Category: Africa

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Clock ticking on South Sudan’s transition, Security Council hears

    Source: United Nations 4

    By Vibhu Mishra

    Peace and Security

    As South Sudan enters a so-called “extended transitional period” this month, the UN’s top envoy to the country has warned that the clock is ticking to accomplish the commitments under a key 2018 peace accord, ahead of a new deadline set for February 2027.

    Signed in 2018 to end years of conflict, the Revitalized Peace Agreement, initially set a three-year timeline for elections and the formation of a democratic government. The transition has been extended four times, with key political, security, and governance benchmarks remaining unfulfilled.

    Under the latest extension, announced by the authorities in September last year, general elections are scheduled to take place in December 2026.

    Waiting for progress

    Briefing ambassadors at the Security Council on Wednesday, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for South Sudan Nicolas Haysom stressed that while the country’s citizens have been patient, they expect progress.

    There is a strong desire for the leaders to focus on the benchmarks set out in the peace agreement – without further delay.

    With progress stalling in several critical areas, Mr. Haysom urged South Sudan’s leaders to accelerate security sector reform, electoral preparations, and reform of the constitution and judicial processes.

    The clock is already ticking on the extended transitional period. Decision-makers need to tackle several issues simultaneously and immediately,” he emphasised.

    Significant gaps remain

    Despite some achievements, major gaps persist – especially oncerning elections scheduled for December 2026.

    While a framework for security sector management and a national community violence reduction strategy have been adopted, critical conditions remain unmet – including the full deployment of unified security forces, voter education, and a code of conduct between political parties and other stakeholders.

    We have not yet seen the previously promised harmonized workplan with an operational timetable for elections,” Mr. Haysom said, adding that delays in government funding and decision-making are further impeding progress.

    Escalating security concerns

    Communal violence remains a major driver of insecurity, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations, including women and children.

    Recent clashes between armed groups in Western Equatoria, along with widespread reports of illegal checkpoints, highlight the fragility of the security environment, Mr. Haysom noted.

    At the same time, the war between rival militaries in in neighbouring Sudan is having spillover effects in South Sudan, including violent unrest in Juba following reports of South Sudanese nationals being executed in Sudan’s Wad Madani region.

    UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

    Nicholas Haysom, Special Representative of the Secretary-General briefing the Security Council on the situation in South Sudan.

    Humanitarian crisis

    More than one million Sudanese refugees have fled into South Sudan during the reporting period, joining an already staggering 9.3 million people in need of humanitarian assistance.

    The country’s economic crisis is also worsening, with inflation soaring to 107 percent and food prices doubling, while government employees have not been paid for 10 months.

    Health conditions are also deteriorating, with over 23,000 reported cholera cases exacerbated by last year’s floods. The disease continues to spread, particularly in remote areas with limited healthcare access.

    The 2025 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan aims to reach 5.4 million people with life-saving assistance and protection, but funding remains a critical challenge. The UN is appealing for $1.7 billion to meet urgent needs this year.

    UNMISS operational constraints

    Mr. Haysom, who also leads the UN peacekeeping mission in the country, UNMISS, briefed on logistical challenges faced after the Government requested the mission vacate part of its headquarters within 45 days.

    He described the demand as imposing “significant costs” and logistical hurdles that UNMISS is not currently equipped to manage.

    Restrictions on peacekeeper movement in some areas also continue to limit the mission’s ability to provide security and humanitarian support.

    Steadfast support

    Concluding his briefing, Mr. Haysom reaffirmed the UN’s commitment to standing “shoulder-to-shoulder” with the people of South Sudan on their path to stabilisation and democratisation.

    Special Representative Haysom briefing the Security Council on the situation in South Sudan.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Video: Deputy Minister in the Presidency Nonceba Mhauli conducts a site visit to Swift Skills Academy

    Source: Republic of South Africa (video statements-2)

    Deputy Minister in the Presidency Nonceba Mhauli conducts a site visit to Swift Skills Academy
    PYEI Jobs Boost implementing partners

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ul1Rw-YCI

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: The UK calls on the transitional South Sudan government to ensure credible elections in 2026: UK statement at the UN Security Council

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Statement by Ambassador James Kariuki, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, at the UN Security Council meeting on South Sudan.

    Let me start by expressing concern regarding the attacks on civilians, including South Sudanese, in Wad Madani in Sudan between 11 and 15 January and the subsequent unrest in South Sudan on 16-17 January.

    Second, as we’ve heard today, the humanitarian situation in South Sudan is desperate. 

    Over one million displaced people have now arrived from Sudan into South Sudan since the outbreak of the conflict.

    The United Kingdom recognises the significant impact of the Sudan crisis on the region and welcomes South Sudan’s commitment to welcoming and supporting those fleeing the conflict.

    We commend UNMISS’s facilitation of humanitarian efforts, noting that significant challenges lie ahead in 2025. 

    The UK will continue to support South Sudan and we have increased our humanitarian support to Sudan’s neighbours.

    Third, President, as we have heard today, the political situation in South Sudan remains precarious.

    The United Kingdom is concerned by continued restrictions to political and civic space in the country and by the lack of progress towards unification of the security forces.

    Progress on this is critical to create the conditions for sustainable peace and elections.

    The Transitional Government of South Sudan has not yet produced their promised work plan to deliver elections in 2026. 

    Without renewed efforts, progress towards peaceful, inclusive and credible elections risks falling further behind schedule.

    We welcome UNMISS’s work to build capacity and capability for South Sudan’s electoral institutions. 

    And we repeat our call on the Transitional Government to match these efforts to provide adequate funding for elections and to pay the salaries of public servants including the security forces.

    In conclusion, President, we call on the Transitional Government of South Sudan to publish a credible elections preparations work plan and then take the necessary steps towards holding peaceful, inclusive and credible elections in line with the new 2026 timeline.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI: JMU expert available to speak about aviation anxiety

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HARRISONBURG, Va., Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — On the evening of Jan. 29, 2025, an American Eagle Flight 5342 from Wichita, Kansas, carrying 60 passengers and four crew members, collided midair with an Army helicopter near Reagan Washington National Airport.  

    James Madison University professor Lindsey Harvell-Bowman’s research centers around the psychological experiences of suicidality and death anxiety, as well as mortality salience effects in advocacy messages. Harvell-Bowman, a Wichita native, is also the author of “The Psychology and Communication Behind Flight Anxiety: Afraid to Fly,” a book that examines the intersection of journalism, communication and psychology in affecting the flying public.  

    Some of Harvell-Bowman’s suggestions for the flying public include: 

    • Limit aviation disaster-related media. 
    • Fill carry-on luggage with things that give comfort and joy. 
    • Rely on flight anxiety apps. 
    • Avoid alcohol and antianxiety prescription medications. 

    “When we see incidents like the AA5342 crash, it reminds us that even when things go perfectly, we can still have things go terribly wrong,” said Harvell-Bowman.  

    “A lack of control can negatively affect our psyche with potentially long-term effects. This anxiety has the potential to manifest in passenger violence in the air and in airports, creating more anxiety among the flying public. The media are key to helping keep anxieties low among the flying public and create a healthier flying experience for all,” added Harvell-Bowman.  

    To schedule an interview with Harvell-Bowman, please contact Chad Saylor, saylorcx@jmu.edu.   

    ### 

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Trump’s proposal to ‘take over’ Gaza could mean for Arab-Israeli relations

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Mabon, Professor of International Relations, Lancaster University

    US president Donald Trump has made the extraordinary suggestion that the US should seize control of the Gaza Strip and permanently remove its Palestinian inhabitants. Speaking to the press at the White House alongside the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said the US would “own [Gaza] and be responsible”.

    When pushed on the practicalities of such a move, Trump replied that the US would “do what is necessary” and develop the land into the “riviera of the Middle East”. “It’ll be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of,” he said.

    The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, later wrote in a post on X: “The United States stands ready to lead and Make Gaza Beautiful Again. Our pursuit is one of lasting peace in the region for all people.”

    Trump’s declaration has been celebrated by many on the Israeli right, who have long supported the removal of Palestinian residents from Gaza. But it has also been met with anger across the Arab world and beyond.

    Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, called Trump’s proposal “incitement to commit forced displacement”. Some politicians have described his comments as an endorsement of ethnic cleansing.

    Trump first uttered his desire to “clean out” Gaza a week before this announcement. This prompted foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt to sign a statement affirming their rejection of efforts to “compromise Palestinians’ unalienable rights, whether through settlement activities, or evictions or annex of land or through vacating the land from its owners”.

    The statement, made by a group of states not generally known for operating in a unified manner, ended by congratulating Rubio on his appointment. But the message to the Trump administration was clear: the two-state solution is the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Trump’s latest proclamations will deepen schisms across the region between Israel and its Arab neighbours, and prompt questions about the future role of the US in the Middle East.

    Egypt and Jordan’s response

    Any attempt by Washington to seize control of Gaza, which would almost certainly involve military force, would evoke parallels with 1948 and what is known in Arabic as the nakba, or “the catastrophe”.

    At that time, many Palestinians had to flee their land in what is now Israel, setting in motion decades of conflict between Israel and neighbouring Arab states. Acts of terrorism in the intervening years have cost thousands of lives on all sides.

    Trump’s call for Arab states to take in Palestinians from Gaza – who he says have no alternative but to abandon the coastal strip – ignores the strength of feeling across the world about the Palestinian issue.

    Egypt, for example, has long rejected the idea of housing Gaza’s population, amid growing socio-economic pressures and longstanding fears of Islamist violence. And Jordan has been steadfast in its desire not to host more Palestinians, having already provided refuge for people fleeing Palestine in 1948 and 1967. It has, more recently, also become the main destination for refugees from Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

    On February 5, Egypt’s foreign minister, Badr Abdelatty, met with the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammed Mustafa, in Cairo. According to an Egyptian foreign ministry statement, the pair jointly rejected Trump’s proposal for a US takeover of Gaza.

    Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace deals with Israel. But relations have not always been cordial, and the destruction of Gaza has exacerbated these tensions. Trump’s latest comments, as well as those from the Israeli right, will only worsen the situation.

    Relations with Saudi Arabia

    During Trump’s first term, his administration secured a significant diplomatic victory by brokering the Abraham accords. The accords, all of which were signed in the latter half of 2020, normalised relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and later Morocco.

    The signatories to the Abraham accords have been conspicuously quiet about Israel’s actions in Gaza. And it remains to be seen what effect Trump’s proposed Gaza takeover could have on relations between these states. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco have, at the time of writing, not yet announced their response.

    Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has remained the jewel in the diplomatic crown seemingly out of reach both for the Trump administration and that of his successor, Joe Biden. The kingdom occupies a prominent place within the Arab and Muslim world by virtue of its custodianship of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina.

    Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, has taken an increasingly hard line on normalisation with Israel in recent months, suggesting that such a deal would not be possible without the establishment of a Palestinian state.

    In a statement released on February 5, the Saudi foreign ministry said it rejected “any attempts to displace the Palestinians from their land”. And bin Salman has affirmed the kingdom’s position that it would not establish ties with Israel without a Palestinian state.

    During his press conference, Trump suggested that Saudi Arabia was not demanding a Palestinian homeland. But statements from Saudi officials since then contradict this narrative and point to increasingly divergent views on Gaza – and indeed, the future of Palestine – between Riyadh and Washington.

    Fundamentally, Trump’s remarks are the latest in a long line of bombastic diplomatic flourishes that appear designed to provoke as much as to enact policy. But in this case, even rhetorical provocations will have consequences for already strained relations between Israel and the wider Arab world.

    Simon Mabon receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    ref. What Trump’s proposal to ‘take over’ Gaza could mean for Arab-Israeli relations – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-proposal-to-take-over-gaza-could-mean-for-arab-israeli-relations-249184

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Africa: US health funding cuts: what Nigeria stands to lose

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Oyewale Tomori, Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science

    US president Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization is threatening funding for critical health programmes like HIV/Aids and tuberculosis in different parts of the world, including Nigeria.

    The Conversation Africa’s Adejuwon Soyinka asked professor of virology and former WHO Africa regional virologist Oyewale Tomori why Nigeria is heavily dependent on US funding for some of its health programmes, what’s at risk and how to mitigate the impact.

    How dependent is Nigeria on US funding for health?

    Sadly, Nigeria and many African countries are too dependent on US funding and other donor funding for basic health activities and interventions. These activities are the normal function of a good and responsive government which is committed to the welfare of citizens.

    According to a US embassy publication, since 2021, the US has committed to providing nearly US$20 billion in health programmes in Africa. The report says in 2023 alone, the US invested over US$600 million in health assistance in Nigeria. That is about 21% of Nigeria’s 2023 annual health budget.

    Nigeria has, over the years, allocated on the average about 5% of the national budget to health. Three quarters of that covers recurrent expenditure like salaries.

    Nigeria’s proposed 2025 budget is ₦49.74 trillion (US$33 billion), of which ₦2.4 trillion (US$1.6 billion) (4.8%) is allocated to health. This is lower than the 5.15% allocated to health in the 2024 budget.

    The private sector plays a significant role in the Nigeria’s healthcare system, providing close to 60% of healthcare services.

    In recent years, traditional medicine is increasingly offering complementary and alternative medicine in support of the services provided by the federal, state and local government areas levels.

    What health programmes does the US fund in Nigeria?

    The US support is focused on preventing malaria, under the US President’s Malaria Initiative; ending HIV, through the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief; and delivering vaccines (COVID, polio, rotavirus, IPV2 and HPV).

    Malaria is a major public health concern in Nigeria. In 2021, there were an estimated 68 million cases of malaria and 194,000 deaths. Nigeria has the highest burden of malaria globally, nearly 27% of the global malaria burden.

    Nigeria has a high burden of HIV – fourth in the world. A large number of Nigerians live with the virus. The national agency responsible for AIDS control reported a rate of 1,400 new HIV cases per week in 2023.

    Nigeria has experienced outbreaks of yellow fever, meningitis, cholera, Lassa fever and COVID-19.

    In addition to helping with managing these major diseases, the US government also provided funds to strengthen the country’s ability to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from emerging public health threats.

    With these funds, a Public Health Emergency Management Programme was established and national disease surveillance systems were upgraded. Nigeria’s laboratory diagnostics were enhanced to test for Ebola, mpox, yellow fever, measles, Lassa fever, cholera and cerebrospinal meningitis.

    Other countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, the UK) also provided support through building and equipping laboratories and training health workers.

    What’s most at risk?

    Interventions most at risk are those of which the Nigerian government has abdicated its responsibilities to the donors. They include provision of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria, insecticide-treated bed nets, malaria preventive treatments in pregnancy, provision of fast acting malaria medicines and insecticide for home spraying.

    The following HIV interventions are likely to be adversely affected: HIV counselling and testing services, especially for pregnant women to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and the care of people living with HIV with TB/HIV services, as well as care and support for orphans and vulnerable children.

    Sustaining laboratory capacity for rapid disease diagnosis will suffer a major setback with reduced or lack of reagents and consumables.

    A huge amount of laboratory equipment is provided by donors. Servicing and replacement of equipment will be affected.

    The Nigerian health sector’s challenges include inadequate funding, shortage of healthcare professionals, poor access to healthcare due to cost, poor infrastructure, and high prevalence of preventable diseases.

    Cutting off US money is not likely to affect the shortage of healthcare professionals, as the major reason for the shortage is their deteriorating work environment and unsafe social environment. This environment was created by years of economic downturn and social insecurity in Nigeria.

    Why is Nigeria still so reliant on US funding?

    I think Nigeria lacks national pride as it begs for assistance to provide what it already has the resources for. The government seems to place the well-being of the citizens on a secondary status.

    Many African governments assume the world owes Africa compensation for colonial activities. But to me, the danger to Nigeria’s freedom from dependency is not truly knowing what we are, who we are, and how endowed we are.

    The world describes Nigeria as “resource limited” and, without thinking, Nigerians accept such name calling. Nigeria is not resource-limited, it is resource wasteful. Nigeria is not resource constrained; it is corruption constrained. Until Nigerians know who and what we are, we will never find the solution to our problems.

    Nigeria’s acceptance of the tag “resource-limited” drives it to beg for assistance even in areas of its highest capability, capacity and competence and where it has highly trained people. Like disease prevention and control.

    Africa has since the 1960s experienced numerous outbreaks of diseases and has acquired significant expertise in disease prevention and control. An example is the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Nigeria, which was brought under control within three months with only 20 cases and eight deaths.

    This was a disease that raged for three years and ravaged three countries: Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. It was reported in seven others with 28,600 cases and 11,326 deaths.

    In Nigeria, the country coordinated response activities which were anchored on the participation of the community. The community was part of disease investigation, contact tracing, isolation of cases and adoption of infection, prevention and control interventions.

    How can Nigeria mitigate the impact?

    Nigeria must immediately provide emergency funds to cover the shortfall arising from the action of the US government. What Trump has done should have been anticipated, because he did the same things during his first term of office.

    Nigeria must re-order its priorities, and provide funds to create and sustain an enabling environment for talented human resources to function effectively for disease control and prevention.

    The country must prioritise disease prevention and control (in that order) through adequate and sustained funding of disease surveillance activities at all levels of governance.

    Nigeria needs to decentralise disease surveillance, prevention and control by enabling states and local government areas to take responsibility. The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention should coordinate state and local government areas activities, instead of acting as the controller of diseases in Nigeria.

    – US health funding cuts: what Nigeria stands to lose
    – https://theconversation.com/us-health-funding-cuts-what-nigeria-stands-to-lose-248921

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Violent crime in South Africa happens mostly in a few hotspots: police resources should focus there – criminologist

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Guy Lamb, Criminologist / Senior Lecturer, Stellenbosch University

    Crime researchers use murder (or homicide) rate per 100,000 as a crude measure of the general level of violent interpersonal crime globally. According to the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime, South Africa’s murder rate of 45 per 100,000 (2023/24) is the second highest for countries that publish crime data.

    The South African Police Service crime data shows that levels of attempted murder, armed robbery and robberies at homes have soared over the past 10 years. Other categories of violent crime, such as assault and sexual violence, also remain high.

    High crime rates have had considerable negative effects on the country’s economy. The destructive impact of violent crime is estimated to cost the equivalent of 15 % of GDP.

    In 2019, President Cyril Ramaphosa indicated that government would seek to reduce violent crime by 50% within a decade. The police budget increased by 24% from 2018/19 to 2024/25. But the murder rate increased by 25%, from 36 per 100,000 in 2018/19 to 45 per 100,000 in 2023/24.

    I have spent 25 years researching violent crime and policing in South Africa. I also wrote a 2022 book, Policing and Boundaries in a Violent Society, and conducted various studies for the Institute for Security Studies.

    In my view, the logical approach for government is to attend to the top 100 high crime areas. I’ll show why below. It must use the resources of the departments in its justice, crime prevention and security cluster to intervene in targeted, evidence-based ways, to combat and prevent crime.

    Where crime is happening and what police are doing

    Violent crime in South Africa has consistently been highly concentrated in a small number of urban areas. For example, 20% of all reported murders occur in just 30 policing areas (2.6% of the 1,149 policing areas). About 50% of all violent crime occurs in 100 policing areas (9% of the precincts).

    Place-based crime reduction interventions have yielded positive results in high crime cities in a variety of countries, such as the US, Argentina and Trinidad and Tobago.

    But in South Africa, the approach to fighting crime has focused instead on arrests and on force. This is why increasing the funding hasn’t had results.

