NewzIntel.com

Category: Middle East

  • MIL-OSI China: Multiple US airstrikes hit Yemen’s Houthi-held capital Sanaa

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    The U.S. military conducted multiple airstrikes on Yemen’s Houthi-held capital Sanaa on Wednesday evening, Houthi-run al-Masirah TV and residents said.

    According to the Houthi television, three airstrikes targeted the Jarban area in the Sanhan district, in the southern part of Sanaa, two airstrikes hit the al-Jumaymah area in the Bani Hushaysh district, northeast of Sanaa, as well as two other airstrikes hit the al-Daylami air base in the northern part of Sanaa.

    All those targeted areas are well-known military sites.

    Local residents said the airstrikes caused explosions.

    There were no immediate reports of casualties. The Houthi group, which controls the capital Sanaa and several northern provinces, rarely discloses its losses.

    The U.S. Central Command has not issued any comment yet.

    It was the latest in a series of airstrikes conducted by the U.S. naval forces in the Red Sea against Houthi targets two weeks ago.

    Earlier in the day, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Sarea said in a televised statement that his group had launched fresh rocket and drone attacks on “military targets” in central Israel and the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the northern Red Sea.

    The military exchanges are part of an ongoing air campaign launched by U.S. forces in mid-March against Houthi-controlled areas in northern Yemen.

    The Houthi group has vowed to continue targeting Israeli sites and ships in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and to respond to what they describe as “American aggression.”

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New sentencing laws will drive NZ’s already high imprisonment rates – and budgets – even higher

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Mussell, Senior Lecturer, Political Science and International Relations, University of Canterbury

    Paremoremo Maximum Security Prison near Auckland. Getty Images

    With the government’s Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill about to become law within days, New Zealand’s already high incarceration rate will almost certainly climb even higher.

    The new legislation essentially limits how much judges can reduce a prison sentence for mitigating factors (such as a guilty plea, young age or mental ability). A regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Justice estimated it would result in 1,350 more people in prison.

    This and other law changes are effectively putting more people in prison for longer. By 2035, imprisonment numbers are expected to increase by 40% from their current levels, with significant cost implications. Last year, the Corrections budget was NZ$1.94 billion, up $150 million from the previous year.

    In sheer numbers, the Ministry of Justice projects the prison population will increase from 9,900 to 11,500 prisoners over the next decade. But Minister of Corrections Mark Mitchell recently said government policies could see a peak of 13,900 prisoners over that period.

    New Zealand’s imprisonment rate is already high at 187 per 100,000 people. That’s double the rate of Canada (90 per 100,000), and well above Australia (163 per 100,000) and England (141 per 100,000).

    Accounting for imprisonment and population projections, New Zealand’s prisoner ratio could be between 238 and 263 per 100,000 by 2035. That is higher than the current imprisonment rate in Iran (228 per 100,000).

    The role of remand

    Much of this increase is driven by the number of people awaiting trial or sentencing on remand. This has risen substantially in the past ten years and is expected to keep rising.

    Remand prisoner numbers are projected to nearly equal sentenced prisoners in 2034. Among women and young people, remand numbers are already higher than for sentenced prisoners.

    In October 2024, 89% of imprisoned youth were on remand, a 15% increase in seven years. In December 2024, 53% of women prisoners were on remand, more than double the 24% rate a decade ago. Men on remand comprise 41% of prisoners, nearly double the 21% rate a decade ago.

    Māori are affected most by these increases, making up 81% of imprisoned youth, 67% of imprisoned women and 53% of imprisoned men.

    Some 30% of those on remand are not convicted. Of those who are, data released to RNZ last year showed 2,138 people (15% of remand prisoners) were not convicted of their most serious change, almost double the 2014 figure of 1,075 people.

    Significant court delays can mean people are remanded for a long time. By 2034, it is projected the average remand time will be 99 days, compared with 83 days in February 2024. As well as being a human rights concern, this is very expensive.

    Minister of Corrections Mark Mitchell: prisoner numbers could reach 13,900 over the next decade.
    Getty Images

    Putting more people away for longer

    Crime and imprisonment rates fluctuate independently of each other, as the former Chief Science Advisor acknowledged in a 2018 report. Increasing imprisonment rates are the result of political decisions, not simple arithmetic.

    The Bail Amendment Act 2013 reversed the onus of proof in certain cases, meaning the default rule is that an accused person will not be granted bail. This results in more people being sent to prison while awaiting a hearing, trial or sentencing.

    When this week’s changes to the Sentencing Act come into effect, they will further constrain judges’ discretion, capping sentence reductions for mitigating factors at 40% (unless it would be “manifestly unjust”).

    At the same time, it has become more difficult for prisoners to return to the community. For example, some are kept in prison or recalled because they do not have stable housing. (Dean Wickliffe, currently on a hunger strike over an alleged assault by prison staff, was arrested for breaching parole by living in his car.)

    Last year, Corrections received $1.94 billion in operating and capital budget, a $150 million increase to account for rising imprisonment numbers and prison expansion. There was no meaningful increase in funding for rehabilitation programmes or investment in legal aid.

    Imprisoning people is expensive. The cost of a person on custodial remand has almost doubled since 2015, from $239 a day to $437. For sentenced prisoners, it is $562 per day. This comes to between $159,505 and $205,130 per year to confine one person.

    The Waikeria expansion and beyond

    Corrections has developed a Long-Term Network Configuration Plan to meet anticipated prison population growth. This year’s budget in May will fund 240 high-security beds and 52 health centre beds at Christchurch men’s prison, at a cost of approximately $700-800 million.

    Those 240 beds will fit within 160 cells, meaning “double-bunking”. This is known to have a significant impact to prisoner health and rehabilitation, and can also add to staffing costs.

    Former corrections minister Kelvin Davis acknowledged this before the first 600-bed expansion of Waikeria prison, costed at $750 million in 2018. By June 2023, that had increased by 22% to $916 million.

    The second Waikeria expansion will deliver another 810 beds for an estimated $890 million, although the exact budget has been unclear. These projects will involve public private partnership, a model known for not always delivering the cost savings and service quality initially promised.

    There will be other costs for facilities maintenance, asset management services and financing. And there can be unanticipated costs, too. For example, the government’s partner in the Waikeria expansion, Cornerstone, claimed $430 million against Corrections in 2022 for “time and productivity losses” due to COVID-19.

    These overall trends are happening while the government is also cutting funding for important social services. Shifting resources to improve social supports would be a better option – and one that has worked in Finland – than pouring more money into expanding prisons.

    Linda Mussell 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. New sentencing laws will drive NZ’s already high imprisonment rates – and budgets – even higher – https://theconversation.com/new-sentencing-laws-will-drive-nzs-already-high-imprisonment-rates-and-budgets-even-higher-253119

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI: LeddarTech Reports Annual Shareholder Meeting Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    QUEBEC CITY, Canada, March 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — LeddarTech® Holdings Inc. (“LeddarTech” or the “Corporation”) (Nasdaq: LDTC), an automotive software company that provides patented disruptive AI-powered low-level sensor fusion and perception software technology, LeddarVision™, announces the voting results of its annual general and special meeting of shareholders held on March 26, 2025 (the “Meeting”). Shareholders voted on various proposals and elected directors to the board.

    Key Highlights of the Meeting

    1. Election of Directors: The full slate of six directors was elected to serve until the next annual meeting of shareholders or until a successor is elected or appointed.

    Nominee Votes For % of Voted Votes Against % of Voted
    Frantz Saintellemy 22,429,293 99.69% 68,631 0.31%
    Charles Boulanger 22,392,108 99.53% 105,816 0.47%
    Derek Aberle 22,470,109 99.88% 27,815 0.12%
    Yann Delabrière 22,475,831 99.90% 22,093 0.10%
    Sylvie Veilleux 22,471,696 99.88% 26,228 0.12%
    Lizabeth Ardisana 22,474,890 99.90% 23,034 0.10%

    As previously disclosed, Nick Stone and Michelle Sterling, who were members of the Board up to the Meeting, have decided not to stand for reelection.

    2. Approval of Auditor: The appointment of Richter LLP as auditors of the Corporation was approved, and the board of directors of the Corporation was authorized to fix the auditors’ remuneration.

    Votes For % of Voted Votes Withheld % of Voted
    25,480,228 99.81% 49,275 0.19%


    3. Other

    3.1 The amendment to the Corporation’s omnibus equity-based incentive plan to increase the number of common shares available for issuance thereunder was approved and ratified.

    Votes For % of Voted Votes Against % of Voted Votes Abstain % of Voted
    22,187,011 98.62% 199,079 0.88% 111,834 0.50%

    3.2 A second and separate amendment to the Corporation’s omnibus equity-based incentive plan for the adoption of an evergreen provision to the omnibus equity-based incentive plan, providing for an automatic annual increase in the common shares available for issuance thereunder over the next five years, was approved and ratified.

    Votes For % of Voted Votes Against % of Voted Votes Abstain % of Voted
    15,862,324 70.51% 6,630,055 29.47% 5,545 0.02%

    For further details on each of these matters, please refer to the Corporation’s management information circular dated February 7, 2025, available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and EDGAR at www.sec.gov. Final voting results on all matters voted on at the Meeting will be posted on the Investor Relations section of LeddarTech.com and filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

    About LeddarTech

    A global software company founded in 2007 and headquartered in Quebec City with additional R&D centers in Montreal and Tel Aviv, Israel, LeddarTech develops and provides comprehensive AI-based low-level sensor fusion and perception software solutions that enable the deployment of ADAS, autonomous driving (AD) and parking applications. LeddarTech’s automotive-grade software applies advanced AI and computer vision algorithms to generate accurate 3D models of the environment to achieve better decision making and safer navigation. This high-performance, scalable, cost-effective technology is available to OEMs and Tier 1-2 suppliers to efficiently implement automotive and off-road vehicle ADAS solutions.

    LeddarTech is responsible for several remote-sensing innovations, with over 170 patent applications (87 granted) that enhance ADAS, AD and parking capabilities. Better awareness around the vehicle is critical in making global mobility safer, more efficient, sustainable and affordable: this is what drives LeddarTech to seek to become the most widely adopted sensor fusion and perception software solution.

    Additional information about LeddarTech is accessible at www.leddartech.com and on LinkedIn, Twitter (X), Facebook and YouTube.

    Contact:
    Chris Stewart, Chief Financial Officer, LeddarTech Holdings Inc.
    Tel.: + 1-514-427-0858, chris.stewart@leddartech.com

    Leddar, LeddarTech, LeddarVision, LeddarSP, VAYADrive, VayaVision and related logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of LeddarTech Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries. All other brands, product names and marks are or may be trademarks or registered trademarks used to identify products or services of their respective owners.

    LeddarTech Holdings Inc. is a public company listed on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “LDTC.”

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia may no longer be a ‘deputy sheriff’, but its reliance on the US has only grown deeper since 2000

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Andrews, Senior Manager, Policy & Engagement, Australian National University

    The year 2000 marked an inflection point for many Western countries, including Australia, in their outlook towards the world.

    The focus began to shift away from the peacekeeping interventions that had dominated the previous decade to one shaped by counter-terrorism operations and deployments to the Middle East.

    The threat of terrorism hasn’t gone away. But Australia is much more preoccupied by threats of a different nature 25 years later, largely emanating from China. These include cyber attacks, economic coercion, political interference, and the harassment of Australian Defence Force (ADF) ships, aircraft and personnel.

    Though our international outlook has changed a lot over the past quarter century, Australia’s alliance with the US has remained a constant throughout.

    However, as our militaries have grown closer, the US-China competition has also intensified. Combined with the array of unpredictable and destabilising decisions coming from the second Trump administration, this closeness has caused some unease in Australia.

    Evolving threats and challenges

    In December 2000, the Howard government released its first Defence White Paper. This marked the beginning of a period of major change in Australia’s international outlook and presence.

    It emphasised that “two interrelated trends seem likely to shape our strategic environment most strongly – globalisation and US strategic primacy”. It also noted that “military operations other than conventional war [were] becoming more common.”

    The paper was prescient in respect to China’s rise, as well. It said:

    The United States is central to the Asia-Pacific security system […] It will be in Asia that the United States is likely to face the toughest issues in shaping its future strategic role – especially in its relationship with China.

    There is a small but still significant possibility of growing and sustained confrontation between the major powers in Asia, and even of outright conflict. Australia’s interests could be deeply engaged in such a conflict, especially if it involved the United States.

    Yet, nine months after that document’s release, the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, followed by the Bali bombings of 2002, began to dramatically reshape the global security outlook.

    A few days after the September 11 attack, Howard invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first and only time, joinging US President George W. Bush’s “war on terror”. Australian forces then deployed to Afghanistan as part of the US-led invasion in October 2001.

    By the time the 2003 Foreign Policy White Paper was released, it highlighted “terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional disorder and transnational crimes such as people smuggling” as the key features of Australia’s “more complex security environment”.

    A month later, Australia joined the US-led “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein and locate and destroy stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction believed to be there. (It later emerged that evidence of the existence of these weapons was erroneous.)

    Australia contributed 2,000 troops to the mission. Our soldiers remained actively engaged in training, reconstruction and rehabilitation work in Iraq until July 2009.

    Both of these events tied Australia’s foreign policy interests to the US to a greater degree than any time since the Vietnam War.

    Although the relationship with the US had been critical to Australian defence and foreign policy for decades, it had become less prominent in Australia’s strategic planning in the years following the end of the Cold War.

    US support – and diplomatic pressure on Indonesia – had been vital in securing the post-referendum presence of Australian peacekeepers in East Timor in 1999. However, it was the “war on terror” that really re-centred the relationship as core to Australian foreign policy.

    In fact, Australia was even referred to as the US’ “deputy sheriff” in the Asia-Pacific – a nickname used by Bush in 2003 that caused some unease at home and in the region.

    This image has since gone on to have significant staying power, and it’s proved difficult for Australia to dislodge.

    History repeating?

    Though the accusations of war crimes levelled against Australian special forces in Afghanistan continue to reverberate, our foreign policy focus has shifted firmly back to our own region.

    This change was driven in large part by the perceived threat posed by a rising China. While the need to focus more on China was acknowledged as early as the 2009 Defence White Paper, this emphasis became most pronounced under Scott Morrison’s leadership.

    The 2024 National Defence Strategy portrayed Australia as facing “its most challenging strategic environment since the Second World War”.

    It advocated for a significant change in the ADF’s strategic objectives and structure, noting the optimism of the 1990s had been “replaced by the uncertainty and tensions of entrenched and increasing strategic competition between the US and China”.

    Today, the military ties between the US and Australia are arguably as close as they have ever been.

    The ADF operates top-tier US platforms like the F-35 combat aircraft, P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, M1 Abrams tanks, and AH-64 Apache helicopters. Defence Minister Richard Marles has gone so far as to say the ADF should not only interoperable with the US, but interchangeable.

    If all goes to plan, Australia will also build and operate its own fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership in the coming decades.

    At the same time, US President Donald Trump’s “America First” positioning has made the US’ closest allies nervous.

    His early moves have put paid to the notion that globalisation is the goal all major states are pursuing. In fact, some argue that deglobalisation may be taking hold as the US aggressively enacts tariffs against its allies, pursues economic onshoring and withdraws from key international bodies.

    These actions have led to many to question whether Australia has become too dependent on its major ally and if we need to emphasise a more self-reliant defence posture. However, this is much easier said than done.

    Looking back, the year 2000 represented the beginning of a period of major change for Australian foreign policy. Such is the pace of change now, we may view 2025 in the same light in another quarter century.

    Whether Australia’s alliance with the US will face long-term harm is yet to be seen. No matter how the bilateral relationship may change, the Indo-Pacific region will continue to be at the core of Australia’s foreign policy outlook, much as it was at the turn of the century.

    This piece is part of a series on how Australia has changed since the year 2000. You can read other pieces in the series here.

    David Andrews has not personally received funding from any relevant external bodies, but he has previously worked on projects funded by the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Home Affairs, and Defence. David is a member of the Australian Labor Party and Australian Institute of International Affairs, and previously worked for the Department of Defence.

    – ref. Australia may no longer be a ‘deputy sheriff’, but its reliance on the US has only grown deeper since 2000 – https://theconversation.com/australia-may-no-longer-be-a-deputy-sheriff-but-its-reliance-on-the-us-has-only-grown-deeper-since-2000-252501

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed, Senate Democrats Demand Transparency and Accountability on Trump Admin. Sharing Attack Plans Over Signal Chat

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee today joined Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and top Senate Democrats on key national security committees in seeking information about members of President Trump’s cabinet using the Signal app to convene a group chat to “coordinate and share classified information about sensitive military planning operations.”                   

    In a letter to President Trump, the U.S. Senators sounded the alarm over the public discovery that the Trump Administration has been sharing discussions of classified military operations via unsecured text chains, jeopardizing national security, and endangering the lives of American servicemembers.  The letter was also cc’ed to Attorney General Pam Bondi as well as numerous Trump administration officials who were reportedly members of the Signal group chat, including: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

    Reed and Schumer, along with U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee; U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; U.S. Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee; U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, are pressing for answers to questions after The Atlantic revealed that an unsecured text chain with at least 18 senior-level Trump administration officials was used to coordinate and share highly sensitive military planning and operations information. This reckless operational security failure made a sensitive military mission vulnerable to interception by U.S. adversaries, and was exposed after the group inexplicably included a journalist, damaging our national security and risking the lives of American servicemembers.

    “We write to you with extreme alarm about the astonishingly poor judgment shown by your Cabinet and national security advisors,” the seven Senators wrote. “You have long advocated for accountability and transparency in the government, particularly as it relates to the handling of classified information, national security, and the safety of American servicemembers. As such, it is imperative that you address this breach with the seriousness and diligence that it demands.”

    The Senators note the willful or negligent disclosure of classified information constitutes a criminal offense and call for Attorney General Bondi to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation.

    Additionally, the Senators demanded answers to ten questions, more information about the “Houthi PC small group” chat, and if any other classified information is currently being discussed on unsecured text chains in a similar fashion by senior administration officials. 

    Full text of the letter follows:

    Dear President Trump,

    We have learned that members of your Cabinet recently convened a group chat on the commercial messaging app “Signal” to discuss active, highly classified military plans and operations, and that they mistakenly included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic in this group. The group, which was titled “Houthi PC small group,” apparently encompassed at least 18 people including your Vice President; Secretaries of Defense, State, and Treasury; National Security Advisor; CIA Director; Director of National Intelligence; White House Chief of Staff; and several other senior appointees.

    Over the course of several days, this group chat reportedly discussed operational plans, targets, and weapon systems for upcoming U.S. military strikes in Yemen, and provided after-action battlefield damage assessments. These messages allegedly provided detailed intelligence about the movements and future locations of specific military assets and personnel in active combat zones. The group chat also contained extremely sensitive conversations between the Vice President and Cabinet officials that could have a negative impact on our diplomatic efforts with foreign allies and partners, particularly in Europe. We are aware that the Director of National Intelligence, and possibly others, appears to have been overseas while this group chat was active, making the entire discussion more vulnerable to interception by foreign adversaries. Inexplicably, throughout the days-long chat conversation, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic remained in the group chat and his presence was never questioned.

    Let us be clear, if any American military servicemember, intelligence official, or law enforcement officer committed such an egregious breach of operational security and endangered the lives of their comrades downrange, they would be investigated and likely prosecuted.

    We write to you with extreme alarm about the astonishingly poor judgment shown by your Cabinet and national security advisors. You have long advocated for accountability and transparency in the government, particularly as it relates to the handling of classified information, national security, and the safety of American servicemembers. As such, it is imperative that you address this breach with the seriousness and diligence that it demands.

    Our committees have serious questions about this incident, and members need a full accounting to ensure it never happens again. Moreover, given that willful or negligent disclosure of classified or sensitive national security information may constitute a criminal violation of the Espionage Act or other laws, we expect Attorney General Bondi, copied here, to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of the conduct of the government officials involved in improperly sharing or discussing such information. We also ask that you immediately direct relevant officials to preserve records of these communications and any other discussions of government business occurring on any messaging application. Some of the messages in the Signal chat were apparently set to disappear after a certain period of time – a potential violation of both the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act.

    We hereby request answers to the following:

    1.         Please provide a complete and unredacted transcript of the “Houthi PC small group” chat for review by our appropriate committees in a secure setting.

    2.         Please provide a complete list of all personnel who participated in or had access to the “Houthi PC small group” chat.

    3.         What dates was the “Houthi PC small group” established and when was the last message transmitted to the Signal group chat?

    4.         Were there any other individuals, in addition to Jeffrey Goldberg, who were erroneously included in the “Houthi PC small group” chat?

    5.         Did any U.S. government personnel access the “Houthi PC small group” chat using personal communication devices?

    6.         Were any personnel who participated in or had access to the “Houthi PC small group” chat traveling overseas while the group chat was active? If yes, on which devices did group members operate while accessing the group chat?

    7.         Did any individuals transfer classified information, including operational war plans, from classified systems to unclassified systems, and if so, how?

    8.         Has the intelligence community conducted a damage assessment of the potential leakage of classified and sensitive information via the “Houthi PC small group” chat and subsequent reporting?

    9.         Are any Cabinet level officials, their deputies or other designees, or White House officials using Signal or other commercial products to discuss classified or sensitive information or any communications subject to statutory recordkeeping requirements?

    10.       If so, how is the Administration ensuring that it meets its statutory requirements with regard to these conversations?

    You and your Cabinet are responsible for the safety and security of the American people, as well as our military servicemembers and intelligence personnel in the field. We expect your Administration to address this dangerous lapse in security protocol—whether intended or not—with the utmost seriousness, and to uphold the ethic of accountability that our nation holds sacred. We must work together to ensure this does not happen again, and we look forward to reviewing the forthcoming reports.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech: Navigating the New World (Dis)order in Turbulent Times

    Source: New Zealand Labour Party

    Special thanks to Diplosphere for helping organise this event.

    Tena kotou katoa.

    Mexican poet Homero Aridjis wrote “There are centuries in which nothing happens and years in which centuries pass”. It sure feels like this now.

    Large swathes of the 80-year-old rules-based world order developed after World War 2 are in tatters.

    The dramatic withdrawal of the United States of America from the Paris agreement, the World Health Organisation, and the halting of most USAID programmes are, to say the least, significant. The ineffective and stalled OECD work on the minimum taxation of multinational corporations. The whirl wind of tariffs and counter tariffs, which change almost daily.

    The war of words between neighbours in North America is unprecedented.

    The speed of the recent withdrawal of US support for institutions the US was itself pivotal in creating has shocked many.

    Europe, already reeling from the war in Ukraine and wider instability, is now deeply unsettled by recent statements and positions from the new USA administration.

    The withdrawal of the US security guarantee changed not just Europe but geopolitics everywhere including Asia and the Pacific.

    Tectonic shifts are rocking the world, which is markedly different from a decade ago.

    Multilateral institutions have diminished in authority and effect. The slide of the United Nations, and other important institutions like the World Trade Organisation, is obvious.

    The overuse of the UN Security council veto and inconsistent application of international law has undermined the United Nations. UN ineffectiveness feeds a cynicism and emboldens disregard for international laws, treaties and institutions. The UN Secretary General was declared persona non grata in Israel.

    Many countries we identify with – like Canadian and European democracies – which relied on security alliances with one great power are obviously rethinking their strategy.

    In stark contrast, the New Zealand government has spent the last 18 months seeking closer alignment to the US, increasingly positioning New Zealand as being in opposition to China. We did not consider this a wise approach, but in any case the shifting global landscape has rendered it unsound.

    The world is in a transition to a multipolar world, with heightened rivalry between the great powers.  

    We could be in for a rough ride. What would what a Labour government do if we held the reins?

    How should New Zealand navigate the new order?

    When should we speak out?

    When should we stay silent so as not to provoke a response?

    I’ll set out my thoughts on New Zealand’s foreign affairs, trade and defence responses. How Labour would steer New Zealand’s independent foreign policy efforts, both transactionally and more holistically.

    You will have seen that we share common views with the government about the likes of the Cook Islands, the militarisation of the Pacific, and on Ukraine, but that we differ strongly on AUKUS and Gaza.

    This should not surprise given Labour’s record, which we are proud to stand by.

    The Labour-led government stayed out of the illegal invasion of Iraq after the UN inspector Hans Blix found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. National  said New Zealand should have joined that war, which made the Middle East less secure, and undermined the rules-based order.

    An earlier Labour government established New Zealand’s nuclear free status, which National also opposed.

    Labour sent peacekeeping and reconstruction forces to Timor-Leste and Afghanistan. We provided money for arms to Ukraine via the NATO fund, humanitarian aid, air transport in Europe, and New Zealand personnel to help train Ukrainian soldiers in the UK.

    These are examples of the New Zealand Labour Party in government applying our independent foreign policy, making decisions according to our assessment of New Zealand’s long-term national interest.

    New Zealand is not non-aligned and works most closely with like-minded countries which share our values.

    Australia is by far our most important relationship.

    We are internationalists, not isolationists, and a reliable supporter of international institutions.

    We understand communication between nations on sensitive issues benefits from diplomacy, whether via the United Nations, other multilateral fora, or bilaterally.

    We must be able to talk about differences between our country and others. Hegemony is taken too far if we cannot.

    Not all statements can be in public, but some should be.

    Sometimes, as now, there is a desire not to offend for fear of retaliation. At times of sensitivity, the wisdom of former Prime Ministers on both sides of the Tasman can be helpful. They can say what needs to be said.

    Paul Keating is well known for his pithy comments. He recently described the fairer  attributes of Australian society compared with US societal settings. He listed cradle to the grave healthcare for everyone, sustainable retirement savings and superannuation, an Australian economy which delivers substantial income increases for working people, high rates of Australian participation in education, and effective gun control.

    Keating’s purpose was to emphasise that we shouldn’t be subservient, nor cede moral authority, to others including the US when choosing our approach to the world.

    Malcolm Turnbull has spoken out against US tariffs noting their random use against Australia is not justified by a trade imbalance.

    John Key has quietly but importantly emphasised that we should be careful not to ruin our relationship with China.

    Helen Clark described the pitfalls of AUKUS pillar 2 and has been critical of loose language resurrecting the defunct ANZUS pact or using the Five Eyes intelligence network as a foreign affairs construct.

    She put it succinctly and well – “New Zealand needs a clear-eyed vision for courteous relations with the US and China, close dialogue with the Pacific Rim, Pacific Island and European friends”.

    Just because great-power politics have shifted does not mean Aotearoa should drop our long-standing commitment to human rights, open trade, multilateral institutions and the rights of small states.

    Obviously we understand diplomacy is required, but that should not silence our ability to speak up and advocate for what we believe in.

    We raise concerns about freedom of expression and the treatment of minorities in China, and about foreign interference. Some of this is said behind closed doors. Some is very public.

    When the Chinese government via its NZ embassy criticised New Zealand media for reports alleging foreign interference, in Labour we quickly and publicly stood up for the rights of New Zealand media and criticised the Chinese intervention.

    The New Zealand Labour Party’s view is that if we don’t stand up for what we believe in, we undermine our ability to do so in the future. We also undermine our reputation for fairness in foreign affairs, built up over decades, which in turn undermines our influence.

    The same principle applies to our relationship with the US.

    We have acknowledged the current government’s desire not to unnecessarily provoke a response from the US when things are so volatile.

    But the government’s seeming unwillingness to criticise anything pertaining to the US concerns us, even when the US went so far as to sanction others for participating in international institutions we support.

    For example, New Zealand is a member of the International Criminal Court. The US is not. That is their right, but for the US to sanction those assisting the ICC is wrong. Yet the current New Zealand government chose not to stand with 69 other countries including Switzerland, France, Canada, UK, Germany, Sweden – countries we share values with. This was an unfortunate break with NZs proud tradition of independently standing for what we believe in.

    If we want countries to support the international rule of law, we should apply it consistently. Many countries think the west is inconsistent in its application of international law in the middle east.

    The sympathy most New Zealanders felt for Israel and those who settled there following the holocaust has severely eroded. We condemned the killings and hostage taking by Hamas on 17 October 2023. But 70 years after the 1967 war, the blatant lack of rights of Palestinian people, the endless death and carnage in Gaza, and lack of progress towards a two State solution, or a single state alternative, is intolerable.

    This is why we have said New Zealand should be assisting the International Court of Justice when considering whether the state of Israel is acting illegally, as we did in respect of Rwanda and Ukraine. And be clear that individuals in breach of international law should face consequences in the International Criminal Court, and via a New Zealand sanctions regime.

    We have limited power and can’t always get our way. We try to use our values and reputation to influence better outcomes.

    We get the realpolitik of superpower.

    We are long term observers of superpower behaviour.  We are not surprised that China has become more assertive as it has becomes a superpower. The UK used to be, so were France, and Spain, and Italy back in the day.

    The USA has long used its power in central America, and beyond, to influence outcomes, and is currently pressuring Panama to limit Chinese influence.

    Russia’s Mr Putin has a history of invading and destabilising other countries. He is unlikely to stop, in part because his internal political position – including his life and retention of his billions – may rely upon his continued international aggression. This is why we support consideration by the New Zealand government of support for multinational peacekeeping efforts in the Ukraine.

     

    AUKUS pillar 2.

    The New Zealand Labour Party does not support joining AUKUS pillar 2, which the prior US administration described as a China containment strategy. There was a change of language from the New Zealand government after the 2023 election. New Zealand was described as a “force multiplier” for the US. The government said there were strong reasons in favour of pillar 2. Long redundant ANZUS language was resurrected. It appeared to us in Labour that the public were being softened up to join.

    We engaged the public in a debate. This included well-attended public meetings. Voices for and against AUKUS pillar 2 were active. The media delved into the issue.

    Neither interoperability nor access to technology rely upon AUKUS – two of the arguments put in its favour. Cooperation with other countries in Asia like Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea does not rely upon AUKUS and could be hindered if these countries do not like the anti-China AUKUS positioning.

    We concluded that AUKUS pillar 2 is not in New Zealand’s interests. Our decision was not influenced by the election of the new US administration, although for some this will be relevant.

    It is pleasing that senior former National and Act politicians have voiced their opposition too.

    Interestingly, the rhetoric from the government has toned down on AUKUS. That said, language in India last week, instead of emphasising the need to navigate a multi-polar world, clumsily positioned New Zealand as making binary choices between India and China.

    Being unsurprised that a rising China is more assertive in its nearby region does not mean we are comfortable with all steps in the Pacific.

    Being situated at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean distant from neighbours has trade and other disadvantages. But that physical isolation and low levels of militarisation in the vast Pacific are our greatest defensive attributes. Changes to that status quo concern us.

    We are perturbed by the recent agreements signed between the Cook Islands and China, labelled as a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. The agreement commits the Cook Islands to supporting China in multilateral forums and to support candidates during elections of various boards and committees.

    We agree with the current New Zealand government that the process which preceded these commitments, and their substance, breach the arrangements under which the Cook Islands operate, which are referenced in the Joint Centenary Declaration of 2001.

    The Cook Islands are part of the realm of New Zealand. Cook Islanders carry New Zealand passports. The advantages this carries are the primary reason Cook Islands per capita GDP is a remarkable four times that of Fiji and five times that of Tonga and Samoa. Advantages include the ability to work in New Zealand and Australia, access to New Zealand health care and education, and superannuation portability.

    Consultation obligations are not some perfunctory commitment of little importance. They are to ensure the Cook Islands government neither deliberately nor unwittingly takes foreign affairs steps deleterious to the Cook Islands, or to New Zealand, and to our relationship.

    It is of course open to Cook Islanders to change their relationship with New Zealand and give up their New Zealand Passports. I doubt this will occur as Cook Islanders know their standard of living would slump if they did so. Security issues for the Cook Islands could deteriorate over time too.

    In terms of seabed mining, it is within the sovereign power of the Cook Islands to pursue this if their government desires. New Zealand’s experience with hundreds of millions of dollars of clean-up costs left behind by overseas oil companies makes us very wary. Nevertheless, if the Cook Islands so wish, New Zealand should assist them to manage the opportunities and risks, including with international participants.

    The prosperity and peacefulness of the Pacific Islands is of fundamental importance to New Zealand. The withdrawal of USAID does not help.

    New Zealand, with partners like Australia, must step up. We need to do more to help Pacific countries with affordable banking services, digital telecommunications, renewable electricity, sustainable resource utilisation (especially helping to maximise value from EEZ fisheries), and climate adaptation.  Better educational, health and civil society outcomes are good for us all. Labour mobility can also help, although care is needed given sensitivities for some concerned about depopulation,

    New Zealand can help Pacific populations displaced by sea levels rise.

    Reciprocity is key to prosperity and the desired avoidance of militarisation in our region. What would we do next?

    Labour would like to discuss a Pacific Peace Zone with other Pacific Island countries, and surrounding superpowers. Hon. Phil Twyford will detail how this meshes with our historic commitments to denuclearisation and peace on another day.

    We are continuing to work on our Pacific priorities within Labour, but one thing is already clear. The decline in New Zealand government spending on soft and hard power must be reversed.

    The split between hard power expenditure on military personnel and hardware, and soft power spending in development assistance and diplomacy will need to be worked through. But in our view increases to both are needed. A good principle to start with would be that every extra dollar spent on our military will be matched with an equivalent lift in our aid to the Pacific.

    Today is not the day to detail a defence procurement plan, but some high-level statements are appropriate. I make three points:

    1. In coalition with others, Labour recently replaced the Orions with P8s and replaced the Hercules. An earlier Labour government bought the current frigates, which are now nearing end of life. While we will never be a substantial military power, we need naval vessels to respond to disasters in the Pacific, and it is reasonable for our partners to expect they will have military capabilities. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins has acknowledged this requires cooperation across governments and election cycles.

    2. Our most effective fighting force is our SAS. They should be well paid and well equipped. They like to deploy to polish their renowned skills. Consideration should be given to their deployment in Ukraine in support of peace.

    3. The war in Ukraine has proven quantities of small drones are important. Ukrainian drones have effectively controlled the Black Sea against an invading nuclear power. They are affordable. We are home to Rocket Lab, Hamilton Jet, and drone companies delivering leading edge services to our world leading agricultural sector. 

    Australia has drone capabilities and is ahead of us in some areas. To use Sam Roggevin’s analogy in his book the Echidna Strategy, in defence we want to be a prickly adversary. New Zealand should prioritise working with Australia on defensive marine and air drones and commit significant resources to the task. Our defence spokesperson Hon. Peene Henare is engaged in these issues.

    Now I turn to trade. A lack of cooperation and compromise has blocked progress at the WTO for many years.

    This is not a dig at the US.  Many US complaints about trade imbalances caused by existing tariffs, non-trade barriers, state subsidised overcapacity and dumping are valid.

    That said, other distortions and unfairness caused by tax arbitrage substantially benefit the USA, especially in services like e-commerce. So does the US dollar reserve currency status, which in effect outsources much of the cost of US government deficits and debt. 

    Clearly these are complex issues.

    As Trade Minister during the last Trump administration, I had frequent dealings with then US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. He criticised private equity purchasers of US manufacturing outsourcing manufacturing to low cost-labour countries to shave off the last few percent of labour costs. Those owners banked increases in capital values at the cost of the US workers. He wrote about this in his book.

    He understood that the standard of living of working middle class citizens were essential underpinnings of both the long-term health of the US economy and democracy. Without a strong middle class working, producing, saving and consuming, the economy and society weakens.  

    There are ironies.

    The system has worked for the US in terms of its GDP per capita, which is amongst the highest in the world. The factors referred to by Paul Keating, together with the parallel concentration of wealth at the very top, are not primarily caused by other countries, but rather by the USA’s internal settings.

    Unfairnesses in trade settings are not new for New Zealand.

    New Zealand and Australia both play much fairer in global trade than most other countries but are still caught up in the maelstrom. 

    Sitting as we do at the bottom of the Pacific, New Zealand responded to protectionist measures in Europe and the Americas by building trade and foreign affairs relationships in Asia. Some of those strategies have been phenomenally successful for a little country – the China FTA, AANZFATA, CPTPP – which includes Japan, Canada, Mexico and Chile. Then we circled back to the UK and Europe. The current government has closed the Gulf deal and is pursuing India. Labour’s record in trade is second to none.

    How do we protect our trade interests now?

    We are as well placed as any distant small country can be. Our diversity of sales channels will help us minimise the first-round effects of the trade war. Risks to compliance with trade agreements and the second-round effects in terms of the risks of an international economic slowdown are impossible to model.  I certainly do not recommend tit for tat tariffs.

    Where might a new order emerge?  I will mention one new idea Damien O’Connor and I have discussed. It is at least possible that some of the barriers to trade between Europe and the US will soon be reduced for both security and economic reasons. What happens then? Maybe CPTPP could then be a sensible choice for Europe. The UK is already in it. If this happened, CPTPP – which is has overtaken the stagnant WTO – could become the de facto international standard. This possibility should be pursued by our excellent trade officials.

    I want to end by lifting our thoughts to the underlying drivers of the polarisation afflicting the world.

    Polarisation has increased between and within countries. There are many causes. Some are geopolitical, some economic, and some technological – like the role social media plays in carrying lies, misinformation, violence and death threats without consequence for those lying or those profiting from them.

    People feel less secure. Whatever the causes, this has political, economic, social and security implications.

    Many foreign affairs responses are transactional. But the big shifts post-World War 2 were holistic.

    There was broad acceptance that the extremes of fascism, revolution and wars had been caused by depressions and inequality, in turn partly caused by unaffordable reparations.

    The new world order after WW2 was intended to enable countries to succeed by encouraging international trade, access to resources, better health, and international cooperation.

    The decades that followed saw enormous progress in most parts of the world, with complimentary progressive measures within countries assisting to lift outcomes for billions of people.

    Now the underlying consensus has frayed to the point of disfunction.

    I believe the current turmoil will need a holistic response, and for that to be agreed a substantial subset of the international community will need to find common ground about the main underlying causes of the current worrisome trends.

    I’ve reached the stage of career that I know what I believe to be important. 

    For me there are two main themes.

    The first I have already touched on is gross wealth inequality, especially when this becomes intergenerational and sections of the population stagnate. This drives instability. I won’t say more about that in this speech, but history shows time and again that gross inequality ends in tears.

    The second is the breakdown in trust which happens when lies and misinformation prevail over facts. A cornerstone of the emergence of the nation state and the spread of liberal democracy was the enlightenment. There are rational facts. There are truths and untruths.

    The scourge of irresponsible social media, megalomaniacal tax avoiding tech barons, and irresponsible internet service providers is on my list of the important. 

    I have a view that we in the west have made a fundamental error in providing what is in effect an exclusion of liability for third party content.

    We have wrongly taken upon the shoulders of government the burden of regulating against what is harmful. I doubt this will ever work in practice. It also puts the burden on the harmed citizen (or government agencies) to respond after harm is caused. 

    The exclusion of liability was conferred when providers were more akin to the postal service, which has no liability for the content of a letter. Those providers morphed into publishers yet are protected from the legal remedies which apply to the traditional media they undermine. This mistake is the core of the problem.

    I am convinced it is better to remove the exclusion of liability, exposing those selling a harmful product to liability to the ordinary people that their product harms. 

    And it is a harmful product.

    Be it damage to young people, foreign interference, defamation, theft of other people’s content, the enabling of small but extreme groups of evildoers who find each other on-line, online sexual abuse, online streaming of terrorism, or the regular unpunished threats of death and injury. Lies and misinformation abound.

    A senior banker recently complained to me that internet investment scams are more common than legitimate products, and that the internet companies refuse to control them. Worse, they take money for the advertising service they provide to the fraudsters.

    Much of this is harm is from anonymous sources, with some deliberately aimed at undermining our democratic way of life and freedoms.

    Enabling private remedies for our citizens against those profiting from selling these harmful products, including through low-cost fora such as disputes tribunals or small claims courts, seems to me to be proper. Leave it to the Courts to work out the balance between freedom of expression and the duty not to sell a harmful product.

    There are ways to introduce safeguards, such as liability limits or safe harbours for media content or maybe for platforms that take active steps to prevent scams. But allowing the current situation to continue – where the burden falls almost entirely on individuals while social media giants profit – is untenable.

    The suggested approach does not make the government a censor and better avoids the risk of state suppression of freedom of speech. 

    Left unchecked, current ills will be made worse by those malevolently using AI to make the harms they are already causing worse. 

    Left unchecked the oligarch owners of these platforms will increasingly use them for the own political ends, as we already see with some platforms. 

    Fixing this would not ruin the internet. Point to point communications would still be protected like the mail. E-commerce would endure. Massive quantities of information will remain.

    I fear that if this is not addressed, polarisation and demagoguery will prevail.

    I am by nature an optimist. Opportunities arise from adversity. Digital services taxes sprouted at the end of the last Trump presidency, and I predict pressure for change will continue to mount.

    Many people in the world are fed up with these selfish tech giants. We should work with other countries to fix this.

    The holistic changes after World War 2 had the betterment of people at their heart.

    New Zealand under Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser helped ensure the United Nations applied a human rights approach, for the benefit of people in countries large and small.

    New Zealand needs a clear-eyed vision for courteous relations with the US and China, close dialogue with the Pacific Rim, Pacific Island and European friends. 

    Everyone in this room has a role to play. It has never been more important to stand up for New Zealand’s independent foreign policy. And we all should.

    Media: Check against delivery

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kennedy champions No Dollars for Dictators Act to stop U.S. tax dollars from flowing to Russia, China, Iran

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)

    WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today introduced the No Dollars for Dictators Act of 2025 to prevent state sponsors of terrorism and perpetrators of genocide from receiving American tax dollars via special drawing rights from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) without congressional approval.

    “The Biden administration allowed China, Russia, Iran and Syria to collect billions of dollars from the IMF without ever consulting Congress. My bill would ensure that Congress has a say before the IMF doles out American tax dollars to countries that hate us,” said Kennedy.  

    Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jim Justice (R-W. Va.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) cosponsored the bill.

    “The Biden-Harris administration bypassed Congress and allocated unauthorized funds to oppressive nations like China, Russia, and Iran, which pose a clear threat to our security. The No Dollars for Dictators Act would prevent taxpayer money from supporting dictators under future administrations through the International Monetary Fund,” said Blackburn.

    “Our enemies should not benefit from U.S. taxpayers, especially when they undermine our nation’s security. It’s time Congress steps in on behalf of the American people and puts an end to this reckless spending that supports dictators and terrorists,” said Justice.

    “American taxpayers want their dollars to work in their best interests, not financially supporting dictators of dangerous and adversarial regimes like Communist China, Iran, Venezuela and more. Over the course of the Biden administration, the former president authorized billions of dollars to be funneled to these regimes through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) without a single act of Congress. President Trump is rightly putting Americans first and ensuring their tax dollars are providing a return for them. The No Dollars for Dictators Act will protect U.S. tax dollars from fueling the evils of dictators or terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life,” said Scott.

    Background:

    • In 2021, President Biden approved the largest-ever allocation of special drawing rights at the IMF totaling $650 billion. He did this without consent from Congress. Large portions of that allocation flowed to dictators and countries that actively oppose American interests and violate human rights.
    • China alone received $38 billion in special drawing rights. Russia received $16 billion. Iran, Syria and Venezuela also received billions. Syria and Iran are state sponsors of terrorism.
    • While some have claimed that special drawing rights offer the U.S. a no-cost way to assist poor countries, this is demonstrably false. This IMF allocation requires the U.S. to issue debt to cover the loans issued through special drawing rights. The U.S. must pay interest on that debt, and that interest would exceed any interest that the U.S. may receive on the loans it issues. 
    • There is no requirement that countries that receive loans from the U.S. through special drawing rights ever repay the principal. As a result, the financial burden of these loans falls on the U.S. taxpayer.

    Text of the No Dollars for Dictators Act is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: United States Files Civil Forfeiture Complaint for $47 Million in Proceeds from the Sale of 1 Million Barrels of Iranian Oil

    Source: US State Government of Utah

    A civil forfeiture complaint was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that $47 million in proceeds from the sale of nearly one million barrels of Iranian petroleum is forfeitable as property of, or affording a person a source of influence over, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or its Qods Force (IRGC-QF), designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).

    The forfeiture complaint alleges a scheme between 2022 and 2024 to facilitate the shipment, storage, and sale of Iranian petroleum product for the benefit of the IRGC and IRGC-QF. The facilitators used deceptive practices to masquerade the Iranian oil as Malaysian, including by manipulating the tanker’s automatic identification system (AIS) to conceal that it onboarded the oil from a port in Iran. The facilitators presented falsified documents to the Croatian storage and port facility, claiming that the oil was Malaysian. The facilitators paid for storage fees associated with the oil’s storage in Croatia in U.S. dollars, transactions that were conducted through U.S. financial institutions that would have refused the transactions had they known they were associated with Iranian oil. The petroleum product was sold in 2024, and the United States seized $47 million in proceeds from that sale.

    The civil forfeiture complaint further alleges that the petroleum product constitutes the property of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), which has perpetuated a federal crime of terrorism by providing material support to the IRGC and IRGC-QF. As alleged, profits from petroleum product sales support the IRGC’s full range of malign activities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, support for terrorism, and both domestic and international human rights abuses.

    Funds successfully forfeited with a connection to a state sponsor of terrorism may in whole or in part be directed to the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.

    FBI Minneapolis Field Office and Homeland Security Investigations New York are investigating the case.

    Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen P. Seifert, Maeghan O. Mikorski, and Brian Hudak for the District of Columbia and Trial Attorney Adam Small of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are litigating the case. They received assistance from former Paralegal Specialist Brian Rickers and the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs.

    A civil forfeiture complaint is merely an allegation. The burden to prove forfeitability in a civil forfeiture proceeding is upon the government.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: United States Files Civil Forfeiture Complaint for $47 Million in Proceeds from the Sale of 1 Million Barrels of Iranian Oil

    Source: United States Attorneys General 1

    A civil forfeiture complaint was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that $47 million in proceeds from the sale of nearly one million barrels of Iranian petroleum is forfeitable as property of, or affording a person a source of influence over, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or its Qods Force (IRGC-QF), designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).

    The forfeiture complaint alleges a scheme between 2022 and 2024 to facilitate the shipment, storage, and sale of Iranian petroleum product for the benefit of the IRGC and IRGC-QF. The facilitators used deceptive practices to masquerade the Iranian oil as Malaysian, including by manipulating the tanker’s automatic identification system (AIS) to conceal that it onboarded the oil from a port in Iran. The facilitators presented falsified documents to the Croatian storage and port facility, claiming that the oil was Malaysian. The facilitators paid for storage fees associated with the oil’s storage in Croatia in U.S. dollars, transactions that were conducted through U.S. financial institutions that would have refused the transactions had they known they were associated with Iranian oil. The petroleum product was sold in 2024, and the United States seized $47 million in proceeds from that sale.

    The civil forfeiture complaint further alleges that the petroleum product constitutes the property of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), which has perpetuated a federal crime of terrorism by providing material support to the IRGC and IRGC-QF. As alleged, profits from petroleum product sales support the IRGC’s full range of malign activities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, support for terrorism, and both domestic and international human rights abuses.

    Funds successfully forfeited with a connection to a state sponsor of terrorism may in whole or in part be directed to the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.

    FBI Minneapolis Field Office and Homeland Security Investigations New York are investigating the case.

    Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen P. Seifert, Maeghan O. Mikorski, and Brian Hudak for the District of Columbia and Trial Attorney Adam Small of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are litigating the case. They received assistance from former Paralegal Specialist Brian Rickers and the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs.

    A civil forfeiture complaint is merely an allegation. The burden to prove forfeitability in a civil forfeiture proceeding is upon the government.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Motsoaledi urges global action to address health funding gaps

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi has reiterated the importance of nations reallocating resources towards health, strengthening global health partnerships, and exploring innovative financing mechanisms to address funding gaps.

    The Minister was delivering the keynote address at the second meeting of the G20 Health Working Group today in Ballito, KwaZulu-Natal.

    The Minister used the platform to highlight South Africa’s commitment to universal health coverage (UHC) through the National Health Insurance (NHI) system, which aims to provide financial protection and efficient resource utilisation.

    “In South Africa, we are actively pursuing transformation to achieve universal health coverage through our NHI system.

    “The NHI is designed to provide financial protection for all, ensuring that access to quality healthcare is not dependent on one’s ability to pay [for] it, and it will also assist in the efficient utilisation of our resources by pulling funds and strategically purchasing services.”

    Motsoaledi cited data from the World Health Organisation (WHO), which indicate that the number of people shielded from catastrophic health spending had been steadily increasing before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, since then, about 100 million people have fallen back into financial hardship due to health-related expenses.

    Motsoaledi believes that the NHI is a concrete demonstration of government’s commitment to leaving no one behind, and fostering and strengthening the resilience of the health system.

    The Minister quoted the late Harvard Department of Anthropology’s Professor Paul Farmer on the value of all lives and urged G20 members to increase public financing of health systems as a fundamental investment.

    “I want to quote the idea that ‘some lives matter less’ is the root of all that is wrong with the world.

    “We implore all G20 members to champion increased public financing of health systems.

    “This is not merely a budgetary issue; it’s a fundamental investment in our collective future.”

    Motsoaledi urged attendees to prioritise public health over competing interests, ensuring that adequate resources are allocated to meet the health needs of the nation’s populations.

    “Furthermore, we must all align our efforts beyond financing. We must address the persistent health inequities that plague our world.”

    Non-communicable diseases

    Motsoaledi highlighted the importance of addressing health inequities, particularly in low and middle-income countries, and the need for multilateral approaches to prevent and control non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

    He said the upcoming United Nations High-Level Meeting on NCDs is seen as a crucial opportunity to galvanise global action against chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases.

    “We must alleviate the financial burden, restrict unhealthy food marketing, finance emergency health services, and accelerate cervical cancer elimination, the only cancer which is preventable.”

    The theme of the three-day meeting is: “Accelerating Health Equity, Solidarity, and Universal Coverage”.

    Along with this meeting, a co-sponsored event focused on eliminating cervical cancer, is also taking place.

    “We must move beyond dialogue and commit to concrete steps. South Africa is committed to collaborating with all the G20 members to achieve our shared goals. 

    “Let us work together to ensure that health remains a priority, not a commodity, especially during these unstable economic times,” Motsoaledi added.

    South Africa, which assumed the G20 Presidency in December, is currently hosting various working groups and ministerial meetings throughout the country. 

    These meetings are focused on key topics such as health, employment, trade, tourism, and the digital economy — all in preparation for the G20 Leaders’ Summit scheduled for November this year.

    The G20 comprises 19 countries including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Türkiye, United Kingdom, and the United States. It also includes two regional bodies – the European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU). – SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Despite Diplomatic Progress, Security Council Told Continuing Attacks, Funding Cuts Worsening Humanitarian Situation in Ukraine

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    The humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is worsening, a senior United Nations official told the Security Council today, as she both welcomed diplomatic progress and expressed deep alarm over rising attacks on civilians and severe cuts to global humanitarian funding.

    “Since 1 March, not a day has passed without an attack harming civilians,” Joyce Msuya, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, told the 15-member Council. The regions of Sumy, Odesa, Dnipro, Donetsk and Kharkiv have been hit especially hard in recent weeks, with extensive damage to homes, shops, warehouses and vehicles.

    Meanwhile, global funding cuts for humanitarian operations — including for Ukraine — are further reducing the UN’s capacity to provide life-saving aid.  While the announcement of a ceasefire on energy infrastructure and discussions regarding safe navigation in the Black Sea are positive steps, she noted that the impact of past attacks continue to undermine civilians’ access to electricity, gas, heating and water as the harsh winter persists.

    “We are deeply concerned by the human cost of continued fighting,” she said, noting that, as of 24 February 2022, at least 12,881 civilians — including 681 children — have been killed in Ukraine.  The true toll is likely much higher.  She reiterated that the protection of infrastructure critical to civilian survival is imperative, and that indiscriminate attacks are unequivocally prohibited under international law.

    And with almost 13 million people in Ukraine in need of humanitarian aid, she warned against funding cuts that could threaten vital services — including gender-based-violence support and safe spaces for 640,000 affected women and girls.  Thus far, only 17 per cent of the $2.6 billion needed for Ukraine’s 2025 Humanitarian Response Plan has been received.  Against that backdrop, she urged the international community to enforce compliance with international law, secure funding to save lives and push for an end to the war — all while ensuring that humanitarian needs remain central to peace talks.

    Speakers Express Concern over Increasing Attacks on Civilians, Urge Moscow to Demonstrate Commitment to Peace

    During the discussion that ensued, many speakers expressed concern over growing attacks on civilians in Ukraine.  “The death and destruction caused by this war are tremendous,” said Slovenia’s delegate, noting the over 42,000 verified casualties and reconstruction costs exceeding $500 billion.  Three years on, and the fighting does not seem to be diminishing — in February 2025, civilian casualties increased by 35 per cent compared to February 2024.  “Every human life matters and is not merely a number,” added Pakistan’s delegate, welcoming deals reached between Ukraine and the Russian Federation banning the targeting of energy sites and ensuring safe navigation in the Black Sea.

    While also noting progress on those fronts, other speakers continued to call on the Russian Federation to demonstrate its commitment to peace, with France’s delegate highlighting “the gaping disconnect between [the Russian Federation’s] actions and words”.  Romania’s delegate pointed out that “the dialogue efforts and the proposals in the last weeks are yet to be met by deeds”, spotlighting new attacks by the Russian Federation since the night of 21 March.

    “It is now for Russia to show its willingness to achieve peace,” said the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, adding:  “There can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine, and no negotiations that affect European security without Europe.”  Finland’s delegate, speaking also for Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, echoed that, also expressing concern that limited humanitarian access makes it hard for humanitarian workers to deliver life-saving aid — especially in front-line areas.

    “A ceasefire seems not to be enough,” observed Greece’s delegate, adding that peace should only be possible “with credible and robust security guarantees, which will deter and prevent the recurrence of war in the future”.  Any peace must be more than a mere pause that allows the aggressor to rearm and strike again — as it has done before — Poland’s delegate underscored.  “We must have enduring peace in Ukraine,” stressed the representative of the United Kingdom, adding that, until Moscow’s forces withdraw from Ukraine, “the United Kingdom will continue to work with Kyiv to achieve a just and lasting peace”.

    Meanwhile, the representative of the Republic of Korea said that interviews with soldiers from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea captured in Kursk show men deceived and told they were being sent to Moscow for training.  “Pyongyang must stop sacrificing its own people to sustain the regime in exchange for military, political and economic support from Moscow,” he stressed.

    The representative of Denmark, Council President for March, spoke in her national capacity to describe the latest report by the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine as a “grim catalogue of crimes against humanity” perpetrated by the Russian Federation’s forces against civilians.  Lithuania’s delegate, also speaking for Estonia and Latvia, drew attention to the 4,000 cases against the Russian Federation in the European Court of Human Rights, all related to events in Crimea, Donbas and the wider war against Ukraine.

    Russian Federation, Ukraine Acknowledge Limited Ceasefire Agreements while Expressing Reservations

    For his part, the representative of the Russian Federation said that the European Union and the United Kingdom are trying to thwart efforts by his country and the United States to settle the Ukrainian crisis.  He went on to say that Moscow’s air forces target only military sites, and that civilian casualties in Ukraine occur because Kyiv stores ammunition in residential areas.  He also stated that Ukraine’s European supporters ignore the crimes committed by Kyiv, reiterating that Moscow’s military operation started three years ago to end the war being waged on fellow Russians.

    Regarding the agreement concerning the Black Sea, he said that this will go into effect only after a series of measures are adopted — including the lifting of sanctions against some Russian Federation banks.  And while agreement has been reached to ban strikes on energy sites both in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation, Kyiv continues to violate that agreement.  “The Russian Federation reserves the right to respond should the Kyiv regime continue on this destructive course,” he emphasized.

    Further, he asked those present if they would prefer to either continue providing weapons to “private-military-company Ukraine”, or to join the Russian Federation and the United States to “find a long-term solution that would address the root causes of the Ukraine crisis and strengthen security in Europe and the world over”.

    “Moscow speaks of peace while launching brutal strikes almost daily on densely populated residential areas” in her country, Ukraine’s delegate said, adding that the Russian Federation launched — in the first half of March alone — hundreds of strikes against her people, using approximately 2,800 guided aerial bombs, nearly 2,000 attack drones and over 100 missiles of various types.  Moscow has also sought to block Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea, forcibly transferred Ukrainian children to its territory and that of Belarus, and made use of munitions containing hazardous chemicals.

    While welcoming the United States’ mediation and Saudi Arabia’s hospitality, and reaffirming her country’s commitment to peace, she underscored:  “We won’t accept peace at any price.”  Ukraine will not recognize any of its temporarily occupied territories as belonging to the Russian Federation, and Kyiv will not agree to any foreign diktat regarding the structure or other characteristics of its defence forces.

    While Ukraine has agreed to a ceasefire regarding energy facilities and in the Black Sea, she warned that this does not extend to Russian Federation warships that enter Ukraine’s territorial waters.  “Everyone should focus on Russian actions, not their statements,” she urged, noting that the coming days will be critical in determining “whether Russia is serious about peace or intends to deceive the United States and the world”.

    Nevertheless, Speakers Point to Path towards Peace

    “The war must end now,” the representative of the United States stressed, as she commended both the Russian Federation and Ukraine for taking the first steps towards a ceasefire.  If fully implemented, the agreements concerning energy infrastructure and the Black Sea will open a path towards peace.  “We call on both sides to abide by these agreements and expand on them,” she said.

    Some speakers expressed optimism about the talks under way in Riyadh.  “A window of peace is opening,” said China’s delegate, welcoming recent negotiations that the Russian Federation and Ukraine have had bilaterally with the United States.  Positive progress was made on numerous issues, he said.  Algeria’s delegate, welcoming progress, as well, added that a lasting peace must consider the legitimate concerns of both parties.  The representative of Panama, noting that maritime security is fundamental to his country, expressed optimism about the steps towards a cessation of hostilities in the Black Sea.

    Similarly, the representative of Somalia said that the agreement to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea represents a practical step towards reducing tensions and protecting vital economic infrastructure.  The recent breakthrough is “creating tangible momentum towards de-escalation”, he said.  “Even as we celebrate the modest breakthroughs,” Guyana’s delegate warned that the slightest misstep could doom millions of civilians to even more bombardment and displacement.  Sierra Leone’s representative observed that “cautious hope has begun to emerge”, but highlighted the severe impact already had on children — trauma from constant shelling, loss of loved ones, displacement and abduction.

    “Even when bombings subside, the scars of war remain,” said the Permanent Observer for the Sovereign Order of Malta, pointing to the need for psychological support for those affected by war-related trauma.  Ukraine’s health system will need restoring, he said, adding that it is also crucial to facilitate the safe and dignified return of displaced families.  “The land must be restored and made habitable,” he added, as the detritus of war is cleared away.

    Quoting Pope Francis, he asked those present:  “Can we get out of this spiral of sorrow and death?  Can we once more walk and live in the ways of peace?  I would like for each one of us — from the least to the greatest, including those who are called to govern nations — to respond in one voice: ‘Yes, we want peace.’”

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Syria: Legacy of 14 years of war is huge – Special Envoy | United Nation

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    “The legacies of 14 years of war and conflict and five decades of one-man rule are huge. So are the immediate challenges facing the Syrians today,” said UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen.

    Briefing the Security Council today (Mar 25) on Syria’s political and humanitarian landscape, Pedersen described a resurgence of violence in early March that he said bears the hallmarks of renewed internal conflict.

    “On Thursday March 6, armed groups associated with the former regime attacked and ambushed caretaker authority forces across the coastal region,” Pedersen said. “Reports indicate attacks on military and internal security targets, and also several hospitals.”

    He noted the “scale and sophistication” of the attacks were “striking,” many carried out by groups linked to former regime officers. But what followed was worse, he said, pointing to mass killings of civilians.

    “Far more disturbing was the appalling civilian death toll, including widespread summary killings of civilians and unarmed individuals,” he told the Council. “Accounts of entire families executed at point blank, and widespread footage of grave violations of a plainly sectarian and retaliatory nature – singling out Allawites.”

    On the humanitarian front, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher warned that critical funding gaps are forcing aid agencies to make “brutal choices.”

    “Last year’s appeal was only 35 per cent funded – causing us to reduce our humanitarian response by more than half,” he said. “We are under no illusions about the grim financial outlook.”

    Fletcher said the UN had completed a country-wide rapid needs assessment and was now focusing aid on the most vulnerable — roughly half of the 16.7 million people in need.

    “Let us be problem solvers rather than problem observers,” he urged. “The price of failure will far outweigh the investment we are asking for.”

    Joumana Seif, co-founder of the Syrian Women’s Political Movement, echoed calls for long-term accountability alongside immediate aid, urging Syrians to lead the process.

    “Today, more than ever, Syrians must create a transparent and inclusive national plan for transitional justice,” she said, emphasizing the role of civil society and victim associations in ensuring justice and preventing future atrocities.

    Representing the Syrian government, Ambassador Qusay Abdul Jabbar al-Dahha told the Council that the country is moving forward with constitutional reform following the national dialogue conference.

    “With the aim of preparing the legal framework for the transitional phase, the Presidency of the Republic formed a committee to draft the Constitutional Declaration, which was subsequently approved,” he said.

    He stressed that the “new Syria will be a state of law,” vowing that attacks on civilians “will not go unpunished, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFrQSem_g80

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Human Rights Committee Adopts Annual Report 2024-2025

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Human Rights Committee this morning adopted its annual report on the work of its one hundred and forty-first (1-23 July 2024), one hundred and forty-second (14 October-7 November 2024), and one hundred and forty-third sessions (3-28 March 2025). 

    Introducing the report, Ivan Šimonović, Committee Rapporteur, said that as of 26 March 2025, 174 States were parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 116 States were parties to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on individual communications, and 92 States were parties to the Second Optional Protocol, on the abolition of the death penalty.  Côte d’Ivoire and Zambia had acceded to the Second Optional Protocol in May and December 2024 respectively. 

    Country report task forces met during the three sessions to consider and adopt lists of issues on the reports of Chad and Latvia and lists of issues prior to reporting for Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Barbados, Benin, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, the Dominican Republic, Jordan, Mauritius, Monaco, New Zealand, Poland, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and South Africa.

    At its one hundred and forty-first session, the Committee adopted concluding observations on Croatia, Honduras, India, Maldives, Malta, Suriname and the Syrian Arab Republic.  At its one hundred and forty-second session, the Committee adopted concluding observations on Ecuador, France, Greece, Iceland, Pakistan and Türkiye.  At its one hundred and forty-third session, the Committee would adopt concluding observations on Albania, Burkina Faso, Mongolia, Montenegro and Zimbabwe.  The review of Haiti had been postponed to the Committee’s next session, due to the human rights situation in the country. 

    During the one hundred and forty-first session, the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations submitted interim reports to the Committee.  During that session, the Committee reviewed the following States parties under the follow-up process: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Liberia, and Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

    Regarding communications, at its one hundred and forty-first session, the Committee examined 21 drafts concerning 63 communications: 53 communications were decided on the merits, 10 were declared inadmissible and 32 were closed. Regarding communications decided on the merits, the Committee found violations in 51 of them.  At its one hundred and forty-second session, the Committee examined 19 drafts concerning 308 communications: 287 were decided on the merits, 10 were declared inadmissible and 11 were closed.  With regard to the communications for which a decision was taken on the merits, the Committee found violations in 287 of them. At its one hundred and forty-third session, the Committee examined 19 drafts concerning 66 communications: 38 were decided on the merits, five were declared inadmissible and 23 were closed. The Committee found violations in 37 of the communications for which decisions were taken on the merits.  The Committee had successfully started applying its multifaceted strategy aimed at ending the high number of communications pending consideration and adoption.  Mr. Šimonović reiterated the Committee’s concern regarding the lack of resources and emphasised the importance of allocating adequate staff resources to service its sessions. 

    Following the presentation, various Committee experts took the floor, thanking the Rapporteur for his work on the report.  A speaker said that the Committee’s follow-up procedure allowed the Committee to remain in a dialogue with States parties on the implementation of the Covenant. States parties that had been under the Committee’s review were invited to submit their follow-up information and continue the dialogue.  The liquidity crisis was challenging, a speaker noted, and the Committee was approaching a point where it would be difficult to continue the high quality of their work without the required resources.  The Committee was sometimes the last beacon of hope for persons from countries to obtain legal redress outside their own legal system.  The report was worth being shared more broadly and could be further developed and enhanced, another speaker said. 

    The Committee then adopted the annual report, before closing the meeting.

    The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-third session is being held from 3 to 28 March 2025.  All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Meeting summary releases can be found here.  The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 11 a.m. on Friday 28 March to close its one hundred and forty-third session.

     

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CCPR25.007E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Ukraine, Pact for the Future, Climate & other topics – Daily Press Briefing | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

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

    Highlights:
    Ukraine
    Ukraine/Security Council
    Pact for the Future
    Climate
    Renewables
    Occupied Palestinian Territory
    Sudan
    South Sudan
    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Haiti
    Biological Weapons Convention
    Clarification
    Financial Contributions

    UKRAINEThe Secretary-General welcomes the discussions and reported commitments reached in Saudi Arabia by the United States, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.Reaching an agreement on freedom of navigation in the Black Sea to ensure the protection of civilian vessels and port infrastructure, will be a crucial contribution to the global food security and supply chains, reflecting the importance of trade routes from both Ukraine and the Russian Federation to global markets.The United Nations has been working consistently, especially following the letters the Secretary-General sent to Presidents Zelenskyy, Putin and Erdogan on 7 February 2024 putting forward a proposal for the safe and free navigation in the Black Sea.The United Nations also remains closely engaged in the continued implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Russian Federation on facilitating access of Russian food and fertilizers to global markets to address global food security.The Secretary-General’s good offices remain available to support all efforts towards peace.The Secretary-General reiterates his hope that such efforts will pave the way for a durable ceasefire and contribute to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine, in line with the UN Charter, international law and relevant UN resolutions and in full respect of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.That statement is now being shared with you electronically.
    UKRAINE/SECURITY COUNCILFurther on Ukraine: Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Joyce Msuya briefed Security Council members this morning and said that since 1 March, not a day has passed without an attack harming civilians in that country. She said we are particularly appalled by the strikes countrywide on 7 March that killed 21 civilians and injured many more, making it one of the deadliest days this year.Across Ukraine, Ms. Msuya said, almost 13 million people need humanitarian assistance. More than 10 million Ukrainians have been forced to flee their homes, including 3.7 million of them who are internally displaced. This displacement is disproportionately affecting women and girls, heightening their exposure to gender-based violence and hindering their access to support services, she told the members of the Security Council. She told that recent funding cuts have led to a reprioritization of Ukraine response efforts that will be announced in the coming weeks. Continued financial support will be essential to maintain our operations there.
    UKRAINE/HUMANITARIANFurther on Ukraine from the ground, our colleagues in Ukraine tell us that today, an inter-agency convoy delivered vital aid to one of the most affected communities in the Donetsk region. This is the fourth convoy to front-lines communities in the region this year.Humanitarians brought in six metric tonnes of medical, hygiene and other critical supplies, including those for older people, to help some 1,500 residents remaining in the community of Kostiantynivka.Local residents there face daily shelling. Homes and critical civilian infrastructure have been damaged and electricity, water and the gas supply have been disrupted.

    Full Highlights: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/ossg/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=26+March+2025

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1F1O1Svuo

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General – on the outcomes of meetings of experts on the Black Sea

    Source: United Nations – English

    he Secretary-General welcomes the discussions and reported commitments reached in Saudi Arabia by the United States, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

    Reaching an agreement on freedom of navigation in the Black Sea to ensure the protection of civilian vessels and port infrastructure, will be a crucial contribution to global food security and supply chains, reflecting the importance of trade routes from both Ukraine and the Russian Federation to global markets.

    The United Nations has been working consistently, especially following the letters the Secretary-General sent to Presidents Zelenskyy, Putin and Erdogan on 7 February 2024 putting forward a proposal for safe and free navigation in the Black Sea. 

    The United Nations also remains closely engaged in the continued implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Russian Federation on facilitating access of Russian food and fertilizers to global markets to address global food security.

    The Secretary-General’s good offices remain available to support all efforts towards peace.

    The Secretary-General reiterates his hope that such efforts will pave the way for a durable ceasefire and contribute to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine, in line with the UN Charter, international law and relevant UN resolutions and in full respect of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.   

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Concerns about humanitarian aid in Syria reaching minorities persecuted by Islamists – P-001099/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Priority question for written answer  P-001099/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Mathilde Androuët (PfE)

    Last December, when Islamists took power in Syria, Ursula von der Leyen recalled that the EU had been Syria’s largest donor since 2011, providing EUR 33 billion in humanitarian aid. This, she said, had been done ‘while respecting the principles of no contact, no cooperation, no funding to the Assad regime’[1]. The Commissioner for Preparedness, Crisis Management and Equality, Hadja Lahbib, announced in January that in 2025 the Commission would provide further humanitarian aid to Syrians totalling EUR 235 million[2].

    The massacres of civilians committed by Islamist fighters supporting Ahmed al-Sharaa’s ‘provisional government’[3] raise questions about the extremist militias’ intention to allow this aid to be distributed fairly, especially to the Alawite community, but also to the Christians, who urgently need it and who, for political reasons, receive little help from the West[4].

    In this context, will the Commission pay particular attention to ensuring that the humanitarian aid is properly distributed, with the same political and ‘ethical’ requirements expressed under the previous regime?

    Submitted: 14.3.2025

    • [1] ‘Press statement by President von der Leyen with President of Türkiye Erdoğan’, European Commission, 17 December 2024.
    • [2] ‘EU provides €235 million humanitarian aid to Syrians’, European Commission, 17 January 2025.
    • [3] ‘Massacres en Syrie: les nouvelles autorités mises à l’épreuve par les pires violences depuis la chute d’Al‑Assad’, Franceinfo, Fabien Magnenou, 10 March 2025, https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/revolte-en-syrie/massacres-en-syrie-les-nouvelles-autorites-mises-a-l-epreuve-par-les-pires-violences-depuis-la-chute-d-al-assad_7121439.html.
    • [4] ‘Les aides financières à la Syrie rétrécissent, la minorité chrétienne en danger’, Vatican News, Delphine Allaire, 19 June 2023, https://www.vaticannews.va/fr/monde/news/2023-06/syrie-chretiens-guerre-moyen-orient-onu-ue-reconstruction-ong.html
    Last updated: 26 March 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Provocative EU funding for the jihadist regime that is killing people in Syria – E-001155/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-001155/2025
    to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
    Rule 144
    Lefteris Nikolaou-Alavanos (NI), Kostas Papadakis (NI)

    A few months after Türkiye, Israel and the US intervened in Syria and jihadists toppled the state, thousands of killings and atrocities have been taking place, with religious and ethnic minorities and political opponents being targeted in particular. The EU, as well as the Nea Dimokratia Government in Greece and the other parties – which had welcomed this intervention by intentionally spreading illusions about an ‘inclusive political process’ and a ‘smooth democratic transition’ – have been proven wrong. It is indicative that the December 2024 European Council conclusions referred to ‘a historic opportunity to reunite and rebuild the country’.

    The much-hailed partition of Syria is demonstrably being dictated by major conflicting geostrategic interests pursued by the USA, Türkiye, Israel, Russia, the EU and others, and by the desire of monopolistic groups to exploit the country’s wealth as well as trade and energy corridors.

    Can the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy answer the following:

    • 1.What view does she take of the fact that the EU is supporting, provocatively defending and providing funding worth EUR 2.5 billion – as announced by the President of the Commission – for the jihadist regime that is killing people in Syria and committing horrific crimes and atrocities against the Syrian people, children, religious and ethnic minorities and political opponents?
    • 2.What view does she take of the fact that the EU and national governments, such as that of Greece, are complicit in promoting the partition of Syria and the persecution of its people?

    Submitted: 19.3.2025

    Last updated: 26 March 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI: Snail, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter & Full Year 2024 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CULVER CITY, Calif., March 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Snail, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNAL) (“Snail” or “the Company”), a leading, global independent developer and publisher of interactive digital entertainment, today announced financial results for its fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2024.

    Fourth Quarter & Full Year 2024 Highlights

    • ARK: Survival Ascended. On October 25, 2023, the Company launched its flagship remake of the ARK franchise leveraging Unreal Engine 5’s stunning graphics and introduced a game-altering cross-platform modding system, ushering in a new era of creativity.
      • ARK: Survival Ascended was ranked the top #1 selling game on Steam on launch day.  
      • Since its launch, ARK: Survival Ascended sold 3.4 million units and has an average of 94,000 daily active users (“DAUs”) with a peak of 308,000 DAUs.
    • ARK: Survival Evolved. In the three months and year ended December 31, 2024, ARK: Survival Evolved averaged a total of 136,000 DAUs and 135,000 DAUs, respectively.
      • ARK: Survival Evolved units sold were approximately 621,000 for the fourth quarter 2024 as compared to 745,000 units during the same period in 2023.  
      • Units sold for the year ended December 31, 2024 were approximately 2.3 million, as compared to 4.4 million units during the year ended December 31, 2023.
    • Product and Business Updates:
      • Game portfolio expansion: In December 2024, we released the highly anticipated next-gen ARK mobile game, ARK Ultimate Mobile Edition on iOS and Android platforms. In the launch month, over 2 million users downloaded the mobile game across the two mobile platforms. In an effort to further broaden our game portfolio, we acquired eleven games through our gaming network and partners in 2024. We expect to release nine acquired games in 2025. A few notable titles include Honeycomb: The World Beyond – A sci-fi survival adventure where players assume the role of a bioengineer navigating the mysterious planet Sota7, Echoes of Elysium – an airship survival RPG set in a breathtaking procedural world of mystery and discovery, and Robots at Midnight – a retro-futuristic action-RPG aiming to captivate players with its dynamic gameplay and immersive storytelling.
      • New Product Segment: To bring more entertainment to our users, we have soft launched a short film mobile application on iOS and Android platforms. The short film mobile application, SaltyTV, brings exclusive, original stories from heart-racing thrillers to jaw-dropping romances to our viewers. We have released thirty-one short film dramas to date and expect a consistent roll out of new short film dramas throughout 2025 and beyond.    
      • Growing Indie Portfolio: Snail Games showcased its expanding indie catalog at Steam Scream Fest, featuring a variety of immersive and genre-diverse titles that enhance player engagement and reinforce the company’s presence in the indie gaming space.

    Net revenues for the three months ended December 31, 2024 was $26.2 million as compared to $28.6 million in the three months ended December 31, 2023. The decrease in revenues during the three months ended December 31, 2024 was due to a reduction in sales of ARK that was partially offset by the recognition of deferred revenues upon the release of ARK: Survival Ascended DLC’s.

    Net revenues for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $84.5 million, an increase of $23.6 million, or 38.7%, compared to $60.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. The increase in net revenues was due to an increase in recognition of deferred revenues of $32.2 million related to the ARK franchise, an increase in Bellwright sales of $5.9 million, partially offset by a decrease in total ARK sales of $13.0 million, a decrease in ARK Mobile sales of $1.0 million and a decrease in the Company’s other titles of $0.7 million.

    Net income for the three months ended December 31, 2024 was $1.1 million compared to a net income of $2.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. The decrease in net income is a result of increased research and development costs of $3.0 million to support our future game releases partially offset by an increase in gross profit of $1.4 million, a decrease in advertising and marketing expenses of $0.9 million and an increase in expenses related to the revaluation of outstanding and exercised warrants of $1.5 million.

    Net income was $1.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 as compared to a net loss of $9.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2023, representing an increase of $10.9 million. The increase was primarily due to an increase in net revenue of $23.6 million, decreased general and administrative expenses of $2.9 million, partially offset by increased research and development costs of $6.5 million, increased costs of revenues of $5.9 million, a decrease in income tax benefit of $3.0 million and an increase in expenses related to the revaluation of outstanding and exercised warrants of $1.2 million..

    Bookings for the three months ended December 31, 2024 was $17.0 million as compared to $52.6 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. The decrease was due to the strong release of ARK: Survival Ascended on the Steam, PlayStation and Xbox platforms in 2023.

    Bookings for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $75.7 million as compared to $85.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2023. The decrease was due to increased sales at a higher average selling price (“ASP”) driven by the release of ARK: Survival Ascended in the fourth quarter of 2023. The releases of Bobs Tall Tales and Bellwright along with the ARK: Survival Ascended DLCs, Scorched Earth in April 2024, Aberration in September 2024 and Extinction in December 2024 partially offset the decrease in unit sales in 2024 but each product release was at a lower ASP than the initial release of ARK: Survival Ascended.

    Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) for the three months ended December 31, 2024 decreased by $2.0 million, or 55.6%, as compared to the three months ended December 31, 2023. The decrease was primarily the result of a decrease in net income of $1.3 million, a decrease in interest expense and interest expense – related parties of $0.4 million, and a decrease in provision for income taxes of $0.3 million.

    EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $3.2 million as compared to a loss of $9.7 million in the prior year period. EBITDA increased by $12.9 million, or 133.4%, compared to the year ended December 31, 2023, primarily because of an increase in net income of $10.9 million and a decrease in the benefit from income taxes of $3.0 million, partially offset by a decrease in interest expense and interest expense – related parties of $0.8 million.

    As of December 31, 2024, unrestricted cash was $7.3 million versus $15.2 million as of December 31, 2023.

    Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    In addition to the financial results determined in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, Snail believes Bookings and EBITDA, as non-GAAP measures, are useful in evaluating its operating performance. Bookings and EBITDA are non-GAAP financial measures that are presented as supplemental disclosures and should not be construed as alternatives to net income (loss) or revenue as indicators of operating performance, nor as alternatives to cash flow provided by operating activities as measures of liquidity, both as determined in accordance with GAAP. Snail supplementally presents Bookings and EBITDA because they are key operating measures used by management to assess financial performance. Bookings adjusts for the impact of deferrals and, Snail believes, provides a useful indicator of sales in a given period. EBITDA adjusts for items that Snail believes do not reflect the ongoing operating performance of its business, such as certain non-cash items, unusual or infrequent items or items that change from period to period without any material relevance to its operating performance. Management believes Bookings and EBITDA are useful to investors and analysts in highlighting trends in Snail’s operating performance, while other measures can differ significantly depending on long-term strategic decisions regarding capital structure, the tax jurisdictions in which Snail operates and capital investments.

    Bookings is defined as the net amount of products and services sold digitally or physically in the period. Bookings is equal to revenues, excluding the impact from deferrals. Below is a reconciliation of total net revenue to Bookings, the closest GAAP financial measure.

        Three Months Ended
    December 31,    		     Fiscal Year Ended
    December 31,    		  
        2024     2023     2024     2023  
        (in millions)  
    Total net revenue   $ 26.2     $ 28.6     $ 84.5     $ 60.9  
    Change in deferred net revenue     (9.2 )     24.0       (8.8 )     24.8  
    Bookings   $ 17.0     $ 52.6     $ 75.7     $ 85.7  

    We define EBITDA as net income (loss) before (i) interest expense, (ii) interest income, (iii) income tax provision (benefit from) and (iv) depreciation expense. The following table provides a reconciliation from net income (loss) to EBITDA:

        Three Months Ended
    December 31,    		     Fiscal Year Ended
    December 31,    		  
        2024     2023     2024     2023  
        (in millions)  
    Net income (loss)   $ 1.1     $ 2.4     $ 1.8     $ (9.1 )
    Interest income and interest income – related parties     (0.1 )     –       (0.3 )     (0.1 )
    Interest expense and interest expense – related parties     0.1       0.5       0.7       1.5  
    Provision for (benefit from) income taxes     0.3       0.6       0.6       (2.4 )
    Depreciation expense     0.2       0.1       0.4       0.4  
    EBITDA   $ 1.6     $ 3.6     $ 3.2     $ (9.7 )

    Webcast Details

    The Company will host a webcast at 4:30 PM ET today to discuss the fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results. Participants may access the live webcast and replay on the Company’s investor relations website at https://investor.snail.com/.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains statements that constitute forward-looking statements. Many of the forward-looking statements contained in this press release can be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “expect,” “should,” “plan,” “intend,” “may,” “predict,” “continue,” “estimate” and “potential,” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places in this press release and include, but are not limited to, statements regarding Snail’s intent, belief or current expectations. These forward-looking statements include information about possible or assumed future results of Snail’s business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, plans and objectives. The statements Snail makes regarding the following matters are forward-looking by their nature: growth prospects and strategies; launching new games and additional functionality to games that are commercially successful; expectations regarding significant drivers of future growth; its ability to retain and increase its player base and develop new video games and enhance existing games; competition from companies in a number of industries, including other casual game developers and publishers and both large and small, public and private Internet companies; its ability to attract and retain a qualified management team and other team members while controlling its labor costs; its relationships with third-party platforms such as Xbox Live and Game Pass, PlayStation Network, Steam, Epic Games Store, My Nintendo Store, the Apple App Store, the Google Play Store and the Amazon Appstore; the size of addressable markets, market share and market trends; its ability to successfully enter new markets and manage international expansion; protecting and developing its brand and intellectual property portfolio; costs associated with defending intellectual property infringement and other claims; future business development, results of operations and financial condition; the ongoing conflicts involving Russia and Ukraine, and Israel and Hamas, on its business and the global economy generally; rulings by courts or other governmental authorities; the Company’s current program to repurchase shares of its Class A common stock, including expectations regarding the timing and manner of repurchases made under this share repurchase program; its plans to pursue and successfully integrate strategic acquisitions; and assumptions underlying any of the foregoing.

    Further information on risks, uncertainties and other factors that could affect Snail’s financial results are included in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) from time to time, including its annual reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed, or to be filed, with the SEC. You should not rely on these forward-looking statements, as actual outcomes and results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements as a result of such risks and uncertainties. All forward-looking statements in this press release are based on management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to Snail, and Snail does not assume any obligation to update the forward-looking statements provided to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they were made.

    About Snail, Inc.

    Snail is a leading, global independent developer and publisher of interactive digital entertainment for consumers around the world, with a premier portfolio of premium games designed for use on a variety of platforms, including consoles, PCs and mobile devices.

    For additional information, please contact: investors@snail.com 

     
    Snail, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Consolidated Balance Sheets
        December 31, 2024     December 31, 2023  
                 
    ASSETS                
                     
    Current Assets:                
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 7,303,944     $ 15,198,123  
    Accounts receivable, net of allowances for credit losses of $523,500 as of December 31, 2024 and 2023     9,814,822       25,134,808  
    Accounts receivable – related party     2,336,274       –  
    Loan and interest receivable – related party     105,759       103,753  
    Prepaid expenses – related party     2,521,291       6,044,404  
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets     1,846,024       639,693  
    Prepaid taxes     7,318,424       9,529,755  
    Total current assets     31,246,538       56,650,536  
                     
    Restricted cash and cash equivalents     935,000       1,116,196  
    Accounts receivable – related party, net of current portion     1,500,592       7,500,592  
    Prepaid expenses – related party     9,378,594       7,784,062  
    Property, plant and equipment, net     4,378,352       4,682,066  
    Intangible assets, net     973,914       271,717  
    Deferred income taxes     10,817,112       10,247,500  
    Other noncurrent assets     1,683,932       164,170  
    Operating lease right-of-use assets, net     1,279,330       2,440,690  
    Total assets   $ 62,193,364     $ 90,857,529  
                     
    LIABILITIES, NONCONTROLLING INTERESTS AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY                
                     
    Current Liabilities:                
    Accounts payable   $ 4,656,367     $ 12,102,929  
    Accounts payable – related parties     15,383,171       23,094,436  
    Accrued expenses and other liabilities     4,499,280       2,887,193  
    Interest payable – related parties     527,770       527,770  
    Revolving loan     3,000,000       6,000,000  
    Notes payable     –       2,333,333  
    Convertible notes, net of discount     –       797,361  
    Current portion of long-term promissory note     2,722,548       2,811,923  
    Current portion of deferred revenue     3,947,559       19,252,628  
    Current portion of operating lease liabilities     1,444,385       1,505,034  
    Total current liabilities     36,181,080       71,312,607  
                     
    Accrued expenses     265,251       254,731  
    Deferred revenue, net of current portion     21,519,888       15,064,078  
    Operating lease liabilities, net of current portion     57,983       1,425,494  
    Total liabilities     58,024,202       88,056,910  
                     
    Commitments and contingencies                
                     
    Stockholders’ Equity:                
    Class A common stock, $0.0001 par value, 500,000,000 shares authorized; 9,626,070 shares issued and 8,275,795 shares outstanding as of December 31, 2024, and 9,275,420 shares issued and 7,925,145 shares outstanding as of December 31, 2023     962       927  
    Class B common stock, $0.0001 par value, 100,000,000 shares authorized; 28,748,580 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023.     2,875       2,875  
    Additional paid-in capital     25,738,082       26,171,575  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (279,457 )     (254,383 )
    Accumulated deficit     (12,117,385 )     (13,949,325 )
    Treasury stock at cost (1,350,275 as of December 31, 2024 and 2023)     (3,671,806 )     (3,671,806 )
    Total Snail, Inc. equity     9,673,271       8,299,863  
    Noncontrolling interests     (5,504,109 )     (5,499,244 )
    Total stockholders’ equity     4,169,162       2,800,619  
    Total liabilities, noncontrolling interests and stockholders’ equity   $ 62,193,364     $ 90,857,529  
     
    Snail, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)
     
        Three months ended
    December 31,    		     Years Ended
    December 31,    		  
        2024     2023     2024     2023  
                             
    Revenues, net   $ 26,214,296     $ 28,570,222     $ 84,467,047     $ 60,902,098  
    Cost of revenues     14,866,526       18,646,615       54,236,342       48,306,403  
                                     
    Gross profit     11,347,770       9,923,607       30,230,705       12,595,695  
                                     
    Operating expenses:                                
    General and administrative     3,943,985       3,900,961       12,867,210       15,816,088  
    Research and development     4,123,964       1,165,382       11,647,293       5,057,421  
    Advertising and marketing     192,235       1,094,146       1,523,398       1,582,464  
    Depreciation     68,420       86,222       303,714       432,306  
    Loss on disposal of fixed assets             427               427  
    Total operating expenses     8,328,604       6,247,138       26,341,615       22,888,706  
                                     
    Income (loss) from operations     3,019,166       3,676,469       3,889,090       (10,293,011 )
                                     
    Other income (expense):                                
    Interest income     35,451       31,443       260,679       129,854  
    Interest income – related parties     504       504       2,005       2,000  
    Interest expense     (88,776 )     (570,523 )     (723,038 )     (1,531,719 )
    Other income (expense)     (1,527,706 )     (55,351 )     (981,223 )     265,980  
    Foreign currency transaction loss     43,741       (42,574 )     11,686       (68,180 )
    Total other income (expense), net     (1,536,786 )     (636,501 )     (1,429,891 )     (1,202,065 )
                                     
    Income (loss) before benefit from income taxes     1,482,380       3,039,968       2,459,199       (11,495,076 )
                                     
    Provision for (benefit from) income taxes     362,623       643,728       632,124       (2,400,652 )
                                     
    Net income (loss)     1,119,757       2,396,240       1,827,075       (9,094,424 )
                                     
    Net loss attributable to non-controlling interests     (215 )     (1,128 )     (4,865 )     (8,349 )
                                     
    Net income (loss) attributable to Snail, Inc.   $ 1,119,972     $ 2,397,368     $ 1,831,940     $ (9,086,075 )
                                     
    Comprehensive income (loss) statement:                                
                                     
    Net income (loss)   $ 1,119,757     $ 2,396,240     $ 1,827,075     $ (9,094,424 )
                                     
    Other comprehensive income (loss) related to currency translation adjustments, net of tax     (48,600 )     33,302       (25,074 )     52,817  
                                     
    Total comprehensive income (loss)   $ 1,071,157     $ 2,429,542     $ 1,802,001     $ (9,041,607 )
                                     
    Net income (loss) attributable to Class A common stockholders:                                
    Basic   $ 248,176     $ 516,955     $ 400,576     $ (1,960,813 )
    Diluted   $ 248,176     $ 516,955     $ 400,576     $ (1,960,813 )
                                     
    Net income (loss) attributable to Class B common stockholders:                                
    Basic   $ 871,796     $ 1,880,413     $ 1,431,364     $ (7,125,262 )
    Diluted   $ 871,796     $ 1,880,413     $ 1,431,364     $ (7,125,262 )
                                     
    Net income (loss) per share attributable to Class A and B common stockholders:                                
    Basic   $ 0.03     $ 0.07     $ 0.05     $ (0.25 )
    Diluted   $ 0.03     $ 0.07     $ 0.05     $ (0.25 )
                                     
    Weighted-average shares used to compute income (loss) per share attributable to Class A common stockholders:                                
    Basic     8,183,918       7,914,564       8,045,469       7,909,715  
    Diluted     8,183,918       7,914,564       8,045,469       7,909,715  
                                     
    Weighted-average shares used to compute income (loss) per share attributable to Class B common stockholders:                                
    Basic     28,748,580       28,748,580       28,748,580       28,748,580  
    Diluted     28,748,580       28,748,580       28,748,580       28,748,580  
     
    Snail, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
     
    For the years ended December 31,   2024     2023  
                 
    Cash flows from operating activities:                
    Net income (loss)   $ 1,827,075     $ (9,094,424 )
    Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:                
    Amortization – intangible assets, net     7,804       1,384,862  
    Amortization – loan origination fees and debt discounts     62,855       124,595  
    Accretion – convertible notes     222,628       306,664  
    Loss on change in fair value of warrant liabilities     1,332,815       32,883  
    Depreciation – property and equipment     303,714       432,306  
    Stock-based compensation expense     (890,208 )     848,035  
    Loss (gain) on disposal of fixed assets     –       427  
    Credit losses     –       581,498  
    Deferred taxes, net     (569,601 )     (2,644,964 )
                     
    Changes in assets and liabilities:                
    Accounts receivable     15,319,987       (18,939,465 )
    Accounts receivable – related party     3,663,726       3,824,775  
    Prepaid expenses – related party     1,928,581       (8,245,966 )
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets     (1,206,331 )     501,104  
    Prepaid taxes     2,211,331       –  
    Other noncurrent assets     (1,523,065 )     –  
    Accounts payable     (7,183,648 )     2,992,856  
    Accounts payable – related parties     (8,001,265 )     3,176,177  
    Accrued expenses and other liabilities     46,542       626,764  
    Interest receivable – related party     (2,005 )     (2,000 )
    Lease liabilities     (266,800 )     (205,520 )
    Deferred revenue     (8,849,259 )     24,765,261  
    Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities     (1,565,124 )     465,868  
                     
    Cash flows from financing activities:                
    Repayments on promissory note     (89,374 )     (79,897 )
    Repayments on notes payable     (2,333,333 )     (6,500,000 )
    Repayments on convertible notes     (1,020,000 )     –  
    Repayments on revolving loan     (3,000,000 )     (3,000,000 )
    Borrowings on notes payable     –       3,000,000  
    Cash proceeds from exercise of warrants     220,000       –  
    Proceeds from issuance of convertible notes     –       847,500  
    Refund of dividend withholding tax overpayment     –       1,886,600  
    Purchase of treasury stock     –       (257,093 )
    Payments of offering costs in accounts payable     (262,914 )     (342,318 )
    Release of restricted escrow deposit     –       1,003,804  
    Net cash used in financing activities     (6,485,621 )     (3,441,404 )
                     
    Effect of currency translation on cash and cash equivalents     (24,630 )     51,670  
                     
    Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents, and restricted cash and cash equivalents     (8,075,375 )     (2,923,866 )
                     
    Cash and cash equivalents, and restricted cash and cash equivalents – beginning of period     16,314,319       19,238,185  
                     
    Cash and cash equivalents, and restricted cash and cash equivalents – end of period   $ 8,238,944     $ 16,314,319  
                     
    Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information                
    Cash paid during the period for:                
    Interest   $ 467,188     $ 934,523  
    Income taxes   $ (1,100,302 )   $ 248,388  
    Noncash finance and investing activity during the period for:                
    Debt converted to equity   $ (60,000 )   $ –  
    Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for a lease liability   $ (85,588 )        
    Liabilities converted to equity upon exercise of warrants   $ 176,750          
    Acquisition of software in accounts payable – related parties   $ 290,000     $ –  
    Acquisition of license rights in accrued expenses and other liabilities   $ 420,000     $ –  
    Issuance of warrants in connection with equity line of credit   $ –     $ (105,411 )

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Global: Leaders must unite to resist all who undermine the international legal order, in Ukraine and beyond

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Speaking ahead of Thursday’s summit in Paris, where a coalition of states bringing together leaders across Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Türkiye will discuss support for Ukraine and defense against Russian aggression, Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard said:

    “As European and other leaders come together to affirm their determination to defend Ukraine against Russia’s war of aggression, Amnesty International calls on them to prioritize justice for Ukraine and center their proposals on human rights protection for all.  

    “Russia has perpetrated all manner of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law in Ukraine, including deadly deliberate airstrikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure, the torture and enforced disappearance of Ukrainian civilian detainees and prisoners of war, and executions and killings of individuals in Russian captivity. It has also overseen the forcible transfer of children to Russia, the suppression of non-Russian identities and a campaign of harassment and intimidation to ensure compliance with Russian authorities in Crimea and other Russian-occupied territories.

    “We urge leaders at the summit to do all within their power and authority to put a stop to these heinous crimes, protect the people of Ukraine and uphold their rights to justice, accountability, and reparation. We call on the leaders to ensure that those most impacted by Russia’s war of aggression have their voices heard and their needs met.

    By failing to enforce international law anywhere, Europe’s leaders help weaken it everywhere.

    Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

    “As the people of Ukraine and many others caught up in the world’s conflicts demonstrate daily, justice and freedom from oppression are secured though resistance that upholds human rights, shared values and a clear-minded vision for a better, more just future.

    “The coalition of European and other states must recognize that their stand for Ukraine is grounded on a broader vision: a vision for the freedom and human security of Ukrainians and all people the world over; a vision grounded in the promise of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today’s leaders must defend those standards steadfastly, without fear or favour.

    “In this instance, it is the Russian authorities and Vladimir Putin that are the aggressors. But many world leaders, from Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump to Xi Jinping and Nayib Bukele, are actively undermining the international rule of law. We watch with alarm as increasingly authoritarian leaders are rising to power across the globe – and many of them finding comfort in Presidents Putin and Trump’s shared disdain for international law and willingness to sacrifice justice and victims’ rights.

    “European Leaders in particular must be alert to this ominous trend. They must reject the double standards that have become the hallmark of European international policy, painfully evident in its failure to protect the people of Gaza from Israel’s genocide. By failing to enforce international law anywhere, Europe’s leaders help weaken it everywhere.

    “Instead, Europe must build a different, broader and much stronger international coalition – one capable of withstanding not only Russia’s belligerent ambitions, but also of protecting human rights, and the multilateral and international legal order. Supporting Ukraine demands that they hold all governments to the same standards they apply to Russia. It demands too that they enforce the arms embargo to Sudan and rectify all instances of double standards. Persisting with a selective, inconsistent approach to international law will deprive the European leaders’ position of any international credibility.”

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Global: Leaders at Paris summit urged to defend international rule of law ‘without fear or favour’

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Leaders from Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Türkiye to meet tomorrow in Paris

    The coalition will discuss support for Ukraine and defense against Russian aggression

    Persisting with a selective, inconsistent approach to international law will deprive European leaders’ position of any international credibility

    ‘We watch with alarm as increasingly authoritarian leaders are rising to power across the globe’ – Agnès Callamard

    Speaking ahead of Thursday’s summit in Paris, where a coalition of states bringing together global leaders to discuss support for Ukraine and defense against Russian aggression, Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, said:

    “As European and other leaders come together to affirm their determination to defend Ukraine against Russia’s war of aggression, Amnesty International calls on them to prioritise justice for Ukraine and center their proposals on human rights protection for all.  

    “Russia has perpetrated all manner of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law in Ukraine, including deadly deliberate airstrikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure, the torture and enforced disappearance of Ukrainian civilian detainees and prisoners of war, and executions and killings of individuals in Russian captivity. It has also overseen the forcible transfer of children to Russia, the suppression of non-Russian identities and a campaign of harassment and intimidation to ensure compliance with Russian authorities in Crimea and other Russian-occupied territories.

    “We urge leaders at the summit to do all within their power and authority to put a stop to these heinous crimes, protect the people of Ukraine and uphold their rights to justice, accountability, and reparation. We call on the leaders to ensure that those most impacted by Russia’s war of aggression have their voices heard and their needs met.

    “The coalition of European and other states must recognise that their stand for Ukraine is grounded on a broader vision: a vision for the freedom and human security of Ukrainians and all people the world over; a vision grounded in the promise of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today’s leaders must defend those standards steadfastly, without fear or favour.

    “In this instance, it is the Russian authorities and Vladimir Putin that are the aggressors. But many world leaders, from Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump to Xi Jinping and Nayib Bukele, are actively undermining the international rule of law. We watch with alarm as increasingly authoritarian leaders are rising to power across the globe – and many of them finding comfort in Presidents Putin and Trump’s shared disdain for international law and willingness to sacrifice justice and victims’ rights.

    “European Leaders must reject the double standards that have become the hallmark of European international policy, painfully evident in its failure to protect the people of Gaza from Israel’s genocide. By failing to enforce international law anywhere, Europe’s leaders help weaken it everywhere.

    “Europe must build a different, broader and much stronger international coalition – one capable of withstanding not only Russia’s belligerent ambitions, but also of protecting human rights, and the multilateral and international legal order. Supporting Ukraine demands that they hold all governments to the same standards they apply to Russia. It demands too that they enforce the arms embargo to Sudan and rectify all instances of double standards. Persisting with a selective, inconsistent approach to international law will deprive the European leaders’ position of any international credibility.”

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Yemen faces economic freefall and devastating aid crisis after a decade of conflict – Oxfam

    Source: Oxfam –

    A decade after a Saudi-led coalition intervened to restore the internationally recognized government of Yemen to power, the country remains deeply divided, facing economic freefall and a devastating humanitarian crisis, Oxfam said today. 

    Competing financial policies in the North and the South have caused economic collapse. Violations of human rights, the detention of humanitarian workers, and unacceptable conditions on aid imposed by the authorities in Sana’a have exacerbated suffering.  

    In the South, despite strong international support, the internationally recognized government has failed to provide basic services or stabilise the currency. Over the last 10 years, the Yemeni rial has depreciated by more than 90 per cent in government-controlled areas – pushing basics like food, water, and health care out of reach for most Yemenis. This inflation is only worsening – the rial lost 30 per cent of its value in February alone. 

    In the North, the Houthis have made it increasingly difficult and dangerous for the humanitarian community to operate and provide vital food, cash and other assistance. Their arbitrary and unlawful detention of Yemeni humanitarian workers and members of civil society has worsened the already difficult operating environment. Authorities should release all unlawfully held detainees, including Oxfam staff. 

    The environment of restriction and fear imposed by the Houthis, coupled with the US government’s freeze of foreign assistance funding and imposition of heightened legal risks, have caused many humanitarian organisations to wind down their operations, leaving millions of people without the means to survive and without access to education and health services. Families are facing higher prices and reduced humanitarian assistance. 

    “The last decade has been devastating for Yemenis, and we’ll only see these deadly consequences compounded without urgent action from authorities and the international community to allow the economy and the aid community to operate.” 

    Pauline Chetcuti, Head of Humanitarian Advocacy and Campaigns

    Oxfam International

    Pauline Chetcuti, Oxfam International’s Head of Humanitarian Advocacy and Campaigns said: 

     “Yemenis deserve – and have the right – to live in safety, have access to food, water, health care and to lead on a path towards a peaceful future.   

    “The last decade has been devastating for Yemenis, and we’ll only see these deadly consequences compounded without urgent action from authorities and the international community to allow the economy and the aid community to operate.” 

    Education and healthcare services have been decimated, leaving millions without critically needed support, and civil servants without salaries. Health facilities across the country have been significantly impacted by the conflict; just 40 per cent are now only partially functioning or completely out of service due to shortages of staff, funds, electricity, medicines, and equipment. 

    The war has destroyed much of Yemen’s critical infrastructure – the roads, bridges, markets, hospitals, schools, and private factories that powered Yemen’s economy. Though the frontlines have largely been frozen since the ceasefire in April 2022, competing monetary policies and the absence of a full political settlement have left more than 17 million people – nearly half of Yemen’s population – food insecure.  

    Yemeni families are facing higher prices and reduced humanitarian assistance stemming from the US government’s designation of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The designation creates significant obstacles to life-saving humanitarian assistance and commercial imports of food and medicine. It also adds a barrier to the vital flow of remittances from Yemenis abroad to their families, which account for approximately a fifth of Yemen’s GDP; a vital part of Yemen’s social safety net. Yemenis need to see an end to the Houthis’ rights violations and international attacks, but this designation is unlikely to make that happen. Governments should support international accountability mechanisms for all parties to the conflict – and not penalise Yemeni families by cutting off lifesaving aid. 

    The decade of conflict has killed over 19,000 people and displaced nearly five million people, disproportionately women and children. These figures will only grow as more legal and security barriers are placed on the economy and the aid community.  

    Chetcuti said: “Regional and global powers should collaborate to support a genuine peace instead of supporting aligned factions and furthering their narrow political interests. Only through a Yemeni-led political process that includes women, youth, and civil society can Yemenis emerge from crisis and enjoy basic peace and security.” 

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Collins, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Limit Research Theft

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Susan Collins

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Susan Collins, Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Lee (R-UT), John Barrasso (R-WY), and James Lankford (R-OK) introduced the Guarding American Technology from Exploitation (GATE) Act, legislation that would ban foreign scientists from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba from visiting or working in Department of Energy National Laboratories without a waiver granted by the Department of Energy and the intelligence community.

    “Sensitive research conducted at Department of Energy National Laboratories is vital to America’s national security and economic development. Allowing foreign scientists from adversarial nations access to this information poses a serious risk of espionage, sabotage, or theft – actions they may be pressured to undertake by the governments of their home nations,” said Senator Collins. “This legislation is a necessary step to prevent our adversaries from gaining unchecked access to critical taxpayer-funded research.”

    In Fiscal Year 2023, 40,000 foreign scientists visited our national labs and approximately 8,000 of those were Chinese or Russian, meaning 1 out of every 5 scientists visiting our national labs were from our most dangerous foreign adversaries. Last Congress, this legislation passed out of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence by a vote of 17-0, but it was not included in the National Defense Authorization Act.

    The complete text of the bill can be read here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: UN welcomes Black Sea talks, warns of worsening humanitarian crisis in Ukraine

    Source: United Nations 4

    Peace and Security

    The United Nations on Wednesday welcomed recent diplomatic talks involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States in Saudi Arabia, calling an agreement on freedom of navigation and security in the Black Sea a crucial step for global food security.

    In a statement, Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for Secretary-General António Guterres, said the UN chief’s good offices remain available to support all efforts towards a lasting peace in Ukraine.

    “Reaching an agreement on freedom of navigation in the Black Sea to ensure the protection of civilian vessels and port infrastructure, will be a crucial contribution to global food security and supply chains, reflecting the importance of trade routes from both Ukraine and the Russian Federation to global markets,” Mr. Dujarric said.

    “The Secretary-General reiterates his hope that such efforts will pave the way for a durable ceasefire and contribute to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine, in line with the UN Charter, international law and relevant UN resolutions and in full respect of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” he added.

    Humanitarian crisis worsening

    The humanitarian crisis in Ukraine continues to worsen with nearly 13 million people in need of assistance – but funds are dwindling, a top UN relief official warned ambassadors in the Security Council.

    Joyce Msuya, UN Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, added that critical aid programmes are at risk due to recent funding cuts.

    The shortfall is already having dire consequences, particularly for women and girls, and UN agencies fear that at least 640,000 could lose access to protection against gender-based violence, psychosocial support and safe spaces.

    “Recent funding cuts have led to a reprioritization of Ukraine response efforts that will be announced in the coming weeks. Continued financial support will be essential to maintain operations,” Ms. Msuya said.

    The $2.6 billion Ukraine humanitarian needs and response plan for 2025, which aims to reach six million people in need, is only 17 per cent funded.

    Mounting civilian casualties

    Ms. Msuya also highlighted the impact of the fighting on civilians.

    “Since 1 March, not a day has passed without an attack harming civilians,” she said, noting civilian deaths and injuries, and damage to infrastructure across northern, central, eastern and southern Ukraine.

    “In frontline communities, civilians are confronted with relentless shelling and face impossible choices: flee under dangerous conditions, leaving behind everything they own, or stay and risk injury, death and limited access to essential services,” she warned.

    The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (UNHRMMU) has verified at least 12,881 civilian deaths since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, though the actual toll is feared to be much higher.

    UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

    Assistant Secretary-General Joyce Msuya (seated at the left end of the table) briefs the Security Council on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine

    Humanitarian challenges

    Meanwhile, humanitarians struggle to deliver aid, Ms. Msuya continued, stating that an estimated 1.5 million people in Russian-occupied areas of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhya are in urgent need of assistance, but aid workers are unable to reach them “at any adequate scale”.

    Humanitarian workers themselves are increasingly coming under attack, she said. Since the start of the year, seven aid workers have been injured and humanitarian assets damaged in several locations, further hampering relief efforts.

    The destruction of energy infrastructure is compounding the crisis. Despite recent announcements of a ceasefire on energy targets, past attacks have left millions without reliable access to electricity, heating and water as cold weather persists.

    Call for international support

    Concluding her briefing, Ms. Msuya outlined three key asks for the international community: adherence to international humanitarian law to protect civilians, sustained funding to keep aid operations running and renewed efforts to push for a lasting end to the conflict.

    The war must end, she underlined, and humanitarian needs must be central to discussions on a pause in fighting or longer-term agreement.

    Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Joyce Msuya briefs the Security Council.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Donald Trump’s ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and dissent is threatening US democracy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth

    The second Donald Trump administration has already sent shockwaves through the political establishment on both sides of the Atlantic. Overseas, the focus has been on the administration’s apparent dismantling of the post-war international order and Trump’s apparent pivot away from America’s traditional allies towards a warmer relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin. But within the United States itself, the greatest concerns are associated with administration actions that, for many, suggest a deliberate destruction of American democracy.

    Such fears in the US are not isolated to the political elites, but are shared by citizens across the entire nation. But what is also emerging is a concerted assault on people’s ability to push back – or even complain – about some of the measures being introduced by Trump 2.0. This will inevitably result in what is often called a “chilling effect”, where it becomes too hard – or too dangerous – to voice dissent.

    Many of Trump’s policies – the mass deportations, the wholesale sacking of public servants by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), the decision to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants – have been challenged in the courts. The Trump administration is now embroiled in a range of legal challenges. It is here that Trump’s disdain for a legal system that has temporarily blocked the wishes of the president has emerged.

    Chilling effect

    Judicial decisions calling for the administration to reverse or pause some of these policies have been greeted by Trump and some of his senior colleagues (including Musk and the vice-president J.D.Vance), with noisy complaints at judicial interference in government. Even, in some cases, calls for the impeachment of judges who rule against the government.

    Not only did the administration ignore the court’s ruling that suspended the forced expulsion of Venezuelans to El Salvador, some of whom were in the US legally, but Trump attacked the judge on social media calling him a corrupt “radical left lunatic” and called for his impeachment.

    This stirred the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Glover Roberts Jr., to intervene. He reminded the president that America doesn’t settle its disputes, saying that the “normal appellate review process exists for that purpose”. Later, Tom Homan, Trump’s chief adviser on immigration issues, told ABC News that the administration would abide by court rulings on the matter.

    The pressure being brought to bear on America’s legal system has not stopped at the judiciary. Trump has recently targeted some of America’s biggest and most powerful law firms, seemingly for no other reason than their acting for clients who have opposed his administration.

    On March 25, Trump signed an executive order targeting Jenner & Block, one of whose partners, Andrew Weissmann, worked with special prosecutor Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The executive order calls for the firms to be blacklisted from government work and for their employees to have any security clearances removed, for them to be barred from any federal government contracts and refused access to federal government buildings. A death warrant for the firm in other words.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    This follows the news that the head of the prestigious law firm Paul Weiss, Brad Karp, had signed a deal with the White House committing to providing millions of dollars worth of pro-bono legal work for causes nominated by the president. He’s also agreed to stop using diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, which had been faced with a similar fate.

    Silencing dissent

    This administration’s chilling effect has also extended to an attack on press freedom. Trump has expelled established news organisations from the Pentagon, curtailed access to press events for the esteemed Associated Press, and taken control of the White House press pool, sidelining major media outlets.

    These actions mark a significant downgrading of press freedom in America. They are undermining the role of independent journalism in their key function of holding power to account. By restricting access and silencing critical voices, his administration has raised concerns over transparency and the free flow of information in the domestic media landscapes.

    Universities have traditionally been bastions of independent thought. We saw that with the massive protests against US policy towards Israel and Palestine which have roiled campuses during the conflict in Gaza. But universities are also seen by many in the administration as a hotbed of “woke” activism. Accordingly Trump 2.0 has fixed its sights on one of the most prominent US universities: Columbia.

    Citing what it says is a repeated failure to protect students from antisemitic harassment, the administration cancelled US$400m (£310 million) of federal contracts with the university. Columbia caved in to the pressure moments before the administration’s deadline passed. It agreed to overhaul its disciplinary procedures and “review” its regional studies programmes, starting with those covering the Middle East.

    Columbia’s academic staff are horrified. They are launching legal action against the government, alleging that “the Trump administration is coercing Columbia University to do its bidding and regulate speech and expression on campus”.

    Democracy in peril

    Why is this all so worrying? The legal system, the media and universities are the pillars of US democratic freedoms. The Trump administration’s undermining of these institutions is a blatant attempt to impose an authoritarian rule by bypassing any counterbalance to executive power. And the US Supreme Court has ruled that he is almost entirely immune from prosecution while doing it.

    The checks and balances system of government in the US was designed to ensure that no single branch could dominate the political process. But partisan loyalty, and loyalty to Trump over the party, now outweighs constitutional responsibility for the majority of those within the Republican Party.

    American democracy is under threat. Not from the external existential threats it faced over the past century such as communism and Islamic fundamentalism, but from within its own system. Those Americans who are terrified about this threat are trying to fight back, but Trump’s assault on dissent is so chilling that this is becoming increasingly dangerous.

    Dafydd Townley 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. Donald Trump’s ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and dissent is threatening US democracy – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-chilling-effect-on-free-speech-and-dissent-is-threatening-us-democracy-253139

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Humble man sentenced in relation to scheme to illegally ship firearms to Iraq

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    HOUSTON – A 53-year-old local resident has been sentenced to federal prison for providing false information on federally mandated firearms records, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

    Yashab Idnan Sandhu, Humble, pleaded guilty July 24, 2023.

    U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has now ordered Sandhu to serve 42 months in federal prison to be immediately followed by three years of supervised release.

    “The Southern District of Texas is pleased to have worked with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to have intercepted this shipment of guns before they reached Iraq, and used for whatever unknown purpose,” said Ganjei.

    “Being a responsible gun dealer is not just a matter of business; it’s a fundamental duty to safeguard public safety and uphold the trust placed in our agency by the American people,” said ATF Special Agent in Charge Michael Weddel. “ATF puts great trust in Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), to include ‘responsible persons,’ as they carry significant responsibility. When that trust is violated, it undermines the confidence the public has in the system. ATF Houston is committed to maintaining public safety, which includes holding these FFLs and their associated employees responsible when the laws and regulations are not followed.”

    The investigation began March 13, 2020, when authorities discovered a cache of handguns concealed in a shipping crate addressed to Iraq at a Port of Houston warehouse. They recovered approximately 473 handguns, 38 of which were pistols with obliterated serial numbers.

    Law enforcement ultimately traced 38 pistols with obliterated serial numbers to R’s Golf & Guns, an FFL for whom Sandhu was a “responsible person.”

    A responsible person is someone who has the authority and power to direct firearm compliance decisions and operations for an FFL.

    The investigation revealed Sandhu had sold these firearms to a suspected firearms smuggler. As part of his plea, Sandhu admitted he went back to previously completed forms and added the firearms, falsely reporting they had been sold to other innocent persons. 

    Sandhu was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

    ATF conducted the investigation with the assistance of the FBI and Bureau of Industry and Security. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Steven Schammel and Heather Winter prosecuted the case.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Global population data is in crisis – here’s why that matters

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew J Tatem, WorldPop Director, Professor of Spatial Demography and Epidemiology, University of Southampton

    Arthimedes/Shutterstock

    Every day, decisions that affect our lives depend on knowing how many people live where. For example, how many vaccines are needed in a community, where polling stations should be placed for elections or who might be in danger as a hurricane approaches. The answers rely on population data.

    But counting people is getting harder.

    For centuries, census and household surveys have been the backbone of population knowledge. But we’ve just returned from the UN’s statistical commission meetings in New York, where experts reported that something alarming is happening to population data systems globally.

    Census response rates are declining in many countries, resulting in large margins of error. The 2020 US census undercounted America’s Latino population by more than three times the rate of the 2010 census. In Paraguay, the latest census revealed a population one-fifth smaller than previously thought.

    South Africa’s 2022 census post-enumeration survey revealed a likely undercount of more than 30%. According to the UN Economic Commission for Africa, undercounts and census delays due to COVID-19, conflict or financial limitations have resulted in an estimated one in three Africans not being counted in the 2020 census round.

    When people vanish from data, they vanish from policy. When certain groups are systematically undercounted – often minorities, rural communities or poorer people – they become invisible to policymakers. This translates directly into political underrepresentation and inadequate resource allocation.

    As the Brookings Institution, a US research organisation, has highlighted, undercounts have “cost communities of colour political representation over the next decade”.

    This is happening because several factors have converged. Trust in government institutions is eroding worldwide, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reporting that by late 2023, 44% of people across member countries had low or no trust in their national governments. Research shows a clear trend of declining trust specifically in representative institutions like parliaments and governments. This makes people less likely to respond to government-issued census requests.

    The COVID-19 pandemic created logistical nightmares for census takers. Many countries had to postpone their censuses. Budget cuts to statistical offices reduced capacity, while countries struggled with recruiting field staff.

    International funding for population data is also disappearing. The US-funded Demographic and Health Surveys program, which provided vital survey data across 90 countries for four decades, was terminated in February 2025. Unicef’s Multi-Indicator Cluster program, which carries out household surveys, faces an uncertain future amid shrinking global aid budgets. US government cuts to support for UN agencies and development banks undertaking census support will likely have further impacts.

    This is incredibly worrying to us as geography academics, because gathering accurate population data is fundamentally about making everyone visible. As population scientists Sabrina Juran and Arona Pistiner wrote, this information allows governments to plan for the future of a country and its people.

    The US census directly impacts the allocation of more than US$1.5 trillion (£1.2 trillion) in public resources each year. How can governments distribute healthcare funding without knowing who lives where? How can disaster response be effective if vulnerable populations are invisible in official population counts?

    Solutions that count

    Countries are adapting. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition to alternative census methodologies. Many countries turned to online questionnaires, telephone interviews and administrative data sources to reduce face-to-face interactions.

    The UN Economic Commission for Africa recommends that countries move from using paper forms for census data collection and embrace new digital technologies that can be cheaper and more reliable. Turkey’s switch in 2011 reduced census costs from US$48.3 million to US$13.9 million while improving data quality and timeliness, and nearly 80% of countries used tablets or smartphones for data collection in the 2020 round of censuses.

    Collecting census data digitally in Pakistan in 2023.
    Abdul Rauf Khan/Shutterstock

    At WorldPop, our research group at the University of Southampton, we’re also helping governments to develop solutions using new technologies. Buildings mapped from satellite imagery using AI, together with counts of populations from small areas, can help create detailed population estimates to support census implementation or provide estimates for undersurveyed areas.

    As we face growing challenges, from climate change to economic inequality, having accurate, reliable and robust population data isn’t a luxury. It’s essential for a functioning society. National statistical offices, UN agencies, academics, the private sector and donors must urgently focus on how to build cost-effective solutions to provide reliable and robust population data, especially in resource-poor settings where recent cuts will be felt hardest.

    When people disappear from the data, they risk disappearing from public policy too. Making everyone count starts with counting everyone.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Andrew J Tatem works for the University of Southampton, and is Director of WorldPop. His research on mapping populations has been funded by donors such as the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, GAVI.

    Jessica Espey works for the University of Southampton. Her research on data, statistics and evidence use has previously been funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Gates Foundation and others.

    – ref. Global population data is in crisis – here’s why that matters – https://theconversation.com/global-population-data-is-in-crisis-heres-why-that-matters-251751

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s America is facing an Andrew Jackson moment – and it’s bad news for the constitution

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sean Lang, Visiting Fellow in History, Anglia Ruskin University

    Statue of Andrew Jackson in Layfayette Square, Washington DC. Flickr

    How do you deal with an American president who does not obey the US constitution? The question has arisen because the recent episode where deportation flights carrying Venezuelans were dispatched to El Salvador, despite a court ruling that those flights must not proceed, suggests Donald Trump’s administration has a limited understanding of the separation of powers in the US. A president has no power to defy a court order.

    Similarly, a Brown University medical professor, Rasha Alawieh, was deported to Lebanon because of a perceived sympathy for Hezbollah, despite the fact she had a valid US work visa and despite a judge’s order blocking her removal from the US.

    This administration’s seemingly blatant disregarding of constitutional procedure is not the first time such a problem has arisen. Early in the life of the new republic it was posed by the election to the presidency in 1828 of Andrew Jackson. Jackson, an unashamed populist, harboured deep suspicion of all federal institutions. His belief in states’ rights sometimes trumped his commitment to the union.

    Trump echoes Jackson in many ways. Just as Trump reviles Joe Biden, so Jackson scorned his predecessor, John Quincy Adams. Trump’s attacks on institutions such as USAid and the Department of Education, is echoed by Jackson’s extraordinary war on the Bank of the United States, which he thought too big and grand for a democratic people.

    But the parallels come closest in relation to forced expulsion, whether of individuals in Trump’s case, or of whole peoples in Jackson’s.

    When Europeans established their colonies in the Americas, they justified their presence by asserting the philosopher John Locke’s principle that legal title to land belonged to those who farmed it. Since the native peoples were mostly nomadic hunters, this legal fiction enabled the Europeans and their American successors to seize land while claiming it was theirs “by right”.

    But the peoples of the American southeast – the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee – took the Europeans at their word. They adopted a much more European lifestyle, establishing towns, wearing European clothing, even converting to Christianity. But above all, they started farming the land, even to the point of owning slaves to work on it. They were known, rather patronisingly, as the “five civilised tribes”.

    None of this adoption of western culture would save them, however, when Georgian cotton planters realised, first, that the tribes were sitting on prime cotton-growing land and, subsequently, that there was gold in Cherokee territory. In 1828 the state of Georgia claimed jurisdiction over all the land of the five tribes. Jackson, an old “Indian fighter” and a staunch states-rights southerner who was about to begin his stint as seventh US president, clearly sympathised.

    Jackson’s first State of the Union address made it clear that he intended to remove all the “Indian” tribes to the desert lands west of the Mississippi. In Congress, Jackson’s opponents accused him of betraying the very principles on which the republic had been founded. What had these people done that required their removal – and since they were indeed farmers, why was their right to their own land not to be respected in law?

    Despite these good reasons for these people to be allowed to stay, the 1830 Removal Act passed and the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek peoples packed up and left. The Seminole attempted armed resistance but were defeated.

    Supreme Court versus the US president

    The Cherokee took their case to the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court had originally been intended merely as a final court of appeal, but under its long-sitting chief justice, John Marshall, it had established itself as the ultimate arbiter of what was and was not lawful according to the constitution. And this included acts of the president.

    The court’s new-found constitutional role was deeply resented in the White House as an unacceptable incursion on the rights of the president, even when it ruled in the president’s favour. Now Marshall was being asked to rule on the constitutional legality of Georgia’s claim to the land of the Cherokee people.

    The Cherokee had tried to declare they were a fully independent state, but the court ruled against that. It did, however, find that they constituted a dependent nation within the United States and that, therefore, the State of Georgia had no jurisdiction over them.

    ‘Trail of Tears’: a dark moment in US history.
    Wolfgang Sauber/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    Georgia, however, simply ignored the Supreme Court and in 1838 sent in troops to round up and expel the Cherokee people. Some 13,000 people set off on what became known as the “Trail of Tears” – about one-third of them died of weakness, disease and hunger.

    One American officer commented later that: “I fought through the civil war and have seen men shot to pieces and slaughtered by thousands, but the Cherokee removal was the cruellest I ever knew.”

    Jackson was exultant, taunting Marshall that his judgement “has fell still born” and sneering that Marshall had no means of enforcing it. The Cherokee chief, the half-Scottish John Ross, summed up the situation: “We have a country which others covet. This is the only offence we have ever yet been charged with.”

    The Cherokee had found that, if the president chose to ignore it, the US constitution offered no protection to the innocent. It’s a history lesson Greenlanders, Mexicans and Canadians – and indeed many Americans who may fall foul of this administration and seek recourse to the law – would do well to study.

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

    – ref. Trump’s America is facing an Andrew Jackson moment – and it’s bad news for the constitution – https://theconversation.com/trumps-america-is-facing-an-andrew-jackson-moment-and-its-bad-news-for-the-constitution-253047

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General Welcomes Reported Commitments on Safe Black Sea Navigation

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for UN Secretary-General António Guterres:

    The Secretary-General welcomes the discussions and reported commitments reached in Saudi Arabia by the United States, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

    Reaching an agreement on freedom of navigation in the Black Sea to ensure the protection of civilian vessels and port infrastructure will be a crucial contribution to global food security and supply chains, reflecting the importance of trade routes from both Ukraine and the Russian Federation to global markets.

    The United Nations has been working consistently, especially following the letters the Secretary-General sent to Presidents Zelenskyy, Putin and Erdogan on 7 February 2024 putting forward a proposal for safe and free navigation in the Black Sea.

    The United Nations also remains closely engaged in the continued implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Russian Federation on facilitating access of Russian food and fertilizers to global markets to address global food security.

    The Secretary-General’s good offices remain available to support all efforts towards peace.

    The Secretary-General reiterates his hope that such efforts will pave the way for a durable ceasefire and contribute to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine, in line with the UN Charter, international law and relevant UN resolutions and in full respect of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Signal chat group affair: unprecedented security breach will seriously damage US international relations

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

    Plans for an attack against an enemy target are classified in America. But the private views of high-ranking officials about allies, communicated within government, must also count as intelligence to be protected.

    The recent communication of this category of information over the Signal messaging app has been dismissed by the US president, Donald Trump as a mere “glitch”. It is definitely that. But it also raises the prospect that in his first two months of office, key parts of the administration might have inadvertently been leaving sensitive information vulnerable to enemy interception. That would be one of the most serious intelligence breaches in modern history.

    National security advisor, Mike Waltz, has subsequently “taken responsibility” for the episode – but, so far at least, remains in post. Instead, the administration has decided to launch bitter ad hominem attacks against the journalist that revealed this breach of security, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.

    Storied national security reporter: The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.
    US Secretary of Defense

    Trump called Goldberg a “total sleazebag”, defense secretary Pete Hegseth referred to him as “deceitful and highly discredited”. Walz called him “the bottom scum of journalists”.

    The recent chat group reported exchange involved the adminstration’s most senior national security officials: Waltz, Hegseth, Vice-President J.D. Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio and director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, among others.

    As we know now, it also, accidentally, included Goldberg, himself a storied national security reporter before he took up the editorship of the Atlantic. It’s a national security blunder almost without parallel.

    Interestingly, some of the people on this chat were among those who savaged Hilary Clinton’s use of a personal email address during her time as secretary of state. This was controversial, but did not meet the standard for prosecution. Most of her work-related emails were archived into federal records by their recipients on government email. It was poor practice, and regulations were significantly tightened after.

    If an inquiry is set up about this most recent incident, it will be interesting to see whether these messages are treated as federal records. This would be signficant because the messages would need to be handed over to officials to classify and archive as part of the public record. That would certainly clear up whether this was indeed a “glitch” or whether classified information was indeed shared – something the administration still denies.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    For such an elevated group of US government officials to use a consumer messaging app to talk business invites an easy win for enemy intelligence agencies. America’s key intelligence competitors invest billions of dollars in techniques and technologies to break the toughest encryption. For phone-based communications, we know that apps such as NSO Group’s Pegasus can be used to bypass the encryption on phones.

    The Guardian newspaper’s investigative work has highlighted how journalists and activists were targeted by countries using this technology and the interception capability of capable intelligence nations is far stronger. So the standard security induction to officials would cover communications, devices and protocols.

    It is not clear whether the protocols cover the use of emojis. Waltz’s use of a fist, fire and flag emoji is certainly unusual in diplomatic cables that have been aired publicly.

    Even worse, the communication between these officials was prior to a deployment of US military assets against an enemy target, the Houthi rebels in Yemen. This potentially placed the success of the operation and those assets at risk.

    That the Yemenis did not move assets that had been targeted does not conclusively prove that the communications remained safe. It has long been a practice to pick and choose when to risk revealing that communications are being intercepted.

    Zero accountability

    An ordinary intelligence officer who communicated about highly sensitive and classified deployments through a platform with security that is not accredited or controlled by the intelligence community, would certainly face disciplinary action. An officer who accidentally invited a journalist into this chat would be likely to face even stiffer sanctions. Trump seems to have rallied around his officials, however.

    The US has recent form in vigorously pursuing journalists who publish classified materials. The Edward Snowden leaks caused considerable damage to transatlantic intelligence and Snowden was forced to take up residence in Moscow to avoid prosecution.

    The newspapers who published his papers were subject to strong action from the governments in their countries. The publication of Chelsea Manning’s leaked cables – known as Cablegate – by Julian Assange and Wikileaks resulted in a lengthy process to try and prosecute Assange (Manning herself was prosecuted and was sentenced to 35 years in jail, serving seven).

    But instead, Trump has chosen to spearhead a backlash against The Atlantic – the “messenger”. It fits in with Trump’s antipathy towards the mainstream media and his strong preference for some social media outlets. It might also signal a more serious turn towards intolerance to investigative journalism.

    Diplomatic disaster

    What the Signal messages also reveal is a contempt for European allies among Trump’s most senior people. That will be difficult to repair. Describing allies who have lost thousands of soldiers supporting American foreign policy aims as “pathetic” and “freeloaders” will make it very difficult for those governments to underplay the significance of the comments.

    What we have seen in the Signal messages might herald a new era of diplomacy and policy making, by officials who are not afraid to break established patterns. What we can definitely say is that it is radically different to the diplomacy the rest of the west is used to, and it will be nearly impossible to unsee.

    The western allies will be accelerating their plans to be less dependent on the US – and this will be to America’s detriment.

    Robert Dover 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. Signal chat group affair: unprecedented security breach will seriously damage US international relations – https://theconversation.com/signal-chat-group-affair-unprecedented-security-breach-will-seriously-damage-us-international-relations-253090

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General – on the outcomes of meetings of experts on the Black Sea

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    The Secretary-General welcomes the discussions and reported commitments reached in Saudi Arabia by the United States, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

    Reaching an agreement on freedom of navigation in the Black Sea to ensure the protection of civilian vessels and port infrastructure, will be a crucial contribution to global food security and supply chains, reflecting the importance of trade routes from both Ukraine and the Russian Federation to global markets.

    The United Nations has been working consistently, especially following the letters the Secretary-General sent to Presidents Zelenskyy, Putin and Erdogan on 7 February 2024 putting forward a proposal for safe and free navigation in the Black Sea. 

    The United Nations also remains closely engaged in the continued implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Russian Federation on facilitating access of Russian food and fertilizers to global markets to address global food security.

    The Secretary-General’s good offices remain available to support all efforts towards peace.

    The Secretary-General reiterates his hope that such efforts will pave the way for a durable ceasefire and contribute to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine, in line with the UN Charter, international law and relevant UN resolutions and in full respect of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.   

    MIL OSI United Nations News –