Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
KAZAN, Russia, Oct. 24 — “BRICS Plus” countries should be a stabilizing force for peace, strengthen global security governance, and explore ways to address both the symptoms and root causes of hotspot issues, Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Thursday.
Xi made the remarks when attending the BRICS Plus leaders’ dialogue on Thursday.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Xi says ‘BRICS Plus’ countries should be central pillar of strength for common development
KAZAN, Russia, Oct. 24 — Chinese President Xi Jinping said Thursday that BRICS Plus countries should be a central pillar of strength for common development.
Xi made the remarks while addressing the “BRICS Plus” leaders’ dialogue.
He said that development has contributed to the rise and thriving of the Global South. “BRICS Plus” countries should actively participate in and lead the reform of the global economic governance system and advocate for placing development at the core of the international trade and economic agenda.
Source: European Parliament
A delegation of six Members of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), accompanied by the Chair of the Delegation to the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, will travel to London (UK) from 28 to 30 October 2024. The delegation, led by the INTA Chair, Bernd Lange (S&D, DE), will exchange with the UK government, parliamentarians and stakeholders on the trade aspects of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, including the Windsor Framework, and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
The context of this visit is the ‘reset’ of the EU-UK relations announced recently by the UK Prime Minister, the first review of the TCA due in 2026 and the upcoming democratic consent vote of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly on the continuation of the application of major provisions of the Windsor Framework in December 2024.
The UK and the EU are also faced with the same challenges at global level regarding international trade. In the past decade, geopolitical and geoeconomic tensions have heightened, in part due to the strategic competition between the United States and China. In the last few years the situation has deteriorated further, notably due to the supply chain disruptions from the Covid-19 pandemic and to the impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, as well as recently the major crisis in the Middle East, bringing both competitiveness and economic security to the forefront.
Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University – Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University –
On October 17-18, the sixth annual international scientific conference on innovations in the digital economy SPBPU IDE-2024 was held at Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University. The event was organized and held by the Higher School of Engineering and Economics (HSE) of the Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade (IPMET) together with the Center for Sustainable Development of the University of Indonesia. The opening, plenary session and sections of the conference were held in the IPMET building, and participants from other countries and regions had the opportunity to join the conference via online communication.
Welcoming the participants, Vladimir Glukhov, Advisor to the Rectorate of SPbPU, noted that the conference is an important step towards strengthening international scientific cooperation and promotes knowledge exchange for the development of innovative potential, taking into account global challenges. Vladimir Shchepinin, Director of IPMEIT, emphasized the importance of discussing current issues and prospects for the development of the digital economy, and wished the participants fruitful work.
Cooperation with colleagues from Belarus, Armenia, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, India, and Tajikistan allows expanding the geography of research contacts. At the plenary session, VIES Director Dmitry Rodionov noted that holding such events helps promote the results of scientific activity of SPbPU scientists at the international level.
The partner for the conference was traditionally the University of Indonesia. At the plenary session, it was represented by the Deputy for Green and Digital Infrastructure of the Nusantara Administration, Professor Dr. Mohammed Ali Berawi.
Opening remarks and keynote speeches were given by partners from the University of Indonesia, Nanjing University, Russian-Armenian University, Belarusian State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics, Yerevan State University, Tashkent State University of Economics, Da Nang University, and the Indian Institute of Technology.
Special thanks for organizing and holding the plenary session and sections are expressed to the staff of VIESH, in particular Professor Andrey Zaitsev, Associate Professors Tatyana Mokeeva, Daria Krasnova, Ksenia Evseeva and assistant Daria Kryzhko.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: Hong Kong Information Services
Secretary for Development Bernadette Linn will depart tomorrow for Weihai in Shandong Province to attend the 2024 World Cities Day China Observance.
Upon arrival, Ms Linn will participate in a welcome dinner and cultural exchange activities.
On Saturday, she will take part in the opening ceremony of the China Observance event and deliver a keynote speech at the Mayors’ Forum on Sustainable Development in Global Cities.
The 2024 World Cities Day China Observance is organised by the Ministry of Housing & Urban-Rural Development, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, the Shandong Provincial People’s Government, and the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government. This year’s theme is “Build a People-oriented City & Share a Better Life”.
Ms Linn will return to Hong Kong on the evening of October 26. During her absence, Under Secretary for Development David Lam will be Acting Secretary.
Source: Peoples Bank of China
Announcement on Open Market Operations No.210 [2024]
(Open Market Operations Office, October 24, 2024)
In order to offset the impact of factors such as tax peak, and to keep liquidity adequate at a reasonable level in the banking system, the People’s Bank of China conducted reverse repo operations in the amount of RMB798.9 billion through quantity bidding at a fixed interest rate on October 24, 2024.
Details of the Reverse Repo Operations
|
Maturity |
Volume |
Rate |
|
7 days |
RMB798.9 billion |
1.50% |
Date of last update Nov. 29 2018
2024年10月24日
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
VAN BUREN TOWNSHIP, Mich., Oct. 24, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Visteon Corporation (NASDAQ: VC) today reported third quarter financial results. Highlights include:
Visteon reported solid net sales of $980 million in a challenging production environment. We delivered 6% outperformance relative to customer vehicle production, driven by strong demand for digital cockpit and electrification products. Our market outperformance was offset by lower customer production and reduced customer recoveries resulting from improved semiconductor supply.
Gross margin in the third quarter was $131 million. Net income attributable to Visteon was $39 million or $1.40 per diluted share and adjusted net income, a non-GAAP measure defined below, was $63 million or $2.26 per diluted share. Net income, as compared to the prior year, includes the favorable impact of strong operational performance and lower net engineering, partially offset by restructuring expense incurred in the third quarter of 2024. Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure defined below, was $119 million in the third quarter and reflects the Company’s strong focus on operational execution, commercial excellence, and cost discipline.
For the first nine months, cash from operations was $224 million, capital expenditures were $96 million and adjusted free cash flow, a non-GAAP measure defined below, was $135 million. The company ended the third quarter with cash of $553 million and debt of $324 million. Our strong balance sheet, with a net cash position of $229 million, provides the flexibility to deliver on our capital allocation priorities.
Visteon launched 30 new products in the third quarter, with launches across each of its product lines. Key third quarter launches include an infotainment display system on the Tata Punch, highlighting our continued momentum in India; SmartCore(TM) on an electric SUV for Lynk & Co for the European market and the Renault Grand Koleos hybrid for the Korean market; a digital cluster on the Nissan Qashqai, a popular SUV in Europe; and a wireless BMS for the all-electric Jeep Wagoneer.
Visteon secured $4.9 billion in new business through the first nine months of the year, including $2.5 billion of wins with OEMs in Asia excluding China. Our success in diversifying into adjacent end-markets also continued, with further momentum with two-wheeler and commercial vehicle OEMs. Third quarter wins included a large, curved display for multiple mass market vehicles in Europe for a global OEM, SmartCore™ and display wins for a SUV model for an Indian OEM and for an electric vehicle for a domestic China OEM. We also had a follow-on win for a digital cluster with a two-wheeler OEM in India.
“Visteon delivered solid sales and growth-over-market in the third quarter, demonstrating our ability to navigate a challenging customer production environment,” said President and CEO Sachin Lawande. “Demand from our customers remains robust for our diverse product portfolio targeting automotive megatrends of digitalization and electrification. Our continued success in securing new business wins and our momentum with two-wheeler and commercial vehicle OEMs provide a strong foundation for future growth.”
Based on our year-to-date performance and outlook for the fourth quarter, Visteon is updating its full-year 2024 guidance and anticipates sales in the range of $3.85 – $3.90 billion, adjusted EBITDA in the range of $465 – $480 million, and adjusted free cash flow in the range of $165 – $185 million.
About Visteon
Visteon is advancing mobility through innovative technology solutions that enable a software-defined and electric future. With next-generation digital cockpit and electrification products, Visteon leverages the strength and agility of its global network with a local footprint to deliver a cleaner, safer and more connected vehicle experience. Headquartered in Van Buren Township, Michigan, Visteon operates in 17 countries worldwide, recorded approximately $3.95 billion in annual sales and booked $7.2 billion of new business in 2023. Learn more at investors.visteon.com/.
Conference Call and Presentation
Today, Thursday, October 24, at 9 a.m. ET, the company will host a conference call for the investment community to discuss the quarter’s results and other related items. The conference call is available to the general public via a live audio webcast.
The dial-in numbers to participate in the call are:
U.S./Canada: 1-888-330-2508
Outside U.S./Canada: 1-240-789-2735
Conference ID: 8897485
(Call approximately 10 minutes before the start of the conference.)
The conference call and live audio webcast, related presentation materials and other supplemental information will be accessible in the Investors section of Visteon’s website.
Use of Non-GAAP Financial Information
Because not all companies use identical calculations, adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income, adjusted EPS, free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow used throughout this press release may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies.
In order to provide the forward-looking non-GAAP financial measures for full-year 2024, the company provides reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures on the subsequent slides. The provision of these comparable GAAP financial measures is not intended to indicate that the company is explicitly or implicitly providing projections on those GAAP financial measures, and actual results for such measures are likely to vary from those presented. The reconciliations include all information reasonably available to the company at the date of this press release and the adjustments that management can reasonably predict.
Forward-looking Information
This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words “will,” “may,” “designed to,” “outlook,” “believes,” “should,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “expects,” “intends,” “estimates,” “forecasts” and similar expressions identify certain of these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results and conditions but rather are subject to various factors, risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to:
Caution should be taken not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements, which represent our view only as of the date of this release, and which we assume no obligation to update. The financial results presented herein are preliminary and unaudited; final financial results will be included in the company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2024. New business wins and re-wins do not represent firm orders or firm commitments from customers, but are based on various assumptions, including the timing and duration of product launches, vehicle production levels, customer price reductions and currency exchange rates.
Follow Visteon:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/visteon
https://twitter.com/visteon
https://www.facebook.com/VisteonCorporation
https://www.youtube.com/user/Visteon
https://www.instagram.com/visteon/
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/?lang=en_US
https://m.weibo.cn/u/6605315328
http://i.youku.com/u/UNDgyMjA1NjUxNg==?spm=a2h0k.8191407.0.0
| VISTEON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) (In millions except per share amounts) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | ||||||||||||||
| September 30, | September 30, | ||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||
| Net sales | $ | 980 | $ | 1,014 | $ | 2,927 | $ | 2,964 | |||||||
| Cost of sales | (849 | ) | (871 | ) | (2,530 | ) | (2,607 | ) | |||||||
| Gross margin | 131 | 143 | 397 | 357 | |||||||||||
| Selling, general and administrative expenses | (51 | ) | (52 | ) | (152 | ) | (156 | ) | |||||||
| Restructuring, net | (28 | ) | — | (31 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||||||
| Interest expense, net | — | (1 | ) | — | (7 | ) | |||||||||
| Equity in net income (loss) of non-consolidated affiliates | (3 | ) | (1 | ) | (7 | ) | (8 | ) | |||||||
| Other income (expense), net | 2 | 3 | 7 | (4 | ) | ||||||||||
| Income (loss) before income taxes | 51 | 92 | 214 | 180 | |||||||||||
| Provision for income taxes | (11 | ) | (21 | ) | (55 | ) | (48 | ) | |||||||
| Net income (loss) | 40 | 71 | 159 | 132 | |||||||||||
| Less: Net (income) loss attributable to non-controlling interests | (1 | ) | (5 | ) | (7 | ) | (12 | ) | |||||||
| Net income (loss) attributable to Visteon Corporation | $ | 39 | $ | 66 | $ | 152 | $ | 120 | |||||||
| Comprehensive income (loss) | $ | 69 | $ | 58 | $ | 153 | $ | 114 | |||||||
| Less: Comprehensive (income) loss attributable to non-controlling interests | (7 | ) | (4 | ) | (10 | ) | (6 | ) | |||||||
| Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to Visteon Corporation | $ | 62 | $ | 54 | $ | 143 | $ | 108 | |||||||
| Basic earnings (loss) per share attributable to Visteon Corporation | $ | 1.41 | $ | 2.35 | $ | 5.51 | $ | 4.26 | |||||||
| Diluted earnings (loss) per share attributable to Visteon Corporation | $ | 1.40 | $ | 2.32 | $ | 5.45 | $ | 4.20 | |||||||
| Average shares outstanding (in millions) | |||||||||||||||
| Basic | 27.6 | 28.1 | 27.6 | 28.2 | |||||||||||
| Diluted | 27.9 | 28.5 | 27.9 | 28.6 | |||||||||||
| VISTEON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (In millions) |
|||||||
| (Unaudited) | |||||||
| September 30, | December 31, | ||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | ||||||
| ASSETS | |||||||
| Cash and equivalents | $ | 550 | $ | 515 | |||
| Restricted cash | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Accounts receivable, net | 719 | 666 | |||||
| Inventories, net | 321 | 298 | |||||
| Other current assets | 109 | 134 | |||||
| Total current assets | 1,702 | 1,616 | |||||
| Property and equipment, net | 438 | 418 | |||||
| Intangible assets, net | 157 | 90 | |||||
| Right-of-use assets | 103 | 109 | |||||
| Investments in non-consolidated affiliates | 27 | 35 | |||||
| Deferred tax assets | 387 | 384 | |||||
| Other non-current assets | 79 | 75 | |||||
| Total assets | $ | 2,893 | $ | 2,727 | |||
| LIABILITIES AND EQUITY | |||||||
| Short-term debt | $ | 18 | $ | 18 | |||
| Accounts payable | 547 | 551 | |||||
| Accrued employee liabilities | 98 | 99 | |||||
| Current lease liability | 29 | 30 | |||||
| Other current liabilities | 245 | 233 | |||||
| Total current liabilities | 937 | 931 | |||||
| Long-term debt, net | 306 | 318 | |||||
| Employee benefits | 143 | 160 | |||||
| Non-current lease liability | 79 | 79 | |||||
| Deferred tax liabilities | 46 | 31 | |||||
| Other non-current liabilities | 109 | 85 | |||||
| Stockholders’ equity: | |||||||
| Common stock | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Additional paid-in capital | 1,369 | 1,356 | |||||
| Retained earnings | 2,426 | 2,274 | |||||
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (263 | ) | (254 | ) | |||
| Treasury stock | (2,348 | ) | (2,339 | ) | |||
| Total Visteon Corporation stockholders’ equity | 1,185 | 1,038 | |||||
| Non-controlling interests | 88 | 85 | |||||
| Total equity | 1,273 | 1,123 | |||||
| Total liabilities and equity | $ | 2,893 | $ | 2,727 | |||
| VISTEON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (In millions) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | ||||||||||||||
| September 30, | September 30, | ||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||
| OPERATING | |||||||||||||||
| Net income (loss) | $ | 40 | $ | 71 | $ | 159 | $ | 132 | |||||||
| Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided from (used by) operating activities: | |||||||||||||||
| Depreciation and amortization | 25 | 24 | 71 | 79 | |||||||||||
| Non-cash stock-based compensation | 10 | 9 | 31 | 26 | |||||||||||
| Equity in net loss (income) of non-consolidated affiliates, net of dividends remitted | 3 | 1 | 7 | 8 | |||||||||||
| Tax valuation allowance benefit | (7 | ) | — | (7 | ) | — | |||||||||
| Other non-cash items | 3 | 1 | 10 | (3 | ) | ||||||||||
| Changes in assets and liabilities: | |||||||||||||||
| Accounts receivable | (6 | ) | (12 | ) | (55 | ) | (19 | ) | |||||||
| Inventories | — | 6 | (23 | ) | 23 | ||||||||||
| Accounts payable | (5 | ) | 35 | 3 | (54 | ) | |||||||||
| Other assets and other liabilities | 35 | (8 | ) | 28 | (23 | ) | |||||||||
| Net cash provided from (used by) operating activities | 98 | 127 | 224 | 169 | |||||||||||
| INVESTING | |||||||||||||||
| Capital expenditures, including intangibles | (28 | ) | (31 | ) | (96 | ) | (82 | ) | |||||||
| Acquisition of business, net of cash acquired | (48 | ) | — | (48 | ) | — | |||||||||
| Contributions to equity method investments | (1 | ) | (1 | ) | (1 | ) | (1 | ) | |||||||
| Loan provided to non-consolidated affiliate | — | — | (5 | ) | — | ||||||||||
| Other | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||
| Net cash used by investing activities | (76 | ) | (31 | ) | (148 | ) | (80 | ) | |||||||
| FINANCING | |||||||||||||||
| Dividends to non-controlling interests | — | (12 | ) | — | (27 | ) | |||||||||
| Short-term debt, net | — | (3 | ) | — | — | ||||||||||
| Repurchase of common stock | — | (46 | ) | (20 | ) | (76 | ) | ||||||||
| Stock based compensation tax withholding payments | — | (1 | ) | (7 | ) | (16 | ) | ||||||||
| Proceeds from the exercise of stock options | — | 4 | — | 8 | |||||||||||
| Principal repayment of term debt facility | (4 | ) | (4 | ) | (13 | ) | (8 | ) | |||||||
| Net cash used by financing activities | (4 | ) | (62 | ) | (40 | ) | (119 | ) | |||||||
| Effect of exchange rate changes on cash | 27 | (8 | ) | (1 | ) | (8 | ) | ||||||||
| Net decrease in cash, equivalents, and restricted cash | 45 | 26 | 35 | (38 | ) | ||||||||||
| Cash, equivalents, and restricted cash at beginning of the period | 508 | 459 | 518 | 523 | |||||||||||
| Cash, equivalents, and restricted cash at end of the period | $ | 553 | $ | 485 | $ | 553 | $ | 485 | |||||||
VISTEON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
(In millions except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
Adjusted EBITDA: Adjusted EBITDA is presented as a supplemental measure of the Company’s performance that management believes is useful to investors because the excluded items may vary significantly in timing or amounts and/or may obscure trends useful in evaluating and comparing the Company’s operating activities across reporting periods. The Company defines adjusted EBITDA as net income attributable to the Company adjusted to eliminate the impact of depreciation and amortization, provision for (benefit from) income taxes, non-cash stock-based compensation expense, net interest expense, net income attributable to non-controlling interests, net restructuring expense, equity in net (income)/loss of non-consolidated affiliates, gain on non-consolidated affiliate transactions, and other gains and losses not reflective of the Company’s ongoing operations. Because not all companies use identical calculations, this presentation of adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies.
| Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | Estimated | |||||||||||||||||
| September 30, | September 30, | Full Year | |||||||||||||||||
| Visteon: | 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | ||||||||||||||
| Net income attributable to Visteon Corporation | $ | 39 | $ | 66 | $ | 152 | $ | 120 | 202 | ||||||||||
| Depreciation and amortization | 25 | 24 | 71 | 79 | 96 | ||||||||||||||
| Provision for income taxes | 11 | 21 | 55 | 48 | 75 | ||||||||||||||
| Non-cash, stock-based compensation expense | 10 | 9 | 31 | 26 | 42 | ||||||||||||||
| Restructuring, net | 28 | — | 31 | 2 | 34 | ||||||||||||||
| Interest expense, net | — | 1 | — | 7 | — | ||||||||||||||
| Net income attributable to non-controlling interests | 1 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 10 | ||||||||||||||
| Equity in net loss (income) of non-consolidated affiliates | 3 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||||||||||
| Other | 2 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA | $ | 119 | $ | 128 | $ | 357 | $ | 317 | $ | 4732 | |||||||||
Adjusted EBITDA is not a recognized term under U.S. GAAP and does not purport to be a substitute for net income as an indicator of operating performance or cash flows from operating activities as a measure of liquidity. Adjusted EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool and is not intended to be a measure of cash flow available for management’s discretionary use, as it does not consider certain cash requirements such as interest payments, tax payments and debt service requirements. In addition, the Company uses adjusted EBITDA (i) as a factor in incentive compensation decisions, (ii) to evaluate the effectiveness of the Company’s business strategies, and (iii) because the Company’s credit agreements use similar measures for compliance with certain covenants.
