NewzIntel.com

Category: Germany

  • MIL-Evening Report: Academic publishing is a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s not always good for science

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucy Montgomery, Dean of Research, Humanities, Curtin University

    Mykhailo Kopyt/Shutterstock

    In December 2024, the editorial board of the Journal of Human Evolution resigned en masse following disagreements with the journal’s publisher, Elsevier. The board’s grievances included claims of inadequate copyediting, misuse of artificial intelligence (AI), and the high fees charged to make research articles publicly available.

    The previous year, more than 40 scientists who made up the entire academic board of a leading journal for brain imaging also walked off the job. The journal in question, Neuroimage, is also published by Elsevier, which the former board members accused of being “too greedy”.

    Elsevier has previously denied using AI and has disputed that its business practices are untoward.

    Mass resignations of journal editors are becoming more frequent. They highlight the tension between running a for-profit publishing business and upholding research integrity.

    From a niche to a multibillion-dollar business

    The world’s first academic journal was called Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. It was established in 1665 as a publication that allowed scientists to share their work with other scientists.

    For a long time, academic journals were a niche branch of publishing. They were run by and for research communities. But this started to change from the second world war onwards.

    The expansion of research, combined with an influx of commercial publishing players and the rise of the internet in the 1990s, have transformed journal publishing into a highly concentrated and competitive media business.

    Elsevier is the biggest player in this business. It publishes roughly 3,000 journals and in 2023 its parent company, Relx, recorded a profit of roughly A$3.6 billion. Its profit margin was nearly 40% – rivalling tech giants such as Microsoft and Google.

    Along with Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, SAGE, and Taylor & Francis make up what are known as the “big five” in academic publishing. Collectively, these publishers are responsible for roughly 50% of all research output.

    Many of the most trusted and prestigious research journals are owned by commercial publishers. For example, The Lancet is owned by Elsevier.

    A key factor in their profitability is volunteer labour provided by researchers. Traditional models of peer review are a good example of this. Academics provide publishers with content, in the form of journal articles. They also review their peers’ work for free. University libraries then pay for access to the final published journal on behalf of their research community.

    Alongside the pressure on academics to publish, the push to “speed up science” through these systems of peer-review only contribute to issues of trust in research.

    In 2023, academic publisher Elsevier recorded a profit of roughly $3.6 billion.
    T.Schneider/Shutterstock

    Profit at the expense of research integrity

    The increasing frequency of editorial board resignations reflects the tension between researchers trying to uphold scientific and research integrity, and publishers trying to run a for-profit business answerable to shareholders.

    Research is most often built on spending taxpayers’ money.

    Yet there is often little alignment between the profit imperatives of large, multinational publishers and the expectations of the communities and funding bodies that pay for the costs of research.

    For example, for-profit publishing models mean the results of research often end up locked behind paywalls. This has implications for the dissemination of research findings. It also means the public may not be able to access information they need most, such as medical research.

    The business of academic publishing also doesn’t always sit comfortably with the values and motives of scholarly inquiry and researchers.

    Publishers may focus on maximising shareholder gains by publishing research outputs, rather than on the content of the research or the needs of the research community.

    As Arash Abizadeh, a former editor of Philosophy & Public Affairs – a leading political philosophy journal – wrote in The Guardian in July 2024:

    Commercial publishers are incentivised to try to publish as many articles and journals as possible, because each additional article brings in more profit. This has led to a proliferation of junk journals that publish fake research, and has increased the pressure on rigorous journals to weaken their quality controls.

    The world’s first academic journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, was established in 1665.
    Henry Oldenburg/Philosophical Transactions, CC BY

    Better publishing practices

    What could alternative academic publishing practices that safeguard the integrity of research look like?

    The “publish-review-curate” model is one example.

    This model has been adopted by community research
    initiative MetaROR. It involves authors publishing their work as “preprints” which are immediately accessible to the community.

    The work then goes through an open peer review process. Finally, an assessment report is produced based on the reviews.

    This model aims to accelerate the dissemination of knowledge. It also aims to encourage a more transparent, collaborative, and constructive review process.

    Another important advantage of preprints is that they are not locked behind paywalls. This makes it faster and easier for research communities to share new findings with other researchers quickly.

    There are some drawbacks to this model. For example, preprints can cause confusion if they are publicised by the media too early.

    The question of who should pay for and maintain online preprint servers, on which global research communities depend, is also a subject of continuing debate.

    As the academic ecosystem continues to evolve, we will need publishing models that can adapt to the changes and needs of the research community and beyond.

    Lucy Montgomery is part of the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative, and serves on Advisory Boards for several not-for-profit organisations involved in scholarly publishing and open access. She is a member of the UWA Press Board; as well as Chair of the Scientific Committee for the Directory of Open Access Books. She has received funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Arcadia Fund, and has previously consulted to both commercial and non-commercial scholarly presses.

    Emilia Bell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship for their doctoral research. They are a non-executive director of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and Manager, Research and Digital Services at Murdoch University Library. Emilia is also affiliated with several organisations in the wider not-for-profit, higher education, and library sectors.

    Karl Huang is affiliated with the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) project, which receives or has received funding from Curtin University, Mellon Foundation, and Arcadia Fund. COKI also works closely with non-profit partners internationally and in Australia. Karl is also affiliated with the Centre for Culture and Technology, as its current Director, at Curtin University.

    – ref. Academic publishing is a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s not always good for science – https://theconversation.com/academic-publishing-is-a-multibillion-dollar-industry-its-not-always-good-for-science-250056

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: America’s democratic decline has critical lessons for Canadian voters

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew Lebo, Professor, Department of Political Science, Western University

    Canadians are soon heading to the polls as they watch American democracy crumble.

    United States President Donald Trump recently argued “he who saves his country does not violate any Law” as he ignores Congress and the courts, governs by executive order and threatens international laws and treaties.



    Read more:
    Is Donald Trump on a constitutional collision course over NATO?

    Once stable democratic institutions are failing to hold an authoritarian president in check.

    What lessons are there to protect Canadian democracy as the federal election approaches?

    Elites lead the way

    First, it’s important to delve into how so many Americans have become tolerant of undemocratic actions and politics in the first place. It’s not that Republican voters first became more extreme and then chose a representative leader. Rather, public opinion and polarization are led by elites.

    Republican leaders moved dramatically to the right, and the primary system allowed the choice of an extremist. Republican voters then aligned their opinions with his. Trump’s disdain for democratic fundamentals spread quickly. Partisans defending their team slid away from democratic values.

    Canada’s more centrist ideological spectrum is not foolproof against this type of extremism. Public opinion can be moved when our leaders take us there.

    Decline can start slowly and then accelerate. America’s democratic backsliding in the first weeks of Trump’s second presidency follows the erosion of democratic norms over decades. Republican attacks on institutions, the opposition, the media and higher education corrosively undermined public faith in the truth, including election results.

    Trust in government is holding steady in Canada, however. That provides an important guardrail for Canadian democracy.

    The dangers of courting the far right

    There are also lessons for our political parties. To maximize their seats, Republicans accepted extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene, but soon needed those types of politicians for key votes.

    The so-called Freedom Caucus, made up of MAGA adherents, forced the choice of a new, more extreme, leader of the House of Representatives. This provides a clear lesson that history has shown many times: it is dangerous for the party on the political right to accommodate the far right, which can quickly take control.

    Once established within the ruling party, extremists can hold their party hostage.

    At a recent meeting of the Munich Security Conference, Vice-President JD Vance pushed European parties to include far-right parties, and Elon Musk outright endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany party.

    Austria recently avoided the inclusion of the far right in its new coalition, and now Germany is working to do the same. As Canada’s Conservatives look for every vote, courting far-right voters and candidates risks destabilizing the system.

    Can it happen in Canada?

    How safe is Canada’s Westminster-style parliamentary democracy?

    The fusion of legislative and executive power in parliamentary systems like Canada’s seems prone to tyranny. America’s Constitutional framers thought so when they designed a system with separate legislative, executive and judicial branches that could check each other’s power.

    They clearly did not imagine party loyalty negating the safeguards that protect democracy from an authoritarian-minded president. The Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate and impeach, limits the executive’s power to spend and make appointments, gives the judiciary power to hold an executive accountable and contains the 25th amendment allowing cabinet to remove a president.

    But when one party controls the legislative and executive branches during a time of hyper-partisanship, these mechanisms may not constrain an authoritarian. Today, Republican loyalty has eroded these checks and balances and American courts are struggling to step up to their heightened role.

    Although counter-intuitive, parliamentary systems like Canada’s are usually less susceptible to authoritarianism than presidential ones because the cabinet or the House of Commons can turn against a lawless leader.

    Still, if popular, authoritarian leaders can still retain their party’s support — and then things can slide quickly. The rightward pull of extremists seen in the U.S. House would be more dangerous here since the Canadian House of Commons includes our executive.

    Guarding against xenophobia

    Lastly, Canada should be wary of xenophobic rhetoric.

    “America First” is not simply shopping advice. It began as an isolationist slogan during the First World War but was soon adopted by pro-fascists, American Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. These entities questioned who is really American and wanted not only isolationism, but racist policies, immigration restrictions and eugenics.

    Trump did not revive the phrase accidentally. It’s a call to America’s fringes. Alienating domestic groups is a sure sign of democratic decline.

    “Canada First” mimics that century-long dark theme in America. In combination with contempt for the opposition, it questions the right of other parties to legitimately hold power if used as a message by one party.

    Also, asserting that “Canada is broken” — as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre often does — mimics Trump’s talk of American carnage, language and imagery he uses to justify extraordinary presidential authority.

    Such language erodes citizens’ trust in democratic institutions and primes voters to support undemocratic practices in the name of patriotism. Canadian parties and politicians should exit that road.

    Ultimately, institutions alone do not protect a country from the rise of authoritarianism. Democracy can be fragile. As a federal election approaches in Canada, it’s important to know the warning signs of extremism and anti-democratic practices that are creeping into our politics.

    Matthew Lebo 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. America’s democratic decline has critical lessons for Canadian voters – https://theconversation.com/americas-democratic-decline-has-critical-lessons-for-canadian-voters-251544

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump silences the Voice of America: end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Valerie A. Cooper, Lecturer in Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Getty Images

    Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

    Critics have long accused the agency – and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia – of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

    But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of anti-American ideas and agendas – including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

    Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

    Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex – as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

    Public service or state propaganda?

    The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

    Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

    Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed – or even known – by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

    The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

    On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

    Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

    Leaving a void

    Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

    Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

    The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

    In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement. CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

    Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

    A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave.
    Getty Images

    Other voices get louder

    The biggest concern for western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind – including in the Pacific.

    Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

    And China has already filled media gaps left by western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

    Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

    An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

    Switched off

    Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

    This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

    The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

    But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week the New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.

    Valerie A. Cooper 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. Trump silences the Voice of America: end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill? – https://theconversation.com/trump-silences-the-voice-of-america-end-of-a-propaganda-machine-or-void-for-china-and-russia-to-fill-252901

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Foot and Mouth disease controls amended in Germany

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Foot and Mouth disease controls amended in Germany

    Import ban amended following outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Germany.

    As of 24 March 2025, the import ban currently in place due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease on cattle, pigs, sheep, deer, buffaloes and their products such as meat, and dairy from Germany will be amended.

    This decision follows rigorous technical assessment of the measures applied in Germany and the current situation. If the situation changes, we will not hesitate to take necessary action in response to the FMD outbreaks in the European Union to protect our domestic biosecurity.

    Great Britain has officially recognized regionalisation for FMD in Germany at the containment zone level, which covers a 6km radius around the outbreak. Consequently, the export of affected commodities can resume from areas outside this zone, provided all other import requirements are satisfied.

    Personal imports of packaged and unpackaged meat, meat products, milk and dairy products, certain composite products and animal by products of pigs and ruminants will remain in place at a country level.

    FMD poses no risk to human or food safety, but is a highly contagious viral disease of cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals. Livestock keepers should therefore be absolutely rigorous about their biosecurity.

    Foot and mouth disease is a notifiable disease and must be reported. If you suspect foot and mouth disease in your animals, you must report it immediately by calling:  

    • 03000 200 301 in England   

    • 0300 303 8268 in Wales   

    • your local  Field Services Office in Scotland

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Giorgia Meloni’s government is still supporting Ukraine and backing NATO. Italy’s aerospace and defence sectors help explain why

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Jean-Pierre Darnis, Full professor at the University of Côte d’Azur, director of the master’s programme in “France-Italy Relations”. Associate fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS, Paris) and adjunct professor at LUISS University (Rome), Université Côte d’Azur

    US President Donald Trump’s pivot toward Russia amid its war in Ukraine has collided with the stance of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government, which has always shown unwavering support for Kyiv as well as loyalty to Washington. When Trump came to power, Meloni wanted to appear connected to his administration, hoping to play the role of a bridge with Europe while France and Germany were in unfavourable political cycles. Trump’s pivot led to a revival of France’s role in Europe, while Germany emerged from its electoral period with its likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, calling for European defence’s “independence from the USA”.

    Meloni’s position is not only weakening within the European context, where France, Germany and the UK play leading roles, but also in Italian politics, as US policy has created rifts within the three-part governing coalition. Meloni’s party, Fratelli d’Italia, supports Ukraine and Europe, as does Forza Italia. But the leader of Lega, Matteo Salvini, has come to embody Trumpism in Italy, taking an openly pro-Russian position and opposing European rearmament. If a break with Lega were to occur, it could call into question the viability of the government, as it would no longer hold an absolute majority in parliament.

    Anti-French rhetoric

    For her part, Meloni always tends to push back against any “European-only” defence solution proposed by France. This position is a way for Italy to avoid facing the fact that NATO has weakened. It also reactivates an anti-French rhetoric that is a classic refrain among Italian nationalists. Salvini has recently accused French President Emmanuel Macron of being “crazy” and calling for Europe to prepare for nuclear war.

    However, Macron has not made any significant missteps toward Italy. Since the first informal emergency meeting in Paris after Trump’s policy shift toward Ukraine (a gathering that included the UK, Germany, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland), the Italian government has always been involved. Moreover, Macron’s policy convergence with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has dulled criticisms, because Rome is traditionally close to London.

    Both Meloni’s government and the opposition have put forward complicated if not unrealistic proposals for the war in Ukraine, such as a UN peacekeeping mission after a ceasefire, and repeatedly reaffirmed their commitment to NATO. In terms of public opinion, a poll published in mid-February – two weeks before Trump scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a White House visit – found that 69 percent of Italians “are favourable toward a common European army”.

    There is also a growing debate in Italy on nuclear deterrence. This issue had been taboo until now, with Italy benefitting from an arrangement in which US nuclear bombs are stored in bases on Italian soil. While Germany and Poland have expressed interest in an expansion of the French nuclear umbrella, Italian media and policymakers are also beginning to discuss it. The discussion may reflect doubts about US reliability within NATO, including Washington’s commitment to the alliance treaty’s Article 5, which holds that “an armed attack” on one member “shall be considered an attack against them all”.



    À lire aussi :
    French nuclear deterrence for Europe: how effective could it be against Russia?

    Defence ties to Europe

    There are also significant signals coming from Italian industry. While, in recent months, the Italian government appeared to want to use the telecommunications services of Starlink, the satellite network created by Elon Musk, for its defence needs, a contract no longer seems to be on the agenda. Musk’s fluctuating stance about the Starlink service provided to Kyiv, as well as the US decision that temporarily cut aid to Ukraine, introduced questions about reliability. This explains how, in just a few weeks, the French company Eutelsat, which owns the OneWeb constellation, has seen a resurgence of interest, as many countries assess its services as alternatives to Starlink. Following this turmoil, the Italian company Leonardo recently announced that it is planning to launch a constellation of 18 telecommunications satellites for defence purposes.