    The police arrested around 1.5 million criminal suspects a year between 2019/20 and 2023/24. (The exception was 2020/1, with 2.8 million arrests due to COVID-19 lockdown violations.)

    A negative outcome of this police action has been rising civil claims against police, amounting to R67.4 billion (US$3.6 billion) as of March 2024 (47,818 claims).

    The police have also used militarised approaches, such as Operation Shanela. Officers have been encouraged to be more forceful against alleged criminals.

    There is very little evidence to suggest that militarised policing reduces violent crime. It can actually contribute to declining public trust in the police. Only 27% of the population consider police trustworthy (from 47% in 1999).

    Despite the police budget increasing in recent years, their effectiveness has been undermined by declining personnel numbers. In 2018, there were 150,639 police personnel. This has dropped to 140,048 in recent years. There has also been a substantial reduction in the police reserve force.

    A gangster shows off his gun and ammunition at the Cape Flats, Cape Town. Rodger Bosch/AFP via Getty Images.

    A further challenge is the high rate of recidivism (re-offending). An estimated 90% of offenders commit crime again after leaving prison.

    Six actions for 100 worst areas

    I argue that six things need to happen in the 100 worst crime areas:

    • reduce the number of firearms in circulation

    • improve the number of court-ready police dockets

    • improve place-based crime intelligence

    • reduce alcohol harms

    • provide rehabilitation and support services for offenders

    • boost community safety organisations.

    Firearms control

    Firearms are the leading weapon used in murders and in several categories of robberies. They are also commonly used in sexual violence, and feature in gangsterism and organised crime.

    Confiscating illegal firearms and ammunition, and securing convictions for those found in possession of illegal firearms, will have a positive impact in the target areas.

    This requires a close working relationship between police and the National Prosecuting Authority to collect appropriate evidence and prepare court dockets adequately.

    Rulings by magistrates that declare certain people unfit to possess licensed firearms must be monitored regularly.

    Court-ready police dockets

    The National Prosecuting Authority has undergone reforms over the past six years to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. As a result, it has secured high conviction rates for several categories of violent crimes. However, many police dockets lack sufficient reliable evidence for the prosecutors to present so as to secure convictions in court.

    As the table below shows, the vast majority of recorded violent crime cases do not result in a court conviction.

    Police officials in high crime areas are typically overwhelmed by the large number of criminal cases they need to investigate. That means only a small number of dockets that have a likelihood of securing a conviction are prepared.

    More resources are needed to increase cooperation between the police and prosecutors.

    Place-based crime intelligence

    Better crime intelligence could result in better control of illegal firearms and higher quality police dockets.

    Police crime intelligence and other departments in the justice and security cluster must cooperate and share information.

    Alcohol harms

    Several forms of violent crime are linked to excessive alcohol consumption. Unregulated alcohol outlets present the most risky context for committing violence. There is an opportunity for police, prosecutors (especially through the Community Prosecutions Initiative) and municipalities to collaborate to reduce alcohol related crime and harms in the top 100 high crime areas.

    This requires more effective monitoring and policing of alcohol outlets to ensure better compliance with liquor laws.

    Rehabilitation and support services for offenders

    It is likely that recidivism rates would be reduced if former prisoners and their families had better rehabilitation services in the top 100 high crime areas. Studies suggest that the most effective and practical programmes are those that focus on substance abuse, restorative justice, mental health, education and income generation.

    Such services could give former inmates a means to generate an income legally.

    Community safety organisations

    Studies have shown that crime can be reduced when police and other government entities work closely with community organisations to devise solutions.

    Community police forums and neighbourhood watches are examples of these kinds of arrangements.

    They can collect intelligence and help the authorities design and implement evidence-based crime prevention actions that focus on the areas where crime is concentrated, and on the situations that tend to drive crime.

    – Violent crime in South Africa happens mostly in a few hotspots: police resources should focus there – criminologist
    – https://theconversation.com/violent-crime-in-south-africa-happens-mostly-in-a-few-hotspots-police-resources-should-focus-there-criminologist-248233

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI: BitMart Introduces Credit/Debit Card Payment for Crypto Purchases with Zero Fees & Exclusive Rewards

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Mahe, Seychelles , Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — BitMart, a leading global cryptocurrency exchange, is excited to announce the launch of its new Credit/Debit Card Buy Crypto feature. This new service allows users worldwide to purchase cryptocurrencies directly using fiat currencies such as USD, EUR, and GBP, providing a seamless and efficient way to enter the crypto market.

    Key Features & Benefits

    • Convenient Transactions: BitMart Users can buy crypto directly with their credit or debit cards without navigating complex deposit processes.
    • Multi-Currency Support: A wide range of fiat currencies are accepted, catering to global users.
    • Broad Crypto Selection: Supports the purchase of major cryptocurrencies, including BTC, ETH, USDT, and more.
    • Faster & Cheaper: Instant transaction confirmation with lower fees compared to traditional payment methods.
    • Integrated Experience: No need to switch to third-party services—users can complete transactions smoothly and efficiently within BitMart’s platform.

    Global Reach & Enhanced Security

    This feature enables BitMart users from regions including EEA, North America, South America, and Asia to fund their accounts effortlessly. BitMart has partnered with leading global payment service providers to ensure top-tier security for all transactions, giving users peace of mind when purchasing digital assets.

    Limited-Time Zero Fee Promotion & Exclusive Rewards – Share 15,000 USDT

    To celebrate the launch, BitMart is introducing an exclusive Zero-Fee Promotion along with additional incentives from Feb. 05 – March 04:

    1. Zero Processing Fees: Users who buy crypto with a credit or debit card during the promotion period will enjoy zero transaction fees.
    2. Referral Bonus: The first 100 users daily who purchase at least 100 USDT in crypto and invite a friend to do the same will receive a 5 USDT reward each.
    3. 3% Cashback for Futures Trading: Users who transfer funds to their futures account can earn up to 3% cashback on transferred assets.
    4. VIP Savings Privilege: Users who accumulate at least 500 USDT in crypto purchases will gain VIP access to exclusive savings products for seven days.

    Total Rewards Pool: 15,000 USDT available for participants, distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Join the Future of Crypto Transactions Today

    BitMart’s new Credit/Debit Card Buy Crypto feature simplifies crypto purchases, lowers entry barriers, and enhances user experience. Don’t miss out on this opportunity to trade seamlessly with zero fees and exciting rewards.

    For more details, visit BitMart’s official website.

    About BitMart
    BitMart is the premier global digital asset trading platform. With millions of users worldwide and ranked among the top crypto exchanges on CoinGecko, it currently offers 1,600+ trading pairs with competitive trading fees. Constantly evolving and growing, BitMart is interested in crypto’s potential to drive innovation and promote financial inclusion. To learn more about BitMart, visit their Website, follow their X (Twitter), or join their Telegram for updates, news, and promotions. Download BitMart App to trade anytime, anywhere.

    Disclaimer:

    Use of BitMart services is entirely at your own risk. All crypto investments, including earnings, are highly speculative in nature and involve substantial risk of loss. Past, hypothetical, or simulated performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. The value of digital currencies can go up or down and there can be a substantial risk in buying, selling, holding, or trading digital currencies. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital currencies is suitable for you based on your personal investment objectives, financial circumstances, and risk tolerance. BitMart does not provide any investment, legal, or tax advice.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Global: Violent crime in South Africa happens mostly in a few hotspots: police resources should focus there – criminologist

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Guy Lamb, Criminologist / Senior Lecturer, Stellenbosch University

    Crime researchers use murder (or homicide) rate per 100,000 as a crude measure of the general level of violent interpersonal crime globally. According to the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime, South Africa’s murder rate of 45 per 100,000 (2023/24) is the second highest for countries that publish crime data.

    The South African Police Service crime data shows that levels of attempted murder, armed robbery and robberies at homes have soared over the past 10 years. Other categories of violent crime, such as assault and sexual violence, also remain high.

    High crime rates have had considerable negative effects on the country’s economy. The destructive impact of violent crime is estimated to cost the equivalent of 15 % of GDP.

    In 2019, President Cyril Ramaphosa indicated that government would seek to reduce violent crime by 50% within a decade. The police budget increased by 24% from 2018/19 to 2024/25. But the murder rate increased by 25%, from 36 per 100,000 in 2018/19 to 45 per 100,000 in 2023/24.

    I have spent 25 years researching violent crime and policing in South Africa. I also wrote a 2022 book, Policing and Boundaries in a Violent Society, and conducted various studies for the Institute for Security Studies.

    In my view, the logical approach for government is to attend to the top 100 high crime areas. I’ll show why below. It must use the resources of the departments in its justice, crime prevention and security cluster to intervene in targeted, evidence-based ways, to combat and prevent crime.

    Where crime is happening and what police are doing

    Violent crime in South Africa has consistently been highly concentrated in a small number of urban areas. For example, 20% of all reported murders occur in just 30 policing areas (2.6% of the 1,149 policing areas). About 50% of all violent crime occurs in 100 policing areas (9% of the precincts).

    Place-based crime reduction interventions have yielded positive results in high crime cities in a variety of countries, such as the US, Argentina and Trinidad and Tobago.

    But in South Africa, the approach to fighting crime has focused instead on arrests and on force. This is why increasing the funding hasn’t had results.

    The police arrested around 1.5 million criminal suspects a year between 2019/20 and 2023/24. (The exception was 2020/1, with 2.8 million arrests due to COVID-19 lockdown violations.)

    A negative outcome of this police action has been rising civil claims against police, amounting to R67.4 billion (US$3.6 billion) as of March 2024 (47,818 claims).

    The police have also used militarised approaches, such as Operation Shanela. Officers have been encouraged to be more forceful against alleged criminals.

    There is very little evidence to suggest that militarised policing reduces violent crime. It can actually contribute to declining public trust in the police. Only 27% of the population consider police trustworthy (from 47% in 1999).

    Despite the police budget increasing in recent years, their effectiveness has been undermined by declining personnel numbers. In 2018, there were 150,639 police personnel. This has dropped to 140,048 in recent years. There has also been a substantial reduction in the police reserve force.

    A further challenge is the high rate of recidivism (re-offending). An estimated 90% of offenders commit crime again after leaving prison.

    Six actions for 100 worst areas

    I argue that six things need to happen in the 100 worst crime areas:

    • reduce the number of firearms in circulation

    • improve the number of court-ready police dockets

    • improve place-based crime intelligence

    • reduce alcohol harms

    • provide rehabilitation and support services for offenders

    • boost community safety organisations.

    Firearms control

    Firearms are the leading weapon used in murders and in several categories of robberies. They are also commonly used in sexual violence, and feature in gangsterism and organised crime.

    Confiscating illegal firearms and ammunition, and securing convictions for those found in possession of illegal firearms, will have a positive impact in the target areas.

    This requires a close working relationship between police and the National Prosecuting Authority to collect appropriate evidence and prepare court dockets adequately.

    Rulings by magistrates that declare certain people unfit to possess licensed firearms must be monitored regularly.

    Court-ready police dockets

    The National Prosecuting Authority has undergone reforms over the past six years to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. As a result, it has secured high conviction rates for several categories of violent crimes. However, many police dockets lack sufficient reliable evidence for the prosecutors to present so as to secure convictions in court.

    As the table below shows, the vast majority of recorded violent crime cases do not result in a court conviction.

    Police officials in high crime areas are typically overwhelmed by the large number of criminal cases they need to investigate. That means only a small number of dockets that have a likelihood of securing a conviction are prepared.

    More resources are needed to increase cooperation between the police and prosecutors.

    Place-based crime intelligence

    Better crime intelligence could result in better control of illegal firearms and higher quality police dockets.

    Police crime intelligence and other departments in the justice and security cluster must cooperate and share information.

    Alcohol harms

    Several forms of violent crime are linked to excessive alcohol consumption. Unregulated alcohol outlets present the most risky context for committing violence. There is an opportunity for police, prosecutors (especially through the Community Prosecutions Initiative) and municipalities to collaborate to reduce alcohol related crime and harms in the top 100 high crime areas.

    This requires more effective monitoring and policing of alcohol outlets to ensure better compliance with liquor laws.

    Rehabilitation and support services for offenders

    It is likely that recidivism rates would be reduced if former prisoners and their families had better rehabilitation services in the top 100 high crime areas. Studies suggest that the most effective and practical programmes are those that focus on substance abuse, restorative justice, mental health, education and income generation.

    Such services could give former inmates a means to generate an income legally.

    Community safety organisations

    Studies have shown that crime can be reduced when police and other government entities work closely with community organisations to devise solutions.

    Community police forums and neighbourhood watches are examples of these kinds of arrangements.

    They can collect intelligence and help the authorities design and implement evidence-based crime prevention actions that focus on the areas where crime is concentrated, and on the situations that tend to drive crime.

    Guy Lamb receives funding from the Research Council of Norway and the British Academy.

    ref. Violent crime in South Africa happens mostly in a few hotspots: police resources should focus there – criminologist – https://theconversation.com/violent-crime-in-south-africa-happens-mostly-in-a-few-hotspots-police-resources-should-focus-there-criminologist-248233

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Southport perpetrator Prevent Learning Review

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Security Minister Dan Jarvis gave an update on the Prevent Learning Review – jointly commissioned with Counter Terrorism Policing following the Southport attack.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement updating the House on the government’s response to the Southport murders.

    The attack in Southport in July last year was one of the most appalling and barbaric crimes committed in this country.

    For young children and adults to be attacked in this way and 3 young girls killed is utterly heartbreaking. The Home Secretary and I would like to thank those people who showed great bravery in attempting to stop the attack.  

    For this foul act of violence to happen while children were enjoying themselves at a dance class at the beginning of the school holidays is beyond comprehension.

    Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the 3 girls and all those injured as they continue to live with the trauma of that dark day.

    No one should have to go through what they have, and we are steadfast in our commitment to ensuring they get every possible support.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, responsibility for this abhorrent attack lies with the perpetrator. Axel Rudakubana has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum of 52 years in prison.

    And Mr Justice Goose said it is highly likely that he will never be released.

    When the Home Secretary addressed the House on this case last month, she outlined the multiple interactions the perpetrator had with state bodies in the years before the attack. This included police, social services and mental health services.

    There are serious questions about how various agencies failed to identify and collectively act on the warning signs.

    All those questions must be answered – we owe that to the families, who deserve the truth about what went wrong.

    That is why the government is committed to understanding and addressing the failings in this tragic case through a comprehensive public inquiry.  

    It will examine the issues raised in this case but also wider challenges around rising youth violence.

    We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry.

    We will consult the families to ensure all critical issues are addressed while remaining sensitive to the needs of those most affected. We expect to announce further details about the inquiry next month.

    While we do not pre-empt the conclusions of the inquiry, there are areas where action can and must be progressed immediately.

    Prevent is a vital part of our counter-terrorism system. We must endeavour to identify those susceptible to radicalisation early and before they go on to commit terrorist acts.

    Prevent receives nearly 7,000 referrals every year and our hard-working frontline staff have supported nearly 5000 people away from terrorism since 2015. We must get Prevent right.

    That is why the Home Office and Counter-Terrorism Policing commissioned a rapid Prevent learning review immediately after the attack.

    These are usually internal technical reviews intended to identify swift learning and improvement for Prevent.

    But the importance of the families needing answers has meant that, today, following close engagement with the families, we are taking the unusual step of publishing the Prevent Learning Review.

    And I can update the House that the perpetrator was referred to Prevent 3 times between December 2019, when he was aged 13, and April 2021, when he was 14. Those referrals were made by his schools.

    The first referral reported concerns about him carrying a knife and searching for school shootings on the internet. The second referral was focused on his online activity relating to Libya and Gaddafi. His third referral was for searching for London bombings, the IRA, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    On each of these occasions, the decision at the time was that the perpetrator should not progress to the Channel multi-agency process.

    But the Prevent Learning Review found that there was sufficient risk for the perpetrator to have been managed through Prevent.

    It found that the referral was closed prematurely and there was sufficient concern to keep the case active while further information was collected.

    The review is clear on the concerning behaviours that the perpetrator demonstrated. It highlights his interest in the Manchester Arena attack.

    That he talked about stabbing people.

    And it flagged that some of the grievances that could have been a motivation, were not fully considered.

    The review also highlights the perpetrator’s clear vulnerabilities and complex needs that may have made him more susceptible to being drawn into terrorism.

    The review concluded that:

    1. Too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology, to the detriment of considering the perpetrator’s susceptibility, grievances, and complex needs.
    2. There was an under-exploration of the significance of his repeat referrals and the cumulative risk, including his history of violence.
    3. There were potentially incomplete lines of enquiry.
    4. And that at the time, the perpetrator could have fallen into a Mixed, Unclear or Unstable category for Channel due to his potential interest in mass violence.

    Indeed, the overall conclusion of the review is that he should have been case-managed through the Channel multi-agency process, rather than closed to Prevent.

    This would have enabled co-ordinated multi-agency risk management and support.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prevent Learning Review made 14 recommendations for improvements to Prevent.

    We have accepted these findings and rapid action has been taken to implement the recommendations.

    Counter Terrorism Policing have conducted in-depth assurance visits to every region to determine whether the issues identified in this case have been resolved by operational improvements made since 2021.

    Urgent work is underway to address the findings.

    The Prevent Assessment Framework was launched in September and is now in place across all regions. It was developed by experts and is being used to triage and risk-assess all Prevent referrals. It will improve decision-making at all stages of the Prevent system. Roll-out of this tool has been accompanied by rigorous mandatory training.

    We have begun an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds to ensure Prevent can deal with the full range of threats we see today, from Islamist extremism, which is the most significant terrorist threat the UK faces, through to the fascination with mass violence we saw in the Southport case.

    This internal review will complete in April and further strengthen the approach to repeat referrals, and ensure that clear policy, guidance, and training is in place.

    We have completed the first stage of a policy review into how Prevent supports referrals who have mental ill-health or are neurodivergent.

    Actions for improving the operational approach have been identified and will be implemented swiftly, with oversight from the new Prevent Commissioner.

    We are also strengthening our approach to the oversight of referrals that do not meet Prevent thresholds, to make sure that people receive the right support.

    Next week, a pilot starts in several local areas to test new approaches to cases that are transferred to other services.

    And, of course, the government has appointed Lord Anderson as Interim Prevent Commissioner. This is the first time that Prevent will have a dedicated independent oversight, in its history and this will ensure Prevent is always held to the highest standards.

    His first task is to review the perpetrator’s Prevent history, drawing on the Prevent Learning Review. This will identify whether there is further learning, examine improvements made to Prevent since 2021, and identify any remaining gaps that require further improvement. 

    Lord Anderson will complete the review within his term as Interim Commissioner, which will end with the appointment of a permanent commissioner in the summer of this year.

    But it is simply not enough to focus only on this case. We need to take an even more robust approach to identifying learning swiftly and driving that learning through the Prevent system.

    The Prevent Commissioner will be tasked with overseeing a new approach to Prevent learning reviews that enables rapid debriefing and urgent action after incidents, but also provides a clear framework that binds other agencies into the joint learning process.

    Transparency and enabling public scrutiny is also fundamental.

    And that is why we will take steps to publish the findings of other independent Prevent learning reviews where there has been an incident of national significance.

    So, Madam Deputy Speaker, next week, we will publish the Prevent Learning Review into the appalling attack on Sir David Amess to enable further public scrutiny of this important programme.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, the first duty of government is to ensure the security of our country and the safety of our people, because nothing matters more.

