Category: European Union

  • MIL-OSI: Sydbank’s Board Chairman not up for re-election

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Company Announcement No 05/2025

    Peberlyk 4
    6200 Aabenraa, Denmark
    Tel +45 74 37 37 37

    Sydbank A/S
    CVR No DK 12626509, Aabenraa
    Denmark
    sydbank.dk

    19 February 2025  

    Dear Sirs

    Sydbank’s Board Chairman not up for re-election

    After a decade on Sydbank’s Board of Directors, Chairman Lars Mikkelgaard-Jensen has decided to resign from the Board of Directors.

    Lars Mikkelgaard-Jensen is not up for re-election for the Board of Directors. Following the successful CEO succession in 2024 as well as the determination of the Bank’s new strategy, Lars Mikkelgaard-Jensen has decided that now is a good time to stop and he will resign in connection with the Annual General Meeting on 20 March 2025.

    The Board of Directors will elect its new Chairman at the subsequent Shareholders’ Committee meeting which will be held on the same day.

    Lars Mikkelgaard-Jensen has been a member of Sydbank’s Board of Directors since April 2015 and he was elected Chairman in September 2019.

    Yours sincerely
            
    Mark Luscombe        Jørn Adam Møller
    CEO        Deputy Group Chief Executive

    Additional information
    Lars Grubak Lohff, Press Manager Tel +45 20 31 54 65

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI China: ‘Ne Zha 2’ crowned world’s highest-grossing animated film

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    The record-breaking “Ne Zha 2” has now officially become the highest-grossing animated film of all time.

    A new poster to mark “Ne Zha 2” becoming the No. 1 animated film of all time. [Image courtesy of CMC Pictures]

    By Wednesday noon, the unstoppable Chinese animated sensation had grossed 12.42 billion yuan ($1.71 billion) worldwide according to Chinese box office tracker Maoyan Pro. This surpasses Disney and Pixar’s “Inside Out 2,” which claimed the top spot in animation history in 2024 by grossing $1.69 billion, per Box Office Mojo statistics. 

    As a result, “Ne Zha 2” has become the highest-grossing animated film globally and the eighth-highest-grossing film of all time, regardless of animation or live-action. Notably, it stands as the only Chinese or Asian film in a club dominated by Hollywood cinematic juggernauts.

    This is just one of many impressive milestones the film has achieved since its debut on Jan. 29, the first day of the Chinese New Year. Its accomplishments include becoming the highest-grossing Chinese film ever, the highest-grossing film in a single market globally, the first film to surpass $1 billion in a single market, and the first non-Hollywood film to enter the coveted billion-dollar club. 

    “Thanks to the support of countless audiences, we have been able to achieve these miraculous accomplishments,” said Wang Jing, executive producer of “Ne Zha 2,” during an event promoting movie-themed tourism on Feb. 17 at the China National Film Museum in Beijing. “Rooted in Chinese culture, ‘Ne Zha 2’ reflects the spirit of constant innovation and striving to move upward, embodied by Chinese animators, filmmakers and audiences, showcasing the brilliance of Chinese culture to the world.”

    “Congratulations to director Jiaozi and all Chinese animators,” said fellow animator Wang Yunfei, president of Its Cartoon Animation Studio. “Animation is an art form that creates new worlds and new life, which is why I still love it after 25 years in the industry.” Wang told China.org.cn that he hopes Chinese animators will embrace the belief that the journey itself is invaluable at this historic moment. “If you do not climb high mountains, you will not know how high the sky is. Keep your passion alive and continue forging ahead,” he said.

    A still from “Ne Zha 2.” [Image courtesy of Enlight Media]

    “Ne Zha 2” was developed over five years with a 4,000-strong team, featuring new characters, epic battle sequences and 1,900 special effects shots. In the film’s climactic battle, there are 200 million characters, showcasing wild imagination, a visual feast and immense workloads. The film involved the combined efforts of 138 Chinese animation and VFX companies, including teams that worked on previous animated hits and sci-fi blockbusters such as “Monkey King: Hero Is Back,” “Boonie Bears,” “Jiang Ziya: Legend of Deification” and “The Wandering Earth.”

    On social media, many animators who worked on the movie have expressed their excitement and happiness about joining the project, while a few also shared how exhausting the creative process was and how much of a perfectionist director Jiaozi is, challenging them to push their limits. Chen Xuguang, director of the Institute of Film, Television and Theatre at Peking University, noted that the film showcases the collaborative power of China’s creative ecosystem and signals an upgrade in both the film industry and its aesthetic standards.

    Wang Shiyong, founder and CEO of Wuhan-based 2:10 Animation, and his team contributed to many visually spectacular scenes in “Ne Zha 2.” He expressed pride in the film’s achievements and emphasized its significance to the Chinese animation industry. “The film’s outstanding box office performance will attract more investment and talent to the animation industry, injecting strong vitality into its development,” he said.

    As this world-class film climbs the global top 10 box office chart, its achievements have already stunned both domestic and international audiences, as well as industry insiders, showcasing the prowess and potential of Chinese cinema, culture and its market. Maoyan Pro analysts have now revised their projection for its total earnings to 15.1 billion yuan, which would be enough to place the film at No. 5 on the all-time global box office chart.

    The film drew significant international attention and interest after it opened overseas last week in North America, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. The film earned $7.2 million in North America from Feb. 14 through Sunday, setting a record for the highest opening weekend for any Chinese-language film in the past 20 years. Despite showing in only 660 theaters, it ranked No. 5 on the weekend chart, competing with Marvel’s “Captain America: Brave New World” which was shown in more than 4,000 theaters. In Australia, it secured third place with $1.5 million over the weekend.

    A new international poster to mark “Ne Zha 2.” [Image courtesy of Enlight Media]

    Both overseas critics and audiences have expressed their enjoyment of the movie. For example, critic Simon Abrams from RogerEbert.com wrote that “Ne Zha 2” is a “rare sequel that amplifies both its action and drama” without sacrificing much of what worked in the first movie, adding: “It’s also a rare blockbuster that offers something worthwhile for a wide-ranging audience.” Another critic, Fred Topel from Deadline.com, called the Chinese blockbuster “visually engaging,” noting that, “The rendering of martial arts battles is as graceful as DreamWorks Animation’s ‘Kung Fu Panda’ series. The myriad creatures should appeal to international fans of fantasy epics like ‘Game of Thrones’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings.’” On Rotten Tomatoes, its audience score has reached 99%, and on IMDb, it has also received an impressive 8.4/10 based on more than 4,300 user ratings.

    Distributors announced on Tuesday that the film will be released in China’s Hong Kong and Macao on Feb. 22, with plans to roll out in various international territories later this year, including Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Greece.

    Additionally, “Ne Zha 2” is generating a ripple effect beyond movie theaters, showcasing how its positive influence extends to culture, tourism, catering, merchandise and stock markets, further boosting China’s vibrant consumption and dynamic economy.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI: Viridien Announces its Full Year 2024 Financial Results on Thursday 27 February 2025, after Market Close

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Paris, France – February 19, 2025

    Fourth Quarter 2024 & Full Year 2024 financial results and conference call

    Viridien will announce its fourth quarter & full year 2024 financial results on Thursday, February 27th, after market close.

    • The press release and the presentation will be made available on our website www.viridiengroup.com at 5:45 pm (CET)
    • An English language analysts conference call is scheduled the same day at 6.00 pm (CET)

    Participants should register for the call here to receive a dial-in number and code or participate in the live webcast from here.

    A replay of the conference call will be made available the day after for a period of 12 months in audio format on the Company’s website www.viridiengroup.com.

    About Viridien:

    Viridien (www.viridiengroup.com) is an advanced technology, digital and Earth data company that pushes the boundaries of science for a more prosperous and sustainable future. With our ingenuity, drive and deep curiosity we discover new insights, innovations, and solutions that efficiently and responsibly resolve complex natural resource, digital, energy transition and infrastructure challenges. Viridien employs around 3,500 people worldwide and is listed as VIRI on the Euronext Paris SA (ISIN: FR001400PVN6).

    Contacts

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: ‘A peaceful, prosperous, democratic Pacific’

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Good Evening
     
    Let us begin by acknowledging Professor David Capie and the PIPSA team for convening this important conference over the next few days. Whenever the Pacific Islands region comes together, we have a precious opportunity to share perspectives and learn from each other. That is especially true in our region, where distances between us are large. 
     
    We acknowledge, too, members of the Diplomatic Corps, Parliamentary colleagues, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
     
    New Zealand’s place in the world
    New Zealand, as a country, has a myriad of influences. We have enduringly strong connections – for reasons of history, migration and foreign policy alignment – to our traditional partners of Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. 
     
    First and foremost, among these is Australia, New Zealand’s one formal ally, and our closest and most likeminded partner. We cooperate extremely closely with Australia, in the Pacific and around the world. 
     
    We are increasingly integrated socially, economically and strategically into Asia, with large and increasing Asian communities here in New Zealand and ever closer diplomatic relationships in South, South East, and North East Asia.
     
    At the same time, the starting point for understanding how New Zealand views the Pacific is the following, very simple statement: New Zealand is a Pacific Island country, linked by geography, history, culture, politics, demography and indeed DNA. 
     
    Fully 1.3 million New Zealanders, or about one-in-four of us are in full or part Polynesian, Melanesian or Micronesian, with either Māori heritage or relatives or ancestors from other Pacific islands. 
     
    Auckland is home to more Polynesians than any other city. Around the same number of Samoans and Tongans live in New Zealand as do in Samoa and Tonga. Vastly more Cook Islanders, Niueans and Tokelauans live in New Zealand than back in their homelands.
     
    The original discovery and settlement of the Pacific Islands, including New Zealand, is one of the most remarkable stories of exploration in human history. The late New Zealand historian Michael King compared it to space exploration as both were voyages into the unknown. 
     
    But Pacific navigation is arguably even more remarkable because the canoes that set out from the Asian landmass knew not where they would land, nor when, nor indeed if they would find any new territory. 
     
    But find land they did, as they forged new identities and societies on atolls and islands that today stand as a testament to their imagination, endurance and the resilience to overcome formidable challenges of distance, geography, demography, and resource scarcity. 
     
    Last year, we had the enormous privilege of visiting almost all of those island nations spread across our vast Blue Continent. So, this evening we’d like to share some reflections about the Pacific, within the context of New Zealand’s Foreign Policy Reset. 
     
    We note, too, your conference theme, which raises the question of whether the Pacific Islands are a zone of peace or ocean of discontent. In 1520, the great Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan named this massive body of water the Pacific, due to its calmness – Pacific meaning peaceful. Ironically, it didn’t end that way for him, or some of his crew, so your conference theme holds both historical justification and appeal.
     
    An active, engaged Pacific policy
    When we again took on the role of New Zealand Foreign Minister in November 2023, we were determined to put the Pacific at the forefront of an energetic, engaged and active New Zealand foreign policy once more. This lay behind our decision to undertake the most ambitious, intensive year of Pacific diplomacy in New Zealand history. 
     
    Never before has a New Zealand political leader tried to spend time in all 18 member countries of the Pacific Islands Forum in a single year. But try we did: meeting the many diverse peoples scattered across this vast, beautiful blue continent. 
     
    As often as we were able, we took Parliamentary colleagues from across the spectrum of New Zealand’s political parties to reinforce that our friendship is bipartisan, enduring and long-term. 
     
    The purpose of all these discussions was to take the pulse of the region. As a democratic country operating in a democratic region, New Zealand is driven in our Pacific policy by three foundational questions focused on our region’s people: 

    Is what New Zealand is doing in the region reflective of what the people of the Pacific Islands want and need? 
    Are we effectively supporting the prosperity and security of Pacific Island peoples?; and 
    Are we undertaking and explaining this work in a way which maintains New Zealanders’ support for our objectives in the region? 

     
    When describing our observations of last year’s travel, an obvious starting point is the unimaginable vastness of our region. It is a massive ocean, covering over 30 percent of the Earth’s surface.
     
    While in the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, we learned of the logistical difficulties they faced in getting to last year’s Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga. We decided on the spot to offer the use of one of our 757 aircraft to take Micronesian leaders to and from Nuku’alofa. We have also announced, over the past year, significant investment in digital connectivity in the Pacific, alongside such partners as the Australia, Taiwan, United States and Japan. 
     
    Connecting all members of the Pacific family is vital given the huge, isolating physical distances between us. But because we believe that all Pacific voices are important and that talanoa – coming together for dialogue – must be regular and meaningful, we were happy to facilitate their coming together in Nuku’alofa. 
     
    Why? Because Pacific regionalism sits at the core of our Pacific approach, with the Pacific Islands Forum at its centre. We are a region with challenging issues that can polarise us, such as deep seabed mining and how best to manage strategic competition. The Forum plays a critical role in helping us to form a cohesive approach, resolve differences, bolster regional development and security, and use our collective voice to hold bigger countries to account.
     
    The Blue Continent’s challenges
    We have also reflected on how the Blue Pacific Continent and its peoples face a multitude of challenges. Our region is faced with the sharpest strategic competition it has confronted since World War 2 ended almost eighty years ago. As we face external pushes into our region to coerce, cajole and constrain, we must stand together as a region – always remembering that we are strongest when we act collectively to confront security and strategic challenges. 
     
    Climate change is a great threat facing the Pacific and we are at the global forefront of disaster risk exposure. Our ambition is that all Pacific peoples remain resilient to the impacts of climate change and other disasters and that New Zealand can support building resilience in practical ways. 
     
    Fisheries are vital to the economies, livelihoods, food security, and social and cultural wellbeing of many Pacific Island countries and is a crucial source of government revenue. But they face several complex interrelated and transboundary issues, such as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and the management of migratory fish species. 
     
    After years of volatility, the long-term growth trajectory risks settling well below pre-COVID averages for Pacific Island countries. Increasing investment, building fiscal and climate resilience, and improving the access to finance and greater regional connectivity will be key to improving long-run growth prospects in the Pacific.  
     
    Answering to the people
    One truism that runs through our three stints as Foreign Minister is this: there are no votes in it. Struggling New Zealand taxpayers and their families find it difficult to understand why their government is handing out multi-million-dollar aid grants overseas.
     
    Foreign policy practitioners and academics may focus intently on our obligations to New Zealand’s development partners and the way we conduct our relations with them. But the bottom line is that we are accountable first and foremost to the New Zealand taxpayer. 
    During our three tenures as Foreign Minister, we have demonstrated a staunch commitment to a well-resourced New Zealand development programme with a predominant focus on the Pacific. 
     
    Few New Zealand Governments have gone to the wire to significantly lift the size of our international development programme as a proportion of New Zealand’s Gross National Income. One was Norman Kirk’s Government in the 1970s. Two others were during my two previous terms as Foreign Minister. 
     
    In short, we have been determined to use all of our influence and all of our negotiating power to get the best possible New Zealand development programme for the Pacific. 
     
    And while times are very tough here at home right now, we will continue to advocate with our Cabinet colleagues and the New Zealand people for the importance of an active Pacific policy and a properly-resourced international agenda – whether in defence, foreign policy, or development. That’s what is right for New Zealand and it’s what is in the best interests of the Pacific.
     
    We will never apologise for directly connecting New Zealand’s security and prosperity to the security and prosperity of the region and world around us. 
    The Coalition Government’s Foreign Policy Reset established a new strategic direction for New Zealand, including for our international development programme, with an emphasis on sustaining our deep focus on the Pacific. 
     
    As part of ensuring our accountability to the New Zealand taxpayer, last year the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade undertook a review of our development programme to gauge alignment with government priorities and assess its overall impact and efficiency. A report on the review’s findings is being released today.
     
    The review found that while our development is generally aligned with Government priorities, some reshaping and streamlining is required. In short, we will achieve more impact by doing fewer, bigger, projects better. This work is already under way.
     
    Our predominant focus remains on the Pacific, where we will be working with partners including the United States, Australia, Japan and in Europe to more intensively leverage greater support for the region. We will maintain the high tempo of political engagement across the Pacific to ensure alignment between our programme and New Zealand and partner priorities. And we will work more strategically with Pacific Governments to strengthen their systems, so they can better deliver the services their people need.
     
    Greater development funding is being devoted to South East Asia to meet our ambition for closer relations overall with this important region. We have also increased humanitarian funding in response to the scale of need regionally and globally. And we have reduced multilateral funding, to focus on those partners who make the most concrete impact.
     
    We see this work of reshaping our development programme as part of meeting our obligation to the New Zealand taxpayers whose continuing support underpins its social licence.
     
    Friendship, challenges and dialogue
    Over the decades, our Pacific-oriented foreign policy has been defined as much by our actions as our words. We are there in times of need, whether in response to natural disasters, helping with budget support during fiscal emergencies, spurring economic development, or helping to resolve conflicts. 
     
    Our 2018 Pacific Reset emphasised that exhibiting friendship in all our engagements was the cornerstone of our Pacific foreign policy orientation. What does friendship in that context mean? 
     
    It means we are honest, empathetic, trustful and respectful through frequent engagement. And it means having frank and open conversations with our Pacific counterparts.
     
    Over the past year, we have consistently stressed that we see all states as equal, whatever their size. We are guided by the mutual respect and trust that has grown over time between New Zealand and other Pacific Island countries. A second theme that has run through all our public engagements is just how important diplomacy is in our troubled world. 
     
    New Zealand has faced two isolated challenges in the past twelve months in our relations with the Pacific. In these two very different cases, our accountability to our taxpayers and our fidelity to promoting the interests of Pacific peoples throughout the region require that we explain openly what has taken place. 
     
    Of the 18 Pacific Islands Forum member countries, the only one we did not spend time in during the past year was Kiribati. That was not for a lack of trying. 
     
    For more than a year we respected Kiribati’s preference to avoid outside engagement. But with over $100 million of development assistance committed to Kiribati over the past three years, we had to review the status of existing projects and understand Kiribati’s ongoing development needs. After all, we all have to negotiate with our Ministers of Finance. 
     
    This requirement was urgent given our own budget cycle and the need to make decisions about how future development spending is allocated in Micronesian countries and across the region for the next three years. 
     
    So, we were pleased when a visit to Kiribati was finally scheduled for January 2025. We began organising our cross-party Parliamentary group to visit Tarawa. Then, with about a week to go, we were told President Maamau, who is also my counterpart as Kiribati’s Foreign Affairs Minister, would no longer meet with our delegation. 
    We made public our regret and concern, as well as our consequent decision to review our development programme to Kiribati. We are accountable to the worker in Kaitaia, the builder in Gore, and the farmer in the Waikato for the spending of taxpayer money, and we felt it important to express our concerns openly and transparently. 
     
    At the same time, we have a long-standing relationship with the Kiribati people, which has overcome previous challenges. We will weather this one too. 
     
    We have made clear that we are still working towards meaningful dialogue with Kiribati’s President and Foreign Minister, whether in Kiribati, New Zealand or elsewhere in the region. We are taking positive steps towards that goal in coming weeks. 
     
    The second isolated challenge we have faced has been developments in our relationship with the Cook Islands Government. Unlike the people of Samoa, the people of the Cook Islands have never opted for their country to be fully independent from New Zealand – though they are of course always free to choose to do so. 
     
    Rather, they have opted since 1965 to be in free association with New Zealand. This means that New Zealand is bound constitutionally to the Cook Islands by sharing the King of New Zealand as a head of state, a common, single citizenship and passport, as well as by shared values and interests. 
     
    Over the past 60 years, New Zealand has taken very seriously its obligations and commitments to the Cook Islands people. Every year we deliver for the Cook Islands people in areas as broad as health and education, economic development, defence and security, good governance, resources and environment, and culture and heritage.
     
    The Cook Islands, in exercising self-government, is supported by New Zealand funding and provision of expertise. As long as the Cook Islands remain tied to New Zealand constitutionally, we have an expectation that the Government of the Cook Islands will not seek benefits only available to fully independent states – such as separate passports and citizenship, or membership of the United Nations or the Commonwealth – or pursue policies that are significantly at variance with New Zealand’s interests. 
     
    We also have an expectation that New Zealand will be fully and meaningfully consulted on all major international actions that the Cook Islands contemplates that affect our interests.
     
    These are not unreasonable expectations. And they are not new. For example, our Prime Ministers, Norman Kirk in 1973, David Lange in 1986 and Helen Clark in 2001 all expressed these expectations formally. 
     
    To use but one example: in 2001, Helen Clark stated that Cook Islanders retained New Zealand citizenship “on the basis that there will continue to be a mutually acceptable standard of values in Cook Islands’ laws and policies”. She again repeated our longstanding position that if full independence from New Zealand was what the Cook Islands people wanted, then they were free to opt for it at any time.
     
    These have been well-established and previously settled understandings between us, although there have been periodic attempts by Cook Islands Prime Ministers to test the boundaries of this constitutional pact. 
     
    But our free association relationship in its current form has endured because the overwhelming majority of Cook Islands people have wanted to maintain their New Zealand citizenship and passport and the rights it affords them to the same opportunities and privileges as all other New Zealanders, including in health and education. The wishes of the Cook Islands people are paramount here.
     
    Our explicit advice to Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and his officials since he first raised the issue with us in July 2024 was that if he proceeded with trying to implement a separate Cook Islands citizenship and passport system then the people of the Cook Islands would risk losing their New Zealand citizenship and passport – an outcome we know is opposed by the vast majority of Cook Islanders.
     
    There is also the matter of the Cook Islands Government’s decision to enter into a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) and a number of other agreements with China last week without any meaningful consultation with New Zealand or its own people over either the architecture or details of those deals. 
     
    New Zealand and the Cook Islands people remain, as of this evening, in the dark over all but one the agreements signed by China and the Cooks last week. 
     
    Given this lack of consultation, the New Zealand Government, once it has seen the text of all of the agreements that were signed, will need to undertake its own careful analysis of how they impact our vital national interests. Only then will we be able to fully gauge the deals’ impact on the relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands. 
     
    While the connection between the people of the Cook Islands and New Zealand remains resolutely strong, we currently face challenges in the government-to-government relationship. 
     
    But this state of affairs – disagreements and debates between the leaders of New Zealand and the Cook Islands – has been a periodic feature of our 60 years of free association. We have always found a way through, guided by the wisdom and wishes of the Cook Islands people. 
     
    As then US President Franklin Roosevelt said in 1945, “We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately – but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes – but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle”.
     
    During 2025, as we celebrate 60 years of free association, we are going to need to reset the government-to-government relationship. We will also need to find a way, as we did in 1973 and 2001, to formally re-state the mutual responsibilities and obligations that we have for one another and the overall parameters and constraints of the free association model.
     
    Resetting and formally re-stating the parameters of the relationship is not a small task. But it is one which we are confident we can meet – powered by the history of goodwill and common bonds between New Zealand and the Cook Islands people.
     
    Another issue on which the region has devoted significant attention over the past year has been New Caledonia – which is, geographically, New Zealand’s closest neighbour. Uncertainty and discord there is obviously something that prompts concern and discussion right around our region. 
     
    From the moment of the unrest onwards, New Zealand has been very clear that everyone – no matter their view on New Caledonia’s political status – should agree that violence is not the answer. 
     
    The focus must be on dialogue – and finding a new pathway forward on the important issues facing New Caledonia. We had the benefit – working closely with authorities in Paris and Nouméa – to have had a productive visit to New Caledonia in December. 
     
    We went there to listen and to learn, and to engage with a very wide range of New Caledonians of all backgrounds. Hearing New Caledonians voice their hopes and dreams for economic development led us to the view that there may be lessons from New Zealand’s own experiences that might be of value. 
     
    We hope lessons from New Zealand’s own economic development as a multi-ethnic Pacific Island country can be shared with New Caledonians, who might be able to adapt them to their unique context.
     
    Conclusions
    When we reflect on the past year, it is impossible not to be optimistic about this region’s future. As we travelled to places as diverse as Suva, Pohnpei, Alofi, Port Vila, Nauru and Apia, we were struck also by a profound commonality. 
     
    Pacific Islanders scattered around our vast, beautiful region all want a brighter, more prosperous and more secure future for their children and for future generations. 
     
    As a founding member of the Pacific Islands Forum, and as a Pacific and Polynesian country itself, New Zealand has always been at the forefront of efforts to bring about that future. 
     
    Over the past year, we have done our very best to deliver, through words and actions, on New Zealand’s commitment to contribute to a brighter future for all Pacific peoples. This very important work – involving discussion, debate and, yes, sometimes disagreement – will continue.
     
    The Pacific Islands region is a profoundly democratic one. People from every village, town or city in every Pacific Island country have a direct say in how their affairs are run. Just this year, people in six Pacific Islands Forum countries – Australia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia, Tonga and Vanuatu – are heading to the polls to cast ballots which will help determine the future direction of their countries. 
     
    And so it is Pacific peoples’ hopes and aspirations which must drive political leaders and policy makers. Our policies must be responsive and accountable to the perspectives of those we represent. 
     
    And no matter the future we face, or the challenges we encounter, we will always be members of the same Pacific family. We inhabit the most vast and breathtaking ocean continent in the world. And as family, we will always find a way forward, together, towards the secure and prosperous future that our people deserve.
     
    Thank you. Kia kaha. Go well. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Interview of President Trump and Elon Musk by Sean Hannity, “The Sean Hannity Show”

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-center”>Roosevelt Room

    11:48 A.M. EST

         Q    Mr. President, great to see you again.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

         Q    How are you?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 

         Q    Elon Musk.

         MR. MUSK:  Hi.

         Q    Great to see you. 

         MR. MUSK:  Thanks.  Thanks for having me.

         Q    I’ve been reading a lot about you.  I’ve got to start with this.  So, he’s working for free with DOGE.  He’s — he’s kind of put a lot of his life on hold, and you sued Twitter a number of years ago.  You just made him pay you $10 million?

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right.  That’s right.

         Q    That’s — that’s right.  (Laughs.)

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I sued — I sued from long before he had it. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  Yeah.  (Inaudible.)

