, having caused more than one death from behind the wheel.

A uniquely Australian genre

Cars was Australia’s first “car crash” film. These were Ozploitation films, which privileged “low” culture and sensationalist sex, violence, nudity or gore to shock viewers after the R rating was introduced in 1971.

The Mad Max franchise later popularised the car-crash trope to create what has been regarded as a uniquely Australian film genre in the 1970s and 1980s. Movies in this canon included Chain Reaction (1980), Dead End Drive-In (1986) and Road Games (1981).

Both The Cars That Ate Paris and Weir’s next feature – Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975), which would catapult him onto the global stage – marked a critical turning point for Australian cinema. They generated increased interest from distributors and film buyers in international markets and established the Australian Gothic style.

Cars is one of our most iconic Australian horror movies, but it is paradoxically a movie most Australians have never seen.

‘No one leaves Paris … no one.’

The slow burn of success

Cars was Weir’s second feature film and a far more polished effort than his first experimental horror. Homesdale (1971) is about the owners of a guesthouse performing hideous social experiments on characters already suffering trauma.

Cars was the first Australian movie to screen at France’s prestigious Cannes Film Festival. It marked a significant achievement for a local movie during the rebirth of the local movie industry, after the production of fiction movies had collapsed during the 1950s.

To market the film, Car’s producers drove the spiked Volkswagen around Cannes’ streets in an ingenious attempt to hype its screening during a packed festival schedule. The film was well received, but as critic David Stratton observed, it proved just too different from anything Australian filmmakers had made before, and indeed to anything being made anywhere.

The film failed to secure a distributor or reach large audiences at home or abroad – though it was released several years later in North America as The Cars That Eat People.

A cult following

A key reason for the movie’s slow reception was also why it became a cult classic: it defies filmic categories. It was originally promoted as a horror movie before being marketed as an art film. This was partly because the movie’s tone shifts jarringly from parody and black comedy to social commentary, before settling on all-out horror.

The film was later released with a different title.
IMDB

The story is mostly a dark comment on authority, normality and car culture, which descends into schlock violence in the final act. After the older patriarchy punishes youths for terrorising the streets, a gang of monstrous cars – including the iconic porcupine VW beetle – idle on a darkened hill to the sound of animal noises. The killer cars attack the town, leading to murder, mayhem and a violent battle.

Authur, drawn into the fight, kills one of the youths by repeatedly reversing over him. But rather than express shock or regret, he delights at being cured of his phobia. Arthur drives out of town joyously as survivors of the carnage flee the burning town.

Some things don’t change

The movie’s longevity comes from how it tackles social issues at the heart of the national character. Onscreen we see a dark critique of our obsession with cars and the “hoon culture” that results in tragic speeding or drink-driving-related deaths every year.

The movie also examines tensions between generations. The older, conservative generation arranges car crashes before hypocritically attending church services and preaching justice. The younger hoons bristle at being controlled in a town where they see no future.

One of the movie’s lasting thematic contributions to Ozploitation film is Weir’s depiction of the economic fragility and inopportunity of rural economies that lead to absurdly immoral activities.

More recently, the 2010 film The Clinic adapted this premise by portraying the small town of Montgomery as reliant on an illegal international adoption ring. Townsfolk steal babies and force their mothers to fight to the death in an abandoned abattoir while affluent foreign couples watch on monitors to determine which baby they will adopt.

The Clinic is a bleak, absurd example. But it shows how The Cars That Ate Paris continues to influence Australian cinema in profound and surprising ways. Läs mer…

In early October, Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz, announced on X he had declared the United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, persona non grata. In other words, he had banned Guterres from setting foot in Israel.

Katz said Guterres’ failure to “unequivocally condemn” Iran’s recent attack on Israel was the reason he was no longer welcome. The strongly worded statement further accused the UN chief of failing to “denounce” Hamas’ massacre in southern Israel on October 7 2023. He added:

A secretary-general who gives backing to terrorists, rapists and murderers from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and now Iran — the mothership of global terror — will be remembered as a stain on the history of the UN.

Security Council members expressed their support for Guterres after Katz’s declaration. And Guterres’ spokesperson called it “a political statement” and “just one more attack […] on UN staff” by the Israeli government.

What is the significance of Israel’s declaration? And what kind of impact could it have?