    And while we can never undo the hurt and pain caused by this unthinkably wretched attack, we can, we must and we will do everything in our power to prevent further atrocities.

    As the Prime Minister said, Southport must be a line in the sand for Britain.

    If that means asking difficult questions about shortcomings or failures, so be it.

    If it means holding institutions and processes to account, we will do so without fear or favour.

    And if changes are required to protect the public and combat the threats that we face, then this government will not hesitate to act.

    I commend this statement to the House.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Keynote Address on Counterterrorism and International Cooperation

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Thank you, Dr. [Robin] Niblett, for that kind introduction; for your leadership here at the Royal Institute of International Affairs; and for your lifetime of dedicated work in the service of international cooperation and global security.  I also want to thank Prime Minister [David] Cameron and the members of Her Majesty’s government for their hospitality during my visit to the United Kingdom.  And I’d like to thank this group of distinguished colleagues, inspiring leaders and devoted public servants for participating in this important conversation.  It’s a privilege to join you here today as we honor the unique bond between our nations; as we reaffirm the cherished values and ideals that we share; and as we rededicate ourselves to building the stronger, safer, and more united world for which we have fought together in the past, and toward which we continue to strive today.

    The United Kingdom and the United States have long been close partners and staunch allies and the connection between us – which Winston Churchill referred to as our “special relationship” – is one with deep roots and a rich history.  Almost all of America’s founders proudly considered themselves Englishmen and many were hesitant to shed that honorable title, even after the start of the American Revolution.  And the revolution itself – though it pitted us against one another in armed conflict – was inspired by the ideals of the British Enlightenment: responsive government, robust rights and liberties, and the fundamental equality of all people.      

    Those ideals have been a source of mutual understanding and shared strength ever since – and while they have been threatened by injustice within our nations and hostility from beyond our shores, they have continued not only to endure, but to expand.  Through the courageous struggles of prominent leaders and humble citizens; of freed slaves and former colonial subjects; of suffragists, ethnic minorities, religious dissenters and gay and lesbian advocates – we have extended the rights of liberty, equality and justice.  Through the tremendous courage and sacrifice of our countrymen –in two World Wars, in battlefields of Korea and today in the skies over Syria and Iraq– we have defended our beliefs against tyranny and oppression.  And together, we have come to the aid of others inspired by the principles that we share.

    Today, the values that have guided and defined us for centuries are facing a persistent threat: the rise of global terrorism and extremism – a scourge that has inflicted its pain on both of our nations in the recent past.  Ten years ago, this great city endured devastating attacks on its public transportation system, and you suffered another attack in the Underground only this week.  In the United States, as you know, we have also suffered terrorist attacks and we are currently investigating last week’s tragic shootings in California as an act of terror.  And as recent events in Paris, Beirut, and Mali remind us, we are far from alone in being targeted by these agents of violence.  These attacks are carried out with a single, repugnant purpose: to harm, frighten and intimidate anyone who believes in open and tolerant societies; in free and democratic governments; and in the right of every human being to live in peace, security and freedom.  As two nations who serve as beacons of those ideals to people around the world, we have a special responsibility to take on this terrorist threat, and to prevent it from causing the destruction it is so desperate to inflict.

    As Attorney General of the United States, my highest priorities are the security of our country and the safety of the American people.  At the Department of Justice, we are working tirelessly to uncover and disrupt plots that take aim not only at the United States, but at nations around the world.  We are acting aggressively to defuse threats as they emerge.  And we are vigorously investigating and prosecuting individuals who seek to harm innocent people.  To stop plots before they can be brought to fruition, we are going after individuals engaged in preparatory activities like fundraising, recruitment, planning and training.  Our approach has yielded important results: since 2013, we have charged more than 70 individuals for conduct related to foreign terrorist fighter interests and homegrown violent extremism and we continue to take action designed to monitor and thwart potential extremist activity. 

    But no nation can fight terrorism alone.  As our world continues to grow more interconnected and interdependent, cooperation and joint action are more essential than ever to combating cross-border threats like terrorism, cybercrime, corruption and human trafficking.  And while modern technology has helped to widen the circle of opportunity for so many citizens around the globe, it has also provided new channels that criminals can exploit for their own ends.  Online, violent ideologies can rapidly proliferate and spread and threats can leap borders and oceans in an instant.  No nation can exist in a bubble of isolation; no country can imagine themselves immune from world events; and the security of each state increasingly depends on the security of all states.  The words of four centuries past ring ever true today, “no man is an island entire of itself.”  In this environment, our strategic understanding and our common humanity demand that we supplement nationwide vigilance with international cooperation.

    That is why the United States is working with organizations like INTERPOL and EUROPOL to share information on foreign fighters.  It’s why we have provided resources, including FBI agents, to support INTERPOL’s Fusion Cell, which investigates the training, financing, methods and motives of terrorist groups around the world.  And it is why we have crafted information-sharing agreements with more than 45 international partners to identify and track suspected terrorists – a partnership that has now provided INTERPOL with approximately 4,000 profiles on foreign terrorist fighters.  From efforts to degrade terrorist capabilities, to building cooperative networks that help to preserve and share information and evidence after an attack, we are demonstrating our deep commitment to collaboration worldwide. 

    Let me give one example of how critical it is that we work together.  Terrorists, like other criminals, count on the difficulties that law enforcement agencies have in sharing information across borders – difficulties that are magnified now that electronic information may be stored in many different countries and may quickly disappear.  But starting some years ago, criminal justice experts from the U.S., the UK, France and the other G7 countries created the 24/7 cyber network – a rapid reaction system that now links approximately 70 countries.  Thanks to that system, after the recent horrific attacks in Paris, French investigators were able to work immediately with the U.S. Department of Justice and with U.S. Internet Service Providers, to preserve data from social media accounts and webpages identified as connected to the attacks, and to seek emergency disclosures to protect lives.  It is this kind of innovative thinking about international information sharing that we need to increase.

    Of course, it is also important to emphasize that our efforts to fight terrorism must always be compatible with safeguarding privacy and civil liberties – exactly as the 24/7 cyber system is designed to be.  Often, in conversations like this one, there is an implicit assumption that our safety must be balanced against our rights and our values; that there is a necessary trade-off between the hopeful optimism of our ideals and the cold reality of our national security.  But the view that we must abdicate our values to maintain our security presents a false choice.  Rather, our security exists to protect our values, because they are the wellspring of all that we are.  Progress within our nations has always been driven by our desire to live up to our ideals – of inclusiveness and opportunity, of equal rights and equal justice – and if we curb those rights in a misguided bid for short-term security, we betray not only our ancestors; not only ourselves; and not only our children – but all those for whom the United States and the United Kingdom represent the possibility of a better, freer future.

    In this regard, I am proud to say that the Obama Administration, with the support of Congress, has made the protection of civil liberties and privacy a priority in the fight against terrorism.  The record is a remarkable one: President Obama has created unprecedented transparency regarding our guidelines for collection and use of signals intelligence, including signals intelligence collected in bulk.  The President nominated and the senate has confirmed, an independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as envisioned by Congress.  And just last week, independent public advocates were appointed to advise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as called for by the USA Freedom Act.  

    Moreover, in all of these efforts, as President Obama has made clear, our goal is to extend privacy protections not only to U.S. citizens, but to foreign nationals as well.  That is why, after years of negotiation, I am very happy to say that we were able to initial in September the U.S./EU “Umbrella” Data Privacy and Protection Agreement regarding law enforcement information.  And it is why – in a truly unprecedented step – the Administration has supported legislation to extend judicial redress rights to foreign nationals for privacy breaches regarding law enforcement information – legislation that, thanks to strong Congressional support, already has passed our House of Representatives, and is now pending in the Senate.  

    These actions are not only unprecedented, but reflective of the United States’ deep commitment to the principles they protect, as well as the importance of our relationship with our European partners in this struggle.  That is why it is particularly disappointing that the European Court of Justice – in a case based on inaccurate and outdated media reports – recently struck down the Safe Harbor Agreement in the Schrems decision.  And it is highly concerning to us that data privacy legislation advancing in the European Parliament might further restrict transatlantic information sharing – a step that not only ignores the critical need for that information sharing to fight terrorism and transnational crime, but also overlooks the enormous steps forward that the Obama Administration and Congress have taken to protect privacy.  It is important that all of us – on both sides of the Atlantic – work to set the record straight regarding our commitment to protect not only the safety of our citizens, but also their civil liberties and privacy.

    But one thing I am confident of in our work on these issues and in the larger fight against terrorism – we will not lose ourselves to fear.  We will respond to this and other threats the way we know best – by reaffirming the very ideals that distinguish us from those who wish us harm: freedom of speech; religious tolerance; the open exchange of ideas; and government that represents the will of its people.  These are the principles of Runnymede and Philadelphia, of the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution – the principles that we have risen to defend time and again and emerged victorious.  For centuries, these ideals have inspired countless men and women around the world to seek the better life that is the promise of humanity and to demand that the elemental dignity of all mankind be recognized and respected.  And we must keep their promise alive.  

    There is no doubt that we come together at a time of uncertainty, facing dangerous threats and determined adversaries.  But in this moment of global challenge, we remain dedicated to the task that remains before us and to the work that so many have given their last full measure of devotion to fulfill.  Our nations may have been bloodied, but we will remain unbowed – in defense of our citizens, in solidarity with our allies and in allegiance to the values that make us who we are. 

    The road ahead will not always be easy.  We will encounter more times of uncertainty and setbacks.  But as we move forward in the work that will secure our homelands and prove our principles once more, we are fortified with the strength of our time-tested traditions, by the partnership of our longstanding allies and by the legacies of the brave men and women who fought to make our nations everything they are today.  I am confident about the road ahead.  I know that our promise will endure.  And if we can lean on our faith in our enduring values – and hold fast to our unshakeable belief in the cause of justice and the rule of law – then I have no doubt that out of a long and difficult night of challenge, a brighter day will come.

    Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin Delivers Remarks at Practising Law Institute’s Coping with U.S. Export Controls and Sanctions 2015 Conference

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you for that introduction, and for the opportunity to be a part of this important discussion. 

    As you all know, foreign governments and other non-state adversaries of the United States are engaged in an aggressive campaign to evade U.S. sanctions regimes and acquire sensitive U.S. technology.  In so doing, they threaten our economy, our prosperity and, most importantly, our national security.  Disrupting these national security threats is among the highest priorities of the Department of Justice, and the National Security Division. 

    But the responsibility of protecting our nation from these threats is a shared one.  Your clients – the companies you represent – and thus, you, have a critical role to play. 

    Because our companies have our nation’s crown jewels in their possession.  They house information targeted by thieves ranging from foreign powers bent on economic and military superiority, to individual criminals who know the market demand for this information, to terrorists who wish to create weapons of mass destruction. 

    Of course, companies have a responsibility to comply with the export control and sanctions regime.  We must also recognize that our companies are not immune from becoming unwitting victims of thieves and spies.  We live in an age where the threats we face are not limited to unlawful shipments and deliveries of goods.  Threats are also posed by insiders and through cyberspace.  Therefore, to protect what we value, our national assets, companies must learn how to comply with the law and how to protect themselves. 

    That is why it is good to see such a strong turnout.  Lawyers are on the front line helping clients adapt to an ever evolving export control regime.  Lawyers shape strategy – hardening collective defenses and counseling companies on best practices. 

    For example, sitting here today, you know to help your clients comply with export controls and sanctions.   Regimes designed to keep export controlled data and trade secrets out of the hands of rogue nations or terrorists.

    But have you had the chance to counsel those same clients when a cyber-hacker exfiltrated that information?  If you have not, unfortunately, it may only be a matter of time.  Cases involving the theft of export-controlled information via hacking are no longer uncommon. 

    Recently, we’ve brought cases where hackers targeted cleared U.S. defense contractors and stole massive amounts of sensitive data related to military technology, including export-controlled software.  These cases are not the first of their kind, and they will almost certainly not be the last.

    You have the power to help your clients protect themselves.  In a modern, interconnected world, there is quickly emerging a blending of practice areas.  Trade controls blends with data privacy, and export controls and sanctions trigger questions not only of compliance but of cybersecurity. 

    It is a fascinating time to be a practicing lawyer in this area, but one that brings with it grave responsibility. 

    Today, we’ll talk about a broad range of issues that go into being a modern export control practitioner. 

    National Security Division

    But first, I can explain a bit about the National Security Division of the Department of Justice. 

    The National Security Division was created in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, in part in response to a specific recommendation from the WMD Commission.

    The Commission identified intelligence failures that contributed to the attacks.  It highlighted the danger of the so-called wall between foreign intelligence and law enforcement.  We needed to be able to connect the dots.  We needed to change.

    So in 2006, Congress created the National Security Division, creating the first new litigating division in the Department in almost half a century.  The National Security Division brings all of the department’s resources to bear.  We bring down the wall, uniting prosecutors and law enforcement officials with intelligence attorneys and the Intelligence Community.

    We are responsible for executing the highest priority of the Department of Justice – to protect this nation from the full range of national security threats we face.  We are proud to have this essential mission. 

    At the top of our priority list is protecting our nation from terrorist threats.  In recent days, you’ve heard everyone from the president to the attorney general and the director of the FBI speaking at length about the steps we are taking to combat that threat each and every day.

    Just yesterday, we arrested Jalil Ibn Ameer Aziz, 19, a U.S. citizen and resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on charges of conspiring to provide, and attempting to provide, material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  Aziz is alleged to have served as an intermediary between ISIL supporters.  Passing location information, including maps and a phone number, to assist persons seeking to travel and travel to and wage jihad with ISIL.

    Although it may not seem so at first, fighting terrorism and preventing the illegal export of U.S. technology are interrelated goals.  Take the case of Feras Diri.  Diri is indicted in the very same district as Aziz.  We allege he was involved in a scheme to illegally export U.S. goods to Syria in violation of U.S. sanctions.  Some of these good were dual-use items.  It doesn’t take much to imagine the consequences of those items falling into the wrong hands once it reaches Syria. 

    One of the most significant national security threats we face, is the protection of our nation’s assets – including export controlled information, as well as other sensitive information that may be targeted by nation states and terrorists.  In so doing, we take an intelligence-driven, threat-based approach.

    We have an entire section devoted to this work – the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, or simply CES.  We changed the name as part of a restructure to reflect the significance of export control and sanctions enforcement.  This year, CES also finalized a new Strategic Plan, setting forth an aggressive, comprehensive approach.  We know from experience that those seeking to do us harm will look for any available vulnerability to exploit.  They use all tools against us; it is our responsibility to do the same.  Our strategy is driven by the intelligence picture we see, which helps us prioritize and focus on the areas of most significant threat.

    Our Priorities and Our Regime

    Two of our highest priority areas involve China and WMDs.  Both are subject to export controls and regulations.

    Our economy profits from exports, and we support the flow of goods across borders.  But we must balance economic gain with the real threat to national security posed by certain technologies falling into the wrong hands. 

    That is why our export control regime is so important.  It is the best way to keep sensitive military and dual-use technologies, or even information that could be used in weapons of mass destruction, from ending up in the hands of terrorists and other adversaries.  They protect our innovation from being turned against us.

    With an ever-growing and evolving set of threats targeting our sensitive technologies and information, we must be vigilant. We must look at how transactions could make us more vulnerable, and do everything in our power to mitigate those vulnerabilities.

    Take China – despite a long-standing U.S. arms embargo, China continues to surge efforts to acquire advanced U.S. military technology.   China seeks U.S. persons with expertise to illegally provide services and know-how related to sensitive, export-controlled U.S. technology for military gain.  As an example, they targeted U.S. experts on jet engines to assist in developing Chinese-made engines.  If successful, our military edge over China is reduced; our country is put at greater risk.  Knowing what China seeks and why is essential to any sound export compliance and training program. 

    Iranian Sanctions

    Likewise, a high priority remains Iran.

    Earlier this year, the United States, Iran, the E.U. and five other nations reached a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

    The sanctions relief specified in the JCPOA does not go into effect until Implementation Day – which does not occur until after Iran has completed all necessary nuclear steps, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Even after Implementation Day, sanctions relief will not affect most laws and regulations enforced by the Department of Justice. 

    With few exceptions, U.S. or foreign persons involved in the export or re-export of U.S. goods or services to Iran remain subject to prosecution under the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, as do U.S. persons involved in Iranian transactions.

    The only sanctions relief relates to:

    • the export, re-export, sale, lease or transfer to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft, parts and services for civil end-uses;
    • the import of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs; and
    • certain transactions involving Iran by foreign entities owned or controlled by a U.S. person.

    Looking beyond the sanctions to other U.S. export regulations, the JCPOA will have no effect on the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  Likewise, our commitment to prosecuting cases where defense articles on the U.S. Munitions List (USML), defense services and items subject to the EAR are exported to Iran remains as strong as ever.

    So as a practical matter, what does this mean?  Bottom line, companies and individuals, whether U.S. or foreign, need to remain vigilant when it comes to any possible commercial or financial interactions with Iran.  We will continue to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute U.S. export control and sanctions cases involving Iran under our domestic authorities.  Because anything else is simply unacceptable. 

    The export control and sanctions regime in place exists to protect this nation from the proliferation threat.  From sensitive information and technology that could pose a grave danger in the wrong hands making its way to terrorists.  From our innovation being used to develop weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missiles. 

    Iran remains a designated state sponsor of terrorism, and we will not take our eye off of countering Iran’s efforts to support international terrorism and other destabilizing activities in the region.

    Corporate Misconduct

    U.S. companies – particularly in large international corporate structures, must understand this reality. 

    The risks – not only compliance-based risks, but security risks – must be front of mind, and we hope that as the lawyers who counsel, advise and represent these companies, you will talk frankly about them.  

    At the Department of Justice, we continue to prioritize corporate misconduct related to export control and sanctions violations.  The deputy attorney general issued guidance and directed changes to the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual to reflect the department’s sharpened focus in this area including on individual corporate defendants.

    To provide you clarity as you advise clients, we will provide guidance to make clear our current practices on voluntary self-disclosure of export and sanctions criminal violations.  We want to be transparent about our process and the factors we consider when assessing voluntary self-disclosures.  That way, the benefits for your clients are clear, and you can provide clear counsel.

    Because when a company voluntarily self-discloses export control and sanctions misconduct, fully cooperates and appropriately remediates, we will grant the company a significantly reduced penalty.  That can include a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), a reduced period of supervised compliance, a reduced fine and forfeiture and no requirement for a monitor. 

    If one or more aggravating factors are present to a substantial degree – like numerous willful shipments of defense articles to a foreign terrorist organization – a more stringent resolution might be necessary.  In all cases, however, the company that voluntary discloses will find itself in a better position one that does not.

    We are also discussing these issues with our regulatory partners to help you understand how the Department of Justice fits in to the broader regime.  The Department of Justice guidance we ultimately issue on VSDs will not supplant or supersede obligations to regulators.  Our ultimate goal is to be more transparent, so that companies will have more certainty about the benefits of self-disclosure are when dealing with prosecutors.  In the end, we think this is good for our national security mission and good for business.

    Voluntary self-disclosure is responsible.  But even if you choose not to pursue the route of voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation, your corporate clients need to remain vigilant or they may suffer serious consequences.

    Time and again, we have shown that willfully facilitating illegal transactions will not go unpunished. 

    Earlier this year, Schlumberger Oilfield Holdings Ltd. (SOHL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger Ltd., one of the largest oil and gas services companies in the world, pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a penalty of over $232 million for conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by willfully facilitating illegal transactions and engaging in trade with Iran and Sudan.

    What it ultimately came down to, was that one subsidiary failed to adequately train its employees to ensure that all U.S. persons, including non-U.S. citizens who resided in the United States, complied with Schlumberger Ltd.’s sanctions policies and compliance procedures. 

    We will not hesitate to prosecute individuals and entities that facilitate illegal transactions in violation of U.S. sanctions.     

    Vigilance is essential.  Policies and procedures are simply not enough.  They must be fully executed and reinforced.  Simply “checking the box” by implementing an export control and sanctions compliance program without the proper support or follow through will not insulate a company from prosecution.

    Another point to keep in mind is the need to know your markets and your people.  When you’re part of a large corporate family with many segments located overseas, some subject to very different export control laws in foreign countries, you have be careful to ensure that conduct illegal in the U.S. does not become practice here.  If you have doubts, check with your regulator.  Something a foreign national employee does overseas may have been entirely legal there, but once transferred here, is a crime.

    When working with your clients on these and other difficult issues, implore them to be vigilant.  These are complicated areas, and it takes sound advice and a high level of scrutiny to ensure compliance.  

    Insider Threats

    Unfortunately, compliance is only one piece of the puzzle.  Because, in addition to the compliance risks that are common in global operations, your corporate clients – and, in fact, even potentially their outside counsel –also are vulnerable to the threats from insiders and hackers. 

    Insider threats – threats from trusted employees and contractors – is now a significant problem.  And they are threat to national security when they steal sensitive export-controlled technology.

    For instance, Mozaffar Khazaee stole materials from each of three defense contractors who employed him, including materials relating to the F35 Joint Strike Fighter.  He attempted to illegally export a shipping container’s worth of those proprietary, export-controlled materials to Iran in order to gain employment there.  After pleading guilty, he received 97 months in prison. 

    Although that sentence sends a strong message to any insider who would consider violating the trust of his or her employer, deterrence alone is not enough. 

    So what can you do to address this problem?  Report incidents of suspected insider theft as soon as they are detected.  Create detailed internal training and compliance programs designed to neutralize threats before they even occur, and provide evidence of willful or knowing conduct in the event an insider is not deterred. 

    Cyber-Enabled Export Violations

    That helps with threats from within our perimeters.  But unfortunately, we also face them from outside our borders.  That is why another of our export control enforcement priorities is to combat cyber exfiltration of sensitive U.S. technologies, including ITAR-controlled technical data.

    In the digital age, foreign nations and their agents can now steal information, including export-controlled technical data and technology, without setting foot on American soil.  Left unchecked, cyber espionage can erode our strategic advantages across commercial and military spectrums.

    When possible, we will use investigations, arrests and prosecutions, to disrupt efforts to steal from you and your clients.  We will also look to use all other legally available tools to deter, like sanctions, designations, diplomacy and other tactics. 

    But your partnership is critical.  You can harden your defenses, create resilient systems, evaluate your cyber hygiene and cooperate with law enforcement when your defenses simply aren’t enough.

    That is why we at the National Security Division and others throughout the U.S. government, including the FBI, have made cooperation with the private sector a key component of our export control strategy. 

    Outreach

    We work with U.S. companies, across all industry sectors, to ensure that our national security interests are protected.  We have spent time and energy in face-to-face sit downs so that we may better understand the concerns and challenges faced by U.S. companies, share guidance and information, and be there to help with protection, detection, attribution and response.  We can warn our companies that manufacture or sell targeted U.S. parts and technology when certain bad actors are seeking the particular parts and technology they make.

    Corporate outreach helps sensitize industry to the threat and thereby maximizes the prevention of export control and sanctions violations.  We believe that through such efforts we can help stem the flow of those sensitive goods out of the U.S. to malicious end-users that would use them to threaten our national security interests and the safety of our warfighters. 

    It’s likely that many of you here today have clients that we’ve already met with recently to discuss these types of issues.  If you do not, we would certainly welcome the opportunity to do so in the future.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, we recognize that our export control laws and sanctions regimes are complex and have a significant impact on the U.S. economy.  But they are there to protect against the many threats we face.

    And you play a critical role in that effort.  You and your clients can successfully negotiate the current export control and sanctions regimes and help keep America safe.

    Scrutinize closely each and every transaction undertaken with a foreign counterparty, whether a good or a financial transaction.

    Make sure that you understand the relevant compliance and sanctions regimes and how they apply.

    Make a voluntary self-disclosure to the National Security Division when you discover a willful violation of U.S. export control laws.

    Develop robust training and compliance programs.

    Focus not only on internal compliance, but on the threats posed by insiders and through cyberspace.

    Harden your cyber defenses.

    Develop a relationship with law enforcement, so that we may share valuable information with you to help you protect yourself, and be there to help you respond when your defense may simply not be enough.

    Profits may be the lifeblood of our corporations, but cutting corners here in the interest of the bottom line, is potentially catastrophic.  You and your clients risk enforcement actions, financial penalties and prison time.  But perhaps more significantly, doing so can provide a dangerous capability to an adversary who wishes to bring about damage, destruction or death to many.  So understanding and addressing how to comply with these regimes and neutralize these threats is not only the responsible thing to do, but the only thing to do. 

    The National Security Division will continue to approach export controls and sanctions with a broad and varied toolkit.  We will continue to vigorously pursue and prosecute those who violate our nation’s export control laws, but that is not how we define success.  Success is working with you to increase education and compliance and to prevent sensitive controlled technologies from falling into the wrong hands.  We will combat threats posed by insiders and through cyberspace.  And we will coordinate with our colleagues throughout the federal government to use an all tools approach – prosecution, listing, sanctions and other means of disruption – to combat national security threats.

    With the careful calibration of these tools and with an eye toward mitigating vulnerabilities and defending against threats, we can protect the national security while simultaneously fostering economic growth and job creation.

    Thank you for inviting me here this morning, and for your interest in these issues.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Global: US health funding cuts: what Nigeria stands to lose

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Oyewale Tomori, Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science

    US president Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization is threatening funding for critical health programmes like HIV/Aids and tuberculosis in different parts of the world, including Nigeria.

    The Conversation Africa’s Adejuwon Soyinka asked professor of virology and former WHO Africa regional virologist Oyewale Tomori why Nigeria is heavily dependent on US funding for some of its health programmes, what’s at risk and how to mitigate the impact.

    How dependent is Nigeria on US funding for health?

    Sadly, Nigeria and many African countries are too dependent on US funding and other donor funding for basic health activities and interventions. These activities are the normal function of a good and responsive government which is committed to the welfare of citizens.

    According to a US embassy publication, since 2021, the US has committed to providing nearly US$20 billion in health programmes in Africa. The report says in 2023 alone, the US invested over US$600 million in health assistance in Nigeria. That is about 21% of Nigeria’s 2023 annual health budget.

    Nigeria has, over the years, allocated on the average about 5% of the national budget to health. Three quarters of that covers recurrent expenditure like salaries.

    Nigeria’s proposed 2025 budget is ₦49.74 trillion (US$33 billion), of which ₦2.4 trillion (US$1.6 billion) (4.8%) is allocated to health. This is lower than the 5.15% allocated to health in the 2024 budget.

    The private sector plays a significant role in the Nigeria’s healthcare system, providing close to 60% of healthcare services.

    In recent years, traditional medicine is increasingly offering complementary and alternative medicine in support of the services provided by the federal, state and local government areas levels.

    What health programmes does the US fund in Nigeria?

    The US support is focused on preventing malaria, under the US President’s Malaria Initiative; ending HIV, through the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief; and delivering vaccines (COVID, polio, rotavirus, IPV2 and HPV).

    Malaria is a major public health concern in Nigeria. In 2021, there were an estimated 68 million cases of malaria and 194,000 deaths. Nigeria has the highest burden of malaria globally, nearly 27% of the global malaria burden.

    Nigeria has a high burden of HIV – fourth in the world. A large number of Nigerians live with the virus. The national agency responsible for AIDS control reported a rate of 1,400 new HIV cases per week in 2023.

    Nigeria has experienced outbreaks of yellow fever, meningitis, cholera, Lassa fever and COVID-19.

    In addition to helping with managing these major diseases, the US government also provided funds to strengthen the country’s ability to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from emerging public health threats.

    With these funds, a Public Health Emergency Management Programme was established and national disease surveillance systems were upgraded. Nigeria’s laboratory diagnostics were enhanced to test for Ebola, mpox, yellow fever, measles, Lassa fever, cholera and cerebrospinal meningitis.

    Other countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, the UK) also provided support through building and equipping laboratories and training health workers.

    What’s most at risk?

    Interventions most at risk are those of which the Nigerian government has abdicated its responsibilities to the donors. They include provision of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria, insecticide-treated bed nets, malaria preventive treatments in pregnancy, provision of fast acting malaria medicines and insecticide for home spraying.

    The following HIV interventions are likely to be adversely affected: HIV counselling and testing services, especially for pregnant women to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and the care of people living with HIV with TB/HIV services, as well as care and support for orphans and vulnerable children.

    Sustaining laboratory capacity for rapid disease diagnosis will suffer a major setback with reduced or lack of reagents and consumables.

    A huge amount of laboratory equipment is provided by donors. Servicing and replacement of equipment will be affected.

    The Nigerian health sector’s challenges include inadequate funding, shortage of healthcare professionals, poor access to healthcare due to cost, poor infrastructure, and high prevalence of preventable diseases.

    Cutting off US money is not likely to affect the shortage of healthcare professionals, as the major reason for the shortage is their deteriorating work environment and unsafe social environment. This environment was created by years of economic downturn and social insecurity in Nigeria.

    Why is Nigeria still so reliant on US funding?

    I think Nigeria lacks national pride as it begs for assistance to provide what it already has the resources for. The government seems to place the well-being of the citizens on a secondary status.

    Many African governments assume the world owes Africa compensation for colonial activities. But to me, the danger to Nigeria’s freedom from dependency is not truly knowing what we are, who we are, and how endowed we are.

    The world describes Nigeria as “resource limited” and, without thinking, Nigerians accept such name calling. Nigeria is not resource-limited, it is resource wasteful. Nigeria is not resource constrained; it is corruption constrained. Until Nigerians know who and what we are, we will never find the solution to our problems.

    Nigeria’s acceptance of the tag “resource-limited” drives it to beg for assistance even in areas of its highest capability, capacity and competence and where it has highly trained people. Like disease prevention and control.

    Africa has since the 1960s experienced numerous outbreaks of diseases and has acquired significant expertise in disease prevention and control. An example is the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Nigeria, which was brought under control within three months with only 20 cases and eight deaths.

    This was a disease that raged for three years and ravaged three countries: Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. It was reported in seven others with 28,600 cases and 11,326 deaths.

    In Nigeria, the country coordinated response activities which were anchored on the participation of the community. The community was part of disease investigation, contact tracing, isolation of cases and adoption of infection, prevention and control interventions.

    How can Nigeria mitigate the impact?

    Nigeria must immediately provide emergency funds to cover the shortfall arising from the action of the US government. What Trump has done should have been anticipated, because he did the same things during his first term of office.

    Nigeria must re-order its priorities, and provide funds to create and sustain an enabling environment for talented human resources to function effectively for disease control and prevention.

    The country must prioritise disease prevention and control (in that order) through adequate and sustained funding of disease surveillance activities at all levels of governance.

    Nigeria needs to decentralise disease surveillance, prevention and control by enabling states and local government areas to take responsibility. The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention should coordinate state and local government areas activities, instead of acting as the controller of diseases in Nigeria.

    Oyewale Tomori does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. US health funding cuts: what Nigeria stands to lose – https://theconversation.com/us-health-funding-cuts-what-nigeria-stands-to-lose-248921

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Security: Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer Delivers Remarks at Second International Conference on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Jennifer [Smith of the International Legal Foundation] for your kind words. 

    I want to thank Minister of Justice [German] Garavano, Vice-Minister of Justice [Santiago] Otamendi and Chief Federal Public Defender General Stella Maris Martinez of the Government of the Republic of Argentina, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the United Nations Development Programme and the International Legal Foundation, for coordinating this important gathering so that we may, together, explore how to strengthen and improve access to criminal legal aid globally.

    And equally important, I want to thank all of you – the gathered Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Attorneys General, Supreme Court Justices and criminal legal aid providers and experts – for participating in this conference.  All of the leaders in this room – and so many others across the globe – are indispensable partners in our efforts to fulfill the promise of access to criminal legal aid.  Your work is moving us closer to the ideals of equality, opportunity and justice under law.

    The United States participated with enthusiasm at the historic first international convening on criminal legal aid, held in Johannesburg, and it is a privilege to join you in Buenos Aires at the second biannual conference.

    Today, with our Presidential election just concluded, I address you not only as an official of the United States Department of Justice, but also as a representative of American democracy.  Since George Washington first relinquished his office to incoming President John Adams in 1797, a peaceful transition of power has symbolized the stability of the United States government.  On January 20, for the 44th time, a President will transfer his authority and responsibilities to his democratically elected successor.  With that transition may come changes in policies and priorities.  That is normal and in the natural course.  But what will not change – what has not changed for over 200 years, from Administration to Administration – is the promise that all people – regardless of wealth or want, status or stature, color or creed – are entitled to a set of undeniable rights:  equal protection, fundamental fairness and impartial justice.

    This commitment to equal justice is rooted in the founding ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   It has been enshrined by our Supreme Court in milestone decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down racial segregation in schools, and Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed that a defendant in a criminal case has the right to a lawyer whether or not that person can afford one.  It has been embraced by Presidents of both parties, as exemplified by the creation of the Legal Services Corporation, the largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans, by President Richard Nixon and President Bill Clinton’s signing of the landmark Violence Against Women Act, which provides legal aid for victims of domestic violence.  And it is embodied in the renewed debate on the criminal justice system, in which Americans from a range of backgrounds and political beliefs have come to agree on the need to address persistent inequities and inefficiencies in our criminal justice system, from the fairness of our sentencing laws, to the injustice in imposing fines and fees against those unable to pay, to how we reintegrate into civic and economic life those individuals convicted of crimes who have paid their debt to society.

    Our progress towards fulfilling these promises has not been uninterrupted.  At times, we have made great strides, dedicating resources, energy and ideas to the task.  At other times, we have fallen short of our own ideals.  But with each triumph and setback, we have been reminded that justice is as much a journey as it is a destination – as much a process as it is an outcome – and that the fairest criminal justice system gives equal attention to both.

    Addressing this challenge has been a priority of the Department of Justice in the eight years of the Obama Administration.  In 2010, the department launched the Office of Access to Justice – which I oversee and which seeks to improve access to legal aid to everyone in the United States who needs it.  Much of the Office’s work is directed at strengthening criminal defense for the poor by focusing on many of the same values outlined in the 2012 U.N. Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems.

    Among our most significant accomplishments has been to ensure the reality of Gideon’s promise, for the right to counsel is not only a constitutional imperative but vital to the effective functioning – and legitimacy – of the U.S. criminal justice system.  Fulfilling this promise is not easy.  Between 1999 and 2007, the number of public defenders – the front-line lawyers in our country who provide legal aid to indigent criminal defendants – increased by only four percent while their caseload increased by 20 percent.  When managing such huge caseloads, it is difficult and often times impossible, for public defenders to carry out their legal and ethical duties to their clients.  To help alleviate that problem, the Department of Justice has awarded millions of dollars to cities, states and defense advocacy organizations to support their indigent defense work.  These awards expanded the number of cities that participate in the department’s “Smart Defense” program, where cities use data, research and research partnerships to enhance criminal justice systems and programs.  These funds have also been invested in bringing risk assessment to the pre-trial detention stage, so that judges are making informed pre-trial release decisions that improve cost-effectiveness while protecting public safety and defendants’ due process, and to ensure that our public defenders have the skills necessary to be effective pretrial advocates.   And where states have proven unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources to public defender services, the department has filed amicus briefs in our courts arguing that it is a constructive denial of the constitutional right to counsel for a public defender system to be so under-resourced, so understaffed and so underfunded that an indigent defendant has access to counsel in name only. 
     
    The priority on access to criminal legal aid has extended to forging partnerships with American Indian tribes – our nation’s indigenous communities.  As Robert Kennedy rightly noted when he served as Attorney General, it is a tragic irony that the first Americans have endured a long and painful history of broken promises, deferred action and denied rights at the hands of the United States Government.  As one of many steps taken by the Justice Department to right these injustices, we have authored and supported landmark legislation to expand American Indian tribal governments’ criminal jurisdiction and sentencing authority while at the same time enhancing protections for criminal defendants in tribal courts.  To further that effort, the department has worked hard to support tribes through funding and training that improves the trial skills of tribal public defenders as well judges and prosecutors. 

    Of course, advancing access to justice for all also requires that we look critically at the Justice Department’s own role – and its own responsibility – as a central player in the federal criminal justice system.  Three years ago, the department launched the Smart on Crime initiative – a groundbreaking effort designed to reorient the way we approach criminal justice issues by diminishing the use of harsh mandatory sentences for low-level drug offenses; investing in rehabilitation and reentry programs that can reduce the likelihood of recidivism; and supporting vulnerable communities to prevent them from being caught up in the criminal justice system in the first place.  Additionally, we have embarked on an historic clemency initiative, allowing the President to commute sentences for more individuals than the last 11 Presidents combined.  And we have worked hard to get the incentives right in ensuring access to counsel in the federal system, including no longer requiring defendants in plea deals to waive future claims about whether their counsel was effective, and no longer allowing an immigrant convicted of a crime to be found deportable on the basis of alleged facts never established in the criminal case – a process unfair to immigrants who lack counsel and who may have agreed to plead guilty specifically to avoid immigration consequences. 

    Internationally, we have been proud partners with you on promoting equal access to justice, both in the criminal and civil arenas.  Since the U.N.’s unanimous adoption, just over a year ago, of the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development, we have been working with the international community to breathe life into Global Goal 16, which calls on countries – including the United States – to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”  To that end, the White House Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable (LAIR) was formally established. 

    The Roundtable works to identify how and when legal aid can improve federal programs that serve our nation’s vulnerable and underserved populations. By integrating civil legal aid into a wide array of federal programs designed to improve access to housing, health care services, employment and education, and enhance family stability and public safety, the programs are strengthened and objectives better met.  This month, the Roundtable will issue its first annual report to the President.  This report will detail the history of this interagency effort and provide concrete examples of how civil legal aid has been integrated into federal programs that support the poor and vulnerable.

    The Roundtable’s report will not be our only effort to track the progress toward fulfilling Goal 16 – and specifically Target 16.3, which calls on countries to “promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”  In September, I announced the United States’ commitment to identifying national indicators for Target 16.3, joining other nations around the world, including in the Americas, who have started regional efforts to identify indicators. The United States’ effort, which is being led by the Department of Justice, and includes experts from across the federal government, will help develop national criminal and civil access to justice indicators so that we can rigorously gauge our progress towards the goal of equal justice for all Americans.   While we are still assessing what these indicators might be, we are exploring whether we can track the impact of criminal and civil legal aid on myriad aspects of the justice system.

    And because the United States is so strongly supportive of ensuring quality and effective criminal defense, we introduced the groundbreaking resolution at this year’s United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (UN Crime Commission) that you heard about yesterday to promote access to indigent defense, including through the creation of national, regional and international networks of legal aid providers.  Resolution 25/2: Promoting legal aid builds on past international activity, including the 2012 U.N.  Principles and Guidelines, and on the common sense idea that the best way to improve defense services across the globe is through peer-to-peer exchanges and learning.  The United States stands ready to share its experiences in promoting indigent defense and to learn from yours.

    Let me end where I began:  by thanking all of you for your participation in this conference, and for your commitment and perseverance to the work of promoting equal access to justice.  When my predecessor Tony West spoke at the inaugural gathering in South Africa, he was clear-eyed about both the progress that had been made in the provision of the right to counsel and the hard work that remained to be done.  Two years later, I echo Tony’s message.  Global efforts to support the right to counsel have never been stronger.  But we have much left to do. 

    Conferences like this one are a beginning not an end.   Long after this conference concludes, after all of us have returned home, after all the keynote speeches have been given and outcome documents adopted, there will remain the work of continuing to build criminal and civil legal systems that deliver the promise of equal justice under law for every individual, regardless of where they were born, their color or class, their religious faith or their sexual orientation.  That work will not be easy.  The progress will not always be uninterrupted.  But rest assured that the United States stands with you in this mutual endeavor.  We will remain an outspoken advocate on the importance of access to criminal legal aid at home and abroad.   We will continue to be a staunch ally in the fight for justice.  And we will remain a steadfast partner in the endeavor to build legal systems that are fair and effective for all.  I look forward to all that we will achieve – together – in the years ahead.  Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at a Naturalization Ceremony Held at the Department of Justice

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you for that kind introduction, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon Rodriguez.  And thank you, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, for your wonderful remarks and for your extraordinary service at the helm of our Civil Rights Division.  I am so thrilled to welcome so many Justice Department colleagues and honored guests to the Great Hall.  And I want to extend my warmest welcome to all of you, our newest American citizens.  It is a true honor to be among the first to congratulate you on taking the oath of allegiance.  You come to us from 40 nations around the world, from Sierra Leone to South Korea, from Pakistan to Portugal, from Mexico to Malaysia.  From so many places and through so many paths you have come here to be with all of us – illustrating this country’s motto of “E Pluribus Unum” – out of many, one.  You come to us with hopes and dreams as diverse as the paths you took to get here: hopes for economic and professional possibility, dreams of a better life for your children, and expectations about the freedoms and privileges of citizenship.  And in turn, we look to you with gratitude.  We are so glad you are here.  In joining us, you sustain one of the richest traditions of our nation, which is indeed a nation of immigrants. 

    To say that immigrants have been a core part of our American narrative would be a great understatement.  Immigrants played a critical role in the founding of our country; many of our roads and buildings and businesses were built by immigrants; and our society continues to be powered by the ingenuity, diligence and drive of immigrants.  Sometimes, it even seems as if we have taken more than we have given, as immigrants have fought and died to preserve our freedoms, and they have toiled and struggled to enrich our society.  From the military to government; from academia to the arts – in every sector of every industry, we are stronger because of the diversity and talent of Americans with immigrant roots.  And so we celebrate all of the richness you bring to our tapestry.  We celebrate the foods you eat, the languages you dream in, and the religions you practice.  We celebrate the wealth of skills and perspectives you have chosen to bring to our shores – attributes that have always made us a stronger, wiser and better people. 

    We are also humbled by your careful study of our institutions and our government – and your deliberate choice of our systems and our values.  I know that the process has not been easy, quick, or casual.  Some of you have waited and worked for years to achieve this goal.  You have learned about American history and you have internalized the civic responsibilities that accompany citizenship.  And in doing so, you have learned that ours is a nation that upholds liberty and equality for all; that defends the freedoms of religion, press and assembly; and that strives against prejudice and discrimination. 

    Of course, observing actual democracy in action reveals it to be a tumultuous process, as our recent election has shown.  The rhetoric and the tone around so many issues can lead to fear and uncertainty and may have caused some of you to question whether the country you have seen over recent weeks and months is indeed the same one whose founding principles you’ve been studying so diligently.  Yet the history you learned gives us the answer to that question.  Over 200 years ago, we decided what kind of a country we wanted to be.  We’re not there yet and we have had challenges at many points along the way.  Our path forward to realizing our founding ideals has had twists and turns and outright reversals, yet we have continued to push ever onwards towards them. 

    And the lesson for every generation of Americans is the need and the obligation to pick up the challenge of making the American dream real for our own time and beyond.  That is why it is so wonderful, so vital and so important that you are all here today.  Joining this young, opinionated, vibrant country, because we need your vision and your voice, your tenacity and your resolve.  Some of you have lived in nations that do not enjoy our rights and liberties; we need you to help remind us of how precious our freedom is.  Some of you have felt the sting of discrimination; we need you to show us the value of tolerance.  And some of you have lived in societies that did not allow citizens a voice in their government; we need you to help bolster our participatory democracy.

    And so as we conclude today, I ask that you give your voice, your passion, and your energy to the work of building a country that keeps faith with our founding promises.  I hope you will choose to vote in every election.  I hope we will see and hear you in a range of settings – from school board meetings to charity fundraisers, from Little League games to political debates.  I hope that you will share your rich perspectives and talents with those in your communities.  And I hope you will never lose sight of the ideals of this country and the way ordinary citizens have, throughout our history, been the ones who have made them real for all.  These are the ways we shape the country we leave for our children.  We depend on you – as we depend on all of our citizens – to help safeguard our shared values.  I am confident that you will rise to this challenge, as you have already risen to so many, and I look forward to all of your wonderful contributions.

    In a moment you will take the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time as citizens of this great country.  I want you to truly listen to those words as you make that pledge.  Your allegiance, your commitment and your drive is pledged not to any one person or agency of our government, but instead to the symbol of our country’s perseverance in the face of challenge and struggle — “the flag of the United States of America.”  And even more than that, “to the Republic for which it stands,” that brave, wonderful experiment we began over 200 years ago.  And the simple yet eloquent words, describing us as “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” are both the challenge and the commitment for every citizen of this great country.  And now, my fellow Americans, let us ever work together to make it so.

    Congratulations on this great achievement. 

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer Delivers Remarks Highlighting Elder Justice at the State Of Financial Fraud in America Event

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you Robert for that kind introduction and for your leadership and dedication as CEO of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).  And thank you to the Stanford Center on Longevity and the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, for hosting this conference and for the great work that you do.  It is an honor to join with the many people in this audience who dedicate their lives to combatting financial fraud and protecting elderly Americans.  This is a noble and enduring effort.   

    As many people here know, financial fraud targeted at the elderly is a serious problem.  At the beginning of 2011, the first Baby Boomers reached the age of 65.  I reached that milestone myself just last year.  Indeed, 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day, and the percentage of Americas over 65 is growing.  5.8 percent of this group experiences identity theft in a given year.  I had that ugly experience just last month. 13.8 percent experiences consumer fraud in a given year.  4.5 percent of people over 50 experience financial fraud in a five-year period.  While there are varying accounts about how much the overall financial loss is, it is well into the billions of dollars.  

    Statistics aside, we are here together because we know all too well that this is a problem that takes a personal toll.  Almost all of us know someone who has been the victim of financial fraud.  And while it affects people of all ages, it can be especially devastating for elderly people, many of whom are dependent on their savings and are concerned about their own mental decline or other people’s perception of their mental decline.  

    I recently saw letters written by the victims of a set of schemes that we took action against.  One described having sent “hundreds of checks” for a company’s “great offers” and tried to explain to the fraudster that “due to bad eyes, [he] has to use magnifying glasses to read” and had “been caught paying many times for th[e] very same offer.”  Another, believing that the con men would send him a promised gift, tried to explain that he had sent his prior payments by money order and was now enclosing cash, “all [he] can send.”  Another explained that when she gets the vast inheritance she’d been promised, she would use it to help her family, the homeless and needy children.   

    The nature and scope of elder fraud varies tremendously.  At the Department of Justice, we see small, family based schemes, such as caregivers tricking elderly victims out of their savings or abusing powers of attorney.  We see institutional schemes, such as nursing homes that provide unnecessary services or bill for services never provided.  And we see global fraud networks that are—quite literally—organized crime.  These schemes involve networks of businesses with careful divisions of labor.  They target millions of Americans, maintain lists of victims, and, once someone has been duped, target those people again and again. One recent victim wrote a letter explaining: “Each day I keep getting more and more offers and it’s almost impossible for me to keep up with them.” 

    Large and diverse problems like this require broad based solutions.  We at the Department of Justice know we can’t solve this problem alone.  Coordination is essential not only with our federal partners, but with local, state and international authorities.  And public and private partnerships are key to our understanding of the scope of the problem and to the lasting success of any solution.

    Research into basic questions, such as why are elderly people vulnerable, and how can we detect fraud and abuse, is critical to attacking the problem.  The FINRA Foundation and Stanford Center on Longevity launched the Financial Fraud Research Center five years ago.  As some of your ongoing research has demonstrated, there is a natural decline in cognition as people age, especially ability to think fast and process new information.  The elderly are sometimes lonely or otherwise socially isolated. Some are uncomfortable with technology.  Many have pools of relatively liquid retirement assets.  Some are dependent on caregivers.  All of these factors make the elderly particularly susceptible to certain schemes. 

    There is much more to learn.  The Department of Justice has invested in partnerships to help us all better understand the causes and risk factors associated with elder financial exploitation.  For example, just a few weeks ago, we announced an award of nearly $800,000 to the Urban Institute and the University of Southern California to develop and test prevention programs that will address elder abuse, neglect and financial exploitation.  To enhance our understanding of financial exploitation by conservators and guardians, last year our Office for Victims of Crime funded a project to search for innovative, evidence-based programs and practices that successfully detect and remedy conservator fraud.  And people like you are furthering our understanding.  This conference is highlighting emerging research on susceptibility to fraud and fraud prevention.

    Beyond efforts to understand how and why elder fraud occurs, continuing dedication to enforcement is required to stop it.   This is not a partisan issue.  We have seen Democratic and Republican administrations alike express a shared commitment to using all tools in the Department of Justice’s enforcement arsenal.  Back in the 1990s, under Attorney General Reno, the Department of Justice created the Elder Justice Initiative to centralize information, facilitate training, and coordinate within the Department and across the federal government.  During the Bush Administration, the Department of Justice initiated an elder mistreatment research grant program, funding cutting edge research on elder abuse and financial exploitation that continues today.

    During this Administration, Congress created the Elder Justice Coordinating Council as part of the Affordable Care Act to facilitate interagency cooperation at the highest of levels.  At the Department of Justice, we formed the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee’s Elder Justice Working Group, which is comprised of U.S. Attorneys from across the country who are dedicated to improving our information sharing on financial scams targeting the elderly.  And just this year, we created ten regional Elder Justice Task Forces that operate throughout the country, partnering with state and local law enforcement and prosecutors to enhance our collective response to elder financial fraud and abuse. 

    Our Elder Justice Initiative has also been assisting with community capacity building.  This includes supporting the training of local law enforcement and prosecutors.  And to enhance civil legal aid to seniors, in June 2016, the Department of Justice, in collaboration with the Corporation for National and Community Service, launched the Elder Justice AmeriCorps, the first-ever army of lawyers and paralegals to help elderly victims of abuse and exploitation.  The program will support 300 AmeriCorps members throughout the country and is expected to reach over 8,000 older adults over the next two years.

    A multi-faceted problem requires coordination between different federal agencies; it demands a whole of government approach.  Mail is involved; we must coordinate with the Postal Inspection Service.  Money is involved; we must coordinate with the Treasury Department.  People target the elderly; we must coordinate with agencies that serve the elderly, such as the Social Security Administration.  

    And more and more, we are seeing schemes that are highly complex and global.  Stopping these schemes require extensive cooperation—not just with state and local authorities, but also across the federal government and with our international counterparts.  For example, the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch co-chairs the International Mass-Marketing Fraud Working Group, a network of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Europol, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.  

    We can point to meaningful progress.  In the past several years, we have successfully shut down several international lottery scams where con men and women have contacted elderly victims in the United States, told the victims they won cash and prizes, and persuaded them to send thousands of dollars in fees to release the money.  Of course, the victims never received cash or prizes in return.  In a series of cases, perpetrators made calls from Jamaica using Voice Over Internet Protocol technology that made it appear as if the calls were coming from the United States.  They convinced victims to send money to middlemen in South Florida and North Carolina, who forwarded the money to Jamaica.  We have had great success breaking up these networks through joint efforts between Jamaican law enforcement and U.S. agencies including the Postal Inspection Service, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Trade Commission and Internal Revenue Service.  Since 2009, the Department of Justice has prosecuted or is prosecuting over 100 individuals linked to such lottery schemes, and has convicted and sentenced over 40 defendants.

    We have had similar success going after global “psychic schemes.”  Con men and women send letters purportedly written by “world-renowned psychics” stating that they had a vision revealing that the recipient has the opportunity to obtain great wealth.  The letters appear personalized, refer to the recipient by name, and often contain portions that appear handwritten.  The solicitations urge victims to purchase products and services that will ensure this good fortune.  Investigations by the Department of Justice and Postal Inspection Service, among others, revealed the complexity of these schemes.  Not only were there the fraudsters themselves, but there were separate companies performing different roles, such as processing victim payments and maintaining databases of consumers who responded to solicitations.  In a two-week period, one company in the United States processed as much as $500,000 in payments for just one psychic scheme.  We have discovered similar companies in Quebec, Hong Kong, Switzerland and France.  

    Perhaps the most significant example of cooperation to date were our wide-ranging enforcement actions taken in September of this year to dismantle a global network of mass mailing schemes targeting elderly and vulnerable victims.  The schemes involved a network with components in Canada, France, India, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.   The network included an India-based printer that manufactured solicitations and arranged for bulk shipment to U.S. victims; a mailer in Switzerland; list brokers in the United States who bought and sold lists of victims so that once victims had fallen prey, others could target them; a “caging” service in the Netherlands that collected money; and a Canadian payment processor that, for more than 20 years, helped dozens of international fraudsters gain access to U.S. banks and take money from Americans.  Stopping this network involved coordination between the Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, Postal Inspection Service, Federal Trade Commission, Iowa Attorney General’s office and counterparts in other countries.  Just to give you a sample of the coordinated actions, on Sept. 22, 2016: 

    • The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control blocked assets from the Canadian payment processor and a network of individuals and entities across 18 countries.
    • The Justice Department filed criminal charges and a civil injunction against a Turkish mass mailer. 
    • The Justice Department brought a series of civil actions to shut down companies based in the United States, India, Switzerland and Singapore.  These companies were responsible for mailing millions of multi-piece solicitations to potential victims throughout the United States.  
    • The Justice Department entered into a consent decree with two Dutch “caging” businesses that collected and forward money.  Our efforts were coordinated with Dutch authorities who executed search warrants on the businesses and took control of the Dutch post office boxes used to receive victims’ funds.   
    • The Federal Trade Commission filed a case against a related mass-mailer, printer, and list broker.  
    • The Iowa Attorney General negotiated a compliance agreement with two firms that brokered victim lists.

    Of course, what matters even more than going after these schemes is preventing people from falling prey in the first place.  Here too, federal agencies are working in cooperation and dedicated to the effort.   The Department of Justice has distributed educational materials about these kinds of scams, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service has developed an electronic press kit for media outlets, my former colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission operate a “Pass It On” campaign that encourages people to share information about frauds that affect older Americans, the Social Security Administration is educating beneficiaries through its network of over 1,200 field offices nationwide, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has produced a mail fraud alert placemat in coordination with Meals on Wheels America to distribute to seniors nationwide.  Similarly, private organizations that work in the area of elder justice and consumer protection are doing their part.  For example, AARP will be posting information through its Fraud Watch Network.  And the Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, is alerting consumers about a variety of elder scams.  

    Going forward, the Department of Justice will continue to work with private, local, state, federal and global partners.   And we urge all of you to tell us where the Department can do more.  The federal government’s work on behalf of the elderly began long before this Administration, and it will continue long after.  I expect that my successors, and my successors’ successors, will share our commitment to making sure our parents, grandparents and friends age with grace and dignity.  And I look forward to all of you, who have worked so hard in this area, working with the next Administration to combat financial fraud and protect elderly Americans.  Thank you again for having me here today.  

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: New Carrollton Man Sentenced to 20 Years in Federal Prison for Kidnapping Minors, Producing Child Sexual Abuse Material

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime News

    Greenbelt, Maryland – On January 31, 2025, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman sentenced Julian Everett, 41, of New Carrollton, Maryland, to 20 years in federal prison and 20 years of supervised release, for kidnapping minors and producing child sexual abuse material.

    Erek L. Barron, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the sentence with Special Agent in Charge William J. DelBagno, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office; Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Aisha N. Braveboy; and Chief Malik Aziz, Prince George’s County Police Department.

    According to the guilty plea, in 2005, 2015 and 2016, Everett acknowledged sexually abusing and capturing sexual abuse material of several victims at his New Carrollton home – four were minors.

    On July 11, 2005, Everett drove Victim 2 — who was16 at the time — from the Commonwealth of Virginia to his New Carrollton residence.  While at his residence, Everett provided Victim 2 with a beverage, before engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent. Everett also took nude photographs of the victim without her consent.

    Additionally, on August 23, 2015, Everett drove another victim — who was 18 at the time — from a Washington, D.C. night club to a gas station. While there, Everett created and provided Victim 3 with a beverage before driving her to his New Carrollton residence. Everett then engaged in sexual acts with Victim 3 without her consent.

    Then on August 21, 2016, Everett drove Victim 1 — who was then 17 at the time — from her Washington, D.C. residence to a Northwest D.C. barbershop where he worked. While at the barbershop, Everett created and provided Victim 1 with a beverage. Victim 1 drank it and eventually lost consciousness before waking up at Everett’s home while he was performing a sexual act on her. Additionally, Everett recorded the sexual encounter and took naked pictures of the victim without her consent.

    Authorities arrested Everett in Prince George’s County on March 21, 2019. Federal law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Everett’s electronic devices, revealing images of child sexual abuse material, including a video of Everett engaging in sexual intercourse with an unidentified fifth female victim. During the video, Victim 5 can be heard mumbling and is physically unresponsive with her eyes closed.

    On March 26, 2019, a fourth victim reported a sexual-assault incident to the Prince George’s County Police Department’s Criminal Investigation Division. Between March and April 2015, Everett transported Victim 4 — who was16 at the time — from her Washington D.C. residence to his New Carrollton home.  After arriving at his house, Everett mixed a drink for Victim 4 who drank it and became lightheaded. Everett then engaged in multiple sexual acts with Victim 4 without her consent, which he also digitally recorded. He also took nude photos of her. 

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorney’s Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc. For more information about Internet safety education, please visit www.justice.gov/psc and click on the “Resources” tab on the left of the page.

    U.S. Attorney Barron commended the FBI, Office of State’s Attorney for Prince George’s County, Maryland, and the Prince George’s County Police Department for their work in the investigation. Mr. Barron also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Timothy Hagan and Thomas Sullivan who prosecuted the federal case.

    For more information about the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to help the community, please visit www.justice.gov/usao-md and https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/community-outreach.