         THE PRESIDENT:  And, I mean, they really did a number on me, you know.  And I sued, and they had to pay.  You know, they paid $10 million settlement.

         Q    You’re okay with that?
        
         MR. MUSK:  I mean, I left it up to the lawyers and, you know, the team running Twitter.  So, I said, “You guys do what you think is the right — makes sense.”

         Q    I think it’s funny.

         THE PRESIDENT:  I think —

         Q    Because —

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s a very low — I was looking to get much more money than that.
        
         Q    So, you gave him a discount w- — in the lawsuit?

         THE PRESIDENT:  He got — oh, he got a big discount.  I don’t think he even knows about it.

         Q    He’s become one of your — if you read and believe the media — he’s become one of your best friends.  He’s working for free for you.  He’s —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I love the president.  I just want to be clear about that.  

         Q    You don’t care about that? 

         MR. MUSK:  I — no, I love the pr- — I —

         Q    You love the president? 

         MR. MUSK:  I think — I think President Trump is a good man, and — and he’s, you know — I — I —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the way he said that.  You know, there’s something nice about.  (Laughter.)

         MR. MUSK:  No, it is.  I, you know —

         THE PRESIDENT:  It is.

         MR. MUSK:  Because, I mean, the president has been so — so unfairly attacked in the media.  It’s truly outrageous.  And I’ve sp- — at this point, spent a lot of time with the president, and not once have I seen him do something that was mean or cruel or — or wrong.  Not once. 

         Q    You know, I’ve known him for 30 years.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And I’ve never seen anybody take as much as he’s taken.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And we’ve discussed this.  And I’m like, “How do you deal with it?”

         THE PRESIDENT:  Did have a choice?  (Laughs.)  I didn’t have a choice.

         Q    Well, you would say that to me.  I’m like, “What — what am I going to do?  Worry about it?”

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the only thing I can say.

         Q    And, you know — and then culminating in two assassination attempts, which resulted in your endorsement. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I was going to do it anyway, but that was —

         Q    That was it?

         MR. MUSK:  — a precipitating event, yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  That speeded it up a little bit?

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  Yeah.

         Q    The day of the assassination? 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Nice.  I didn’t know that. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, it just — it sped it up, but I was going to do it anyway.

         Q    Mr. President, with your indulgence, I’m convinced that people only know a little bit about Elon.  I don’t think they know everything about Elon, because as I studied for and prepared for this interview, I learned a lot about you that I didn’t know.  I think people will think about Tesla.  Democrats are demonizing you and — and trying to make the country hate you. 

         I just want people to understand you a little bit better, and the person that you’ve gotten to know and have now put a lot of trust in. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

         Q    And, you know, just — let’s go over a little bit of your bio, starting —

         MR. MUSK:  Ah, okay.

         Q    — with PayPal and how you became involved in Tesla and SpaceX and Neuralink —

         MR. MUSK:  This — this could take a while.

         Q    — and all these —

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, you know, I — I think the way you think of me is, like, I’m a technologist and I try to make technologies that improve the world and make life better.

         Q    You can show them your shirt.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, and that’s why, like, my t-shirt says “tech support” — (laughter) — because I’m here to provide the president with — with technology support. 

         And now, that — that may seem, like, well, is that a silly thing?  But actually, it’s a very important thing, because the president will make these executive orders, which are very sensible and good for the country, but then they don’t get implemented, you know?

         So, if you take the — for example, all the funding for the migrant hotels, the president issued an executive order: Hey, we need to stop taking taxpayer money and — and paying for luxury hotels for illegal immigrants —

         Q    It’s crazy.

         MR. MUSK:  — which makes no sense.  Like, obviously, people do not want their tax dollars going to — to fund high-end hotels for — for illegals.  And yet, they were still doing that, even as late as last week. 

         And so, you know, we went in there, and we were like, “This is in violation of the presidential executive order.  It needs to stop.” 

         So — so, what we’re — what we’re doing here is — is — one of the biggest functions of the DOGE team is just making sure that the presidential executive orders are actually carried out.  And this is — I just want to point out, this is a very important thing, because the president is the elected representative of the people, so he’s representing the will of the people.  And if the bureaucracy is fighting the will of the people and preventing the pres- — the president from implementing what the people want, then what we live in is a bureaucracy and not a democracy.

         Q    Yeah.  You — you’re both aware — you have to be keenly aware that the media and — and the punditry class — not that — you know, I think you’ve proven they have no power anymore, because they threw everything they had at you, and they didn’t win.  And that was, you know, the New York Times, Washington Post, three networks, every late-night comedy show, two cable channels — they — they just threw — they threw everything — lawfare, weaponization. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

         Q    And now I see they want you two to start — they want a divorce.  They want you two to start hating each other.  And they try — “Oh, President Elon Musk,” for example.  You do know that they’re doing that to you?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I see it all the time.  They tried it, then they stopped.  That wasn’t — they have many different things of hatred. 

         Actually, Elon called me.  He said, “You know they’re trying to drive us apart.”  I said, “Absolutely.” 

         You know, they said, “We have breaking news: Donald Trump has ceded control of the presidency to Elon Musk.  President Musk will be attending a Cabinet meeting tonight at 8 o’clock.”  (Laughter.)  And I say — it’s just so obvious.  They’re so bad at it. 

         I used to think they were good at it.  They’re actually bad at it, because if they were good at it, I’d never be president because I — I think nobody in history has ever gotten more bad publicity than me. 

         I could do the greatest things; I get 98 percent bad publicity.  I could do — outside of you and a few of your very good friends.  It’s, like, the craziest thing. 

         But you know what I have learned, Elon?  The people are smart.  They get it. 

         MR. MUSK.  Yeah.  They do, actually.  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They get it.  They really see what’s happening. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    And at the end of this interview, I — what I would like is, I — I want people to know the relationship and know more about you. 

         What is the relationship, Mr. President?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I respect him.  I’ve always respected him.  I never knew that he was right on certain things, and I’m usually pretty good at this stuff.  He did Starlink.  He did things that were so advanced and nobody knew what the hell they were. 

         I can tell you, in North Carolina, they had no communication.  They were wiped out.  Those people were — you know, they had rivers in between — land that never saw water, all of a sudden, there was a river and a vicious — like, rapids.  People were dying all over.  They had no communication. 

         They said, “Do you know Elon Musk?”   And they didn’t really know I knew him.  I said, “Yeah.”  They said, “Could you get Starlink?”  It’s, like, the first time I ever heard of it.  I said, “What’s Starlink?”  “A communication system that’s unbelievable.” 

         Q    I have it.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And he — yeah.  And he said — I called him, and I said, “Listen, they really need it.”  And he got, like, thousands of units of this communication, and it saved a lot of lives.  He got it immediately.  And you can’t get it.  I mean, you have to wait a long time to get it.  But he got it to him immediately. 

         And I said, “That’s pretty amazing.”  And I didn’t even know he had it. 

         We watch the rocket ships, and we watch Tesla.

         I think, you know, something that had an effect on me was when I saw the rocket ship come back and get grabbed like you grab a beautiful little baby.  You grab your baby.  It just —

         MR. MUSK:  Just hug the rocket. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’d never seen —

         MR. MUSK:  Everyone — right.  Everyone needs (inaudible) —

         Q    You hug the rocket.  You hug the rocket.

         MR. MUSK:  — (inaudible) rockets. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  No, but — and he said, “You know, you can’t really have a rocket program if you’re going to dump a billion dollars into the ocean every time you fly.  You have to save it.”  And he saved it.  First time —

         Q    That’s ever been done.
        
         THE PRESIDENT:  — I’ve ever seen that done.  Now nobody else can do it. 

         If you look at the U.S., Russia, or China, they can’t do it, and they won’t be able to do it for a long time.  He has the technology.  So, you learn — I wanted somebody really smart to work with me, in terms of the country — a very important aspect.  Because, I mean, he doesn’t talk about it.  He’s actually a very good businessman.  And when he talks about the executive orders — and this is probably true for all presidents: You write an executive order and you think it’s done, you send it out; it doesn’t get done.  It doesn’t get implemented.  They don’t implement it. 

         They — maybe they’re from the last administration — and they are, in some cases.  You try and get them out as fast as you can.  But I could — as soon as he said that, I said, “You know, that’s interesting.”  You write a beautiful executive — and you sign it and you assume it’s going to be done, but it’s not.  What he does is he takes it, and with his hundred geniuses — he’s got some very brilliant young people working for him that dress much worse than him, actually —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, the do.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — they dress in just t-shirts.  (Laughter.)  You wouldn’t know they have 180 IQ.

         Q    Wait.  Wait.  So, what — he’s — he’s your tech support?

         MR. MUSK:  I —

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  He is —

         MR. MUSK:  I actually virtually am tech support.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s much more than that.

         MR. MUSK:  I actually am tech support, though.  But that’s —

         THE PRESIDENT:  But he gets it done.  He’s a leader.  He really is a — he gets it done.  You get a lot of tech people, and you have people, they’re good with tech, but they — he gets it done. 

         You know, I said, in real estate, you had guys that would draw beautiful renderings of a building, and they’d draw the rendering, it would be great, and you’d say, “Great.  When are you starting?”  But they were never able to get it built.  They couldn’t get the finances.  They couldn’t get the approvals.  It would never get done.  And then you have other guys that are able to get it done.  You know, they could just get it done. 

         I was in real estate.  Same thing in this.  He gets it done. 

         So, when he said that — he said, “You know, when you sign these executive orders, a lot of them don’t get done, and maybe the most important ones,” and he would take that executive order that I’d signed, and he would have those people go to whatever agency it was — “When are you doing it?  Get it done.  Get it done.”  And some guy that maybe didn’t want to do it, all of a sudden, he’s signing — he just doesn’t want to bothered.

         Q    Does — do a lot of those executive orders have to be codified into law to — do you need the Republican Congress to follow up?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, and they will.  A lot of them will be.  Yeah.

         Q    They will?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Look, in the meantime, we have four years.  The beauty is, we have four years.  That’s why I like doing it right at the beginning.  Because an executive order is great.  I mean, the one problem — it’s both good and bad, because when they did all these executive orders, I’ve canceled most of them.  They were terrible.  I mean, we were going to go radical left, communist, okay?  It was crazy.  Their —

         MR. MUSK:  Really crazy.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — executive orders were so bad, if they ever got them codified, you’d never be able to break them.  So, the damage that Biden has done to this country — and it’s not even Biden; it’s the people that circled him in the Oval Office, okay? — but the damage they did to this country, in terms of, let’s say, open borders — you know, there’s so many things, but open borders, where millions of people poured into our country, and hundreds of thousands of those people are criminals.  They’re murderers.  They’re drug dealers.  They’re gang members.  They’re people from prisons from all over the world. 

         And we have a great guy, Tom Homan, and he is doing so incredibly.  You saw the numbers.  They’re down like 96 percent.

         Q    Ninety-five percent.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He is a phenomenal guy.  And Kristi Noem is doing an unbelievable job.  And he wanted her.  He said, “She’s so tough.”  And I said, “I don’t think of her as that way.  You know, she’s very nice.”  He said, “No, she’s so tough.”  And she is.  I see her with the horses.  She’s riding the horse.  Let’s — (laughter) — she’s great. 

         But the team we have is — is really unbelievable. 

         But those executive orders, I sign them, and now they get passed on to him and his group and other people, and they’re all getting done.  We’re getting them done.

         Q    Let me go back a little bit to your background, because —

         MR. MUSK:  Sure.

         Q    — it’s beyond impressive.  You were the chief engineer, for example — you were an early believer in Tesla.  You became the CEO and — and then the chief engineer, which was phenomenal.  SpaceX, same thing, which is unbelievable. 

         I mean, you were the first company — private company to send astronauts successfully into — into space, first private company to send astronauts into orbit. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    That’s — that’s pretty deep. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s going to go into orbit soon.

         Q    Okay.

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, he’s going to go to Mars.  He’s going to fly on his —

         Q    Starlink.

         MR. MUSK:  At some point, yeah.

         Q    As in (inaudible) —

         MR. MUSK:  But they say — they always ask me, like, “Do you want to die on Mars?”  And I say, “Well, yes, but not on impact.”  (Laughter.)

         Q    Star- — Starlink is in 100 countries. 

         This is going to be hard.  I feel like I’m interviewing two brothers here.

         MR. MUSK:  You go ahead. 

         Q    Starshield, which could be used for national defense. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, it is already being used for national defense. 

         Q    Then you have a — what is it called?  Optimus, a part of Tesla.

         MR. MUSK:  They’re a robot, yeah.

         Q    A robotic arm.  Then you have an AI arm.  And then you have something that really fascinated me, and it’s called Neuralink. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    You might help the blind to see and people with spinal cord injuries that they — that they can recover, where in the past — how close is that to becoming a success?

         MR. MUSK:  At Neuralink we’re — we’ve ha- — we’ve implanted Neuralink in three patients so far, who are quadriplegics, and it allows them to directly control their phone and computer just using their mind, just by thinking.  It’s like — so, we call this product Telepathy, so you control your computer and phone just by thinking, and it’s possible to actually control the computer and phone faster than someone who has working hands.

         Then the next step would be to add a second Neuralink implant past the point where these — the neurons are damaged, so that somebody can walk again and so the pe- — they can have full-body functionality restored.  And —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And you like Bobby, right?

         MR. MUSK:  I like Bobby, actually.  Yeah.  I — I supported Bobby Kennedy.  I think he — you know, he’s unfairly maligned as someone who is anti-science.  But I think he — he isn’t.  He just wants to question the science, which is the essence of the science — the scientific method, fundamentally, is about always questioning the science. 

         Q    Well, they didn’t tell us the truth about COVID.

         MR. MUSK:  Correct.

         Q    That’s for sure. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes. 

         Q    And we learned a lot with the Twitter files.  And that just, then, raises a question.  You’re the richest man in the world.  You may not like that part. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

         Q    You’re pretty competitive.

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, it’s neither here nor there.

         Q    I’ve known you a long time.

         MR. MUSK:  I don’t think it matters.

         Q    But —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s why I became president.

         Q    — he’s on your team.

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    Well, that’s true.  He can’t top that.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s good.  You know, I wanted to find somebody smarter than him.  I searched all over.  I just couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t.  I couldn’t.
        
         Q    You really tried hard.

         THE PRESIDENT:  I couldn’t find anyone smarter, right?  So, we had to — we had to, for the country.

         Q    But this is the thing —

         THE PRESIDENT:  So, we settled on — we settled on this guy.

         MR. MUSK:  Well, thanks for having me.

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

         Q    So —

         MR. MUSK:  I’m just trying to be useful here.

         Q    But this is the interesting — but this is where we are as a so- — a society.  And I — I hate to do this to you, but I’m going to do it anyway.  You’re doing all of these things.  At DOGE, nobody at DOGE gets paid a penny, correct?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, actually, some people are federal employees, so they do. 

         Q    Oh, okay.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  They’re (inaudible).  But it’s fair to say that the software engineers at DOGE could be earning millions of dollars a year and instead of earning a small fraction of that as federal employees.

         Q    Okay.  So, just —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And they’re very committed people. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    So — you’re — you’re committed to helping the blind see, people with spinal cord injuries recover. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    You’re committed to getting to Mars.  You’re committed to rescue — you’re going to help rescue, next month, two astronauts that I think were abandoned.  They — they dispute that in an interview.

         THE PRESIDENT:  When are you — when are you getting them?

         MR. MUSK:  At the — at the president’s request, we — or instruction, we are accelerating the return of the astronauts, which was postponed, kind of, to a ridiculous degree.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They got left in space. 

         Q    They’ve been there.  They were supposed to be there eight days.  They’re there almost 300.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Biden. 

         MR. MUSK:  They were put —

         Q    Yeah.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, they were left up there for political reasons, which is not good. 

         Q    Okay, it’s not good.  Now, if I had the weight and pressure of doing that successfully on my shoulders, I think I’d be, you know — but you — when we spoke before we did this interview, you were very confident.  You think this will be a successful mission. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, we don’t want to be complacent, but we have brought astronauts back from the space station many times before, and always with success.  So, as long as we’re not complacent —

         THE PRESIDENT:  When are they — when are you going to launch?

         MR. MUSK:  I think it’s about — about four weeks to

    bring them back. 

         Q    About four weeks? 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  And you have the go-ahead.

         MR. MUSK:  We’re being extremely cautious.

         Q    Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You now have the go-ahead.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Well, thanks to you —

         THE PRESIDENT:  They didn’t have the go-ahead with Biden. 

         Q    What’s that?

         THE PRESIDENT:  He was going to leave him in space.  I think he was going to leave them in space.

         Q    Well, it’s like the (inaudible) —

         THE PRESIDENT:  He considered it a —

         Q    — growing up, lost in space. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, he didn’t want the publicity.  Can you believe it?

         Q    Unbelievable.  And so —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — I want to echo something that the president said and then ask an overarching question.  So, people in — get hit with Hurricane Helene, they have no communication with the outside world.  You come to the rescue.  You donated that, I believe?

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Yes.

         Q    You donated to the people of —

         THE PRESIDENT:  He saved a lot of lives.  In North Carolina, he saved a lot of lives. 

         Q    And California, after the wildfires?

         THE PRESIDENT:  California.  But, I mean, in North Carolina, where they were really in trouble, they had no communication, people were dying.

         Q    Nothing.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They were dying of starvation.  He saved a lot of lives in North Carolina.

         Q    Okay.  Now you’re going to rescue astronauts.  And now — again, you do — you do all of this — I would think liberals would love the fact that you have the biggest electric vehicle company in the world. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, I used to be adored by the left, you know.

         Q    Not anymore.

         MR. MUSK:  Le- — less so these days.

         Q    He killed that, huh?

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, less —

         THE PRESIDENT:  I really (inaudible) —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, this — this whole sort of, like, you know — it was — they call it, like, “Trump derangement syndrome.”  And I didn’t — you know, you don’t realize how real this is until, like, it’s — you can’t reason with people. 

         So, like, I was at a friend’s birthday party in L.A., just a birthday dinner, and it was, like, a nice, quiet dinner, and everything was — everyone was behaving normally.  And then I happened to mention — this was before the election, like a month or two before — I happened to mention the president’s name, and it was like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained, like, the methamphetamine and rabies.  Okay?  (Laughter.)

         And they’re like, “Whyy?”  And I’m, like, “What is wrong — like, guys, like” — you just can’t have, like, a normal conversation.  And it’s like — it’s like they become completely irrational. 

         Q    He — he has no idea, if you’re friends with him —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — you pay a price.  You know, it’s like, I walk into a restaurant in New York, and it’s like half the room gets daggers and they want to —

         MR. MUSK:  The eye-daggers — eye-daggers level is insane.  (Laughter.)

         I mean, there was, like — I had, like, some — some invitation because — so, I got invited to, like, so- — basically, a big, sort of, damn — damn event like that was — but I’d received the invitation, like, the beginning of last year and then — and I still attended, even after I’d endorsed President Trump, and I didn’t realize how profoundly that would affect, you know, how I was received.  (Laughter.)

         I mean, I walk into the room and I’m getting just the dirty looks from — from everyone.  Like, if looks could kill, I would have been dead several times over.

         Q    But that was not — (laughter) — before Trump

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    Before Trump: “BC” —

         MR. MUSK:  — ashes on the floor.  (Laughs.)

         Q    — or “BT.”  Before Trump, that never happened.  Right?

         MR. MUSK:  No.

         Q    No.  So —

         MR. MUSK:  I — I just — doesn’t seem strange?  Like, what — what is up with this total, like, madness?

         Q    You’re smarter than me.  Can you — I actually think that there’s a level of irrationality.  It’s almost like a trigger and —

         MR. MUSK:  It totally triggers. 

         Q    And it’s like — look, I — I’ve been on TV — this is my 29th year.  I’ve been on radio 35 years.  I will — I’ve gone hard in the paint to — for candidates that lost.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And guess what?  I get over it.

         MR. MUSK.  Sure.  Yeah, yeah.

         Q    And I just keep doing my show, and I just — you know, I come back to fight another day.

         So, here’s the big — then this is the million dollar or billion dollar — I’m among billionaires — question.  So, you have all this going on and you stop, in a way — you’re still doing it — and you partner with him.  And this is what you get for it from the Democrats.  You get “nobody voted for Elon.”  Well, nobody voted for any of your Cabinet nominees.  Okay?  “People are dying because of DOGE cuts.”  I’ll give you a chance to respond to all that.  “What DOGE is doing is illegal.”  “Elon Musk is” — more street vernacular for a male body part.  “It’s a constitutional crisis.”

         MR. MUSK:  How c- — why — why are they reacting like this?

         Q    Well, first of all, do you give a flying rip?  Number one.  And —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I guess we must be — if we’re the target, we’re doing something right.  You know, if — like, they wouldn’t be complaining so much if they — we weren’t doing something useful, I think. 

         What — all we’re really trying to do here is restore the will of the people through the president.  And — and what we’re finding is there’s an unelected bureaucracy.  Speaking of unelected, there’s a — there’s a vast federal bureaucracy that is implacably opposed to the — the president and the Cabinet. 

         And you look at, say, D.C. voting.  It’s 92 percent Kamala.  Okay, so we’re in 92 percent Kamala.  That’s a lot. 

         Q    Yeah.  They don’t like me here either. 

         MR. MUSK:  I think about that number a lot.  I’m like, 92 percent.  That’s, basically, almost everyone.  And so — but if — but how can you — if — if the will of the president is not implemented, and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented, and that means we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy. 

         And so, I think what we’re seeing here is the — sort of, the thrashing of the bureaucracy as we try to restore democracy and the will of the people.

         Q    You —

         MR. MUSK:  Is this making sense?  I mean — sorry.

         Q    Y- — no, of course it does.  I mean, to me, if you look at our framers and our founders — and you’ve really become a student of history, Mr. President, and we’ve ta- — we’ve had conversations both on air and off air — and if we talk about constitutional order or transformational change, nobody can argue that what’s happening here is going at the speed of light. 

         But however, what were the principles of our framers and our founders?  They wanted limited government, greater freedom for the people — and we’ll get to the specific cutting of waste, fraud, and abuse.  That — that is your goal, is it not?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  And my goal was to get great people.  And when you look at what this man has done, I mean, it was something — I knew him a little bit through the White House. Originally, I’d see him around a little bit.  I didn’t know him before that, and I respected what he did.  And he fought hard.  You know, he was a — he was maybe questioned for a while.  He was having some difficulties.  It was not easy doing what he did. 

         I mean, how many people have started a car company and made it really successful and made a better car where it’s, you know, beating these big companies that that’s all they do is cars?  I mean, it’s really amazing the things that he’s done.

         But I didn’t know it as much then as now.  I mean, the fruits have sort of taken hold.

         But I wanted great people, and he’s a great person.  He’s an amazing person.  He’s also a caring person.  You know, he uses the word “care.” 

         So, they sign a contract in a government agency, and it has three months.  And the guy leaves that signed the contract, and nobody else is there, and they pay the contract for 10 years.

         So, the guy is getting checks for years and years and years, and he’s telling his family, obviously — maybe it was crooked, maybe he paid to get the contract, or maybe he paid that they didn’t terminate him.  But, you know, we have contracts that go forever, and they’ve been going for years, and they’re supposed to end in three months or five months or two years or something, and they go forever.  So, the guy is either crooked — you know, where he knew this was going to happen — or he’s crooked because he’s getting payments that he knows he shouldn’t be getting.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  But they’re finding things like that.  They’re finding things far worse than that.  And they’re finding billions — and it will be hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of fraud.  I say waste and abuse, but fraud, waste, and abuse.  And he’s doing an amazing job.

         And he attracts a young, very smart type of person.  I call them high-IQ individuals, and they are.  They’re very high Q and — high IQ.  And when they go in to see the people and talk to these people — you know, the people think they’re going to pull it over.  They don’t.  These guys are smart, and they love the country.  You know, there’s a certain something. 

         But he uses the word “care.”  So, people have to care.  Like, when I bought Air Force One —

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — I negotiated the price.  It was $5.7 billion, and I got it — I got them down $1.7 billion.  Now they’re not building the plane fast enough.  I mean, they’re actually in default — Boeing.  They’re supposed to —

         Q    When is it —

         THE PRESIDENT:  They’ve been building this thing forever.  I don’t know —

         Q    This is the new Air Force One?

         THE PRESIDENT:  — what’s going on.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  We don’t build the way we used to build.  You know, we used to build like a ship a day, and now to build a ship is, like, a big deal, and we’re going to get this country back on track.  We could do it, but so many things — it takes so long to get things built and get things done. 

         And a lot of it could be something we’ve been discussing.  The regulators go in and they make it impossible to build.  They make it very difficult to build anything, whether it’s a ship, a plane, or a building or anything.  And some of them do it because they want to show how important they are.  Some of them do it maybe because they think they’re right.  They use the environment to stop progress and to stop things.  It’s always the environment.  “It’s an environmental problem.”  It’s not an environmental problem at all.  But they do a lot of things. 

         And, by the way, speaking of that, Lee Zeldin is going to be fantastic in the position.  So important.  He could take 10 years to approve or disapprove something, or he could do it in a month.  You know, just as good.

         Q    Sure. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  And I think you’re going to see some fantastic — a fantastic job done by him.  He’s a tremendous guy. 

         Q    Newt — you echoed something when I had just met you, and it was very similar to what Newt has been saying, that we’re — he brought this country to the dance.  This is the opportunity to be transformational, and to have, I would argue, a — the most consequential presidency if we — if we’d really dig down and do something that had never been done before, and that is get rid of this bureaucracy.  And I’m going —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — to get to specifics.  You say the same thing.  It’s not done yet. 

         MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

         Q    And what did you mean by that?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean the — w- — winning the election is really the opportunity to fix the system.  It is not fixing the system itself.  So, it’s an opportunity to fix the system and to restore the power of democracy. 

         And, you know, people — like, it’s funny how — how often it — you — when these attacks occur, the thing that they’re accusing the administration of is what they are guilty of.  They’re saying that things are — are being done are unconstitutional, but what they are doing is unconstitutional.  They are guilty of the crime of which they accuse us.

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s always the first thing they do.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  “He’s in violation of the Constitution.”  They don’t even know what they’re talking — well, they know.

         MR. MUSK:  It’s absurd. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s just a con job.  It’s a big con job.  And they’re so bad for the country, so dangerous and so bad.

         And the media is so bad.  When I watch MSNBC, which I don’t watch much, but you have to watch the enemy on occasion, the level of arrogance and — and cheating and — they’re just horrible people.  These are horrible people.

         Q    They lie. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  These are horrible people. 

         Q    They tell conspiracy theories.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They lie, and they start up with the Constitution.  They couldn’t care less about the Constitution.

         CNN, likewise.  I mean, I watched them asking questions with, you know, the hatred with the — why — I said, “What are you asking the question with such anger?  You’re asking me a normal question.”  But you see the bias.  The bias is so incredible.  Those two are bad.

         PBS is bad.  AP is bad.  CBS is terrible. 

         I mean, CBS now — they changed an answer in Kamala.  They asked her some questions.  She answered them like, you know, a low-IQ person.  The opposite of him — the absolute opposite.  But she gave a horrible answer.  They took the entire answer out, and they put another answer that she gave 20 minutes later into the — in- — as the answer.  

         Q    It was part of her word salad. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’ve never even heard of that be- — I thought I heard of it all.

         MR. MUSK:  Right. 

         Q    That wh- — “60 Minutes” once — one — wanted to do an interview with me, and I said, “Live to tape.” 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, exactly. 

         Q    They said, “No.”  And I said, “No” —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    — “No deal.” 

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  They can- —

         Q    Like, this interview will —

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’ve never even heard — you know, I’ve seen where they take a sentence off or something and they’ll do — but they —

         Q    Sometimes you cut for time o- — 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  They took the entire — this long, terrible statement that she made and put another. 

         Nobody’s ever seen what’s happening.  And, you know, the people that do all this complaining, they’re very dishonest people. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah. 

         Q    Yeah.  I — I’m going to, just for the sake of saving time —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

         Q    — because I could spend — and I’ve done this on radio and TV, I — I can spend an hour finding the outrageous amounts of money being spent abroad, like USAID.

         MR. MUSK:  Sure.

         Q    And I do want to mention a couple, but I’m going to —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — scroll it and —

         MR. MUSK:  Well — well, I guess, at a high level, I think it’s what the president mentioned earlier, which is that in order to save taxpayer money, it comes down to two things: competence and caring.  And —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right. 

         MR. MUSK:  — and when — when president was shown the outrageous bill for the new Air Force One and — and then negotiated it down, if he had — if the president had not applied competence and caring, the price would have been 50 percent higher — literally, 50 percent higher.  The president cared.  The president was competent.  The price was not 50 percent higher as the result. 

         And so, when you add more competence and caring, you get a better deal for the American people. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  But we could take — we were talking about this yesterday.  I could take — give me thousands of bills — any — I could pick any one of them, and I could —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — take all thousand.  And let’s say it’s a bill for $5,000 — just $5,000, and it’s done by some bureaucrat.  And if he would say, “I’ll give you three.  I don’t want to pay you five.  It’s too high.  I’ll give you three.”  But they don’t do that.  If a guy sends in a bill for $5,000, they pay $5,000.  They expect to be cut.  Everybody expects to be cut.  When you send in a bill, you expect to be cut.  They send in the bill higher, for the most part.  This is true with lawyers, legal fees.  When they send in legal fees, you — I can cut — I wish I had the time, I would save so — but I could cut these bills in half — much better than half. 

         But you offer people a much lower number because you know they — they actually put fat — I’m not even saying it’s — it’s like a way of business.  They put more on because they expect to be negotiated.  When you send in a bill to the government, there’s nobody to negotiate. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You send it a bill for $10,000, and they send you a check back for $10,000.  If you would call them and said, “We’ll give you five.”  “No, no, no.  I need more than five.”  “We’ll give you a five.”  “I’m not going to pay any more than five.”  “Make it six.”  “No, I’m not going to make it six.”  And you’ll settle for $5,500.  You’ve just cut the bill almost in half, and it took, like, two minutes.  When did that stop?  But —

         Q    (Inaudible) the art of the deal?

         THE PRESIDENT:  — that’s caring.  No, it’s not even the art of the deal.  It’s caring.  He uses the word —

         MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s competence and caring.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s caring. 

         Q    Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s — it’s a certain competence, but I think it’s more caring. 

         MR. MUSK:  I — if you —

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  Actually, if you add either ingredient — either competence or caring — you’ll — you’ll get a better outcome.  But it stands to reason —

         Q    Right.  People don’t want to do this (inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK: — that’s the reason that if you don’t have competency and you don’t have caring, you’re going to get a terrible deal.  And the problem is that the American taxpayer has been — been getting a terrible deal, because — look at the last administration.  Can you — can anyone — can any reasonable person say that last administration was either competent or caring?

         Q    But they lied to us and said that Joe didn’t have a cognitive decline.

         MR. MUSK:  They fully lied. 

         Q    They said the borders were closed.  They said that the borders were secure.  They said that —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    You know, they said Obamacare would save —

         MR. MUSK:  They flat out lied. 

         Q    They flat out lied — 

         MR. MUSK:  It was insane.

         Q    — on many occasions. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    I tell my audience all the time: Don’t trust government. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    So, the — I want — as I scroll this information, and it’s — it’s — I’ll scroll a lot more than I’ll mention to both of you, and this is the cost savings.  I want you — I want people at home to understand this part: The average American makes $66,000 a year. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    Okay?  We have $37 trillion in national debt. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes. 

         Q    Now, all the money I’m about to mention and what we’re going to scroll on our screen — and all of this is going to foreign countries.  It is not being spent here in America —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — for better schools, law and order. 

         MR. MUSK:  I — I think the average taxpaying American should be mad as hell because their tax money is being poorly spent.

         Q    I’m mad.  It’s stealing from —

         MR. MUSK:  It’s a — it’s an outrage —

         Q    — our kids and grandkids.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, and the — and people —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And a lot of fraud, Sean.  A lot of fraud.

         Q    Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And a lot of kickbacks. 

         They’re sending money out.  They’re not that stupid.  These people aren’t that stupid.  They’re sending for transgender — something having to do with the opera, and they’re sending out $7 million —

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  Literally.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — $7 million.  (Inaudible) —

         Q    You just stole my next line.  I can’t believe that. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s incredible. 

         Q    I was going to mention that.

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, but it’s incredible: $7 million.

         Now, you know they — they’re not so stupid.  They’re sending all this money.  They expect to get a lot of it back.  And that’s what happens.

         Q    Okay.  So, let’s go through it.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, they’re — a bunch of —

         Q    So, for the average person at home —

         MR. MUSK:  — this stuff is round-tripping.  To the president’s point, they’ll — they’ll make it sound like it’s going to help some people in a foreign country, but then they — then they get kickbacks. 

         Q    All right.  Let me go to the ne- — to the fir- —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — to the second question first.  I want to know, because people like Joni Ernst, and — and House —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, Joni — Joni Ernst has been —

         Q    They tried to get —

         MR. MUSK:  — has tried for a long time, and she’s actually got a lot of good data.  Senator Ernst has been really helpful, actually.

         Q    Okay, but they — they actually hide what the real purpose of the spending is. 

         MR. MUSK:  That’s true.

         Q    In other words, they — and — and h- — this is a question: How did you decipher?  It will say, “Humanitarian blah, blah, blah in Serbia or Afghanistan.”  We’ve been giving money to China for crying out loud, which I think is nuts.

         MR. MUSK:  Well, we’re giving money to the Taliban.

         Q    Money to the Taliban?

         MR. MUSK:  Like a lot.

         Q    All right.  So —

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  I’m like, for what?

         Q    But they —

         MR. MUSK:  I — I want to see pictures of what they did.

         Q    But they try to obscure it, and — and — but then you got to the bottom line, which is what I’m now scrolling on the screen —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — and that is: $20 million on a Sesame Street show in Iraq; $56 million to boost tourism in Tunisia and Egypt; $40 million to build schools in Jordan; $11 million to tell the Vietnamese to stop burning trash; $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma; $520 million for consultant-driven ESG investments in Africa; DEI programs in Serbia; the president’s favorite — I’m sure you — you love that taxpayer money was spent on a DEI musical in Ireland or a chan- — transgender opera in Colombia or a —

         MR. MUSK:  If I could, like, it sounds like —

         Q    — transgender comic book in Peru. 

         MR. MUSK:  It sounds like — it sounds like how can these things be real?  But this is actually what was done. 

         Q    Okay.  The — I —

         MR. MUSK:  It — it sounds like a comedy sketch or something.  It’s like —

         Q    I have 20 pages of this.

         MR. MUSK:  Right.  It’s not — the list is a mile long.

         THE PRESIDENT:  The one thing you didn’t mention, the media.  The media is getting millions of dollars. 

        MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Now, they say Politico, which is a radical left —

         Q    Subscriptions. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  — you know, garbage magazine or — or program.  I guess they have magazine and they have some — some media of all types.  $8 million. 

         I hear the New York Times got a lot.  I hear they get subscriptions — where they have subscriptions but maybe the paper is not sent.  I have no idea if that’s true or not, but it’s — they call it subscriptions.  Lots of subscri- — to different media, not just the Times — maybe the Times, and maybe not the Times.

         Q    A million dollars in subscriptions is a lot.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well — but — but millions of dollars going to media that’s radical-left, crooked, dishonest media.

         MR. MUSK:  Well — well, Reuters — this is actually really wild: Reuters got like — something like $10 million for something that was literally titled “mass disinformation campaign.” 

         Q    Well —

         MR. MUSK:  That was on the purchase order.  Well, I — I

    thought that was a little bold.  (Laughs.) 

         Q    I will tell you what was bold is when you released —

         MR. MUSK:  I’m like —

         Q    — the Twitter files.

         MR. MUSK:  — shouldn’t you at least try to call it something else?  (Laughs.)

         Q    The Twitter files — how they targeted him; how Twitter, at the time, worked closely with the FBI, the CIA; and, even before the release of Hunter’s very real laptop, they were feeding them disinformation.  That —

         MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

         Q    — you found all that out. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I think —

         Q    That’s called transparency, right?

         THE PRESIDENT:  The FBI has to be rehabbed.  The FBI —

         MR. MUSK:   Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  What’s happened with the FBI and the DOJ is just — their — their stock has gone way down.  I mean, their reputation is shot.

         Q    And intelligence.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And I think Pam is going to do great.  I think Kash is going to do great.  I think they have to do great or we have a problem. 

         But when you look at what they did, the raid of Mar-a-Lago — the raid of Mar-a-Lago — you look at what they did, their reputation is shot.

         Q    It is. 

         What — you were going to say, Elon?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, no, I was going to say that I think probably a — like, a lot of people still —

         Q    How — how did you find (inaudible)?

         MR. MUSK:  — still believe, like, the Russia hoax, even though you’ve done a lot to combat that.  The — you know, the — the Steele dossier was an incre- — a massive scam that was concocted by Hillary Clinton and her — her campaign.

         Q    She bought and paid it — for it —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    — Russian disinformation. 

         MR. MUSK:  There was — it was — the — people still think the — the Russia hoax is real.  Like a lot of people s- — because they never — they never heard the counterpoint.  I mean — I mean, a bunch of people should be in prison for that.  That was a — that was outrageous election interference, creating a fake Russia hoax. 

         Q    How much — if you had to put a number on it, how much do you think you’ve identified waste, fraud, abuse, corruption at this point?  And again, we’ve been — we’re going to be scrolling this throughout the program. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, the — the overall goal is to try to get a trillion dollars out of the deficit.  And if we — if we — if the deficit is not brought under control, America will go bankrupt.  This is a very important thing for people to understand.  A country is no different from an individual, in that if an individual overspends, an individual can go bankrupt, and so can a country. 

         And — and the out- — the massive waste, fraud, and abuse that has been going on, which is leading to a $2-trillion-a-year deficit, that — that’s what the president was handed on Jan. 20th, a $2 trillion deficit.  It’s insane. 

         Q    For this fiscal year?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Two trill- — yeah.  We inherited it.

         MR. MUSK:  Two —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  And inflation is back.  I’m only here for two and a half weeks. 

         Q    That was January —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Inflating is back —

         Q    — you were there for a week. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, think of it, inflation is back.  And they said, “Oh, Trump infla-” — I had nothing to do with it.  These people have — have run the country.  They spent money like nobody has ever spent.  They were — they were given $9 trillion to throw out the window — $9 trillion, and they spent it on the Green New Scam, I call it.  It’s the greatest scam in the history of the country.  One of them.  We have a lot of them, I guess.  But one of them.

         Q    Well —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Dollar-wise, probably —

         Q    — and DEI —

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it is.

         Q    — and wokeism —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, yeah.

         Q    — and transgenderism —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, that’s all part of it.  Yeah.

         Q    — and LGBTQ+.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    And, by the way, not in America — other countries, not here. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  You know, the amazing thing is when you see, like, the teaching of DEI: $9 million.  How do you spend $9 million to teach no matter what it is?

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You could teach physics. 

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  Totally.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You could go to MIT for a lot less.

         MR. MUSK:  It’s (inaudible) expensive.  (Laughs.)  Expensive.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, the teaching —

         MR. MUSK:  Expensive BS.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — of DEI.

         Q    Well, I think it would be better spent on —

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s a kickback.  It’s got to be a kickback.  Nobody is that — nobody could do that.  Nobody is —

         Q    Well, it —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody is giving — to assess the dialog of an audience coming out of a theater: $4 million.

         Q    How much do you believe, Elon, you’ve identified in — in waste, fraud, abuse, corruption now?  And how much —

         MR. MUSK:  Well —

         Q    — do you anticipate you will?

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.  Well, the — I — I think —

    THE PRESIDENT:  One percent.

    MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  No, because it’s so massive.  It’s — this is —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, exactly.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — huge money.  Huge money.  Look —

    Q    So, what we’ve found now is one percent?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, we’ve j- — we’ve just gotten started here.

    THE PRESIDENT:  As good as they are, they’re not going to find some contract that was crooked — you know, crooked as hell.  And, I mean, there’s going to be so much that isn’t found.  But what is found — I think he’s going to find a trillion dollars.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, I think so. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  But I think it’s a very small percentage compared to what it is.  I mean, he could tell you about treasuries; he could tell you about a woman that worked for Biden that became a very wealthy woman while she was working for him.  Right?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Yeah, I know who you’re talking about.

    MR. MUSK:  I mean, there are some strange situations where people — where, you know, someone’s working for the government earning $200,000 a year, and then, suddenly, they’re worth tens of millions of dollars within a few years.  Where’d the money come?

    Q    How’d they earn it?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    They have a private company on the side? 

    MR. MUSK:  We’re just curious.  Like, can you —

    THE PRESIDENT:  While they were working.

    MR. MUSK:  Can you show us — because, like, in order to be worth tens of millions of dollars, you’d have to start a company, or you’ve got to get some kind — the compensation has got to come from somewhere.  So, how does a civil servant with — earning $200,000 a year suddenly, within a span of a few years, be worth tens of millions dollars?

    Q    W- —

    MR. MUSK:  So, I just want to connect the dots here. 

    Q    All right, s- —

    MR. MUSK:  Maybe there’s a legitimate explanation, but I don’t think so.  (Laughter.)

    Q    So, you know, and this gets to kind of the heart of where I am.  I — I looked at your work, and I look at this amount of money, and I get angry.  And I don’t get v- — I’m not an angry person. 

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    Q    I don’t get angry.  I get a- — I get annoyed sometimes, but I don’t get angry. 

    And I did live paycheck to bay- — paycheck a part of my life.  And I think of, you know, the working men and women in this country that the — 56 percent of which cannot afford a $1,000 emergency after four years of Harris and Biden.

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    Q    Okay?  That is serious, you know, financial trouble.  Or they’re putting bare necessities on credit cards. 

    And I’m looking at this and I’m thinking, well, how much — when we — when all is said and done, we could have written a check or cut the taxes or fixed our schools —

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Yes.

    Q    — or deported these illegals that we keep finding, known terrorists, cartel members, gang members. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    And — and we’re not doing it.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Sean, the saddest thing is they don’t talk about the individual lines.  I could go on your show right now,  I could get a list that I have on the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, and it’s got 40 points, and all they are is the heading of what this money is. 

    You don’t have to go deep into it, and you see it’s, you know, all different things and it’s so ridiculous. 

    I mean, normally, when you look for fraud, you’re looking for one thing out of a hundred.  Here, out of a hundred, 95 are going to be bad.  I mean, they’re — and they’re so obvious just by the heading.

    But they never mention that.  They only mention, “This is a violation of our Constitution.  This is a” — the word they give, you know, it’s like a sound bite — “constitutional crisis.”  It’s a new thing, “constitution-” —  But they never mention about where the money is going. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Exactly.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And when people hear that — I had a very smart man, John Kennedy — he’s actually a very smart man.  He said, “Sir, you should just go on television and just read the name of the topic that you’re giving all the money — just the topic that you’re giving this money to, and don’t say anything more,” and he’s right.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And I’ll do it at some point, you know, when — 

    But they never talk about where the money is going.  They just talk about, “It’s a constitutional crisis.” 

    It’s so sad.  And honestly, I think they’re bad people.  I used to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you almost think they hate the country.  I think they hate the country.  They’re sick people. 

    Q    Remember, what they can’t — what they couldn’t accomplish at the ballot box, what they can’t accomplish legislatively, now they’re using the courts.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    And they c- — they’re trying to bury you in lawsuits.

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right.  You know the good news, though?  They’ve lost their confidence.  They’re not the same people. 

    Q    I think you’re right.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They’re — they’re not the same people. 

    This election was brutal for them.  We won every swing state.  We won by millions and millions of votes.  We won everything.  We — all 50 states went up — all 50.  It’s never happened.

    Q    Popular vote. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Every one.  All 50 states went up. 

    They’ve lost their confidence.  I see it.  And they’re — they’re just swirling and twirling.  They don’t know what the hell is happening.  They’re much different.  They’re just as mean, but they’re not getting to the point.

    Q    Why do you invite them into the Oval Office nearly every day?

    MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the media — you’re talking about the media.

    Q    Yeah, your friends in the media.

    THE PRESIDENT:  The media — no, they’re — you know, the anger that — they ask questions so angry — a question — a normal question.  I give them an answer.  They — but they — I say, “Why are you so angry when you ask a question?”  Just a standard question.  And, I don’t know, there’s something —

    Q    They haven’t had a- — they haven’t been allowed in that office for the last four years, and here you’re giving them access. 

    Let me go to an area that I think is key, and — and you talked about this in recent interviews, and that is: We don’t need a Department of Education.  Okay.  And what some people are trying to do is stoke fears that, “Oh, my gosh, my kid is not going to get the money for education.”

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

    Q    Or “grandma’s Social Security and Medicare.”  This was a big promise of yours on the campaign trail.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  Yeah.

    Q    So, I really want to give you both an opportunity to assure the American people you will keep — that money will be allocated for students, but with higher standards.  For example, I would assume associated with monies given or vouchers.

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) so much and — and then Elon goes.  But, look, Social Security won’t be touched — 

    Q    Won’t be touched.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — other than if there’s fraud or something — we’re going to find it; it’s going to be strengthened — but won’t be touched.  Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched.  It’s just — 

    Q    Nothing.  I want you to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) don’t have to.

    Now, if there are illegal migrants in the system, we’re going to get them out of the system, and all of that fraud.  But it’s not going to be touched.

    School — I want to bring school back to the states, so that Iowa, Indiana — all these places — Idaho, New Hampshire — there’s so many places, the states.  I figure 35 really run well. 

    And right now, it’s Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, China — China, can you imagine? — has top — top schools.  We’re last. 

    So, they have a list of 40 countries.  We’re number 40.  Usually we’re 38, 39, but last time, we were number 40.  And what I say is you’ve got to give it back. 

    So, it doesn’t work. 

    I’ll tell you what we’re number one in: cost per pupil.  We spend more money than any other country by far — it’s not even close — per pupil.  Okay?  So, we know it doesn’t work. 

    So, we spend the most and we have the worst — right? — the worst result.  When we give that — when we give that back to Indiana, when we give that b- — back to Iowa and back to a lot of the states that run well — they run well, a lot of them — 35, 37, 38 — now, you’re going to have 10 laggards, but you’re going to have 5 real laggards, but that’s going to be okay. 

    Take New York — you give it to Westchester County, you give it to Suffolk County, you give it to Upstate New York, and you give it to Manhattan — but you give it to four or five subsections.  Same thing in California.  Los Angeles is going to be a problem, but you’re going to give it to places that run well.  We can change education

    Now, school choice is important, but that will get care — taken care of automatically. 

    We want to bring education back to the states.  You will spend half the number.  And I’m not even doing this —

    Q    So, you’re leaning more towards grants not vouchers, like to parents?

    THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not even — I’m not even doing this to save, but you will save.  It will cost you much less money.  You get a much better education. 

    If you go to some of these states, you’ll be the equivalent of Norway, Sweden, Denmark — places that really have a good school system.  You’ll have — those places will be the equivalent, and your overall numbers will get so much better. 

    Q    Do you want standards associated with the money?

    THE PRESIDENT:  The only thing I want to do from — from Washington, D.C., is make sure they’re teaching English, reading, writing —

    Q    Math and science.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — and arithmetic.  Okay?

    Q    Science?  Science might help.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  A little science.  You know —

    Q    Computers.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — you’re not going to have much of a problem with that, but that’s it. 

    Do you know, we have half the buildings — I mean, you look at Department of Education —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s empty.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Look at the real estate and the —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — the level.  For what?  To — to — I mean, for — what do they do?

    We have really bad educa- — the teachers — I love teachers.  I respect teachers.  And, by the way, there’s no reason why teachers can’t form a union.  They can do whatever they want to do, if it’s back in the states.  So, we’re not looking to hurt the teacher — I’m — I’m going to help the teachers.  I think the teachers should be incentivized, because a good teacher is like a good scientist, is like a great doctor.

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a valuable commodity. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I think they should be incentivized. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  So, I’m totally for the teachers.

    MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

    Q    I interview a guy a lot on radio.  He’s from Wichita, Kansas.  And he started —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    — as a medical doctor.  Started Atlas.MD, and he’s now — he’s rolled it out nationwide.  Concierge care, $50 a month, 24-hour access to a doctor. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    You know, they use a lot of telemedicine now as part of it — very innovative.  He negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies.  People — if they have high blood pressure, they walk out with their medicine.  They have high cholesterol, they walk out with their medicine.  And they pay pennies on the dollar.

    You mentioned —

    THE PRESIDENT:  By the way, forms of that could be done.

    Q    Forms of that?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Forms of that could be done.

    Q    Innovation. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  We got hurt when we didn’t get the vote on Obamacare.  I made Obamacare — I had a choice: I could let it rot and win a point, or I could do the best you could do with it.  And that’s what I did.  We did a great job with it, and we made it sort of work, but it’s lousy.  We could do so much better. 

    And when you say — you go to certain areas, they — they have doctors round the clock.  They have great medical care for a fraction of what we’re paying right now. 

    There are things we could do. 

    But, look, just overall, this man has been so valuable.  I hate to see the way they go after him.  They go after him.  It’s so unfair.  He doesn’t need this.  He wants to do this. 

    First of all, this is bigger than anything he’s ever done.  He’s done great companies and all, but this is much — you know, this is trillion — everything’s trillions, right?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  The numbers are crazy.

    Q    To go back to my original point —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He can save —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    But let me — give him his $10 million back.

    MR. MUSK:  Well — well — I — no.  So, people ask me, like, “What’s — what’s the — what’s the — what’s, like, the — what’s your biggest surprise in — in D.C.?”  And I’m like, “The sheer scale.”

    Q    It’s massive.  So, you love the challenge?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’ll never do anything bigger.

    MR. MUSK:  To the president’s point —

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the only thing you can say, “He’ll

    never do anything” —

         MR. MUSK:  But, I mean, you do something slightly better, and you save billions of dollars for the American taxpayer — just slightly better.  Slightly.  (Laughs.)

         Q    When you say “tech support” —

         MR. MUSK:  You go one percent better, and it’s, like, you know, tens of billions of dollars saved to the American taxpayer. 

    Now, if I may address the point that you — the question you asked earlier, which is, you know, how do we assure people that —

    Q    They want to know.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, how do we assure people that we’re going to do the right thing, that their — that their Social Security benefits will be there, that their — the medical care will be good and s- — and — in fact, how do we make it — ensure that there’s better medical care in the future?  How do we improve their benefits?  How do we make sure that their Social Security check goes further than it did in the past and not — it doesn’t get weakened by inflation?

    So, the — if we — if we address the — the massive deficit spending, the sort of — the — the waste in the government, then — then we can actually address inflation. 

    So, provided the economy grows faster than the money supply, which means you stop the government overspending and the waste, and the output of real useful goods and services exceeds the increase in the money supply, you have no inflation.

    Q    Yeah.

    MR. MUSK:  And — and you also drop the — the interest payments that people pay, because if the government keeps —

    Q    Way too high.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  The — the reason the interest payments are so high is because the — the national debt keeps increasing.  So, the — the government is competing for — to sell debt with — for — with — with the private citizens.  This drives up the interest rate. 

    So, if you have a — if you have a — if you cut back on the deficit, you actually have an amazing situation for people, because you get r- — you get rid of inflation and you drop the interest rates.  And that means people’s mortgage payments go down, their credit card payments go down, their car payments go down, their student loans go down.  Everything — their — their life becomes more affordable and they’re standard of living improves.

    Q    How quickly?  Because I think people are suffering now.  We’re still living under the Biden-Harris economy. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  But, Sean, you have states right now —

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You have some states that operate that way.  They operate as well as any corporation.  They really operate well.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Florida.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They have surpluses.  They ha- — they don’t —

    MR. MUSK:  Texas is — has a surplus, for example.

