The small town 'US goods tariff café' raising money to support Ukraine
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
What is a state, and how do you start a new country? Statehood: Explained
NICHOLAS MAHER, REPORTER: Right now, a lot of people are talking about statehood, specifically Palestine being recognised as a state by Australia. But what does that actually mean? What is a state and who gets to decide who gets to be one? Let's start with that first question. In Australia, when we hear the word state, we usually think of these, but in international law, a sovereign state is a term used to describe countries like Australia or China. In order to be considered a sovereign state, there are four criteria that need to be met. You need a permanent population, a defined territory, a government that's not under the authority of another government, and the ability to enter into agreements with other states. So, who gets to decide when a state officially becomes a state? In international law, there two main ideas that dictate when a state is considered to be a state. The constitutive theory, which was the model in the 19th century and the declaratory theory, which was developed in the 20th century as a way to address some of the issues people had with the constitutive theory. When the constitutive theory was dominant, statehood wasn't automatic. There were no formal legal rules or criteria that needed to be met. Basically, a state could only become a state when it was recognised by other, already established states. This put a lot of power in the hands of the few established states that existed at the time. And because there weren't any real guidelines, recognition was often influenced by politics, or the strategic interests of these established powers. In the 20th century a new idea started to emerge, declaratory theory. This was expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, which outlined the four criteria we talked about earlier that are still used today. Introducing a universal checklist for statehood challenged the idea that powerful countries could control who gets to be a state. The basic idea is that an entity is a state if it meets certain criteria, whether it's recognised by other states is a completely separate issue. In theory, this made becoming a state less political and more legal and objective, and in the years since World War II, we've seen a massive jump in the number of new countries being recognised. However, the story doesn't end here, and the way all of this actually plays out in reality isn't quite as clear cut. Despite declaratory theory meaning you can pretty much just declare yourself a state today if you meet the criteria, it doesn't mean you're automatically granted all the rights and status that other states may have. The reality is, being recognised by other states, constitutive theory, still plays a huge role in how much power and influence a state actually has on the international stage. A good example of this is Palestine. Today, the state of Palestine is recognised by more than 140 countries. In the eyes of the Palestinians and those 140 plus countries, Palestine meets the criteria for statehood, and is therefore a state, full stop. However, to countries that don't recognise it, like the United States, Palestine isn't a state. This leaves Palestine in a bit of a weird limbo. It can still function normally when it deals with other states that recognise it; for example, signing treaties or trade deals. It doesn't have the full international rights and status that a country like Australia has. The clearest example of this is the fact that Palestine still isn't a full member state at the United Nations, which is often seen as one of the final steps in achieving full international status. To become a member of the UN, you need the approval of at least two-thirds of the UN's member states, which Palestine has. You also need approval from at least nine of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, which Palestine also has. So, what's the problem here? The UN Security council, which is in charge of maintaining international peace and security, has five permanent members that can veto any decision. And when a vote on Palestinian membership came up in 2024, it was vetoed by the United States. This is why stories about countries deciding to recognise Palestine often gain international attention, despite most of the world having already made up its mind about this issue a while ago. Try to think of it this way: If you're looking at things from a strictly declaratory theory standpoint, the UK and France recognising Palestine may not seem like a big deal for Palestinians, because in their eyes it's just confirming what they already know: Palestine is a state. However, from a constitutive theory standpoint recognition from France and the UK is a big deal because it means two permanent members of the Security Council are now a lot less likely to veto Palestinian membership at the UN. Recognition from countries like France and the U.K. Also potentially puts pressure on the United States, now the final remaining permanent Security Council member in opposition to Palestinian statehood, which, to Palestinians, represents one of the final hurdles standing in the way of Palestine achieving the full UN membership status it's been waiting for a long time.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Will Trump's 'security guarantees' end Putin's war?
News report: It's been an absolutely dramatic day here at the White House in Washington to see that many world leaders, probably unprecedented for a long time anyway. News report: Mr Zelenskyy was joined by the European Commission president, the head of NATO, along with the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Finland. Donald Trump, US President: We're going to work with Ukraine. We're going to work with everybody and we're going to make sure that if there's peace, the peace is going to stay long term. This is very long term. We're not talking about a two year peace and then we end up in this mess again. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President: We need to stop this war to stop Russia. And we need support American and European partners. That we are strong people and we supported President Trump. To stop this war, to make a diplomatic way of finishing this war. Sam Hawley: Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been to the White House before in what became an infamous encounter with Donald Trump. This time, he took an entourage of European leaders as backup as the US president pushes for a quick end to the war in Ukraine. At the heart of the talks, security guarantees from the US and a possible meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin. Today, a former US ambassador to Ukraine, John Herbst, on why it could actually be a step forward towards peace. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: John, the last time Zelenskyy sat down with Donald Trump, of course, at the White House, it didn't go so well. This time, he went with a whole heap of European leaders and it was safe to say a smoother affair, wasn't it? John Herbst: Oh, without a doubt, because circumstances are completely different. And you know what? Late February, I think that was the last day of February, President Trump was pursuing a policy which, at least for several weeks, was not based upon the realistic recognition of what Putin was trying to do. And he kind of assumed that the glad words he was hearing from Putin over the phone reflected a desire to make peace as opposed to a desire to keep Trump on the sidelines as Putin tried to take over Ukraine. And if you go back and look, starting in the middle of March, so two and a half weeks after that unfortunate meeting, the Russians began their first refusals to various Trump ceasefire proposals, which Ukraine accepted. And we began to see Trump express frustration with the Russians, starting in May, and that frustration grew since May. Sam Hawley: Well, during this meeting, just to note that Zelenskyy had abandoned his military outfit, of course, which he's worn in solidarity with the soldiers in Ukraine. Reporter: You look fabulous in that suit. Donald Trump, US President: I said the same thing. Reporter: Yeah, you look good. Donald Trump, US President: I said the same thing. Reporter: Yeah, it's good on you. John Herbst: If you look at his outfit, it is a suit, but it looks very similar to the attire before. Sam Hawley: It's still black. John Herbst: So I'd consider that to be an interesting compromise. Sam Hawley: Yeah, but Trump would have liked that, wouldn't he? That he was wearing a suit this time. He likes the optics. John Herbst: But look, look, that was always a tertiary, if even a tertiary issue. Sam Hawley: Yeah, of course. John Herbst: It reflected Trump's desire to put pressure on Zelenskyy and nothing more. Sam Hawley: All right, well, apparently this is a really interesting part of this meeting. Trump got up and he went out and he called Vladimir Putin to discuss, in part, a meeting with Zelenskyy and Putin and then another meeting, a trilateral meeting, where Trump would also be President Zelenskyy was actually asked about this during a press conference afterwards. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President: We will see that the result of bilateral and then it can be the trilateral. So I said always so Ukraine will never stop on the way to peace. Sam Hawley: What do you think of that? Those meetings, are they actually a viable thing? Will they happen? John Herbst: Well, they are a sensible next step or next steps. But I agree with you, it's not clear that Putin will actually do this. He's been avoiding or evading Zelenskyy literally once he decided six or 12 months in Zelenskyy's term as president, that Zelenskyy was not going to submit to Putin's desires in Ukraine. Sam Hawley: So you think it's unlikely that Putin will show up? John Herbst: Well, I'm not going to say unlikely. I would say it's not certain that he will show up. That's a safe thing to say. You know, I put the odds at something less than 50 percent, but not at two percent. Sam Hawley: All right, well, a must, of course, for Zelenskyy going into this meeting and the European leaders was security guarantees that America would come to Ukraine's defence if Russia agreed to a peace deal, but later attacked Ukraine again. John Herbst: Well, point of fact, I would say that was easily the most important thing we've seen over the past 24 hours. And it was it was actually, you might say, anticipated by Trump's statement on the plane to Alaska that, you know, security guarantees may be something that's necessary. First time we've heard anything like that from President Trump. And then, you know, a more forward leaning position today. Donald Trump, US President: There'll be a lot of there'll be a lot of help when it comes to security. There's going to be a lot of help. It's going to be good. They are first line of defence because they're there, they're Europe, But we're going to help them out also. We'll be involved. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President:: It is important that the United States makes a clear signal that they will be among the countries that will help to coordinate and also will participate in security guarantees for Ukraine. I believe this is a big step forward. John Herbst: So that to me is a great positive. But of course, the Russians had regularly rejected the notion that European troops would appear in Ukraine. They rejected that again today. You know, that was a clear, important element that was and remains a clear, important element in security for Ukraine. Sam Hawley: In fact, the head of NATO, Mark Rutte, he told Fox News after the meeting that troops on the ground weren't even discussed. Reporter: Troops on the ground. Is that a possibility? Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General: We have not discussed that at all today. So that will be part of the discussions which will now start. We will try to bring them to a next stage of understanding over the coming days and weeks, of course. I'm not sure that we can solve all the details. Sam Hawley: Is that surprising? John Herbst: That is surprising. I'm not certain what to make of it, but it's conceivable they could have talked about about this without actually getting into that detail. Sam Hawley: And the so-called coalition of the willing, that includes the UK and France and others, they're suggesting that they could deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a security guarantee. That really angers Putin, doesn't it? The idea of Western foreign troops on the ground in Ukraine. John Herbst: That's correct, because Putin's aim remains to take effective political control of the country, which means either changing the government or seizing 70 percent or 80 percent of the country, including all the cities alone, the Dnipro River, including the Black Sea coast and leaving a rump Ukraine in the West. Sam Hawley: So what is the security guarantee for Ukraine if it doesn't involve troops? What would we be looking at? John Herbst: Well, that's that's hard to imagine. I mean, there are things that could be done, making sure that that the air is controlled by Western forces with Ukraine were able to shoot at Russian troops on the ground if they go beyond certain points, but that nothing can substitute ultimately for having some force on the ground. Sam Hawley: Well, of course, Putin has long been opposed to Ukraine joining NATO. I mean, they've been discussing Article five, you know, NATO's treaty, Article five. What does that all mean? Just explain that. John Herbst: Well, I mean, Article five is the portion of the NATO charter, which says if one country is attacked, all countries will play a role in its defence. So an Article five is the reason why everyone wants to join NATO. So if you provide if you truly provide Article five type guarantees to Ukraine, that is a huge deterrence to further Russian aggression. And that is the ne plus ultra of security guarantees. That's why I say this is that's clearly the most important elements that's emerged over the past day or so. Sam Hawley: Well, on the ground in Ukraine, John, it seems locals and officials are pretty sceptical about these talks. What have you been hearing? What have people been telling you, people you know in Ukraine? John Herbst: I know that many Ukrainians were deeply concerned after the summit in Anchorage. I believe that they are encouraged by what happened between Zelenskyy and Trump with all the other European leaders. But encouraged is not the same as saying confident, because we've seen before President Trump move from one direction to another and sometimes relatively quickly. So the question is, are the good things that were spoken today an indication of where the process and President Trump will be a week or two weeks from now? So that that remains a question. Sam Hawley: But what does it say that just before the meeting began, Russia was attacking major Ukrainian cities, killing at least 10 people, including a child? John Herbst: Well, it means that their effort to bomb Ukraine into submission continues. And I think that's the reason to be concerned about President Trump allowing Putin to cross his deadline without consequences. Sam Hawley: All right. What about those people, John, living in the regions that Putin wants to hold in Ukraine? What happens to them if he succeeds in this? John Herbst: There's no question that that's a disaster for them. And that's why Trump's goal, in my opinion, is to achieve a durable peace. And I think that's a good enough outcome. But it includes the tragic element that you are consigning Ukrainians to live under dreadful Russian oppression. That's why I would not call it a just peace, but a durable peace. You know, international relations can be pretty rough. Sometimes people accept a durable peace as opposed to a just peace, because that's the best that they can achieve. Sam Hawley: So do you think this peace can actually be achieved? Zelenskyy wants a ceasefire. So negotiations before a peace deal. Putin doesn't want that. He wants to skip a ceasefire and just come up with the plan where Ukraine gives up land to Russia. And Zelenskyy has always said he's not going to do that. So where's the peace deal here? John Herbst: Well, Zelenskyy has often, I won't say always, but often going back to even before Trump took office, after he won the election, he has often demonstrated a willingness to make territorial concessions on a de facto basis in exchange for security guarantees. And this has always been kind of not the specific security guarantees, but security measures plus territorial compromise has always been the Trump approach, always meaning for the last eight or nine months going back before our elections. So everything we're hearing today has actually been discussed in some fashion in the past. But the key, in my opinion, has been even Trump's goal of a durable peace is in doubt because Putin doesn't want a durable peace. Putin wants control of Ukraine. So that means we ultimately have to put serious pressure on the Kremlin to demonstrate they're not going to get ultimate control of Ukraine. Sam Hawley: All right, well, John, we know Donald Trump wants to end the war. He likely does, of course, want to see the end to all the bloodshed, but he also wants a Nobel Peace Prize, right? Do you think he can achieve this aim to end this war? John Herbst: If he uses all the powers at his control, he can achieve a durable peace by making life miserable for an aggressive Kremlin. In other words, if he begins to put the serious pressure on Putin he's talked about, you know, major, major advanced weapons heading to Ukraine, paid for by someone else, not us, tougher economic sanctions on Russia and its trading partners, Putin would be in serious trouble. Now, these things would not bring the result we need in two months or four months. Putin has wagered successfully so far on outlasting all the Western leaders who've opposed his war on Ukraine going back 11 years. So Trump would have to demonstrate a willingness to persevere, certainly for seven or eight months, maybe for well over a year. But the cost to us of doing that is tiny. The cost to the Russians is enormous. Sam Hawley: All right. And what about the people of Ukraine, John? You know them. Do you think they should have some hope now? John Herbst: I think that they should not give up hope. I think that if Trump truly wants a durable peace, and I think he does, and if he truly wants a Nobel Peace Prize, and I think he does, he will have to move in this direction. It's coming much more slowly than I would like, but it may well come. Now, notice I'm even here a little bit tentative, but I think ultimately the different factors at play will move him in that direction. Sam Hawley: John Herbst is a former US ambassador to Ukraine and senior director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Telstra warns of new wave of scams on encrypted messaging apps
Popular encrypted messaging platforms are becoming a safe haven for scammers looking to bypass scam blocking technology, Australia's largest telco has warned. Telstra has cautioned its customers against flocking to encrypted messaging platforms, flagging users may be more vulnerable to scam messages and calls. While the security of end-to-end encryption means messages can only be accessed by the sender and receiver, limited visibility for telecommunication providers means their scam blocking technologies cannot scan or filter suspicious activity. Telstra's Cyber expert Darren Pauli said while encryption was a 'wonderful thing', the nature of these platforms make it tough for Telco's to monitor for potential scams. '(Encryption) protects banking, it protects everything. And it doesn't care about what the contents are that it's protecting. It just works,' he told NewsWire. 'I think more broadly that wherever the scams are happening, that platform should really genuinely put effort in and money in to really try to crush this. 'It's one of those things that you have to do for the broader security of the internet.' The telecommunications provider has also flagged an uptick in sophisticated recruitment lure scams, offering fake job opportunities that seem legitimate, and a rise in AI-enhanced scams and deepfakes. In the 12 months to June, Telstra was forced to block more than 18 million scam calls a month, almost double the number from the previous year. It also intercepted an average of more than 8 million scam text messages a month, and observed a 13 per cent year-on-year increase in reports of suspicious contacts. 'These fake job offers and recruitment scams are particularly nasty … they're targeting people who are vulnerable,' Mr Pauli said. 'They might be looking for work or whatever, and they will come out with offers of work from home, with good remuneration, and a quick interview process … So these are really quite lucrative and enticing offers. 'The tragedy really is that these scams are all about harvesting personal information (which) they then use for identity theft and sell it on the dark market.' Despite the increasingly sophisticated methods used by scammers, the National Anti-Scam Centre's Targeting report recorded a 25 per cent drop in losses between 2023 and 2024. Telstra's 'Cleaner Pipes' cyber initiative comes amid a massive advocacy push across the telecommunications and banking industry, spreading awareness to the harms of scams. 'I'm genuinely impressed with what the industry as a whole has done. It's remarkable stuff,' Mr Pauli said. 'They are frustrating scammers who are trying to hammer out texts or phone calls and it's not working and it costs (the scammers) money. 'If they weren't such terrible people I'd almost have some sympathy for them.'