    These developments also tie into Italy’s industrial position in aerospace and defence, because Leonardo and Fincantieri, another large, publicly owned company, do not limit their markets to the Italian armed forces. As part of a European strategy, Leonardo concluded an agreement with the German company Rheinmetall in 2024 to jointly produce battle tanks, and recently announced an agreement with the Turkish company Baykar to produce drones. Leonardo is part-owner, along with French defence company Thales, of Telespazio and of Thales Alenia Space, and is also in discussions with Airbus to form a European satellite production group. In the missile sector, Leonardo’s participation in European joint venture MBDA allowed Italy and France to produce the SAMP/T anti-missile system, which could lead to further developments for the European missile-defence network. In shipbuilding, Fincantieri has expressed interest in merging its activities with the German group Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems. And in aircraft, Italy is participating in the Global Air Combat Programme, which includes the UK and Japan in the production of fighter jets. These examples show that Italian aerospace and defence development is intrinsically linked to European collaborations and export markets.

    Both in terms of industrial interests and politics, Italy is firmly anchored in the European camp. The positive stance that the Meloni government took toward Washington does not mean Rome is considering an alternative to EU affiliation. Italy is also facing continuous cyberattacks from Russian groups, which feeds a clear threat perception. The prime minister has stressed her differences with France and the UK during the recent European security summits, but while Italy may be reluctant to deploy peacekeeping troops in Ukraine, it cannot distance itself too much from the future defence architecture of Europe.

    Jean-Pierre Darnis ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    – ref. Giorgia Meloni’s government is still supporting Ukraine and backing NATO. Italy’s aerospace and defence sectors help explain why – https://theconversation.com/giorgia-melonis-government-is-still-supporting-ukraine-and-backing-nato-italys-aerospace-and-defence-sectors-help-explain-why-252683

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Visits Parr Instruments to Discuss Economic Impacts of Trump’s Tariffs on Illinois Manufacturing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    March 22, 2025

    [MOLINE, IL] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CST)—visited Parr Instrument Company yesterday to tour the facility and discuss with company leaders and members of the Illinois Manufacturing Excellence Center (IMEC) how Trump’s tariffs threaten Illinois’s manufacturing industry. For over 125 years, Parr Instrument Company has designed and built high precision laboratory equipment. However, because of President Trump’s reckless, blanket tariffs on critical materials such as steel and aluminum, Parr could face increased costs and supply chain disruptions, threatening jobs and the stability of their workforce. Photos of yesterday’s visit are available on the Senator’s website.

    “Trump’s chaotic, sweeping tariffs will negatively impact Illinois’s workforce and manufacturers, while harming our nation’s allies around the world,” Duckworth said. “The consequences of Trump’s needless trade wars will hurt key Illinois manufacturers like Parr Instrument Company, which employs many hardworking, middle-class workers across the Quad Cities. I’m proud to work alongside Illinois manufacturing leaders as we continue to push back against Trump and his one-sided political interests.”

    “It was a pleasure and honor to host Senator Duckworth at our facilities at Parr Instrument Company,” said Jim Nelson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Parr. “I appreciated the Senator’s sincere interest in the challenges small and mid-size manufactures are facing in today’s world. She takes a pragmatic approach to the issues and works in a bipartisan manner in her your representation of her constituents.”

    Duckworth is a proven leader in securing international investments that drive commerce and job growth in Illinois—all while strengthening economic ties with Indo-Pacific nations and improving security in the region. As a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Duckworth led a bipartisan delegation of her Senate colleagues to Taiwan last year to further enhance our bilateral economic ties, including deepening our trade ties on chip manufacturing and agricultural investments.

    Parr Instrument Company, based in Moline, Illinois, designs, manufactures, and sells laboratory instruments for testing fuels and conducting chemical reactions under heat and pressure. Its equipment is used in chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, and biotech research labs. The company employs about 100 skilled professionals and machinists at its Moline plant and operates a sales and service branch in Frankfurt, Germany.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine will need major rebuilding when war ends − here’s why the US isn’t likely to invest in its recovery with a new Marshall Plan

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Frank A. Blazich Jr., Curator of Military History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution

    Europe after World War II? No, it’s the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut in 2023, after a year of Russian bombardment. AP Photo, File

    President Donald Trump wants Ukraine to repay the United States for helping to defend the country against Russia’s invasion.

    Since 2022, Congress has provided about US$174 billion to Ukraine and neighboring countries to assist its war effort. Trump inflated this figure to $350 billion in a March 2025 White House meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. Separately, he has suggested Ukraine could reimburse the U.S. by giving America access to its minerals.

    Ukraine is rich in titanium, graphite, manganese and other rare earth metals used to produce electric vehicle batteries and other tech devices.

    Mining and refining these critical mineral resources would require major investment in infrastructure and economic development, including in parts of Ukraine severely damaged by fighting. Some analysts are calling for a return to the European Recovery Program, commonly known as the Marshall Plan.

    The Marshall Plan used $13.3 billion in U.S. funds – roughly $171 billion in today’s dollars – to rebuild war-torn Western Europe from 1948 to late 1951. It is often evoked as a solution for reconstruction following global crises. Yet as a military historian and curator, I find that the Marshall Plan is not well understood.

    For the U.S., the economic gains of the Marshall Plan did not come from European countries’ repaying loans or allowing the U.S. to extract their raw materials. Rather, the U.S. has benefited enormously from a half-century of goodwill, democratic stability and economic success in Europe.

    European nations turn inward

    After World War II ended in 1945, Western Europe faced a staggering burden of destruction and upheaval.

    Allied bombardment of major industrial areas and German cities such as Berlin, Hamburg and Cologne had created massive housing shortages. Meanwhile, fighting through agricultural areas and a critical manpower shortage had curtailed food production. What harvest there was could not get to hungry civilians because so many of Europe’s roads, bridges and ports had been destroyed.

    The United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany and other European governments were buried in debt after so many years of war. They could not afford to rebuild on their own. Yet rather than cooperating on their mutual economic reconstruction, European nations looked inward, focusing primarily on their own political challenges.

    The continent was politically and militarily divided, too. Europe’s western half was influenced by the democratic, capitalistic forces led by the U.S. Eastern Europe was beholden to the communist, command-economy forces of the Soviet Union.

    In a 1946 speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill articulated Europe’s growing postwar divide. Over the ruins of proud nations, he said, “an iron curtain” had “descended across the continent.”

    US looks abroad

    Unlike Europe, the U.S. emerged from World War II as the wealthiest nation in the world, with its territory intact and unharmed. Its steel and oil industries were booming. By 1947, the U.S. was the clear successor to Great Britain as the world’s superpower.

    But President Harry Truman feared the ambitions of the war’s other great victor – the Soviet Union. In March 1947, he announced a new doctrine to contain communist expansion southward across Europe by giving $400 million in military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey.

    Around the same time, U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall met with Soviet officials to plan Germany’s future. Following the Nazis’ surrender in May 1945, Germany had been divided into four occupied zones administered by U.S., British, French and Soviet forces.

    Each nation had its own goals for its section of Germany. The U.S. wanted to revitalize Germany politically and economically, believing that a moribund Germany would thwart the economic reconstruction of all of Europe.

    Marshall hoped that the Soviets would cooperate, but Soviet ruler Josef Stalin preferred extracting reparations from a prostrate Germany to investing in its recovery. A vibrant German economic engine, the Soviets felt, could just as easily rearm to attack the Russian countryside for the third time that century.

    The Truman administration chose to unilaterally rebuild the three western Allied sectors of Germany – and Western Europe.

    Marshall outlined his plan at a commencement address at Harvard University in June 1947. American action to restore global economic health, he said, would provide the foundation for political stability and peace in Europe. And an economically healthy Western Europe, in turn, would inhibit the spread of communism by plainly demonstrating the benefits of capitalism.

    “Our policy is not directed against any country,” Marshall said, “but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.”

    Marshall’s plan

    Marshall invited all European nations to participate in drafting a plan to first address the immediate humanitarian aid of Europe’s people, then rebuild its infrastructure. The U.S. would pay for it all.

    For nearly bankrupt European nations, it was a lifeline.

    In September 1947, the new Committee for European Economic Co-operation, composed of 16 Western – but not Eastern – European nations, delivered its proposal to Washington.

    It would take a masterful legislative strategy for the Democratic Truman administration to persuade the Republican-led Congress to pass this $13 billion bill. It succeeded thanks to the dedicated effort of Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, who convinced his isolationist colleagues that the Marshall Plan would halt the expansion of communism and benefit American economic growth.

    In April 1948, Truman signed the Economic Cooperation Act. By year’s end, over $2 billion had reached Europe, and its industrial production had finally surpassed prewar levels seen in 1939.

    NATO is born

    Along with economic stability, the Truman administration recognized that Europe needed military security to defend against communist encroachment by the Soviet Union.

    In July 1949, 12 European countries, the U.S. and Canada established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO committed each member country to the mutual defense of fellow NATO members.

    Since 1947, NATO has steadily expanded eastward to include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other former Soviet satellite states directly bordering Russia.

    Ukraine, which declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, is not yet a NATO member. But it desperately wants to be.

    Ukraine applied for NATO membership in 2022 after Russia’s invasion. Its application is pending. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said any peace deal with Ukraine must bar NATO membership.

    Would a Marshall Plan work for Ukraine?

    Modern-day Ukraine mirrors the Western European countries of the Marshall Plan era in meaningful ways.

    It suffers from the physical devastation of war, with its major cities heavily damaged. The threat of military attack from hostile neighbors remains urgent. And it has a functional, democratic government that would – in peacetime – be capable of receiving and distributing aid to develop the nation’s economic growth and stability.

    U.S. global leadership, however, has changed dramatically since 1948.

    Outright American taxpayer financing of Ukraine’s reconstruction seems impossible. Any plan to reconstruct the country after war will likely require public funding from multiple nations and substantial private investment. That private investment could well include mineral extraction and refinement ventures.

    Ultimately, Ukraine’s recovery will most likely involve Ukraine and neighboring nations reaching agreement to restore its economic and military security. The European Union, which Ukraine also seeks to join, has the bureaucratic and economic resources necessary to reconstruct Ukraine, restore peace and ease tensions on the continent.

    Any future Marshall Plan for Ukraine will probably be European.

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

    – ref. Ukraine will need major rebuilding when war ends − here’s why the US isn’t likely to invest in its recovery with a new Marshall Plan – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-will-need-major-rebuilding-when-war-ends-heres-why-the-us-isnt-likely-to-invest-in-its-recovery-with-a-new-marshall-plan-251872

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: SA to partake in Petersberg Climate Dialogue 

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, Dr Dion George, will this week represent South Africa at the 15th Petersberg Climate Dialogue (PCD), where the country will reinforce its commitment to climate action.

    “The dialogue will provide a strategic opportunity for South Africa to reinforce its commitment to climate action, advocate for equitable solutions that address the unique challenges faced by developing nations, and foster stronger international cooperation,” the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment said on Monday.

    Taking place on Tuesday and Wednesday, the annual high-level conference, co-hosted by Germany and Brazil in Berlin, Germany, serves as a crucial bridge between successive United Nations Climate Change Conferences (COPs), providing a platform for international dialogue on climate action and cooperation.

    “Established in 2010 by former German Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel, the dialogue convenes selected nations to pave the way for successful negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

    “The ministerial meeting provides an informal yet strategic space for countries to deliberate on key issues under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, including the Global Goal on Adaptation, mitigation ambition, loss and damage from climate impacts, and the provision of international climate finance,” the department said.

    The Minister will use this platform as an opportunity to provide an overview of South Africa’s Presidency of the G20 Environment and Climate Sustainability Working Group. 

    “I look forward to sharing highlights about our five interrelated key priorities, including climate change and air quality, biodiversity and conservation, and land degradation, desertification and drought,” said George. – SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Minister leads G20 environment working group

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Dr Dion George, will this week lead the Group of Twenty (G20) Environment and Climate Sustainability Working Group (ECSWG) as part of South Africa’s Presidency of the G20. 

    “It is expected that the outcome of this first virtual G20 ECSWG meeting will provide strategic direction and a common understanding amongst G20 Member States on the key environmental and climate change priorities and deliverables,” the Minister said on Sunday.

    Taking place under the theme: “Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability,” the Minister is expected to open the meeting on Tuesday, by setting the scene for South Africa’s Presidency of the G20 ECSWG, provide an opportunity to discuss the five priorities and deliverables, and also present the proposed work plan for the G20 ECSWG for 2025.

    The priority focus areas for South Africa’s Presidency of the G20 ECSWG include:

    • Biodiversity and Conservation – Implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Biodiversity Economy;
    • Land Degradation, Desertification and Drought – Land Degradation Neutrality targets;
    • Chemicals and Waste Management – Sustainable Chemicals Management; Circular Economy; Waste Management; Waste to Energy; Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) implementation;
    • Climate Change and Air Quality – Just Transition; Loss and Damage; Adaptation, including Climate Resilient Development (CRD); Climate Finance and Air Quality; and
    • Oceans and Coastal Management – Marine Spatial Planning – ocean governance; combatting marine plastic pollution.

    The G20 ECSWG aims to enhance cooperation amongst all G20 members and invitees to address environmental and climate change priorities. 

    The G20 comprises 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Türkiye, United Kingdom and United States, as well as two regional bodies, namely the European Union and the African Union.

    The G20 members represent about two-thirds of the world population, approximately 85% of the global GDP and over 75% of the global trade. 

    This platform is considered as the leading forum for international economic cooperation and plays an important role in shaping and strengthening global architecture and governance on all major international economic issues.

    South Africa’s Presidency of the G20 commenced on 01 December 2024 and will continue until 30 November 2025. 

    The Presidency will build upon on the achievements of India (2023 Presidency) and Brazil (2024 Presidency), to ensure continuity in advancing the developmental agenda within the G20. 

    “South Africa’s G20 Presidency provides a unique opportunity for the country to champion the aspirations of emerging market economies and lead the developmental agenda of the African Continent within the framework of the G20.”

    A total of three G20 ECSWG meetings and one ECSWG Ministerial meeting will be held in South Africa, with the first virtual meeting scheduled to take place from 25 – 28 March 2025; followed by the second meeting from 14-18 July 2025 at Kruger National Park, and the final meeting in October 2025 at Cape Town.

    The Ministerial meeting will be held back-to-back with the third ECSWG meeting in October 2025.

    The department will also roll out outreach and awareness activities in the buildup to the three G20 ECSWG meetings throughout the country to amplify the messaging on the focus areas for the G20 ECSWG.

    “The department will leverage South Africa’s Presidency of the G20 to market and showcase the Kruger-Kirstenbosch-iSimangaliso Icon Status Strategy (KISS). Some of the meetings and activities will take place at these iconic world-class sites to showcase them on the global stage,” the Minister said. – SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI: Next Hydrogen Announces Strategic Partnership with Sungrow Hydrogen

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MISSISSAUGA, Ontario, March 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Next Hydrogen Solutions Inc. (“Next Hydrogen” or the “Company”) (TSXV:NXH, OTC:NXHSF) is pleased to announce a wide-ranging cooperation agreement with Sungrow Hydrogen Sci&Tech. Co. Ltd. (“Sungrow Hydrogen”) to accelerate the commercialization and scale-up of its innovative water electrolysis technology.

    Under this agreement, Next Hydrogen will leverage Sungrow Hydrogen’s existing 3GW manufacturing facility to deliver on large volume orders starting in 2026 while ensuring continued control over the Company’s Intellectual Property and the design of its electrolyzers. Sungrow Hydrogen will also provide associated Balance of Plant systems, enhancing supply chain efficiency and cost competitiveness.

    Additionally, the two companies will collaborate on co-development and cross-selling opportunities to offer customers a broader range of green hydrogen solutions to decarbonize ammonia, aviation fuels, refinery, steel and transportation industries.

    Next Hydrogen will continue its research and development activities in Canada. To support both Global and North American market requirements, Next Hydrogen and Sungrow Hydrogen are also exploring expanding Next Hydrogen’s North American manufacturing footprint. This approach ensures localized production capabilities while maintaining supply chain flexibility and compliance with evolving regional clean energy policies.

    “Sungrow Hydrogen is one of the largest water electrolyzer companies globally, with a dominant market share in China and strong backing from its parent company, which was recently rated No. 1 for bankability by Bloomberg NEF,” said Raveel Afzaal, President & CEO of Next Hydrogen. “By leveraging Sungrow Hydrogen as an OEM partner, we can accelerate our path to market and efficiently scale production to meet demand for large-scale green hydrogen projects.”

    “Next Hydrogen has developed an innovative electrolyzer design optimized for direct connection to renewables,” said Mr. Peng Chaocai, VP of Sungrow and Chairman of Sungrow Hydrogen. “We will apply our technical innovation, commercialization and manufacturing expertise to help scale production, while also leveraging Next Hydrogen’s deep knowledge of the North American market. Together, we will combine our expertise in water electrolysis to deliver the best products at the best price, driving large-scale adoption of green hydrogen worldwide.”

    This strategic partnership positions both companies to accelerate the transition to green hydrogen, providing scalable, cost-effective solutions to support global clean energy goals.

    About Next Hydrogen Solutions Inc.

    Founded in 2007, Next Hydrogen Solutions Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of water electrolyzers that use water and electricity as inputs to generate clean hydrogen for use as a green energy source or a green industrial feedstock. Next Hydrogen’s unique cell design architecture supported by 40 patents enables high current density operations and superior dynamic response to efficiently convert intermittent renewable electricity into green hydrogen on an infrastructure scale. Following successful pilots, Next Hydrogen is scaling up its technology to deliver commercial solutions to decarbonize transportation and industrial sectors. For further information: www.nexthydrogen.com

    About Sungrow Hydrogen.

    Sungrow Hydrogen, a subsidiary of Sungrow (Stock Code: 300274), specializes in water electrolysis technology for hydrogen production. Its main products include PWM hydrogen production power supply, ALK electrolyzer, PEM electrolyzer, gas-liquid separation system, hydrogen purification equipment. Sungrow Hydrogen is committed to providing “efficient, intelligent, safe” flexible green hydrogen production system solutions. With a highly professional R&D team, the company has filed over 480 patents as well as copyright certificates, and participated in industry standard-setting. It has constructed a state-of-the-art 30MW water electrolysis hydrogen production empirical platform and established a key materials and product research center in China, as well as the Sungrow European Research Institute in Germany. Additionally, Sungrow Hydrogen owns a world-class intelligent manufacturing plant with an annual production capacity of 3GW. Sungrow Hydrogen, guided by its value proposition of “Bridge to the ultimate energy,” leads in flexible green hydrogen production and electro-hydrogen integration technologies, creating significant value for global clients.

    Next Hydrogen Contact Information

    Raveel Afzaal, President and Chief Executive Officer
    Next Hydrogen Solutions Inc.
    Email: rafzaal@nexthydrogen.com
    Phone: 647-961-6620
    www.nexthydrogen.com

    Sungrow Hydrogen Contact Information

    Email: hydrogen@sungrowpower.com
    Phone: +86-0551-65323120
    en.sungrowpower.com

    Cautionary Statements
    This news release contains “forward-looking information” and “forward-looking statements”. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements and are based on expectations, estimates and projections as at the date of this news release. Any statement that involves discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions, future events or performance (often but not always using phrases such as “expects”, or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, “plans”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “forecasts”, “estimates”, “believes” or “intends” or variations of such words and phrases or stating that certain actions, events or results “may” or “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken to occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to: the risks associated with the hydrogen industry in general; delays or changes in plans with respect to infrastructure development or capital expenditures; the uncertainty of estimates and projections relating to costs and expenses; failure to obtain necessary regulatory approvals; health, safety and environmental risks; uncertainties resulting from potential delays or changes in plans with respect to infrastructure developments or capital expenditures; currency exchange rate fluctuations; as well as general economic conditions, stock market volatility; and the ability to access sufficient capital. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements and information contained in this news release. Except as required by law, there will be no obligation to update the forward-looking statements of beliefs, opinions, projections, or other factors, should they change.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Ghana’s Surging Gold Exports Propel Mining Sector Expansion

    Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:

    ACCRA, Ghana, March 24, 2025/APO Group/ —

    Ghana is capitalizing on its gold exports (https://apo-opa.co/4iOXHfD) to drive economic growth, with revenues increasing to $11.6 billion in 2024 – a 52.6% increase from the $7.6 billion recorded in 2023. Gold exports accounted for 57% of the country’s total export revenue (https://apo-opa.co/4hHk0lZ), solidifying the industry’s role as a key contributor to GDP expansion. Notably, small-scale miners contributed $5 billion to the sector’s export revenue.

    As Ghana continues to enhance gold production and exports, the upcoming Mining in Motion conference, taking place from 2 – 4 June,  will connect global investors with opportunities in Ghana’s gold value chain. The event will facilitate deal signings and strengthen trade relations with Ghana’s leading gold export markets.

    While Ghana has maintained its position as Africa’s largest gold producer, it has also emerged as a key supplier to international markets. Asia ranks as the primary importer of Ghanaian gold, followed by Europe and Africa. In 2024, gold accounted for 65.4% of Ghana’s total exports to Asia, 60.2% of exports to Europe and 49.4% of exports across Africa. More than half of Ghanaian gold exports to each continent were concentrated in a single country; 53.1% of exports to Asia went to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), 60.2% of exports to Europe were directed to Switzerland and 60.5% of African exports were received by South Africa.

    Asia strengthened its gold trading with Ghana, with countries such as China and India ranking amongst top export markets for Ghana. In Europe, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Bulgaria, Portugal, Poland, Gibraltar and Estonia accounted for a significant share of Ghana’s gold exports. In Africa, Burkina Faso, the Ivory Coast, Togo and Mali rank as the top importers of Ghanaian gold.

    Beyond these regions, Canada accounted for 58.6% of Ghana’s gold exports to North America, while Brazil received 94.1% of the country’s gold exports to Latin America.

    Looking ahead, Ghana’s expanding gold production is expected to further strengthen trade with its top export markets, as these nations continue to invest in the country’s mining sector. The UAE’s Emiral Resources is the largest shareholder in Asante Gold Corporation (https://apo-opa.co/4bVIqXE), which is executing a $522 million expansion strategy, including the development of the Bibiani project. Meanwhile, India’s Rosy Royal Minerals holds an 80% stake in the Royal Ghana Gold Refinery, the country’s first gold refinery, positioning India as a key player in Ghana’s gold value chain.

    Amid these developments, Mining in Motion will feature high-level discussions, networking sessions, and project showcases, reinforcing Ghana’s role as a key gold supplier to global markets.

    Stay informed about the latest advancements, network with industry leaders, and engage in critical discussions on key issues impacting ASGM and medium to large scale mining in Ghana. Secure your spot at the Mining in Motion 2025 Summit by visiting www.MininginMotionSummit.com. For sponsorship opportunities or delegate participation, contact Sales@ashantigreeninitiative.org.

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Pro-Palestinian protesters challenge NZ’s Winston Peters at state of the nation speech

    Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. –

    Like a relentless ocean, wave after wave of pro-Palestinian pro-human rights protesters disrupted New Zealand deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ state of the nation speech at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday.

    A clarion call to Trumpism and Australia’s One Nation Party, the speech was accompanied by the background music of about 250 protesters outside the Town Hall, chanting: “Complicity in genocide is a crime.”

    Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair John Minto described Peters’ attitude to Palestinians as “sickening”.

    Inside the James Hay Theatre, protester after protester stood and spoke loudly and clearly against the deputy Prime Minister’s failure to support those still dying in Gaza, and his failure to denounce the ongoing genocide.

    Ben Vorderegger was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of people who have lost their voices in the dust of blood and bones, bombs and sniper guns.

    Before he and others were hauled out, they spoke for the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza — women, men, doctors, aid workers, journalists, and children.

    Gazan health authorities have reported that the official death toll is now more than 50,000 — but that is the confirmed deaths with thousands more buried under the rubble.


    The Christchurch Town Hall protest.            Video:PSNA

    Real death toll
    The real death toll from the genocide in Gaza has been estimated by a reputed medical journal, The Lancet, at more than 63,000. A third of those are children. Each day more children are killed.

    One by one the protesters who challenged Peters were manhandled by security guards to a frenzied crowd screaming “out, out”.

    The deputy Prime Minister’s response was to deride and mock the conscientious objectors. He did not stop there. He lambasted the media.

    At this point, several members of his audience turned on me as a journalist and demanded my removal.

    Pro=Palestine protesters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday to picket Foreign Minister Winston Peters at his state of the nation speech.Image: Saige England/APR

    This means that not only is the right to free speech at stake, the right or freedom to report is also being eroded. (I was later trespassed by security guards and police from the Town Hall although no reason was supplied for the ban).

    Inside the Christchurch Town Hall the call by Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, to “Make New Zealand Great Again” continued in the vein of a speech written by a MAGA leader.

    He whitewashed human rights, failed to address climate change, and demonstrated loathing for a media that has rarely challenged him.

    Ben Vorderegger in keffiyeh was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of Palestinans before
    being thrown out of the Christchurch Town Hall meeting. Image: Saige England/APR

    Condemned movement
    Slamming the PSNA as “Marxist fascists” for calling out genocide, he condemned the movement for failing to talk with those who have a record of kowtowing to violent colonisation.

    This tactic is Colonial Invasion 101. It sees the invader rewarding and only dealing with those who sell out. This strategy demands that the colonised people should bow to the oppressor — an oppressor who threatens them with losing everything if they do not accept the scraps.

    Peters showed no support for the Treaty of Waitangi but rather, endorsed the government’s challenge to the founding document of the nation – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In his dismissal of the founding and legally binding partnership, he repeated the “One Nation” catch-cry. Ad nauseum.

    Besides slamming Palestinians, the Scots (he managed to squeeze in a racist joke against Scottish people), and the woke, Peters’ speech promoted continued mining, showing some amnesia over the Pike River disaster. He did not reference the environment or climate change.

    After the speech, outside the Town Hall police donned black gloves — a sign they were prepared to use pepper-spray.

    PSNA co-chair John Minto described Peters’ failure to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians as “bloody disgraceful”.

    The police arrested one protester, claiming he put his hand on a car transporting NZ First officials. A witness said this was not the case.

    PSNA co-chair John Minto (in hat behind fellow protester) . . . the failure of Foreign Minister Winston Peters to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians is “bloody disgraceful”. Image; Saige England/APR

    Protester released
     The protester was later released without any charges being laid.

    A defiant New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event. He raised his arms defensively at protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?”

    I was trespassed from the Christchurch Town Hall for re-entering the Town Hall for Winston Peters’ media conference. No reason was supplied by police or the Town Hall security personnel for that trespass order..

    “The words Winston is terrified to say . . . ” poster at the Christchurch pro-Palestinian protest. Image: Saige England/APR

    It is well known that Peters loathes the media — he said so enough times during his state of the nation speech.

    He referenced former US President Bill Clinton during his speech, an interesting reference given that Clinton did not receive the protection from the media that Peters has received.

    From the over zealous security personnel who manhandled and dragged out hecklers, to the banning of a journalist, to the arrest of someone for “touching a car” when witnesses report otherwise, the state of the nation speech held some uncomfortable echoes — the actions of a fascist dictatorship.

    Populist threats
    The atmosphere was reminiscent of a Jorg Haider press conference I attended many years ago in Vienna. That “rechtspopulist” Austrian politician had threatened journalists with defamation suits if they called him out on his support for Nazis.

    Yet he was on record for doing so.

    I was reminded of this yesterday when the audience called ‘out out’ at hecklers, and demanded the removal of this journalist. These New Zealand First supporters demand adoration for their leader or a media black-out.

    Perhaps they cannot be blamed given that the state of the nation speech could well have been written by US President Donald Trump or one of his minions.

    The protesters were courageous and conscientious in contrast to Peters, said PSNA’s John Minto.

    He likened Peters to Neville Chamberlain — Britain’s Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940. His name is synonymous with the policy of “appeasement” because he conceded territorial concessions to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, fruitlessly hoping to avoid war.

    “He has refused to condemn any of Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, including the total humanitarian aid blockade of Gaza.”

    Refusal ‘unprecedented’
    “It’s unprecedented in New Zealand history that a government would refuse to condemn Israel breaking its ceasefire agreement and resuming industrial-scale slaughter of civilians,” Minto said.

    “That is what Israel is doing today in Gaza, with full backing from the White House.

    “Chamberlain went to meet Hitler in Munich in 1938 to whitewash Nazi Germany’s takeovers of its neighbours’ lands.

    “Peters has been in Washington to agree to US approval of the occupation of southern Syria, more attacks on Lebanon, resumption of the land grab genocide in Gaza and get a heads-up on US plans to ‘give’ the Occupied West Bank to Israel later this year.

    “If Peters disagrees with any of this, he’s had plenty of chances to say so.

    “New Zealanders are calling for sanctions on Israel but Mr Peters and the National-led government are looking the other way.”

    New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event, dismissing protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?” Image: Saige England/APR

    Only staged questions
    The conscientious objectors who rise against the oppression of human rights are people Winston Peters regards as his enemies. He will only answer questions in a press conference staged for him.

    He warms to journalists who warm to him.

    The state of the nation speech in the Town Hall was familiar.

    Seeking to erase conscientiousness will not make New Zealand great, it will render this country very small, almost miniscule, like the people who are being destroyed for daring to demand their right to their own land.

    Saige England is a journalist and author, and a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). She is a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific.

    Part of the crowd at the state of the nation speech by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday. Image: Saige England/APR

    This article was first published on Café Pacific.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Pro-Palestinian protesters challenge Peters at state of the nation speech

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Saige England in Christchurch

    Like a relentless ocean, wave after wave of pro-Palestinian pro-human rights protesters disrupted New Zealand deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ state of the nation speech at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday.

    A clarion call to Trumpism and Australia’s One Nation Party, the speech was accompanied by the background music of about 250 protesters outside the Town Hall, chanting: “Complicity in genocide is a crime.”

    Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair John Minto described Peters’ attitude to Palestinians as “sickening”.

    Inside the James Hay Theatre, protester after protester stood and spoke loudly and clearly against the deputy Prime Minister’s failure to support those still dying in Gaza, and his failure to denounce the ongoing genocide.

    Ben Vorderegger was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of people who have lost their voices in the dust of blood and bones, bombs and sniper guns.

    Before he and others were hauled out, they spoke for the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza — women, men, doctors, aid workers, journalists, and children.

    Gazan health authorities have reported that the official death toll is now more than 50,000 — but that is the confirmed deaths with thousands more buried under the rubble.

    Real death toll
    The real death toll from the genocide in Gaza has been estimated by a reputed medical journal, The Lancet, at more than 63,000. A third of those are children. Each day more children are killed.

    One by one the protesters who challenged Peters were manhandled by security guards to a frenzied crowd screaming “out, out”.

    The deputy Prime Minister’s response was to deride and mock the conscientious objectors. He did not stop there. He lambasted the media.

    At this point, several members of his audience turned on me as a journalist and demanded my removal.

    Pro-Palestine protesters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday to picket Foreign Minister Winston Peters at his state of the nation speech. Image: Saige England/APR

    This means that not only is the right to free speech at stake, the right or freedom to report is also being eroded. (I was later trespassed by security guards and police from the Town Hall although no reason was supplied for the ban).

    Inside the Christchurch Town Hall the call by Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, to “Make New Zealand Great Again” continued in the vein of a speech written by a MAGA leader.

    He whitewashed human rights, failed to address climate change, and demonstrated loathing for a media that has rarely challenged him.

    Ben Vorderegger in keffiyeh was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of Palestinans before
    being thrown out of the Christchurch Town Hall meeting. Image: Saige England/APR

    Condemned movement
    Slamming the PSNA as “Marxist fascists” for calling out genocide, he condemned the movement for failing to talk with those who have a record of kowtowing to violent colonisation.

    This tactic is Colonial Invasion 101. It sees the invader rewarding and only dealing with those who sell out. This strategy demands that the colonised people should bow to the oppressor — an oppressor who threatens them with losing everything if they do not accept the scraps.

    Peters showed no support for the Treaty of Waitangi but rather, endorsed the government’s challenge to the founding document of the nation – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In his dismissal of the founding and legally binding partnership, he repeated the “One Nation” catch-cry. Ad nauseum.

    Besides slamming Palestinians, the Scots (he managed to squeeze in a racist joke against Scottish people), and the woke, Peters’ speech promoted continued mining, showing some amnesia over the Pike River disaster. He did not reference the environment or climate change.

    After the speech, outside the Town Hall police donned black gloves — a sign they were prepared to use pepper-spray.

    PSNA co-chair John Minto described Peters’ failure to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians as “bloody disgraceful”.

    The police arrested one protester, claiming he put his hand on a car transporting NZ First officials. A witness said this was not the case.

    PSNA co-chair John Minto (in hat behind fellow protester) . . . the failure of Foreign Minister Winston Peters to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians is “bloody disgraceful”. Image; Saige England/APR

    Protester released
     The protester was later released without any charges being laid.

    A defiant New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event. He raised his arms defensively at protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?”

    I was trespassed from the Christchurch Town Hall for re-entering the Town Hall for Winston Peters’ media conference. No reason was supplied by police or the Town Hall security personnel for that trespass order..

    “The words Winston is terrified to say . . . ” poster at the Christchurch pro-Palestinian protest. Image: Saige England/APR

    It is well known that Peters loathes the media — he said so enough times during his state of the nation speech.

    He referenced former US President Bill Clinton during his speech, an interesting reference given that Clinton did not receive the protection from the media that Peters has received.

    From the over zealous security personnel who manhandled and dragged out hecklers, to the banning of a journalist, to the arrest of someone for “touching a car” when witnesses report otherwise, the state of the nation speech held some uncomfortable echoes — the actions of a fascist dictatorship.

    Populist threats
    The atmosphere was reminiscent of a Jorg Haider press conference I attended many years ago in Vienna. That “rechtspopulist” Austrian politician had threatened journalists with defamation suits if they called him out on his support for Nazis.

    Yet he was on record for doing so.

    I was reminded of this yesterday when the audience called ‘out out’ at hecklers, and demanded the removal of this journalist. These New Zealand First supporters demand adoration for their leader or a media black-out.

    Perhaps they cannot be blamed given that the state of the nation speech could well have been written by US President Donald Trump or one of his minions.

    The protesters were courageous and conscientious in contrast to Peters, said PSNA’s John Minto.

    He likened Peters to Neville Chamberlain — Britain’s Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940. His name is synonymous with the policy of “appeasement” because he conceded territorial concessions to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, fruitlessly hoping to avoid war.

    “He has refused to condemn any of Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, including the total humanitarian aid blockade of Gaza.”

    Refusal ‘unprecedented’
    “It’s unprecedented in New Zealand history that a government would refuse to condemn Israel breaking its ceasefire agreement and resuming industrial-scale slaughter of civilians,” Minto said.

    “That is what Israel is doing today in Gaza, with full backing from the White House.

    “Chamberlain went to meet Hitler in Munich in 1938 to whitewash Nazi Germany’s takeovers of its neighbours’ lands.

    “Peters has been in Washington to agree to US approval of the occupation of southern Syria, more attacks on Lebanon, resumption of the land grab genocide in Gaza and get a heads-up on US plans to ‘give’ the Occupied West Bank to Israel later this year.

    “If Peters disagrees with any of this, he’s had plenty of chances to say so.

    “New Zealanders are calling for sanctions on Israel but Mr Peters and the National-led government are looking the other way.”

    New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event, dismissing protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?” Image: Saige England/APR

    Only staged questions
    The conscientious objectors who rise against the oppression of human rights are people Winston Peters regards as his enemies. He will only answer questions in a press conference staged for him.

    He warms to journalists who warm to him.

    The state of the nation speech in the Town Hall was familiar.

    Seeking to erase conscientiousness will not make New Zealand great, it will render this country very small, almost miniscule, like the people who are being destroyed for daring to demand their right to their own land.

    Saige England is a journalist and author, and a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). She is a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

    Part of the crowd at the state of the nation speech by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday. Image: Saige England/APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Taking on Trump & Farage – and fixing church roofs

    Source: Liberal Democrats UK

    We meet at a time of great peril. For our continent, and for our country.

    Because Donald Trump is not only betraying Ukraine. It’s not only their sovereignty he’s selling out. It’s our security. The security of Europe and the security of our United Kingdom.

    And that is unforgivable.

    Putin might be able to fool Donald Trump into thinking that his ambitions do not extend beyond parts of Ukraine, but we know better. Just look at what he’s already doing in Georgia, in Moldova, in Romania – undermining their democracies and seeking to extend his grip further into Europe.

    Our brave Ukrainian allies are on the frontline. Fighting not just for their homes. Not just for their freedom. But for the freedom and security of people across Europe, including ours here in the UK. Their fight is our fight.

    So to our Ukrainian friends, on behalf of all Liberal Democrats, let me say once again – We thank you. We salute you. We stand with you. Today. Tomorrow. Always.

    And of course, that solidarity must go beyond mere words. That’s why I am proud that the United Kingdom has been Ukraine’s staunchest ally right from the start. Why I am so proud of the tens of thousands of British families who welcomed Ukrainians into their homes. Showing the incredible warmth and generosity of the British people. Why I am proud of all the military assistance we have given to the Ukrainian armed forces – the tanks and training, missiles and drones to repel Putin’s war machine. And it’s why I was proud that the Prime Minister brought Europe and Canada together here in Britain to chart a way forward, the day after those appalling scenes of Trump and Vance ambushing President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office.

    And Trump’s so-called “special envoy” might dismiss British leadership as pointless posturing, but we know what it really is… Britain, leading in Europe again, as we have done at the greatest moments in our nation’s history. And friends, it was good to see that again after such a long time, wasn’t it?

    But now we must step up our efforts and do more. Much more. For the defence of Ukraine, for the defence of Europe, and for our own national defence too.

    So we Liberal Democrats have led calls for far more support for Ukraine – funded by the tens of billions of pounds of Russian assets frozen in the UK, and the hundreds of billions of pounds frozen across the G7. We backed proposals for a new European Rearmament Bank, to finance a massive expansion of defence manufacturing here at home and across the continent. We pressed the Government to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP – and now we are continuing to push for cross-party talks to get it to 3%.

    Because the threat we face is existential.

    To our east, a murderous dictator hellbent on building a new Russian empire – and committing atrocities on European soil in pursuit of it. And to our west, for the first time in my life, a President of the United States willing not merely to turn a blind eye to Putin’s aggression – but actually to praise it. A President who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not a reliable ally to Ukraine, to Britain, to Europe, or to anyone else.

    So the fundamental questions we now face are these:

    How do we deal with Putin?

    And how do we deal with Trump?

    Well, let me tell you how not to deal with them. Just like any bully, you don’t deal with them by curling up in a ball and hoping they’ll leave you alone. You don’t turn a blind eye as they attack your friends, praying that maybe they’ll stop there. You have to stand up. Stand tough. Stand together with our friends. Make clear that an attack on one is an attack on all.

    And that – for the vast majority of people in our country – is our instinctive response. Brits can’t stand a bully.

    What Trump and Putin are doing offends our fundamental British values of decency, fair play, respect for national sovereignty and the rule of law. Almost everyone I speak to – in every part of our country – feels that way. But there is one man who thinks differently.

    One lone holdout. Someone who simply doesn’t seem to get it. A man who splits his time between GB News, Mar-a-Lago… and weirdly selling nappies on social media, apparently. A man who can even, legend has it, occasionally be spotted in the House of Commons and – if you wait long enough – in the town of Clacton-on-Sea. Nigel Farage.

    Unlike you and me, Nigel Farage thinks Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are great. Not in a “look, we have to be pragmatic and work with them” kind of way. More in a teenager with a celebrity crush kind of way.

    Don’t forget, when Farage was asked which world leader he most admired, his answer was Vladimir Putin. Yes, really. Now, to be fair, that was before Donald Trump became President – so I guess Putin might have slipped to number two by now. 

    A tyrant responsible for the brutal suppression of Russia’s own people, and countless atrocities in Ukraine. Who has murdered thousands of innocent civilians. And abducted 20,000 children from their homes. Snatched them away from their families.

    That, apparently, is the sort of man who wins Nigel Farage’s admiration.

    How despicable. How completely out-of-touch with British values. With human values. How unpatriotic. How deeply un-British. And this from a man who thinks he can be our Prime Minister. Not on our watch.

    With war on our continent, an unpredictable President in the White House, and an increasingly volatile world… This is no time for a nationalist.

    We need real British patriotism instead. At home and abroad, our country has big problems to solve. And let’s be absolutely clear: Nigel Farage is not the least bit interested in solving them.

    If Farage had his way, he would turn our great country into little more than a Donald Trump tribute act. He has said it himself: he sees Trump as his inspiration. He wants to do to Britain what Trump is doing to America: All the division. The nasty culture-war nonsense. The economic self-harm of tariffs. Cruelty for the sake of being cruel. Siding with criminals and undermining the rule of law. And of course, limiting your access to healthcare. And making you pay more for it.

    Farage doesn’t like to talk about it much these days, but he has been very clear throughout his long political career that he doesn’t believe in the fundamental NHS principle of universal healthcare free at the point of use. He’s called for an American-style insurance-based model. He says he’s “open to anything” when it comes to the future of the NHS – including privatisation. Just like his idol Donald would want.

    And apart from that, isn’t it striking that Farage has nothing to say about the challenges facing our NHS? Nothing to say about how to make sure people can actually see a doctor or a dentist when they need one. Nothing to say about ambulance delays or crumbling hospitals. Nothing to say about fixing social care, so that our loved ones get the care they need and carers get the support they deserve. And I mean literally – nothing to say. 

    Farage has never uttered the word “care” once in Parliament. Because the truth is: Nigel Farage doesn’t care.

    He hasn’t mentioned the “NHS” once either – or GPs, hospitals, ambulances, dentists. Imagine that. A political party whose leader has nothing at all to say on one of the biggest issues on people’s lips, and the biggest challenges we face. Our country has big problems to solve. And Nigel Farage is not the least bit interested in solving them.

    But friends, that’s not the worst of it, is it? What worries us most about Farage and Reform is the deeply destructive, divisive brand of politics they deploy.

    The weaponisation of difference. The demonisation of diversity. The scapegoating of “the other”. The superficial, simplistic, snake-oil solutions they peddle. We know where it all will lead, if we don’t stop it.

    We know what happens when cynical, opportunistic politicians seize on the struggles and the anxieties of ordinary people – Anxieties about the cost of living. About cultural and technological change. About sovereignty and security. When they exploit those struggles and anxieties for their own selfish ends – When they point the finger of blame at those who differ from you because of their religion or their nationality or the colour of their skin – When they teach that those people threaten your job or your family or your way of life – When they manipulate new forms of media to spread lies, sow fear and stir hatred – When they use those tools to convince you that their cause alone is righteous and all who stand against them are evil… We know where that ends.

    We have seen it before across history – too many times. It is the populist playbook, and its pages are very well-worn. It is ugly. It is powerful. And it is incredibly destructive. Not only to the groups they target – the vulnerable, the minorities – but ultimately to us all. To our whole society. To the very idea of liberal democracy that our United Kingdom embodies.

    And if this sounds alarmist or over-the-top, remember this: It always starts that way.

    With a reasonable, even beguiling face. With an appeal to “common sense” and “plain speaking”. But if allowed to take root, it grows and mutates with such speed and ferocity, till it fills every crack in the foundations of our country… Until those cracks become chasms.

    And what is broken can never be mended. So we know where it leads. We know what is at stake. Not just an election. Not just a set of policies. But the very future of liberal democracy itself.

    That is what’s under threat. And friends – Liberal Democrats – it falls to us to save it.

    Because with the Conservatives desperately chasing Reform’s tail – And Labour sounding more and more like them every day – We Liberal Democrats are the only ones with the courage and the conviction to stand up and offer something different. Offer a positive alternative. Something better… Hope.

    And here’s the good news – Because I know it can feel like the tides of history are against us right now. I know that when you look at Trump in America, Le Pen in France, the AfD in Germany, Reform here in the UK – When the headlines are so often so bleak – It can be tempting to give in to despair.

    Well the good news is this: What we can offer people is even more powerful than all their lies. All their false promises. The easy answers of the populist right. Even more powerful, and even more popular. Real hope.

    Hope based not on empty rhetoric or magical thinking – But on hard work and concrete action that people can see making a difference to their lives and to their communities.

    That’s what good old-fashioned Liberal Democrat community politics has always been all about. Winning people’s trust by getting things done. Showing them what liberal democracy can do for them – not by talking about it, but by rolling up our sleeves and actually doing it. Putting our policies into practice and our ideals into action.

    I don’t know if you heard what Kemi Badenoch said about us recently. Did you hear this?

    She said – and I quote: “A typical Liberal Democrat will be somebody who is good at fixing their church roof. And people in the community like them.”

    Good at fixing the church roof. People in the community like them.

    I think she meant it as an insult! But I’ll happily wear it as a badge of honour.

    Because she’s right. Liberal Democrats fix things.

    And isn’t it telling, that attitude from the Leader of the Conservative Party? 

    Not that she doesn’t like us – I’m not surprised about that. She’s got good reason not to like the Liberal Democrats… After all, we did take 60 seats off them last July! I’ll say that again, Conference… We took 60 seats off the Conservatives! So you can hardly blame them for being a bit upset!

    But what I’m talking about is the sneering attitude of the Leader of the Conservatives. The sneering attitude that says fixing church roofs is somehow beneath her. Even beneath politics altogether. That what happens in our communities is trivial and insignificant compared to debating the true meaning of conservatism on Twitter.

    And it goes far beyond Kemi Badenoch and church roofs. It’s the whole Conservative Party – whether in Westminster or in town halls and county halls across the country. They have abandoned our communities.

    The Conservatives left schools and hospitals to crumble. Left whole areas without enough GPs or dentists. Left water companies to pump filthy sewage into our rivers and seas. And they have left decent, traditional Conservatives without a political home.

    Their out-of-touch, disdainful thinking is why the Conservative Party is in the mess it is today. Treating the day-to-day things that matter in people’s lives not just with indifference, but outright contempt.

    It’s why so many lifelong Conservative voters have turned to the Liberal Democrats. It’s why people rightly kicked them out of government last July – And why we must kick them out of our councils in May too.

    But that Conservative disdain and neglect is also what has opened the door to Reform. And that’s why it’s so important that we Liberal Democrats are rooted in our communities, getting things done.

    Fixing the church roof – and much more besides. Showing people that politics can work for them. That who they vote for can make a difference. That their voice matters. 

    That is how you defeat the populists. How you drain away the cynicism that feeds them. How you win back people’s trust and restore their hope.

    It’s not easy, our way of doing politics.

    Liberal Democrat MPs certainly have to spend a lot more time in our constituencies than Nigel Farage spends in Clacton – although I admit that’s a low bar.

    That’s why no one ever joins the Liberal Democrats as a shortcut to high office. And if that’s why any of you are here today, I’m sorry to have to let you down like this.

    We join because we want to make a difference to our communities and our country. Even though we know it’s hard work. 

    And we join – we all joined – because of a genuine belief in the core Liberal values that have made our country great: Freedom and equality. Community and internationalism. A commitment to human rights, to the environment, and to democracy. And those values are exactly what this moment in history demands.

    At a time when people are facing so many daily challenges on so many different fronts – The cost of living crisis. An economy that is still barely growing. Public services that just aren’t working the way they should. Opportunity that feels further and further out of reach for too many young people.

    These are challenges that can really test our values. When people feel so economically insecure. When times are so tough. Historically these are the times that liberalism has struggled, that progress has stumbled. But these are the times when our liberal values are needed more than ever.

    To build the fair, free and open society we all believe in. So that people can get on in life – with real power to make their own choices and pursue their own dreams.

    Because we understand that if you free people – If you empower them to make their voices heard and hold the powerful properly to account – Then you unleash the best in people and create a better society and a stronger economy as a result.

    So that everyone gets a fair deal. Every child gets the best possible start in life, and everyone sees their hard work and aspiration properly rewarded. Everyone gets the care they need when they need it, and a helping hand if they fall on tough times.

    And friends, how critical are our Liberal, internationalist values right now?

    Not just on Ukraine and defending Europe from Putin – critical though that is. But on so many big, global challenges – from the rise of China to the threat of climate change to the risks of artificial intelligence.

    These are challenges that no nation can afford to ignore. And challenges that no nation can tackle alone. Pulling up the drawbridge simply isn’t an option. Like I said, this is no time for a nationalist.

    What we need is a movement of proud internationalists – People who believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward-looking. Who know that the UK can be an incredible force for good when it stands tall on the world stage. And stands up for what is right. Who recognise that the concerns of one nation inevitably become the concerns of all nations. A movement of proud internationalists. And Liberal Democrats, that is who we are.

    The only party that has consistently opposed the Conservatives’ damaging Brexit deal from the start. The only party arguing for a new deal with the EU, with a Customs Union at its heart – putting us on a path back to the Single Market. The only party still championing international aid, after first the Conservatives and now Labour shamefully cut it.

    And friends, we’re the only party in British politics speaking up in defiance of Donald Trump. The only ones willing to state the obvious truth: that he is no leader of the free world. I mean, this is a man who stands on the White House drive, flogging Teslas for Elon Musk like a particularly bad used car salesman. It’s hardly “Ask not what your country can do for you”, is it?

    And more despicably, this is a man who halted shipments of food, medicine and other essential aid supplies to people around the world who desperately need them. Locking whole shipping containers in port for their contents to rot. So much for Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill”.

    And remember – this is the man Nigel Farage calls his “inspiration”. We’re the only ones willing to say that Trump cannot be relied upon to play by the rules, or stick to agreements. That his presidency is a threat to peace and prosperity in the UK, across Europe, and around the world. And that we must deal with him as he is. Bullying. Narcissistic. Unpredictable. We must deal with Trump from a position of strength, not weakness.

    Like on trade. If there’s one thing we know, it’s that Donald Trump loves tariffs. He says it’s “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”…

    Which, when you think about it, really is a very Donald Trump way of deciding your economic policy, isn’t it?

    Now, as Liberals, we profoundly disagree. After all, it was the Victorian Liberals who overturned centuries of protectionism and ushered in a new era of free trade and prosperity. We can already see the damage Trump’s tariffs are doing to the US economy, with forecasters saying he may plunge it into recession. And we fear the damage his trade war could do to the world economy, impacting jobs and living standards here in the UK too.

    So the question, again, is how do we deal with him?

    And the answer, we say again, is from a position of strength. Regrettably, that’s not Labour’s strategy. They say: “Let’s be nice to him and hope he won’t hurt us”.

    Now Labour’s even talking about scrapping Britain’s tax on social media giants. Changing the UK’s tax policy to appease Donald Trump – and Elon Musk. Well appeasement never works with bullies, and it doesn’t work with Trump – as his tariffs on British steel already show.

    And let me say this to Elon Musk, who I know is my biggest fan… We will make out-of-control social media giants like you pay more – so we can defend our children and young people from the harm you’re causing them.

    But it’s not just Labour bending the knee to this White House. It’s the Conservatives too. They’d have us go to Mar-a-Lago, begging bowl outstretched, pleading for a trade deal on whatever terms Trump will give us. The Conservatives would sell out British farmers to President Trump, just as they sold them out in their damaging trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. And then they’d let Trump’s billionaire mates carve up the NHS between them. 

    Another Elon Musk rebrand, this time to NH-X.

    More and more appeasement – in the futile hope it would protect us from more Trump tariffs in future. But we know it wouldn’t. Of course it wouldn’t.

    Just look at how he’s treated Canada – a steadfast ally who fought fascism alongside the US and the UK. He has hit them with outrageous tariffs, breaking the trade deal between their two countries. Because he doesn’t like the deal, so he doesn’t think he has to stick to it.

    Last month he asked “who would ever sign a thing like this”. The answer, of course, is you did Donald. Only five years ago. His signature means nothing.

    So no, a bad Trump deal won’t protect us from tariffs. And playing nice, being weak, is no way to deal with him either. So let’s stand up to Trump. Let’s stand side by side with the EU and with our Commonwealth ally Canada. I urge the Prime Minister to bring those leaders together here in the UK to agree a coordinated response to Trump’s trade war – just like he’s rightly done on Putin’s murderous war. As others have done, we should hit back with tariffs of our own – starting with those Teslas Trump is so desperate to sell. 

    And Conference, let’s put ourselves in the strongest possible position by rebuilding our trade with Europe – Strengthening British businesses and showing Trump we have other options.

    So you see, when it comes to dealing with Trump – as with the other looming threats in the world right now – it is our liberal belief in internationalism that offers the solution. Conference, with Trump in the White House and Farage leading a Trump tribute act here in the UK – Our role in British politics has never been more essential. Our precious liberal values are the only antidote to their destructive nationalism. Our trademark community politics is the only way to defeat their cynical populism.

    The threat they pose is grave. The challenge before us is great. This is a battle of competing values. A battle of competing visions. A battle for the future.

    We didn’t choose this fight. But friends, I know you are up for it. I know together we can win it.

    For the future of our democracy. For the good of our communities. For the love of our country. Let’s go to battle.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trouble at Tesla and protests against Trump’s tariffs suggest consumer boycotts are starting to bite

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin O’Brien, Associate Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University

    Getty Images

    When the United States starts a trade war with your country, how do you fight back? For individuals, one option is to wage a personal trade war and boycott products from the US.

    President Donald Trump has said no nation will be exempt from his tariffs, and this includes both Australia and New Zealand. His tariffs on all steel and aluminium imports, in particular, could hurt the sector in Australia, while New Zealand’s meat and wine exports to the US could also feel the effect.

    So far, political leaders have responded differently. Canada, Mexico and the European Union have imposed reciprocal tariffs on the US, while Australia has indicated it will not retaliate.

    But whether governments choose to push back or not, citizens in those and other countries are making their own stands. This includes artists such as renowned pianist András Schiff, who has cancelled his upcoming US tour.

    Most notably, collective outrage at the US president has led to a growing global boycott of Elon Musk’s Tesla due to his role in the Trump administration. Sales of new Tesla vehicles are down 72% in Australia and 76% in Germany. The share price has dropped by more than 50% since December 2024, with calls for Musk to step down as chief executive.

    Some governments are even encouraging consumer boycotts. The Canadian government, for example, has urged citizens to “fight back against the unjustified US tariffs” by purchasing Canadian products and holidaying in Canada.

    Canadians are clearly embracing this advice. Road trips to the US have dropped by more than 20% in the past month and US liquor brands have been removed from some Canadian stores altogether.

    This rise in calls for boycotts of American brands and companies is unsurprising in the Trump 2.0 era, where the lines between government and corporate America have become increasingly blurred.

    Political change by proxy

    When people want to protest a government policy, but have no political leverage because they’re not citizens of that country, boycotting corporations or brands gives them a voice. These actions are sometimes called “surrogate” or “proxy” boycotts.

    This form of “political consumerism”, where individuals align their consumption choices with their values, is now one of the most common forms of political participation in western liberal democracies.

    When France opposed the war in Iraq in 2003, US supporters of the war aimed boycotts at French imports. Consumers in the US, United Kingdom and elsewhere have boycotted Russian goods over the invasion of Ukraine, and targeted Israel over its military action and policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

    Most famously, protests against the apartheid regime in South Africa from the 1950s through to the 1990s helped isolate and eventually change its government.

    The current boycotts are not just protesting Trump’s trade war, of course. They are also about the role of unelected leaders from the corporate world, such as Musk and the heads of the Big Tech and social media companies, and their perceived self-interest and influence.

    Trump has responded angrily to consumer boycotts, calling the actions against Tesla “illegal”, which they are not. Indeed, political leaders like Trump often argue that consumer action, rather than government regulation, should be relied on to ensure corporations conform to social expectations.

    Ukrainians demonstrate in front of the Lukoil headquarters in Belgium over European imports of Russian fossil fuels, 2022.
    Getty Images

    How to wage a personal trade war

    Consumer boycotts do create change under certain conditions – typically when there is a contained problem that the targeted corporation has the power to solve.

    For example, consumer boycotts against Nestlé in the 1970s over false and dangerous marketing of powdered milk for infants led to changes in the firm’s marketing approaches. Boycotts of Nike products over sweatshop conditions for workers had a direct impact on the company’s bottom line and led to improvements.

    Things may still need to improve at Nestlé and Nike, but these boycotts show consumer pressure can catalyse corporate action. However, it is much harder – though not impossible – for boycott campaigns to succeed when the target is a government.

    Consumers boycotting American products can amplify the impact of their protest by also lobbying retailers. For example, if enough consumers stop buying a bottle of soft drink from the US, major supermarkets like Woolworths and Foodstuffs will stop buying thousands of bottles.

    There are also other ways to “vote with your wallet”. People can engage in “political investorism” by using their power as a shareholder, bank customer or pension-fund member to express their political views.

    After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, investors sought to divest from Russian companies, and superannuation funds were pressured by their members to do the same.

    As consumers and investors, individuals can wage a personal trade war, sending a clear message. Trump may not be willing to listen to the leaders of allied nations, but if consumer and investor pressure is sustained and spreads globally, he may yet hear the voice of corporate America.

    Erin O’Brien receives funding from the Australian Research Council to examine consumer and investor activism for social change. She is affiliated with the Australian Political Studies Association.

    Justine Coneybeer receives funding from the Australian Research Council to investigate ethical investment.

    – ref. Trouble at Tesla and protests against Trump’s tariffs suggest consumer boycotts are starting to bite – https://theconversation.com/trouble-at-tesla-and-protests-against-trumps-tariffs-suggest-consumer-boycotts-are-starting-to-bite-252489

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: China, New Zealand complete historic joint dive expedition to Puysegur Trench

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

    WELLINGTON, March 22 — Chinese and New Zealand scientists have successfully concluded a groundbreaking collaborative dive expedition to the Puysegur Trench, supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Global Trench Exploration and Diving program (Global TREnD).

    “For the first time in history, humans have reached the deepest point of the Puysegur Trench,” said Du Mengran, chief scientist of the joint research expedition, during the Concluding Open Day in Wellington on Friday.

    The expedition unveiled numerous novel phenomena and yielded an extensive collection of valuable biological samples, many of which represent new depth records or are suspected new species, Du said. Additionally, various rock samples were collected, providing critical materials for studying subduction processes and geological mechanisms.

    Over the past three months, the joint China-New Zealand expedition was conducted by the CAS Institute of Deep-Sea Science and Engineering (IDSSE), in collaboration with New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

    The mission marked the first international scientific dive exploration of the Puysegur Trench and the second collaborative deep-sea expedition between China and New Zealand.

    The expedition involved 68 scientists from eight countries, including New Zealand, Malaysia, Denmark, Germany, France, Brazil, India, and China.

    Liu Weidong, director general of the Bureau of International Cooperation, CAS, said this collaborative spirit embodies the essence of scientific exploration, transcending borders to explore the unknown world for mankind.

    Leveraging the cutting-edge full-water-depth manned submersible Fendouzhe (Striver) and the Tansuo series of research vessels, the team conducted the first manned dive exploration in the Puysegur Trench, located in the notoriously treacherous “Roaring Forties” region.

    Despite extreme sea conditions, the team successfully completed 32 dive missions, setting a new Chinese record of 75 hours across five dives. Du highlighted that this mission was jointly designed by Chinese and New Zealand scientists and executed by a multinational team, with nine dive missions completed by foreign scientists.

    Samples and data collected during the expedition were shared among participating scientists, fostering international collaboration.

    Rob Murdoch, NIWA’s deputy chief executive, emphasized that the China-New Zealand partnership provided New Zealand scientists with unique access to deep-sea exploration resources. The ability to gather deep-sea samples and data that would otherwise be unattainable is invaluable, he said, praising the achievement of completing so many dives under the harsh conditions of the Southern Ocean.

    Among the discoveries were new species of invertebrates and fish, significantly expanding scientists’ understanding of New Zealand’s marine biodiversity. The expedition also uncovered rare whale fall-deep-sea organisms that thrive exclusively on the remains of deceased whales.

    Murdoch expressed enthusiasm for continued collaboration in the coming years, focusing on sample processing, data analysis, and publishing the expedition’s final findings.

    This joint mission follows the first manned deep-sea scientific voyage by Chinese and New Zealand scientists in late 2022. That expedition, aboard the research vessel Tansuo-1 and utilizing the Fendouzhe submersible, explored the Scholl Deep, the deepest point of the Kermadec Trench, located north of New Zealand, approximately 10,000 meters below sea level.

    Chinese Ambassador to New Zealand Wang Xiaolong said the deep sea has always been a challenging frontier for human exploration. However, with technological advancements, manned submersibles such as Fendouzhe have turned deep-sea research from fantasy into reality.

    This expedition to the Puysegur Trench will undoubtedly advance human exploration of the deep ocean and contribute to the development of global marine research, Wang said.

    Hadal trenches, defined as deep-sea regions exceeding 6,000 meters in depth, are characterized by extreme conditions, including immense hydrostatic pressure, perpetual darkness, low temperatures, and significant tectonic activity. These unique environments foster complex chemosynthetic ecosystems and harbor unknown life forms, making them a frontier for groundbreaking discoveries in both Earth and life sciences, according to the IDSSE.

    To date, the Global TREnD dive expeditions have been conducted in nine major global hadal trenches, including the Mariana, Yap, Kermadec, Diamantina, Wallaby-Zenith, Java, Kuril-Kamchatka, Aleutian, and Puysegur trenches.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Activist News – PSNA to protest Winston Peters’ policy of appeasement towards the US/Israel

    Source: Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA)

    PSNA supporters will protest at the Winston Peters public meeting in Ōtautahi/Christchurch this afternoon calling for him to end his policy of appeasement towards the US and Israel.

     

    “Winston Peters’ is New Zealand’s Neville Chamberlain” says PSNA Co National Chair John Minto. “He has refused to condemn any of Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, including the total humanitarian aid blockade of Gaza”

    (Neville Chamberlain was Britain’s Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940.  His name is synonymous with the policy of “appeasement” because he conceded territorial concessions to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, fruitlessly hoping to avoid war)

     

    “It’s unprecedented in New Zealand history that a government would refuse to condemn Israel breaking its ceasefire agreement and resuming industrial-scale slaughter of civilians.  That is what Israel is doing today in Gaza, with full backing from the White House,” Minto says.

     

    “Chamberlain went to meet Hitler in Munich in 1938 to whitewash Nazi Germany’s takeovers of its neighbours’ lands.”

     

    “Peters has been in Washington to agree to US approval of the occupation of southern Syria, more attacks on Lebanon, resumption of the land grab genocide in Gaza and get a heads-up on US plans to ‘give’ the Occupied West Bank to Israel later this year.”

     

    “If Peters disagrees with any of this, he’s had plenty of chances to say so.”

     

    “New Zealanders are calling for sanctions on Israel but Mr Peters and the National-led government are looking the other way.”

     

    “Today’s protest will be holding Peters to account.”

     

    John Minto

    Co National Chair

    Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Foot and Mouth disease detected in Slovakia

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Foot and Mouth disease detected in Slovakia

    The UK Chief Veterinary Officer is urging livestock keepers to remain vigilant to the clinical signs of FMD following the recent outbreaks in Europe

    The Slovak Government has reported three cases of Foot and Mouth disease (FMD) close to the Slovakian – Hungarian border. The cases were identified in three separate premises housing cattle.

    The UK Government had already taken action to prevent the commercial import from Slovakia of cattle, pigs, sheep, goats and other non- domestic ruminants and porcines such as deer and their untreated products, such as fresh meat and dairy. This will protect farmers and their livestock. 

    Since 8 March, travellers to GB have not been able to bring meat, meat products, milk and dairy products, certain composite products and animal by products of pigs and ruminants, or hay or straw, from Hungary and Slovakia after a case on the Hungarian border with Slovakia. 

