Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jerrold Nadler (10th District of New York)
WASHINGTON, DC — This afternoon, after Republicans tried to hide the cruelty of their agenda by debating the bill in the dead of night, I proudly cast my vote against Donald Trump’s Big Ugly Bill—because no one should be forced to lose health care, go hungry, or see their child priced out of college in order to fund permanent tax cuts for Republican donors and the ultra-wealthy.
This bill is a historic betrayal of working Americans. It delivers the largest transfer of wealth from low-income families to the ultra-rich in our nation’s history, slashing incomes for the bottom sixty percent of earners while adding $4 trillion to the deficit, the largest increase ever passed by Congress. Republicans claim this was their only chance to extend tax cuts for the middle class. That’s false. They could have done it without gutting health care and food aid, and without adding to the deficit, if they had the courage to ask billionaires to pay their fair share.
It strips health care from over 17 million people, including 1.5 million New Yorkers, as part of $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts nationwide. In New York alone, hospitals are projected to lose over $8 billion in funding, forcing closures, service reductions, and the elimination of programs for children, seniors, and people with chronic illnesses. Nursing homes and community health centers face similar threats. The bill also attacks reproductive freedom by blocking Medicaid patients from accessing care at Planned Parenthood health centers, cutting off cancer screenings, contraception, STI testing, and preventive care for millions who have nowhere else to turn. It also functions as a backdoor abortion ban, threatening to shut down one in four abortion providers nationwide. By some estimates, it could also result in more than $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.
It slashes $2.1 billion a year from New York State and local governments by shifting SNAP costs onto them, gutting food aid for 300,000 households across our state. Families already struggling to afford groceries will see their benefits cut by an average of $220 per month, slashing support to less than $5 per day. One in seven New Yorkers relies on SNAP. And by stripping that funding, the bill threatens access to free and reduced-price school meals, forcing more children to learn on an empty stomach.
It doesn’t stop there. The bill ends Pell Grants for 1.4 million students, eliminates income-driven repayment, and caps student borrowing, effectively slamming the door on higher education for students who can’t pay upfront. Medicaid cuts will also force states to raid education budgets just to keep health systems afloat. Campuses will close. Students will drop out. Our country needs more nurses, teachers, and engineers, not fewer. But this bill will shrink our skilled workforce and leave the U.S. less competitive in the global economy.
It also decimates our clean energy economy, tearing up solar and wind projects, repealing tax credits, and eliminating key climate protections. It hands public lands back to Big Oil and halts progress toward energy independence. Experts warn it could cost 840,000 clean energy jobs in just five years. And families will pay the price. In New York alone, household energy bills will rise by $1.3 billion annually by 2030, $2.5 billion by 2035, and $12 billion over the life of the bill.
Meanwhile, Republicans are spending $170 billion to ramp up family detention, mass deportations, and border militarization, giving ICE a bigger budget than the entire Canadian military. It’s unconscionable to spend billions expanding ICE’s surveillance and detention machine while slashing school lunches for children and ripping Medicaid away from cancer patients.
Even the few crumbs Republicans offered to working families, like temporary SALT relief and short-term tax breaks on tips and overtime, expire after just four years. Yet the tax cuts for billionaires are permanent. Republicans continue to tout these short-term provisions as evidence they’re helping the middle class, but every so-called benefit for working Americans disappears quickly, while every giveaway to the ultra-wealthy is forever. And here’s the kicker: if Republicans had done nothing at all, the SALT cap would have expired this December. Instead, they passed a bill that leaves New Yorkers worse off.
For months, I’ve been fighting this bill and listening to New Yorkers and people across the country who will suffer because of it. And behind these numbers are real lives. Patricia, 83 years old, lives in poverty in New York and relies on Medicaid just to get to her doctor. She told me, “I have no transportation other than help from Medicaid. I also live on only my Social Security and SNAP. If I lose this precious help, I will be homeless and surely die.” That’s the real cost of these cuts. I think of the father who told me he may have to sell his house to afford chemo for his child. I think of the senior who rationed insulin last winter to keep the heat on. This awful bill makes the rich richer and leaves everyone else behind.
And to my Republican colleagues: come November 2026, you’ll have to answer for this vote. You’ll have to explain to the families who lost their health care, to the parents who lost child care, and to the students who lost their futures why you turned your backs when they needed you most. Because when hospitals close, when grocery bills spike, when classrooms empty and jobs disappear, your constituents will remember exactly who was responsible.
I voted no because I came to Congress to fight for the people I serve, not to sell them out to further enrich the ultra-wealthy. And I will do everything in my power to shield New Yorkers from the harm this bill threatens to unleash, from pushing back against these cuts to working with local leaders to protect access to health care, food, education, and opportunity. New Yorkers deserve better. The American people deserve better. And I will never stop fighting to deliver for them.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Suzan DelBene (1st District of Washington)
Republican Megabill Betrays American Families
Bill raises health care, food, energy costs while increasing debt by $4 trillion
Washington, D.C., July 3, 2025
Today, Congresswoman Suzan DelBene (WA-01) released the following statement after voting against the Republican budget legislation.
“Republicans made one fundamental promise to Americans – they would lower costs, and this big, ugly bill is the ultimate betrayal of that promise. It will make America more expensive by taking away health coverage, increasing hunger, and raising energy bills for millions of households. Lives and livelihoods will be put at risk because of the dangerous health care cuts in this legislation. The most outrageous and immoral part is that this is all so billionaires and large corporations can get yet another massive tax break.
“It is clear who Republicans stand with, and it is not working families. Republicans know full well the consequences of this bill, but at every opportunity to show courage and stand up for their constituents, they always fall in line behind Donald Trump.”
Impacts of Legislation
Medicaid and ACA Coverage: Nearly 17 million Americans would lose Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplace health coverage, including nearly 330,000 Washingtonians.
Medicare: Triggers over $500 billion in automatic Medicare cuts due to the huge cost of the bill.
Abortion: Prohibits funding for plans that cover abortion services on ACA health marketplaces, including state-based exchanges like the Washington Health Benefits Exchange. The bill also prohibits Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding, further limiting access to health services like cancer screenings and annual physicals.
Food Assistance: $300 billion would be cut from food assistance programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which covers over 880,000 Washingtonians.
Energy Bills: Increases energy bills by more than $110 per year on average by repealing cost-saving clean energy tax credits.
Child Tax Credit: 22 million children would be left out of receiving the full Child Tax Credit because of Republican income requirements, including over 400,000 kids in Washington, while wealthier families receive the full benefit.
Cost: Estimated to add over $4 trillion to the national debt.
Positioning natural gas at the center of its growth strategy, independent oil and gas company Perenco is driving one of Central Africa’s most ambitious energy developments through the Cap Lopez LNG terminal in Gabon – a flagship project set to come online in 2026. Situated at the existing Cap Lopez oil terminal, the $2 billion initiative will introduce a floating LNG (FLNG) vessel designed to monetize the country’s offshore gas reserves and reduce gas flaring. Following completion, the project is expected to serve as a catalyst for energy diversification and broader economic growth in the country.
Marking Gabon’s first large-scale gas development following a final investment decision in 2024, the project signals a major step forward for regional energy security and industrialization. Currently under construction in Dubai, the FLNG unit will boast a production capacity of 700,000 tons of LNG and 25,000 tons of LPG annually, supported by storage infrastructure capable of holding 137,000 cubic meters. In support of this venture, engineering and construction company Technomak recently signed an agreement with Dixstone – a Perenco affiliate – for the integration of the offshore FLNG barge. Perenco is a Gold Partner at this year’s African Energy Week (AEW): Invest in African Energies in Cape Town.
AEW: Invest in African Energies is the platform of choice for project operators, financiers, technology providers and government, and has emerged as the official place to sign deals in African energy. Visitwww.AECWeek.comfor more information about this exciting event.
The project forms part of a broader energy strategy being implemented by Perenco in Africa. In the Republic of Congo, the company continues to expand its upstream footprint with the commissioning of the Kombi 2 platform on the Kombi-Likalala-Libondo II permit. Currently under construction by Dixstone at the Nieuwdorp shipyard in the Netherlands, the platform is scheduled to depart in October and enter into operation offshore Pointe-Noire by early next year. With an estimated investment exceeding $200 million – and forming part of broader developments nearing $900 million – the project includes new drilling phases, infrastructure upgrades and the optimization of existing wells. The Kombi 2 platform will feature an integrated wellbay module to accommodate new wells, aiming to unlock an additional 10 million barrels of oil equivalent, with targeted output gains of 4 million cubic feet per day. Power generation for the platform will be supported by dual gas turbined linked to a 33-kV electrical hub, reinforcing Perenco’s commitment to operational efficiency and sustainable resource development in Congo.
On the exploration front, Perenco continues to cement its role as a premier independent in Africa’s energy landscape through a robust portfolio of upstream and gas infrastructure developments across the continent. In early 2024 an appraisal well in Gabon spudded near the Hylia South West discovery revealed substantial oil-bearing columns in the Ntchengue Ocean reservoir and reinforcing the potential of the lower Madiela carbonate formation. In Cameroon, the company launched its inaugural gas-to-industry project in July 2024, supplying 3.5-6.5 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from the Sanaga South field to the Keda tile factory via a 6-km pipeline – a milestone following its 9.9% equity acquisition in offshore operatory Golar LNG a month earlier.
These initiatives underscore Perenco’s integrated energy strategy, with the company’s participation as a Gold Partner at AEW: Invest in African Energies 2025 set to showcase their strategic role in shaping Africa’s energy future through large-scale gas monetization, infrastructure expansion and frontier exploration. Taking place in Cape Town from September 29 to October 3, 2025, the event promises to shine a light on these transformative projects and drive high-level dialogue on investment, innovation and sustainable development in Africa’s oil and gas sector.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Energy Chamber.
Growing conditions in Saskatchewan were variable this past week. Thunderstorms swept across parts of the province, bringing moisture to crops along with some hail. Producers in areas that received hail will be assessing crop damage over the next week to determine the impact on yields. Many areas in the southern regions of the province received limited rainfall which continues to stress crops and accelerate crop development.
However, some areas of the province received significant rainfall last week. The most rainfall recorded was 115 millimetres (mm) in the Archerwill area, followed closely by the Beatty area with 85 mm. There was also notable rainfall in the Kinistino and Middle Lake areas with 75 mm and 65 mm, respectively.
Despite rainfall in certain areas, provincial topsoil moisture conditions declined from last week. Provincial cropland topsoil moisture is rated at two per cent surplus, 66 per cent adequate, 23 per cent short and nine per cent very short. For hay crops, topsoil moisture levels are two per cent surplus, 53 per cent adequate, 28 per cent short and 17 per cent very short. Finally, pasture topsoil moisture levels in the province currently sit at one per cent surplus, 44 per cent adequate, 32 per cent short and 23 per cent very short.
Crops developed swiftly over the last week. All crop types are further ahead of normal stages than they were last week. Fall cereal crops are the most advanced, followed closely by spring cereal and pulse crops. Oilseed and annual forage crops are the furthest behind their normal stages this year but are significantly further ahead than last year. In the southwest and northwest, crops are the most advanced in the province due to persistent hot and dry conditions this year. On the other hand, crops in the central regions are the furthest behind.
Crop conditions vary across the province, largely due to the amount and timing of rainfall so far this year. Approximately half of fall and spring cereal crops are in good condition, with most of the other half in fair to poor condition. For pulses, half to two-thirds of crops are in good condition, with most of the rest in fair condition. Finally, most oilseed crops are in fair to good condition at the end of June.
Most livestock producers have started their first cuts of hay this year. Currently, 10 per cent of hay crops in the province have been cut, 84 per cent are still standing and six per cent have been baled or silaged. Hay quality varies greatly throughout the province. Twelve per cent of hay is excellent quality, 43 per cent is good, 34 per cent is fair and 11 per cent is poor quality. Producers are hoping for timely rain in the coming weeks to produce good second cuts.
There were numerous sources of crop damage throughout the province last week. Producers are reporting that dry conditions combined with heat and wind are causing the most widespread damage to crops in the province. As an additional consequence of these conditions, grasshopper and flea beetle activity are causing minor damage in dry areas. In certain areas of the west-central, east-central and northeast regions, producers are reporting minor damage from excess moisture in low spots due to abundant rainfall over the past few weeks. Many regions experienced thunderstorms last week which brought varying levels of hail damage to crops in certain areas of the province.
With in-crop herbicide applications largely complete, producers are shifting their focus on scouting crops and spraying for insects and disease when necessary. Livestock producers are busy cutting hay crops and checking fences as livestock are in the pasture. More timely rain will be needed throughout July and August to sustain yield potential to harvest.
This can be a stressful time of year for producers as weather conditions can be unpredictable. The Farm Stress Line can help by providing support for producers toll free at 1-800-667-4442.
A complete, printable version of the Crop Report is available online: download Crop Report.
Follow the 2025 Crop Report on X/Twitter at @SKAgriculture.
With a planned $60 billion investment pipeline for the oil and gas industry, Angola is experiencing a surge in upstream activity, from frontier exploration to seismic acquisition to drilling and incremental production. Angola’s major upstream operators have joined the Angola Oil & Gas (AOG) conference – taking place September 3-4 in Luanda – to discuss Angola’s project pipeline. This year’s conference celebrates 50 years of independence in Angola, with speakers set to share insight into how the past five decades of oil and gas development have laid the foundation for future growth.
With over three decades of operational history in Angola, energy major ExxonMobil is driving an ambitious exploration and production agenda, focusing on maximizing output at active assets while pursuing frontier opportunities. Recently, the company signed an agreement alongside TotalEnergies for the study and evaluation of the Free Areas of Blocks 17/06 and 32/21. The company is also eyeing a $15 billion investment in the Namibe basin, pending the results of ongoing exploration activities. These efforts are expected to unlock new resources in Angola. Katrina Fisher, Managing Director of ExxonMobil Angola, will share further insights into ExxonMobil’s investment plans at AOG 2025.
With a long history in Angola, energy majors bp and Eni have played an instrumental part in unlocking resources and generating economic opportunities for the country. The merger of the companies’ Angolan operations in 2022 saw the rise of Azule Energy – Angola’s largest independent equity producer of oil and gas – and the subsequent integration of bp and Eni’s project portfolio and expertise. On the back of this, Azule Energy has spearheaded various large-scale operations in Angola, with new targets to increase production to 250,000 bpd. Major upcoming developments include the Agogo Integrated West Hub Development (2025) and Angola’s first non-associated gas project (2026). During AOG 2025, Guido Brusco, COO: Global Natural Resources at Eni, and Gordon Birrell, Executive Vice President of Production & Operations at bp, will provide insight into Angola’s exploration and production landscape, from oil exploration to natural gas to global partnerships and future investment prospects.
Nigerian independent exploration and production company First Exploration & Petroleum Development Company (FIRST E&P) has a strong portfolio of producing assets in Nigeria and is currently pursuing regional growth opportunities. With operations spanning both shallow waters and onshore blocks in the Niger Delta, FIRST E&P has established experience in exploration and production activities. While not directly active in Angola as of yet, FIRST E&P stands to play a notable role in unlocking greater value from Angola’s oil and gas resources. During AOG 2025, Ademola Adeyemi-Bero, CEO & Managing Director of FIRST E&P, is expected to share insight into how the company’s experience in Nigeria can support future oil and gas projects in Angola.
Angolan oil and gas company Alfort Petroleum is pursuing onshore exploration in Angola, following its qualification as an operator under the country’s 2020 bid round. During the round, Alfort Petroleum won operatorship of Block KON 8, attaining a 50% stake in the asset. To date, the company has completed the seismic acquisition phase for the block and is currently in the final stages of interpreting the data. Alfort Petroleum aims to start drilling activities in Q4, 2025 or Q1, 2026. At AOG 2025, Gianni Gaspar-Martins, General Manager of Alfort Petroleum, is expected to provide an update on Block KON 8.
Meanwhile, Angolan private energy company Etu Energias seeks to increase oil and gas production to 80,000 bpd by 2030 through the optimization of producing assets and the accelerated development of newly-acquired blocks. The company expanded its portfolio of operated and non-operated blocks from 6 to 15 in 2024, while its reserves grew 2.6 times to reach 106 million barrels. In 2025, the company continues to drive a 3D seismic campaign at Block FS/FTST, will spud the Chimacuanga exploration well and will complete feasibility studies at the newly-acquired Blocks CON 1 and CON 4. Etu Energias CEO Edson dos Santos is speaking at AOG 2025, where he is expected to share insight into the company’s exploration and production strategy.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Energy Capital & Power.
Source: United States Senator for Wyoming Cynthia Lummis
Washington, D.C. – Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Chair of the Senate Western Caucus, today celebrated the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, highlighting numerous provisions that she and other Senate Western Caucus members championed that will benefit Wyoming and western states.
“The Senate passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill represents a tremendous victory for the west,” said Lummis. “As Chair of the Senate Western Caucus, I’m proud that our members’ relentless efforts secured critical wins that will further unleash American energy, strengthen rural economies, simplify coal leases, foster healthy forests, enhance wildfire prevention, increase on and offshore oil and gas production, and bring practical approaches back to federal land oversight. President Trump understands that a strong America starts with a strong American West – I’m looking forward to seeing him sign this bill into law.”
Background:
In January, Senate Western Caucus Chair Cynthia Lummis sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) about the critical importance of addressing western priorities in any potential upcoming budget reconciliation legislation, along with a list of member priorities to include in the bill.
The Senate Western Caucus is composed of 29 Senators west of the Mississippi committed to upholding the fundamental western principles of self-reliance, local decision-making, love of the land and the pioneer spirit.
Senate Western Caucus Wins:
Energy and Natural Resources
Expands onshore and offshore oil and gas leasing with mandatory minimum lease sales and extends drilling permit validity from 3 to 4 years.
Mandates six lease sales over ten years in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Increases revenue sharing from offshore drilling for Gulf of America states.
Enhances revenue sharing from Cook Inlet oil and gas leases for Alaska.
Land Management and Conservation
Strengthens wildfire management and prevention capabilities through expanded timber sales on public lands.
Introduces optional expedited environmental review process under NEPA, allowing project sponsors to pay fees for faster timelines (one year for Environmental Impact Statements, six months for Environmental Assessments).
Agricultural Support
Provides reimbursement programs for livestock losses due to predator attacks.
Expands producer access to the livestock forage disaster assistance program.
Extends and enhances estate tax exemptions with higher thresholds and permanent provisions to facilitate intergenerational transfer of family ranches.
Allows full expensing of certain business property, enabling ranchers to immediately deduct equipment and infrastructure investments.
Provides special depreciation allowances for qualified production property, offering larger and accelerated deductions for ranch growth and resilience investments.
SACRAMENTO – Ahead of an expected record-breaking holiday weekend for travel, Californians are seeing the lowest prices at the pump in years. This comes after Governor Gavin Newsom has taken repeated actions to increase transparency on Big Oil’s balance sheets — putting people over record profits — and another that will give the state more tools to require petroleum refiners backfill supplies and plan ahead for maintenance, helping keep supply and demand more stable.
Additionally, Republicans spent the last 6+ months fearmongering about a supposed “65 cent jump” in price at the pump on July 1, which DID NOT happen. In fact, prices at the pump have gone down leading up to, on, and after July 1, 2025 — the opposite of what Big Oil Republicans claimed would happen.
Press releases, Recent news
Recent news
Jul 2, 2025
News SACRAMENTO – As House Republicans vote on the measure as soon as tonight, President Trump’s “big beautiful” national debt-adding bill is a massive tax break for the wealthiest Americans, at the cost of programs and services used by everyday families. It gives tax…
Jul 2, 2025
News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments: Tamie McGowen, of Folsom, has been appointed Senior Advisor for Strategy and Operations for the California State Transportation Agency. McGowen has been Deputy Secretary of…
Jul 2, 2025
News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement regarding the death of California Highway Patrol Officer Miguel Cano:“Officer Miguel Cano dedicated his life to serving our communities, and his passing is a heartbreaking loss for the state and…
BEAUMONT, Texas – A Milam woman has been sentenced to federal prison and ordered to pay restitution for stealing from her employer in the Eastern District of Texas, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Jay R. Combs.
Haley Maxine Snodgrass, 29, pleaded guilty to credit union theft and was sentenced to 33 months in federal prison by U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone on July 1, 2025. Judge Crone also ordered Snodgrass to pay restitution in the amount of $330,351.39.
According to information presented in court, in April 2023, an auditor with Doches Credit Union requested a sample of loans from the Hemphill branch for review. The review showed missing paperwork and unusual transactions on loans that were approved by Haley Maxine Snodgrass. Snodgrass had been employed by the Doches Credit Union since 2016, first as a teller and then as a branch manager.
An investigation conducted by a third party revealed that Snodgrass used a variety of schemes to take money from the credit union for personal gain. This included creating fraudulent loans, refinancing legitimate loans without the consent of the credit union member, misappropriating loan payments, and conducting unauthorized transactions on member accounts.
As part of her plea, Snodgrass admitted that she embezzled and willfully misapplied approximately $281,097.97 in money, funds, and assets belonging to Doches Credit Union with the intent to defraud the credit union. She also admitted that the amount of restitution owed was $330,351.39.
This case was investigated by FBI’s Lufkin Field Office and the Texas Department of Public Safety. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lauren Gaston.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
The implementation of Praia-Dakar maritime link will mark an important step in regional integration within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). A workshop to evaluate and validate the various financial options for implementing the Praia-Dakar maritime link opened on Monday 30th of June 2025 in Dakar, Senegal.
The aim of this workshop is to define the management and operating procedures, analyse the financial viability and the most appropriate governance models for this maritime link, anticipate the socio-economic and environmental impacts, and propose mitigation measures. It also intends to identify mixed financing mechanisms (public-private partnership, regional funds) and propose a monitoring and evaluation plan incorporating performance and sustainability indicators.
Speaking on behalf of Sédiko Douka, Commissioner for Infrastructure, Energy and Digitisation of the ECOWAS Commission, Chris Appiah, Director of Transport of the ECOWAS Commission, reiterated the crucial importance of the Praia-Dakar maritime link in strengthening economic integration and increasing regional trade. “The Praia-Dakar maritime link, once implemented, will link Cabo Verde, an island state, to the other states of West Africa” said Chris Appiah. He expressed his gratitude to the technical and financial partners supporting ECOWAS in the implementation of the Praia-Dakar-Abidjan transport corridor project.
Mamoudou Alassane Camara, Senegal’s Director General of Road Infrastructure and Opening-up, and Chairman of the Committee of Experts from the Member States of the Praia-Dakar maritime link, also expressed his gratitude to these partners. He stressed the need and the obligation for West Africans to work towards the realisation of the Praia-Dakar-Abidjan transport corridor project. This multimodal project, he said, should contribute to the development of West Africa. “We must ensure that the vision of ECOWAS leaders for the implementation of this project becomes a reality. We must move forward together. Together, we can achieve a great deal. What unites us is more important than what divides us” he said.
For his part, the Director General of the Senegalese Maritime Affairs Agency, Becaye Diop, informed the audience of the strategic importance of this project for his country and Cabo Verde. For him, this project has received renewed interest and attention since the visit to Praia, in Cabo Verde, on the 24th of May 2024, by the Senegalese President, Bassirou Diomaye Diakhar Faye, he made a commitment with the Cape Verdean authorities to set up the Dakar-Praia maritime link to improve trade and strengthen economic and social cooperation between Senegal and Cabo Verde.
The Dakar-Praia maritime link, scheduled to be operational by the end of 2026, is a component of the Praia-Dakar-Abidjan multimodal transport corridor project. Considered strategic, it should be the subject of a specific management model proposal.
As for the Praia-Dakar-Abidjan multimodal transport corridor project, it represents an essential element of the wider strategy of ECOWAS aimed at facilitating the free movement of people and goods within the Community area, strengthening trade cooperation, promoting economic development and stimulating regional trade.
Considered one of the essential steps towards a more integrated and prosperous West Africa, this regional corridor, which aims to connect the capitals and port areas of eight ECOWAS member states, aims to integrate several modes of transport: road, rail and sea. These states are Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone.
Through this project, ECOWAS intends to turn the Praia-Dakar-Abidjan corridor into a genuine West African economic hub, driving economic development and regional integration.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S. ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war’s end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people.
Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.
Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war’s end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out.
Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations.
Egyptian security sources said Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept the two-month truce proposal.
A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas’ response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal.
The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive.
A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday.
‘READINESS TO ADVANCE’
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was “definitely readiness to advance a deal.”
In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics.
“Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don’t know what happened,” one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. “What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?”
According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza.
The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins.
Israel says it won’t end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won’t lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S. ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war’s end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people.
Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.
Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war’s end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out.
Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations.
Egyptian security sources said Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept the two-month truce proposal.
A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas’ response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal.
The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive.
A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday.
‘READINESS TO ADVANCE’
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was “definitely readiness to advance a deal.”
In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics.
“Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don’t know what happened,” one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. “What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?”
According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza.
The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins.
Israel says it won’t end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won’t lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S. ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war’s end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people.
Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.
Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war’s end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out.
Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations.
Egyptian security sources said Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept the two-month truce proposal.
A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas’ response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal.
The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive.
A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday.
‘READINESS TO ADVANCE’
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was “definitely readiness to advance a deal.”
In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics.
“Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don’t know what happened,” one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. “What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?”
According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza.
The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins.
Israel says it won’t end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won’t lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S. ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war’s end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people.
Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.
Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war’s end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out.
Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations.
Egyptian security sources said Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept the two-month truce proposal.
A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas’ response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal.
The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive.
A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday.
‘READINESS TO ADVANCE’
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was “definitely readiness to advance a deal.”
In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics.
“Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don’t know what happened,” one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. “What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?”
According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza.
The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins.
Israel says it won’t end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won’t lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
The African Development Bank (www.AfDB.org), through the Fund for African Private Sector Assistance (FAPA), has awarded a $1 million grant to South Africa’s National Business Initiative (NBI) to strengthen efforts to build a dynamic, demand-led skills ecosystem that enables South Africans, particularly young people, to access emerging job opportunities in the green economy.
South Africa continues to face significant challenges in youth employment, with StatisticsSA (http://apo-opa.co/3I92YRD) reporting that 46.1% of young people aged 15 to 34 were unemployed in the first quarter of 2025.
The funding will support the country’s Just Energy Transition Skilling for Employment Programme (JET SEP), led by the National Business Initiative in partnership with the management consultancy Boston Consulting Group. The initiative coordinates private sector efforts to prepare the workforce for the energy transition, in tandem with the government’s JET Skilling Implementation Plan, focused on inclusive workforce development and sustainable job creation.
Specifically, the grant will finance the programme’s first phase, including feasibility studies for the design of skills development zones and capacity building within the public technical and vocational education and training system. Skills development zones will anchor the delivery of inclusive skills and foster local economic growth during the country’s just-energy transition.
Launched in 2024 and endorsed by the JET Project Management Unit under the presidency of the Government of South Africa, JET SEP has garnered support from over 30 influential South African CEOs, public sector leaders, and civil society leaders in the past year.
Of the grant, Kennedy Mbekeani, African Development Bank Director General for Southern Africa, said: “By linking a strong private sector coalition – the engine for job creation – with government, academia, and NGOs, the FAPA grant will play a catalytic role to support informed policy decisions in skills development and labour market programmes. It will also strengthen skills development efforts for the growth of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and the creation of jobs for youth in South Africa’s green economy.”
The grant builds on the African Development Bank’s significant investment in South Africa’s energy sector. Since 2007, the Bank has invested $3.4 billion to support energy infrastructure, including renewable energy. The current grant will support the government’s efforts to identify the skills needed for the sector, with a particular focus on renewable energy.
Shameela Soobramoney, CEO of the National Business Initiative, said: “This grant from the African Development Bank is a critical step toward turning vision into action, strengthening the national skills system, and ensuring that all South Africans are equipped to seize new opportunities in the green economy. We are proud to continue working alongside our partners and stakeholders to build an inclusive future-ready workforce and to stimulate local economies in a way that leaves no one behind.”
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Development Bank Group (AfDB).
Media contact: African Development Bank: Emeka Anuforo, Communication and External Relations Department, media@afdb.org
About the African Development Bank Group: The African Development Bank Group is Africa’s premier development finance institution. It comprises three distinct entities: the African Development Bank (AfDB), the African Development Fund (ADF) and the Nigeria Trust Fund (NTF). On the ground in 41 African countries with an external office in Japan, the Bank contributes to the economic development and the social progress of its 54 regional member states. For more information: www.AfDB.org
On July 3rd, Ms. ERI Arfiya, Parliamentary Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, attended the symposium “Empowering Lesotho: Unlocking Finance to Drive the Energy Transition in a Land-Locked Developing Country”, co-hosted by the United Nations University and the Embassy of Lesotho in Japan, with the presence of the H.M. Letsie III, King of the Kingdom of Lesotho and H.M. Queen Masenate Mohato Seeiso, who are in Japan to participate in the National Day events of the Osaka-Kansai Expo. She delivered a speech on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The outline of the speech is as follows.
At the outset, Parliamentary Vice-Minister ERI welcomed the visit of H.M. Letsie III and H.M. Queen Masenate Mohato Seeiso to Japan, and stated that, since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1971, Japan and Lesotho have built cordial relations through cooperation in areas such as food security, renewable energy, education, and health.
Parliamentary Vice-Minister ERI mentioned Japan’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and expressed her hope to work with Lesotho, which is actively promoting the transition to renewable energy by leveraging its abundant water resources and high-quality renewable energy resources, to lead global efforts for climate change measures and promote economic development.
Parliamentary Vice-Minister ERI mentioned that the 9th Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD 9) will be held in Yokohama in August this year, and concluded her remarks by expressing her hope to take this opportunity to create innovative solutions that will lead to the prosperity of both Japan and Africa by leveraging Japanese technology and expertise on various topics including the renewable energy sector, which was discussed in this symposium.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.
New York, N.Y., July 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: NNE) (“NANO Nuclear” or “the Company”), a leading advanced nuclear energy and technology company focused on developing clean energy solutions, today announced that it is the Platinum Sponsor of the upcoming Defense Strategies Institute’s 7th Annual DoD Energy & Power Summit to be held on July 9-10, 2025, at the National Housing Center in Washington, DC.
NANO Nuclear Energy Chief Executive Officer James Walker will participate in a panel discussion titled, “Exploring Cutting Edge Nuclear Energy Solutions for Defense Applications” at 11:10am on July 9th. This panel will delve into the rapidly evolving landscape of nuclear energy technologies and their potential to revolutionize defense capabilities. It will also discuss the cutting-edge advancements in nuclear reactor designs, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors, and their suitability for powering remote military installations, advanced weapon systems, and future propulsion technologies.
The panel will additionally feature leaders of key United States nuclear research and oversight organizations, including the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Reactors, Department of Energy Dr. Rian Bahran, SES; Associate Laboratory Director, Nuclear Science & Technology Directorate, Idaho National Laboratory Jess Gehin, Ph. D., and the Director of Nuclear Engineering Program, Virginia Tech Research Center Alireza Haghighat Ph.D.
“The momentum behind our work to deliver mobile, resilient nuclear power solutions continues to grow, and I look forward to discussing their potential defense applications during the panel,” said James Walker, Chief Executive Officer of NANO Nuclear. “This summit offers a valuable forum to engage directly with energy leaders from the government and the Department of Defense, and I expect productive, and important conversations.”
Figure 1 – NANO Nuclear Announced as the Platinum Sponsor of the DoD Energy & Power Summit, held on July 9-10, 2025, at the National Housing Center in Washington, DC.
The Department of Defense is the single largest energy consumer in the United States and consumes approximately 76% of federal energy consumption. This year’s DoD Energy and Power Summit will provide a forum for members of the DoD, Military Services, Federal Government, Industry, and Academia, and other leading stakeholders to enhance energy efficiency, resiliency, affordability, and security across the Department of Defense and federal government. This “town-hall” style summit will allow attendees to hear first-hand from decision makers and engage in meaningful conversations and discussions on US energy and power initiatives.
“We’re proud to sponsor the DoD Energy & Power Summit and meet with leading policymakers and military officials in Washington,” said Jay Yu, Founder and Chairman of NANO Nuclear. “We’ve engaged numerous seasoned, former military and government experts onto our team to better position NANO Nuclear to support the DoD and DOE in their energy transition efforts. Our advanced reactor designs prioritize efficiency, safety, and reliability, qualities essential for powering critical installations and supporting the women and men who protect the nation.”
About NANO Nuclear Energy, Inc.
NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: NNE) is an advanced technology-driven nuclear energy company seeking to become a commercially focused, diversified, and vertically integrated company across five business lines: (i) cutting edge portable and other microreactor technologies, (ii) nuclear fuel fabrication, (iii) nuclear fuel transportation, (iv) nuclear applications for space and (v) nuclear industry consulting services. NANO Nuclear believes it is the first portable nuclear microreactor company to be listed publicly in the U.S.
Led by a world-class nuclear engineering team, NANO Nuclear’s reactor products in development include patented KRONOS MMR™Energy System, a stationary high-temperature gas-cooled reactor that is in construction permit pre-application engagement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in collaboration with University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (U. of I.), “ZEUS”, a solid core battery reactor, and “ODIN”, a low-pressure coolant reactor, and the space focused, portable LOKI MMR™, each representing advanced developments in clean energy solutions that are portable, on-demand capable, advanced nuclear microreactors.
Advanced Fuel Transportation Inc. (AFT), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is led by former executives from the largest transportation company in the world aiming to build a North American transportation company that will provide commercial quantities of HALEU fuel to small modular reactors, microreactor companies, national laboratories, military, and DOE programs. Through NANO Nuclear, AFT is the exclusive licensee of a patented high-capacity HALEU fuel transportation basket developed by three major U.S. national nuclear laboratories and funded by the Department of Energy. Assuming development and commercialization, AFT is expected to form part of the only vertically integrated nuclear fuel business of its kind in North America.
HALEU Energy Fuel Inc. (HEF), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is focusing on the future development of a domestic source for a High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) fuel fabrication pipeline for NANO Nuclear’s own microreactors as well as the broader advanced nuclear reactor industry.
NANO Nuclear Space Inc. (NNS), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is exploring the potential commercial applications of NANO Nuclear’s developing micronuclear reactor technology in space. NNS is focusing on applications such as the LOKI MMR™ system and other power systems for extraterrestrial projects and human sustaining environments, and potentially propulsion technology for long haul space missions. NNS’ initial focus will be on cis-lunar applications, referring to uses in the space region extending from Earth to the area surrounding the Moon’s surface.
This news release and statements of NANO Nuclear’s management in connection with this news release contain or may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In this context, forward-looking statements mean statements related to future events, which may impact our expected future business and financial performance, and often contain words such as “expects”, “anticipates”, “intends”, “plans”, “believes”, “potential”, “will”, “should”, “could”, “would” or “may” and other words of similar meaning. These and other forward-looking statements are based on information available to us as of the date of this news release and represent management’s current views and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, events or results and involve significant known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may be beyond our control. For NANO Nuclear, particular risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual future results to differ materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements include but are not limited to the following: (i) risks related to our U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) or related state or non-U.S. nuclear fuel licensing submissions, (ii) risks related the development of new or advanced technology and the acquisition of complimentary technology or businesses, including difficulties with design and testing, cost overruns, regulatory delays, integration issues and the development of competitive technology, (iii) our ability to obtain contracts and funding to be able to continue operations, (iv) risks related to uncertainty regarding our ability to technologically develop and commercially deploy a competitive advanced nuclear reactor or other technology in the timelines we anticipate, if ever, (v) risks related to the impact of U.S. and non-U.S. government regulation, policies and licensing requirements, including by the DOE and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including those associated with the recently enacted ADVANCE Act, and (vi) similar risks and uncertainties associated with the operating an early stage business a highly regulated and rapidly evolving industry. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which apply only as of the date of this news release. These factors may not constitute all factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in any forward-looking statement, and NANO Nuclear therefore encourages investors to review other factors that may affect future results in its filings with the SEC, which are available for review at www.sec.gov and at https://ir.nanonuclearenergy.com/financial-information/sec-filings. Accordingly, forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as a predictor of actual results. We do not undertake to update our forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date of this news release, except as required by law.
CALGARY— The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, the Honourable Tim Hodgson, will make a funding announcement to support carbon management technologies in Alberta. A media availability will follow.
Date: July 4, 2025
Time: 10 a.m. MT
All accredited media are asked to pre-register by emailing media@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca. Details on how to participate will be provided upon registration.
CALGARY, Alberta, July 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Parex Resources Inc. (“Parex” or the “Company”) (TSX: PXT) announces a production update and plan to release its Q2 2025 financial and operating results on July 30, 2025.
Q2 2025 Production Update(1)(2)
Estimated Q2 2025 average production was 42,550 boe/d.
June 2025 average production was approximately 43,950 boe/d; production growth was supported by previously disclosed positive exploration results and the successful startup of the first follow-up horizontal well at LLA-74 in the Southern Llanos.
In July 2025, the Company expects to ramp up production from its second follow-up horizontal well at LLA-74 and bring onstream the first well of the LLA-32 development campaign.
boe/d
For the three months ended June 30, 2025
Block LLA-34
21,500
Southern Llanos
13,800
Northern Llanos
4,000
Magdalena Basin
2,250
Natural Gas Production
1,000
Average Production
42,550
Monthly Production Breakdown(1)(2)
boe/d
April 2025
May 2025
June 2025
Average Production
41,350
42,300
43,950
(1) See “Product Type Disclosure.” (2) Average production numbers are preliminary, subject to final reconciliation, and rounded for presentation purposes.
Q2 2025 Conference Call & Webcast
Parex will host a conference call and webcast to discuss its Q2 2025 results on Wednesday, July 30, 2025, beginning at 9:30 am MT (11:30 am ET). To participate in the conference call or webcast, please see the access information below:
Parex is one of the largest independent oil and gas companies in Colombia, focusing on sustainable, conventional production. The Company’s corporate headquarters are in Calgary, Canada, with an operating office in Bogotá, Colombia. Parex shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol PXT.
For more information, please contact:
Mike Kruchten Senior Vice President, Capital Markets & Corporate Planning Parex Resources Inc. 403-517-1733 investor.relations@parexresources.com
Steven Eirich Senior Investor Relations & Communications Advisor Parex Resources Inc. 587-293-3286 investor.relations@parexresources.com
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Product Type Disclosure
Product Type
April 2025
May 2025
June 2025
Light & Medium Crude Oil (bbl/d)
10,803
10,193
10,976
Heavy Crude Oil (bbl/d)
29,761
31,089
31,811
Conventional Natural Gas (mcf/d)
4,721
6,115
6,978
Oil Equivalent (boe/d)
41,350(1)
42,300(1)
43,950(1)
Product Type
For the three months ended June 30, 2025
Light & Medium Crude Oil (bbl/d)
10,662
Heavy Crude Oil (bbl/d)
30,899
Conventional Natural Gas (mcf/d)
5,941
Oil Equivalent (boe/d)
42,550(1)
(1) Average production numbers are preliminary, subject to final reconciliation, and rounded for presentation purposes.
Oil & Gas Matters Advisory
The term “Boe” means a barrel of oil equivalent on the basis of 6 thousand cubic feet (“mcf”) of natural gas to 1 barrel (“bbl”). Boe may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A boe conversion ratio of 6 mcf: 1 bbl is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead. Given the value ratio based on the current price of crude oil as compared to natural gas is significantly different from the energy equivalency of 6 mcf: 1 bbl, utilizing a conversion ratio at 6 mcf: 1 bbl may be misleading as an indication of value.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations used in this press release have the meanings set forth below:
UConn is deepening its commitment to a sustainable future through a student-focused innovation challenge designed to reduce carbon emissions and promote clean energy solutions. In partnership with Eversource Energy, UConn has launched its third annual summer competition aimed at engaging students in the design of the future energy landscape.
The competition has attracted an impressive group of participants, with five finalist teams comprising 11 students – five undergraduates and six graduates. These talented individuals represent eight diverse departments and schools: the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and School of Computing in the College of Engineering; the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics in the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources (CAHNR); the School of Business; and the Department of Chemistry and the Department of Mathematics in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
This multidisciplinary representation brings together diverse perspectives and technical expertise to address the complex challenges of decarbonization and the energy transition across UConn campuses and Connecticut municipalities.
Each team will receive summer funding and be paired with mentors from UConn faculty and Eversource Energy. The mentorship will support students in refining their proposals and addressing the practical dimensions of their clean energy solutions. This hands-on guidance is designed to help participants explore real-world applications of their research and ideas.
The culmination of the teams’ work will be presented at the 2025 Sustainable Clean Energy Summit on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. The event will take place alongside the 2025 North American Power Symposium, offering students a valuable platform to present their innovations to an audience of industry professionals, researchers, utility leaders and state officials.
Following the Summit, the winning team will receive additional funding to continue their work throughout the academic year. This extended support aims to help transform early-stage ideas into actionable and impactful clean energy solutions.
The continued collaboration between UConn and Eversource Energy underscores a shared commitment to environmental responsibility, climate resilience, and technological advancement. Through this initiative, students are empowered to take an active role in building a cleaner and more sustainable energy future.
The projects and student teams selected for the 2025 Clean Energy & Sustainability Innovation Program are:
Project 1:Fuel Cell as a Catalyst for Local Economic and Environmental Development
Students: Songyang Zhou (Master’s Student, Data Science), Jane Torrence ’27 (BUS)
Project 2:UConn’s Wastewater to Bioenergy: Integrated Chlorella Cultivation and Pyrolysis
Students: Azeem Sarwar (Ph.D. Student, Chemical Engineering), Maham Liaqat (Ph.D. Candidate, Chemistry), Muhammad Hassan (Ph.D. Student, Chemical Engineering).
Project 3:Dual Characterization of Innovative Hydropower Systems for Sustainable Energy Storage and Generation
Students: Jonathan Hylton ’26 (ENG), Safiya Crockett ’26 (CAHNR).
Project 4:Harnessing Tidal Energy for Shoreside Electrification: A Tool for Sustainable Power in Coastal Connecticut Marine Terminals
Draft plan to tackle nature loss, climate change and pollution
Members of the public are being asked to have their say on proposals aimed at boosting the health, prosperity and wellbeing of communities by improving Scotland’s environment.
The draft Environment Strategy sets out the opportunities for strengthening Scotland’s economy and improving people’s lives as a result of restoring and regenerating biodiversity, cutting levels of pollution and waste, supporting national net zero targets and improving Scotland’s environmental impact on countries across the world.
It includes key government actions which aim to support green jobs and industries, tackle poverty and promote social justice including:
the transition to a circular economy through the reuse and repurposing of materials
increasing renewable energy generation in Scotland and supporting industrial decarbonisation with independent scenarios from Ernst and Young (EY), showing that with the right support, Scotland’s low carbon and renewable energy sector could support nearly 80,000 jobs by 2050
projects to restore nature – including those supported through the Nature Restoration Fund – which are also improving people’s physical and mental wellbeing by providing greater access to nature
Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy Gillian Martin said: “This draft Environment Strategy sets out ways in which Government action will help tackle the nature crisis, as well as reduce pollution and support our net zero targets.
“These issues are interlinked, and by tackling them together we can protect our planet in ways that improve people’s health and wellbeing, reduce inequalities, and create new opportunities for business and investment.
“We have already made significant progress in improving Scotland’s environment. We have cut pollution levels by banning a number of the most problematic single-use plastic products and introduced Low Emission Zones.
“Scotland’s energy grid is also greener, thanks to the increase in the amount of renewable energy we now generate, we are more than halfway to reaching net zero by 2045, and our forthcoming Natural Environment Bill will introduce new statutory targets for restoring nature.
“However there is still much more we can do – and it is vital we tackle these global crises in ways that create wider benefits for Scotland – supporting green jobs and industries, improving people’s health, tackling poverty and promoting social justice.
“I urge everyone with an interest to have their say on the proposals.”
Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic Kate Forbes said: “This draft Strategy shows how we can achieve both our environmental and our economic ambitions for Scotland, highlighting the business and investment opportunities that will flow as we move to a net zero, nature positive future.”
Background
The draft Environment Strategy will be open for public consultation until 25 September 2025
The draft Strategy fulfils Ministers’ obligation under section 47 of the UK Withdrawal from the EU (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 to prepare, consult on and publish an environmental policy strategy. Section 47 of the Continuity Act also requires Scottish Ministers to have due regard to the strategy when making policies, including proposals for legislation.
On 25 June, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded its participation in a 36-hour nuclear emergency exercise organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The exercise was part of the IAEA’s Level 3 Convention Exercise (ConvEx-3), the highest and most complex level of its emergency exercises. These large-scale exercises are conducted every three to five years to test emergency preparedness and response capacities and identify areas in need of improvement. The last ConvEx-3 exercise took place in 2021 in cooperation with the United Arab Emirates.
The exercise involved more than 75 countries and 10 international organizations and was based on a simulated accident at a nuclear power plant in Romania, resulting in the release of significant amounts of radioactive material. Participating countries and organizations exchanged information in real time, assessed evolving risks, coordinated communications, and decided on appropriate protective actions, including the medical response.
As part of the simulation, WHO set up an Incident Management Support Team composed of experts from country, regional and headquarters offices. The WHO teams liaised with national authorities to monitor the public health impact, developed public health messages on protective actions, and provided guidance on mental health support for affected communities and emergency responders.
New elements this year included the close coordination of protective measures by neighbouring countries Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova, the deployment of international assistance missions and the additional challenge of cybersecurity threats. An expanded social media simulator was used to test crisis communication strategies.
By simulating high-risk cross-border nuclear emergencies, these exercises test existing structures and technical readiness, help build trust and strengthen a coordinated global response. WHO’s ongoing work to strengthen radiation protection of the public, patients and workers worldwide includes providing Member States with evidence-based guidance, tools and technical advice on public health issues related to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Following the exercise, the IAEA will compile and publish a detailed review of best practices and areas for improvement. WHO will review the lessons learned and adjust processes accordingly.
On 25 June, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded its participation in a 36-hour nuclear emergency exercise organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The exercise was part of the IAEA’s Level 3 Convention Exercise (ConvEx-3), the highest and most complex level of its emergency exercises. These large-scale exercises are conducted every three to five years to test emergency preparedness and response capacities and identify areas in need of improvement. The last ConvEx-3 exercise took place in 2021 in cooperation with the United Arab Emirates.
The exercise involved more than 75 countries and 10 international organizations and was based on a simulated accident at a nuclear power plant in Romania, resulting in the release of significant amounts of radioactive material. Participating countries and organizations exchanged information in real time, assessed evolving risks, coordinated communications, and decided on appropriate protective actions, including the medical response.
As part of the simulation, WHO set up an Incident Management Support Team composed of experts from country, regional and headquarters offices. The WHO teams liaised with national authorities to monitor the public health impact, developed public health messages on protective actions, and provided guidance on mental health support for affected communities and emergency responders.
New elements this year included the close coordination of protective measures by neighbouring countries Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova, the deployment of international assistance missions and the additional challenge of cybersecurity threats. An expanded social media simulator was used to test crisis communication strategies.
By simulating high-risk cross-border nuclear emergencies, these exercises test existing structures and technical readiness, help build trust and strengthen a coordinated global response. WHO’s ongoing work to strengthen radiation protection of the public, patients and workers worldwide includes providing Member States with evidence-based guidance, tools and technical advice on public health issues related to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Following the exercise, the IAEA will compile and publish a detailed review of best practices and areas for improvement. WHO will review the lessons learned and adjust processes accordingly.
On 25 June, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded its participation in a 36-hour nuclear emergency exercise organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The exercise was part of the IAEA’s Level 3 Convention Exercise (ConvEx-3), the highest and most complex level of its emergency exercises. These large-scale exercises are conducted every three to five years to test emergency preparedness and response capacities and identify areas in need of improvement. The last ConvEx-3 exercise took place in 2021 in cooperation with the United Arab Emirates.
The exercise involved more than 75 countries and 10 international organizations and was based on a simulated accident at a nuclear power plant in Romania, resulting in the release of significant amounts of radioactive material. Participating countries and organizations exchanged information in real time, assessed evolving risks, coordinated communications, and decided on appropriate protective actions, including the medical response.
As part of the simulation, WHO set up an Incident Management Support Team composed of experts from country, regional and headquarters offices. The WHO teams liaised with national authorities to monitor the public health impact, developed public health messages on protective actions, and provided guidance on mental health support for affected communities and emergency responders.
New elements this year included the close coordination of protective measures by neighbouring countries Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova, the deployment of international assistance missions and the additional challenge of cybersecurity threats. An expanded social media simulator was used to test crisis communication strategies.
By simulating high-risk cross-border nuclear emergencies, these exercises test existing structures and technical readiness, help build trust and strengthen a coordinated global response. WHO’s ongoing work to strengthen radiation protection of the public, patients and workers worldwide includes providing Member States with evidence-based guidance, tools and technical advice on public health issues related to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Following the exercise, the IAEA will compile and publish a detailed review of best practices and areas for improvement. WHO will review the lessons learned and adjust processes accordingly.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Press release
Change of His Majesty’s Ambassador to Latvia: Kathy Leach
Ms Kathy Leach has been appointed His Majesty’s Ambassador to the Republic of Latvia in succession to Mr Paul Brummell CMG, who will be transferring to another Diplomatic Service appointment. Ms Leach will take up her appointment during August 2025.
Ms Kathy Leach
Curriculum vitae
Full name: Kathy Leach
Date
Role
2021 to present
Astana, His Majesty’s Ambassador
2019 to 2020
FCDO, Deputy Director, Constitution and Devolution, Europe Directorate
2015 to 2018
FCO, Head then Deputy Director, Policy Unit, Strategy Directorate
2012 to 2015
Yerevan, Her Majesty’s Ambassador
2007 to 2011
Tokyo, Head, Energy and Environment Team
2005
FCO, Deputy Head, Passport and Documentary Services, Consular
2001 to 2004
Moscow, First Secretary Security Policy, then Internal Political
2000 to 2001
FCO, Desk Officer, EU Trade and Development Policy, Europe Directorate
As Africa accelerates its journey towards a sustainable energy future, experts gathered in Kigali for the Nuclear Energy Innovation Summit for Africa discussed the Potential of Small Modular and Micro Reactors in Accelerating Africa’s Energy Transition.
The discussions Moderated by Yohannes G. Hailu, Economic Affairs Officer at UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), underscored an important message: the successful deployment of innovative nuclear technologies like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Micro Reactors (MMRs) hinges not just on technological readiness, but on robust supporting infrastructure.
Some African countries countries are opting for SMRs with an output of less than 300 megawatt capacity. One megawatt would suffice for at least 3000 residential homes. At the same time, 1 megawatt capacity would cost between ($2-$3 million).
As it stands, more than 600 million Africans lack access to electricity.
Experts attending the session of Potential of Small Modular and Micro Reactors in Accelerating Africa’s Energy Transition examined the Africa’s current infrastructure landscape, pinpointing critical deficiencies. “Across the continent today, we have 15% of generation – that is 40 GW of power – that cannot be delivered simply because of infrastructure issues, curtailment, and grids not being available, sometimes for 800 to 1000 hours per year, or even more.”
The discussion emphasized also on the urgent need to synchronize the rapid advancements in SMR/MMR generation with the long-term, complex development of regional and national transmission and distribution infrastructure. Panelists explored what it takes to create enabling conditions for SMR/MMR rollout, including integrated planning, cross-sector coordination, and strategic investment in local capabilities.
Robert Lisinge,Director of Technology, Innovation, Connectivity and Infrastructure at ECA stressed the importance of a “synchronised planning regime at regional and national level.” He pointed to the Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA) as a key opportunity, which prioritizes significant investments in solar power, hydroelectric projects, and cross-border transmission lines, identifying 69 high-priority projects by 2030. This, he noted, presents an opportunity to “conceptualise and potentially develop regional nuclear projects that involve perhaps multiple countries, which would accelerate energy integration as well.”
SMRs)offer a transformative opportunity for Africa’s key industries, particularly mining, according to Brian Dlamini, Planning Engineer for the Southern Africa Power Pool (SAPP).
Dlamini highlighted that SMRs could provide clean, reliable energy to creditworthy mining operations, enabling “value addition to products with clean sources in the world market.” This integration, he added, would not only stabilize power grids but also drive the development of the continent’s vast mining sector with sustainable energy.
The consensus from the session was clear: while SMRs and MMRs hold immense promise for accelerating Africa’s energy transition, their successful integration requires a holistic, systemic approach to infrastructure planning and investment. Synchronized efforts at both national and regional levels are paramount to ensure that the continent’s growing generation capacity can effectively reach end-users and power Africa’s next level of industrialization.
– on behalf of United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA).
The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has projected India’s real GDP growth to remain in the range of 6.4% to 6.7% in the financial year 2025-26, reiterating the country’s position as the fastest-growing major economy globally.
Speaking at an industry event in New Delhi on Thursday, CII President Rajiv Memani observed that India continues to be a bright spot amid heightened global economic and geopolitical uncertainty. “Competitiveness is India’s passport to prosperity. But it must be earned through reform, innovation and trust,” Memani said.
He added that CII remains committed to partnering with the government and industry to strengthen India’s position as a competitive and globally connected economy. “India’s internal growth momentum is resilient enough to weather external shocks,” he said.
Memani stressed that India must anchor its growth in competitiveness, driven by scale, productivity, innovation and resilience, especially at a time when global trade and technology dynamics are changing rapidly.
To meet the country’s developmental and infrastructure requirements while maintaining fiscal prudence, CII has suggested calibrated disinvestment of public sector enterprises (PSEs). The industry body noted that PSEs account for nearly 10% of India’s total market capitalisation, estimated at around ₹55 lakh crore.
“Divesting about 10% of this market capitalisation could potentially generate ₹5 lakh crore, which could be channelled towards enhancing public capital expenditure, retiring government debt, setting up a Sovereign Wealth Fund for overseas strategic investments and acquiring critical technologies,” Memani said.
To address the challenges faced by India’s ‘missing middle’, CII has proposed a Capital Support Scheme aimed at assisting small and medium-sized enterprises in the manufacturing sector undertaking R&D, technology adoption and job creation.
Further, to improve the cost efficiency of businesses, CII has suggested the formation of a dedicated taskforce to recommend policies for ensuring land availability at affordable rates, thereby strengthening the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector.
Highlighting India’s energy transition goals, CII called for sector-specific strategies, including for mobility, and advocated the proactive creation of Green Hydrogen and Renewable Energy hubs. The industry body also plans to launch a dedicated Mission on Energy Transition to encourage industries to shift towards low-carbon alternatives.