Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Who is Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sahar Maranlou, Lecturer in Law and Socio-legal Studies, Royal Holloway University of London

    Ali Khamenei was born in Mashhad, Iran, in 1939, as the second son of a local religious leader, Javad Khamenei, and he grew up in relative poverty.

    He learned to read the Qur’an in early childhood before attending a theological seminary school in Mashhad. At 18, he travelled to Najaf in central Iraq to study Shia jurisprudence, but was later asked by his father to return. He was a student of Ayatollah Hossein Borujerdi and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

    There is not much known about Khamenei’s family life, except that he is married and has six children. Khamenei’s interest in poetry is a well-known part of his public persona. He often cites poems in his speeches and hosts poetry gatherings where pro-government poets gather to read their poems to receive his comments. Khamenei’s interest in literature is quite rare among religious clerics. The same goes for his interest in gardening.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    In the 1960s and 1970s Khamenei was involved in protests against the US-backed monarchy (the shah), and was an ardent supporter of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then living in exile, and against the “westernisation” of Iran. This led to his arrest by the shah’s secret police and intelligence operation, the Organisation of National Security and Information (Savak), which suppressed opposition to the shah.

    Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the monarch who ruled Iran until 1979, was backed by western powers including the US and the UK. After a decade of economic growth in Iran, mainly based on oil revenues, did not lead to an improvement in the standard of living for ordinary Iranians, a combination of students, intellectuals and clerics created combined support for a revolution.

    After the shah was overthrown in the 1979 revolution, Iran became an Islamic republic. Khamenei was appointed as a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Council, which was put in place to manage the revolution, and served as deputy defence minister and led Friday prayers in Tehran, which was considered highly prestigious.

    The new republic adopted an anti-western “imperialist” foreign policy. This is known as “global arrogance” (Estekbar Jahani) in Iranian post-revolutionary discourse.

    In 1982, he was elected president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, winning 95% of the vote, after the previous president, Mohammad Ali Rajai, was killed in a bomb attack in Tehran. Khamenei had been the target of an assassination attempt two months earlier, leaving him with serious injuries and paralysis in his right arm.

    Iran’s supreme leaders reacts to air strikes by Israel and US rhetoric.

    Iran’s war with neighbouring Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, lasted from 1980 to 1988 and is known in Iran as the “sacred defence”. The war began after an invasion by Iraqi troops on Iranian territory and resulted in around one million deaths across both countries.

    This was another significant period in Khamenei’s career. He was active in managing Iran’s defence as the chairman of the supreme council of war support during this period. The council was formed to make sure the country was as prepared as possible during the war and to take measures to mobilise forces and to meet the needs of the war at the battlefront.




    Read more:
    Why Israel’s air strikes signal a shifting relationship with the US and a weakening Iran


    He also commanded the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite part of the Iranian armed forces, from 1981. At the end of the war, Khamenei claimed Iran had won a “luminous victory”.

    He praised Khomeini for his tactics in the war and said that the supreme leader had realised from the very beginning that it was not an ordinary conflict between two neighbours. “He recognised the enemy and realised that the main enemy is not present in the war, and he recognised that Saddam is just a tool.”

    He went on to suggest that this was a war about US regional power and that Saddam Hussein would continue to receive US support.

    Rising to supreme leadership

    Khamenei became supreme leader in 1989 after the death of Khomeini. He was designated as the new leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic clerics. He ruled in the same style, and with the same type of foreign policy, as his predecessor; looking for allies to offset US power in the region.

    The duties designated for the rahbar (supreme leader) are listed in Article 101 of the constitution and range from determining the political direction of the government (in consultation with an advisory committee) to commanding the armed forces to declaring war, peace, and the mobilisation of armed forces to pardoning or commuting sentences upon recommendation of the head of the judiciary.

    Khomeini’s conception of Islamic government was centred on the doctrine of the guardianship of “the jurist”, known as velayat-e faqih, and this continued at the heart of the government that followed under Khamenei. This gives the supreme leader extensive powers, including control over the military, judiciary and media.

    This doctrine plays a vital role in legitimising theocratic power in Iran, linking religious authority with the state. Discussion about velayat-e faqih continues within Iranian society as part of an ongoing dialogue between traditional religious authority and civil society.




    Read more:
    Trump’s unpredictable approach to Iran could seriously backfire


    The question of who might come to power after Khamenei was raised during the grassroots uprising and pro-democracy protests around Iran in 2022 and 2023. It was expected that any transition would take a considerable amount of time, especially if the aim was for a more democratic form of government.

    The current war might suggest a different outcome. Even though the Israeli attacks on Iran have again sparked discussion of a possible change of leader, the public is focused now on their own safety, and defending Iran, not on political change.

    Any external war or threats coming from outside Iran has historically united Iranians against aggressors. This means that the path to democratic change is not likely to be created, or helped, by Israeli air strikes or US threats.

    Sahar Maranlou 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. Who is Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? – https://theconversation.com/who-is-irans-leader-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-259424

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Trump’s first term lies at the heart of escalation between Iran and Israel

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christian Emery, Associate Professor in International Politics, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies, UCL

    The US president, Donald Trump, is weighing up whether to join Israel in attacking Iran. The fact he is even contemplating such a move is, in my opinion, a direct consequence of his 2018 decision to tear up the agreement negotiated during Barack Obama’s presidency that limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities in return for sanctions relief.

    Trump not only squandered the opportunity to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions severely. He also shut the door on showing Iran that diplomacy and economic development could offer a more promising path than proxy warfare.

    The Obama administration’s core strategic rationale behind the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, or joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), was that amid several devastating regional wars and an American public weary of costly military interventions, a war with Iran would be disastrous. This was especially true given the growing US desire to pivot toward containing China.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    Obama challenged opponents of the deal to propose a credible alternative. And Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed US Congress to make the case against the JCPOA. He argued that it would not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

    But Obama ultimately succeeded in persuading the American public that the only real alternative to a negotiated agreement with Iran was yet another war in the Middle East.

    Trump believed that exiting the JCPOA and crushing the Iranian economy would either force the regime to accept major restrictions on its nuclear programme and moderate its regional behaviour, or cause the entire theocratic system to collapse.

    What followed instead was a sharp escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf. Iran exercised greater reliance on its regional proxy network, with attacks on US personnel increasing. It simultaneously increased its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

    When Trump took office in 2017, the JCPOA had already eliminated 98% of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile. It also capped enrichment at 3.7%, well below the level required for a nuclear bomb.

    The situation has changed since Trump’s withdrawal. Israel’s central justification for launching its attack against Iran on June 15 was the International Atomic Energy Agency’s determination that Iran had now amassed over 408kg of uranium enriched up to 60%. Netanyahu claimed that Iran could be “within a few months” of producing a nuclear weapon.

    However, even with these serious violations, US intelligence has consistently stated that Iran is not actively pursuing such a weapon. It recently assessed that, even if Iran decided to do so, it was up to three years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon that it could deliver to a target of its choosing.

    Netanyahu may have wanted to attack Iran anyway. He has repeatedly claimed over the past 15 years that immediate military action was needed to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

    But it would have been harder to justify an attack on Iran if it possessed no highly enriched uranium and was verifiably complying with the JCPOA. Iran had stuck to the JCPOA for four years, including one year after the US withdrew, and there is no evidence to suggest it wouldn’t have kept to a deal that Iran clearly saw as being in its interests.

    Maximum pressure campaign

    Iran’s developing nuclear programme may be the immediate pretext for the current escalation. But Iran’s proxy warfare strategy, using regional militant groups to fight Israel and serve as pressure points it can activate when threatened, forms the other essential backdrop.

    This strategy pre-dates the Trump administration. But Trump’s so-called “maximum pressure” campaign clearly escalated tensions in the Middle East, making direct confrontation between Israel and Iran more likely.

    When Trump enacted sanctions aiming to eliminate Iran’s oil and gas exports, Tehran retaliated by using its strategic position in the Strait of Hormuz to harass Gulf shipping. In September 2019, an Iranian drone attack on a Saudi oil processing facility temporarily took out 50% of Saudi oil production.

    Iran would normally have zero interest in disrupting Gulf shipping. This is because its own gas and oil must travel through the Strait of Hormuz. But its strategy was to deter Trump’s economic warfare by showing that it would not be the only one to suffer.

    Tehran unsurprisingly viewed Trump’s policy as an attempt to deliver regime change and responded by doubling down on its “forward defence” strategy. Iran increased its military, financial and political backing of proxy groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. And it also continued development of its ballistic missile programme.

    Before 2018, the US estimated that Iran was sending about US$200 million (£148 million) annually to the Lebanese armed group, Hezbollah. By 2020, it was sending US$700 million.

    Trump’s repudiation of the JCPOA also critically damaged more moderate voices in Iran. In 2017, the success of the JCPOA helped propel reformist president Hassan Rouhani to a second term in office. However, in 2021, the regime prevented key moderate figures from standing.

    Ebrahim Raisi, a hardliner who had lost against Rouhani in 2017 and was already under US sanctions, was elected as Iran’s president. Raisi and his faction demanded tougher terms for any future nuclear deal – more sanctions relief upfront and binding guarantees against another US withdrawal.

    This frustrated attempts to revive the agreement under Joe Biden’s presidency, as only Congress could offer such guarantees. This was an improbable prospect amid escalating tensions with a more hostile, nuclear-advanced Iran that was increasingly aligning with Russia.

    None of this absolves Iran of its own intransigence, support for terrorism or brutalisation of its own citizens. Nor does it free the Islamic Republic of criticism over its decision to abandon the nuclear limits agreed under the JCPOA – even if it was the US that first broke the deal.

    Ultimately, though, the conditions that led to this war would almost certainly not have arisen without Trump’s mishandling of Iran policy in his first administration. It was a precursor to the abysmal leadership he’s demonstrating in this war.

    Christian Emery 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 first term lies at the heart of escalation between Iran and Israel – https://theconversation.com/trumps-first-term-lies-at-the-heart-of-escalation-between-iran-and-israel-259199

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: At Chelsea Town Hall, Pressley Reaffirms Solidarity with Immigrant Neighbors, Condemns Minnesota Lawmaker Assassinations

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    Pressley Also Condemned Trump’s March Toward Authoritarianism, and More

    “I come here today to reaffirm my commitment to protect and to support our immigrant neighbors, and to do that work with my colleagues at every level of government.. You are not just constituents. You are family, and I will never stop fighting for you like that.”

    Video (YouTube) | Photos (Dropbox)

    CHELSEA – At a town hall in Chelsea, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) reaffirmed her solidarity with immigrant families under threat from the Trump Administration and condemned the harrowing assassination and assassination attempts targeting elected officials and their families that took place over the weekend in Minnesota. Congresswoman Pressley also denounced Donald Trump’s march toward authoritarianism, including his North Korea-style military parade in Washington, DC, and more.

    Joined by community leaders at La Colaborativa in Chelsea, including La Colaborativa leadership, Chelsea City Manager Fidel Maltez, the Chelsea Black Community, and elected officials from across the Massachusetts 7th, Rep. Pressley addressed constituents impacted by the Trump Administration’s cruel and unlawful mass deportation agenda.

    A transcript of the Congresswoman’s opening remarks is available below and the video is available here. Photos from the town hall are available here.

    Transcript: Rep. Pressley’s Opening Remarks at Chelsea Town Hall
    La Colaborativa, Chelsea, MA
    June 16, 2025

    Good evening, Chelsea. It is so good to be home. 

    It is so good to be in Chelsea, the city that I often refer to as tiny but mighty, a city that models community in every way, that leads with love and with solidarity. 

    Before I go any further, I just want to address the violence that we witnessed this past weekend in Minnesota. The targeted shootings of Minnesota Senator John Hoffman, Representative Melissa Hortman and their spouses, the tragic deaths of Rep. Hortman and her husband. Truly devastating that we find ourselves at a time simply because people disagree, that we are seeing an escalating political violence. 

    These are public servants, people who dedicated their lives to building stronger, safer communities. And there must be outcry, there must be outrage, and strong condemnation for what happened to them.

    That being said, these horrifying acts are not occurring in isolation and because of the moment we find ourselves in, and their strategy is to flood the zone and overwhelm us. It can be difficult to keep up with the injustices, but let me just do a quick recap. 

    In the last week, Donald Trump unlawfully deployed the National Guard to attack peaceful protesters in California, then a sitting United States Black Congresswoman was indicted simply for doing her job and conducting federal oversight of an ICE detention facility in her district. Then, a Latino United States Senator was manhandled, thrown to the floor and handcuffed for daring to ask a question of this administration. And then, a North Korea-style military parade marched through our nation’s capital in an appalling display of authoritarianism. 

    These events are not disconnected. They are just the latest in a pattern of violent escalation and assaults on our democracy designed to intimidate and to silence. I remember when I went to conduct oversight and traveled to rural Louisiana to check on the well being of Mahmoud Khalil, and when I met with Mahmoud, and it’s important that we tell the truth– there are not mass deportations happening, there are mass kidnappings happening.

    That is what happened to Mahmoud Khalil, and when I met with him, he said, “I grew up in Syria under Assad. I know what it is to live under an authoritarian regime, and this is it.”

    Donald Trump wants a country where its people are ignorant and uninformed. Donald Trump wants a country where its people are indifferent to the suffering of their neighbors. Donald Trump wants a country where its people are inactive. 

    The fact that you chose to be here tonight is in opposition to all three of those things. You are choosing to be informed, you are choosing to be empathetic, you are choosing to be active. 

    I’m so grateful for the courageous people of Chelsea that are here tonight. Because remember, courage is not the absence of fear. Truth be told, we’re all carrying some fear in this moment, but the courage is that you are pushing beyond and through that to show up here today and every day, and we need to just acknowledge that. So clap for yourselves, the courageous people of Chelsea.

    You know, in Donald Trump’s America, again, we’re in the midst of this extremist march towards fascism, it’s an America where anyone who he disagrees with is criminalized. 

    I have to remind those who think that they might be exempt from the harm of a fascist state. It is coming for everyone. True enough, this is discriminate harm. So some of us are bearing these harms more than others in this moment. 

    But your wealth will not protect you from fascism. Whiteness will not protect you from fascism. This is a harm coming for everyone. 

    And when people asked me, why would I journey all the way to Louisiana to check on my constituent, Rumeysa Ozturk, and to fight for her freedom, I said it is Rumeysa today for co-authoring an op-ed, and it will be you tomorrow for reading a banned book. It will be you tomorrow for teaching Black history. It will be you tomorrow for suffering a miscarriage. It could be you tomorrow for practicing diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility. That includes that, yes. 

    So he wants anyone that he disagrees with to be criminalized. He wants the work of oversight to be punished. He wants peaceful protest to be met with military force and political violence to be encouraged. 

    So we have to condemn these acts, and we have to call out — this is the season of call a thing a thing. We have to call out Donald Trump’s dangerous march towards authoritarianism for what it is. It is a threat to our freedoms. 

    Republicans like to talk a good game about freedom, but this is the anti-freedom agenda when people want to control your body and what you can do with it. They want to control your free speech. They want to control what books you can read. They want to control where you go. That is an anti-freedom agenda. 

    Those are the actions of a dictator, and the only way to beat a dictator is with defiance, and we must because this authoritarianism is a threat to our freedoms, our rights, and our democracy itself, and to the people in Massachusetts and everywhere across this country and our world. 

    But I do want to take a moment to speak directly to the crisis being felt right here in Chelsea, where our immigrant neighbors are being terrorized by this administration, and the community is carrying deep fear and trauma. 

    People have had their homes raided, property destroyed, families torn apart, rights trampled on by racist rogue ICE agents. Well, we think they’re ICE agents. We don’t really know, because they’re masked, but they’re operating with little to no accountability. 

    Community members have spoken to me of being targeted without warrants, detained without due process, and living every day in fear that they or their loved ones could be taken without warning from the only home they’ve ever known. 

    What is the point of all of this? The cruelty is the point. 

    The cruelty experienced by our Chelsea neighbor Kenia and her three children driving to a Mother’s Day church service with her husband Daniel, when ICE agents in unmarked vehicles ambushed them, broke the passenger side window, forcefully pulled Daniel from the car, and slammed his face on the sidewalk while their children watched on in horror. 

    High school students, children like Belizario Benito Vasques and recent graduate Geovani de la Cruz Catalan are being abducted and detained without due process, despite having no criminal records. 

    Children, real people, children and adults alike, traumatized whose lives have been disrupted and forever harmed.

    Donald Trump and ICE claim that they are committing these assaults on our communities in the name of safety — laughable that the most lawless occupant of the Oval Office would say anything about law and order. 

    This is not what safety looks like, but this is what terror feels like, and terror makes no one safe. It does the opposite. It shows chaos. It breeds fear and it fosters unrest. 

    This administration has openly vowed to bring hell to our immigrant communities and for too many of our neighbors, they already have. 

    In my opinion, these actions are godless, lawless and a complete violation of our constitutional rights to due process, void of common sense and compassion. And what this moment demands is solidarity, resistance and rejection of these attacks on our immigrant communities, because an attack on our immigrant neighbors is an attack on all of us.

    That’s why I’ve been unapologetic and calling for the end of ICE’s unchecked power, for the closure of these for-profit detention centers and these policies rooted in cruelty. Because no matter your immigration status, your zip code, or your country of origin, you deserve to live in dignity and freedom without fear. 

    So I come here today to reaffirm my commitment to protect and to support our immigrant neighbors, and to do that work with my colleagues at every level of government. That means pushing for real accountability. That means providing legal protections and a pathway to citizenship. 

    That means investing in communities instead of criminalizing them. I really do believe that we’re one human family, and our destinies are tied, and when one of us is targeted, all of us must rise in defense. So to our neighbors, know that I see you today and every day. 

    Donald Trump has made it clear that his election was never about improving your quality of life or lowering the cost of groceries or your rent. He’s coming after Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, this Big, Ugly Bill would rip away healthcare, food assistance and other essential needs from 16 million people. Donald Trump is not cutting costs. He’s cutting lifelines. 

    They’re coming after our neighbors in the LGBTQ community. Black folks, they’re coming after us. This administration is anti-Blackness on steroids. They’re coming after our bodily autonomy. 

    And even though we live in Massachusetts, do not for one second believe that we are completely safe as a result. They are coming after our federal workers who administer these essential services and programs to our communities. They are coming after NIH funding and our schools. 

    They want to overwhelm us and my Republican colleagues across the aisle in the House, they are not operating as a party at all. They are operating as a cult of cowards, complicit in wholesale harm, more concerned with keeping a job than doing it. 

    The but family, you know, I’ve given the occupant enough oxygen. Know that I get up every day compelled and fueled not to fight Donald Trump, but to fight for, with and alongside you,

    Because the fact of the matter is that this is not about how do we survive the next four years. Truthfully, some days it feels like we’re just trying to survive the next four minutes. But this moment, I believe, will determine and shape the next 100 years. It’s not about surviving four it’s about shaping the next 100. 

    And so that work, because when we get to the other side, and we will, we’ll have to do the work of reconstruction. It’s a lot easier to tear down than it is to rebuild, and it is going to take all of us in the resistance and in the rebuilding. 

    Now, you don’t have to be a congresswoman, you don’t have to head a nonprofit, you don’t have to be a council president or a school board member. You just need to bring your gift, whatever it is, because some of us are going to speak on the mic, and someone else is going to make sure it works. Somebody’s going to read the speech, but someone else is going to write it.

    Someone is going to march and hold a sign, and someone else made that sign. Someone else is going to march and have the stamina to do so because they’re well fed, because somebody made sure they were. Someone else is going to send a prayer up. 

    You just need to bring your gift, but you need to bring it and summon the courage in this moment. 

    So before I close, I want everyone here to know that myself and my office are here to serve you. Please use us as a resource. We are ready to support with federal casework on everything from immigration to housing to Social Security checks and more. 

    So if your neighbor or your loved one is detained, do not hesitate to reach out to my office please. We have one-pagers. Take one or more with you and pass them along. Stay in touch with me and my staff. We are also here to help you with any federal agency. 

    This is a time when we must show up for each other, where we double down on mutual aid, where we keep each other safe. I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. 

    It is truly the honor of my life to serve the Massachusetts 7th, a district that reflects the best of who we are. And know this, you are not just constituents. You are family, and I will never stop fighting for you like that.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Pass the One Big Beautiful Bill to Safeguard America’s Sovereignty

    Source: US Whitehouse

    President Donald J. Trump has overseen a dramatic reversal in the nation’s border security — going from 62,000 illegal immigrants released into the country in a single month under the Biden Administration to zero under the Trump Administration and achieving the lowest-ever numbers of daily illegal crossings.

    Now, we’re at a defining crossroads: pass the One Big Beautiful Bill and fortify that extraordinary progress — or don’t, and risk jeopardizing the nation’s safety and sovereignty once again.

    Pass the One Big Beautiful Bill and we will:

    • Invest in securing our homeland. We will make the largest-ever one-time investment in border security — enough to detain and deport at least one million illegals every year and massively expand detention capacity.
    • Give a boost to our frontline heroes. We will not only give the men and women of Border Patrol and ICE a $10,000/year bonus in each of the next four years, we will also deliver needed reinforcements to finish the job — with funding for 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents.
    • Finish President Trump’s border wall. We will secure full operational control of our southern border by constructing hundreds of miles of border wall, river barriers, and vehicle and pedestrian barriers — critical for repelling future foreign invasion and maintaining our national security.

    Fail to act, and we risk squandering the historic gains we’ve achieved and setting the nation back on a course of chaos and vulnerability.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Service Workers Rally Behind President Trump’s NO TAX ON TIPS

    Source: US Whitehouse

    Hourly workers in the service, hospitality, and retail industries overwhelmingly back President Donald J. Trump’s bold NO TAX ON TIPS plan in the One Big Beautiful Bill, according to a new survey — saying tax-free tips would bring them needed financial stability and relief.

    In fact, 83% of hourly workers want to see NO TAX ON TIPS become law — with just four percent saying otherwise: “These results suggest that any measure increasing the amount of immediately available income — such as untaxed tips — would provide meaningful, stabilizing support for a large segment of the hourly workforce,” the report says.

    As one Nevada food service worker put it: “I don’t know what the holdup is. I don’t know what the politics are, but if we can cut the BS now … it can help out a lot of people.”

    The NO TAX ON TIPS plan is just one aspect of President Trump’s Day One commitment to deliver relief to Americans ravaged by years of Bidenflation. In his first five months, President Trump has overseen the largest increase in blue-collar wage growth in 60 years, lower costs, and explosive job growth for native-born Americans.

    That progress will be supercharged by the One Big Beautiful Bill, which will deliver the largest tax cut in history for working and middle-class Americans, tax cuts for seniors, No Tax on Overtime, and much more.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Congresswoman Barragán Holds Tele-Town Hall on the Ongoing ICE Raids and Deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles County

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    June 18, 2025

    Contact: Jin.Choi@mail.house.gov


    Congresswoman Barragán Holds Tele-Town Hall on the Ongoing ICE Raids and Deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles County

    Long Beach, CA — This evening, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (CA-44) hosted a Tele-Town Hall to address the ongoing ICE raids and Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles County. Congresswoman Barragán spoke to nearly 8,000 participants about the Trump administration’s decision to target immigrant families and entire communities —not serious criminals— and how this has sparked fear, anxiety, and protests across the region. She raised concerns about the use of federal troops in neighborhoods where local officials had already confirmed the situation was under control, calling it an unnecessary public show of force and political theater.

    Congresswoman Barragán was joined by representatives from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) and Immigrant Defenders Law Center, who helped answer questions and share resources. 

    “Donald Trump and Stephen Miller are terrorizing immigrant families and communities in my district and throughout Los Angeles County,” said Rep. Barragán. “We’re seeing ICE agents gathering near our schools and the recent raids forcing communities to cancel local events because people are too afraid to gather in public spaces. And when our communities spoke up through protest, Trump responded by sending in the National Guard and Marines. This isn’t just about immigration. It’s about democracy. It’s about whether the federal government will protect people’s rights or punish them for speaking out.”

    “This moment demands both clear understanding and united effort,” said Angelica Salas, Executive Director for CHIRLA. “We’ve spent decades creating systems to help immigrants. This work is incredibly pertinent now – immigrants and community members should know they are not alone in this process.”

    “Misinformation is more dangerous now than ever, in light of ICE’s presence in Los Angeles,” said Matthew Toyama, Managing Attorney at CHIRLA. “People are being detained and deported because they don’t know they have options when interacting with immigration officers and attorneys willing to protect their rights. These are times that test the fabric of our Constitution and our consciences.”

    “Fear is spreading through our immigrant communities,” said Kristen Hunsberger, Managing Attorney at Immigrant Defenders Law Center. “Now is an essential time for people to know there are resources and information available to them – and we are here to help with that. Immigrant rights are human rights, and should be defended just as strongly.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: How might Israel attack Iran’s underground nuclear plant? A 2024 raid in Syria could be a template

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Clive Jones, Professor of Regional Security, Durham University

    Operation rising lion has been a concerted effort by the Israel Defense Forces to degrade Iran’s nuclear programme. Launched on June 13, the operation has targeted key nuclear installations, logistical hubs and Iranian nuclear scientists, key intelligence and military personal.

    Israel has justified the attack by claiming that Iran was on a verge of a “breakout” in its nuclear programme. This means it would be able to break out of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1970.

    This contradicts the threat assessment briefing delivered by the director of US national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, on March 25 when she said: “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

    But whatever the veracity of claim and counter claim, Israel has been able to combine precise intelligence with the effective suppression of Iran’s air defence network. This has enabled the Israeli air force to inflict extensive damage on the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and the heavy water plant at Arak, as well as associated research facilities in Tehran.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    The attacks have also destroyed two-thirds of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers, according to the latest Israeli estimates. In response, Iran has fired salvoes of ballistic missiles at Israel, some of which have penetrated the much-vaunted Iron Dome missile defence system, due to the sheer number of missiles launched.

    But despite causing between 20 and 30 civilian casualties in Israel (compared to more than 600 in Iran), and despite the fear of attack among much of Israel’s population, little strategic damage appears to have been inflicted.

    Within three days of launching operation rising lion, Israel claimed complete aerial supremacy over Iran. But despite this, the key enrichment facility at Fordow, close to the ancient religious city of Qom has proved impervious to Israel’s existing military capabilities.

    The facility is buried hundreds of metres inside a mountain and designed to survive a full scale aerial bombardment. All reports are that besides some limited damage to the ground-level entrance and ventilation shafts, Israeli attacks on the site have failed to affects its operational capacity.

    Another enrichment facility near Natanz at Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, or “Pickaxe Mountain,” is thought to be even deeper inside a mountain.

    Only the US, with 30,000lb GBU-57 massive ordnance penetrator bomb caried by the B-2 stealth bomber is reckoned to have the capability to inflict lasting damage on these underground nuclear facilities. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyhu, has appealed to the US president, Donald Trump, for help in destroying these nuclear assets. Trump has said he is still considering his decision.

    Operation many ways

    US help is clearly Netanyahu’s main option for neutralising these underground plants. But don’t rule out a ground attack by Israeli special forces. A template for how Israel might deal with Fordow was revealed last year.

    Launched on September 8 2024, operation many ways destroyed an underground missile facility that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps had built into a mountainside in the Masyaf area of Syria, just west of Hama and around 125 miles north of the disputed Golan Heights. This facility was responsible for producing sophisticated surface-to-surface missiles for use by Hezbollah as well as by the regime of Bashar al-Asad, Iran’s ally.

    After months of surveillance, 200 soldiers from the Shaldag (Kingfisher) special forces unit of the Israeli Air Force were helicoptered to the site under the cover of a series of diversionary airstrikes. The surprise attack quickly overwhelmed defensive forces and used around 600kg of explosives to destroy the underground facility. The unit also collected a considerable amount of intelligence documents which they transferred back to Israel. There were no Israeli casualties.

    Greater risk

    Would Israel risk a similar operation against Fordow? The risks undoubtedly are far greater. The operation would have to be carried out at a much longer range – the enrichment facility is more than 1,000kms from Israel.

    Such an operation would need to involve far more troops than operation many ways. And the operational requirement to ensure sufficient air-to-air refuelling capacity for the air force’s heavy lift “Yasur” helicopters would add a layer of logistical complexity.

    But the IDF’s ability to innovate around the use of longer-range C130 transport aircraft that can land in rough areas should not be underestimated. They showed this as long ago as 1976 when mounting the famous hostage rescue mission at Entebbe in Uganda.

    Also on the plus side for Israel is its air superiority. The country is also a leader in electronic counter warfare measures which would allow it to blind or jam Iranian communications.

    But while the Iranian armed forces have suffered heavy blows, the ground defences around Fordow will still be formidable. To gain access to and destroy the centrifuges widely believed to be at Fordow with sufficient explosives runs the risks of heavy casualties on all sides. So the calculation Israel’s military planners would have to make is the strategic gain relative to the cost in blood.

    Yet given Fordow has long been recognised by Israel as the jewel in Iran’s nuclear crown this too might be another gamble Netanyahu is willing to take in a war that, whatever its outcome, is already reshaping much of the Middle East.

    Clive Jones 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. How might Israel attack Iran’s underground nuclear plant? A 2024 raid in Syria could be a template – https://theconversation.com/how-might-israel-attack-irans-underground-nuclear-plant-a-2024-raid-in-syria-could-be-a-template-259456

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Impact of the ‘Big Ugly Bill’ on Food Security

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today sounded the alarm on how the Republican budget reconciliation bill will affect the nation’s largest food assistance program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), undermining a program that millions of New Yorkers rely on to put food on the table every single day. Estimates indicate the reconciliation bill would shift exorbitant costs to states across the country, including New York, where up to an additional $2.1 billion annually would be forced on State and local county governments.

    “Every New Yorker deserves to eat every day – plain and simple.” Governor Hochul said. “I’m calling on our congressional leaders to join me and step up to the plate to protect the SNAP funding that families with children, seniors, New Yorkers with disabilities, local farmers, and shop owners rely on to survive.”

    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federally funded program overseen by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and administered by local departments of social services. In New York, SNAP helps over 1.7 million households and 2.9 million recipients – most of whom are children, older adults or disabled – afford the cost of purchasing healthy, nutritious food. SNAP benefits are already relatively modest, with an average benefit of $7 per day, but this support is a vital lifeline for households. Over 14 percent of New York’s population, or 1 out of every 7 New Yorkers, relies on SNAP. As a result, SNAP is New York’s most effective tool in combating hunger and food insecurity, which are core priorities of Governor Hochul’s administration.

    In addition to supporting individuals and families and fighting hunger, SNAP also provides vital support to local economies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) own research has shown that investments in SNAP have significant multiplier effects, with every SNAP dollar generating $1.54 in economic activity as recipients spend their benefits in communities, including at grocery stores, farmers markets, small businesses, and more. A total of approximately $7.8 billion in SNAP benefits are issued annually in New York, which means $12 billion in economic activity is generated annually across the state, in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike.

    New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Commissioner, and Child Poverty Reduction Advisory Council (CPRAC) Co-Chair Barbara C. Guinn said, “The cuts and policy changes proposed by Congress to SNAP would weaken the program and make it harder for low-income families in New York to afford groceries, worsening food insecurity and economic hardship in communities across our state. These proposals pose a grave threat to an effective and efficient program, which research consistently and clearly shows reduces hunger, supports work, and stimulates the economy – goals with national importance that justify continued federal investment. We encourage congressional leaders to act responsibly and not walk away from what has long been a federal commitment to fully funding SNAP benefits for all who are eligible.

    New York State Office of Children and Family Services Commissioner, and CPRAC Member Dr. DaMia Harris-Madden said, “The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is one of the most powerful tools we have to address chronic hunger across New York State, where more than one in seven New Yorkers is facing food insecurity. The proposed federal cuts to this program are unfathomable – that children and families will lack basic needs such as food will have catastrophic implications. Governor Hochul has championed the overall health, well being and economic security through multiple investments; yet, she cannot do this alone. We implore our Congressional leaders to oppose these cuts and preserve the funding that is vital to enabling the most vulnerable members of our community to keep food on the table.”

    By The Numbers: Shifting Exorbitant Costs onto States and Local Governments

    The proposals in the Republican reconciliation bill, supported by all of New York’s Republican Congressional delegation, threaten an effective and efficient program, which research consistently and clearly shows reduces hunger, supports work and stimulates the economy, by imposing exorbitant, unsustainable costs on states:

    • The federal government has always funded 100 percent of SNAP benefits. For the first time in the history of the program, under the GOP bill, the federal government is walking away from that commitment by shifting significant portions of the cost onto states, forcing difficult state budgetary decisions. For New York State, Republicans would shift between 15 percent and 25 percent of the benefit cost, totaling up to $1.9 billion annually in additional costs for the State and local governments.
    • The federal government and states have historically evenly split the administrative costs of the program. For the first time in the history of the program, under the GOP’s reconciliation bill, the federal government would require states to contribute significantly more for administrative costs, increasing the state share to 75 percent. For New York State, more than $200 million in additional administrative costs would be shifted annually on to the State and local governments.
    • The GOP bill also eliminates funding for SNAP education programs that teach recipients how to get the greatest fiscal and nutritional value from their SNAP benefits. This would strip roughly $29 million from New York State and our SNAP recipients.
    • In total, the SNAP-related cost shifts put forward by the GOP will cost New York State and local county governments up to $2.1 billion a year, which cannot be absorbed at the state or local level and would cause significant state and local budgetary impacts.

    By The Numbers: Changes to SNAP Work Requirements:

    Beyond the proposed cost shifts, Republicans also target SNAP recipients by significantly expanding the populations who are subject to overly punitive and administratively complex work reporting requirements without any additional support to those recipients:

    • Certain recipients would be required to prove that they work 80 hours per month, with limited qualifying work options and regardless of other factors such as economic conditions. Recipients who are unable to meet this requirement after three months, regardless of the circumstances or reasons why, would then be cut off and prohibited from receiving SNAP for three years.
    • Republicans would extend these reporting requirements, harsher time limits, and related prohibitions to more groups, including to families with children as young as seven and to individuals as old as 64. The bill provides no additional funding to support states in assisting these new populations to connect to jobs or training or to provide necessary supportive services such as child care and transportation.
    • State flexibility to administer the program would be severely curtailed by limiting states’ ability to request waivers for areas with high unemployment, where residents may be having difficulty finding work due to broader economic factors
    • These requirements create barriers for people with unstable jobs, caregiving responsibilities, or health conditions. Enforcing these rules adds complexity, increases the risk of errors, and takes needed resources that would be better used to support beneficiaries and administer the program. In fact, research published on the USDA’s own website shows that increased work requirements reduced SNAP enrollment for those subject to the time limit and found no evidence that they increase employment or annual earnings.

    It is estimated that over 300,000 households, including families with children, seniors, youth aging out of foster care, people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, and veterans would be impacted by these changes, losing all or a portion of their SNAP benefits, resulting in a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in SNAP benefits for some of our most vulnerable New Yorkers on an annual basis.

    By The Numbers: Impact on New York Farmers and Retailers:

    Beyond worsening food insecurity and malnutrition, cuts to the program would hurt local businesses and weaken SNAP’s ability to boost local economies in every state. Slashing families’ grocery budgets would reduce revenue for thousands of businesses in every state, with ripple effects throughout the food supply chain.

    • Cascading impact leading to job losses, small business closures, and lost revenue for businesses across the state of all shapes and sizes, from independent grocers to chain retailers
    • Lost sales and matching dollars having critical impact on over 18,000 retailers that accept SNAP in New York State and local economies. This includes grocery stores, local shops, and hundreds of SNAP-authorized local farmers, farmers’ markets, and farm stands that can be found in every county in New York selling New York agricultural products to the people in their local community. SNAP sales in the farming community have dramatically increased since 2019, providing New York consumers access to healthy, farm fresh foods and providing our farm communities additional economic development dollars. As the State matches SNAP dollars spent at farm markets through the Fresh2You FreshConnect program, the hit to farms of decreased SNAP funding is doubled.

    Combating Food Insecurity in New York State

    Governor Hochul has prioritized increasing access to food for all New Yorkers, supporting several groundbreaking programs that focus on improving access to locally grown foods including through SFY 2026 Budget, including the 30 Percent NYS Initiative for school meals, the Farm-to School program, the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs, the Urban Farms and Community Gardens Grants Programs, and the Nourish NY program, which helps New York’s network of emergency food providers purchase food from New York farmers to give to families in need.

    This year’s Budget also provides $340 million for school meals, a $160 million (89 percent) year-to-year increase, and requires all school districts, charter schools, and nonpublic schools that participate in the national school lunch and breakfast program to provide free breakfast and lunch meals to all students regardless of their families’ income, thereby reducing costs for families and ensuring that no student goes hungry at school. Additionally, the Budget included the third round of funding as part of the Regional School Food Infrastructure Grant Program, which provides $50 million over five years to support regional cooking facilities that will facilitate the use of fresh New York State farm products in meal preparation for K-12 school children.

    Senator Charles Schumer said, “The Republican ‘Big Ugly Bill’ will be the largest and cruelest cuts to food assistance in American history – all to pay for tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. If this Congressional Republican plan goes through, it would deal New York State a $2 billion blow, taking food from hungry kids and seniors. Local governments would carry the burden in a way they’ve never had to before, forced to make impossible decisions about who gets to keep their food benefits and who will be forced to go hungry. The GOP must step up and protect over 300,000 New York families and seniors in danger of losing their food benefits instead of pushing through tax cuts for the rich and powerful special interests.”

    Representative Jerry Nadler said, “The Republican reconciliation bill is a direct attack on food security in New York. It would gut billions from SNAP and other essential lifelines, forcing states to either absorb the cost or leave families without the support they need. In my district alone, one in seven households relies on SNAP to put food on the table. Under this bill, the average benefit would fall to less than five dollars a day. No one can feed themselves with dignity on that. These cuts are not only cruel and shortsighted, they are economically reckless. When families have less to spend on food, the entire community feels the impact. From neighborhood bodegas to upstate farmers, over 18,000 New York retailers could face lost sales, job cuts, or closures. SNAP dollars support small businesses, strengthen local economies, and enable people to purchase fresh, healthy food in their communities. I am fighting to stop this bill from becoming law because in the United States of America, no one should ever go hungry, especially so that billionaires can receive another tax break.”

    Representative Adriano Espaillat said, “For nearly a century, America has extended a lifeline to its most vulnerable families to ensure no child goes hungry, no matter their race, religion, or economic background. Today, however, Republicans are seeking to break that sacred agreement by cutting food stamps and other benefits that nearly 300,000 families in my district and more than 1.6 million across New York rely on. Families receive SNAP assistance because they need it, not because they want it. Those who pretend otherwise threaten to bankrupt state and local governments, upend vulnerable communities, and set back the generations of progress we have made to strengthen food security around our nation.”

    Representative Nydia M. Velázquez said, “The Republicans’ Big Ugly Bill is a direct attack on the most vulnerable New Yorkers, including working families, children, people with disabilities, and seniors who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. This bill guts a program that nearly 3 million New Yorkers depend on and that drives billions in local economic activity, all to fund tax breaks for billionaires. It is a disaster for our state, and I will keep fighting to make sure it never becomes law.”

    Representative Paul Tonko said, “The GOP’s ‘big ugly bill’ is an outrageous assault on the most vulnerable in our communities. By slashing critical food assistance programs like SNAP, this legislation would rip away earned benefits from families, children, and seniors — leaving millions of Americans to go hungry while billionaires enjoy trillions in tax breaks. These cuts will not only deepen poverty and hardship across our state and our nation, they’ll also shift crushing costs onto state and local governments, forcing states and municipalities to choose between drastic tax hikes or devastating service cuts. In the coming weeks, I’ll be working tirelessly to defeat this cruel, backward agenda and protect the programs that keep our communities healthy and strong.”

    Representative Joe Morelle said, “President Trump’s plan to cut funding for essential programs like SNAP would leave millions of working families struggling to put food on the table. I’m proud to support legislation that protects SNAP and Medicaid and keeps these lifeline programs fully funded. While Congressional Republicans continue to back the President’s cruel and chaotic agenda, I’ll keep fighting to protect working families and the services they count on because no child should ever have to wonder where their next meal is coming from.”

    Representative Tom Suozzi said, “Every individual deserves access to a meal every day. This is not just a privilege; it is a fundamental necessity that must be recognized and advocated for to ensure the dignity and well-being of all. If federal cuts to SNAP are enacted, it will lead to a preventable crisis and constitute the most significant reduction in food assistance in history. Americans young and old will go hungry. Simply put, SNAP benefits help put food on the table for our most vulnerable communities.”

    Representative Pat Ryan said, “Hardworking Hudson Valley families are feeling the pressure to make ends meet – the last thing folks need is to have food literally taken off of their plates. In my district alone, more than 74,000 people – including children, seniors, and veterans – rely on SNAP for consistent access to nutritious foods. It is unconscionable and cruel for this administration to rip that away. I’m going to keep fighting with everything I’ve got to stop these cuts – the lives of my constituents depend on it.”

    Representative George Latimer said, “The reckless Republican reconciliation bill, which lays out hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to SNAP, is unacceptable. I voted against these cuts each time that they came to the House floor because of the devastating impact they would have on vulnerable New Yorkers who rely on SNAP for their survival. In NY-16, covering parts of Westchester and the Bronx, we have 74,000 people who depend on SNAP. While the GOP focuses on securing tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of struggling Americans, my Democratic colleagues and I will continue to stand in opposition to these actions and do everything we can to address food insecurity for the millions of Americans who count on SNAP benefits to put food on the table, as every American deserves to be able to do.”

    Representative Timothy M. Kennedy said, “In communities across Western New York, we continue to see an increased need for food assistance as families struggle to make ends meet and inflation raises grocery prices. Food is a basic human right, and we have the tools to eradicate hunger in America. The absolute last thing we should be doing to families that are teetering on the edge is to rip the rug out from under them by cutting SNAP benefits. The Republican reconciliation bill is an affront to working families and must be rejected.”

    Representative John W. Mannion said, “I voted against this bill because it’s cruel and immoral to take food assistance away from children, seniors, and veterans. In NY-22, over 50,000 households rely on SNAP—and food insecurity is higher today than it was during the pandemic. This bill threatens our families, burdens our local governments, and pulls support from the people who need it most. I’ll continue to reject these devastating cuts and advocate for the better path forward – a five-year farm bill that supports farmers and everyone who depends on American agriculture.”

    Representative Josh Riley said, “I grew up believing every kid deserves a full belly and a fair shot — that’s not negotiable. This bill would rip food away from families in need and gut the small-town stores and farms that feed our communities. I’ll fight it with everything I’ve got, because nobody in Upstate New York should ever go hungry while billionaires get another tax break.”

    Acting Co-Chair of CPRAC Peter Hatch said, “SNAP helps feed our families, fund our grocery stores, and support our farmers, with decades of research showing how it improves children’s long-term health, reduces poverty, and boosts local economies as recipients spend their benefits. The Republican budget bill would increase hunger and poverty among children, reduce economic activity in communities, and force immense costs onto states and counties that we cannot afford, just as New York is making progress reducing child poverty. On behalf of New York’s CPRAC, we strongly oppose any action that would take SNAP away from the millions of children across the country who rely on it, and urge the Senate to protect this essential program, so that children can continue to receive the sustenance they need to thrive.”

    New York State Council on Children and Families Executive Director, and CPRAC Member Vanessa Threatte said, “When children and families experience hunger, it has severe and sweeping negative consequences on their physical and mental health, cognitive development, academic outcomes, family functioning, and overall well-being. By recognizing the intersectionality of food insecurity, and ensuring continued access to critical food programs, such as SNAP, all New York children and families can live their healthiest lives and communities can thrive.”

    Robin Hood CEO and CPRAC Member Rich Buery said, “Cutting SNAP is not just a moral failure—it’s an economic disaster that would set us back in the fight against child poverty. The data is clear: for every dollar we take away from families trying to put food on the table, we lose up to twenty dollars in future health, education, and economic productivity nationwide, according to an analysis by Columbia University. These cuts would harm our children, burden our healthcare and legal systems, and stall the progress we’ve made. We’ve come too far to pull the rug out from under children and families of New York State. Their well-being is the foundation of our shared future.”

    United Way of New York City President and CEO, and CPRAC Member Grace Bonilla said, “Funding for SNAP is a critical part of how New Yorkers maintain dignified access to nutritious food. We know from United Way of New York City’s True Cost of Living Report that 50 percent of working-age people in New York City are struggling to cover their basic needs—including food. SNAP represents the promise that despite having wages that do not keep up with the cost of living, our country cares and invests in our seniors, our children, and all vulnerable Americans so that they should not have to go hungry in the richest country in the world. The reconciliation bill is a dagger on that promise and on the precarious budgets of our most vulnerable and the budgets of cities and states across the country. It is the responsibility of every congressional leader to do what is in the best interest of the people they serve — safeguard funding for SNAP.”

    Regional Economic Development Council Mohawk Valley Executive Director and CPRAC Member Shelly Callahan said, “SNAP is not just a lifeline — it’s a foundation for long-term stability, public health, and economic mobility. Cuts to SNAP would not only harm vulnerable families, but they would also undermine local economies, like that of the Mohawk Valley, that depend on a healthy, stable population. We can’t build a stronger New York by taking food off the tables of those working hardest to achieve self-sufficiency. At our refugee center, we witness every day the resilience of families rebuilding their lives after fleeing unimaginable hardship. SNAP is not just a safety net — it’s a bridge to stability, health and dignity.”

    Guthrie Lourdes Hospital President and CEO, and CPRAC Member Kathy Connerton said, “SNAP is more than a budget line item. It’s a vital safety net that upholds the fundamental human right to nutritious food. When we protect SNAP funding, we affirm that every New Yorker deserves the dignity and security of knowing where their next meal will come from. This essential program forms the bedrock of daily life for our children, seniors and residents with disabilities ensuring they can not only survive but thrive. Compromising SNAP puts our most vulnerable neighbors in crisis and undermines the collective well-being of our entire community.”

    New York City Human Resources Administration Administrator and CPRAC Member Scott French said, “SNAP serves as a lifeline for 1.8 million New York City residents and fuels economic growth across our local communities. We absolutely cannot afford the magnitude of cuts being proposed in the budget reconciliation bill. We urge leaders in Congress to recognize what’s at stake for working class New Yorkers who keep the city running, vulnerable seniors and children who rely on this critical anti-hunger program to survive, and local farmers and businesses that benefit from SNAP spending. As part of our mandate to strengthen pathways to economic mobility for low-income New Yorkers, we will continue to sound the alarm to ensure that no child goes hungry, and families aren’t forced to choose between putting food on the table or paying the rent.”

    Community Action Organization of Western New York President and CEO, and CPRAC Member Dr. Marie Cannon said, “At the Community Action Organization of Western New York, we see firsthand how vital SNAP is for families striving toward self-sufficiency. These proposed federal cuts would not only strip essential food resources from our most vulnerable neighbors—they would undercut the very progress we’ve made in fighting multigenerational poverty. We urge our federal leaders to reject these changes and protect the safety net that gives hope and dignity to millions of Americans.”

    No Kid Hungry New York Director Rachel Sabella said, “With food prices continuing to climb and New Yorkers’ incomes not keeping pace, SNAP remains one of our most powerful tools to fight hunger and keep kids nourished and healthy. Meanwhile, budget proposals from both the U.S. House and Senate would unnecessarily hurt working families and states trying to administer SNAP while needlessly punishing retailers and farmers in New York and across the country, pushing fragile local economies to their limits. In a recent poll of New Yorkers, 91% told No Kid Hungry that ending childhood hunger should be a bipartisan goal. We need the entire New York congressional delegation to reject these proposed cuts to SNAP and protect programs that are proven to reduce hunger, support families, and strengthen local economies.”

    Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy President and CEO, and CPRAC Member Kate Breslin said, “New York State is working to create a future where every child has what they need to thrive. By erecting barriers to food access, Congress is making it harder for families who are struggling to eat every day and limiting opportunities to thrive. Our federal leaders must preserve food security for our children and families – without additional barriers or cuts that hurt families and create problems for states and local communities.”

    The Children’s Agenda CEO Larry Marx said, “More than 360,000 children in the state of New York are fed in families relying on SNAP and the proposed cuts in the federal reconciliation will compromise their access to food. SNAP is a lifeline for children whose families are experiencing financial hardships. Hunger has devastating impacts on a child’s health, learning, and well-being. Nourishing our most vulnerable and precious population, our children, should not be a partisan issue. Congress should reject the proposals to cut SNAP.”

    Food Industry Alliance of New York State President and CEO Mike Durant said, “Reducing SNAP dollars in New York will not only threaten this essential program, but also have a cascading impact leading to job losses, decreased revenue, and further strain on state and local services. The retail food industry encourages lawmakers in Congress to work toward a solution which preserves SNAP without negatively impacting our communities and economy.”

    Farmers Market Federation of New York Executive Director Jack Riffle said, “SNAP plays a critical role in supporting food security for New Yorkers and an increasingly larger role for New York State farms, farmers’ markets, and local economies. With the help of New York’s generous SNAP incentive program, FreshConnect, SNAP benefit purchases now exceed $10 million annually at authorized farmers’ markets around the state. As an organization representing New York farmers’ markets and farmers, our federation urges NY lawmakers to consider the value of funding SNAP for NY farm vendors, NY customers, and NY communities.”

    Westchester Children’s Association Executive Director and CPRAC Member Allison Lake said, “Feeding all our children should be a baseline for our country. SNAP ensures some of our most vulnerable families can put food on the table. The proposed cuts and administrative burdens by the reconciliation bill will directly impact the health and wellbeing of children. The growing need is everywhere, in one of the wealthiest counties in the country, Westchester County, NY, our latest data publication shows the Child Feeding program provides 80,000 meals on average to children per month. Congress can and should do better by the hardworking families of Westchester County, New York State, and the nation.”

    Context Matters Strategy Group Partner and CPRAC Member Dr. Dia N. Bryant said, “Cuts to SNAP aren’t just budget decisions—they are moral decisions. When we reduce access to food assistance, we’re signaling that some families, some children, are less deserving of dignity and nourishment. In New York, where disparities already run deep, these changes will push more families into crisis and more children into classrooms hungry. We cannot build a just and thriving state by taking from those who have the least.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Africa: President Ramaphosa calls for dialogue amid escalating Israel-Iran tensions

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    President Cyril Ramaphosa has called for dialogue between Israel and Iran, warning that continued conflict will only lead to further devastation and economic fallout across the globe.

    Speaking to members of the media on the sidelines of the 30-year anniversary celebration of the Constitutional Court on Friday, the President expressed grave concern over the escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly following reports that the United States may join Israel in potential military action against Iran.

    The White House said on Thursday that President Donald Trump would decide on “whether or not to go” with US involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. 

    Having just returned from the G7 summit in Canada, President Ramaphosa cautioned that the world was entering a dangerous period of heightened geopolitical instability.

    “The world has become a very dangerous place now, with all these conflicts that are flaring up into the destruction of infrastructure and loss of life. 

    “We want to continue calling on all actors that dialogue peace-making is the only way in which to solve problems, the disputes that arise in various parts of the country, including the dispute between Israel and Iran now should be solved through dialogue, and we say that it must happen immediately, without resorting to further air strikes to further bombs,” President Ramaphosa said.

    The President emphasised that continued violence was claiming lives and causing ripple effects across the globe, including here at home.

    “Lives are being lost, and it is actually having a devastating blow on the economies of the world because there is now uncertainty and prices are beginning to rise. We are already suffering from price rises in our fuel… We want the conflict to come to an end,” he said. 

    The President reiterated South Africa’s longstanding foreign policy principle of peaceful resolution through diplomacy, warning that prolonged armed conflict would only deepen global instability. 

    According to reports, Iran and Israel traded strikes overnight, with no signs of de-escalation in their weeklong conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his military’s objective was to strike all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. – SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI: Founder Group Management Comments on Market Conditions in the U.S. for Solar Power Companies’ Stocks

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, June 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Founder Group Limited (NASDAQ: FGL) (“Founder Group” or the “Company”), a leading engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning (EPCC) solutions provider for solar photovoltaic systems in Malaysia, assures investors that the Company will not be impacted by a U.S. Senate panel’s proposed wind down of solar power tax credits by 2028.

    “Founder Group operates primarily in Malaysia and doesn’t have operations in the U.S. Therefore, the Company should not be affected by the sentiments currently causing selloffs of U.S. solar power stocks,” said Lee Seng Chi, Chief Executive Officer of Founder Group Limited. “Although we are listed on Nasdaq and trade alongside U.S. solar power stocks, we will not be impacted by the possible elimination of those tax credits.”

    “Our revenue is predominantly generated from the Malaysian market hence we are not affected by the changes suggested by President Donald Trump’s tax cut and spending bill,” Mr. Lee continued. “In the near future, our expansion will focus on regional expansion in Southeast Asia only. Expansion to the U.S. is not in our current plans.”

    About Founder Group Limited

    Founder Group Limited is a pure-play, end-to-end EPCC solutions provider for solar PV facilities in Malaysia. The company’s primary focus is on two key segments: large-scale solar projects and commercial and industrial (C&I) solar projects. The company’s mission is to provide customers with innovative solar installation services, promote eco-friendly resources and achieve carbon neutrality.

    For more information on the Company, please visit https://www.founderenergy.com.my/.

    Safe Harbor Statement

    This press release contains forward-looking statements that reflect our current expectations and views of future events. Known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, including those listed under “Risk Factors” in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. You can identify some of these forward-looking statements by words or phrases such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “aim,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “is/are likely to,” “potential,” “continue” or other similar expressions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. These forward-looking statements involve various risks and uncertainties. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date on which the statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

    CONTACT INFORMATION:

    For media queries, please contact:

    Founder Group Limited
    info@founderenergy.com.my

    Investor Relations Inquiries:

    Skyline Corporate Communications Group, LLC
    Scott Powell, President
    1177 Avenue of the Americas, 5th Floor
    New York, New York 10036
    Office: (646) 893-5835
    Email: info@skylineccg.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Samuel Perry, Associate Professor, Baylor University

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, at a prayer during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Feb. 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s affiliation with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – commonly called the CREC – drew attention even before his confirmation hearings in January 2025. More recently, media reports highlighted a Pentagon prayer led by Hegseth and his pastor, Brooks Potteiger, in which they praised President Donald Trump, who they said was divinely appointed.

    As a scholar of the Christian right, I have studied the CREC. Hegseth’s membership in a church that belongs to the CREC drew attention because prominent members of the church identify as Christian nationalists, and because of its positions on issues concerning gender, sexuality and the separation of church and state.

    The CREC is most easily understood through three main parts: churches, schools and media.

    What is the CREC?

    The CREC church is a network of churches. It is associated with the congregation of Doug Wilson, the pastor who founded Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson grew up in the town, where his father was an evangelical minister.

    Wilson co-founded the CREC in 1993 and is the public figure most associated with the network of churches. Christ Church operates as the hub for Logos Schools, Canon Press and New Saint Andrews College, all located in Moscow. Logos is a set of private schools and homeschooling curriculum, Canon Press is a publishing house and media company, and New Saint Andrews College is a university, all of which were founded by Wilson and associated with Christ Church. All espouse the view that Christians are at odds with – or at war with – secular society.

    While he is not Hegseth’s pastor, Wilson is the most influential voice in the CREC, and the two men have spoken approvingly of one another.

    Pastor Douglas Wilson leads others at a protest in Moscow, Idaho.
    Geoff Crimmins/The Moscow-Pullman Daily News, CC BY-SA

    As Wilson steadily grew Christ Church in Moscow, he and its members sought to spread their message by making Moscow a conservative town and establishing churches beyond it. Of his hometown, Wilson plainly states, “Our desire is to make Moscow a Christian town.”

    The CREC doctrine is opposed to religious pluralism or political points of view that diverge from CREC theology. On its website, the CREC says that it is “committed to maintaining its Reformed faith, avoiding the pitfalls of cultural relevance and political compromise that destroys our doctrinal integrity.”

    CREC churches adhere to a highly patriarchal and conservative interpretation of Scripture. Wilson has said that in a sexual relationship, “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

    In a broader political sense, CREC theology includes the belief that the establishment clause of the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The most common reading of the establishment clause is that freedom of religion precludes the installation of a state religion or religious tests to hold state office.

    The CREC broadly asserts that the government and anyone serving in it should be Christian. For Wilson and members of CREC churches, this means Christians and only Christians are qualified to hold political office in the United States.

    Researcher Matthew Taylor explained in an interview with the Nashville Tennessean, “They believe the church is supposed to be militant in the world, is supposed to be reforming the world, and in some ways conquering the world.”

    While the CREC may not have the name recognition of some large evangelical denominations or the visibility of some megachurches, it boasts churches across the United States and internationally. The CREC website claims to have over 130 churches and parishes spread across North America, Europe, Asia and South America.

    Like some other evangelical denominations, the CREC uses “church planting” to grow its network. Plant churches do not require a centralized governing body to ordain their founding. Instead, those interested in starting a CREC congregation contact the CREC. The CREC then provides materials and literature for people to use in their church.

    CREC schools, home schools and colleges

    The CREC’s expansion also owes a debt to Wilson’s entrepreneurship. As the church expanded, Wilson founded an associated K-12 school called “Logos” in September 1981, which since then has grown into a network of many schools.

    In conjunction with its growth, Logos develops and sells “classical Christian” curriculum to private schools and home-school families through Logos Press. Classical Christian Schools aim to develop what they consider a biblical worldview. In addition to religious studies, they focus on classic texts from Greece and Rome. They have grown in popularity in recent years, especially among conservatives.

    Logos’ classical Christian curriculum is designed to help parents “raise faithful, dangerous Christian kids who impact the world for Christ and leave craters in the world of secularism.” Logos press regularly asserts, “education is warfare.”

    According to the website, Logos schools enroll more than 2,000 students across 16 countries. Logos also has its own press that supplies the curriculum to all of these schools. On the heels of Logos’ success, Wilson founded the Association of Classical Christian Schools in 1993 as an accrediting body for like-minded schools. The ACCS now boast 500 schools and more than 50,000 students across the United States and around the world.

    Additionally, Wilson founded New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. New Saint Andrews is a Christian university that takes the classical Christian approach to education championed by Wilson into higher education.

    The New Saint Andrews College is consistent with other CREC institutions. It considers secularism a weakness of other universities and society more generally. Its website explains: “New Saint Andrews has long held a principled and clear voice, championing the truth of God’s word and ways, while so many other colleges veer into softness and secularism.” The school is governed by the elders of Christ Church and does not accept federal funding.

    CREC media

    In addition to the Logos Press, which produces the CREC school curriculum, Wilson founded Canon Press. Canon Press produces books, podcasts, a YouTube channel and assorted merchandise including apparel and weapons, such as a flamethrower. The YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers.

    Books published by Canon include children’s picture books to manuals on masculinity. A number of books continue the theme of warfare.

    The politics page of the press contains many books on Christian nationalism. Christian political theorist Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism” is one of the most popular among books on Christian nationalism. The website has dozens of books on Christian nationalism and media dedicated to the construction of a Christian government.

    Author Joe Rigney, a fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and an associate pastor at Christ Church, warns of the “Sin of Empathy.” Rigney claims that empathizing with others is sinful because it requires compromise and makes one vulnerable in the fight against evil.

    CREC controversies

    Pete Hegseth at his confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 14, 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    As the church network has grown, it has drawn attention and scrutiny. Wilson’s 1996 publication of a book positively depicting slavery and claiming slavery cultivated “affection among the races” drew national attention.

    Accusations of sexual abuse and the church’s handling of it have also brought national news coverage. Vice’s Sarah Stankorb interviewed many women who talked about a culture, especially in marriage, where sexual abuse and assault is common. The Vice reporting led to a podcast that details the accounts of survivors. In interviews, Wilson has denied any wrongdoing and said that claims of sexual abuse will be directed to the proper authorities.

    Hegseth’s actions as secretary of defense concerning gender identity and banning trans people from serving in the military, in addition to stripping gay activist and politician Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, have brought more attention to the CREC. I believe that given Hegseth’s role as secretary of defense, his affiliation with the CREC will likely remain a topic of conversation throughout the Trump presidency.

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

    ref. What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support – https://theconversation.com/what-is-crec-the-christian-nationalist-group-has-a-vision-for-america-and-defense-secretary-pete-hegseths-support-258273

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Samuel Perry, Associate Professor, Baylor University

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, at a prayer during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Feb. 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s affiliation with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – commonly called the CREC – drew attention even before his confirmation hearings in January 2025. More recently, media reports highlighted a Pentagon prayer led by Hegseth and his pastor, Brooks Potteiger, in which they praised President Donald Trump, who they said was divinely appointed.

    As a scholar of the Christian right, I have studied the CREC. Hegseth’s membership in a church that belongs to the CREC drew attention because prominent members of the church identify as Christian nationalists, and because of its positions on issues concerning gender, sexuality and the separation of church and state.

    The CREC is most easily understood through three main parts: churches, schools and media.

    What is the CREC?

    The CREC church is a network of churches. It is associated with the congregation of Doug Wilson, the pastor who founded Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson grew up in the town, where his father was an evangelical minister.

    Wilson co-founded the CREC in 1993 and is the public figure most associated with the network of churches. Christ Church operates as the hub for Logos Schools, Canon Press and New Saint Andrews College, all located in Moscow. Logos is a set of private schools and homeschooling curriculum, Canon Press is a publishing house and media company, and New Saint Andrews College is a university, all of which were founded by Wilson and associated with Christ Church. All espouse the view that Christians are at odds with – or at war with – secular society.

    While he is not Hegseth’s pastor, Wilson is the most influential voice in the CREC, and the two men have spoken approvingly of one another.

    Pastor Douglas Wilson leads others at a protest in Moscow, Idaho.
    Geoff Crimmins/The Moscow-Pullman Daily News, CC BY-SA

    As Wilson steadily grew Christ Church in Moscow, he and its members sought to spread their message by making Moscow a conservative town and establishing churches beyond it. Of his hometown, Wilson plainly states, “Our desire is to make Moscow a Christian town.”

    The CREC doctrine is opposed to religious pluralism or political points of view that diverge from CREC theology. On its website, the CREC says that it is “committed to maintaining its Reformed faith, avoiding the pitfalls of cultural relevance and political compromise that destroys our doctrinal integrity.”

    CREC churches adhere to a highly patriarchal and conservative interpretation of Scripture. Wilson has said that in a sexual relationship, “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

    In a broader political sense, CREC theology includes the belief that the establishment clause of the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The most common reading of the establishment clause is that freedom of religion precludes the installation of a state religion or religious tests to hold state office.

    The CREC broadly asserts that the government and anyone serving in it should be Christian. For Wilson and members of CREC churches, this means Christians and only Christians are qualified to hold political office in the United States.

    Researcher Matthew Taylor explained in an interview with the Nashville Tennessean, “They believe the church is supposed to be militant in the world, is supposed to be reforming the world, and in some ways conquering the world.”

    While the CREC may not have the name recognition of some large evangelical denominations or the visibility of some megachurches, it boasts churches across the United States and internationally. The CREC website claims to have over 130 churches and parishes spread across North America, Europe, Asia and South America.

    Like some other evangelical denominations, the CREC uses “church planting” to grow its network. Plant churches do not require a centralized governing body to ordain their founding. Instead, those interested in starting a CREC congregation contact the CREC. The CREC then provides materials and literature for people to use in their church.

    CREC schools, home schools and colleges

    The CREC’s expansion also owes a debt to Wilson’s entrepreneurship. As the church expanded, Wilson founded an associated K-12 school called “Logos” in September 1981, which since then has grown into a network of many schools.

    In conjunction with its growth, Logos develops and sells “classical Christian” curriculum to private schools and home-school families through Logos Press. Classical Christian Schools aim to develop what they consider a biblical worldview. In addition to religious studies, they focus on classic texts from Greece and Rome. They have grown in popularity in recent years, especially among conservatives.

    Logos’ classical Christian curriculum is designed to help parents “raise faithful, dangerous Christian kids who impact the world for Christ and leave craters in the world of secularism.” Logos press regularly asserts, “education is warfare.”

    According to the website, Logos schools enroll more than 2,000 students across 16 countries. Logos also has its own press that supplies the curriculum to all of these schools. On the heels of Logos’ success, Wilson founded the Association of Classical Christian Schools in 1993 as an accrediting body for like-minded schools. The ACCS now boast 500 schools and more than 50,000 students across the United States and around the world.

    Additionally, Wilson founded New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. New Saint Andrews is a Christian university that takes the classical Christian approach to education championed by Wilson into higher education.

    The New Saint Andrews College is consistent with other CREC institutions. It considers secularism a weakness of other universities and society more generally. Its website explains: “New Saint Andrews has long held a principled and clear voice, championing the truth of God’s word and ways, while so many other colleges veer into softness and secularism.” The school is governed by the elders of Christ Church and does not accept federal funding.

    CREC media

    In addition to the Logos Press, which produces the CREC school curriculum, Wilson founded Canon Press. Canon Press produces books, podcasts, a YouTube channel and assorted merchandise including apparel and weapons, such as a flamethrower. The YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers.

    Books published by Canon include children’s picture books to manuals on masculinity. A number of books continue the theme of warfare.

    The politics page of the press contains many books on Christian nationalism. Christian political theorist Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism” is one of the most popular among books on Christian nationalism. The website has dozens of books on Christian nationalism and media dedicated to the construction of a Christian government.

    Author Joe Rigney, a fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and an associate pastor at Christ Church, warns of the “Sin of Empathy.” Rigney claims that empathizing with others is sinful because it requires compromise and makes one vulnerable in the fight against evil.

    CREC controversies

    Pete Hegseth at his confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 14, 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    As the church network has grown, it has drawn attention and scrutiny. Wilson’s 1996 publication of a book positively depicting slavery and claiming slavery cultivated “affection among the races” drew national attention.

    Accusations of sexual abuse and the church’s handling of it have also brought national news coverage. Vice’s Sarah Stankorb interviewed many women who talked about a culture, especially in marriage, where sexual abuse and assault is common. The Vice reporting led to a podcast that details the accounts of survivors. In interviews, Wilson has denied any wrongdoing and said that claims of sexual abuse will be directed to the proper authorities.

    Hegseth’s actions as secretary of defense concerning gender identity and banning trans people from serving in the military, in addition to stripping gay activist and politician Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, have brought more attention to the CREC. I believe that given Hegseth’s role as secretary of defense, his affiliation with the CREC will likely remain a topic of conversation throughout the Trump presidency.

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

    ref. What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support – https://theconversation.com/what-is-crec-the-christian-nationalist-group-has-a-vision-for-america-and-defense-secretary-pete-hegseths-support-258273

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Low-income homeowners hit by disasters may get less help from the government, as Trump administration nixes rules on fairness, community input and resilience

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ivis García, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

    Hurricane Helene caused extensive damage to homes in North Carolina in 2024. AP Photo/Kathy Kmonicek

    Imagine that a hurricane has destroyed your home.

    The roof is gone. The floors are flooded. Your family’s belongings are ruined.

    When this happens, you can apply for federal disaster aid, hoping for a lifeline. For many low-income families and other people of modest means, funding for that aid is often channeled to the states through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program.

    Known as CDBG-DR, this program mainly provides funding to repair and rebuild homes belonging to people of low-to-moderate income who either have no insurance at all or whose coverage falls short of what is needed to making housing safe again.

    When homes are damaged beyond repair or located in areas where it’s too dangerous to rebuild because of the likelihood of future bouts of flooding in the same place, the CDBG-DR program can help pay for residents to move somewhere else that is less prone to disasters. In both cases, it covers costs that the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not pay for.

    But in 2025, with hurricane season underway, the rules for who gets help and how it’s distributed have changed significantly.

    As an urban planner who has researched disaster recovery efforts, I’m alarmed by Memorandum 2025-02, which HUD published on its website in March 2025.

    The memo changes the rules for nearly US$12 billion in disaster recovery funding approved by Congress for disasters occurring in 2023 and 2024. And HUD is implementing these changes early in the process, before any of this money has been distributed.

    This home in Puerto Rico was destroyed when Hurricane Fiona struck the island in September 2022.
    Ivis Garcia

    What has changed

    The memo does away with the civil rights certifications, fair housing assessments, environmental standards and citizen advisory groups
    that have long been mandatory for the recipients of disaster recovery funds.

    Civil rights certification means that CDBG-DR grantees must verify that disaster aid will be distributed without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, age, disability status, or other characteristics known as “protected classes.” Without this certification, there’s no formal process to ensure disaster aid is distributed fairly.

    Fair housing obligations are assessments of whether middle- and lower-income families, people of color or people with disabilities can find safe, affordable housing without facing any discrimination.

    In addition, HUD no longer requires detailed demographic reporting on who is applying for or receiving aid. This includes information such as gender, race, age, disability status and the language someone speaks.

    Another change is that HUD’s updated disaster recovery guidelines no longer require economic development funds to emphasize people of modest incomes or their communities. Under the new rules, any business hit by a disaster can get recovery funds. It doesn’t matter how much money the owners make, as long as they can show that the disaster affected them.

    And several important environmental protections have been rolled back. HUD previously mandated that disaster recovery projects comply with federal building standards.

    Those codes are tougher than the local housing codes. These included rules for building homes higher off the ground to avoid future flooding and using stronger construction methods to withstand extreme weather events. Without them, new construction may be less durable and less safe – especially in areas hit hard by hurricanes or other natural disasters.

    Strong energy efficiency standards help keep long-term utility costs low and reduce pressure on power grids during extreme weather events. They also make rebuilt homes more sustainable by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Tina Brotherton, 88, right, gets help from 9-year-old neighbor Lainey Hamelink as she surveys the wreckage of her business, Tina’s Dockside Inn. It was completely destroyed in Hurricane Idalia, as was Brotherton’s nearby home, in Horseshoe Beach, Fla., in 2023.
    AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell

    Less coordination and communication

    HUD has also removed a requirement for the nonprofits, local governments and other recipients of CDBG-DR grants to create and convene citizen advisory groups. That change took effect on March 24, 2025.

    These groups, which have long made it easier for local communities to have a say regarding federally funded disaster recovery efforts, have played an important role in making sure those efforts reflect the needs and priorities of local residents – especially those most affected.

    While eliminating this step may make it easier and faster for local governments to spend the recovery funds allocated for their communities, it also means there’s less opportunity for their own communities to influence how those funds are spent. Without that input, recovery efforts fail to resolve the real challenges people are facing.

    Staffing and funding cuts

    The White House’s 2026 budget proposal retains the HUD program that distributes disaster recovery grants while eliminating the related Community Development Block Grant program, which helps people experiencing homelessness and also funds everything from child care to services for older people.

    I’m concerned about how CDBG-DR grants will be distributed, apart from the program’s changes. HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development, which administers the CDBG-DR program, is slated to lose 84% of its staff, according to widespread media reports published earlier this year.

    The Trump administration is also calling for cutting HUD’s staff, and President Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 budget would cut the agency’s entire budget in half.

    In its March 25 HUD memo, the Trump administration framed these policy changes as a way to streamline recovery efforts and provide greater flexibility in the use of federal disaster funds. The memo also asserted that the changes were needed for compliance with executive orders that banned the use of diversity, equity and inclusion criteria and hiring practices that the administration considers to be discrimintory.

    But critics of the policy rollbacks, including the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which advocates affordable housing, worry that removing long-standing safeguards could weaken the CDBG-DR program’s core mission of equitably distributing aid and building resilient communities. The standards and community input systems HUD has abandoned, the coalition says, have historically helped ensure that disaster recovery funds reach the people who need them most.

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

    ref. Low-income homeowners hit by disasters may get less help from the government, as Trump administration nixes rules on fairness, community input and resilience – https://theconversation.com/low-income-homeowners-hit-by-disasters-may-get-less-help-from-the-government-as-trump-administration-nixes-rules-on-fairness-community-input-and-resilience-257439

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom vows to keep fighting as federal court rejects Trump’s military overreach

    Source: US State of California 2

    Jun 19, 2025

    What you need to know: The Ninth Circuit rejected Trump’s sweeping claim that he can federalize the National Guard for any reason and avoid judicial scrutiny, even as it stayed an emergency district court order. This is a critical check on presidential overreach and confirmation that the President is not above the law.

    SAN FRANCISCO – Governor Gavin Newsom expressed disappointment that the Ninth Circuit is allowing the President to retain control of the California National Guard for now, but welcomed the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of Donald Trump’s sweeping claims that he could federalize the California National Guard as he alone sees fit and without having to answer to a court.  Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta remain committed to holding President Trump accountable for using the military as domestic law enforcement in violation of federal law.

    “The court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    News Sacramento, California – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued a proclamation declaring “Juneteenth National Freedom Day: A Day of Observance” in the State of California.The text of the proclamation and a copy can be found below: PROCLAMATIONJuly 4 is not the only…

    News What you need to know: The Trump administration announced today that is has directed the national suicide prevention hotline to stop offering specialized support to LGBTQ callers. California continues to support this population.  SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin…

    News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:Dina El-Tawansy, of San Leandro, has been appointed Director of the California Department of Transportation. El-Tawansy has been District 4 Director at the California Department of…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: The challenges of vaccine production in Africa

    Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

    Thursday, 19 June 2025

    World Health Organization (WHO)

    by Cosimo GrazianiAbuja (Agenzia Fides) – In recent weeks, a Lassa fever vaccine developed by local researchers in Nigeria has shown initial signs of effectiveness in combating the disease, which recorded 747 new cases and 142 deaths in the African country in the first half of 2025. This was announced by Simeon Agwale, CEO of the Nigerian pharmaceutical company Innovative Biotech. The vaccine was developed under license from the University of Melbourne, and test doses were produced in the United States until the necessary infrastructure is established in Nigeria.For the African giant, the possibility of developing and producing this vaccine locally represents a significant achievement for the country, especially considering that the mortality rate has increased compared to 2024. This progress reflects a positive trend regarding the development of vaccines across the continent.Several African countries are striving to increase domestic vaccine production, a priority that has gained importance since the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, the Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing (PAVM) initiative was launched, aiming to produce 60 percent of Africa’s vaccine needs by 2040 (currently just 1 percent).The challenge of vaccine manufacturing is also related to the planning and development phase.According to the Africa Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the African Union department that deals with disease prevention and control, in 2024 there were 25 vaccine projects across the continent: 15 in early stages of development, five with production capacity but no transfer capacity, and five with both production and transfer capacity. These figures are positive and are underpinned by the fact that there are at least a dozen active pharmaceutical companies across the continent in countries such as Nigeria, Morocco, Egypt, South Africa, and Algeria. All of these aspects contribute to strengthening the vaccine ecosystem, which has already borne fruit in the past, such as the Ebola vaccine developed after the 2013 outbreak in West Africa.Three major agreements to strengthen vaccine production capacity in Africa were recently announced, one signed in December 2024 and two in February of this year. The first involved the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, the African Development Bank, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC). It provided $45 million to VaxSen, a subsidiary of the Dakar-based Pasteur Institute in Senegal, a country also very active in vaccine research. The agreement was intended to strengthen production capacity, support the local supply chain, and create a strong vaccine distribution network, as envisioned in the African Union’s 2040 Strategy, of which PAVM is a part. In addition to its impact on healthcare, the agreement should also have an impact on the creation of skilled jobs, as the Pasteur Institute’s facilities are being expanded. The question arises whether this project will also be scaled back or even canceled following the Trump administration’s cuts in international cooperation in recent months.The first of the agreements signed in February concerns a $1.2 billion investment by Gavi-the Vaccine Alliance, a public-private partnership that supports vaccination projects worldwide, particularly for children. According to this agreement, the funds will be used to establish an RNA vaccine production platform in Africa, involving both private African companies such as the Egyptian company EVA Pharma and foreign companies such as the French company DNA Script and the Belgian companies Unizima and Quantoom Biosciences. A second agreement signed in February, however, is a purely African collaboration: Egyptian Biogeneric Pharma and South African Afrigen will expand the development of RNA vaccines to also strengthen continental expertise in manufacturing and application to combat diseases plaguing the continent.These initiatives were listed in the report published by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in February this year. The Oslo-based foundation pointed out that among the issues that need to be resolved to develop a self-sufficient vaccine industry in Africa are problems with access to finance, production restrictions, tariffs, and customs duties and uncertain demand. The problem of the vaccine market in Africa has a major impact on the decisions of various vaccine companies around the world, also taking into account the fact that Africa’s population, especially its young population, will continue to grow strongly in the coming years. (Agenzia Fides, 19/6/2025)
    Share:

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • Iran says no nuclear talks under Israeli fire, Trump considers options

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Iran said on Friday it would not discuss the future of its nuclear programme while under attack by Israel, as Europe tried to coax Tehran back into negotiations and the United States considers whether to get involved in the conflict.

    A week after it began attacking Iran, Israel’s military said it had carried out new strikes on dozens of military targets overnight, including missile production sites and a research organisation involved in nuclear weapons development in Tehran.

    Iran launched at least one new barrage of missiles early on Friday, striking near residential apartments, office buildings and industrial facilities in the southern city of Beersheba.

    The White House said on Thursday that President Donald Trump would decide on “whether or not to go” with U.S. involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks, citing the possibility of negotiations involving Iran in the near future.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Friday there was no room for negotiations with Israel’s superpower ally the United States “until Israeli aggression stops”.

    But he was due to meet European foreign ministers in Geneva later on Friday for talks at which Europe hopes to establish a path back to diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Two diplomats said before the meeting involving France, Britain, Germany and the European Union’s foreign policy chief that Araqchi would be told the U.S. is still open to direct talks. Expectations for a breakthrough are low, diplomats say.

    Israel began attacking Iran last Friday, saying its longtime enemy was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Iran, which says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes, retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel.

    Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons. It neither confirms nor denies this.

    Israeli air attacks have killed 639 people in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based human rights organisation that tracks Iran. The dead include the military’s top echelon and nuclear scientists.

    Israel has said at least two dozen Israeli civilians have been killed in Iranian missile attacks.

    Reuters could not independently verify the death toll from either side. Details of casualties in the latest strikes were not immediately known.

    CIVILIANS KILLED

    Both sides say they are attacking military and defence-related targets, but civilians have also been caught in the crossfire and each has accused the other of hitting hospitals.

    An Iranian news website said a drone had struck an apartment in a residential building in central Tehran on Friday, but did not give details.

    Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear installations so far pose only limited risks of contamination, experts say. But they warn that any attack on the nuclear power station at Bushehr could cause a nuclear disaster.

    Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities but that it wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is inhabited by tens of millions of people and produces much of the world’s oil.

    The meeting in Geneva was due to start on Friday afternoon. The Swiss city is where an initial accord was struck in 2013 to curb Iran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions being lifted. A comprehensive deal followed in 2015.

    Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement in 2018. A new series of talks between Iran and the U.S. collapsed when Israel launched what it called Operation Rising Lion against Iran’s nuclear facilities and ballistic capabilities on June 12.

    Trump has alternated between threatening Tehran and urging it to resume nuclear talks. His special envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, has spoken to Araqchi several times since last week, sources say.

    The Middle East has been on edge since the Palestinian militant group Hamas attacked it in October of 2023, triggering the Gaza war, and Israel has been fighting on several fronts against Iran’s regional allies.

    Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz warned on Friday of further action against Iranian ally Hezbollah, a day after the Lebanese militant group suggested it would come to Iran’s aid.

    Western and regional officials say Israel is trying to shatter the government of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday “the downfall of the regime … may be a result, but it’s up to the Iranian people to rise for their freedom.”

    Iranian opposition groups think their time may be near, but activists involved in previous protests say they are unwilling to unleash mass unrest with their nation under attack, and Iranian authorities have cracked down hard on dissent.

    “How are people supposed to pour into the streets? In such horrifying circumstances, people are solely focused on saving themselves, their families, their compatriots, and even their pets,” said Atena Daemi, a prominent activist who spent six years in prison before leaving Iran.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Debates – Thursday, 19 June 2025 – Strasbourg – Revised edition

    Source: European Parliament

    Verbatim report of proceedings
     391k  736k
    Thursday, 19 June 2025 – Strasbourg
    1. Resumption of the sitting
      2. Institutional and political implications of the EU enlargement process and global challenges (debate)
      3. The United Kingdom accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (debate)
      4. Resumption of the sitting
      5. Voting time
        5.1. Media freedom in Georgia, particularly the case of Mzia Amaglobeli (RC-B10-0282/2025, B10-0282/2025, B10-0283/2025, B10-0287/2025, B10-0288/2025, B10-0289/2025, B10-0290/2025, B10-0295/2025) (vote)
        5.2. Case of Ahmadreza Jalali in Iran (RC-B10-0284/2025, B10-0280/2025, B10-0284/2025, B10-0285/2025, B10-0286/2025, B10-0296/2025, B10-0299/2025, B10-0300/2025) (vote)
        5.3. Dissolution of political parties and the crackdown on the opposition in Mali (RC-B10-0291/2025, B10-0281/2025, B10-0291/2025, B10-0292/2025, B10-0293/2025, B10-0294/2025, B10-0297/2025, B10-0298/2025) (vote)
        5.4. Welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability (A10-0104/2025 – Veronika Vrecionová) (vote)
        5.5. Electricity grids: the backbone of the EU energy system (A10-0091/2025 – Anna Stürgkh) (vote)
        5.6. Clean Industrial Deal (B10-0277/2025, B10-0278/2025) (vote)
        5.7. The United Kingdom accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (B10-0273/2025) (vote)
      6. Resumption of the sitting
      7. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
      8. Protecting bees: advancing the EU’s New Deal for Pollinators (debate)
      9. Oral explanations of vote (Rule 201)
        9.1. Electricity grids: the backbone of the EU energy system (A10-0091/2025 – Anna Stürgkh)
        9.2. Clean Industrial Deal (B10-0277/2025, B10-0278/2025)
      10. Explanations of votes in writing (Rule 201)
      11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted
      12. Dates of the next part-session
      13. Closure of the sitting
      14. Adjournment of the session

       

    SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE
    Priekšsēdētāja vietnieks

     
    1. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (Sēde tika atsākta plkst. 09.00.)

     

    2. Institutional and political implications of the EU enlargement process and global challenges (debate)

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the global balance of power is shifting rapidly, challenging our democratic values and institutions. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is a stark reminder of the importance of enlargement. Now, more than ever, a larger and stronger EU is a strategic imperative. It is clearly in the EU’s interests. Both the EU and future Member States should be ready at the time of accession.

    In March last year, the Commission therefore adopted a first communication of the pre‑enlargement policy reviews covering four strands: values, policies, budget and governance. That communication was our contribution to the discussion that led to the adoption by EU leaders of a roadmap for future work on enlargement and reform in June 2024.

    In July last year, President von der Leyen announced that the new college will present the pre‑enlargement policy reviews focusing on individual sectors such as the rule of law, the single market, food security, defence and security, climate and energy, and migration, as well as social, economic and territorial cohesion more broadly.

    As announced in our work programme for 2025, the Commission is currently carrying out in-depth policy reviews in view of future enlargement. Allow me to make a few comments without prejudging the outcome of the reviews, in particular on institutional reform.

    Mr President, honourable Members, I am aware that the question of institutional reform and treaty change has been key to Parliament in particular during the last legislature. In November 2023, this House adopted a resolution with proposals for amendments of the treaties. As President von der Leyen stated in her political guidelines, we need treaty change where it can improve our Union. So in order to prepare the Union for enlargement, we need to examine all options, starting with using the full potential of the current treaties.

    We first need to focus on what can already be done under the current treaties. In that regard, the Commission believes we need to extend the use of qualified majority voting in the Council in some areas, moving away from unanimity. This could in particular mean activating so-called passerelle clauses. The position of the Commission is well known: if the Union wants to play its role quickly, efficiently and therefore strategically, we need we need to decrease the number of decisions where unanimity is needed. But we also need to acknowledge the sensitivities among Member States on this topic. We have to discuss the question of unanimity with the objective of finding a way to address Member States’ legitimate concerns.

    We remain committed to engage in a constructive dialogue with both Parliament and the Council on these important matters. The Commission welcomes the ongoing reflections on these issues in the AFCO Committee, and in particular, the upcoming report on the institutional consequences of the EU enlargement negotiations.

     
       

     

      Željana Zovko, u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, u posljednja dva desetljeća Europska unija suočila se s nizom kriza: od financijske krize 2008., preko migrantske krize 2015., do pandemije COVID-a te rata u Ukrajini. Unatoč svemu, Europska unija je iz tih izazova izašla izgubivši samo jednu članicu, ali sačuvala je jedinstvo svojih temeljnih vrijednosti.

    Kao posljednja zemlja koja je pristupila Europskoj uniji, Hrvatska itekako dobro zna koliko je vrijedilo prolaziti kroz nužne reforme i ispunjavati kriterije za punopravno članstvo te na kraju, u ključnim trenucima imati zaštitu i sigurnost koju članstvo u Europskoj uniji donosi.

    S jedne strane imamo zemlje Istočnog partnerstva koje zbog svojih demokratskih težnji plaćaju visoku cijenu životima svojih građana zbog autoritativnih režima u susjedstvu. S druge strane, zemlje zapadnog Balkana koje su već prošle kroz ratna razaranja, a danas su žrtve birokratske inertnosti Europske unije i neriješenih povijesnih nesuglasica koje usporavaju njihovu integraciju i potkopavaju njihovu institucionalnu obnovu.

    Poštovane kolege, naš najveći izazov danas je nedostatak vizije. Vizije koja će Uniju vratiti njezinim izvorištima – ideji mira i sigurnosti, ne samo unutar Europske unije već i na njezinim granicama. Ako zemlje kandidatkinje ostavimo u rukama onih koji žele razgraditi Europu izvana i iznutra, mir i sigurnost više neće imati tko braniti. Naš ego mora odstupiti pred zajedničkom odgovornošću u odnosima stare i nove Europe.

    Često se postavlja pitanje je li moguće proširenje bez produbljenja. Ta dilema je apsurdna. Nijedan čovjek nije otok, kako je rekao engleski pjesnik John Donne. Tako ni jedna zemlja ne može sama. Od samih početaka europskog kontinenta stvarale su se unije s ciljem zaštite građana. Najuspješniji projekt u toj povijesti upravo je Europska unija, koja je kroz proces proširenja postala najpoželjnije mjesto za življenje. Kao što se naš mir brani na ukrajinskoj granici, tako se i naša sigurnost čuva na granicama zapadnog Balkana.

    Ovo nije mjesto na kojem odlučujemo tko je više, a tko manje privilegiran da bude Europljanin. Ovo je mjesto na kojem odlučujemo što mi možemo učiniti za Europsku uniju kako bi ostala kao projekt mira, solidarnosti i pomirenja.

     
       

     

      Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, EU enlargement – when it’s done right – is a game changer. It brings peace, prosperity, strength across Europe. And today, with Russia tightening its grip in the Western Balkans and Eastern Partnership countries, the stakes are even higher.

    The momentum is real and we cannot afford to make the same mistakes we made in the past. So no shortcuts on our values. The rule of law, independent courts, freedom of speech, freedom of media, fundamental rights, democracy: they are non-negotiable. Even now – especially now – if a candidate country slides back on these values, we must act.

    When Serbia’s President shows up at Putin’s parade, while silencing democracy back home, the EU must respond. No more appeasement! Our credibility is on the line, and so is Serbia’s future.

    And at the same time – as you mentioned, Commissioner – we need to reform ourselves. We can’t demand from others when we ignore it ourselves. We need stronger tools to address democratic backsliding in the EU itself.

    And let’s be honest: enlargement means readiness on our side, too. As candidate countries prepare, so must we, by reforming our institutions in parallel, updating the EU budget, making it fit for a bigger Union and, yes, moving beyond unanimity, as you mentioned.

    Dear Commissioner, people also need to see the benefits of enlargement – both in the EU and in the candidate and future Member States. So let’s act: speed up access to the single market, give candidate countries observer seats in the EU institutions and let them be part of the project as they work towards full membership.

    And I would like you to convey the message to the Commissioner for Enlargement that she has the backing of the S&D Group to do all that in the coming months and years.

     
       

     

      Kinga Gál, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A Patrióták nem támogatják a bővítéspolitika geopolitikai érdekek szerinti gyorsítását. Ez hitelteleníti az Uniót a térség azon országainak szemében, mint a Nyugat-Balkán országai, amelyek évek óta kitartóan dolgoznak a tagság feltételeinek teljesítésén.

    Nem ez az első eset, hogy az Unió politikai iránytűje rossz irányba fordul, figyelmen kívül hagyva az európai polgárok valós érdekeit. Például szükséges lenne, hogy a Bizottság haladéktalanul készítsen egy átfogó hatástanulmányt Ukrajna esetleges csatlakozásának várható következményeiről. Ukrajna semmilyen csatlakozási kritériumnak nem felel meg. Egy háború sújtotta országról beszélünk, így a gyorsított csatlakozásával a háborút is importálnánk. Elégtelen például a nemzeti kisebbségi jogok helyzete. Az ukrán munkaerő beáramlása veszélyezteti a munkahelyeket, az agrártermékek tömeges beáradása és az agrártámogatások elvesztése pedig a gazdák megélhetését. Aránytalanul nagymértékben vonnának el kohéziós forrásokat más tagállamoktól.

    Az emberek feje felett nem születhetnek meg elhamarkodott döntések. Ezért kezdeményeztünk Magyarországon, Európában egyedülálló módon véleménynyilvánító népszavazást erről. Nem engedjük, hogy a kierőltetett ukrán uniós tagság árát a magyar emberek fizessék meg, mint ahogy azt sem engedhetjük meg, hogy újabb lopakodó hatáskörelvonással csorbuljon a szuverenitásunk. A bővítéspolitikában csak egyhangúsággal lehet döntéseket hozni, nem pedig a tagállamokat megkerülve, politikai alapon. Ez a tagállamok és az egész Unió alapvető érdeke.

     
       

     

      Alberico Gambino, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, l’allargamento dell’Unione europea è una delle grandi sfide geopolitiche e politiche del nostro tempo. Non riguarda solo i paesi candidati. Riguarda il futuro dell’Europa stessa e la sua capacità di essere protagonista nello scenario globale, di difendere i suoi interessi e garantire stabilità.

    L’Italia ha sempre sostenuto con convinzione il cammino europeo dei Balcani occidentali e degli altri paesi candidati. Ma è giusto che questo percorso sia serio, graduale, basato su impegni concreti e su un’autentica volontà di avvicinamento ai valori e agli standard europei. Perché chi chiede di entrare nell’Unione deve dimostrare di voler essere parte integrante di una comunità politica, non solo economica.

    In questo processo strumenti come Twinning, TAIEX e il Fondo INCE, che l’Italia finanzia interamente, hanno un ruolo fondamentale. Progetti reali che aiutano questi paesi a costruire amministrazioni solide, capaci ed efficienti.

    Ma l’allargamento è anche una questione strategica, vista la situazione geopolitica che viviamo, piena di instabilità e di minacce ibride. Rafforzare i legami con i paesi del vicinato è anche un modo per rendere più sicura e resiliente l’Unione europea.

    L’Italia continuerà a contribuire con determinazione a questo percorso comune. In questo scenario è l’intera Europa che deve riaffermare il proprio ruolo da protagonista, promuovendo un allargamento che sia realmente utile, credibile e sostenibile.

     
       

     

      Sandro Gozi, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, chaque jour on fait le constat d’une Union pas assez efficace, pas assez puissante et pas assez démocratique. Ceci est d’autant plus vrai face aux défis de l’unification continentale et du nouveau désordre mondial. Comment pouvons-nous convaincre nos citoyens et nous-mêmes que tout d’un coup, l’Europe peut survivre à ces nouveaux défis sans résoudre les anciens problèmes?

    Nous avons besoin d’une Union plus efficace, avec moins de veto et plus de vote à la majorité, d’une Union plus puissante, avec plus de ressources pour une véritable Europe de la défense et des investissements. D’une Union plus démocratique avec une nouvelle loi électorale. Si les réformes sont nécessaires à 27, elles le deviennent encore plus dans une Union à 30, 32 ou davantage de pays. Il n’y a jamais eu un élargissement dans l’histoire de l’Union européenne qui n’a pas été précédé par des réformes institutionnelles et des réformes des traités.

    Donc, je dis à la Commission: plus de courage, plus de courage. Soyez explicites, vous savez bien que la réforme des traités est nécessaire. Assumez vos responsabilités et, ensemble, réformons l’Union pour unifier l’Europe.

     
       

     

      Daniel Freund, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zwischen Trumps America First und Putins Angriffen auf Zivilisten in der Ukraine – es zeigt doch: Wir brauchen ein stärkeres Europa. Bei allen großen Fragen unserer Zeit, ob nun beim Kampf gegen den Klimawandel, dafür zu sorgen, dass auch die größten Konzerne ihren fairen Anteil an Steuern zahlen, und leider ja auch wieder bei der Frage, für die die Europäische Union mal gegründet wurde – die Frage von Stabilität, von Frieden, von Freiheit, von Demokratie auf diesem Kontinent –, bei all diesen Fragen können wir wenig bis gar nichts machen ohne eine starke Europäische Union. Kleinstaaterei ist ein Sicherheitsrisiko. Nur gemeinsam sind wir stark. Wir können auch den Verteidigungshaushalt von Estland oder Litauen verdoppeln, wir können ihn verdreifachen – es wird Putin nicht abschrecken.

    Was Putin abschrecken wird, ist, wenn wir in Europa stärker zusammenarbeiten – auch in Verteidigungsfragen. Und vor allen Dingen, wenn wir ein paar grundsätzliche Konstruktionsfehler der Europäischen Union endlich angehen. Die Einstimmigkeit abzuschaffen, die ist doch das größte Geschenk an Putin: Er muss nur einen einzigen von 27 Staats- und Regierungschefs bestechen, erpressen, irgendwie auf seine Seite ziehen.

    Wir müssen endlich bei der Demokratie Fortschritte machen. Denn wenn die Demokratie von außen und von innen angegriffen wird, dann müssen wir doch in der Europäischen Union damit reagieren, dass wir die EU demokratischer machen, dass wir endlich ein Initiativrecht bekommen für dieses Europäische Parlament, dass wir endlich wirkliche Europawahlen bekommen, dass wir endlich sehen können, was die Regierungen im Rat eigentlich genau machen, wo stimmen sie zu, wo lehnen sie ab. Und für all diese Fragen braucht es am Ende Vertragsänderungen, und das wollen die Bürgerinnen und Bürger; die Zustimmungswerte für die Europäische Union sind so hoch, wie wir sie noch nie gesehen haben in der Geschichte der Europäischen Union. Lassen Sie uns diesen Moment nutzen!

    Das Europäische Parlament hat ja bereits Vorschläge gemacht. Wir wollen die Verträge ändern. Und wenn wir es am Ende ernst meinen mit unserem Versprechen an die Ukraine, an den Balkan, an die Länder, die in die Europäische Union wollen, wenn wir dieses Versprechen ernst meinen, dann müssen wir die Verträge ändern. Und es ist der Rat, der blockiert, der heute nicht mal hier zu dieser Debatte auftaucht, Sonntagsreden hält, am Ende aber nicht das liefert, was die Bürgerinnen und Bürger wollen. Das müssen wir angehen.

     
       

     

      Anthony Smith, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, l’élargissement ne sera un succès que s’il est au service des peuples et de l’amélioration des conditions de vie, et non uniquement vu comme un outil géopolitique au service de votre logique bloc contre bloc, logique guerrière qui est à des années-lumière des aspirations des peuples d’Europe. La clé du succès de l’élargissement sera d’abord conditionnée par une Europe plus démocratique, avec des institutions au service des citoyens et non un marché au service des industriels.

    Mais, disons le d’emblée, votre Union européenne peut aujourd’hui se résumer à un ensemble de moyens permettant une concurrence libre et non faussée au service d’une vision impérialiste. Notre Europe, celle que nous défendons, porte un projet de paix, de partage des richesses, de démocratie, d’accueil et d’humanité. À l’heure où les extrêmes droites arbitrent les décisions de notre institution, nous ne pouvons que constater les régressions de toutes parts, acclamées par les conservateurs et par les libéraux.

    Voilà l’Europe que vous proposez aux peuples de notre continent, celle de la catastrophe climatique et de la pauvreté généralisée, celle de la corruption et des discriminations, bref, une union à l’image d’Orbán et de Nawrocki. L’accueil de nouveaux États doit se faire autour d’un socle commun ambitieux de droits sociaux dans lequel la démocratie sociale, et notamment la négociation collective, doivent jouer tout leur rôle. Sinon, c’est l’exploitation des travailleurs, la course au moins‑disant social et environnemental qui s’imposera.

    Cela exige que les aides de préadhésion servent aussi à construire cette Europe du commun, avec des institutions fortes, transparentes, intègres, des inspections efficaces, des systèmes judiciaires indépendants. L’élargissement doit être un levier de construction d’un continent plus juste, où les droits sociaux et les contre-pouvoirs démocratiques soient la règle, qui rejette la concurrence généralisée, le dumping social, la corruption. En un mot, pas d’élargissement sans projet social ambitieux.

     
       

     

      Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, w imieniu grupy ESN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Ostatnie rozszerzenie Unii Europejskiej miało miejsce w 2013 r., gdy do Wspólnoty dołączyła Chorwacja. W kolejce do wejścia w tym momencie czeka 10 państw. Tylko pytanie: do czego jest ta kolejka? Od 2015 r. Unia Europejska pogrąża się w coraz większym kryzysie. To wtedy najeźdźcy napływali masowo do Europy, niszcząc bezpieczeństwo wewnętrzne Grecji i Włoch w nieodwracalny sposób. To była pierwsza fala uderzeniowa multikulti. Fala, której skutki odczuwamy do dziś.

    Od tego momentu Unia Europejska ma twarz Junckera, który pijany wychodził na międzynarodowe konferencje. Ma twarz Timmermansa, który zaciekle atakował Polskę i Węgry i bardzo agresywnie forsował szkodliwą, niebezpieczną, zieloną politykę. Unia Europejska ma twarz korupcji, autorytarnego zamordyzmu, moralnego zepsucia, lobbingu zagranicznego, niebezpieczeństwa, głupoty i nakrętek przymocowanych do plastikowych butelek. Unia Europejska ma twarz Ursuli von der Leyen, która nie nadąża za światowymi zmianami i pcha Europę ku samozagładzie.

    To nie jest ta sama Unia Europejska, do której Polska wchodziła w 2004 r. Wchodziliśmy na konkretnych zasadach, które dziś leżą w koszu, zastąpione autorytaryzmem i lewacką agendą. Dziś Unia Europejska przestaje być dobrym miejscem do życia. I pytanie: czy do takiej struktury rzeczywiście jakieś państwo chce wejść i powinno wejść? Najpierw trzeba Unię Europejską naprawić.

    Musimy wrócić do naszego DNA, do wspólnoty suwerennych państw narodowych. Cywilizacja życia musi wygrać z cywilizacją śmierci. Musimy ochronić nasze rodziny, nasze bezpieczeństwo i nasze granice. W przeciwnym razie po prostu nie będzie do czego wchodzić. I tyle.

     
       

     

      Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Mr President, I’ll start with a Ursula von der Leyen quote: ‘EU enlargement is an investment in our collective security’. I completely agree. A bit late, but very true words.

    One of the reasons why Putin started this war is the grey areas of insecurity in Europe. If we had had such an understanding and decisions, at least immediately after the annexation of Crimea, there is a high probability that Ukraine would not be attacked today.

    Not too late. We have that chance. It is necessary to seek consensus in our societies that enlargement is as important for the future of the EU as defence. In essence, enlargement is an integral part of our defence union. The unification of the European continent on the basis of democracies is in our own interests. Either a larger, secure, strong EU or Russia and China closer to our borders.

    Such an understanding requires leaders in each Member State. That’s why I end my speech with a James Freeman Clark quote: ‘A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman of the next generation’. At least, let’s think about both, about the elections and about the next generations.

    (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

     
       

     

      Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, hace escasas fechas, el 12 de junio, se cumplieron cuarenta años de la adhesión de España y Portugal a las entonces Comunidades Europeas.

    Esto muestra con claridad el éxito de la política de ampliación, ¿verdad? Porque supuso no solamente un impulso a reformas políticas y a la modernización económica, sino también, y sobre todo, a la estabilización de las democracias en los dos países ibéricos, que contribuyeron desde su adhesión a mejorar la construcción europea.

    De modo que la política de cohesión debe muchísimo a España y Portugal. El refuerzo de la política agrícola y también la ciudadanía y el programa Erasmus tienen, por tanto, una deuda clara con esta adhesión.

    Pero, cuarenta años después, la Unión Europea creció. ¡Vaya si creció! Llegamos a ser veintiocho, y ahora somos veintisiete. Pero hay, al menos en estos momentos, candidatos en la lista de espera hasta sumar treinta y cinco.

    Y lo primero que hace falta es un ejercicio de realismo, no engañarse con placebos. Es una hipocresía que Turquía continúe formalmente en la lista de espera como país candidato, cuando es evidente que hace tiempo que abandonó toda expectativa y se ha cualificado como un actor regional por sí mismo.

    Pero hay otros países candidatos a los que hay que exigir, por supuesto, la adhesión a los valores europeos: artículo 2 del Tratado; esa idea europea de democracia que incluye pluralismo, que incluye pluralismo informativo, que incluye independencia judicial y estrategias contra la corrupción.

    Y, por eso, la adhesión tiene que ser muy exigente. Pero, para empezar, tiene que ser exigente para la propia Unión Europea. Y esto exige, si queremos ser treinta y cinco, cambiar los métodos de decisión. Porque, si el contraste entre nuestros objetivos y ambiciones proclamados y nuestro método de decisión disfuncional e impracticable es insoportable a veintisiete, ¿cómo será a treinta y cinco?

    Lo pone de manifiesto Hungría: cuando hace falta unanimidad, Hungría es el missing link, el eslabón fallido de la cadena, y obliga a todos los demás a formar una coalition of the willing para hacer lo que Hungría veta.

    Por tanto, es imprescindible un ejercicio de seriedad para que esa reforma institucional sea previa a toda ampliación de la construcción europea. Esa es la exigencia.

     
       

     

      António Tânger Corrêa (PfE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caros colegas, o alargamento é estrategicamente essencial para a União Europeia.

    Nós falamos por nós próprios e por aquilo que Portugal ganhou em aderir à União Europeia, e queremos que os outros países candidatos também ganhem quando aderirem à União Europeia. Mas essa adesão tem de ser feita no estrito cumprimento dos critérios de Copenhaga e nos timings exatamente iguais uns aos outros. Não deve haver primeiras e segundas velocidades, não deve haver filhos e enteados nessa adesão, por um lado.

    Por outro lado, é preciso que nós arrumemos a casa –– a nossa casa europeia –– porque a nossa casa europeia, como qualquer outra casa, precisa de manutenção, e essa manutenção não tem sido feita. Essa manutenção é absolutamente necessária, antes de qualquer alargamento.

    Temos de rever os Tratados, temos de rever a nossa própria União e os princípios e valores pelos quais nos regemos, pois muitos anos se passaram desde o início deste grande projeto que é a União Europeia, e o mundo mudou. O mundo global mudou.

    Estrategicamente, temos outros desafios que não tínhamos nessa altura, e é preciso enfrentar esses desafios de uma forma mais moderna, mais proativa e, principalmente, de uma forma mais eficaz e ativa para nós próprios europeus.

    Portanto, queria deixar aqui esta mensagem e dizer sim ao alargamento, mas a um alargamento à medida do século XXI e não a um alargamento à medida do século XX.

     
       

     

      Ивайло Вълчев (ECR). – Г-н Зиле, г-жо Захариева, ще започна с един цитат от г-жа Марта Кос. Тя наскоро заяви, че Македония е цитирам „тъжна приказка“. Тя забрави обаче да спомене, че на Балканите ние имаме една поговорка: „Каквото си направиш сам и Господ не може да ти го направи“.

    Ситуацията, в която се намира Скопие в момента, е резултат единствено и само на техните собствени действия или по-право – бездействия. Днес Скопие можеше да бъде рамо до рамо с Тирана и Подгорица, можеха да бъдат здраво стъпили на своя европейски път. Не го направиха, защото в крайна сметка не искат. Няма отстъпки, които биха довели до това те да изпълнят своите вече поети ангажименти. Ето защо аз бих помолил госпожа Кос следващия път да попита правителството в Скопие директно: „Искате ли да бъдете част от Европейския съюз или не?“ Защото отговорът е прост: ако искате, просто изпълнете своите ангажименти. България вече направи компромиси и няма да отстъпи и на йота от тях, защото няма причина да вярва, че официално Скопие ще промени политиката си и говора си на омраза спрямо българите и България.

    Последните събития – присъдата срещу Любчо Георгиевски и тежкото състояние на македонските българи, са най добрата илюстрация за това защо искахме допълнителните условия от Скопие в преговорната рамка.

     
       

     

      Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, in times of rising authoritarianism, in times where we see brutal warfare in our immediate neighbourhood on European soil, if we European states want to defend our way of life, the rule of law, democracy, human rights, we have to stand together and we have to speak with a united voice. And yes, for this, we need to rethink whether majority voting in terms of foreign policy should not be the next step for reforms.

    But we also have to see that most of these countries that are seeking accession are making great progress. And we have two candidate states that have a realistic chance to join this European Union until 2028: clearly Montenegro and maybe – if they keep the ambition – Albania. I want to say these are two countries that have been reliable partners, that have been sharing our CFSP, so foreign policy, standpoints. They have shown their commitment to the European Union and they have a realistic chance to come as 28th and 29th members into the European Union.

    Yes, we need reforms of the Treaty, but we also need a signal to the region that enlargement is possible based on merits, based on the rule of law, but that we’re acting in terms of enlargement and we’re not kicking the can down the road when it comes to reforms. So, let’s keep the door open for Montenegro and Albania. The region needs this signal.

     
       

     

      Li Andersson (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, oikeistolaiset voimat tekevät tällä hetkellä parhaansa muuttaakseen EU:n sellaiseksi, mitä se huonoimmillaan voi olla: vain markkinoiden ja suuryritysten unioniksi. Mutta Itä-Euroopassa ja Balkanilla monet katsovat meitä kuitenkin toisesta syystä. He hakevat turvallisuutta poliittisesta yhteistyöstä. He haluavat vahvaa suojaa oikeusvaltioperiaatteelle, ihmisoikeuksille ja riittäville ympäristövaatimuksille.

    Putinin autoritaarisuuden voimistuessa ihmiset ovat valmiita lähtemään kaduille puolustamaan oikeuttaan valita, vapauttaan ja eurooppalaisia arvoja, ja siksi laajentuminen on nyt niin tärkeä kysymys.

    Kysymys on myös Ukrainasta. Jos ja kun ukrainalaiset haluavat liittyä EU:hun, meidän on oltava valmiina toivottamaan heidät tervetulleeksi. Samalla meidän tulee varmistaa, että jäsenyyskriteerit täyttyvät. Me tarvitsemme avointa keskustelua laajentumisen tuomista muutoksista unionin päätöksentekoon ja budjettiin.

    Mutta aiempien laajentumisprosessien virheistä pitää myös oppia. Tarvitsemme parempia välineitä ja yhteisiä digitaalisia järjestelmiä rajatylittävän työvoiman hyväksikäytön torjumiseksi. Kun otetaan huomioon, kuinka kauan sisämarkkinoilla on ollut vapaata liikkuvuutta, on käsittämätöntä, ettemme ole edistyneet tämän pidemmälle tämän ongelman ratkaisussa.

     
       

     

      Thomas Geisel (NI). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Erweiterungsdiskussion schadet der Europäischen Union vor allem deshalb, weil sie unehrlich ist. Sie ist unehrlich, weil sie politisch motiviert ist. Über eine EU‑Mitgliedschaft der Ukraine beispielsweise würden wir ohne den russischen Angriffskrieg gar nicht diskutieren, denn sie würde das Ende der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik bedeuten – das will niemand, und deswegen wird es dazu auch nicht kommen.

    Die Diskussion ist auch unehrlich, weil wir sie uns nicht leisten können. Kein Mitgliedstaat wird bereit sein, seinen Beitrag zum EU‑Haushalt zu erhöhen oder auf Leistungen der Union zu verzichten. Wie auch, wenn 5 % der nationalen Etats für Verteidigungsausgaben ausgegeben werden sollen!

    Und sie ist drittens unehrlich, weil sie in Wahrheit keiner will, nicht einmal die Menschen in den Beitrittskandidatenländern. Schauen Sie sich doch nur die letzten Wahlergebnisse in Georgien und Moldawien an!

    Die Wachstumsschmerzen der Europäischen Union sind schon heute unverkennbar. Noch mehr Mitgliedsländer sind keine geeignete Therapie – im Gegenteil, dadurch werden sie weiter verschlimmert.

     
       

     

      Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, we need a Europe with more strength to the outside and more freedom to the inside. And at the moment, we are experiencing an era when the European Commission contributes a lot to a Europe with more freedom to the inside: deregulation, simplification, competitiveness – that’s what we were thriving for for a long time and what’s happening now.

    But we also need a Europe with more strength to the outside for the sake of European values, for the sake of the interests of the Europeans of this generation and of generations to come, and that means fostering the enlargement process.

    We have to be aware of the fact that the so-called ‘methodologies’ of accession to the European Union just haven’t worked. They haven’t worked for many years. I remember at the beginning of the last mandate, here, we were more or less obliged to define a new methodology for the enlargement process. Did it help? No, not at all.

    While many European countries, nearly all of them, want to be part of the integrated Europe, of the European Union, the best shape our continent ever had in history, while this is the case on one side, on the other side, we are reluctant and stuck in bureaucracy, in so-called ‘methodologies’, when it comes to enlargement. We need a more holistic and a more visionary approach here.

    (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

     
       

     

      Petras Gražulis (ESN), pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Gerbiamas pirmininke, pranešėjau, aš jau gal ketvirtą kartą klausiu ir negaunu atsakymo. Europos Parlamentas ir Europos Komisija labai myli Ukrainą ir nėra dienos, kad nepriimtume kokios nors rezoliucijos dėl meilės Ukrainai. Tačiau prezidentas Zelenskis neprašo rezoliucijų, prašo narystės Europos Sąjungoje. Kas kaltas, kad po šiai dienai nėra priimta Ukraina į Europos Sąjungą – Putinas, Trumpas, Ukraina ar Europos Sąjunga? Ir pasakykit, galų gale, kada nuo žodžių prieisite prie realių darbų?

     
       

     

      Кристиан Вигенин (S&D). – Г-жо Комисар, разширяването е не само исторически ангажимент, но и стратегически приоритет. То е инвестиция в сигурността, стабилността и просперитета на целия континент. Разширяването на Съюза обаче поставя пред нас и редица институционални предизвикателства: по-сложни механизми за взимане на решения, необходимост от адаптиране на бюджета и засилване на демократичната легитимност. В този контекст често се предлага премахването на принципа на единодушие като универсално решение. Но нека бъдем честни, това няма да отстрани най-съществения проблем –липсата на достатъчно доверие между страните членки. Договорите и сега предлагат редица инструменти като засилено сътрудничество, конструктивно въздържане, които можем да използваме. Те дават възможност да се премине към решение с квалифицирано мнозинство по всеки въпрос, стига това да се реши с единодушие.

    Промяната на договорите е сложен и бавен процес без гаранции за крайния резултат. Затова трябва да използваме максимално сегашната правна рамка, иначе има риск да отслабим Европейския съюз и да блокираме процеса на разширяване за неопределено време.

    Като представител на България – една от последните присъединили се държави, искам ясно да подчертая: отговорността, в случая, е двустранна. Кандидатките за членство също трябва да си свършат работата и да предприемат необходимите промени, за да прилагат европейските стандарти във всяка една сфера. Само така процесът ще запази подкрепата на гражданите, което е най-важно, както в страните кандидатки, така и в държавите членки, за да постигнем заедно едно демократично, солидарно и добро бъдеще за всеки един европеец.

     
       

     

      Anders Vistisen (PfE). – Mr President, before we open the door to yet another massive EU enlargement, let’s take a sober look at the facts. We are talking about eight candidate countries with a combined population of more than 90 million people, and at extra cost for the European taxpayers of above EUR 75 billion.

    And all the countries are below EU standards in all key areas. Take corruption: according to Transparency International, these countries rank among the worst in Europe. Bosnia and Herzegovina is at 108th place, lower than countries like Algeria or Zambia. Ukraine and Serbia share 104th place, and Albania ranks 98th. By comparison, Denmark is number one!

    In terms of median income, these countries are light years behind: Ukraine has an average monthly salary of only EUR 380, Moldova EUR 330, and even the most developed, Montenegro, has an average below EUR 800.

    Opening the single market to these countries will only lead to massive social dumping and welfare tourism in Europe.

     
       

     

      Cristian Terheş (ECR). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, proiectul european a fost vizionar, inițiat de lideri creștini practicanți după Al Doilea Război Mondial. Ei au visat la o comunitate de state suverane unite prin libertatea circulației bunurilor, persoanelor, serviciilor și capitalului, o unire care să aducă prin prosperitatea tuturor, pacea ‑ și au reușit. De la șase state vest-europene fondatoare, această comunitate, începută în 1951, a tot crescut, iar cu fiecare extindere toate statele membre și-au consolidat stabilitatea, solidaritatea și bunăstarea.

    Din păcate, cortina de fier și ocupația sovietică a estului Europei au blocat peste 200 de milioane de europeni în afara acestui spațiu al libertății și prosperității. A fost nevoie să cadă comunismul și să treacă aproape 50 de ani de la înființare, pentru ca fostele state comuniste captive să înceapă să facă parte din această comunitate. Astăzi, integrarea Republicii Moldova, Ucrainei și a Balcanilor de Vest este pasul firesc al unui proiect politico-economic care a demonstrat că unitatea aduce forță și crește prosperitatea tuturor statelor membre.

     
       

     

      Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, what could the EU look like in 2030? A new European Union from Greenland in the Atlantic to Ukraine in the Black Sea, a new Union with more countries. For the countries joining, it means new opportunities, new freedoms and new responsibilities – 35 countries collaborating together. But we know the EU is already dysfunctional.

    There’s only one solution: reform, treaty reform. Let’s create a Europe 2.0 with a European Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, free from the oppressive veto, a Europe that speaks with one voice. This could become a reality by enlarging and reforming the Union – in other words, a new Europe that is bigger and better. Parliament voted for treaty reform already, but the Council refuses to act. They are not even present at this debate, only thinking about the next election, not thinking about the next generation.

     
       

     

      Alexander Sell (ESN). – Herr Präsident! Deutschland ist pleite. Die Rentenversicherung ist pleite, Kranken- und Pflegeversicherung – pleite, Arbeitslosenversicherung – pleite. Wir Deutschen zahlen mit die höchsten Steuern weltweit, 1000 Milliarden Euro im Jahr, und trotzdem fehlt es an allen Ecken und Enden. Brücken und Straßen verfallen, Schulen sind marode, über 7 Millionen Rentner haben weniger als 1000 Euro im Monat, Wohneigentum gibt es kaum. Gleichzeitig zahlen wir auch den höchsten Beitrag zur EU, mit weitem Abstand, fast 30 Milliarden Euro im Jahr, obwohl wir laut Europäischer Zentralbank eines der ärmsten Länder Europas sind.

    Aber statt die deutschen Steuerzahler zu entlasten, wollen Sie uns immer neue Lasten aufbürden. Moldawien, Albanien oder die Ukraine sollen jetzt Mitglied in der Europäischen Union werden, weil sich Frau von der Leyen mehr Gewicht auf der weltpolitischen Bühne erhofft. Das wird nicht funktionieren; wir Deutschen werden uns nicht länger ausplündern lassen. Wir werden Ihrem Größenwahnsinn den Geldhahn abdrehen. Darauf können Sie sich verlassen, denn dafür wird meine Partei gewählt. Sagen Sie bitte Ihrer Kommissionspräsidentin: Wer untergehen soll, der wird vorher hochmütig, und Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall.

     
       

     

      Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, stimați colegi, ieri au fost bătuți preoți la Cernăuți, în Ucraina, preoți ortodocși ai comunității românești. Anul trecut, mitropolitul Longhin Jar a fost bătut și este târât prin procese fictive de ani de zile. Minoritatea românească a fost întotdeauna oropsită în Ucraina. Eu acum nu înțeleg, statele acestea care urmează să adere la Uniunea Europeană nu trebuie să respecte drepturile minorităților? Tot timpul vorbim de minoritățile LGBT, dar nu vorbim de o minoritate atât de importantă, ca cea românească, de peste jumătate de milion de oameni din Ucraina.

    Au inventat încă și o limbă moldovenească. Nu există o limbă moldovenească, după cum nu există o republică moldovenească. Moldova este o regiune din România. Faptul că există o Republică Moldova, asta se întâmplă doar pentru că un bolșevic și cu un nazist au făcut un Pact Ribbentrop-Molotov și un Dictat de la Viena acum 85 de ani și pentru România acest pact nu este încă denunțat. Așa că, să nu fiu prost înțeles, eu sunt de acord ca Moldova să adere și am votat în acest sens la Uniunea Europeană, dar totuși, nu era mai simplu să se unească cu România? Era mult mai simplu, mă gândesc.

     
       

     

      Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kolegice i kolege, ruski utjecaj, kineske investicije i protueuropski regionalni akteri koji ne dijele naše europske vrijednosti jačaju svoju prisutnost upravo ondje gdje Europa oklijeva. Vjerodostojnost europske politike proširenja gradi se upravo kroz čvršće partnerstvo s državama i akterima koji dijele težnju prema zajedničkoj budućnosti, ali isto tako i čvršćim politikama prema onima koji podrivaju Europu i koji podrivaju europske vrijednosti.

    U tom kontekstu, plan rasta za zapadni Balkan svakako predstavlja priliku za dublju integraciju i konkretne promjene, no bez jasne političke poruke, bez jasne težnje i traženja jasnog opredjeljenja, ostat će tek okvir bez sadržaja.

    Sjeverna Makedonija, država koja unatoč višestrukim preporukama Komisije još uvijek čeka početak pregovora, primjer je političke nepravde koja također potkopava vjeru u europski projekt. U Bosni i Hercegovini iscrpljuju se separatističke poruke, separatističke politike s jedne strane, ali isto tako nerealne unitarističke ambicije s druge. Crna Gora bori se za svoju europsku i prozapadnu orijentaciju.

    Naivno i u ovoj raspravi zvuče iluzije da će preglasavanje unutar Europske unije dovesti do većeg jedinstva. To nije moguće, to je kontraproduktivno ne samo za manje i srednje velike države članice nego isto tako i za cijelu Europu. Zbog toga moramo biti jasni, moramo biti prisutni, ali isto tako moramo zajedno raditi na uvažavanju svih stajališta.

    (Govornik je pristao odgovoriti na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice.)

     
       

     

      Petras Gražulis (ESN), pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Gerbiamas Pirmininke. Aš jūsų, kolegos iš EPP partijos, klausiau, kada priimsite Ukrainą į Europos Sąjungą. Jis atsakė, kad reakcingas mano klausimas. O tų rezoliucijų, kaip ir minėjau, Ukrainos prezidentas Zelenskis, kurias mes kasdien priiminėjame, kaip mylime Ukrainą, neprašo. Tai gal jūs galite tada viešai visiems pasakyti, kad jūs nežadate priimti Ukrainos į Europos Sąjungą? Ir kas tai trukdo? Ar tai ne tokia veidmainystė, kada viena kalbam, o visiškai veiksmai yra kitokie? Tik rezoliucijomis mes mylim… (posėdžio pirmininkas iš kalbėtojo atima žodį)

     
       

     

      Karlo Ressler (PPE), odgovor na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice. – Ne čini mi se dobronamjernim, zapravo, vaše pitanje. Ono što svakako možemo reći je da i Ukrajina, koja se bori i za svoju opstojnost, ali koja se bori tj. njezin narod i za europske vrijednosti, ima ambiciju ući u Europsku uniju. Kada i kako će se to dogoditi nije jednostavno odgovoriti, neće se u svakom slučaju dogoditi preko noći.

    Međutim, ono što postoji kao ambicija mislim da treba poštivati i s naše strane da moramo napraviti reda i kod politike proširenja. I u tom smislu, državi koja je sada u ratnom stanju trebamo učiniti sve da joj pomognemo, a nadamo se da će jednoga dana naši kolege ovdje dolaziti i iz Ukrajine.

     
       

     

      Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, geopolitička situacija u svijetu je dobar argument u korist nastavka politike proširenja. Međutim, to ne znači da treba odstupati od „kopenhaških kriterija”, upravo suprotno – treba ih dosljedno provoditi u praksi.

    Europska unija treba pružati podršku samo stvarnim, a ne fiktivnim reformama, i odmah pozitivno reagirati kada se kriteriji ispune.

    Premda je proširenje opet strateški prioritet Europske unije, gotovo transakcijski se dugo odnosila prema ovoj politici, vođena pogrešnim uvjerenjem da će europskim novcem riješiti sve unutarnje probleme država kandidata.

    Tako na liste strateški važnih projekata stavljamo one koje građani ne podržavaju ili preporučujemo zatvaranje poglavlja o javnoj nabavi neposredno nakon sklapanja ugovora s trećom zemljom koji se izuzima od tih pravila.

    Inzistiranje na vladavini prava i europskim vrijednostima, ali usklađenom geopolitičkom orijentacijom, moraju biti temelji za nastavak politike proširenja.

    Ako se politika proširenja provodi na taj način, interna reforma institucija Europske unije ne bi trebala biti ni prepreka ni alibi za odgađanje novog proširenja Europske unije.

     
       

     

      Tomislav Sokol (PPE), pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Gospodine Picula, često se govori da je novo proširenje nemoguće bez institucionalnih reformi koje bi, između ostalog, značile ukidanje prava jednoglasnosti u Vijeću, dakle ukidanje prava veta za male države članice.

    Vi ste mnogo puta govorili o toj temi, ali znamo da postoje različiti pogledi na samo to pitanje. Recimo, predsjednik Republike Hrvatske Zoran Milanović je rekao da oni koji su za ukidanje prava veta čine veleizdaju ili nešto u tom smislu.

    Možete li mi Vi ovdje reći, jeste li Vi za ukidanje prava veta za male države članice, nešto što ide protivno njihovim nacionalnim interesima, ili ste za to da male države uspiju zaštititi svoja prava i dalje u Europskoj uniji? Hvala lijepa.

     
       

     

      Marjan Šarec (Renew). – Gospod predsednik, širitev Evropske unije danes ni več samo birokratski postopek, Je ključni geopolitični korak, ki pomeni utrjevanje stabilnosti, varnosti in demokratičnih vrednot Evropske unije.

    Države, ki že dokazujejo evropsko zavezanost, potrebujejo jasna sporočila in spodbudne korake iz Bruslja. Obljuba članstva v Evropski uniji mora biti resnična in zanesljiva. Sicer tudi sistem postavljanja zahtev ne deluje.

    Poznamo primere držav kandidatk, ki so sledile pomembnim reformam, nato pa obtičale v vmesnem prostoru. Severna Makedonija je kričeč primer.

    Medtem pa drugi akterji krepijo svoj vpliv in alternativne poti, ki lahko ogrozijo stabilnost in dragocene vrednote Evropske unije. Tiste vrednote, ki jih prepogosto jemljemo za samoumevne. To moramo znova in znova sporočati tudi evropskim državljankam in državljanom.

    Skupna prihodnost z državami kandidatkami pomeni močnejšo, varnejšo in bolj enotno Evropo.

     
       

     

      Marc Botenga (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, quand je vous entends parler de l’élargissement de l’Union européenne, ça a l’air chouette comme idée, mais je trouve que vous passez un peu vite sur les conséquences réelles que cela peut avoir sur les travailleurs. Parce que le salaire minimum en Ukraine n’arrive pas à 200 euros, je pense, en Moldavie, ça dépasse un peu les 300 euros.

    Dans le contexte des règles actuelles du marché européen, qui ne garantit même pas qu’aujourd’hui un travailleur qui va travailler dans un autre État membre ait droit aux mêmes règles de protection, à la même sécurité sociale qu’un autre, que va-t-il se passer dans le cadre d’un élargissement? Tout simplement que des entreprises – d’ailleurs, il y a pas mal de sociétés «boîtes aux lettres», comme on les appelle – vont en profiter pour faire baisser, pour faire empirer les conditions de travail des travailleurs un peu partout en Europe.

    Et ça, ça serait l’impact concret en Europe, aujourd’hui, d’un élargissement pour les travailleurs. Ne cachez pas ça, ne faites pas des rêves de grandeur sur combien l’Europe sera jolie à 200 États. C’est pas ça, ce que vivent les travailleurs. Les travailleurs veulent aujourd’hui que vous changiez cette Europe; non plus de la concurrence, mais de la coopération, de la sécurité sociale.

     
       

     

      Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, u izmijenjenim geopolitičkim okolnostima proširenje Europske unije je ponovno postalo aktualno. Međutim, jasno treba reći da se proces proširenja treba promatrati za svaku državu zasebno i temeljiti se isključivo na sposobnostima države kandidatkinje da usvoji europske standarde.

    Nažalost, po tom pitanju ne da ne vidimo napredak, nego, nažalost, uglavnom vidimo nazadovanje. Srbija je i dalje apsolutno najveći destabilizacijski faktor u jugoistočnoj Europi. Hegemonistička politika koju vodi Beograd ugrožava neovisnost i suverenost okolnih država te je jasno da ovakvoj Srbiji nije mjesto u Europskoj uniji.

    Nadalje, Bosna i Hercegovina razapeta je između bošnjačkog unitarizma i srpskog separatizma. U toj državi Hrvati su jedini narod koji istinski, bez fige u džepu gleda prema Europskoj uniji i zapadu.

    Crna Gora i Albanija, pak, najdalje su odmakle na europskom putu, s time da je Crna Gora ipak spremnija za zaključenje pregovora, iako je pred njom još uvijek puno posla.

    Međutim, ono što je važno reći je da proširenje Europske unije nema apsolutno nikakve veze s ukidanjem jednoglasnosti odlučivanja. Tvrdnja da je proširenje nemoguće bez ukidanja prava veta je naprosto netočna. 2004., kada je pravo veta bilo puno raširenije, dogodilo se najveće proširenje Europske unije u povijesti.

    Ukidanje prava veta i uvođenje preglasavanja negiralo bi temeljne dimenzije nacionalnog suvereniteta, povećalo podjele u Europskoj uniji te ugrozilo sam njezin opstanak. U konačnici, ako netko smatra da proširenjem uvodimo trojanskog konja u Uniju, onda do takvog proširenja vjerojatno ne treba niti doći. Europa mora ostati zajednica slobodnih suverenih naroda, a ne zajednica u kojoj veliki odlučuju umjesto malih.

     
       

     

      Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o processo de alargamento é intrínseco ao projeto europeu e até ao próprio espírito europeu que subjaz a esse projeto.

    Não foram só os países que foram entrando que beneficiaram das vantagens da integração europeia; os próprios países fundadores beneficiaram, desde logo, dessa vantagem.

    Basta olhar para o caso alemão: foi a sua integração nas instituições europeias que permitiu a sua reinserção na comunidade internacional após o tenebroso período nazi.

    Trata-se, afinal, de acolher agora no seio da UE novos países e novos povos. O novo alargamento que temos agora no horizonte deve inspirar-se no mesmo espírito de partilha e fraternidade. Mas dificilmente poderemos acomodar novos membros com a mesma arquitetura institucional e o mesmo acervo tratadístico.

    O problema é que andamos a navegar as águas tumultuosas dos últimos anos –– o Brexit, a pandemia, a crise energética, a invasão da Ucrânia –– com uma carta de marear desenhada há quase 15 anos para um clima previsível e pacificado.

    Nesse sentido, quero aqui recordar o pedido formal feito por esta Casa em 2022, e pela primeira vez na sua história, apelando ao Conselho para iniciar uma convenção para a revisão dos Tratados, em linha com as conclusões da Conferência sobre o Futuro da Europa. Esse pedido tem sido menosprezado pelo Conselho.

    Está, provavelmente, na hora de este Parlamento ser mais ouvido pelo Conselho Europeu.

     
       

     

      Marieke Ehlers (PfE). – Voorzitter, opnieuw klinkt de roep om méér Europese Unie. Meer landen, meer bureaucratie, maar minder inspraak voor de landen die deze Unie hebben opgebouwd. De eurocraten bestempelen uitbreiding als een noodzaak en zien het vetorecht als een hinderpaal. Terwijl het systeem kraakt in zijn voegen, stormt Brussel vooruit, alsof uitbreiding een morele plicht is en geen politieke keuze.

    De EU verder uitbreiden is als het toelaten van passagiers op een zinkend schip. Wat ons te wachten staat, is een versnelde weg richting een transferunie, omdat nieuwe lidstaten vrijwel zonder uitzondering netto-ontvanger zullen zijn. En wie draait op voor de kosten? Nettobetalers zoals Nederland.

    Als we dan ook nog het vetorecht afschaffen, creëren we een systeem waarin nettobetalers steeds meer betalen, maar steeds minder te zeggen hebben. Dit is niet het Europa waar wij voor gekozen hebben. Het is de hoogste tijd dat we het roer terugpakken, vóór onze belangen definitief overboord gaan.

     
       

     

      Małgorzata Gosiewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Rozszerzenie Unii Europejskiej o nowe państwa, takie jak Ukraina, jest uzasadnione z punktu widzenia geopolitycznego. Niesie jednak za sobą poważne konsekwencje gospodarcze, szczególnie dla takich krajów jak Polska. Już teraz obserwujemy wpływ rosnącej konkurencji ze strony Ukrainy w kluczowych sektorach, takich jak transport drogowy czy rolnictwo.

    W odpowiedzi na rosyjską agresję Unia Europejska w 2022 r. zliberalizowała dostęp Ukrainy do jednolitego rynku, całkowicie znosząc cła i kontyngenty oraz rezygnując z systemu licencji w transporcie drogowym. Działania te, oficjalnie motywowane solidarnością, wywołały istotne napięcia społeczne w państwach członkowskich. Największymi beneficjentami tych działań okazały się potężne agroholdingi, w tym te kontrolowane przez międzynarodowy kapitał.

    Twierdziliście, że troszczycie się o ukraińskich rolników, że to wyraz solidarności z walczącym krajem. W rzeczywistości było to wsparcie dla międzynarodowych graczy w umacnianiu ich pozycji na rynku europejskim kosztem naszych rolników, kosztem naszych przetwórców. Nie na tym polega solidarność międzynarodowa. Nie tak powinien przebiegać proces rozszerzania Unii Europejskiej.

     
       

     

      Илхан Кючюк (Renew). – Г-жо Комисар, от началото на дебата се опитвам да разбера за какво не е този дебат: не е „за“ или „против“ за политиката по разширяване, не е за Украйна, за Турция, не и за готовността на страните членки да бъдат част от Европейския съюз. То е за нещо друго: за институционалната и политическата подготвеност на Европейския съюз да приеме нови страни членки.

    Нека заедно да си зададем този въпрос и тук не гледам крайното ляво или крайното дясно, политическият център, който трябва да донесе необходимите реформи за бъдещето на Европейския съюз. Можем ли при тази институционална подредба да си позволим 35 държави в рамките на Европейския съюз? Отговорът е „не“. Погледнете само дебата, който тече в момента за Многогодишната финансова рамка. Искаме старите приоритети, искаме нови приоритети и на всичкото отгоре трябва да вземем решение в един Съюз с 35 държави в едно обозримо бъдеще. Как е възможно това?

    Погледнете санкционната политика на Европейския съюз. Колко пъти ние се проваляме в идеята си да имаме еднопосочно послание към нас в Европейския съюз и към тези, които искат да се присъединят към нас? И да ми кажете, че това е демократично? Орбан постоянно да ни изнудва за нещо. Не го приемаме. Трябва да има реформа …

    (Председателят отнема думата на оратора)

     
       

     

      Sebastian Everding (The Left). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wenn wir über EU‑Erweiterungsstrategien reden, dann müssen wir viel mehr über den Umwelt‑, Klima‑ und auch den Tierschutz sprechen. Es ist schockierend, dass in vielen Berichten zu Kandidatenländern diese Themen nur am Rande oder, wie im Falle des Tierschutzes, gar nicht erwähnt werden. Selbstverständlich müssen alle Kandidatenländer Kriterien in Bezug auf Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Korruptionsbekämpfung usw. erfüllen, aber es ist inakzeptabel, dass in Ländern wie der Türkei, Albanien, dem Kosovo, Moldau, Serbien oder auch Bosnien streunende Hunde und Katzen brutal getötet werden. Es gibt einen chronischen Mangel an Tierheimen, keine Maßnahmen zur Populationskontrolle wie Kastrationsprogramme und keine Aufklärungs‑ und Sensibilisierungskampagnen für die Bevölkerung.

    Darüber hinaus dürfen Abfallwirtschaft und Umweltschutz bei Beitrittskandidaten nicht vernachlässigt werden. Profit darf dort niemals vor der Umwelt stehen, wie es im Fall des Lithiumabbaus im Jadar‑Tal in Serbien oder beim Bau des Flughafens in einem Naturschutzgebiet in der Vjosa-Narta in Albanien der Fall ist. Wir müssen diesen Ländern eine klare Botschaft vermitteln, dass Tierschutz- und Umweltschutzstandards ebenso wichtig sind. Diesen Stellenwert sollten sie auch hier im Parlament bekommen.

     
       

     

      Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-жо Комисар, пред лицето на нарастващата заплаха от Русия и усилващото се влияние на Китай, интеграция на страните кандидат членки в нашия Съюз е наложителна като стратегическа инвестиция в обединена и силна Европа. В този исторически момент разширяването на Европейския съюз е един от най-силните ни външнополитически инструменти. Но ако този инструмент не се използва внимателно, ако правим компромиси със собствените си принципи и ценности, ще подкопаем бъдещето си, като се опитваме да изградим нещо единно, а в същото време внесем повече разединение в Европейския съюз.

    И тук бих искал да се спра на актуалния пример с Република Северна Македония. За съжаление, манипулативното интерпретиране от страна на министър-председателя г-н Мицковски на проектотекстове на този Парламент води до повече напрежение и повече разединение, освен че поставя в неудобно положение докладчиците.

    Г-н Мицковски, в проектотекстовете, които явно Вие имате, никъде Европейският парламент не сертифицира многовековна идентичност или език. Това не е институт по история или академия на науките. Затова пък има международноправни договори и това е договорът между България, където има платформа, това е мултидисциплинарната академична комисия, където тези две решения трябва да бъдат взети от специалистите. Затова призовавам: вместо да инвестираме толкова много време и енергия – дипломатична и финансова в лобизъм и борба, да се концентрираме в изпълнение на преговорната рамка, започване на преговори, договорите между двете страни и разбира се, взаимно уважение между нас.

    Тук не мога да не кажа и крещящия например за присъдата срещу Любчо Георгиевски, един македонски българин, който беше осъден на първа инстанция само за това, че във Фейсбук поста си беше цитирал историческа личност и истината за нашата обща история.

     
       

     

      Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, if enlargement is the EU’s strongest geopolitical tool, we must urgently make it credible again.

    History shows enlargement works only when domestic reformers see real rewards and when backsliding carries consequences, when citizens feel tangible benefits, and when EU institutions and Member States speak with one voice – clearly, consistently and honestly, to reinforce local ownership.

    Instead, what we see is shifting goalposts, appeasement and double standards, especially on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia, Kosovo and Georgia. This Parliament has sounded the alarm again and again. Reforms cannot succeed without deep democratic transformation. And yet, too often, the EU enables autocrats, excuses kleptocrats and ignores those fighting for the rule of law.

    Citizens are not blind. They won’t wait forever. Enlargement processes have a shelf life and we are close to the expiry date. And meanwhile, Russia and China are more than happy to fill the vacuum we are leaving.

    So let’s be honest, with ourselves and our partners. We need a hard look at what has worked, what has not and what needs fixing. And we need to show enlargement is real by ensuring that at least two countries can join the Union before 2030.

    Let enlargement become the transformative force it was meant to be, fulfilling the promise of a united Europe as we started working on over 75 years ago.

     
       

     

      Csaba Dömötör (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Úgy beszélnek itt az ukrán bővítésről, mintha már eldöntött tény lenne. Gyorsított eljárást akarnak, és a bővítési biztos azt is elmondta, hogy a Bizottságnál ezer ember dolgozik ezen. Ráadásul, amint ma is hallhattuk, ki akarják iktatni a tagállami vétó lehetőségét. Igazán demokratikus, mondhatom.

    Egyvalamiről azonban nem beszélnek. A gazdasági következményekről.

    Az itteni Költségvetési Bizottságnak vannak számításai, amelyek szerint a kohéziós források 24%-kal, az agrártámogatások pedig 15%-kal csökkennének a mostani tagországokban.

    Azután történne ez, hogy Európa elköltött 150 milliárd eurót a háborúra.

    Miért gondolják azt itt, hogy az európai emberek minden pénzügyi terhet elbírnak? Ki fog a szemükbe nézni és bevallani, hogy milyen terhekkel járna mindez?

    Magyarországon már több mint kétmillióan vettek részt az ukrán tagságról szóló szavazáson. Mi megkérdeztük, hogy mit gondolnak a bővítésről azok, akik a számlát állják.

    A választól egy kicsit félve teszem fel a kérdést: Önök meg merik ezt tenni?

     
       

     

      Claudiu-Richard Târziu (ECR). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, extinderea Uniunii Europene este un proiect cu implicații strategice și istorice profunde. Avem datoria să sprijinim aspirațiile europene ale unui stat precum Republica Moldova, care împărtășește cu România aceeași limbă și cultură, și destin istoric.

    Din punctul nostru de vedere, ajutorul acordat Moldovei în procesul de integrare este mai mult decât un obiectiv de politică externă, este o datorie față de identitatea și dreptul istoric al națiunii române. Dar tocmai pentru că ne pasă atât de mult, trebuie să spunem adevărul: Uniunea Europeană nu este astăzi pregătită instituțional pentru o extindere masivă. Fără o reformă reală a mecanismelor decizionale, a alocării bugetare, fără un control democratic real, riscăm să transformăm extinderea într-o nouă amenințare pentru stabilitatea Uniunii.

    Așadar, susținem extinderea, dar cerem o reformă serioasă și o consolidare a proceselor decizionale în structurile Uniunii, respect pentru suveranitatea statelor membre și o viziune clară asupra viitorului european.

     
       

     

      Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, history has shown us the value of European unification and the importance of preparing EU institutions to address emerging challenges. Although managing a union of 30 or more members may seem challenging, these are the same concerns we had 20 years ago, prior to the big bang enlargement.

    However, improving the EU’s institutional functioning and political processes cannot be postponed or made dependent on enlargement, budgeting or other issues.

    Colleagues, I find today’s debate, with the extreme focus on enlargement only, a bit misleading. It’s too narrow. Let’s look broader, face all the challenges we have. We must look into a long, be ready to face any future challenges to the security and prosperity of our citizens in the long term, when our bold actions will bear fruit, and seize the opportunity to improve the efficiency of EU decision-making and policy implementation. So let’s look at the broader picture.

     
       

     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin agus a Choimisinéir, tá sé tábhachtach dóchas a thabhairt do thíortha a bhfuil ag teastáil uathu teacht isteach san Aontas, because enlargement is one of the EU’s greatest achievements. It has extended peace, democracy and shared prosperity across Europe, making it stronger, more united and better equipped to face global challenges. Ireland has always backed enlargement, but on principle. Accession must be earned: each candidate must meet our agreed standards in the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. That remains essential.

    The strategic case is clearer than ever. Russia’s war in Ukraine shows that peace in Europe cannot be assumed. Bringing in countries like Ukraine and Moldova, and the Western Balkans, once ready, serves both their interests and ours. It strengthens our security, economy and global influence. We cannot let radical voices hijack this debate with fearmongering about migration or budgets. That distorts the truth.

    Past enlargements reduced poverty, grew trade and created new opportunities, including for Ireland, which has been transformed and modernised since we joined in 1973. Conversely, the United Kingdom has suffered greatly since it left the European Union a few years ago. The path ahead must be rigorous, but the door must stay open.

    Míle buíochas á Uachtaráin, agus go n-éirí libh. Maith thú.

     
       

     

      Marc Angel (S&D). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, every single enlargement of our Union has been a major success story, and enlargement has now become a geopolitical necessity to protect ourselves and our neighbours against interference from autocratic regimes.

    It is important and good that enlargement is, again, high on the agenda. War on our continent, the rise of fascism, the shift in transatlantic relations – all this reminds us that enlargement is in our own strategic interest.

    There will be no shortcuts on EU values and fundamental principles. Accession to the EU must always remain a merit-based process and, therefore, as EU institutions and Member States, we must support the candidate countries.

    We also have homework to do: institutional and financial reforms are needed to absorb new members. Our Union is barely functioning at the current state with 27, so what about 30, 32 or 35? We need to change our way of working so that every citizen, every worker, every business and society as a whole can continue to benefit from our European project.

    So let’s have the courage to adopt targeted treaty changes, move away from unanimity, deepen the social dimension of our Union and strengthen the union of equality, and we must live up to our promises to citizens and to the candidate countries.

     
       

     

      Pascale Piera (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’élargissement de l’Union européenne devait être un catalyseur de progrès, nous promettait Ursula von der Leyen. Qui peut encore le croire?

    Si l’élargissement de l’Union européenne est un catalyseur, c’est celui de la dilapidation de l’argent public. Des milliards dont on perd la trace, alors qu’on enjoint aux peuples européens de se serrer la ceinture. Une note du Conseil européen chiffre le coût de cet élargissement à la somme de 264 milliards d’euros sur sept ans.

    Si l’élargissement de l’Union européenne est un catalyseur, c’est celui de l’instabilité et de l’insécurité pour nos concitoyens avec les gangs venus de pays qui ne respectent pas nos lois. Ne soyons pas dupes.

    L’élargissement, et notamment celui à l’Ukraine, est enfin le catalyseur de la destruction de notre agriculture. En cas d’adhésion, l’Ukraine deviendrait le premier bénéficiaire de la politique agricole commune, avec 10 à 12 milliards d’euros d’aides par an, c’est 20 % du budget de la PAC.

    Cette concurrence si déloyale, venue de pays qui ne respectent ni nos normes environnementales ni nos normes sociales, c’est un crime organisé contre notre agriculture et nous n’accepterons pas cela.

     
       

     

      Mario Mantovani (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l’allargamento dell’Unione europea è un processo di grande rilevanza strategica, che va affrontato con realismo e con rigore, soprattutto alla luce delle crescenti sfide economiche e geopolitiche.

    L’ingresso di nuovi Stati membri comporta senza dubbio opportunità per promuovere e consolidare quei valori di democrazia e di libertà propri di questa Unione, ma anche opportunità di crescita ed espansione dei mercati e rafforzamento del proprio peso politico europeo.

    In quest’ottica occorre una revisione delle politiche comuni, affinché non diventino strumenti di ridistribuzione di inefficienza, ma leve per innovazione, produttività e sviluppo dell’occupazione.

    È altresì essenziale una governance economica, che garantisca condizioni eque di concorrenza del mercato interno e garantisca la tutela degli investimenti comunitari che faremo in quei paesi.

    In conclusione, un allargamento non governato indebolisce, un allargamento accompagnato da riforme aiuta l’Unione europea.

     
       

       

    PRESIDE: ESTEBAN GONZÁLEZ PONS
    Vicepresidente

     
       

     

      Mika Aaltola (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisat kollegat, Eurooppa on uhattuna. Vapautemme on vaakalaudalla. Laajentuminen ei ole hyväntekeväisyyttä. Se on kylmää, kovaa, strategista harkintaa.

    Vahvan Ukrainan tuominen joukkoomme on suoraan meidän turvallisuutemme tae. Venäjän uhka vaanii porteillamme odottaen otollista hetkeä. Suomi tietää tämän historiansa kautta. Meillä on puolet EU:n ja Naton Venäjä-rajasta. Suomi on se valli, jonka on kestettävä, tai kansojen vapaus on vaakalaudalla. Samoin on Ukrainan laita. Yhtenäisyys on voimaa. Integroimalla Ukrainan lähetämme Putinille selkeän viestin: emme anna periksi, emme pelkää.

    Muistakaamme Winston Churchilliä, jonka muistoksi täällä on rakennus nimettynä. Hän ymmärsi integraation geopoliittisen syvän ytimen: padota idän uhkaa ja torjua totalitarismin vaaroja. Meidän on ymmärrettävä, että EU ei ole pelkkä rauhanprojekti, vaan ytimessä on pelote, jonka pitää ylläpitää rauhaa. Epäröinnin aika on ohi. Meidän on toimittava – tarvittaessa myös ilman Yhdysvaltoja.

     
       

     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiamas posėdžio pirmininke, gerbiama komisare, kolegos. Europos Sąjunga trūkčioja vietoje. Pasauliniai iššūkiai ir Europos Sąjungos piliečiai reikalauja stipresnės ir veiksmingesnės Europos ir veiksmų. Europos Parlamentas dar 2023 m. pateikė konkrečius pasiūlymus Europos Vadovų Tarybai su rekomendacijomis, atsižvelgdamas ir į piliečių, ir į Konferencijos dėl ateities siūlymus, ir į Rusijos karą prieš Ukrainą. Ukrainos pergalės laidas yra jos narystė Europos Sąjungoje – šimtu procentų. Vadovų Tarybai perduoti pasiūlymai reikalauja veiksmų iš jos pusės. Komisijos Pirmininkės, Draghi, Lettos pranešimuose yra pasakyta, kad sutarčių keitimas yra būtinas viskam – ir investicijoms, ir taip toliau. Europoje yra tik dvi rūšys valstybių – mažos ir tos, kurios nesupranta, kad jos yra mažos. Ir čia nacionalistai ir patriotai nesupranta šito ir patys kalba niekus tam, kad Europos Sąjungą atvestų į dar didesnę krizę. Todėl mums reikia žengti abu žingsnius – ir sutarčių keitimą, ir plėtrą, sinchronizuoti, daryti pagal kriterijus. Ir tik toks kelias sustiprins Europos Sąjungą kaip pasaulinį žaidėją.

    (Kalbėtojas sutiko atsakyti į mėlynosios kortelės klausimą)

     
       

     

      Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege, danke, dass Sie die Frage annehmen! Ich weiß nicht, aus welchem Land Sie kommen, aber ich komme aus dem größten Mitgliedsland, dem stärksten Mitgliedsland der EU, und ich stelle nicht fest, dass die Bürger meines Landes in der Mehrheit mehr EU wollen. Also das zur Einordnung.

    Sie haben gesprochen vom Sieg der Ukraine, und der Sieg der Ukraine hängt von deren Mitgliedschaft in der EU ab. Ist Ihnen eigentlich bewusst, dass Sie dort eines der größten korrupten Regimes derzeit an der Regierung haben, die zusammen mit Bandera, also mit ehemaligen Faschistenverehrern, die Regierung bilden? Wollen Sie wirklich dieses Land um den Preis dieser Gemeinschaft in die …

    (Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

     
       

     

      Marie Dauchy (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, qui oserait dire que l’Union européenne est une institution qui fonctionne? Aucune crise, qu’elle soit migratoire, sanitaire ou économique, n’a été résolue par le secours de l’Union. Pire encore, sur le pacte vert, sur la montée de l’islamisme ou sur les délocalisations, vous n’avez été qu’un accélérateur du chaos.

    Comme l’URSS à la fin de sa vie qui pensait résoudre les problèmes du communisme par plus de communisme, vous persistez à croire que l’Union réglera les échecs de l’Union et vous vous acharnez à nous imposer votre modèle que le peuple refuse. Vous voulez encore élargir cette machine folle à des pays comme la Turquie ou la Moldavie, qui ne partagent ni notre culture ni nos intérêts.

    Ce que les Français attendent, ce n’est pas plus d’intégration, c’est plus de protection. Et ce que l’histoire retiendra, c’est que votre idéologie aura détruit l’idée européenne bien plus sûrement que tous vos adversaires réunis.

     
       

     

      Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Erweiterung der Europäischen Union ist kein Selbstzweck, sie ist ein strategisches Angebot für Frieden, Demokratie, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Am Beginn von Beitrittsverhandlungen steht eine erste, einladende politische Entscheidung der EU, sie sind aber kein technokratischer Automatismus; sie beruhen auf klaren Bedingungen und auf politischem Willen. Wenn es dabei auch um Geopolitik gehen sollte, dürfen wir uns nicht hinter den einzelnen Verhandlungskapiteln verstecken.

    Gerade auf dem Westbalkan ist Vertrauen ein knappes Gut. Wenn wir es verspielen, gefährden wir die europäische Perspektive dieser Region. Das Beispiel Serbien zeigt, wie schwierig das Gleichgewicht ist. Einerseits steht der Kurs der serbischen Führung zu Russland und zum Kosovo in direktem Widerspruch zu unseren europäischen Werten, andererseits sprechen geostrategische Überlegungen dafür, Serbien enger an Europa zu binden, etwa als potenziellen Partner im Bereich kritischer Rohstoffe. Doch gerade in diesem sensiblen Sektor sind funktionierende, unabhängige Institutionen sowie das Vertrauen und die Unterstützung der Bevölkerung für das Gelingen gemeinsamer Projekte entscheidend.

    Die EU sollte hier sehr viel entschiedener auftreten. Sie könnte in den Augen der Bevölkerung viel an Ansehen gewinnen, wenn sie denn über den Hebel des Beitrittsprozesses ganz klar auf Korruptionsbekämpfung, Pressefreiheit und Rechtsstaatlichkeit dringen würde, die ja auch für eine echte, gesunde wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und damit für die Zukunftsfähigkeit des Landes entscheidend sind. Wir müssen Handlungsbereitschaft, Glaubwürdigkeit und strategische Verlässlichkeit zeigen – nur dann werden wir als der Partner wahrgenommen, der wir sein wollen und sein müssen.

    (Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       

     

      Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Frau Kollegin, vielen Dank! Sie sprachen vom Frieden in der EU. Ich nehme das im Barbarossa-, also im Verteidigungsausschuss, ganz anders wahr: Dort wird in regelmäßiger Einheit von Kriegstüchtigkeit, Kriegsfähigkeit gesprochen. Ihr Parteichef und unser Bundeskanzler sprach davon, dass aktuell Israel die Drecksarbeit für uns mache. Wie passt denn das zusammen, einmal die Rhetorik Krieg, Aufrüstung, Kriegstüchtigkeit und das Friedensgesäusel, was Sie gerade hier präsentieren? Wie passt das zusammen?

     
       

     

      Nicola Zingaretti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’Europa è l’unico processo della storia che ha unito 450 milioni di persone, non perché costrette, ma perché convinte, contro le guerre, senza violenza, ma proponendo la forza della democrazia. Passare da 6 a 27 Stati ha rappresentato uno straordinario processo che ha garantito pace, prosperità e benessere.

    L’Europa dunque ci è servita ad arrivare fino a qui, ma la sua crescita senza riforme e un salto in avanti nell’integrazione rappresenta un rischio per la sua stessa esistenza. Quindi bene continuare ad aprirsi, ma è fondamentale rilanciare i suoi valori, un’identità comune europea e darsi regole nuove per essere più efficaci: riforma del diritto di veto, politica estera e di difesa davvero comuni, nuove risorse proprie destinate a investimenti per il nostro sistema produttivo e modello sociale e quindi riforme verso gli Stati Uniti d’Europa.

    L’Europa non è una cappa, come dicono i nazionalisti, è lo scudo che ci ha permesso di esistere da persone libere. Ma ora, per non tradire la sua storia, deve cambiare ed andare avanti. E se non si vuole andare avanti in 27, con cooperazioni rafforzate, cominciamo con chi ci sta a cambiare questa Europa.

     
       

     

      Alexandre Varaut (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’Union européenne aime à croire qu’elle incarne le sens de l’histoire et qu’il ne peut pas en être autrement. La gifle du Brexit, qui démentait cette prétention de la manière la plus nette, l’a un temps sonnée, mais l’étrange illusion a repris. Elle s’est même aggravée, comme le prouve le débat de ce matin, qui associe l’élargissement de l’Union aux défis mondiaux. Cette association est une plaisanterie. Qui peut croire que l’Union européenne cherche à s’émanciper de la tutelle américaine?

    Lorsque les États-Unis ont menacé de s’emparer par la force du Groenland, l’Union européenne n’a rien fait, sinon acheter tout de suite davantage d’armes aux Américains en pensant les amadouer. Et même si l’Union européenne s’émancipait, il ne faut pas que ce soit pour devenir elle-même un bloc qui écraserait les peuples et les nations qui la composent.

    À ce messianisme politique et à cette boulimie impuissante, nous opposons un pragmatisme qui s’appuie sur la raison. Les peuples européens sont une famille que rapprochent des liens civilisationnels naturels. Poursuivre l’intégration ne sera envisageable qu’une fois le cadre intégrateur lui-même redressé. Réparons l’Europe d’abord, voyons le reste après.

     
       

     

      Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, uspjeh proširenja ovisi o četiri ključna čimbenika: političkoj volji država članica, volji kandidata, apsorpcijskom kapacitetu Unije i administrativnom kapacitetu kandidata. Situacija je tu različita i zato pristup mora ostati individualan.

    U slučaju Ukrajine suočavamo se s problemom donošenja odluka u Vijeću, a njezino članstvo vjerojatno traži i prilagodbu nekih europskih politika poput poljoprivredne. No, EU bi strateški pogriješio ako ne bi uočio da unatoč ratu, Ukrajina pokazuje kapacitet za EU reforme i svaki dan na bojištu pokazuje privrženost europskoj ideji.

    Moldova također pokazuje snažnu političku volju, dok je proces s Gruzijom morao biti zaustavljen zbog potpunog nedostatka političke volje vlasti.

    Kod Srbije problem je također u političkoj volji, no u ovom slučaju bilo bi kontraproduktivno zaustaviti pregovore. Ali moramo biti svjesni da sama Srbija zasad ne želi ispuniti ključne kriterije, posebice u vanjskoj politici i u području vladavine prava. Stoga, umjesto grandioznih izjava i nerealnih očekivanja i kasnijih frustracija, puno je bolje prihvatiti realnost da je Srbija država koja se ne želi svrstati s Europskom unijom, a tu ni opozicija ne nudi jasnu alternativu. I stoga, na temelju te realnosti moramo pragmatično oblikovati naše odnose.

    No, EU mora istovremeno više učiniti da takva nesvrstana politika Beograda ne utječe negativno na BiH, Crnu Goru, Kosovo i Sjevernu Makedoniju i na njihov europski put.

    Na kraju, važno je nastaviti s novim tempom pregovora s Albanijom. Ona postaje lider u procesu i tu treba inzistirati na kriterijima, ali ostati ambiciozan za završetak pregovora u ovom mandatu.

     
       

     

      Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Pirmininke, pone komisare, kolegos. Mano šalies Lietuvos prisijungimas prie Europos Sąjungos prieš dvidešimt vienerius metus išgelbėjo šalį nuo Ukrainos likimo. Mes tapome stipresni tiek ekonomiškai, tiek politiškai bei labiau atsparūs išorės grėsmėms. To paties tikisi ir Ukraina, Moldova, Balkanų šalys. Taipogi plėtra yra reikalinga ir Europos Sąjungai. Todėl Europos Sąjunga privalo būti pasirengusi plėtrai, kaip ir tos šalys, kurios siekia narystės. Tačiau plėtra tikrai nebus įmanoma be sutarčių keitimo, be išsamių institucinių reformų. Matome, kad dabar jau yra sudėtinga Taryboje greitai priimti sprendimus. Kai kurie sprendimai yra vilkinami, kai kurios valstybės naudojasi veto teise vien dėl savo siaurų interesų, ir tai tikrai neprisideda prie Europos Sąjungos gebėjimo laiku ir veiksmingai reaguoti bei prisitaikyti prie pokyčių. Kad išliktume reikšmingi politiniame žemėlapyje, privalome keistis patys, keisti savo institucijas ir užtikrinti greitą ir veiksmingą sprendimų priėmimą.

     
       

     

      Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Pirmininke, komisare, kolegos. Svarstydami įstrigusios plėtros šiandieninę būklę, turime sau atsakyti – ar yra politinė valia plėtrai. Kai ji būdavo, tai ir institucinės problemos išsispręsdavo. Sakome, kad šiandien europinių institucijų veiklą trikdo viena valstybė narė ar netgi vienas politikas, ir daro tai sistemiškai, o mes nerandame teisinių būdų tam įveikti. Bet, kita vertus, tai liudytų apie „beveik konsensusą“. Panašiai būta daugelį kartų: ir de Golio sukelta tuščios kėdės krizė, ir Danijos išlygos Mastrichto sutarčiai, ir Konstitucijos Europai sustojęs ratifikavimas, ir poros valstybių užsispyrimas neatsitraukti nuo QMV pagal Nicos sutartį. O triumfuodavo daugumos sutarimas.

    Per tai visa ligšiolinė plėtros istorija beveik išimtinai – sėkmės istorija. Europa kaskart tapdavo ir stipresnė, ir labiau integruota. Struktūriniai fondai, sanglauda – tasai pozityvas radosi kaip tik per plėtros iššūkius.

    Be abejo, būtų idealu iš anksto eksplicitiškai sutarti dėl palankiausios institucinės sąrangos, bet prisiminkime ratifikavimo trikdžius, ypač, kai, nepaisant oficialios valstybės pozicijos, ji būdavo paneigiama referendumais. Man tikrai skaudu, kad tiesioginės išmokos Lietuvos ūkininkams per mažos, bet tokia gi ir būna derybų dėl narystės kaina.

    Dėl institucinės sąrangos diskutuokime, bet netrukdykime brandinti politinę valią plėtrai.

     
       

     

      Łukasz Kohut (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Kto stoi w miejscu, ten się cofa. Dlatego Europa musi ruszyć z kopyta! Prawdziwym celem Unii na 2035 rok powinien być konkret, czyli przyłączenie Islandii i Norwegii do Unii – oczywiście, jeżeli społeczeństwa tych krajów będą za.

    Europa potrzebuje nowego, mocnego impulsu. Unia powinna pokazać, że jest atrakcyjna nie tylko dla biedniejszych, ale także dla zamożnych krajów. Bo rozszerzenie to nie tylko Wschód i Południe – dalsza integracja to powinna być przede wszystkim Północ.

    To Północ jest kluczowa dla bezpieczeństwa Europy. Norwegia to żelazny sojusznik z NATO, z którym łączą nas nie tylko wspólne wartości, ale także wspólne zagrożenie – agresywna Rosja.

    Flagi NATO-wskie w Sztokholmie i w Helsinkach to był czarny sen Putina, który się ziścił. Warto być konsekwentnym. Pora, żeby kolejny sen o europejskich flagach w Oslo i w Reykjaviku się spełnił. To jest możliwe.

     
       

       

    Solicitudes incidentales de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

     
       

     

      Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kolegice i kolege, proširenje Europske unije nije samo tehnički proces, to je duboka politička odluka s dalekosežnim posljedicama. U vremenu kada se Europa suočava s ratom na istoku, pritiscima s juga i rastućim globalnim rivalstvima, proširenje je i ulaganje u sigurnost.

    Hrvatska je najmlađa članica Europske unije, ali ima i posebnu odgovornost da bude most između Unije i naših susjeda. U Bosni i Hercegovini, primjerice, i Crnoj Gori žive aktivne hrvatske zajednice koje nisu samo most identiteta već i most povjerenja. Njihova integracija, pravna i kulturna vidljivost moraju ostati dio europske agende.

    Ako proširenje ne napreduje, prostor neće ostati prazan i ispunit će ga drugi koji nemaju interes za demokraciju, već za utjecaj. Zato moramo ubrzati integracijske procese, ali uz jasna pravila, institucionalnu sigurnost i političku volju.

    Ako želimo da Europa ostane globalni akter, a ne birokratski projekt, proširenje mora biti strateški prioritet, ali uz paralelnu reformu institucija i jačanje unutarnje kohezije. Jer ako se ne širimo, to znači da stagniramo, a stagnacija u geopolitici znači povlačenje. Europa se ne smije povući.

     
       

     

      Viktória Ferenc (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Pontosan egy éve megkezdődtek a csatlakozási tárgyalások Ukrajnával, és a magyar diplomácia sikere nyomán a Nyugat-Ukrajnában élő kárpátaljai magyar közösség védelmében megfogalmazott tizenegy pontból álló javaslatainkat beépítették az általános csatlakozási tárgyalási keretbe. Ezzel a kárpátaljai magyarság jogainak védelme hivatalosan is Ukrajna csatlakozási folyamatának részévé vált.

    Csalódottan látjuk azonban, hogy az elmúlt 365 nap során nem történt érdemi előrelépés ebben a kérdésben, csupán látszatintézkedések történtek. A nemzeti kisebbségek jogainak védelmére irányuló cselekvési tervet ugyan elfogadta a kijevi vezetés, azonban diszkriminatív módon a kárpátaljai magyar közösség legnagyobb érdekvédelmi szervezetét nem vonták be a tárgyalásokba. Így Önök, kollégáim, amikor az európai uniós vezetők, politikusok szemet hunynak Ukrajna nemzeti kisebbségeit érintő kirakatintézkedései fölött, sőt támogatják azokat, veszélybe sodorják az uniós intézmények hitelességét, és valójában Önök saját maguk akadályozzák Ukrajna valódi demokratizálását.

     
       

     

      Lukas Sieper (NI). – Mr President, dear people of Europe, it really drives me crazy when some people here in this debate say that the EU was never able to fix the big problems of our time, when it’s the same people that, when we ask for a strong and robust financial mandate for the European Union, say no. When we asked to unify the European Union’s competences on cross-border challenges, they say no. So the same people that sabotage the constant updating of this Union now claim that this Union is not able to solve anything and therefore should not be extended.

    The second thing that drives me crazy every time I hear it is when they say, ‘Oh, we cannot do this enlargement because it will cost us money’, and they throw around these big numbers. I’m a jurist; I do not come from the economy, but what I understand is that you have to invest if you want to grow your business. And investing in enlargement is investing in the future of Europe, of the European Union.

     
       

       

    (Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

     
       

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate, and comments certainly confirmed the importance and necessity to reflect on how to prepare the Union for enlargement.

    And I also think that this debate confirmed that most of you support enlargement, and it shows that an enlarged Union will be a stronger and more efficient Union.

    But to do so, we should really reflect on how we prepare our Union for environment. As I mentioned in my introduction, actually, later this year, the Commission will present the communication on pre-enlargement policy review. And we are always ready to debate with this House, how best to ensure that the Unions remains able to take decisions fast, swiftly, efficiently in benefits of our citizens.

    So once again, thanks for this debate, it was really very, very needed, and we are going to present the pre-enlargement policy review later this year.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.

    The debate is closed.

     

    3. The United Kingdom accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (debate)

     

      Ilhan Kyuchyuk, author. – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, on 27 June 2024, the United Kingdom signed and ratified the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters, known as the Judgments Convention, which has also been signed by Uruguay, Israel, Costa Rica, Russia, the United States and Ukraine. The Judgments Convention entered into force on 1 September 2023, one year after the first two parties deposited their instruments of ratification.

    In accordance with Article 29(2) of the Judgments Convention, the EU can notify the depositary, before 27 June 2025, that the ratification by the UK does not have the effect of establishing treaty relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union. If no such notification is issued – that is, if the EU tacitly accepts the UK’s accession – the Judgments Convention will begin to apply between the two parties on 1 July 2025.

    Parliament understands that the Commission’s assessment of the UK’s accession is positive and that the Commission would be in favour of tacitly accepting it. However, the significance of private international law rules for EU citizens in this particular area also has a political and legal impact, not only on the area of judicial cooperation but also beyond, bearing in mind the relevance of relations between the UK and the European Union in a volatile international context.

    With respect for each EU institution’s prerogatives and Parliament’s consistent position, a statement would allow the Commission to tacitly accept the UK’s accession to the Judgments Convention on the EU’s behalf, under the relevant provisions of that Convention.

    Given the deadline laid down in the Judgments Convention, the need for the EU institutions to act without delay to ascertain the EU’s acceptance of the UK’s accession to the Convention, and Parliament’s intention to make an appropriate statement in this regard, could the Commission confirm its assessment of the UK’s accession to the Convention?

    Secondly, Madam Zaharieva, having regard to the commitments made here in November 2024 by Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič with regard to third countries’ accession to conventions and respect for Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, what concrete steps does the Commission intend to take in future to ensure that Parliament’s prerogatives relating to third countries’ accession to the Judgments Convention are always fully and formally respected under the Treaties, and what timetable does it envisage for taking these steps?

     
       

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate on the accession of the United Kingdom to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

    In its written assessment of the United Kingdom’s certification of the Judgments Convention, which the Commission transmitted to the Committee of Legal Affairs of the European Parliament and to the Council, the Commission concluded that the UK has systematic capability to apply the Judgments Convention and to deal satisfactorily with individual problematic cases.

    The Commission therefore sees no obstacle for the European Union to establish Treaty relations with the United Kingdom based on the Judgments Convention.

    As regards the procedure to be followed when a third country joins the Judgments Convention, this issue was discussed during the process leading to the EU accession to the Judgments Convention with the European Parliament consent and on several occasions after that. The Judgments Convention is based on the principle of the acceptance of accession by other contracting parties, and only envisages an objection procedure in exceptional cases.

    The Commission therefore takes the view that formal decisions under Article 218 of the Treaty are required only where the EU intends to object to the establishment of such Treaty relations. This approach is in line with the need to implement the EU obligations under international law in good faith.

    At the same time, the Commission is committed to consulting Parliament and to take its views into account in full compliance with the Treaties and, notably, the duty of sincere cooperation. This is why, when deciding whether to propose an objection decision, we committed to consistently inform the Parliament of each intended accession of a third country to the Judgments Convention, taking full account of the views expressed by this House.

    I therefore look forward to the Parliament’s views in the debate today.

     
       

     

      Axel Voss, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Es ist mir eine große Freude, unter Ihrer Aufsicht heute hier auch entsprechend vortragen zu können. Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, lassen Sie mich eines bitte klarstellen: Es geht hier nicht nur um die Bereitschaft des Vereinigten Königreiches, dem Übereinkommen über Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen beizutreten; wir sind uns, glaube ich, alle darüber einig, dass Großbritannien dazu in der Lage ist. Die eigentliche Frage ist, wie die Kommission mit dem Beitritt von Drittstaaten umgeht und ob sie die Rolle des Parlaments entsprechend respektiert.

    Die schriftliche Bewertung, die wir erhalten haben, folgt nicht dem Verfahren gemäß Artikel 218 Absatz 6 AEUV. Es gibt keinen Vorschlag an den Rat, kein Ersuchen um die Zustimmung des Parlaments, lediglich eine Informationsnotiz. Das mag der derzeitigen Praxis durchaus entsprechen, aber ist eben nicht wirklich geltendes Recht. Und der Gerichtshof hatte ja bereits schon einmal klargestellt: Selbst eine sogenannte Nichtbeanstandung stellt ein internationales Abkommen dar. Also, das Parlament muss einbezogen werden, und das ist keine freiwillige Entscheidung.

    Deshalb hat der Rechtsausschuss eine Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung mit der Entschließung eingebracht, um die Kommission aufzufordern, ihren rechtlichen Ansatz zu bestätigen, und sie daran zu erinnern, dass Gesetzgebungsbefugnisse des Parlaments in diesem Bereich auch nicht umgangen werden sollten. Wir unterstützen natürlich den Beitritt des Vereinigten Königreiches, aber diese Unterstützung darf eben nicht zulasten eines ordnungsgemäßen Verfahrens gehen.

     
       

     

      Ana Catarina Mendes, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caros colegas, julgo que a Cimeira, de 19 de Maio de 2025, entre a União Europeia e o Reino Unido marca uma nova etapa das nossas relações após o Brexit de reforço da nossa cooperação em diversas áreas.

    Seja o reforço na área da segurança e da juventude, que deve ser mesmo feito, seja o reforço no domínio da política de defesa e segurança –– sabemos como o contexto internacional o exige ––, seja o reforço das históricas relações com o Reino Unido.

    Assim, desse ponto de vista, e da parte do S&D, queria deixar aqui um sublinhado de congratulação pelo êxito desta cimeira, mas também pelo regresso às boas relações de cooperação, de solidariedade e de vizinhança, se quisermos, com o Reino Unido.

    É nesse quadro que se insere esta vontade expressa do Reino Unido de aderir à Convenção de Haia, que também quero aqui, em nome do S&D, saudar. Aquilo que se espera, como o colega anterior aqui disse, é saber qual é a posição da Comissão e se a Comissão, tão brevemente quanto possível, aceita esta vontade expressa e confirma com brevidade a sua avaliação favorável da aceitação da adesão do Reino Unido à Convenção de Haia.

    No entanto, como o colega anterior também disse, Senhora Comissária, é preciso que as relações institucionais sejam respeitadas; o artigo 218.º, parágrafo seis, estabelece muito claramente que este Parlamento tem também um papel a desempenhar neste contexto, não apenas para aplaudir, não apenas para saudar, mas sobretudo para estar empenhado e comprometido no reforço desta relação.

    Por isso, Senhora Comissária, a minha intervenção visa solicitar que a boa cooperação institucional continue a existir e que não se ignore o papel extraordinário que o Parlamento Europeu também pode ter na ratificação desta Convenção por parte do Reino Unido, a qual, volto a dizer, saúdo com grande alegria.

     
       

     

      Dainius Žalimas, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we cannot defend the rule of law externally, failing to follow it in our own decision-making. The third country’s accession to the Judgements Convention is a test of our compliance with the EU Constitution, the founding Treaties. The EU acceded to the Judgements Convention with Parliament’s consent. Indeed, the consent to be bound by international agreements is a typical function of a democratic parliament. This consent has to be required also when the convention’s scope – including scope of application – is changed, for example by the accession of third countries.

    However, as in the case of Ukraine’s accession, we are again confronted with the Commission’s refusal to recognise this inherent function of the Parliament as provided by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In this way, the Commission undermines the principle of representative democracy, including institutional balance and accountability to EU citizens. The Commission, as a guardian of the Treaties, must fully respect them without improvisation beyond its mandate.

    Therefore, with today’s oral question and resolution, we not only support the accession of the UK, but we also are defending our parliamentary prerogatives and the rule of law.

     
       

     

      Ville Niinistö, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, today we welcome a step forward for Justice Beyond Borders. The UK’s accession to the Hague Convention is not just good news, it’s a win for legal certainty for businesses, families and individuals on both sides of the Channel.

    But let’s be clear: this debate is not about the UK today. It is about us, about our role as Parliament in shaping how the EU builds binding legal ties with the rest of the world.

    We believe in the rule of law. We believe that judgments recognised across borders must be rooted in fairness, due process and human rights. And we also believe that the European Parliament must have a say when those decisions impact millions of Europeans. The Commission should take the legal role of the co-legislators properly into account in this ratification process.

    That’s why we are here today, to make sure our democratic role isn’t sidelined, to ensure that Parliament’s voice is heard, respected and empowered. Let’s build bridges, yes, but let’s build them strong, transparent and with full democratic oversight, because Europe works best when it works together.

     
       

     

      Mary Khan, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Dieser Antrag zeigt, wie internationale Zusammenarbeit auch ohne Brüsseler Bevormundung funktionieren kann. Großbritannien ist nicht mehr Teil der EU. Das haben wir der Geduld und Durchsetzungsfähigkeit eines freien Volkes zu verdanken; darauf können die Briten auch stolz sein. Und dennoch gelingt es, auf Augenhöhe Rechtssicherheit zu schaffen.

    Ein souveräner Staat, ein völkerrechtlicher Vertrag, klare Regeln, ganz ohne milliardenteuren Beamtenapparat, ohne Ideologie – genau das ist unser Weg. Wir müssen die europäische Zusammenarbeit auf das Wesentliche reduzieren: Binnenmarkt, Schutz der Außengrenzen und freiwillige bilaterale Verträge zwischen souveränen Nationalstaaten.

    Stattdessen erleben wir eine EU, die sich zu einem politischen Superstaat aufbläht, der Milliarden kostet und sich immer tiefer in nationale Entscheidungen einmischt. Wir stimmen zu, weil es zeigt, wie echte Partnerschaft aussieht: rechtsstaatlich, freiwillig und souverän.

     
       

       

    (Se suspende la sesión a las 11:16 horas).

     
       

       

    VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY
    Vizepräsidentin

     

    4. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (Die Sitzung wird um 12:00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

     

    5. Voting time

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Abstimmungsstunde.

     

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Die folgende Abstimmung betrifft die Medienfreiheit in Georgien, insbesondere den Fall von Msia Amaghlobeli (siehe Punkt 5.1 des Protokolls).

     

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Die folgende Abstimmung betrifft den Fall von Ahmadreza Djalali in Iran (siehe Punkt 5.2 des Protokolls).

     

       

    – Vor der Abstimmung über Änderungsantrag 3:

     
       

     

      Matthieu Valet (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, en tant que coordinateur du groupe des Patriotes pour l’Europe au sein de la sous-commission des droits de l’homme, je propose d’ajouter un amendement oral à la résolution sur le Mali, dont le texte, à notre sens, ne dénonce pas avec suffisamment de clarté le terrorisme islamiste. Cet amendement vise ainsi à rendre hommage et à honorer le sang versé de nos 58 soldats français, ainsi que celui de nos partenaires européens tombés dans la lutte contre les terroristes islamistes au Mali et pour la liberté que nous défendons tous ici au sein de ce Parlement.

    Je propose donc la formulation suivante: «considérant que l’Union européenne et plusieurs États membres ont déployé des efforts et perdu des vies dans la lutte contre le djihadisme, à la demande des anciennes autorités maliennes, dont 58 soldats français, cinq soldats néerlandais, deux soldats allemands, un soldat espagnol et un soldat portugais». Je vous remercie. Cela sera un signal fort pour nos soldats qui, souvent si jeunes, s’engagent pour nos libertés et tombent pour défendre des démocraties.

     
       

       

    (Das Parlament lehnt es ab, den mündlichen Änderungsantrag zur Abstimmung zu stellen.)

     

    5.4. Welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability (A10-0104/2025 – Veronika Vrecionová) (vote)

       

    – Nach der Abstimmung:

     
       

       

    (Das Parlament billigt den Antrag auf Rücküberweisung an den Ausschuss.)

     

    5.5. Electricity grids: the backbone of the EU energy system (A10-0091/2025 – Anna Stürgkh) (vote)

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Die folgende Abstimmung betrifft Stromnetze als Rückgrat des Energiesystems der EU (siehe Punkt 5.5 des Protokolls).

     

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Die folgende Abstimmung betrifft den Deal für eine saubere Industrie (siehe Punkt 5.6 des Protokolls).

     

    5.7. The United Kingdom accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (B10-0273/2025) (vote)

       

    (Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen)

     
       

       

    (Die Sitzung wird um 12:34 Uhr unterbrochen.)

     

    6. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (Die Sitzung wird um 15.01 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

     

    7. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar.

    Gibt es Einwände dagegen? Das ist nicht der Fall.

    Das Protokoll ist somit genehmigt.

     

    8. Protecting bees: advancing the EU’s New Deal for Pollinators (debate)

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, pollination is a free but invaluable service that insects provide. Without it, our food security, our livelihoods and nature would be threatened.

    Yet, pollinator populations have dramatically declined in the recent decades. Populations of 1 in 3 bee, butterfly and hoverflies species are collapsing. Many species are on the verge of extinction. This has a direct impact on the productivity and competitiveness of the EU’s agriculture sector and on our food security.

    As highlighted in the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy, in the EU pollinators initiative and in the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, we need to take urgent action to restore pollinator populations. To step up efforts and reverse this decline of pollinators, we reinforced two years ago the EU pollinators initiative by revising its action plan. We have also enshrined a target to reverse the decline of pollinators by 2030 in the Nature Restoration Regulation.

    Together, those efforts constitute the new deal for pollinators – our response to society’s demand to take decisive action. This demand was manifested in the European citizens’ initiative ‘Save bees and farmers’. This House has been a strong and vocal advocate of the EU pollinator agenda. I thank you for that and for the opportunity to update you today on the progress in the implementation of the new deal for pollinators.

    We are currently implementing more than 40 actions through the revised EU pollinators initiative. These actions aim to mitigate the drivers of pollinator decline, generate knowledge, foster Member States’ actions and mobilise society.

    Agriculture is the essential sector. It depends on pollinators the most, and at the same time it exerts the highest pressure on them. That is why we have been working closely with Member States to increase support for pollinator‑friendly farming under the common agricultural policy.

    We want to support farmers to restore nature and pollinator populations, including through the development of nature credits and through enhanced farm advisory services. We are working on strengthening the pesticide authorisation process to increase protection of pollinators from the use of pesticides. We are also supporting Member States in reducing the risk in use of pesticide by increasing the uptake of integrated pest management and availability of low-risk plant protection products.

    EU sales of pesticides in 2023 were at the lowest level since the start of Eurostat data series in 2011. Still, the work is not over. Despite our efforts, pesticide use remains a major driver of pollinator decline. We count on your continued support for strict regulatory framework on pesticides. Meanwhile, we have substantially improved our understanding of pollinator decline through comprehensive assessment of pollinator species and the European ‘red list’ and thanks to numerous projects launched through Horizon Europe.

    We are currently preparing a delegated act on pollinator monitoring, as required under the Nature Restoration Regulation. I call on Parliament and Member States to support a robust scientific monitoring method. Good data will enable smart and well-guided investment in the restoration of pollinators and ecosystems, yielding substantial savings in the long term.

    In addition, the preparatory action for the European Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre, initiated by Parliament will help Member States implement a monitoring system for pollinators.

    To conclude, a word on our outreach efforts. We have built a strong and dedicated community of experts from Member States, authorities and stakeholder organisations through our working group on pollinators. We also continue to strongly support citizens’ engagement, especially youth engagement in actions for pollinators.

    Youth is our future and the future needs pollinators. That is why in the coming months we will launch the Young Citizens Assembly on Pollinators, the European Fund for Youth Action on Pollinators and ‘buzzing schools’. This is part of the pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. I thank you for your support and the overall commitment to the EU’s action on pollinators.

     
       

     

      Tomislav Sokol, u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, Europska komisija je 2023. predstavila novi plan za oprašivače s ključnim ciljem preokrenuti alarmantan pad broja divljih kukaca oprašivača u Europi. Ova mjera nije samo ekološka, ona je duboko strateška. Bez oprašivača nema ni sigurnosti hrane ni zdravog okoliša. Podržavam ovu inicijativu i naglašavam važnost zaštite prirodnih staništa i poticanja biološke raznolikosti.

    Međutim, novi plan za oprašivače mora ići ruku pod ruku sa strategijom za europske pčelare koji svakodnevno vode borbu s nelojalnom konkurencijom, uvoznicima patvorenog i nekvalitetnog meda iz trećih zemalja, a tu su podaci porazni. Naime, prema istraživanjima, gotovo svaka druga staklenka meda na europskom tržištu sadrži krivotvoreni med. Naši pčelari koji proizvode kvalitetan prirodni med ne mogu konkurirati damping cijenama, nedefiniranim standardima i lažnim deklaracijama.

    Zato smo u prošlom mandatu izmjenom Direktive o medu uspjeli zabraniti zavaravajuće označavanje mješavina meda i uvesti obvezu navođenja točnog postotka i zemlju porijekla svake komponente mješavine meda. To je velik korak za transparentnost i zaštitu potrošača, ali i za opstanak naših pčelara.

    Međutim, ne smijemo stati na tome. Moramo koristiti trgovinske i carinske mehanizme, pojačati kontrole na granicama, uvesti strože nadzore uvoza i zatražiti uključivanje interesa pčelara u trgovinske sporazume s trećim državama.

    Također, novi plan za oprašivače neće biti djelotvoran bez borbe protiv upotrebe štetnih pesticida i novih genskih tehnika kojima ne smijemo dozvoliti da naruše sigurnost hrane i zdravlje potrošača. Zato je ključno poticati lokalnu proizvodnju hrane i prirodan uzgoj.

    S tim u vezi, treba već sada analizirati učinke strategije „od polja do stola”, za koju sam bio izvjestitelj Kluba EPP-a u odboru IMCO, i predložiti njezinu nadopunu u svjetlu izazova s kojima se pčelari susreću. Kolegice i kolege, zaštitimo pčele, ali i interese naših pčelara.

     
       

     

      Günther Sidl, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, geschätzte Frau Kommissarin! Es ist höchste Zeit, dass wir hier im Europäischen Parlament wieder über die Bienen reden, denn die Biene ist eine der nützlichsten und wichtigsten Tierarten, die es gibt, und braucht unseren besonderen Schutz. Aber genau den hat sie derzeit leider nicht – im Gegenteil. Die Probleme, denen die Bienen gegenüberstehen, werden immer größer. Die milden Winter befördern das Milbenwachstum und damit die Krankheitsübertragung auf die Bienen, was alleine dieses Jahr zu immensen Verlusten geführt hat; Verlustraten von 30 % sind keine Seltenheit. Aber selbst die Bienenvölker, die den Winter überstehen, haben keine rosigen Aussichten, denn sie müssen sich ihre Nahrung zwischen immer größeren Monokulturen und pestizidbelasteten Pflanzen suchen. Kurz gesagt: So kann es nicht weitergehen!

    Wir brauchen endlich ein ernsthaftes Programm zum Schutz der Bienen. Ich bin froh, dass die EU‑Kommission dieses Thema aufgreift, aber ich hoffe, Sie verstehen, dass ich skeptisch bin. Denn bis jetzt war die Kommission nicht die große Beschützerin der Bienen, sonst hätte sie nicht ein ums andere Mal den Einsatz von Pestiziden wie Glyphosat zugelassen, sonst hätten Sie schon längst mit der Praxis der Notfallzulassungen für problematische Mittel aufgeräumt. Ich verstehe, dass Landwirte Ertragssicherheit brauchen, aber wenn wir das nur mit Mitteln erreichen, die den Bienen schaden, hat am Ende niemand etwas davon.

    Wir müssen endlich allen klarmachen, und es muss uns allen klar sein, dass Pestizide nicht die alleinige Lösung sind, sondern ein gravierendes Problem. Ein Problem, das sich überall festsetzt – in Böden, in Gewässern, in unserem Trinkwasser und letztlich auch in unserem Körper, und genau da haben Umweltgifte und Ewigkeitschemikalien nichts zu suchen. Suchen wir endlich nach einer Lösung, die allen hilft: der Natur, den Bienen und damit auch uns.

    Wir brauchen endlich eine europäische Forschungsstrategie für wirksame und ökologische Pestizidalternativen. Nur damit geben wir der Landwirtschaft neue Instrumente in die Hand, mit denen sie nachhaltig und ertragssicher arbeiten kann. Packen wir das Problem an den Wurzeln und geben wir unserer Umwelt eine echte Chance, sich zu erholen!

     
       

     

      Valérie Deloge, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, la Commission européenne présente aujourd’hui un nouveau pacte pour les pollinisateurs. Le constat est partagé par tous. Les abeilles, les syrphes, les papillons disparaissent à un rythme inquiétant. Ce déclin fragilise notre agriculture, notre souveraineté alimentaire et la biodiversité en Europe. Mais à y regarder de plus près, ce texte reflète surtout les travers habituels de la technocratie bruxelloise: des objectifs déconnectés des réalités agricoles, une avalanche de directives et un transfert toujours plus massif de responsabilités des États membres vers l’Union européenne.

    On demande aux agriculteurs français de renoncer à certains traitements, d’intégrer des bandes fleuries, de diversifier leurs cultures et c’est une bonne chose si on les accompagne. Mais pendant ce temps, on continue d’importer sans vergogne des produits agricoles venus de pays qui utilisent des substances interdites chez nous. Où est la cohérence? Où est la justice?

    Soyons clairs protéger les pollinisateurs, c’est aussi défendre l’avenir de notre agriculture. Il ne s’agit pas de choisir entre les abeilles et les agriculteurs, mais de sortir de cette logique de punition et d’hypocrisie. La pollution qui menace les insectes pollinisateurs ne vient pas uniquement des champs. Elle vient aussi de l’air que nous respirons, des polluants persistants, des microplastiques, des métaux lourds et d’un effet cocktail de substances chimiques dont l’Union européenne ne mesure pas encore sérieusement les interactions. Ce sont autant de facteurs qui affaiblissent les insectes, mais aussi la santé humaine.

    Et là, le texte de la Commission reste timide. Il traite longuement des pesticides, mais presque rien n’est dit sur l’impact des grandes zones industrielles, de la pollution de l’air ou de la charge chimique globale. Or, les agriculteurs ne doivent pas devenir les boucs émissaires d’un système de production mondialisé qui échappe à tout contrôle. Il est temps de changer votre logiciel, inspirez-vous des États membres qui sont les plus vertueux en la matière, comme la France. Oubliez votre vision vision en silo et réfléchissez plutôt à une approche globale sur les polluants invisibles.

    Au delà des produits phytosanitaires, c’est toute la question de la qualité de notre air qui doit se poser. Soutenez les agriculteurs qui ont déjà pris conscience du problème et œuvrez déjà à protéger les habitats des pollinisateurs. Encouragez la recherche sur les alternatives aux intrants chimiques pour ne pas que nos agriculteurs se retrouvent privés de solutions. Il est temps de défendre à la fois nos agriculteurs et la biodiversité avec des politiques réalistes, cohérentes et souveraines.

     
       

     

      Thomas Waitz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, yes, indeed, our pollinators are declining. And why is it so? It was just mentioned by the far right: it’s because of chemical pollution, because of pesticides. Well, the Commission came up with the so-called Sustainable Use Directive to reduce pesticides. But do you remember why it failed? It was very much on the right side of the House that the Sustainable Use Directive was actually killed here in the House. Yes, it was you guys. This would have been one of the main measures that we would have needed to take to reduce the decline of pollinators.

    And it’s not just honeybees – I’m a beekeeper and a farmer at the same time – it’s also about wild pollinators. The Commission – under the rule of simplification – has reduced the fallow land that we need for wild pollinators. Is there real support for organic farming? Because this is the way of farming that safeguards natural pollinators, wild pollinators and our bees as well.

    Is there real support for beekeepers in the European Union? Well, let’s see the new CAP proposal. We need real support for beekeepers because, due to climate crisis and pesticides, it’s harder and harder to keep a beekeeper’s business going. I can say that from my very own experience. But I’m ready to work on this, and I’m happy to contribute if there are concrete proposals to safeguard wild pollinators and bees.

     
       

     

      Sebastian Everding, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Honigbienen haben für die Biodiversität keinerlei Relevanz. Auch wenn uns Schulbücher und Medien oftmals ein anderes Bild vermitteln und die meisten Menschen beim Wort Biene direkt an die Honigbiene denken: Diese ist nicht bedroht; allein in Deutschland sind rund 100 000 Imker um sie bemüht. Auf der anderen Seite steht die Hälfte der 561 Wildbienenarten als vom Aussterben bedroht auf der Roten Liste. Reden wir über Bestäuber, dann müssen wir schwerpunktmäßig über Wildbienen, über Wespen, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen reden. Honigbienen können diese maximal ergänzen, aber niemals ersetzen. Wenn sich Unternehmen Honigbienen aufs Dach stellen, ist das mehr Greenwashing als ein Beitrag zum Artenschutz.

    Viele Menschen haben die Problematik erkannt und möchten Insekten helfen. Sie kaufen gutgläubig sogenannte Insektenhotels, gefüllt mit Holzwolle, mit Tannenzapfen, mit Baumrinde, weil dies Natürlichkeit vermittelt. Aber diese sind ganz oft ein Fall für den Biomüll, werden nicht angenommen und können im schlimmsten Fall sogar Insekten schaden. Hier müssen ganz dringend nachvollziehbare Siegel für die Orientierung geschaffen werden.

    Vergesst Biene Maja, kümmert Euch um die Gehörnte Mauerbiene, die Dunkelfransige Hosenbiene, schafft Lebensräume und Blühstreifen und verbietet Pestizide wie Glyphosat!

     
       

     

      Marcin Sypniewski, w imieniu grupy ESN. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Nie wiem, czy widzieli państwo komedię „Człowiek kontra pszczoła” z Rowanem Atkinsonem w roli głównej. Tam główny bohater, goniąc jedną pszczołę, demoluje cały dom. A dzisiaj jednak to nie pszczoła przeszkadza człowiekowi, a człowiek, a konkretnie również unijna polityka, przeszkadza pszczołom. Pszczoła nie ma swojego biura w Brukseli. Nie zatrudnia żadnego lobbysty. Nie pisze sprawozdań i nie czeka na kolejną dyrektywę, na kolejny plan, kolejny ład. Ona po prostu żyje, zapyla i robi to, co umie najlepiej – wspiera naturę i daje ludziom zdrową żywność.

    Tymczasem w Unii tworzymy pakty, strategie, zielone łady, konsultacje, a zapominamy, że najlepszym sojusznikiem pszczoły nie jest żaden biurokrata, tylko po prostu pszczelarz i rolnik – ten, który wie, że bez zapylaczy nie będzie żadnych plonów. Chcecie ratować pszczoły, to przestańcie w końcu szkodzić rolnikom. Przestańcie wspierać konkurencję spoza Unii. Nie zamęczajcie ich kolejnymi regulacjami, zakazami i sprawozdawczością. Przestańcie karać ich za to, że chcą produkować żywność, a nie wypełniać arkusze Excela. Pszczoły potrzebują ciszy, spokoju, równowagi w krajobrazie, a nie chaosu legislacyjnego. Potrzebują lasów, łąk, pasiek, nie – Zielonego Ładu, który niszczy to, co miał chronić. Nie powielajmy scenariusza z filmu, w którym człowiek niszczy wszystko, żeby pozbyć się jednej pszczoły. Chrońmy naturę razem z tymi, którzy ją naprawdę rozumieją – z rolnikami i pszczelarzami.

     
       

     

      Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Pirmininke, komisare, kolegos. Noriu pacituoti, ką šioje tribūnoje kalbėjau dėl apdulkintojų 2019 m. gruodžio 17 d.: „biologinės įvairovės nykimo prevencija turi būti grindžiama mokslu ir ambicingais, bet įvykdomais tikslais“. Taip pat griežtai siūliau Bee Guidance atnaujinimą ir jog naujoms augalų apsaugos priemonėms būtų vykdomi chroninio toksiškumo tyrimai. Tiriamas poveikis ne tik bitėms, bet ir kitiems apdulkintojams.

    Per tą laiką priimtas New Deal for Pollinators, atnaujintas Bee Guidance, o 2023-iaisiais Reglamentas dėl gamtos atkūrimo suteikė apdulkintojams – tarp jų ir bitėms – teisinį apsaugos statusą. Tai reikšmingas žingsnis, kuris įpareigoja valstybes nares stebėti jų populiacijas pagal standartizuotą metodiką; iki 2030 m. turi būti sustabdytas apdulkintojų nykimas, vėliau – užtikrintas jų tvarus gausėjimas. Svarbus klausimas – Europos raudonasis sąrašas bitėms. Jis turi būti atnaujintas ir atspindėti dabartines rūšių būklės tendencijas. Be kita ko, minėtam tikslui grėsmę kelia invazinės rūšys. Tokios rūšies kaip Azijos vapsva viena kolonija per sezoną gali sunaikinti iki 90 tūkstančių apdulkintojų. Tad jau būtų laikas imtis atitinkamų veiksmų, grįstų rizikos vertinimu. Pesticidų atveju žiediniai bandymai vienišėms bitėms yra žingsnis pirmyn, tačiau vis dar trūksta ilgalaikių tyrimų kolonijų lygmeniu. Subletaliniai ir chroniniai poveikiai, deja, tebelieka neįvertinti. O juk tik visapusiški tyrimai suteiks galimybę priimti mokslu pagrįstus sprendimus. Teigiamai vertinu tai, kad duomenų bazės apie bites tampa vis plačiau prieinamos ir vis dėlto jos turi būti ne tik atviros, bet ir išsamios, nuolat atnaujinamos bei integruotos į sprendimų priėmimą – tiek sudarant Europos raudonąjį bičių sąrašą, tiek planuojant buveinių atkūrimą. Pasikartosiu, kad tik remdamiesi patikimais moksliniais duomenimis galime pasiekti savo tikslų ir sustabdyti bičių nykimą.

     
       

     

      Maria Noichl (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Ja, die Kommission ist derzeit unterwegs mit einem Banner „Bienenschutz″; dieses Banner „Bienenschutz“ soll ganz oben stehen. Es ist aber wichtig zu sagen, dass die jüngsten Vorschläge der Kommission zur europäischen Agrarpolitik genau im Gegensatz stehen. Bienenpolitik wird nicht in Ihrem Ausschuss oder in Ihrer Kommission gemacht, sondern Bienenpolitik – die echte Bienenpolitik – wird im Agrarausschuss gemacht. Wenn im Agrarausschuss weiterhin Deregulierung voranschreitet, wenn im Agrarausschuss weiterhin die Bestäuber-, die Biodiversitätsstrategie und andere Dinge, aber auch die Naturwiederherstellungsrichtlinie an die Wand gefahren werden – denn die wird momentan massiv angegriffen im Agrarausschuss –, wenn die Vereinfachungspakete keine Vereinfachungspakete, sondern Bienenangriffspakete sind, dann merken wir, dass der Agrarausschuss der Ausschuss ist, der für die Bienengesundheit zu sorgen hat.

    Wir alle wissen, dass die Hauptursache für den Rückgang der Bienen die landwirtschaftliche Intensivhaltung ist. Wir alle wissen, dass die Aufgabe der extensiven landwirtschaftlichen Systeme ein Problem ist, dass der Klimawandel, aber auch die invasiven Arten, die Urbanisierung und die Intensivierung der Forstwirtschaft alles Gründe sind. Diesen Gründen wird man nur zuvorkommen.

    Man wird die Bienen nicht mit kleinen Bienen‑Hotspots, sondern nur mit einer flächendeckenden, guten, nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft in ganz Europa unterstützen können. Deswegen: Bienenpolitik ist Landwirtschaftspolitik, Landwirtschaftspolitik ist Bienenpolitik. Ein großes Banner oben drüber hilft uns nichts, wir brauchen es jeden Tag.

     
       

     

      Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Schutz von Bienen und anderen Bestäubern muss eine Priorität für die EU sein. 78 % der heimischen Pflanzenarten und 84 % der Nutzpflanzen sind entweder teilweise oder vollständig auf Insekten zur Bestäubung angewiesen, aber wenn wir so weitermachen wie bisher, fördern wir den dramatischen Rückgang von bestäubenden Wildinsekten massiv. Die öffentliche Meinung ist eindeutig. Mit der erfolgreichen Europäischen Bürgerinitiative Save bees and farmers fordern Bürgerinnen und Bürger eine bienenfreundliche Landwirtschaft, frei von giftigen Pestiziden, nicht nur der Bienen wegen, sondern wegen der Zukunft von Landwirtinnen und Landwirten, die auf ein funktionierendes Ökosystem angewiesen sind.

    Klimawandel, der Verlust und die Verschlechterung der Lebensräume, massive Auswirkungen von Pestiziden auf die Umwelt, auf unsere Gesundheit – das sind alles Phänomene, die mit konservativen Politiken und Handlungsunwilligkeit nicht angegangen werden können. Wir brauchen einen zukunftsgerichteten EU‑Pakt für Bestäuber, eine gemeinsame Agrarpolitik, die für Landwirtinnen und Landwirte und die Umwelt funktioniert, und klare Vorschriften zur Pestizidreduzierung.

     
       

     

      Valentina Palmisano (The Left). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le api, oltre ad essere preziosi impollinatori, sono sentinelle della salute ambientale. Quando spariscono è l’intero ecosistema a lanciare un grido d’allarme. Oggi quel grido è fortissimo. A novembre 2023 questo Parlamento ha accolto con favore il nuovo patto europeo per gli impollinatori e oggi dobbiamo dare seguito a quell’impegno.

    Le principali minacce degli impollinatori sono ben conosciute: l’agricoltura intensiva, l’uso dei pesticidi, la perdita di habitat, così come sono conosciute anche le misure per contrastarle. Serve solo il coraggio politico di applicarle con coerenza e in tempi rapidi. Dobbiamo incentivare pratiche agricole amiche delle api, rafforzare la tutela degli apicoltori nella PAC, limitare l’uso di pesticidi, salvaguardare gli impollinatori selvatici, rafforzare il programma LIFE, che già oggi finanzia degli strumenti efficaci per proteggere gli habitat e le biodiversità.

    Ci sono anche esperienze urbane da valorizzare, ad esempio il progetto UrBees, nato a Torino, dimostra che le api possono aiutarci a monitorare l’ambiente e a costruire comunità più consapevoli.

    Ecco, proteggere gli impollinatori significa proteggere l’equilibrio tra natura, agricoltura e salute pubblica. È una responsabilità che ci riguarda tutti. Oggi abbiamo gli strumenti e il dovere per agire.

     
       

     

      Anja Arndt (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Der neue Deal für Bestäuber ist der nächste zentralistische Irrsinn aus Brüssel. Dieselbe Kommission, die Landwirte mit Auflagen überschüttet, vernichtet mit ihrer eigenen Energiewende selbst massenhaft Insekten. Jedes Windrad tötet jedes Jahr 40 Millionen Insekten, und wir haben in der Europäischen Union 280 000 Windräder. Unsere Windkraftanlagen töten also jedes Jahr hochgerechnet 9 Billionen Insekten. Bevor Brüssel neue Vorschriften erlässt, sollte die Kommission ihre eigenen Fehler kritisch aufarbeiten.

    Der neue Deal für Bestäuber ist nichts anderes als ein weiteres Bürokratiemonster, das nationale Kompetenzen ignoriert und Landwirte drangsaliert. Statt echter Hilfe soll ein teures, EU‑weites Überwachungssystem eingeführt werden, ohne praktischen Nutzen für Insekten. Gleichzeitig will man die Pestizideinsätze einfach mal pauschal halbieren, und das wurde hier schon angesprochen, dass das letztes Jahr zum Glück abgewendet wurde. Ohne Rücksicht auf die Landwirte soll das geschehen, regionale Unterschiede sollen nicht berücksichtigt werden oder die Ernährungssicherheit unserer Bürger.

    So etwas muss gestoppt werden. Deutschland braucht deshalb die AfD, und Europa braucht die ESN.

    (Die Rednerin lehnt eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ von Lukas Sieper ab.)

     
       

     

      Pär Holmgren (Verts/ALE). – Fru talman! Här står jag, klockan är ganska exakt halv fyra på torsdagseftermiddagen. Jag är näst sista talaren i den sista debatten i Strasbourg den här veckan, om något så extremt viktigt som bin och pollinering.

    Det är verkligen pollinering och andra liknande ekosystemtjänster som är helt avgörande för vår matförsörjning, för att vi ska kunna arbeta med klimatanpassning och faktiskt också för att vi ska kunna lindra effekterna av själva den globala uppvärmningen i sig.

    Men de allra flesta av mina kollegor är på väg hem. Många sitter säkert redan på sina flygplan på väg till sina hemländer. En torsdag eftermiddag som det här så blir det för mig, och säkert för många andra gröna, mer övertydligt än vanligt, att det är i princip inga andra av mina kollegor som bryr sig om de här helt grundläggande, viktiga existentiella frågorna: klimat, biologisk mångfald, pollinering, ekosystemtjänster.

    Vi måste se till att försörja och försvara dem så att vi faktiskt har ett fungerande samhälle även i framtiden.

     
       

     

      Younous Omarjee (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la commissaire, elles ne parlent pas, mais sans elles, le monde se tairait. Et pourtant, déjà les abeilles meurent massivement et leur bourdonnement s’épuise dans le vacarme de nos pesticides et d’un choix d’un modèle agricole productiviste et intensif dont nous savons aujourd’hui qu’il faut tourner la page. Chaque ruche qui se vide, c’est un champ qui s’épuise. Une fleur qui ne fructifie pas et, en totalité, une promesse de vie qui s’évanouit. Les abeilles tissent en vol l’équilibre du vivant, des couleurs et des saisons aussi.

    J’appelle donc la Commission européenne à ne pas céder au sabordage du Pacte vert européen et à bannir les substances les plus dangereuses et à soutenir les pratiques agroécologiques. Il est tout à fait vital que les insectes demeurent, il est vital d’interdire ce qui les tue, d’aimer et de protéger ce qui permet la vie.

     
       

       

    Spontane Wortmeldungen

     
       

     

      Alexander Jungbluth (ESN). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, danke für das erhaltene Wort! Ich möchte mich ganz kurz auf Herrn Waitz beziehen. Herr Waitz hat ja eben angedeutet, dass irgendwie die Rechten schuld seien, dass die Bienen sterben; belegt haben Sie das Ganze irgendwie nicht. Deshalb möchte ich Ihnen einmal etwas belegen, nämlich, es gibt ja eine Studie des Zentrums für Luft‑ und Raumfahrttechnik (DLR), geschrieben von Herrn Dr. Franz Trieb, und Herr Dr. Franz Trieb hat in dieser Studie festgestellt, dass im Jahr durchschnittlich etwa 1200 Tonnen Insekten durch Windräder sterben. Wir sprechen hier von Milliarden von Insekten, die jährlich durch Windräder sterben. Insofern möchte ich an dieser Stelle einmal feststellen: Grüne Politik ist eben nicht nur für die Wirtschaft tödlich, sondern eben leider auch für Bienen.

     
       

     

      Lukas Sieper (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Menschen Europas! Ich persönlich finde in diesem Europäischen Parlament immer die Debatten am interessantesten, wo sich eigentlich alle einig sind, wo aber auch gleichzeitig der allergrößte Unsinn erzählt wird. Alle sind sich hier einig, dass die Bienen gerettet werden müssen, auf die eine oder die andere Art. Manche sagen, die Landwirtschaft ist schuld, andere sagen, die Pestizide sind schuld.

    Frau Kommissarin, ich möchte Ihnen ganz kurz sagen: Das, was ich am besten finde an dem Vorschlag, den Sie da machen, ist die urbane Begrünung. Denn das ist ja der Lebensraum, aus dem wir die Tiere quasi komplett vertrieben haben, und wenn wir da wieder ein bisschen mehr Grün in die Städte holen – das ist nicht nur für die mentale Gesundheit der Menschen gut, das ist auch für die Natur gut. Also möchte ich, da sich eigentlich alle einig sind, das Haus hier dazu aufrufen, ein bisschen mehr diese ideologischen Grabenkämpfe sein zu lassen.

    Das Witzigste, was ich gehört habe, der größte Schuss ist das mit den Windrädern. Es ist wirklich so dermaßen bescheuert zu sagen, Windräder sind böse, weil dadurch Tiere sterben. Rechnen Sie doch mal durch, wenn Sie so gerne mit Zahlen um sich schmeißen, wie viele Tiere sterben, wenn der Klimawandel einmal so richtig reinknallt bei uns! Dann ist nämlich gar nichts mehr mit der Biodiversität. Also, stehen wir zusammen, halten wir uns an die Ratio! Schönes Wochenende!

     
       

     

      Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Nie jestem ani skrajnym prawicowcem, ani skrajnym lewicowcem. Jestem zwyczajnie konserwatystą. Konserwatyści mają spokojne spojrzenie na to wszystko, co dzieje się wokół nas. Bardzo lubimy mądrych rolników, mądrych pszczelarzy, mądrych naukowców, tych, którzy są także praktykami, którzy potrafią wnosić swoje doświadczenie do oceny każdej sytuacji.

    I tu chcę zwrócić uwagę Państwa na wielką niekonsekwencję Unii Europejskiej. Mianowicie, jeśli dzisiaj otwieramy w Unii Europejskiej rynek na produkty z Ameryki Południowej, to pamiętajmy, że tam są karczowane lasy, tam są niszczone łąki, gdzie właśnie są siedliska zapylaczy. I tam będą ginąć te zapylacze. Tam będzie przyrost pestycydów. A my będziemy mówić, że mamy żywność z Ameryki Południowej w ramach umowy z Merkosurem. To jest wielki błąd i myślę, że wszystkie środowiska też na to powinny zwrócić uwagę. Słuchajmy mądrych rolników, mądrych pszczelarzy. Życie będzie lepsze.

     
       

       

    (Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

     
       

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission.Frau Präsidentin, dear Members of the Parliament, thank you once again for your continuous commitment to advance the implementation of the new deal of pollinators.

    It’s really a game changer, this new deal, and we are at a crucial moment of its implementation. I think we need to keep the momentum, ensuring that the Member States and the stakeholders continue implementing the actions that we agreed. We are not there yet, unfortunately: 2030 is not far away and we have a long way to go to stop – and ultimately reverse – the decline of pollinators in the EU.

    Societal expectations are high: the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Save bees and farmers’ – which gathered more than 1 million statements of support – has sent us a clear message, which is: ‘act now, act decisively’.

    The Commission is committed to meet those expectations, and for that, we need your support.

     
       

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

     

    9. Oral explanations of vote (Rule 201)

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Erklärungen zur Abstimmung.

     

    9.1. Electricity grids: the backbone of the EU energy system (A10-0091/2025 – Anna Stürgkh)

     

      Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, toimivat sähköverkot pitävät Euroopan turvallisena. Ilman niitä huoltovarmuutemme ja resilienssimme romahtaisivat. Rajatylittävällä sähkönjakelulla on tässä myös tärkeä rooli. Toimivuudesta vastaavat kuitenkin aina jäsenvaltiot itse – jäsenvaltiot, jotka vieläpä osaavat hoitaa jakelunsa esimerkillisen loistokkaasti.

    Fingridin tilastojen mukaan kantaverkkojen luotettavuusaste Suomessa oli viime vuonna 99,9995 prosenttia – päätähuimaavan hieno luku. Olisiko se ollut näin korkea, jos sähköverkoista olisikin vastanneet virkamiehet Brysselissä eikä Suomen olosuhteet parhaiten tuntevat kotimaiset toimijat? Ei varmasti, sanon minä.

    Kaikkein parasta Euroopan huoltovarmuudelle on antaa jäsenvaltioiden hoitaa asiansa ja tehdä sellaista kansainvälistä yhteistyötä, mistä kaikki osapuolet varmasti hyötyvät. Tämän vuoksi päätin äänestää esitystä vastaan, sillä vaikka siirtäisimmekin sähköä kauas, tulee päätäntävallan säilyä lähellä.

     

     

      Cristian Terheş (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, m-am abținut la votul privind rezoluția Clean Industrial Deal pentru că, deși conține câteva idei aparent bune, nu abordează cauza reală a scumpirii energiei în UE. Sub lozinci înșelătoare precum „energie verde”, „regenerabilă” sau „decarbonizare”, se ascund politici ideologice care au transformat Europa în regiunea cu cea mai scumpă energie din lume. Așa zisa decarbonizare accelerată s-a făcut, în fapt, prin închiderea accelerată a capacităților tradiționale de producție energetică pe bază de cărbune sau gaz, ce nu au fost înlocuite cu surse stabile, sustenabile și accesibile de energie.

    Energia solară sau eoliană, pretins curată, se produce intermitent. Ce să facă europenii însă când nu e soare sau când nu bate vântul? Mai grav, s-au respins amendamente în acest raport care recunoșteau energia nucleară drept curată. După ce Germania și-a închis centralele atomice, acum importă energie din Franța, produsă în centrale atomice. Aceasta nu e tranziție verde, ci o sinucidere economică a Europei, asistată politic și birocratic de la Bruxelles.

    Sub pretextul „verdelui”, distrugeți competitivitatea Europei pe altarul unei iluzii de sorginte marxistă, care a împins și condamnat deja milioane de europeni la sărăcie. Opriți această nebunie utopică înainte să fie prea târziu!

     
       

     

      Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, tänään meillä oli pitkä lista äänestettävänä erilaisia tarkistuksia Clean Industrial Deal -päätöslauselmaan ja jouduin pettymään. Olisin odottanut, että tämä olisi ollut paljon kunnianhimoisempi teollisuuden hyväksi ja teollisuuden palauttamiseksi Eurooppaan.

    Viime kaudella puhuttiin Green Dealistä. Huomattiin, että siinä mentiin pikkaisen väärään suuntaan nimenomaan teollisuuden näkökulmasta, ja tällä kaudella nyt sitten ollaan puhuttu tästä Clean Industrial Dealistä. Mutta tässä päätöslauselmassa, jota käsiteltiin tänään ja josta äänestettiin, oli niin paljon – kuten harmikseni jouduin huomaamaan – vihreätä agendaa, vääränlaista ideologista agendaa, ei markkinaehtoista säätelyä, että valitettavasti jouduin tulemaan siihen johtopäätökseen, että en voi tämän paperin puolesta äänestää. Ehkä ensi kaudella me voimme saada päätöslauselman nimeltään pelkästään Industrial Deal.

     

    10. Explanations of votes in writing (Rule 201)

       

    (Schriftliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung werden auf die den Mitgliedern vorbehaltenen Seiten auf der Website des Parlaments aufgenommen.)

     

    11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament zu Beginn der nächsten Sitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt.

    Wenn es keine Einwände gibt, werde ich die in der heutigen Sitzung angenommenen Entschließungen den in diesen Entschließungen genannten Personen und Gremien übermitteln.

     

    12. Dates of the next part-session

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Die nächste Tagung findet vom 7. bis zum 10. Juli 2025 in Straßburg statt.

     

    13. Closure of the sitting

       

    (Die Sitzung wird um 15.41 Uhr geschlossen.)

     

    14. Adjournment of the session

     

      Die Präsidentin. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • Netanyahu vows to eliminate Iran nuclear threat as Trump keeps world guessing on military action

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Israel destroyed Iran’s internal security headquarters in Tehran on Thursday while Iranian missiles struck a major Israeli medical facility, marking a dramatic escalation in the seven-day conflict between the West Asian adversaries. The simultaneous attacks on critical infrastructure represent the most intense phase of direct military confrontation between the two nations in recent history.

    Israeli forces targeted multiple strategic sites across Iran, including government facilities in Tehran and the nearby city of Karaj, as well as Payam airport. The strikes came hours after Iran launched missiles that hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, southern Israel, which serves as a primary treatment facility for Israeli military personnel. While the hospital sustained significant structural damage, casualty reports remained limited as portions of the facility had been evacuated in anticipation of potential attacks.

    Israeli Leadership Condemns Attack, Vows Escalation

    The attack on Soroka Medical Center has sparked strong condemnation from Israeli leadership. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have announced plans to intensify military operations targeting strategic sites across Iran. The Israeli military has already launched strikes on key locations, including the Arak Heavy Water Reactor and facilities in Natanz, as part of efforts to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile production capabilities.

    Iranian state media confirmed there is no radiation threat from the Arak facility, adding that personnel had been safely evacuated before the attack. While Netanyahu clarified that regime change in Iran is not an official Israeli objective, he acknowledged that sustained military pressure on government institutions could eventually lead to such an outcome.

    U.S. Signals Deliberate Ambiguity

    Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has maintained a deliberately vague stance when pressed about possible American military involvement in Israel’s strikes on Iran. The White House has signaled that a decision on whether the United States will join the conflict is expected within the next two weeks.

    Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has responded to American statements with warnings of “irreversible harm” should the United States choose to intervene militarily. European nations, while condemning Iran as a destabilizing force and reiterating that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons, have also called for diplomacy and urged both sides to reduce tensions.

    Diplomatic Push from Europe

    There’s a push for renewed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, with some European officials stressing that diplomacy, not regime change, is the preferred approach. The EU has also activated civil protection mechanisms to assist citizens wishing to leave the region.

  • Europe launches diplomatic push as Israel-Iran conflict enters second week

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    World powers initiated high-stakes diplomatic efforts on Friday to defuse escalating tensions between Israel and Iran as the conflict entered its second week. Senior European diplomats met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, seeking to prevent further escalation.

    The emergency talks come amid heightened military activity, with Israeli forces destroying three Iranian missile launchers poised to strike Israeli territory. Meanwhile, Iranian missiles continued targeting locations across Israel, including areas near major international companies in Beersheba. The Israeli Defense Forces confirmed that some Iranian missiles landed directly in Beersheba without interception, with one projectile falling near Microsoft facilities in the southern Israeli city.

    Diplomatic Talks in Geneva

    Senior diplomats from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany gathered with Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, accompanied by the European Union’s foreign policy chief. The negotiations aim to establish a two-week diplomatic window to de-escalate tensions, focusing on Tehran’s nuclear program.

    These talks come amid rising global concern that the conflict could spiral into open warfare, destabilizing West Asia and precipitating a humanitarian crisis. The diplomatic push also serves as a prelude to next week’s NATO summit in The Hague, where regional security will be a key focus.

    European officials underscored the urgency of dialogue, cautioning that continued military pressure on Iran risks regime collapse and widespread displacement. Meanwhile, Russia condemned Israel’s military actions, expressing support for Tehran and calling for peaceful resolutions.

    U.S. President Donald Trump has maintained strategic ambiguity on American involvement, stating that a decision will be made within two weeks.

    Escalation and Regional Impact

    European officials highlighted the potential humanitarian fallout should Iran’s government collapse under sustained military pressure. Israel’s military campaign has expanded beyond conventional targets, hitting state institutions such as police headquarters and state television offices in Tehran.

    Western and regional sources indicate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aims not only to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities but also to destabilize the core structures of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s regime.

    Divisions within the European Union

    The European Union remains divided over the legitimacy of Israel’s military actions. While France, Germany, and Italy support Israel’s right to self-defense, other member states question the legal justification for offensive operations against Iran under international law.

    The EU has called for restraint and adherence to international law, warning of severe risks, including radioactive contamination and widespread humanitarian consequences.

    Russia’s Position and U.S. Ambiguity

    Russia has strongly condemned what it terms Israel’s “unprovoked military assaults on a sovereign UN member state,” positioning itself as a proponent of diplomacy while backing Iran. The ongoing uncertainty from Washington, as President Trump weighs options, has left regional actors uncertain about the conflict’s trajectory.

    The Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that Israeli airstrikes have resulted in 639 casualties in Iran.

     

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.

    The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.

    The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.

    Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
    sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.

    So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.

    Australia closes embassy in Tehran

    Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.

    Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.

    “At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”

    Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”

    Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.

    Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.

    Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.

    Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.

    About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.

    Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).

    Michelle Grattan 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. View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-decides-against-pursuing-donald-trump-to-nato-258972

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Anthony Albanese, just back from the G7 and his cancelled meeting with Donald Trump, has abandoned the idea of going to next week’s NATO meeting in pursuit of face time with the elusive president.

    The word was that the prime minister would only go if he could be confident of a bilateral.

    The NATO thought bubble was always a long shot. Even if a meeting could have been arranged, there would have been risk of another no-show by Trump. Given the dramatic escalation and unpredictability of the Middle East crisis, Trump would be even more unreliable, quite apart from having his attention elsewhere.

    Albanese’s mistake was letting the NATO option be publicly known. It led to denigratory jokes about his “stalking” Trump. It also
    sounded as if the prime minister was insulting NATO, only willing to attend if he could secure the Trump one-on-one.

    So Albanese is back where he started, with all diplomatic efforts bent towards trying to secure a meeting, if possible reasonably soon. That might mean facing the scrum in the Oval Office, which Albanese has been anxious to avoid.

    Australia closes embassy in Tehran

    Meanwhile, the government has announced it has closed the Australian embassy in Tehran. The embassy’s 13 staff have left Iran.

    Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday, “This is not a decision taken lightly. It is a decision based on the deteriorating security environment in Iran”.

    “At this stage, our ability to provide consular services is extremely limited due to the situation on the ground. The airspace remains closed.”

    Asked how much more difficult it would be for Australians to leave Iran now there was no consular assistance in the country, Wong said: “We are really conscious it is extremely difficult. I wish it were not so. I wish that we had more capacity to assist but the difficult reality is the situation on the ground is extremely unstable.”

    Wong said Australia’s ambassador to Iran, Ian McConville, would “remain in the region to support the Australian government’s response to the crisis”. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending consular staff to Azerbaijan, including its border crossing, to help Australians who are leaving Iran.

    Australian Defence Force personnel and aircraft are being sent to the Middle East as part of planning for when airspace is re-opened. Wong stressed “they are not there for combat”.

    Other countries to close their embassies include New Zealand and Switzerland. The United States does not have an embassy there.

    Wong urged Australians able to leave “to do so now, if it is safe. Those who are unable to, or do not wish to leave, are advised to shelter in place”.

    About 2000 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members are registered as wanting to depart. There are about 1200 registered in Israel seeking to depart.

    Australians in Iran seeking consular assistance should call the Australian government’s 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on +61 2 6261 3305 outside Australia and 1300 555 135 (in Australia).

    Michelle Grattan 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. View from The Hill: Albanese decides against pursuing Donald Trump to NATO – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-decides-against-pursuing-donald-trump-to-nato-258972

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • Russia says any use of tactical nuclear weapons by US in Iran would be catastrophic, TASS reports

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Potential use of tactical nuclear weapons by the United States in Iran would be a catastrophic development, Russian state news agency TASS quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying on Friday.

    Peskov was commenting on what he called speculative media reports about that possibility. His comments, as reported by TASS, did not mention any media by name.

    The Guardian newspaper reported that U.S. defence officials were briefed that using conventional bombs against Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordow would not be enough to destroy it completely, and that destroying it would require initial attacks with conventional bombs and then dropping a tactical nuclear weapon from a B-2 bomber.

    However, the British newspaper said President Donald Trump was not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not presented by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, in meetings in the White House Situation Room.

    Trump said on Thursday that any decision on potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict would be made within two weeks.

    Russia, which has close ties with Iran, has warned strongly against U.S. military intervention on the side of Israel.

    (Reuters)

  • Europeans try to coax Iran back to diplomacy, as Trump considers strikes

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    European foreign ministers are set to meet their Iranian counterpart on Friday aiming to create a pathway back to diplomacy over its contested nuclear programme despite the U.S. considering joining Israeli strikes against Iran.

    Ministers from Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, as well as the European Union’s foreign policy chief spoke to Abbas Araqchi earlier this week and have been coordinating with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

    In a rare call, they pressed upon Araqchi the need to return to the negotiating table and avoid further escalation. At Iran’s suggestion, the two sides agreed to meet face-to-face.

    The talks will be held in Geneva, where an initial accord between Iran and world powers to curb its nuclear programme in return for sanctions lifting was struck in 2013 before a comprehensive deal in 2015. They come after negotiations between Iran and the United States collapsed when Israel launched what it called Operation Rising Lion against Iran’s nuclear facilities and ballistic capabilities on June 12.

    “The Iranians can’t sit down with the Americans whereas we can,” said a European diplomat. “We will tell them to come back to the table to discuss the nuclear issue before the worst-case scenario, while raising our concerns over its ballistic missiles, support to Russia and detention of our citizens.”

    The European powers, who were not part of Iran’s nuclear negotiations with the United States, had grown increasingly frustrated by the U.S. negotiating strategy in the talks. They deemed some of the demands unrealistic, while fearing the possibility of a weak initial political framework that would lead to open-ended negotiations.

    Two diplomats said there were no great expectations for a breakthrough in Geneva, where the European Union’s foreign policy chief will also attend.

    But they said it was vital to engage with Iran because once the war stopped, Iran’s nuclear programme would still remain unresolved given that it would be impossible to eradicate the know-how acquired, leaving it potentially able to clandestinely rebuild its programme.

    An Iranian official said Tehran has always welcomed diplomacy, but urged the E3 to use all available means to pressure Israel to halt its attacks on Iran.

    “Iran remains committed to diplomacy as the only path to resolving disputes — but diplomacy is under attack,” the official said.

    Speaking after holding talks in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said there was a window for diplomacy.

    “We discussed how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict. A window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution,” he said on X, referring to the White House saying on Thursday that President Donald Trump would give two weeks before deciding whether to join Israeli strikes.

    Prior to Israel’s strikes, the E3 and U.S. put forward a resolution that was approved by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a U.N. watchdog, which declared Iran in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

    As part of last week’s IAEA resolution, European officials had said they could refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council later in the summer to add pressure on Iran if there was no progress in the nuclear talks.

    That would be separate to them reimposing UN sanctions, known as the snapback mechanism, before October 18 when the 2015 accord expires.

    The Europeans are the only ones who can launch the snapback mechanism, with diplomats saying the three countries had looked to set a final deadline at the end of August to launch it.

    “Iran has repeatedly stated that triggering snapback will have serious consequences,” the Iranian official said.

    (Reuters)

  • Pakistan fears militants will thrive on restive border if Iran destabilised

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Separatist and jihadist militants on the Pakistan-Iran border could take advantage of any collapse of authority in Iran, fears that Pakistan’s army chief pressed in a meeting this week with the U.S. President Donald Trump.

    Anti-Iranian and anti-Pakistan outfits operate on both sides of the 560-mile (900km) long border. As Israel bombs Iran’s nuclear program, its officials have repeatedly indicated that they are seeking to destabilize the Iranian government or see it toppled.

    As well as worrying about chaos spilling over from Iran, Pakistan is concerned about the precedent set by Israel of attacking the nuclear installations of another country. Nuclear-armed rivals Pakistan and India fought a four-day conflict in May.

    Following a Wednesday lunch at the White House with Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, Trump said: “They’re not happy about anything”, referring to Pakistan’s views on the Israel-Iran conflict.

    Pakistan’s military said on Thursday that the two had discussed Iran,“with both leaders emphasizing the importance of resolution of the conflict”.

    Pakistan has condemned Israel’s attack on Iran as a violation of international law.

    “This is for us a very serious issue what is happening in our brotherly country of Iran,” Shafqat Ali Khan, spokesman for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said on Thursday. “It imperils the entire regional security structures, it impacts us deeply.”

    Some of the militant groups on the border have welcomed the upheaval.

    Jaish al-Adl (JaA), an Iranian jihadist group formed from ethnic Baluch and Sunni Muslim minorities and which operates from Pakistan, said Israel’s conflict with Iran was a great opportunity.

    “Jaish al-Adl extends the hand of brotherhood and friendship to all the people of Iran and calls on all people, especially the people of Baluchistan, as well as the armed forces, to join the ranks of the Resistance,” the group said in a statement on June 13.

    Conversely, Pakistan fears that separatist militants from its own Baluch minority, which are based in Iran, will also seek to step up attacks.

    “There’s a fear of ungoverned spaces, which would be fertile ground for terrorist groups,” said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington.

    Pakistan has unstable borders with Taliban-run Afghanistan and arch-rival India. It does not want to add another volatile frontier on its long border with Iran.

    The Iran-Pakistan border region is populated with ethnic Baluch, a minority in both countries who have long complained about discrimination and launched separatist movements. On Pakistan’s side, the region is a province called Balochistan and in Iran it is Sistan-Baluchistan.

    Until Israel’s bombing of Iran, Tehran was closer to Pakistan’s arch-rival India. Pakistan and Iran had even traded air strikes last year, accusing each other of harboring Baluch militants. But the attack on Iran has upended alliances, as India has not condemned Israel’s bombing campaign.

    China has also said that it is deeply concerned about the security situation in Balochistan, with the area being a focus of Beijing’s multi-billion dollar infrastructure investment program in Pakistan, centred on the new Chinese-run port of Gwadar. Baluch militant groups in Pakistan have previously targeted Chinese personnel and projects.

    On Iranian side of the border, Tehran has at different times accused Pakistan, Gulf nations, Israel and the United States of backing the anti-Iran Baluch groups.

    Simbal Khan, an analyst based in Islamabad, said the different Baluch groups could morph into a “greater Baluchistan” movement which seeks to carve out a new nation from the Baluch areas of Pakistan and Iran.

    “They’re all going to fight together if this blows up,” said Khan.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Mutual benefit is the defining feature of economic ties between China and the US: Chinese ambassador

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    WASHINGTON, June 20 (Xinhua) — Mutual benefit “has always been the defining feature” of China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation, Chinese Ambassador to the United States Xie Feng said Wednesday at the 2025 U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC) Gala Dinner.

    Speaking at a ceremony themed “Seeking a New Path for US-China Relations,” the Chinese diplomat said the growing trade and economic cooperation between China and the US over the years has benefited not only both countries but also the whole world.

    With global economic growth remaining sluggish, cooperation is the only way out, the ambassador said. Protectionism is like “quenching one’s thirst with poison,” and China’s development is an opportunity for the world.

    Xie Feng noted that China-US relations are at a critical stage, and both sides are faced with a choice between win-win cooperation and mutual loss.

    He stressed the importance of following the strategic instructions of the two heads of state and faithfully implementing the important consensus reached between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump during their telephone conversation.

    Xie Feng stressed China’s sincerity in cooperation and its principles, stressing that China’s sovereignty, security and development interests are the red line that must not be crossed, and mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation are the principles that must be upheld. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • US court lets Trump retain control of California National Guard for now

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump on Thursday retain control over California’s National Guard while the state’s Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president’s use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles.

    A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended a pause it placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s June 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully.

    Breyer’s ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump’s action brought by Governor Gavin Newsom.

    Breyer ruled that Trump violated the U.S. law governing a president’s ability to take control of a state’s National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist.

    Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge’s move on hold temporarily.

    Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump’s immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California’s National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization.

    At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer’s decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump’s authority to deploy the troops.

    The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country’s laws.

    The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision.

    Trump’s decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous U.S. city.

    The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed.

    California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state’s sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.

    The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a “rebellion.” The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit.

    The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

    The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden.

    (Reuters)

  • US court lets Trump retain control of California National Guard for now

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump on Thursday retain control over California’s National Guard while the state’s Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president’s use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles.

    A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended a pause it placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s June 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully.

    Breyer’s ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump’s action brought by Governor Gavin Newsom.

    Breyer ruled that Trump violated the U.S. law governing a president’s ability to take control of a state’s National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist.

    Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge’s move on hold temporarily.

    Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump’s immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California’s National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization.

    At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer’s decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump’s authority to deploy the troops.

    The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country’s laws.

    The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision.

    Trump’s decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous U.S. city.

    The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed.

    California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state’s sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.

    The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a “rebellion.” The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit.

    The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

    The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: D. Trump to decide on strikes on Iran within two weeks – White House

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    NEW YORK, June 19 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump will decide whether to strike Iran within the next two weeks, White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt said.

    “Based on the fact that there is a significant likelihood of negotiations with Iran, which may or may not take place in the near future, I will make a decision whether to strike or not within the next two weeks,” she read from Trump’s statement.

    As K. Leavitt noted, any possible diplomatic agreement would have to include Tehran’s renunciation of uranium enrichment and ensure that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons.

    The United States and Iran continue to exchange messages and negotiate, Leavitt said. On Thursday, reports emerged that U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Steven Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had spoken by phone several times in an attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis since Israeli strikes began on the Islamic Republic on June 13. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • US top diplomat Rubio discussed Israel-Iran war with key partners

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met British foreign minister David Lammy on Thursday and held separate calls with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot and Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani to discuss the war between U.S. ally Israel and its regional rival Iran.

    KEY QUOTES

    The U.S. State Department said that Rubio and the foreign ministers agreed that “Iran can never develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.”

    Lammy said the same on X while adding that the situation in the Middle East “remained perilous” and a “window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution.”

    WHY IT’S IMPORTANT

    The air war between Iran and Israel – which began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran – has raised alarms in a region that was already on edge since the start of Israel’s military assault on Gaza in October 2023.

    President Donald Trump will decide in the next two weeks whether the U.S. will get involved in the war, the White House said on Thursday. Trump has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting Washington might join the fighting on Israel’s side.

    The White House said late on Thursday that Trump will take part in a national security meeting on Friday morning.

    CONTEXT

    Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East widely believed to have nuclear weapons, said it struck Iran to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons. Iran, which says its nuclear program is peaceful, has retaliated with its own strikes on Israel.

    Iran is a party to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while Israel is not.

    Israeli air attacks have killed 639 people in Iran, the Human Rights Activists News Agency says. Israel says at least two dozen Israeli civilians have died in Iranian attacks.

    The foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany and the European Union were due to meet in Geneva with Iran’s foreign minister on Friday to try to de-escalate the conflict.

    (Reuters)

  • Israel-Iran air war enters second week as Europe pushes diplomacy

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Israel and Iran’s air war entered a second week on Friday and European officials sought to draw Tehran back to the negotiating table after President Donald Trump said any decision on potential U.S. involvement would be made within two weeks.

    Israel began attacking Iran last Friday, saying it aimed to prevent its longtime enemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. It says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

    Israeli air attacks have killed 639 people in Iran, said the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Those killed include the military’s top echelon and nuclear scientists. Israel has said at least two dozen Israeli civilians have died in Iranian missile attacks. 

    Israel has targeted nuclear sites and missile capabilities, and sought to shatter the government of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to Western and regional officials.

    “Are we targeting the downfall of the regime? That may be a result, but it’s up to the Iranian people to rise for their freedom,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday.

    Iran has said it is targeting military and defence-related sites in Israel, although it has also hit a hospital and other civilian sites.

    Israel accused Iran on Thursday of deliberately targeting civilians through the use of cluster munitions, which disperse small bombs over a wide area. Iran’s mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    With neither country backing down, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany along with the European Union foreign policy chief were due to meet in Geneva with Iran’s foreign minister to try to de-escalate the conflict on Friday.

    “Now is the time to put a stop to the grave scenes in the Middle East and prevent a regional escalation that would benefit no one,” said British Foreign Minister David Lammy ahead of their joint meeting with Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s foreign minister.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also met Lammy on Thursday and held separate calls with his counterparts from Australia, France and Italy to discuss the conflict.

    The U.S. State Department said that Rubio and the foreign ministers agreed that “Iran can never develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.”

    Lammy said the same on X while adding that the situation in the Middle East “remained perilous” and a “window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution.”

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping both condemned Israel and agreed that de-escalation is needed, the Kremlin said on Thursday.

    The role of the United States remained uncertain. Lammy also met Trump’s special envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, on Thursday in Washington, and said they had discussed a possible deal.

    Witkoff has spoken with Araqchi several times since last week, sources say.

    The White House said Trump will take part in a national security meeting on Friday morning. The president has alternated between threatening Tehran and urging it to resume nuclear talks that were suspended over the conflict.

    Trump has mused about striking Iran, possibly with a “bunker buster” bomb that could destroy nuclear sites built deep underground. The White House said Trump would decide in the next two weeks whether to get involved in the war.

    That may not be a firm deadline. Trump has commonly used “two weeks” as a time frame for making decisions and has allowed other economic and diplomatic deadlines to slide.

    With the Islamic Republic facing one of its greatest external threats since the 1979 revolution, any direct challenge to its 46-year-long rule would likely require some form of popular uprising.

    But activists involved in previous bouts of protest say they are unwilling to unleash mass unrest, even against a system they hate, with their nation under attack.

    “How are people supposed to pour into the streets? In such horrifying circumstances, people are solely focused on saving themselves, their families, their compatriots, and even their pets,” said Atena Daemi, a prominent activist who spent six years in prison before leaving Iran.

    (Reuters)