    The UK Chief Veterinary Officer is urging livestock keepers to remain vigilant to the clinical signs of FMD following the recent outbreaks in Hungary, Germany and now Slovakia. There are no cases in the UK currently.   

    FMD poses no risk to human or food safety, but is a highly contagious viral disease of cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals such as wild boar, deer, llamas, and alpacas. Livestock keepers should therefore be absolutely rigorous about their biosecurity.   

    FMD causes significant economic losses due to production losses in the affected animals as well as loss of access to foreign markets for animals, meat, and milk for affected countries.  

    UK Chief Veterinary Officer Dr Christine Middlemiss said:

    Foot and Mouth disease has now been confirmed in Slovakia, we remain in contact with our European counterparts to understand the latest situation. 

    We have seen a disturbing number of foot and mouth cases on the continent, and we need to stay on high alert to the risk of disease incursion – as a government, at the border and on our farms.

    Protecting animal health and minimising the risk of disease incursion remains our top priority. Livestock keepers are reminded to continue exercising the upmost vigilance for signs of disease, follow scrupulous biosecurity and report any suspicion of disease immediately to the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

    Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner said:

    With disease now confirmed in Slovakia , it is clear the Government’s precautionary approach to ban Slovakian imports was the right one.  

    The confirmation of a Foot and Mouth disease in a third European country is a serious concern, the government will take whatever action is necessary to prevent the further spread of disease.   

    Ensuring the safety of our livestock sector and protecting our farmers will always be a top priority.

    This comes as the government announced a £200 million investment in the UK’s main research and laboratory testing facilities at Weybridge to bolster protection against animal disease.   

    What you can do   

    If you’re an animal keeper, read about how to spot foot and mouth disease and report it.   

    If you’re an importer or exporter, read about the import restrictions for foot and mouth disease.    

    Clinical signs to be aware of vary depending on the animals, but in cattle the main signs are sores and blisters on the feet, mouth and tongue with potentially a fever, lameness and a reluctance to feed. In sheep and pigs, signs tend to manifest with lameness with potential for blistering.     

    While horses and companion animals are not susceptible to FMD, hay feed or straw bedding, if sourced from an infected area, could act as a fomite and therefore also prevented from entering GB. 

    Maintaining good biosecurity is essential to protecting the health and welfare of herds and critical to preventing the spread of diseases such as FMD and preventing an outbreak spreading.   

    Foot and mouth disease is a notifiable disease and must be reported. If you suspect foot and mouth disease in your animals, you must report it immediately by calling:   

    • 03000 200 301 in England    
    • 0300 303 8268 in Wales    
    • your local  Field Services Office in Scotland

    For more information, visit: Imports, exports and EU trade of animals and animal products: topical issues – GOV.UK

    Updates to this page

    Published 22 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Green Party’s Swarbrick calls for urgent NZ action over Israel’s ‘crazy’ Gaza slaughter

    Asia Pacific Report

    Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick called on New Zealand government MPs today to support her Member’s Bill to sanction Israel over its “crazy slaughter” of Palestinians in Gaza.

    Speaking at a large pro-Palestinian solidarity rally in the heart of New Zealand’s largest city Auckland, she said Aotearoa New Zealand could no longer “remain a bystander to the slaughter of innocent people in Gaza”.

    In the fifth day since Israel broke the two-month-old ceasefire and refused to begin negotiations on phase two of the truce — which was supposed to lead to a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from the besieged enclave and an exchange of hostages — health officials reported that the death toll had risen above 630, mostly children and women.

    Five children were killed in a major overnight air attack on Gaza City and at least eight members of the family remained trapped under the rubble as Israeli attacks continued in the holy fasting month of Ramadan.

    Confirmed casualty figures in Gaza since October 7, 2023, now stand at 49,747 with 113,213 wounded, the Gaza Health Ministry said.

    For more than two weeks, Israel has sealed off border crossings and barred food, water and electricity and today it blew up the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, the only medical institution in Gaza able to provide cancer treatment.

    “The research has said it from libraries, libraries and libraries. And what is it doing in Gaza?” said Swarbrick.

    ‘Ethnic cleansing . . . on livestream’
    “It is ethnic cleansing. It is apartheid. It is genocide. And we have that delivered to us by  livestream to each one of us every single day on our cellphones,” she said.

    “That is crazy. It is crazy to wake up every single day to that.”

    Swarbrick said Aotearoa New Zealand must act now to sanction Israel for its crimes — “just like we did with Russia for its illegal action in Ukraine.”

    She said that with the Green Party, Te Pāti Māori and Labour’s committed support, they now needed just six of the 68 government MPs to “pass my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill into law”.

    “There’s no more time for talk. If we stand for human rights and peace and justice, our Parliament must act,” she said.

    “Action for Gaza Now” banner heads a march protesting against Israel’s resumed attacks on the besieged Strip in Auckland today. Image: APR

    In September, Aotearoa had joined 123 UN member states to support a resolution calling for sanctions against those responsible for Israel’s “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in relation to settler violence”.

    “Our government has since done nothing to fulfil that commitment. Our Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill starts that very basic process.

    “No party leader or whip can stop a Member of Parliament exercising their democratic right to vote how they know they need to on this Bill,” she said to resounding cheers.

    ‘No hiding behind party lines’
    “There is no more hiding behind party lines. All 123 Members of Parliament are each individually, personally responsible.”

    Several Palestinian women spoke of the terror with the new wave of Israeli bombings and of their families’ personal connections with the suffering in Gaza, saying it was vitally important to “hear our stories”. Some spoke of the New Zealand government’s “cowardice” for not speaking out in opposition like many other countries.

    About 1000 people took part in the protest in a part of Britomart’s Te Komititanga Square in a section now popularly known as “Palestine Corner”.

    Amid a sea of banners and Palestinian flags there were placards declaring “Stop the genocide”, “Jews for tangata whenua from Aotearoa to Palestine”, “Hands off West Bank End the occupation” , “The people united will never be defeated”, “Decolonise your mind, stand with Palestine,” “Genocide — made in USA”, and “Toitū Te Tiriti Free Palestine”.

    “Genocide – Made in USA” poster at today’s Palestinian solidarity rally. Image: APR

    The ceasefire-breaking Israeli attacks on Gaza have shocked the world and led to three UN General Assembly debates this week on the Middle East.

    France, Germany and Britain are among the latest countries to condemn Israel for breaching the ceasefire — describing it as a “dramatic step backwards”, and France has told the UN that it is opposed to any form of annexation by Israel of any Palestinian territory.

    Meanwhile, Sultan Barakat, a professor at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera in an interview that the more atrocities Israel committed in Gaza, the more young Palestinian men and women would join Hamas.

    “So it’s not going to disappear any time soon,” he said.

    With Israel killing more than 630 people in five days and cutting off all aid to the Strip for weeks, there was no trust on the part of Hamas to restart the ceasefire, Professor Barakat said.

    “Jews for tangata whenua from Aotearoa to Palestine” . . . a decolonisation placard at today’s Palestine solidarity rally in Auckland. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Plans to boost skills and diversity in UK cyber backed by tech giant IBM

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Plans to boost skills and diversity in UK cyber backed by tech giant IBM

    Technology giant IBM have backed plans to diversify the UK’s cyber sector and encourage young people into cyber careers.

    IBM to host 2025 CyberFirst Girls Competition Platform.

    • Global tech giant IBM to provide platform for flagship cyber skills programme for girls – boosting diversity in the booming £13 billion cyber sector as more young people explore careers in cyber
    • girls between 12-13 to be supported in developing new computing and cyber skills
    • partnership comes as best and brightest cyber minds gear up to represent UK Cyber Team in a series of international challenges

    Technology giant IBM have backed plans to diversify the UK’s cyber sector and encourage young people into cyber careers, as the government safeguards online services which deliver economic growth – central to the Plan for Change. 

    In new support being announced today (Saturday 22 March), IBM have agreed to partner with the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology (DSIT), and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), to provide the online platform for the CyberFirst Girls competition – a UK-wide programme open to girls between the ages of 12 and 13. 

    The CyberFirst Girls Competition, currently run by the NCSC, is the UK’s flagship cyber security programme for schools, with more than 85,000 students across the country having taken part since its launch in 2017. It puts students through a series of cyber challenges from cryptography and networking to artificial intelligence, building up their skills and encouraging them to consider future careers in the field. To support the next generation of cyber talent, IBM will provide the platform for the 2025 edition of the competition. 

    Improving the diversity of the UK’s cyber sector is a key priority for the government, with women currently accounting for just 17% of our cyber workforce. Though average salaries in the sector exceed £56,000 – with the top 20% of earners receiving salaries between £73,000 and £350,000 – almost half of UK businesses (44%) also report having cyber security skills gaps, meaning it’s more pressing than ever to ensure the next generation of cyber security leaders are joining the ranks. 

    Minister for Cyber Security Feryal Clark said: 

    If we’re going to keep the UK safe from the threats we face online, then we need to build a diverse workforce which is reflective of every community in the country.

    By partnering with IBM to deliver the next edition of the CyberFirst Girls Competition, we’re driving forward our plans to do exactly that – building up the skills of young girls across the country and nurturing the next generation of UK cyber leaders.

    The girls who will benefit from this support could even go on to represent the UK Cyber Team – the cream of the crop of British cyber talent who will fly the flag for us across the world – and I’ll be proudly cheering the team on today as they head to Dublin for their first international competition.

    Chris Ensor, NCSC Deputy Director for Cyber Growth, said:

    Over the past decade, the CyberFirst Girls Competition has offered tens of thousands of young women a fun opportunity to test their cyber skills against real-world cyber problems.

    I’m delighted that a new partnership across government and the private sector will be taking forward the delivery of this vital initiative which is inspiring the next generation of cyber security professionals.

    We need a cyber industry which reflects our diverse society and encourages the most talented individuals to keep our digital lives secure.

    Today’s partnership comes as some of the country’s best and brightest cyber minds prepare to represent the UK Cyber Team in their first international competition – putting their skills to the test against Ireland, Germany, and Denmark. 

    The UK Cyber Team programme is an e-sports style cyber security competition launched in collaboration with SANS, which looks to identify the next generation of cyber talent. Competitors have gone through a rigorous set of challenges to showcase their skills, with 30 18-25 year olds from across the country qualifying to represent the UK Cyber Team. 

    These competitors are drawn from across the country, representing their home communities across London, the South Wast, Wales, Scotland, the North of England, West Midlands, and the South West.  With 37% of the team being female, 57% being male, and 3% identifying as non-binary, the UK Cyber Team is a true representation of communities and backgrounds up and down the country. 

     Mark Hughes, IBM Global Managing Partner for Cyber Security, said:

    IBM is delighted to build upon our partnership with the National Cyber Security Centre by supporting the CyberFirst Girls competition with DSIT. Our commitment to fostering diversity in cybersecurity remains unwavering, as highlighted in our ‘Diversity & Inclusion in Cybersecurity’ initiative.

    This new collaboration is a significant step towards nurturing the next generation of cyber leaders, ensuring a more inclusive and robust industry. We are confident that this partnership will make a substantial impact in encouraging more young girls to pursue rewarding careers in cybersecurity.

    The move to boost cyber skills is part of the government’s wider work to grow the economy and develop the successful UK cyber security sector, which is now worth £13.2 billion, up 12% on the previous year.

    Notes to editors

    1. The 2024 Cyber security skills in the UK labour market report shows strong demand for cyber skills in the UK, with 44% of businesses reporting a skills gap. Salary data is also sourced from this report
       2. The 2025 Cyber Security Sectoral Analysis shows the UK cyber security sector generated revenue of £13.2 billion, up 12% since last year. 2,165 companies employ 67,300 people (full time equivalents), up 11% since last year, an increase of around 6,600 jobs
    3. The total gross value added (GVA) for the sector has reached c. £7.8 billion, an increase of 21% since last year
    4. The 2025/2026 CyberFirst Girls Competition will be run as a partnership between DSIT, NCSC and IBM.

    DSIT media enquiries

    Email press@dsit.gov.uk

    Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 6pm 020 7215 300

    Updates to this page

    Published 22 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Germany: Volume of counterfeits in Germany up again | Total loss arising from counterfeits down

    Source: Deutsche Bundesbank in English

    In 2024, the Bundesbank registered approximately 72,400 counterfeit euro banknotes with a nominal value of €4.5 million in German payments. The number of counterfeits was thus up by 28% on the year. 
    “The number of counterfeits detected rose in 2024 but, at the same time, the loss arising from counterfeiting went down. This is because perpetrators have again tended increasingly towards introducing simple counterfeits of low denomination into transactions,” said Burkhard Balz, the Bundesbank Executive Board member whose remit includes cash management. As a result, the total loss arising from counterfeits in 2024 was 12% lower than in the previous year. “Overall, the incidence of counterfeit money remains moderate in scale: statistically speaking, in 2024 there were nine counterfeit banknotes per 10,000 inhabitants,” Mr Balz added.
    The table below shows the distribution of counterfeits across the various denominations in 2024 and changes compared with 2023.
        

    Banknotes

    Number

    Share (rounded)

    Year-on-year change

    €5

    1,020

    1%

    +47%

    €10

    4,759

    7%

    +37%

    €20

    20,552

    28%

    +66%

    €50

    29,103

    40%

    +35%

    €100

    10,385

    14%

    +47%

    €200

    5,827

    8%

    -34%

    €500

    767

    1%

    -71%

    Total

    72,413

     

     

    At around 33,800, the number of counterfeits detected in the second half of 2024 was lower than the figure for the first half of the year (38,600).
    As in previous years, a large proportion of the counterfeits could easily be recognised as such. The banknotes have the words “MovieMoney” or “Prop copy” printed on them and do not mimic any of the security features found on a genuine banknote. On some of the specimens the label “MovieMoney” had been covered over and replaced with an imitation signature.
    Recognising counterfeit banknotes
    As counterfeit banknotes are not replaced, the Bundesbank strongly recommends checking banknotes using the “feel, look, tilt” method. It is advisable to compare a suspicious banknote with one definitely known to be genuine and to always check more than one security feature. 
    All counterfeits can be identified by checking the following authentication features:
    Feel: 
    Most euro banknotes have paper that is crisp and firm to the touch, which means it is possible to identify simple counterfeits just by feeling the banknote. However, to be on the safe side, the Bundesbank recommends checking other features as well. A coating was applied to €5 and €10 banknotes from the Europa series, as well as some of the Europa series €20 notes; those notes feel smooth and firm. Both coated and uncoated €20 banknotes are in circulation.
    Raised print on the front of the banknotes can be identified by touch. For example, banknotes belonging to the Europa series have the letters “BCE ECB EЦБ EZB EKP EKT EKB BĊE EBC” (and “ESB” on denominations of €50 and above) down their left edge as well as a series of short lines on the left and right-hand edges.

    Look:
    When any banknote is held against the light, the watermark appears as a shadowy image in the unprinted area. 
    On denominations of €20 and above belonging to the Europa series, the upper section of the hologram contains a transparent window showing a portrait of Europa, a figure from Greek mythology.

    Tilt: 
    An emerald number can be seen on the bottom left-hand side on the front of the banknotes belonging to the Europa series. When the banknote is tilted, the emerald number changes colour and the effect of a light stripe moving upand down becomes visible.
    The hologram images change when the banknote is tilted. Rainbow-coloured effects appear around the motifs.
    The €100 and €200 euro banknotes have been equipped with additional security features. The emerald number contains several euro symbols that change in colour. The hologram contains a satellite feature showing two euro symbols that move around the denomination number.

    More counterfeit coins
    In 2024, approximately 141,300 counterfeit coins were detected in German payments, compared with around 115,900 counterfeit coins in the previous year. Statistically, this equates to 17 counterfeit coins per 10,000 inhabitants in Germany. The increase was due to a number of companies accumulating coins that they suspected of being counterfeits over several years and then submitting them to the Bundesbank as a batch in 2024. There was also a rise in the number of counterfeit €2 coins being introduced into the payments system. 
    Counterfeits were identified in only the three highest denominations, and their incidence in 2024 was as follows.
       

    Coins

    Number

    Share (rounded)

    50 cent

    658

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI German News –

  • MIL-OSI Germany: Invitation to bid – Reopening of the 30-year 1.80 % Green Federal bond of 2023 (2053)

    Source: Deutsche Bundesbank in English

    A digital euro would be a digital form of central bank money, specifically the euro. It could be used by the general public in much the same way as cash, only in virtual form. Alongside cash, the Eurosystem would thus supply households with an additional form of central bank money that can be used quickly, easily and securely.

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI German News –

  • MIL-OSI China: French, German, British FMs call for immediate return to ceasefire in Gaza

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    The foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Britain (the E3) called for an immediate return to a ceasefire in Gaza on Friday.

    “The resumption of Israeli strikes in Gaza marks a dramatic step backward for the people of Gaza, the hostages, their families and the entire region,” the ministers said in a joint statement released late evening, calling on “all parties to re-engage with negotiations to ensure the ceasefire is implemented in full and becomes permanent.”

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Germany: Unchanged global climate policies will cost India 19% and world 15% of GDP by 2050 | Interview with The Economic Times

    Source: Deutsche Bundesbank in English

    The interview was conducted by Deepshikha Sikarwar & Vinay Pandey.
    How do you see US president Donald Trump’s election weighing in on the entire climate debate?
    We are central bankers and supervisors, so we are non-political. We are data-dependent and science-based. We are here together to discuss the impact of climate and nature-related risks on our economies. Talking about climate change in general, there are two major risks: physical risks; meaning increasing numbers of droughts, floods, hurricanes and wildfires. And transition risks, which are the costs and consequences of the transition to net zero.
    If climate policy falls short then, of course, economic and financial risks will increase. That’s what central banks must look at. We analyze the data and see what kind of impact climate change has on the economy. That’s our job. We must deal with these risks, and we will address them, also towards governments.
    What does the withdrawal of the US Federal Reserve mean for NGFS and its agenda? 
    The NGFS was founded at the end of 2017. At that time, we were only eight members. Now we are 144. The Fed, as you just mentioned, left in January. Except for the US, none of the members have exited so far. Instead, thirteen new members have joined since I took over as NGFS Chair at the start of 2024. So, we are still a growing organization.
    And our agenda stays the same, because it has nothing to do with the exit of one member. If we see deregulation, if we see climate being taken off the policy agenda, then we might see increasing physical risk, meaning an acceleration of climate change. And that might mean that we even become more vocal on the risks we see.
    How do you see India’s progress? What more needs to be done?
    It’s not up to me to judge the stance and actions of our colleagues from the Reserve Bank of India. I just mentioned our latest update on the long-term scenarios about GDP being 15 % lower, worldwide, than in a world without climate change. For India, the GDP loss is even bigger. If the world keeps its current policies unchanged, global temperatures are expected to rise by three degrees Celsius (on average). And this could cost India roughly 19 % of GDP by 2050, compared to a world without climate change. So, for India, we show that climate change can have even more serious consequences than elsewhere. And, at the same time, the scenarios show that India is among those countries who would benefit the most from a global transition towards net zero emissions.
    You’ve said your actions are data dependent. What is the data telling us in terms of the economic impact of climate change? Because there is also a pushback.
    We are analytical powerhouses. Our climate scenarios are our flagship product. We have set up different long-term scenarios. For example, a current policy scenario or a fragmented world one, where climate policy is delayed, divergent and/or insufficient across the globe. Or a scenario where policy would bring us to a Paris-aligned world. We look at what those different climate scenarios mean in economic terms, for GDP, inflation, productivity, and so on.
    The fifth vintage of our long-term climate scenarios was published at the start of November last year. It told us that under the current policies scenario, global GDP will be 15 % lower globally in 2050 than it would be without climate change. This is a striking number, and in fact we have reason to believe that it doesn’t even show the full picture, because we do not yet have a full set of data. It does not reflect, for example, future sea level rises, or the kind of climate migration that we might see. When we have more data, we will get more insights, and the results might even change.
    What has the conversation been like at the plenary in the backdrop of the US exit and what is the assessment of the progress made so far?
    We’ve never seen such a strong commitment as we see here in India today. More than 100 people from over 60 countries came from all around the world to be here in person. Another 100 people participated virtually. We’ve never had so many senior level representatives from central banks and financial supervisors. We have more than 25 governors or deputy governors here in India at our annual meeting. 
    What we’ve reflected on today is how political headwinds, deregulation, impact our work. And our work stays the same, because we are non-political animals, and we stick to our mandates. With so many central banks from all over the world in our network, we all have different mandates. In emerging markets or developing countries, the mandates are often not as narrow as they are in, for example, Europe. So, we do have members with broader mandates. That allows them to do different things, such as promoting green finance or other financial sector development.
    Most central banks have initiated some sort of action on tackling climate change and its economic impact. What is your assessment of the progress and what more is needed?
    With 144 members from all over the globe, there are members at completely different stages, depending on when they started and how big their capacities are. Some members are very advanced, like the French, the Dutch, the UK, and there are those who have just started or are so small that they barely have capacity.
    What are the advanced central banks doing? They have started with climate stress testing in the banking sector. For example, in Europe, we have already done a few climate stress tests. In India, Brazil and many countries in Africa, you see that climate change strongly affects food prices. We also see, in some African countries for example, that energy prices are significantly affected by climate change. We cannot rely on past data or experiences; we need a forward-looking perspective. There’s a lot of uncertainty and non-linearity. So, we must work in terms of scenarios.
    When the NGFS was set up in December 2017, there were some central banks who thought, “oh my god, there’s climate change and we do not know at all whether this will affect our work, our mandates”. We thought, “this might be such a big threat that it’s better to collaborate, put together all the resources we have and to see what will come out”. This is why the NGFS was set up. Over the years, we have not only realized that climate change really matters to the economy but also confirmed that it affects our mandates.
    The whole idea of this network is that we share our knowledge amongst our members. This is the benefit of being a member of the NGFS. And we also produce public goods like the scenarios mentioned, which can be used by financial sector players and policymakers beyond the network.
    Different governments have different commitments to climate change and central banks have different mandates. Given that, how effective can this body be?
    Climate policy is not part of our mandate. What governments do is another thing. Of course, our analysis shows that if governments take less action on climate, it will have a huge impact on the economy, often also on inflation.
    You are right, central banks globally have a wide range of different tasks and mandates. But this is also the beauty of our network. 144 different organisations learn from each other. Many members – for example emerging markets – have a lot in common with each other. These countries often form groups among peers so that they can share experience and best practice.
    Any thinking on short-term scenario mapping?
    We will soon publish our short-term scenarios with a time horizon of three to five years, hopefully in the first half of the year. We think it is important to show what will happen within this time horizon.
    Not many care about 2050 and 2100. Not many of us work over this time horizon. If you are a CEO, your contract lasts 3‑5 years. If you’re a politician, you want to be re-elected within 3‑5 years. A scenario which tells you what might happen in 2050, of course, really matters for human beings. But, to tell the story to someone who thinks short term, you need also short-term scenarios.
    © The Times Group. All rigths reserved.

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI German News –

  • MIL-OSI Germany: German balance of payments in January 2025

    Source: Deutsche Bundesbank in English

    Sharp decrease in current account surplus
    Germany’s current account recorded a surplus of €11.8 billion in January 2025, down €9.1 billion on the previous month’s level. This was attributable to a lower surplus in the goods account and especially in invisible current transactions, which comprises services as well as primary and secondary income.
    The surplus in the goods account fell by €1.3 billion to €9.2 billion in January because expenditure increased more sharply than receipts. The surplus in invisible current transactions declined by €7.9 billion to €2.6 billion. Net receipts in primary income decreased by €5.5 billion to €14.1 billion. This was mainly attributable to the countermovement on the revenue side to the EU agricultural subsidies that were paid out to Germany in December 2024. In addition, in investment income receipts declined more sharply than expenditure. Moreover, the deficit in the services account expanded by €5.5 billion to €6.0 billion. Receipts fell more sharply overall than expenditure, chiefly due to computer services and other business services. Net expenditure on travel also increased. By contrast, the deficit in the secondary income account narrowed by just €3.1 billion to €5.5 billion. In particular, lower general government payments for current transfers relating to international cooperation and smaller payments to the EU budget in connection with financing related to gross national income played a role here.   
    Net capital exports down
    In line with the decline in the current account surplus, German net capital exports were also down in January compared with the previous month (€14.6 billion, following €44.5 billion in December 2024).
    Direct investment generated net capital imports of €3.6 billion in January (following net capital exports of €18.8 billion in December 2024). Foreign enterprises provided their German affiliates with additional direct investment funds (€16.4 billion), issuing additional intra-group loans to the tune of €12.9 billion and raising their equity capital by €3.5 billion. German enterprises stepped up their foreign direct investment by €12.8 billion, boosting equity capital by €9.0 billion and increasing the lending volume to affiliates by €3.8 billion. 
    Germany’s cross-border portfolio investment recorded net capital exports of €15.7 billion in January (after €30.6 billion in December 2024). Domestic investors added €51.3 billion worth of securities issued by non-residents to their portfolios on balance. They purchased foreign bonds (€25.1 billion), mutual fund shares (€20.3 billion) and shares (€6.2 billion), while selling money market paper (€0.4 billion). Foreign investors acquired German securities worth €35.5 billion net, primarily buying bonds (€41.3 billion) as well as a modest volume of shares (€0.9 billion) and mutual fund shares (€0.1 billion). By contrast, they disposed of money market paper (€6.8 billion).
    In January, transactions in financial derivatives resulted in net outflows of €3.8 billion (after inflows of €0.8 billion in December 2024). 
    Other statistically recorded investment – which comprises loans and trade credits (where these do not constitute direct investment), bank deposits and other investments – registered net inflows of capital amounting to €2.5 billion in January (following €2.1 billion in December 2024). Bundesbank account transactions recorded net capital exports (€61.5 billion), with its TARGET claims on the ECB increasing by €21.7 billion, while the Bundesbank’s external liabilities in the form of currency and deposits decreased significantly, as is often the case at the start of the year. By contrast, the other investment account recorded net capital imports of €85.5 billion from cross-border transactions by other monetary financial institutions. Furthermore, general government also recorded net inflows of capital (€0.8 billion). Transactions by enterprises and households led to net capital exports (€22.2 billion).
    The Bundesbank’s reserve assets rose – at transaction values – by €1.2 billion in January.

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI German News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Joint statement from the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK (E3) on Gaza

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3

    Press release

    Joint statement from the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK (E3) on Gaza

    The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, and the UK (the E3) call for immediate return to a ceasefire

    Joint statement on behalf of the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK (E3):

    The resumption of Israeli strikes in Gaza marks a dramatic step backward for the people of Gaza, the hostages, their families and the entire region. We are appalled by the civilian casualties and urgently call for an immediate return to a ceasefire.

    We call on all parties to re-engage with negotiations to ensure the ceasefire is implemented in full and becomes permanent. This must include Hamas releasing the hostages that they have cruelly detained and persistently refuse to release.

    All Israelis and Palestinians have a right to peace and security. We call on all those with influence over Hamas to use that influence to ensure no further attacks against Israel. We are clear that Hamas must neither govern Gaza nor be a threat to Israel anymore. However, this conflict cannot be resolved through military means.  A return to fighting will only result in the deaths of more Palestinian civilians and Israeli hostages.

    More bloodshed is in no-one’s interest. Israel should fully respect international law and allow the flow of aid immediately. Civilians should be protected and not be cut off from essential aid or assistance. We call on Israel to restore humanitarian access, including water and electricity, and ensure access to medical care and temporary medical evacuations in accordance with international humanitarian law.

    We are deeply shocked by the deadly incident affecting a UNOPS building in Gaza, which has killed one UN employee and injured several others. Amongst the victims were European citizens. UN personnel and its premises should be protected and never be a target. There must be a full investigation into what happened.

    A long-lasting ceasefire is the only credible pathway towards a sustainable peace, a two-state solution and the reconstruction of Gaza.

    Updates to this page

    Published 21 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI: Volta Finance Limited – Net Asset Value(s) as at 28 February 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Volta Finance Limited (VTA / VTAS)
    February 2025 monthly report

    NOT FOR RELEASE, DISTRIBUTION, OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR PART, IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES

    Guernsey, March 21st, 2025

    AXA IM has published the Volta Finance Limited (the “Company” or “Volta Finance” or “Volta”) monthly report for February 2025. The full report is attached to this release and will be available on Volta’s website shortly (www.voltafinance.com).

    Performance and Portfolio Activity

    Dear Investors,

    Volta Finance’s net performance for the month of February established at +1.6%, taking the Aug 2024-to-date performance at +13.1%. Both our investments in CLO Debt and CLO Equity performed positively over the course of the month, with European CLO Equities benefiting from a strong price appreciation despite market volatility.

    Volatility intensified in February as US policy and mixed economic data releases triggered a repricing of risk across the board. The pursuit of a tariff strategy from the US administration sent a cautionary message regarding the near-term inflation outlook, and raised concerns regarding the sustainability of US growth in the context of current expansion being supported by a steady consumer spending momentum. The interest rate on 10-year U.S. government bonds fluctuated, going up to 4.60% and then dropping back to 4.20%. Additionally, the number of people filing for unemployment benefits hit its highest level this year due to job cuts in companies and federal agencies. Following unsuccessful mediation talks between the US and Ukraine at the White House on February 28th – and the radical shift in US foreign policy strategy – the European Commission suggested allowing countries to spend more on defense without strict budget rules for four years. Germany also announced plans to change its Constitution to borrow €900 billion for defense and infrastructure projects. As a result, European government bond yields changed noticeably, while the Euro and European stock markets improved. The uncertainty in politics and the economy led to increased volatility in credit markets: the European High Yield index (Xover) took a “V” shape over the month and closed around 15bps wide of the tights. On the Loan side, Euro Loans closed c. 30cts up at 98.70px (Morningstar European Leveraged Loan Index) on the back of strong technicals, while US Loans were down 45cts at 97.15px. Primary CLO markets remained busy, although we noticed softer subscription levels. In terms of performance, CLO markets performed in line with broader Credits on a rating adjusted basis: BBs total returns stood at +0.9% while US High Yield returned +0.65% in the same period, Euro High Yield was up +1% and Global Loans gained +0.3%.
    Looking at Volta Finance’s cashflow, the portfolio generated c. €28m equivalent of interests and coupons over the last six months, representing c.20% of February’s NAV on an annualized basis.

    Over the month, Volta’s CLO Equity tranches returned a 2.4% performance** while CLO Debt tranches returned +1.7% performance**, cash representing c. 9.8% of the NAV.

    Volta is around 21% exposed to USD, the February currency moves had no meaningful impact on the overall performance (+0.02%) although we anticipate FX moves to have a greater impact next month.

    As of end of February 2025, Volta’s NAV was €283.5m, i.e. €7.75 per share.

    *It should be noted that approximately 4.49% of Volta’s GAV comprises investments for which the relevant NAVs as at the month-end date are normally available only after Volta’s NAV has already been published. Volta’s policy is to publish its NAV on as timely a basis as possible to provide shareholders with Volta’s appropriately up-to-date NAV information. Consequently, such investments are valued using the most recently available NAV for each fund or quoted price for such subordinated notes. The most recently available fund NAV or quoted price was 4.38% as at 31 January 2025, 0.11% as at 30 September 2024.

    ** “performances” of asset classes are calculated as the Dietz-performance of the assets in each bucket, taking into account the Mark-to-Market of the assets at period ends, payments received from the assets over the period, and ignoring changes in cross-currency rates. Nevertheless, some residual currency effects could impact the aggregate value of the portfolio when aggregating each bucket.