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  When they — when they look at New York and — and California and some of these places that should have an advantage — I mean, there’s a big advantage — or Pritzker does such a bad job in Illinois; it’s horrible how bad he is — and they don’t have that advantage. 

    You know, New York has stock exchange and a lot of things.  And California has the weather and the beautiful water and all the thing- —

    MR. MUSK:  California has — has great weather.  The most expensive weather on Earth.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  (Laughter.)  But — but —

    Q    I like Florida.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  But some states operate the way he’s talking about.

    Q    Efficiently.

    THE PRESIDENT:  When you go into some of these states, you’re going to find very little.  You’re going to find almost nothing.  They really operate well — big surpluses, low taxes.  And —

    Q    You know, my taxes went up the first time you were president, because you took away the SALT deduction —

    THE PRESIDENT:  I — well, I did.

    Q    — which, by the way, I thought was the right decision.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It was the right decision — in fact, Reagan tried to do it — because it rewards badly run states.

    But at the same time, it’s a tough — it was — it’s tough for the states.  I mean, it really is tough for the states. 

    The sad part is it rewards really badly run states. 

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And Reagan tried to do it.  He was unable to do it.  I got it done. 

    Q    You got it done, and —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And now we’re going to give some back.

         Q    A little bit.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Because you know what?  We’ve got to help them.

    Q    It’s only a little.

    THE PRESIDENT:  We’ve got to help.

    Q    Because otherwi- — we’re encouraging people to elect high taxes, spen- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody had any idea it would be that devastating.  I did the right thing.  I got something that Reagan couldn’t do.  I got it done, where everybody is — are the same.  But you know what?  We’ve got to help them out.

    Q    Reagan had the Grace Commission, some of the best business minds in the country.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    And they came up with recommendations.  Congress adopted none of them, and none of them were implemented. 

    I’ve got to ask this question, because the media is obsessed about it: What — what if there is a conflict?  In other words, because you do business — it was funny, when it came out the other day, that there was going to be, I think, $400 million — billio- — I don’t know if it was millions or billions — a lot of money on Teslas that Joe Biden’s administration w- — did with Tesla, and —

    MR. MUSK:  I’m not familiar with that.

    Q    You’re not even familiar with it?  But —

    MR. MUSK:  I — I don’t think — are you talking about, like, the Inflation Reduction Act stuff or —

    Q    It was some — it was a purchase order of Tesla vehicles. 

    MR. MUSK:  Oh.  Oh, that was — that was incorrect.  There was s- — like, there’s some sort of — the media claim that there was, like, $400 million worth of Cybertrucks —

    Q    That was it.

    MR. MUSK:  — being bought by the DOD.

    Q    And that he gave it to you.

    MR. MUSK:  No — well, first of all, that was —

    THE PRESIDENT:  No, actually, it was —

    MR. MUSK:  Th- — it was fa- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  It was Biden.

    Q    It was Biden.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you know Biden wouldn’t give him much.

    MR. MUSK:  But — but it wasn’t even — it was fake news, six weeks to Sunday.  Tesla is not getting $400 million for Cybertrucks.  And the — and the — and this alleged —

    Q    That’s what it was, Cybertrucks.

    MR. MUSK:  This — yeah.  This alleged award occurred in December, before the president took office.  So, it’s — it’s fake on multiple levels.  There i- — Tesla isn’t getting $400 million.  And even if it — even if it was, which it isn’t, it was awarded during the Biden administration. 

    Q    Okay, but you’re — you — you —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s total fake news. 

    Q    There — there is —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s fake on, like — it’s like multiple leverals —

    Q    There is some integration —

    MR. MUSK:  — multiple layers of fake.

    Q    So, you’re — you’re tasked now — and I pray to God this is successful.  I really do.  I wish you Godspeed. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    You know, “Godspeed, John Glenn.”

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s — it’s going to be, by the way.  I really believe it’s going to be.

    Q    But — but there —

    MR. MUSK:  Oh, yeah.

    Q    But there are legitimate areas —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Because the country is going to do well beside this. 

    This is cutting.  We’re only talking about cutting. 

    We’re also going to make a lot of money.  We’re g- — we’re taking in so much money.

    Q    But what about his business?  What if — if there is —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Then we won’t let him do it.

    Q    — a contract he would otherwise get?

    THE PRESIDENT:  We’re not going to let him do it.  He — if —

    Q    You’re not going to let him do it?

    THE PRESIDENT:  If he’s got a conflict — I mean, look — he —

    Q    Y- — now y- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s in certain areas — I mean, I see this morning — I didn’t — I didn’t know, but I said, “Do the right thing” — where they’re cutting way back on the electric vehicle subsidies.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They’re cutting back.

    Q    You’re losing —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Not only cutting back —

    Q    It hurts you.

    MR. MUSK:  Correct.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Now, I will tell you —

    Q    You don’t care? 

    MR. MUSK:  Well —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s probably not that happy with it, but that would have been one thing he would have come to me and said, “Listen, you got to do me a favor.  This is crazy.”  (Laughter.)  But this was in the tax bill.  They’re cutting back on the subsidies. 

    I didn’t — I wasn’t involved in it.  I said, “Do what’s right, and you get” — and they’re coming up with the tax, but it’s just preliminary. 

         But I mean, if he were involved, wouldn’t you think he’d probably do that?  Now, maybe he does better if you cut back on the subsidies.  Who knows.  Because he figures — he does think differently.  He thinks he has a better product, and as long as he has a level playing field, he doesn’t care what you do —

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — which he’s very — he’s told me that.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, I haven’t asked the president for anything ever.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

    Q    And if it comes up, how — how will you handle it?  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  He won’t be involved. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, I’ll — I’ll re- — I’ll recuse myself if it is a conflict.

    THE PRESIDENT:  If there’s a conflict, he won’t be involved. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, I wouldn’t want that, and he won’t want it.

    MR. MUSK:  Right.  And — and also, I’m getting a — sort of a daily proctology exam here.  You know, it’s not like I’ll be getting away from something in the dead of night. 

    Q    Welcome to D.C.  If you want a friend, get a dog. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I do have a dog, but I also have friends.  (Laughter.)  My dog loves me, poor little creature. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  You know the truth was —

    MR. MUSK:  I need to bring him to D.C.

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s — I know every businessman.  I know the — the good ones, the bad ones, the smart ones, the lucky ones.  I know them all.  This guy is a ver- — he’s a brilliant guy.  He’s a great guy.  He’s got tremendous imagination and scientific imagin- — far beyond — you know, you keep talking about a technologist and all, but you’re much more than a technologist.  You are that.  But he’s also a good person.  He’s a very good person, and he wants to see the country do well. 

    And I know a lot of great businesspeople, really great business people, but, you know, they’re not really, in some cases, very good people.  And I know people that would try and take advantage of the situation. 

    This guy is somebody that really cares for the country, and I saw that very early on.  I saw it, really, a long time ago when I got to know him.  He’s a very different kind of a character. 

    That’s why — you know who loves him: young people that are very smart and that love the country.  He’s got, like, a tremendous following, because that’s what he’s — he’s a good person.

    And he doesn’t need this.  He didn’t need this, and he’s doing this to help the country.  If I didn’t win this election, this country was — I don’t think it could have made it.  I don’t — I mean, we’re allowing criminals — millions of criminals into our country, where everything is transgender, it’s men playing in women’s sports. 

    I mean, none of this stuff — you could go — I could give you a hundred things.  It’s almost like they’re trying to destroy the fabric of — of the country, of the world, because the world was following us.  Now the world is following us out of this pit. 

    We’ve done a lot.  I’ll tell you what, in three weeks, we’ve done more — I think we’ve done more — in — in terms of meaningful, not just dollars — than maybe any president ever.  And a lot of people are saying that.

    Q    Shock — it’s been shock and awe. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, if we can keep it going at this level, this country is going to be at a level that it’s never seen before. 

    Q    You know one of the things you did that I really thought was pretty clever and smart and fair, and that was reciprocal tariffs. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, reciprocal. 

    Q    Ta- — I didn’t know India charged so much.  I didn’t know the European Union to charge them. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, totally.

    Q    I didn’t know Canada was charging us.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Everybody.  Everybody.  Everybody but us.

    Q    Brazil, why?

    THE PRESIDENT:  And I was doing it — you know, I charged China tariffs.  I took in hundreds of billions of dollars, and I was doing that.  But when we got — we had the greatest economy in history.  But then we got hit with COVID, and we had to solve that problem, because I was doing it — and now I said, I want to come back and do the recipri- — because every country in the world almost — we have a deficit with almost every country — not every one, but just about, pretty close.

    And — but every country in the world takes advantage of us, and they do it with tariffs.  They makes — make it — it’s impossible for him to sell a car, practically, in, as an example, India.  I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I think —

    MR. MUSK:  The tariffs are like 100 percent import duty. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  The tariffs are so high —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — they don’t want to — now, if he built the factory in India, that’s okay, but that’s unfair to us.  It’s very unfair. 

    And I said, “You know what we do?”  I told Prime Minister Modi yesterday — he was here.  I said, “Here’s what you do.  We’re going to do — be very fair with you.”  They charge the highest tariffs in the world, just about.

    Q    36 percent?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, much — much higher.

    MR. MUSK:  It’s 100 percent on — auto imports are 100 percent.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, that’s peanuts.  So, much higher.  And — and others too.  I said, “Here’s what we’re going to do: reciprocal.  Whatever you charge, I’m charging.”  He goes, “No, no, I don’t like that.”  “No, no, whatever you charge, I’m going to charge.”  I’m doing that with every country. 

    MR. MUSK:  It seems fair.

    Q    Don’t you —

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  It does.

    MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s like fair is fair.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody can argue with me.  You know, the media can’t argue — I said — they said, “Tariffs — you’re going to charge tariffs?”  You know, if I said, like, 25 percent they’d say, “Oh, that’s terrible.”  I don’t say that anymore —

    Q    Can I — (inaudible) —

    THE PRESIDENT:  — because I say, “Whatever they charge, we’ll charge.”  And you know what? 

         Q    They stop.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They — then they say, “Oh, that sounds fair.”

    MR. MUSK:  All the president is saying is that —

         Q    (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  — it needs to be at a level playing field and — and fair and square.

    Q    Yeah.  And how does — how —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And we’re going to make a lot of money and a lot of businesses are going to come pouring in.

    MR. MUSK:  How can you argue with a fair and square situation?

    Q    Don’t — don’t you think most of them will look at the — the — for example, without America, China’s economy will tank.  They need our business. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  They do.  Everybody needs us. 

    Q    Everybody needs it. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you know what?

    Q    Do- — don’t you think they’ll stop?

    THE PRESIDENT:  We only have so long left where we’re in this position.  We’re the bank, and the bank is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.  We — we’re the bank.  We got to do this now.  We can’t wait another 10 years and have a shell of a country left, because that’s what was going to happen.

    Q    Mr. President —

    THE PRESIDENT:  This country — if I didn’t win this election and have people like this man right here that really do care, because that’s the other word — if you don’t care, you could be the smartest guy in the world, it’s not going to matter.  But if we didn’t win this election, I’m telling you, we would not have had a country for very long.

    Q    How quickly —

    MR. MUSK:  May I say —

    Q    — do you balance the budget and — and when do we start paying down that debt?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, potentially, very quickly, between what he’s doing and with income coming in from tariffs and other things.  I mean, I hope we can — I don’t want to give a date, because then these people are going to say, “Oh, well, he didn’t make the date.”  But I think we can do it very quickly. 

    We would have never done it if this didn’t happen.  Never.  It would have never been — it would only get worse and worse, and ultimately, it would have exploded. 

    This country was headed down a very bad track.  And the whole DEI thing, that was — that was a trap.  That was a sick trap.

    Q    (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  And, you know, we’ve destroyed that.  That’s gone.  That’s pretty much gone. 

    Q    I agree. 

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    We’re not — we’re not funding it. 

    MR. MUSK:  If — I really want to — I really want to emphasize to people that — this is a very important point — if we don’t solve the deficit, there won’t be money for medical care.  There won’t be money —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    MR. MUSK:  — for Social Security.  We either solve the deficit or all we’ll be doing is paying debt.

    Q    Nobody — 

    MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s got to be solved, or there’s no medical care, there’s no Social Security, there’s no nothing.  That’s got to be solved.  It’s not optional.  America will go bankrupt if this is not done.  That’s why I’m here. 

    Q    The president’s —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Europe takes advantage of us.

    MR. MUSK:  And — and I’d like to also just send a message — like, because, as the president said, like, this — there’s a lot of rich people out there.  They should be caring more about the country because — the reason they should be caring about — more about country is: America falls, what do you think is going to happen to your business?  What do — what do you think — do you think you’re be going to be okay if — if the ship of America sinks?  Of course not. 

    Like, what — what I’m doing here, what the president is doing is it’s just long-term thinking.  The ship of America must be strong.  The ship of America cannot sink.  If it sinks, we all sink with it.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Sean, you’re a —

    Q    This is what — this is what drives you? 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    This is important.  It says “tech support.”  So, you’re not trying to be president, as the media suggests.  You are really here because your heart and your passion is this.  And the president described you as being — this is the biggest thing you ever done.  Now you trying to bring sight to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  There could be nothing bigger.  There’s nothing —

    Q    You’re sending ships up to Mars — you know, spaceships up in the sky all the time —

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s peanuts.

    Q    — and saving astronauts.  That’s pretty big. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s peanuts compared to what we’re talking about.

    Q    It’s peanuts?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Q    Do you agree with that?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, it’s esse- — it’s essential that America be healthy, that America’s economy be strong.  And — and if that — if — basically, like, my concern is like, if — if — America is the central pillar holding up Western civilization.  That pillar must be strong.  If that pillar falls, the whole roof comes crashing down.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Including his ships.

    MR. MUSK:  There’s no place to hide.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Including his ships going up.

    MR. MUSK:  There’s no place to run.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing.  There’s nothing left. 

    Q    Why — why, if this is your goal, your motivation, you’re losing money in the process, you’re offeri- — you do all these nice things for people for free; you’re trying to solve, you know, blindness; you’re going to rescue astronauts; you help the people in North Carolina, California; you’re cutting money that was sent abroad that’s not helping the American people, then why the rage —

    MR. MUSK:  Actually, I think it was like —

         Q    But why this rage?

         MR. MUSK:  — it was not helping the American people and hurting people overseas, to be clear.

    Q    Why this rage against you now?  First, they hated him.  Now they hate both of you. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I think we’re seeing an antibody reaction from — from those who are receiving the — the wasteful and fraudulent money. 

    Q    They’re being exposed. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    Nobody wants to be exposed when you’re corrupt. 

    MR. MUSK:  I’ll — I’ll tell you a lesson I learned at PayPal.  You know who complained the loudest — the quickest and the loudest and with the most amount of righteous indignation?  The fraudsters.  That’s who complained first, loudest, and — and they would generally have this immense overreaction.  That’s how we knew there were the fraudsters.  That’s how we knew.  There’s a tell.

    Q    What di- — I’ve never — I’ve never met you before today.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    And it’s nice to meet you, by the way.  Thank — thank you for doing this. 

    You guys are really friends.  I could s- — you guys — I could see you kicking up your shoes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, he doesn’t do this kind of thing.  And the way I figured that you’d get to know him is if I did it with him.  I said, “Come on, let’s do it together.”  He doesn’t do this. 

    I think he’s smarter not doing it, overall.  Because, you know, I mean, he’s done very well without doing it.  But he doesn’t feel it’s really worthwhile.  He wants the product to speak for itself, or whatever he does speak for itself.  But he views it as — you know, does it matter? 

    And I’m doing this with you today because I wanted to have people understand him.  And I think it’s very important — I disagree with him.  I think it’s very important that they do understand him. 

    He doesn’t need this.  He doesn’t need it.  Now, I happen to think it’s made him very popular.  I think it — he’s more popular now because there are so many people — you know, you’re talking about the radical left — they have the lowest ratings.  MSNBC is dying.  CNN is dying.  They’re all dying.  The New York Times is doing lousy.  The Washington Post is doing horribly.  They’re all doing badly because people don’t buy it anymore. 

    But I think it was important that he do this one interview.  You’ve been a very fair guy.  I think you were the right guy to do it.  If we could get some radical left guy — and he’d do just as well, frankly, because it’s all about common sense.

    Q    They would attack him —

    THE PRESIDENT:  But this — Sean —

    Q    — as being unconstitutional, not — a fascist. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  — to me this was a — it was important for people to understand, he’s doing a big job.  He’s doing a very thankless job.  He’s doing a thankless job, but he’s helping us to save our country. 

    Our country was in serious trouble, and I had to get the best guy, somebody with credibility, because if he were just a regular, good — very good, solid businessman, he wouldn’t have the credibility.  He’s got the best credibility for this. 

    And people also know he’s an honest guy.  He’s an honest guy.  He’s just a very, very smart guy who’s done amazing things.  And this will be the biggest thing he’s ever done, because, you know, his companies are all great.  But if this country goes bad — I guess where he is a little selfish is this.  He knows one thing and probably doesn’t think — but if his — if this country goes bad, his stuff is not going to be worth very much, I can tell you.

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I’d say, if the — if the ship of America sinks, we’re all go- — going down with it.  You know, this idea that people can escape to New Zealand or some other place is false.  If the central pillar of Western civilization that is America falls, the whole roof comes crashing down and there is no escape. 

    Q    It’s amazing, since you’ve been elected, to watch Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia — I — I was shocked at the statements that Vladimir Putin made about you.  I — I was shocked at the hostage release.  I was shocked that Venezuela had done it — had done it.  Zelenskyy wants a deal.  Putin wants a deal. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  All good statements.

    Q    King Abdullah was interested.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You mean by that all good statements.  Look, they respect the president of this country.  They respect — they did not respect the last president.  They laughed at him, and they laughed at our country, and he’s done great damage to our country. 

    Q    Have foreign leaders told you what they thought of Biden?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, they have, but I’d rather not say.  They — they have.  It’s not — it — look —

    Q    It’s the obvious. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  He was not George Washington, let’s put it that way. 

    MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  Not the greatest. 

    Q    Sorry, if that’s (inaudible).

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s done a tremendous disservice. 

    Q    Will you be here —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And, by the way, the Democrats have done a great disservice, and they ought to get their act together and use a little judgment, and they ought to work with us on straightening out this mess that — 

    Q    Who?  John Fetterman?

    THE PRESIDENT:  — a lot of people have —

    Q    Maybe?  Who — what Democrat is not radicalized? 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Actually, you mention John.

    Q    John Fetterman. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s become the best voice in the Democrat party.  You know, I had lunch with him, and I thought he was terrific, but he’s a much different man than he was before he had this difficulty.  He used to be radical left, and I think he became much smarter, actually.  He’s really — he’s really a voice of reason. 

    But the Democrats have to get together.  They have to get their act together, because the stuff they — they talk about makes no sense.  It makes — none whatsoever.  And they must know it.  They must know.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, like, the country has spoken very clearly and rejected the core tenets of the Demo- — Democratic Party.  The country voted t- — fo- — I mean, the country made the — America has made its vote clear.  The president won the popular vote decisively.  The Republicans won the House.  Repub- — Republicans won the Senate.  What more do you need?

    The Democratic Party needs to take a hard look in the mirror and — and change their ways. 

    Q    I think they went from shock, denial, into the depression stage of grief, and now they’re in the rage stage, where I anticipate they’ll stay for four years, and if they get the chance, they’ll want to impeach him 10 times.  Do you anticipate you’ll be here in four years?  My last question.

    MR. MUSK:  I’ll — I’ll be as helpful as long as I can be helpful.

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s a good question.  I mean, I was thinking about that just now.  I said, “I wonder how long he’s going to be doing it.”  You can’t get somebody like this.  He cares, and he’s brilliant, and he’s got energy. 

    You need energy, also, in addition to those other things.

    You know, I have a lot of guys that are very smart, but they have no energy.  They want to sleep all day long.  You need a lot of energy.  He’s got a lot of energy.  He’s doing a great job. 

    If there’s any conflict, he — he will stop it.  But if he didn’t, I’d stop it.  I’d see if there’s a conflict.  I mean, we’re talking about big stuff.

    But he’s under a pretty big microscope. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, seriously.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, everybody is watching him.  If there’s a conflict, you’re going to be reading about it within about two minutes after the conflict.

    MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  There — there’s — the possibility of me getting away with something is 0 percent — 0.0.  I — I’m scrutinized to a ridiculous degree. 

    And — and the other thing is that we — you know, what — what’s — you know what’s better than saying “trust — trust me” is just full transparency.  So, what we’re doing with — with the DOGE — DOGE dot — just go to DOGE.gov.  You can see every single action that’s being taken. 

    And now –and I want to be clear, we are going to make some mistakes.  We’re not going to be perfect.  Nobody bats a thousand.  But we’re going to fix the mistakes very quickly.  That’s what matters: not that you don’t make mistakes, but that you fix the mistakes very fast. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you’re going to ask the other side, when they talk about, “This is a constitutional crisis,” you got to a- — what are they paying for?  Where are those tax — because when you read off the list of things, it’s a big con job.  See, when they talk Constitution —

    MR. MUSK:  Totally.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s a total con job.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They never talk — and I watch some of the shows —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s specifics — they avoid specifics.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, when you start talking about how did — how come they spent money on transgender here and transgender there —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, totally.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — and all the stuff in some country that nobody ever heard of, they don’t want to talk about it.  They just talk about, “This is a constitutional crisis.” 

    Q    It shocks the conscious.

    THE PRESIDENT:  The money is being squandered purposely — tremendous theft, tremendous kickbacks, everything — and we’re straightening it out.  And thank goodness.  I look up, and I say, “Thank you,” because I think if it went on for four more years, it would not be salvageable.  You wouldn’t be able —

    MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You wouldn’t be able to save it. 

    Q    You believe, too, that when you were in Butler, came within a millimeter being assassinated —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Q    The day you endorsed him, that was that day.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    But you had been planning on it?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Pretty — I think everybody will never forget that iconic blood on your face.  “Fight, fight, fight.”  I actually was afra- — watching it and thought you might drop again.  You know, I didn’t know if it had hit you.  You can sometimes get up and then the blood starts to accumulate.  It was scary — pretty scary. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, th- — this is how you know someone’s true character, because everyone can say they’re brave, but the president was actually shot.  Okay?  Courage under fire.  “Fight, fight, fight,” blood streaming down the face.  That’s true courage.  You can’t fake that. 

    Q    Yeah.  Thank you both. 

         Mr. President, thank you, sir. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much. 

    Q    Appreciate it.  Elon, thank you for your time.  Really nice to meet you. 

                                  END                    1:01 P.M. EST

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: Frenchman to donate album on Japan’s war atrocities

    Source: China State Council Information Office 2

    Frenchman Marcus Detrez was leafing through an album of photos depicting his grandfather’s fulfilling life in Shanghai in the 1930s when a picture thrust him into appalling moments of war.
    A sharp contrast to scenes of tranquil lakes and bustling food stalls on the streetside, the photograph shows a civilian, whose head has been completely blown off, lying on the ground.
    The chance discovery made in the garage of his family home in 2021 put the 26-year-old on a truth-seeking journey that offered further evidence of the wartime atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers during China’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1931-45), as well as the resilience of local residents — which is all documented in a collection of 622 photographs.
    Detrez, accompanied by two friends, arrived in Beijing on Saturday to donate the photos to China. They also plan to visit Shanghai to see venues shown in the pictures.
    “I was very shocked when seeing the horrible pictures of the war with corpses and bombings. My mom told me the story of my grandfather, his life in Shanghai, his struggles, the Japanese invasion and the war crimes he witnessed,” Detrez said during an interview with China Daily on Tuesday.
    Detrez has spent his spare time researching the topic and attempting to learn more about his grandfather’s experiences in Shanghai as a business owner and a witness of and fighter against the brutalities of war.
    The first group of pictures uncovered by Detrez in the garage totaled about 170. In December, he and his family members found hundreds more related pictures.
    “We’ve been discussing what we should do with these pictures, and finally we decided to donate them to China,” he said.
    The pictures are now stored in a leather, handheld briefcase — the same one that his grandfather used when traveling back from China many decades ago.
    As he opened the suitcase and sorted through the pictures in waterproof covers and envelopes, Detrez appeared unfazed by some of the graphic, bloody images.
    But he said he has had many sleepless nights since finding these pictures, and his senior family members have been traumatized for many years by the memories.
    “We’ve been carrying a heavy (emotional) burden,” said Bastien Ratat, one of Detrez’s friends assisting with the donation.
    But they have persisted, driven by a desire to spread awareness about the truth of a part of history that they believe is not fully understood by the world.
    Ratat, who is also from France, explained that in his home country and many parts of the world, China’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression is known as the Sino-Japanese war.
    “There is a big difference because it was a war where the Chinese people were under attack, and resisted and defended themselves,” he said. “For Detrez’s grandfather, a foreigner in Shanghai, his world had suddenly changed and he had to be resilient to protect his family and his friends, including Chinese friends.”
    Despite the fact that looking at these pictures is a painful experience, Detrez said it is important to confront and reflect on such historical events.
    “As human beings, we have made some mistakes, and we should make sure that we learn from that,” he said. “I hope that we can tell the truth and inspire the future generations. If we don’t tell the truth, if we deny the truth, we just go into a big war.”
    After finishing his trip in China, Detrez, a language teacher, said he plans to establish an association in France to promote awareness about the wartime atrocities suffered by the Chinese people and foster people-to-people friendship between China and France.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: China’s Einstein Probe captures rare X-ray flash from binary star system

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, Feb. 19 — China’s Einstein Probe (EP) astronomical satellite has captured an X-ray flash from a rare and elusive binary star system, offering new insights into the interaction and evolution of massive stars.