VISTEON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
(In millions except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
Free Cash Flow and Adjusted Free Cash Flow: Free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow are presented as supplemental measures of the Company’s liquidity that management believes are useful to investors in analyzing the Company’s ability to service and repay its debt. The Company defines free cash flow as cash flow provided from operating activities less capital expenditures, including intangibles. The Company defines adjusted free cash flow as cash flow provided from operating activities less capital expenditures, including intangibles as further adjusted for restructuring related payments. Because not all companies use identical calculations, this presentation of free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies.
| Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | Estimated | |||||||||||||||||
| September 30, | September 30, | Full Year | |||||||||||||||||
| Visteon: | 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | ||||||||||||||
| Cash provided from (used by) operating activities | $ | 98 | $ | 127 | $ | 224 | $ | 169 | 305 | ||||||||||
| Capital expenditures, including intangibles | (28 | ) | (31 | ) | (96 | ) | (82 | ) | (145 | ) | |||||||||
| Free cash flow | $ | 70 | $ | 96 | $ | 128 | $ | 87 | $ | 160 | |||||||||
| Restructuring related payments | 3 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 15 | ||||||||||||||
| Adjusted free cash flow | $ | 73 | $ | 98 | $ | 135 | $ | 93 | $ | 1753 | |||||||||
Free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow are not recognized terms under U.S. GAAP and do not purport to be a substitute for cash flows from operating activities as a measure of liquidity. Free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow have limitations as analytical tools as they do not reflect cash used to service debt and do not reflect funds available for investment or other discretionary uses. In addition, the Company uses free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow (i) as factors in incentive compensation decisions and (ii) for planning and forecasting future periods.
VISTEON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
(In millions except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Earnings Per Share: Adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share are presented as supplemental measures that management believes are useful to investors in analyzing the Company’s profitability, providing comparability between periods by excluding certain items that may not be indicative of recurring business operating results. The Company believes management and investors benefit from referring to these supplemental measures in assessing company performance and when planning, forecasting and analyzing future periods. The Company defines adjusted net income as net income attributable to Visteon adjusted to eliminate the impact of restructuring expense, loss on divestiture, gain on non-consolidated affiliate transactions, other gains and losses not reflective of the Company’s ongoing operations and related tax effects. The Company defines adjusted earnings per share as adjusted net income divided by diluted shares. Because not all companies use identical calculations, this presentation of adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies.
| Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended | ||||||||||||||
| September 30, | September 30, | ||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||
| Net income attributable to Visteon | $ | 39 | $ | 66 | $ | 152 | $ | 120 | |||||||
| Diluted earnings per share: | |||||||||||||||
| Net income attributable to Visteon | $ | 39 | $ | 66 | $ | 152 | $ | 120 | |||||||
| Average shares outstanding, diluted | 27.9 | 28.5 | 27.9 | 28.6 | |||||||||||
| Diluted earnings per share | $ | 1.40 | $ | 2.32 | $ | 5.45 | $ | 4.20 | |||||||
| Adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share: | |||||||||||||||
| Net income attributable to Visteon | $ | 39 | $ | 66 | $ | 152 | $ | 120 | |||||||
| Restructuring, net | 28 | — | 31 | 2 | |||||||||||
| Other | 2 | 1 | 3 | 15 | |||||||||||
| Tax impacts of adjustments | (6 | ) | — | (7 | ) | — | |||||||||
| Adjusted net income | $ | 63 | $ | 67 | $ | 179 | $ | 137 | |||||||
| Average shares outstanding, diluted | 27.9 | 28.5 | 27.9 | 28.6 | |||||||||||
| Adjusted earnings per share | $ | 2.26 | $ | 2.35 | $ | 6.42 | $ | 4.79 | |||||||
Adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share are not recognized terms under U.S. GAAP and do not purport to be a substitute for profitability. Adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share have limitations as analytical tools as they do not consider certain restructuring and transaction-related payments and/or expenses. In addition, the Company uses adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share for internal planning and forecasting purposes.
1 Excludes Y/Y impact of currency fluctuations
2 Based on mid-point of the range of the Company’s financial guidance
3 Based on mid-point of the range of the Company’s financial guidance
MANILA, 24 October 2024 – Health leaders from nations across Asia and the Pacific today endorsed action frameworks on health financing and digital health at the seventy-fifth session of the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Committee for the Western Pacific.
Health financing to achieve universal health coverage and sustainable development
Despite recent reforms in health financing, public health spending in the Western Pacific Region remains inadequate to meet growing needs. In many countries, current policies have not yet achieved the goals of equitable service access and financial protection. As a result, families are being pushed into poverty from the financial burden of paying for health services. In 2019 alone, more than 300 million people in the Western Pacific faced catastrophic health costs. Medicines and outpatient care are the primary drivers of out-of-pocket spending, exposing critical coverage gaps in primary health care (PHC) systems.
Increasing public health spending, prioritizing PHC and adopting comprehensive financing strategies to promote health in national development are essential to achieving universal health coverage(UHCUHC) and sustainable development.
The Regional Committee, WHO’s governing body in the Western Pacific, today endorsed the Regional Action Framework for Health Financing to Achieve Universal Health Coverage and Sustainable Development in the Western Pacific. The Framework aims to improve health financing through five action domains: 1) greater reliance on public funding for health; 2) more equitable and efficient health spending; 3) financing PHC now and into the future; 4) strengthening governance for health financing; and 5) promoting health for all in economic and social policy.
Accelerating digital health transformation
The Regional Committee also considered digital health – the use of information and communications technology to manage health and promote well-being – which is playing an increasingly significant role in transforming health care by leveraging technology to increase access to care. Digital health is growing rapidly in the Western Pacific Region. However, these changes bring about new challenges related to governance, coordination with a wide range of actors, sustainable financing, and the ethical and secure use of digital health tools and data.
The Regional Action Framework on Digital Health in the Western Pacificendorsed by the Region’s health leaders today will guide countries and areas in developing national digital health plans. It will also facilitate collaboration with WHO to advance national digital health strategies aligned with country priorities. The Framework calls on countries to prioritize governance, socio-technical infrastructure, financing and economics, digital health solutions, and data in strengthening health systems in the era of digital transformation.
Achieving transformative primary health care
Although more than 45 years have passed since primary health care (PHC) was identified as the cornerstone for achieving Health for All in theDeclaration of Alma-Ata, many health systems in our Region remain hospital-centric, while PHC is understaffed and under resourced. With countries facing rapidly ageing populations, an increased burden of NCDs and health security risks, a worsening economic outlook and other changes, transformative PHC is more critical than ever.
In a panel discussion held at the Regional Committee on Tuesday, delegates from Cambodia and Singapore and a representative of the Asian Development Bank discussed how a transformative PHC approach – which emphasizes keeping people healthy rather than only treating the sick, and the importance of active community engagement and effective communication – can improve health outcomes.
Recognizing the need to support countries in achieving transformative PHC, the Regional Committee in 2022 endorsed the Regional Framework on the Future of Primary Health Care in the Western Pacific. It highlights five strategic areas for health system transformation, covering models of service delivery, individual and community empowerment, the health workforce, health financing and enabling healthy environments. WHO is supporting countries with implementation of the Regional Framework.
Improving oral health
On Wednesday, delegates from Malaysia, Tonga and Vanuatu participated in a panel discussion on oral health. In the Western Pacific Region, the rate of oral diseases such as tooth decay, gum disease and tooth loss has grown by 30% over the past 30 years. One in five adults over the age of 60 has lost all their teeth, causing difficulty in eating, poor nutrition and a lower quality of life.
Oral diseases disproportionally affect poor and disadvantaged populations. But they are mostly preventable and can be treated in their early stages. Left unaddressed, they cause pain and reduce the quality of life of individuals affected. At the population level, they add to the burden of noncommunicable diseases and impact health systems and economies in the Region.
The WHO Global Strategy and Action Plan on Oral Health (2023–2030)was developed in response to a 2021 World Health Assembly resolution calling for a shift in oral health policy planning from traditional restorative dental care to a focus on promoting oral health and preventing oral diseases. WHO is working to accelerate the implementation of the Global Strategy in the Western Pacific, making oral health an integral part of universal health coverage and improving access to essential oral health services for everyone, especially the vulnerable.
Accreditation of non-State actors to attend Regional Committee meetings
The Regional Committee for the Western Pacific also adopted a decision to formalize the procedure for non-State actors that are not already in official relations with WHO to be accredited as observers at their meetings. The decision highlights the valuable role that non-State actors play in society, recognizes their contributions to advancing public health and to supporting the achievement of WHO’s strategic objectives. It marks an important step towards strengthening regional health governance, and a more inclusive approach to knowledge sharing, dialogue and health policy making.
Expected closure of the session, time and place of next year’s meeting
The seventy-fifth session of the Regional Committee for the Western Pacific is expected to conclude tomorrow.
Notes:
The seventy-fifth session of the Western Pacific Regional Committee began on 21 October and is scheduled to conclude on 25 October at WHO’s Regional Office for the Western Pacific in Manila, Philippines. The agenda and timetable are available online. A livestream of proceedings, all other official documents, as well as fact sheets and videos on the issues to be addressed can be accessed here. For real-time updates, follow @WHOWPRO on Facebook, X, Instagram and YouTube and the hashtag #RCM75.
Working with 194 Member States across six regions, WHO is the United Nations specialized agency responsible for public health. Each WHO region has a regional committee – a governing body composed of ministers of health and senior officials from Member States. Each regional committee meets annually to agree on health actions and to chart priorities for WHO’s work.
The WHO Western Pacific Region is home to more than 1.9 billion people across 37 countries and areas: American Samoa (United States of America), Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia (France), Guam (United States of America), Hong Kong SAR (China), Japan, Kiribati, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Macao SAR (China), Malaysia, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, New Caledonia (France), New Zealand, Niue, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (United States of America), Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Pitcairn Islands (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), the Republic of Korea, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Viet Nam, Wallis and Futuna (France).
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom F.A Watts, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy, Royal Holloway University of London
October 26, 2024 marks the 40th anniversary of director James Cameron’s science fiction classic, The Terminator – a film that popularised society’s fear of machines that can’t be reasoned with, and that “absolutely will not stop … until you are dead”, as one character memorably puts it.
The plot concerns a super-intelligent AI system called Skynet which has taken over the world by initiating nuclear war. Amid the resulting devastation, human survivors stage a successful fightback under the leadership of the charismatic John Connor.
In response, Skynet sends a cyborg assassin (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) back in time to 1984 – before Connor’s birth – to kill his future mother, Sarah. Such is John Connor’s importance to the war that Skynet banks on erasing him from history to preserve its existence.
Today, public interest in artificial intelligence has arguably never been greater. The companies developing AI typically promise their technologies will perform tasks faster and more accurately than people. They claim AI can spot patterns in data that are not obvious, enhancing human decision-making. There is a widespread perception that AI is poised to transform everything from warfare to the economy.
Immediate risks include introducing biases into algorithms for screening job applications and the threat of generative AI displacing humans from certain types of work, such as software programming.
But it is the existential danger that often dominates public discussion – and the six Terminator films have exerted an outsize influence on how these arguments are framed. Indeed, according to some, the films’ portrayal of the threat posed by AI-controlled machines distracts from the substantial benefits offered by the technology.
The Terminator was not the first film to tackle AI’s potential dangers. There are parallels between Skynet and the HAL 9000 supercomputer in Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
It also draws from Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel, Frankenstein, and Karel Čapek’s 1921 play, R.U.R.. Both stories concern inventors losing control over their creations.
On release, it was described in a review by the New York Times as a “B-movie with flair”. In the intervening years, it has been recognised as one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time. At the box office, it made more than 12 times its modest budget of US$6.4 million (£4.9 million at today’s exchange rate).
What was arguably most novel about The Terminator is how it re-imagined longstanding fears of a machine uprising through the cultural prism of 1980s America. Much like the 1983 film WarGames, where a teenager nearly triggers World War 3 by hacking into a military supercomputer, Skynet highlights cold war fears of nuclear annihilation coupled with anxiety about rapid technological change.
Read more:
Science fiction helps us deal with science fact: a lesson from Terminator’s killer robots
Forty years on, Elon Musk is among the technology leaders who have helped keep a focus on the supposed existential risk of AI to humanity. The owner of X (formerly Twitter) has repeatedly referenced the Terminator franchise while expressing concerns about the hypothetical development of superintelligent AI.
But such comparisons often irritate the technology’s advocates. As the former UK technology minister Paul Scully said at a London conference in 2023: “If you’re only talking about the end of humanity because of some rogue, Terminator-style scenario, you’re going to miss out on all of the good that AI [can do].”
That’s not to say there aren’t genuine concerns about military uses of AI – ones that may even seem to parallel the film franchise.
To the relief of many, US officials have said that AI will never take a decision on deploying nuclear weapons. But combining AI with autonomous weapons systems is a possibility.
These weapons have existed for decades and don’t necessarily require AI. Once activated, they can select and attack targets without being directly operated by a human. In 2016, US Air Force general Paul Selva coined the term “Terminator conundrum” to describe the ethical and legal challenges posed by these weapons.
Stuart Russell, a leading UK computer scientist, has argued for a ban on all lethal, fully autonomous weapons, including those with AI. The main risk, he argues, is not from a sentient Skynet-style system going rogue, but how well autonomous weapons might follow our instructions, killing with superhuman accuracy.
Russell envisages a scenario where tiny quadcopters equipped with AI and explosive charges could be mass-produced. These “slaughterbots” could then be deployed in swarms as “cheap, selective weapons of mass destruction”.
Countries including the US specify the need for human operators to “exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force” when operating autonomous weapon systems. In some instances, operators can visually verify targets before authorising strikes, and can “wave off” attacks if situations change.
AI is already being used to support military targeting. According to some, it’s even a responsible use of the technology, since it could reduce collateral damage. This idea evokes Schwarzenegger’s role reversal as the benevolent “machine guardian” in the original film’s sequel, Terminator 2: Judgment Day.
However, AI could also undermine the role human drone operators play in challenging recommendations by machines. Some researchers think that humans have a tendency to trust whatever computers say.
Militaries engaged in conflicts are increasingly making use of small, cheap aerial drones that can detect and crash into targets. These “loitering munitions” (so named because they are designed to hover over a battlefield) feature varying degrees of autonomy.
As I’ve argued in research co-authored with security researcher Ingvild Bode, the dynamics of the Ukraine war and other recent conflicts in which these munitions have been widely used raises concerns about the quality of control exerted by human operators.
Ground-based military robots armed with weapons and designed for use on the battlefield might call to mind the relentless Terminators, and weaponised aerial drones may, in time, come to resemble the franchise’s airborne “hunter-killers”. But these technologies don’t hate us as Skynet does, and neither are they “super-intelligent”.
However, it’s crucially important that human operators continue to exercise agency and meaningful control over machine systems.
Arguably, The Terminator’s greatest legacy has been to distort how we collectively think and speak about AI. This matters now more than ever, because of how central these technologies have become to the strategic competition for global power and influence between the US, China and Russia.
The entire international community, from superpowers such as China and the US to smaller countries, needs to find the political will to cooperate – and to manage the ethical and legal challenges posed by the military applications of AI during this time of geopolitical upheaval. How nations navigate these challenges will determine whether we can avoid the dystopian future so vividly imagined in The Terminator – even if we don’t see time travelling cyborgs any time soon.
Tom F.A Watts receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust Early Career Research Fellowship scheme.
– ref. The Terminator at 40: this sci-fi ‘B-movie’ still shapes how we view the threat of AI – https://theconversation.com/the-terminator-at-40-this-sci-fi-b-movie-still-shapes-how-we-view-the-threat-of-ai-236564
Source: China State Council Information Office 2
The 2024 World Internet Conference (WIC) Wuzhen Summit is scheduled to take place from Nov. 19 to 22 in the water-town of Wuzhen, located in east China’s Zhejiang Province, and will feature four key highlights, according to a press conference held on Thursday.
During this year’s summit, a distinguished contribution award will be established to recognize individuals and companies who have made outstanding contributions to the field of the global internet.
Under the WIC framework, the summit will also see the establishment of a special committee on artificial intelligence (AI), the launch of a think tank cooperation program, and the creation of an international digital training institute.
Themed “Embracing a People-centered and AI-for-good Digital Future — Building a Community with a Shared Future in Cyberspace,” the 2024 edition will feature 24 sub-forums on topics such as Global Development Initiative, digital economy, and data governance, as well as a series of activities.
Since 2014, the Wuzhen Summit has been successfully held for ten consecutive years. Currently, the WIC includes about 170 institutions, organizations, companies, and individuals from over 30 countries and regions across six continents as its members.
Source: People’s Republic of China Ministry of Health
BEIJING — In its ongoing battle against cervical cancer, China has made free human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations accessible to about 40 percent of girls aged 13 to 14, according to the National Health Commission.
Since 2021, 11 provincial-level regions and multiple cities have provided free vaccination services for girls of eligible age, Shen Haiping, head of the commission’s maternal and child health department, said at a press conference on Friday.
A total of 280 million free HPV screenings have been conducted across China, greatly facilitating the early detection, diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer, Shen said.
Health authorities worked with women’s federation organizations in providing medical assistance to 275,000 cervical cancer patients in financial difficulties, the official said.
According to the commission, cervical cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy. In 2022, there were 151,000 new cases of cervical cancer in China, with an incidence rate of 13.8 per 100,000, ranking fifth among cancers in women.
China has attached great importance to the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer, with this disease highlighted in a series of major documents, Shen said.
In 2023, the country launched a campaign to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in answer to the international community’s call to lower its incidence rate to 4 per 100,000 by the end of the century, Shen added.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
KAZAN, Russia, Oct. 24 — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday called on “BRICS Plus” countries to firmly uphold peace and strive for common security.
Xi made the remarks while addressing the “BRICS Plus” leaders’ dialogue.
“BRICS Plus” countries should be a stabilizing force for peace, strengthen global security governance, and explore ways to address both the symptoms and root causes of hotspot issues, he added.
Noting that the collective rise of the Global South is a distinctive feature of the great transformation across the world, Xi said that Global South countries marching together toward modernization is monumental in world history and unprecedented in human civilization.
The Global South emerges for development and prospers through development, he said, urging “BRICS Plus” countries to make themselves the main driving force for common development.
“BRICS Plus” countries should play an active and leading role in the global economic governance reform, and make development the core of international economic and trade agenda, Xi added.
“BRICS Plus” countries should also be advocates for exchanges among civilizations, he said, calling on “BRICS Plus” countries to enhance communication and dialogue, and support each other in taking the path to modernization suited to their respective national conditions.
Xi also said that China will coordinate with others to form a Global South Think Tanks Alliance to promote people-to-people exchanges and experience-sharing in governance.
No matter how the international landscape evolves, China will always keep the Global South in heart, and maintain its roots in the Global South, he added.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, Oct. 24 — Economic and trade ties among BRICS countries are becoming increasingly close, and China is playing an important role in driving mutually beneficial BRICS cooperation.
The term BRIC was initially coined in 2001 as a concept referring to the emerging market economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. With South Africa’s inclusion in 2010, BRICS officially took shape.
Following last year’s expansion, the BRICS grouping now represents approximately 30 percent of global GDP, nearly half of the world’s population, and one-fifth of global trade. It has become the world’s most important platform for solidarity and cooperation among emerging markets and developing countries.
The 16th BRICS Summit, held Tuesday to Thursday in Kazan, Russia, has drawn global attention and is believed to bring new economic and trade cooperation opportunities between China and other BRICS nations.
China’s foreign trade with other BRICS member countries reached 4.62 trillion yuan (648 billion U.S. dollars) in the first nine months of 2024, a year-on-year increase of 5.1 percent, customs data showed.
The trade growth can be attributed to a high degree of economic complementarity, as well as China’s commitment to high-level opening up and the free trade agreements between China and other BRICS countries, said Hong Yong, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation under the Ministry of Commerce.
In the industrial sector, China’s exports of steel and textile raw materials to other BRICS nations grew by 8.6 percent and 13.4 percent year on year in the first three quarters.
During the same period, China’s exports of intermediate goods such as integrated circuits, tablet display modules and aircraft parts to other BRICS countries achieved double-digit growth, helping other BRICS members boost their emerging industries.
Trade in agricultural products has also been robust. In the first three quarters, over 80 percent of poultry and frozen pollack and over 50 percent of crabs imported by China came from BRICS members.
“For BRICS countries, trade cooperation is not only conducive to promoting technological exchanges and innovation but also to bringing more development opportunities for member countries and even the world,” Hong added.