    # # #

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Video: DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASHATILE DELIVERS A KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE LAUNCH OF SA SOCIAL COHESION INDEX

    Source: Republic of South Africa (video statements)

    DEPUTY PRESIDENT SHIPOKOSA PAULUS MASHATILE DELIVERING A KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE LAUNCH OF THE 2024 SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL COHESION INDEX (SASCI), IN WESTERN CAPE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUN7r6R4j_Y

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Security: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks to State and Local Law Enforcement on Efforts to Combat Violent Crime and the Opioid Crisis

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Marc for that kind introduction and thank you for your leadership as United States Attorney.  You are carrying the torch on a lot of the work that we did back when I was U.S. Attorney for this district.

    Thank you also to:

    • Commissioner Roxann Ryan and Director of Investigative Operations Kevin Winker of the Iowa Department of Public Safety,
    • Acting Director Joyce Flinn of the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management,
    • Marshall County Sheriff Steve Hoffman,
    • Marion County Sheriff Jason Sandholdt,
    • Chief Dana Wingert and Major Stephen Waymire of the Des Moines Police Department,
    • Chief Chad McCluskey of Windsor Heights,
    • Chief Al Pizzano of Pleasant Hill,
    • Chief John Quinn of Waukee,
    • Chief Greg Stallman of Altoona,
    • Chief Michael Tupper of Marshalltown,
    • Polk County Attorney John Sarcone,
    • David Lorenzen, Motor Vehicle Enforcement Chief with the Iowa Department of Transportation, and
    • Polk County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Gregory Schmunk.

    Thank you all for being here.

    It is good to be back. 

    This is the office where I served for nearly five and a half years.  It was the honor of a lifetime, and it was an experience that only deepened my appreciation for law enforcement.

    I worked every day with officers from the federal, state, and local levels—including people in this room—to find evidence of crime and to keep the people of Iowa safe.

    I am proud of what we accomplished together.

    I am especially proud because I have seen the results firsthand.  This is the community where I grew up, where I played football, where I went to law school and business school, where I ran a small business, and where I’m still raising my family.  I know that Iowans are safer because of what we achieved.

    Some of you may have heard that there have been some changes at the Department in recent weeks.  One thing that hasn’t changed is our unwavering support for state and local law enforcement.

    The Trump administration will always be a law-and-order administration.  We recognize that public safety is government’s first and most important task—and we honor the role that law enforcement officers play in protecting our society.

    Our federal officers are known all over the world for their professionalism and their competence.

    But we are well aware that about 85 percent of the law enforcement officers in this country serve at the state and local levels.  It is simple arithmetic that we cannot succeed without you.

    That is why this Department of Justice under President Donald Trump has given you more resources and more tools to help you succeed.

    One of President Trump’s very first Executive Orders to Attorney General Sessions was to “back the blue” and enhance the safety of law enforcement officers in this country.

    We have embraced that goal and we’ve been faithful to it every day.

    Over these last two years we have helped hire hundreds of police officers across America, including 10 here in Iowa.

    We have reinvigorated the Project Safe Neighborhoods program, which directs our U.S. Attorneys to work with you to develop a customized crime reduction plan—and to target the most violent criminals in the most violent areas.

    I ran this program as United States Attorney and I know that it works.  We are more successful at the federal level when we listen to our partners at the state and local levels.

    Our strong law enforcement partnerships are paying off.

    In fiscal year 2017, the Department of Justice prosecuted more violent criminals than in any year on record to that point.

    And then, in fiscal year 2018—we broke that record by a margin of 15 percent.

    In fiscal year 2018, we charged the highest number of federal firearm defendants in Department history.  We broke that record by a margin of 17 percent.  We charged nearly 20 percent more firearm defendants than we did in 2017 and 30 percent more than we charged in 2016.

    Over the past fiscal year we also broke records for fentanyl prosecutions and for illegal entry by illegal aliens.

    At the same time, we increased the number of white collar defendants and the number of drug defendants overall.  And we increased the number of deported illegal aliens prosecuted for re-entering our country by 38 percent.

    These are remarkable achievements.  There can be no doubt that they have had an impact on this nation.  And we’ve achieved them together with you, our partners.

    The evidence is already coming in that we’ve reduced violent crime and drug overdose deaths.

    The FBI’s violent crime numbers for 2017 show that violent crime and murder both went down in 2017 after increasing for two years in a row.  And for 2018, one estimate projects that the murder rate in our 29 biggest cities will decline by 7.6 percent.

    The DEA’s National Prescription Audit shows that in the first eight months of 2018, opioid prescriptions went down by nearly 12 percent—and last year they went down by seven percent.

    While 2017 saw more overdose deaths than 2016, overdose deaths declined by two percent from September 2017 to March 2018, the most recent month for which we have data.

    This is what we can achieve when we work together.

    Our work is not finished.  We are going to continue to support our state and local partners—and I believe that our partnerships are going to continue to deliver results.

    I want to conclude with something a mentor of mine used to say every time he spoke to law enforcement, and I believe it too: we have your back, and you have our thanks.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Interpol 87th General Assembly

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    It is a privilege to join you at this 87th INTERPOL General Assembly.  I am grateful to the United Arab Emirates for hosting our conference. Thank you President Kim Jong Yang for your exceptional leadership and for providing stability to INTERPOL.  

    Our theme this year is innovation.  Many digital innovations affect law enforcement, from the rise of cybercrime, to the increasing importance of electronic evidence, to encryption and the dark net. 

    In addressing these innovations, we must respect the primary value that is constant in our work: the rule of law.  Law provides the framework for civilized people to conduct their lives.  At its best, law reflects moral choices; principled decisions that promote the best interests of society, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. 

     The term “rule of law” describes the government’s obligation to follow neutral principles and fair processes. The ideal dates at least to the time of Greek philosopher Aristotle, who wrote, “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the law.”

    The rule of law is indispensable to a thriving and vibrant society.  It shields citizens from government overreach.  It allows businesses to invest with confidence.  It gives innovators protection for their discoveries.  It keeps people safe from dangerous criminals.  And it allows us to resolve differences peacefully through reason and logic.

    When we follow the rule of law, it does not always yield the outcome that we prefer. In fact, one indicator that we are following the law is when we respect a result although we do not agree with it. We respect it because it is required by an objective analysis of the facts and a rational application of the rules.

    The rule of law is not simply about words written on paper.  The culture of a society and the character of the people who enforce the law determine whether the rule of law endures.

    Since we met last year in Beijing, the news media has reported several prominent challenges to the rule of law, including the lawless attacks on Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Jamal Khashoggi.  Last month, international attention focused on INTERPOL, as a result of the disappearance of President Meng Hongwei.  Such events give rise to questions about whether our member countries abide by shared principles.  In evaluating our actions at this General Assembly, observers may ask whether our votes reflect the values that we profess. We must stand for the rule of law.  

    INTERPOL exists to promote international police coordination and discourage departures from the law. We represent diverse forms of government. But if we serve with integrity, each of us functions as a trustee for our fellow citizens.

    When our successors look back on how we dealt with the issues of our era, they will ask whether we honored our fiduciary duties.

    First, did we develop the knowledge to understand our challenges?

    Second, did we inculcate the wisdom to solve them?

    Third, did we demonstrate the courage to defend our principles?

    Fourth, did we maintain the resolve to achieve our goals?

    I traveled here to speak about INTERPOL’s role in responding to the major innovation of our lives: the rise of a cyber-connected world. 

    The Internet holds immeasurable promise as a repository of ideas, and as a forum for speech and commerce.  It connects citizens across cultures and countries.  It is accessible to the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless.  It creates efficiencies and innovations that immensely improve our lives.

    But like every innovation that offers opportunities for good, the Internet also can be exploited by wrongdoers. Today, there is a growing divergence between the Internet as it is, and the Internet as it could be.

    Malicious actors use the Internet for evil ends.  Cyber criminals employ modern technologies to damage information systems, steal data, commit fraud, violate privacy, attack critical infrastructure, and sexually exploit children. They also launch misleading schemes to influence people’s opinions, seeking to foment division and disrupt democratic processes.

    The Internet enables attacks on businesses, government agencies, and individual citizens that cause damage costing billions of dollars.  And new technologies allow criminals to conceal themselves, which frustrates law enforcement’s efforts to keep honest citizens safe. 

    We must acknowledge the divergence between the Internet in theory and the Internet in practice. Closing that gap will ensure the viability of an open Internet governed by the rule of law.

    Enforcing the law on the Internet requires rapid and accurate detection of criminal activity; cooperation among law enforcers from different nations; prosecution of accused criminals in judicial systems that provide due process of law; and just punishment of guilty offenders.  It means not tolerating virtual online locations where crime is unchallenged.  It means not condoning physical safe havens for cyber criminals.

    Detecting, disrupting, deterring, and prosecuting malicious cyber activity are among our highest law enforcement priorities in the United States.  The cyber threats we face are varied and evolving, and our resolve to keep our people safe must extend to every corner of the Internet.

    My office recently issued a comprehensive report about our work to combat cybercrime.  It describes the global challenges posed by cyber-enabled crime.  It explains how hostile cyber actors damage computer systems, steal data, engage in cyber fraud, violate personal privacy, infiltrate critical infrastructure, and pursue malign foreign influence operations.  The report also details our efforts to detect and disrupt those threats, and our commitment to inform citizens about the dangers.

    The perceived anonymity of the Internet attracts many criminals, including terrorists and those trafficking in child pornography, illicit weapons, illegal and deadly drugs, murder-for-hire, malware, and stolen identities.  The barriers to entry are low.  Criminal opportunities are on offer for anyone with an Internet browser and an inclination to break the law.  

    Yet our police agencies repeatedly demonstrate that with the support of international partners, we can find and dismantle malign internet operations.  We identify anonymous users who commit illegal activity, seize their infrastructure and proceeds, and pursue criminal charges against them.  Criminals operating on the dark web should be on notice that our investigative tools allow us to expose them.

    We must not allow cybercriminals to hide behind cryptocurrencies.  Virtual currencies have some legitimate uses.  But bad actors are using them to fund crimes and to hide illicit proceeds.  For example, Bitcoin was the exclusive method of payment for the WannaCry ransomware attack that spread around the globe, causing billions of dollars in losses. 

    In addition, fraudsters use the lure of coin offerings and the promise of new currencies to bilk unsuspecting investors, promote scams, and engage in market manipulation.  The challenges of regulating, seizing, and tracing virtual currencies demand a multinational response.  We must work together to make clear that the rule of law can reach the entire blockchain.

    To that end, last year, prosecutors in the United States announced the indictment of Alexander Vinnick and the virtual currency exchange he allegedly operated. That exchange received more than $4 billion of virtual currency. It was designed without any means to control money laundering, so predictably it served as a hub for international criminals seeking to hide and launder ill-gotten gains. 

    We filed criminal charges and assessed a $110 million civil penalty against the exchange for willfully violating our anti-money laundering laws, as well as a $12 million penalty against Vinnick.

    To prevent virtual currency from being abused by criminals, terrorist financiers, or sanctions evaders, all of us must implement policies that mitigate the risks posed by the new technology.  My country includes virtual currencies in our anti-money laundering regulations.  And the Financial Action Task Force urges all nations to make clear that global anti-money laundering standards apply to virtual currency products and service providers. We must guard against abuses of digital currency.

    We also need to protect against abuses of encrypted communications.  Encryption can be useful in the fight against cybercrime.  Encrypting data makes it more safe and secure.  But the proliferation of warrant-proof encryption also poses a challenge to effective law enforcement. 

    Encryption technologies designed to be impervious to legal process impede our ability to access investigative data.  In September, the chief law enforcement officials of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand joined together to issue a “Statement of Principles on Access to Evidence and Encryption.”

    While acknowledging the benefits of encryption, they called for urgent, sustained attention and informed discussion about the increasing difficulty law enforcement agencies face in accessing evidence of criminal conduct.

    We will continue to work closely with technology companies to establish responsible practices that consider both privacy concerns and public safety imperatives.

    On the Internet, data is decentralized, information flows across continents, and online activities are dispersed across global networks. Cybercrime knows no borders.  As a result, international cooperation is indispensable.  INTERPOL is central to that cooperation.

    We must ensure that appropriate criminal laws are enforced.  Each of us must do our part to bring malicious actors to justice.  We rely on international partners to locate, arrest, and extradite cybercriminals so that they may be held accountable.  Cybercriminals should find no safe haven, either on the dark web or within national borders.

    In the United States, we continue to faithfully discharge our responsibility to extradite fugitives. In the last five years, we extradited 95 Americans, honoring inquiries whenever the requesting state presents sufficient evidence of criminality.

    For example, last year the United States sent Shawn Gregory Towner to Ireland.  Towner was arrested in Ireland in 2006 after authorities found him watching images of child sexual abuse on his laptop in Dublin, but he fled to the United States after being released on bail.  My country located Towner and sent him to Ireland to stand trial. 

    We process extraditions without regard to the nationality of the offender. 

    But that cooperation must be reciprocated.

    International cooperation was essential to our successful dismantlement of the Kelihos botnet, a global network of tens of thousands of infected computers.  Criminals used the network to harvest login credentials, distribute hundreds of millions of spam e-mails, and install ransomware and other malicious software. 

    In 2017, prosecutors obtained judicial orders authorizing law enforcement to neutralize the botnet by seizing control of malicious domains and redirecting traffic to servers we controlled. 

    Disabling the botnet was only part of the equation. The criminals responsible for creating and administering the botnet also should be held accountable. American prosecutors charged Peter Levashov of St. Petersburg, Russia for multiple offenses stemming from his control and operation of the Kelihos botnet.  Levashov is a cybercriminal who operated multiple botnets with impunity for nearly two decades. 

    Spanish authorities arrested Levashov and extradited him to the United States. In September, Levashov was found guilty in a fair and public judicial proceeding.

    Levashov’s extradition represented effective coordination with our foreign partners.  Unfortunately, not every case is a success story.  In some instances, nations shield their citizens from the rule of law with schemes that waste resources, cause needless delay, thwart investigative efforts, and undermine justice. 

    Consider the prosecution of accused hacker Aleksey Belan.  Belan is a Russian national who was indicted in the United States for massive computer breaches on American companies.  After the United States issued an arrest warrant, Belan was reportedly arrested in 2013.  But he was permitted to return to Russia. 

    A second indictment alleges that in 2014, after Belan returned to Russia, Russian intelligence agents recruited him to carry out one of the largest data breaches in history, stealing information from more than 500 million individual email accounts of people around the world. 

    The rule of law suffers when cybercriminals are given safe havens.  The United States will continue to promote the rule of law by identifying, exposing, and seeking to extradite perpetrators who harm innocent people.  And we will continue to support legitimate investigations and prosecutions conducted by our INTERPOL partners. 

    At the same time, we will expose schemes to manipulate the extradition process.  We will identify nations that routinely block the fair administration of justice and fail to act in good faith, with a sincere commitment to holding criminals accountable.

    As cyber threats grow in scale and sophistication, we increasingly need to search throughout the world for evidence, witnesses, and defendants.  Our responses must be as innovative as the criminal activity. We depend on expeditious international cooperation and coordination in dismantling malicious criminal operations. 

    Child exploitation cases provide a useful model for international coordination.  INTERPOL’s International Child Sexual Exploitation image and video database uses image and video comparison software to identify and locate child sexual exploitation victims and their abusers.  The database has led to the arrest of nearly 6,300 offenders. Recently, it helped authorities rescue five victims in Spain.  That is a superb example of innovative law enforcement.

    In my country, we play a leading role by identifying cases in which child exploitation materials are generated from or hosted in other countries.  Then we disseminate the information to the appropriate INTERPOL member countries. Our partners often request follow-up information to assist in their own investigations. Last year, almost nine million investigative leads were distributed through this program, resulting in many arrests and prosecutions. 

    Children around the world are safer when our law enforcement agencies work together – quickly, and with methods like those pioneered by INTERPOL.

    Finally, I am proud that the United States takes seriously our responsibility to help secure evidence that our international partners need for their investigations.  We receive thousands of requests for mutual legal assistance each year, and we do all that we can to comply.  We employ expert attorneys and staff dedicated to assisting with foreign requests for electronic evidence.  We devote additional resources when necessary to meet your needs.

    We call upon each of you to do the same.  By devoting appropriate resources to international cooperation efforts, we can properly address the increasing threat of cybercrime.

    My country recently enacted a new law to remove legal impediments to compliance with foreign court orders in cases that involve serious crimes.  The legislation demonstrates our commitment to the vision of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the primary treaty for harmonizing national interests and enhancing international cooperation against cybercrime.  Sixty-one nations have fully ratified the treaty, agreeing that national laws should include authority to compel providers to disclose data they control, even when it is held elsewhere. 

    New cyber conventions are sometimes proposed that would limit the free flow of information between nations. But that would dangerously impede efforts to investigate cybercrime. It would protect criminals and allow cyber threats to proliferate and grow in scale and sophistication.  That is untenable in a world in which criminals using computers shielded by layers of anonymity can harm innocent victims in any one of our nations, anywhere in the world. Such limitations would be a step backward, not an innovative law enforcement approach.

    No nation should exempt itself from just and reasonable law enforcement cooperation. No nation will be more prosperous, more secure, or more respected because it supports cybercriminals. 

    My fellow delegates, there is a parable about three stonecutters asked to describe what they are doing.  They answer in varying ways. The first stonecutter focuses on how the job benefits him. He says, “I am earning a living.” The second man narrowly describes his personal task: “I am cutting stone.” The third man has a very different perspective. Instead of focusing solely on his work, he explains what it means to others: “I am helping these stonecutters build a shrine.”

    Similarly, each of us helps to construct a legacy. INTERPOL delegates should always support leaders and policies that promote international police coordination and preserve the rule of law – in practice, and not just in theory. We must uphold the rule of law, so it will be there for us when we need it.

    When our successors speak of our time here, give them reason to say that we understood the challenges; we found the solutions; we defended our principles, and we stayed the course to support liberty and justice for all. 

    I am honored to work with you in advancing the INTERPOL mission and making the world safer and more prosperous for all law-abiding citizens. Shukran.  Thank you very much.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI: Rapid7 Launches New Global PACT Partner Program

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    BOSTON, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Rapid7, Inc. (NASDAQ: RPD), a leader in extended risk and threat detection, today announced that it has launched a new PACT Partner Program to equip partners with tools, training, and resources to meet the expanding security needs of customers in an increasingly complex global threat landscape.

    The new PACT Program will deliver a supportive and structured program for partners to help customers take command of their attack surface. Working with the full channel community, including resellers, distributors, systems integrators and service providers, Rapid7 enables thousands of partners around the globe through a modernized Partner Portal, tailored engagement programs and specializations, and an all-new Partner Training Academy.

    “Today’s PACT Program launch is the result of listening to and working collaboratively with our global partner community to best understand their business challenges and opportunities,” said Alex Page, vice president of global channel sales at Rapid7 and 2025 CRN Channel Chief. “We made this significant program update to ensure our partners were enabled and supported to drive maximum impact in line with their near and long-term business objectives. Together, we know we can provide our joint customers the most robust solutions to help them take command of their attack surface.”

    The PACT Program includes new tiers and classifications, designed to empower and unite all partner types under a single, dynamic program. This innovative approach offers tailored engagement opportunities and sets clear performance expectations. Furthermore, valuable tier benefits will recognize and reward success, enhancing profitability and growth.

    Key elements of the new program include:

    • Modernized Partner Portal: Rapid7’s modernized and expanded Partner Portal offers partners deeper engagement and seamless, real-time collaboration with Rapid7 via a redesigned interface that provides training and automation to support the entire customer lifecycle. From self-service quote access and renewal dashboards, to learning paths aligned to specific points in the sales process and customer lifecycle.
    • Tailored Engagement Programs and Specializations: Rapid7’s unified platform seamlessly combines proactive and reactive cyber risk management solutions so they can be efficiently scaled and customized to meet customer requirements. Partners can also benefit from two new PACT specializations, MSSP Specialization and Service Delivery Specialization, for an enhanced suite of tech resources and operational efficiencies with simplified pricing models launching later this year.
    • All-New Partner Training Academy: The new Partner Training Academy equips partners with practical skills and technical knowledge to enhance customer value. With a mission to elevate partners’ confidence in positioning solutions to match customer needs, the Partner Training Academy offers a variety of competency-based courses and certifications. Courses are tailored to the sales and pre-sales technical roles, as well as specialized curriculum, to enable partners to deliver their own post-sales services.

    “Over the past few years, we’ve experienced excellent growth with Rapid7 as they’ve redefined their channel strategy—and the new PACT Partner Program marks yet another exciting step forward,” said Mark Thornberry, senior vice president, vendor management at GuidePoint Security. “As digital ecosystems become increasingly complex, attack surfaces grow, and threats evolve, the need for robust Managed Detection & Response (MDR) has never been greater. The enhancements to their 2025 Partner Program not only underscore Rapid7’s dedication to growth and innovation, but also enable us to continue delivering comprehensive SecOps strategies to our customers.”

    “Our partnership with Rapid7 has been nothing short of exceptional. Over the years, we have built a strong and collaborative relationship that has fuelled remarkable growth across the UK & Ireland (UK&I). Rapid7’s cutting-edge solutions and unwavering support have been instrumental in expanding our cybersecurity offerings, empowering us to deliver world-class protection to our clients,” said Nick Brownrigg, group director, solutions architecture, Integrity360. “Beyond the UK&I, Rapid7 has played a crucial role in helping us establish a strong presence in the Nordics and successfully launch our cybersecurity services in emerging regions such as Italy, Spain, and South Africa. Their commitment to innovation and partnership has enabled us to stay ahead of evolving threats and provide best-in-class security solutions to businesses worldwide. We are proud to partner with Rapid7 and look forward to continued success together in securing organizations across the globe.”

    For further information on the new Rapid7 PACT Partner Program please click HERE.

    About Rapid7
    Rapid7, Inc. (NASDAQ: RPD) is on a mission to create a safer digital world by making cybersecurity simpler and more accessible. We empower security professionals to manage a modern attack surface through our best-in-class technology, leading-edge research, and broad, strategic expertise. Rapid7’s comprehensive security solutions help more than 11,000 global customers unite cloud risk management with threat detection and response to reduce attack surfaces and eliminate threats with speed and precision. For more information, visit our website, check out our blog, or follow us on LinkedIn or X.

    Rapid7 Media Relations
    Alice Randall
    Director, Global Communications
    press@rapid7.com
    (857) 216-7804

    Rapid7 Investor Contact
    Elizabeth Chwalk
    Sr. Director, Investor Relations
    investors@rapid7.com
    (617) 865-4277

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Mass influxes of wounded patients arrive at hospitals across Sudan as “war on people” continues

    Source: Médecins Sans Frontières –

    • MSF teams have responded to mass casualty events in three areas in Sudan in the last few days.
    • These deplorable attacks on people show how little respect is being given towards civilian life.
    • We are urging the warring parties to protect civilian life.

    Port Sudan – Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) teams in three different parts of Sudan – Khartoum, North Darfur, and South Darfur states – treated mass influxes of war-wounded patients in the last few days. The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) continues, with little respect shown for civilian life.

    On 4 February in Nyala, South Darfur, 21 injured patients were brought to the MSF-supported Nyala Teaching hospital after airstrikes by the SAF hit a peanut oil factory, with reports of 25 people killed. On 3 February, airstrikes hit residential areas of Nyala, destroying civilian houses. The airstrikes took place in the afternoon when many people were around. Thirty-two people were reportedly killed and dozens injured, with many patients brought to the Nyala Teaching hospital.

    An MSF doctor was working in the hospital when the airstrikes took place.

    “The bombing was near the hospital. We felt the building shaking. Once I went to the emergency room the situation was horrible,” they say. “Blood was everywhere, some patients were suffering from fractures, some had limbs amputated. While I was going around the ER, I saw two children. One was four years old; the other was two years old. Their aunt told us that this child had lost three of her siblings and her mother had died, and only her older brother and father survived because they were at work.”

    Civilians have also been killed in El Fasher, North Darfur state, the scene of fierce clashes in recent months. Over the last few days MSF teams have been treating wounded civilians in Zamzam camp after escalating heavy fighting between the RSF and SAF and their Joint Forces allies resulted in scores of casualties. On 2 February, the MSF field hospital in Zamzam camp received 21 wounded patients, more than half of whom were children, who had been injured while fleeing Shagra, a village in El Fasher locality.

    MSF’s field hospital in Zamzam is for paediatric and maternal healthcare and not equipped to handle trauma injuries requiring surgery. The only remaining surgical services were a few kilometres away, yet people were unable to use the road between Zamzam and El Fasher due to the ongoing fighting and shifting frontlines.

    Patients in critical condition were trapped in Zamzam camp with no access to lifesaving care. Four patients were among the wounded who passed away, five patients were successfully referred to El Fasher on 3 February, where Saudi hospital remains somewhat functional despite relentless attacks, with a recent bombing of the facility on 24 January reportedly killing 70 people.

    Thousands of people fleeing from Shagra have arrived in Zamzam in recent days, leaving everything behind in desperate search of safety. They have told our teams of horrific violence in the area. About 60 families from Shagra also reached Tawila, where MSF runs an emergency programme providing emergency, nutritional, paediatric, and maternal healthcare. They told MSF teams that people were robbed and attacked as they fled along the road.  

    Violence has also intensified in Khartoum state since the beginning of February. On 4 February, during RSF shelling of Omdurman there were explosions within 100 metres of the MSF-supported Al Nao hospital. The Ministry of Health reported that 38 people were injured and six people were killed, including a volunteer from the Al Nao initiative, in which people volunteer to assist in running the hospital.

    This is the second time medics working at the hospital have responded to a mass influx of wounded patients in recent days. On 1 February, an RSF attack on a market on killed 54 people, according to the Ministry of Health. Since the war in Sudan started Al Nao hospital has been hit by explosions three times; in August 2023, October 2023 and June 2024.

    “The violence that the Rapid Support Forces and Sudanese Armed Forces are inflicting on civilians right across Sudan is tragic and appalling,” says Ozan Agbas, MSF’s emergency manager. “The violence continues ruining lives, making it harder for people to access healthcare and putting healthcare workers at risk. We urge the warring parties to protect civilian life and spare them from this war on people.”

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI: Paperclip SAFE Announces Alignment with Encryption Requirements Mandated within EU DORA Act

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HACKENSACK, N.J., Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Paperclip, Inc. (OTCMKTS:PCPJ) announces its SAFE technology aligns with new European Union DORA requirements mandating data encryption.

    The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) went into effect on January 17th, 2025, impacting all European Union (EU) financial services organizations and their Information and Communications Technology (ICT) suppliers. This regulation has far-reaching implications, and not only for Financial Institutions operating in the EU, but for US organizations as well.

    “We should look at DORA as a foreshadowing of U.S. regulations to come,” said Chad Walter, CRO at Paperclip, Inc. “The demand is increasing for better resiliency due to increased data theft, manipulation, and ransomware attacks. DORA is likely to influence data resiliency requirements globally, just as GDPR did for data privacy. There are key pieces to the DORA regulations that are coming to a regulation near you.”

    A key aspect of DORA is its specificity around encryption. To comply with DORA, organizations that do business with the financial sector in the EU must enhance their encryption tools to support encryption of data at rest, in transit, and in use. This type of encryption technology isn’t widely adopted to date and is reliant on newer, innovative technologies like Paperclip SAFE®.

    Paperclip SAFE® always-encrypted technology is uniquely positioned to help organizations on their path to data resiliency and DORA compliance. Paperclip SAFE meets DORA requirements by assuring that confidentiality, availability, and integrity of data is protected via its always-encrypted technology.

    DORA introduces significant personal accountability for compliance and cybersecurity leaders at financial entities, and the service providers they work with. To learn more about DORA requirements and the impact on your organization—US or EU—visit https://paperclip.com/dora-regulations/

    Paperclip will be attending TechEx Global in London this week, Feb. 5-6, to meet with EU and non-EU companies to discuss DORA, encryption strategies, and appetite for innovation. Our team will be learning about and discussing EU regulations along with other global data security requirements.

    About Paperclip Inc.
    With over three decades of customer-centric innovation, Paperclip is a proven strategic partner that continues to revolutionize data encryption, content supply chain, and document management for Fortune 1000 companies worldwide. Every second of every day, Paperclip solutions securely process, transcribe, store, and communicate our client’s most sensitive content, such as PII, PHI, NPI, and corporate IP. Paperclip enables enterprises to harness the power of their data without ever sacrificing security. As a trusted leader, Paperclip continues to innovate, adapt and excel within a rapidly changing digital world. Learn more at www.paperclip.com.

    About Paperclip SAFE®
    Paperclip’s proprietary SAFE® encryption solution builds upon an established foundation of trust and collaboration earned from over three decades of consistent performance. Paperclip SAFE utilizes our team’s in-depth knowledge of the data supply chain to ensure that private, sensitive, and controlled data is always encrypted and removed from risk of data theft and ransom. Originally developed as an internal solution, Paperclip has operationalized SAFE for more than four years to protect the critical data behind our active customer base, including nine of the top 10 life insurance and annuity enterprises. With Paperclip SAFE, critical data assets are always encrypted, always available, and always ahead of evolving risk. For more information, visit https://paperclip.com/safe.

    CONTACT
    Megan Brandow, Director of Marketing
    Paperclip, Inc.
    (585) 727-0983
    mbrandow@paperclip.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Global: How citizen science is shaping international conservation

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sasha Woods, Director of Science and Policy, Earthwatch Institute (Europe)

    Testing the River Gade in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Citizen science is a powerful tool for involving more people in research. By influencing policy, it is transforming conservation at global, national and local levels.

    Citizen science actively encourages non-scientists to be a part of the scientific research process. Sometimes the terminology gets confusing. We say “non-scientists” but through taking part in citizen science projects, people become scientists – they’re just not professionally involved in the research.

    It’s also worth noting that the “citizen” in citizen science is completely unrelated to ideas of national citizenship. Put simply, it’s science by the people for the people.

    Citizen scientists can take part in every stage of the research process. Depending on the project, participants can write the research questions, choose the methods, collect the data, analyse and interpret the results, and share the research as widely as possible. By broadening people’s understanding of scientific problems and solutions, citizen science can act as a powerful catalyst for change.

    It is already making an impact across lots of disciplines, including conservation, by addressing barriers to policy change such as lack of evidence and low levels of public engagement and input. While it’s not yet common for citizen science to directly influence policy, in our research we’ve seen how citizen science can shape policy at every scale: through promoting policy, monitoring progress towards policy or advocating for policy enforcement.

    At a local level, citizen science can influence policy and transform conservation science. The clean air coalition of western New York is a group of citizens concerned about smells and smoke, and their connection to chronic health problems in the community. The group collected samples in 2004 to determine what was in the air and presented this data to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

    In response, the DEC monitored air pollutants in four locations in the city of Tonawanda for a year between 2007 and 2008 – an investigation which formed the basis for compliance monitoring and regulatory actions. As a direct result of citizen science, the Tonawanda Coke Corporation agreed to improve its operations, monitor for leaks and upgrade pollution controls. By December 2019, levels of carcinogenic benzene had dropped 92% since the end of DEC’s sampling in 2008.

    Citizen science can also run at the national level. For example, the annual Big Butterfly Count, run by the Butterfly Conservation charity, encourages people in the UK to advocate for conservation policy by counting butterflies.

    Over 25 days in July and August 2024, 85,000 volunteers recorded their sightings, with alarming results. Average butterfly numbers were at their lowest in the survey’s 14-year history.

    The charity and its citizen scientists called on the UK government to ban pesticides that can harm butterflies and bees. And on January 23 2025, the government confirmed that, for the first time in five years, an emergency application for the use of a neonicotinoid pesticide on sugar beet in England will not be granted.

    The government highlighted that the decision was “based on robust assessments of environmental, health and economic risks and benefits” and, although not explicitly stated, it is clear that citizen scientists contributed to those assessments.

    Going global

    Citizen science also contributes data to international conservation policies. For example, the UN incorporates citizen science data into two of its largest environmental policy frameworks: the sustainable development goals (SDGs) – a set of targets to end poverty, protect the environment, and promote prosperity for all people – and the Kunming-Montreal agreement, which aims to halt and reverse biodiversity decline.

    As part of our work at the European branch of the Earthwatch Institute research organisation, we’re involved with a global water quality monitoring project called FreshWater Watch. This project has successfully engaged communities and governments in Sierra Leone and Zambia to collect data on the proportion of rivers and lakes with good water quality within a country. Over time, this indicator can be used to measure progress towards the SDG for clean water and sanitation.

    A volunteer tests water quality at Faendre Reen near Cardiff.
    Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Currently, only five of the 231 indicators used to measure progress for the SDGs include citizen science data. But recent research suggests such projects could contribute to up to 33% of these indicators and over half of the 365 indicators for the global biodiversity framework.

    And even where citizen science data is not used in official monitoring towards policy, it can still transform conservation science by educating people and empowering them to advocate for change.

    The Great UK WaterBlitz is a national example of this. WaterBlitzes are four-day campaigns in which volunteers assess the water quality of local rivers, ponds and lakes, using simple-but-reliable testing kits for nitrates and phosphates.

    Nitrates and phosphates occur naturally in the environment and are essential for plant growth. But high concentrations found in sewage and agricultural runoff trigger a process called eutrophication: an overgrowth of algae which leads to increased levels of bacteria and, therefore, decreased oxygen concentrations, which harms aquatic plants and animals.

    Citizen scientists used these simple testing kits to assess water quality.
    Sasha Woods/Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Our team has used such testing kits in river catchments for over 10 years, but recently expanded to a UK-wide campaign. In September 2024, we ran our largest event to date, with 4,500 participants investigating 2,300 locations. This created a national snapshot of freshwater health at a granular scale, which we have used to highlight pollution hotspots to the Environment Agency (EA).

    Although this data is not yet used for official monitoring or the development of conservation policy, its contribution to improving water ecosystems is increasingly acknowledged. As the EA’s deputy director for monitoring, insight and innovation told the Guardian: “The Environment Agency values the contribution of England’s growing network of citizen scientists and welcomes the Great UK WaterBlitz and other initiatives that complement our own research, monitoring and assessment work.”

    Despite demonstrating valuable contributions to research – particularly by providing robust datasets – citizen science still faces multiple challenges. The engagement, motivation and retention of volunteers is resource-intensive, and citizen science is not particularly well funded.

    And even though citizen science methods are frequently validated by laboratory scientists, policymakers can still be hesitant to integrate this into their monitoring frameworks, due to often unfounded concerns about the data’s quality and reliability.

    But citizen science is already influencing conservation. This will only increase as policymakers recognise it as a legitimate and valuable scientific approach. And because there are citizen science projects all over the world, anyone can be a part of this positive change.


    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


    Sasha Woods works for Earthwatch Europe.

    Stephen Parkinson works for Earthwatch Europe.

    ref. How citizen science is shaping international conservation – https://theconversation.com/how-citizen-science-is-shaping-international-conservation-247033

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friendship, a covenant, romance – no matter what you call it, David’s love for Jonathan is one of the Bible’s most beautiful

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jacob F. Love, Lecturer in Religious Studies, University of Tennessee

    An illustration of David and Jonathan from ‘Sunday at Home – A Family Magazine for Sabbath reading, 1883,’ published by the Religious Tract Society in London. whitemay/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    For the idea of love, biblical Hebrew has precious few synonyms. Yet the Hebrew of the Bible can communicate a rich sensation of love: the love of a man for a woman, the love of any human being for their fellow human, the love of Israel for Israel’s God, and the love of God for all people.

    As a religion scholar, however, I believe one of the greatest loves in the Bible is a story of friendship: the intense devotion between the warrior Jonathan and David, who later became king of Israel and Judah. For many readers, their relationship represents a platonic ideal, while others see something more.

    ‘With all your heart’

    The main word for expressing love in the Hebrew Bible is “ahavah,” from the root “ahav.” It appears, for example, in the classic description of the relationship between God and Israel in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 6: “You shall love (v’ahavta) the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”

    There are several places in the Hebrew Bible that demand that people care for one another, regardless of membership in any group, such as a tribe. Consider Leviticus 19:34, which invokes the Israelites’ suffering as slaves in Egypt: “you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

    The word “ahav” is also used to express emotional, romantic and sexual love, as in Genesis 29, the story of Jacob and Rachel. The young man serves Laban, Rachel’s father, for seven years in exchange for her hand in marriage – which seem “but a few days because of his love for her.” But Laban tricks Jacob into marrying Rachel’s sister, Leah, first – then working another seven years for Rachel.

    A steadfast love

    Among the more passionate poems in the Hebrew Bible is one David is said to have pronounced for Jonathan and his father, Saul, the Israelite king.

    A 14th century illustration of David and Jonathan’s first meeting.
    National Manuscript Center/Wikmedia Commons

    The three first meet when David, portrayed as a young shepherd, volunteers to fight Goliath, who is portrayed as a towering giant of a soldier, a champion of the Philistines battling Israel. Shockingly, David slays him with a simple sling and stone, and Saul meets with the boy.

    “After David finished speaking to Saul,” the author of 1 Samuel relates, “the body of Jonathan was bound to the body of David, and Jonathan loved him as he loved his own self.” The Hebrew word I translate as “body” here is a famously ambiguous one, “nefesh,” usually rendered as “soul,” “life” or “personality.”

    Many translators read this passage to mean that Jonathan and David form a covenant, a pact. Jonathan immediately removes his clothing and weapons and gives them to the other young man.

    Their loyalty is tested as Saul becomes jealous of David’s increasing success. Yet the young men’s bond is steadfast.

    Jonathan eventually dies in battle, and Saul commits suicide. David composes a beautiful eulogy poem mourning both men, but his description of Jonathan is particularly striking:

    Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

    How the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished!

    The passage uses a rare synonym for “ahav” when it describes Jonathan as “greatly beloved”: “na’am,” suggesting “love,” “affection” or “pleasantness.”

    Labeling love

    What could David have meant by “your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”? It is not surprising that many have wondered whether this suggests an intimate relationship.

    That would appear to contradict prohibitions on homosexuality found in the Book of Leviticus. One thing to consider, however, is that Leviticus is devoted to priestly concerns. The prohibition is not found in the Book of Deuteronomy, which repeats so many of the prohibitions found in Leviticus. Another question is whether we really know what the Levitical language means: What exactly is being prohibited here?

    Rembrandt’s painting of the pair, after Jonathan warns David of Saul’s plan to kill him.
    Hermitage Museum via Wikimedia Commons

    One thing we can say with certainty is that LGBTQ+ love and identities have existed throughout human history, regardless of what they are called. Various cultures have been more or less sympathetic to sexual variation, but that variation has always been there.

    David had many wives. Indeed, one of the most famous stories about him is his depravity in condemning a soldier, Uriah the Hittite, to a brutal death so that David could take Uriah’s wife, Bat-Sheva, as his own. But who’s to say whether David might have been open to an intimate relationship with a man he essentially called his lover?

    David’s life was fraught with tragedy, and his family infamous for scandal – perhaps none greater than the tale of his son Amnon raping his half-sister Tamar. Nevertheless, tradition reveres him as the greatest king of Israel and Judah, the author of beautiful poetry and the father of King Solomon, who is credited with the ultimate biblical love poem, the Song of Songs.

    I’d like to give the final word to the sages of the Mishnah, rabbinic literature written around the year 250 C.E.:

    “All love that depends on something, when that something ceases, the love fails; but all love that does not depend on anything will never cease. What is an example of love that depended on something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.”

    Jacob F. Love is affiliated with Marble City Opera.

    ref. Friendship, a covenant, romance – no matter what you call it, David’s love for Jonathan is one of the Bible’s most beautiful – https://theconversation.com/friendship-a-covenant-romance-no-matter-what-you-call-it-davids-love-for-jonathan-is-one-of-the-bibles-most-beautiful-248080

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Nigeria’s Brics partnership: economist outlines potential benefits

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stephen Onyeiwu, Professor of Economics & Business, Allegheny College

    During its 16th annual summit in Kazan, Russia, Brics – a group of emerging economies determined to act as a counterweight to the west and to whittle down the influence of global institutions – invited Nigeria and eight other countries to join it as “partner” countries. Nigeria formally accepted the invitation in January 2025. That invitation has generated questions about how Nigeria stands to benefit, especially when US president Donald Trump is threatening to sanction members of the group if they replace the US dollar as reserve currency. It was established in 2006 and initially composed of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. South Africa joined in 2010 and the bloc added four new members (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) in 2023. In this interview, development economist Stephen Onyeiwu argues that Nigeria stands to gain from a Brics partnership, but would have to carefully balance its domestic interests with those of its western allies and Brics.

    What does it mean to be a Brics ‘partner’ country?

    The introduction of Brics partnership is an expansion mechanism designed to bring in more participants without giving them full membership. It is akin to “observer” status.

    Brics partners can participate in special sessions of summits and foreign ministers’ meetings, as well as other high-level events. Partners can also contribute to the organisation’s official documents and policy statements.

    But partners cannot host annual Brics summits or determine the venue. Neither can they select new members and partners.

    How beneficial is Brics partnership to Nigeria?

    The main benefit would be access to finance offered by Brics’ New Development Bank.

    The New Development Bank was established as an alternative to western-dominated international financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These institutions are sometimes used by the leading western countries to keep developing countries in line on global issues.

    Some developing countries are reluctant to criticise western countries for fear of losing access to funding by western-backed international financial institutions.

    Nigeria has been running a budget deficit of about 5% of GDP since 2019, and it needs funding to pay for the deficits. The New Development Bank could be an important source of funding for investment in Nigeria’s infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, and so on.

    New Development Bank loans are also available in member countries’ local currencies. They don’t have to earn foreign exchange to repay the loans. This fosters exchange rate stability and promotes economic growth. The New Development Bank raises funds in member countries’ local currencies, and lends them to member countries.

    Nigeria could use its Brics partnership to garner the group’s support in matters that affect Nigeria globally. For instance, there have been requests for African countries to be included as permanent members (without veto power) of the UN security council. South Africa and Nigeria have been touted as potential candidates. Should this issue be raised at the UN, Nigeria can count on the support of its Brics allies, which includes two permanent members (China and Russia) of the security council.

    Mutual understanding and cooperation with other Brics members and partners might spill over into economic, trade and investment agreements. Friendly countries are more likely to trade with each other and invest in each other’s economy.

    How can Nigeria maximise its status as a Brics partner?

    Nigeria should use it to attract foreign direct investment in strategic sectors of the economy, such as infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture and technology.

    Some Brics members, like China, India, and the UAE, have investors that are seeking investment outlets abroad. Nigeria could use the bloc’s annual summits to showcase investment opportunities.

    The global economy is transitioning into “frontier industries and technologies”, such as big data, artificial intelligence, solar, drones, gene editing, 3D printing, blockchains, Internet of Things (IoT), 5G, robotics and nanotechnology. China, India and Brazil are already well advanced in these technologies.

    Nigeria should use its partnership with these countries to build capabilities in frontier industries and technologies. It could get favourable terms in the transfer of these technologies.

    Nigeria seeks to diversify its economy from reliance on the export of hydrocarbons. But Nigerian producers have had a hard time accessing global markets. The country should negotiate trade deals that provide access to Brics markets, especially agricultural and agro-processed products, arts and crafts.

    But Nigeria has to promote economic growth and structural transformation at home. If the Nigerian economy falters, it is unlikely the country will be invited to become a full member of Brics.

    Would adding new members and partners reduce western dominance?

    Brics has so far not been able to significantly change the dynamics of the international political economy. Adding new members and partners, while symbolic, will not act as an effective counterweight to the influence of the G7 and G20 groups of nations.

    Most of the countries and partners in Brics are either allies of western countries or neutral on global issues. They are unlikely to support decisions or actions that are grossly inimical to western interests.

    Egypt and the UAE, for instance, receive military aid from the United States. Ethiopia and Nigeria are top recipients of foreign aid in Africa, much of it from western-backed financial institutions.

    The only outlier in the mix is Iran, whose membership was promoted by Russia. But Iran has no leverage to influence others in the bloc.

    On balance, therefore, Brics will not be a threat to western countries.

    Brics aspires to weaken the dominance of the US dollar for international transactions. Close to 90% of international trade transactions are conducted with the US dollar.

    Brics countries plan to reduce dollar dominance by encouraging member countries to settle their trade and financial transactions using their domestic currencies. For instance, South African businesses could purchase Chinese goods using the South African rand, while the Chinese could do the same for South African goods using the Chinese yuan. The more members you have in Brics swapping their currencies, the less important the US dollar will be.

    It is unlikely, however, that an increase in the number of Brics members and partners will weaken the dollar. Most will continue to have significant economic relationships with the west, including trade and foreign aid.

    They will also continue to conduct business with many non-Brics countries, which also have economic relationships with the west. They will need the US dollar to transact with many other countries.

    So increasing the number of Brics members and partners does not pose a threat to dollar dominance.

    Stephen Onyeiwu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Nigeria’s Brics partnership: economist outlines potential benefits – https://theconversation.com/nigerias-brics-partnership-economist-outlines-potential-benefits-248943

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: As Trump tries to slash US foreign aid, here are 3 common myths many Americans mistakenly believe about it

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joannie Tremblay-Boire, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland

    U.S. lawmakers and employees and supporters of the U.S. Agency for International Development speak outside the agency’s headquarters on Feb. 3, 2025. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    U.S. foreign aid is in disarray.

    The Trump administration froze most aid disbursements on Jan. 20. According to billionaire Elon Musk, an adviser to President Donald Trump with “special government employee status,” the U.S. Agency for International Development, widely known as USAID, had been shut down as of Feb. 3, 2025.

    Although the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to do this, hundreds of people on the agency’s staff have been put on unpaid leave or fired, according to news reports.

    And the agency’s official website wasn’t working. A partial replacement, however, had appeared within the State Department’s website.

    I’m a scholar of public policy who researches nonprofits, which in the foreign aid sphere are often called nongovernmental organizations. These groups are responsible for carrying out many programs funded by foreign aid from governments such as the United States.

    In light of the Trump administration’s attack on the government’s main foreign aid agency and the disruption of this funding, I believe it’s important to debunk three common myths:

    1. The U.S. spends too much on foreign aid.
    2. The U.S. spends more than its fair share on foreign aid compared with other countries.
    3. Corrupt governments squander U.S. foreign aid.

    What is foreign aid?

    Foreign aid consists of money, goods and services – such as training – that government agencies provide to other countries. Foreign aid falls into two broad categories: economic assistance and military – sometimes called security – aid.

    Economic assistance includes all programs with development or humanitarian objectives. That tends to include projects related to health, disaster relief, the promotion of civil society, agriculture and the like. Most U.S. economic aid dollars come from the State Department budget, including spending allocated by USAID, which has operated as an independent agency since the Kennedy administration.

    On Feb. 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that he was serving as USAID’s acting director, indicating that the agency was no longer independent of the State Department.

    While U.S. taxpayers have long spent just a few bucks each on foreign aid every year, the impact is profound, saving millions of people from hunger, averting the worst of natural disasters such as droughts and flooding, tackling life-threatening diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria, and more.

    Myth No. 1: US spends too much on foreign aid

    The United States consistently spends only about 1% of its budget on foreign aid, including military and economic support. The 2023 aid managed by USAID totaled about US$40 billion.

    Americans tend to believe that their government spends a far bigger share of its budget on foreign aid than it does.

    In a survey the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted in 2015, it found that, on average, Americans believed that foreign aid accounts for nearly one-third of the budget. Only 3% of those polled answered correctly that foreign aid constituted 1% or less of total federal spending.

    Myth No. 2: US spends more than its fair share

    According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States is by far the leading national source of economic assistance dollars. In 2023, it contributed $64.7 billion in overseas development assistance, far outpacing the $37.9 billion spent by Germany, the second-biggest source of that kind of aid. Some of this assistance is managed by USAID, some by the Department of State, and a small portion by other government agencies, such as the Treasury and Health and Human Services departments.

    That tells only part of the story, however. The United States spends very little on foreign aid relative to the size of its economy, particularly compared with other rich countries. The U.S. spent about 0.24% of its gross national income on overseas development assistance in 2023. By comparison, Norway, the top contributor by this metric, gave 1.09% of its gross national income in overseas development aid that year. The United States ranks toward the bottom of OECD countries, close to Portugal and Spain, by this measurement.

    In 1970, the United Nations General Assembly agreed that “economically advanced countries” would aim to direct at least 0.7% of their national income to overseas development assistance. Although developed countries have repeatedly mentioned this target in agreements and at summits since then, very few countries have reached that goal. In 2023, only five countries met the 0.7% target.

    The OECD average was just 0.37% in 2023 – far higher than the 0.24% the U.S. provided that year.

    Myth No. 3: Corrupt governments squander US aid

    You may think that foreign aid consists of government-to-government transfers of money. But governments channel most aid through nonprofits such as Catholic Relief Services, public-private partnerships, private companies such as Chemonics International and Deloitte, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank.

    In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, between 2013 and 2022, most U.S. foreign assistance bypassed governments altogether: NGOs received 24% of the money, for-profit companies 21%, multilateral organizations 34%, and other organizations, such as universities, research institutes and faith-based organizations, 7%.

    When the political scientist Simone Dietrich researched this question, she found that the United States outsources a lot of its foreign aid to NGOs. This is especially the case with the support it provides countries with bad governance and rampant corruption such as Sudan and Sri Lanka, which could be likely to squander or swipe those funds.

    To be sure, corrupt governments sometimes do squander U.S. foreign aid. But it is important to understand that most aid never enters the coffers of those corrupt governments in the first place.

    Even without Trump’s proposed cuts, US fails to lead

    Even if Trump fails at his current bid to greatly reduce foreign aid spending, other countries, including the United Kingdom and Denmark, are spending far more on economic assistance for the world’s poorest people, as a share of their economies, than the U.S. does.

    Slashing foreign aid would damage U.S. credibility with American allies, reduce U.S. influence around the globe and – as a group of more than 120 retired generals and admirals predicted when Trump tried to slash foreign aid in his first administration – make Americans less safe.

    Parts of this article appeared in a story first published on April 6, 2017, and have been updated.

    Joannie Tremblay-Boire does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. As Trump tries to slash US foreign aid, here are 3 common myths many Americans mistakenly believe about it – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-tries-to-slash-us-foreign-aid-here-are-3-common-myths-many-americans-mistakenly-believe-about-it-248979

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Video: Panel Discussion on Paying attention to the Boy Child

    Source: Republic of South Africa (video statements-2)

    Panel Discussion on Paying attention to the Boy Child

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOyZ9TPlaX8

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Nigeria’s Brics partnership: economist outlines potential benefits

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stephen Onyeiwu, Professor of Economics & Business, Allegheny College

    During its 16th annual summit in Kazan, Russia, Brics – a group of emerging economies determined to act as a counterweight to the west and to whittle down the influence of global institutions – invited Nigeria and eight other countries to join it as “partner” countries. Nigeria formally accepted the invitation in January 2025. That invitation has generated questions about how Nigeria stands to benefit, especially when US president Donald Trump is threatening to sanction members of the group if they replace the US dollar as reserve currency. It was established in 2006 and initially composed of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. South Africa joined in 2010 and the bloc added four new members (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) in 2023. In this interview, development economist Stephen Onyeiwu argues that Nigeria stands to gain from a Brics partnership, but would have to carefully balance its domestic interests with those of its western allies and Brics.

    What does it mean to be a Brics ‘partner’ country?

    The introduction of Brics partnership is an expansion mechanism designed to bring in more participants without giving them full membership. It is akin to “observer” status.

    Brics partners can participate in special sessions of summits and foreign ministers’ meetings, as well as other high-level events. Partners can also contribute to the organisation’s official documents and policy statements.

    But partners cannot host annual Brics summits or determine the venue. Neither can they select new members and partners.

    How beneficial is Brics partnership to Nigeria?

    The main benefit would be access to finance offered by Brics’ New Development Bank.

    The New Development Bank was established as an alternative to western-dominated international financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These institutions are sometimes used by the leading western countries to keep developing countries in line on global issues.

    Some developing countries are reluctant to criticise western countries for fear of losing access to funding by western-backed international financial institutions.

    Nigeria has been running a budget deficit of about 5% of GDP since 2019, and it needs funding to pay for the deficits. The New Development Bank could be an important source of funding for investment in Nigeria’s infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, and so on.

    New Development Bank loans are also available in member countries’ local currencies. They don’t have to earn foreign exchange to repay the loans. This fosters exchange rate stability and promotes economic growth. The New Development Bank raises funds in member countries’ local currencies, and lends them to member countries.

    Nigeria could use its Brics partnership to garner the group’s support in matters that affect Nigeria globally. For instance, there have been requests for African countries to be included as permanent members (without veto power) of the UN security council. South Africa and Nigeria have been touted as potential candidates. Should this issue be raised at the UN, Nigeria can count on the support of its Brics allies, which includes two permanent members (China and Russia) of the security council.

    Mutual understanding and cooperation with other Brics members and partners might spill over into economic, trade and investment agreements. Friendly countries are more likely to trade with each other and invest in each other’s economy.

    How can Nigeria maximise its status as a Brics partner?

    Nigeria should use it to attract foreign direct investment in strategic sectors of the economy, such as infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture and technology.

    Some Brics members, like China, India, and the UAE, have investors that are seeking investment outlets abroad. Nigeria could use the bloc’s annual summits to showcase investment opportunities.

    The global economy is transitioning into “frontier industries and technologies”, such as big data, artificial intelligence, solar, drones, gene editing, 3D printing, blockchains, Internet of Things (IoT), 5G, robotics and nanotechnology. China, India and Brazil are already well advanced in these technologies.

    Nigeria should use its partnership with these countries to build capabilities in frontier industries and technologies. It could get favourable terms in the transfer of these technologies.

    Nigeria seeks to diversify its economy from reliance on the export of hydrocarbons. But Nigerian producers have had a hard time accessing global markets. The country should negotiate trade deals that provide access to Brics markets, especially agricultural and agro-processed products, arts and crafts.

    But Nigeria has to promote economic growth and structural transformation at home. If the Nigerian economy falters, it is unlikely the country will be invited to become a full member of Brics.

    Would adding new members and partners reduce western dominance?

    Brics has so far not been able to significantly change the dynamics of the international political economy. Adding new members and partners, while symbolic, will not act as an effective counterweight to the influence of the G7 and G20 groups of nations.

    Most of the countries and partners in Brics are either allies of western countries or neutral on global issues. They are unlikely to support decisions or actions that are grossly inimical to western interests.

    Egypt and the UAE, for instance, receive military aid from the United States. Ethiopia and Nigeria are top recipients of foreign aid in Africa, much of it from western-backed financial institutions.

    The only outlier in the mix is Iran, whose membership was promoted by Russia. But Iran has no leverage to influence others in the bloc.

    On balance, therefore, Brics will not be a threat to western countries.

    Brics aspires to weaken the dominance of the US dollar for international transactions. Close to 90% of international trade transactions are conducted with the US dollar.

    Brics countries plan to reduce dollar dominance by encouraging member countries to settle their trade and financial transactions using their domestic currencies. For instance, South African businesses could purchase Chinese goods using the South African rand, while the Chinese could do the same for South African goods using the Chinese yuan. The more members you have in Brics swapping their currencies, the less important the US dollar will be.

    It is unlikely, however, that an increase in the number of Brics members and partners will weaken the dollar. Most will continue to have significant economic relationships with the west, including trade and foreign aid.

    They will also continue to conduct business with many non-Brics countries, which also have economic relationships with the west. They will need the US dollar to transact with many other countries.

    So increasing the number of Brics members and partners does not pose a threat to dollar dominance.

    – Nigeria’s Brics partnership: economist outlines potential benefits
    – https://theconversation.com/nigerias-brics-partnership-economist-outlines-potential-benefits-248943

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Digital diagnostics to double number of foreign publications in 2024

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine of the Moscow Department of Health (DZM)

    The scientific journal Digital Diagnostics has seen a significant increase in the number of publications by foreign authors in 2024, doubling the figures for previous years. This year, the journal has published 16 articles written by foreign authors, compared to an average of 7 articles per year in previous years. The journal currently collaborates with authors from six countries.

    Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine.

    Yuri Vasiliev, Chief Consultant in Radiology at the Moscow Health Department and CEO of the Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine, noted that in 2024, their journal expanded its international reach as it featured articles by Indian scientists for the first time. He noted that India, as a member of BRICS, is part of an international organization with which they actively cooperate. He expressed confidence that broad international cooperation and exchange of experience will significantly improve scientific development in their countries. He also noted that 16 foreign articles were published in the journal this year, significantly more than the 7 articles published in 2022 and 2021. Notably, Italy presented 13 articles on clinical cases and scientific reviews, while Indian scientists presented original research in teleradiology, which is considered a valuable contribution to the field.

    In 2024, two landmark papers by Indian authors were published: “Radiological evaluation of pulmonary vascular and gastrointestinal changes in COVID-19 patients referred to a tertiary care centre in Chennai, India: a prospective cross-sectional study” and “Role of teleradiology in interpreting ultrasound images obtained in the emergency setting”. These papers were prepared by research teams from Image Core Lab and Mahatma Gandhi.

    This year, the Diagnostics and Telemedicine Center actively established contacts with colleagues from the BRICS countries. The Center’s employees took part in the International Municipal Forum of the BRICS countries and visited a specialized healthcare exhibition in New Delhi called India Health. In addition, the Center was visited by delegations from four BRICS countries – China, India, Iran and South Africa.

    Digital Diagnostics is recognized as one of the most progressive and prestigious journals in the field of radiology. Every year its portfolio expands and includes a wide range of topics, such as radiology and instrumental diagnostics, innovative methods, application of artificial intelligence, healthcare management and other scientific topics. The journal publishes articles by outstanding Russian scientists, as well as international experts who make a significant contribution to the development of scientific research. The journal publishes articles in three languages: Russian, English and Chinese, with a circulation of 5,000 copies.

    MIL OSI Russia News