What does persona non grata mean?

The Latin phrase persona non grata means “an unwelcome person”. In international law, it refers to the right of states to exclude a diplomat or consular officer from their territory. This can take the form of expelling a diplomat or denying them entry.

Under international conventions, nations are not required to provide a reason for such a declaration.

Diplomats and consular staff enjoy a wide range of immunities and privileges under international law. Among other things, they cannot be subjected to any form of arrest or detention, nor can they face legal action in a criminal or civil court.

The diplomat’s home nation must waive immunity for this kind of action to be taken.

The concept of persona non grata was therefore devised as a way to balance against these immunities and privileges. A nation that is aggrieved by the actions of a diplomat or consular officer can simply bar them from their territory, without even providing a reason.

Can UN officials be declared persona non grata?

There is a longstanding debate between the UN and its member states about the legality of such declarations.

The UN maintains its officials cannot be barred from member nations because they are not diplomats accredited to those countries. Rather, they are international civil servants who are accountable to a global organisation.

The UN also notes that declaring its officials persona non grata seriously interferes with the organisation’s functions, as well as the powers of the UN secretary-general under the UN Charter.

Many countries, however, do not agree with the UN’s position. In recent years, Ethiopia, Mali, Sudan and Armenia have all declared UN officials to be persona non grata, just to name a few.

Israel’s declaration is only the second time a nation has specifically banned the UN secretary-general. The first time was in the 1950s when both the Soviet Union and the Republic of China declared the first secretary-general, Trygve Lie, persona non grata.

In 1961, the Soviet Union also said it would not recognise Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold as an “official of the United Nations”.

Power must be handled with restraint

I am researching this issue, which has not yet been widely explored. My study is looking at two main questions: whether states have the right to bar UN officials and the implications of doing this.

On the first question, I believe there are strong legal reasons to support the rights of states to kick out – or keep out – UN officials.

For one, nations have a wide scope of sovereign rights to decide who enters and leaves their territory. This is a cardinal principle of sovereignty.

If UN officials are suspected of engaging in conduct harmful to a country’s national interests and security, it also has a right to defend and protect itself. One way of doing so is to expel the suspected UN official.

Lastly, there is no direct rule under international law that prohibits this kind of action.

Beyond these legal rights, however, is the important issue of what such an action means for the longer-term credibility and efficacy of the UN.

Because countries are not required to provide a reason for banning a foreign diplomat, this makes it a powerful political weapon if used against a UN official.

And banning UN officials specifically could also seriously jeopardise the organisation’s work and put innocent lives at risk. This is especially true in the context of armed conflicts where the UN is called upon to provide humanitarian assistance.

For example, in 2021, Ethiopia expelled five UN humanitarian officials who were providing food, medicine, water and other life-saving items to more than 5 million people in a region that was engaged in armed conflict with the federal government. Given the expelled officials were high-ranking staff, the action disrupted the co‑ordination and provision of assistance.

And banning the secretary-general, in particular, is perhaps the strongest indicator of the breakdown of the relationship between a state and the UN.

The secretary-general is the chief international civil servant and the embodiment of the organisation. Their leadership is also critical for providing emergency relief, brokering ceasefires and promoting peace.

Declaring the secretary-general persona non grata, therefore, seriously damages his or her standing, especially in the context of an armed conflict. It’s also a strong political statement against the UN more broadly, which could significantly complicate its humanitarian work.

Therefore, while countries do have the sovereign power to declare UN officials persona non grata, they need to exercise restraint in how they use this power. What such restraint should look like is an open question, but one that must be urgently addressed. Läs mer…

The contest between truth and post-truth matters when trying to solve big public policy questions. One of these questions is how to sustainably manage water in Australia for the benefit of all.

Truths can be confirmed or, at the very least, can be proved false. Post-truths, however, are opinions that masquerade as facts and are not supported by verifiable evidence.

Post-truths muddy political and policy debates. They leave everyday people simply not knowing what to believe anymore. This prevents good policy being enacted.

As I outline in a speech to the National Press Club today, several post-truths, espoused by a wide range of people and organisations, are getting in the way of Australian water reforms. These reforms are essential to secure a better water future for the driest inhabitable continent.

Water policy in Australia is now at a crucial juncture. This year is the 20th anniversary of the National Water Initiative that was meant to lay the foundations for sustainable water management. The completion date of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, accompanied by billions of dollars in funding, is just two years away.

Yet the so-called “water wars” are raging again. Here are five post-truth claims to watch out for.

Australia’s water wars are raging again.
Shutterstock

1. Water buybacks to sustain rivers harm communities

The Australian government buys water rights from willing sellers to return water to the environment. These buybacks have been controversial and blamed, with little evidence, for causing many farmers to become distressed and bankrupt, and to leave farming.

It’s true some irrigators are opposed to buybacks and prefer subsidies to build more efficient irrigation infrastructure on their properties.

But converting state water licences to a system of tradeable water rights gifted irrigators rights now worth tens of billions of dollars. In return, the government was supposed to buy back enough water from willing sellers to return rivers to health.

But insufficient water has been bought back from irrigators, for a couple of reasons.

First, the federal budget for buybacks was much less than needed to reduce irrigators’ water use to sustainable levels.

Second, the Abbott government capped buybacks in 2015. Its justification was the post-truth claim, based on “low quality” consultant reports, that buybacks were “destroying” irrigation communities.

The truth is, buybacks from willing sellers are much more cost-effective than taxpayer-subsidised irrigation infrastructure. Research shows infrastructure subsidies give irrigators an incentive to use even more water.

And there is robust evidence that, overall, the net social and economic impacts of water buybacks are positive. They give sellers the flexibility to adjust their farming practices in ways that are best for them.

2. Efficient irrigation ‘saves’ water and increases stream flows

Australia’s irrigation industry, in general, uses water efficiently. It’s a result of many practices, ranging from drip irrigation to covered water channels to digital monitoring technology, among other things.

However, spending on irrigation efficiencies has not saved much water.

Landholders have been paid billions of dollars for efficiency improvements. These same taxpayer dollars, paradoxically, may have reduced stream flows in some of our largest rivers. That’s because more efficient irrigation can decrease the amount of water flowing from farmers’ fields to rivers and aquifers.

3. Australia has world-best water management

Australia has one of the world’s largest formal water markets. But that doesn’t mean everyone benefits.

For a start, the water markets are unjust. First Peoples, who were dispossessed of their land and water from 1788 onwards, still have only a tiny share of Australia’s water rights.

In key areas, Australian water management is also far from best practice. For example, building weirs and dams has partly or completely disconnected groundwater from surface water and prevented or restricted the water flows to floodplains and wetlands that keep them healthy.

Fish, bird and invertebrate habitats have been destroyed as a result. This must change if we are to avoid further degradation of river ecosystems.

There is no more obvious sign of the ongoing destruction of Australia’s waterways than the fish kills along the Baaka (Lower Darling River) at Menindee. This happened in 2018–19, during a drought, and again in early 2023, when there was no drought.

The New South Wales Office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer investigated the 2023 fish kill. Its report found:

Mass fish deaths are symptomatic of degradation of the broader river ecosystem over many years […] failure in policy implementation is the root cause of the decline in the river ecosystem and the consequent fish deaths.

4. All Australians have reliable access to good-quality water

It’s true that residents of Australia’s biggest cities and towns enjoy reliable, good-quality water supplies 24/7. But it’s also true that hundreds of thousands of Australians in rural and remote areas regularly face multiple drinking water threats.

These threats result in temporary public advice notices to boil water to remove microbiological pollution and health warnings about contaminants that boiling cannot remove, such as nitrates. A few dozen communities have elevated levels of the “forever chemicals”, PFAS, in their tap water.

5. Dams can ‘drought-proof’ Australia

It’s true that dams have helped Australia cope with variable rainfall from year to year. It’s also true, however, that despite building very large water storages in the 20th century, too much water is being diverted in multiple places. They include the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia’s “food bowl”.

Australia is over-extracting the available water in its dams. It’s happening in the northern Murray-Darling Basin, where there is little control over how much overflow from rivers onto floodplains can be taken.

Over-extraction is a big problem, especially during long droughts when there may be very little water to spare. It means the livelihoods of downstream irrigators with perennial plantings, such as grapes or fruit trees, are at stake. If their trees die, so do their businesses.

A sustainable future must be built on facts

Responding to Australia’s water crises is a huge challenge. It’s made even more difficult if we accept the post-truth claims, rather than verifiable facts about how we manage our waters.

Real reform is needed to secure a sustainable Australian water future. To achieve this, we must tell the truth, acknowledge what’s wrong and be clear about what works and what doesn’t. Läs mer…

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s recent decision to join TikTok marks a big shift in his approach to political campaigning. He previously criticised the platform over security concerns, but now he is embracing it.

Dutton’s reversal reflects a broader trend of Australian politicians using the platform. This is especially the case in 2024, a year marked by pivotal elections worldwide.

TikTok offers a unique form of engagement and allows politicians to reach a wide range of voters in ways traditional platforms don’t.

Dutton’s conservative first post does contrast with TikTok’s casual and engaging style, but signals a willingness to adapt to modern political communication. While his initial concerns about TikTok’s data privacy remain valid, his shift to actively using the platform emphasises its importance in political campaigns today.

TikTok’s rise as a political tool

The political landscape is changing. Politicians worldwide who once criticised TikTok are now joining it.

This shift not only marks evolving campaign strategies but also raises broader questions about the role of social media in democracy.

Major political figures, such as US presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, continue to use TikTok despite proposed bans in the United States. These bans are currently being contested in court, but are due to commence in January 2025.

The continued use of TikTok by both candidates underlines the platform’s undeniable significance in shaping political communication.

TikTok’s popularity stems from its ability to deliver accessible and engaging content. Voters are drawn to TikTok as a source of political news and information because of its easy-to-consume format.

TikTok allows politicians to bypass the formalities of traditional political communication and present their messages in a relatable way.

For instance, Senator Fatima Payman’s viral “skibidi” speech is a clear example of how effectively TikTok can amplify political content. She delivered this speech in the Australian Senate, using only TikTok slang.

It resonated with a younger demographic, and so far has more than eight million views.

As a result, her account now has more than 100,000 followers and continues to receive significant views on all posts.

However, when leaning into slang, trends and other visibility strategies, politician walk a fine line where content could be considered “cringe”. This cringe factor can arise if the trend being used is losing relevance or when the content seems out of place or forced (Dutton himself copped some flack for belatedly jumping on the “demure” trend).

The role of authenticity

One of the key factors behind successful political engagement on TikTok is authenticity. The platform thrives on genuine, relatable content. Politicians who can showcase a more human side tend to resonate with voters.

Payman’s use of TikTok slang in her speech connected her with younger audiences, demonstrating the power of speaking the language of the platform’s primary users. Authenticity plays a significant role in TikTok’s algorithm, making it essential for politicians to come across as sincere.

Because TikTok’s advertising policy bans political ads, politicians must rely on organic content to engage users. Authenticity is therefore an entry requirement.

Dutton’s presence on TikTok will be closely scrutinised to see how he balances the platform’s demand for authenticity with his public persona. Voters are more likely to engage with politicians they find relatable, so Dutton’s ability to reveal his “ordinary” side without making people cringe may determine how well he is received on TikTok.

Electioneering on TikTok

TikTok’s impact on elections has already been demonstrated in several countries.

In the 2022 Australian federal election, the Labor Party’s use of the app was linked to its success. UK Labour’s similar strategy in 2024 mirrored this result.

Elections are won and lost for many reasons. There is also no direct data linking TikTok content to voter decisions. But there is a clear correlation between effective use of the platform and electoral victories.

As Australia approaches its next federal election, TikTok will play a central role in how parties reach voters. For politicians like Dutton, mastering the balance between authenticity and policy will be key to successfully engaging and informing voters on this rapidly evolving platform.

Challenges ahead

TikTok’s short video format poses a challenge for conveying complex policy ideas, often leading to oversimplification. Politicians like Dutton must find ways to deepen engagement outside the platform to ensure voters understand their positions.

Another challenge is the legal issues TikTok faces, particularly in the US. If the platform is banned or restricted in what is a major market, it could affect its use globally, including in Australia. This could disrupt political outreach and engagement strategies, particularly for those who have cultivated a strong presence.

Dutton’s engagement with TikTok may also spark debate about balancing the benefits of reaching voters through a platform with concerns about data security and misinformation. Läs mer…