Regarding the financial sector, the New Development Bank is a flagship project of BRICS cooperation. As the first multilateral development bank established by emerging economies, the Shanghai-headquartered institution provides financing support for infrastructure development, clean energy, environmental protection, and the building of cyber infrastructure across BRICS countries.
Funding a raft of projects ranging from India’s urban rail to Brazil’s wind power complexes, the bank has cumulatively approved loans of 35 billion U.S. dollars for more than 100 projects to date.
Building on its commitment to multilateralism, BRICS has taken practical steps to unlock the potential of economic and trade cooperation and create new growth areas. These include policy coordination and joint initiatives to enhance trade and investment opportunities among member states.
At the 14th BRICS Economic and Foreign Trade Ministers’ Meeting held in Moscow in July, participants agreed to step up exchanges and cooperation in emerging areas such as global value chains, digital technologies and special economic zones, conduct practical cooperation in green product standards, electronic documentation and e-commerce, and strengthen policy exchanges, capacity building and best practice sharing.
By enhancing economic and trade exchanges, BRICS countries have capitalized on their complementary advantages, serving as an important force to oppose trade protectionism and promote global economic growth, noted Liu Ying, a researcher with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
KAZAN, Russia, Oct. 24 — Heels clicked and shoes shuffled across the media center floors at the BRICS Kazan summit on Wednesday, as journalists from around the world rushed to cover the landmark first in-person summit since the group’s expansion.
Amid global uncertainties, BRICS embarked on a new chapter, cementing its growing influence on the world stage. Chinese President Xi Jinping, addressing the leaders in an expanded format, put forward five suggestions: building a BRICS committed to peace, innovation, green development, justice, and closer people-to-people exchanges.
“We must build on this milestone summit to set off anew and forge ahead with one heart and one mind,” Xi said. “China is willing to work with all BRICS countries to open a new horizon in the high-quality development of greater BRICS cooperation.”
This year’s summit also marked another major progress with the decision to invite a number of nations as partner countries, further advancing the group’s development.
The growing interest from countries seeking to join BRICS cooperation each year demonstrates that in today’s troubled world, BRICS is important and essential, said Bunn Nagara, director and senior fellow at Belt and Road Initiative Caucus for Asia-Pacific.
“China, led by President Xi, has contributed significantly to BRICS’ success with a progressive and enlightened approach,” said Nagara.
During Wednesday’s meetings, leaders exchanged views on BRICS cooperation and key international issues under the theme “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,” focusing on global and regional security, sustainable development, climate change, and reforms in global economic governance.
A major emphasis of the summit was the call for increased funding to support sustainable development in developing countries. Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi said BRICS is set to “strengthen a multipolar international system,” particularly through “innovative and effective” financing for these countries.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who chaired the Kazan summit, said that “the trend for the BRICS’ leading role in the global economy will only strengthen.”
He warned against the ongoing risks from geopolitical tensions and the rise of unilateral sanctions and protectionism, emphasizing “a key task is to promote the use of national currencies to finance trade and investment.”
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who participated in the summit via video link due to a head injury, echoed this sentiment. “It’s not about replacing our currencies, but we need to work so that the multipolar order we aim for is reflected in the international financial system,” said Lula.
BRICS has already made strides with the New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered in Shanghai. The BRICS countries agreed on Wednesday to support the NDB in implementing its general strategy for 2022-2026 and in expanding local currency financing.
In a declaration issued at the 16th BRICS Summit, they also agreed to jointly build the NDB into a new type of multilateral development bank for the 21st century, support its further expansion of membership, and expedite the review of membership applications from BRICS countries in accordance with its general strategy and related policies.
The BRICS countries are also encouraged to strengthen financial cooperation and promote local currency settlement, according to the declaration.
During the summit, leaders also emphasized the need for a fairer global order for the Global South. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said that BRICS is an inclusive formation capable of changing the trajectory of the Global South. “To do this we must realize the full potential of our economic partnership, to ensure sustainable development for all and not just for some,” he said.
“The period of unilateralism is coming to an end,” added Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, calling for a more equitable global system.
Several speakers also highlighted the need for differentiated responsibilities in addressing climate change, urging that developing nations’ emissions reduction efforts should align with their capacities.
BRICS, initially known as “BRIC” when it was coined in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, former chief economist at Goldman Sachs, originally represented emerging market economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. South Africa joined in 2010, officially forming BRICS.
In a recent interview with Xinhua, O’Neill acknowledged the need for policymakers to collaborate in creating an optimal system that benefits all. “I think as we pass through time, we will find a new equilibrium where countries will be more at ease with what other countries are doing,” he said.
Other than the new full members joining on Jan. 1, 2024, over 30 countries, including Thailand, Malaysia, Türkiye and Azerbaijan, have either formally applied for or expressed interest in BRICS membership. Many other developing countries are seeking deeper cooperation with the group.
Observers view BRICS as a vital platform for developing countries to pursue growth. Ahmed Al-Ali, a political and strategic researcher at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, noted that BRICS aims to foster a more equitable, effective, and rational international system.
It will play a crucial role in promoting development and growth opportunities for Global South countries while ensuring the sustainability of economic and social progress, said Al-Ali.
Echoing that view, Sithembiso Bhengu, a senior research fellow with the Sociology Department, University of Johannesburg, said, “The BRICS mechanism presents real possibilities for making the globe a fairer community of nations, with possibilities for mutual support and cooperation towards our respective goals in modernization and development.”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
GUANGZHOU, Oct. 24 — After walking more than 10,000 steps through the exhibition halls of the 136th Canton Fair, officially known as the China Import and Export Fair, U.S. buyer Kristen Palacio sat comfortably in an armchair for a much-needed rest.
The chair was so comfortable that she was reluctant to get up for another walk. Anji Longwin Furniture Co., Ltd showcased the armchairs. Yuan Fengyi, senior business manager at Longwin, noted that the American and European markets account for over 90 percent of the company’s sales.
Having attended the Canton Fair for ten years, Yuan has met numerous buyers from around the world, forging close ties with major partners like e-commerce giant Amazon and retail leader Walmart.
“We are committed to upgrading our factory for greater efficiency and strengthening quality control to better meet the demands of the U.S. and European markets,” Yuan said, adding that the company also focuses heavily on design, which helps their products stand out in an increasingly competitive market.
As the second phase of the Canton Fair kicked off on Wednesday, international buyers flooded the exhibition hall in search of innovative ideas and products. Under the awnings and pergolas produced by Zhejiang Hooeasy Technology Co., Ltd., eager buyers inquired about prices and sizes for their new orders.
Excited by his findings, Frans Davelaar, a buyer from Aruba in the southern Caribbean, stood in front of the booth for over 15 minutes. He noted that the products have great market potential, given the hot and humid climate of Caribbean countries like Aruba.
“Awnings and pergolas originated in Europe, where they are used to provide shade from strong sunlight. As a Chinese company, we’ve enhanced these products with innovative ideas and superior quality,” said Li Tao, an export manager at Hooeasy.
The latest products showcased by Hooeasy can be integrated with Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s HomeKit through their proprietary app, Tuya Smart, allowing users to control the opening and closing of the awnings and pergolas via smartphone.
Li added that over the past two decades at the Canton Fair, Hooeasy’s booth has moved from the exhibition hall’s edge to a central location, reflecting the company’s growing influence and market share. The company has also established design teams in France and Germany to offer customized products tailored to the European market.
In another exhibition hall at the Canton Fair, U.S. buyer Rob Mons carried a backpack filled with leaflets, brochures, and samples. He attended the fair to source innovative, well-priced seasonal festival products.
“It’s my first time at the fair, and I’ve already found some suppliers for the upcoming seasons. These products are new and very interesting, probably the most unique items we’ve seen,” Mons said.
Regarding business in the U.S., Mons believes Chinese products will continue to hold a significant market share despite the trade tensions between the two countries.
“I hope business will run more smoothly, because we need these fine products to make kids happy and enjoy the festivals,” he added.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
2024 East Asia Marine Expo opens in Qingdao, E China
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
Mr. Pai brings deep and diverse senior executive experience to MoneyHero, having spent his career with notable multinational companies including Imagination Technologies, Pixelworks, SMIC, GlobalFoundries, Synaptics, Samsung, Google (Motorola Mobility), Cadence, and McKinsey & Company
MoneyHero’s Chairman Kenneth Chan to be replaced on Audit Committee by Mr. Pai; Committee now made-up entirely of Independent Non-Executive Directors
SINGAPORE, Oct. 24, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — MoneyHero Limited (NASDAQ: MNY) (“MoneyHero” or the “Company”), a market leading personal finance and digital insurance aggregation and comparison platform in Greater Southeast Asia, today announced that Wallace Pai has been named to the Company’s Board of Directors, effective immediately. In connection with his appointment, Mr. Pai has also replaced MoneyHero’s Chairman, Kenneth Chan, on the Company’s Audit Committee, ensuring the Committee is comprised entirely of Independent Non-Executive Directors.
Mr. Pai is a seasoned global executive with deep experience across the technology and semiconductor industries. He currently serves as President of Asia Pacific and Chairman of China with Imagination Technologies, where he oversees the group’s regional strategy, revenue, and growth. Previously, Mr. Pai served as COO of Pixelworks, SVP of the Advanced Technology Business at SMIC, and VP/General Manager of Asia Pacific at GlobalFoundries. Earlier in his career, Mr. Pai also held executive roles with Synaptics, Samsung, Google (Motorola Mobility), Qualcomm Technologies, Cadence, and McKinsey & Company. Mr. Pai graduated with a Master of Science from the University of Michigan and a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School.
“Mr. Pai represents a significant addition to our Board of Directors and corporate governance,” said Rohith Murthy, CEO of MoneyHero. “His leadership in the technology sector, as well as a proven track record of success running large-scale enterprises in the Asia Pacific region, will bring immense value to our operations and growth strategy. Mr. Pai has contributed to the vision and oversight of many notable multinational companies throughout his illustrious career, and we are thrilled to have him on board. Moreover, this marks the second major Board appointment that we have achieved this year, which is critical to our future and a testament to the reputation and stature of the MoneyHero Brand.”
The appointment of Mr. Pai follows the addition of accomplished legal and finance executive Steve Teichman to the Company’s Board, which was announced in June. Importantly, both Mr. Pai and Mr. Teichman bring the unique combination of having experience with U.S. capital markets and leading businesses in Asia Pacific.
“I am honored to join MoneyHero’s Board and excited to bring new ideas and resources to this winning organization,” said Mr. Pai. “I have been following the MoneyHero story for a while, even before the Company went public last year, and I have been impressed by the strategy and fundamentals of the business, as well as their clear leadership-positioning in the marketplace, which will enable them to continue innovating and outpacing its peers. MoneyHero is absolutely forwarding the fintech industry in Greater Southeast Asia, and I am very much looking forward to being a part of it.”
For more information about MoneyHero, including information for investors and learning about career opportunities, please visit www.MoneyHeroGroup.com.
About MoneyHero Group
MoneyHero Limited (NASDAQ: MNY) is a market leader in the online personal finance and digital insurance aggregation and comparison sector in Greater Southeast Asia. The Company operates in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Philippines. Its brand portfolio includes B2C platforms MoneyHero, SingSaver, Money101, Moneymax and Seedly, as well as the B2B platform Creatory. The Company also retains an equity stake in Malaysian fintech company, Jirnexu Pte. Ltd., parent company of Jirnexu Sdn. Bhd., the operator of RinggitPlus, Malaysia’s largest operating B2C platform. MoneyHero currently manages 279 commercial partner relationships and services 8.1 million Monthly Unique Users across its platform for the six months ended June 30, 2024. The Company’s backers include Peter Thiel—co-founder of PayPal, Palantir Technologies, and the Founders Fund—and Hong Kong businessman, Richard Li, the founder and chairman of Pacific Century Group. To learn more about MoneyHero and how the innovative fintech company is driving Greater Southeast Asia’s digital economy, please visit www.MoneyHeroGroup.com.
Investors Relations:
MoneyHero IR Team
IR@MoneyHeroGroup.com
Media Relations:
Gaffney Bennett PR
MoneyHero@gbpr.com
Source: The White House
Via Teleconference
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks so much for joining today’s call to discuss the U.S. approach to harnessing the power of AI for U.S. national security, ahead of tomorrow’s release of the National Security Memorandum.
As a reminder of the ground rules of this call, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and it is embargoed until 6:00 a.m. Eastern on Thursday, October 24.
For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the call today we have [senior administration official] and [senior administration official].
Following the call, we’ll provide you all with some materials under the same embargo, so be on the lookout for those.
Our speakers are going to have a few words at the top, and then we’ll turn it over to some of your questions.
With that, [senior administration official], I’ll turn it over to you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Eduardo. And thanks to all of you for joining us this evening.
So, we’re really pleased to report that tomorrow we’ll be releasing a National Security Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence signed by the President.
And we want to start off just by sharing a little bit of context for this, which really begins with the fact that the United States has a very strong hand in AI today. We design the most advanced hardware. We host the leading AI companies that are building the most advanced AI systems, and really have a dominant market share in artificial intelligence globally. And thanks to the President’s CHIPS Act, we are building more resilience in our chip supply chains as well.
But as many of you know, the innovation that’s happened, particularly in this current wave of frontier artificial intelligence, has really been driven by the private sector. And it’s critical that we continue to both foster that leadership but ensure that the government, and particularly with this National Security Memorandum, ensure that our national security agencies are adopting these technologies in ways that align with our values.
And a failure to do this, a failure to take advantage of this leadership and adopt this technology we worry could put us at risk of a strategic surprise by our rivals, such as China.
And as you all know, there are very clear national security applications of artificial intelligence, including in areas like cybersecurity and counter-intelligence, not to mention the broad array of logistics and other activities that support military operations.
Because countries like China recognize similar opportunities to modernize and revolutionize their own military and intelligence capabilities using artificial intelligence, it’s particularly imperative that we accelerate our national security community’s adoption and use of cutting-edge AI capabilities to maintain our competitive edge.
So, President Biden’s first-ever executive order, signed last October, on artificial intelligence was a key step forward to ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of AI.
In that executive order, the President specifically directed the development of this National Security Memorandum to ensure that we maintain our edge over rivals seeking to leverage AI to the detriment of our national security, while also building effective safeguards to ensure that our use of AI upholds our values and preserves public trust.
So, consistent with the President’s direction, we’ve been engaged in a policy process over the last year or so to advance those aims and complete this National Security Memorandum.
And tomorrow, the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, will deliver remarks to rising military and intelligence professionals at the National Defense University so he can speak directly to the very national security professionals and leaders who are going to be implementing the core of this strategy.
During his remarks, Jake will talk about what led us to this moment in artificial intelligence, both in terms of its development and our views on why it is so critical for national intelligence and why, therefore, the President has issued this National Security Memorandum on AI.
Jake will also outline how the United States must strengthen our own advantages in artificial intelligence, how to harness that advantage in a responsible manner for national security, and also how the United States can do this work in lockstep with our partners around the world in ways that will protect our national security while also leveraging our advantages in AI for the benefit of countries around the world.
So, we hope you’ll join us for those remarks as well.
With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague to provide more detail about the NSM itself.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Great. Thanks. And thanks, everybody, for joining.
As many of you know, the administration’s approach to AI is rooted in the premise that capabilities generated by the transformer and large language model revolution in AI, often called frontier AI, are poised to shape geopolitical, military, and intelligence competition.
Now, most of the NSM is unclassified and will be released publicly. It also contains a classified annex that primarily addresses adversary threats.
Now, the principles guiding our work in the NSM are simple. They are that the U.S. should first lead the world’s development of safe, secure, and trustworthy AI, and establishing a stable and responsible framework to advance international AI governance. And as a result, the NSM serves as a formal charter for the AI Safety Institute in the Department of Commerce, which we have created to be the primary port of call for U.S. AI developers. They have already issued guidance on safe, secure, and trustworthy AI development and have secured voluntary agreements with companies to test new AI systems before they are released to the public.
Second, another principle is that the U.S. should harness the most advanced AI systems with appropriate safeguards to achieve national security objectives. And we are directing that the agencies gain access to the most powerful AI systems and put them to use, which often involves substantial efforts on procurement.
And finally, all of this must be done in accordance with our values.
So, alongside the National Security Memorandum itself, we are publishing a companion document called the Framework for AI Governance and Risk Management for National Security that provides guidance on how agencies can and cannot use AI.
So, we also believe that we must out-compete our adversaries and mitigate the threats posed by adversary use of AI.
So, in summary, what I’ve outlined are essentially three core principles that you’ll see throughout the documents: securing the U.S.’s lead on AI; two, harnessing AI for national security; and, crucially, building in the governance framework to ensure that we are actually accelerating adoption in a smart way, in a responsible way, by having clear rules of the road.
With that, I’ll turn it over to Eduardo.
MODERATOR: Thank you both. We’ll now turn to our Q&A portion. If you’d like to ask a question, please use the “raise your hand” feature on Zoom.
First up, we’ll go to the line of Katrina Manson. You should be able to unmute yourself.
Q Hi there. Thanks so much. I would love to ask how you see the U.N. intention to have countries sign up to a ban on lethal autonomous weapons by 2026 and if any of your work foresees the U.S. signing up to that.
Many of the harms that you try to prevent on the civil use of AI, obviously in terms of bodily harms, are very much implied with the use of AI for the military. And in the case of Maven, AI targeting is already being used to support battlefield firing in the Middle East by the U.S. Can you address the very serious safety concerns around the use of AI targeting and whether you will consider a ban on lethal autonomous weapons, which can use AI?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks for that question. I’m happy to start with that.
So, first point is, as I think [senior administration official] noted, we’ll be releasing tomorrow, alongside the National Security Memorandum, a framework on responsible use of artificial intelligence in a national security context. And so, you’ll see there really a lot of detail on kind of all the steps that we’re taking to ensure these systems are used responsibly.
Now, and the other thing I would point out is: While it’s not necessarily part of this NSM, although there’s a nod to kind of our diplomatic efforts and kind of direction to double down on those, some of you may be aware of the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy. And that’s a declaration where the Vice President, in fact, has kind of taken a leadership role. And we have around 60 countries that have signed up to this declaration, which is really focused squarely on how AI and autonomy should be used. And most recently, there was a summit held on this by South Korea.
So that’s another area where that combines both the substance that you’ll see in the framework on responsible use, but also, really, diplomatic efforts that we’ve been leading over the last few years.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And, sorry, if I can add to what was just mentioned. The framework itself you’ll see actually references the political declaration that was just mentioned, and it also outlines the requirement for adherence to the Department of Defense’s Directive 3000.09 and successor related policies that address autonomous or semiautonomous weapons systems.
But in addition to that, as was just mentioned, there are a number of outlined prohibited use cases, as well as high-impact use cases that are relevant. And one theme you’ll see in both the NSM and the framework document is the fact that we need to ensure that AI is used in a manner consistent with the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief to decide when to order military operations in the nation’s defense, for instance.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Next up, we’ll go to the line of Garrett (inaudible). You should be able to mute yourself.
Q Hello. Can you all hear me?
MODERATOR: We can, yes.
Q Great. You mentioned that some of the commitments from companies are voluntary. And, you know, just covering the big fight around legislation here in California, companies seem, from my perspective at least, to very much want to keep those commitments to safety and that kind of thing voluntary, rather than sort of required or legislated.
And I’m just wondering if, you know, the administration has a view, or if it’s published as part of this, about trying to sort of codify those voluntary commitments and make them more, you know, ironclad and not sort of up to the whims of these CEOs.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Garrett. So, I think on that point, I would just say we continue to work with colleagues on the Hill. There are a number of proposals relating to, you know, regulations on artificial intelligence. And so, that’s really — that’s, really, ongoing.
I think, really, the emphasis in the National Security Memorandum is really kind of making commitments ourselves as a government about how we will adopt and use artificial intelligence. You know, as you point out, we have played a leadership role in getting some of those commitments from the companies. We have taken those commitments and kind of — to the international stage, through the G7 and the Hiroshima process as well.
But, really, what we’re focused on tomorrow is what commitments can the government itself make on responsible use, which we think is important, by the way, not just for its own sake, but we also think that’s important to enable us to both accelerate both the development and also accelerate the adoption of use as well. And that’s a point that I think you’ll hear the National Security Advisor focus on as well tomorrow.
MODERATOR: Thank you. And next up, we’ll go to the line of Patrick Tucker. You should be able to unmute yourself.
