NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Middle East

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Davis and Congresswoman Kiggans Introduce the Protecting American Families and Servicemembers from Anthrax Act

    Source: US Congressman Don Davis (NC-01)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Don Davis (D-NC) and Congresswoman Jen Kiggans (R-VA) introduced H.R. 2707, Protecting American Families and Servicemembers from Anthrax Act, to ensure the U.S. Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services develops a long-term stockpiling strategy that leverages the Strategic National Stockpile to enhance national preparedness.

    “By stockpiling Anthrax medical countermeasures, we are ensuring that we have the lifesaving tools necessary to protect and treat poisonings in the event of future attacks,” said Congressman Davis. “We must do everything to protect our servicemembers and the American people from terrorism.”

    “Anthrax poses a deadly threat to the warfighter – it is imperative for American national security and military readiness to ensure preparedness for this biological threat. We continue to have grave concerns about our adversaries’ work on Anthrax. Recent national intelligence and treaty compliance estimates acknowledge man-made biological threat concerns posed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This legislation provides a key step to ensuring preparedness for the threat of Anthrax,” said David Lasseter, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    “H.R. 2707 is a tremendous step forward in ensuring that the Strategic National Stockpile is prepared for the threat of Anthrax. The Stockpile has been chronically challenged with severe, long-term funding shortfalls and under-resourcing. This has created a preparedness concern across the spectrum of biological and chemical threats, including Anthrax,” said Greg Burel, recently retired director of the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile.

    Background

    Anthrax remains among the deadliest and easiest to produce biological weapons, 25 years after the Anthrax attacks on Congress in 2001. The ongoing threat of Anthrax to the warfighter and civilians persists. Planned reductions or eliminations of Anthrax medical countermeasures, including antitoxins, may greatly exacerbate vulnerability for this threat. 

    To protect servicemembers and the American people, the legislation would require the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs and counterparts on the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) to develop a modernized ten-year strategy for ensuring sustained stockpiling of FDA-approved or cleared anthrax countermeasures, including the replenishment, consistent with requirement levels, of such Anthrax therapeutics stockpiled in the Strategic National Stockpile and by the Secretary of Defense. These countermeasures include those stockpiled for treatment of civilians, servicemembers and dependents on military installations. 

    Officials assigned in the Department of Defense would provide an annual report on the threat of Anthrax to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, including obligations towards this ten-year strategy, and research and development investments, including those that may address multi-drug resistant Anthrax.

    Congressman Don Davis serves as the vice ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and sits on the Subcommittees on Tactical Air and Land Forces and Readiness. He graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1994 and is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Tenney Leads Letter Praising President Trump’s Commitment to Countering Iran’s Nuclear Proliferation

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22)

    Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today led eight of her colleagues in sending a letter to President Trump, commending his efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The letter also expresses support for the President’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 2 and the renewed Maximum Pressure Campaign against Iran.

    Additional signers of the letter include Representatives Derek Schmidt (KS-2), Barry Loudermilk (GA-11), Rudy Yakym (IN-2), Abraham Hamadeh (AZ-08), Burgess Owens (UT-4), Michael Baumgartner (WA-5), Mike Bost (IL-12), and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1).

    This letter comes as the Trump administration prepares to engage in nuclear talks with Iran over the weekend of April 12, 2025. It reaffirms Congressional support for the President’s position that Iran can never be allowed to acquire or continue developing nuclear weapons.

    “In his first term, President Trump’s Maximum Pressure Campaign delivered successful results, crippling the Iranian regime and limiting its ability to spread terrorism and malign influence across the globe. By reinstating this strategy, the Trump administration is sending a strong message to Iran and the international community, reversing years of damage caused by the Biden administration’s weak policies that have emboldened the IRGC. Today, I am leading a letter to President Trump, applauding his administration’s strong efforts to disarm Iran and prevent it from developing nuclear-capable missiles or engaging in nuclear weapons-related research. President Trump is proving his administration is committed to striking back against Iran, sending a clear signal that the United States will not allow Iran’s proxies to operate with impunity,” said Congresswoman Tenney.

    “Congresswoman Tenney’s leadership on this issue could not come at a more decisive moment. As a result of President Trump’s wildly successful maximum pressure campaign, the United States has tremendous leverage over the regime in Iran. It is important that we deploy it strategically to ensure Iran’s complete and immediate denuclearization. No deal is far better than a bad deal that empowers this terrorist regime or leaves it with the means to ever reconstitute its nuclear program,” said Nick Stewart, Senior Director of Government Relations at FDD Action.

    Read the full text of the letter here.   

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Closing remarks by UNFPA Executive Director Dr. Natalia Kanem at the 58th session of the Commission on Population and Development

    Source: United Nations Population Fund

    Madam Chair,
    Excellencies,
    Distinguished delegates, 
    Leaders of civil society,
    Dear colleagues, dear young people,

    Muy buenos días! Greetings of peace – always on our minds as we deliberate in this multilateral space – peace in the home, peace in our hearts, peace in the wider world.

    Last year’s 57th session of this Commission celebrated ICDP30. It drew record participation. This year again, this Commission garnered considerable engagement from Member States, civil society, from advocates for issues that affect older people and young advocates, too – all mobilized by the relevance of the theme: “Ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages”.

    In adopting the ICPD Programme of Action 31 years ago in Cairo, Member States set out a vision for the achievement of people-centred sustainable development, through investing in health, including sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, promoting gender equality, and empowering adolescents and youth. 

    Deliberations of this Commission revealed that deeper investments in health, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, have driven progress in economic and social development, advanced social justice and supported individual well-being.

    As the Commission opened on World Health Day, there was good news on maternal mortality. Your efforts over the years to improve maternal health outcomes have contributed to a remarkable drop in deaths worldwide.

    The news, however, was less positive for Indigenous women, African women and women of African descent, and for women in humanitarian settings – far too many of whom continue to be left behind. Now, there is urgent need to go further to ensure that no woman dies needlessly from entirely preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.

    As you highlighted, we as a global community need to do better to reduce inequalities in access to healthcare, including through financing and strengthened international cooperation and partnerships.

    We heard your hopes and priorities for furthering these investments to achieve universal health coverage and truly leave no one behind.

    You voiced commitment to improve health and well-being for populations at all ages; to end violence against women, including online; to ensure that child marriage and harmful practices no longer diminish the lives and experiences of women and girls and young people, in all their diversity.

    How unfortunate, then, that the Commission’s best efforts could not translate into an action-oriented outcome this year. Because let us be clear, millions of lives are on the line. Because this year like no other, women and girls expect UNFPA and the entire United Nations to rush to their rescue.

    And once again, it will be poor people who are cast aside, and as always sadly, it is women and girls with the most vulnerability and the least access to health services who will bear the greatest burden of ill health and preventable deaths.

    In recent months, the world appears to be in retreat, turning a face of indifference to human suffering at a time when humanitarian crises are pushing more and more people to the brink. As the principle of international solidarity comes under attack, more and more people are dying. They are being denied fundamental rights and choices, food, life-saving medicines and the basic necessities of life, caught up in catastrophes not of their own making, and for women and girls, there is a battle over their own bodies.

    Who is listening to the women and girls? Who will defend their fundamental rights? I can assure you that UNFPA is listening. We are responding based on the evidence, based on what women and girls tell us they need. We are committed to defending their fundamental freedoms, wherever they may be – in an urban centre or a rural area, in a refugee camp, fleeing violence or disaster, trapped by hunger and war. We will continue to do the necessary research, data analysis, the surveys and census advising to support countries who strongly desire to improve statistical data collection and usage to identify and address the needs of their people.

    As language is debated in these august halls, let us unfailingly uphold the fundamental values that must never be compromised.

    Principle 1 of the ICPD Programme of Action and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirm that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

    And what better way to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter than for “we the people” to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women”.

    Madam Chair,
    Distinguished delegates,

    This Commission is the guardian of the ICPD Programme of Action. Your work, historically, has bettered millions upon millions of lives around the world. Even as there are opposing positions, I hope that we can agree that much more unites us than divides us.

    Let us send a signal to those whom we serve that what is done here still matters.

    For UNFPA, we will do our utmost to assist Member States to move forward. Because this is no time to turn back. Human lives, human rights and human dignity are at stake. 

    Let us hold fast to Principle 3 of the ICPD Programme of Action:

    “The right to development is a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights, and the human person is the central subject of development.”

    In this regard, UNFPA notes with great appreciation your adoption of the decision on the special theme for the 60th  session of the CPD on “Population, poverty eradication and sustainable development”, and we look forward to supporting Member States, in collaboration with our partners at DESA.

    On behalf of all of us at UNFPA, I join in thanking our distinguished Chairperson, H.E. Ms. Catharina Jannigje Lasseur of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for her vision, her astute leadership, and her proactive engagement over months of preparation, and we commend her colleague Ms. Iris De Leede.

    We appreciate the dedication and commitment of the CPD58 Bureau members from Burundi, Lebanon, Moldova, and Uruguay. 

    Special thanks to the co-facilitators, Norma Abi Karam of Lebanon and Jessica Orduz of Colombia, for their tireless efforts to promote evidence-based discussions on the draft resolution.

    May I recognize the UN DESA Population Division for their stewardship of the Commission, and the close partnership with UNFPA to support these efforts. 

    To my own UNFPA expert colleagues, thank you for your long hours and skilled contributions to this year’s session. 

    A final note of thanks to the distinguished representatives, delegates and observers of this 58th Commission for your hard work and active participation in the deliberations.

    I happily observed that this 58th session has been distinguished by meaningful participation by young people and by intergenerational dialogue to good effect. As commissioners, you have carried the aspirations for health of young people and older people, and you have carried our common aspiration for the healing of an increasingly ravaged planet.

    It is my hope that this Commission’s discussions will continue to shape national policies, influence international agreements, and galvanize partnerships that make a real difference in people’s lives. These deliberations provide an important substantial contribution to the upcoming 2025 High Level Political Forum and its review of SDG 3 on good health and SDG 5 on gender equality and towards the preparations for the Fourth Financing for Development Conference and the Second World Summit on Social Development.

    Excellencies, distinguished delegates,

    Quoting the gifted African poet Warsan Shire:

    i held an atlas in my lap
    ran my fingers across the whole world
    and whispered
    where does it hurt?

    it answered
    everywhere
    everywhere
    everywhere.

    In looking forward to constructive substantive reflections next year under the theme “population, technology and research in the context of sustainable development”, on behalf of UNFPA, allow me to reaffirm our commitment to partnering with the 59th CPD Chair and all of you to support the full implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action and support the continued success of the 2030 Agenda and the Pact of the Future.

    Remember that good health and healthy longevity begin with safe motherhood in the antenatal period. Let us continue to take forward our collective responsibility for a future in which everyone enjoys good health and well-being and everyone – at all ages – benefits from the fruits of sustainable development and lives in dignity and peace.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Concluding Session, Commission on Population and Development Fails to Adopt Text on Ensuring Healthy Lives, Promoting Well-being for All

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    Several Delegates Take Issue with Language Concerning Sexual, Reproductive Health Services, Reproductive Rights

    The Commission on Population and Development failed to adopt an outcome document today as it concluded its fifty-eighth session, with delegates sharply divided about support for sexual and reproductive rights, and some questioning commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

    At the outset of the meeting, Catharina Jannigje Lasseur (Netherlands), Chair of the Commission at its fifty-eighth session, withdrew the draft resolution she had circulated earlier, citing a lack of agreement among delegations.  While noting “strong efforts towards consensus”, she acknowledged: “I see no other possibility at this late hour than to withdraw my proposal.”

    If adopted, that wide-ranging text, titled “Ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages” (document E/CN.9/2025/L.4), would have urged Member States to ensure everyone’s right to the enjoyment of the highest-attainable standard of physical and mental health and called on them to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services.  It would have also called on Governments to take concrete measures towards the full implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development.

    The Programme, adopted by 179 countries at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, set out an ambitious vision about the relationships between population, development and individual well-being.  It recognized that reproductive health and rights, as well as women’s empowerment and gender equality, are cornerstones of development.

    In the contentious discussion that followed the Chair’s withdrawal of her resolution, many speakers expressed regret that the Commission could not adopt a consensus text this year but diverged as to why agreement was not possible.

    Several speakers took issue with language concerning “sexual and reproductive health services”, as well as “reproductive rights”.  The representative of Djibouti said that there is an “ever-growing number of delegations who have come to realize that [these terms] have become — and remain — highly controversial”. Similarly, the observer for the Holy See said:  “This language has always been controversial.”  Nigeria’s delegate said that, despite various calls for the removal of certain language, the facilitators ignored these requests, which concern “cultural and ethical values and core national priorities”.

    Burundi’s delegate underscored that the phrase “sexual and reproductive rights” must not be interpreted to mean the right to abortion.  The term “gender” must be understood as exclusively meaning the biological sexes of male and female.  Further, “a strong family policy” must be at the heart of sustainable development, he said. The representatives of Iran, Cameroon, Belarus and the Russian Federation also said they could not agree with a text that did not incorporate references to the role of the family.

    However, South Africa’s delegate, delivering a statement on behalf of a number of countries, said:  “We are deeply concerned by what we have witnessed in this forum around fundamental rights and issues that have enjoyed long-standing consensus in the United Nations.”  Noting the ongoing challenge to human rights — including the right to development and universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights — she reaffirmed commitment to the International Conference on Population and Development’s Programme of Action.

    Poland’s delegate, speaking for the European Union, also reiterated support to that Programme and the role of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in advancing sexual and reproductive health and gender equality. She stressed the need to ensure that “we live in a world without sexual and gender-based violence and harmful practices, where all women and girls can make choices about their life, health and well-being, where the potential of every individual is fulfilled and no mother or infant dies simply because the health system has failed them”.

    Inclusive and resilient health systems, universal healthcare and inclusive sexual health and reproductive services are essential to sustainable development, stressed Sweden’s representative, while France’s delegate stressed that reproductive rights “are what determines access to development for women and girls”.

    The representative of the United States, meanwhile, said that his delegation “rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and will no longer affirm the SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals] as a matter of course”.

    Many delegations, however, took the floor to reaffirm their support for the 2030 Agenda, including the representatives of Chile, Lebanon, Colombia, the Republic of Moldova, the Philippines and Japan.  The representatives of Portugal, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Australia (also speaking for Canada and New Zealand), Norway, Belgium and Luxembourg expressed concern that foundational references to the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs were consistently challenged during negotiations.

    “We cannot become accustomed to delegations picking and choosing from international commitments,” Brazil’s delegate said.  China’s delegate described the rejection of references to the 2030 Agenda as “a regression in the course of history”.

    In the face of such attacks, Germany’s delegate said, it is all the more vital to work together to realize the aspirations collectively agreed upon in the International Conference on Population and Development’s Programme of Action, the 2030 Agenda and the Pact for the Future.  The United Kingdom’s representative warned that “ignoring links between health, climate change and inequality do not make them disappear”, while Uruguay’s delegate observed:  “Sadly, we are living in a time when reason is insufficient.”

    Algeria’s representative sounded a more-hopeful note:  “Thanks to the work of this Commission, it was possible to have an exchange of views and achieve agreements that will undoubtedly facilitate negotiations in the future.”  For his part, the representative of Bangladesh urged:  “Let us not allow short-term differences to undermine our long-term destiny; consensus is not the surrender of national interests, it is the recognition that our fates are intertwined.”

    In her closing remarks, Ms. Lasseur encouraged delegates to reflect upon the larger role of the Commission.  With 116 Member States speaking in the general debate and more than 30 side events, this year’s session featured many examples of positive steps that have been made to implement the International Conference on Population and Development’s Programme of Action, she said.  “This shows that the [Programme and the Commission on Population and Development] are very much alive and kicking,” she said.  Participating in this forum, she added, “really made it clear to me who we are fighting for:  women and girls, often living in rural areas, sometimes in dangerous conflict settings, lacking access to basic healthcare services, not having the basic necessities to live a life of dignity”.

    “How unfortunate then that the Commission’s best efforts could not translate into an action-oriented outcome this year,” said Natalia Kanem, Executive Director of UNFPA, in her closing remarks.  People are dying because they are denied fundamental rights and choices, food, life-saving medicines and the basic necessities of life, caught up in catastrophes not of their own making, and for women and girls, in battles over their own bodies.

    “In this year, like no other, women and girls expect UNFPA and the United Nations to rush to their rescue,” she said, adding that once again, it will be poor people and the most vulnerable women and girls who will bear the greatest burden of ill health and preventable deaths.  “Who is listening to them?  Who will defend their fundamental rights?” she asked.  Reaffirming the Fund’s commitment to listening to them, she said it will continue to respond “based on what women and girls tell us they need”.

    Also regretting the lack of an outcome document, Bjørg Sandkjær, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, expressed appreciation for the “frank, thoughtful and interactive” discussions held throughout the week.  The Commission heard about important progress in improving people’s health and well-being over the past decades even as it learned about the many health-related SDG targets that are off track.  She noted that these insights will feed into the Economic and Social Council’s activities.

    In other business, the Commission adopted the report of its fifty-eighth session (document E/CN.9/2025/L.3) and the provisional agenda of the fifty-ninth session (document E/CN.9/2025/L.2).  The Russian Federation’s delegate said his delegation was short-handed because one member arrived late due to visa delays and stressed that the United States has a legal obligation to issue visas in a timely manner.

    The Chair said that in the absence of an outcome document, she would prepare a summary of the proceedings.  Iran’s delegate said such a summary should not be considered a representation of the positions of delegations.

    The Commission also adopted a decision (document E/CN.9/2025/L.5), which decided that the special theme for its sixtieth session, to be held in 2027, will be “Population, poverty eradication and sustainable development”.  The Russian Federation’s delegate, noting that eliminating poverty is an important global goal, hailed the consensus by which the Commission chose the theme.

    The Commission then concluded its fifty-eighth session and opened its fifty-ninth session, electing Zéphyrin Maniratanga (Burundi) as Chair and Arb Kapisyzi (Albania), Sasha-Kay Kayann Watson (Jamaica) and Stéphanie Toschi (Luxembourg) as Vice-Chairs.  The nomination of the remaining Vice-Chair, to represent Asia-Pacific States, was deferred to a later date.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Canada: Expanding Alberta’s reach with Abu Dhabi office

    Source: Government of Canada regional news (2)

    MIL OSI Canada News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Adopting Fifth Committee Resolutions, General Assembly Also Decides to Hold Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries in Turkmenistan in August

    Source: United Nations MIL OSI b

    The General Assembly today decided to hold the third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries in Awaza, Turkmenistan, from 5 to 8 August, as the 193-member organ adopted several drafts, including those recommended by its Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).

    Adopting the draft resolution titled “Further modalities of the third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries” (document A/79/L.71) without a vote, the Assembly welcomed and accepted “with appreciation the generous offer of the Government of Turkmenistan to host” the Conference under the theme “Driving progress through partnerships”.

    The Assembly also decided to rename the Conference outcome document the “Awaza Programme of Action for Landlocked Developing Countries for the Decade 2024–2034”.

    A representative of the Secretariat explained that to service the event, the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management and the Department of Global Communications would require a total estimated cost of $254,700 in 2025 for additional meetings and documentation workload.

    “Every effort will be made to meet the requirements within their capacity, and there would be no programme budget implications for 2025,” he said, adding however:  “Its ability to implement the mandate will depend on the availability of adequate liquidity resources.”  He further noted that the Government of Turkmenistan will need to defray the additional costs directly or indirectly involved.

    Intergovernmental Organizations Invited to Participate in UN Ocean Conference

    Also acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted a draft decision (document A/79/L.73), by which it invited the intergovernmental organizations identified in the Secretariat note (document A/79/850) — namely the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation and the North Pacific Marine Science Organization — to participate as observers in the work of the 2025 United Nations Conference to Support the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14.

    Recommendations by Fifth Committee

    The Assembly then adopted five drafts recommended by its Fifth Committee without a vote.  (See document A/C.5/79/INF/3 and Press Release GA/AB/4495 for background.)

    Funding Approved for Measures to Combat Islamophobia

    By the draft resolution titled “Special subjects relating to the programme budget for 2025” (document A/79/652/Add.1), the Assembly approved additional appropriations of $774,200 to implement its resolution 78/264 on measures to combat Islamophobia, $479,900 to implement decisions by the Human Rights Council and $95.39 million for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI).  The Assembly also requested the Secretary-General to provide an analysis on the impact of the rapid development of emerging technologies, increase transparency and clarity of information and communications technology (ICT) expenditure, and submit a proposal on the presentation of the costs of such technology.

    The draft resolution “Human resources management” (document A/79/839) has the Assembly note rule 3.3 of the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations regarding appointment and promotion and stress that paragraph 66 of its resolution 79/257 of 24 December 2024 does not relate to cases of “promotions”. It also stressed that any changes to the “Guidelines for determination of level and step on recruitment to the Professional category and above” by the Secretary-General shall be fully in line with Assembly resolutions and decisions.