    The research, a collaboration between Chinese and international scientists, was published in the latest issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

    The binary system consists of a large, hot star 12 times the mass of the Sun, and a compact white dwarf with a mass similar to that of the Sun but only the size of the Earth. Only a handful of such systems have been identified, and this is the first time scientists have tracked the X-ray light from the pair as it flared up and then faded.

    On May 27, 2024, the Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT) onboard the EP satellite detected X-rays from the Small Magellanic Cloud, a neighboring galaxy. To trace the source, identified as EP J0052, scientists used EP’s Follow-up X-ray Telescope (FXT) and also enlisted NASA’s Swift and NICER X-ray telescopes, as well as the European Space Agency (ESA)’s XMM-Newton telescope.

    Data analysis revealed the source to be a rare and intriguing celestial pair.

    “We realized that we were looking at something unusual, that only EP could catch. This is because, among current telescopes monitoring the X-ray sky, WXT is the only one that can see lower energy X-rays with sufficient sensitivity to catch the novel source,” says Alessio Marino, a researcher at the Institute of Space Sciences in Spain, and lead author of the study.

    “The unusual duo consists of a massive star that we call a ‘Be star,’ weighting 12 times the Sun, and a stellar ‘corpse’ known as a white dwarf, a compact and hyper-dense object, with a mass similar to that of our star,” explains Marino.

    The two stars orbit closely, with the white dwarf’s strong gravitational field pulling material from its companion. This process eventually leads to a catastrophic nuclear explosion, creating a bright flash across multiple wavelengths, including visible light, UV and X-rays.

    According to the scientists, the two stars’ interaction began with the larger star exhausting its nuclear fuel, shedding material onto its companion. As the Be star grew to 12 times the mass of the Sun, the remaining core of the other star collapsed into a white dwarf. Now, the white dwarf is pulling material from the Be star’s outer layers.

    “This study gives us new insights into a rarely observed phase of stellar evolution, which is the result of a complex exchange of material that must have happened among the two stars,” said Ashley Chrimes, an X-ray astronomer at ESA. “It’s fascinating to see how an interacting pair of massive stars can produce such an intriguing outcome.”

    Erik Kuulkers, ESA project scientist for EP, noted that outbursts from Be-white dwarf systems are extraordinarily difficult to observe. “The advent of EP offers the unique chance to spot these fleeting sources and test our understanding of how massive stars evolve.”

    The EP mission is one of a series of space science missions led by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It is also an international collaboration mission with contributions from the ESA, the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany, and the French space agency CNES.

    Launched on Jan. 9, 2024, from Xichang Satellite Launch Center in Sichuan Province, southwest China, the EP satellite carries two scientific instruments: the WXT, which provides a wide view of the X-ray sky, and the FXT, which allows for detailed observation of transient sources detected by the WXT.

    EP is an international collaborative mission, and its science team comprises about 300 researchers worldwide. The recent publication of the first paper led by scientists from the ESA member states based on EP data highlights the project’s openness and collaborative spirit in scientific research, said Yuan Weimin, EP’s principal investigator.

    “We hope that the EP satellite will continue to provide invaluable observational datasets for the worldwide astronomical community, driving advancements in humanity’s understanding of the ever-changing universe,” he added.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Deputy Secretary-General’s remarks at the Member States’ Briefing on the Second Food Systems Summit Stocktake (UNFSS+4) [as delivered]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    HE Amb. Tesfaye Yilma Sabo, Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the United Nations, 

    HE Amb. Maurizio Massari, Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations, 

    Excellencies, distinguished delegates,
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    It is a real pleasure to join our Permanent Representatives and welcome you all today. 

    As you all know transforming our food systems is essential to driving progress across the Sustainable Development Goals and delivering for everyone, everywhere – sufficient, nutritious food – now and in the future, particularly as we go towards the five years to deliver on the 2030 Agenda.

    That is why, in 2021, the UN Secretary-General convened the UN Food Systems Summit.  This established the foundation for a new, integrated approach to food systems—placing food at the heart of our efforts to address poverty, zero hunger, inequality, climate change, and biodiversity loss. 

    It has reshaped the global narrative, building an engine of transformation that recognizes food systems as a key lever to accelerate and reinforce SDG progress.

    Building on this momentum, the first Summit Stocktake, hosted by the Government of Italy in 2023, reaffirmed strong political will among nations. Countries pledged to increase the pace of their efforts towards sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems transformation.

    But it also highlighted persistent gaps and challenges. Among them, an urgent need to enhance public-private-community partnerships, and strengthen private sector engagement. 

    These crucial issues identified at the first stocktake, resulted in the UN Secretary-General’s Call to Action. 

     The Call identified six critical areas for concerted action, including: securing concessional finance, investments, budget support, and debt restructuring. It also emphasized addressing food security in crisis situations. 

    The proposed SDG stimulus – of $500 billion a year – was recognized as a game-changer, offering fiscal space and resources, including through SDR rechannelling. 

    Finance was emphasized as a critical component of food systems transformation, along with support of our Multilateral Development Banks in unlocking investments in this field. 

    Given the global context riddled with challenges of rising living costs, social inequalities, climate change, and geopolitical tensions, we will need all hands on deck to reach food systems transformations with the impact to advance on the 2030 Agenda. 

    Now, in just over five months, Addis Ababa will host the Second United Nations Food Systems Summit Stocktake. 

    We are grateful to the Government of Ethiopia for hosting this important event and for making our commitment to take the second stocktake to a developing country, a reality. Worth noting also is its leadership and extensive work on its policy environment, infrastructure development and the production of food that engages small holder farmers across the country. We are grateful to Italy, which has agreed to co-host, for its legacy and continued leadership and support to food systems transformation. It is important that we see leadership and sustainability of that support at country level.
     
    The Stocktake will be different, it has to be, in response to many of the requests for us to have more focus and impact.

    First, we will be reflecting on progress since 2023, with a Report from the system, but also a shadow report from our stakeholders.

    Second, we will be partnering to track commitments and outcomes through national food systems pathways to accelerate SDG implementation. 

    And third, unlocking investments to sustain and scale transformative initiatives aligned with the SDGs.

    In preparations for the Stocktake, we are committed to an inclusive, cross-sectoral efforts and consultations. 

     We will hold a second briefing in Nairobi next week engaging UN Headquarters in Nairobi, Rome and Geneva. 

    In addition, we will hold five regional briefings, on the margins of the United Nations Regional Forums on Sustainable Development, from March to May. 

    We will also be engaging all our Resident Coordinators in UN Country Teams, at the country level so that they are fully engaged with our member states in bringing to Addis Ababa, the progress and of course, the challenges and opportunities.

    At the same time, we will push progress towards food systems transformation, including through important gatherings this year – the Fourth Financing for Development Conference in Spain, UNFCCC COP 30 in Brazil, the Second World Summit on Social Development in Qatar, and the Third United Nations Ocean Conference in France. 

    These are all critical platforms to drive progress, harness collective action and create new investment opportunities.

    As Member States, you are at the forefront of this transformation. Your leadership and coordination will be instrumental in ensuring that the Stocktake inspires real action at the national level.

    The United Nations is with you –committed to creating sustainable, inclusive, healthy and resilient food systems everywhere, across all our regions, reaching everyone.

    We thank you for this important opportunity that will help us to shape the Stocktake in Addis Ababa in July. 
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-Evening Report: With billions in ‘profit’ exempt from tax, changes to NZ’s charity rules are long overdue

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ranjana Gupta, Senior Lecturer, Accounting Department, Auckland University of Technology

    Jirsak/Shutterstock

    The profit made on every breakfast bowl of weet-bix is tax exempt, giving Sanitarium Health Food Company, owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, an advantage over other breakfast food companies. But this could be about to change.

    Under current rules, New Zealand’s charities are allowed to run businesses as long as the profits are not for personal gain. This means the government gives up millions in tax revenue from charities across the government.

    In December, Finance Minister Nicola Willis proposed revising the tax rules for charitable organisations. The changes are set to be announced with this year’s Budget. According to Willis, there was about NZ$2 billion of “profit” in the charitable sector that was not subject to tax.

    My new research – to be published later this year – looks at the integrity and fairness of the taxation framework that gives exemptions to charitable organisations competing directly with the for-profit sector.

    Striking the right balance between supporting legitimate charitable activities and preventing the abuse of tax concessions is crucial for ensuring a level playing field in the tax system.

    My study shows the tax exemption system in New Zealand, as it stands now, is not really fair and equitable. And it is past time for this to change.

    For the public benefit

    Under New Zealand’s charity law, a charitable organisation must operate for the public benefit and relieve the government of its burden to provide welfare services and assist disadvantaged people.

    A paper prepared by the Tax Working Group, an advisory group that looked at New Zealand’s tax system between 2017 and 2019, estimated 30% of registered charities were likely to have some sort of trading activities, such as second-hand stores.

    To be eligible for tax exemptions, any gains from businesses must be reinvested in the organisation’s charitable activities.

    The traditional justification for granting charitable organisations tax concessions is that they are dedicated to the greater good of society. The concessions are also meant to offset the disadvantages charities face in accessing capital.

    But by treating the producers of identical goods and services differently, there is a risk of compromising horizontal equity principles – basically the idea that taxpayers in similar positions should pay similar amounts of tax.

    There are concerns for the tax system’s integrity when charitable organisations shift their focus from providing a public good to providing private or unrelated goods (commercial activities).

    In these cases, it is clear that tax breaks should be limited.

    When governments offer tax breaks, they forego tax revenue. Governments end up having to raise money from other sources to meet their total tax collection targets, such as increasing tax rates on non-exempt firms, items and individuals.

    Taxing unrelated activities

    Overseas tax systems take a different view of exemptions for charities, offering examples for New Zealand to follow.

    In the United Kingdom, for example, charities cannot undertake commercial trading activities unrelated to their charitable purposes while claiming exemption from income tax. This ensures fair competition between commercial activities.

    In the United States, “unrelated business income” is subject to tax, restricting concessions to ensure the tax regime matches conventional tax policy or social welfare policy.

    In Australia, commercial trading unrelated to the charity’s core purpose is not allowed.

    Ensuring transparency

    To ensure greater transparency over who gets an exemption, the financial statements of all charities in New Zealand should also be filed on the Charities Register. These statements should be publicly available.

    Charities also need to become more responsible and equitable in their operations. There needs to be stricter regulation, and compliance measures should be implemented. These would prevent tax exemption misuse that benefits a specific group or individuals.

    The time for reviewing charitable purposes is long overdue in New Zealand, particularly given the UK and Australia have set out their concepts of charitable purposes in recent years.

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

    ref. With billions in ‘profit’ exempt from tax, changes to NZ’s charity rules are long overdue – https://theconversation.com/with-billions-in-profit-exempt-from-tax-changes-to-nzs-charity-rules-are-long-overdue-249575

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Condemns President Trump’s Art Of Appeasement To Russian President Vladimir Putin

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    February 18, 2025

    Durbin: President Trump has always had a strange affinity for assorted autocrats and dictators—a troubling stain and liability for the leader of the free world

    WASHINGTON  In a speech on the Senate floor, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) condemned President Trump’s appeasement to Russian President Vladimir Putin—where Trump announced key concessions to Putin regarding Ukraine, while apparently ignoring Ukraine’s key demands. Durbin began his speech by recounting history in which British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain touted the now infamous Munich Agreement as the way to stave off Hitler’s Nazi Germany. One year later, Hitler invaded Poland and triggered World War II.

    “Over time, Chamberlain’s name became synonymous with the term ‘appeasement.’ And for good reason. You see, while Chamberlain’s goal of peace may have been honorable, he was dangerously naïve about the human nature of a tyrant in Germany who was bent on territorial and maniacal ambitions—pursuits that could only be thwarted with strength,” said Durbin. “Well, President Trump’s ‘art of the deal’ opening negotiation with Vladimir Putin has the same naïve odor of appeasement.”

    Durbin continued, “Trump and his fledgling Defense Secretary publicly gave away huge concessions at the start—signaling they would not insist on a return to Ukraine’s sovereign 2014 borders or future NATO membership. It’s also not clear from the Administration’s bewildering Munich Security Conference remarks if Trump plans to even include Ukraine, or our European allies, in the negotiations over its own future. It is no wonder that in the UK—where they remember Chamberlain’s folly all too well—Donald Trump’s early pronouncements were lambasted for their misreading of history by leaders across the political spectrum.”

    Members of the UK Parliament are speaking out against President Trump’s attempt to work with Putin. One Member of Parliament lamented that the West now “might be facing the worse betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945.” Another stated, “This is less the Art of a Deal and more a charter for Appeasement.”

    Durbin concluded, “President Trump has always had a strange affinity for autocrats and dictators—a troubling stain and liability for the leader of the free world. He almost seems to want their adoration and admiration—especially compared to the clear-eyed leadership of Ronald Reagan in his dealing with the Soviets. But there are real consequences to Trump’s autocrat liaisons for American and allied security—ones Republicans in the Senate must take more seriously. His crazy rants about Greenland, Canada as a 51st state, Panama, and the Gulf of Mexico may be amusing to some including himself, but it certainly does not portend well for the foreign policy of the United States. Simply caving to Putin and walking away from Ukraine—just as Chamberlain did to Hitler—is an invitation for more confrontations in the future.”

    Video of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Audio of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Footage of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here for TV Stations.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Yes, Australia needs new homes – but they must be built to withstand disasters in a warmer world

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francesca Perugia, Senior Lecturer, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University

    Australia’s housing crisis has created a push for fast-tracked construction. Federal, state and territory governments have set a target of 1.2 million new homes over five years.

    Increasing housing supply is essential. However, the homes must be thoughtfully located and designed, to avoid or withstand natural disasters such as bushfires, floods and cyclones.

    Recent severe weather, including floods in Queensland and severe storms in north-east Victoria, underscore the growing vulnerability of Australian homes. As climate change worsens, the risk becomes ever-greater.

    Our new research examined how disaster risk informs housing location and design in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. We spoke to planners, developers, insurers and housing providers, and found crucial problems that leave communities exposed.

    Getting to grips with disaster data

    Australia’s towns and cities are increasingly affected by natural disasters. The consequences extend beyond physical destruction to social, psychological and health effects. Disasters also harm the economy.

    Despite this, government housing policies and strategies often fail to adequately focus on natural disasters.

    Accurate, up-to-date information is crucial when seeking to protect new homes from natural disasters. Informed decisions typically require three types of data:

    • foundational: relating to vegetation, landscape features, weather, climate change and building characteristics such as height and materials

    • hazards: the risks of different disaster types such as historical flood data, maps of bushfire-prone areas and the recurrence of cyclones

    • vulnerability: the potential and actual impacts of natural disasters such as building damage, fatalities and injuries, displacement, psychological and health impacts and insurance losses.

    Our research, for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, examined how data could be better used and shared to plan and deliver new housing and protect Australians from disasters.

    What we did

    We started by identifying what data was available in Australia for bushfire, flood and cyclone risk.
    Then we examined who owned and managed the data and how it was, or wasn’t, shared.

    The next step was to explore how decision-makers use the data to assess disaster risks for new housing. This involves interviews, workshops and questionnaires with:

    • government planning agencies (both state and local government)

    • housing providers (public and not-for-profit/community housing)

    • housing and land developers (private and public)

    • banks and insurers.

    What we found

    Overall, we found data on disaster risk was fragmented and inconsistent across multiple agencies, and not regularly updated.

    Decision-makers in state and local planning agencies often cannot access accurate information about disaster risk. This means they lack the power to restrict housing in areas prone to bushfires, floods or other extreme events.

    Flood hazard data is particularly problematic. One planner from Queensland described it as “patchy, of variable quality and currency and not always open source” – the latter meaning it was hard to access.

    Many households only learn about their disaster risk when discovering their homes are uninsurable or premiums are prohibitively high. Others become aware of the problem when premiums rise with an existing insurer.

    A community housing provider told us:

    I think the way people are finding out about risk now is by their insurance policies going up. That’s the market reality. When they get an increase in their insurance policy next year, that will wake them up that they are actually in a high-risk area.

    Data held by emergency service agencies and insurers is mostly inaccessible to planners, developers and households due to privacy and commercial sensitivities.

    However, this information is crucial. Government agencies should establish protocols to enable data-sharing while protecting privacy and commercial interests.

    Lack of transparency for homebuyers

    A recent report suggested only 29% of Australian home buyers know the disaster risks associated with the homes they live in.

    Disclosure statements are required by the vendor (seller) when marketing their house or land for sale. These vary between states and territories and, in most cases, do not compel the owner to reveal all known risks.

    For example, in Victoria, a vendor is required to disclose whether the land is in a designated bushfire-prone area, but not whether it is exposed to flooding.

    What’s more, a vendor motivated to sell a house is probably not the best source to provide accurate, impartial information about its exposure to disaster. This is better left to an independent entity such as a local council.

    Thorough investigations into a home’s disaster risk is usually at the discretion of the buyer.

    Making this information readily available to prospective homebuyers prior to purchase would allow more informed consumer decisions. It would also pressure governments and housing suppliers to address disaster risks.

    Where to next?

    Australia urgently needs a national framework to ensure data on housing and disaster risk is comprehensive, current and embedded in housing development decisions.

    The federal government’s Digital Transformation Agency could establish and implement this system, with input from state and local governments.

    Technology known as “spatial digital twins” could also vastly improve how disaster risk is assessed and communicated. These tools enable users to pull together and arrange large amounts of data, to visualise it in the form of models.

    For example, a spatial digital twin could combine real time flood sensor data with historical flooding patterns to predict and visualise flood risks before they occur. Federal and state governments are already investing in such technology.

    Australia’s push to increase housing supply must be matched with a commitment from governments to ensure the homes are safe, resilient and sustainable in the face of our changing climate.

    Addressing the housing crisis isn’t just about numbers – it’s about making sure homes are built in the right places, with the right protections, for the long-term safety of communities.

    Francesca Perugia
    receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI)

    Courtney Babb receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and is a member of the Greens (WA).

    Steven Rowley receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the Housing Industry Forecasting Group in Western Australia

    ref. Yes, Australia needs new homes – but they must be built to withstand disasters in a warmer world – https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-needs-new-homes-but-they-must-be-built-to-withstand-disasters-in-a-warmer-world-249702

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: OX Place provides bigger, more flexible council homes

    Source: City of Oxford

    OX Place has completed a programme modernising empty council housing to provide bigger, adaptable homes for large families and people with changing mobility needs.

    A growing family or lack of adaptable space can leave people trapped in an overcrowded or unsuitable home. OX Place’s extensions programme upgraded nine empty council homes across the city to help Oxford City Council provide a more flexible response to these needs. 

    The programme included changing internal layouts, a loft conversion, building extensions and providing ground floor bedrooms, shower rooms and other adaptable spaces. Two and three-bed homes were extended to create four and five-bed homes. 

    Empty homes were upgraded with new windows, enhanced insulation, energy efficient lighting and new wiring. 

    Making best use of limited remaining land for housebuilding in Oxford, the extensions project also provided four new council homes in Blackbird Leys, Headington and Northway.

    Built on large garden and corner plots, these included three three-bed houses and a five-bed house. 

    All nine existing and the four new homes have been let to households on the housing register. 

    The extensions project was delivered in partnership with Jessop and Cook Architects and ODS. 

    Comment 

    “While big new housing developments inevitably catch the eye, we need initiatives like OX Place’s extensions programme to make the best use of what we already have. Upgrading and extending empty council housing helps us meet the need for bigger and more adaptable homes, while every new council home makes a life-changing difference.” 

    Councillor Nigel Chapman, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focused Services and Council Companies

    “It’s been a pleasure working with Jessop and Cook Architects and ODS to deliver the extensions programme. People’s lives change and that shouldn’t mean they get trapped in an overcrowded or no longer suitable home. The extensions project means providing the right home and meets a crucial need for Oxford City Council.” 

    Helen Horne, Managing Director at OX Place

    “It has been great working with OX Place, ODS and others on this programme, to create new houses where possible, extend others and improve their energy efficiency to help lower energy bills. Seeing families enjoying the new homes afterwards always makes it worthwhile.” 

    Daniel Wadsworth, Director at Jessop and Cook Architects

    “At ODS, we are proud to have delivered this ambitious programme, creating and modernising much-needed affordable homes for Oxford. By extending, altering, and even building new dwellings on previously underutilised sites, we have helped provide larger, more adaptable homes —particularly for families in need of extra space. Every home we delivered is a testament to our commitment to building a better Oxford.” 

    Mitchell Carter, Head of Construction at ODS

    Completed works 

    • ODS refurbished a three-bed house in Sandy Lane by converting a coal storage area and pantry into a modern utility room. The site was also suitable for building a new fully adaptable three-bed and a five-bed home. ODS used modular construction to build these, with prefabricated panels assembled onsite.  

    • ODS modernised a two-bed house in Foxwell Drive, with changes to the internal layout creating an extended kitchen and new bathroom. ODS also built a new three-bed house on the site using timber frame construction, solar PV panels and an air source heat pump. 

    Work at Sandy Lane, Pauling Road and Foxwell Drive was supported by a total of £246,000 in funding from Homes England. 

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: ‘Ronan’s Law’ to see toughest crackdown yet on knife sales online

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Retailers will need to report suspicious and bulk purchases of knives on their platforms to police, with tougher sentences for selling knives to under 18s.

    Image: Getty Images

    Stricter rules for online retailers selling knives will be introduced by the government, along with tougher penalties for failing to enforce them, as we pursue every avenue to protect young people from knife crime.

    Following tragedies where the unlicensed sale of these weapons online has led to young people being killed, retailers will be required to report any bulk or suspicious-looking purchases of knives on their platforms to police to prevent illegal resales happening across social media accounts.

    Underlining our commitment to stop these weapons from reaching young people, we will increase the sentence for selling weapons to under 18s from 6 months to up to 2 years prison time, which could apply to an individual who has processed the sale or a CEO of the company.

    This increased penalty will also apply to the sale or supply of prohibited offensive weapons such as recently banned zombie-style knives, following police evidence outlined by Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for knife crime, where he identified a discrepancy in current legislation which means there is more leniency for illegally selling weapons than possessing one.

    And in recognition of the broad array of knives – legal or banned – that are involved in knife attacks, a new offence of possessing an offensive weapon with intent for violence will be introduced in the Crime and Policing Bill which will come with a prison sentence of up to 4 years in prison. This means that no matter if the weapon in possession is legal or not, if there is intent to cause violence, it is a crime.

    The government will also explore through a consultation later this year whether a registration scheme should be put in place for all online retailers selling knives so that only responsible sellers are able to sell knives. This follows the government’s recent announcement that we will significantly strengthen ID checks on the sale and delivery of knives to keep our streets safe as part of the Plan for Change.

    Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper said:

    It is horrifying how easy it is for young people to get hold of knives online even though children’s lives are being lost, and families and communities are left devastated as a result.

    Not enough has been done to tackle the online market over recent years which is why we made it an urgent priority in our manifesto and the measures today will be underpinned by investment for a new dedicated police unit to go after those who are breaking the law and putting children and teenagers lives at risk.

    We are honouring our commitment to introduce Ronan’s Law in memory of Ronan Kanda who was tragically killed in 2022. I am so grateful to the Kanda family for their endless perseverance in ensuring governments take the right actions to protect young people from further tragedy. 

    This government has set an ambitious mission for the country to halve knife crime over the next decade and we will pursue every possible avenue to save young lives.

    Last autumn, the Home Secretary commissioned Commander Clayman to conduct an end-to-end review into the sale of knives online. The review, being published today, exposed lethal loopholes in the sale of knives online which are allowing dangerous weapons to end up in the wrong hands.

    The review highlighted the lack of minimum standards for age verification and delivery checks. That is why the government has announced that a stringent two-step system will be mandated for all retailers selling knives online.

    National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for Knife Crime, Commander Stephen Clayman said:

    A key focus in our fight to tackle knife crime and improve the safety of our communities is limiting the accessibility of knives wherever possible, restricting their availability and the routes to purchase. All too often in policing, we are dealing with the horrific consequences of knife crime and seeing how it devastates individuals and families.

    The evidence in the end-to-end review clearly demonstrates just how easy it is for anyone to purchase a knife online, often avoiding any age verification at all, or where it is in place, exploiting vulnerabilities, especially with delivery.  

    We welcome the government’s commitment in working with policing and partners to tackle knife crime and these new measures will significantly enhance our response to this.

    Today’s new measures will collectively be known as ‘Ronan’s Law’ in honour of Ronan Kanda who was tragically killed in 2022 in a case of mistaken identity near his home in Wolverhampton aged 16.

    Ronan’s killers, who were also teenagers, illegally bought lethal weapons online and collected them from the Post Office on the day of the attack, with no age or identity verification taking place. It was later revealed that one of Ronan’s teenage killers had bought more than 20 knives online, including by using his mother’s ID. Today’s measures to close lethal loopholes in the online sale of knives deliver on a manifesto commitment to introduce Ronan’s Law and are the result of tireless campaigning by Ronan’s mother Pooja and sister Nikita to restrict young people’s access to weapons online and to protect other families from the same heartbreak.

    Mother of Ronan and campaigner, Pooja Kanda said:

    In 2022, I lost my son, Ronan, to knife crime and mistaken identity. In 2023, we sat in the courtroom where we were shown a Ninja sword and 25+ bladed articles. Looking at them, I knew my son didn’t stand a chance. Without proper ID checks, the online sale of these bladed articles played a crucial role in this tragedy. How was this allowed? A 16-year-old managed to get these weapons online and sold these weapons to other people.  I knew we could not go on like this, and our fight for what was right had begun. Proper ID checks by sellers, as well as postal and delivery services, played a crucial role.

    We welcome the government’s plans to tackle the online sale of these weapons. Retailers, social media, and sellers need to take on more responsibilities. We welcome the proposal of a registration scheme, where the government will continue to implement stricter measures on the online sale of bladed articles. We have so much work to tackle knife crime; this is a much-needed beginning. 

    This part of Ronan’s law will provide much-needed barriers against knife crime. I wish this was done years ago, and my son would be with me today.

    Patrick Green, CEO of Ben Kinsella Trust said:

    I am pleased to see that the government is listening to frontline organisations and is tightening the legislation needed to eliminate the supply of dangerous and intimidating weapons.

    These new laws, particularly the focus on reporting suspicious purchases and stronger age verification, will compel retailers to take responsibility for their actions. It has been our stated position that a licencing system for retailers is only way to ensure that specialised knives are only sold to those with legitimate and lawful need. 

    A licensing system will ensure that only reputable retailers who comply with the law and prioritise public safety will be able to sell knives.

    In the spring, the Home Office intends to launch a consultation into a registration scheme for retailers in order to sell knives online.

    The government has an ambitious mission to halve knife crime over the next decade and tackling the online space is a core part of that plan. We have already announced that we will introduce significant fines in the region of £10,000 for tech executives who fail to remove illegal knife crime content from their platforms and a mandatory two-step verification system for all retailers selling knives online. This will require customers to submit photo ID at the point of sale and again at the point of delivery. In addition, delivery companies will only be able to deliver a bladed article to the same person who purchased it.

    Since coming into government, ministers have acted with urgency to ban zombie-style knives and machetes, accelerate a ban on ninja swords and address the online market in order to keep weapons off the streets and out of the wrong hands. The government is also steadfast in its commitment to making prevention a central part of its knife crime action plan through the new Young Futures Programme, which will identify young people at risk of being drawn into violent crime and provide the interventions necessary to steer them in the right direction.

    Graham Wynn, Assistant Director of Regulatory Affairs at the British Retail Consortium, said:

    Retailers take their responsibilities seriously and are fully committed to playing their part in making sure knives don’t make their way into the wrong hands. We look forward to considering the full details of the new proposal and welcome the commitment from the Home Office to meet retailers on this vital issue to ensure the safe sale of knives.

    Updates to this page

    Published 19 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: In Day-Long Security Council Debate, Speakers Offer Divergent Views on ‘New’ Global Order, Stress Need to Update Global Governance

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    During a day-long Security Council debate on practicing multilateralism and reforming global governance today, speakers stressed the urgent need to update the United Nations — founded 80 years ago — including reforms to the Council itself and to the global economic order to better address twenty-first-century challenges.

    “One can draw a direct line between the creation of the United Nations and the prevention of a third world war,” said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, recalling that the UN was “born out of the ashes” of the second.  The UN remains the “essential, one-of-a-kind meeting ground to advance peace, sustainable development and human rights”, he said.  However, “eight decades is a long time”, he said, emphasizing that while the “hardware” for international cooperation exists, “the software needs an update”.

    As global challenges demand multilateral solutions, he pointed out that the Pact for the Future puts forward concrete solutions to strengthen the machinery of peace, advance coordination with regional organizations and includes the first multilateral agreement on nuclear disarmament in more than a decade.  It also includes efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space, advance discussions on lethal autonomous weapons and recognizes the UN’s role in preventive diplomacy.

    “But the Pact does even more for peace,” he said, as it recognizes that the international community must address the root causes of conflict and tension and that the Council “must reflect the world of today”. Guided by the Pact, he said that multilateralism — “the beating heart of the United Nations” — can became an even more powerful instrument of peace.  “But multilateralism is only as strong as each and every country’s commitment to it,” he added, urging all Member States to continue updating global problem-solving mechanisms to “make them fit for purpose, fit for people and fit for peace”.

    Shift of Power to Global South

    Wang Yi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of China — Council President for February — then spoke in his national capacity to recall that representatives of his country were the first to sign the Charter of the United Nations, “writing with the Chinese calligraphy brush an important chapter in world history”.  Now, though, comprehensive peace and shared prosperity remain elusive.  Noting the rise of the Global South on the world stage, he insisted that “international affairs should no longer be monopolized by a small number of countries” and the fruits of global development should not be enjoyed by only a few countries.  China, as the world’s largest developing country, has become the major trading partner of more than 150 countries and regions and is promoting high-quality Belt and Road cooperation to contribute to global prosperity and development.

    “The continuing inequalities of the global financial system have further aggravated today’s crises,” said Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, adding that “the very fabric of the world order established under the UN Charter is in danger of being torn apart”.  Urging reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, he pointed out that the current system favours the rich, while developing nations are trapped in a cycle of poverty and debt.

    Also underlining the need to reform the global economic order, Selma Bakhta Mansouri, Secretary of State to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Algeria, said that current financial arrangements are largely led by developed States.  It is necessary to ensure a “flexible and sustainable financing mechanism for African States and to work towards improving or easing their debt burden,” she stressed.  She also noted that Africa represents more than a quarter of UN Member States, but continues to be deprived of permanent representation on the Council.

    Similarly, Francess Piagie Alghali, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Sierra Leone, said that Africa remains the most glaring victim of inequitable Council composition.  Without structural reform, the organ’s performance and legitimacy will continue to be questioned, she said, also highlighting Africa’s exclusion from multilateral development banks.  Highlighting the African Union’s theme of the year — Justice for Africans and People of African Descent through Reparations — she stressed the need to urgently rectify the historical injustices perpetuated against the continent.

    Push for Two Permanent Security Council Seats for Africa

    Ahmed Moallim Fiqi, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Somalia, also reiterated the need for a “deep-rooted reform” of the Council, stressing that African States should be granted two permanent seats that include the right to veto.  Stating that the UN Charter must be the “linchpin” and “our lodestar” as the international community embarks on reforming the multilateral system, he also noted that Council resolutions are being trampled upon, calling for effective mechanisms to bolster the UN’s capacity to guarantee international peace and security.

    “It is illogical that Africa does not feature among permanent members,” observed France’s representative, underscoring:  “That must change.”  Two African States must hold permanent seats on the Council, and he added that Africa’s demand for veto power is “legitimate”.  The representative of Denmark, in that vein, stated that the world needs a more-representative Council — “one which redresses the historical injustice done to the African continent”.  She added:  “We cannot seriously tackle the issues facing multilateralism when the Security Council continues to operate in a reality of yesteryear.”

    “The Security Council is arguably the least representative and most undemocratic of global institutions,” added Guyana’s representative, pointing out that the Council faces the risk of becoming irrelevant.  “We have seen repeatedly how the current structure and decision-making format — particularly the use of the veto — have thwarted the will” of the wider membership, she said.  Greece’s representative, for his part, expressed support for “any model of reform that is fair, strengthens the UN as a whole and transforms the Security Council into a more democratic, efficient, representative and accountable body”.

    Russian Federation, China Accused of Being Drivers of Instability

    Meanwhile, the representative of the United States said that “two of the greatest drivers of instability in the world today hold veto power”, spotlighting the Russian Federation’s bloody war in Ukraine and China’s exploitation of its developing-nation status.  “We need to take a close look at where this institution is falling short,” she added.  Therefore, the United States is currently reviewing its support to the UN, and she said that “we will consider whether actions of the Organization are serving American interests, and whether it can be reformed”.

    As to why the UN is falling short of its ambitions, the representative of the United Kingdom observed that “there is more to this than the often-mentioned liquidity crisis”.  While the Organization’s membership has increased, it is not fully representative of today’s “multipolar world”, she said.  Further, the Council is often characterized as “ineffective geopolitical theatre”, and she added that — while reform is needed — “this body has the tools to implement its peace and security mandate”.

    “It is time to rescue multilateralism from ruinous mistrust,” stressed Panama’s representative, urging States to ensure that, rather that floundering, the system flourishes and prospers.  Observing that his country has been reaping the rewards of multilateralism since its independence, he said that diplomatic efforts lead to the end of the colonial enclave and to the recovery of “our Canal”.

    BRICS Surpasses G7 in Gross Domestic Product

    The representative of the Russian Federation noted that developed countries have siphoned off $62 trillion in resources from the Global South since 1960, highlighting Moscow’s efforts to advance anti-colonial agendas at the UN.  And “there have been tectonic shifts in the global economy”, with BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China, South Africa) accounting for 37 per cent of the global gross domestic product (GDP), surpassing 29 per cent represented by the Group of 7 (G7) countries, he added, stressing the need for a more equitable global financial architecture.  Rejecting the West’s domination at the Security Council as “a relic of the past”, he said that his country advocates for indivisible security in Eurasia without infringing on others’ interests.

    “It is extraordinary that 193 Member States — with each of us at different stages of political and economic development, like-minded or even antagonistic — gather every day in this very building to discuss and solve current and future issues,” observed the representative of the Republic of Korea.  “This should not be taken for granted,” he stressed, stating that the UN’s convening role is the “driving engine of multilateralism”.  Slovenia’s representative, similarly, noted that the UN “enabled the power of rules to replace the rule of power”.  Citing former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, he said:  “It is not big Powers who need the UN for their protection.  It is all the others.”

    Unilateralism Versus Multilateralism

    As the floor opened to the wider membership, Celinda Sosa Lunda, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, pointed to the need for radical change within the UN structure in view of the myriad threats to the planet’s very existence.  “We are fighting for the transition towards a multipolar world,” she stressed.  “Today the world is in a state of flux,” said Jeje Odongo Abubakhar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uganda, pointing to the “palpable loss of trust” in age-old institutions and mechanisms.  Observing that many world leaders now favour unilateralism, he stressed:  “The future of multilateralism depends on the willingness of State and non-State actors to re-imagine and revitalize the system.”

    On that, Carlos Fernández de Cossío, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba, said that it has become crucial to defend multilateralism given “the withdrawal of the world’s greatest Power from international bodies”.  He also opposed “trends towards the privatization of the Organization, turning it into a tool that represents the interests of major Powers and large transnational capital”.  Meanwhile, Péter Szijjártó, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, said that, during the “global dictatorship of the international liberal mainstream”, the UN has failed to be a platform for peace.  He therefore stressed that the UN must adjust itself to the new global political reality or “lose its significance”.

    Waleed Abdul Karim El-Khereiji, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, also said that the increasing crisis of confidence in the UN demands reform.  Further, “current bloody incidents” call for firm responses from the multilateral system.  “No people should feel abandoned by the international community,” stressed Fedor Rosocha, Director General of the Directorate for International Organizations and Human Rights in the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia, stressing that the Council must not be passive in the fact of conflict, crisis and atrocity.

    The fact that “no new world war has happened” is not a consolation to Ukrainians whose towns have been destroyed, observed Mariana Betsa, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.  Multilateral institutions are being undermined from within, she said, urging that permanent Council members be limited in their use of the veto when they have a conflict of interest in the matter under consideration.  She added:  “If the UN begins to resemble a boxing ring — with fighters, their supporters and passive spectators — the prospects for global security will be bleak.”

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Romanian Man Guilty of Access Device Fraud Conspiracy

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    NEW ORLEANS, LA – Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson announced that DORU ADAMESC, a/k/a “Petru Golban,” (“ADAMESC”), age 32, a national of Romania, pled guilty on February 13, 2025 before Chief United States District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown, to conspiracy to commit access device fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029(b)(2).

    According to court documents, on May 19, 2024 and May 20, 2024, ADAMESC, and a co-conspirator, purchased items at retail establishments so that they could approach the credit card reading machines.  ADAMESC’s co-conspirator then distracted the cashiers while ADAMESC covertly installed card skimmers on the credit card reading machines.  ADAMESC was arrested on June 5, 2024, when he returned to one of the stores to attempt to retrieve a skimming device.  A search of his vehicle resulted in the seizure of two large magnets, commonly used to activate the Bluetooth capabilities on skimming devices.  ADAMESC’s cellular phones were seized; one phone contained a photo of approximately 60 gift cards spread out on a counter.  Such gift cards are typically re-encoded with stolen card numbers in order to make fraudulent purchases or withdrawals.

    Law enforcement officers also seized six credit card skimmers before ADAMESC was able to retrieve them.  These skimmers captured approximately 421 credit, debit, and Electronic Benefit Transfer (“EBT”) cards.

    ADAMESC faces up to 7.5 years imprisonment, up to 3 years of supervised release, a fine of up to $250,000, and a mandatory $100.00 special assessment fee.  Sentencing before Chief Judge Brown has been scheduled for May 22, 2025.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Simpson praised the work of the Special Agents of the United States Department of Agriculture – Office of Inspector General; Special Agents with the United States Secret Service; Deputies with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office; Deputies with the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office; Deputies with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office; and Officers of the New Orleans Police Department, in investigating this matter.  Assistant United States Attorney Maria M. Carboni of the Financial Crimes Unit is in charge of the prosecution.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI: CDPQ to sell 2,500,000 common shares of Intact Financial

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MONTRÉAL, Feb. 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — CDPQ today announced its intention to sell 2,500,000 common shares of Intact Financial Corporation (TSX: IFC), representing approximately 1.4% of the issued and outstanding common shares of Intact as of February 18, 2025.

    The common shares are being sold at a gross price of $278.60 per share, which has been underwritten by CIBC Capital Markets and National Bank Financial. CDPQ expects to receive gross cash proceeds of approximately $696,500,000 from the offering.

    This transaction is part of CDPQ’s regular portfolio rebalancing. Once the transaction is complete, CDPQ will own approximately 6.6% of Intact’s issued and outstanding common shares, remaining its largest shareholder and Intact continuing as one of CDPQ’s largest holdings in the public markets.

    “CDPQ has been a major shareholder of Intact for over fifteen years, during which time our investment in the company has generated significant returns for our depositors,” said Vincent Delisle, Executive Vice-President and Head of Liquid Markets at CDPQ. “This transaction allows us to monetize a portion of these returns while retaining significant ownership in the company, based on our confidence in Intact’s growth prospects, including through several strategic operations based and managed in Québec.”

    “CDPQ continues to be a valued partner in Intact’s evolution as a leading global P&C insurer. This transaction enables a significant gain on a portion of one of their largest investments while remaining able to support our growth ambitions,” said Ken Anderson, Executive Vice President and CFO, Intact Financial Corporation. “We have delivered an annualized total shareholder return of 15% over the last 10 years, and we remain well positioned to sustain our track record of outperformance, given the strength of our platforms, our talented team and our clear strategic roadmap.”

    ABOUT CDPQ
    At CDPQ, we invest constructively to generate sustainable returns over the long term. As a global investment group managing funds for public pension and insurance plans, we work alongside our partners to build enterprises that drive performance and progress. We are active in the major financial markets, private equity, infrastructure, real estate and private debt. As at June 30, 2024, CDPQ’s net assets totalled CAD 452 billion. For more information, visit cdpq.com, consult our LinkedIn or Instagram pages, or follow us on X.

    CDPQ is a registered trademark owned by Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and licensed for use by its subsidiaries. 

    ABOUT INTACT FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    Intact Financial Corporation (TSX: IFC) is the largest provider of Property and Casualty (P&C) insurance in Canada, a leading Specialty lines insurer with international expertise and a leader in Commercial lines in the UK and Ireland. The business has grown organically and through acquisitions to almost $24 billion of total annual operating direct premiums written (DPW).

    In Canada, Intact distributes insurance under the Intact Insurance brand through agencies and a wide network of brokers, including its wholly owned subsidiary BrokerLink. Intact also distributes directly to consumers through the belairdirect brand and affinity partnerships. Additionally, Intact provides exclusive and tailored offerings to high-net-worth customers through Intact Prestige. In the US, Intact Insurance Specialty Solutions provides a range of Specialty insurance products and services through independent agencies, regional and national brokers, wholesalers and managing general agencies. Across the UK, Ireland, and Europe, Intact provides Personal, Commercial and/or Specialty insurance solutions through the RSA, 123.ie, NIG and FarmWeb brands.

    For more information
    CDPQ Media Relations Team
    + 1 514 847-5493
    medias@cdpq.com

    Caroline Audet
    Manager, Media Relations and Public Affairs, Intact Financial
    416 227-7905 / 514 985-7165
    media@intact.net

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Amid Evolving Threat Landscape, UN Peacekeepers Must Have Adequate Resources to Protect Vulnerable Populations in Conflict Zones, Speakers Tell Special Committee

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    In an ever-shifting security landscape, ensuring sufficient funding, technology and training, and promoting gender equality in peacekeeping operations while also recognizing the importance of safeguarding vulnerable populations in conflict zones is more critical than ever, speakers told the opening of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, which also marked 60 years since its establishment.

    Vice-President of the General Assembly Cherdchai Chaivaivid (Thailand), speaking on behalf of Assembly President Philémon Yang (Cameroon), said that, for nearly 80 years, UN peacekeepers have protected civilians from violence and supported vital political dialogue between parties to conflict.

    “The safety and security of United Nations peacekeepers remains of utmost importance,” he stressed, adding that since 1948 over 3,500 blue helmets have lost their lives serving in UN peacekeeping operations.  “Going forward, we will need mandates suited for an evolving threat landscape,” he said, also emphasizing the need for improved capacity to assess conflict situations, as well as effective planning and management throughout the peacekeeping cycle.

    “It is also vital to improve cooperation of poor countries with other critical partners, increase trust among stakeholders and manage local and international expectations in the Pact for the Future,” he went on to say.  Further, Member States must enhance collaboration between the UN and regional and subregional organizations, particularly the African Union.

    Adoption of Pact for the Future Created ‘Transformative Moment’ for Peacekeeping

    Martha Ama Akyaa Pobee, Assistant Secretary-General for Africa in the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations, speaking on behalf of Jean-Pierre Lacroix, UN Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations, said that this annual engagement by Member States is a key source of the “enduring strength as a preeminent symbol of multilateral resolve”.  Peacekeepers can be a “lifeline” for hundreds of thousands of civilians caught in conflict.

    The Committee’s sixtieth anniversary comes at a transformative moment for peacekeeping following the adoption of the Pact for the Future, where Member States equivocally reaffirmed peacekeeping as a critical tool to maintain international peace and security, she said.  “You have a unique opportunity to build on those efforts by providing a platform for dialogue, presenting innovative ideas and ensuring the effectiveness and accountability of UN peacekeeping operations,” she added.

    More Peacekeeper Resources Key amid Complex Terrain Marked by Geopolitical Challenges and Volatility

    As delegates took the floor, many stressed the need for more resources so that peacekeepers can carry out their work in an ever-shifting security landscape, with Morocco’s delegate, speaking for Non-Aligned Movement, noting that UN peacekeeping operations are currently navigating a complex terrain marked by geopolitical challenges.  “Funding and limited resources remain a significant issue,” she stressed.  “As a result, peacekeeping operations find themselves in a delicate position, needing to adapt to the realities on the ground while responding to international expectations.”

    Troop- and Police-Contributing Countries Stress Consultation with Them Key for Drafting Clear, Achievable Mandates

    Speakers from troop- and police-contributing countries stressed the Security Council must further consult with them to draft clear and achievable mandates that preserve the primacy of political solutions and help peacekeeping operations better address the evolving nature of global conflicts.

    “Our peacekeepers continue to serve in nations where security situations are volatile, but despite such challenges, our peacekeepers are striving to fulfil their mandates, and therefore we must ensure their safety and security,” said Indonesia’s delegate, speaking for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).  Noting that its member States contribute over 5,000 peacekeepers across various UN missions, he called for better quality training and equipment for the troops.

    Canada’s representative, also speaking for Australia and New Zealand, and echoing other speakers, emphasized the importance of including women in all areas of peacekeeping missions, and commitment to the women, peace and security agenda as a cornerstone of the UN’s efforts to promote gender equality and lasting peace, reduce training obstacles in order to guarantee women’s full, equal participation.  “We urge missions to step up efforts to support the role of women in conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding,” he said.  He further underscored the importance of planning and the deliberate implementation of transitions and drawdowns in peacekeeping operations, stressing:  “Several agencies need to be involved from the very beginning of these processes to identify the capacity of the host Government, the UN and civil society actors to support those transitions.”

    Countries Hosting Peacekeeping Missions Urge Focus on Linguistic Capacity-Building, Improved Cooperation

    Speakers from countries hosting peacekeeping missions laid out their priorities and concerns, as well, with the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, speaking for the French-Speaking Ambassadors Group, emphasizing that French-speaking areas host several operations that face growing and complex challenges.  “The fragility of ceasefire agreements, the high cost of conflict for the civilian population and the complexity of peace processes are making the work of the blue helmets more essential than ever,” he stressed. Recalibrating peacekeeping capacities is vital to improve cooperation with host States and “strengthen the links of trust” with the local population.

    “This is a priority that must also be looked at from the point of view of linguistic and intellectual capacity-building,” he said, calling for a focus on language abilities from the strategic planning to the operational phases.  Many countries in the Francophone space want to contribute more to peacekeeping operations, but they are being held back by language barriers at every stage of their engagement.

    Donor Countries Pledge Continued Support

    Donor countries, meanwhile, pledged to continue to support UN peacekeeping missions, and echoed many other Member States in calling attention to the unique opportunity created by the adoption of the Pact for the Future.  The European Union’s speaker, noting that the bloc provided almost one quarter of the UN’s peacekeeping budget last year, said it will continue to contribute constructively to the upcoming negotiations with the intent to improve UN peacekeeping in accordance with the Pact.  “We currently deploy almost 4,000 military police and civilian personnel to UN peace operations,” he said, adding:  “We cannot continue to demand more from our peacekeeping missions by expanding their mandates without providing the necessary resources for their implementation.”

    UN peacekeeping operations are confronted with increasingly complex challenges, he observed, citing regional threats, the effects of climate change, mis- and disinformation, increased presence of non-State actors, such as private military companies, transnational criminal activities and the weaponization of new and emerging technology, as demonstrated by the first attack ever last September on UN peacekeepers with an improvised armed unmanned aerial system.

    Election of Officers

    At the opening of the meeting, the Committee by acclamation elected Francisco Tropepi (Argentina), Michael Gort (Canada), Takayuki Iriya (Japan) and Michal Miarka (Poland) as Vice-Chairs; and Mohamed Soliman (Egypt) as Rapporteur.  Michael Gort (Canada) was elected to serve as Chair of the Working Group of the Whole.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Security: U.S. Marshals Arrest Cleveland Homicide Suspect and Barberton Shooting Suspect

    Source: US Marshals Service

    Garfield Heights, OH – This afternoon, members of the U.S. Marshals led Northern Ohio Violent Fugitive Task Force (NOVFTF) arrested Oturi Germany, 46 and Oturiana Germany, 28.  Oturi Germany was wanted by the Cleveland Division of Police for aggravated murder. Oturiana Germany was wanted by the Barberton Police Department for felonious assault.

    On January 10, 2025, officers from the Cleveland Division Police, 3rd District, located a deceased male inside a storage room in the basement of an apartment building located in the 2100 block of E. 78th Street, Cleveland, Ohio. The male victim had suffered a gunshot wound to his back. Oturi Germany was later identified as a suspect in this fatal incident and a warrant for aggravated murder was issued for his arrest.

    On February 17, 2025, a male was shot three times at the Washington Square Apartments in Barberton, Ohio. The male victim suffered three non-life-threatening gun shot wounds. The Barberton Police Department identified Oturiana Germany as a suspect in the shooting and a warrant was issued for her arrest.

    This afternoon, members of the NOVFTF arrested both Oturi and Oturiana Germany inside a vehicle near the 5100 block of E. 117th Street, Garfield Heights, Ohio. Two firearms were located during the arrest and seized by officers on scene.

    U.S. Marshal Pete Elliott stated, “Thankfully, no one was hurt during the arrest and our task force was able to take two violent fugitives and firearms off the street today. Our task force is comprised of outstanding officers who are highly trained, which results in safe arrests like the ones today in Garfield Heights.”

    Anyone with information concerning a wanted fugitive can contact the Northern Ohio Violent Fugitive Task Force at 1-866-4WANTED (1-866-492-6833), or you can submit a web tip. Reward money is available, and tipsters may remain anonymous.  Follow the U.S. Marshals on Twitter @USMSCleveland.  

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI: Nokia Corporation: Repurchase of own shares on 18.02.2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Nokia Corporation
    Stock Exchange Release
    18 February 2025 at 22:30 EET

    Nokia Corporation: Repurchase of own shares on 18.02.2025

    Espoo, Finland – On 18 February 2025 Nokia Corporation (LEI: 549300A0JPRWG1KI7U06) has acquired its own shares (ISIN FI0009000681) as follows:

    Trading venue (MIC Code) Number of shares Weighted average price / share, EUR*
    XHEL 1,336,347 4.79
    CEUX
    BATE
    AQEU
    TQEX
    Total 1,336,347 4.79

    * Rounded to two decimals

    On 22 November 2024, Nokia announced that its Board of Directors is initiating a share buyback program to offset the dilutive effect of new Nokia shares issued to the shareholders of Infinera Corporation and certain Infinera Corporation share-based incentives. The repurchases in compliance with the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 (MAR), the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1052 and under the authorization granted by Nokia’s Annual General Meeting on 3 April 2024 started on 25 November 2024 and end by 31 December 2025 and target to repurchase 150 million shares for a maximum aggregate purchase price of EUR 900 million.

    Total cost of transactions executed on 18 February 2025 was EUR 6,405,512. After the disclosed transactions, Nokia Corporation holds 251,793,006 treasury shares.

    Details of transactions are included as an appendix to this announcement.

    On behalf of Nokia Corporation

    BofA Securities Europe SA

    About Nokia
    At Nokia, we create technology that helps the world act together.

    As a B2B technology innovation leader, we are pioneering networks that sense, think and act by leveraging our work across mobile, fixed and cloud networks. In addition, we create value with intellectual property and long-term research, led by the award-winning Nokia Bell Labs which is celebrating 100 years of innovation.

    With truly open architectures that seamlessly integrate into any ecosystem, our high-performance networks create new opportunities for monetization and scale. Service providers, enterprises and partners worldwide trust Nokia to deliver secure, reliable and sustainable networks today – and work with us to create the digital services and applications of the future.

    Inquiries:

    Nokia Communications
    Phone: +358 10 448 4900
    Email: press.services@nokia.com
    Maria Vaismaa, Global Head of External Communications

    Nokia Investor Relations
    Phone: +358 931 580 507
    Email: investor.relations@nokia.com

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Peacekeeping is one of the UN’s most valuable tools to support global peace and security: UK statement on Peacekeeping Operations

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Statement by Ambassador James Kariuki at the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C-34).

    2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government“>

    This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government

    Peacekeeping is one of the UN’s most valuable tools to support global peace and security, including by preventing conflicts from escalating and creating space for political solutions. However, the nature of conflict is evolving and so must our approaches to addressing them.

    I will make three points.

    First, this year marks the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which recognised the vital role women play in supporting peace and security.

    To promote this agenda, the UK is proud to serve as co-chair of the Elsie Initiative for 2025, advancing the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women in peacekeeping, which, in turn, enhances the operational effectiveness of missions.

    We also recognise the critical role that peace operations can play in countering conflict-related sexual violence. We should ensure that peacekeepers are equipped with comprehensive training to help them prevent and respond to the growing threat of sexual and gender-based violence.

    We also need to ensure the highest standards in peace operations. This requires a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and abuse with stronger mechanisms to respond to instances where it occurs.

    Second, peacekeeping depends on strong cooperation between the UN and Member States, including host countries and regional partners. We should continue enhancing collaboration and partnerships, including with regional organisations, in order to give missions the best chance of success. Security Council resolution 2719, enabling AU-led peace operations to access UN-assessed contributions, was an important step. And the UK supports the use of 2719 for the AU Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia.

    We should also continue to challenge restrictions on the freedom of movement of missions, and violations of the Status of Forces Agreements which make mandates harder to deliver and undermine the protection of civilians.

    Third, peacekeeping in 2025 remains a dangerous activity. I pay tribute to the 61 UN peacekeepers who lost their lives in 2024 and four so far in 2025. Attacks on UN peacekeepers are absolutely unacceptable and may constitute war crimes. 

    We particularly note the work and bravery of MONUSCO peacekeepers currently serving in Eastern DRC. They have worked tirelessly, and under great pressure, to deliver their mandate, especially the protection of civilians, in the face of M23’s takeover of Goma with support from the Rwandan Defence Forces.

    To safeguard missions, we need robust contingency plans, intelligence capabilities, effective strategic communications, and measures to counter misinformation and disinformation. Peacekeepers should be equipped with the tools they need.

    To conclude, the United Kingdom underscores its support for UN peacekeeping. We remain committed to working with partners to strengthen peacekeeping’s effectiveness and to ensure it can adapt to new challenges. We look forward to constructive discussions over the coming weeks and to agreeing a report which will help steer the work of the UN and its Member States over the coming year.

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 18 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Trade instructed to suspend importing and selling of Ireland Dooriel Creek raw oysters from production area code MO-AN-DC in Ireland

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    Trade instructed to suspend importing and selling of Ireland Dooriel Creek raw oysters from production area code MO-AN-DC in Ireland
    Trade instructed to suspend importing and selling of Ireland Dooriel Creek raw oysters from production area code MO-AN-DC in Ireland
    ******************************************************************************************

         ​The Centre for Food Safety (CFS) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department today (February 18) instructed the trade to suspend the import of Ireland Dooriel Creek raw oysters from production area code MO-AN-DC. The trade should also stop using or selling the product concerned immediately should they possess it.     A spokesman for the CFS said, “The CFS was notified by the Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health of few food poisoning cases which involved consumption of raw oysters at a restaurant in Tsim Sha Tsui. The CFS conducted investigations at the restaurant concerned and found that the restaurant had sold Ireland Dooriel Creek raw oysters from production area code MO-AN-DC. For the sake of prudence, the CFS has immediately instructed the trade to suspend the import into and sale within Hong Kong of all Ireland Dooriel Creek raw oysters from production area code MO-AN-DC.”     The CFS has also instructed the supplier and restaurants concerned to stop supplying and selling the affected raw oysters immediately, and is tracing the distribution of the affected product. The trade should also stop using or selling the product concerned immediately should they possess it.     The spokesman pointed out that as oysters feed by filtering a large volume of seawater, pathogens can accumulate in them if they are grown in or harvested from contaminated water. Raw or partially cooked oysters are high-risk foods. Susceptible groups, such as pregnant women, young children, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems or liver diseases, should avoid eating raw oysters.     The CFS will inform the Irish authorities and will also notify the local trade. It will continue to follow up on the incident and take appropriate action to safeguard food safety and public health. An investigation is ongoing.

     
    Ends/Tuesday, February 18, 2025Issued at HKT 21:06

    NNNN

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: FORMER UK PRIME MINISTER SHRI RISHI SUNAK VISITS PARLIAMENT HOUSE WITH HIS FAMILY

    Source: Government of India

    FORMER UK PRIME MINISTER SHRI RISHI SUNAK VISITS PARLIAMENT HOUSE WITH HIS FAMILY

    LOK SABHA SECRETARY GENERAL WELCOMES SHRI SUNAK AND HIS FAMILY

    Posted On: 18 FEB 2025 6:32PM by PIB Delhi

    Shri Rishi Sunak, former Prime Minister of United Kingdom, visited Parliament House with his wife Smt. Akshata Murty and daughters Krishna and Anoushka, today. They were accompanied by Smt. Sudha Murthy, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha.

    Secretary General, Lok Sabha, Shri Utpal Kumar Singh welcomed Shri Sunak and his family. Secretary General, Rajya Sabha, Shri P C Mody was also present on the occasion.

    During their visit, the Sunak family explored the Parliament House Complex, admiring its architectural grandeur.  They visited notable sites like the Galleries, Chambers, Constitution Hall, and Samvidhan Sadan.

    This visit is part of Shri Sunak’s recent engagements in India. Just a few days ago, he visited the Taj Mahal with his family on 15 February 2025.

    ***

    AM

    (Release ID: 2104430) Visitor Counter : 25

    Read this release in: Hindi

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Import of poultry meat and products from Cheshire West and Chester District of Cheshire County in UK suspended

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    Import of poultry meat and products from Cheshire West and Chester District of Cheshire County in UK suspended
    Import of poultry meat and products from Cheshire West and Chester District of Cheshire County in UK suspended
    ******************************************************************************************

         The Centre for Food Safety (CFS) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department announced today (February 18) that in view of a notification from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) about an outbreak of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza in the Cheshire West and Chester District of Cheshire County in the United Kingdom (UK), the CFS has instructed the trade to suspend the import of poultry meat and products (including poultry eggs) from the area with immediate effect to protect public health in Hong Kong.     A CFS spokesman said that according to the Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong imported about 910 tonnes of chilled and frozen poultry meat, and about 1.34 million poultry eggs from the UK last year.     “The CFS has contacted the British authority over the issue and will closely monitor information issued by the WOAH and the relevant authorities on the avian influenza outbreak. Appropriate action will be taken in response to the development of the situation,” the spokesman said.

     
    Ends/Tuesday, February 18, 2025Issued at HKT 19:34

    NNNN

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: WTO chairpersons for 2025

    Source: World Trade Organization

    General Council

    H.E. Mr. Saqer Abdullah Almoqbel (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

    Dispute Settlement Body

    H.E. Ms. Clare Kelly (New Zealand)

    Trade Policy Review Body

    H.E. Mr. Asset Irgaliyev (Kazakhstan)

    Council for Trade in Goods

    H.E. Mr. Gustavo Nerio Lunazzi (Argentina)

    Council for Trade in Services

    H.E. Mr. Ram Prasad Subedi (Nepal)

    Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

    Mme. Emmanuelle Ivanov-Durand (France)

    Committee on Trade and Development

    H.E. Dr. Mzukisi Qobo (South Africa)

    Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions

    H.E. Dr. José R. Sánchez-Fung             (Dominican Republic)

    Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration

    H.E. Mrs. Carmen Heidecke (Germany)

    Committee on Trade and Environment

    H.E. Mr. Erwin Bollinger (Switzerland)

    Committee on Regional Trade Agreements

    H.E. Mr. José Valencia (Ecuador)

    Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance

    H.E. Mr. Suon Prasith (Cambodia)

    Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology

    H.E. Mr. Salomon Eheth (Cameroon)

    Council for Trade in Services in Special Session

    H.E. Dr. Adamu Mohammed Abdulhamid (Nigeria)

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: France: Lawmakers must reject ‘discriminatory’ bill to ban hijabs in all sports

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Proposed bill would ban wearing ‘ostensibly religious’ clothing and symbols in French sports

    Senate to debate and vote the bill this week

    New law would exacerbate the blatant religious, racial and gender discrimination already experienced by Muslim women in France

    ‘The sports hijab bans in France are yet another measure underpinned by Islamophobia and a patriarchal attempt to control what Muslim women wear’ – Anna Błuś

    French lawmakers must reject a discriminatory bill that would ban the wearing of “ostensibly religious” clothing and symbols during competitions in all French sports, Amnesty International said ahead of this week’s Senate debate and vote. 

    The ban which would apply to competitions organised by sports federations, their decentralised bodies, professional leagues and affiliated associations as well as swimming pools, is being debated today and tomorrow ahead of an expected vote.

    Anna Błuś, Amnesty International’s Researcher on Gender Justice in Europe, said:

    “At the Paris Olympics, France’s ban on French women athletes who wear headscarves from competing at the Games drew international outrage. Just six months on, French authorities are not only doubling down on the discriminatory hijab ban but are attempting to extend it to all sports.

    “Under the guise of implementing the notion of ‘secularism’, these laws in reality target and disproportionately impact the rights of Muslim women and girls who will be excluded from competing in all sports if they wear a hijab or any other religious clothing.

    “To equate the wearing of a headscarf with “an attack on secularism” is not only absurd but dangerous and would only serve to create division this proposed law purports to want to tackle. This law would exacerbate the blatant religious, racial and gender discrimination already experienced by Muslim women in France.

    “All women have the right to choose what to wear. The sports hijab bans in France are yet another measure underpinned by Islamophobia and a patriarchal attempt to control what Muslim women wear. This bill must be rejected”  

    “Laïcité”, or “secularism”, which is theoretically embedded in the French constitution to protect everyone’s religious freedom, has often been used as a pretext to block Muslim women’s access to public spaces in France. Over several years, the French authorities have enacted laws and policies to regulate Muslim women’s and girls’ clothing, in discriminatory ways. Sport federations have followed suit, imposing hijab bans in several sports. 

    Damaging impact of hijab ban in French sport

    In the run up to the 2024 Olympic Games, Amnesty published findings setting out the damaging impact of hijab bans in sports on women and girls in France and exposing how the bans contradict the clothing rules of international sport bodies.

    The research looked at rules in 38 European countries and found that France is the only one that has imposed bans on religious headwear in sports. It found that preventing Muslim women and girls from fully and freely participating in sports can have devastating impacts on all aspects of their lives, including on their mental and physical health.  

    In October 2024, United Nations experts condemned these bans as “disproportionate and discriminatory” and called for their reversal. But instead of addressing these pressing concerns, French authorities are now attempting to expand their restrictions to Muslim women’s participation in sports through this bill.  

    As well as banning religious clothing, the bill would also prohibit prayers from taking place in any sports facilities or grounds and introduce a requirement for sports educators to undergo “administrative investigations…prior to the issuance of the sports educator’s professional card”.   

    Haïfa Tlili, sociologist and co-founder of Basket Pour Toutes, told Amnesty International:

    “There is no objective data to justify decisions that severely restrict the freedoms of Muslim female licence-holders who decide to wear sports headgear. It is therefore incorrect and unjustified to assert that the rules which exclude Muslim sportswomen and girls are necessary, appropriate and proportionate for the proper functioning of public service.”

    Basketball player and another Basket Pour Toutes co-founder, Hélène Bâ, described how hijab bans force Muslim women to make an impossible choice.

    This new law would have appalling consequences for Muslim women and girls: humiliation, stigmatisation, trauma, withdrawal from sport, breakdown of social ties, loss of self-confidence, disappearance of women’s teams, endangerment of clubs.”

    The explanatory note to the bill says that the “neutrality” requirement as interpreted in French law extends to employees and volunteers of sports federations, for instance coaches and referees and even “high level athletes”.  

    According to a report accompanying the bill, this legislation has been prompted by “growing attacks on secularism” and the need to address reports of “radicalisation”, “communitarianism” and “Islamist separatism” in French sports. It argues that banning clothing such as sports hijabs would prevent the formation of “counter-societies”.  

    By placing the wearing of a headscarf on the spectrum of “attacks on secularism”, which range from “permissiveness” to “terrorism”, this legislation, if passed, would fuel racism and reinforce the growing hostile environment facing Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim in France. Indeed, framing headscarves as a security threat or singling them out as a symbol of women’s oppression is imbued with negative and discriminatory stereotypes that are endemic to the “othering” of Muslim women because of their religion. 

    Political disagreement on the merits of the bill

    The proposal was submitted to the Senate on 5 March 2024 by Senator Michel Savin after being debated in the Standing Commission on Cultural, Educational, Communication and Sports Affairs, revealing deep disagreements between senators on the merits of the bill. A previous attempt to ban religious headwear in all sports at the national level was rejected by the Senate in February 2022.    

    https://www.senat.fr/rap/l23-667/l23-667_mono.html – explanatory note  

    https://www.senat.fr/leg/ppl23-668.html – bill text only  

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: France: Hijab ban in all sports would violate human rights and target Muslim women and girls 

    Source: Amnesty International –

    French lawmakers must reject a discriminatory bill that would ban the wearing of “ostensibly religious” clothing and symbols during competitions in all French sports, Amnesty International said ahead of a debate in the Senate which starts today and will be followed by a vote. 

    The ban which would apply to competitions organized by sports federations, their decentralized bodies, professional leagues and affiliated associations as well as swimming pools, is being debated today and tomorrow ahead of an expected vote.

    Six months after the Paris Olympics, French authorities are not only doubling down on the discriminatory hijab ban but are attempting to extend it to all sports

    “At the Paris Olympics, France’s ban on French women athletes who wear headscarves from competing at the Games drew international outrage. Just six months on, French authorities are not only doubling down on the discriminatory hijab ban but are attempting to extend it to all sports,” said Anna Błuś, Amnesty International’s Researcher on Gender Justice in Europe. 

    “Under the guise of implementing the notion of ‘secularism’, these laws in reality target and disproportionately impact the rights of Muslim women and girls who will be excluded from competing in all sports if they wear a hijab or any other religious clothing.” 

    “Laïcité”, or “secularism”, which is theoretically embedded in the French constitution to protect everyone’s religious freedom, has often been used as a pretext to block Muslim women’s access to public spaces in France. Over several years, the French authorities have enacted laws and policies to regulate Muslim women’s and girls’ clothing, in discriminatory ways. Sport federations have followed suit, imposing hijab bans in several sports. 

    In the run up to the 2024 Olympic Games, Amnesty International published findings setting out the damaging impact of hijab bans in sports on women and girls in France and exposing how the bans contradict the clothing rules of international sport bodies. The research looked at rules in 38 European countries and found that France is the only one that has imposed bans on religious headwear in sports. It found that preventing Muslim women and girls from fully and freely participating in sports can have devastating impacts on all aspects of their lives, including on their mental and physical health.  

    In October 2024, United Nations experts condemned these bans as “disproportionate and discriminatory” and called for their reversal. But instead of addressing these pressing concerns, French authorities are now attempting to expand their restrictions to Muslim women’s participation in sports through this bill.  

    As well as banning religious clothing, the bill would also prohibit prayers from taking place in any sports facilities or grounds and introduce a requirement for sports educators to undergo “administrative investigations…prior to the issuance of the sports educator’s professional card”.   

    “There is no objective data to justify decisions that severely restrict the freedoms of Muslim female licence-holders who decide to wear sports headgear. It is therefore incorrect and unjustified to assert that the rules which exclude Muslim sportswomen and girls are necessary, appropriate and proportionate for the proper functioning of public service,” Haïfa Tlili, sociologist and co-founder of Basket Pour Toutes, told Amnesty International.  

    Basketball player and another Basket Pour Toutes co-founder, Hélène Bâ, described how hijab bans force Muslim women to make an impossible choice. “This new law would have appalling consequences for Muslim women and girls: humiliation, stigmatisation, trauma, withdrawal from sport, breakdown of social ties, loss of self-confidence, disappearance of women’s teams, endangerment of clubs,” she told Amnesty International. 

    The explanatory note to the bill says that the “neutrality” requirement as interpreted in French law extends to employees and volunteers of sports federations, for instance coaches and referees and even “high level athletes”.  

    According to a report accompanying the bill, this legislation has been prompted by “growing attacks on secularism” and the need to address reports of “radicalisation”, “communitarianism” and “Islamist separatism” in French sports. It argues that banning clothing such as sports hijabs would prevent the formation of “counter-societies”.  

    “All women have the right to choose what to wear. This bill must be rejected”  

    By placing the wearing of a headscarf on the spectrum of “attacks on secularism”, which range from “permissiveness” to “terrorism”, this legislation, if passed, would fuel racism and reinforce the growing hostile environment facing Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim in France. Indeed, framing headscarves as a security threat or singling them out as a symbol of women’s oppression is imbued with negative and discriminatory stereotypes that are endemic to the “othering” of Muslim women because of their religion. 

    “To equate the wearing of a headscarf with “an attack on secularism” is not only absurd but dangerous and would only serve to create division this proposed law purports to want to tackle. This law would exacerbate the blatant religious, racial and gender discrimination already experienced by Muslim women in France,” said Anna Błuś. 

    “All women have the right to choose what to wear. The sports hijab bans in France are yet another measure underpinned by Islamophobia and a patriarchal attempt to control what Muslim women wear. This bill must be rejected”  

    BACKGROUND 

    The proposal was submitted to the Senate on 5 March 2024 by Senator Michel Savin after being debated in the Standing Commission on Cultural, Educational, Communication and Sports Affairs, revealing deep disagreements between senators on the merits of the bill. A previous attempt to ban religious headwear in all sports at the national level was rejected by the Senate in February 2022.    

    https://www.senat.fr/rap/l23-667/l23-667_mono.html – explanatory note  

    https://www.senat.fr/leg/ppl23-668.html – bill text only  

    The debate is scheduled for 18 and 19 February

    An OpEd was published in Nouvel Observateur here

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Congratulate Rwanda on Number of New Jobs Created, Ask Questions on Women’s Political Representation and Recognising the Cultures of Rwanda’s Different Ethnic Groups

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights today concluded its review of the fifth periodic report of Rwanda, with Committee Experts commending the State on the number of new jobs created, while raising questions about women’s political representation and how Rwanda recognised the cultures of its different ethnic groups. 

    Preeti Saran, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, was impressed with some of the figures shared, including seven per cent gross domestic product growth and 1.3 million jobs created.  These were commendable and Rwanda should be congratulated.   

    Peters Sunday Omologbe Emuze, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Rwanda, said Rwanda had made significant progress in gender equality, and especially women’s political representation.  What steps were being taken to increase women’s representation in local administration and the private sector? How was the gender pay gap addressed? What was being done to combat discrimination against women and stereotypes? 

    Ms. Saran said each ethnic group in Rwanda had a rich cultural heritage.  For the sake of national unity and reconciliation, if everyone was being referred to as Rwandan, how did the State propagate the cultural richness of the population?   Rwanda had been extremely welcoming to refugees from all over the world, who brought their own specific languages and cultures.  What measures had the State party taken to ensure equal cultural rights for ethnic groups that had come as aliens, refugees or asylum seekers? 

    The delegation said over the years, Rwanda had implemented measures to achieve gender equality, particularly in Parliament, where it was around 63 per cent in the Chamber of Deputies and around 53 per cent in the Senate.  Quotas were in place which mandated that a minimum of 30 per cent of leaders should be women.  When the issue of equality was dealt with properly, this had a cascading effect on other policies.  A few years ago, the State recognised that gender-based violent crimes were specific in nature and needed to be treated in a certain way. 

    The delegation said there was no significant cultural diversity within the country, as everyone shared the same language and culture.  Traditionally the ethnic groups had been defined based on occupation and turning them into an ethnicity was introduced by the colonialists.  It had been entrenched in identity cards for Tutsis, Hutus and Twas.  This negated the fact that people could have moved from one group to another.   There were no significant differences in culture between these groups.  Rwanda had received a number of people who faced difficulties in their own countries. Diversity days were organised at schools, encouraging refugees and asylum seekers to share their culture. 

    Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda and head of the delegation, said in 2023, Rwanda further refined its governance framework by aligning the schedules of presidential and parliamentary elections, enhancing efficiency and reducing electoral costs.  During the period under consideration, Rwanda successfully completed its ambitious 2020 Vision and adopted the Vision 2050.  From 2018 to 2024, Rwanda implemented its first national strategy for transformation, which laid the foundation for sustainable development, and was succeeded by the second national strategy for transformation, which ran until 2029.   Through these strategies, Rwanda maintained steady economic growth, with gross domestic product expanding at an average of 7 per cent and per capita income rising from $729 to $1,040 in 2023/2024. 

    In concluding remarks, Mr. Emuze thanked the Rwandan delegation for attending the dialogue, noting the high calibre of the delegation.  The Committee wished the delegation a safe journey home. 

    In his concluding remarks Mr. Ugirashebuja expressed appreciation for the constructive dialogue with the Committee.  The State had learnt many valuable lessons and looked forward to receiving the Committee’s recommendations.  Mr. Ugirashebuja extended an open invitation to the Committee to visit Rwanda in the future. 

    The delegation of Rwanda was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Justice; the National Institute of Statistics; the Rwanda Education Board; the Department of International Justice Judicial Cooperation; and the Permanent Mission of Rwanda to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Committee’s seventy-seventh session is being held until 28 February 2025.  All documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Webcasts of the meetings of the session can be found here, and meetings summaries can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 February to begin its consideration of the seventh periodic report of the Philippines (E/C.12/PHL/7).

    Report

    The Committee has before it the fifth periodic report of Rwanda (E/C.12/RWA/5).

    Presentation of Report

    EMMANUEL UGIRASHEBUJA, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda and head of the delegation, said since the last review by the Committee over a decade ago, Rwanda had undergone significant changes in its policy, legal and institutional landscape.  In 2023, Rwanda further refined its governance framework by aligning the schedules of presidential and parliamentary elections, enhancing efficiency, and reducing electoral costs. 

    At the institutional level, Rwanda established the Rwanda Forensic Laboratory in 2016, upgrading it to the Rwanda Forensic Institute in 2023.  The Institute had enhanced forensic and advisory services, strengthening accountability in sectors critical to economic, social and cultural rights.  Its digital forensic and document services helped combat financial crimes like fraud and embezzlement.  In 2017, the Rwanda Investigation Bureau was established to enhance specialisation and professionalism in crime investigation. 

    In the judiciary, Rwanda made significant strides in strengthening its justice system.  In 2018, the Court of Appeal was established, further enhancing the country’s capacity to provide effective legal recourse.   In 2024, the establishment of an Appeal Tribunal to hear matters relating to refugee and asylum claims reinforced Rwanda’s commitment to upholding the rights of individuals in vulnerable situations.  Rwanda’s legal framework strongly supported the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, as enshrined in the Constitution.  Since the last report, Rwanda had enacted several laws that aligned with the provisions of the Covenant and contributed to the progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights.  These included the education law that guaranteed access to quality education at all levels, as well as health laws. 

    During the period under consideration, Rwanda successfully completed its ambitious 2020 Vision and adopted the Vision 2050.  From 2018 to 2024, Rwanda implemented its first national strategy for transformation, which laid the foundation for sustainable development, and was succeeded by the second national strategy for transformation, which ran until 2029.   Through these strategies, Rwanda maintained steady economic growth, with gross domestic product expanding at an average of 7 per cent and per capita income rising from $729 to $1,040 in 2023/2024.  

    Infrastructure development advanced with the construction of over 1,600 kilometres of national roads and 4,137 kilometres of feeder roads.   Job creation efforts led to over 1.3 million decent and productive jobs, while financial inclusion improved from 89 per cent in 2017 to 96 per cent by 2024.  Life expectancy also increased from 66.6 in 2017 to 69.9 years in 2024. 

    Rwanda also significantly strengthened its healthcare system under the strategy. Seven new hospitals were added to the existing 52, while 23 were rehabilitated or expanded.  Community-based health insurance coverage reached 93 per cent of the population. Healthcare modernisation included advanced imaging, laboratory equipment, local pharmaceutical manufacturing, and digital health systems.  

    In 2023, Rwanda, in partnership with Germany Biotechnology Company BioNTech, set-up an mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility, the first of its kind on the African continent, which would have the capacity to produce between 50 and 100 million doses of mRNA vaccines annually, and conduct trials on new therapeutics for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, cancers and other diseases.  

    Through the Girinka programme (one cow per family programme), Rwanda distributed 333,146 cows to an equivalent number of households.  Rwanda valued the opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Committee.

    Questions by a Committee Expert

    PETERS SUNDAY OMOLOGBE EMUZE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Rwanda, asked how the 2015 constitutional amendments had affected Rwanda’s commitment to international human rights standards.  Did it enable the State party to override Covenant protections in favour of domestic law? What measures were being taken to ensure that the provisions of the Covenant were invoked by domestic courts? 

    What training programmes were in place for judges, law enforcement and government officials to ensure consistent application of the Covenant?  The important work of Rwanda’s national human rights institution was noted.  Was the selection process of its members carried out by a committee appointed by the President?  Did members require clearance from the Prime Minister’s office for official travel outside Rwanda?  Had the State party accepted the recommendations of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions to strengthen the institution in line with the Paris Principles?

    What measures had been taken to guarantee that human rights defenders could continue their work without undue restrictions on freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association?  What steps were taken to protect them from risks of unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, harassment and intimidation, including judicial harassment?  Could the State party clarify the concerns regarding non-governmental organization registration requirements?  Were there any obstacles for opposition groups to promote and advocate for the promotion of human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights? 

    When would the State party finalise a national action plan for business and human rights?  What steps were being taken to put in place a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for human rights due diligence for businesses?  What measures were in place to ensure Rwanda met its nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement? 

    What measures were in place to combat corruption, particularly in public procurement and State-owned enterprises?  What challenges did anti-corruption institutions face in maintaining independence and effectiveness?  What measures were being taken to address them?  The Committee noted Rwanda’s legislative efforts to combat discrimination.  However, reports indicated persistent structural inequalities, particularly affecting Batwa people, women and girls, people living in deprived urban and rural areas, persons with disabilities, people living in poverty, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.  How did Rwanda plan to address these challenges? 

    How did Rwanda plan to address the absence of disaggregated data to assess the situation of the Batwa people?  What steps were being taken to combat poverty, high infant mortality, malnutrition, and lower educational outcomes among the Batwa? What kind of barriers did the Batwa continue to face to land titling and how did Rwanda plan to secure their rights to land ownership?  What measures were in place to prevent forced displacement of the Batwa people from their ancestral lands?  How was adequate compensation provided when Batwa lands were expropriated?  How did the State party ensure consultations with Batwa people in decisions likely to affect them?

    Rwanda had made significant progress in gender equality, and especially women’s political representation.  What steps were being taken to increase women’s representation in local administration and the private sector?  How was the gender pay gap addressed?  What was being done to combat discrimination against women and stereotypes?  How had the Rwanda Gender Monitoring Office and its Gender Management Information System contributed to tracking gender equality initiatives? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said since the 2015 Constitutional amendments, no new organic laws had come into place.  There was consistent training on the use of human rights in courts.  However, the members of the bar tended not to apply international conventions in the courts. The reason for this was because the Constitution provided for a whole section of bill of rights, which was a replica of the Covenant.  However, lawyers were still trained on the use of human rights conventions.   

    Members of the human rights institution were manually selected via a presidential order.  This was a rigorous process, and many candidates were considered.  The appointment process was comparable to any other country with human rights mechanisms.  Whenever Commissioners wanted to travel, they informed the Minister’s office and a document was provided, called the travel clearance. Given that this caused significant confusion, the Government had decided to do away with the travel clearance.   

    Rwanda did all it could to strengthen the National Commission of Human Rights, and put in place any recommendations received. Rwanda was on track to reach its goals regarding carbon emissions.  The State was encouraging businesses to go green, which in turn would create “green jobs” which would contribute to more employment.  An example of this could be seen in the State employing young people to plant trees.  The Rwandan Government had heavily invested in areas key to social equality.  The community-based insurance now extended to certain diseases previously not covered, including cancer. 

    Rwanda aimed to achieve zero tolerance for corruption.  Key institutions like the Ombudsman’s office had played a key role towards achieving this goal.  Rwanda had improved its global ranking from 49th to 43rd place in 2024 in the Transparency Index Global Corruption Index.

    Rwandans and the Batwa spoke the same language and had the same culture.  The Batwa people could be found throughout the country and did not live in a designated area.  Rwanda aimed to ensure no one was left behind, regardless of their status.  Land registration helped to resolve dispute around land, and to ensure that land was adequately registered. 

    Over the years, Rwanda had implemented measures to achieve gender equality, particularly in Parliament, where it was around 63 per cent in the Chamber of Deputies and around 53 per cent in the Senate.  Quotas were in place which mandated that a minimum of 30 per cent of leaders should be women.  When the issue of equality was dealt with properly, this had a cascading effect on other policies.  A few years ago, the State recognised that gender-based violent crimes were specific in nature and needed to be treated in a certain way. 

    No discrimination against any group was tolerated in Rwanda.  Measures had been put in place to ensure that anyone who faced discrimination was able to access fast reparations.  There were many issues which were largely context-specific to Rwanda. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    PREETI SARAN, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, was impressed with some of the figures shared, including seven per cent gross domestic product growth and 1.3 million jobs created.  These were commendable and Rwanda should be congratulated.   What kind of resource constraints had the State faced in budgetary allocations for social spending?  What challenges had there been when dealing with external partners? 

    KARLA LEMUS DE VÁSQUE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said marital violence affected 46 per cent of women who were married and 18 per cent of men, with many never seeking help for the violence they had suffered.  What measures had been put in place to combat the cultural norms which perpetuated marital violence?  How were victims of violence being supported so they could report the crime?

    A Committee Expert asked what steps were being taken by the Government to ensure safe access by humanitarian organizations to the population affected by the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?  How had the State ensured its policies and actions did not obstruct humanitarian aid? What was the coordination framework that the State had with armed groups operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly the M23?  How might the State respond to the concerns regarding any potential support for these armed groups? 

    What measures had been put in place to prevent and punish any involvement by Rwandan stakeholders in conflict zones in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?  What measures had the State adopted to ensure that no armed group benefitted from support from the State?  What measures had been put in place to remedy any violations, including forced labour in mining areas under the control of armed groups, among others? 

    Another Expert asked about the role of civil society when drafting reports to treaty bodies?  Were all civil society organizations invited to participate in the drafting procedures?  What was the position of Rwanda on the Rome Statute?  Was there a possibility that the Government might consider acceding to it? Rwanda had extraterritorial obligations. The President had reiterated a lack of knowledge regarding the Rwandan military participating in the conflict of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  How was oversight of the military activities ensured?  How did Rwanda ensure that armed groups operating in other countries received no support?

    A Committee Expert asked what the State was doing to combat the illicit trade of minerals?  What specific measures were taken to enhance specific imports and exports? 

    PETERS SUNDAY OMOLOGBE EMUZE, Vice-Chair and Taskforce Leader for Rwanda, said there had been allegations of Government members committing unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, and intimidation and reprisals, against those defending human rights.  What had the State party done to prevent this? Despite measures taken by the State party to improve rights for indigenous peoples, challenges remained. How did the State party intend to address challenges in this regard, including the lack of disaggregated data? How would Rwanda address challenges such as poverty, infant mortality, lower school attendance, and higher drop-out rates, among others? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said Rwanda had challenges in terms of budget.  The State aimed to address this through development partners.  However, resources were not always permanent.  Although Rwanda worked with development partners, the State aimed to be financially stable in terms of its own financing. 

    Rwanda had developed mechanisms to capture data regarding gender-based violence.  Initially, people were scared to report cases due to stigmatisation.  Investigators had been trained to interview victims of gender-based violence.  When cases proceeded, it was ensured that they were not held in public, so as not to endanger the lives of the victims. 

    The Democratic Republic of the Congo had its own problems as did Rwanda, and the State could not bear the burden of others’ problems.  Anything happening beyond the territory of Rwanda should be dealt with by those States. 

    Civil society played an important role in the drafting of the report and in helping Rwanda achieve its human rights obligations. Rwanda had not yet joined the Rome Statute, but if the appropriate time came and if it was necessary, the State would willingly join the Statute.  At present, the State was not considering joining the Statue in the near future. 
    Rwanda was the first country in the Great Lakes region to commit to a due diligence mechanism.  This ensured Rwanda could not be used as a route for illicit mines. There were mechanisms in place to protect against enforced disappearances.  There was zero tolerance for anyone who threatened human rights defenders. 

    Questions by a Committee Expert

    PREETI SARAN, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked what recent measures the State party had taken to address unemployment rates and to guarantee access to work?  What specific steps had been taken to address the problem of labour under-utilisation?  What major obstacles had Rwanda faced in addressing the employment challenge?  How was the integration of women into the labour force being promoted? 

    What specific steps had the State party taken for those facing discrimination to access the labour market.  What had Rwanda done to enforce laws dealing with discrimination at the workplace and to encourage employers to adopt anti-discrimination measures specifically related to sexual orientation at the workplace? How were systemic barriers for persons with disabilities being removed?  What measures had been taken to enable the transition of workers from the informal to the formal sector, particularly for women, the disadvantaged, and persons with disabilities?  What was the anticipated timeframe for establishing a minimum wage? 

    Many workers were reportedly exposed to frequent occupational accidents due to unsafe working conditions, leading to occupational injuries and fatalities.  Had the State party formulated an updated national policy on occupational health and safety?  How did the State party reinforce and implement the Labour Code on occupational health and safety?  Had the State party developed rights awareness programmes targeting domestic workers and employers? 

    What steps had been taken to establish a safe reporting system for domestic workers to report workplace violence?  What initiatives were in place to provide confidential and accessible health care for domestic workers?  What steps had the State party taken to remove any such legal barriers to the enjoyment of the right to form trade unions and the right to strike.

    The adoption of the updated national social protection policy (2020), which aimed to ensure that Rwandan citizens had a dignified standard of living, was commendable.  Were there any proposals to improve and expand the coverage process to ensure that it included the widest possible population, particularly the most marginalised and disadvantaged in the informal sector?  What steps had the State party taken to expand the community-based health insurance scheme to cover specialised health services, medicines, assistive devices, and commodities required by persons with disabilities? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said employment was a concern in Rwanda.  Rwanda had a young population and the State needed to create an enabling environment for the youth to thrive.  It was hoped the law on startups would ensure easy financing of start-ups for the youth. A proportion of the laws provided for special consideration for women and people living with disabilities, to ensure these traditionally marginalised groups could access these resources. 

    Despite the efforts that the Government had put in place, there were still instances of gender-based discrimination.  There had been instances in the private sector where questions had been asked about women’s marital status to ascertain if they would be looking to seek maternity leave.  The State was looking at how to incentivise the private sector to ensure they did not discriminate based on gender.  No one in Rwanda was discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.  If discrimination was there, the State worked with civil society to address this.  It was important to have a synergy with civil society organizations to address persistent discriminatory issues.  There were quotas of 30 per cent for women, and the State monitored these closely to ensure gender equity was being achieved.   

    There were a lot of workers employed in the informal sector, and the State tried to formalise these areas.  Cooperatives were important in ensuring people came together, and worked like trade unions to highlight challenges faced by people in the informal sector.  There had been a growth in the number of cooperatives registered over recent years. The State had seen unfortunate incidents where people had been trapped in mines due to unsuitable mining.  The Rwanda mining board ensured that it monitored mining sites; however, people sometimes ventured into illegal mining at nighttime and ended up being trapped.  Work was being done with the local governments to ensure these unfortunate situations were avoided. 

    The minimum wage was a difficult debate.  The Government was on the right path regarding what an acceptable minimum wage was in Rwanda.  The process was long, but the Government aimed to develop a suitable minimum wage for the greater good of the country.  Laws guaranteed safety for domestic workers, including salaries and leave. Labour inspectors took steps to ensure the legal mechanisms were being utilised. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert said the issues of the Democratic Republic of the Congo were relevant.  What tools and mechanisms had the State created to ensure there was respect for economic, cultural and social rights?  How was it ensured that impunity was combatted abroad, particularly in the context of the armed conflict? 

    KARLA LEMUS DE VÁSQUE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, acknowledged that the State had extended fully-paid maternity leave for mothers in all sectors, but there were challenges to ensuring the legislation was enforced, particularly in the informal sector. What mechanisms were in place to ensure all working mothers could enjoy maternity leave?  Had the State considered implementing a specific measure to ensure women who gave birth to children with disabilities were given maternity leave commiserate with the situation of their child?  Were there incentives to encourage men to use paternity leave?

    What efforts were being carried out to punish employers who were in breach of child labour laws?  What results had the new national strategy on child labour yielded?  There were still high levels of poverty, especially for families.  What was the State doing in terms of the social schemes designed to eradicate extreme poverty?  What challenges did small-scale farmers meet when it came to increasing their yield and diversifying their crop?  What support programmes were in place for them?  Had the State considered expanding the food assistance programmes for vulnerable groups?

    A study of Rwanda’s development bank showed many people on low income still did not have access to affordable housing. What policies had been adopted to ensure the cost of housing was accessible?  What percentage of the national budget was set aside for the building and maintenance of social housing?  What initiatives had been launched to ensure that people who were vulnerable had access to affordable housing?  Had any laws been passed on rent control?  What measures could be implemented to ensure water rates were affordable? 

    Current adaptation measures were not enough to mitigate the impacts of climate change?  Had studies or surveys been carried out to assess the impact of climate change, and how had the State responded to findings?  What food resilience programmes could the State develop, including food storage programmes?  What measures had been implemented to ensure enough resources were set aside for the health sector, including for the most disadvantaged groups? What measures had been developed to extend the scope and coverage of mental health services?  What strategies had been developed to increase the number of qualified birth attendants in remote areas?  What measures had been implemented to strengthen investment in infrastructure?  How was equitable access to contraception guaranteed?   

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said in January 2025, the Cabinet approved the resolution on the additional package of services for the community-based health insurance, including kidney transplants, cancer care, blood transfusions, knee and hips replacements, dialysis and prosthetics, among other procedures.  These were now all covered by the community-based health insurance. 

    The one cow per family programme provided a cow to families in the most vulnerable communities.  More than 14,500 families had been provided with furnished housing and 124 model villages had been established between 2017 and 2024, with all the essential amenities. 

    Rwanda did not have effective jurisdiction over any country and could not be held accountable for human rights violations beyond its borders.  The problems of the Democratic Republic of the Congo were internal.  Rwanda would welcome refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo if the problems persisted. 

    Since the COVID-19 pandemic, certain programmes had been implemented, including a voluntary saving scheme which was open to any citizen.  The International Labour Organization, in collaboration with Rwanda, had recruited a team to conduct a study on the barriers to social protection in the informal sector, and it would develop recommendations to address these. 

    Since 2023, paid maternity leave had increased from 12 to 14 weeks.  New changes in the law mandated that a pregnant woman or a breastfeeding mother should not be made to do any work that was too physically demanding or damaging to their overall health.  Those on maternity leave received their full salary.   Regular labour inspections were conducted, with more than 5,000 inspections carried out every year.  More than 1,500 of the enterprises where inspections took place were in the informal sector.   In the 2023-2024 fiscal year, 112 businesses were administratively sanctioned due to employment-related issues.  In the same period, 26 investigations had been conducted into cases of child labour, and 18 had been referred to the courts with five convicted. 

    The Government of Rwanda had implemented various social protection initiatives to eliminate extreme poverty.  In 2024, over 102,000 vulnerable individuals received monthly cash transfers and more than 80,000 households benefitted from flexible employment programmes.  As of May 2024, there had been an old age grant for impoverished individuals over the age of 65.  As of 2024, 315,327 households had been enrolled in the programme for sustainable graduation, where they received mentorship, financial support, and access to productive assets. 

    It was becoming more difficult for farmers to predict the weather, given the adverse impacts of climate change.  Pilot projects were launched to allow farmers to access buyers in value chains, by ensuring their quality standards were high. The Rwanda culture board helped to increase agriculture and animal resources, advising farmers on the best seeds for each area of the country to ensure the best harvest.  The Government heavily subsidised fertilizer for farmers to increase their output.  The Government subsidised up to 40 per cent of the cost of water, and access to clean water had increased substantially in the country. 

    Rwanda aimed to quadruple its workforce of healthcare service providers.  Below the age of 18, parental consent was required for any health intervention, including contraception and reproductive health services.  To enhance access to sexual reproductive health services, the age of consent should be reduced to 15 years.  To address this, a draft health service law was currently under consideration by the Parliament.  The level of teen pregnancy had decreased due to education and sensitisation, but it was also expected the draft health service law would result in a further decrease in teen pregnancy. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    KARLA LEMUS DE VÁSQUE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked if there was any recent study on the deficit in housing which would help address current challenges?  Were there any laws on rent control? 

    How was the State addressing social and economic gaps which could address the prevalence of non-communicable diseases. Despite progress made in public health, communicable diseases, including malaria and HIV/AIDS, were a cause for concern. What measures had been adopted to strengthen health infrastructure in areas where access was limited?  What was being done to improve the prevention programmes? 

    A Committee Expert asked about the national health insurance; how did it function?  Did the State consider sharing revenues with areas where they obtained the resources from? 

    Another Expert said the country’s drug policy was focused on criminalisation and punitive measures.  Would the State consider decriminalising drug use and changing the approach to one that was health-based?   What measures had been taken to provide specialised training to law enforcement agents?  What was being done to mainstream mental health in primary health services? 

    A Committee Expert asked whether Rwanda had considered using human rights methodologies to design and better assess public policies? 

    An Expert asked about access to water in rural areas? What measures had the State taken to address climate change and its impact on the agricultural sector? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said there had been a survey on housing deficits which had been presented in the Cabinet.  There were no laws on rent to reduce increases, but it was illegal to charge rent in foreign currencies, which helped to ensure rent was controlled.  Community health care workers were taught to deal with non-communicable diseases. There were also free community-based activities which took place to ascertain the levels of non-communicable diseases.  Community health workers had also helped sensitise people around diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis.   

    Around 90 per cent of land had been registered, and everyone, including women and vulnerable groups, had access to land.  After Rwanda developed its own gold refinery, businesses from other places came with gold to the refinery.  The Government agreed that drug consumption should not be criminalised, but the distribution of drugs should be criminalised.  More than 82 per cent of households had access to improved drinking water, and in Kigali this went up to 97 percent.  Numbers were lower in the western part of the country at around 75 per cent. 

    The Government was intensely investing in areas of water availability. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    ASLAN ABASHIDZE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said dropout rates in Rwanda had decreased to 5.5 per cent in primary schools and 7.5 per cent in secondary schools.  Could statistics be provided for the last five years, from 2019 to 2023, specifically on how many children were expected to enrol in primary school, and how many transitioned to lower secondary school, and then to upper secondary school?  According to the statistics provided, what percentage in the mentioned 40,000 students with disabilities who began their studies in schools and universities during the 2022/23 academic year represented the total number of children with disabilities who were expected to start schooling in that academic year? 

    What was the overall state of school infrastructure? Did schools meet the minimum requirements for lighting, drinking water, sanitation, and nutrition?  What steps was the Government taking in this regard? How were these initiatives funded? Why was disaggregated data on the Batwa group unavailable?   Could information on higher education enrolment and completion rates disaggregated by sex, rural and urban areas, and economic status be provided? 

    Was there a shortage of teachers in certain subjects? If there were challenges in this area, were there programmes to address them?  Could more details about the “We are all Rwandans” programmes be provided? How was the National Digital Inclusion Council funded?  Were private companies involved, and if so, on what terms?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the number of teachers had increased by around 73 per cent, from around 68,000 in 2013 to around 100,000 in 2023/2024.  A teacher management system helped to determine if there were any gaps across the country.  The school dropout rate continued to decline at all levels.  There was a programme called school feeding which provided adequate and nutritious meals in schools.  The Government had started the journey of constructing schools, with a focus on accessibility by adding ramps, widening doorways, improving ventilation and lowering blackboards, to ensure they were accessible for students using wheelchairs.  Of the 4,986 schools in Rwanda, 3,392 now met accessibility standards, a significant improvement from just 765 schools in 2017.  Rwanda was committed to promoting inclusive education for children with disabilities.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert asked for clarification around the official languages?  What was the language taught in primary schools?  How many universities were there in Rwanda?  Were there international students who studied in Rwanda? Did the Government provide scholarships for foreign students, particularly Africans?  Was the Swahili language widely spoken? 

    PREETI SARAN, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said each ethnic group in Rwanda had a rich cultural heritage.  For the sake of national unity and reconciliation, if everyone was being referred to as Rwandan, how did the State propagate the cultural richness of the population?  Rwanda had been extremely welcoming to refugees from all over the world, who brought their own specific languages and culture.  What measures had the State party taken to ensure equal cultural rights for ethnic groups who had come as aliens, refugees or asylum seekers? 

    An Expert asked if the State was collecting data with regards to young people aged between 15 to 24, who neither studied nor worked?  If this issue was not resolved, it could generate major issues. 

    PETERS SUNDAY OMOLOGBE EMUZE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Rwanda, asked what Rwandan troops were doing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said Kinyarwanda was recognised as the official language.  Rwanda had just one language.  There was no significant cultural diversity within the country, as everyone shared the same language and culture.  Traditionally, the ethnic groups had been defined based on occupation and turning them into an ethnicity was introduced by the colonialists.  It had been entrenched in identity cards for Tutsis, Hutus and Twas.  This negated the fact that people could have moved from one group to another.   There were no significant differences in culture between these groups.  French was an official language in Rwanda, due to colonisation by Belgium.  However, the majority of instruction was in English.   

    As of 2025, there were 19 universities in Rwanda, comprised of three public universities and 16 private institutions.  Schools such as the Carnegie Melon University from the United States taught courses, and specific scholarships were offered to Africans.  Scholarships were also offered to people fleeing their countries due to dangers, such as women from Afghanistan and people from Sudan.  Education could solve a lot of issues, including criminality and unemployed youth. 

    Rwanda was doing its best to attain the highest standard of economic, social and cultural rights, and would take any opportunities to learn from other countries in this regard. 

    Swahili was now an official language, recognised in the Constitution as a Lingua Franca.  It was widely spoken and taught in schools. 

    Rwanda had received a number of people who faced difficulties in their own countries.  Diversity days were organised at schools, encouraging refugees and asylum seekers to share their culture. 

    Closing Remarks

    PETERS SUNDAY OMOLOGBE EMUZE, Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Rwanda, thanked the Rwandan delegation for attending the dialogue, noting the high calibre of the delegation.  The Committee wished the delegation a safe journey home. 

    EMMANUEL UGIRASHEBUJA, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Rwanda and head of the delegation, expressed appreciation for the constructive dialogue with the Committee.  The State had learnt many valuable lessons and looked forward to receiving the Committee’s recommendations.  Rwanda’s achievements in access to health, education, and employment demonstrated the Government’s commitment to sustainable development. The country had a lot of challenges, including addressing inequalities, mitigating the effects of the global crisis, and ensuring policies translated into tangible improvements for the lives of the most vulnerable.  Rwanda was committed to resolving these challenges and to implementing the Committee’s recommendations.  Mr. Ugirashebuja extended an open invitation to the Committee to visit Rwanda in the future. 

    __________

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CESCR25.005E

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – How can Romania ensure full absorption of NRRP funding by 2026 given the frequent delays in reaching its milestones? – P-000148/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)[1] is a temporary instrument governed by the RRF Regulation. The facility finances reforms and investments in EU Member States which must be completed by 31 August 2026. It is distinct from the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)[2], which constitutes the EU long-term budget.

    In the case of the RRF, i f the Commission assesses that not all milestones and targets associated with specific instalments are satisfactorily met, the Commission can make partial payments and suspend part of the payment.

    Member States then have six months to take the necessary measures to ensure the satisfactory fulfilment of the relevant milestones and targets. If measures are not taken within six months, the overall amount of the financial or loan contribution under the RRF is correspondingly reduced.

    The implementation of Romania’s recovery and resilience plan is currently delayed due to, in particular, deficiencies in administrative capacity. In its 2024 country-specific recommendations, the Council thus asked Romania to significantly accelerate the implementation of the recovery and resilience plan by guaranteeing effective governance and strengthening administrative capacity.

    Like with all Member States, the Commission is working closely with Romania to support the implementation of its plan. The Commission is discussing reforms and investments, allowing the Romanian authorities identifying potential risks and possible measures in addressing them.

    This is done through e.g. the technical support instrument, regular meetings and an upcoming revision of the plan prepared in cooperation with the Romanian authorities, to ensure that all the investments which can be implemented by August 2026 are prioritised.

    • [1] https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en
    • [2] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/documents_en
    Last updated: 18 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Right to the truth regarding Arturo Ruiz’s murder during the Spanish transition to democracy – E-002871/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    In the Spanish chapter of the 2024 Rule of Law Report[1], the Commission noted that, in October 2023, Spain ratified the Council of Europe’s Convention on Access to Public Documents, which recognises a general right of access to official documents held by public authorities.

    The report also informed that the Spanish Government intends to re-launch the adoption of the draft law on official secrets and thus recommended Spain to advance with this adoption.

    The Commission will continue to assess developments pertaining to media freedom and pluralism in all Member States, including Spain, in the context of the preparation of the 2025 Rule of Law Report.

    The Commission considers that safeguarding the common memory of crimes of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, as well as transition to democracy, is essential to safeguarding EU values of human dignity, fundamental rights, rule of law and democracy for current and future generations. However, it should be recalled that r emembrance policies are under the competence of Member States.

    The Commission remains committed to taking all necessary measures to ensure compliance with EU law and upholding the rule of law in all Member States and will continue to work with the Spanish authorities to promote the rule of law.

    More generally, same as for all the Member States, the Commission follows rule of law developments in Spain under the annual Rule of Law Cycle and its report.

    • [1] https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2bd09a6f-ef56-494a-8303-e0de808ee981_en?filename=23_1_58063_coun_chap_spain_en_0.pdf
    Last updated: 18 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Google and edited media content – E-002915/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission is aware that Google had launched a temporary test, removing EU press publishers’ content from its services for 1% of users in eight Member States, including Denmark. The test ended on the 4 February 2025.

    The Commission considers that Google is entitled to conduct a time-limited test affecting a small part of users, provided it complies with obligations under applicable EU law.

    As a dominant company in the EU online search market, Google is prohibited from abusing market power under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    Article 15 of Directive 2019/790[1] grants exclusive rights to press publishers for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers.

    It does not oblige these service providers to make press publishers’ content available. However, when they do, they are required to obtain authorisation from press publishers.

    Google Search is a core platform service for which Alphabet was designated as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act[2] and is required to comply with its obligations. The Commission will take any necessary measures if Alphabet’s actions are found non-compliant.

    As a very large online search engine under the Digital Services Act[3], Google Search is also required to comply with the obligations therein. Under the Platform-to-Business Regulation[4], online platforms must give advance notice to publishers for content restriction or suspensions and offer dispute resolution mechanism.

    The European Media Freedom Act[5] introduces safeguards to protect reputable media providers against arbitrary content removal by very large online platforms. It also requires Member States to ensure access to diverse, independent media content.

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj
    • [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj/eng
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng
    • [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019R1150
    • [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1083
    Last updated: 18 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News