Q Hi. Thanks. Pat Tucker from Defense One.
There’s a new paper out, actually this week, from Meredith Whittaker and a couple other folks at the AI Now Institute, actually pointing out some of the potential dangers of some of these commercially facing AI products in national security contexts.
And they point out that some of these generative AI tools have very large — unacceptably large false positive rates. They hallucinate, often, a lot. And sometimes to train them, they rely on publicly available data, including data that might come from data brokers and other sources that poses a potential privacy risk, particularly to Americans, because Americans produce a lot more purchasable data than do citizens in China or Russia.
So can you talk a little bit about how this memorandum does or does not address data vulnerability of Americans and some of the potential risks in the national security setting of adopting commercial and consumer-facing AI tools that have high hallucination rates or false positive rates? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Do you want to start with that? You can join as well.
So, thanks for the question. Look, I think some of these, you know, concerns I think are ones that I think colleagues in the national security community are acutely aware of. You know, there are a few points here.
One is, you know, we have to go through a process of accrediting systems. And that’s not just for AI systems, but you know, national security systems generally. And so, that’s point one, to kind of ensure that they are fit for the purpose or particular mission.
I think the second point is: We are, you know, very — I think very aware that what we’re doing at this stage is really trying to ensure that we have pilots and some important experimentation happening, because there are going to be challenges associated with adopting any new technology.
Third is, the framework that [senior administration official] mentioned is one that’s going to have to be continuously updated. And we have tried to set it up in a way so that that can happen in real time as there are challenges that are inevitably encountered.
And parallel to the policy process here, we have a lawyers group that is kind of working very intensively to ensure that, obviously, all existing law is complied with, but also to ensure that novel legal issues as we encounter them are addressed in a timely way as well.
I do want to just address the point on data that you mentioned specifically, which is, you know, we have been very concerned about the ways in which Americans’ sensitive data can be sold, really through the front door — through first collected in bulk, then sold through data brokers, and then end up in the hands of our adversaries. And so, that’s something that the President issued an executive order on to try to restrict adversary access to some of that data. And, in fact, just this week, we took one more step in the regulatory process through a notice of proposed rulemaking to try to get that final later this year.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And if I can just add on that.
So, in addition to the work that the AI Safety Institute is going to do, and as [senior administration official] mentioned some of the other work, you’ll see that in the NSM itself there are very specific requirements for specific agencies and our intelligence community, and, for instance, the Department of Energy to do classified testing of different systems for different purposes for this very reason.
And in addition to that, as [senior administration official] mentioned, there’s a strong focus on experimentation here for this very reason. We want to see rapid adoption, but we also want to see experimentation that will tease out kind of what missions are best suited for various systems and also tease out the challenges of them. And that’s going to require leaning forward and experimenting, adopting, and then doing all of the work that was just mentioned as well, in terms of both policy and legal review.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We have time for one more question, and we’ll go to the line of Maria Curry. You should be able to unmute yourself.
Q Hey. Thanks for taking my question. I’m wondering if export controls are part of this at all. And if so, can you elaborate how those might be helpful?
And then, if you could just elaborate, too, on the third point. Could you dig in a little bit deeper into how agencies can or can’t use the technology? Could you provide an example or two of that? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can speak to the export control piece, and, [senior administration official], maybe you can speak to some of the prohibited use cases.
So, really, the NSM does kind of address, kind of as a matter of policy, the importance of protecting advanced AI technologies so that they’re not used against us by adversary militaries or intelligence services. And so, at a high level, it does kind of try to emphasize the importance of maintaining those policies and making sure that we are continuously adapting to efforts to circumvent those measures.
And as you know, those export controls cover not only GPUs, the advanced AI chips, but also the semiconductor manufacturing equipment that’s necessary to manufacture those as well. So, that full aspect of the supply chain.
[Senior administration official] do you want to say anything about prohibited uses?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. So, you’ll see in the accompanying framework document that I mentioned, it identifies both prohibited, as well as what we call high-impact AI use cases, based on the risk that they pose to national security, international norms, democratic values, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and safety.
And on the prohibited end of the spectrum, these will be — not surprising, but there are clear prohibitions on use of AI with intent or purpose, for instance, to unlawfully suppress or burden the right to free speech or the right to legal counsel.
There’s also prohibited use cases around, for instance, removing a human in the loop for actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the President to initiate or terminate nuclear weapons employment, for example. That runs the spectrum of kind of military-related activities, but also protecting civil liberties and tracking international norms.
But in doing that, we actually view these restrictions — so these prohibitions, for example, as well as the high-impact cases — as being important in clarifying what the agencies can and cannot do. That will actually accelerate experimentation and adoption. Because one of the paradoxical outcomes we’ve seen is: With a lack of policy clarity and a lack of legal clarity about what can and cannot be done, we are likely to see less experimentation and less adoption than with a clear path for use, which is what the NSM and the framework tries to provide.
MODERATOR: Thank you. That’s all the time we have for today. Big thanks to our speakers, and thanks to you all for joining.
As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to senior administration officials. And this call and its contents are embargoed until 6:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow.
Thanks, all, for joining. And be sure to tune in tomorrow to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s remarks on this topic. Thanks again.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Xi advocates high-quality development of greater BRICS cooperation at milestone summit
KAZAN, Russia, Oct. 24 — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday called on BRICS countries to work for the high-quality development of greater BRICS cooperation as leaders gathered here for the 16th BRICS Summit.
In his address to the summit, Xi emphasized the need for BRICS countries to seize the historical opportunity and work together to strengthen solidarity and cooperation among Global South nations.
STRENGTHENING SOLIDARITY
During a small-group meeting, President Xi welcomed new members to the BRICS family and extended invitations to many other countries to become partner countries.
Xi pointed out that the enlargement of BRICS is a major milestone in its development history, and a landmark event in the evolution of the international situation. It is for their shared pursuit and for the overarching trend of peace and development that BRICS countries have come together, he said.
Stressing that the world is undergoing accelerated changes unseen in a century, marked by new trends of multipolarity and the risks of a “new Cold War,” Xi said BRICS countries should seize the historical opportunity, take proactive steps, remain committed to the original aspiration and mission of openness, inclusiveness and win-win cooperation, conform to the general trend of the rise of the Global South, seek common ground while reserving differences, work in concert to further consolidate common values, safeguard common interests, and strengthen BRICS countries through unity.
“We must work together to build BRICS into a primary channel for strengthening solidarity and cooperation among Global South nations and a vanguard for advancing global governance reform,” Xi said.
Xi stressed that the more turbulent the world is, the more BRICS countries should uphold the banner of peace, development and win-win cooperation, refining the essence of BRICS and demonstrating its strength. BRICS countries should raise the voice of peace, advocating a new path to security that features dialogue over confrontation and partnership over alliance.
Xi also urged BRICS countries to jointly pursue a path of development, advocate a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, and stay committed to the principle of common development. He said BRICS countries should consolidate the foundation of cooperation, deepen cooperation in traditional areas such as agriculture, energy, minerals, economy and trade, expand cooperation in emerging areas such as green, low-carbon and artificial intelligence, and safeguard trade, investment and financial security.
ADVANCING DEVELOPMENT
As the high-profile gathering unfolded amid global uncertainties, BRICS embarked on a new chapter, cementing its growing influence on the world stage.
President Xi, addressing the leaders in an expanded format, put forward five suggestions: building a BRICS committed to peace, innovation, green development, justice, and closer people-to-people exchanges.
“We must build on this milestone summit to set off anew and forge ahead with one heart and one mind,” Xi said. “China is willing to work with all BRICS countries to open a new horizon in the high-quality development of greater BRICS cooperation.”
This year’s summit also marked another major milestone with the decision to invite a number of nations as partner countries, further advancing the group’s development.
During Wednesday’s meetings, leaders exchanged views on BRICS cooperation and crucial international issues of shared concern under the theme “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security.” Central to their discussions were global and regional security, sustainable development, climate change, and reforms in global economic governance.
A notable focus of the summit was the call for increased funding to support the sustainable development of developing countries. Egyptian President Abdelfattah al-Sisi said that BRICS aims to “strengthen a multipolar international system,” particularly through facilitating “innovative and effective” financing for developing nations.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that “the trend for the BRICS’ leading role in the global economy will only strengthen.” He cautioned against the ongoing risks posed by geopolitical tensions, unilateral sanctions, and protectionism. “A key task is to promote the use of national currencies to finance trade and investment,” Putin said.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who participated in the summit via video link due to a head injury, said, “It’s not about replacing our currencies, but we need to work so that the multipolar order we aim for is reflected in the international financial system.”
BRICS has already made strides with the New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered in Shanghai. On Wednesday, the BRICS countries agreed to support the NDB in implementing its general strategy for 2022-2026 and in expanding local currency financing.
In a declaration issued at the 16th BRICS Summit, they also agreed to jointly build the NDB into a new type of multilateral development bank for the 21st century, support its further expansion of membership, and expedite the review of membership applications from BRICS countries in accordance with its general strategy and related policies.
Leaders also advocated for a fairer global order for the Global South. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said that BRICS is an inclusive bloc capable of changing the trajectory of the Global South. “To do this we must realize the full potential of our economic partnership, to ensure sustainable development for all and not just for some,” he said.
“The period of unilateralism is coming to an end,” said Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, calling for a more equitable global system.
GROWING APPEAL
The term BRIC was initially coined in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, former chief economist at Goldman Sachs, as an investment concept referring to emerging market economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. With South Africa’s inclusion in 2010, BRICS officially took shape.
In a recent interview with Xinhua, O’Neill acknowledged the need for policymakers to collaborate in creating an optimal system that benefits all. “I think as we pass through time, we will find a new equilibrium where countries will be more at ease with what other countries are doing,” he said.
In recent years, BRICS has garnered attention from countries around the world. Over 30 countries, including Thailand, Malaysia, Türkiye, and Azerbaijan, have either formally applied for or expressed interest in joining the group. Many other developing countries are also seeking stronger cooperation with BRICS.
The growing interest from countries seeking to join BRICS cooperation each year demonstrates that in today’s troubled world, BRICS is not only important but essential, said Bunn Nagara, director and senior fellow at the Belt and Road Initiative Caucus for Asia-Pacific.
“China, led by President Xi, has contributed significantly to BRICS’ success with a progressive and enlightened approach,” said Nagara.
BRICS is seen as a vital platform for developing countries to pursue growth and address global imbalances.
The enlargement of BRICS is “important in tipping the financial and technological balance in favor of the majority Global South rather than the minority Global North,” Webby Kalikiti, a lecturer and researcher at the Department of History, University of Zambia noted. He believed that the future of the world depends on the cooperative energies of all countries and the transition to a multipolar world.
Ahmed Al-Ali, a political and strategic researcher at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, believed that BRICS aims to foster a more equitable, effective, and rational international system.
It will play a crucial role in promoting development and growth opportunities for Global South countries, while also ensuring the sustainability of economic and social progress, said Al-Ali.
Similarly, Sithembiso Bhengu, a senior research fellow with the Sociology Department, University of Johannesburg said that “the BRICS mechanism presents real possibilities for making the globe a fairer community of nations, with possibilities for mutual support and cooperation towards our respective goals in modernization and development.”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Chinese premier urges efforts to facilitate progress of ecological project, energy supply
HOHHOT, Oct. 24 — Chinese Premier Li Qiang has called for concrete efforts to facilitate the progress of the Three-North Shelterbelt Forest Program (TSFP) and ensure the supply of energy.
Li, also a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, made the remarks during an investigation and research tour in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region from Tuesday to Thursday.
The TSFP is the world’s largest afforestation project and is aimed at tackling desertification in northwest, north and northeast China. It was launched in 1978 and is scheduled to be completed by 2050.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jesica Lopez, PhD Candidate, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University
The city of Cali, in Colombia, is hosting the UN’s 16th biodiversity summit, known as Cop16. The summit, which runs until Friday, November 1, is focused on how countries will fulfil previous pledges to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and water and restore 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.
It’s a noble aim, yet Colombia itself shows just how far we have to go.
If you travel south east from Cali, over the Andes mountains, you drop into the Amazon basin. From there, rainforest stretches for hundreds of kilometres to the border with Brazil – and far beyond. This rainforest is the main reason Colombia ranks as the fourth most biodiverse country in the world. Nowhere else has as many species of birds. Only Brazil and China have more trees.
But the region is experiencing an environmental crisis. I recently completed a PhD on the northern Colombian Amazon, in which I tracked how the rainforest is fast being deforested and turned into pastures for cattle ranches. I particularly looked at how this affects hotspots of plant and animal life in rugged valleys on the Amazonian side of the Andes – spectacularly biodiverse places even by Colombian standards – and looked at what can be done to protect them.
This is not an easy part of the world in which to do such work – the NGO Global Witness ranks Colombia as the single most dangerous country for environmental defenders. While documenting legal and illegal cattle ranching, I was often reminded to be aware of exactly who I was contacting and to be wary of which questions I was asking.
Activists and researchers often face violence from those who profit from deforestation, and I had to work closely with organisations and authorities that secured own safety. Very harrowing experiences are not uncommon.
Despite these risks, many continue their efforts, driven by a deep commitment to protecting the Amazon and its biodiversity. Their bravery only underscores the urgent need for stronger protections and enforcement.
For decades, the region was mostly controlled by the Farc guerrilla army. The Farc was largely funded by kidnappings and the drug trade, and wasn’t interested in large-scale farming.
All this changed after the government of Colombia signed a peace agreement with the Farc in 2016. Since then, deforestation has increased, as both legal and illegal land tenants have acquired land for farming through what they call “sustainable development” practices. This mostly involves turning forest into pasture for cattle, the main driver of deforestation across Latin America.
Things peaked in 2018, when 2,470 square kilometres of forest was lost in Colombia – equivalent to a circular area more than 50 kilometres across. Rates of deforestation have reduced slightly since then (though the data isn’t very reliable), but appear to be increasing once again in 2024.
The recent increase might be attributed to the demand to produce more coca or rear more cattle, along with pressure from extractive industries like mining. The spread of roads and other infrastructure further into the rainforest have also opened up new opportunities.
In its 2018 Living Forest Report, the WWF included Colombia’s Chocó-Darién and Amazon forests in its list of 11 “deforestation fronts” across the planet. These fronts are where it projected the largest concentrations of forest loss or severe degradation would occur in the period till 2030.
No wonder then that Colombia’s environmental crisis has drawn international attention. Countries like Germany, Norway and the UK have supported its efforts to reduce deforestation, pledging about €22 million under the UN’s reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation scheme (known as REDD+). This is a good start, but much more is needed.
Indeed, the Global Biodiversity Framework, the international treaty that underlies the Cop16 negotiations in Cali, estimates we’ll need an extra US$700 billion each year to protect biodiversity.
An important issue at the summit is therefore how to mobilise sufficient financial resources, particularly for developing countries. The previous global biodiversity summit, held in Canada in 2022, established that wealthy countries should provide US$30 billion annually to low-income countries by 2030.
Ahead of this year’s summit, countries were expected to submit new national biodiversity plans detailing how they’ll meet the 30% protection goals. Most failed to do so – including Colombia. Despite this setback, delegates in Cali will hopefully develop robust mechanisms to monitor progress and ensure countries are held accountable for meeting their targets.
Other critical issues include reforms to benefit small-scale farmers in the Amazon. The region’s current economic model is centred on reshaping the land and extracting resources, but it has not generated prosperity for these more sustainable farmers. That same economic model has also failed to protect the forest itself.
The summit should also work towards recognising indigenous peoples’ rights and traditional knowledge, and including their voices in policy decisions, and must address violence against environmental defenders.
These are all huge issues in Colombia and indeed any country where cattle farmers are eyeing up pristine rainforest. The summit in Cali represents a great opportunity for the world to seriously tackle the dual biodiversity and climate crisis.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get our award-winning 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.
Jesica Lopez works for Lund University.
– ref. As Colombia hosts a UN biodiversity summit, its own Amazonian rainforest is in crisis – https://theconversation.com/as-colombia-hosts-a-un-biodiversity-summit-its-own-amazonian-rainforest-is-in-crisis-241776
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Full Text: Address by Chinese President Xi Jinping at ‘BRICS Plus’ leaders’ dialogue
KAZAN, Russia, Oct. 24 — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday delivered an important speech at the “BRICS Plus” leaders’ dialogue in Kazan, Russia.
The following is the full text of the speech:
Combining the Great Strength of the Global South To Build Together a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind
Remarks by H.E. Xi Jinping
President of the People’s Republic of China
At the “BRICS Plus” leaders’ dialogue
Kazan, October 24, 2024
Your Excellency President Vladimir Putin,
Colleagues,
I would like to thank President Putin and the Russian government for putting together this “BRICS Plus” leaders’ dialogue, and warmly welcome all the leaders joining us today. It is a great pleasure to see old and new friends in Kazan.
The collective rise of the Global South is a distinctive feature of the great transformation across the world. Global South countries marching together toward modernization is monumental in world history and unprecedented in human civilization. At the same time, peace and development still faces severe challenges, and the road to prosperity for the Global South will not be straight. Standing at the forefront of the Global South, we should use our collective wisdom and strength, and stand up to our responsibility for building a community with a shared future for mankind.
— We should uphold peace and strive for common security. We should come forward together to form a stabilizing force for peace. We should strengthen global security governance, and explore solutions to address both symptoms and roots of hotspot issues. Many parties have warmly responded to my Global Security Initiative. Under the Initiative, we have made prominent progress in maintaining regional stability and in many other areas. China and Brazil jointly issued the six-point consensus, and launched the group of Friends for Peace on the Ukraine crisis together with other Global South countries. We should promote early deescalation to pave the way for political settlement. Last July, Palestinian factions reconciled with each other in Beijing, marking a key step toward peace in the Middle East. We should continue to promote comprehensive ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and revive the two-State solution. We must stop the flames of war from spreading in Lebanon and end the miserable sufferings in Palestine and Lebanon.
— We should reinvigorate development and strive for common prosperity. The Global South emerges for development and prospers through development. We should make ourselves the main driving force for common development. We should play an active and leading role in the global economic governance reform, and make development the core of international economic and trade agenda. Since its introduction three years ago, the Global Development Initiative has helped make available nearly US$20 billion of development fund and launch more than 1,100 projects. And recently the Global Alliance on Artificial Intelligence for Industry and Manufacturing Center of Excellence has been established in Shanghai. China will also build a World Smart Customs Community Portal and a BRICS Customs Center of Excellence. We welcome active participation by all countries.
— We should promote together development of all civilizations and strive for harmony among them. Diversity of civilization is the innate quality of the world. We should be advocates for exchanges among civilizations. We should enhance communication and dialogue, and support each other in taking the path to modernization suited to our respective national conditions. The Global Civilization Initiative I proposed is exactly for the purpose of building a garden of world civilizations in which we can share and admire the beauty of each civilization. China will coordinate with others to form a Global South Think Tanks Alliance to promote people-to-people exchanges and experience-sharing in governance.
Colleagues,
The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China made systemic plans for further deepening reform comprehensively to advance Chinese modernization. This will provide more opportunities for the world. Last month, we held in Beijing a successful summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation and announced ten partnership actions for China and Africa to jointly advance modernization. This will instill new energy for the Global South on its way toward modernization.
No matter how the international landscape evolves, we in China will always keep the Global South in our heart, and maintain our roots in the Global South. We support more Global South countries in joining the cause of BRICS as full members, partner countries or in the “BRICS Plus” format so that we can combine the great strength of the Global South to build together a community with a shared future for mankind.
Thank you!
Source: US Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Good morning, and thank you for the warm welcome. A special thank you to Nodal for inviting me to join your annual Trader Conference again this year. It is truly an honor to address all of you this morning. I am more than two years into my role as a commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and I still feel humbled by the opportunity to stand on a stage with a microphone to address accomplished professionals like all of you. My children, on the other hand, are surprised that anyone would want to hear me talk about anything, and they are even more shocked that I would need a microphone to be heard as they are convinced that the only volume I ever use when speaking is shouting.
The topic for my speech on today’s agenda is: New Perspectives on Energy Trading and Power Markets, and I plan to focus on the road ahead for these markets. But before discussing the road ahead, I will start with a story from my childhood about when I learned to drive. I say this is a story from my childhood because in South Dakota, children as young as fourteen years old are allowed to obtain a driver’s license. As much as I miss my home state, when I look at my fourteen-year-old son and think about him driving, I see the wisdom in Virginia’s approach.