    Importance of Joint Inspection Unit

    By the draft resolution “Joint Inspection Unit” (document A/79/840), the Assembly took note of the Unit’s report for 2024, its programme of work for 2025 and the Secretary-General’s note on Unit’s 2024 report.  By other terms, it stressed the importance of the Unit’s oversight functions in identifying concrete managerial, administrative and programming questions within the participating organizations and providing the General Assembly and other legislative organs action-oriented recommendations.  Underscoring the unique role of the Unit as an external and independent system-wide inspection, evaluation and investigation body, the Assembly reaffirmed the Unit’s independence and stressed that budget estimates are to be prepared in a transparent consistent manner for submission to the Assembly.

    The draft resolution “Review of the implementation of General Assembly resolutions 48/218 B, 54/244, 59/272, 64/263, 69/253 and 74/257” (document A/79/649) has the Assembly reiterate the five-year non-renewable term of the Under-Secretary General for Internal Oversight Services, and requested the Secretary-General to continue to ensure the full implementation of resolution 48/218 in future appointments.  It also decided to evaluate and review at its eighty-fourth session the functions and reporting procedures of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and to that end to include in the provisional agenda of that session an item entitled “Review of the implementation of General Assembly resolutions 48/218, 54/244, 59/272, 64/263, 69/253, 74/257 and 79/___”.

    Assembly Defers Consideration of Fifth Committee Agenda Items 

    By the draft decision titled “Questions deferred for future consideration” (document A/79/653/Add.1), the Assembly decided to defer until the second part of its resumed seventy-ninth session consideration of the Secretary-General’s report on improving the United Nations financial situation, as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).  Further, the Assembly decided to defer until its eightieth session consideration of Secretary-General’s report on standards of accommodation for air travel and the related ACABQ report, and to the first part of its resumed eightieth session consideration of the Secretary-General’s report on the review of the UN Secretariat internship programme, as well as the related ACABQ report.

    Additionally, the Assembly took note of the Fifth Committee’s report concerning agenda items 141 “Improving the financial situation of the United Nations” (document A/79/838), 137 “Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations” and 150 “Report on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (document A/79/648/Add.1).

    Filling Vacancies on Contribution, Audit Committees

    Acting on the Fifth Committee’s recommendations without a vote, the Assembly appointed Denis Piminov (Russian Federation), Benjamin Sieberns (Germany) and Fu Liheng (China) as members of the Committee on Contributions, and Eric Oduro Osae (Ghana) as a member of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee, for terms of office from today to 31 December 2026.

    Application of Article 19 of UN Charter:  Congo Reduces Its Arrears

    In other business, the Assembly took note of Congo’s payment necessary to reduce the arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the United Nations Charter (document A/79/720/Add.4).

    Tribute to Former Assembly President

    It also observed a minute of silence in tribute to the memory of the President of the forty-nineth session of the Assembly, Amara Essy (Côte d’Ivoire), who passed away on 8 April.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Beam Global Reports Full Year 2024 Operating Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN DIEGO, April 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Beam Global, (Nasdaq: BEEM), (the “Company”), a leading provider of innovative and sustainable infrastructure solutions for the electrification of transportation, smart cities, and energy security, today announced its operating results for the year ended December 31, 2024.

    2024 and Recent Company Highlights:

    Financial:

    • Revenues of $49.3 million, more than double any previous year’s revenue in the Company’s history excluding 2023
    • Five-year Revenue CAGR 68%
    • Revenues from non-government commercial entities increased by 229% from 2023 to 2024
    • Positive full year gross margins of 15% – an improvement of 13 percentage points over 2023
    • Adjusted non-GAAP gross margins, net of non-cash costs were 21%
    • Net cash used in Operations for 2024 was $2.2 million vs. 2023 at $13.3 million
    • Backlog of $5.6 million on December 31, 2024
    • Debt free and $100 million line of credit available and unused

    Operational:

    • Acquisition of Serbia-based Telcom – provides Beam with in-house production capabilities for power electronics
    • Received $7.4 million order from the U.S. Army for 88 off-grid EV ARCTM systems
    • Received $4.8 million order from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for EV ARCTM systems
    • Achieved CE (Conformité Européenne) certification on EV ARCTM
    • Achieved Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act Compliance for EV ARC™
    • Launched four new products BeamSpot™, BeamBike™, BeamPatrol™, BeamWell™
    • Received first orders for BeamSpot™ and BeamWell™
    • Closed and deployed first “Driving on Sunshine” sponsorship deal with Globos Osiguranje
    • Introduced the Beam Global Reseller Program – expanding outside sales resources
    • Delivered UK Ministry of Defence EV ARC™ systems to Cyprus
    • Entered Middle Eastern and African markets through reselling partnerships
    • Added new police and international airport fleet customers, further expanding our customer base in critical sectors
    • Enhanced Beam Global leadership team:
      • COO – Mark Myers, former Nuclear Navy Officer
      • VP of Sales – Andy Lovsted joined Beam Global in the U.S.
      • Director of Channel Partnerships – Igor Labovic joined Beam Global in Europe
    • Announced partnership with Benzina Zero, an innovative provider of electric mopeds, scooters, electric bicycles and micro-mobility solutions
    • Announced partnership with Zero Motorcycles, an innovative provider of electric motorcycles
    • Expanded global patent portfolio:
      • Awarded European Patent for Thermal Management Technology that Makes Lithium-ion Batteries Safer
      • Awarded U.S. Patent for Wireless / Inductive Electric Vehicle Charging Powered by Renewable Energy
      • Granted U.S. Patent for High-Volume Battery Assembly and Safety Technology

    “2024 was a year of tremendous expansion for Beam Global,” said Desmond Wheatley, CEO of Beam Global. “It was a year in which we introduced more new e-mobility and energy security products in the last quarter of the year than we have done in the last decade. It was also a year in which we expanded geographically into markets with billions of potential new customers for Beam. We completed another acquisition in Serbia, which will make our products less expensive, more effective, and harder to compete with. We won new patents as we continued to build our intellectual property portfolio. Using our technological differentiation, we won new customers with unique requirements that we believe only we can fulfill. With these strategic moves and others, we created a platform for growth, which is unlike anything that we’ve had in the Company’s history. We have made dramatic improvements to our gross profitability and set the Company on a clear path to being cash-flow positive. We have sufficient cash and other working capital resources to allow us to continue to execute on our plans and we remain debt free while still having access to our $100 million line of credit which remains untapped. We believe that the Company retains excellent opportunities for growth in 2025 as a result of our geographic and product portfolio expansions, and in spite of political and economic uncertainty in the United States.”

    2024 Financial Summary

    Revenues
    Beam Global’s revenues as of December 31, 2024, was $49.3 million compared to $67.4 million in 2023. Although there was a decrease year over year, this was a 124% increase over 2022 revenue of $22.0 million and twice any full year’s revenue in our history except 2023. Additionally, revenues derived from non-government commercial entities increased by 229% for the twelve months from 2023 to 2024 and were 38% of total revenues in 2024.   We believe that the decrease in revenue is a result of order timing, uncertainty in the U.S. government’s zero emission vehicle strategy related to the presidential election. These matters have mainly impacted our larger federal customers, and we do not believe that they signify any fundamental reduction in global demand for our products. We have continued to invest in our sales resources with new hires in both the U.S. and Europe and we have further expanded our selling resources without costs through adding external resources who are paid only when they make sales.     

    Gross Profit
    The Company reported a positive gross profit of $7.3 million, or 15% gross margin, for the year ended December 31, 2024, compared to a gross profit of $1.2 million, or 2% gross margin in 2023. As a percentage of revenue, the full year margin improved by thirteen percentage points primarily because we have implemented cost improvements in late 2023 as a result of design changes to the EV ARCTM as well as operational improvements and positive margins generated from the acquisitions in Europe. The gross profit includes a non-cash negative impact of $2.4 million for depreciation and $0.7 million for amortization of intangible assets resulting from the AllCell acquisition. Without this non-cash expense, our gross profit for 2024 was $10.5 million, a 21% gross margin. The Company’s engineering teams have continued to implement design changes during 2024 which further reduce costs of the bill of materials and improve the product margins. We expect the Company’s revenue to grow in the future and our fixed overhead absorption to continue to improve.

    Operating Expenses
    Total operating expenses were $19.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, compared to $17.5 million in the prior year.   The operating expenses in 2024 includes an increase of $3.8 million due to having a full year of operating expenses for the Serbian acquisitions and a non-cash positive impact of $0.4 million, without these, adjusted operating expenses increase for the year ended December 31, 2024 would be $1.6 million compared to the same period in 2023. The increase is mostly attributable to salaries and benefits of $0.7 million related to new hires in 2024, $0.4 million related to outside services, partially related to acquisitions, and $0.4 million related to marketing expenses.

    Loss from Operations
    Loss from operations was $11.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 compared to $16.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. Backing out the non-cash items that included $3.7 million for depreciation and amortization, $3.3 million for stock-based compensation and $0.4 million for allowance for credit losses, offset by $4.7 million for change in fair value of contingent consideration liabilities pertaining to the true-up of the earnout payment for the Amiga acquisition, the non-cash loss from operations was $8.9 million for 2024, compared to loss from operations of $11.8 million for 2023. The Non-GAAP loss from operations decreased 24% year over year due to increased gross profit of 13 percentage points in 2024 and management of operating expenses.

    Cash
    On December 31, 2024, we had cash of $4.6 million, compared to cash of $10.4 million at December 31, 2023. The cash decrease between December 31, 2023 and 2024 included cash payments for our acquisitions of $3.2 million.  Net cash used for operating activities was $2.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 compared to $13.3 million for the same period in 2023.

    We have historically met our cash needs through a combination of debt and equity financing and more recently through increasing gross profit contributions. Our cash requirements are generally for operating activities and acquisitions.

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    To supplement our condensed consolidated financial statements, which are prepared in accordance with GAAP, we present Non-GAAP Loss from Operations which is non-GAAP financial measures, in this press release. We use Non-GAAP Loss from Operations in conjunction with GAAP measures as part of our overall assessment of our performance to evaluate the effectiveness of our business strategies and to communicate with our board of directors concerning our financial performance. We believe Non-GAAP Loss from Operations is also helpful to investors, analysts and other interested parties because it can assist in providing a more consistent and comparable overview of our operations across our historical financial periods. Non-GAAP Loss from Operations has limitations as an analytical tool. Therefore, you should not consider it in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of our results as reported under GAAP. Because of these limitations, you should consider Non-GAAP Loss from Operations alongside other financial performance measures, including net loss attributable to other GAAP measures. In evaluating Non-GAAP Loss from Operations you should be aware that in the future we may incur expenses that are the same as, or similar to, some of the adjustments reflected in this press release. Our presentation of Non-GAAP Loss from Operations should not be construed to imply that our future results will be unaffected by the types of items excluded from the calculations of Non-GAAP Loss from Operations. Non-GAAP Loss from Operations is not presented in accordance with GAAP and the use of these terms vary from others in our industry. Reconciliation of this non-GAAP measure has been provided in the financial statement tables included within this press release, and investors are encouraged to review this reconciliation.

    Conference Call April 11, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. ET

    Management will host a conference call on Friday, April 11, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. ET to review financial results and provide an update on corporate developments. Following management’s formal remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session.

    Participants can register for the conference through the following link:   

    https://dpregister.com/sreg/10198405/fed880d536

    PARTICIPANT CALL IN (TOLL FREE): 1-844-739-3880

    PARTICIPANT INTERNATIONAL CALL IN: 1-412-317-5716

    Please ask to join the Beam Global call.

    A webcast archive will be available on our website (www.BeamForAll.com) following the call.

    About Beam Global
    Beam Global is a clean technology innovator which develops and manufactures sustainable infrastructure products and technologies. We operate at the nexus of clean energy and transportation with a focus on sustainable energy infrastructure, rapidly deployed and scalable EV charging solutions, safe energy storage and vital energy security. With operations in the U.S. and Europe, Beam Global develops, patents, designs, engineers and manufactures unique and advanced clean technology solutions that power transportation, provide secure sources of electricity, save time and money and protect the environment. Beam Global is headquartered in San Diego, CA with facilities in Chicago, IL and Belgrade and Kraljevo, Serbia. Beam Global is listed on Nasdaq under the symbol BEEM. For more information visit BeamForAll.com, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram and X (formerly Twitter).

    Forward-Looking Statements
    This Beam Global Press Release may contain forward-looking statements. All statements in this Press Release other than statements of historical facts are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are generally accompanied by terms or phrases such as “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “target,” “plan,” “intend,” “seek,” “goal,” “will,” “should,” “may,” or other words and similar expressions that convey the uncertainty of future events or results. These statements relate to future events or future results of operations. These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause Beam Global’s actual results to be materially different from these forward-looking statements. Except to the extent required by law, Beam Global expressly disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

    Media Contact
    Andy Lovsted
    +1-858-335-8465
    Press@BeamForAll.com

    Investor Relations
    Luke Higgins
    +1-858-799-4583
    IR@BeamForAll.com

           
    Beam Global      
    Consolidated Balance Sheets      
    (In thousands)      
                     
          December 31,       December 31,  
          2024       2023  
                     
    Assets                
    Current assets                
    Cash   $ 4,572     $ 10,393  
    Accounts receivable, net of allowance for credit losses of $259 and $448     8,027       15,943  
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets     2,243       2,453  
    Inventory, net     12,284       11,933  
    Total current assets     27,126       40,722  
                     
    Property and equipment, net     13,704       16,513  
    Operating lease right of use assets     1,893       1,026  
    Goodwill     10,580       10,270  
    Intangible assets, net     8,037       9,050  
    Deposits     119       62  
    Total assets   $ 61,459     $ 77,643  
                     
    Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity                
    Current liabilities                
    Accounts payable   $ 8,959     $ 9,732  
    Accrued expenses     2,462       2,737  
    Sales tax payable     195       209  
    Deferred revenue, current     847       828  
    Note payable, current     63       40  
    Deferred consideration     –       2,713  
    Contingent consideration, current     93       –  
    Operating lease liabilities, current     696       615  
    Total current liabilities     13,315       16,874  
    Commitments and contingencies (F-14)                
    Deferred revenue, noncurrent     800       402  
    Note payable, noncurrent     199       160  
    Contingent consideration, noncurrent     216       4,725  
    Other liabilities, noncurrent     3,380       3,787  
    Deferred tax liabilities, noncurrent     1,290       1,698  
    Operating lease liabilities, noncurrent     971       455  
    Total liabilities     20,171       28,101  
                     
    Commitments and contingencies (Note 9)                
                     
    Stockholders’ equity                
    Preferred stock, $0.001 par value, 10,000,000 authorized, none outstanding as of December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023.     –       –  
    Common stock, $0.001 par value, 350,000,000 shares authorized, 14,835,630 and 14,398,243 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively.     15       14  
    Additional paid-in-capital     147,072       142,265  
    Accumulated deficit     (104,643 )     (93,361 )
    Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI)     (1,156 )     624  
                     
    Total stockholders’ equity     41,288       49,542  
                     
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity   $ 61,459     $ 77,643  
                     
    Beam Global
    Consolidated Statements of Operations
    ( In thousands, except per share amounts)
                   
      Year Ended
      December 31,
        2024       2023  
                   
    Revenues $ 49,336     $ 67,353  
                   
    Cost of revenues   42,040       66,149  
                   
    Gross profit   7,296       1,204  
                   
                   
    Operating expenses   18,953       17,465  
                   
    Loss from operations   (11,657 )     (16,261 )
                   
    Other income (expense)              
    Interest income   205       261  
    Other income (expense)   110       (36 )
    Interest expense   (34 )     (12 )
    Other income   281       213  
                   
    Loss before income tax expense   (11,376 )     (16,048 )
                   
    Income tax (benefit) expense   (94 )     12  
                   
    Net Loss $ (11,282 )   $ (16,060 )
                   
    Net foreign currency translation adjustments   (1,781 )     624  
    Total Comprehensive Loss $ (13,063 )   $ (15,436 )
                   
    Net Income (loss) per share – basic/diluted $ (0.77 )   $ (1.30 )
                   
    Weighted average shares outstanding – basic/diluted   14,621       12,345  
                   
    Beam Global
    Reconciliation of Loss from Operations to Non-GAAP Loss from Operations
    (Unaudited, In thousands)
                        
           Year Ended
           December 31,
             2024       2023  
                        
    GAAP Total Revenue     $ 49,336     $ 67,353  
                        
    GAAP Total COGS   42,040       66,149  
    Adjusted to exclude the following:                 
    Depreciation and amortization      3,155       970  
    Non-GAAP Total COGS    $ 38,885     $ 65,179  
                        
    Non-GAAP Gross Profit    $ 10,451     $ 2,174  
    Gross Margin %       21 %     3 %
                        
    GAAP Total Operating Expenses      18,953       17,465  
                   
    Adjusted to exclude the following:                 
    Depreciation and amortization      558       581  
    Non-cash compensation      3,322       2,675  
    Allowance for credit losses      392       0  
    Fair value of contingent consideration (1)     (4,675 )     260  
    Non-GAAP Total adjustments    $ (403 )   $ 3,516  
                   
    Non-GAAP Total Operating Expenses   $ 19,356     $ 13,949  
                        
    GAAP Loss from Operations    $ (11,657 )   $ (16,261 )
    Non-GAAP total adjustments      2,752       4,486  
    Non-GAAP Loss from Operations    $ (8,905 )   $ (11,775 )
                        

    (1)   Fair value of contingent consideration is non-cash. The Earnout Consideration is paid in the Company’s stock. See the financial statement notes included in prior quarterly and annual filings.

    The MIL Network –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy: Trump Is Dismantling Our Democracy. We Must Come Together And Act Before It’s Too Late.

