Upgrade to Paid

A major new cybersecurity report reveals that the average connected home now faces 29 cyber attacks per day—nearly triple the rate from 2024. Researchers from Bitdefender and Netgear analyzed over 13.6 billion attack attempts across 6 million households, finding that streaming devices, smart TVs, and security cameras account for more than half of all vulnerabilities. Most alarmingly, 99.4% of exploits target known security flaws that could be prevented through regular device updates, yet most consumers never install these critical patches.

Five Key Bullet Points

• Attack frequency tripled: Average connected homes experienced 29 cyber attacks daily in 2025, up from 10 per day in 2024, representing a 190% increase in just one year.

• Entertainment devices most vulnerable: Streaming boxes, smart TVs, and IP cameras account for over 50% of detected vulnerabilities due to cheap manufacturing, outdated firmware, and internet-facing configurations.

• Pre-compromised devices sold online: The Badbox botnet infected over one million Android-based streaming devices with malware installed at the factory before consumers ever purchased them.

• Record-breaking attack scale: A September 2025 DDoS attack reached 22.2 terabits per second using compromised consumer routers, demonstrating how home devices fuel large-scale cyber operations.

• Critical infrastructure at risk: Researchers discovered hackers could weaponize poorly secured solar inverters to destabilize power grids, blurring the line between home security and national infrastructure protection.

Detailed Synopsis

New research from cybersecurity firms Bitdefender and Netgear has exposed an alarming escalation in smart home vulnerabilities, tracking 13.6 billion attack attempts across 6 million households in the United States, Europe, and Australia during the first ten months of 2025. The findings reveal that the average connected home—now containing approximately 22 devices including phones, laptops, smart TVs, cameras, plugs, and thermostats—faces 29 cyber attacks daily, a nearly threefold increase from the previous year’s average of 10 attacks per day.

The report identifies entertainment and security devices as the primary attack vectors, with streaming boxes, smart TVs, and IP cameras collectively representing more than half of all detected vulnerabilities. These devices prove particularly susceptible due to several converging factors: mass production using generic Android firmware with minimal security oversight, extended consumer usage periods (often seven years for televisions) that far exceed manufacturers’ typical two-year security update windows, and internet-facing configurations that prioritize remote access convenience over robust protection.

Attack methodologies predominantly involve automated bots systematically scanning internet-connected devices for exploitable weaknesses. The study found that 99.4% of successful exploits targeted known vulnerabilities—security flaws that manufacturers had already identified and patched—but which remained unaddressed because consumers failed to install firmware updates or continued using devices no longer receiving manufacturer support.

The research highlights two particularly concerning developments in the threat landscape. First, the Badbox botnet operation compromised over one million Android-based devices through pre-installed malware embedded at the manufacturing stage, primarily affecting inexpensive streaming boxes and projectors sold through online marketplaces. Consumers unknowingly integrated these compromised devices into criminal networks upon initial setup, with no opportunity for detection or prevention.

Second, a record-breaking distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack in September 2025 achieved 22.2 terabits per second—equivalent to simultaneously streaming one million 4K movies—demonstrating the devastating potential of weaponized consumer devices. This attack utilized the Isuru botnet, composed primarily of unpatched consumer routers coordinated into a massive attack infrastructure.

Beyond individual privacy concerns, the research underscores emerging national security implications. Cybersecurity experts demonstrated that coordinated exploitation of poorly secured solar inverters—devices that convert solar panel output for grid integration—could potentially destabilize entire power distribution systems. German authorities have already issued warnings about this vulnerability, illustrating how inadequate home device security creates systemic infrastructure risks affecting entire communities.

Researchers recommend three primary mitigation strategies: maintaining current firmware on all connected devices, replacing devices no longer receiving manufacturer security updates, and deploying network-level security solutions through routers capable of identifying and blocking threats before they reach individual devices.

What Readers Will Learn

Readers will gain critical understanding of the rapidly evolving cybersecurity threat landscape targeting residential networks and connected devices. The article provides concrete data on attack frequency and scale, explains why specific device categories face heightened vulnerability, and clarifies the mechanisms through which consumer electronics become weaponized in large-scale cyber operations.

Readers will learn to identify high-risk devices in their own homes, understand the difference between theoretical and actively exploited vulnerabilities, and recognize the broader societal implications of inadequate personal device security. The piece translates complex technical concepts—including botnets, DDoS attacks, and firmware vulnerabilities—into accessible explanations while providing actionable guidance for improving home network security. Additionally, readers will understand how their personal technology decisions intersect with national infrastructure protection, fostering awareness of cybersecurity as both an individual and collective responsibility.

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

Upgrade to Paid

Australians are increasingly concerned about artificial intelligence (AI), with 65% believing that AI creates more problems than it solves, up 8% points since 2023. One in four Australians believe AI presents a risk of human extinction in the next twenty years, up from 20% in 2023. Women, older Australians, and regional Australians are more sceptical of AI than men, with 69% of women compared to 61% of men believing that overall, AI creates more problems than it solves.

By age, Australians aged 35-49 are the least sceptical, with 62% saying AI creates more problems, while older Australians aged 65+ are the most sceptical at 68%. Australians living in urban areas (63%) are less sceptical than those in regional areas (69%). Across the states, scepticism is strongest in South Australia (73%) and Tasmania (71%), compared with New South Wales (63%) and Victoria (64%). Queensland (66%) and Western Australia (66%) align closely with the national average of 65% who believe AI creates more problems than it solves.

Personal perspectives show slightly more positive views, but scepticism still dominates. Nationally, the share saying AI creates more problems than it solves falls from 65% to 61%, reflecting a modest softening of attitudes. Men show the largest improvement, with scepticism dropping from 61% to 55%, while women fall from 69% to 66%. Concern is highest among 25–34-year-olds (32%), followed by 35–49 (26%), 50–64 (25%), 18–24 (22%), and 65+ (21%).

Australians are increasingly concerned about the potential benefits of AI, particularly in health and science. While AI has shown promise in faster discoveries and earlier disease detection, concerns have been raised about its impact on critical thinking, creativity, accuracy, environmental impact, misinformation, job loss, and economic displacement.

The Roy Morgan Snap SMS Survey revealed that Australians believe that AI solves more problems than it creates, with lost thinking skills, inaccuracy, and environmental harm being the top reasons. Many Australians fear that AI will weaken independent thought, creativity, and learning, especially among young people who may rely on it to think for them. Accuracy and ‘Hallucinations’ are also concerns, as respondents describe AI as unreliable and often incorrect.

Environmental impact is another growing concern, with Australians citing the power, water, and emissions burden of vast data centres. Misinformation and deepfakes are also a concern, with many distrusting AI for blurring truth and fabrication, spreading scams, and making it impossible to tell what’s real online.

In terms of personal concerns, Australians believe that AI creates more problems than it solves, with accuracy issues, job threats, misinformation, dependency, laziness, privacy, and surveillance risks being key concerns. However, work automation, productivity, and information access are considered key benefits by Australians.

In conclusion, while AI has the potential to revolutionize various industries, it is crucial for Australians to carefully consider its potential impacts and ensure that it is used responsibly and responsibly.

Australians are increasingly recognizing the potential of AI, with 65% believing that AI creates more problems than it solves. This sentiment is fueled by the rapid change in the world, with many citing AI’s breakthroughs in medicine and research as proof of its positive impact on humanity. However, Roy Morgan’s Snap SMS Survey shows that a significant number of Australians still feel that AI creates more problems than it solves.

The survey, conducted by Roy Morgan, found that 65% of Australians believe that AI creates more problems than it solves, up 8% points since 2023. Women (69%) are more sceptical than men (61%). The gap between optimism and anxiety highlights a national tension: Australians are eager to harness the power of AI but remain deeply aware that its success depends on trust, transparency, and human oversight.

A surprising one in four Australians now see artificial intelligence as a potential existential risk within twenty years, up 5% points since 2023. This shift highlights growing public awareness that the future of AI is not just a technological question but a moral and societal one.

Roy Morgan, Australia’s largest independent Australian research company, has over 80 years of experience collecting objective, independent information on consumers. The margin of error for any estimate depends mainly on the number of interviews on which it is based. The study also provides demographic breakdowns for Age, Sex, State, Region (Capital Cities/Country), Generations, Lifecycle, Socio-Economic Scale, Work Status, Occupation, Home Ownership, Voting Intention, Roy Morgan Value Segments, Helix Personas, Media Consumption, and more.

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

Upgrade to Paid

The Global Anti-Scam Alliance (GASA), in partnership with Feedzai, has released the Global State of Scams 2025 Report. Based on a survey of 46,000 adults across 42 markets, the report provides a comprehensive analysis of the prevalence, impact, and policy challenges of scams worldwide.

GASA’s Global State of Scams

In the past 12 months, 57 percent of adults worldwide experienced a scam and 23 percent lost money. Shopping scams affected 54 percent of victims, while investment scams and unexpected money scams each impacted 48 percent. Scam encounters were most frequent in South America, Africa, and Oceania, where up to one in four adults lost money in the last year.

The research also highlights the emotional toll of scams. 69 percent of victims reported (huge) stress as a result, while 17 percent reported a loss of confidence and 14 percent said scams created heightened tension within their family unit. Despite this, many scams remain unreported, with uncertainty over where to report being the main barrier.

93% of adults globally claim to take at least one step to verify if an offer is legitimate or not. However, many often rely on methods that are less effective such as checking for spelling and grammar errors (27%); looking for reviews on the same website (24%) and checking if the company is on social media (21%).

Despite nearly three quarters of adults globally feeling confident in their ability to recognise a scam, scams remain prevalent, with many scam victims losing money and a significant proportion never reporting their encounters.

Jorij Abraham, Managing Director of GASA, comments: “We have a huge challenge, 73 percent of people worldwide feel confident they can recognize scams, however, nearly a quarter still lost money in the past year. Scams are not only draining finances but also eroding trust and creating significant stress within families. We are learning that scam awareness campaigns alone are not enough. We need to continuously educate consumers, build better solutions to recognize and block (AI) scams and work internationally closer to get to catch the scammers.

“Fraud isn’t just about transactions anymore. It’s about intent. Criminals are exploiting trust, behavior, and technology in real time. Stopping them takes more than spotting anomalies; it takes understanding human patterns. No single bank or payment provider can do that alone. The only way forward is collaboration across financial institutions and cybersecurity teams. That’s how we protect consumers everywhere.” adds Nuno Sebastião, CEO, Feedzai

The Global State of Scams 2025 Report emphasizes that scams are no longer isolated crimes but a global threat to consumer safety, financial stability, and trust in digital economies. GASA and Feedzai call for stronger international collaboration, better scam prevention tools, and accountability across platforms, governments, and industries.

The full report can be downloaded here: https://www.gasa.org/research

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

Upgrade to Paid

New research published in Communications Earth & Environment demonstrates that major deforestation can increase the probability of catastrophic flooding by as much as 700%, transforming rare flood events from once-in-64-year occurrences to once-in-8-year events. The peer-reviewed study, led by Professor Ashish Sharma of UNSW Sydney’s School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, analyzed decades of hydrological data from 21 monitoring stations across 25,000 square kilometers of Australian forest affected by mega fires between 2003 and 2009, providing empirical evidence for a correlation scientists have theorized since the 17th century but struggled to prove conclusively.

The research employed a state-controlled experimental design that isolated forest loss as the primary variable by comparing flood frequencies in identical catchment areas before and after fire-induced deforestation, while controlling for climate patterns including El Niño, La Niña, and other confounding meteorological factors. Researchers utilized more than 50 years of meticulously maintained streamflow data from Australia’s Hydrologic Reference Station network—watersheds specifically monitored for minimal anthropogenic influence—enabling them to demonstrate statistical significance with a p-value of 0.006. The study found that forest canopy, fallen leaves, and root-zone soils collectively intercept 10-30% of rainfall through evapotranspiration, and when this multi-layered absorption capacity is removed, water reaches soil saturation levels dramatically faster, particularly across large-scale watersheds spanning hundreds or thousands of square kilometers.

The findings carry significant implications for the estimated 4 billion people globally who depend on forested headwater catchments for freshwater, including more than 100 million residing in flood-risk zones across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. With global deforestation proceeding at approximately 100,000 square kilometers annually and climate change intensifying wildfire frequency and severity, the research suggests cascading hydrological impacts may fundamentally alter regional flood risk assessments. The study provides quantitative validation for historical observations linking deforestation to increased flooding, from post-French Revolution France to the upper Amazon following 1960s development, where once-in-20-year floods now occur biennially.

Professor Sharma emphasized that the research demonstrates forest clearance itself—independent of subsequent land conversion to impervious surfaces—significantly elevates flood risk through reduced rainfall interception capacity. “If deforestation is happening, then there should be strong consideration for planning rules or regulations regarding habitats downstream, to reduce the enhanced danger they will face from flooding,” Sharma stated, noting that if forest removal proves necessary for development, it should be restricted to areas without vulnerable downstream populations. The study’s co-authors include Dr. Tae-Ho Kang of South Korea’s K-water Institute, Professor Lucy Marshall of the University of Sydney, and Professor Young-Oh Kim of Seoul National University.

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

Upgrade to Paid

More than half of young Australians believe retail theft is justifiable to some degree, according to a new Monash University study that reveals a stark generational divide in attitudes toward shoplifting and retail crime. The Consumer Deviance Spotlight report, which surveyed 1,047 Australian shoppers in June 2025, found that 54 percent of consumers aged 18-34 consider taking items without paying justifiable under certain circumstances—compared to just 7 percent of those 55 and older.

The research identified widespread acceptance of behaviors traditionally considered theft, including not scanning items at self-checkout (32 percent found justifiable), scanning expensive items as cheaper alternatives (36 percent), and changing price tags (30 percent). Beyond outright theft, the study revealed even more permissive attitudes toward “grey area” behaviors like lying about competitor prices to secure discounts (64 percent) and staying silent when undercharged (60 percent).

Lead researcher Stephanie Atto from Monash Business School’s Australian Consumer and Retail Studies unit said the findings reflect growing concerns about retail crime, which has reached a 21-year high in Australia. ABS data shows 595,660 theft victims nationally in 2024—a 6 percent increase from the previous year, with nearly half occurring in retail settings. While most respondents acknowledged these behaviors are illegal, there’s an increasing gap between legal understanding and ethical justification, particularly among younger demographics facing cost-of-living pressures.

The study comes as retailers escalate efforts to combat retail crime through enhanced security measures, technology investments, and calls for consistent national crime laws. However, researchers warn that enforcement alone may not address the underlying cultural shift, suggesting the problem requires tackling root causes including economic inequality and perceptions of corporate profiteering that drive consumers to rationalize theft as acceptable behavior.

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

Upgrade to Paid

The unexpected violent movement of Gen-Z that lasted barely 48 hours brought tremendous upheaval in Nepal.

Nepal was plunged into a period of profound grief, anger, and collective uncertainty. It has barely begun to pick up the pieces.

The Gen-Z movement against corruption, mismanagement, and social media regulation on September 8 and 9, 2025, left 75 people dead and over 2,000 injured in its wake.

The Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry has estimated that arson and looting resulted in losses of about US $571 million to private property. The private sector contributes about 81 percent to the national economy and generates 86 percent jobs in the private sectors.

The loss of public property and historic buildings is still being estimated. The government has not revealed the cost of the destruction of public buildings including the Office of the Prime Minister at Singh Durbar, the historic parliament building, the Supreme Court and the office of the President at Rashtrapati Bhawan.

The agitation led to the formation of an interim government under the leadership of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki on September 12. She has expanded her cabinet twice, appointing a total of eight ministers.

The mandate of the interim government is to conduct free, fair and credible elections in the country within the next six months.

The government has formed a three-member commission headed by former Justice Gauri Bahadur Karki to investigate human rights violations during the protest, and to document the loss and destruction of public and private properties within three months.

The Home Minister issued a press statement declaring that the government will not entertain any complaints of arson or theft, as the commission has already begun its work. This undermines the role of the regular criminal justice process in addressing crimes such as theft and arson.

Numerous commissions were formed to investigate gross human rights violations, such as those during Jana Andolan-I in 1990 and Jana Andolan-II in 2006/2007, but their recommendations were never implemented.

The legacy of violence and the culture of impunity have continued.

Now, the major tasks before the interim government are to conduct general elections and to promulgate an ordinance allowing new voter registration so that the youth who participated in the protest can vote. Voter enrollment is open for 90 days.

The Prime Minister has held consultations with the Election Commission and directed it to prepare for the election in March 2026. Political parties have also held meetings with the President, who has advised them to participate in the election.

The political parties are under pressure from both the public and their members to reform and develop a stronger democratic culture. They are holding internal consultations and discussing possible reforms.

The people would like to see the leadership of the Nepali Congress, Nepal Communist Party of United Marxist and Leninist (CPN-UML) and Maoist Center step down. This is also the time for the political parties to accommodate younger leaders and develop an intra-party democratic culture.

Uncertainty and confusion

Despite the Prime Minister’s firm commitment to holding an election, expressed in her speech to the nation, youth groups remain divided on the issue.

The Gen-Z movement lacks strong leadership and several unorganised groups have emerged on social media platforms such as Discord. Following the protests, some groups initially approached the Chief of Army Staff for dialogue and later sought engagement with the President as well.

Opinions among youth remain divided on participating in politics. Some advocate reforms within the existing political parties to address corruption, mismanagement, and support for victims of human rights violations. Others demand constitutional amendments and a directly elected Prime Minister.

However, no formal agreement has been reached between the youth and the government on these issues.

Recently, a youth coalition was formed with the aim of negotiating with different stakeholders. The Mayor of Kathmandu, Balendra Shah, who indirectly engaged with the youth uprising and called for calm during the protests, has since chosen to remain silent.

If divisions among the youth persist, the likelihood of further violence and uncertainty surrounding the polls may increase. However, the youth are also exploring the registration of a political party of their own rather than some of them contesting as independent candidates.

The government has imposed travel restrictions on five individuals, including former Prime Minister K. P. Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak. The CPN-UML objected to these restrictions, indicating that if investigations are perceived as politically targeted, parties may retaliate, further fueling uncertainty.

Security lapses

Following the recent violent incidents, fear and a sense of insecurity in society persists. The mob attacked 486 police units and looted 1,247 arms. While local communities have helped in restoring some of the police posts, the police may still face challenges in getting back to normal work and regaining the trust of the locals because of their failure to prevent incidents of theft and looting.

The department of prison management has claimed that 15,000 prisoners escaped from 28 prisons all over Nepal and only half of them have returned back. The escaped prisoners also pose security challenges. Some of the escaped prisoners crossed the border into India and were arrested in New Delhi.

It has been clearly observed that there is no coordination among security agencies to maintain peace and security. There are three formal wings of security in Nepal – the Police, the Nepal Armed Force and the Nepal Army. The Nepal Police took a proactive role during the protest, and the Nepal Armed Force and Nepal Army took a long time to show up in the field during the youth agitation. It is essential for security agencies to coordinate and regain public trust.

In these difficult circumstances, the interim government also has to win the confidence of the youth, political parties and civil society to accomplish the task of holding elections.

To accomplish this, the interim government needs to follow the due process of law to curb impunity and corruption. Nepal also needs international solidarity, especially the support of its neighbours, to stabilise the young republic.

About the Author:

Som Niroula is a research scholar at the Department of Conflict, Peace and Development, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal. He is also a member of the CRG Research Collective, Calcutta, and was a Junior Fellow at Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Vienna.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

Upgrade to Paid

Imagine seeking urgent help during an acute mental health crisis event and expecting calm, capable support. You enter the hospital and notice that the mental health nurses, normally a source of strength, appear to be under significant stress themselves. They are exhausted, overwhelmed and struggling with their own mental wellbeing.

Is this the future we want? Or is it, in some ways, already here?

Mental health nurses are the backbone of Australia’s healthcare system. But they are buckling under system-level pressures: inadequate staffing ratios, ensuring the right level of experience and expertise, rising workloads and casual employment.

Despite their importance, mental health nurses face unique occupational challenges including high emotional demands, frequent exposure to workplace violence and harassment from clients.

The toll is biggest where the risk is highest: Australian data shows that healthcare workers, especially those in mental health settings, experience high rates of work-related violence and traumatic exposure, with many encountering threats or assault from clients in the course of care.

Such demands lead to high levels of stress and a high risk of burnout. The impact is twofold: not only does it compromise the well-being of the nurses themselves, but it also affects their capacity to provide quality care.

This crisis has come at a time of severe workforce shortages, when every nurse is desperately needed. Victoria has recognised the importance of specialist mental health qualifications and is offering full-fee scholarships for nurses to complete postgraduate studies, and build skills, knowledge and capability to support safe care and safer work.

Social support is crucial

Unlike other roles among mental healthcare staff, nurses provide 24/7 frontline care for clients with acute mental health disorders. This constant demand can lead to high stress and burnout, making social support essential.

Social support encourages emotional resilience and provides practical assistance, helping them deliver compassionate care and maintain a sense of belonging in a challenging work environment.

Through interview-based surveys, RMIT University researchers studied the lived experiences of mental health nurses in Australia. Their words paint a grim picture: formal social support is scarce, and a culture of self-reliance dominates. Instead of structured organisational support, nurses lean on each other.

Besides, mental health nurses also face barriers, including limited formal opportunities, places or time to gain support. One nurse explained that “it’s very hard to practically get away and you know, unless you do it in your own time”.

Another nurse echoed the challenge of immediacy: “It’s just hard for on the ground nurses who are doing a very, you know, job that requires you to be there.”

Describing a typical day in her profession, a senior mental health nurse recalled being assaulted by a distressed client during an interaction after having spent hours calming them.

The ordeal doesn’t really end there. A staff member managing an assault from one client is likely to be responsible for several others, which may be equally complex and demanding.

Without the availability of immediate peer support and protected debrief time — especially if the staff member is an early career mental health nurse — the psychological load snowballs.

For many mental health nurses then, social support is not a professional add-on. It is a matter of survival. “It’s essential, but I think it is actually inherent to what we do. We need to have that because if you don’t, then the workplace that you’re in becomes incredibly toxic and incredibly difficult to actually function in,” one nurse explained.

The necessity of support is something the nurses are taught early on. As one nurse, also an educator, put it: “It’s something I teach my students…if you cannot survive the industry, you’ll need a therapist.” This statement underpins how crucial social support is for mental health nurses and how much it functions as a survival mechanism.

Even though formal support services are available and promoted by leadership, mental health nurses often hesitate to use them and express disappointment in leaders, particularly due to a perceived lack of value placed on social support. Instead, they take matters into their own hands. “No matter how difficult it got, you just knew everyone had each other’s back […] And you’re going to get through it together.”

A multifaceted approach

Whilst informal peer support that offers immediate emotional relief and shared understanding is invaluable, it has its limitations. It is often reactive, and places the responsibility for building and maintaining support networks on the individuals rather than the organisations.

A stronger, system-level response is possible. Organisations should provide proactive interventions such as regular debriefing sessions and targeted strategies to manage systemic issues, including staffing ratios, safe skill-mix, meaning the right combination of skills and expertise across each shift, together with workload management and workplace safety.

Existing formal support, including clinical supervision and Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), also need strengthening. These services should be more flexible and accessible to overcome scheduling barriers, whilst ensuring they remain of high quality.

With the rise of AI-assisted technologies, organisations should also explore how technology can be integrated as an additional source of social support. Early evidence suggests chatbot-based interventions can help to reduce stress and anxiety for health professionals, but they should complement and not replace human and organisational support.

Organisations need to take a multifaceted approach, combining the strengths of informal networks with the structure of formal support services and the foundations of safe staffing and skills to address their current crises. By doing so, we reduce burnout and turnover, protect care quality and retain highly skilled mental health nurses in their crucial roles. If we fail to act, we entrench risk for mental health nurses and for the people they care for.

Katrin Leifels is a Lecturer in the School of Construction, Property and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Azizur Rahman is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Construction, Property and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Sinead Barry is Program Manager, Master Mental Health, and Senior Lecturer in Mental Health Nursing, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Ruby Walter is Assistant Associate Dean, Nursing, and Associate Professor, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

Upgrade to Paid

Every day, an average of 32 Christians are killed in Nigeria amid escalating attacks by Boko Haram, armed militias, and extremist groups, with more than 7,000 deaths recorded in 2025 alone. Churches are being burned at a rate of three per day, and up to 15 million people have been displaced. Despite the staggering toll, the crisis receives minimal global coverage compared to conflicts like Gaza, which garners nearly 40 times more media attention per capita.

Analysts say the disparity in coverage reflects deep structural biases in global media—favoring regions closer to Western audiences, with stronger geopolitical interests or established press infrastructure. Western outlets have few permanent correspondents in Africa, making Nigeria’s humanitarian disaster largely invisible to international audiences.

Experts also point to historical framing and economic incentives that make African crises appear too complex or unprofitable to cover. When African suffering is reduced to statistics instead of human stories, it reinforces public indifference and political inaction, perpetuating a cycle of silence.

Nigeria’s humanitarian appeal for $900 million in 2025 has received only 16% of the requested funds. Scholars warn that unless global attention shifts, millions more could face starvation and displacement in what advocates call one of the most underreported mass atrocities of the 21st century.

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

In a world that moves too fast, we believe that facts, not noise, should guide how we think, talk, and act.

Each episode, we bring you evidence-based journalism powered by insights from 360info under a Creative Commons license— along with stories and analysis from a **global network of trusted academic and independent sources

Together, we dig deeper into the headlines: from climate change and migration to digital ethics, culture, and the future of democracy.

Our approach? News done slowly.

Evidence-driven. Context-rich. Solutions-focused.

Because informed minds build better conversations — and better futures.

Subscribe to VIEW360 wherever you get your podcasts — and explore more at readmencari.com

Share Mencari

Stay informed on Australia’s evolving political landscape with our comprehensive coverage of parliamentary developments and policy analysis.

Leave a comment

Follow us across all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for updates that matter. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!

For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence.

As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari’s

SUPPORT US NOW

MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• Mencari—for breaking and updated news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily—for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch—updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• Viewpoint 360 - An investigative report based on evidence , produced in collaboration with 360info.

• Part8A Podcast features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

This piece is freely available to read. Become a paid subscriber today and help keep Mencari News financially afloat so that we can continue to pay our writers for their insight and expertise.

Upgrade to Paid

We are living through an age of disruption. The post-war consensus that liberal democracy, free markets, and open societies were the “only game in town” has been steadily eroded by crisis after crisis.

The 9/11 terrorist attack crushed Western hopes of a post-Cold War world united by faith in capitalism. The financial crash of 2008 exposed the fragility of globalisation’s economic promises.

The refugee crisis of 2015 in Europe revealed its social strains. Then the Covid pandemic of 2020 brought globalisation to a screeching halt and reawakened the authoritarian dream of closed borders and strong states.

Add to this the escalating costs of climate change, rising inequality, a global trade war, and a cost-of-living crunch, and one begins to see why faith in democratic governments to manage complexity is waning.

Against this backdrop of uncertainty, anger, and disillusionment, a simple story has taken hold: it’s all the fault of immigrants.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

Blame and the politics of fear

When economies sputter, when public services strain, when communities feel fragmented, immigration becomes the symbol for everything wrong with globalisation.

It offers politicians a visceral, easy-to-grasp story: ‘Your housing is unaffordable because of them. Your hospital is overcrowded because of them. Your jobs are threatened because of them.’

Never mind that the evidence shows otherwise—that migration generally boosts economies, raises overall output without depressing local wages, and is a net fiscal positive.

What matters is that the hard truth is complicated, while the populist narrative is simple. Faced with a “spaghetti chart” of interconnected crises—pandemics, supply shocks, inflation, housing pressures—people gravitate toward the single, tidy explanation: immigration is to blame.

That’s exactly what Pauline Hanson, the leader of Australia’s far-right One Nation political party, recently told Australia’s The Saturday Paper, to explain her party’s recent lift in the polls: “People have lost hope … wherever you look – mass migration, climate change, the education system, escalating crime, the cost of living, job security, being able to buy a house – the whole country is in one hell of a mess, and that’s why they’re angry and they want a change.”

This narrative has deep roots. Humans are wired for group identity, drawing lines between insiders and outsiders, especially in times of insecurity. In earlier eras, it was witches or infidels. In World War 2, it was a phantom Zionist conspiracy. Today, it is the immigrants.

Once immigration is cast as the source of all ills, the next step is equally simple: only a strongman can stop it. The democratic process, messy and pluralistic, is portrayed as weak and complicit. The promise of authoritarians is neat and compelling: ‘I alone can fix it. Give me power, and I will close the borders, protect your jobs, restore your community.’

This is the story Donald Trump told in 2016, branding Mexican migrants as criminals and rapists, and insisting that only a wall and a “tough guy” could save America.

Variations of the same narrative fuelled Brexit in the UK—“take back control”—and continue to animate far-right movements across Europe. They echo the totalitarian leaders of Europe just before World War 2, another age of complex intersecting crises blamed wrongly on ethnic minorities. In each case, migration has been the poster child for a much broader rejection of globalisation.

The current far-right surge is therefore part of a political cycle.

Authoritarianism defined the mid-20th century, but its defeat in World War 2 opened the way for a liberal revolution, which merged two currents: social liberalism, driven by civil rights, feminist, environmental, and student movements; and economic liberalism, driven by a revival of free-market thinking.

Together they established the new liberal orthodoxy of globalisation, open borders, and individual freedoms that dominated Western politics for half a century, reaching a peak of triumphalism after the Cold War.

But over the last 25 years, the cascade of crises has steadily eroded that hegemony. Terrorist attacks, financial meltdowns, refugee movements, climate pressures, and finally the pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of openness and reminded societies of the appeal of closed borders and strong states.

What began as marginal authoritarian nostalgia has re-entered the mainstream, carried by the promise of simplicity and control in an age of complexity. The question now is how to avoid the wholesale collapse that has occurred at this point in past cycles.

The flash mob effect

What sets today’s anti-immigration movements apart is how they organise.

They grow online, out of sight of mainstream politics. In closed networks, they immerse isolated individuals in an alternative reality, where the notion that “immigrants are ruining everything” is taken as fact. These groups feed on each other’s anger, hidden from view, until they erupt suddenly into the streets as marches or protests.

What we are seeing are ‘political flash mobs’. They look sudden, but most are the result of months or years of online incubation. Like vaccine conspiracy theories, anti-immigrant myths spread fast across borders, pushed by the viral logic of social media. These digital echo-chambers make fringe views feel mainstream and give authoritarian leaders a ready-made army of loyal supporters.

And it’s not just the far right. Social media has reshaped politics everywhere. People once scattered and silenced have gained power by linking online. The rise of LGBTQ politics shows this: people once isolated by stigma found they were not alone, built communities, and organised at a scale that was impossible before. That new strength has reshaped the Left of politics and become central to today’s culture wars.

The lesson is that online platforms act like accelerants. They let both fringe and minority groups build solidarity, create closed worlds, and mobilise out of sight. When these movements surface—whether in campaigns for minority rights or marches against immigration—they seem sudden. But they are the product of new forms of digital cohesion that have destabilised traditional politics on both sides.

Australia’s populist test

Australia has not escaped anti-immigrant populism. Some right-wing leaders tried Trump-style rhetoric, but voters rejected it. Before the last federal election, the Opposition Coalition ran hard on an anti-immigration platform. After an early rise in the polls in mid-2024, it collapsed in a historic defeat.

Commentators call this landslide loss “the Trump Effect.” Voters toyed with populist rhetoric but, after Trump’s win, recoiled from a local version. The Coalition’s defeat was brutal: its seats fell to under half the Government’s, its leader lost his own electorate, and the party split for the first time in almost four decades. The new leadership is now in soul-searching mode, with immigration at the top of its agenda for a rethink.

This reversal has shaken the Liberal-National Coalition’s traditional alliance with far-right forces like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party. The Coalition now faces a stark choice: cutting ties to such parties will initially cost votes, but in the long-term, it might be the only way to win back the centre. While far right parties will initially gain those votes, they will be frozen out of the mainstream, relegated back to the fringes.

In this context, the far right staged a show of force. After weeks of flooding social media with false claims about migration, a ‘March for Australia’ campaign drew thousands into city streets under the banner of ending “mass immigration.”

Many, misled by inflated statistics and glossy lies, ended up listening to hard-core neo-Nazi members of the National Socialist Network. Like partygoers duped by the infamous Fyre Festival, many went home shellshocked and humiliated.

The visibility of these marches emboldened copycat events in the UK, creating the illusion of a surging movement. But in Australia they look more like an urgent appeal for attention by a fringe movement at risk of losing its mainstream foothold. The August 31 ‘March for Australia’ was less a demonstration of strength than a plea to the new leadership of the Liberal-National Coalition: “Don’t abandon us.”

The migration state

Far-Right politics in Europe and the US differ from Australia’s. This is partly because migration shapes Australia’s identity more deeply: over half the population was either born abroad themselves or has a parent who was. It is hard to cast people as “outsiders” when nearly everyone, except Indigenous groups, descends from recent immigrants.

Compulsory voting strengthens this effect. Unlike in Europe or the US, where parties rally extremes to boost turnout, Australian politicians must win the median voter—often an immigrant or the child of one.

But there is another reason. Australia is what political scientists call a “migration state”. While garrison states focus on security and welfare states focus on population health, the central purpose of migration states is to control population movement.

That migration policy emerges from a large ecosystem of institutions across government, academia, the press, and civil society, keeping migration at tolerable levels and creating checks against extreme political reactions. As a result, major immigration policy shifts are rare: changes are usually small and handled by bureaucrats rather than politicians.

Migration in Australia is thus not just policy but part of the nation’s identity and state machinery: it is pre-political. This stability has shielded it from the immigration-driven turmoil seen in Britain with Brexit and in the US with Trump. Though Australia has more foreign-born residents than either, its debates are calmer, thanks to both national identity and long-term state capacity.

For historical reasons, Europe and the US have long maintained laissez faire systems with functionally open borders, and they rely on weak, reactive migration policies to mimic control.

Meanwhile, Australia has built a durable system that treats controlled migration as a normal part of society. This steadiness has helped it avoid the populist upheavals shaking other democracies.

International praise for Australia’s migration system often centres on the controversial “stop the boats” policy. Australia’s “Stop the Boats” policy refers broadly to a series of deterrence measures from the early 2000s onward—including the Pacific Solution, offshore processing in Nauru and Manus Island, and later the 2013 Operation Sovereign Borders—that combine maritime interdiction, boat turnbacks, visa denial, reporting blackouts, and military-led enforcement to prevent unauthorized sea arrivals and reinforce that entry is only possible with a valid visa.

In the UK, some argue its harsh deterrence spared Australia the populist upheavals seen elsewhere. But this view is misguided. “Stop the boats” has not stopped bogus asylum claims. Most come by plane, not boat. And while its architects were focusing on boat turn-backs, they were also quietly dismantling Australia’s visa compliance capabilities. This allowed a surge of copy-paste applications which have overwhelmed the asylum system.

Unlike boat arrivals, few of these applicants have been recognised as genuine refugees. By August 2025, more than 100,000 had been denied protection visas but not deported—far exceeding the numbers from any past boat arrivals. But this issue attracts little attention, because stories of arrivals by plane lack the drama of “invading boats.”

Europeans, meanwhile, have embraced the superstition that stopping boats equals migration control. It may look like control—and thus make some people feel reassured. But it comforts without delivering. Tormenting asylum seekers may look tough, but it’s not the same thing as real migration control.

To say “stop the boats” has worked is also to ignore its staggering costs: A$12 billion between 2012 and 2024, ruined lives, weakened institutions, and a diminished reputation abroad. Even if it deterred some, it is an ugly bargain: punishing the few to scare the many. It passes for pragmatism only because Australia has so far failed to imagine better.

The broader lesson is that controlling asylum is not the same as controlling migration. Australia has fumbled asylum but kept its wider migration system relatively steady, sustaining public trust. Irregular flows remain small not because of turn-backs, but because of a strong migration state.

That is the real best practice. “Stop the boats” cannot be copied: it only appears to “work” because of Australia’s deeper institutions, which Europe lacks.

Europe’s crises reflect a sudden shift from centuries of colonial emigration to large-scale immigration without building the systems to manage it. There is no silver bullet—only the hard work of constructing migration states from scratch.

A democratic path forward

What is needed now is not the false simplicity of scapegoating, but an honest reckoning with complexity. The crises faced by all liberal democracies—unaffordable living costs, extreme inequalities, energy disruption, pandemics, political polarisation, unchecked digital transformation—are real, but they are not caused by immigration.

Orderly and regular immigration remains essential to the economies, cultures, and demographic futures of industrialised societies. The real challenge is to better manage migration’s externalities: ensuring affordable housing, investing in infrastructure, supporting social cohesion, and maintaining trust in public institutions.

The alternative is to let exclusion, polarisation and resentment fester, allowing authoritarians to sell the lie that democracy has failed and only they can save us. That is a dangerous path, as history has shown too many times before.

Liberal democracies stand at a crossroads on issues of migration. One road leads to stronger democratic institutions capable of tackling socio-cultural complexity with honesty. The other leads to walls, scapegoats, and strongmen.

Alan Gamlen is Professor in the School of Regulation and Global Governance at The Australian National University, Canberra.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari :

The Mencari AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

This piece is freely available to read. Become a paid subscriber today and help keep Mencari News financially afloat so that we can continue to pay our writers for their insight and expertise.

Upgrade to Paid

In the tenuous history of Nepal’s still-emerging democracy, September 8, 2025, the first time young demonstrators broke into the prime minister’s official home in Baluwatar, will be a red-letter date.

Months of unrest that were already undermining public trust culminated in the episode, highlighting the fragility of a system founded on institutional rent-seeking and elite capture.

More than just national grievances were addressed by the Kathmandu scenes. They drew attention to a global crisis of legitimacy, as states promising political freedom but not economic opportunity face instability. The young Nepalese did not merely rebel against a government, their collective angst was directed at making the state work for them.

The symbolic grammar of the uprising made it unique. In a clear reminder of the pointlessness of funding education in a system skewed by nepotism and patronage, protesters held up school textbooks. Inspired by the anime One Piece, their symbols went viral and became a representation of resistance to systemic injustice.

Rejecting the established parties, which they saw as the same fabric of ruling elites, protesters declared that they were fed up with the political marketplace. Exclusion was so complete that many had given up on reform from within, they wanted to reject the whole edifice.

The state’s use of live ammunition against unarmed protesters transformed unrest into a full-scale uprising. The last vestige of legitimacy was destroyed by a government already eroded by years of poor performance.

Yet removing top incumbents alone did not solve the deeper dilemma. Nepal’s example shows the paradox of many young revolutions, where an old order may be overthrown, but success can quickly be followed by disorientation if there are no institutions to channel popular discontent into lasting reform.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

A region in revolt

Nepal’s issue is not isolated. Similar generational uprisings, each with its own vocabulary but united by a deep sense of betrayal, have shaken South Asia in recent years. Protest rallies forced former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to resign in Sri Lanka in 2022.

The economic collapse brought on by depleting reserves, shortages of necessities and hyperinflation served as the catalyst. The rage of a younger generation that saw the Rajapaksa impersonation as the pinnacle of a political class that had pledged the nation’s future for its own benefit propelled the movement forward.

By fusing protest theatre, memes, music and art into a common language of disapproval, the “Gota Go Gama” camp in Colombo became a symbol of resistance. For Sri Lanka’s youth, politics was about survival, dignity and the right to be heard.

In 2024, Bangladesh saw a similar but distinct surge. Student protesters initially took to the streets to voice their disapproval of corruption and job shortages, but their grievances swiftly expanded into a general rejection of what they saw as an authoritarian trend during Sheikh Hasina’s protracted rule.

Online campaigns, memes and catchphrases that were heavily influenced by youth culture around the world gave the online protests a boost. Once more, the message was that the current political parties were interchangeable in their pursuit of power and disregard for the needs of the general populace.

These movements were intentionally leader-averse. They reflected the dearth of suitable career paths for young people with ambition. Politics became a patronage game after the traditional parties destroyed themselves.

In both, the current generation of coming-of-age was born after the liberalisations of the 1990s and 2000s and inherited economies where opportunities were frequently accessed through elite connections or family networks, and few formal and secure job opportunities existed.

Culture is where alienation is expressed when all that a democratic society has to offer is inanity. Because the Nepal youth did not devalue politics, conventional language had become meaningless, protesters embraced textbooks, anime, slogans and encampments.

Structural problems

What connects the Bangladeshi movement to those in Nepal and Sri Lanka, is the coordinated narrative of structural exclusion, rather than an ideological convergence.

These uprisings reveal a deeper structural issue — the fiscal foundation necessary to support inclusive development is lacking in many South Asian states. Politics then becomes more about allocating limited resources than creating a productive economy where taxation is restricted and remittances, aid, or resource rents are heavily relied upon.

Politics also becomes a zero-sum game when state control itself becomes the primary route to wealth. To preserve networks of allegiance, elites seize control of the state, take what they can and recycle just enough.

Democratic openings are frequently susceptible to exploitation in such a setting. This path dependency is demonstrated by Nepal’s own history. Since the 1990s, every significant political shift promised inclusion but ultimately resulted in the resurgence of elite factions’ dominance.

Although a dynasty was overthrown in Sri Lanka’s uprising, institutional reform has proven difficult to achieve. Protests in Bangladesh mobilised tremendous energy, but they now face the harsh reality of long-standing authoritarian systems.

The trend is similar to other regions of the world where regimes were overthrown by uprisings but institutions remained intact. The 2011 revolution in Egypt serves as the clearest example of how easily hope can be dashed when the military maintains control and the state apparatus remains unchanged.

What comes out of these cases is not indifference, but rather young people’s logical conclusion that politics is off limits to them. Many people migrate or withdraw into silence until their level of exclusion becomes intolerable.

Once the threshold is crossed, they pour into the streets with symbolic gestures that better convey desperation than manifestos or policy proposals ever could.

There is no denying the energy of such movements. But the danger is also just as obvious. If their victories only create a void, it is frequently occupied by the very forces they oppose or by authoritarian organisations that assert that they are re-establishing order.

The warning is clear for South Asian governments. Ritual elections, the distribution of patronage and the performance of democracy without delivery are not sustainable for political systems.

Youth-led movements demonstrate that the states’ ability to increase opportunities and establish institutions that serve common people is what determines legitimacy.

Without employment, education serves as a fertile ground for rebellion. Without economic agency, political freedom breeds explosive annoyance. Furthermore, trust is undermined by governance that lacks accountability, leading to the collapse of even the most basic state authority

Thus, the 2025 uprising in Nepal should be interpreted as a regional mirror as well as a national drama. It illustrates what occurs when a generation that refuses to accept exclusion as their fate collides with decades of elite capture.

Whether political leaders take the message seriously will determine whether South Asia continues on its current trajectory or veers into cycles of instability. Old regimes may be overthrown by revolutions, but only institutions can guarantee that the hopes of a new generation won’t be let down again.

Deepanshu Mohan is Professor of Economics, Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana.

Ankur Singh and Anania Singhal are Research Analysts with the Centre for New Economics Studies, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari :

The Mencari AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

This piece is freely available to read. Become a paid subscriber today and help keep Mencari News financially afloat so that we can continue to pay our writers for their insight and expertise.

Upgrade to Paid

On the night of September 1, 2025, Indonesian police forcibly detained Delpedro Marhaen, Executive Director of the Lokatatu Foundation, a prominent human rights organization. Officers from Polda Metro Jaya arrived unannounced at the foundation’s Jakarta office, citing vague charges of incitement and threatening Marhaen with up to five years in prison. No warrant was shown. No explanation was given.

The arrest followed Marhaen’s public criticism of police violence and his legal support for student demonstrators detained during protests on August 28 demanding what people called 17+8. One of them is to halt the benefits for the parliament members. Police allege that Delpedro used social media to encourage students—including those underage—to participate in what they described as “anarchic actions.” According to Lokataru’s official statement, the arrest was not only unlawful—it was an attempt to silence dissent.

In late August 2025, Indonesia’s digital public sphere was abruptly disrupted. TikTok, one of the country’s most widely used platforms, suspended its live streaming feature amid escalating protests following the death of a motorcycle taxi driver during a demonstration. While TikTok claimed the move was voluntary, government officials publicly blamed social media platforms for spreading “provocative content” and “endangering the public.”

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

The Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs denied ordering the ban, yet acknowledged reviewing TikTok’s policies and flagged “hate speech and incitement” as contributing factors to unrest. Civil society groups, including Amnesty International Indonesia, called the move censorship, warning that unilateral moderation undermines democratic expression.

This digital clampdown coincided with one of the most emotionally charged protest waves in recent Indonesian history. The Monash Data & Democracy Research Hub analysed nearly 10 million online conversations and took samples of 13,780 original posts to understand the emotional, linguistic and political dynamics of the protests. The findings reveal a volatile mix of grief, anger, and solidarity alongside a surprising shift toward civic hope.

From hashtags to handcuffs: The rise of digital protest infrastructure

Indonesia’s August 2025 protests over low wages and politicians’ expenses escalated following the death of Affan Kurniawan, a 27-year-old motorcycle taxi driver who was fatally struck by a police armoured vehicle during a demonstration in Jakarta. His death, captured on video and widely circulated online, ignited a wave of outrage that spread across platforms like TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram.

Hashtags such as #PolisiPembunuhRakyat (“Police Murder the People”) and #BubarkanDPR (“Disband Parliament”) surged within hours. The acronym ACAB (“All Cops Are Bastards”) and its numeric code 1312—imported from global protest cultures—were repurposed for Indonesia’s context, appearing in memes, videos, and protest flyers.

Hashtags became grief markers. They allowed people to express rage, mourn injustice, and demand accountability in real time.

Algorithms of discontent: Why social media matters

Indonesia is one of the world’s most active social media markets, with over 143 million users across platforms. For many, platforms like TikTok and Instagram are not just entertainment, they are political lifelines.

Digital anger evolved into digital hope. The emotional arc of the protests shows that people aren’t just reacting—they’re reorganising.

This shift was catalysed by the emergence of the 17+8 movement, a civic initiative led by youth influencers and civil society groups. The movement outlined 17 short-term demands and 8 long-term reforms, including audits of parliamentary spending, police accountability, and political party reform.

Hashtags like #TuntutanWarga (“Citizen Demands”) and #WargaJagaWarga (“Citizens Protect Citizens”) gained traction, reframing the protests from rage to resolution. Engagement soared across platforms, with millions of views on TikTok and Instagram reels featuring protest guides, solidarity messages, and legal advice.

But the government’s response has been mixed. While President Prabowo Subianto made a public statement and extended condolences to the victim, he also summoned Islamic organizations to “guard peace,” raising concerns about the politicization of religious groups. Meanwhile, police have blocked over 500 social media accounts and designated seven digital organizers as suspects.

Toxicity and polarisation in online discourse escalated rapidly

Polarisation isn’t inherently destructive, it can also be a glue that binds vulnerable groups together in pursuit of justice.

This dual role of polarization reflects findings from the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University, which argues that digital polarization can foster both fragmentation and civic cohesion, depending on context and framing.

The protests also exposed Indonesia’s widening class divide. Viral posts condemned lawmakers for receiving 50 million Indonesian rupiah (US$ 3,000) monthly housing allowances, even as citizens faced rising costs and stagnant wages. Statements like the member of parliament, Ahmad Sahroni’s insult—calling protesters “the dumbest people on Earth”—fueled further outrage.

People aren’t just angry at policies—they’re angry at symbols. Luxury cars, designer watches, and tone-deaf comments have become flashpoints for class resentment.

This sentiment aligns with broader research on political legitimacy. A 2024 study by the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC) noted that “elite impunity and conspicuous consumption are increasingly viewed as moral violations, not just economic disparities.”

President Prabowo has suspended several parliamentary members and promised to review allowances. But critics say these are symbolic gestures.

The authors recommend four key steps towards restoring trust in the government:

1. Acknowledge the existence and legitimacy of public grievances.

2. Respond with transparency and reform in the legislative branch.

3. Avoid glorifying elite lifestyles.

4. Create safe channels for citizen participation in voicing their aspirations regarding government policies.

The government must listen—not just to the noise, but to the meaning behind it.

The protests may mark a turning point in Indonesia’s democratic trajectory. While previous demonstrations focused on specific policies, this movement reflects a broader demand for systemic change. From diagnostic framing (“who’s to blame”) to prognostic framing (“what can be done”), the digital public is evolving into a civic force.

Social media played a central role—not just as a communication tool, but as protest infrastructure. Platforms like X, Instagram, and YouTube became arenas for emotional expression, narrative framing, and real-time mobilisation. Posts with high engagement included a statement by President Prabowo viewed 19.7 million times, and a tribute to Affan Kurniawan by Tempo.co, which reached 3 million users. International media such as Al Jazeera , India Today, CNN, BBC, ABC Australia reached even more eyes to understand the situation in Indonesia.

As the 17+8 movement gains momentum, the question remains: will Indonesia embrace digital civic expression or suppress it? For now, the streets may go quiet, but the algorithms of discontent continue to pulse—louder, sharper, and more determined than ever.

Musa Izzanardi, Lucky Susanto, Idhamsyah Eka Putra, Nala Edwin Widjaja, Febi Amalinda, Nurul Amalia contributed to this research.

Ika Idris is associate professor at the Public Policy & Management program, Monash University Indonesia. She is the co-director of Monash Data & Democracy Research Hub.

Derry Wijaya is associate professor at the Data Science Program, Monash University Indonesia. She is the co-director of Monash Data & Democracy Research Hub.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari :

The Mencari AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.

Today’s Article is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

This piece is freely available to read. Become a paid subscriber today and help keep Mencari News financially afloat so that we can continue to pay our writers for their insight and expertise.

Upgrade to Paid

By gathering 24 leaders from different parts of Asia and Russia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has sent concerted signals for changes in global and regional power structures.

The meeting announced plans for strengthening energy security and economic cooperation under a new Development Bank.

The 25th rendition of the SCO summit meeting at Tianjin in China on August 31 to September 1 was followed by a spectacular military display at Beijing on September 4.

These two major events also signal a resolve to not only consolidate and contest the vagaries of the USA’s Trump administration, which had imposed debilitating tariffs on almost all countries, but also tweak the global and regional orders.

The Tianjin declaration noted “profound historical changes” and said “geopolitical confrontations are intensifying, posing threats and challenges to the security and stability of the world and the SCO region. The global economy, particularly international trade and financial markets, is suffering severe shocks.”

This is in political line with the host country China’s leader Xi Jinping’s repeated slogans of “great changes unseen in a century” (百年未有之大变局).

The assumption here is that the US is a declining power and that China and its “partners” (such as those 11 countries who subscribed to China’s “community of shared destiny”) will be able to prevail in the global and regional orders. India has not endorsed the “community of shared destiny”.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

China did make substantial progress as reflected in its “dual circulation economy” of imports and exports and domestic consumption, becoming “superpower” in eleven areas such as digitalisation, trade, hi-tech manufacturing, ship building, 5G telecom, drones, automation, robotics and others.

It is also gradually disassociating with the US or becoming autonomous in trade, semiconductors, energy and others while increasing costs for the US on magnets and rare earth metals.

The Beijing military parade also showcased nearly 50 new military technologies, power projecting forces and offensive “new domain and new quality military operational capabilities”. Although China’s military equipment supplied to Pakistan performed miserably in the recent India-Pakistan conflict on May 7-10, nevertheless, this is bound to trigger a fresh arms race in the region.

However, Beijing needs allies and friends in the regional and global arenas. It needs to re-invent its magical weapon of “united front” – as displayed at the Tianjin and Beijing confabulations. It also needs geographical space to hone its skills.

The Tianjin Declaration identified Central Asia as the “core area of the SCO” in order to build an “indivisible security architecture in Eurasia.”

China has been building extensive ties with the region through its summit meetings with Central Asian republics, energy pipelines, railways and integration with Eurasian Economic Union.

Previously, ASEAN was declared as the “core” and in the “drivers’ seat”. Today, more than half of the ASEAN countries have joined China’s bandwagon, without resolving the South China Sea islands disputes amicably.

While other major powers like Russia and India are regional and inward- looking, China has announced a medium-term development strategy for 2026 to 2035.

Banking on its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in which China spent more than a trillion dollars, the Tianjin Declaration suggested building an “open, transparent, fair, inclusive, and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system”, trade facilitation within the SCO framework, reforming international financial institutions to increase the representation and voice of developing countries and settling trade in local currencies.

These are significant moves to diversify and consolidate trade from western markets to Eurasia, undercut the influence of the US dollar and enhance China’s currency renminbi as a global currency from the current three percent.

However, intra-SCO trade is not high and trade barriers remain. Many countries also complain of lack of market economy status, or even discrimination, in China. These undermine China’s statements and ambitions.

One area in which the SCO wants to bridge the gap with the West is the energy sector. The declaration mentioned a road map for 2030 in “promoting the sustainable, stable, and balanced development of a non-discriminatory global energy market.” The SCO combines major energy producers like Russia, Kazakhstan, Iran and others and importers like China and India.

Nevertheless, while Russia wanted to bank on the energy demand in China through its Power of Siberia 2 pipeline to China via Mongolia by transferring an estimated 50 billion cubic meters a year, Beijing has not cleared the decks, nor provided transit routes to India or other countries. Overall, to make a dent into the global energy cartels, China and other countries have to pump in finance and technology.

The SCO made a mark in the security field since the 1990s when they resolved border disputes and ushered in confidence building measures and counter-terrorism efforts. It had declared a new anti-drug centre, strategic security research centre and endorsed “SCO+” security dialogue. This is significant as Quad+ has not gathered momentum yet.

The SCO also raised its voice against weaponisation of outer space. However, these measures at best remain defensive in nature and a larger security architecture build-up is missing in the region that is acceptable to all and to buttress the emerging security order.

Thus, despite many statements at the SCO meeting at Tianjin and the military parade at Beijing, and the concerted efforts of all participants, the fact of the matter is that global structural power changes incrementally and gradually. Successive American administrations have depleted their soft power abroad, spent over US $14 trillion in wars, and now the Trump Administration is seemingly destroying its alliances and legitimacy.

However, the next-largest economy China is careful in avoiding Nazi German or Japanese examples of the 1930s and intends to bring about a global power transition indirectly and deceptively.

Srikanth Kondapalli is Professor in Chinese Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Sustaining Mencari Requires Your Support

Independent journalism costs money. Help us continue delivering in-depth investigations and unfiltered commentary on the world's real stories. Your financial contribution enables thorough investigative work and thoughtful analysis, all supported by a dedicated community committed to accuracy and transparency.

Subscribe today to unlock our full archive of investigative reporting and fearless analysis. Subscribing to independent media outlets represents more than just information consumption—it embodies a commitment to factual reporting.

SUPPORT US NOW

As well as knowing you’re keeping Mencari (Australia) alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting The Evening Post (Australia)

JOIN NOW TO SUPPORT US

Catch up on some of Mencari’s recent stories:

Today’s Article is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

This piece is freely available to read. Become a paid subscriber today and help keep Mencari News financially afloat so that we can continue to pay our writers for their insight and expertise.

Upgrade to Paid

A cut in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 75% below 2005 levels would have broadly aligned with the science and strengthened Australia’s bid to host the 2026 United Nations climate conference.

Australia Institute research shows the process of extracting and shipping all the coal and gas Australia exports is responsible for close to 18% of Australia’s total emissions.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

That means that if Australia did not export such huge quantities of coal and gas, then the emissions target could be met a lot faster.

Australia exports over 10 times more gas than is used by Australia’s entire manufacturing industry.

Just days after approving an extension of one of the largest fossil fuel export projects in the world, the North West Shelf, the climate risk assessment revealed deaths caused by heatwaves will soar by more than 400% in places like Sydney and Darwin.

Pacific leaders have already warned Australia the decision to extend the North West Shelf extension could breach a landmark International Court of Justice ruling on the responsibility states have to address climate change.

“In order to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, global emissions must at least halve by 2030,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“A cut of at least 75 per cent by 2035 is what was required and it’s a missed opportunity for the government to show it is serious about climate change.

“In a short period of time, we have seen the government extend the North West Shelf, release the grim climate risk report, and announce a non-ambitious climate target.

“The government can’t have it all ways, and if it is serious about meeting climate targets, it will stop approving coal and gas.”

Sustaining Mencari Requires Your Support

Independent journalism costs money. Help us continue delivering in-depth investigations and unfiltered commentary on the world's real stories. Your financial contribution enables thorough investigative work and thoughtful analysis, all supported by a dedicated community committed to accuracy and transparency.

Subscribe today to unlock our full archive of investigative reporting and fearless analysis. Subscribing to independent media outlets represents more than just information consumption—it embodies a commitment to factual reporting.

SUPPORT US NOW

As well as knowing you’re keeping Mencari (Australia) alive, you’ll also get:

• Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve

• Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.

• Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting The Evening Post (Australia)

JOIN NOW TO SUPPORT US

Catch up on some of Mencari’s recent stories:

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

Australia’s permanent migration system is incoherent, inefficient and in parts unlawful.

It delivers few new skilled workers while being clogged with family visas that, by law, should not be capped at all.

Meanwhile, temporary migrants—students, graduates and working holiday makers—carry the real weight of supplying skilled labour, yet are undervalued.

However, the migration programme is simultaneously presented to the public as both “capped” and “demand-driven”—a contradiction that undermines its credibility.

It needs two fundamental reforms: recognising the central role of temporary migrants in the skilled workforce, and separating skilled migration from family migration while redefining migration as primarily about skills, not family reunion.

Overlooked reality: Temporary migrants drive skilled employment

Public perception often assumes that skilled migration equals the Permanent Migration Programme. In truth, the opposite is the case.

The permanent intake is capped at 185,000 people per year, of which around 30 percent is earmarked for family visas. Even within the Skilled Stream, the majority of visas do not go to skilled workers but to their family. Counting family and secondary applicants together, more than 60 percent of permanent visas are in fact family-related. Double the amount officially claimed. (See Figure 1)

Meanwhile, the share of genuinely new skilled arrivals from offshore is tiny—just 12 percent of the programme. The rest are already in Australia on temporary visas.

Figure 1. The Permanent Migration Program does little to bring new skills to Australia

The real engine of skilled migration is temporary entry – not permanent. Over the past three years, 84 percent of the increase in migrant skilled employment has come from temporary migrants—especially international students, graduates and working holiday makers. These groups now underpin growth in high-skill occupations such as managers, professionals, and trades.

The value of student and graduate temporary migration has been misrepresented. Contrary to claims they mostly end up in low-skill jobs, census data show that over half of graduate visa holders work in high-skill fields. Their partners also contribute strongly. Working holiday makers, stereotyped as farmhands and bar staff, increasingly take up skilled positions. (See Figure 2)

Figure 2: Almost all recent increase in skilled migrant employment has been due to temporary migrants, especially students and working holiday makers

Note. The 2024 estimates in this figure are obtained by applying 2021 Census employment characteristics for the various types of temporary visa to the numbers in the same visa types as of 30 September 2024

Yet these students and graduates face constant barriers. Graduate visa holders often find themselves in a “Catch-22” situation: they cannot get skilled work without permanent residence, but they cannot secure permanent residence without skilled work. This wastes talent and lowers productivity.

Construction industry labour shortages highlight the problem

The stakes are especially high in construction. Australia faces a shortage of 130,000 tradespeople, with shortages of bricklayers, carpenters, electricians and other trades fuelling housing supply bottlenecks.

In 2023–24, the permanent programme delivered just 166 tradespeople—negligible against national needs. By contrast, more than 5,000 entered via the temporary skilled stream in 2024–25. Even this is insufficient to close the gap.

The only viable strategy is a dual one: expanding domestic apprenticeships while also increasing the skilled migrant flow. For the latter, employer-sponsored visas are the most effective pathway. They consistently deliver the strongest labour market outcomes. Yet they face growing demand and shrinking supply within the capped permanent programme.

Working holiday makers are increasingly filling gaps—especially under new agreements with the UK and Ireland. But as more take up skilled work, they too add pressure to the already overloaded employer-sponsored permanent visa system.

Failure to deliver skilled labour demand leading to collapse in confidence

At the heart of the problem is the government’s failure to match employer-sponsored demand for permanent skilled visas which is surging. In 2024–25, nearly 100,000 applications required processing, with only 44,000 places available. Employers who are used to a 98 percent approval rate, now face inevitable delays and refusals. Confidence in the system could collapse unless made predictable and efficient.

Figure 3. Employer-Sponsored Skilled Migration

A key factor in the delays is that while family visas are officially described as demand driven—partners and children of Australians are legally entitled to them under the Migration Act– in practice, they remain capped within the annual planning limit. That creates backlogs, hardship, and potentially unlawful administration.

Figure 4. Permanent Migration Program: Partner Visas

For years, partner visa lodgements have far outstripped grants, creating queues of around 100,000 applications. Families endure waits of 15–25 months. Relationships strain. Skilled Australians sometimes leave the country rather than remain separated from loved ones.

Figure 5. Permanent Migration Program: Partner Visas

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

The inconsistency is stark: partners of new skilled migrants (counted as secondary applicants) receive permanent residence immediately, with lower fees and fewer requirements, while Australian citizens’ partners wait years, pay more, and face stricter tests.

The law, however, is clear: partner and child visas cannot legally be capped under Section 87 of the Migration Act. Continuing to treat them as capped exposes the government to reputational and legal risks.

A coherent reform: separate skill from family migration

The solution is to redefine the Permanent Migration Programme to include only Skilled Stream primary applicants.

This reform would:

• Sharpen policy purpose: The permanent intake would be clearly about skills, not family reunion.

• Boost skilled migration: More places would be freed up for employer-sponsored and other skilled workers.

• Respect legal obligations: Family visas would be processed on a truly demand-driven basis, in line with the Migration Act.

• Restore confidence: Employers could trust that skilled migration pathways would remain predictable and efficient.

Humanitarian and parent visas would remain capped, while partner, child and secondary family applicants would move outside the programme cap.

Net Overseas Migration and the numbers game

Critics may worry that such reforms would blow out migration numbers. In reality, the impact on Net Overseas Migration (NOM) would be minimal.

Most permanent skilled migrants are already in Australia on temporary visas, and so are already counted in population statistics. Granting them permanency changes little in NOM.

The recent spike in migration numbers was largely due to fewer departures during the pandemic, not excess arrivals. Departures are now climbing again and will accelerate from 2027 as large cohorts of temporary visas expire.

Chasing short-term migration targets is as irrational as capping demand-driven visas. Migration is shaped by different arrival and departure streams, most of them uncontrollable. At best, migration can be guided like inflation—managed within a band.

Next steps: restoring clarity and confidence

Reform is overdue. By refocusing the permanent programme on Skilled Stream primary applicants and treating family visas as truly demand driven, Australia can restore coherence to its migration framework. This would strengthen pathways from temporary to permanent residence, ensure skilled shortages are addressed, and rebuild employer confidence.

Such reforms would not inflate migration numbers but would make the system more transparent, lawful and effective in meeting Australia’s long-term economic and social needs.

.

Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald and Professor Alan Gamlen, The Migration Hub, The Australian National University.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari :

The Mencari AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said recently the Israeli cabinet has “lost its reason and humanity” in Gaza, reflecting a widespread view around the world.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s staunch defiance over the Gaza war has led many Western states to recognise the state of Palestine in recent weeks. More could come before the UN General Assembly meeting in September, too.

These Western leaders have used strong words to push for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said when Australia pledged to recognise Palestine:

There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don’t move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.

Recognition of a Palestinian state sends a strong message of the world’s revulsion to the Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza. However, it is unlikely to make much of a difference on the ground without Israel and the United States agreeing to move forward on a two-state solution.

So, how can Western states give teeth to their recent pledges to recognise a Palestinian state? What kind of pressure would actually work?

1. Suspend trade deals and arms exports

Israel is by no means self-sufficient. It is very much dependent on the US for its defence capability and economic and financial wellbeing, as well as military supplies coming directly and indirectly from other Western countries.

Germany has now taken the lead in this respect by suspending military exports to Israel over its decision to expand the war. Slovenia also banned all weapons trade with Israel this month.

Other Western nations should be more transparent about the exports of specific parts to a global supply chain that Israel can access, such as those for F-35 jets, and be willing to block these.

In addition, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has advocated for the European Union to suspend its trade deal with Israel for breaching an article “on respect for human rights and democratic principles”.

Suspending the deal in full would require unanimous agreement among all 27 EU members. A partial suspension is possible, however, if just 15 EU members agree.

2. A strong US stand on a two-state solution

Western states could also put pressure on US President Donald Trump to persuade Israel that its future peace and prosperity depends on a two-state solution.

The US has long supported a two-state solution as a core policy. However, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, recently suggested this might be changing. Trump has not endorsed a two-state solution nor a new US position on it.

Given Netanyahu’s long-held opposition to a two-state solution, this might be a tough sell. However, Trump could be compelled to take a firm stand on the issue, given American public opinion is gradually shifting against Israel.

This is also reflected in assertions by some key MAGA supporters, such as the strategist Steve Bannon, Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene and media personality Tucker Carlson, as well as some far-right podcasters. They have questioned America’s support of Israel and, in some cases, called for an end to American aid to the country.

Trump is a transactional leader and could be amenable to pressure from his base and outside allies.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

3. Push for an oil embargo

An oil embargo on Israel and its supporters is another means of pressure.

Earlier this year, Israel granted exploration licenses for natural gas deposits off its coast to a consortium of oil companies, including British Petroleum (BP) and Azerbaijan’s SOCAR.

Israel imports nearly three-quarters of its crude oil from three countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Gabon. It relies on this crude oil and refined petroleum to fuel its fighter jets, tanks and bulldozers.

Gabon is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are part of an expanded group called OPEC+.

The Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (part of OPEC) implemented such an embargo against the United States and other countries in 1973 in retaliation for supporting Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and its seizure of Egyptian and Syrian land afterwards. Israel itself was cut off, too.

It proved effective. The embargo prompted Henry Kissinger, then-national security advisor in the Nixon administration, to engage in “shuttle diplomacy” between Israel, Egypt and Syria. This led to force disengagement agreements in early 1974, and the lifting of the oil embargo.

It also contributed to the diplomatic path that eventually resulted in the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, with US President Jimmy Carter’s mediation, in 1978.

Under the accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty with Egypt. A framework for Palestinian autonomy and self-government was also agreed to. However, subsequent talks on the path forward broke down for a number of reasons – among them Israel’s refusal to make concessions on key issues – much to Carter’s fury.

Israel also refused to withdraw from Syria’s Golan Heights, which it later annexed.

4. Move to suspend Israel from the UN

A final option is the threat of suspending Israel from the United Nations. This has been advocated by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francisca Albanese, and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Suspending a member from the UN is not easy. It requires the consent of the General Assembly, as well as the recommendation of the Security Council, which counts Israel’s steadfast ally, the US, as a member.

Nonetheless, the forthcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September would be a suitable time to heighten this threat. The assembly’s resolutions are not binding, but it is still a tool for the international community to apply pressure.

In the 1970s, for example, the General Assembly moved to suspend South Africa’s membership over its apartheid system of government. Although the Security Council blocked South Africa’s expulsion, it remained suspended in the General Assembly until 1994.

These measures are now needed to maximise the pressure on Netanyahu’s leadership to relent on a two-state solution. Whether Western countries have the political will to go beyond mere recognition and implement them is another question.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari :

The Mencari AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

The New York-based media freedom organisation, the Committee to Protect Journalists, is scrupulous with its words. So, when the organisation described the killing of six Palestinian journalists in an Israeli air strike as “murder”, the word was a carefully considered choice.

The CPJ defines “murder” as the “deliberate killing of journalists for their work”.

Why were the journalists targeted?

Israeli authorities said they were targeting one man – a 28-year-old Al Jazeera reporter named Anas al-Sharif – who they said was the leader of a Hamas “cell”. They also accused him of “advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and (Israeli) troops.”

Israel made no claims about the other five; three of them were al-Sharif’s Al Jazeera colleagues and the other two were freelance journalists.

In a post on X, an Israeli military spokesman said:

Prior to the strike, we obtained current intelligence indicating that Sharif was an active Hamas military wing operative at the time of his elimination.

The evidence the Israeli authorities claimed to have was circumstantial at best: “personnel rosters, lists of terrorist training courses, phone directories and salary documents.”

Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee also posted undated photos on X that appeared to show al-Sharif in an embrace with Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas mastermind of the October 2023 attack on Israel.

Israel says it has further classified evidence that includes more damning detail.

Without seeing it all, it is impossible to verify the claims but the photograph itself is hardly proof.

Front-line journalists (myself included) will have selfies with those they have interviewed, including some very unpleasant characters.

Many will have phone numbers of extremists – they will appear in call logs and records of meetings.

None of it is evidence of anything other than a well-connected reporter doing their job.

Of course, Israel may well be right. Despite the vigorous denials from Al Jazeera, it is still possible al-Sharif was working for Hamas. And if he was, the Israeli authorities should have no problem allowing independent investigators complete access to verify the claims and settle the matter.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

The horrors of covering war

But the strike also fits a disturbing pattern. With 190 media workers now killed since the October 7 attacks, this is the deadliest conflict for journalists since the CPJ began keeping records.

While some of the victims were inevitably caught in the violence along with so many other civilians, many of them died in rocket strikes aimed squarely at their homes, their clearly marked vehicles, or while they were wearing body armour labelled “PRESS”.

In all, the CPJ has identified 24 journalists who appeared to have been targeted – murdered, in the group’s words – specifically because of their work.

The number may well be far higher but those figures alone raise disturbing questions about Israel’s tolerance for critical media reporting. They also demand answers from independent investigators.

We receive horrific reports from Gaza daily, but Israel repeatedly dismisses them as Hamas propaganda.

“A terrorist is a terrorist, even if Al Jazeera gives him a press badge”, the Israeli foreign ministry posted on social media.

If Israel believes the journalism from Palestinian reporters is nothing more than Hamas propaganda, the solution is straightforward: let foreign correspondents in.

Despite the risks, journalists want access

It is worth recalling the reason we cherish media freedom is not because we want to privilege a particular class of individual. It is because we recognise the vital importance accurate, independent reporting plays in informing public debate.

Without it, we are blind and deaf.

International news organisations have repeatedly called for access to Gaza. Now, a group of more than 1,000 international journalists have signed a petition demanding to be let in (I am one of the signatories).

Israel has so far refused. The government says it cannot guarantee their security in such an active battlefield. But that cannot be justification alone.

All those who have signed the petition know well the risks of reporting from hostile environments. Many have crossed active war front lines themselves. Most have friends who have died in other conflicts. Some have been wounded, arrested or kidnapped themselves.

None are naive to the dangers and all are committed to the principles behind media freedom.

Calling for foreign journalists to be let into Gaza is not to deny the extraordinary sacrifice of Anas al-Sharif or any of the other Palestinians who have been killed while doing their jobs.

Rather, it is to assert the importance of the fundamental right of all – the right to information. That applies as much in Gaza as it does in Ukraine, or Russia, or Sudan, or any other crisis where the public needs accurate, reliable information to support good policy.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

The Mencari AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

A series of recent statements and actions by the Donald Trump administration targeting India has left the dominant section of the Indian strategic community with a feeling of betrayal.

The US signalling its distancing from India and its aspiration for a decisive strategic role in South Asia could not be clearer.

To get his way, Trump is trying to bully and humiliate India almost on a daily basis. He is unlikely to stop until India bends.

Starting with public humiliation and chaining illegal Indian migrant deportees, Trump has repeated claims (30 times so far) of how he successfully brokered the ceasefire after the four-day Pakistan-India war following Operation Sindoor.

He also claimed that it was his trade deal threats that calmed both nations. He is thus continuously challenging India’s long-standing position of no foreign intervention in India’s bilateral matters.

To make matters worse, Trump has been on a tirade against India’s economic policy calling India the ‘king of tariffs’.

This has been followed by the imposition of 25 percent tariffs imposed on all Indian exports with the threat of additional penalties unless India stops importing Russian oil and military hardware.

These actions were accompanied by humiliating and derogatory language: “I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.”

Thereafter, President Trump declared the US and Pakistan had concluded a deal to work together to develop Pakistan’s oil reserves, saying “Who knows, maybe they’ll be selling oil to India someday!”

General Asim Munir’s White House lunch with Donald Trump, just as India was pushing to label Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism, was clearly to show that the US would again use the Pakistani army to bolster US policies in Central and West Asia. That is a game at which Pakistan is adept.

In addition, India’s attempt to have the US and the West in its corner was shattered, for instance when India lost the election post of vice chair of the Executive Board of UNESCO to Pakistan.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

False hopes

For decades the Indian leadership and its strategic community has been promoting closer strategic relations with the US.

India did whatever it took to do this — from developing an Indian NRI lobby in the US and maintaining strict neutrality on US support for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza to issues that the US promoted globally. However, now President Trump wants much more.

The US has once again started viewing the Pakistani army as a reliable instrument for its policy of interventions in the Asia-Pacific region and it seems it will continue to be privileged as such. Pakistan has a time-tested relation as the US’s favoured gendarme.

The Pakistan army has run Pakistan’s foreign policy since its very formation. Unlike India it was always aligned. Pakistan was part of US military pacts of South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organizations (now defunct) in the 1950s and 60s. It was instrumental along with the US in developing the Taliban and Mujahideen that led the revolt which overthrew the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

In the post 9/11 decade of US military interventions and forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Pakistan was a key base for US maneuvers even as it housed the wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden near its own national military academy. The General Munir-Trump lunch revived this partnership. The US will not allow India to isolate Pakistan internationally. So, India’s years of effort have been side-lined.

The US has also once again started pairing India and Pakistan. This is something that India does not favour, given the scale of differences especially in the economic sphere — India is a rising medium level market economy and Pakistan has taken and rescheduled its IMF debt 25 times.

However, the US interest is clearly to revive its empire-like reach, project power globally and retain its dominance. This is what Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) is about. In this agenda, India can be a market for US products and Pakistan, one of its many strategic arms. The US will, therefore, play both India and Pakistan — something that India will have to accept.

The US also seeks to be the main balancing power and geopolitical influencer in the South Asia region. It was with this in mind that the US supported the Pakistani Army when they conducted a regime change ousting Pakistan’s popular prime minister, Imran Khan.

The former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had also claimed a US hand in the populist student unrest and overthrow of her regime and the installation of the pro-American but hostile to India NGO-economist Mohammad Yunus.

The US is also aware of the Pakistan-China alliance and how Pakistan has used this to its advantage. It was Pakistan that brokered the US-China détente in the 1970s with Henry Kissinger at the helm. Perhaps once again, as Trump wants an invite from President Xi Jinping, Pakistan may be expected to facilitate it.

Time for rethink

What does this signify for India, who for the last three decades since its shift to globalisation in the early 1990s, prioritised its relations with the United States while turning a blind eye to US proximity with Pakistan, often at the cost of other relations especially to the Global South?

One, that hyper-nationalism will not work in foreign policy especially when one must counter the hyper-imperial superpower.

Two, that India has put on the back burner several long-standing beliefs of the country’s time-tested foreign policy. These included being pro-development but with awareness that colonialism will always take on new forms of extraction; a focus on peace and disarmament; and not getting obsessed and viewing all foreign policy through the lens of one militarised neighbour. This allowed India to diversify its foreign relations and not give up its traditional relations, while building new ones, but always emphasizing that it was an integral part of the Global South.

The Indian elite, however, is still committed to the US and views it as an important partner. Nearly 18 percent of Indian exports are to the US and Indian students crowd US universities. India also respects US soft power and has no interest in disrupting US progress.

However, the US needs to do the same. While efforts will have to be made to undo the current humiliating phase, the Indian leadership, hopefully, has also understood that the US would like to promote and facilitate American imperial interests in South Asia.

These are usually not in India’s interest.

Anuradha Chenoy, Adjunct Professor Jindal Global University, Haryana

Originally published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 by 360info™.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

The Mencari AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

The collapse of the latest round of nuclear talks between the US and Iran is not just a diplomatic failure but a major threat to the global non-proliferation regime.

The talks had offered a tentative window for re-engagement following years of mutual recrimination.

Worse, this breakdown occurred amid a volatile Middle Eastern situation where Israel, emboldened by US support, views Iran’s support to Hamas and Hezbollah as an existential threat.

The Donald Trump administration’s decision to impose a travel ban on Iranian nationals, along with nationals of 11 other countries, further demonstrated Washington’s broader turn to confrontation.

With diplomacy at a standstill, the risk of escalation – nuclear or military – is real and growing.

Iran’s nuclear journey

Iran’s nuclear programme began way back in the 1950s, under the Shah regime, with American support. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the West abruptly withdrew support, accusing the new regime of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of energy independence.

In response, Tehran doubled down, framing nuclear self-sufficiency as a symbol of sovereignty and defiance.

Through the 1990s and early 2000s, Iran developed enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow. These programmes, shrouded in secrecy, alarmed the West, especially as Iran limited cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

This secrecy fed into concerns that Iran was developing a parallel weaponisation programme, claims that Iran denied.

Today, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei remains adamant. In a recent speech, he declared, “They [the Americans] cannot do a damn thing… Our nuclear industry is a source of pride.”

For Khamenei, halting enrichment means surrendering scientific achievement and geopolitical leverage, a red line Iran will not cross.

Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.

Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.

BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER

Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.

The JCPOA and its discontents

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) , signed in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany), was designed to curb Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

Under this agreement, Iran had agreed to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent, dropped its stockpile by 98 percent, and dismantled thousands of centrifuges. The IAEA was granted enhanced access and supervision.

Yet, while hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, the JCPOA had notable weaknesses. Chief among them were the “sunset clauses,” which meant that many of its restrictions would expire by 2025–2030. Verification, while strong on paper, allowed Iran to delay inspections by up to 24 days.

Critics argued that the deal front-loaded economic incentives for Iran while offering insufficient long-term guarantees to the West.

In 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, despite Iran’s compliance as verified by the IAEA and reimposed sweeping sanctions, triggering Iran’s gradual exit from the deal’s limits.

Enrichment levels soared to 60 percent, and IAEA inspections were curtailed. The agreement collapsed under the weight of unilateralism and mistrust.

Trump’s second term

In his second term, President Trump revived nuclear diplomacy with Iran while simultaneously reinstating his “maximum pressure” policy in February 2025, combining tough economic sanctions, an oil export blockade, legal action against Iran-backed operatives, and efforts to reimpose UN sanctions.

While publicly vowing Iran would never acquire nuclear weapons, Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, proposed a two-phase plan allowing temporary low-level enrichment in exchange for future fuel supply through a regional consortium, highlighting the contradiction between coercive tactics and diplomatic overtures.

This stark contradiction led Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to dismiss the US stance as “unreasonable and unconventional.” The inconsistencies, coupled with Washington’s aggressive rhetoric, including the latest travel ban on Iran, left Iran unconvinced of American sincerity.

Core differences

The central impasse remains uranium enrichment.

The US seeks total dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capabilities to block any path to a nuclear bomb. Iran insists that enrichment is a peaceful right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

For Iran, ending enrichment means forfeiting a hard-won deterrent and trusting Western powers that, in its view, have repeatedly violated promises. Memories of denied medical uranium in the 2000s and targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists only fuel this scepticism.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has tied nuclear negotiations to Iran’s regional behaviour—its support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—further complicating the scope of talks.

Iran views this as an overreach aimed at undermining its regional influence and securing Israeli dominance.

As reported by Axios, Iran showed its willingness to consider a pragmatic deal involving limited enrichment under IAEA monitoring and international guarantees. Yet, the US quickly reverted to hardline demands, stalling any meaningful progress.

Regional fallout and the role of other powers

The failure of the nuclear talks is not confined to Washington and Tehran. The entire Middle East now faces heightened instability. Israel sees a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat and has hinted at unilateral action.

Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief rival, has publicly stated that it will match Iran’s capabilities if Tehran crosses the nuclear threshold. The threat of a regional nuclear arms race thus becomes greater than at any time since the Cold War.

Meanwhile, Russia and China are increasing their engagement. Russia has reportedly been approached to mediate. Trump is trying to use Russia’s close ties with Iran to advance American interests in the stalled nuclear talks. However, according to Boris Dolgov, a leading researcher at the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies, Moscow is unlikely to pressure Tehran to meet Washington’s demands.

China, already Iran’s largest trading partner, continues to build long-term energy and infrastructure deals. These actors may dilute Western influence and limit the pressure of sanctions.

As Iran moves closer to becoming a de facto threshold state, much like Japan, but without the same transparency, the collapse of non-proliferation norms is a real danger —especially if Iran withdraws from the NPT, a threat it has hinted at.

Beyond JCPOA to sustainable non-proliferation

Despite the diplomatic stalemate, a path remains – one grounded in realism and international norms. Iran has consistently indicated its willingness to allow inspections if its right to enrichment is respected. The US would have to rethink its strategy to reflect this.

A new agreement must move beyond the JCPOA. Instead of sunset clauses, permanent verification systems should be installed.

A system like this would allow peaceful nuclear development while ensuring immediate spotting of any move toward weaponisation.

This approach has the potential to serve as a worldwide standard for aligning nuclear energy use with efforts to prevent proliferation, especially as more countries turn to nuclear power to address climate challenges.

Crucially, the US ought to treat Iran’s nuclear programme separately from its regional activities. Combining them with nuclear talks only reduces the chances for productive diplomacy.

Diplomacy must prevail, before it’s too late

The failure of the 2025 US–Iran nuclear talks is a setback, but not yet a catastrophe.

With timely action, the prospect of avoiding both military escalation and the erosion of the NPT remains within reach. The upcoming expiry of UN Security Council Resolution 2231’s key provisions in October 2025 offers a brief opportunity for revival.

To seize this narrowing window, Washington must move beyond the false choice between capitulation and confrontation, and instead embrace bold, enforceable diplomacy. Tehran, in turn, must pair its calls for sovereignty with genuine transparency and restraint.

K M Seethi is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), Kerala, India. He also served as Senior Professor of International Relations and Dean of Social Sciences at MGU.

Originally published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 by 360info™.

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• 5 - Minute recap - for nighly bite-sized news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily - for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch - updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• The Expert Interview - features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

• Viewpoint 360 - An analysis view based on evidence, produced in collaboration with 360Info

• Mencari Banking - Get the latest banking news and financials across Australia and New Zealand

  
  

The Evening Post AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.

Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.

The integrity of Australia's carbon certification programs faces unprecedented scrutiny as Energy Australia defends against allegations of greenwashing in a landmark civil lawsuit. This legal challenge highlights critical gaps in the federal government's Climate Active certification scheme, which has endorsed Energy Australia's "carbon neutral" claims for nearly a decade despite mounting concerns from environmental watchdogs and widespread consumer confusion.

Three in four Australians believe government regulators—not corporations themselves—should verify climate claims, according to The Australia Institute's 2024 Climate of the Nation report. Yet the Climate Active program continues operating despite being under internal review and subject to an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) complaint.

"The fact that Energy Australia is now being taken to court, accused of making misleading claims, suggests that the government has failed to ensure that the product was indeed Climate Active," said Polly Hemming, Director of The Australia Institute's Climate & Energy Program.

The lawsuit emerges amid growing public skepticism about carbon offset programs, with only 46% of Australians expressing confidence they understand what carbon offsets actually are, and 55% opposing the practice of allowing companies with increasing emissions to market themselves as "carbon neutral."

Program Continues Despite Serious Questions

The Australia Institute previously filed a formal complaint with the ACCC, arguing that the Climate Active scheme itself "may be misleading and deceptive under consumer law." Despite this complaint and an ongoing internal review, the certification program continues promoting businesses as climate leaders without rigorous verification of their environmental claims.

"The Climate Active scheme actively encourages consumers to 'make a positive impact right now, by supporting these organisations' without offering any proof that the businesses it certifies are taking climate action or verifying that emissions are being 'offset'," stated The Australia Institute in its analysis.

Critics argue the scheme stands in direct opposition to scientific consensus that absolute emission reductions—not offsetting—must be the priority for addressing climate change. Yet the program continues to "promote carbon offsetting and certify claims of 'carbon neutrality' by the fossil fuel industry and other big emitters."

"It's extraordinary that the scheme is still running even as it is under internal review," said Hemming, noting that The Australia Institute had "recommended that the scheme be referred to the National Audit Office to investigate conflicts of interest, administrative failures and compliance issues."

Major Corporations Potentially Exposed

The Energy Australia case may have far-reaching implications for some of Australia's largest companies. Corporations including Woolworths, Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Coles, Telstra, BHP, Rio Tinto, and Qantas have invested heavily in carbon offset programs and climate certifications that could face similar scrutiny if the court rules against Energy Australia.

"Promoting big polluters as climate leaders punishes companies with legitimate climate ambition and misleads consumers. It rewards greenwashing while credible claims are unrecognised and unrewarded," argues Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

Litigation Filling Regulatory Gaps

The trend of increasing civil litigation against alleged greenwashing practices "appears to reflect the fact that regulators and government are failing to protect consumers, investors and the community, both from the environmental harms of industry and from the unsubstantiated claims of industry," according to The Australia Institute's analysis.

"Energy Australia's 'carbon neutral' energy was certified as such by the Australian government for almost ten years and consumers have been led to believe that the product had no impact on the climate," notes Hemming, highlighting the potential scale of consumer deception if the allegations are proven.

The case against Energy Australia marks a significant shift in accountability mechanisms for corporate climate claims. "Consumers, investors and community members have lost tolerance for industry and government putting the onus on individuals to tackle the climate crisis and expect more accountability by the private sector," said Denniss, reflecting growing demands for substantive climate action from corporations.

Consumer Understanding Gap

The Climate of the Nation report reveals a concerning disconnect between corporate sustainability claims and public understanding of carbon offset mechanisms. Less than half of surveyed Australians expressed confidence in understanding what carbon offsets are, raising questions about informed consumer choice in environmentally marketed products.

This knowledge deficit becomes particularly problematic as companies market "carbon neutral" products to environmentally conscious consumers without clear explanation of what their claims actually mean or verification that such claims translate to meaningful climate action.

Regulatory Reform Pressure Mounting

With nearly three-quarters of Australians believing government should verify corporate climate claims, pressure is building for regulatory reform. The Australia Institute's complaint and recommendation for National Audit Office investigation signals growing demands for stronger oversight of environmental marketing claims.

The Energy Australia case may ultimately serve as a catalyst for significant changes to how carbon neutral claims are certified, verified, and communicated to consumers in Australia.

For corporations operating under the Climate Active certification or similar programs, the outcome of this litigation could necessitate substantial revisions to environmental marketing strategies and carbon offsetting practices.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the case raises fundamental questions about whether government climate certification programs are protecting consumers or potentially enabling corporate greenwashing.

Do you believe carbon offsetting programs genuinely help address climate change, or are they merely corporate window dressing? Share your thoughts and experiences with carbon-neutral products using #ClimateActiveReform.

Learn more about carbon offsetting verification and climate certification programs: https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/climate-of-the-nation-2024/

Got a News Tip?

Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos.

More on Mencari

• 5 - Minute recap - for nighly bite-sized news around Australia and the world.

• Podwires Daily - for providing news about audio trends and podcasts.

• There’s a Glitch - updated tech news and scam and fraud trends

• The Expert Interview - features expert interviews on current political and social issues in Australia and worldwide.

• Viewpoint 360 - An analysis view based on evidence, produced in collaboration with 360Info

• Mencari Banking - Get the latest banking news and financials across Australia and New Zealand

  
  

The Evening Post AU readers receive journalism free of financial and political influence.

We set our own news agenda, which is always based on facts rather than billionaire ownership or political pressure. Despite the financial challenges that our industry faces, we have decided to keep our reporting open to the public because we believe that everyone has the right to know the truth about the events that shape their world.

Thanks to the support of our readers, we can continue to provide free reporting. If you can, please choose to support The Evening Post Australia.