At the ripe old age of twelve, my dad decided it was time for me to learn how to drive. As a tall child, I could reach the gas and brake pedals, which was apparently the minimum criteria for beginning driving lessons on the farm. To be honest, I was scared to death of driving. But my parents said I should learn because if there was ever an emergency, and I was the only one home, I may need to drive for help. That logic just made me scared of driving and being left alone on the farm.
My experience as a parent teaching two teenagers to drive involved multiple practice sessions in empty parking lots before slowly graduating to quiet side roads before paying another adult to do the really scary stuff, such as driving on highways and making left turns across oncoming traffic. I suspect that sounds familiar to many in this room as well.
But that suburban approach is not how I learned to drive. My lesson – notice I said lesson, not lessons—was a little more hands-off. On the day I learned to drive, my dad had me jump in the passenger seat of his 1977 blue Chevy pick-up truck to take a ride with him. Oddly, my older brother jumped in another farm truck and followed close behind.
After driving a few miles away from our house, my dad drove the truck into the middle of a freshly plowed field. Dad threw the truck into park, jumped out, and told me to slide over to the driver’s seat. He then shut the door, leaned into the window, and told me to drive around the field until I was comfortable enough to drive myself home. At that point, I realized why my brother had followed us in another vehicle—it was my dad’s getaway car.
Honestly, I panicked. I screamed, pleaded, and begged. But my dad was confident in his approach. And he left me with this advice: always keep your eyes on the road. But don’t just look at the road immediately in front of the vehicle; be sure to watch the road ahead so you know where you are going—and so that you do not smash into a deer.
I’m sharing this story with you today for two reasons. First, to offer some entertainment.
Second, I found the advice my dad gave me that day relevant to the topic for my speech today. Specifically, I want to share with you some thoughts and observations on energy markets, the road ahead for these markets, and potential down-the-road effects on the derivatives markets that are regulated by the CFTC.
Being a derivatives regulator can feel a little like being that driver who is looking down the road to see what is ahead. Our markets are forward looking, offering a view into points off in the distance so drivers are prepared for the path ahead. But, just like a careful driver needs to see what is right in front of the vehicle as much as what is on the road ahead, careful regulation requires us to also keep our eyes on current market conditions, in addition to ensuring the reliability and safety of the futures markets, which reflect the road ahead. The CFTC is always surveilling markets, spotting trends, and monitoring for risk that could impact the futures markets.
Now, here is where this speech will diverge from my story of learning to drive. While I was left to teach myself how to drive and had no one willing to share their expertise with me, our work at the CFTC in following markets occurs with the benefit of a variety of internal resources (such as the Market Intelligence Branch of the Division of Market Oversight and the Office of the Chief Economist) as well as external resources (such as our advisory committees).
At the CFTC, we have five advisory committees, each of which is sponsored by a commissioner. These committees are comprised of subject matter experts representing a variety of viewpoints, such as private sector stakeholders, non-profit groups, academia, and other governmental entities. As many of you know, especially those who are members, I sponsor the Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee.
Growing up on a farm in South Dakota, I always understood that the price of energy had a major impact on whether it was a good year or a bad year for the farm. Even at a young age, I could tell you the exact cost-per-gallon of diesel because either my dad was grumbling about it as he left for the field, or it was the topic of discussion at the local café in town where the older farmers convened for their morning coffee.
The price of diesel determined the cost of running planters, tractors, combines, and trucks. The cost of fertilizers and pesticides are also directly linked to fossil fuel input prices, and spreading those fertilizers and pesticides required hiring a spray pilot whose services were priced based on the cost of the aviation fuel.
Even after our crops were harvested, energy costs were critical. Energy prices influenced the cost of storage at the grain elevators and transportation; barges and ships run on bunker fuel and trains need diesel. Everything in the farm economy depends on the price of energy. You might have perfect temperatures, exactly the right amount of rain at exactly the right time, and high yields but still see your net profit shrink due to high energy prices.
As the only Commissioner with a background in production agriculture, sponsoring the Commission’s Agriculture Advisory Committee may have seemed like the obvious choice. But I saw the EEMAC as an opportunity to focus on sectors critical to the agricultural economy and to study those energy markets to understand their impact on the markets we regulate. The goal is for the energy futures complex to serve end-users who need to hedge those costs and to mitigate the frequent price volatility experienced by the underlying cash markets.
As the EEMAC has held meetings and participated in discussions around energy markets, we have heard over and over that the United States has critical gaps in its energy and power infrastructure. As those gaps widen, so do risks to the stability of these markets that become more sensitive and less resilient to forces beyond US control. Instability and volatility in spot energy markets and prices have a direct impact on the derivative products we regulate.
Energy infrastructure’s impact on energy prices is something that cannot be ignored, and this reality has become even more apparent in the last decade. Of course, it makes sense that energy transmission and delivery directly impact the cost to the end consumer. However, truly understanding how energy infrastructure market fundamentals influence energy spot and derivatives prices requires hearing directly from hardworking domestic energy producers and seeing the infrastructure up close.
With that in mind, the EEMAC has held a series of meetings on the road, and members of the advisory committee have joined me in getting outside of Washington to see our energy production and infrastructure and to talk directly with the experts who manage these facilities.
In our first meeting, we visited Oklahoma and focused on more traditional energy markets such as crude oil and natural gas.[1] We visited Cushing, Oklahoma, where the WTI Crude Oil contract settles to see the pipelines and storage facilities as well as to talk with those in charge of storing, blending, and moving the oil to locations throughout the US. During the EEMAC meeting, a witness from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission described an anomaly in the price of natural gas in New England.[2] Despite having one of the largest concentrations of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale just over two hundred miles away, a lack of pipeline capacity makes it impossible to fully supply New England with gas from the Marcellus Shale.[3] This situation means that New England relies on liquified natural gas (“LNG”) supplies from tanker ships. As a result, the price New England end users pay is based on the Henry Hub price for exported LNG, rather than the domestic production price. This circumstance creates an unusual situation where the spot price that a natural gas-fired power plant in Massachusetts pays for its fuel is more dependent on Europe’s desire for natural gas and a global market thousands of miles away than on the price and availability of natural gas produced two states away in Pennsylvania.
To examine power markets and electrification, we held meetings in Roy, Utah; Nashville, Tennessee; and Golden, Colorado.[4] In the course of those meetings, we had the opportunity to tour a large Ford EV production facility in Spring Hill, Tennessee, the Bingham Canyon Copper Mine in Utah, and a startup company looking to reuse mine tailings to produce critical metals and minerals in Golden, Colorado.
Here in the United States, we have some of the largest deposits of the metals necessary for power generation, transmission, and use, but large gaps in our infrastructure and policies render these advantages almost meaningless. In Golden, Colorado, we learned that despite a startup company’s cutting-edge technology that can turn mine waste into critical metals and minerals, China’s dominance in rare earth markets means that they can manipulate prices at will and squeeze out competition and force any US production into bankruptcy.
Southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah, we toured the Bingham Canyon Copper Mine. The Bingham County Mine is the largest man-made excavation in the world.[5] It’s also the world’s deepest open pit mine, and it has produced more copper than any other mine in the world.[6] As you can probably guess, the US has abundant supplies of copper; however, because of a lack of domestic smelting capacity, much of the copper mined in the US must be shipped overseas, often to China, to be processed and refined. In fact, since 2000, China has been responsible for 75% of the global smelter capacity growth.[7]
Finally, in Spring Hill, Tennessee, we learned that car companies are increasingly concerned about logistical challenges reducing their ability to provide cost-competitive electric vehicles. This is not an idle concern. Just four weeks ago, Rivian disclosed that it will be forced to reduce production and decrease its sales target in 2024 by almost 20% because of difficulties sourcing a component used in its electric motor.[8] And last week, to secure a steady supply of lithium, GM announced an almost $1 billion investment in the Thacker Pass mine in Nevada.[9]
For years, the problem for domestic energy policy was how to mine, drill, and import enough raw materials to satisfy America’s growing energy demand.[10] Even after the oil glut of the 1980s and lower energy prices, we were still concerned with our reliance on foreign energy.[11] The continuous mantra of Presidents starting with Richard Nixon was the concept of “Energy Independence” as a policy goal.[12] Now, not because of government mandates, plans, or policies, but thanks to technological innovation, hard work, and the deployment of private capital, that goal has largely been achieved. We have the raw materials in the ground that we need to power American energy independence; however, we need our infrastructure to catch-up with our domestic supply.
Returning to my driving lesson, when I look at the road ahead, I see the United States coming to a crossroads. One road leads to more resilient infrastructure, lower prices, and energy abundance. The other road leads to energy scarcity, higher prices, and a loss of energy independence. The direction we take as a country will have a major impact on the energy markets and the futures markets we regulate at the CFTC. Unfortunately, gaps in energy infrastructure lead to instability and volatility in energy markets, which have a direct impact on the derivatives markets. If derivatives markets fail to offer adequate price discovery and risk mitigation, they will no longer serve producers and end users as appropriate tools to hedge their exposure. That is a road we cannot afford to go down.
As a regulator, the CFTC is not the driver of this car, but we definitely have an interest in taking the road that leads to liquid, stable, and vibrant derivatives markets that serve as a tool for hedging against risk. We can do that by ensuring that new derivative products come to market efficiently without the fear of litigation or unreasonable staff positions, and by cultivating new market structures that minimize conflicts and instill market confidence. Our enforcement efforts should be focused on ‘bad actors’ and not on trying to shortcut deliberative policymaking. The CFTC should prefer “responsible regulation” over “regulation by enforcement.” To arrive at our desired destination, we all need to keep our eyes on the road, to see what is right in front of us while simultaneously paying attention to the road ahead.
Thank you for taking this road trip with me today. I look forward to answering your questions.
[1] CFTC Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee meeting in Stillwater, Oklahoma, September 20, 2022.
[4] CFTC Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, February 28, 2023. CFTC Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee meeting in Roy, Utah, June 27, 2023. CFTC Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee meeting in Golden, Colorado, February 13, 2024.
[5] Kristine L. Pankow, Jeffrey R. Moore, J. Mark Hale, Keith D. Koper, Tex Kubacki, Katherine M. Whidden, and Michael K. McCarter. “Massive landslide at Utah copper mine generates wealth of geophysical data.” Geological Society of America, vol. 24, no. 1, January 2014.
[7] Securing Copper Supply: No China, No Energy Transition, WoodsMcKenzie, August 2024, Nick Pickens, Robin Griffin, Eleni Joanides, and Zhifei Liu.
[8] Ed Ludlow and Kiel Porter. “Rivian Misstep Triggered Parts Shortage Hobbling Its EV Output.” Bloomberg, October 7, 2024.
[9] Camilla Hodgson. “General Motors increases investment in lithium mine to nearly $1bn.” Financial Times, October 6, 2024.
[10] US Energy Information Administration, “U.S. energy facts explained, Imports & Exports.” Last updated July 15, 2024, with data from the Monthly Energy Review.
[12] Charles Homans, “Energy Independence: A Short History.” Foreign Policy, January 3, 2012.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
October 24, 2024
SBM Offshore announces it has completed the divestment of a 13.5% ownership interest in the special purpose companies related to the lease and operation of the FPSO Sepetiba to China Merchants Financial Leasing (Hong Kong) Holding Co., Limited (CMFL). This follows the announcement on February 10, 2022, of an agreement whereby CMFL would acquire its ownership interest after the FPSO Sepetiba had commenced operations. SBM Offshore is operator of the FPSO and will remain the majority shareholder with 51% ownership interest.
FPSO Sepetiba is installed at the Mero unitized field located in the Santos Basin, approximately 180 kilometers offshore Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. The Mero unitized field is operated by Petrobras (38.6%), in partnership with Shell Brasil (19.3%), TotalEnergies (19.3%), CNPC (9.65%), CNOOC (9.65%) and Pré-Sal Petróleo S.A. (PPSA) (3.5%), representing the government in the non-contracted area.
Corporate Profile
SBM Offshore designs, builds, installs and operates offshore floating facilities for the offshore energy industry. As a leading technology provider, we put our marine expertise at the service of a responsible energy transition by reducing emissions from fossil fuel production, while developing cleaner solutions for alternative energy sources.
More than 7,400 SBMers worldwide are committed to sharing their experience to deliver safe, sustainable and affordable energy from the oceans for generations to come.
For further information, please visit our website at www.sbmoffshore.com.
| Financial Calendar | Date | Year | |
| Third Quarter 2024 Trading Update | November 14 | 2024 | |
| Full Year 2024 Earnings | February 20 | 2025 | |
| Annual General Meeting | April 9 | 2025 | |
| First Quarter 2025 Trading Update | May 15 | 2025 | |
| Half Year 2025 Earnings | August 7 | 2025 |
For further information, please contact:
Investor Relations
Wouter Holties
Corporate Finance & Investor Relations Manager
Media Relations
Evelyn Tachau Brown
Group Communications & Change Director
Market Abuse Regulation
This press release may contain inside information within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation.
Disclaimer
Some of the statements contained in this release that are not historical facts are statements of future expectations and other forward-looking statements based on management’s current views and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance, or events to differ materially from those in such statements. These statements may be identified by words such as ‘expect’, ‘should’, ‘could’, ‘shall’ and similar expressions. Such forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties. The principal risks which could affect the future operations of SBM Offshore N.V. are described in the ‘Impact, Risk and Opportunity Management’ section of the 2023 Annual Report.
Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results and performance of the Company’s business may vary materially and adversely from the forward-looking statements described in this release. SBM Offshore does not intend and does not assume any obligation to update any industry information or forward-looking statements set forth in this release to reflect new information, subsequent events or otherwise.
This release contains certain alternative performance measures (APMs) as defined by the ESMA guidelines which are not defined under IFRS. Further information on these APMs is included in the Half-Year Management Report accompanying the Half Year Earnings 2024 report, available on our website https://www.sbmoffshore.com/investors/financial-disclosures.
Nothing in this release shall be deemed an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities. The companies in which SBM Offshore N.V. directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this release “SBM Offshore” and “SBM” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to SBM Offshore N.V. and its subsidiaries in general. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies.
“SBM Offshore®“, the SBM logomark, “Fast4Ward®”, “emissionZERO®” and “F4W®” are proprietary marks owned by SBM Offshore.
Attachment
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) called on the Biden Administration to hold the People’s Republic of China (PRC) accountable for its role in actively supporting the production and export of fentanyl into the United States. Baldwin urged the Biden administration to heed the call from a group of families whose loved ones died of fentanyl overdoses and launch a formal probe into China’s role in fueling the U.S. synthetic opioid crisis.
“I have heard from parents who have lost children, law enforcement fighting on the front lines, and advocates urging for change – all demanding we do more to stop the scourge of fentanyl. There is no doubt that the actions of the PRC have left hundreds of thousands of Americans dead and countless families in mourning,” wrote Senator Baldwin in a letter to USTR Representative Tai.
Last week, a group of families impacted by the fentanyl crisis filed a petition under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to call on United States Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai to initiate a full investigation into China’s role in the fentanyl crisis. Over the past two decades, the PRC has become one of the most significant global centers for the manufacture, purchase, and exportation of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals. According to the petition filed by the families impacted by fentanyl, over 97 percent of all illicit fentanyl present in the U.S. originates from the PRC. The petition recommends a variety of trade countermeasures, including imposing tariffs on at least $50 billion on Chinese goods and services, and banning Chinese shipments from entering the U.S. via the de minimis loophole.
“Despite the U.S. government’s best efforts through diplomatic channels, it has become obvious that the PRC will not voluntarily crack down on its fentanyl producers and exports. Until the PRC takes serious action to hold its own companies accountable, I urge you to seek redress for the harm inflicted upon American families. I therefore urge you to expeditiously initiate a full Section 301 investigation and consider the relief measures identified in the petition to address the injury that the PRC’s policies and actions have had on the American people and our economy,” wrote Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin has long been fighting to combat the fentanyl and opioid crisis, disrupting supply chains and bolstering support for prevention and recovery services. Senator Baldwin introduced the bipartisan Ensure Accountability in the De Minimis Act to hold countries like China accountable for sending hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of products into the U.S. market, undermining U.S. manufacturers and letting illicit substances into our communities. Last year, Senators Baldwin and Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) introduced the De Minimis Reciprocity Act to close the de minimis loophole by excluding untrustworthy countries like China from using the de minimis channel.
A full version of the letter is available here and below.
Dear Ambassador Tai,
I write to express support for a petition filed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on behalf of families who have lost loved ones to illicit fentanyl. I ask that you review the petition and initiate a full investigation into the role of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the fentanyl crisis, which is devastating families and the U.S. economy.
While Congress and the Administration have worked to hold China accountable and secure commitments from the PRC, the petition alleges that the PRC continues to actively support the production and export of illicit fentanyl to the United States and has failed to implement sufficient measures to prevent these exports. We have a responsibility to use every tool available to halt the flow of fentanyl into the United States. For that reason, I urge you to take up an investigation to examine the PRC’s acts, policies, and practices that have caused severe economic harm to the United States—to say nothing of the tragic deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans—and consider appropriate countermeasures. As described in the petition, the economic impacts of the fentanyl crisis include undermining U.S. employment and the labor market. The need for supportive services and criminal justice expenditures also put increased pressure on state and local government budgets.
Over the past two decades, the PRC has become one of the most significant global centers for the manufacture, purchase, and exportation of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals. According to the petition filed by Facing Fentanyl, Inc., over 97 percent of all illicit fentanyl present in the U.S. originates in the PRC. Illicit synthetic fentanyl can be produced incredibly cheaply; one kilogram can be produced for less than $1,000 and sold for $80,000. Despite its low production cost, it is 50 times stronger than heroin.
Illicit synthetic fentanyl has been the deadliest of drugs exported by the PRC, leading to the deaths of over 70,000 Americans in 2022. In Wisconsin, synthetic opioids were identified in 91 percent of opioid overdose deaths and 73 percent of all overdose deaths in the past year. Early data indicates that the number of fentanyl deaths grew by 97 percent between 2019 and 2021. In 2022, more than 1,400 Wisconsinites died from an opioid overdose.
While the U.S. government is actively engaging with the PRC on this issue, it is imperative that we hold China accountable for its commitment to cracking down on the flow of illicit fentanyl and precursor chemicals that are fueling this crisis. Despite productive steps, the PRC has continued to provide tax incentives and other financial support for businesses – often state-owned – that export fentanyl and the illicit chemicals necessary to produce fentanyl to the U.S and countries in the Western hemisphere. The PRC has impeded investigations and prosecutions that seek to stop illicit drug manufacturers while willfully failing to identify and prosecute companies from manufacturing, selling, and exporting fentanyl to the U.S. Furthermore, the PRC conceals business operations involved in fentanyl trade and ignores money laundering schemes by companies that profit from illicit activities.
I have heard from parents who have lost children, law enforcement fighting on the front lines, and advocates urging for change – all demanding we do more to stop the scourge of fentanyl. There is no doubt that the actions of the PRC have left hundreds of thousands of Americans dead and countless families in mourning. Despite the U.S. government’s best efforts through diplomatic channels, it has become obvious that the PRC will not voluntarily crack down on its fentanyl producers and exports. Until the PRC takes serious action to hold its own companies accountable, I urge you to seek redress for the harm inflicted upon American. I therefore urge you to expeditiously initiate a full Section 301 investigation and consider the relief measures identified in the petition to address the injury that the PRC’s policies and actions have had on the American people and our economy.
Thank you for your attention to this serious matter, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to halt the flow of deadly fentanyl into the United States.
Sincerely,
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Statement by Alex Berelowitz, Second Secretary Human Rights at the General Debate of the UN Third Committee.
Almost eighty years ago, the UN Charter established the three founding pillars of the UN system: peace and security, development and human rights.
As our Prime Minister said before the General Assembly, one of these – human rights – speaks to the very essence of what it is to be human.
We have made many advances in the years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But we cannot ignore the challenges we now face.
Widespread conflict and violence, misuse of new technologies, entrenched inequality, rollback of women and girls’ rights, climate vulnerability, and – all too often – downright impunity where power is abused.
In seeking solutions we must have human rights and the rule of law front and centre. As all member states agreed in the Pact for the Future, human rights are key to meeting the needs of everyone – especially the most vulnerable.
This includes women and children in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Lebanon.
The humanitarian implications of the conflict are devastating and compounding an existing crisis in Lebanon.
We remain deeply concerned at the escalation of violence, the number of deaths and injuries, the displacement of families from their homes, and unacceptable attacks on UN Peacekeepers.
We call for an immediate ceasefire, and the release of all hostages in Gaza and the rapid provision of humanitarian aid into Gaza and Lebanon.
Diplomacy, not violence, is the way to achieve peace, stability and security across the region.
In Ukraine, Russia continues to disregard the UN Charter through its illegal invasion.
Many Russian atrocities amount to war crimes. Russia’s attacks on energy infrastructure, as well as the widespread and systematic use of torture against Ukrainian POWs are beyond reprehensible. We must hold perpetrators to account.
With conflict driving most of the world’s humanitarian needs, the UN’s role in independently monitoring and documenting human rights abuses and violations is more critical than ever.
We welcome the Human Rights Council’s recent renewal of the Fact-Finding Mission in Sudan. While international attention is on the Middle East and Ukraine, a brutal war has displaced over 10 million people, with atrocities carried out by both warring parties.
But in non conflict situations too, human rights are under threat.
Two years after the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Right’s Assessment on Xinjiang, China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and Tibetans, restricting civil society and independent media, and targeting human rights defenders and lawyers.
We again call upon China to implement its OHCHRs recommendations
The use of the death penalty in Iran has also reached a critical level – we cannot ignore politically motivated executions of protesters, dissidents, and juvenile offenders.
With so many global challenges we must recommit to collective action underpinned by responsible global leadership.
In 2025 the United Kingdom will stand for election to the Human Rights Council. We will do all we can to advert greater conflict, instability and injustice.
Realising human rights goes hand-in-hand with sustainable development. But that too is throttled in places like Afghanistan, where we have seen a wholesale regression of the rights of women and girls. Banned from education and employment, with numerous restrictions on their presence in public spaces.
And in Syria we have seen the targeting of girls, subjected to forced marriage, and forced to take on increased care-giving responsibilities.
We will not progress on sustainable development if women and girls are denied their human rights.
Let us recommit, together, to the UN Charter and Universal Declaration and continue to strive for a world where nobody is left behind.
US Senate News:
Source: The White House
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:42 P.M. EDT
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Good afternoon, everyone.
Q Good afternoon.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have just one thing at the top, and then I’ll hand it over.
So, today, as part of the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, First Lady Jill Biden announced $110 million in awards from the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health — for Health, ARPA-H, to accelerate transformative research and development in women’s health care.
These new ARPA-H awardees will spur innovation and advance bold solutions to diseases and conditions that affect women uniquely, disproportionately, and differently.
In less than a year since the president and the first lady launched the effort, the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research has galvanized nearly one — nearly a billion dollars in funding for women’s health research.
And now, I’m going to turn it over to my NSC colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who will talk to you more about the news of North Korea’s — Korean soldiers traveling to Russia, today’s historic announcement of the — of the use of frozen Russian sov- — sovereign assets to support Ukraine, and other foreign policy matters.
Admiral.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you very much, Karine.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Q Good afternoon.
MR. KIRBY: So, just before I kick off on those issues, I do want to start off by extending our thoughts to the victims of the horrible terrorist attack in Ankara, Turkey, this morning.
Our prayers are with all of those affected and their families and, of course, also the people of Turkey during this difficult time.
Now, Turkish authorities, as they’ve said, are investigating this as a possible terrorist attack. And while we don’t yet know the motive or who is exactly behind it, we strong — strongly condemn this — this act of violence.
Now, I think, as you have all heard earlier this morning, we have seen the public reporting indicating that North Korean soldiers are traveling to Russia to fight against Ukraine. We’re working closely with our allies and partners to gain a full understanding of this situation, but today, I’m prepared to share what we know at this stage.
We assess that between early- to mid-October, North Korea moved at least 3,000 soldiers into eastern Russia. We assessed that these soldiers traveled by ship from the Wonsan area in North Korea to Vladivostok, Russia. These soldiers then traveled onward to multiple Russian military training sites in eastern Russia where they are currently undergoing training.
We do not yet know whether these soldiers will en- — enter into combat alongside the Russian military, but this is a certain — certainly a highly concerning probability.
After completing training, these soldiers could travel to western Russia and then engage in combat against the Ukrainian military. We have briefed the Ukrainian government on our understanding of this situation, and we’re certainly consulting closely with other allies, partners, and countries in the region on the implications of such a dramatic mov- — move and on how we might respond.
I expect to have more to share on all of that in the coming days.
For the time being, we will continue to monitor the situation closely. But let’s be clear, if North Korean soldiers do enter into combat, this development would demonstrate Russia’s growing desperation in its war against Ukraine.
Russia is suffering extraordinary casualties on the battlefield every single day, but President Putin appears intent on continuing this war. If Russia is indeed forced to turn to North Korea for manpower, this would be a sign of weakness, not strength, on the part of the Kremlin.
It would also demonstrate an unprecedented level of direct military cooperation between Russia and North Korea with security implications in Europe as well as the Indo-Pacific.
As we have said before, Russia’s cooperation with the North Korean military is in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions which prohibit the procurement of arms from North Korea and military arms training. This move is likewise a violation.
At President Biden’s direction, the United States continues to surge security assistance to Ukraine. In just the past week, which I think you’ve seen, the United States has announced more than $800 million in security assistance to meet Ukraine’s urgent battlefield needs.
Now, looking ahead, the United States is on track to provide Ukraine with hundreds of additional air defense interceptors, dozens of tactical air defense systems, additional artillery, significant quantities of ammunition, hundreds of armored personnel can- — carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and thousands of additional armored vehicles, all of which will help keep Ukraine effective on the battlefield.
And in coming days, the United States will announce a significant sanctions tranche targeting the enablers of Russia’s war in Ukraine located outside of Russia.
The Ukrainian military continues to fight bravely and effectively, and President Biden is determined to provide Ukraine with the support that it needs to prevail. To that end, the president announced today that of the $50 billion that the G7 committed to loan Ukraine back in June, the United States will provide a loan of $20 mil- — $20 billion. The other $30 billion in loans will come from a combination of our G7 partners, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan.
Now, this is unique. Never before has a multilateral coalition frozen the assets of an aggressor country and then harnessed the value of those assets to fund the defense of the aggrieved party, all while respecting the rule of law and maintaining solidarity.
These loans will support the people of Ukraine as they defend and rebuild their country, and it’s another example of how Mr. Putin’s war of aggression has only unified and strengthened the resolve of G7 countries and our partners to defend shared values.
And — yep, that’s it. Thank you. (Laughter.) Sorry. I had an extra page in there, and I wasn’t sure where it was going. So —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Aamer.
Q Does the pre- — is the assessment that the presence of North Korean troops can have a meaningful trajectory on thou- — the war?
And then, secondly, you’ve said earlier even that it shows a sign of desperation on the Russians, but does it also demonstrate North Korea’s commitment to this burgeoning alliance with Russia? And is that, in of itself, a broadening and discouraging concern for America?
MR. KIRBY: So, on your first question, too soon to tell, Aamer, what kind of an impact these troops can have on the battlefield, because we just don’t know enough about what the intention is in terms of using them. So, I — I think that’s why I said at the top, we’re going to monitor this and watch it closely.
To your second question: yeah, absolutely. As we’ve also said, yes, I’ve called this a sign of desperation and a sign of weakness. It’s not like Mr. Putin is being very honest with the Russian people about what he doing here. I mean, Mr. Peskov, his spokesman, just the other day dec- — denied knowing anything about it.
But — but we’ve also talked many, many times about the burgeoning and growing defense relationship between North Korea and Russia and how reckless and dangerous we think that is, not only for the people of Ukraine — and clearly we’ll watch to see what this development means for them — but also for the Indo-Pacific region.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia.
Q Thank you. With the U.S. diplomats in the region, Mr. Hochstein in Lebanon and the Secretary of State in Saudi Arabia now before Israel, do you be- — do you believe there is a chance now for the ceasefire to be back on the table?
And do you believe that with the demise of Mr. Sinwar and Hassan Nasrallah, you have better chances or worse chances for somebody to negotiate with?
MR. KIRBY: The ceasefire you’re talking about, I’m assuming, is with Gaza.
Q Well, both. I mean, you have Lebanon and you have Gaza —
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q — implementation 1701 and in Gaza.
MR. KIRBY: I mean, look, the short answer to your question, Nadia, is — is yes. And we wouldn’t be s- — we wouldn’t be engaged in this — these diplomatic efforts if we didn’t think there was still an opportunity here to get a ceasefire — a ceasefire for Gaza that brings the hostages home and increases humanitarian assistance, and certainly a ceasefire between Israel and — and Hezbollah.
And as for the — the implication that the — the deaths of the two leaders, Nasrallah and Sinwar, as President Biden said last week, that does open up — we believe opens up, should open up an opportunity to try to get there.
But I don’t want to sound too sanguine here. I’ll let Secretary Blinken speak for his travels. He’s still on the road. He talked about it a little bit today that, you know, they had good, constructive conversations, specifically with respect to — to Gaza while he was in Israel. But there’s still a lot of work before us.
Q Okay. And one more, quickly. The number of civilians killed in Gaza was 779 in the last 20 days, especially in Jabalia, and the total number is 100,000 between the dead and the wounded. Ninety percent of Gaza is destroyed. Does the U.S. still believe that Israel’s strategy in Gaza is working, and do you still support it?
MR. KIRBY: We still support Israel’s right and responsibility to defend itself against these threats, including the continued threat of Hamas. And we still urge Israel to be mindful — ever mindful of civilian casualties and the damage to civilian infrastructure, and we’re going to continue to work with them to that end.
Q Has the U.S. made an assessment about the type of weapons training or what type of training the North Korean soldiers are undergoing in Russia that could potentially be used in Ukraine?
And does this represent a new type of an — an agreement, in terms of an information-sharing agreement between the North Koreans and the Russians?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t believe we have a very specific assessment at this time of the exact nature of all the training. There’s — there’s three sites that we assess right now that the — this first tranche of about 3,000 are being trained.
I — I think I could go so far as to say that, at least in general terms, it’s — it’s basic kind of combat training and familiarization. I think I’ll go — I could go as far as that and no further.
But, as I also said, we’re going to monitor this and watch this closely. And obviously, if we have more information that we can share with you, we certainly will.
To your second question about information-sharing, as I’ve said before, in answer to — to Aamer, we have been watching this relationship grow and deepen now for many, many months. And the — the question that we’re asking ourselves — and we don’t have an answer for right now — is: What does Kim Jong Un think he’s getting out of this?
And so, you talked about information-sharing. I mean, they’re — maybe that’s part of this. Maybe it’s technology. Maybe it’s capabilities.
We don’t have a good sense of that. But that’s what’s so concerning to us, is — is not only the concern for the impact on the war in Ukraine but the impact that this could have in the Indo-Pacific, with Kim Jong Un benefiting to some degree.
Q Can you talk about that just briefly? Like, how significant is this for U.S. allies in the region and the U.S. as a whole?
MR. KIRBY: It could be significant. Again, we don’t know enough right now.
So, when you say “region,” I think you mean Indo-Pacific. Until we have a better sense of what the North Koreans at least believe they’re getting out of this, as opposed to what they actually get, it’s hard to know and to put a metric on exactly what the impact is in the Indo-Pacific.
But it is concerning. It’s been concerning. Certainly, this development — this — this willingness of — of Kim to literally put skin in the game here, soldiers in Russia for the potential deployment — and we haven’t seen them deployed, but for the potential deployment — certainly would connote an expectation that he thinks he’s getting something out of this.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Selina.
Q You mentioned that the U.S. is discussing how we would possibly respond. What are the possibilities for how the U.S. could respond to this?
MR. KIRBY: Well, for one thing, we’re going to continue to surge security assistance, as I just mentioned in my — my topper. And you’re going to continue to see — the president has made it clear that we’re going to continue to provide security assistance all the way up to the end of his administration, for sure. So, you’re going to see that continue to flow, and we’re talking to allies and partners about what the right next steps ought to be.
I’m not at liberty today to go through any specific options, but — but we’re going to — we’re going to have those conversations, and — and we have been.
Q And China is a critical trading partner to North Korea. What’s the U.S. assessment for how China is looking at all of this?
MR. KIRBY: We don’t know how President Xi and the Chinese are looking at this. One would think that — if you take their comments at face value about desiring stability and security in the region, particularly on the Korean Peninsula, one would think that they’re also deeply concerned by this development.
But you can expect that we’ll be — we’ll be communicating with the — with the Chinese about this and certainly sharing our perspectives to the degree we can and — and gleaning theirs.
Q And local South Korean press is reporting that, according to intelligence, these troops — North Korean troops lack understanding of modern warfare, such as drone attacks, and it’s anticipated there will be a high number of casualties when deployed to the front lines.
MR. KIRBY: I — too soon to know. I mean, we — we don’t really know what they’re going to be used for or where they’re going to — if they’re going to — if they’re going to deploy, where they’re going to deploy and to what purpose.
I can tell you one thing, though. If they do deploy to fight against Ukraine, they’re fair game. They’re fair targets. And the Ukrainian military will defend themselves against North Korean soldiers the same way they’re defending themselves against Russian soldiers.
And so, the — the possibility that there could be dead and wounded North Korean soldiers fighting against Ukraine is — is absolutely real if they get deployed.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, M.J.
Q Just to clarify something you said earlier about what Kim Jong Un possibly gets out of this. As far as you know, has he gotten anything in return?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I mean, from this particular move, I can’t speak to that, M.J. I — I don’t think we have seen any specific, you know, quid — quid pro quo with respect to this provision of troops.
But we know that — that he and Mr. Putin have, again, been growing in their defense relationship. And we know Mr. Putin is — has been able to purchase North Korean artillery. He’s been able to get North Korean ballistic missiles, which he has used against Ukraine. And in return, we have seen, at the very least, some technology sharing with North Korea.
But what this particular development means going forward, we just don’t know. We’re going to have to watch that.
Q And do you know if this came about because Putin specifically first asked for help, or whether it’s that Kim Jong Un offered the help first?
MR. KIRBY: Don’t know. Don’t know what precipitated it, but I think it’s important to remember that in the three-plus years that he’s been fighting in — in and around Ukraine, Mr. Putin and — and his military has suffered 530,000 casualties. And as we’re speaking today, he’s losing, casualties alone — and that’s killed and wounded — 1,200 — 1,000 to 1,200 per day.
Now, 530,000 is a lot. I mean, there were — in the American Civil War, there were, like, 620,000 killed, just to put this into some perspective. This is three years fighting in Ukraine. Five hundred and thirty [thousand] casualties is — is a lot.
And he hasn’t been fully transparent with the Russian people about this. And he hasn’t been transparent at all with the Russian people about this particular move, about br- — bringing in North Korean soldiers. So, that he has to farm out the fighting to a foreign country, I think, speaks volumes about how much his military is suffering and — and how uncertain he believes, how untenable he believes his — his situation is.
Q And I guess, just if you had to guess, how would the training — what would the training even look like, given the language barrier? And once these North Korean soldiers are deployed, like, what would the command structure even look like, given —
MR. KIRBY: It’s a great question. I — I wish we had an answer to it. You’re — you’re not wrong to highlight the language barrier. I mean, these are — these aren’t even similar languages. They’re — and they are going to have to overcome that. It’s not like they have a long, productive history of working together as two militaries, even at all. So, that’s going to be a challenge.
Command and control is going to be a challenge. And this is not a challenge that the Russians have even solved amongst themselves. They’re still having command and control challenges: logistics and sustainment, getting things to the battlefield, keeping their troops in the field. They haven’t solved that for their own soldiers. So, they’re going to have to figure that out here too, if, in fact, they deploy. We haven’t seen that.
So, there are — there are some pretty big challenges they’re — they’re going to have to overcome.
Q And I have a non-Ukraine question. Do you think that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fas- — fascist?
MR. KIRBY: That — I’m going to —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: We got to move on. (Laughs.)
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I’m —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Michael.
MR. KIRBY: — I’m not going to talk about that stuff.
Q John, there — there’s concern among Democrats on the Hill that Donald Trump’s team has not entered into these critical transition agreements with the White House that could potentially, in their words, endanger national security. Is that a concern of yours?
MR. KIRBY: Well, look, with a caveat that I’ll — I’m going to defer to Karine on anything to do with the election and — and the transition. That’s really for her.
All I’ll say is that no matter how things play out in the election, the National Security Council, under Mr. Sullivan’s leadership, is and will make sure we’re ready for proper transition handover.
Q And there are intelligence officials who have warned that foreign adversaries might be looking to stoke violence in the next 13 days ahead of the election.
MR. KIRBY: I saw the DNI assessment, yeah.
Q What are you doing in preparation?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we’re working hard across the interagency, as you might expect we would, to share information not only inside the — at the federal level but working very hard to make sure we’ve got good handshakes and — and information sharing at state and local levels as well.
That’s the last thing we want, of course, is to see any violence or protest activity that — that leads to intimidation and that kind of thing. So, we’re working hard, again, with local and state officials.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Need to start wrapping it up. Go ahead, sir. Yeah.
Q Thank you. So, would North Korea’s possible engagement in combat in Ukraine trigger a bolder move from the White House, like decision to lift the restrictions on usage of American weapons?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, again, number one, we’re monitoring this closely, and that’s where we are right now. I came and gave you a very honest assessment of exactly where we are, and we just don’t know if these troops are going to be deployed against Ukraine in combat and, if so, where, when, and how.
So, number one, we’re monitoring this closely. I don’t have any policy decisions or options to speak to today. I can tell you the last thing I’ll say is that there’s been no change to the president’s policy when it comes to what we’re providing Ukraine and — and how they’re using it.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jacqui.
Q Thank you, Karine. John, why not? Why not green-light the long-range missiles for Ukraine’s use, which is Zelenskyy’s number one ask, as you’re sounding the alarm about what could have far-reaching implications if North Korean soldiers go into Ukraine?
MR. KIRBY: Well, for one thing, Jacqui, we don’t exactly know what these guys are going to do.
Q What else could they be there for?
MR. KIRBY: We don’t know what they’re going to do. We don’t know if they’re going to deploy into combat or not. We don’t know, if they do, in what strength. We certainly don’t have a sense of what capability they might be able to bring to the field with them. Now —
Q Doesn’t this seem, though, like —
MR. KIRBY: Hang on, now. Just a second.
Q — we were — a couple years ago, they were staged — you had Russian troops staged on the Ukrainian border, and this administration was saying, “We don’t know if they’re going to go in. We don’t want to impose any sanctions.” We didn’t do it ahead of time.
MR. KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no, no.
Q Where — why is there not a consequence first?
MR. KIRBY: Well, first of all, let’s not rewrite history, Jacqui. We — we were the first country to go out publicly and say, “Here’s what we think the Russians are going to do. Here’s the timeline.”
Q But didn’t do anything about it.
MR. KIRBY: That is not true, Jacqui.
Q There was no preemptive sanction. Nothing.
MR. KIRBY: Jacqui, that is not true. It is true we didn’t levy sanctions originally because we were hoping that the threat of sanctions might deter or dissuade Mr. Putin. You lay sanctions on before the man makes a decision, then he might as well just go ahead and do it.
Q Well, he did it anyway.
MR. KIRBY: And we — and we did levy sanctions on him — heavy sanctions — not just us but around the world.
Number two, we mobilized support for Ukraine even before Mr. Putin decided to step across that line. And no country — no country has done more than the United States to make sure Ukraine is ready. So —
Q Well, why not do something —
MR. KIRBY: — let’s not —
Q — to prevent —
MR. KIRBY: Wait, wait. Jac- —
Q — this from happening?
MR. KIRBY: Jacqui, let me finish the second question, and then we’ll get your third one.
So, let’s not rewrite history. The United States didn’t sit idly by here. We’ve been Ukraine’s staunchest and most prolific supporter in terms of security assistance.
And as for the policy decision, the — the president remains and we all remain in direct contact with our Ukrainian counterparts. We’re talking to them over what the — what they need. As I said, we’ve just announced $800 million more, and there’ll be more coming in security assistance.
I just don’t have any policy changes to —
Q But why —
MR. KIRBY: — to speak to today.