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
    [embedded content]
    WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to sound the alarm about Trump’s coordinated effort to dismantle the pillars of American democracy. Murphy warned attacks on journalists, universities, lawyers, and the business community are eroding the institutions that hold leaders accountable—paving the way for a fake democracy where elections still happen, but only one side ever wins.
    “Most of the time, there is not a singular moment when the executive dramatically seizes power,” Murphy said. “There’s not normally a brazen attempt to burn down the Parliament building. No, instead democracies die when gradually, often quietly and methodically over time, the structures that hold the executive accountable–for corruption, for thievery, for wrongdoing–are dismantled. Dismantled so that citizens can no longer hold the executive accountable. Dismantled so that the political opposition never has enough room to maneuver meaningfully. There are still elections. The executive doesn’t try to stuff the ballot box. Occasionally, at lower levels, the opposition still wins. But what happens is that those structures of accountability are either so degraded or so completely co-opted by the regime that the truth is just buried and the political opposition loses the basic tools that it needs to win.”
    Murphy warned authoritarian regimes begin by targeting the press—and that Trump is following the same playbook: “From Hungary to Belarus to Venezuela – countries that have elections but elections where one party just keeps on winning –  these are places journalists are subject to [a] non-stop harassment campaign from the regime, such that people just stop doing journalism, or journalists stop telling the full truth. Last month, for instance, the Turkish President Erdogan locked up 11 journalists simply for covering the protests against Erdogan’s jailing of the top opposition leaders. Now Trump has not started jailing journalists, but the pace of harassment in the first 60 days of his second term is alarming. He’s denied access to government buildings, including the White House, to journalists who don’t use pre-approved language from the White House. He is preferencing credentials to partisan journalists who simply parrot his party line. His FCC has begun to deliberately harass media companies that are owned by political opponents of the President.”
    Murphy underscored the chilling similarities between autocratic regimes’ attacks on universities and Trump’s own crackdown on higher education: “Universities, over the long history of democracy, have been the place where protest – especially youth protest – begins. They are a thorn in the side of leadership. The famous Tiananmen Square protests in China were, of course, started by university students. So it’s no surprise that if you want to crush democracy, you need to crush the independence of universities. That’s why Trump’s decision to target universities that permit criticism of President Trump is so bone-chilling. He pretends like he’s standing up to anti-Semitism on campuses, but what he’s really trying to do is make clear that protest against his policies on campuses will result in federal funding being cut off. Columbia University was forced to agree to a stunning list of free speech concessions in order to gain assurances from President Trump that their federal funding would continue. They had to agree to allow campus police to arrest protestors. They had to essentially agree to receivership – federal receivership – over an academic department that houses professors who are critical of Trump and his policies. Effectively, the President of the United States got to pick the person who will oversee the Columbia department on the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies as well as the Center for Palestine Studies. That is extraordinary. That’s not what happens in a healthy democracy–the leader of the country micromanaging academic departments at major universities to assure that academic work aligns with the regime.”
    Murphy also highlighted the striking parallels between Trump’s campaign against law firms and autocrats who silence legal opposition: “Maybe there’s not a lot of love for lawyers in this country, but lawyers are the ones that bring the lawsuits to stop the thievery and illegality. Lawyers are compelled, by their oath, to stand up for the Constitution. Putin arrested Nalvalny’s lawyers right on the eve of Navalny’s trial. In Venezuela, Maduro routinely harasses and detains lawyers – human rights lawyers – because he knows those are the ones that will hold him accountable. In Tunisia, the regime stormed the offices of the Bar Administration to intimidate the legal profession into silence. Here in America, Trump is engaged in a shameless campaign of extortion against any major law firm that has taken a position against Trump or Trump’s interests. What he is doing is extraordinary, and it is mind blowing to me that it is just being ignored by my Republican colleagues. He’s going firm by firm – and not to every firm, just to the firms that have represented Democrats or brought cases against him – and he’s telling them that if they don’t fall in line and stop doing work to oppose him, their clients will lose access to federal work. That is extortion.”
    He concluded: “If journalists are constantly looking over their shoulder and unable to report on the truth; if protest is suppressed, even moderately, at universities; if lawyers start giving cover, instead of uncovering corruption and illegality in the regime. If companies start being mouthpieces for the regime, as a price of doing business. If all that happens, then we are not a real democracy anymore. We are a fake democracy. Elections still happen– like in Turkey, like Hungary, like Venezuela – but the rules are going to be tilted and dissent will be suppressed so much that the same side – Trump’s side – wins over and over and over. And this should matter not just to Democrats – not just to members of the minority party – this should matter to Republicans as well. We swear an oath to uphold the constitution and it’s time for us to see the game that is being played…Only if we come together are we going to have a chance to save ourselves from the fate that has befallen so many other countries that have slowly, too quietly, seen their countries transition from real democracy to fake democracy.”
    A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:
    MURPHY: “Thank you, Mr. President. 
    “Mr. President, I was sitting with the CEO of one of America’s biggest and most influential companies last month, and I asked him a simple question: what could President Trump do that would be a bridge too far for you? What attack on democracy or the rule of law could Trump make that would cause you to speak up?
    “His answer was pretty simple and it was pretty confident. He said that if Trump were to ignore a Supreme Court ruling, that would cross the line. He was reflecting a familiar theme. That until President Trump thumbs his nose definitively at a court ruling, then his attacks on democracy are troubling, but not lethal. It’s normal politics up until that dramatic confrontation between the executive branch and the judicial branch for which the Constitution, as we know, really has no prescribed remedy.
    “And for many Americans, they might breathe a sigh of relief that America’s most influential private sector leaders would rise up to defend democracy if this confrontation that we worry about came to pass. Combined with a massive public mobilization, we could be saved.
    “But I didn’t breathe a sigh of relief. The opposite: I’m deeply worried that we have really spent little time studying the paths that democracies take when they collapse. Most of the time, there is not a singular moment when the executive dramatically seizes power. There’s not normally a brazen attempt to burn down the Parliament building. No, instead democracies die when gradually, often quietly and methodically over time, the structures that hold the executive accountable–for corruption, for thievery, for wrongdoing–are dismantled. Dismantled so that citizens can no longer hold the executive accountable. Dismantled so that the political opposition never has enough room to maneuver meaningfully. There are still elections. The executive doesn’t try to stuff the ballot box. Occasionally, at lower levels, the opposition still wins. But what happens is that those structures of accountability are either so degraded or so completely co-opted by the regime that the truth is just buried and the political opposition loses the basic tools that it needs to win.
    “In every democracy that stops being a democracy, then, there’s a familiar story. There are four institutions that the regime attacks, and attacks relentlessly, until those structures of accountability are so disintegrated that even though elections continue to happen, the same party or the same person wins power election after election And those four institutions are the press, the legal profession, universities, and the business community. If you degrade or co-opt these four institutions, you never need a high stakes fight with the top court in your country. You don’t need to burn the Reichstag down. You can still have elections. But only one party will win.
    “So that’s why this CEO’s ‘assurance’ frankly sent a chill down my spine. Because our democracy isn’t at risk of dying. It isdying. As we speak. We are watching it die.
    “It is not too late to save it. Let me say that again – it is not too late to save our democracy. But we can’t continue to close our eyes and think that our democracy can survive a coordinated assault on those four key institutions of accountability. Democrats and Republicans need to see what is happening before our eyes, rise up, and defend the independence of journalists, of lawyers, of universities, and of the private sector.
    “So I want to spend a minute or two to walk you through what President Trump is doing, and how it frankly–chillingly–mirrors the tactics other leaders have used to transition real democracy into pretend, fake democracy.
    “It always starts with journalists. From Hungary to Belarus to Venezuela – countries that have elections but elections where one party just keeps on winning –  these are places journalists are subject to [a] non-stop harassment campaign from the regime, such that people just stop doing journalism, or journalists stop telling the full truth. Last month, for instance, the Turkish President Erdogan locked up 11 journalists simply for covering the protests against Erdogan’s jailing of the top opposition leaders. 
    “Now Trump has not started jailing journalists, but the pace of harassment in the first 60 days of his second term is alarming. He’s denied access to government buildings, including the White House, to journalists who don’t use pre-approved language from the White House. He is preferencing credentials to partisan journalists who simply parrot his party line. His FCC has begun to deliberately harass media companies that are owned by political opponents of the President.
    “But Trump’s campaign to destroy independent journalism has a darker and more menacing side. Because Trump isn’t just trying to intimidate journalists so that they’ll be afraid to tell the truth. He’s also trying to destroy the concept of truth itself. And again, this is a key facet of leaders who are elected who are trying to transition democracies away and into something very different. How do you destroy truth? Well, that’s why the Secretary of Defense looks into the camera and tells the American public that the text messages that everybody read – filled with classified information and war plans – did not include classified information and war plans. The White House wants you to believe that 1+1 does not equal 2 any longer. That you should doubt even the clear things you see with [your] eyes. That nothing is real and nothing is true. That if you’re a supporter of the regime and I tell you that one plus one equals three, then one plus one equals three. Those weren’t war plans. Those weren’t classified documents.
    “That’s also why the official position of White House on key issues – like tariffs – changes every hour. Because if the ground truth just changes constantly, then there’s no truth at all. Journalists are made to look foolish by reporting a true thing at 9am that becomes untrue at 10am. Journalism loses its credibility when the facts being distributed by the White House change all the time. Trump says the tariffs are permanent. Journalists report, ‘the president says the tariffs are permanent.’ An hour later, Trump says, ‘I never said they were permanent. They’re not permanent. I’m cutting deals.’ They write that he’s cutting deals. An hour later, they’re suspended, no more tariffs. When the truth changes constantly, it’s hard to believe that there’s anything true any longer.
    “Second, universities are always – always – the target of would-be autocrats. Again, in Turkey, the government has terminated thousands of professors, just because they criticize the government. In Hungary, one of the nation’s most prestigious universities was forced to move out of the country because President Orban attacked it so ceaselessly for fomenting protest against his government.
    “Universities, over the long history of democracy, have been the place where protest – especially youth protest – begins. They are a thorn in the side of leadership. The famous Tiananmen Square protests in China were, of course, started by university students. So it’s no surprise that if you want to crush democracy, you need to crush the independence of universities. 
    “That’s why Trump’s decision to target universities that permit criticism of President Trump is so bone-chilling. He pretends like he’s standing up to anti-Semitism on campuses, but what he’s really trying to do is make clear that protest against his policies on campuses will result in federal funding being cut off. Columbia University was forced to agree to a stunning list of free speech concessions in order to gain assurances from President Trump that their federal funding would continue. They had to agree to allow campus police to arrest protestors. They had to essentially agree to receivership – federal receivership – over an academic department that houses professors who are critical of Trump and his policies. Effectively, the President of the United States got to pick the person who will oversee the Columbia department on the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies as well as the Center for Palestine Studies. That is extraordinary. That’s not what happens in a healthy democracy–the leader of the country micromanaging academic departments at major universities to assure that academic work aligns with the regime.
    “And now, having successfully forced Columbia to bend the knee and quell dissent on their campus, Trump is targeting other universities. Some of them will sign similar agreements, giving President Trump power over those campuses. But frankly, all Trump has to do is make an example of a handful of universities, and others will simply comply and obey in advance. Why, as an academic president, when you’ve got federal dollars that employ people at your university, would you permit a major protest against a Trump policy if you know that that’s going to jeopardize federal funds? Or maybe you allow it, because you don’t want to so brazenly stand in the way of free speech, but you just make sure that it’s not too big a protest, or it’s not too critical. You police speech to be on the right side of the regime. That is what happens in all of these fake democracies, and that is what’s happening here.
    “But controlling speech on campuses is not enough. Controlling and intimidating journalists is not enough. You’ve got to go after the lawyers too. Now maybe there’s not a lot of love for lawyers in this country, but lawyers are the ones that bring the lawsuits to stop the thievery and illegality. Lawyers are compelled, by their oath, to stand up for the Constitution. Putin arrested Nalvalny’s lawyers right on the eve of Navalny’s trial. In Venezuela, Maduro routinely harasses and detains lawyers – human rights lawyers – because he knows those are the ones that will hold him accountable. In Tunisia, the regime stormed the offices of the Bar Administration to intimidate the legal profession into silence.
    “Here in America, Trump is engaged in a shameless campaign of extortion against any major law firm that has taken a position against Trump or Trump’s interests. What he is doing is extraordinary, and it is mind blowing to me that it is just being ignored by my Republican colleagues. He’s going firm by firm – and not to every firm, just to the firms that have represented Democrats or brought cases against him – and he’s telling them that if they don’t fall in line and stop doing work to oppose him, their clients will lose access to federal work.
    “That is extortion. This body, Republicans and Democrats, should stand up against it. But it is working. Several law firms have signed deals with Trump that obligate them to support – guess what? Causes aligned with Donald Trump. Paul Weiss was targeted by an executive order and struck a deal. But so did Skadden – they struck a deal with Trump before they’d even been targeted. Already, collectively, these firms have pledged – think about this – about a quarter of a billion dollars of pro bono work to file cases in coordination with the President of the United States’s political interests. 
    “And just like what happened with universities, there’s a lot of extra compliance that’s happening. I know for a fact that firms that have already signed these agreements with Trump have gone above and beyond the terms of the agreements to quiet their criticism of the government. And no doubt, every single major law firm will think twice before bringing an action against an illegal or corrupt action of the President, in fear of Trump retaliating against their business. That’s the point. The point is to try to crush dissent. The point is to try to stand in the way of anybody who is going to hold Trump accountable by using the power – the official power granted to him by the people of the United States – to try to signal retaliation against anyone who dares oppose him.
    “But collective action–it can be a powerful tool. Together, the collective might of our universities and our law firms is significant. So they could choose to band together and decide to sign no agreements with Trump; to refuse to let the President of the United States dictate the terms of their speech, their business and their defense of the rule of law. 
    “And I don’t want to make the victim the perpetrator. This is all Trump’s fault, what he is doing to extort political loyalty from universities and law firms.  
    “But instead of their being collective action on behalf of these industries, the opposite is happening. In the legal profession, when Paul Weiss was targeted, the other big firms didn’t rise to their defense, they started making calls to Paul Weiss clients and lawyers, using Trump’s assault as a means to poach business or partners. That’s shameful, acting like ravenous vultures. Putting your profits first instead of your country’s interests or the interest of the legal profession, which pledges before a court to stand up for the rule of law. 
    “Instead, these big firms are aiding and abetting the destruction of the rule of law by doing Trump’s work for him, making targeted firms even more vulnerable by working behind the scenes to strip them bare for parts. There are good, patriotic lawyers at many of these high-priced firms who know this is wrong, and they should speak up. Some of them already have. 
    “And now, finally, Trump is coming for the rest of the private sector. Listen, I have no idea what the Trump tariff policy is. The constantly shifting positions of the last week are an embarrassment. It’s complete incompetent malpractice that has jeopardized jobs and retirement savings and college funds all across this country. 
    “But the tariffs are complicated and convoluted and hard to understand likely because they aren’t actually economic or trade policy. They are a political tool– this one designed to force every major company to come before Trump to plead for tariff relief in exchange for giving Trump the company’s political loyalty, no different than what’s happening in the legal progression or in America’s universities.  A tariff can be written very easily to favor one industry over another, or one company over another, and the confusing nature of the tariff regime is a means for Trump to require every major company in the country to come on bended knee to him to get the relief they need.
    “And that loyalty pledge could be anything – the purchase of Trump crypto coin, public support for Trump’s economic policies, donations to his political campaign. But having watched what Trump has done, one by one, to universities and law firms, why would we assume the tariffs aren’t just simply a tool to do the same thing to big companies?
    So what I’m trying to say here is that you don’t need a Battle Royale between the President and the Supreme Court for democracy to die. If journalists are constantly looking over their shoulder and unable to report on the truth; if protest is suppressed, even moderately, at universities; if lawyers start giving cover, instead of uncovering corruption and illegality in the regime. If companies start being mouthpieces for the regime, as a price of doing business. If all that happens, then we are not a real democracy anymore. We are a fake democracy. Elections still happen– like in Turkey, like Hungary, like Venezuela – but the rules are going to be tilted and dissent will be suppressed so much that the same side – Trump’s side – wins over and over and over. 
    “And this should matter not just to Democrats–not just to members of the minority party–this should matter to Republicans as well. We swear an oath to uphold the constitution and it’s time for us to see the game that is being played.
    “The good news is that the rules have NOT been fully rigged yet. There is still time – not loads of it – but there’s still time for this body to set a tone that causes the kind of massive public outrage necessary to stop this campaign of destruction in its tracks.
    “But that requires those of us who believe that the threat to democracy is urgent to act like it. That means saying to our Republican colleagues that we’re not going to act like business as usual. That we’re not going to proceed to legislation unless we have agreement – Republicans and Democrats –  to stop this assault on free speech and dissent. It requires the minority party to say that right now. Only if we come together are we going to have a chance to save ourselves from the fate that has befallen so many other countries that have slowly, too quietly, seen their countries transition from real democracy to fake democracy. 
    “I yield the floor.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Video: Myanmar, Occupied Palestinian Territory & other topics – Daily Press Briefing (11 April 2025)

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    Noon briefing by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.

    Highlights:
    People of African Descent
    Myanmar
    Occupied Palestinian Territory
    Syria
    Sudan
    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Gabon
    Colombia
    International Maritime Organization
    Passover
    International Day of Human Space Flight
    Financial Contributions

    PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT
    On Monday at 10 am, the 4th session of the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent that will kick off here at Headquarters under the theme “Africa and people of African descent: United for reparatory justice in the age of Artificial Intelligence”. We will have the Chef de Cabinet, Courtenay Rattray will deliver the Secretary-General’s remarks.
    Over one thousand participants have registered to attend the session which will continue until Thursday next week. There will be discussions on reparatory justice for Africa and people of African descent; human rights of women and girls of African descent; policymaking and systemic racism; digital justice, as well as on the bicentennial of the “Haitian independence debt.” Side events and cultural performances are also planned.
    A report on the Forum will be presented both to the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly later this year. As usual, the meetings will all be broadcast on the UN webcast platform.

    MYANMAR
    In Myanmar – and just two weeks after the country was hit by two earthquakes, we and our partners have launched a $275 million appeal, which is an addendum to the 2025 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan to reach 1.1 million people with urgent aid and assistance.
    The earthquakes have pushed 2 million human beings into critical need of assistance and protection – that’s in addition to the 19.9 million people who were estimated to need humanitarian aid prior to this disaster.
    UN agencies, partners and Member States, have rapidly mobilized aid – including medical care, shelter, safe water, hygiene kits, and food.
    To further strengthen efforts on the ground, the UN Central Emergency Response Fund has allocated an additional $5 million for the earthquake response, on top of the $5 million already provided a few weeks ago.
    And the UN Human Rights Office today said civilians are continuing to suffer as military operations persist, despite ceasefires declared after last month’s tragic earthquake.
    At a moment when the sole focus should be on ensuring humanitarian aid gets to disaster zones, the military is instead launching attacks, that was what our human rights colleagues said. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called on the military to remove any and all obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian assistance and to of course cease military operations.

    OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
    Moving to the situation in Gaza, our humanitarian colleagues tells us that earlier today, Israeli authorities issued two new displacement orders covering vast areas in northern and southern Gaza. Together, these areas span more than 24 square kilometres – roughly the size of everything south of Central Park here in Manhattan.
    Several medical facilities and storage sites containing critical supplies are located within the newly designated displacement zones. And OCHA warns that this could have life-threatening consequences for people in urgent need of care.
    With this latest development, OCHA reports that more than two thirds of the Gaza Strip is either under active displacement orders or designated as “no-go” zones – that’s areas where humanitarian teams are required to coordinate their movements with Israeli authorities.
    This leaves Palestinians with less than a third of Gaza’s area to live in – and that remaining space is fragmented, it’s unsafe and it’s barely livable following 18 months of hostilities, which are ongoing. Overcrowded shelters which are in terrible conditions, service providers are struggling to operate, and resources are being depleted.
    The UN Human Rights Office today said that the nature and scope of the Israeli evacuation orders in Gaza raise serious concerns that Israel intends permanently to remove the civilian population from these areas in order to create a “buffer zone.”
    OCHA reminds us that today marks 40 days since Israeli authorities imposed a full closure on the entry of cargo into Gaza. Since then, no one – including we and our humanitarian partners – have been permitted to bring in supplies, regardless of how critically needed those items may be.
    Everything is running extremely low: Bakeries have shut down, life-saving medicines have run out, and water production has been drastically reduced.
    Israel, as the occupying power, as the Secretary-General said earlier this week, has clear obligations under international law, and these include ensuring food, medical care and public health services are available.

    Full highlights: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=11%20April%202025

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQlHmFk0Euc

    MIL OSI Video –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Salazar Introduces the NO FAKES Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar’s (FL-27)

    strong>WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Rep. Maria Salazar (FL-27) introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act along with Reps. Madeleine Dean (PA-04), Nathaniel Moran (TX-01), Becca Balint (VT-At Large), and Joe Morelle (NY-25). The legislation protects the voice and likeness of all individuals from unauthorized, computer-generated recreations from generative artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies.

    The Senate version of the bill is being introduced by Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

    “In this new era of AI, we need real laws to protect real people,” said Rep. Salazar. “The NO FAKES Act is simple and sacred: you own your identity—not Big Tech, not scammers, not algorithms. Deepfakes are digital lies that ruin real lives, and it’s time to fight back.”

    “The NO FAKES Act works to tackle the risk that AI poses to artists, content creators, and the victims of deep fakes. The realities of new AI technology breakthroughs mean we must establish a clear right to control digital replicas of one’s own voice and image. And this is a common sense, bipartisan proposal. I’m grateful to work with Representatives Dean and Salazar to safeguard America’s artists and creators, ensuring that AI’s potential is harnessed for good,” saidRep. Balint.

    “A.I. deepfakes are a serious threat to privacy and intellectual property—and if we don’t act, the damage will only grow,” said Rep. Morelle. “That’s why I’m backing the bipartisan NO FAKES Act to modernize our laws, promote innovation, and keep people safe.”

    From the biggest entertainers to everyday Americans, non-consensual voice and image clones can ruin careers, deceive families and friends, and traumatize victims. The American people need clear rules that empower individuals to control their own faces and voices while encouraging innovation and ensuring that the United States remains the world leader on artificial intelligence.

    “While AI has opened the door to countless innovations, it has also exposed creators and other vulnerable individuals to online harms,” said Senator Blackburn. “Tennessee’s creative community is recognized around the globe, and the NO FAKES Act would help protect these individuals from the misuse and abuse of generative AI by holding those responsible for deepfake content to account.”

    “Nobody—whether they’re Tom Hanks or an 8th grader just trying to be a kid—should worry about someone stealing their voice and likeness,” said Senator Coons. “Incredible technology like AI can help us push the limits of human creativity, but only if we protect Americans from those who would use it to harm our communities. I am grateful for the bipartisan partnership of Senators Blackburn, Klobuchar, and Tillis, the support of colleagues in the House, and the endorsements of leaders in the entertainment industry, the labor community, and firms at the cutting edge of AI technology.”

    “While AI presents extraordinary opportunities for technological advancement, it also poses some new problems, including the unauthorized replication of the voice and visual likeness of individuals, such as artists,” said Senator Tillis. “We must protect against such misuse, and I’m proud to co-introduce this bipartisan legislation to create safeguards from AI, which will result in greater protections for individuals and that which defines them.”

    “Americans from all walks of life are increasingly seeing AI being used to create deepfakes in ads, images, music, and videos without their consent,” said Senator Klobuchar. “We need our laws to be as sophisticated as this quickly advancing technology. The bipartisan NO FAKES Act will establish rules of the road to protect people from having their voice and likeness replicated through AI without their permission.”

    “As AI’s prevalence grows, federal law must catch up—we must support technological innovation while preserving the privacy, safety, and dignity of all Americans,” said Representative Dean. “By granting everyone a clear, federal right to control digital replicas of their own voice and likeness, the NO FAKES Act will empower victims of deep fakes; safeguard human creativity and artistic expression; and defend against sexually explicit deepfakes. I’m grateful to work with a bipartisan group of colleagues on common sense, common ground regulations of this new frontier of AI.”

    The NO FAKES Act will:

    • Recognize that every individual has a federal intellectual property right to their own voice and likeness—including an extension of that right for the families of individuals after they pass away;

    • Empower individuals to take action against bad actors who knowingly create, post, or profit from unauthorized digital copies of them;

    • Protect responsible media platforms from liability if they take down offending materials when they discover them;

    • Ensure innovation and free speech are protected; and

    • Provide a nationwide solution to a patchwork of state laws and regulations by January 2, 2025.

     

    ENDORSEMENTS

    This legislation is endorsed by the Recording Industry Association of America; Motion Picture Association; SAG-AFTRA; YouTube; Recording Academy; OpenAI; Warner Music Group; Universal Music Group; Sony Music; The Walt Disney Company; IBM; Vermillio; Hive; Independent Film & Television Alliance; WME; Creative Artists Agency; Human Artistry Campaign; National Association of Broadcasters; the Model Alliance; ASCAP; Nashville Songwriters Association International; the Authors Guild; the National Center on Sexual Exploitation; Television Academy; Enough is Enough; American Association of Independent Music; and more.

    “This bill proves that we can prioritize the growth of AI and protecting American creativity at the same time. We applaud the Senate and House sponsors driving this legislation that provides balanced and effective protections for all individuals against exploitative uses of their voice and likeness while supporting free speech, reducing litigation and achieving the promise of AI technology,” said Mitch Glazier, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) Chairman & CEO.

    “The NO FAKES Act thoughtfully establishes federal protections for performers from generative AI abuse while also respecting creators’ First Amendment rights and freedoms,” said Charles Rivkin, Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association (MPA). “The MPA thanks Senators Blackburn, Coons, Klobuchar, and Tillis for re-introducing this bill. Specifically, we appreciate the inclusion of safeguards intended to prevent the chilling of constitutionally protected speech such as biopics, docudramas, parody, and satire. This is necessary for any new law to be durable. The MPA will continue to work closely with the bill’s sponsors as the NO FAKES Act makes its way into law.”

    “In the age of digital clones, deepfakes can be devastating,” said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, SAG-AFTRA. “We all deserve the right to demand platforms remove illegal voice and image clones, and to seek damages from those who intentionally cause harm. Thank you Senators Blackburn, Coons, Klobuchar, and Tillis for reintroducing the NO FAKES Act. As innovation continues to rapidly evolve, it’s time for commonsense legislation that defends individual rights.”

    “For nearly two decades, YouTube has been at the forefront of handling rights management at scale, and we understand the importance of collaborating with partners to tackle these issues proactively. Now, we’re applying that expertise and dedication to partnership to ensure the responsible deployment of innovative AI tools. We thank Senators Coons and Blackburn, and Representatives Salazar and Dean, for their leadership on the NO FAKES Act, which is consistent with our ongoing efforts to protect creators and viewers, and reflects our commitment to shaping a future where AI is used responsibly,” said Leslie Miller, VP of Public Policy, YouTube. 

    “The Academy is proud to represent and serve creators, and for decades, GRAMMYs on the Hill has brought music makers to our nation’s capital to elevate the policy issues affecting our industry. Today’s reintroduction of the NO FAKES Act underscores our members’ commitment to advocating for the music community, and as we enter a new era of technology, we must create guardrails around AI and ensure it enhances – not replaces – human creativity. We thank Senators Blackburn and Coons, and Representatives Dean and Salazar for their unwavering support on this issue, and we look forward to working alongside them to pass the NO FAKES Act this Congress,” said Harvey Mason jr., CEO, Recording Academy. 

    “OpenAI is happy to once again support the NO FAKES Act, which supports creators and artists. We applaud Senators Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar, and Tillis for their leadership, and we look forward to working with the sponsors and fellow supporters as this legislation moves forward,” said OpenAI Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane.  

    “I applaud Senators Blackburn and Coons and Representatives Salazar and Dean for their leadership in introducing the NO FAKES Act. This bill reflects what can happen when tech and creative industries come together – foster cutting edge innovation while protecting human identity and artistry. We look forward to working with key members of the US Senate and House to help pass the NO FAKES Act this year,” said Robert Kyncl, Warner Music Group CEO.

    “Universal Music Group applauds the reintroduction of the NO FAKES Act – landmark, bipartisan, bicameral legislation to address ‘deepfakes’ and other threats to individuals’ rights to control their own voice and visual likeness,” said Universal Music Group. “At once, this legislation secures First Amendment protections and takes a critical step to ensure all Americans can protect and control their own persona. We are grateful to the bill’s sponsors for their thoughtful leadership on this important issue.”

    “Sony Music is proud to support the No FAKES Act to promote the ethical use of AI and give artists more control over their identity and creative expression,” said Sony Music. “Thank you to the Senate and House sponsors for continuing to champion this bipartisan legislation, which will provide meaningful protections against the unauthorized use of an artist’s voice and image. We look forward to working towards passage of this legislation allowing AI innovation and creativity to flourish.” 

    “Disney is pleased to support the reintroduction of the NO FAKES Act. We look forward to working with the sponsors to see this legislation enacted to ensure important and meaningful protections for individuals against misuse of their image and voice through AI while maintaining critical speech protections for legitimate storytelling rooted in the First Amendment,” said the Walt Disney Company.

    “AI is now widely used across sectors, and as advancements continue, it’s vital to protect creators and individuals from potential deepfake risks,” said Mike Harney, Vice President, Government & Regulatory Affairs, IBM. “IBM supports the NO FAKES Act, which safeguards individuals from unauthorized AI replication of their images, voices, or likenesses. We thank Senators Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar, and Tillis for their leadership on this important bipartisan legislation.”

    “The NO FAKES Act makes a critical stride towards establishing NIL protections that deliver consent, credit, compensation, and control to all Americans,” said Dan Neely, Co-Founder and CEO, Vermillio. “With deepfakes representing only one piece of a much larger battle against unauthorized content, the entertainment industry must implement robust AI safeguards to protect American creativity, one of our most valuable assets. We appreciate the leadership Senators Coons, Blackburn, Tillis, and Klobuchar, who recognize the essential role of cutting-edge technologies in delivering national security, protecting all citizens, and closing vulnerabilities that allow bad actors to misuse AI.”

    “The development of AI-generated media and AI detection technologies must evolve in parallel,” said Kevin Guo, CEO and cofounder of Hive. “We envision a future where AI-generated media is created with permission, clearly identified, and appropriately credited. We stand firmly behind the NO FAKES Act as a fundamental step in establishing oversight while keeping pace with advancements in artificial intelligence to protect public trust and creative industries alike.”

    “The Independent Film & Television Alliance® supports the NO FAKES Act and thanks lead sponsors Senators Coons and Blackburn, and sponsors Senators Klobuchar and Tillis, for their ongoing efforts to enact this bill,” said Jean Prewitt, President and CEO, IFTA. “This essential legislation establishes a standardized federal solution to prevent the unauthorized exploitation of an individual’s voice, image and likeness, upholds crucial First Amendment safeguards to protect free speech, and includes an important preemption clause.”

    “We view technology as a complement, not a substitute, for human artistry,” said Christian Muirhead, Co-Chairman, WME. “Guardrails must be put into place that ensure continued innovation while protecting our clients’ name, image, likeness, and voice. We thank Senators Coons, Blackburn, Tillis, and Klobuchar for recognizing the urgency of this issue, and will continue to work with them to ensure all artists and our clients remain at the center of this vital legislation.”

    “As advancements in AI continue to move at an unprecedented pace, so too must our legal frameworks. We thank Senators Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar, and Tillis for creating this legislation that ensures artists maintain control over how their name, image, likenesses, voice, and IP are used. These forward-thinking policies are an essential first step to navigating this new digital era, striking a critical balance between innovation and strong protections,” said Bryan Lourd, CEO and Co-Chairman, Creative Artists Agency (CAA).

    “The Human Artistry Campaign stands for preserving essential qualities of all individuals – beginning with a right to your own voice and image. The NO FAKES Act is an important step towards necessary protections that also support free speech and AI development. The Human Artistry Campaign commends Senators Blackburn and Coons and Representatives Salazar, Dean, Moran, and Balint for shepherding bipartisan support for this landmark legislation, a necessity for every American to have a right to their own identity as highly realistic voice clones and deepfakes become more pervasive,” said Dr. Moiya McTier, Human Artistry Campaign Senior Advisor.

    “NAB applauds Senators Blackburn and Coons for reintroducing the NO FAKES Act, which takes an important step toward protecting trusted broadcast journalists, local radio hosts and other on-air personalities from the unauthorized use of their voice, image or likeness. Broadcasters play a vital role in keeping communities informed, and the spread of deceptive deepfakes undermines both individual rights and public trust. This bipartisan bill offers meaningful safeguards while respecting First Amendment protections, and we look forward to working with Congress to advance it,” said the National Association of Broadcasters. 

    “As AI adoption grows, workers whose livelihoods depend on their image face a new frontier of exploitation: their digital replica being used without consent. That’s why the Model Alliance is proud to endorse the NO FAKES Act, which will empower individuals to control their digital likeness,” said Sara Ziff, Founding Director of Model Alliance. “As image-based workers who lack union protection, models are the canary in the coal mine. Federal standards for AI use are urgently needed to protect all individuals, particularly those whose image is their livelihood.”

    “American songwriters and other music creators need Congress to put human beings first and pass laws that ensure transparency, consent, compensation, credit, and global consistency when it comes to generative AI. ASCAP commends this bipartisan group of leaders for introducing legislation that recognizes the value of human creativity to AI development,” said Elizabeth Matthews, CEO of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.

    “NMPA is proud to support the reintroduction of the No Fakes Act. In an era where artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the creative landscape, it is critical that we protect the rights of creators from exploitation, fraud, and misuse. We commend Senators Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar, and Tillis for their leadership in protecting songwriters and artists from illicit theft of their work. By establishing new protections against the harmful use of digital replicas, the No Fakes Act will provide the necessary framework to ensure that AI serves as a tool to enhance creativity rather than undermine the rights of those who create it. We urge the Senate to move swiftly in passing this critical legislation and securing the protections the creative community deserves,” said David Israelite, President and CEO, The National Music Publishers Association. 

    “The NO FAKES Act is an extremely important part of the puzzle in protecting human creators in the age of generative Artificial Intelligence. We applaud Senators Blackburn and Coons for introducing this bill in recognition that it should be a person’s right to protect their own voice and likeness and use it in only the ways they see fit. The Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) strongly supports the NO FAKES Act and urges Congress to pass and enact this legislation expeditiously in the interest of protecting our creators,” said Jennifer Purdon Turnbow, COO of Nashville Songwriters Association International. 

    “The Authors Guild thanks Senators Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, Thom Tillis, and Amy Klobuchar for introducing the NO FAKES Act,” said Mary Rasenberger, CEO, Authors Guild. “It marks a significant step in protecting creators’ rights to their own persona. By prohibiting the unauthorized use of AI-generated replicas in audiovisual and sound recordings and establishing clear legal guidelines and liability for misuse, this bill helps safeguard creators from unauthorized and unpaid uses of their images and voices.”

    “Imagine waking up one morning to find your face or the face of someone you love manipulated into sexually explicit imagery—distributed online for the world to see. This is now the reality we face. The proliferation of nonconsensual digital depictions has exploded online: 98% of deepfake videos online today are pornographic, and 99% of these deepfakes explicitly target women. The NO FAKES Act offers vital relief for victims by providing a path to seek justice through civil remedies,” said Haley McNamara, Senior Vice President of Strategic Initiatives and Programs, National Center on Sexual Exploitation.

    “Representing nearly 30,000 members across all disciplines of the television industry, the Television Academy supports the NO FAKES Act and applauds Senators Coons and Blackburn for working on this important bill. Television is built on the talent, creativity, and hard work of real people – writers, producers, and TV executives to camera operators and cinematographers who bring stories to life. As artificial intelligence and digital replication technologies evolve, it is essential to put in place meaningful protections that prevent the unauthorized and exploitative use of performers’ voices, likenesses, and creative expressions. The Television Academy supports the NO FAKES Act to establish clear federal protections that uphold the rights of television professionals and the creative foundation of the television industry,” said the Television Academy.

    “Senator Blackburn (R) has long been a champion of protecting children and families from the harms of online exploitation and abuse and we proudly support her efforts, as well as her co-sponsor Senator Coons (D) in introducing the bi-partisan NO FAKES Act. As technology evolves exponentially, so do those who exploit these technologies at the expense of others. While artificial intelligence is increasingly relied upon to educate, inform, and create, it can also be used by bad actors to harm through the growing problem of ‘deepfakes’ and fraudulent unauthorized computer generated recreations of an individual’s voice or visual likeness. The NO FAKES Act would protect against such nonconsensual digital replications by providing harmed individuals with the ability to hold civilly liable those responsible for producing and distributing such content as well as the platforms who knowingly host such unauthorized content. AI can be a wonderful tool with vast benefits, but we must guard against its misuse to produce nonconsensual voice or visual replicas! No one is immune and we encourage Congress to move thoughtfully and aggressively forward to pass bi-partisan laws that prioritize the safety of both children and adults in the digital world,” said Donna Rice Hughes, CEO/President of Enough Is Enough.

    “GenerativeAI development is moving at lightning speed, without the guardrails needed to make sure that artists who spend lifetimes developing their art don’t see their livelihoods eaten along with untold harm to America’s creative culture. The NO FAKES Act would arm our community of over 550 independent labels with a new tool to combat the egregious theft of artists’ professional identities by big tech behemoths intent on winning at all costs. We are so thankful to our champions in the House and Senate for introducing the NO FAKES Act today,” said Dr. Richard James Burgess, President and CEO of the American Association of Independent Music. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Justice Department Implements Critical National Security Program to Protect Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries

    Source: US State of California

    Department Answers Frequently Asked Questions, Provides Guidance, and Issues Limited Enforcement Policy for First 90 Days

    Today, the Justice Department took significant steps to move forward with implementing a critical program to prevent China, Russia, Iran, and other foreign adversaries from using commercial activities to access and exploit U.S. government-related data and Americans’ sensitive personal data to commit espionage and economic espionage, conduct surveillance and counterintelligence activities, develop AI and military capabilities, and otherwise undermine our national security.

    The Data Security Program implemented by the National Security Division (NSD) under Executive Order 14117 addresses this “unusual and extraordinary threat…to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” that has been repeatedly recognized across political parties and by all three branches of government.

    The Justice Department’s continued prioritization of the Data Security Program delivers on promises made by President Trump in his America First Investment Policy and NSPM-2 on Imposing Maximum Pressure on Iran, addresses threats identified in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community and President Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy, and responds to the national emergency President Trump declared in Executive Order 13873.

    “If you’re a foreign adversary, why would you go through the trouble of complicated cyber intrusions and theft to get Americans’ data when you can just buy it on the open market or force a company under your jurisdiction to give you access?” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. “The Data Security Program makes getting that data a lot harder.”

    To address this urgent threat, the Data Security Program establishes what are effectively export controls that prevent foreign adversaries, and those subject to their control, jurisdiction, ownership, and direction, from accessing U.S. government-related data and bulk genomic, geolocation, biometric, health, financial, and other sensitive personal data. To assist the public in coming into compliance with the Data Security Program, NSD has issued a Compliance Guide, an initial list of over 100 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and an Implementation and Enforcement Policy for the first 90 days. NSD will be taking additional steps over the coming weeks and months to implement the Data Security Program, including publishing an initial Covered Persons List that identifies and designates persons subject to the control and direction of foreign adversaries. The Data Security Program went into effect on April 8, 2025.

    Newly Issued Guidance and FAQs

    The Data Security Program Compliance Guide identifies and describes best practices for complying with the Data Security Program, thereby mitigating the unacceptable national security risk of enabling countries of concern to access and exploit Americans’ sensitive personal data. The document provides guidance on key definitions, prohibited and restricted transactions, and the requirements for building a robust data compliance program. The Compliance Guide also provides model contractual language and suggests best practices for complying with the Data Security Program’s audit and recordkeeping requirements. It is crucial that U.S. persons familiarize themselves and become prepared to comply with the Data Security Program’s prohibitions and restrictions once they became effective on April 8, 2025.

    The Data Security Program FAQs address high-level clarifications about Executive Order 14117 and provides valuable information about the Data Security Program, its scope, and accompanying processes for requesting licenses and advisory opinions, making disclosures of Data Security Program violations, and reporting rejected prohibited transactions. The FAQs reflect some of the comprehensive feedback and common issues the Department received and addressed through the rulemaking process, both as public comments in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as well as questions delivered during dozens of engagements with individuals, businesses, trade groups, and other stakeholders that were potentially interested in or impacted by the Data Security Program. NSD will update these FAQs as necessary and appropriate to address additional questions raised by the public.

    NSD’s primary mission with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the Data Security Program is to protect U.S. national security from countries of concern that may seek to collect and weaponize Americans’ most sensitive personal data and government-related data. U.S. persons should “know their data” and the front-line role they play in mitigating these risks. As further explained in the Compliance Guide, individuals and entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction, as well as foreign individuals and entities conducting business in or with the United States or with U.S. persons, must comply with the Data Security Program.

    The Compliance Guide and FAQs are explanatory and intended to provide general guidance to regulated parties about compliance with the Data Security Program. Nothing in these documents supplements, modifies, or supersedes the requirements set forth in the Data Security Program. NSD intends to update the FAQs on an ongoing basis as NSD identifies additional questions and responses that should be made public to aid the regulated community in compliance.

    Newly Issued Enforcement Policy for the First 90 Days

    The Data Security Program went into effect on April 8, 2025. Starting April 8, 2025, entities and individuals were required to comply with the Data Security Program’s prohibitions and restrictions on engaging in covered data transactions. To provide additional time for entities and individuals to come into compliance, the Data Security Program delays certain affirmative due-diligence obligations, which do not go into effect until Oct. 6, 2025.

    NSD recognizes that individuals and companies may need to take a number of steps to determine whether the Data Security Program’s prohibitions and restrictions apply to their activities, and to implement changes to their existing policies or to implement new policies and processes to comply.

    To allow the private sector to focus its resources and efforts on promptly coming into compliance and to allow NSD to prioritize its resources on facilitating compliance, NSD will target its enforcement efforts during the first 90 days to allow U.S. persons (e.g., individuals and companies) additional time to implement the changes required by the Data Security Program, provide additional opportunities for the public to engage with NSD, and to minimize potential disruptions for businesses. As explained in NSD’s Data Security Program Implementation and Enforcement Policy Through July 8, 2025, NSD will not prioritize civil enforcement actions against any person for violations of the Data Security Program that occur from April 8 through July 8, 2025, so long as the person is engaging in good faith efforts to comply with or come into compliance with the Data Security Program during that time. These efforts include engaging in compliance activities described in that policy, such as amending or renegotiating existing contracts, conducting internal reviews of data flows, deploying the CISA security requirements, and so on.

    At the end of this 90-day period, individuals, and entities should be in full compliance with the DSP. This policy does not limit NSD’s lawful authority and discretion to pursue civil enforcement if entities and individuals did not engage in good faith efforts to comply with, or come into compliance with, the Data Security Program.

    During this 90-day period, NSD encourages the public to contact NSD at nsd.firs.datasecurity@usdoj.gov with informal inquires or information about the DSP and the guidance NSD has released. Although NSD may not be able to respond to every inquiry, NSD will use its best efforts to respond consistent with available resources, and any inquiries or information submitted may be used to develop and refine future guidance. Correspondingly, NSD discourages the submission of any formal requests for specific licenses or advisory opinions during this 90-day period. Although requests for specific licenses or advisory opinions during this 90-day period can be submitted, NSD will not review or adjudicate those submissions during the 90-day period (absent an emergency or imminent threat to public safety or national security).

    MIL OSI USA News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Justice Department Implements Critical National Security Program to Protect Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries

    Source: United States Attorneys General 11

    Department Answers Frequently Asked Questions, Provides Guidance, and Issues Limited Enforcement Policy for First 90 Days

    Today, the Justice Department took significant steps to move forward with implementing a critical program to prevent China, Russia, Iran, and other foreign adversaries from using commercial activities to access and exploit U.S. government-related data and Americans’ sensitive personal data to commit espionage and economic espionage, conduct surveillance and counterintelligence activities, develop AI and military capabilities, and otherwise undermine our national security.

    The Data Security Program implemented by the National Security Division (NSD) under Executive Order 14117 addresses this “unusual and extraordinary threat…to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” that has been repeatedly recognized across political parties and by all three branches of government.

    The Justice Department’s continued prioritization of the Data Security Program delivers on promises made by President Trump in his America First Investment Policy and NSPM-2 on Imposing Maximum Pressure on Iran, addresses threats identified in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community and President Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy, and responds to the national emergency President Trump declared in Executive Order 13873.

    “If you’re a foreign adversary, why would you go through the trouble of complicated cyber intrusions and theft to get Americans’ data when you can just buy it on the open market or force a company under your jurisdiction to give you access?” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. “The Data Security Program makes getting that data a lot harder.”

    To address this urgent threat, the Data Security Program establishes what are effectively export controls that prevent foreign adversaries, and those subject to their control, jurisdiction, ownership, and direction, from accessing U.S. government-related data and bulk genomic, geolocation, biometric, health, financial, and other sensitive personal data. To assist the public in coming into compliance with the Data Security Program, NSD has issued a Compliance Guide, an initial list of over 100 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and an Implementation and Enforcement Policy for the first 90 days. NSD will be taking additional steps over the coming weeks and months to implement the Data Security Program, including publishing an initial Covered Persons List that identifies and designates persons subject to the control and direction of foreign adversaries. The Data Security Program went into effect on April 8, 2025.

    Newly Issued Guidance and FAQs

    The Data Security Program Compliance Guide identifies and describes best practices for complying with the Data Security Program, thereby mitigating the unacceptable national security risk of enabling countries of concern to access and exploit Americans’ sensitive personal data. The document provides guidance on key definitions, prohibited and restricted transactions, and the requirements for building a robust data compliance program. The Compliance Guide also provides model contractual language and suggests best practices for complying with the Data Security Program’s audit and recordkeeping requirements. It is crucial that U.S. persons familiarize themselves and become prepared to comply with the Data Security Program’s prohibitions and restrictions once they became effective on April 8, 2025.

    The Data Security Program FAQs address high-level clarifications about Executive Order 14117 and provides valuable information about the Data Security Program, its scope, and accompanying processes for requesting licenses and advisory opinions, making disclosures of Data Security Program violations, and reporting rejected prohibited transactions. The FAQs reflect some of the comprehensive feedback and common issues the Department received and addressed through the rulemaking process, both as public comments in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as well as questions delivered during dozens of engagements with individuals, businesses, trade groups, and other stakeholders that were potentially interested in or impacted by the Data Security Program. NSD will update these FAQs as necessary and appropriate to address additional questions raised by the public.

    NSD’s primary mission with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the Data Security Program is to protect U.S. national security from countries of concern that may seek to collect and weaponize Americans’ most sensitive personal data and government-related data. U.S. persons should “know their data” and the front-line role they play in mitigating these risks. As further explained in the Compliance Guide, individuals and entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction, as well as foreign individuals and entities conducting business in or with the United States or with U.S. persons, must comply with the Data Security Program.

    The Compliance Guide and FAQs are explanatory and intended to provide general guidance to regulated parties about compliance with the Data Security Program. Nothing in these documents supplements, modifies, or supersedes the requirements set forth in the Data Security Program. NSD intends to update the FAQs on an ongoing basis as NSD identifies additional questions and responses that should be made public to aid the regulated community in compliance.

    Newly Issued Enforcement Policy for the First 90 Days

    The Data Security Program went into effect on April 8, 2025. Starting April 8, 2025, entities and individuals were required to comply with the Data Security Program’s prohibitions and restrictions on engaging in covered data transactions. To provide additional time for entities and individuals to come into compliance, the Data Security Program delays certain affirmative due-diligence obligations, which do not go into effect until Oct. 6, 2025.

    NSD recognizes that individuals and companies may need to take a number of steps to determine whether the Data Security Program’s prohibitions and restrictions apply to their activities, and to implement changes to their existing policies or to implement new policies and processes to comply.

    To allow the private sector to focus its resources and efforts on promptly coming into compliance and to allow NSD to prioritize its resources on facilitating compliance, NSD will target its enforcement efforts during the first 90 days to allow U.S. persons (e.g., individuals and companies) additional time to implement the changes required by the Data Security Program, provide additional opportunities for the public to engage with NSD, and to minimize potential disruptions for businesses. As explained in NSD’s Data Security Program Implementation and Enforcement Policy Through July 8, 2025, NSD will not prioritize civil enforcement actions against any person for violations of the Data Security Program that occur from April 8 through July 8, 2025, so long as the person is engaging in good faith efforts to comply with or come into compliance with the Data Security Program during that time. These efforts include engaging in compliance activities described in that policy, such as amending or renegotiating existing contracts, conducting internal reviews of data flows, deploying the CISA security requirements, and so on.

    At the end of this 90-day period, individuals, and entities should be in full compliance with the DSP. This policy does not limit NSD’s lawful authority and discretion to pursue civil enforcement if entities and individuals did not engage in good faith efforts to comply with, or come into compliance with, the Data Security Program.

    During this 90-day period, NSD encourages the public to contact NSD at nsd.firs.datasecurity@usdoj.gov with informal inquires or information about the DSP and the guidance NSD has released. Although NSD may not be able to respond to every inquiry, NSD will use its best efforts to respond consistent with available resources, and any inquiries or information submitted may be used to develop and refine future guidance. Correspondingly, NSD discourages the submission of any formal requests for specific licenses or advisory opinions during this 90-day period. Although requests for specific licenses or advisory opinions during this 90-day period can be submitted, NSD will not review or adjudicate those submissions during the 90-day period (absent an emergency or imminent threat to public safety or national security).

    MIL Security OSI –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Canada: Never Again

    Since Oct. 7, 2023, when the Jewish community in Israel faced its largest and most deadly targeted attacks since the Holocaust, antisemitism has been on the rise across Canada and the world. According to Statistics Canada, the Jewish community is the most targeted group for hate crimes in Canada and were the target of 70 per cent of all religion-motivated hate crimes across the country in 2023. B’Nai Brith Canada also recently reported an unprecedented 6,219 antisemitic incidents in Canada last year – the highest number ever documented since the organization started its annual audit in 1982.

    The Holocaust, or Shoah, was one of the darkest chapters in human history, resulting in the targeted deaths of six million Jews – an atrocity that was the ultimate consequence of anti-Jewish hate. Recognizing this as one of history’s most heinous crimes ever committed is critical to ensuring the collective post-war vow of Never Again remains as resolute today as it was 80 years ago. Each spring, the Jewish community recognizes Holocaust Remembrance Day, or Yom HaShoah, reiterating this vow. Fulfilling the vow of Never Again means actively fighting antisemitism, including educating future generations on the dangers of hate.

    “Never again is now. With anti-Jewish hate on the rise in Canada and around the world, it is our responsibility to ensure our children learn the lessons of the past and are ready to stand up against hate today. Antisemitism has no place in our communities and must always be unequivocally condemned. To the Jewish community, you are not alone – Alberta’s government stands in solidarity with you against all forms of hate and oppression.” 

    Jason Nixon, Minister of Seniors, Community and Social Services

    As part of its ongoing commitment to Never Again, Alberta’s government is investing $200,000 to support the Calgary Jewish Federation and Jewish Federation of Edmonton as they work to combat antisemitism. Both federations play an important role in educating Albertans about Jewish culture and building a vibrant, engaged and connected Jewish community in the province. This investment supports the federations’ efforts to fight antisemitism through education and promotion of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. This includes scholarships, educational and training materials for teachers and students, engagement sessions with government and law enforcement agencies, and an Alberta conference focused on antisemitism.

    “The Jewish Federation of Edmonton extends its heartfelt gratitude to the Government of Alberta for their unwavering support of the Jewish community in the face of an alarming rise in antisemitism. This generous grant is a beacon of hope in fostering resilience among Jewish Albertans. We appreciate the Government of Alberta’s strong commitment to addressing antisemitism and demonstrating leadership on this issue.”

    Stacey Leavitt-Wright, CEO, The Jewish Federation of Edmonton

    Over the past several years, Alberta’s government has continued to stand with the Jewish community against antisemitism. Holocaust education is now a mandatory component of the Alberta’s social studies curriculum and Alberta’s government formally endorses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. A variety of programs and supports have also been introduced to help fight hate and bias-motivated crimes across the province. This includes law enforcement resources such as the Hate Crime Coordination Unit and funding for security improvements and risk mitigation so Albertans can gather and worship in peace.

    “Calgary Jewish Federation is deeply grateful to the Government of Alberta for this important support in combating antisemitism. This grant is not only an investment in the safety and well-being of our community, but also a clear statement that hate and intolerance have no place in our province.”

    Rob Nagus, CEO, Calgary Jewish Federation

    Quick facts:

    • The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance formally adopted the following working definition of antisemitism in 2016: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
    • Albertans are encouraged to report antisemitic incidents to B’Nai Brith Canada’s Anti-Hate Hotline at 1-844-218-2624, [email protected], through the Anti-Hate app, or by visiting its website.

    Related information:

    • Statistics Canada’s latest police-reported hate crime data
    • B’Nai Brith Canada’s Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2024
    • B’Nai Brith Canada’s Anti-Hate Hotline

    Related news:

    • Taking a stand against antisemitism (Jan. 27, 2025)
    • Strengthening security for at-risk schools (Dec. 7, 2023)
    • Mandatory Holocaust education for Alberta students (Nov. 10, 2023)
    • Taking a stand against antisemitism (Sept. 23, 2022)

    MIL OSI Canada News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: Why it matters for European security if an American no longer commands Nato troops – by a former Trident submarine commander

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Corbett, Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies, King’s College London

    Gen Christopher Cavoli is due to come to the end of his term as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur) this summer. Since 1951, this post has been filled by American four-star officers, admirals or generals.

    But Cavoli might be the last American in the role, at least for a while. The Trump administration is considering relinquishing this important post as part of a cost-saving US Armed Forces command restructuring exercise and, potentially, as a step back from its leading role in European security since the 1950s. In parallel, the UK and German defence ministers have taken over chairing this week’s Ukraine Defence Contact Group, a gathering of defence ministers from 30 countries, which has previously been chaired by the US defense secretary.

    Cavoli said, during a hearing in the Senate this month, that it would be problematic if the US steps back from its leadership role in Nato. Previous heads of the Nato command have agreed. They’re not wrong. Removing the American Saceur position is not an internal matter like replacing senior officers serving in US posts who do not fit a particular political profile. It would have profound effects on Nato’s military capability and immediately significant and tangible repercussions for alliance deterrence strategy.

    An enemy’s perception of the military capability of Nato forces is a fundamental element of its deterrence strategy. Replacing a US Supreme Commander with a European would inject significant uncertainty into perceptions of US commitment to Nato and could critically undermine that perception of coherent military strength. It would be made to work, but Nato’s deterrence posture would be less convincing, and this is especially important given European concerns about Russian aggression in the region.

    It is not clear yet how the Trump administration’s view of Nato will evolve. Public statements advocating support for Nato contradict private views expressed by his cabinet in the notorious Signal-gate chat. Previous US president, Joe Biden, viewed allies as an unrivalled strength. Trump seems to care little about the impact of his decisions on his allies. Deleting the US Saceur post would emphasise that interpretation and weaken Nato deterrence at a critical moment in its relations with Russia.

    What’s the history?

    Trump is not the first US president to make a foreign policy shift away from Europe. President Barack Obama announced a pivot to Asia in November 2011. This focus on China as a “pacing threat” offering major challenges to the US has persisted.

    It manifests itself under Trump as a transactional demand on European allies to contribute more to Nato so the US can release resources to focus on the Pacific, potentially redeploying personnel and capabilities there. Trump has never concealed his disdain for Nato, often wondering what its benefit for the US was. Much of this rhetoric may be for his domestic audience, but it negatively affects international perceptions of Nato’s power.

    The idea of a European Saceur has also been proposed before, including by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger in 1984. That proposal was made at a low point of the cold war and Kissinger’s rationale was political. European military leadership would force European political leaders to acknowledge their responsibilities for Nato nuclear policy.

    Cavoli questioned by US senators.

    Political control of military force is, of course, important for any democratic state. Saceur reports to the North Atlantic Council (the NAC, Nato’s highest body) which comprises ambassadors from every member country. Its chair, the secretary-general, is always a European (or Canadian), and the deputy secretary-general is always an American.

    The highest level of military command authority, the ability to organise and employ commands and forces to accomplish assigned missions, is known in the US as Combatant Command (COCOM). Most Nato states retain the COCOM equivalent but delegate the next lower level of command; Operational Command (OPCOM) to Nato commanders.

    Issues at stake

    US domestic law requires COCOM to be exercised over US forces – but only by US officers. This authority cannot be delegated. An American Supreme Commander Europe exercises operational command over all forces assigned to Nato, but a European leader in the same role could exercise only a much more restrictive level of authority over assigned US forces. There is dispensation for an exception to this to meet an attack on Nato, but not for training exercises. Unity of command is challenging enough in multi-national operations, even after 75 years of training, so this is a major obstacle.

    Another issue is that the authority to release all US nuclear weapons is retained by the US president. Accordingly, every key post in the Nato nuclear operations chain is held by a US official. A Nato request for a nuclear strike is made to the US president through Saceur. It is not clear how this would work if Saceur were no longer American. This is one of the major potential obstacles ahead of any decision to move the command to a European.

    And here’s another. In a crisis, Nato would plan to deploy 30 army divisions (of 15,000 personnel each), 30 squadrons of fighter aircraft and 30 combat warships from across the alliance within 30 days. Any Supreme Commander Europe would have to command international forces numbering hundreds of thousands of personnel. There are very few (if any) European officers who could credibly claim to be suitably experienced to replace Cavoli. No British officer has commanded even one deployed division since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    But by the summer if Cavoli is replaced by a European, Nato needs to have most of these thorny issues resolved, or at least come up with plans on how to do so, or create significant risks for European security. For now, this is not looking simple at all.

    Andrew Corbett 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. Why it matters for European security if an American no longer commands Nato troops – by a former Trident submarine commander – https://theconversation.com/why-it-matters-for-european-security-if-an-american-no-longer-commands-nato-troops-by-a-former-trident-submarine-commander-254122

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: DelBene, Ways & Means Democrats Introduce Bill to End Trump’s Trade War Chaos

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Suzan DelBene (1st District of Washington)

    Today, Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Member Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Ranking Member Richard Neal (MA-01), Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Linda Sánchez (CA-38), along with all Ways and Means Committee Democrats introduced the Stopping a Rogue President on Trade Act, a bill to end the constant chaos created by President Trump’s trade wars and reclaim Congress’ authority over tariffs.

    “Trade policy should support American families, workers, and small businesses and not be wielded as a political weapon. This legislation once again reasserts that the president does not have the power to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs, and tightens existing loopholes to ensure no president can violate our constitution moving forward,” said DelBene. “For communities in Washington, where trade-dependent businesses drive our local economy, this bill brings much-needed stability and ensures our trade policy reflects long-term economic interests, not political whims.” 

    “President Trump’s reckless abuse of tariffs has sparked nothing but chaos,” said Sánchez. “American families have been anxiously bracing for rising costs and small businesses are worried they won’t survive the economic strain – all while the president flip-flops on tariffs at a whim, doing backroom deals and keeping negotiations out of the public eye. It’s time to end this madness. Congress must step in and take the trade keys away from our rogue president and protect the American people.”

    “Over the years, Congress has entrusted more and more authority over trade to the Executive Branch, and recent events have made it clear we must reclaim that authority,” said Neal. “This president is willing to call anything an emergency to justify his every chaotic whim. The American people deserve better—they deserve stability and forethought. That’s why I’m proud to support Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Sánchez’s legislation that will deliver just that.”

    The Stopping a Rogue President on Trade Act would:

    • Turn off the global tariffs imposed on April 2: The bill would permanently turn off the new baseline tariffs of 10 percent for all countries as well as the massive increases in tariffs for 60 trading partners, such as Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Kenya. This would return most rates to the levels they were before the president’s tariff spree.
    • Turn off the tariffs imposed by executive order for Mexico and Canada: The president should not be able to use congressional trade authorities to extort our closest allies. If there are trade issues with those two countries, then there is a process in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that President Trump negotiated, and Congress authorized.
    • Require congressional approval for all new tariffs: The Constitution gives Congress the authority over trade. Getting a vote on tariff actions should not be held hostage to political whim; votes would be treated as privileged measures that ensures that the American people get to have their say. Apolitical tariff actions – like trade remedies, safeguards and trade agreement dispute settlement – are already insulated from partisan abuse and would not require a congressional vote under the bill.

    The bill is cosponsored by Representatives Linda Sánchez (CA-38), Richard Neal (MA-01), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Mike Thompson (CA-04), John Larson (CT-01), Danny Davis (IL-07), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Judy Chu (CA-28), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Brendan Boyle (PA-02), Don Beyer (VA-08), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Brad Schneider (IL-10), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Steven Horsford (NV-04), Stacey Plaskett (VI-at Large), Tom Suozzi (NY-03) and Adam Gray (CA-13).

    A copy of the bill text can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA News: The State of Play: Why President Trump’s Tariffs Are Necessary

    Source: The White House

    It’s cliché, yet true — the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and expecting a different result.

    The trade policies of the past several decades have failed this nation, its workers, and our communities.

    Twenty years ago, The New York Times Editorial Board responded to the January 2005 trade deficit of $58.3 billion by writing an editorial entitled “Dangerous deficits.” Deficits are certainly dangerous; former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said trade deficits were to blame for the Great Recession.

    The Times wrote in 2005: “At $58.3 billion, the U.S. trade deficit for January exceeded everyone’s worst expectations… The trade deficit is the single most important factor in measuring the extent to which the United States lives beyond its means.”

    Since then, our trade deficit has more than DOUBLED. The U.S. trade deficit in January totaled a whopping $131.4 billion.

    The impact has been seen everywhere.

    Since 1990, manufacturing employment has decreased by 59% in New York and decreased by 35% in Ohio.

    The loss of these jobs killed innocent Americans and destroyed towns. Multiple studies show the loss of jobs due to bad trade deals led to an increase in drug overdoses.

    However, liberal commentators have lost interest in fixing this problem. In fact, they are offended at the suggestion that industry should return to America.

    Chris Matthews was inexplicably stunned on MSNBC and asked, “What are we going to do? Have more lumber made in the United States now!?” Yes, we are. President Donald J. Trump even signed an executive order to expand American timber production.

    Likewise, Nia Malika-Henderson on CNN ridiculously asked, “Is it worth it to upend the global economy for HVAC jobs?” Apparently, Nia Malika-Henderson thinks preserving low-wage jobs in China is more important than creating high-wage jobs in America.

    The loss of American industry means we struggle to build ships, medicine, and other essential goods. This is a national security emergency.

    Fortunately, we are already seeing progress in reshoring American industry. President Trump remains undeterred in his mission to Make America Wealthy Again.

    • Guardian Bikes announced it is launching the “first large-scale bicycle frame manufacturing operation in the United States.”
    • Novartis announced “it plans to spend $23 billion to build and expand 10 facilities in the U.S.”
    • Chocolate maker Barry Callebaut announced it is increasing its U.S.-based production.
    • JSW Steel announced it will be adding jobs at its Ohio steel plant.
    • BMW is considering adding shifts to boost production at its South Carolina plant.
    • Apple announced a $500 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing and training.
    • Nvidia announced it will invest hundreds of billions of dollars over the next four years in U.S.-based manufacturing.
    • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) announced a $100 billion investment in U.S.-based chips manufacturing.
    • Eli Lilly and Company announced a $27 billion investment in domestic manufacturing.
    • United Arab Emirates-based DAMAC Properties announced a $20 billion investment in new U.S.-based data centers.
    • France-based CMA CGM, a global shipping giant, announced a $20 billion investment in U.S. shipping and logistics, creating 10,000 new jobs.
    • United Arab Emirates-based ADQ and U.S.-based Energy Capital Partners announced a $25 billion investment in U.S. data centers and energy infrastructure.
    • South Korean automaker Hyundai announced a $20 billion investment — including $5.8 billion for a new steel plant in Louisiana, which will create nearly 1,500 jobs, amid their pledge to “further localize production in the U.S.”
    • Merck announced it will invest $8 billion in the U.S. over the next several years after opening a new $1 billion North Carolina manufacturing facility.
    • Clarios announced a $6 billion plan to expand its domestic manufacturing operations.
    • GE Aerospace announced a $1 billion investment in manufacturing across 16 states — creating 5,000 new jobs.
    • Stellantis announced a $5 billion investment in its U.S. manufacturing network — including re-opening an Illinois manufacturing plant — as it pledges to increase domestic vehicle production.
    • Schneider Electric announced it will invest $700 million over the next four years in U.S. energy infrastructure.
    • GE Vernova announced it will invest nearly $600 million in U.S. manufacturing over the next two years, which will create more than 1,500 new jobs.
    • London-based Diageo announced a $415 million investment in a new Alabama manufacturing facility.
    • Dublin-based Eaton Corporation announced a $340 million investment in a new South Carolina-based manufacturing facility for its three-phase transformers.
    • Germany-based Siemens announced a $285 million investment in U.S. manufacturing and AI data centers, which will create more than 900 new skilled manufacturing jobs.
    • Paris Baguette announced a $160 million investment to construct a manufacturing plant in Texas.
    • Switzerland-based ABB announced a $120 million investment to expand production of its low-voltage electrification products in Tennessee and Mississippi.
    • Saica Group, a Spain-based corrugated packaging maker, announced plans to build a $110 million new manufacturing facility in Anderson, Indiana.
    • Paris-based Saint-Gobain announced a new $40 million NorPro manufacturing facility in Wheatfield, New York.
    • India-based Sygene International announced a $36.5 million acquisition of a Baltimore biologics manufacturing facility.
    • Asahi Group Holdings, one of the largest Japanese beverage makers, announced a $35 million investment to boost production at its Wisconsin plant.
    • Honda is expected to produce its next-generation Civic hybrid model in Indiana.
    • Nissan is considering moving production from Mexico to the U.S.
    • Rolls-Royce is expected to shift production to the U.S. and expand its domestic workforce.
    • Volkswagen is considering shifting production of the high-end Audi and Porsche brands to the U.S.
    • Volvo is considering expanding its U.S.-based output.
    • LG is considering moving its refrigerator manufacturing from Mexico to Tennessee.
    • Italian spirits group Campari is “assessing the opportunities to expand its production in the U.S.”
    • Swedish hygiene product manufacturer Essity is considering shifting production to the U.S.
    • Taiwan-based Compal Electronics is considering a U.S.-based expansion.
    • Taiwan-based Inventec is expected to expand its manufacturing operations into Texas.
    • LVMH, a French luxury giant, is “seriously considering” an expansion to its U.S.-based production capabilities.
    • Cra-Z-Art, the biggest toymaker in the U.S., said it will move a “large percentage” of its China-based manufacturing back home.
    • Prepac, a Canadian furniture manufacturer, announced it will move production from Canada to the U.S.
    • Lear is considering moving its production to the U.S.
    • Half of Japanese companies say they’ll boost U.S. investment, largely due to tariffs.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: Why it matters for European security if an American no longer commands Nato troops – by a former Trident sub commander

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Corbett, Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies, King’s College London

    Gen Christopher Cavoli is due to come to the end of his term as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur) this summer. Since 1951, this post has been filled by American four-star officers, admirals or generals.

    But Cavoli might be the last American in the role, at least for a while. The Trump administration is considering relinquishing this important post as part of a cost-saving US Armed Forces command restructuring exercise and, potentially, as a step back from its leading role in European security since the 1950s. In parallel, the UK and German defence ministers have taken over chairing this week’s Ukraine Defence Contact Group, a gathering of defence ministers from 30 countries, which has previously been chaired by the US defense secretary.

    Cavoli said, during a hearing in the Senate this month, that it would be problematic if the US steps back from its leadership role in Nato. Previous heads of the Nato command have agreed. They’re not wrong. Removing the American Saceur position is not an internal matter like replacing senior officers serving in US posts who do not fit a particular political profile. It would have profound effects on Nato’s military capability and immediately significant and tangible repercussions for alliance deterrence strategy.

    An enemy’s perception of the military capability of Nato forces is a fundamental element of its deterrence strategy. Replacing a US Supreme Commander with a European would inject significant uncertainty into perceptions of US commitment to Nato and could critically undermine that perception of coherent military strength. It would be made to work, but Nato’s deterrence posture would be less convincing, and this is especially important given European concerns about Russian aggression in the region.

    It is not clear yet how the Trump administration’s view of Nato will evolve. Public statements advocating support for Nato contradict private views expressed by his cabinet in the notorious Signal-gate chat. Previous US president, Joe Biden, viewed allies as an unrivalled strength. Trump seems to care little about the impact of his decisions on his allies. Deleting the US Saceur post would emphasise that interpretation and weaken Nato deterrence at a critical moment in its relations with Russia.

    What’s the history?

    Trump is not the first US president to make a foreign policy shift away from Europe. President Barack Obama announced a pivot to Asia in November 2011. This focus on China as a “pacing threat” offering major challenges to the US has persisted.

    It manifests itself under Trump as a transactional demand on European allies to contribute more to Nato so the US can release resources to focus on the Pacific, potentially redeploying personnel and capabilities there. Trump has never concealed his disdain for Nato, often wondering what its benefit for the US was. Much of this rhetoric may be for his domestic audience, but it negatively affects international perceptions of Nato’s power.

    The idea of a European Saceur has also been proposed before, including by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger in 1984. That proposal was made at a low point of the cold war and Kissinger’s rationale was political. European military leadership would force European political leaders to acknowledge their responsibilities for Nato nuclear policy.

    Cavoli questioned by US senators.

    Political control of military force is, of course, important for any democratic state. Saceur reports to the North Atlantic Council (the NAC, Nato’s highest body) which comprises ambassadors from every member country. Its chair, the secretary-general, is always a European (or Canadian), and the deputy secretary-general is always an American.

    The highest level of military command authority, the ability to organise and employ commands and forces to accomplish assigned missions, is known in the US as Combatant Command (COCOM). Most Nato states retain the COCOM equivalent but delegate the next lower level of command; Operational Command (OPCOM) to Nato commanders.

    Issues at stake

    US domestic law requires COCOM to be exercised over US forces – but only by US officers. This authority cannot be delegated. An American Supreme Commander Europe exercises operational command over all forces assigned to Nato, but a European leader in the same role could exercise only a much more restrictive level of authority over assigned US forces. There is dispensation for an exception to this to meet an attack on Nato, but not for training exercises. Unity of command is challenging enough in multi-national operations, even after 75 years of training, so this is a major obstacle.

    Another issue is that the authority to release all US nuclear weapons is retained by the US president. Accordingly, every key post in the Nato nuclear operations chain is held by a US official. A Nato request for a nuclear strike is made to the US president through Saceur. It is not clear how this would work if Saceur were no longer American. This is one of the major potential obstacles ahead of any decision to move the command to a European.

    And here’s another. In a crisis, Nato would plan to deploy 30 army divisions (of 15,000 personnel each), 30 squadrons of fighter aircraft and 30 combat warships from across the alliance within 30 days. Any Supreme Commander Europe would have to command international forces numbering hundreds of thousands of personnel. There are very few (if any) European officers who could credibly claim to be suitably experienced to replace Cavoli. No British officer has commanded even one deployed division since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    But by the summer if Cavoli is replaced by a European, Nato needs to have most of these thorny issues resolved, or at least come up with plans on how to do so, or create significant risks for European security. For now, this is not looking simple at all.

    Andrew Corbett 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. Why it matters for European security if an American no longer commands Nato troops – by a former Trident sub commander – https://theconversation.com/why-it-matters-for-european-security-if-an-american-no-longer-commands-nato-troops-by-a-former-trident-sub-commander-254122

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: UN refugee agency calls for greater investment in Syrian returnees

    Source: United Nations 2

    11 April 2025 Migrants and Refugees

    Roughly 400,000 Syrians have returned home from the region since the fall of the Assad regime last December, while more than a million internally displaced persons (IDPs) have gone back to their communities. 

    The estimates are from the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, which on Friday called for increased funding to support Syrian returnees as needs intensify at a time when aid budgets globally are being slashed.

    “Since the fall of the Assad regime, returning home and starting anew has become a possibility for Syrians,” said UNHCR spokesperson Céline Schmitt, speaking from Damascus to journalists in Geneva.

    “With investment in aid and early recovery, we can create opportunities and keep up the hope of Syrians,” she insisted. “Seizing this opportunity is our collective responsibility.”

    ‘Window of opportunity’

    Ms. Schmitt said that “as the school year ends, summer will be a critical moment for voluntary returns and a window of opportunity that should not be missed.”

    Syrians will need support in the areas of shelter, livelihoods, protection and legal assistance, for returns to be successful and sustainable.  

    “The risk is that, without adequate funding, the projected 1.5 million returns this year may not happen, and those who do return may have no other choice but to leave again,” she warned.

    Invest in returns

    Therefore, support for UNHCR and other humanitarian actors is crucial for stability, she said, in the face of severe funding cuts which are putting millions of lives at risk.

    Currently, nearly 16.7 million people inside Syria – about 90 per cent of the population – require some form of humanitarian assistance. Over 7.4 million Syrians are still displaced within the country.

    “Now is the time to invest in facilitating the return of refugees who have been waiting years for this moment,” she said.

    Aid cuts threaten operations

    In January, UNHCR launched an operational framework to help 1.5 million refugees and two million IDPs return home this year. Although $575 million is required, only $71 million has been pledged to date.

    Ms. Schmitt noted that this is happening amidst a significant reduction in donor funding between 2024 and 2025.

    “These cuts are impacting our workforce, which will shrink by 30 per cent inside Syria, significantly affecting our ability to provide critical support,” she said.

    Additionally, lack of proper funding could force UNHCR to pause some of its life-saving activities. The agency supports 122 community centres and 44 per cent will have to close by the summer. 

    The centres provide critical aid such as mental health support, legal assistance, prevention of gender-based violence and mine awareness education. 

    “They also foster social cohesion, and their closure will impact returnees and their communities as well as UNHCR’s local partners,” she added.

    Appeal to donors

    Ms. Schmitt said that despite these difficult and unprecedented times, UNHCR is committed to staying and delivering in Syria, urging donors to “make an extra effort in spite of the global economic challenges.”

    She also appealed “to wealthy countries who have not been contributing” to support effort to ensure the safe and dignified return of Syrian refugees, stressing that “it is crucial not to miss this historic opportunity.”

    Online support 

    UNHCR has launched a digital platform called  Syria is Home to provide timely and impartial information on the return process including legal steps, identification documents, access to housing, health care, education and more. 

    Under Frequently asked questions (FAQs), Syrians can get guidance on renewing identity documents, support to repair destroyed or damaged homes and accessing legal aid and counselling support.

    The platform, which is continuously updated, aims to provide credible and up-to-date information to help people make informed decisions, plan for their future and remain hopeful.  

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Sciences Po hosts the Paris Dialogue on the Future of Higher Education

    Source: Universities – Science Po in English

    Luis Vassy (Sciences Po), Shalini Randeria (CEU), Cornelia Woll (Hertie School), Daniel Jutras (University of Montreal), Paris Dialogue on the Future of Higher Education, 10 April 2025. (credits: Clara Dufour / Sciences Po)

    At a time of rapidly evolving political and geopolitical context, coupled with structural transformations related to new technologies and ecological transition, higher education is at a crossroads.

    We are in a historically significant moment for education, a moment to reflect and engage on the role of universities. Over the past year, following 7 October 2023 and the conflict in Gaza, a question has been critical for universities : should we take positions ? How can we protect freedom of expression for our communities (students, professors, researchers) and our core mission of science and knowledge transmission at once ?

    Jeremy Perelman, Vice-President for International Affairs, Sciences Po

    In response, many leading academic institutions around the world are faced with the need to:

    •  re-emphasise their foundational role in and value for democratic societies,
    • clarify the core principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech within universities,
    • defend their economic and institutional models.

    To explore these pressing challenges, Sciences Po hosted the first Paris Dialogue on the Future of Higher Education on 10 April.

    Following the recent publication of a report and the adoption by Sciences Po of its doctrine on institutional positioning, this first edition closed with a public roundtable on the protection of academic freedoms as a key challenge for the future of higher education, involving presidents and provosts of 5 leading international academic institutions.

    (credits: Clara Dufour / Sciences Po)

    I am very grateful for Sciences Po to have initiated this dialogue, because our common mission of producing and disseminating new knowledge relies heavily on collaboration. In recent months, we have faced similar challenges, which makes this discussion particularly valuable. At my own university, our faculty senate adopted a position that prevents the institution from making official statements on political or social issues. My view is that generating new knowledge requires a wide diversity of perspectives, rather than adherence to any form of institutional orthodoxy. Ideas that eventually prove to be true often appear unorthodox – even heretical – at first. This is precisely why it is essential to allow all viewpoints to be expressed. Suppressing ideas hinders scientific progress and the advancement of knowledge.

    Jennifer Martinez, Provost, Stanford University

    Over the past year, all universities have reached roughly the same conclusion, and I feel quite confident that it is the right position, even though it can be difficult to uphold. At its heart, this position is about preserving everyone’s freedom – the freedom to teach, to learn, to exchange ideas, to express oneself, and to conduct research. If the university, as an institution, adopts an official stance, our scholars and students who hold differing views may find their ability to express those opinions constrained. Universities are a special kind of institution with a unique role in society, and this role must be protected by ensuring the conditions in which our communities can freely exchange ideas and perspectives.

    Larry Kramer, President, London School of Economics

    In this panel of universities, we find that many of our challenges are shared. We have an educational mission, and we firmly believe that there is nothing more important than this: the task of reinventing leadership – leadership that is responsible and accountable. If you, as students, want to bring about change in the world, if you want to make a real difference, you must be able to share your ideas. Our role – our mission of supreme interest – is to create the processes and conditions that allow you to express your views and share your knowledge. What we produce as universities holds huge value. And the only way to defend that value is to start fighting for our universities with the same urgency and determination we would show in defending any vital asset – one that can be lost or destroyed. We must prevent the destruction of the most precious thing we create: knowledge.

    Cornelia Woll, President, Hertie School of Governance

    Universities’ involvement in public affairs should be limited to defending academic freedom and upholding the university’s core mission. This creates space within the institution for all viewpoints to be expressed and for all conversations to take place – something that is vital to the health of our academic communities. Academic freedom stands on two pillars: institutional restraint and the protection of free expression for individuals. These two principles go hand in hand, enabling our communities of scholars and students to teach, learn, and conduct research freely.

    Daniel Jutras, Rector, University of Montreal

    Historically, our university was forced to relocate twice due to autocratic regimes that did not respect academic freedom. We therefore understand the need to protect ourselves from political agendas within our own countries. I think we also need to think about academic freedom internationally : it is our responsibility to safeguard our students and researchers when they are abroad. Academic freedom includes ensuring that our academic communities are free to study and conduct research across borders. One of our students was recently imprisoned in Egypt for social media posts critical of the regime. The university intervened and secured his release, but I fear that in the years ahead, we will see more such cases. We must begin to think and act collectively to develop stronger legal protections for academic freedom on an international scale.

    Shalini Randeria, Rector, Central European University 

    A university is a marketplace of ideas. Ideas must be able to express themselves and circulate freely, to challenge the prevailing consensus and go towards progress. Any stance taken by the institution may have the unintended effect of altering the freedom of expression of those whose opinions diverge from the official line. Protecting academic freedom is essential not only to protect academics or academic institutions but also to guarantee the quality of research, its open, critical inquisitiveness – even when it’s uncomfortable –  and the many benefits it brings to society. 

    Luis Vassy, President, Sciences Po

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Gaza: UN rights office condemns Israeli buffer zone plan

    Source: United Nations 2

    11 April 2025 Peace and Security

    The UN human rights office said on Friday it fears that Israel may intend to permanently remove civilians in Gaza as part of an expanded buffer zone, amid evacuations orders and escalating bombardment.

    Hostilities in the Gaza Strip resumed mid-March following the collapse of the ceasefire and Israel’s border closure.

    As it enters its sixth week, the denial of aid into the enclave has left more than 2.1 million Gazans trapped without access to food, drinking water, and basic services.

    Israel in recent weeks has ramped up its attacks on civilian infrastructure such as  residential buildings and camps, leaving many more dead or missing under the rubble.  

    Between March 18 and April 9, Israeli forces have struck housing and tents for internally displaced people (IDPs) on 224 occasions during 36 separate strikes, according to the UN rights office, OHCHR.  

    ‘Forcible transfer’

    Ms. Shamdasani also highlighted the growing trend in attacks against media workers, reporting that at least 209 journalists have been killed in Gaza since the deadly Hamas-led terror attacks of October 2023, as Israel continues to deny international media entry into the Strip.

    The OHCHR spokesperson acknowledged that the temporary evacuation of civilians in certain areas can be legal, under strict conditions.

    But “the nature and scope of the evacuation orders raises serious concerns that Israel intends permanently to remove the civilian population from these areas in order to create a so-called buffer zone”, she said.  

    “Permanently displacing the civilian population within occupied territory amounts to forcible transfer, which is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a crime against humanity.”

    War crimes

    Combatants need to demonstrate compliance with the rules of war, particularly the principles of distinction – meaning defenceless civilians should not be targeted – as well as proportionality and precaution.

    “Intentionally directing attacks against civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities constitutes a war crime, further compounding the desperate conditions for Palestinian civilians,” Ms. Shamdasani said.

    OHCHR has also repeatedly warned that collective punishment and the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of war, constitute crimes under international law.

    Ms. Shamdasani also stressed that her office was “seriously concerned that Israel appears to be inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza, conditions of life increasingly incompatible with their continued existence as a group”.

    © WHO

    Women wait to receive food at a distribution point in Gaza City.

    Supplies pile up

    With stocks of drugs sharply declining, medicines and other essential supplies have been piling up at the shuttered border crossings.  

    Almost 36 million tons of supplies in Dubai are on standby for entry into the enclave, according to Dr. Rik Peeperkorn, World Health Organization Representative (WHO) for the West Bank and Gaza.

    Medical evacuations for patients in need of urgent treatment have slowed significantly. Likewise, the number of international emergency medical teams deployed has dropped, depriving hospitals of the help they crucially need, “because the caseload is immense”, Dr. Peeperkorn stressed.

    “We urgently call for the immediate resumption of medical evacuation through all possible routes, particularly restoring the medical referral pathway to the West Bank and Jerusalem.” 

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: What is a ‘revisionist’ state, and what are they trying to revise?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Latham, Professor of Political Science, Macalester College

    A meeting of top diplomats from China, Iran and Russia – three so-called revisionist powers. Photo by Getty Images

    Once upon a time, “revisionist power” was a term reserved for nations trying to overturn the postwar liberal order – the usual suspects being countries like Russia, China or Iran.

    But lately, that concept is starting to fray. When Beijing’s top diplomat says the United States is the one disrupting global stability, and respected analysts argue that Washington itself is acting like a revisionist state, the label suddenly looks a lot less tidy.

    And yet the term is everywhere – in think tank reports, in political speeches, in headlines about political hot spots.

    But what does revisionist really mean? And why should we care?

    The roots of ‘revisionism’

    At its core, “revisionist power” is a label applied to nations that want to change the way the world is ordered. The concept dates back to the period between the two world wars, when it described countries opposing the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I. Political scientist Hans Morgenthau later distinguished between status quo powers and those seeking to overturn the balance of power.

    The label itself was popularized in the mid-20th century, especially through A.F.K. Organski’s 1958 work on power transition, which defined revisionist powers as those dissatisfied with the existing order and determined to reshape it.

    The change desired by nations can take many forms: redrawing borders, rebalancing regional power balances or creating alternative rules, norms and institutions to the ones that currently structure international politics. The key is that revisionists nations aren’t just unhappy with specific policies – they’re dissatisfied with the broader system and want to reshape it in fundamental ways.

    The concept comes out of the realist tradition in international relations, which sees the world as an arena of power politics.

    In that framework, countries operate in an anarchic international system with no higher authority to enforce the rules. The most powerful nations construct or impose a particular set of rules, norms and institutions on the international system, creating an order that reflects their values and serves their interests.

    Revisionism in action

    In this tradition, status quo powers benefit from the system and want to keep it more or less as it is. But revisionist powers see the system as constraining or unjust – and seek to alter it.

    This doesn’t always mean war or open confrontation. Revisionism isn’t inherently aggressive, nor is it always destabilizing. It simply describes a nation’s support for or opposition to the prevailing international order. How that desire is expressed can include diplomacy, economic coercion or even armed conflict.

    Consider Russia. Its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 were not just violations of international law – they were clear efforts to overturn the post-Cold War, NATO-based security order in Europe. Russia was not lashing out at individual policies; it was challenging – or seeking to revise – the legitimacy of the existing system.

    China presents a different kind of case. Beijing has made use of existing international institutions and benefited enormously from global trade, but it’s also been building alternatives, including regional banks, trade blocs and digital infrastructure designed to reduce dependence on Western systems. China’s expanding presence in the South China Sea, its pressure on Taiwan and its desire to shape global norms on everything from human rights to internet governance point to a broader effort to revise the current order – though more gradually than Russia’s approach.

    Iran, meanwhile, operates mostly at the regional level. Through its support for proxy groups like Hezbollah, its influence in Iraq and Yemen, and its confrontational stance toward Israel and the Gulf monarchies, Iran has long sought to reshape the Middle East’s power dynamics. It’s not trying to rewrite the entire international system, but it’s certainly revisionist in the region.

    A loaded term

    Of course, calling a nation “revisionist” is not a neutral act. It reflects a judgment about whose vision of world order is legitimate and whose is not. A rising power might see itself as correcting historical imbalances, not disrupting stability. The term can be useful, but it can also obscure as much as it reveals.

    Still, the label captures something real – though maybe not as cleanly as it used to. Much of today’s geopolitical tension does hinge on a basic divide: Some nations want to preserve the existing order, and others want to reshape it. But it’s no longer obvious who belongs in which camp.

    Now, when the U.S. sidelines institutions it once championed, imposes extraterritorial sanctions or pushes for new tech and trade regimes that bypass rivals, it starts to blur the line between defender and challenger of the status quo.

    Maybe the more useful question now isn’t just which great power is revisionist – but whether any of them are still committed to the post-World War II international order created in the U.S.’s image.

    This article is part of a series explaining foreign policy terms commonly used, but rarely explained.

    Andrew Latham 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. What is a ‘revisionist’ state, and what are they trying to revise? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-revisionist-state-and-what-are-they-trying-to-revise-252966

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: Pikachu protesters, Studio Ghibli memes and the subversive power of cuteness

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yii-Jan Lin, Associate Professor of New Testament, Yale University

    The Pokémon character Pikachu has become the unofficial symbol of the opposition to Turkish President Recep Erdogan. Pat Batard/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images

    In Antalya, Turkey, in the early hours of March 27, 2025, Pikachu was spotted fleeing the police, making a getaway as fast as his short yellow legs could waddle.

    The person dressed as the popular Pokémon character had been objecting to the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, whose political party later posted on X, “Pepper spray, which even affects Pikachu, won’t do anything to you or me! #ResistPikachu.”

    At the same time, the internet was having a field day with another stalwart of Japanese anime, deploying generative AI to infuse famous memes, family portraits and movie scenes with a patina of cuteness by recasting them in the style of the Japanese animation company Studio Ghibli.

    Never mind that Studio Ghibli director and founder Hayao Miyazaki famously denounced AI-generated art as “an insult to life itself.” Both the Pikachu protester and the viral Studio Ghibli-esque animations demonstrate the global appeal of cuteness.

    But to me, there’s more to cute than its ability to go viral.

    Cuteness can be used politically. It can highlight injustices against the vulnerable, and it can boost support of the underdog.

    It’s a form of soft power in the truest sense of the term.

    Asia embraces the cute

    As a Taiwanese American, I’ve been a lifelong fan of the cuteness that’s part of East Asian cultures: cute cartoon characters, cute stationery and even cute-looking food.

    Now I study cuteness: what makes something “cute,” and how it operates in culture and politics.

    Many well-known, cute, pop culture characters and products can be traced to Japan, particularly after World War II, when Japanese animation – known as anime – and a style of Japanese comics called manga became popular.

    Their narratives and aesthetics spoke to a country still reeling from devastation wrought by the atomic bombs and the humiliation of U.S. occupation.

    Anime and manga imagined both dystopian and utopian futures, using stories that were nostalgic, upsetting, or a blend of both to process collective trauma.

    In many cases, cute characters guided viewers and readers through grief, guilt and loss. For example, the manga “Barefoot Gen” details the adventures of 6-year-old Gen after he survives the bombing of Hiroshima. Likewise, Studio Ghibli’s “Grave of the Fireflies” tells the story of two young siblings, Seita and Setsuko, who face starvation after the bombing of Kobe in the waning days of World War II. They’re drawn with large eyes and expressive faces, evoking innocence and powerlessness.

    The trailer for Studio Ghibli’s ‘Grave of the Fireflies.’

    Both Studio Ghibli and the Pokémon franchise emerged in the latter half of the 20th century, along with other titans of cuteness, such as Hello Kitty – she just celebrated her 50th birthday – Doraemon, and popular Nintendo characters Kirby and Yoshi.

    Cuteness now dominates East Asian cultures.

    Cute mascots such as Tencent’s QQ Penguin hawk products in China; popular cartoon characters plaster the sides of Japanese trains; and Taipei’s subway cards come in the shape of pink bunnies and miniature rice cookers.

    In Japan, the term “kawaii” refers to the lovable and cute. This includes not only cartoon characters and plush dolls, but also clothing and even speech, such as talking with a pout or in a childlike voice.

    Across Asia, you can see cuteness celebrated in the way people flash heart symbols with their fingers – a gesture originating in South Korea – and you can hear it in the way celebrities sometimes speak with a baby voice, puff out their cheeks or bat their eyelashes.

    Characters often express themselves in cute ways on television shows in Korea, where it’s called ‘aegyo.’

    Softening the blows

    Cuteness has a place in American culture. But it has nowhere near the cultural cachet that it has in Asia.

    Yet to me, the Studio Ghibli memes that swept American social media platforms revealed a widespread longing for tenderness at a time when the world seems particularly harsh, violent and unpredictable.

    Theorist Sianne Ngai has argued that cuteness is usually based on the power differential between the observer and the cute object: A small kitten, a stuffed animal or a cooing baby are cute, in part, because they’re so vulnerable.

    I think that’s why the White House’s efforts to join in on the Ghibli memes fell flat. Its X account posted a Ghibli-esque image of a Dominican woman crying while being handcuffed by an ICE agent. The depiction generated outrage.

    The cartoon imagines that the audience would revel in punching down. It’s a perversion of how cuteness works, celebrating the powerful – the ICE agent and the U.S. government – and not the powerless. Contrast the White House’s image with the “Grave of the Fireflies,” which highlighted the vulnerability of children during war.

    Rallying around cuteness

    Yet the powerlessness of cute characters can also, paradoxically, be powerful: Most onlookers can’t help but cheer for a furry, yellow cartoon animal fleeing from riot police. A cute character can look helpless, but it can rally support for the underdog.

    Perhaps that’s why Pikachu again popped up at two other protests: at an anti-Netanyahu demonstration in Israel on April 5, 2025, and at an anti-Trump rally in Washington, D.C. that same day.

    Cuteness, perhaps not surprisingly, has been used as a political tool in Asia. The Milk Tea Alliance, which formed in 2020, is a pan-Asian, pro-democracy movement that unites communities in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Myanmar and beyond.

    The origins of the Milk Tea Alliance.

    Organizers pointedly emphasize the effectiveness of cuteness and humor as a tool to condemn violence and denounce authoritarianism. Online images shared by the movement include anime-style drawings of young student protestors and cartoons of anthropomorphized cups of Taiwan bubble tea, Thai cha and Hong Kong milk tea holding hands.

    Comedy can be subversive. Political cartoons and comedians, of course, have long tapped into this dynamic.

    But cuteness adds a touch of whimsical absurdity that further defangs the power hungry. Is it any wonder Chinese officials banned the release of a Winnie-the-Pooh movie after memes comparing Xi Jinping to the beloved stuffed bear went viral?

    Despite its cuddly, quaint and charming exterior, cuteness contains hidden superpowers: It celebrates the vulnerable, while sapping authoritarians of gravitas they seek to project.

    Yii-Jan Lin 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. Pikachu protesters, Studio Ghibli memes and the subversive power of cuteness – https://theconversation.com/pikachu-protesters-studio-ghibli-memes-and-the-subversive-power-of-cuteness-253909

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: A Roman governor ordered Jesus’ crucifixion – so why did many Christians blame Jews for centuries?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Nathanael Andrade, Professor of History, Binghamton University, State University of New York

    ‘Ecce Homo’ (Behold the Man), by 19th-century painter Antonio Ciseri, depicts Pontius Pilate presenting Jesus to a crowd in Jerusalem. Tungsten/Galleria d’Arte Moderna via Wikimedia Commons

    It’s a straightforward part of the Easter story: The Roman governor Pontius Pilate had Jesus of Nazareth killed by his soldiers. He imposed a sentence that Roman judges often inflicted on social subversives – crucifixion.

    The New Testament Gospels say so. The Nicene Creed, one of Christianity’s key statements of faith, says Jesus “was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” The testimony of Paul, the first person whose preaching in the name of Jesus Christ is preserved in the New Testament, refers to the crucifixion.

    But over the past 2,000 years, it was common for some Christians to deem Pilate almost blameless for Jesus’ death and treat Jews as responsible – a belief that has shaped the global history of antisemitism.

    Throughout medieval times, Easter was often a dangerous time for Jewish communities, whom Christians targeted as “Christ-killers”. This perception was integral to the hate that motivated mass violence in Europe as late as the 19th and 20th centuries, including pogroms in Russia and even Nazi genocide.

    Why did Christian teachings practically let Pilate off the hook? Why did many Christians allege Jews were to blame?

    The Gospels’ story

    In the Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, Pilate believes Jesus innocent of any crime. In some of them, he even proclaims so in public.

    But the chief priests of the ancient Jewish temple at Jerusalem see Jesus as a charismatic and popular Jewish preacher who challenges their authority. They have Jesus arrested and tried before Pilate during the week of Passover.

    ‘Jesus Before Pilate, First Interview,’ by 19th-century painter James Tissot.
    Gandvik/Brooklyn Museum via Wikimedia Commons

    Pilate schemes for Jesus’ release, but a riotous crowd clamors for his death. Pilate caves and decides to crucify Jesus, whom Christians believe rose from the dead three days later.

    Any reader of the Gospels knows the sequence, though it varies somewhat in each of them. The earliest Gospels, composed at least a generation after Jesus’ death, blamed the chief priests and attending crowd for persuading Pilate to have Jesus crucified. The Gospel of John, written some decades after the other three, portrayed Jews in general as responsible, and so did much of early Christian literature.

    One account, written in the mid-second century or later, and not included in the New Testament, even claimed that Jesus’ crucifixion was not ordered by Pilate. Instead, it blamed Herod Antipas, the Jewish ruler of Galilee – the region where Jesus grew up. Other texts from after the first few centuries A.D. said that Pilate became a Christian.

    Roman history

    Scholars have long debated the historical facts of Jesus’ trial. In my 2025 book, “Killing the Messiah,” I do too.

    The Gospel testimonies capture the basics of criminal trials before Roman judges, which were held in public. Judges posed questions to prosecutors and defendants, and had ample power to decide whether a person was innocent or guilty and impose a punishment.

    Writers who lived in the Roman Empire portrayed judges as capricious, unaccountable or swayed by menacing crowds. The Gospels reflect this attitude by making Pilate appear bullied into condemning an innocent man.

    An illustration from the 14th century shows Pontius Pilate washing his hands to absolve himself as Christ is beaten before crucifixion.
    Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

    But from a historian’s viewpoint, there is a crucial problem with the Gospels’ description. Roman judges could and sometimes did face removal from office, property confiscation, exile or even death for executing clearly innocent people. In other words, it seems unlikely that Pilate would have proclaimed Jesus guiltless, but then conceded to pressure and condemned him anyway.

    Other ancient writers describe Pilate as someone who was not above offending the Jews of Judaea. According to the first-century Jewish philosopher Philo and the historian Josephus, Pilate had his soldiers carry objects that honored Roman emperors into Jerusalem, which Jewish residents saw as sacrilegious. When crowds protested, he sometimes backed down. But his soldiers attacked an agitated crowd that opposed Pilate’s use of Temple money to build an aqueduct. They also massacred an insurrection of Samaritans – people who also claimed descent from Israelites.

    Pilate did not cave to hostile crowds indiscriminately, or do whatever the chief priests wanted. Since Roman prefects like him had to coordinate with Jewish priests to govern Jerusalem, he likely viewed people who incited social disturbance against them as subversive. Jesus would have fit in that category, but neither Philo nor Josephus provides examples of Pilate killing people after acquitting them.

    Growing divide

    Why, then, did Pilate have Jesus crucified? As many scholars have argued, the simple answer would be that he believed Jesus committed some sort of sedition – not that the crowd simply pressured Pilate into doing so.

    Yet, when the Gospels were composed a generation after the crucifixion, they portrayed Pilate as convinced of Jesus’ innocence. As more time passed, other works of ancient Christian literature shifted accountability from Pilate to Jews.

    A mosaic showing St. Paul, one of the earliest apostles who preached after Jesus’ death, in the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy.
    Reserveacc/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    The experiences of Jesus’ early followers help explain this shift. They, like Jesus himself, were Jewish, and they considered him a heaven-sent Messiah. But over the course of the first and second centuries, they increasingly separated themselves from other Jews, until they began to see themselves as members of a non-Jewish movement: Christianity.

    In Roman authorities’ eyes, the Christians were troublesome, and they sometimes faced prosecution and capital punishment. In addition, Rome had inflicted atrocities and punitive measures upon Jews after insurgencies – further motivating Jesus’ followers to distance themselves. Their literature became increasingly hostile toward Jews.

    Historians and biblical scholars continue to debate why Pilate condemned Jesus. Was it for suggesting that he was the Messiah, or, in Pilate’s wording, “King of the Jews”? Did Jesus incite a crowd disturbance at the Temple during Passover – or were officials worried he could, even inadvertently? Were Jesus and his followers engaged in armed insurrection?

    But regardless of the answer, as I argue in my book, responsibility for the crucifixion lies with Pilate – not the chief priests and the Jewish crowd at Jerusalem.

    Nathanael Andrade has received fellowship funding from the Andrew Mellon Foundation/the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

    – ref. A Roman governor ordered Jesus’ crucifixion – so why did many Christians blame Jews for centuries? – https://theconversation.com/a-roman-governor-ordered-jesus-crucifixion-so-why-did-many-christians-blame-jews-for-centuries-250231

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Keir Starmer’s psychological profile is different from other prime ministers – and what it means for his dealings with Donald Trump

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Consuelo Thiers, Lecturer in International Relations, University of Edinburgh

    Flickr/10 Downing Street, CC BY-NC-ND

    The question “Who is Keir Starmer?” echoed across headlines before and after he took office in 2024. Despite leading the Labour party for years, his personality, leadership style and core motivations remained something of a mystery. Now in office, that question matters more than ever. In moments of crisis, a national leader’s psychology plays a decisive role.

    The UK faces a difficult foreign policy landscape. Post-Brexit Britain is still rebuilding alliances amid economic strain and Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency has put a more transactional, Russia-friendly approach in the White House. The UK’s balancing act has become even more precarious. Starmer must back Ukraine, strengthen ties with the EU and manage an unpredictable relationship with Trump. For any leader, it’s a high-stakes task.

    Traditional international relations theories often treat states as rational actors, with little attention paid to who is making the decisions. In this view, leaders are interchangeable; internal traits are “black-boxed” and considered irrelevant.

    But political psychology challenges this. Leaders are not all the same. How they perceive and respond to constraints – be they economic, institutional, or geopolitical – varies dramatically.

    Faced with similar conditions, different leaders make different choices. Their decisions are shaped by traits, motivations, emotions and deeply held beliefs.

    Starmer: psychologically different to other PMs

    Political psychology provides tools for assessing leaders by analysing their public statements. Since traditional psychological assessments are rarely feasible, researchers rely on at-a-distance methods, based on the premise that the way leaders speak and the language they use can reveal underlying traits, motivations and beliefs.

    One of the most widely used approaches is leadership trait analysis (LTA), developed by psychologist Margaret Hermann. It employs computational content analysis to systematically code language and produce comparable personality profiles.

    To reduce the influence of speechwriters, the analysis focuses on spontaneous material such as interviews and press conferences. The framework identifies seven core traits that are particularly relevant to foreign policy decision-making.


    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


    Applying this framework to Starmer’s public appearances since taking office reveals notable differences between his profile and that of the average UK prime minister.

    Of the seven core traits measured by the framework, Starmer scores within the typical range on task orientation, in-group bias, self-confidence, and conceptual complexity. But he stands out in three areas: distrust, belief in his ability to control events, and need for power. In these, he scores significantly above average.

    These traits suggest a leader who is confident in his influence, driven to shape outcomes, and inclined to assert control when faced with obstacles. Leaders high in belief in their ability to control events tend to be proactive and view challenges as manageable. When paired with a high need for power, this reflects a strong drive to steer the political environment, often through strategic manoeuvring and behind-the-scenes influence.

    These leaders test boundaries and thrive in direct, high-stakes negotiations. This combination has been seen in figures like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

    Compared with his most recent predecessors – Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson – Starmer shares certain traits but also diverges in meaningful ways. Like Johnson and Sunak, he shows a strong belief in his ability to control political events and a high need for power.

    However, what sets him apart most clearly is his elevated level of distrust, which surpasses even Sunak’s. Research links this trait to risk-prone, uncooperative leadership styles.

    Distrustful leaders often view others as potential threats, are less inclined to compromise, and fall back on control rather than collaboration. It’s a hallmark of hawkish leadership and has been associated with costly policy errors, such as George W. Bush’s misjudgement of Iraq’s weapons capabilities.

    At the same time, Starmer differs from Johnson and Sunak in his greater cognitive complexity. He sees nuance, tolerates ambiguity and avoids black-and-white thinking.

    He appears more open to new information and more flexible in adapting his approach. While Johnson and Sunak were more people-focused and scored low on task orientation, Starmer brings a balanced leadership style, combining interpersonal awareness with a clear focus on results. He can build relationships while staying goal-driven – an essential combination in today’s global landscape.

    Starmer and Trump

    What does this suggest about Starmer’s potential relationship with Trump? While research on leader-to-leader dynamics is still developing, Trump’s leadership profile is well-established.

    He scores high in self-confidence, low in task orientation, places a strong emphasis on loyalty, and shows high levels of distrust. His self-confidence means he rarely seeks disconfirming information, often filtering reality to fit his beliefs.

    His low task focus reflects a preference for group loyalty over detailed policy. Combined with a deep suspicion of others, this results in a transactional, uncompromising leadership style centred on personal allegiance.

    This presents challenges for Starmer, whose high distrust and tendency to defy constraints could complicate efforts to build mutual understanding. Yet his adaptability, pragmatism, and balanced focus on people and tasks, combined with confidence in his ability to shape outcomes, may help him navigate this volatile relationship.

    His assertive style, however, could still surprise or alienate some supporters as he makes bold moves beyond expectations.

    Starmer’s leadership may lack the charisma or flair of his predecessors, but his personality profile reveals a distinct and consequential approach to power. Confident, strategic, and distrustful, he is not a passive figurehead but a leader likely to assert control, challenge limits, and drive his vision.

    When the stakes are this high, Starmer’s psychology may not just influence Britain’s path – it could determine it.

    Consuelo Thiers 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. Why Keir Starmer’s psychological profile is different from other prime ministers – and what it means for his dealings with Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/why-keir-starmers-psychological-profile-is-different-from-other-prime-ministers-and-what-it-means-for-his-dealings-with-donald-trump-254242

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Africa: Sudan’s war isn’t nearly over – armed civilian groups are rising

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Mohamed Saad, Researcher, Charles University

    Sudan’s war, now entering its third year, has taken another unexpected turn. In March 2025, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), also known as the Janjaweed, withdrew from Khartoum, abandoning the presidential palace and airport.

    This retreat marks a significant contrast to the paramilitary group’s earlier victory when troops stormed the capital in April 2023.

    The fall of Khartoum is a turning point. But, based on my research into Sudan’s political turmoil over the past three decades, I don’t believe recent developments mark the war’s final chapter.

    What began as a power struggle between two military factions is now transforming into a much wider conflict, marked by deepening fragmentation and the rise of armed civilian groups. Across the country, new militias are emerging, many formed by civilians who once had no part in the war.

    The army encouraged civilians to fight, but now it faces a growing number of independent armed groups. In cities and rural areas alike, civilians have taken up arms.

    Some are fighting alongside the army, answering calls from the military leadership, including army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, to defend their neighbourhoods and families. Others have formed self-defence units to protect against looting and violence. Some have joined breakaway militias that have their own agendas.

    These groups don’t share a single goal. Some fight for self-defence, others for political power. Some for revenue and wealth. Others are seeking ethnic control – Sudan’s population has 56 ethnic groups and 595 sub-ethnic groups. This is what makes Sudan’s war even more dangerous: fragmentation is creating multiple mini-wars within the larger conflict.

    How the Rapid Support Forces lost Khartoum

    Several key factors forced the RSF to retreat from Khartoum after it claimed control of the Sudanese capital city two years earlier.

    • Internal fractures: The RSF, built on tribal loyalty, struggled to hold together as the war dragged on. Many factions felt sidelined by its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti.

    • Civilian resistance: The RSF’s reliance on brutality backfired, alienating even those who might have supported them. Instead of consolidating control, they turned civilians into enemies. The RSF relied on terror – looting, mass killings and sexual violence. Instead of gaining control, they provoked fierce resistance. Armed civilians, originally taking up arms in self-defence, have become an informal militia network working against the RSF.

    • Foreign intervention: Reports suggest Egyptian airstrikes and tactical support helped the army take Khartoum. Additionally, Turkish-made Bayraktar drones weakened RSF positions. With supply lines cut, the RSF had no choice but to retreat.

    Khartoum was not just a battlefield defeat for the RSF. It was a turning point in how the war is fought – it’s no longer a military struggle but a battle involving armed civilians across Sudan.

    Based on reports from humanitarian organisations, conflict monitors and local testimonies, a clearer picture has emerged of a growing number of armed groups operating across Sudan. These groups have formed in response to the escalating conflict.

    Recent analyses highlight that arms trafficking and intensified community mobilisation have accelerated within the past two years.


    Read more: Omar al-Bashir brutalised Sudan – how his 30-year legacy is playing out today


    Neighbourhood defence units have emerged in urban areas like El-Gezira in central Sudan, El-Fasher in North Darfur, Al-Dalang in South Kordofan, El-Obeid in North Kordofan, Babanusa in West Kordofan and Khartoum. They were initially formed to protect residential zones from the RSF but have since expanded their roles and increasingly operate outside the oversight of the army.

    Tribal and regional militias have also become more prominent, particularly in Darfur and Kordofan. In these regions, entrenched ethnic and political rivalries have intertwined with the current war. Some of these militia groups have aligned with the army. Others remain independent, pursuing their own agendas, which include securing territory.

    In Darfur, growing anger at Hemedti’s favouritism towards his own tribe (Rizeigat) led to defections. Internal divisions within the RSF have played a major role in its recent losses. Some former RSF fighters have formed their own militias. The RSF was never a unified force, but a tribal alliance dominated by the Dagalo family and Rizeigat elites. Initially, gold revenues secured loyalty, but as the war has dragged on, internal fractures have deepened.

    Another ethnic-linked group is the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North. It has expanded its control in Kordofan and Blue Nile, two resource-rich regions in southern Sudan. The group allied with the RSF to push its own agenda, which includes securing greater autonomy for these regions and promoting a secular political framework that challenges Khartoum’s Islamist-leaning governance. Other ethnic militias also operate in eastern Sudan, supported by neighbouring countries such as Eritrea, further escalating the situation.

    Islamist-linked militias are also on the rise. The main example of these groups is El Baraa Ibn Malik Brigade, which emerged as a key player supporting the army against the RSF. Reports link the group to remnants of the Omar al-Bashir regime (1993-2019) – the dissolved Popular Defence Forces. This was a paramilitary group established in the mid-1980s to defend Arab tribes and support the military. It flourished under the al-Bashir regime.

    What next?

    While the RSF’s retreat from Khartoum is a major victory for the Sudanese army, it doesn’t mean stability is returning. Instead, Sudan is now facing a dangerous new reality: the rise of civilian militarisation.

    If not reined in, these groups could evolve and establish de facto warlord-run territories where local commanders wield unchecked power. This would undermine any prospects for centralised governance in Sudan.


    Read more: Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE


    With militias multiplying and no clear political solution, Sudan risks becoming a battlefield of warring factions.

    Meanwhile, international mediators are struggling to find a solution while foreign interference continues. The United Arab Emirates, a major RSF backer, still supports Hemedti financially, ensuring he remains active in Sudan’s gold trade.

    – Sudan’s war isn’t nearly over – armed civilian groups are rising
    – https://theconversation.com/sudans-war-isnt-nearly-over-armed-civilian-groups-are-rising-254100

    MIL OSI Africa –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: Sudan’s war isn’t nearly over – armed civilian groups are rising

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Mohamed Saad, Researcher, Charles University

    Sudan’s war, now entering its third year, has taken another unexpected turn. In March 2025, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), also known as the Janjaweed, withdrew from Khartoum, abandoning the presidential palace and airport.

    This retreat marks a significant contrast to the paramilitary group’s earlier victory when troops stormed the capital in April 2023.

    The fall of Khartoum is a turning point. But, based on my research into Sudan’s political turmoil over the past three decades, I don’t believe recent developments mark the war’s final chapter.

    What began as a power struggle between two military factions is now transforming into a much wider conflict, marked by deepening fragmentation and the rise of armed civilian groups. Across the country, new militias are emerging, many formed by civilians who once had no part in the war.

    The army encouraged civilians to fight, but now it faces a growing number of independent armed groups. In cities and rural areas alike, civilians have taken up arms.

    Some are fighting alongside the army, answering calls from the military leadership, including army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, to defend their neighbourhoods and families. Others have formed self-defence units to protect against looting and violence. Some have joined breakaway militias that have their own agendas.

    These groups don’t share a single goal. Some fight for self-defence, others for political power. Some for revenue and wealth. Others are seeking ethnic control – Sudan’s population has 56 ethnic groups and 595 sub-ethnic groups. This is what makes Sudan’s war even more dangerous: fragmentation is creating multiple mini-wars within the larger conflict.

    How the Rapid Support Forces lost Khartoum

    Several key factors forced the RSF to retreat from Khartoum after it claimed control of the Sudanese capital city two years earlier.

    • Internal fractures: The RSF, built on tribal loyalty, struggled to hold together as the war dragged on. Many factions felt sidelined by its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti.

    • Civilian resistance: The RSF’s reliance on brutality backfired, alienating even those who might have supported them. Instead of consolidating control, they turned civilians into enemies. The RSF relied on terror – looting, mass killings and sexual violence. Instead of gaining control, they provoked fierce resistance. Armed civilians, originally taking up arms in self-defence, have become an informal militia network working against the RSF.

    • Foreign intervention: Reports suggest Egyptian airstrikes and tactical support helped the army take Khartoum. Additionally, Turkish-made Bayraktar drones weakened RSF positions. With supply lines cut, the RSF had no choice but to retreat.

    Khartoum was not just a battlefield defeat for the RSF. It was a turning point in how the war is fought – it’s no longer a military struggle but a battle involving armed civilians across Sudan.

    Based on reports from humanitarian organisations, conflict monitors and local testimonies, a clearer picture has emerged of a growing number of armed groups operating across Sudan. These groups have formed in response to the escalating conflict.

    Recent analyses highlight that arms trafficking and intensified community mobilisation have accelerated within the past two years.




    Read more:
    Omar al-Bashir brutalised Sudan – how his 30-year legacy is playing out today


    Neighbourhood defence units have emerged in urban areas like El-Gezira in central Sudan, El-Fasher in North Darfur, Al-Dalang in South Kordofan, El-Obeid in North Kordofan, Babanusa in West Kordofan and Khartoum. They were initially formed to protect residential zones from the RSF but have since expanded their roles and increasingly operate outside the oversight of the army.

    Tribal and regional militias have also become more prominent, particularly in Darfur and Kordofan. In these regions, entrenched ethnic and political rivalries have intertwined with the current war. Some of these militia groups have aligned with the army. Others remain independent, pursuing their own agendas, which include securing territory.

    In Darfur, growing anger at Hemedti’s favouritism towards his own tribe (Rizeigat) led to defections. Internal divisions within the RSF have played a major role in its recent losses. Some former RSF fighters have formed their own militias. The RSF was never a unified force, but a tribal alliance dominated by the Dagalo family and Rizeigat elites. Initially, gold revenues secured loyalty, but as the war has dragged on, internal fractures have deepened.

    Another ethnic-linked group is the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North. It has expanded its control in Kordofan and Blue Nile, two resource-rich regions in southern Sudan. The group allied with the RSF to push its own agenda, which includes securing greater autonomy for these regions and promoting a secular political framework that challenges Khartoum’s Islamist-leaning governance. Other ethnic militias also operate in eastern Sudan, supported by neighbouring countries such as Eritrea, further escalating the situation.

    Islamist-linked militias are also on the rise. The main example of these groups is El Baraa Ibn Malik Brigade, which emerged as a key player supporting the army against the RSF. Reports link the group to remnants of the Omar al-Bashir regime (1993-2019) – the dissolved Popular Defence Forces. This was a paramilitary group established in the mid-1980s to defend Arab tribes and support the military. It flourished under the al-Bashir regime.

    What next?

    While the RSF’s retreat from Khartoum is a major victory for the Sudanese army, it doesn’t mean stability is returning. Instead, Sudan is now facing a dangerous new reality: the rise of civilian militarisation.

    If not reined in, these groups could evolve and establish de facto warlord-run territories where local commanders wield unchecked power. This would undermine any prospects for centralised governance in Sudan.




    Read more:
    Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE


    With militias multiplying and no clear political solution, Sudan risks becoming a battlefield of warring factions.

    Meanwhile, international mediators are struggling to find a solution while foreign interference continues. The United Arab Emirates, a major RSF backer, still supports Hemedti financially, ensuring he remains active in Sudan’s gold trade.

    Mohamed Saad 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. Sudan’s war isn’t nearly over – armed civilian groups are rising – https://theconversation.com/sudans-war-isnt-nearly-over-armed-civilian-groups-are-rising-254100

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    April 12, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Deteriorating Human Rights situation in Georgia: Joint Statement to the OSCE, April 2025.

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Speech

    Deteriorating Human Rights situation in Georgia: Joint Statement to the OSCE, April 2025.

    UK and other OSCE participating States express concern over the deteriorating human rights situation and call on Georgia to open an inclusive dialogue with political parties, civil society and the OSCE institutions.

    Thank you, Madam Chair,  

    I am delivering this statement on behalf of  Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Ukraine and my own country, Germany.  

    As OSCE participating States, we have committed to upholding and defending fundamental human rights, democracy, and the rule of law—not only within our own borders, but across our shared OSCE region. This commitment carries a responsibility: to hold each other accountable when we witness signs of democratic backsliding. 

    It is in this spirit that we express again our deep concern over the deteriorating human rights situation in Georgia. Since our last discussion in February, we have regretfully witnessed Georgian authorities taking further steps away from their democratic and human rights commitments. 

    Madam Chair,  

    Our main concerns are threefold: the legislative restriction of civic space, the targeting of independent media, and the continued lack of accountability for excessive use of force by police, the use of indiscriminate violence by unidentified groups against peaceful protesters as well as unnecessarily long pre-trial detention periods and the reported ill-treatment of those in pre-trial detention. 

    The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires all individuals and organisations receiving foreign funding to register as so-called “Foreign Agents,” with financial sanctions and criminal penalties imposed on those who refuse. We share ODIHR’s concern that “this law, along with other recent legislative initiatives, could further curtail the activities of civil society organizations and human rights defenders by removing the safeguards needed for them to carry out their work”. This law lacks the legal safeguards that prevent civil society, media and private individuals from being branded as instruments of foreign influence based solely on funding sources, which strongly suggests that this law is not about transparency, but about suppressing dissent and tightening the grip on civil society. This is of particular concern in view of the upcoming local elections.  

    We are also closely monitoring recent amendments to Georgia’s electoral legislation. It is essential that any changes to the electoral framework enhance transparency and public trust, and that reforms are developed through inclusive dialogue and in line with OSCE commitments. Relatedly, we are concerned about legislative amendments undermining freedom of peaceful assembly, including the amendments to the Criminal and Administrative Offences Codes and the Law on Assemblies and Manifestations. The amendments undermine the principle of equal suffrage and restrict freedom of assembly, as stated in relevant ODIHR’s and Venice Commission latest opinions. We urge the Georgian authorities to implement their recommendations.  

    Madam Chair,  

    We are alarmed by the escalating threats and intimidation faced by journalists in Georgia. The Public Defender’s 2024 Human Rights Report highlights a significant decline in media freedom, exacerbated by restrictive laws—such as the recent amendments to the Law on Broadcasting—and growing hostility toward journalists. 

    Notably, there have been incidents where journalists were being targeted by police while covering protests, including physical assaults and equipment seizures. Furthermore, reports of targeting journalists in exile and negative rhetoric from high-ranking officials and politicians have further eroded media freedom and increased risks for journalists. 

    We call for the immediate cessation of these practices and the immediate release of all arbitrarily detained journalists, including Mzia Amaghlobeli, who remains in detention on charges of up to 7 years in prison. 

    Finally, we remain deeply troubled by the persistent lack of accountability for police violence. We have seen no evidence of credible efforts by the Georgian authorities to investigate reports of disproportionate use of force against peaceful protesters, arbitrary detentions, excessive over-reliance on long pre-trial detention periods, and mistreatment of detainees. 

    We call on the Georgian authorities to take immediate action to protect the rights of those exercising their fundamental freedoms and to conduct a thorough investigation of the use of police force during peaceful protests since 28 November 2024 in order to hold those responsible for human rights violations to account. Failure to do so further undermines public trust in Georgia’s institutions. 

    Madam Chair, 

    Despite repeated statements by Georgia reaffirming their commitment to dialogue and the OSCE principles and commitments, we have yet to see any concrete and genuine steps toward meaningful engagement. Instead, recent actions by the Georgian authorities have moved Georgia further away from democracy. We call on the Georgian authorities to open an inclusive dialogue with all political parties and civil society organisations in order to find peaceful and democratic solutions to the ongoing crisis. 

    We welcome recent statements by ODIHR and RFoM and strongly urge Georgia to continue to constructively engage with OSCE institutions and make use of their expertise. As fellow OSCE participating States, we will explore all available tools and mechanisms within the OSCE context going forward. In this spirit, we call on Georgian authorities to implement recommendations by ODIHR with regard to the upcoming elections. 

    Our unwavering commitment to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity remains unchanged. We stand steadfast in our support for the Georgian people and their pursuit of a democratic, stable and European future, and we remain ready to work with Georgia to ensure it upholds its international obligations and ensures that human rights and fundamental freedoms are fully respected.​

    Updates to this page

    Published 11 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    April 11, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Africa: Afreximbank commissions first-of-its-kind African Trade Centre in Abuja, Nigeria – marking a new era for Intra-African trade

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

    ABUJA, Nigeria, April 11, 2025/APO Group/ —

    Multilateral Bank African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) (www.Afreximbank.com) has officially commissioned its first Afreximbank African Trade Centre (AATC) today in Abuja, Nigeria, ushering in a transformative era for trade and investment in Africa.

    During the grand commissioning ceremony, speakers, including Hon. Dr. George Akume, Secretary to the Government of Federation, Nigeria representing H. E. Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR, President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, The Federal Republic of Nigeria, highlighted the AATC’s strategic importance, its pivotal role in shaping Africa’s economic future and the significant impact it is poised to make on Africa’s trade and investment landscape.

    Speaking at the Ceremony, Dr. Akume stated, “Afreximbank African Trade Centre (AATC) is a landmark project that embodies our shared commitment to advancing Intra-African Trade, fostering economic integration and unlocking a vast potential of our continent. This occasion is a realisation of a bold vision for Africa’s economic future. AATC stands as a testament to the power of collaboration, resilience and forward-thinking leadership. It is more than a physical structure; it is the beginning of innovation, a hub for entrepreneurship and a catalyst for sustainable development.

    He added, “This centre will serve as a critical platform for trade facilitation, capacity building and investment promotion – key pillars of Africa’s economic transformation. Afreximbank’s role in shaping Africa’s trade landscape cannot be overstated because the institution has consistently demonstrated its commitment to breaking down barriers, bridging financing gaps and empowering African businesses to be competitive. All these have been accomplished through flagship projects such as the AfCFTA adjustment fund that is managed by Afreximbank’s subsidiary, Fund for Export Development in Africa (FEDA), PAPSS and other Trade Finance Programmes. The AATC located in Abuja represents yet another milestone in this journey and this aligns perfectly with Nigeria’s strategic priorities under the Federal Government’s eight-point agenda, particularly in the areas of job creation, economic diversification, and regional integration. As we commission this remarkable edifice today, let us renew our resolve to be the stronger, more interconnected and prosperous Africa.”

    Prof. Benedict Oramah, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Afreximbank, echoed this sentiment, remarking, “The Abuja AATC is the first of several AATCs being developed across Africa and the Caribbean. Some would be Afreximbank owned while others would be supported through a franchise-scheme. With these, we expect to create a sizeable network of AATCs that will act as the lighthouses to guide the interconnections and flow of trade and investments within continental Africa and between Africa and Caribbean regions. This AATC Abuja has been a 41-month journey, one built on hope and determination. Like the other AATCs, the Abuja AATC would serve a multi-purpose goal; it will serve as a platform for fostering deeper regional and continental integration and house Afreximbank’s permanent regional office, bringing a three-decade-old aspiration to fruition. This AATC will also offer a technology incubation hub, an SME incubation facility, a Digital Africa Trade Gateway, a conference and exhibition facility and a business hotel.”

    Prof. Orama thanked the Federal Government of Nigeria for its support noting that the relationship between the Bank and Nigeria has been truly mutually beneficial and most cordial. “Over the last three decades, successive governments have accorded unflinching support to Afreximbank, responding most positively to capital calls, creating a congenial environment for its smooth operations while providing the Bank significant domestic policy support that helped to execute many of the development programmes in Nigeria.” He said.

    With the opening of the Abuja AATC, Afreximbank continues its mission to promote intra-African trade and investment opportunities, laying the groundwork for a more prosperous and integrated African economy.

    Over 500 distinguished guests attended the commissioning ceremony, notably, Hon. William F. Duguid, J.P. Senior Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, Republic of Barbados, Hon. Sylvester Grisby, Minister of State for Presidential Affairs, Liberia, Hon. Adebayo Olawale Edun, Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Nigeria and his counterpart, Hon. Dr. Jumoke Oduwole MFR, Minister of Trade and Investment, Federal Ministry of Trade and Investment, Nigeria as well as Nigeria’s former Vice President Hon. Namadi Sambo. Hon. Bockaire Kalokoh, Deputy Minister of Finance of Sierra Leone and Hon. Sheilla Chikomo, Deputy Minister Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Zimbabwe represented their respective countries. The event was also well attended by business leaders led by billionaire entrepreneur Mr. Aliko Dangote, Founder and Chief Executive of the Dangote Group, Mr Tony Elumelu, Chairman of Transcorp Group, policymakers, pan-African CEOs, and entrepreneurs.

    Their presence showcased a shared vision and determination to enhance trade across Africa, as they pledged to work together to leverage the AATC for the continent’s economic transformation.

    The Abuja AATC comprises two interconnected nine-storey towers. One tower features world-class commercial A-grade office spaces, a trade and exhibition centre, a conference centre, a technology and SME incubator, a Digital Trade Gateway and a trade information services hub. The adjoining tower boasts a 148-room business hotel, seminar and meeting rooms, a wellness centre, a restaurant and other ancillary facilities. These features are designed to provide a comprehensive ecosystem for trade and business activities, catering to the diverse needs of African businesses. It will also host office spaces for local and international financial institutions and policy organisations, ensuring a complete support system for trade and business activities.

    The AATC building is expected to achieve gold – and potentially platinum – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), a globally recognised standard for sustainable building design and construction. This certification will make the Abuja AATC one of the few certified buildings in Nigeria and West Africa, underscoring its commitment to environmental sustainability.

    The global architect Messrs SVA International developed a multifaceted global design, drawing inspiration from the concept of a bazaar, which reflects the vibrant feature of daily life in many African cities. Construction of the USD120 million project commenced in November 2021 on a prime piece of land measuring 5,856 square meters and achieved completion in 41 months.

    The Abuja Afreximbank African Trade Centre (Abuja AATC) is the first of seven planned AATCs across Africa, including Kampala, Uganda, Harare, Zimbabwe, Cairo, Egypt, Yaoundé, Cameroon, Tunis, Tunisia, and Kigali, Rwanda. In addition, Afreximbank recently broke ground in Bridgetown, Barbados, to construct the first AATC outside of Africa. Through franchising and licensing arrangements, the Bank intends to partner with relevant institutions and economic development organizations to establish non-Bank owned ATCs in the rest of Global Africa. These AATCs will serve to link buyers, sellers, suppliers, service providers, enterprises, governments, chambers of commerce, financial institutions, economic development organisations and the general African and global trade and investment community.

    MIL OSI Africa –

    April 11, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS VISITS MADINAH TO REVIEW PREPARATIONS MADE FOR INDIAN PILGRIMS

    Source: Government of India

    SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS VISITS MADINAH TO REVIEW PREPARATIONS MADE FOR INDIAN PILGRIMS

    SECRETARY MEETS SAUDI VICE MINISTER OF HAJ AND UMRAH

    Posted On: 10 APR 2025 9:15PM by PIB Delhi

    Secretary of the Ministry of Minority Affairs Dr. Chandra Shekhar Kumar, visited the city of Madinah to review Haj arrangements for Indian pilgrims who will undertake the pilgrimage this year.

    Dr. Kumar also had a meeting with Dr. Abdul Fattah Al Mashat, Hon’ble Vice Minister of Haj & Umrah, Saudi Arabia in Jeddah. Productive bilateral discussions were held in the meeting regarding preparations for Haj this year.

    The Saudi side assured full support for the care and comfort of Indian pilgrims.

    In a post on ‘X’, of the Ministry of Minority Affairs it was stated that “The Government of India remains committed to ensuring the safety, comfort, and well-being of all Hajis.”

    Government of India Secretary for Ministry of Minority Affairs, Dr. Chandra Shekhar Kumar today visited #Madinah to review #haj arrangements for Indian pilgrims. The Government of India remains committed to ensuring the safety, comfort, and well-being of all Hajis.#Haj2025… pic.twitter.com/inAoJzIFlQ

    — Ministry of Minority Affairs (@MOMAIndia) April 10, 2025

     

    Ministry of Minority Affairs, GoI, Secretary Dr. Chandra Shekhar Kumar, met H.E. Dr. Abdul Fattah Al Mashat, Hon’ble Vice Minister of Haj & Umrah, KSA, in Jeddah. Productive bilateral discussions held on #Haj2025 preparations.
    The Saudi side assured full support for Indian… pic.twitter.com/ZQsHPrQixp

    — Ministry of Minority Affairs (@MOMAIndia) April 10, 2025

     

    *****

     

    SS/ STK

    (Release ID: 2120893) Visitor Counter : 31

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    April 11, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: InvestHK concludes fruitful Middle East visit to deepen international exchanges and co-operation (with photo)

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    InvestHK concludes fruitful Middle East visit to deepen international exchanges and co-operation (with photo) 
    During the visit, Mr Ng met with business leaders, family office representatives and industry stakeholders across Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, including representatives from Investopia. He also attended a series of high-level business roundtables entitled Hong Kong Growth Dialogues: Building Asia’s Future Super-Corridor, co-organised with Asia House. He also met with local media and elaborated on Hong Kong’s business advantages.
     
    Mr Ng said, “Hong Kong, as a global financial centre, an innovation and technology base, and a ‘super connector’ between Mainland China and international markets, offers abundant business opportunities from recent key developments, including the Northern Metropolis, the Airport City Skytopia and West Kowloon Cultural District, etc. We welcome businesses from the Middle East to capitalise on the opportunities our city offers.”
     
    He added, “Hong Kong’s strategic position in Asia, coupled with the Middle East’s long-term strategies, such as Saudi Vision 2030 and UAE Centennial 2071, fosters collaboration and shared economic growth. By leveraging Hong Kong’s business advantages, we can strengthen co-operation in various areas, including finance, technology, trade, sustainability and tourism amid a fast-changing global economic landscape.”
     
    Hong Kong and the Middle East are deepening financial and economic ties, creating powerful synergies for cross-border investment and shared growth. Recent developments, including cross-listed ETFs (exchange-traded funds) and the recognition of key Middle Eastern stock exchanges as Recognised Stock Exchanges, underscore the growing integration of capital markets between two regions. During the visit, Mr Ng also promoted Hong Kong’s Islamic finance capabilities, citing its successful issuance of three government sukuk and a level playing field for Shariah-compliant products through tax neutrality measures.
     
    Participants at the events expressed keen interest in Hong Kong’s business environment and connectivity. Vice President of the Logistics Division at Yusuf bin Ahmed Kanoo Group Mrs Saffia Abdulla Kanoo said, “I gained valuable insights into Hong Kong and its key sectors through the roundtable discussions. I was particularly impressed by the city’s robust financial infrastructure, strong rule of law, and its role as a hub for innovation and capital flows. The session was highly informative and engaging, inspiring me to further explore the opportunities available in Hong Kong.”
    Issued at HKT 15:35

    NNNN

    CategoriesMIL-OSI

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    April 11, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 233 234 235 236 237 … 427
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress