Blog

  • MIL-OSI USA: Brownley, Casten Introduce Legislation to Inform Consumers with Carbon Footprint Labels for Food Products

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Julia Brownley (D-CA)

  • MIL-OSI USA: In Bipartisan Push, Maryland, Virginia Lawmakers Call on President to Address Venezuelan Crab Imports

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (2nd District of Maryland)

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen, Ben Cardin (both D-Md.), Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine (both D-Va.) along with U.S. Representatives Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), John Sarbanes (D-Md.), Rob Wittman (R-Va.), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), David Trone (D-Md.), and Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) wrote to President Joe Biden outlining their concerns with the recent surge of crabmeat imports from Venezuela and its impact on the Chesapeake Bay region’s seafood economy as well as public health. In their letter, the lawmakers urge the President to launch an investigation through the International Trade Commission into the harm that these imports pose to our domestic seafood industry, and press the Administration to encourage a fairer seafood trade relationship. 

     “We write to express our significant concerns with the influx of crabmeat from Venezuela, which has threatened the viability of local fisheries across the Chesapeake Bay. Domestic seafood producers in Maryland and Virginia have experienced significant strain due to the influx of imported Venezuelan crabmeat, some of which is mislabeled and contaminated. In 2018, Venezuelan crabmeat mislabeled as originating from Maryland caused an outbreak of foodborne illnesses, resulting in multiple hospitalizations,” the lawmakers began.

    Highlighting the economic damage caused by Venezuelan imports, they wrote, “Since then, the supply of imported crabmeat has increased, threatening the future livelihood of domestic industry and creating the conditions for a 62 percent decrease in the domestic supply. This has harmed crab fishing industries throughout the Chesapeake Bay, which produces 50 percent of the United States’ total blue crab harvest, a proportion that is now diminishing year over year. There are now fewer than 20 Maryland crab picking and seafood processing companies, down from 53 in 1995.”

    They go on to urge the President to:

    1. Direct the United States International Trade Commission to conduct an investigation, per Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, looking into the harm caused by Venezuelan crabmeat imports and recommending remedies.
    2. Use the full array of informal actions available to you to address this trade issue, including through negotiations, utilization of World Trade Organization Committees, bilateral dialogues, and other activities.

    The full text of the letter is available here and below. 

    Dear President Biden: 

    We write to express our significant concerns with the influx of crabmeat from Venezuela, which has threatened the viability of local fisheries across the Chesapeake Bay. Domestic seafood producers in Maryland and Virginia have experienced significant strain due to the influx of imported Venezuelan crabmeat, some of which is mislabeled and contaminated. In 2018, Venezuelan crabmeat mislabeled as originating from Maryland caused an outbreak of foodborne illnesses, resulting in multiple hospitalizations. Since then, the supply of imported crabmeat has increased, threatening the future livelihood of domestic industry and creating the conditions for a 62 percent decrease in the domestic supply. This has harmed crab fishing industries throughout the Chesapeake Bay, which produces 50 percent of the United States’ total blue crab harvest, a proportion that is now diminishing year over year. There are now fewer than 20 Maryland crab picking and seafood processing companies, down from 53 in 1995. 

    Chesapeake Bay crab fisheries and processors follow a strict set of regulations to ensure that the Bay remains one of the most sustainable crab fisheries in the world, that the blue crabs harvested there are of the highest quality, and that the industry does no harm to other species. Foreign competitors often confront little or no such regulation. Not only does this imbalance put local fisheries and seafood businesses at a steep disadvantage, it can also put consumers at increased risk. Consumers are often misled about what they are eating, and sometimes even made sick, as was the case when imported Venezuelan crabmeat was linked with multiple cases of Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections. 

    We urge your Administration to use all of the tools at its disposal to remedy this unsustainable situation. Specifically, we urge you to: 

    1. Direct the United States International Trade Commission to conduct an investigation, per Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, looking into the harm caused by Venezuelan crabmeat imports and recommending remedies.
    2. Use the full array of informal actions available to you to address this trade issue, including through negotiations, utilization of World Trade Organization Committees, bilateral dialogues, and other activities.  

    The Chesapeake Bay crab industry has faced numerous challenges, and the region has worked hard to preserve the blue crab population over the years. This industry carries unique cultural importance for the broader Mid-Atlantic region, enriching and enhancing the regional culinary landscape. Without the federal government stepping in to protect American manufacturers from unfair competition, they might not make it through this crisis. If they do not, Maryland, Virginia, and the country, will be all the poorer for it. 

    Sincerely,

     ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Media Advisory: Rep. Díaz-Balart to Honor Brave First Responders in Ave Maria

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (25th District of FLORIDA)

    Ave Maria, FL – Tomorrow, Thursday, October 24, Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart (FL-26) will be in Ave Maria and is pleased to invite members of the media to a special event honoring the courageous and selfless efforts of the Collier County Sheriff’s Office, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Collier County Emergency Medical Services in keeping our community safe. The event will recognize the heroic actions of all the brave first responders who saved Manuel Milanés Pizonero, an outstanding resident of Ave Maria, Florida, and brought to justice the suspect who threatened to kill a mother and her four children.

    Event Details:

    WHO:

    Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart (FL-26)

    Sheriff Kevin Rambosk, Collier County

    Fire Chief Michael J. Choate, Immokalee Fire Control District

    Division Chief Tony Camps, Collier County Emergency Medical Services

    First responders from the Collier County Sheriff’s Office

    First responders from the Immokalee Fire Control District

    WHEN:

    Thursday, October 24, 2024

    3:30 p.m. ET

    WHERE:

    Immokalee Fire Control District

    5368 Useppa Drive

    Ave Maria, FL 34142

    All interested credentialed media must RSVP to Andrea.Morales@mail.house.go

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speeding up flood protection works in Māngere

    Source: New Zealand Government

    An Order in Council to speed up flood mitigation works for hundreds of at-risk properties in Mangere, Auckland, has been approved, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds and Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery Mark Mitchell say.

    “The Auckland Anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle in early 2023 had a devastating impact on many communities and thousands of people across Auckland,” Ms Simmonds says.

    “Te Ararata and Harania in Māngere were among the hardest-hit areas, with 376 properties at risk of flooding again.”

    To address vulnerabilities, Auckland Council proposes to undertake flood protection works in these areas. 

    “The works aim to reduce the flood risk to life and property and increase the resilience of infrastructure for the wider community,” Mr Mitchell says. 

    The construction of these types of works usually requires complex resource consents. 

    “Typically, the process for granting these consents would take a year or longer, but the Order in Council will speed up the process, allowing works to start this summer,” Ms Simmonds says.  

    Orders in Council under the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Act 2023 allow the Government to make temporary law changes to help communities continue their recovery from the severe weather events of early 2023.

    The temporary law change has been developed in response to a request from Auckland Council, following a community consultation exercise. 

    “Ministry for the Environment (MfE) officials have worked closely with Auckland Council staff to deliver on the Government’s commitment to a recovery that is locally led with central support,” Ms Simmonds says.

    The Order in Council will be effective from late October and will expire on 

    31 March 2028, with a 12-month review planned to assess its ongoing suitability for the project timeline.

    Notes to editors:

    Read further information: Orders in Council | Ministry for the Environment

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Some reports published in media mentioning shortage of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) to affect prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Some reports published in media mentioning shortage of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) to affect prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position

    Subsidy on DAP has not been reduced at all; MRP of DAP has been maintained at Rs. 1350/- per 50 Kg bag since Covid times

    For Rabi season, the increase in subsidy has been effected by two Cabinet decisions

    Total budgetary allocation increased to Rs.24,475 crores for Rabi 2024-25

    Posted On: 23 OCT 2024 8:46PM by PIB Delhi

    Some reports published in the media recently claiming shortage of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) across the country and its resultant effect on prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position.

    It is clarified that the MRP of DAP has been maintained at Rs. 1350/- per 50 Kg bag since Covid times.

    Further, the subsidy on DAP has not been reduced at all. Instead, for the benefit of farmers, via two Cabinet decisions, an increase in subsidy has been effected for Rabi 2024.

    Firstly, Rs. 3500/- per MT as a special package costing Rs. 2625 crores has been provided to make the price sustainable for companies for procurement of DAP so that the procurement capacity at company level remains unaffected by the price volatility.

    Secondly, the overall increase in prices in the international market has been taken care of by another Cabinet decision by which subsidy has been linked to the market prices. Thus, if the procurement price of P&K fertilizer, including DAP, increases in the global market, the procurement capacities of the companies are not affected. Therefore, farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries.

    In addition to this, the total budgetary allocation for Rabi 2024-2025 has been increased to Rs. 24,475 crores.

    It may be noted that the availability of DAP has been affected somewhat by several geo-political factors including the long route taken by the vessels through Cape of Good Hope instead of Red sea. However, intensive efforts have been made by the Department of Fertilizers to augment the availability substantially during Sept–Nov, 2024.

    *****

    MV/AKS

    (Release ID: 2067500) Visitor Counter : 210

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Union Minister Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh set to launch Pandemic Fund Project and 21st Livestock Census Operation on 25th October 2024

    Source: Government of India

    Union Minister Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh set to launch Pandemic Fund Project and 21st Livestock Census Operation on 25th October 2024

    One Health approach: $25 Million Pandemic Fund focuses on animal health security

    Historic 21st Livestock Census to Capture Data on Pastoralist Holdings and Gender Roles in Livestock Rearing

    Posted On: 23 OCT 2024 9:26PM by PIB Delhi

    The Union Minister of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lalan Singh will launch two pivotal initiatives aimed at strengthening the animal health infrastructure in India: the Pandemic Fund Project on “Animal Health Security Strengthening in India for Pandemic Preparedness and Response” and the 21st Livestock Census operation. The launch will take place on 25th October 2024 at 10:00 AM at Hotel Leela Ambience Convention, Shahdara, New Delhi.

    The event will also be graced by the Ministers of State for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Shri Prof. S.P. Singh Baghel and Shri George Kurian serving as Guests of Honour. The event will also see the participation of distinguished guests including Shri Amitabh Kant, G20 Sherpa; Prof. Dr. V K Paul, Member Health, NITI Aayog; Ms. Alka Upadhyaya, Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying; and Mr. Punya Salila Srivastava, Secretary, Health & Family Welfare.

    Pandemic Fund Project

    The Pandemic Fund, established under Indonesia’s G20 Presidency, aims to finance critical investments that strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR) capacities, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. India’s $25 million proposal, approved under the Fund’s first call, focuses on animal health security—a crucial component of pandemic preparedness.

    This event will highlight the importance of integrating a One Health approach into pandemic response efforts. Five of the six recent public health emergencies declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) have had their origins in animals, further emphasizing that strengthening animal health security is key to reducing zoonotic risks and safeguarding both human and animal populations from future pandemics.

    The “Animal Health Security Strengthening in India for Pandemic Preparedness and Response” project is designed to reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases that can potentially spread from animals (both domestic and wildlife) to humans. With pandemic threats looming, this project will play a pivotal role in fortifying India’s animal health infrastructure, ensuring the nation is better prepared for future health crises. The project will be implemented in collaboration with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as the lead implementing entity, with support from The World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The launch of the Animal Health Security Strengthening in India project under the Pandemic Fund marks a significant step in India’s commitment to One Health and pandemic preparedness.

    21st Livestock Census Operation

    The Livestock Census (LC) is a crucial exercise that has been conducted every five years since 1919, serving as the backbone for policy formulation and the implementation of various programmes in the Animal Husbandry sector. The Census involves a comprehensive door-to-door survey that captures detailed data on domesticated animals and birds across the nation. Till date 20 Livestock censuses had been conducted and the last census was held in the year 2019.

    The rollout of 21st Livestock Census, scheduled to be conducted during September-December, 2024, will be in collaboration with State/UT Animal Husbandry and Dairying. At all India level around 1 lakh field officials who are mostly veterinarians or para-veterinarians will be involved in the enumeration process. This LC will leverage mobile technology for data collection and transmission. This advancement is expected to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of data collection across all villages and urban wards in the country.

    Data on 15 species of Livestock viz. Cattle, Buffalo, Mithun, Yak, Sheep, Goat, Pig, Camel, Horse, Ponies, Mule, Donkey, Dog, Rabbit and Elephant are covered in this census. Other than Livestock, headcount of Poultry Birds viz. Fowl, Duck, Turkey, Geese, Quail, Gini Fowl, Ostrich and Emu will also be taken from each Household/ Household Enterprises/ Non-households/Institution. This LC will capture data on 219 Indigenous breeds of 16 species recognised by ICAR-National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources (NBAGR). Notably, this will be the first census to independently capture data on livestock holdings by pastoralists and to include information on the gender of individuals primarily involved in livestock rearing.

    In addition, the event will also feature the release of important documents aimed at strengthening animal health management in India:

    1. Standard Veterinary Treatment Guidelines: A comprehensive document that outlines best practices for veterinary care, aimed at improving the overall health and productivity of livestock.
    2. Crisis Management Plan for Animal Diseases: A critical resource that provides a framework for managing and responding to outbreaks of animal diseases, ensuring rapid containment and mitigation.

    These documents will serve as vital tools for veterinarians, policymakers, and field officials, helping to ensure timely and effective responses to animal health crises and improving disease management protocols.

    The Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying invites all stakeholders to participate in the launch of the Pandemic Fund Project and the 21st Livestock Census Operation, both of which play an essential role in enhancing India’s preparedness against health crises and in fortifying animal health security.

    ***

    AA

    (Release ID: 2067511) Visitor Counter : 49

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Netherlands Ambassador H.E. Marisa Gerards calls on Secretary Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Posted On: 23 OCT 2024 8:51PM by PIB Delhi

    Today, H.E. Marisa Gerards, Ambassador of the Netherlands to India, paid a courtesy call to Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare, at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. The meeting provided a valuable opportunity to discuss ongoing collaborations and explore potential areas of cooperation in the agriculture and allied sectors between the two countries.

    Ambassador Gerards highlighted the robust partnership between the Netherlands and India, underpinned by a Memorandum of Understanding that has been in place for over 40 years in the agriculture sector. She expressed a strong commitment to further enhancing cooperation, particularly in horticulture, and underscored the potential for both countries to learn from each other’s expertise.

    Dr. Chaturvedi emphasized the longstanding and amicable relations between India and the Netherlands, noting the significant opportunities for collaboration in sectors of mutual interest, such as horticulture, animal husbandry, capacity building and technology transfer.

    He informed that India and the Netherlands have successfully identified 24 Centers of Excellence (CoEs), with 9 of these approved for funding under the Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH), receiving valuable technical support from their Dutch counterparts. Of these, 7 CoEs have been completed and have commenced commercial production, supplying high-quality planting material to farmers across India. To date, over 25,000 farmers have received training at these centers. Both parties recognized the significance of further strengthening their ongoing cooperation in this vital area.

    Additional Secretary Shri Pramod Kumar Meherda proposed a collaborative effort to develop farm machinery tailored to the needs of India, reflecting the shared vision for advancing agricultural innovation.

    The meeting was also attended by representatives from the Ministry of External Affairs and senior officials of Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare.

    ***

    SS

    (Release ID: 2067502) Visitor Counter : 53

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: UPDATE: Fatal crash at Meadows

    Source: South Australia Police

    A woman has died following a crash at Meadows yesterday.

    Just after 3.30 pm, Wednesday 23 October, emergency services were called to Dashwood Gully Road after reports of a crash between a Suzuki sedan and Hyundai sedan.

    The 76-year-old driver of the Suzuki was taken to hospital for treatment of life-threatening injuries but sadly, she died yesterday (Wednesday 23 October).

    The 68-year-old driver of the Hyundai was taken to hospital with minor injuries.

    Dashwood Gully Road was closed between Brookman Road and Ellis Road for a period of time however has since re-opened.

    Major Crash Investigators attended the scene to investigate the circumstances surrounding the crash.

    The woman’s death is the 70th life lost on SA roads.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI: Greenway Technologies Announces Gas to Hydrogen System H-Reformer®

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ARLINGTON, Texas, Oct. 23, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Greenway Technologies, Inc. (OTC: GWTI), (“Greenway”), is an advanced gas-to-liquids (“GTL”) and gas-to-hydrogen (“GTH”) technology development company. Greenway has developed and marketed a patented system, the G-Reformer®, that converts natural gas (methane) from various sources to a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (syngas). Continued ongoing research has developed a new version of the G-Reformer®, named the “H-Reformer®,” which converts natural gas to hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The H-Reformer® system is modular and small enough to be deployed in areas close to consumption, eliminating the cost of compressing and transporting the resultant hydrogen while separating and removing created carbon dioxide.

    Two significant changes have been made to the original G-Reformer® to make a reforming system focused on hydrogen creation rather than syngas creation. First, enhancements to the controlling software have modified the G-Reformer® to convert approximately 50% of the created carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide while also producing additional hydrogen. The H-Reformer® also includes an extension to the reforming vessel used in the G-Reformer®. This module will house the physical components needed to convert the remaining carbon monoxide to hydrogen and carbon dioxide within the reforming unit. The result is the generation of considerably more hydrogen per unit of natural gas input than the original G-Reformer® produces and high conversion of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is externally separated from resultant hydrogen by commercially available processes, yielding highly pure hydrogen and liquid carbon dioxide, which will be removed, sold, or sequestered. This new reforming system is named the H-Reformer®.

    Created hydrogen will be available for use at the point of manufacture. Hydrogen compression or liquefaction costs are also eliminated for applications that do not need compressed hydrogen (e.g., electrical power generation). In cases where compressed hydrogen is required, the hydrogen can undergo the compression process at the consumption site while eliminating hydrogen transportation.

    Unlike other natural gas-to-hydrogen technologies, the Greenway reforming process does not require external heating sources, resulting in a highly efficient and lower carbon-generating process. When pipeline-quality fossil natural gas is the input, the system will make “blue hydrogen.” When renewable pipeline-quality methane is the input, the system will make “green hydrogen.” These distinctions are important for associated clean air credits, which depend on the input natural gas source and the resultant carbon’s disposition.

    The Greenway system is modular and can be scaled by adding additional H-Reformer® modules. The system produces hydrogen at an extremely low cost per unit compared to other technologies.

    Currently, Greenway is in discussions with several prospective parties interested in creating hydrogen for various potential uses.

    Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

    This news release contains “forward-looking statements,” as that term is defined in Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Statements in this news release which are not purely historical are forward-looking statements and include any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such forward-looking statements include, among other things, the ongoing effects of the pandemic on delays and orders regarding Greenway’s proprietary gas-to-liquids system, potential business developments and future interest in our clean fuel technologies.

    Actual results could differ from those projected in any forward-looking statements due to numerous factors. Such factors include, among others, general economic and political conditions, the continuation of the JV withThe University of Texas at Arlington, and the ongoing impact of the pandemic. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release, and we assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the beliefs, plans, expectations and intentions contained in this news release are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions will prove to be accurate. Investors should consult all the information set forth herein and should also refer to the risk factors disclosure outlined in our annual report on Form 10-K for the most recent fiscal year, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other periodic reports filed from time-to-time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    CONTACT:
    Robert Kevin Jones
    Greenway Technologies, Inc.
    kevin.jones@gwtechinc.com

    For more information, visit GWTI’s website: www.gwtechinc.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Video: Special Agent Describes Work in New Mexico for Operation Not Forgotten

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (video statements)

    Special Agent Hailey Evans describes her 30-day deployment to New Mexico in support of Operation Not Forgotten, a four-month surge of FBI resources to Indian country to help investigate crimes against Tribal women and children.

    Learn more at: www.fbi.gov/news/stories/operation-not-forgotten-shines-new-light-on-indian-country-cases

    —————————————————
    Subscribe to Inside the FBI wherever you get your podcasts:
    Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4H2d3cg…
    Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast…
    Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0…
    More ways to follow us: https://inside-the-fbi.transistor.fm/…

    Follow us on social media:
    X: https://twitter.com/fbi
    Facebook: https://facebook.com/FBI
    Instagram: https://instagram.com/fbi
    YouTube: youtube.com/fbi

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_LKiBTDkGQ

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Video: Special Agent Describes Work in North Dakota for Operation Not Forgotten

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (video statements)

    Special Agent Amanda Risner describes her 30-day deployment to North Dakota in support of Operation Not Forgotten, a four-month surge of FBI resources to Indian country to help investigate crimes against Tribal women and children.

    Learn more at: www.fbi.gov/news/stories/operation-not-forgotten-shines-new-light-on-indian-country-cases

    —————————————————
    Subscribe to Inside the FBI wherever you get your podcasts:
    Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4H2d3cg…
    Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast…
    Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0…
    More ways to follow us: https://inside-the-fbi.transistor.fm/…

    Follow us on social media:
    X: https://twitter.com/fbi
    Facebook: https://facebook.com/FBI
    Instagram: https://instagram.com/fbi
    YouTube: youtube.com/user/fbi

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7EZ6mfbEUc

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Video: ‘A Big Asset to Have Tribal PD and BIA With Us’

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (video statements)

    Sam Davenport, a special agent in the Pinetop-Lakeside office of the FBI’s Phoenix Division, describes how important it is for the Bureau to have support on American Indian reservations from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and tribal police departments.
    —————————————————
    Subscribe to Inside the FBI wherever you get your podcasts:
    Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4H2d3cg…
    Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast…
    Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0…
    More ways to follow us: https://inside-the-fbi.transistor.fm/…

    Follow us on social media:
    X: https://twitter.com/fbi
    Facebook: https://facebook.com/FBI
    Instagram: https://instagram.com/fbi
    YouTube: youtube.com/fbi

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKhef29ZDyY

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Threats to media freedom in Poland: concerns over PiS Party plans for TVN and Hungarian involvement – E-002081/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    15.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002081/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Łukasz Kohut (PPE), Krzysztof Brejza (PPE)

    Media reports indicate that the Law and Justice (PiS) Party intends to take control of the private broadcaster TVN in Poland. According to information disseminated by the media, this action may involve Hungarian entrepreneurs associated with Orbán’s regime, and it is suggested that this plan could be carried out by former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.

    TVN plays a crucial role in Polish public discourse. It is essential to emphasise that the impartiality of this media outlet has led to several persistent attempts by PiS to undermine it, including the drafting of the ‘Lex TVN’ law and the deliberate withholding of its broadcasting licence.

    In the light of the fact that media freedom and pluralism are enshrined in Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, is the Commission monitoring the situation regarding media freedom? Will it respond promptly and employ all available tools to prevent violations of media freedom by Orbán’s regime?

    Submitted: 15.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Funding instruments needed to resolve the demographic crisis – E-002124/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    16.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002124/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Fredis Beleris (PPE)

    In the conclusions adopted by the European Council in June 2023, the Commission was invited to present a toolbox to support Member States in addressing demographic challenges and their impact on Europe’s competitive edge.

    Its philosophy is based on supporting parents through better paid work, ensuring access to high-quality childcare services, access to the labour market and to affordable housing.

    Unfortunately, without the required financial support, these targets cannot reverse the decline in Europe’s population (since 2015, more deaths than births have been registered on our continent). The cohesion policy and the Recovery and Resilience Facility must incorporate the demographic crisis into their priorities, with clear targeting, and must adopt policies based on long-term strategic planning.

    We need to protect our European regions by boosting their infrastructure and incentivising business activity there.

    In view of this:

    • 1.Does the Commission intend to create a special funding strand targeted at the demographic problem?
    • 2.Does it intend to use the above-mentioned resources to boost the European Regional Development Fund and the Recovery and Resilience Facility for initiatives linked to demographics?
    • 3.Does it intend to implement specific de-urbanisation measures and at the same time to focus on regional development through the creation and modernisation of infrastructure?

    Submitted: 16.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Return and readmission cooperation with the Palestinian Authority – E-002107/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    16.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002107/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Marieke Ehlers (PfE), Sebastiaan Stöteler (PfE)

    The Commission notes in its assessment of third countries’ level of cooperation on readmission in 2023 (COM(2024)0340) that the Palestinian Authority (PA) was excluded from the assessment as it was ‘not possible to establish effective operational contacts due to the conditions on the ground’.

    The EU is the biggest provider of external assistance to the Palestinians, amounting to almost EUR 1.2 billion for 2021-2024, of which over EUR 890 million has been paid out. Around EUR 85 million is paid annually to cover the salaries and pensions of PA employees. By August 2024, EUR 65 million had been paid out.

    • 1.How is it possible that the Commission is unable to establish effective operational contacts with the PA, while the EU and Member States are its biggest funders?
    • 2.With regard to Samidoun’s Europe Coordinator, Mohammed Khatib, the Belgian Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration noted in April 2024 that even if someone enjoys refugee status, that status can be revoked if they turn out to be an extremist. Numerous migrants have been responsible for spreading antisemitism, extremism and violence, particularly during anti-Israel protests. Will the Commission cooperate with Member States to support the return of extremists staying illegally in Europe and the revocation of their refugee protection?

    Submitted: 16.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Potential loss of a historic site in Oviedo: European funding for soil decontamination at the old gas and electricity factory – E-002113/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    16.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002113/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Estrella Galán (The Left)

    Just as the platform Fábrica de Gas e Ideas and the municipal group IU-Convocatoria por Oviedo have warned, the planned renovation works at the old gas and electricity factory in Oviedo — including its demolition and decontamination — could lead to the loss of a historic site and of the opportunity to restore it. The entire premises would then be handed over to public use, as Rome, Athens and Glasgow have already done.

    In the urban speculation project that threatens the conservation and restoration of this site, which holds irrefutable cultural value, a schedule of works is to be carried out by the private company Ginkgo Advisor to decontaminate the soil and water.

    Given that this decontamination must be done in full compliance with the relevant EU legislation and that the demolition, besides entailing an enormous loss of cultural heritage, could result in health repercussions:

    • 1.Has the European Commission been informed of the planned renovation of the old factory?
    • 2.Could the Commission clarify if it has granted European funds for any part of the special plan to renovate the interior of the gas factory in Oviedo?
    • 3.Is the Commission aware that the company Ginkgo Advisor is receiving European funds to decontaminate the site at issue?

    Submitted: 16.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Ensuring accurate nutritional labelling and sustainable production of plant-based products in the EU – E-002114/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    16.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002114/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Biljana Borzan (S&D)

    With the growing demand for plant-based products and meat alternatives, driven by their perceived health benefits and lower environmental impact, as well as the need for alternative protein sources, the nutritional profile of these products is becoming increasingly important. However, concerns remain regarding their high levels of sodium and saturated fat.

    • 1.How does the Commission plan to ensure accurate labelling of the nutritional profile of plant-based products, particularly in order to address these concerns?
    • 2.Does the Commission intend to introduce mandatory nutritional labelling across all the Member States? If so, how will it respond to opposition from countries reluctant to adopt such measures?
    • 3.How will the Commission align the production of plant-based products with the EU’s sustainability goals, especially concerning the use of ingredients such as palm oil?

    Submitted: 16.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Regulating the destruction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – E-002122/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    16.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002122/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Christine Schneider (PPE)

    I am writing to request information regarding the Commission’s position on regulating the destruction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) within the EU. PFAS have been identified as a significant environmental and public health concern, and while there has been a focus on their removal from various environmental sources, the issue of their effective destruction remains critical. I would appreciate clarification on the following points:

    • 1.Is the Commission considering introducing EU-wide regulations on PFAS destruction with clear limits? If so, which specific industries and scenarios, such as their use in firefighting foams or presence in landfill leachate and waste water treatment, will be prioritised for regulation?
    • 2.Does the Commission plan to offer financial or other means of support for companies developing PFAS destruction technologies? Supporting these technologies is critical for addressing the PFAS challenge effectively.
    • 3.Would the Commission consider deploying PFAS destruction technologies as an alternative to a universal ban on PFAS? This would allow time for industries to transition, while ensuring effective destruction and preventing environmental contamination.

    Submitted: 16.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Statement by President von der Leyen at the joint press conference with Albanian Prime Minister Rama

    Source: European Commission

    European Commission Statement Tirana, 23 Oct 2024 Thank you so much Prime Minister, dear Edi,
    I am very happy to be back here in Tirana. And I am very glad to see how much Albania has already achieved on its wa…

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Bad weather provisions for free-range hens – P-002185/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    21.10.2024

    Priority question for written answer  P-002185/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Andreas Glück (Renew), Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew)

    On 17 August 2023, the Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2465 on EU marketing standards for eggs. Among other things, this regulation adapted the minimum requirements for systems of production for free range eggs (Article 11(3) with reference to Annex II). As a result, unlike many other EU Member States, the competent ministry in Baden-Württemberg has suspended the previously applicable ‘bad weather provisions’. These provisions made it possible to temporarily restrict hens’ access to the outdoors in the event of adverse weather conditions, in the interests of animal welfare. A failure to restrict hens in this way results in an increase in diseases among the animals, which often have to be treated with antibiotics. If farmers impose such restrictions now, the eggs may only be sold as barn eggs. In the interests of animal welfare, good professional practice and the internal market, it is important to clarify that bad weather provisions are still permissible throughout the EU.

    Does Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2465 continue to allow for bad weather provisions?

    Submitted: 21.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Disparities in workers’ payments covered under EU funds – E-002143/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    17.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002143/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Lynn Boylan (The Left)

    In Ireland, there are two employment paths for personal assistants and note takers who assist third-level students with disabilities. Those employed directly by Education and Training Boards are paid through SOLAS, the designated intermediate body for Ireland’s European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) programme for employment, inclusion, skills and training. Those employed by individual third-level institutions are paid through the Higher Education Authority’s Fund for Students with Disabilities, which is also financed under the ESF+.

    Personal assistants paid through SOLAS earn EUR 21 per hour. Those paid through the Fund for Students with Disabilities are paid EUR 14.50 per hour. Both funding streams come from the ESF+.

    • 1.Are there rules around the allocation of ESF+ funding that aim to guarantee equality of pay for the same work across different funding programmes?
    • 2.Has the Commission provided guidance to Ireland or other Member States about how to ensure equal pay across ESF+ funding programmes?

    Submitted: 17.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – EU support for patients suffering from long COVID – E-002142/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    17.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002142/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Lynn Boylan (The Left)

    In September 2024, Commissioner Stella Kyriakides identified long COVID as a major global public health challenge.

    • 1.What steps will the Commission take to promote research into long COVID care and treatments?
    • 2.Will the Commission provide guidance to Member States around support for patients of long COVID who may be excluded from the workforce?
    • 3.How will the Commission pay particular attention to the need for paediatric long COVID care for children and adolescents?

    Submitted: 17.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Azerbaijan, violation of human rights and international law and relations with Armenia – RC-B10-0133/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Rasa Juknevičienė, François‑Xavier Bellamy, Michael Gahler, Andrzej Halicki, David McAllister, Sebastião Bugalho, Nicolás Pascual De La Parte, Isabel Wiseler‑Lima, Daniel Caspary, Loucas Fourlas, Sandra Kalniete, Łukasz Kohut, Andrey Kovatchev, Andrius Kubilius, Miriam Lexmann, Vangelis Meimarakis, Ana Miguel Pedro, Davor Ivo Stier, Michał Szczerba
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Raphaël Glucksmann, Udo Bullmann, Matthias Ecke, Francisco Assis
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Emmanouil Fragkos, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Assita Kanko, Marion Maréchal, Aurelijus Veryga, Geadis Geadi, Rihards Kols, Bert‑Jan Ruissen, Charlie Weimers
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Nathalie Loiseau, Petras Auštrevičius, Helmut Brandstätter, Benoit Cassart, Olivier Chastel, Bernard Guetta, Karin Karlsbro, Ľubica Karvašová, Moritz Körner, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Marie‑Agnes Strack‑Zimmermann, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Sergey Lagodinsky
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    European Parliament resolution on the situation in Azerbaijan, violation of human rights and international law and relations with Armenia

    (2024/2890(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to its previous resolutions on Azerbaijan, Armenia and the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh,

     having regard to the relevant documents and international agreements, including but not limited to the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and the Alma-Ata Declaration of 21 December 1991,

     having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, ratified by Azerbaijan in 2002 and to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

     having regard to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,

     having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 22 April 1996 between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part[1],

     having regard to the statements by the European External Action Service spokesperson of 29 May 2024 on the human rights situation in Azerbaijan and of 3 September 2024 on early parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan,

     having regard to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 2527 (2024) of 24 January 2024 entitled ‘Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan’,

     having regard to the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of the Election Observation Mission to the Early Presidential Elections held on 7 February 2024 and to the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission to the Early Parliamentary Elections in Azerbaijan held on 1 September 2024,

     having regard to the report of 29 March 2023 by the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on Azerbaijan and to the memorandum of 21 October 2021 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on the humanitarian and human rights consequences following the 2020 outbreak of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh,

     having regard to the orders of the International Court of Justice of 22 February 2023, of 6 July 2023 and of 17 November 2023 on the request for the indication of provisional measures for the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v Azerbaijan),

     having regard to Rules 136(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

    A. whereas the choice of Azerbaijan’s capital Baku as the venue for the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), scheduled to take place from 11 to 22 November 2024, has sparked controversy, notably owing to Azerbaijan’s worsening human rights record, as well as recent and blatant violations of international law, including aggressive behaviour towards its neighbour Armenia; whereas respect for fundamental human rights and civil society participation are enshrined in the host country agreement through which the Azerbaijani Government committed to uphold these rights; whereas in the lead-up to this major international conference, the Azerbaijani authorities have intensified their repression of civil society organisations, activists, opposition politicians and the remaining independent media through detentions and judicial harassment; whereas corruption and a lack of judicial independence further undermine governance;

    B. whereas civil society organisations list over 300 political prisoners in Azerbaijan, including Gubad Ibadoghlu, Anar Mammadli, Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, Tofig Yagublu, Ilhamiz Guliyev, Aziz Orujov, Bahruz Samadov, Akif Gurbanov and many others; whereas there are credible reports of violations of prisoners’ human rights, including detention in inhumane conditions, torture and refusal of adequate medical care;

    C. whereas prominent human rights defender and climate advocate, Anar Mammadli, has been in pre-trial detention since 30 April 2024 on bogus charges of conspiracy to bring illegal foreign currency into the country and his health has deteriorated significantly while in custody; whereas Gubad Ibadoghlu, a political economist, opposition figure and one of the finalists for the 2024 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, was arrested by Azerbaijani authorities in July 2023 and remained in detention until 22 April 2024, when he was transferred to house arrest; whereas his health has deteriorated significantly since his arrest, as a result of torture, inhumane detention conditions and refusal of adequate medical care, thus endangering his life; whereas the health of Gubad Ibadoghlu’s wife, Irada Bayramova, continues to deteriorate as a result of the physical violence she suffered during her detention by the Azerbaijani authorities; whereas on 4 December 2023 human rights activist Ilhamiz Guliyev was arrested on politically motivated charges a few months after he gave an anonymous interview to Abzas Media about the alleged police practice of planting drugs on political activists;

    D. whereas for more than a decade and with increasing determination, Azerbaijani authorities have been reducing space for civil society, arbitrarily closing down non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and arresting or forcing into exile civil society representatives; whereas in recent years, the Azerbaijani authorities have imposed increasingly stringent restrictions on civil society organisations; whereas activists, journalists, political opponents and others have been imprisoned on fabricated and politically motivated charges;

    E. whereas according to human rights defenders, crackdowns on civil society have occurred around other major international events hosted by Azerbaijan, including Eurovision 2012 and the European Games 2015;

    F. whereas the Azerbaijani regime appears to extend its repressive actions beyond its borders; whereas the ongoing crackdown on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan is also reflected in reports of transnational repression and reprisals against family members of detainees; whereas, since 2020, Mahammad Mirzali, an Azerbaijani dissident blogger, has been the target of several assassination attempts in France; whereas, on 29 September 2024, Vidadi Isgandarli, a critic of the Azerbaijani regime living as a political refugee in France, was attacked in his home and succumbed to his injuries two days later; whereas the Azerbaijani authorities have also engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of EU citizens, as seen in the case of Théo Clerc, prompting at least one Member State to formally warn its citizens against travelling to Azerbaijan owing to the risk of arbitrary detention;

    G. whereas Azerbaijan has implemented a systematic policy of bribing officials and elected representatives in Europe in order to downplay Azerbaijan’s human rights record and to silence critics, as part of a widely used strategy described as ‘caviar diplomacy’; whereas some cases have been investigated and some of those involved have been prosecuted and convicted by national courts in several EU Member States;

    H. whereas a number of European Court of Human Rights decisions have found that Azerbaijan has violated human rights; whereas according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, more than 320 court judgments against Azerbaijan have not yet been executed or have been only partially implemented, which is the highest number among all state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights;

    I. whereas on 3 July 2024, the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) publicly denounced Azerbaijan’s ‘refusal to improve the situation in the light of the Committee’s recommendations’ and the ‘persistent lack of cooperation of the Azerbaijani authorities with the CPT’;

    J. whereas the PACE decided in January 2024 not to ratify the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation, noting its ‘very serious concerns as to …[Azerbaijan’s] respect for human rights’; whereas the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe noted that its Monitoring Committee’s rapporteurs were not allowed to meet with people who had been detained on allegedly politically motivated charges, and that the Azerbaijani delegation refused to allow the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to visit the country;

    K. whereas according to the Election Observation Mission led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), the early presidential election held on 7 February 2024 took place in a restrictive environment and was marked by the stifling of critical voices and the absence of political alternatives; whereas Azerbaijan held early parliamentary elections on 1 September 2024 in what the OSCE/ODIHR-led International Election Observation Mission described as a restrictive political and legal environment that did not enable genuine pluralism and resulted in a contest devoid of competition; whereas in the period leading up to the parliamentary elections, several government critics were detained;

    L. whereas media legislation in Azerbaijan has become increasingly repressive, with the February 2022 media law effectively legalising censorship; whereas several other laws affecting the media also violate the country’s international obligations with regard to freedom of expression and press freedom; whereas public criticism of the authorities is subject to severe penalties;

    M. whereas according to Reporters Without Borders, virtually the entire media sector in Azerbaijan is under official control, with no independent television or radio broadcasts from within the country, and all critical print newspapers shut down; whereas the authorities continue to suppress the last remaining independent media and repress journalists who reject self-censorship; whereas Azerbaijan has intensified its repression against the remaining independent media, such as Abzas Media, Kanal 13 and Toplum TV, through detentions and judicial harassment;

    N. whereas the Azerbaijani laws regulating the registration, operation and funding of NGOs are highly restrictive and arbitrarily implemented, thus effectively criminalising unregistered NGO activity; whereas Freedom House’s 2024 index ranks Azerbaijan among the least free countries in the world, below Russia and Belarus;

    O. whereas gas contracts between Gazprom and SOCAR for the delivery of one billion cubic metres of gas from Russia to Azerbaijan between November 2022 and March 2023 have raised significant concerns about the re-export of Russian gas to the European market, particularly in the context of the signed memorandum of understanding on the strategic partnership in the field of energy; whereas the EU aims to reduce European dependence on Russian gas, but this agreement could be seen as undermining that goal, as Russian gas would still be flowing into Azerbaijan, thus potentially freeing up Azerbaijani gas for increased re-export to the EU; whereas there are also worrying reports of Russian gas being rebranded as Azerbaijani for sale in the EU;

    P. whereas Azerbaijani leaders have engaged in anti-EU and anti-Western rhetoric; whereas Azerbaijan has intensified its disinformation campaigns targeting the EU and its Member States, with a specific focus on France; whereas Azerbaijan has actively interfered in European politics under the guise of ‘anti-colonialism’, notably in overseas countries and territories such as New Caledonia;

    Q. whereas in addition, in September 2023, after months of the illegal blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan launched a pre-planned, unjustified military attack on the territory, forcing over 100 000 ethnic Armenians to flee to Armenia, which amounts to ethnic cleansing; whereas as a result, Nagorno-Karabakh has been almost entirely emptied of its Armenian population, who had been living there for centuries; whereas this attack represents a gross violation of human rights and international law, a clear breach of the trilateral ceasefire statement of 9 November 2020 and a failure to uphold commitments made during EU-mediated negotiations;

    R. whereas the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh lost their property and belongings while fleeing the Azerbaijani military push in 2023 and have been unable to recover them since; whereas actions amounting to ethnic cleansing have continued since then; whereas the EU has provided humanitarian aid to people displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas credible reports confirm the organised destruction of Armenian cultural and religious heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas Azerbaijani leaders and officials repeatedly use hate speech against Armenians;

    S. whereas both Azerbaijan and Armenia are bound by international humanitarian law and the Third Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war from all forms of torture and cruel treatment; whereas reports indicate that 23 Armenian prisoners are currently being held in Azerbaijani prisons without adequate legal representation, including eight former leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh, some of whom have received long prison sentences;

    T. whereas in February 2023, the EU deployed the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA) to observe developments at the international border with Azerbaijan; whereas Azerbaijan has refused to cooperate with EUMA and the mission has been the target of disinformation by Azerbaijani authorities and government-controlled media; whereas the Azerbaijani leadership continues to make irredentist statements with reference to the sovereign territory of Armenia; whereas the Azerbaijani army continues to occupy no less than 170 km2 of the sovereign territory of Armenia;

    U. whereas Armenia and Azerbaijan have engaged in negotiations on a peace treaty, the normalisation of their relations and border delimitation, both before and after the 2023 attack on Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas, despite mediation efforts by the EU and others, no peace agreement has been signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia; whereas, although both governments have stated that they are close to an agreement, recent remarks by the Azerbaijani president raise concern about Baku’s willingness to find a compromise to conclude the negotiations;

    V. whereas the EU fully supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Azerbaijan and Armenia and actively supports efforts towards a sustainable peace agreement between the two countries, achieved by peaceful means and respecting the rights of the population concerned;

    W. whereas since Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Azerbaijan has deepened its relations with Russia, including political and economic ties, as well as increased cooperation between their intelligence services; whereas Russia has openly backed Azerbaijan in its aggressive behaviour towards Armenia;

    1. Strongly condemns the domestic and extraterritorial repression by the Azerbaijani regime against activists, journalists, opposition leaders and others, including EU nationals, which has noticeably intensified ahead of COP29; urges the Azerbaijani authorities to release all persons arbitrarily detained or imprisoned on account of their political views, to drop all politically motivated charges and to cease all forms of repression, both within and beyond Azerbaijan; recalls in this context the names of Tofig Yagublu, Akif Gurbanov, Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, human rights defenders and journalists, including Ulvi Hasanli, Sevinj Vagifgizi, Nargiz Absalamova, Hafiz Babali and Elnara Gasimova, Aziz Orujov, Rufat Muradli, Avaz Zeynalli, Elnur Shukurov, Alasgar Mammadli, Ilhamiz Guliyev and Farid Ismayilov, as well as of civil society activists arrested after March 2024 such as Anar Mammadli, Farid Mehralizade, Igbal Abilov, Bahruz Samadov, Emin Ibrahimov and Famil Khalilov; expresses deep concern about the environment of fear that this has created inside the country, leaving civil society effectively silenced;

    2. Reiterates its call for the Azerbaijani authorities to drop all charges against Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu and allow him to travel abroad, unhindered and to the country of his choice, to reunite with his family, to receive the medical care he urgently needs and attend the Sakharov Prize ceremony in Strasbourg in December 2024; calls on Azerbaijan to ensure that he receives an independent medical examination by a doctor of his own choosing and to allow him to receive treatment abroad; calls on all EU representatives and individual Member States to actively support the release from house arrest of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu and insist on his release in every exchange with the Azerbaijani authorities;

    3. Demands that freedom of the press and expression be guaranteed and that media organisations not be restricted; calls, therefore, on the Azerbaijani Government to release journalists working for Abzas Media and Toplum TV, including Ulvi Hasanli, Sevinj Vagifqizi and Alasgar Mammadli;

    4. Considers that Azerbaijan’s ongoing human rights abuses are incompatible with its hosting of COP29; urges EU leaders, in particular Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to use COP29 as an opportunity to remind Azerbaijan of its international obligations and to meaningfully address the country’s human rights record in their interactions with the Azerbaijani authorities, including by calling for the unconditional release of all persons arbitrarily detained or imprisoned on account of their political views and by requesting to meet with political prisoners while in the country; calls for the EU and its Member States to do their utmost to ensure that United Nations Climate Change conferences are not hosted in countries with poor human rights records;

    5. Reminds the Azerbaijani authorities of their obligations to respect fundamental freedoms, and calls on them to repeal repressive legislation that drives independent NGOs and media to the margins of the law; calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to repeal repressive legislation on the registration and funding of NGOs to bring them into line with Venice Commission recommendations;

    6. Recalls that the 1996 EU-Azerbaijan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which is the legal basis for bilateral relations, is based on respect for democracy and the principles of international law and human rights and that these have been systematically violated in Azerbaijan;

    7. Reminds the Azerbaijani Government of its international obligations to safeguard the dignity and rights of detainees, ensuring that they receive adequate medical care, are detained in humane conditions and are protected from any mistreatment; calls on the Azerbaijani Government to swiftly comply with long-standing recommendations of the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on the subject of the widespread recourse to physical ill treatment – including, on occasion, torture – by the police in Azerbaijan; calls on the Azerbaijani Government to implement all the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights;

    8. Reiterates its call for EU sanctions to be imposed under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime on Azerbaijani officials who have committed serious human rights violations; calls on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights to request meetings with political prisoners in Azerbaijan;

    9. Insists that any future partnership agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan be made conditional on the release of all political prisoners, the implementation of legal reforms and the overall improvement of the human rights situation in the country, as well as on Azerbaijan demonstrating its genuine readiness to faithfully engage in the negotiation of a peace agreement with Armenia and to respect the rights of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians;

    10. Calls for the EU to end its reliance on gas exports from Azerbaijan; calls on the Commission to suspend the 2022 memorandum of understanding on the strategic partnership in the field of energy and to act accordingly;

    11. Reaffirms its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Azerbaijan and Armenia and strongly supports the normalisation of their relations based on the principles of the mutual recognition of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, in accordance with the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration; reiterates its demand for the withdrawal of Azerbaijan’s troops from the entirety of Armenia’s sovereign territory; calls on Azerbaijan to unequivocally commit to respecting Armenia’s territorial integrity; highlights that Azerbaijan’s connectivity issues with its exclave of Nakhchivan should be resolved with full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia; reiterates its position that the EU should be ready to impose sanctions on any individuals and entities that threaten the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Armenia;

    12. Condemns any military aggression, use of force or hybrid threats against Armenia, as well as foreign interference and attempts to destabilise the political situation in Armenia; welcomes, furthermore, the decision to adopt the first assistance measure under the European Peace Facility in support of Armenian armed forces and calls for the cooperation between Armenia and the EU to be further reinforced in the field of security and defence; welcomes the actions undertaken by several Member States to provide defensive military support to Armenia and urges the Member States to consider similar initiatives; welcomes the new momentum in bilateral relations between the EU and Armenia, which is strongly supported by the authorities in Yerevan; calls on the Commission and the Council to actively support Armenia’s desire for increased cooperation with the EU;

    13. Expresses its support for the activities of the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA) and underscores the important role it plays; reiterates its concern regarding the repeated smear campaigns originating from Azerbaijan against EUMA; calls on EUMA to continue to closely monitor the evolving security situation on the ground, provide transparent reporting to Parliament and actively contribute to conflict resolution efforts; calls for the EU and its Member States to strengthen EUMA’s mandate, increase its size and extend its duration;

    14. Supports all initiatives and activities that could lead to the establishment of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the signing of a long-awaited peace agreement; calls on Azerbaijan to demonstrate genuine efforts to this end; warns Azerbaijan that any military action against Armenia would be unacceptable and would have serious consequences for the partnership between Azerbaijan and the EU; welcomes the Armenia-Azerbaijan joint statement of 7 December 2023 on confidence-building measures; welcomes the progress made in the framework of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border delimitation process, which has led to an agreement on several sections of the border; encourages both sides to take further steps on the remaining sections; calls for the EU to cease all technical and financial assistance to Azerbaijan that might contribute to strengthening its military or security capabilities; calls on the Member States to freeze exports of all military and security equipment to Azerbaijan;

    15. Calls for the full implementation of all orders issued by the International Court of Justice, including the order of 17 November 2023 indicating provisional measures regarding the safe, unimpeded and expeditious return of people who fled Nagorno-Karabakh; recalls that the decision to host COP29 in Baku was made after Azerbaijan failed to comply with the above-mentioned International Court of Justice order as well as those of 7 December 2021 and of 22 February 2023; reiterates its call for independent investigations into the abuses committed by Azerbaijani forces in Nagorno-Karabakh; reiterates its call on the Azerbaijani authorities to allow the safe return of the Armenian population to Nagorno-Karabakh, to genuinely engage in a comprehensive and transparent dialogue with them, to provide robust guarantees for the protection of their rights, including their land and property rights, the protection of their distinct identity and their civic, cultural, social and religious rights, and to refrain from any inflammatory rhetoric that could incite discrimination against Armenians; urges the Azerbaijani authorities to release all 23 Armenian prisoners of war detained following Azerbaijan’s retaking of the Nagorno-Karabakh region;

    16. Reiterates its call for the EU institutions and the Member States to continue to offer assistance to Armenia to deal with the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh; calls for the EU, in this regard, to provide a new package of assistance to Armenia to help the Armenian Government address the humanitarian needs of refugees; welcomes all efforts by the Government of Armenia to provide shelter and aid to the displaced Armenians;

    17. Expresses deep concern regarding the preservation of cultural, religious and historical heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh following the massive exodus of its Armenian population; urges Azerbaijan to refrain from further destruction, neglect or alteration of the origins of cultural, religious or historical heritage in the region and calls on it instead to strive to preserve, protect and promote this rich diversity; demands the protection of the Armenian cultural, historical and religious heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh in line with UNESCO standards and Azerbaijan’s international commitments; insists that Azerbaijan allow a UNESCO mission to Nagorno-Karabakh and grant it the necessary access;

    18. Deplores steps taken by Azerbaijan towards the secessionist entity in occupied Cyprus, which are against international law and the provisions of UN Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984); calls on Azerbaijan to respect the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of states and to not invite the secessionist entity in occupied Cyprus to any meetings of the Organization of Turkic States;

    19. Condemns Azerbaijan’s repeated attempts to denigrate and destabilise Member States, including through the so-called Baku Initiative Group; condemns in particular its support for irredentist groups and disinformation operations targeting France, especially in the French departments and territories of New Caledonia, Martinique and Corsica; recalls that these methods were used against Germany in 2013; denounces the smear campaigns targeting Denmark; regrets the smear campaign aimed at damaging France’s reputation by calling into question its capacity to host the 2024 Olympic Games, launched by actors suspected of being close to the Azerbaijani regime;

    20. Condemns the arbitrary arrests of EU citizens based on spurious accusations of espionage and their disproportionate sentencing;

    21. Strongly condemns the public insults and direct threats made by Azerbaijani diplomatic or government representatives, or members of the Azerbaijani Parliament, targeting elected officials of EU Member States; demands, in this regard, that access to EU institutional buildings be denied to the Azerbaijani officials concerned until further notice;

    22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the President, Government and Parliament of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the President, Government and Parliament of the Republic of Armenia, the Director-General of UNESCO, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – Croatia’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Latest state of play – 23-10-2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Croatia’s national recovery and resilience plan (NRRP) is an ambitious outline of reforms and investment designed to mitigate the pandemic’s socioeconomic fallout. Following the December 2023 amendment of the Croatian NRRP, to which a REPowerEU chapter was added, the plan’s worth reached €10 040.7 million (or 18.5 % of national gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019), an increase of over 59 % compared with the original (2021) version of the plan, which was worth €6 297 million in grants only. The amended plan comes with a grant allocation of €5 779.4 million and a freshly requested loan allocation of €4 254.2 million (of which more than 62 % is for the REPowerEU chapter). The grant part includes the June 2022 downward revision of Croatia’s grant allocation of €785.1 million and the country’s REPowerEU grant allocation of €269 million. In addition, Croatia has requested a €7.2 million transfer from its share of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve to its NRRP. So far, Croatia has received €4 487.3 million of Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) resources (44.7 % of the amended NRRP) in the form of pre financing, five grant and one loan instalment. The disbursements are above the current EU average of 41 %. The measures in the amended plan are designed to help Croatia overcome the socioeconomic ramifications of both the pandemic and the energy crisis, as well as to address the consequences of the two devastating earthquakes of 2020. The plan focuses on the green transition by devoting over 39 % of the resources to it. It also fosters the digital transformation by committing 20.1 % of the funds (excluding the REPowerEU chapter) to digital projects. In the context of the European Semester, in 2024 the Commission assessed the implementation of the Croatian plan as ‘under way’. The European Parliament continues to ensure transparency and accountability through interinstitutional dialogues on RRF implementation, and scrutiny of the Commission’s work. This briefing is one in a series covering all EU Member States. Fourth edition. The ‘NGEU delivery’ briefings are updated at key stages throughout the lifecycle of the plans.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Repeated failure to integrate migrants into European societies – E-002132/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    17.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002132/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE), Julien Leonardelli (PfE), Virginie Joron (PfE), Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain (PfE), Fabrice Leggeri (PfE), André Rougé (PfE), Valérie Deloge (PfE), Gilles Pennelle (PfE), Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE), Alexandre Varaut (PfE), Pierre Pimpie (PfE), Pascale Piera (PfE), Mélanie Disdier (PfE), Anne-Sophie Frigout (PfE)

    In light of the ongoing audit of the effectiveness of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF)[1] and current data showing repeated failure to integrate third-country nationals into European societies, a reassessment of current migration management policies is essential. The persistence of socio-economic disparities between migrants and EU citizens, as well as the increasing risks of unemployment and social exclusion, raise questions about the appropriateness of pursuing a policy of taking in migrants on a massive scale.

    • 1.How can the Commission justify continuing to increase funding for integration policies when the results clearly demonstrate the limitations of such measures, particularly in terms of reducing socio-economic disparities and of social cohesion?
    • 2.Is the voluntary or forced return of migrants to their countries of origin, as supported by an increasing number of European citizens, envisaged as an alternative priority in the context of EU migration policies, including a readjustment of AMIF funding to support such action?
    • 3.Has the Commission assessed the long-term impact of current policies on the stability of European societies, and what specific measures does it envisage for promoting the return of migrants to their countries of origin?

    Submitted: 17.10.2024

    • [1] https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/news/news2024_10_newsletter_01
    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Latest news – Confirmation hearings – Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

    Source: European Parliament

    The designated candidates of the von der Leyen Commission will be heard by the relevant EP committees from 4 to 12 November. Candidates will give an opening speech and answer members’ questions.

    ENVI is responsible, alone or jointly, for the hearings of:

    Executive Vice-Presidents-designate:

    • Teresa Ribera (ES): Clean, Just and Competitive Transition (12.11)
    • Stéphane Séjourné (FR): Prosperity and Industrial Strategy (12.11)

    Commissioners-designate:

    • Jessika Roswall (SE): Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy (5.11)
    • Olivér Várhelyi (HU): Health and Animal Welfare (6.11)
    • Hadja Lahbib (BE): Preparedness, Crisis Management, Equality (6.11)
    • Wopke Hoekstra (NL): Climate, Net-Zero and Clean Growth (7.11)

    ENVI is invited to the hearings of:

    • Apostolos Tzitzikostas (EL): Sustainable Transport and Tourism (4.11)
    • Christophe Hansen (LUX): Agriculture and Food (4.11)
    • Dan Jørgensen (DK): Energy and Housing (5.11)
    • Costas Kadis (CY): Fisheries and Oceans (6.11)

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the misinterpretation of UN resolution 2758 by the People’s Republic of China and its continuous military provocations around Taiwan – RC-B10-0134/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Michael Gahler, Miriam Lexmann, Sebastião Bugalho, Rasa Juknevičienė, Danuše Nerudová
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Kathleen Van Brempt, Tonino Picula
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Adam Bielan, Mariusz Kamiński, Charlie Weimers, Michał Dworczyk, Alexandr Vondra, Veronika Vrecionová, Ondřej Krutílek, Rihards Kols, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Alberico Gambino, Bert‑Jan Ruissen, Carlo Fidanza
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Engin Eroglu, Petras Auštrevičius, Helmut Brandstätter, Dan Barna, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, João Cotrim De Figueiredo, Bernard Guetta, Svenja Hahn, Ľubica Karvašová, Karin Karlsbro, Moritz Körner, Nathalie Loiseau, Jan‑Christoph Oetjen, Ana Vasconcelos, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Markéta Gregorová
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    European Parliament resolution on the misinterpretation of UN resolution 2758 by the People’s Republic of China and its continuous military provocations around Taiwan

    (2024/2891(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to its previous resolutions on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan,

     having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 on a new EU-China strategy[1],

     having regard to its recommendation of 21 October 2021 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on EU-Taiwan political relations and cooperation[2],

     having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the EU and the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific[3],

     having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on the situation in the Strait of Taiwan[4],

     having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2023 on EU-Taiwan trade and investment relations[5],

     having regard to the Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, approved by the Council on 21 March 2022,

     having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 16 September 2021 entitled ‘The EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ (JOIN(2021)0024),

     having regard to the EU’s ‘One China’ policy,

     having regard to the EU-China summit of 7 December 2023,

     having regard to the European Council conclusions on China of 30 June 2023,

     having regard to the visits of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 25 to 27 July 2023 and of the Committee on International Trade of 19 to 21 December 2022 to Taiwan,

     having regard to the statement of 1 September 2024 by the Spokesperson of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the latest dangerous actions in the South China Sea,

     having regard to the statements by the Spokesperson of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on China’s military drills around Taiwan, including the most recent statement of 14 October 2024,

     having regard to the G7 Foreign Ministers’ statements of 18 April 2023 and of 3 August 2022 on preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,

     having regard to the statement by the Chair of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting of 23 September 2024,

     having regard to the joint declaration by the G7 Defence Ministers of 19 October 2024,

     having regard to the urgency motion on Taiwan passed by the Australian Senate on 21 August 2024,

     having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971,

     having regard to the motion on UN Resolution 2758 passed by the Dutch House of Representatives on 12 September 2024,

     having regard to the press statement by the US Department of State of 13 October 2024,

     having regard to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

     having regard to Article 7 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), concluded on 9 May 1992,

     having regard to Rule 5 of the Standing Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),

     having regard to Article 4 of the Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol),

     having regard to Article 8 and Article 18(h) of the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO),

     having regard to Rules 136(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

    A. whereas UN Resolution 2758 was passed by the UN General Assembly on 25 October 1971 and shifted the official recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China (PRC); whereas today Taiwan, while not being a member of the United Nations, maintains diplomatic relations with 11 of the 193 United Nations member states, as well as with the Holy See;

    B. whereas the EU and Taiwan are like-minded partners that share the common values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law; whereas Taiwan is a vibrant democracy, with a flourishing civil society; whereas Taiwan held peaceful and well-organised elections on 13 January 2024;

    C. whereas following the adoption of UN Resolution 2758, Taiwan lost its access to participation in multilateral forums, such as the WHO;

    D. whereas Taiwan has never been part of the PRC; whereas the Republic of China was established in 1912 and the PRC in 1949;

    E. whereas UN Resolution 2758 addresses the status of the PRC, but does not determine that the PRC enjoys sovereignty over Taiwan, nor does it make any judgement on the future inclusion of Taiwan in the UN or any other international organisation; whereas, however, the PRC continues to misinterpret UN Resolution 2758 to block Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations and unilaterally change the status quo; whereas these actions highlight the PRC’s ambition to alter the existing multilateral international order and undermine international law, and can be seen as an expression of systemic rivalry;

    F. whereas the EU continues to maintain its own ‘One China’ policy, which is different from the PRC’s ‘One China’ principle; whereas the EU’s long-standing position has been to support the status quo and a peaceful resolution of differences across the Taiwan Strait, while encouraging dialogue and constructive engagement;

    G. whereas through their statement of 23 September 2024 the G7 members, among other things, underlined their support for ‘Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where it is’;

    H. whereas supporting Taiwan’s participation in international organisations does not undermine the EU’s commitment to its ‘One China’ policy, which remains the political foundation of EU-China relations;

    I. whereas over the past decade the PRC has persistently tried to increase its influence over international institutions, using this to sideline Taiwan and prevent Taiwanese passport holders, including journalists, non-governmental organisation workers and political activists, from accessing international institutions; whereas the PRC exercises transnational repression by misusing extradition treaties to target Taiwanese people abroad and therefore put them at risk of arbitrary persecution and human rights abuses;

    J. whereas the statutes of most international organisations tasked to address global issues, including the WHO, the UNFCCC, Interpol and the ICAO, provide opportunities for entities such as Taiwan to participate without infringing on the rights of member states;

    K. whereas Taiwan has consistently demonstrated a peaceful and cooperative attitude globally, has significantly enhanced global developments and thus could contribute greatly to the work of various international organisations;

    L. whereas the PRC is a one-party state that is entirely controlled and ruled by the Chinese Communist Party;

    M. whereas in a speech on Taiwan’s national day of 10 October 2024, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te stated that the PRC has ‘no right to represent Taiwan’ and reiterated that the two sides are ‘not subordinate’ to each other; whereas the PRC has justified its recent military exercise by claiming that President Lai Ching-te is pursuing a separatist strategy;

    N. whereas on 14 October 2024 the PRC launched a large-scale military drill, named Joint Sword-2024B, that simulated a blockade of Taiwan; whereas during this exercise a record number of 153 PRC aircraft,18 warships and 17 PRC coastguard ships were detected around Taiwan;

    O. whereas during the exercises four formations of the PRC coastguard patrolled the island and briefly entered its restricted waters; whereas the very frequent deployment of the coastguard by the PRC in the Strait in what the PRC considers ‘law enforcement’ missions is putting constant pressure on the Taiwanese authorities and causing a dangerous increase in the risk of collisions, in what is one of the most concrete indications of the PRC’s intention to erode the status quo; whereas the exercises launched on 14 October 2024 were the fourth round of large-scale war games by the PRC in just over two years;

    P. whereas these activities were condemned by Taiwan as an ‘unreasonable provocation’ and are the latest in a series of war games conducted by the PRC against Taiwan; whereas these military drills came days after Lai Ching-te, Taiwan’s new president, gave a speech vowing to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty in the face of challenges from the PRC;

    Q. whereas the median line, which was set up in a decades-old tacit agreement between both sides of the Taiwan Strait, was designed to reduce the risk of conflict by keeping the military aircraft from both sides of the Strait at a safe distance and thus prevent fatal miscalculations; whereas the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army violated the median line only four times between 1954 and 2020, but now routine incursions reflect Beijing’s intent to irreversibly reset long-standing benchmarks;

    R. whereas the press statements by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the US Department of State reaffirm that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait are of strategic importance for regional and global security and prosperity; whereas the High Representative’s statement recalls the need to preserve the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, opposes any unilateral actions that change the status quo by force or coercion and calls on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid any actions that may further escalate cross-Strait tensions;

    S. whereas on 23 May 2024 the PRC launched a military drill called Joint Sword-2024A, just days after the inauguration of Lai Ching-te as the new President of Taiwan;

    T. whereas over the past few years the PRC has held similar military drills around Taiwan; whereas these military drills have increased in intensity and have been moved closer and closer to Taiwan’s mainland; whereas during a previous drill in August 2022 the PRC also fired missiles into Japan’s exclusive economic zone;

    U. whereas on top of military pressure the PRC has long been pursuing a sophisticated strategy of targeting Taiwan with foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI), including hybrid and cyberattacks with the goal of undermining Taiwan’s democratic society;

    V. whereas the PRC, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, has said that it will not renounce the use of force to seek unification with Taiwan;

    W. whereas the PRC’s 2005 Anti-Secession Law includes the use of non-peaceful means, triggered by ambiguous thresholds, to achieve what the PRC calls ‘unification’ with Taiwan; whereas such military action is a grave threat to the security and stability of the entire region, with potentially dire global consequences; whereas EU and US deterrence is of strategic importance to dissuade the PRC from undertaking any unilateral action against Taiwan;

    X. whereas the PRC’s increasingly aggressive behaviour, in particular in its own neighbourhood, such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, poses a risk to regional and global security; whereas since 2019 the PRC has violated the Taiwanese air defence identification zone (ADIZ) with increasing regularity; whereas the PRC has been behaving aggressively across vast areas of the Indo-Pacific and exerting varying degrees of military or economic coercion, which has led to disputes with neighbours such as Japan, India, the Philippines and Australia;

    Y. whereas the EU has condemned the dangerous actions conducted by Chinese coastguard vessels against lawful Philippine maritime operations in the South China Sea on 31 August 2024; whereas this incident is the latest in a series of actions endangering the safety of life at sea and violating the right to freedom of navigation and overflight in compliance with international law; whereas maritime security and freedom of navigation must be ensured in accordance with international law and, in particular, UNCLOS;

    Z. whereas the PRC is supporting Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, in particular through the export of dual-use goods to Russia and the ongoing involvement of PRC-based companies in sanctions evasion and circumvention;

    AA. whereas as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the PRC has a responsibility to work for peace and stability in the region, and particularly in the Taiwan Strait;

    AB. whereas through its 2021 strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, the EU and its Member States increased their presence in the region, including through a higher military presence of certain Member States and the continued passage of military ships through the Taiwan Strait;

    AC. whereas Taiwan is located in a strategic position in terms of trade, notably in high-tech supply chains; whereas the Taiwan Strait is the primary route for ships travelling from China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan towards Europe; whereas Taiwan dominates semiconductor manufacturing markets, as its producers manufacture around 50 % of the world’s semiconductor output; whereas the EU’s strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific argues for increasing trade and investment cooperation with Taiwan;

    AD. whereas the EU is Taiwan’s fourth largest trading partner after the PRC, the United States and Japan; whereas in 2022 Taiwan was the EU’s 12th largest trading partner; whereas the EU is the largest source of foreign direct investment in Taiwan; whereas Taiwanese investments in the EU remain below their potential;

    AE. whereas members of the Australian Senate and of the Dutch House of Representatives have recently adopted motions concerning the distortion of UN Resolution 2758 by the PRC and called for support for Taiwan’s greater participation in multilateral organisations;

    1. Reiterates that Taiwan is a key EU partner and a like-minded democratic friend in the Indo-Pacific region; commends Taiwan and the Taiwanese people for their strong democracy and vibrant civil society, demonstrated once more by the peaceful and well-organised elections of 13 January 2024;

    2. Opposes the PRC’s constant distortion of UN Resolution 2758 and its efforts to block Taiwan’s participation in multilateral organisations; calls for the EU and its Member States to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in relevant international organisations such as the WHO, the ICAO, Interpol and the UNFCCC; further calls on the UN Secretariat to grant Taiwanese nationals and journalists the right to access UN premises for visits, meetings and newsgathering activities;

    3. Strongly condemns the PRC’s unwarranted military exercises of 14 October 2024, its continued military provocations against Taiwan and its continued military build-up, which is changing the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, and reiterates its firm rejection of any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait; lauds the restraint and disciplined reaction of the Taiwanese authorities and calls for regular exchanges between the EU and its Taiwanese counterparts on relevant security issues;

    4. Reaffirms its strong commitment to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait; underlines that any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, particularly by means of force or coercion, will not be accepted and will be met with a decisive and firm reaction;

    5. Underlines that UN Resolution 2758 takes no position on Taiwan; strongly rejects and refutes the PRC’s attempts to distort history and international rules;

    6. Reiterates the EU’s commitment to its ‘One China’ policy as the political foundation of EU-China relations; recalls that the EU’s China strategy emphasises that constructive cross-strait relations are part of promoting peace and security in the whole Asia-Pacific region and that the EU supports initiatives aimed at dialogue and confidence-building;

    7. Underlines that in Taiwan it is up to the people to democratically decide how they want to live and that the status quo in the Taiwan Strait must not be unilaterally changed by the use or threat of force;

    8. Reiterates its strong condemnation of statements by Chinese President Xi Jinping that the PRC will never renounce the right to use force with respect to Taiwan; underlines that the PRC’s use of force or threats or other highly coercive measures to achieve unification is incompatible with international law; expresses grave concern over the PRC’s use of hostile disinformation to undermine trust in Taiwan’s democracy and governance; reiterates its previous calls for the EU and its Member States to cooperate with international partners in helping to sustain democracy in Taiwan, keeping it free from foreign interference and threats; underlines that only Taiwan’s democratically elected government can represent the Taiwanese people on the international stage;

    9. Condemns the PRC’s systematic grey-zone military actions, including cyber and disinformation campaigns against Taiwan, and urges the PRC to halt these activities immediately; calls, in this regard, for cooperation between the EU and Taiwan to be deepened further to enhance structural cooperation on countering disinformation and foreign interference; welcomes the posting of a liaison officer at the European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan to coordinate joint efforts to tackle disinformation and interference as a first important step towards deeper EU-Taiwan cooperation, and calls for the EU to further deepen cooperation with Taiwan in this key area; praises the courage of the Taiwanese people and the proportionate and dignified reactions of the Taiwanese authorities and institutions in the face of intensifying Chinese threats and activities;

    10. Firmly rejects the PRC’s economic coercion against Taiwan and other countries, as well as against EU Member States, and underlines that such practices are not only illegal under World Trade Organization rules, but that they also have a devastating effect on the PRC’s reputation around the world and will lead to a further loss of trust in the PRC as a responsible actor; stresses the independent right of the EU and its Member States to develop relations with Taiwan in line with their interests and shared values of democracy and human rights without foreign interference; calls on EU and Member State missions abroad to address and provide alternatives to malign PRC business practices, especially in the Global South;

    11. Is very concerned at the adoption of the so-called guidelines for punishing ‘diehard Taiwan independence separatists’ for committing crimes of secession and the incitement of secession jointly announced by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the ministries for public security and state security and the justice ministry in June 2024, which could lead to harsh punishments for the crime of secession, up to and including the death penalty; strongly condemns the sentencing of one Taiwanese activist to nine years in prison in September 2024 after his arrest in the PRC in 2022, as well as the constant harassment of Taiwanese people working and living in the PRC;

    12. Is seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas; recalls the importance of respecting international law, including UNCLOS and, in particular, its provisions on the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means and on maintaining the freedom of navigation and overflight; calls on all countries that have not done so to swiftly ratify UNCLOS; calls for the EU and its Member States to step up their own maritime capacities in the region; reminds the PRC of its responsibilities, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to uphold international law and emphasises the obligation to resolve disputes peacefully;

    13. Reaffirms its grave concerns about China’s increasing military investments and capabilities; expresses grave concerns about the renewed Chinese and Russian commitment to further strengthen their military ties and condemns the Chinese supply of components and equipment to Moscow’s military industry; welcomes the Council decision to impose sanctions on Chinese companies for supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine; deplores the ‘no limits’ partnership between Russia and the PRC; welcomes the increasing commitment and military presence of the United States in the Indo-Pacific; reiterates its calls for a coordinated approach to deepening EU-US cooperation on security matters, including through transatlantic parliamentary dialogue;

    14. Strongly welcomes the close cooperation and alignment of Taiwan with the EU and the United States in responding to Russia’s war against Ukraine and issuing sanctions in response to this blatant violation of international law; recalls Taiwan’s help in addressing the humanitarian crisis caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its continuous involvement and support for the Ukrainian government and countries hosting Ukrainian refugees;

    15. Highlights that the PRC’s various actions in the field of cognitive and legal warfare are slowly undermining the status quo, as well as intensifying grey-zone activities that are intended to circumvent detection, existing laws and response thresholds; calls for the EU to establish and enforce its redlines through its toolbox of sanctions, including sectoral sanctions, against hybrid activities and cyberthreats, and to coordinate strong diplomatic and economic deterrence measures with liked-minded partners;

    16. Expresses its gratitude for Taiwan’s help and assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic;

    17. Recognises the importance of Taiwan in securing global supply chains, especially in the high-tech sector where Taiwan is the leading producer of semiconductors, and calls for the EU and its Member States to engage in closer cooperation with Taiwan;

    18. Calls on the Commission to launch, without delay, preparatory measures for negotiations on a bilateral investment agreement, or other kinds of agreement, with Taiwan; highlights the potential for cooperation on foreign direct investment screening policy and on tackling economic coercion and retaliation;

    19. Applauds the increase in freedom of navigation exercises conducted by several EU countries, including France, the Netherlands and Germany; notes that these activities are in line with international law and calls for more cooperation and coordination with regional partners in order to increase freedom of navigation operations in the region;

    20. Welcomes visits by former and current Taiwanese politicians to Europe, including the recent visit of former President Tsai Ing-wen to the European Parliament on 17 October 2024; welcomes, furthermore, continued exchanges of its Members with Taiwan and encourages further visits of official European Parliament delegations to Taiwan; additionally encourages further exchanges between the EU and Taiwan at all levels, including political meetings and people-to-people encounters;

    21. Encourages, in this light, increased economic, scientific and cultural interactions and exchanges, focusing, among other areas, on youth, academia, civil society, sports, culture and education, as well as city-to-city and region-to-region partnerships; reiterates its call on the Member States to engage in meaningful and structural technical cooperation with Taiwan’s National Fire Agency and National Police Agency and with local administrations in the field of civil protection and disaster management;

    22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the governments of the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan.

     

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP23211 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council – B10-0150/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
    Members responsible: Martin Häusling, Biljana Borzan, Anja Hazekamp

    B10‑0150/2024

    European Parliament resolution on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP23211 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2024/2838(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP23211 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council[1],

     having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed[2], and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,

     having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 26 April 2024, at which no opinion was delivered, and the vote of the Appeal Committee on 29 May 2024, at which again no opinion was delivered,

     having regard to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers[3],

     having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 29 November 2023, and published on 18 January 2024[4],

     having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’)[5],

     having regard to Rule 115(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

    A. whereas, on 11 December 2019, Pioneer Overseas Corporation, based in Belgium, submitted, on behalf of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., based in the United States, an application to the national competent authority of the Netherlands (the ‘application’) for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP23211 (the ‘GM maize’), in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM maize for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

    B. whereas, on 29 November 2023, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 18 January 2024;

    C. whereas the GM maize contains genes conferring resistance to glufosinate and produces insecticidal proteins;

    Lack of assessment of the complementary herbicide

    D. whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013[6] requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices influence the outcome of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide-tolerant plants;

    E. whereas the vast majority of GM crops have been genetically modified so that they are tolerant to one or more ‘complementary’ herbicides which can be used throughout the cultivation of the GM crop, without the crop dying, as would be the case for a non-herbicide tolerant crop; whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds[7];

    F. whereas herbicide-tolerant GM crops lock farmers into a weed management system that is largely or wholly dependent on herbicides, and does so by charging a premium for GM seeds that can be justified only if farmers purchasing such seed also spray the complementary herbicides; whereas heightened reliance on complementary herbicides on farms planting the GM crops accelerate the emergence and spread of weeds resistant to those herbicides, thereby triggering the need for even more herbicide use, a vicious circle known as ‘the herbicide treadmill’;

    G. whereas the adverse impacts stemming from excessive reliance on herbicides will worsen on soil health, water quality, and above and below ground biodiversity, as well as leading to increased human and animal exposure, potentially also via increased herbicide residues on food and feed;

    H. whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction 1B and therefore meets the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council[8]; whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018;

    I. whereas assessment of herbicide residues and metabolites found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs;

    Member State competent authority and stakeholder comments

    J. whereas Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period, including that the monitoring plan concerned does not ensure that relevant information for the monitoring of the product is gathered and therefore cannot be considered adequate, as well as that the insecticidal protein produced by the plant has not been adequately assessed;

    Ensuring a global level playing field and upholding the Union’s international obligations

    K. whereas the conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture[9] call on the Commission to reassess its approach on market access for agri-food imports and exports, given the challenge of diverging standards of the Union and its trading partners; whereas fairer trade relations, at a global level, coherent with goals for a healthy environment were one of the main demands of farmers during the demonstrations of 2023 and 2024;

    L. whereas a 2017 report by the United Nations’ (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health[10]; whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (UN SDG) Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination[11];

    M. whereas the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (‘Kunming-Montreal Framework’), agreed at the COP15 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UN CBD) in December 2022, includes a global target to reduce the risk of pesticides by at least 50 % by 2030[12];

    N. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the UN SDGs and the UN CBD;

    Reducing dependency on imported feed

    O. whereas one of the lessons from the COVID-19 crisis and the still ongoing war in Ukraine is the need for the Union to end the dependencies on some critical materials; whereas in the mission letter to Commissioner-designate Christophe Hansen, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asks him to look at ways to reduce imports of critical commodities[13];

    Undemocratic decision-making

    P. whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, Parliament adopted 38 objections to placing GMOs on the market;

    Q. whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

    R. whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee[14];

    S. whereas the vote on 26 April 2024 of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States; whereas the vote on 29 May 2024 of the Appeal Committee again delivered no opinion;

    T. whereas on 2 July 2024, the Commission authorised the placing on the market of the GM maize;

    1. Considers that Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

    2. Considers that Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council[15], to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

    3. Calls on the Commission to repeal Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826;

    4. Calls on the Commission not to authorise herbicide-tolerant GM crops, due to the associated increased use of complementary herbicides and therefore the increased risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health in line with the One Health approach;

    5. Highlights, in this regard, that authorising the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides that are banned in the Union, such as glufosinate, is incoherent with the Union’s international commitments under, inter alia, the UN SDGs and the UN CBD, including the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Framework[16];

    6. Expects the Commission, as matter of urgency, to deliver on its commitment to come forward with a proposal to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the Union are not produced for export;

    7. Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs[17]; expresses its deep disappointment, however, that, since then the Commission has continued to authorise GMOs for import into the Union, despite ongoing objections by Parliament and no qualified majority of Member States in favour;

    8. Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN SDGs; reiterates its call for draft implementing acts to be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum explaining how they uphold the principle of ‘do no harm’[18];

    9. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – Monetary Dialogue in September 2024: Summary of parliamentary scrutiny activities – 23-10-2024

    Source: European Parliament

    This briefing provides a summary of all scrutiny activities of the European Parliament related to euro area monetary policy in advance of the September2024 Monetary Dialogue with the European Central Bank (ECB). It covers the topics chosen by the competent Committee and related expertise papers provided in advance of the Dialogue, the topics addressed during the Dialogue, and latest written questions made by Members to the ECB President. The document is published regularly ahead and after each Monetary Dialogue with the ECB.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – Multilateral development banks: State of play and reform proposals – 23-10-2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are supranational financial institutions that support developing countries to help them achieve various goals. While the support is primarily financial, many MDBs have accumulated a good deal of experience, which allows them to propose non financial services too, such as policy advice, capacity building, technical assistance and training. MDBs are a key element in the multilateral development system. This wide-ranging remit, as well as the fact that MDBs are able to pursue public policy goals at minimal fiscal cost to member governments, explains the success of these institutions over the past 80 years, as well as their growing number: today, there are more than 20 MDBs around the world. Although their members, clients and goals may differ, MDBs share common characteristics, play similar roles, and conform broadly to the same institutional model. In the past decade, MDBs have been facing several challenges, both from within (legacy MDBs competing for relevance with other, newer MDBs) and outside their system (new needs and goals, such as contributing to the fight against climate change). Several countries, non-governmental organisations and think tanks have called for these banks to change in order to adapt to this new environment. Important discussions have been taking place among stakeholders. While discussions are ongoing, several MDBs are committed to reform.

    MIL OSI Europe News