Q Why would you not u- — put a restriction on the type of target that can be hit, rather than the distance from a border that obviously Russia doesn’t recognize? And you’ve got training happening with North Korean troops, I would assume, on the types of military installations that would be fair game if that decision was made.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, we’ll see —
Q That —
MR. KIRBY: We’ll see — we’ll see what the Russians and North Koreans decide to do here. As I said earlier, if these North Korean soldiers decide to join the fight against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, Jacqui. We got to go.
Aurelia.
Q Yeah. Thank you. John, would you still describe the Israeli operation in Lebanon as targeted?
MR. KIRBY: I’m sorry, I do-
Q Yeah. The Israeli strikes on Lebanon, would you still describe them as targeted?
MR. KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to get into scorecarding each and every strike that the Israelis take. I’ll just say a couple of things. They have a right to defend themselves. There are legitimate threats that Hezbollah still poses to the Israeli people. I mean, rockets and missiles are still being fired at Israeli cities.
So, let’s not forget what Hezbollah continues to be able to do. That’s number one.
Number two, we have said many, many times that we don’t support daily, you know, strikes into heavily populated areas, and that remains the case today. We still oppose, you know, daily strikes into densely populated areas —
Q But they still are coming — the strikes.
MR. KIRBY: — and we have had those conversations. Secretary Blinken has had that exact conversation when he was in Israel for the last couple of days. We’ll continue to press the Israelis on that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q Hi. So, the interest from the frozen assets, does it apply only to the European Union or also the U.S. assets?
MR. KIRBY: It is — it’s for all the frozen assets.
Q Also in the U.S.?
MR. KIRBY: I believe so. I believe so.
Q Because this morning, I heard Daleep Singh said just European Union, so I wasn’t sure.
MR. KIRBY: Okay. You know what? Let me take the question. When I — I can’t even balance my checkbook at home, so — (laughter).
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q Thank you. I wanted to ask about Kursk specifically with the North Korean troops in Russia. Russia and North Korea have this mutual security pact. If they were to use North Korean troops against Ukrainians in Kursk, would it be legitimate to try to reclaim sovereign territory, or would that be seen as an escalation in the war against Ukraine?
MR. KIRBY: Again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are right now and hypothesize what these troops may or may not be doing and, if the Russians are going to deploy them, where they’re going to deploy them, whether it’ll be inside Russia or inside Ukraine.
Let me just please go back to what I said before. If these North Korean troops are employed against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Janne, you have the last one.
Q Thank you very much. (Inaudible) questions.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, you’re about to jump out of your seat, so —
Q Thank — thank you, John.
MR. KIRBY: This — this seems like a fair day for Janne.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That’s true. Truly.
Q On same — same topic, on North Korea. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee recently sent a letter to President Biden requesting a briefing regarding the seriousness of North Korea’s troops deployment and the neglect of the Korean Peninsula issue. What is the White House’s response to this?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we’ll respond. We’ll respond as — as appropriate to the chairman, and we won’t do that from the podium here in the briefing room. We’ll do it appropriately with him and his staff.
I’ll just say — and hopefully my being here today and the — my statement at the top should reflect how seriously we’re taking this issue and how closely we’re going to monitor it. We recognize the potential danger here, and we’re going to be talking to allies and partners, including the Ukrainians, about what the proper next steps are going to be.
But as for our response to the chairman, I’ll let that stand in legislative channels.
Q Last quick one. Your colleague said at the State Department briefing that the United States does not reflect other countries’ intelligence analyses. So, what is your assessment of intelligence cooperation with allies at this —
MR. KIRBY: What — what did my colleague at the State Department say?
Q Said that — at the briefing that the United States does not reflect other countries’ intelligence analyses.
MR. KIRBY: About — about —
Q About the —
MR. KIRBY: — the North Korean troops?
Q Yeah, about the North Korean troops, so —
MR. KIRBY: I just shared with you — to- — today’s opening statement was a downgrade of U.S. intelligence of what — what we’re seeing. And I think you can see similarities between what I said today and what our South Korean counterparts have — have said. Ukrainian intelligence has — has released information very, very similar.
And again, we’re — you know, today isn’t the end of this conversation. It’s — it’s, quite frankly, the beginning of the conversation that we’re going to be having with allies and partners, including through the intelligence community.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thank you so much, Admiral.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Toluse.
Q Thanks, John.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. Sorry, guys. Give me one second.
Let’s let Toluse take — I know he’s been waiting patiently on the sides- — sideline.
We don’t have much time because I have to be in the Oval in about 20 minutes, but go ahead.
Q Can I ask about the McDonald’s outbreak, the E. coli outbreak?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q And this follows a couple of big ones that we’ve seen over the summer, including Boar’s Head. I think there’s another nationwide one. Is the president tracking this? And more importantly, how confident should Americans feel about the food supply right now?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I would say is the administration’s top priority — its top priority is to make sure that Americans are safe. And so, we are taking this very seriously. We’re monitoring the situation.
CDC, as it relates to McDonald’s specifically, is working to determine the source of the outbreak, as we speak abou- — as you asked me about the E. cola — E. coli outbreak. And so, what I would suggest is that families, they need to and they must follow the latest CDC guidance.
Obviously, we’re aware. The president is — is also aware. And going back to this particular outbreak with McDonald’s, I understand that the company has halted sales of product to protect customers, and CDC is certainly in touch with — with local authorities to — to prevent infection.
So, look, we’re always concerned when we hear these types of — these types of situations — right? — poten- — outbreaks. And so — and the president wants to make sure that the American people are safe. So, it is a — it is certainly a priority for us, and CDC is on top of this and looking into it.
Q And then just one more. Any reaction to Jill Stein asserting the U.S. and the UK have blocked a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I have not seen those reporting. I’m not going to respond to a — a political candidate in — for this — for this —
Q Well, it seems (inaudible) — it’s a factual thing that’s —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I have not even seen the — the comments that —
Q Okay.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — you are mentioning to me, so I — I can’t give you an honest response from here.
So, go ahead, M.J.
Q Karine, what did the president mean when he said last night, about Donald Trump, “We got to lock him up”?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, and I — the president spoke to — about this very clearly as well in his statement, and he — and he said he meant, “lock him out” politically — politically lock him out. That’s what he said, and that’s what we have to do. That was the part of his quote that he said last night while he was in — in New Hampshire.
Look, let’s not forget, this is a president that has not –never shied away from being very clear and laying down what is at stake in this election.
I’m going to be really m- — mindful in not speaking about 2024 election that’s just a — less than two weeks away.
But this is just speaking to what the president said last night. He made clear — he made very clear yesterday that he was referring to defeating — to defeating Donald Trump. That is what he was talking about. He said, politically — politically, lock him — lock him out. That is what he was referring to.
Q Well, he first said twice, “lock him up.” So, you’re saying —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And then — and —
Q — when he said “lock him up,” he meant, defeat Donald Trump?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, it’s not what saying. It’s what he said. He said —
Q Well, when —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — to the au- —
Q — he clarified.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wa- — wait.
Q But he initially said —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He — he — right.
Q — “lock him up.”
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Exactly, he clarified himself. He wanted to make sure that things were put into context. He wanted to make sure that it — while we are — you know, while not just New Hampshire folks that were there were going to see it but also the Americans who are watching and pay attention to what the president is saying. He wanted to put it into context. And he, himself — this is not me; this is the president himself going back to explain — to explain — to say that he was talking about politically — politically locking him out.
Q Is the president aware of John Kelly’s assertion that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fascist and that Trump wanted the kinds of generals Hitler had?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, you have heard from this president over and over again about the threats to democracy, and the president has spoken about that. You’ve heard from the former president himself saying that he is going to be a dictator on day one. This is him, not us. This is him.
And it’s not just all — it’s not just us, the White House, saying this. You’ve heard it from officials — former officials that worked for the former president say this as well.
So, you know, do we agree — I know that the — the vice president just spoke about this. Do we agree about that determination? Yes, we do. We do.
Let’s not forget — I will point you to January 6th. What we saw on January 6th: 2,000 people were told to go to the Capitol to undo a free and fair election by the former president. It was a dark, dark day in our democracy and a dangerous one. We have people who died because of what happened on January 6th. And, you know, we cannot forget that. We cannot forget that.
And so — and I will add — I will add this, that — and I can’t believe I even have to say this — but our nation’s veterans are heroes. They are heroes. They’re not losers or suckers; they are heroes.
And to be praising Adolf Hitler is dangerous, and it’s also disgusting.
Q So, just to be clear, when you said, “we do” agree, President Biden believes that Donald Trump is a fascist?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, yes, we have said — he said himself — the former president has said he is going to be a dictator on day one. We cannot ignore that. We cannot.
And we cannot ignore or forget what happened on January 6th, 2021. That is real. Real people were affected by this — law enforcement who were trying to protect — protect the Capitol, protect law — elected officials in the Capitol, congressional members, senators, House members. Their lives were ruined because of that day, because 2,000 people — again, 2,000 people were told by the former president to go there to find the former vice president to stop a free and fair election. That is what — that is what happened.
Some of you — some of your colleagues were there, reported it, and saw it for yourself.
We cannot forget that.
Go ahead.
Q Karine, I mean, you talk about the context of the president’s comments yesterday. I want to put them in the fuller context as well. The president went to New Hampshire to make a policy argument against Republicans on the issue of prescription drugs, but the majority — more of his comments yesterday were really some of the most dire warnings we’ve heard from this president yet about a return to a Donald Trump presidency and what it would mean — could mean for this country. He talked about world leaders pulling him aside, saying, “He can’t win.” He talked about the concern — what it would mean for future generations of America.
How concerned is the president about — at this point, about the state of the race? Is he worried that Trump is on a path to victory at this point?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, I’m not going to talk about the state of the race. You heard from the president. You just laid out very clearly about what the president talked about yesterday in New Hampshire. He laid out what his thoughts were. He laid out what the stakes are for this country, and this is somebody who cares, clearly, very deeply about the future of this country.
And so, I’m not going to get into what he thinks about this — the race in this current moment. That is not something that I’m here to do. I am not — I am no longer a political pundit. I am the White House press secretary. I speak for the president, but obviously I cannot speak to the 2024 election.
And you did talk about something else — right? — when you talked about what he went to do on the official side. And I would read you some quotes here — some headlines that we — that we saw in New Hampshire today from New Hampshire press, which I think is really important: “Biden, Sanders tout prescription drug cost-savings at New — New Hampshire event.” Another one, “Biden and Bernie Sanders highlight lower prescription drug costs in New Hampshire stop.” That is important.
The president wanted to go to New Hampshire to talk about what he and the vice president have been able to do in more than three and a half years: lowering prescription drugs, beating Big Pharma. He talked about the Inflation Reduction Act. By the way, no Republican voted for that. Now it is popular with Democrats and Republicans, and this is something that is going to change people’s lives.
And so, that’s what he was there for. He talked about — let’s not forget, what — what they’ve been — oth- — other things they’ve been able to do, whether it’s the bipartisan gun violence protection — being able to do that in a bipartisan way, and dealing with COVID that t- — put our economy in a downturn. And this president has been able to empower — powering the economy, and we are now leading as a country in the world when it comes to the economy.
So, I think he was able to do both things. I think he was able to speak his mind on — on the political, you know, nature of where we are right now, which he can — obviously, he spoke to. And I think people in New Hampshire got a sense of what the president is trying to do on behalf of them in talking about lowering costs. We saw that in — in the New Hampshire papers. So, it broke through, and I think that’s important.
Q You were with the president last week in Germany —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes.
Q — when he says he had these conversations with world leaders expressing their dire concern about the election here. What has been his response to those world leaders about that?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m not going to get into private diplomatic conversations, and I will just leave it there.
Q And then, I’ll ask you — we — NBC News is reporting that the vice president is likely to spend election night here in Washington, perhaps at her alma mater of Howard University. Do we have an understanding yet of where the president will be —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)
Q — and when — how he plans to vote?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: As soon as — you all know, we certainly will share that with all of you.
I will say is that the president is certainly looking forward to casting his ballot in Delaware. And so, once we have the full information on what his day is going to look like or what the last couple of days leading up to November 5th will look like, we certainly will share that with all of you.
Go ahead.
Q Since we’re talking about scheduling, it is traditional for the president to hold a press conference after —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh boy. I knew that was coming. (Laughter.)
Q Can’t stop. Won’t stop.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You were- — you weren’t here for the — the drop-by. Were you here for the drop-by?
Q Yes, I was.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh. It was great.
Q It was great. We’d love to see him again.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q So, the — and —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And you know what? He had a really good time. He enjoyed — he enjoyed it.
Q So, just an —
Q Come on back. (Laughter.)
Q — open invitation for the president to follow tradition and do a press conference after the election, which I think —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I —
Q — is standard and important.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I totally hear that, Tam, and I know it is a tradition.
I — I don’t want to get ahead of what the schedule is going to look like. As we know, in less than two weeks, we will have an important election. Obviously, I’m not speaking about that election specifically, but we want to share — we will share more as we get closer. And we — we certainly are tracking that tradition, and we’ll certainly have more to share.
Q Are we going to see him with the vice president much in the next couple of weeks?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I — I know you all have asked this question of him. You’ve asked this question of me. They have, as you know, campaigned together. They’ve done official events together in the past just couple of weeks.
They speak regularly. And — and I would say the president — you’ve heard the president just, you know, tout how proud and how he thinks she will be a great leader on day one, which is –he also said in 2020, which is why he chose her as his running mate, and he has said as well, this was the best decision that he’s made. And understands that she’s going to cut her own path. Said this himself just last week when he was in — in Philadelphia.
Don’t have anything to share, again, on the schedule. I know this is all part of a scheduling question, and we certainly will have more to share as the days — as the days — as you know, I mean, one day is like an eternity in — in this space, as you know. (Laughs.) And so, less than two weeks is — feels like so far away. So, we will have more to share, for sure.
Go ahead, Selina.
Q I just want to follow up on M.J.’s question.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q So, did the president actually read former Marine General Kelly’s comments or listen to them? And did you —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —
Q — do you know how he reacted after doing so?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — I mean, look, I just gave a really good — I think a good sense of the — what the president has said about our reaction here from the White House. The president is aware of John Kelly’s comments. And I gave you a reaction as part of the — as — as the president’s White House press secretary. And what I’m saying to you today is something that the president has said over and over and over again and repeated.
And let’s not forget the words that we have heard from the former president. And it matters here, because we’re talking about our democracy. We’re talking about what’s at stake here with our democracy. And when you have a former president saying that they will be a dictator on day one, that is something that we cannot forget.
And so, you know, the president has spoke- — spoken about this and given speeches on this. And that’s why I continue to point to January 6th, 2020 — -21 — 2021, because it was — it’s something that we cannot forget, a dark day on our democracy — a dark day on our democracy, because of what was — what — what occurred — what occurred.
Q Was the president surprised by any of the comments from Kelly?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. I mean, again, the president has made comments and spoken about this over and over again. So, no. I will say no.
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Karine. Elon Musk has been, you know, campaigning with former President Donald Trump, and he is offering $1 million to voters. I just was wondering: Has the president expressed any concern to, you know, this interference by Elon Musk? And I don’t know if he — you know, his — the administration maybe has any plans or has discussed maybe how to sort of maybe move forward with what’s El- — Elon Musk is doing with — with the $1 million.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on — on this particular question, I’m going to have to refer you to the FEC. I just have to be — that one, I — I — that’s a place that I’m going to have to refer you. I can’t speak to it beyond that.
Q But has the president mentioned it at all, Elon Musk or —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s aware of it. He’s aware of it. That I can tell you. I just can’t speak to it beyond that. I have to refer you to the FEC.
Go ahead, Jared.
Q You talk and you’ve taken questions today, and obviously throughout the — the presidency, President Biden has talked a lot about democratic institutions. I’m just curious if between now and Election Day, the president is going to speak sort of more broadly about the confidence in the votes being counted accurately.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, the president has talk — talked about this. He believes in our institution. He believes in — in — this will be a free and fair election. He’s talked about this. We have to give the American people, who some of them are voting right now — to make sure that they have the confidence in their vote and how important it is to cast their vote.
I’m not going to go beyond that, but I think the president has been very clear about that.
Q But you don’t — should we talk about schedules or something? (Laughs.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q Is there, like, a big sort of — because he’s done these types of addresses on issues like this before.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I —
Q So, I’m just curious if, like, this is a time that he would do that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, no, I hear you. And I hear you’re talking about the moment that we’re in and if the president is going to speak about it in a more formal way — in remarks, in a speech.
I don’t have anything to share with you, but he’s been very clear about having the confidence in our institutions, and so I’ll leave it there.
Go ahead.
Q I just want to ask you briefly about congressional outreach for the $10 billion that would be military aid. Has the White House started that process, reaching out to members of Congress to get their buy-in to kind of help expedite this process?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we’re in regular touch with congressional members about any type of initiative that we’re trying to push through, especially if it involves Congress, obviously.
I don’t have anything to read out to you at this time, but we are in regular conversation about a myriad of things when it comes to legislation, things that we’re trying to push forward. Again, certainly that is important to the American people. I just don’t have anything to share at this time.
Q Just a quick —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — 2024 question. You said the president is going to vote. It’s a scheduling question.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q Will he vote ear- —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You guys are very into schedules today.
Q Yeah, we’re — we’re into this. We’re into this.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I know. Into th- —
Q Will he vote early? Early voting —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — into the POTUS schedule.
Q Early voting starts in Delaware, obviously, this week, and will he go early, before Election Day?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — as — as soon as we have something to share, I will certainly share that.
Q Final try.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I appreciate the effort here. The president — I can say for sure the president is looking forward to casting his ballot. And when we have more to share about his schedule — I mean, we’re not — we’re — the president can’t not just go vote and not tel- — for you guys not to know, right? So, you guys follow him wherever he is, which is good —
Q Thanks.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — which is a good thing. (Laughs.)
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Karine. The former president described the vice president as “lazy as hell” yesterday. She had a day when she was not on the campaign trail. I was going to give you an opportunity to respond to that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I would check the source. Pay real close attention to who’s saying that. That’s all I’ll say.
Q Okay. Another question about the vice president’s interview with NBC. She talked — she was asked about whether there should be any concessions on the issue of abortion and the situation —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Wait, say that one more time.
Q She was asked whether or not there should be concessions on the issue of abortion — the scenario being a potential divided government like we have now — whether or not she would be willing to offer concessions, things like religious freedom, on the issue of abortion. And I wanted to see if —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Meaning like on- — once she’s in office?
Q Yes.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, look, I’m not going to — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. It’s not — that is something that certainly, you know, when she be — when she is in office and becomes pre- — and all of the things happen — I’m not going to get into hypotheticals — she’s going to make her own decisions and decide what’s best for the American people. I can’t speak to that at this time. Not going to get into hypotheticals.
What you know and what you have seen from this president and this vice president is their commitment to continue to fight for women’s rights and continue to call on Congress to — to — you know, to reinstate Roe v. Wade, make sure that legislation is put out there, voted on. And so, he would sign that, obviously, if that were to happen.
And so, that is what they — he — they both have asked for. That is what we’ve been saying during this administration. And she has been, obviously, a passionate fighter on that issue, understanding what this means to women, understanding what this means to people’s rights and freedoms, and so has this president.
And so that’s what we’re — you’re going to continue to see. You just — you just heard us — I forget all the days — all the days come together — recently talk about how we’re expanding in the ACA for contraception, because understanding how that — how important that is to women and families, or — or women and Americans who are trying to make decisions on their family or how to move forward, and they should have that right — and so — and that freedom.
And so, again, that action shows you the commitment from the — and I hope the American people — from the Biden-Harris administration.
What she’s going to do next, how she’s going to govern, that’s not for me to say.
Q Another question from the interview. She was asked whether or not sexism would come into play in this election. She said, “I don’t think of it that way.” Obviously, the former president, Barack Obama, said that he did believe that sexism was coming into play in this election. What does the president think about (inaudible)?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’ll say this. Clearly, the vice president spoke to this, and this is her campaign, and she sees — she’s going to say how she sees things.
The president has always said and will continue to say that she is ready to lead on day one. And you don’t have to just look at her record with him as a critical partner over the last more than three and a half years as vice president, but as senator, as attorney general, as district attorney, she is someone that has always fought for Americans, fought for people, whether it is citizens in California or more broadly, obviously.
And I think that’s what the American people — I know that’s what the American people want to see. They want to see a fighter. And that’s what the president sees in her.
And, again, just look at what we’ve been able to do in the more than three and a half years when it comes to trying to beat back COVID and make sure that we all could come together in this room again without masks and make sure there was a strategy to deal with this pandemic; turn the economy around because of this pandemic; make sure that, you know, schools were open, businesses were open. Now we have a record number of people applying to open up small businesses.
They’re doing that because they believe that the economy is working for them. Nobody wants to open a small business if they don’t think the economy is working — is — is working for them.
Now, there’s always a lot more work to be done, and we’re going to continue to do that work. You saw what the president did with Senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire — in Concord, New Hampshire, answering and lay- — and laying out what the — what the Inflation Reduction Act has been able to do, saving people a billion dollars because of that Inflation Reduction Act — which, I may add, Republicans did not vote for. They did not vote for it.
I know I have to get — I’m getting the pull here.
Go ahead, Jon.
Q Thanks a lot, Karine. What’s the level of concern that the administration has about election interference, specifically from Russia?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we spoke to that. We’ve laid out — we made an — an announcement on what we were seeing from Russia on election interference. We sent a very clear message on that just a couple of weeks ago. So, obviously, that is something that continues to be a concern. We will speak loud and clear about that, as we did just a couple of weeks ago.
But we also want Americans to know th- — to trust the institution, and that’s what the president is going to continue to say and — and — and also continue to lay out the stakes — what’s at stakes.
Okay. Thanks, everybody. Hopefully, see you on the road.
2:30 P.M. EDT
Source: United States Navy
Introduction/Thank You
Good afternoon, everyone!
It is wonderful to be with you at Georgia Tech Research Institute, the future of engineering, science, and technology.
President Cabrera, thank you for your leadership of the students here at Georgia Tech, the future scientists, engineers, innovators, and problem-solvers of our country.
Dr. Hudgens, thank you for your leadership and vision for the Georgia Tech Research Institute, and all that you are doing to advance our national security interests.
I thank the future Navy and Marine Corps Officers from the NROTC consortium here with us today.
Thank you for answering the call to service—for choosing a path both challenging and difficult. I look forward to you joining our Fleet and Force.
To all of our Georgia Tech faculty and students, distinguished visitors, and guests—welcome, and thank you for your time today.
World Today
As you have read in the news, we face challenges in every corner of the world—from the Indo-Pacific, to Europe, to the Red Sea.
In Europe, we are approaching the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale and illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine is fighting not only for their own liberty and freedom—they are fighting to protect democracy in Europe and indeed around the world.
We proudly stand beside them in support for their just and noble cause.
For the first time since World War II, we face a comprehensive maritime power—our pacing challenge—in the Indo-Pacific.
The People’s Republic of China continues to exert its excessive maritime claims through their navy, coast guard, and maritime militia.
In the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, we have been working tirelessly alongside our NATO allies and Middle Eastern partners to protect innocent civilian mariners and commercial shipping from Iranian-aligned Houthi attacks.
Following the October 7th attacks in Israel one year ago, our Navy and Marine Corps were swiftly deployed to the region, forming an integrated force capable of responding to any threat.
Carrier Air Wing Three, our “Battle Axe,” played a pivotal role in protecting civilian mariners, deploying over sixty air-to-air missiles and over 420 air-to-surface weapons.
We mourn the loss of two trailblazing, combat-decorated naval aviators from Carrier Air Wing Three who passed away during a training event last week: Lieutenant Commander Lyndsay “Miley” Evans and Lieutenant Serena “Dug” Wileman.
Their sacrifice reminds us that what we ask of our Sailors and Marines is anything but routine.
And our hearts go out to the families and friends of these brave and selfless warfighters.
The Bataan Amphibious Ready Group, with the embarked 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, made significant contributions in the region by deterring hostile Houthi attacks and preventing the conflict from escalating throughout the region.
Our warships—including the Carney, Mason, Gravely, Laboon, Eisenhower, and Thomas Hudner—have demonstrated exceptional performance under fire, successfully deterring and defeating missile and drone attacks targeting innocent maritime shipping.
Two of our highly capable destroyers, the USS Cole (DDG 67)—a warship which carries a proud legacy of standing tall to acts of terrorism—and the USS Bulkeley (DDG 84)—which will always have a special place in my naval carer as her first Commanding Officer—aided our Israeli allies in shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles.
I am incredibly proud of the professionalism, dedication, and resilience shown by our Cole and Bulkeley Sailors.
These brave young men and women illustrate the consistent excellence and effectiveness expected of our United States Navy.
Our Navy-Marine Corps Team remains at the center of global and national security—maintaining freedom of the seas, international security, and global stability.
DON Innovation Initiatives
To win the fight of the future, we must embrace and implement emerging technologies.
We stand on the shoulders of giants in innovation.
And delivering technology which changes the very nature of warfighting is in our DNA.
A little over a year ago, I stood in the courtyard of the Pentagon to celebrate the 100-year anniversary of the Naval Research Lab—the place that invented radar, GPS, and the first satellite tracking system—and a place I worked at as a young lieutenant commander.
At that time, I challenged the research, engineering, and technology developers of today to take their place in the company of those innovation giants.
I challenged my team to innovate at the speed of relevance to deliver concepts of operations and capabilities which bolster deterrence and expand our warfighting advantage.
I challenged my Chief of Naval Research to align the Office of Naval Research’s investment in science and technology research—including the research conducted here at Georgia Tech—with each effort aimed at addressing issues we face as a maritime nation.
Within three months of my challenge to the Chief of Naval Research, he delivered.
Our new Naval Science and Technology Strategy now drives our Navy and Marine Corps’ innovation investments in science and technology research during this decisive period.
This strategy is a global call to service for scientists, engineers, inventors, and innovators from academia, industry, and government to work with us in solving naval problems to ensure our freedom and way of life.
And the Georgia Tech Research Institute has answered this call.
During this past fiscal year, ONR completed 22 grants here at GTRI worth $23.6 million, and Georgia Tech currently has 72 active contracts and grants with the Navy worth $216 million.
These ONR grants support research and development of technology in cyber, AI and autonomy, materials and electronics, as well as ocean, atmosphere, and space—focus areas in our Naval S&T Strategy.
Service to our national security is indeed the engine of GTRI.
Another critical investment we have made as a result of our strategic change is the establishment of the Naval Innovation Center at the Naval Postgraduate School.
The NIC will enhance and accelerate the innovation process at NPS by driving “ideas to impact,” bringing research concepts out of the lab and into the field faster by empowering students and partners across the entire Naval Research and Development Establishment to work with the Naval innovation ecosystem and industry—in a whole-of-Navy approach—to speed the delivery of warfighting advantages to our Naval forces.
Furthermore, we are supporting the construction of a purposefully-designed facility to house the NIC at the Naval Postgraduate School, providing a space for collaboration, defense-focused experimentation, and demonstration of operational use cases to ensure the right technology is evolving.
S&T Board One Year Update
Last fall, I also announced the establishment of the Department of the Navy’s Science and Technology Board, with the intent that the board provide independent advice and counsel to the Department on matters and policies relating to scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition, logistics, medicine, and business management functions.
Our Science and Technology Board just completed its inaugural year.
Under the expert leadership of former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, this impressive group of thought leaders with expertise in government, industry, and academia has completed an ambitious research agenda to identify new technologies for rapid adoption.
Since I signed out the Board’s initial tasking in February, they have achieved the impressive feat of undertaking and concluding six studies, delivering near term, practical recommendations, that the Department of the Navy can quickly implement.
I have accepted recommendation reports from the Board and issued implementation guidance related to the path forward on unmanned systems, improving sailor physical and mental health, mission assurance of digital infrastructure, and capitalizing on opportunities for additive manufacturing.
In fact, Georgia Tech’s own Chief Manufacturing Officer and Manufacturing Institute Executive Director Dr. Tom Kurfess, lent his breadth and depth of expertise in leading a study on additive manufacturing which I accepted last month.
It is a testament to the Board’s energy and dedication, that it is already embarking on additional projects to keep our Navy at the leading edge of technology and innovation.
Innovation Closer to the Fight
Similar to the focus of our S&T Board of Advisors, who are looking at today’s problems and ways that technology can provide new ways to tackle our operational challenges, I chartered a Disruptive Capabilities Office last January to look at already-available or emerging technology to address the Fleet’s capability gaps.
And they have delivered.
DCO identified meaty organizational, doctrinal, and technological advancements that the Navy has implemented, within six months, to close an emergent warfighting gap in Counter-UAS base defense for the CENTCOM area of responsibility.
DCO is also leading an effort to combine innovative commercial space-enabled capabilities in coordination with the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and other governmental agencies to enhance Maritime Domain Awareness for the Department of the Navy along with our allies and partners.
Replicator and Capability-Based Delivery
My call to innovation has also put more “ready players on the field” as we look to grow force structure in the near term.
In the last twelve months, I have fielded varying sizes of unmanned surface vessels into the hands of our operators for use in experimentation, CONOP development, and for operation.
We are expanding our systems to include not only homogeneous but also heterogeneous collaborative autonomy.
I am extremely proud of my team’s leadership in this domain, to include our leadership in identifying and quickly procuring the capabilities that support Deputy Secretary of Defense Hicks’s “Replicator” initiative.
It is no accident that four of the five selected “Replicator” systems came out of the Department of the Navy’s innovation ecosystem.
And over the last year, our Department has expended more missiles than we have since the Second World War.
My Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems has been at the forefront of this fight.
Last year, I challenged that office to operate and field its systems as a “portfolio of capabilities”—and they have delivered.
The IWS RCO has been working hand-in-hand with our operators in the fight in the Red Sea to deliver innovations, in near-real time, as we continue to innovate—at speed.
Call to Action/Closing
I am extremely proud of everything our department has accomplished over the last three years, and I am excited for our Navy-Marine Corps team as we chart a course for the future—a future that will require us to respond and adapt to whatever geopolitical challenges our Nation may face.
To those Georgia Tech, Spellman, and Morehouse College students who are not affiliated with the NROTC program—if anything that I said today interests you, I encourage you to speak with me or a member of my staff to learn more about how you can join our team in the Navy or Marine Corps.
Service in the Navy and Marine Corps is more than just a job—it represents a chance to serve and become something much bigger than yourself.
And the Department of the Navy also provides numerous opportunities for public service beyond serving in uniform—we need engineers, scientists, and analysts in our Department.
As our Department continues to re-imagine and refocus our innovation efforts, I encourage all of you—our nation’s scientists, engineers, researchers, and inventors—to join us.
No matter how you serve, you’ll be part of a team working together toward a shared goal.
We are indeed in an innovation race—and it is one we must win.
Innovation must permeate every aspect of our Department’s approach to deliver technologies and capabilities at a speed and scale necessary for our Navy and Marine Corps to confront the challenges of today and the future.
Thank you all for your commitment to the Department of the Navy, the maritime services, and indeed our Nation.
May God continue to bless our Sailors, Marines, Civilians, and their families stationed around the globe with fair winds and following seas.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham
US Navy: Projecting Strength and Building the Fleet of Tomorrow
By Senator Lindsey Graham and Morgan Ortagus
Fox News
October 23, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/us-navy-projecting-strength-and-building-fleet-tomorrow
It’s time for all Americans to grasp a hard truth: in a world that may be on the brink of World War III, our military budgets are inconsistent with the threats we face. This is especially the case with the budget of the Department of the Navy.
The bad news: the current Navy budget will not make a stronger military or a larger U.S. fleet a reality. The good news: through American innovation and more agile products, we can build a bigger and more efficient Navy.
However, President Biden’s proposed FY2025 budget of $257.6 billion for the Department of the Navy is well below inflation and does not provide for a more lethal Navy.
As both President Biden and President Trump certified, the most direct challenge facing the U.S. Navy today is from the People’s Republic of China. Therefore, strong investments must be made now to ensure the Navy, and most importantly the United States, can meet this threat head-on.
It comes as no shock to the reader that America and its allies and partners are facing an unprecedented deluge of maritime threats by the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese Navy alone has provoked a U.S. destroyer in the Taiwan Strait with dangerous maneuvers, harassed Taiwan with aggressive military exercises, entered America’s Exclusive Economic Zone in the Bering Sea, developed a jam-resistant submarine torpedo, and injured several Filipino sailors at and around Second Thomas Shoal.
These developments incrementally set the conditions for a direct conflict on the open seas. Meanwhile, Washington has been lulled into complacency by decades of maritime supremacy. Most concerning, the United States lacks the political resolve to shed the Navy’s Soviet-era mentality and adapt to the new era of great power competition.
To meet the moment’s maritime threats, America must choose between tough and tougher: make significant investments in our fleet or face the costs of inaction.
Section One: Expanding U.S. Shipbuilding Capacity and Cooperation with Allies
Our shipbuilding industrial base is grappling with significant delays and challenges, affecting major programs like the Columbia-class submarines, Constellation-class frigates, and Ford-class carriers. These delays are not only impacting the procurement of new ships, they are also impacting the ability to maintain the current fleet.
A great first step to combating the maritime threats our nation faces is to expand the physical footprint of the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
The U.S. shipbuilding industry is first in its class and the men and women that come to work every day in our nation’s shipyards build the world’s most lethal and capable warships. In states like South Carolina, there are a wealth of maritime industry suppliers and shipbuilders diligently producing the necessary components to construct our nation’s ships.
But that alone is not enough. China’s Bohai Shipyard boasts an annual capacity exceeding the total number of ships our Navy has launched since 2014.
In addition, China is rapidly expanding its existing shipyards and according to experts “has been investing so much in shipbuilding over the past 18 years that it can now build more ships in a month than the United States can in a year.”
By comparison, America only has four public shipyards and these yards focus on maintenance of submarines and aircraft carriers and not the construction of new vessels.
The Department of the Navy should look at states like South Carolina to build new shipyards to maximize the U.S. shipbuilding capacity and our maritime industry.
In addition, the Navy must expand maintenance capacity here in the states as well as in the Pacific. The U.S. Navy has already decided to augment its capacity by placing a submarine maintenance facility in Guam. This should be replicated for other vessels elsewhere.
It is clear that the need for more shipbuilding capacity is great and immediate. Investing here at home will certainly help address the need. At the same time, our nation should also not discount opportunities to work with others when the opportunity presents itself.
The U.S. Navy cannot afford to leave any stone unturned when thinking of innovative ways to grow the fleet as quickly as possible.
Section Two: Fleet Requirements and Capabilities
A fundamental step toward a 21st-century U.S. Navy is improving both the size and modernity of our existing fleet. The fleet currently consists of carriers, surface combatants, submarines, amphibious warships, combat logistics ships, fleet support vessels and mine warfare assets.
Yet this fleet is hardly agile or scalable enough to meet a Chinese maritime threat that includes drones, hypersonic missiles and other high-tech tools of warcraft.
Persistent gaps also remain in amphibious warfare and in contested logistics. Amphibious combat vehicles, landing vessels, and light warships are all needed in higher quantities for rapid and effective landings.
Unmanned and underwater systems are especially relevant to modern naval operations. Often at a fraction of the cost of manned vessels, these vessels – both large and small – perform intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance missions, logistics and strike operations.
They also relieve pressure on our high-demand, low-density assets while augmenting the fleet. The proof is in their success in Ukraine, where naval drones have successfully countered Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, forcing them into safe harbors and destroying dozens of Russian vessels.
In addition to their combat roles, unmanned systems are revolutionizing naval logistics. Unmanned logistics platforms can autonomously deliver supplies, ammunition, and fuel to forward-deployed forces, significantly extending the operational reach of our fleet.
These systems reduce the need for manned resupply missions, which are often vulnerable to enemy attacks, thereby enhancing the safety and efficiency of our operations. By integrating unmanned logistics into our naval strategy, we can maintain sustained operations in contested environments, ensuring our forces remain equipped and ready for extended engagements.
A possible way to advance the construction of these unmanned vessels is through an international partnership. Such a partnership could be modeled after the trilateral security partnership between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia (AUKUS) for submarine production in Australia. An AUKUS-like agreement for unmanned systems could create a new pathway for faster construction of these unmanned platforms and increase the integration between partners.
China’s naval power is growing at an alarming rate, with close to 400 ships currently in service and projections of 435 by 2030. The impact of this expansion is worsened by our diminishing technology gap, as China advances its naval technology while the U.S. Navy struggles to build ships.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy’s latest shipbuilding assessment calls for 381 battle force ships (carriers, destroyers, amphibious ships, submarines, etc.) and 134 unmanned vehicles, totaling 515 vessels.
While it is great to have a roadmap, the U.S. Navy’s own shipbuilding plan projects that we would not reach 381 battle force ships until 2043 under the best scenario. This delay poses an unacceptable risk to our national security and could force our sailors into a fight they are underequipped to win.
To avoid that scenario and reduce the exposure of manned ships to enemy attacks, we must expedite shipbuilding with a focus on unmanned surface and subsurface systems that are affordable and quick to produce. America does not have to win a shipbuilding foot race, but we must strategically invest in both the capabilities and capacities to counter China’s growing maritime capabilities and protect our interests.
Section Three: Funding the Department of the Navy
The U.S. military budget is woefully underfunded for the threats our nation faces today. The U.S. is on target to spend only 3.1% of total GDP on defense in Fiscal Year 2025 and that percentage is projected to fall to a paltry 2.4% in 2034 under the Biden-Harris budget plan.
Budgetary “business as usual” will only widen the gap between U.S. and Chinese naval capabilities. With China’s defense budget growing in both size and sophistication, it is imperative the United States make greater, and smarter, investments of our own.
Increasing funding for the Navy’s ship procurement, known as the Shipbuilding and Conversion account, alone will not be enough. In order to address the shipbuilding problem, Congress should consider a comprehensive approach that includes strong and consistent funding across procurement, operations and maintenance, research and development, personnel and military construction accounts.
In order to do this, Congress will need to think outside the box as the current budgetary restraints limit the needed investments. Congress should form a “Fleet Investment Fund” – codifying the Navy’s entire budget growth at least 5% above inflation and more than the department’s topline request – covering all aspects of naval development and readiness.
Most importantly, this account should not be subject to any caps or restrictions within the president’s budget request to Congress each fiscal year. The formation of this account must be seen as a national imperative.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the costs of these investments are great and will require tradeoffs and significant political capital, but the costs of inaction will be far greater. History demonstrates that adversaries are emboldened by America’s hesitation and deterred by its resolve. History proves that the U.S. Navy can adapt to evolving defense needs.
Since 1945, America has served as the global guarantor of open seas and freedom of navigation in contested waterways and critical trade routes. President Theodore Roosevelt stated before Congress in 1902 that “a good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace.”
Morgan Ortagus is the founder of Polaris National Security and formerly served as the spokesperson for the U.S. State Department under President Trump.
Republican Lindsey Graham represents South Carolina in the United States Senate.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
View Kennedy’s remarks here.
MADISONVILLE, La. – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today released this statement and sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken raising national security concerns over China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region, and specifically the threat to the Chagos Archipelago, where a key U.S. Navy support facility currently operates on the island of Diego Garcia.
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom reached a deal to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius while allowing the U.S. Navy’s Diego Garcia facility to operate for the next 99 years.
“As you know, the Chagos Archipelago, specifically Diego Garcia, is of particular strategic significance to U.S. national security and our ability to maintain stability and project power in the region. The decision to give up the islands is dangerous and irresponsible, especially in the face of China’s increasing aggression,” Kennedy wrote.
“The presence of the U.S. military on Diego Garcia is a vital component of our defense posture in the Indo-Pacific. With the transfer of control to Mauritius, I am concerned about our ability to maintain the integrity of our operations in the region. Chinese ambitions, particularly their strategic interest in expanding influence over critical maritime chokepoints and naval installations, present a clear and present threat to regional stability. We are all but guaranteed to see an increase in nefarious Chinese behavior around Diego Garcia following what has become a familiar playbook—Chinese fishing boats conducting surveillance, and debt trap diplomacy to ensure Chinese control of critical infrastructure,” he continued.
“Given the evolving geopolitical landscape, America must act proactively to secure this region from external influences that could jeopardize a free and open Indo-Pacific,” Kennedy concluded.
Kennedy’s full statement is available here.
The full letter is available here.
.svg){kind=link}
