Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

Australia is reeling from the worst terrorist attack on home soil. Could it have been prevented?

Published

on

Australia is reeling from the worst terrorist attack on home soil. Could it have been prevented?

Greg Barton, Deakin University

With 15 civilians and one gunman dead so far, and another 40 people injured, Australia is reeling from its worst act of terrorism on home soil. Two gunmen opened fire on a Jewish community gathering to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah at Archer Park on Sydney’s famous Bondi Beach.

Police have confirmed the two alleged attackers were father and son, aged 50 and 24. The father, Sajid Akram, who was licensed to own six firearms, was shot dead by police. The son, Naveed Akram, remains under police guard in hospital.

Given it was clearly an antisemitic attack, authorities soon after declared it an act of terrorism – that is, an act of politically motivated violence. This designation also gives authorities extra resources in their response and in bringing those responsible to justice.

As Australians try to process their shock and grief, there has been some anger in the community that not enough has been done to protect Jewish Australians from the rising antisemitism evident since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the ensuing Gaza war.

What we know about the alleged attackers

ASIO (The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) Director-General Mike Burgess has said one of the alleged gunmen was “known” to ASIO, though he did not specify which one. Being “known” to authorities can simply mean someone has been associated with networks and communications that have caused concern to authorities. The ABC has reported that Naveed Akram came to the attention of authorities after the arrest of Islamic State Sydney cell leader Isaac El Matari in July 2019.

However, there are hundreds of people who come to authorities’ attention for their contact, online or off, with extremist networks and individuals. With limited resources (and authorities’ resources will always be limited, no matter how much funding they have), they have to run a triage system to assess the threat an individual or a group may pose, and manage the risk as best they can.

They will carefully assess what is being said and the language used, for example, as well as looking at whether a person has a history of violence. As angry and upset as people understandably are in the wake of such a horrific incident, it needs to be recognised that authorities can’t simply arrest everyone who expresses extremist ideas or has passing links with extremist elements.

We still need to know more about this terror attack and the alleged attackers, but to date there has been no evidence of a network in operation. Given the alleged gunmen were father and son, this technically fits the profile of a “lone actor” attack, as we saw in the Lindt Cafe siege in 2014, and Christchurch in 2019.

It is very difficult for authorities to predict and therefore prevent lone actor attacks – by their nature, there’s often no sign beforehand of the potential for violence. And public sites like the reserve at Bondi Beach require extensive resources to police, meaning not all can be adequately secured.

As Burgess pointed out in his annual threat assessment, “our greatest threat remains a lone actor using an easily obtained weapon”. Sadly, that has been shown to be true.

Changing nature of terrorist threat in Australia

There has been much attention in recent years on the rise of far-right extremism and terrorism.

One of the best guides to this is Burgess’ annual threat assessment. In it he explained that a decade ago, just one in ten cases ASIO was following up involved right-wing extremists, with radical Islamist groups occupying most of their attention. However, in recent years the ratio has shifted closer to one in two investigations involving right-wing extremism. In other words, a lot of ASIO’s attention and resources are now necessarily tied up with combating right-wing extremism, especially following the Christchurch terror attack in which 51 people were shot dead by an Australian far-right terrorist during Friday prayers in two New Zealand mosques.

More broadly, Islamic terrorism continues to remain a global threat. IS and Al-Qaeda remain active in the Middle East and increasingly in Africa, as well as central Asia and Afghanistan. Generally, authorities are doing a good job of keeping on top of any threats these networks might pose in Australia.

There is no doubt the general atmosphere between pro-Palestinian and Jewish groups has become far more febrile in the wake of the Hamas attack and the Gaza war. There is a lot of anger and frustration as scenes of violence and suffering are broadcast daily, and we have seen a rise both in antisemitism and Islamophobia since the war began, simply because of the way it plays out in people’s imaginations.

But even in the protests we have seen over many months, the number of people who might use this sentiment to spur violence is small.

Again, there is no evidence the Bondi shooting was part of a wider network, and it is very difficult to stop a lone actor attack on a public site.

In a glimmer of hope, the man whose much-lauded act of heroism in wrestling one of the alleged gunman’s weapons from him has been named as 43-year-old Muslim fruit shop owner Ahmed Al-Ahmed. It is hoped this man’s bravery, which showed us the best of humanity in the midst of the worst, will stop any simplistic analysis of blaming the Muslim community for such violence. We have seen this in the United States, and Australia must do much better.

Has the government done enough?

It is very difficult to keep outdoor public events entirely safe: buildings are relatively easy to secure, but a park at a beach far less so.

The government clearly needs to do more to stop terrorism, and public events are an obvious focus for more resources. No one should be satisfied with where we are right now. It is simply horrifying. But it’s going to take a lot of work to figure out where we can best use resources.

We can’t close every loophole or thwart every risk. We can’t stop people turning to violence, and we can’t police every hateful thought. It has been said this was an attack on all of us, and that’s very true. As the message of Hanukkah inspires us, now is the time when we need to pull together as Australians from all faiths and communities, and work together to ensure that light triumphs over darkness.The Conversation

Greg Barton, Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

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

Ticker Views

Why Greenland matters in a multipolar world

Published

on

Four ways to understand what’s going on with the US, Denmark and Greenland

Shutterstock/Michal Balada

Ian Manners, Lund University

European countries, and Denmark in particular, are scrambling to respond to threats from US officials over the future of Greenland.

Having successfully taken out the leadership of Venezuela in a raid on January 3, an emboldened US government is talking about simply taking Greenland for itself.

Various European leaders have expressed their concern but haven’t been able to formulate a coherent response to the betrayal by a supposed ally.

Since the September 11 attacks in 2001, Danish governments have willingly participated in US-led invasions of Afghanistan (2001-2021) and Iraq (2003-2007). The rightward movement across the Danish political spectrum had led to Denmark rejecting some Nordic and EU cooperation in favour of pro-US transatlanticism.

However, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine led to a rethink of Danish foreign policy. The country joined the EU’s common security and defence policy and tightened cooperation with recent Nato members Finland and Sweden.

And when Trump came to power for the second time, the chaotic rightward swing of US foreign policy left Denmark reaching out for support from its EU colleagues over the challenge to Greenland.

While a member of the European Union, Denmark has placed itself at the bloc’s periphery since copying the UK in opting out of the euro and from cooperation in justice and home affairs. But any US invasion of Greenland is likely to break Denmark’s fixed exchange rate policy with the euro (and before that the deutschmark) that has been in place since 1982. So there are economic implications as well as territorial.

The fallout from the US’s threats, and certainly any US intervention in Greenland, go much further than Denmark. While the EU tried to stay in step with the US in its support of Ukraine during Joe Biden’s presidency, since the re-election of Trump, EU member states have very much fallen out with the US. During 2025, the US and EU clashed over trade and tariffs, social media regulation, environment and agriculture policies.

But the latest developments demonstrate that Trump’s US can no longer be trusted as a long-term ally – to Greenland and Denmark, the EU and Europe.

This is a crisis engulfing many countries and triggered by many drivers. In order to understand this complex situation, we can use four different analytical approaches from academic thinking. These can help us contextualise not just the Greenland case, but also the emerging multipolar world of “might makes right”.

1. Realism

Currently the most popular approach comes from within the conservative tradition of “realism”. This predicts every state will act in their own national interest.

In this framing, Trump’s actions are part of the emergence of a multipolar world, in which the great powers are the US, China, India and Russia. In this world, it makes sense for Russia to invade Ukraine to counter the US, for the US to seize assets in Venezuela and Greenland to counter China, and for China to invade Taiwan to counter the US.

2. The new elites

Many think that to understand the events of the past few years, including Trump’s return and Vladimir Putin’s foreign policies, you need to look beyond conservative or liberal explanations to seek out who holds power and influence in the global superpowers. That means the wealthy families, corporations and oligarchs who exert control over the politics of the ruling elite through media and campaign power and finance.

In the cases of Venezuela and Greenland there are two factors at work – the US rejection of the rule of law and the desire for personal wealth via energy resources. But the timing is also important. The operation in Venezuela has been the only story to eclipse the Epstein files in the news in many months.

3. The decline of the liberal order

Many academic explanations see these recent events in the context of the decline of a “liberal order” dominated by the US, Europe, the “developed world” and the UN. In this view, the actions of Putin and Trump are seen as the last days of international law, the importance of the UN, and what western nations see as a system based on multilateralism.

However, this approach tends to overlook the continued dominance of the global north in these systems. The lack of support for the US and EU’s defence of Ukraine has been repeatedly demonstrated in the unwillingness of many global south countries, including China and India, to condemn the Russian invasion in the UN general assembly. It would be interesting to see how such voting would play out if it related to a US invasion of Greenland.

4. The planetary approach

The final – and most important – view is found in the planetary politics approach. This approach is based on the simple observation that so many planetary crises, such as global heating, mass extinctions of wildlife, climate refugees, rising autocracy and the return of international conflict are deeply interrelated and so can only be understood when considered together.

From this perspective it is Greenland’s sustainability and Greenlanders’ lives that must shape the understanding of Denmark’s and other European responses to Trump’s claims. It is through acknowledging the deep relationship that indigenous people have to their ecology that solutions can be found.

And Greenlanders have already expressed their vision for the future. Living on the frontline of the climate crisis, they want an economy built on resilience – not on ego-driven political drama.

While it’s quick and easy to to judge the events in Venezuela or Greenland in terms of the daily news cycle, the four perspectives set out here force people to think for themselves how best to understand complex international crises.

There is, however, a final observation to emphasise. Only one of these perspectives is likely to bring any way of thinking ourselves out of our planetary political crisis.The Conversation

Ian Manners, Professor, Department of Political Science, Lund University

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

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Pentagon’s AI gamble: Is Grok safe for defense?

Pentagon to integrate Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok, exploring military data and innovation amid AI controversies.

Published

on

Pentagon to integrate Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok, exploring military data and innovation amid AI controversies.


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok will soon be integrated with the Pentagon’s networks.

The move aims to harness military data to develop advanced AI technology, despite recent controversies surrounding Grok’s content generation. This integration signals a bold step toward combining commercial AI tools with national defence systems.

Dr Karen Sutherland from UniSC explores the implications of this partnership. We discuss how Hegseth’s approach to AI differs from the Biden administration’s framework, the measures in place to ensure responsible use, and the limitations on Grok’s image generation capabilities.

We also examine the potential risks and international reactions, as well as Hegseth’s vision for innovation within the military. From civil rights considerations to prioritising key technologies, this story highlights the complex balancing act of AI in modern defence.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#PentagonAI #ElonMusk #GrokAI #MilitaryTech #AIControversy #TechNews #DefenseInnovation #TickerNews


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. pushes Latin American dominance

Published

on

What lies ahead for Latin America after the Venezuela raid?

Nicolas Forsans, University of Essex

The Trump administration has justified the recent capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as a law enforcement operation to dismantle a “narco‑state”. It also claimed it would break Venezuela’s ties to China, Russia and Iran, and put the world’s largest known oil reserves back under US‑friendly control.

This mix of counter‑narcotics, great power rivalry and energy security had already been elevated to a central priority by the administration in its national security strategy. Published in late 2025, the document announced a pledge to “reassert and enforce American preeminence in the western hemisphere” and deny “strategically vital assets” to rival powers.

Donald Trump has referred to this hemispheric project as the “Donroe doctrine”, casting it as a revival of the Monroe doctrine policy of the 19th century through which the US sought to stop European powers from meddling in the Americas. He seems to be seeking to tighten the US grip on Latin America by rewarding loyal governments and punishing defiant ones.

If Venezuela is the first test case of the Donroe doctrine, several other Latin American countries now sit squarely in Washington’s crosshairs. The most immediate target is Cuba, which the US has opposed since 1959 when communist revolutionary Fidel Castro overthrew a US-backed regime there.

Trump and his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, have openly hinted that Cuba could be Washington’s next target. They have described Cuba as “ready to fall” after the loss of Venezuelan oil and have boasted that there is no need for direct intervention because economic collapse will finish the job.

Cuba is enduring its worst crisis since 1959. Blackouts now regularly last up to 20 hours, real wages are collapsing and roughly 1 million Cubans have fled the country since 2021. This is all happening as Venezuelan crude oil is being redirected under US control.

For over two decades, Venezuela has provided Cuba with fuel and financing in exchange for doctors, teachers and security personnel – 32 of whom were killed in the US capture of Maduro, according to the Cuban government. Strangling Cuba’s remaining lifelines may well be enough to topple the government there without US forces needing to fire a single shot.

It is possible that Mexico will also soon come under fire. Mexico has quietly become Cuba’s main oil supplier, shipping roughly 12,000 barrels per day in 2025 to account for about 44% of the island’s crude imports. This is unlikely to please the Trump administration, which has recently renewed its threats to “do something” about Mexican drug cartels.

The raid in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, took six months of meticulous planning and required an extraordinary amount of resources. So it is unrealistic to expect similar raids on other Latin American countries. However, targeted military strikes cannot be excluded.

Speaking on Fox News’s “Hannity” show on January 8, Trump said: “We are going to start now hitting land with regard to the cartels. The cartels are running Mexico.” He did not provide further details about the plans.

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, is trying to construct protective buffers. She has combined condemnation of the raid on Caracas with intense cooperation with the US on migration and security. This includes a deal for Mexico’s navy to intercept suspected drug-running boats near its coastline before US forces do.

But as part of a strategy that pushes US dominance of Latin America, Trump has already floated classifying Mexico’s cartels as terrorist organisations and the fentanyl they traffic across the border as a weapon of mass destruction. These are legal framings that could be used to justify strikes on Mexican soil in the name of counter-narcotics in the near future.

Trump’s other targets

Colombia, historically Washington’s closest military ally in South America, has flipped from “pillar” to possible target. The country’s president, Gustavo Petro, has been one of the loudest critics of the Venezuela raid. He called it an “abhorrent violation” of Latin American sovereignty committed by “enslavers”, adding that it constituted a “spectacle of death” comparable to Nazi Germany’s 1937 carpet bombing of Guernica in Spain.

Trump, who imposed sanctions on Petro and his family in October, responded by labelling the Colombian president a “sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States”. He then mused that a Venezuela‑style operation in Colombia “sounds good to me” before a hastily arranged phone call and White House invitation dialled back the immediate threat.

How long the conciliation between the two men lasts remains to be seen. Colombia has entered a heated presidential campaign season in which Trump’s remarks are already being read as an attempt to tilt the race, much as his interventions shaped recent contests in Argentina and Honduras.

Further down the hierarchy, Nicaragua’s government will also have watched events unfold in Venezuela with terror. Long treated in Washington as part of a trilogy of dictatorships with Cuba and Venezuela, Nicaragua features in US indictments against Maduro as a transit point for cocaine flights. Nicaragua was also recently designated by the US as a key drug‑transit country.

The unusually cautious statement on the Venezuela raid by Nicaraguan presidential couple Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo, as well as the rapid reinforcement of the presidential compound in the capital Managua, suggest a regime that knows it could be next in line should Trump choose to extend his “narco‑terrorism” narrative.

Trump appears to be turning longstanding US concerns – drugs, migration and interference by other major powers – into a flexible toolbox for coercion in Latin America. Countries that defy Washington or host its rivals risk being framed as security threats, stripped of economic lifelines and, possibly, targeted militarily.

Those that keep their heads down may avoid immediate punishment. But this comes at the price of treating hemispheric dominance as a fact of life rather than a doctrine to be resisted.The Conversation

Nicolas Forsans, Professor of Management and Co-director of the Centre for Latin American & Caribbean Studies, University of Essex

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

Continue Reading

Trending Now