    CONTACTS

    For the Investment Manager
    AXA Investment Managers Paris
    François Touati
    francois.touati@axa-im.com
    +33 (0) 1 44 45 80 22

    Olivier Pons
    Olivier.pons@axa-im.com
    +33 (0) 1 44 45 87 30

    Company Secretary and Administrator
    BNP Paribas S.A, Guernsey Branch
    guernsey.bp2s.volta.cosec@bnpparibas.com 
    +44 (0) 1481 750 853

    Corporate Broker
    Cavendish Securities plc
    Andrew Worne
    Daniel Balabanoff
    +44 (0) 20 7397 8900

    *****
    ABOUT VOLTA FINANCE LIMITED

    Volta Finance Limited is incorporated in Guernsey under The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) and listed on Euronext Amsterdam and the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market for listed securities. Volta’s home member state for the purposes of the EU Transparency Directive is the Netherlands. As such, Volta is subject to regulation and supervision by the AFM, being the regulator for financial markets in the Netherlands.

    Volta’s Investment objectives are to preserve its capital across the credit cycle and to provide a stable stream of income to its Shareholders through dividends that it expects to distribute on a quarterly basis. The Company currently seeks to achieve its investment objectives by pursuing exposure predominantly to CLO’s and similar asset classes. A more diversified investment strategy across structured finance assets may be pursued opportunistically. The Company has appointed AXA Investment Managers Paris an investment management company with a division specialised in structured credit, for the investment management of all its assets.

    *****

    ABOUT AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS
    AXA Investment Managers (AXA IM) is a multi-expert asset management company within the AXA Group, a global leader in financial protection and wealth management. AXA IM is one of the largest European-based asset managers with 2,700 professionals and €844 billion in assets under management as of the end of December 2023.  

    *****

    This press release is published by AXA Investment Managers Paris (“AXA IM”), in its capacity as alternative investment fund manager (within the meaning of Directive 2011/61/EU, the “AIFM Directive”) of Volta Finance Limited (the “Volta Finance”) whose portfolio is managed by AXA IM.

    This press release is for information only and does not constitute an invitation or inducement to acquire shares in Volta Finance. Its circulation may be prohibited in certain jurisdictions and no recipient may circulate copies of this document in breach of such limitations or restrictions. This document is not an offer for sale of the securities referred to herein in the United States or to persons who are “U.S. persons” for purposes of Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or otherwise in circumstances where such offer would be restricted by applicable law. Such securities may not be sold in the United States absent registration or an exemption from registration from the Securities Act. Volta Finance does not intend to register any portion of the offer of such securities in the United States or to conduct a public offering of such securities in the United States.

    *****

    This communication is only being distributed to and is only directed at (i) persons who are outside the United Kingdom or (ii) investment professionals falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (the “Order”) or (iii) high net worth companies, and other persons to whom it may lawfully be communicated, falling within Article 49(2)(a) to (d) of the Order (all such persons together being referred to as “relevant persons”). The securities referred to herein are only available to, and any invitation, offer or agreement to subscribe, purchase or otherwise acquire such securities will be engaged in only with, relevant persons. Any person who is not a relevant person should not act or rely on this document or any of its contents. Past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance.

    *****
    This press release contains statements that are, or may deemed to be, “forward-looking statements”. These forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology, including the terms “believes”, “anticipated”, “expects”, “intends”, “is/are expected”, “may”, “will” or “should”. They include the statements regarding the level of the dividend, the current market context and its impact on the long-term return of Volta Finance’s investments. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Volta Finance’s actual results, portfolio composition and performance may differ materially from the impression created by the forward-looking statements. AXA IM does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements.

    Any target information is based on certain assumptions as to future events which may not prove to be realised. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these future events, the targets are not intended to be and should not be regarded as profits or earnings or any other type of forecasts. There can be no assurance that any of these targets will be achieved. In addition, no assurance can be given that the investment objective will be achieved.

    The figures provided that relate to past months or years and past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance or construed as a reliable indicator as to future performance. Throughout this review, the citation of specific trades or strategies is intended to illustrate some of the investment methodologies and philosophies of Volta Finance, as implemented by AXA IM. The historical success or AXA IM’s belief in the future success, of any of these trades or strategies is not indicative of, and has no bearing on, future results.

    The valuation of financial assets can vary significantly from the prices that the AXA IM could obtain if it sought to liquidate the positions on behalf of the Volta Finance due to market conditions and general economic environment. Such valuations do not constitute a fairness or similar opinion and should not be regarded as such.

    Editor: AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS PARIS, a company incorporated under the laws of France, having its registered office located at Tour Majunga, 6, Place de la Pyramide – 92800 Puteaux. AXA IMP is authorized by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers under registration number GP92008 as an alternative investment fund manager within the meaning of the AIFM Directive.

    *****

    Attachment

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: New posts to strengthen links between University and industry Bridging the gap between academia and key industry sectors at the heart of the North East of Scotland’s economy is the key aim for three new business development executives at the University of Aberdeen.

    Source: University of Aberdeen

    Bridging the gap between academia and key industry sectors at the heart of the North East of Scotland’s economy is the key aim for three new business development executives at the University of Aberdeen.
    The three new posts have been created by the 430-year-old institution in order to build and strengthen links and partnerships with the business community across energy, health and life sciences, and digital and creative industries.
    It’s hoped that the initiative will foster greater collaboration as part of a wider drive by the University to support regional economic development.
    Responsible for the health and life sciences portfolio is Dr Marina Kovaleva who boasts 25 years in the sector working within academia and biotech and pharma companies.
    Marina pioneered the discovery of new drug therapies developed from the shark immune system, leading to the first preclinical study on shark-based drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and designing targeted tumour therapies. This research was spun out into the biotech company Elasmogen Ltd in 2016, of which Marina is a founding team member.
    Marina has degrees in Biochemistry, Biotechnology and Veterinary Medicine obtained from universities in Russia and Germany.
    Taking on the digital and creative industries brief is Dr Allison Noble who has held various roles in both government and the charity sector.
    Following roles involving helping NHS health boards address vaccine hesitancy and develop clear travel guidance during the pandemic and sustainability research with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Allison comes to the University after two and a half years with Research Data Scotland (RDS). With RDS, Allison helped restructure the organisation’s information architecture and implemented AI safely at an institutional level whilst working with bodies such as National Records of Scotland, Scottish Government and Public Health Scotland.

    These appointments demonstrate the University’s ongoing support for the region’s ambition to be an innovation-driven economy, leveraging our world-class research expertise to support business.” Professor Pete Edwards, Vice-Principal for Regional Engagement

    Her doctorate from the University of Southampton investigated how music streaming platforms and their algorithms impact the creation, distribution, and consumption of music.
    Aberdeen Geology and Petroleum Geology graduate, Dr Ian Brightmore, will be the lead for energy. He returns to the University, where he also obtained his PhD, with 15 years of international operator experience in the UK continental shelf, Norwegian continental shelf, Kurdistan and Barents.  
    Ian worked as geologist with ExxonMobil in Norway and Houston before returning to Aberdeen to take a position with Canadian Natural Resources (CNR) and has worked for numerous international operators since in the capacity of exploration geologist.
    Dr Liz Rattray, University of Aberdeen Interim Chief Operating Officer and Director of Research and Innovation, said: “There is an abundance of cutting-edge research being carried out at the University of Aberdeen which could have real and immediate benefits for industry.
    “The challenge is having key individuals in place with an overview of vital areas – such as energy, health and life science and digital and creative industries – who can act as a single point of contact between industry requirements and our researchers they could be collaborating with.
    “The appointment of our three new business development executives to cover these key industry sectors is crucial to maximising collaboration, fostering long-term industry links and promoting the expertise that the University of Aberdeen boasts – to the benefit of all parties.”
    Professor Peter Edwards, Vice-Principal for Regional Engagement, said: “These appointments demonstrate the University’s ongoing support for the region’s ambition to be an innovation-driven economy, leveraging our world-class research expertise to support business.
    The University of Aberdeen hosts the largest concentration of academic researchers in the North of Scotland and the new business development executives will work with industry to understand their problems, before connecting them to the relevant academic experts, and providing advice on the most appropriate mechanism to facilitate joint work.”
    Related Content

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: OSCE demonstrates its impact in mitigating virtual asset risks

    Source: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe – OSCE

    Headline: OSCE demonstrates its impact in mitigating virtual asset risks

    Vera Strobachova-Budway, Head of OCEEA’s Economic Governance Unit, presenting at an event in Riga, Latvia, 20 March 2025. (OSCE) Photo details

    The Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities (OCEEA) shared its experience in tackling the multifaceted challenges posed by virtual assets during an event organized by the British Embassy and the Serious and Organised Crime Network in Riga, Latvia, on 20 March.
    Participants discussed a wide range of virtual asset and cryptocurrency topics including digital asset seizure and confiscation, the 2025 Crypto Crime Report, and responses to virtual assets abuse. OCEEA presented the impact of its extra-budgetary project “Innovative policy solutions to mitigate money laundering risks of virtual assets” to an audience of practitioners, experts and policymakers from several OSCE participating States.
    “There are three main takeaways from the OSCE’s work on virtual assets”, said Vera Strobachova-Budway, Head of OCEEA’s Economic Governance Unit, in her closing remarks. “First, international co-operation is a must — what we do in one country will have an impact on another; second, we need to learn from each other; and third, awareness raising and education on the risks and benefits of virtual assets is key.”
    The OCEEA extra-budgetary project on virtual assets is financially supported by Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Digital imperialism: How US social media firms are using American law to challenge global tech regulation

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, Research associate, University of Virginia

    The CEOs of Meta, Amazon, Google and X — Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk — attend the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2025. Photo by Ricky Carioti – Pool/Getty Images

    Social media platforms tend not to be that bothered by national boundaries.

    Take X, for example. Users of what was once called Twitter span the globe, with its 600 millions-plus active accounts dotted across nearly every country. And each of those jurisdictions has its own laws.

    But the interests of national regulatory efforts and that of predominantly U.S.-based technology companies often don’t align. While many governments have sought to impose oversight mechanisms to address problems such as disinformation, online extremism and manipulation, these initiatives have been met with corporate resistance, political interference and legal challenges invoking free speech as a shield against regulation.

    What is brewing is a global struggle over digital platform governance. And in this battle, U.S. platforms are increasingly leaning on American laws to challenge other nation’s regulations. It is, we believe as experts on digital law – one an executive director of a forum monitoring how countries implement democratic principles – a form of digital imperialism.

    A rumble in the tech jungle

    The latest manifestation of this phenomenon occurred in February 2025, when new tensions emerged between Brazil’s judiciary and U.S.-based social media platforms.

    Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble filed a lawsuit in the U.S. against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, challenging his orders to suspend accounts on the two platforms linked to disinformation campaigns in Brazil.

    The case follows earlier unsuccessful efforts by Elon Musk’s X to resist similar Brazilian rulings.

    Together, the cases exemplify a growing trend in which U.S. political and corporate actors attempt to undermine foreign regulatory authority by pressing the case that domestic U.S. law and corporate protections should take precedence over sovereign policies globally.

    From corporate lobbying to lawfare

    At the core of the dispute is Allan dos Santos, a right-wing Brazilian influencer and fugitive from justice who fled to the U.S. in 2021 after De Moraes ordered his preventive arrest for allegedly coordinating disinformation networks and inciting violence.

    Dos Santos has continued his online activities abroad. Brazil’s extradition requests have gone unanswered due to claims by U.S. authorities that the case involves issues of free speech rather than criminal offenses.

    Trump Media and Rumble’s lawsuit attempts to do two things. First, it seeks to frame Brazil’s judicial actions as censorship rather than oversight. And second, it seeks to portray the Brazilian court action as territorial overreach.

    Their position is that as the target of the action was in the U.S., they are subject to U.S. free speech protections under the First Amendment. The fact that the subject of the ban was Brazilian and is accused of spreading disinformation and hate in Brazil should not, they argue, matter.

    For now, U.S. courts agree. In late February, a Florida-based judge ruled that Rumble and Trump Media need not comply with the Brazilian order.

    Big Tech pushback to regulation

    The case signals an important shift in the contest over platform accountability – a move from corporate lobbying and political pressure to direct legal intervention in foreign jurisdictions. U.S. courts are now being used to challenge overseas decisions regarding platform accountability.

    The outcome and the broader legal strategy behind the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications not only for Brazil but for any country or region – such as the European Union – attempting to regulate online spaces.

    The resistance against digital regulation predates the Trump administration.

    In Brazil, efforts to regulate social media platforms have long faced substantial opposition. Big Tech companies – including Google, Meta and X – have used their economic and political influence to lobby against tighter regulation, often framing such policies as a threat to free expression.

    In 2020, the Brazilian “Fake News Bill,” which sought to hold platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation, was met with strong opposition from these companies.

    Google and Meta launched high-profile campaigns to oppose the bill, warning it would “threaten free speech” and “harm small businesses.” Google placed banners on its Brazilian homepage urging users to reject the legislation, while Meta ran advertisements questioning its implications for the digital economy.

    These efforts, alongside lobbying and political resistance, were successful in helping to delay and weaken the regulatory framework.

    Mixing corporate and political power

    The difference now is that challenges are blurring the line between the corporate and the political.

    Trump Media was 53% owned by the U.S. president before he moved his stake into a revocable trust in December 2024. Elon Musk, the free speech fundamentalist owner of X, is a de facto member of the Trump administration.

    Their ascent to power has coincided with the First Amendment being wielded as a shield against foreign regulations on digital platforms.

    Free speech protections in the U.S. have been applied unequally, allowing authorities to suppress dissent in some cases while shielding hateful speech in others.

    This imbalance extends to corporate power, with decades of legal precedent expanding protections for private interests. The case law cemented corporate speech protections, a logic later extended to digital platforms.

    U.S. free speech advocates in Big Tech and the U.S. government are seemingly escalating this trend to an even more extreme interpretation: that American free speech arguments can be deployed to resist the regulation of other jurisdictions and challenge foreign legal frameworks.

    For instance, in response to the European Union’s Digital Services Act, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, expressed concerns that the act could threaten American free speech principles.

    Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has fought disinformation on tech platforms, attends a session of the country’s high court on Feb. 26.
    Ton Molina/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Such an argument may have been fine if the same interpretation of free speech – and its appropriate protections – were universally accepted. But they are not.

    The concept of free speech varies significantly across nations and regions.

    Countries such as Brazil, Germany, France and others adopt what legal experts refer to as a proportionality-based approach to free speech, balancing it against other fundamental rights such as human dignity, democratic integrity and public order.

    Sovereign countries using this approach recognize freedom of expression as a fundamental and preferential right. But they also acknowledge that certain restrictions are necessary to protect democratic institutions, marginalized communities, public health and the informational ecosystem from harms.

    While the U.S. imposes some limits on speech – such as defamation laws and protection against incitement to imminent lawless action – the First Amendment is generally far more expansive than in other democracies.

    The future of digital governance

    The legal battle over platform regulation is not confined to the current battle between U.S.-based platforms and Brazil. The EU’s Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act in the United Kingdom are other examples of governments trying to assert control over platforms operating within their borders.

    As such, the lawsuit by Trump Media and Rumble against the Brazilian Supreme Court signals a critical moment in global geopolitics.

    U.S. tech giants, such as Meta, are bending to the free speech winds coming out of the Trump administration. Musk, the owner of X, has given support to far-right groups overseas.

    And this overlap in the policy priorities of social media platforms and the political interests of the U.S. administration opens a new era in the deregulation debate in which U.S. free speech absolutists are seeking to establish legal precedents that might challenge the future of other nations’ regulatory efforts.

    As countries continue to develop regulatory frameworks for digital governance – for instance, AI regulation imposing stricter governance rules in Brazil and in the EU – the legal, economic and political strategies platforms employ to challenge oversight mechanisms will play a crucial role in determining the future balance between corporate influence and the rule of law.

    Camille Grenier is Executive Director at the Forum on Information and Democracy, a non-profit entity led by civil society organisations and mandated to implement democratic principles.

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

    – ref. Digital imperialism: How US social media firms are using American law to challenge global tech regulation – https://theconversation.com/digital-imperialism-how-us-social-media-firms-are-using-american-law-to-challenge-global-tech-regulation-252116

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –