Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Plans for new data centre get the green light from city councillors A pioneering new data centre looks set to be built at Salt Ayre Leisure Centre after councillor..

    Source: City of Lancaster

    A pioneering new data centre looks set to be built at Salt Ayre Leisure Centre after councillors approved its delivery as part of a major investment in the district’s digital infrastructure.

    Lancaster City Council’s cabinet has given the green light to a business plan for the building of the new facility, which will be located at the rear of Salt Ayre and replace ageing facilities near to Lancaster Town Hall.

    Designed to integrate into the leisure centre’s existing solar and heat pump systems, the data centre will host the council’s own ICT infrastructure while also making space available for other partners to host their own secure cloud data storage to generate an additional revenue stream.

    The data exchange is a key feature of the Local Full Fibre Network (LFFN) that was completed earlier this year, and which positions the district as a hub for digital infrastructure and innovation, including potential AI Growth Zone initiatives.

    Waste heat from the data centre will help to heat the swimming pool – saving money on the data servers’ cooling systems – while an on-site battery energy storage system will allow the council to maximise value for money from the nearby solar farm and support the operational resilience of the data centre and Salt Ayre.

    Councillor Tim Hamilton-Cox, cabinet member with responsibility for finance and property, said: “The building of this new data centre will be a big step forward.

    “Our current facilities in Lancaster are not fit for purpose and would require very significant investment. Investing in this modern data centre ensures we will be fit for the future as an organisation while also providing digital infrastructure for users of the fibre network.

    “There are also many environmental benefits as the new data centre will cut our carbon emissions and lower our energy bills, supporting our net zero ambitions.

    “The scheme is also another example of strong partnership working with both the private sector and Blackpool Council.”

    Subject to planning permission being approved it’s planned that the new data centre will be up and running by the end of March 2026.

    Last updated: 16 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The Verkhovna Rada approved the resignation of the Prime Minister of Ukraine

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

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

    Kyiv, July 16 /Xinhua/ — The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Wednesday accepted the resignation of the country’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, parliamentarian Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported on Telegram.

    The corresponding decision was supported by 261 deputies, with the required minimum being 226 votes.

    D. Shmyhal resigned the day before. Before that, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed that the First Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Economy of the country Yulia Svyrydenko head the Ukrainian government. According to Y. Zheleznyak, the parliament will consider her candidacy on July 17.

    According to Ukrainian law, the dismissal of the prime minister entails the resignation of all members of the government. However, they will continue to exercise their powers until the newly formed cabinet begins work.

    D. Shmyhal has served as Prime Minister of Ukraine since March 4, 2020. According to media reports, he may become Minister of Defense in the new government. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Armenian Prime Minister Does Not Rule Out Country’s Withdrawal from CSTO

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

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

    Yerevan, July 16 (Xinhua) — Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan believes that the country’s withdrawal from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is likely. The head of the Armenian government said this at a press conference on Wednesday.

    “Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO is more likely than freezing its membership in this organization,” N. Pashinyan said.

    Answering another question on the same topic, he confirmed that the problem in relations with the CSTO arose in the fall of 2022, when Armenia, during another escalation of the situation on the border with Azerbaijan, turned to its partners in this bloc for help, but did not receive support. Then, according to N. Pashinyan, the CSTO stated that the Armenian-Azerbaijani border was not defined and therefore the bloc could not provide support to Armenia.

    Since February of last year, Armenia has practically not participated in events held under the auspices of the CSTO and does not pay membership fees to this organization. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Breaking: New ceasefire agreement between Syria’s interim government and Druze leaders reached in Syria’s As-Suwayda province

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

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

    DAMASCUS, July 16 (Xinhua) — A new ceasefire agreement was reached between Syria’s interim government and Druze leaders in the southern province of As-Suwayda on Wednesday, aiming to end days of deadly clashes and return the province to full government control, the Syrian government said. -0-

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI: Central 1 Announces Departure of Chief Financial Officer

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    VANCOUVER, British Columbia, July 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Central 1 Credit Union (Central 1) announced today that Emma Hider, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), will be leaving Central 1 in the fourth quarter of 2025.

    “After much consideration, Emma has made the decision to leave Central 1, and will remain in the role to support the transition,” said Sheila Vokey, Central 1 President & CEO. “In her time with Central 1, Emma has been a strong leader enhancing our financial and management reporting, and providing reliable financial counsel and support on several major initiatives. On behalf of Central 1, we are deeply grateful for Emma’s contributions.”

    Central 1 will immediately begin a search for a new Chief Financial Officer, while Ms. Hider continues to provide support in the role.

    About Central 1
    Central 1 cooperatively empowers credit unions and other financial institutions who deliver banking choice to Canadians. With assets of $10.8 billion as of March 31, 2025, Central 1 provides services at scale to enable a thriving credit union system. We do this by collaborating with our clients, developing strategies, products, and services to support the financial well-being of their more than 5 million diverse customers in communities across Canada. For more information, visit www.central1.com

    Caution Regarding Forward Looking Statements

    This press release and announcement contain historical and forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical fact are or may be based on assumptions, uncertainties, and management’s best estimates of future events. Central 1 has based the forward-looking statements on current plans, information, data, estimates, expectations, and projections about, among other things, results of operations, financial condition, prospects, strategies and future events, and therefore undue reliance should not be placed on them. These include, without limitation, statements relating to our financial and non-financial performance objectives, vision and strategic goals and priorities, including focus on capital and cost management, the economic, market and regulatory review and outlook for the Canadian economy and the provincial economies in which our member credit unions operate , the impacts of external events such as international conflicts, protests, natural disasters or pandemics, as well as statements that contain the words “may,” “will,” “intends” and “anticipates” and other similar words and expressions.

    Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management at the date the statements are made. Actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated. Securityholders are cautioned that such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Certain important assumptions by Central 1 in making forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, competitive conditions, economic conditions and regulatory considerations. Important risk factors that could cause actual results and the timing of such results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements include economic risks, regulatory risks (including legislative and regulatory developments), risks and uncertainty from the impact of rising or falling interest rates, international conflicts, natural disasters or pandemics, geopolitical uncertainty, information technology and cyber risks, environmental and social risk (including climate change), digital disruption and innovation, reputation risk, competitive risk, privacy, data and third-party related risks, risks related to business and operations, risks relating to the transition of clients to alternative digital banking providers, and other risks detailed from time to time in Central 1’s periodic reports filed with securities regulators. Central 1 is subject to risks associated with evolving U.S. trade and tariff policies, inflationary pressures, interest rate volatility, and potential regulatory changes under the current U.S. administration. Shifts in tariff structures or global trade conditions may adversely affect our cost structure and overall operating environment. Given these risks, the reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward looking statements. Central 1 undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable laws.

    Contacts

    Media:
    Amanda LeNeve
    AVP, Communications & Marketing
    Central 1 Credit Union
    E communications@central1.com

    Investors:
    Brent Clode
    Chief Investment Officer
    Central 1 Credit Union
    905.282.8588 or 1.800.661.6813 ext. 8588
    E bclode@central1.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: DfE Update: 16 July 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Correspondence

    DfE Update: 16 July 2025

    Latest information and actions from the Department for Education about funding, assurance and resource management, for academies, local authorities and further education providers.

    Applies to England

    Documents

    Details

    Latest for further education

    Article Title
    Information How to report fraud or financial irregularity
    Information Apprenticeships technical funding guide 2025 to 2026
    Information Interactive post-16 school census tool
    Information Grant funding for the early career teacher entitlement (ECTE) year 2 time off timetable and mentor support: conditions of grant
    Information Early career training programme for mentors (ECTPM): conditions of grant for 2025 to 2026 academic year
    Information R10 in-year qualification achievement rates (QARs) 2024 to 2025
    Information Enter learning data
    Information FE senior pay approval
    Information Further education mastery specialists programme

    Latest information for academies

    Article Title
    Information Grant funding for the early career teacher entitlement (ECTE) year 2 time off timetable and mentor support: conditions of grant
    Information Early career training programme for mentors (ECTPM): conditions of grant for 2025 to 2026 academic year
    Information How to report fraud or financial irregularity
    Information Interactive post-16 school census tool
    Reminder Budget forecast return: update to guidance and reminder
    Events and webinars Financial Management Service comparison matrix

    Latest information for local authorities

    Article Title
    Information Grant funding for the early career teacher entitlement (ECTE) year 2 time off timetable and mentor support: conditions of grant
    Information Early career training programme for mentors (ECTPM): conditions of grant for 2025 to 2026 academic year
    Information How to report fraud or financial irregularity
    Information Apprenticeships technical funding guide 2025 to 2026
    Information Interactive post-16 school census tool
    Information R10 in-year qualification achievement rates (QARs) 2024 to 2025

    Updates to this page

    Published 16 July 2025

    Sign up for emails or print this page

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Helps Secure Over $200 Million from Gilead Sciences for Paying Illegal Kickbacks

    Source: US State of California Department of Justice

    California will receive more than $4 million from multistate settlement in principle

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 48 other attorneys general in securing $202 million from Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead), for running an illegal kickback scheme to promote its HIV medications. Gilead allegedly violated federal law by illegally providing incentives – including awards, meals, and travel expenses – to healthcare providers to prescribe Gilead’s medications, resulting in millions of dollars of false claims submitted to government health care programs, including Medi-Cal. The settlement in principle, reached in coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice and approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, provides $49 million for Medicaid programs nationwide, including $4,118,184 for California, with the remainder going to Medicare, Tricare, and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP).   

    “The best interests of patients must always come first,” said Attorney General Bonta. “At this time of unprecedented funding cuts to Medicaid, it is particularly important to protect the program from illegal kick-back schemes that harm the program and patients alike. Today’s settlement returns critical funding to our communities and programs like Medicaid that keep them healthy.” 

    From January 2011 to November 2017, Gilead allegedly violated federal anti-kickback laws by providing gifts to healthcare providers who attended and spoke at promotional speaker programs for Gilead’s HIV drugs: Stribild, Genvoya, Complera, Odefsey, Descovy, and Biktarvy. Gilead paid high-volume prescribers tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to present as “HIV Speakers.” The company also covered travel expenses for speakers, including those traveling long distances and to attractive destinations, such as Hawaii, Miami, and New Orleans, and hosted dinners at high-end restaurants.

    Gilead’s internal compliance mechanisms failed to halt these violations. The company’s internal policies and procedures failed to prevent its sales representatives from improperly offering incentives to induce prescriptions.

    Joining Attorney General Bonta in securing settlements with Gilead are the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    The Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse receives 75 percent of its funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a grant award totaling $69,244,976 for Federal fiscal year (FY) 2025. The remaining 25 percent is funded by the State of California. FY 2025 is from October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI: eSHARE Announces Continued Commitment to US and European Regulator Compliance Frameworks for FY 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    WALTHAM, Mass., July 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — eSHARE, a leading provider of secure collaboration and data governance solutions, proudly announces a series of major compliance achievements in 2025, further solidifying its position as a trusted partner for enterprises and regulated industries. Through rigorous third-party assessments and internal initiatives, eSHARE has successfully achieved and maintained the following security and compliance certifications.

    2025 Compliance Achievements:

    • SOC 2 Type II Attestation (Year 4): Third-party verified controls for security, availability, and confidentiality—achieved for the fourth consecutive year across commercial and government environments.
    • NIST 800-171 Assessment: Confirms eSHARE meets U.S. federal standards for safeguarding Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), critical for defense and public sector collaboration.
    • Risk Assessment: Highlights eSHARE’s proactive approach to identifying, evaluating, and mitigating risks across its operations.
    • Independent Penetration Testing: Completed extensive independent penetration testing to ensure robust protection against evolving cyber threats.
    • CSA STAR Level 1 & 2 Attestation: Achieved both Level 1 (self-assessment) and Level 2 (third-party certification) in the Cloud Security Alliance’s Security, Trust & Assurance Registry, reflecting industry-leading cloud security practices.
    • ISO/IEC 27001 Certification: Validates eSHARE’s implementation of a comprehensive Information Security Management System (ISMS) in accordance with international standards.
    • DORA (EU) Attestation: Demonstrates eSHARE’s alignment with the European Union’s DORA requirements, ensuring operational resilience and risk management in digital finance.
    • FedRAMP (In Progress): Following a completed gap assessment, eSHARE is progressing toward FedRAMP Authorization, targeted for completion by December 2025.

    “These achievements reflect our relentless commitment to security, operational resilience, and regulatory compliance”, said Nick Stamos, Founder & CEO of eSHARE. “As customers increasingly rely on eSHARE to enable secure external collaboration, our focus remains on embedding trust at every level of our platform and operations.”

    Why It Matters

    These accomplishments position eSHARE as a preferred partner for Fortune 500 companies and regulated industries—including aerospace, health insurance, and financial services—that require secure external collaboration without compromising the Microsoft-native user experience.

    About eSHARE

    eSHARE is the secure collaboration platform built for Microsoft 365, empowering organizations to exchange sensitive data and collaborate with confidence—inside and outside their enterprise. Trusted by Fortune 100 companies, eSHARE helps highly regulated industries ensure compliance, security, and control without disrupting the Microsoft-native experience. Learn more at www.eshare.com.

    This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding eSHARE’s compliance posture and future initiatives. Actual results may differ based on regulatory developments and business needs.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Paolo Borsellino: the murder of an anti-mafia prosecutor and the enduring mystery of his missing red notebook

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Felia Allum, Professor of Comparative Organised Crime and Corruption, University of Bath

    It has been 33 years since anti-mafia prosecutor Paolo Borsellino was blown up by Cosa Nostra in front of his mother’s home in Palermo, Sicily. His death on July 19 1992 came 57 days after the murder of his colleague, Giovanni Falcone. This was the peak of Cosa Nostra’s attack on state representatives.

    A vital document was lost that day – a red notebook believed to have been in Borsellino’s work bag. This loss has hampered attempts to understand how deep into the Italian state Cosa Nostra’s activities run.

    The early 1990s were a turbulent time in Italy. The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 broke the Italian party system and wiped out the traditional political parties, which had been based around the opposing forces of the Christian Democrats (supported by the US and the Vatican) and the Communist party.

    The Christian Democrats, in power during the post-war period, had often protected Cosa Nostra. But losing power meant an inability to honour its “pact” with mafiosi. This led to the mafia attacking anyone who got in its way.

    Falcone and Borsellino, as anti-mafia prosecutors, had got under the skin of Cosa Nostra. Their work zoned in on its mentality and activities. They were the driving force behind the 1986 “maxi trial” that saw hundreds of mafiosi prosecuted. This was the first time important mafia bosses were imprisoned. Falcone and Borsellino had brought a new understanding to the internal workings of the mafia, including its links with politics and money laundering operations.

    The mafia was deploying terrorist tactics against state representatives and institutions in the early 1990s in what appears to have been an attempt to get the state to negotiate with it. Borsellino, it is believed, was investigating this when he was murdered.

    The red notebook

    Crucially, on the day Borsellino was murdered, his work bag, which contained his red notebook (“l’agenda rossa”) disappeared from the wreckage of his car.

    He carried his red notebook around with him everywhere, making copious notes of his investigations and ideas. Had it been recovered, l’agenda rossa could have revealed the possible links between state representatives (including with the police and judiciary), businessmen and Cosa Nostra.

    It could, in effect, have mapped out how and to what extent Cosa Nostra had infiltrated the Italian state and the nature of its relationships with the new political class, the business elite, freemasons and other covert actors.

    A photograph of a police officer walking off with what looks very much like the bag that presumably contained the notebook has circulated ever since. But this is where the trail ends. The bag – minus the notebook – was later found in the office of the head of the flying squad, with no explanation as to how and why it got there.

    The disappearance of the red notebook remains a persistent enigma – and one which continues to haunt contemporary Italy because of what it might suggest about the nation’s underworld and political class.

    This photo could even suggest that the goal of killing Borsellino was not just to eliminate a zealous public prosecutor but to remove a pantheon of knowledge about organised crime and its infiltration into the public realm as part of a more orchestrated plan.

    Then, in 1993, Cosa Nostra suddenly and inexplicably ceased its terrorist tactics against the state. It was as though a truce had been reached. Could this be the case?

    Many have speculated that there was a secret dialogue and a trattativa – a state-mafia negotiation entered and a deal struck between state representatives and Cosa Nostra leaders to stop the violence. In exchange for an end to the violence, it was suggested that state representatives promised softer anti-mafia laws. It’s possible that the disappearance of Borsellino’s red notebook could have been part of the deal.

    Interpreting history

    The history of these dynamics between state and the mafia has since been written and re-written, dividing Italians and mafia scholars.

    At the heart of all these disagreements lie two questions: was the notebook taken intentionally and why did Cosa Nostra stop its attacks on the state at the specific moment that it did?. The answer to these would essentially establish whether or not there was a negotiated peace between the mafia and the state.

    In 2014, high-profile politicians, police officers and mafiosi were put on trial, accused of playing a role and enabling these negotiations. This was, in effect, the Italian state putting itself on trial.

    Some legal experts and historians have argued that the theory of coordinated action by state representatives and mafiosi was always an absurd hypothesis. While there might have been some random informal contacts, they contest that there was never a formal pact. The end of Cosa Nostra‘s violence, they argue, was due to a combination of other factors, including greater enforcement of the law.

    Others argue that there is evidence of a pact. These include first-hand accounts from former criminals. But of course it is hard to make these stories stick because all evidence of a relationship of this kind would, by definition, be covert and off the books. As with many trials and in particular, mafia trials, there are no facts, just interpretations of facts.

    In 2018, some state representatives and mafiosi were found guilty. But in 2023, the Italian supreme court overturned the 2018 ruling and concluded that there was no pact and no state-mafia negotiation.

    All involved were cleared for different reasons as the court attempted to draw a line under the intrigue by articulating a clear position. But with the mafia, answers are rarely that simple. And history is not only written in the courtroom.

    Borsellino’s legacy is celebrated in Italy to this day – but the unresolved matter of his missing notebook haunts the country more profoundly. His bag – minus the notebook – has recently been put on show at the Italian senate to celebrate his life. The display is also a reminder of how much remains unresolved from that period.

    Felia Allum 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. Paolo Borsellino: the murder of an anti-mafia prosecutor and the enduring mystery of his missing red notebook – https://theconversation.com/paolo-borsellino-the-murder-of-an-anti-mafia-prosecutor-and-the-enduring-mystery-of-his-missing-red-notebook-259101

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Deluzio Fights Price Gouging, Secures Wins for Western PA in Annual Defense Bill

    Source: US Congressman Chris Deluzio (PA)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last night, Congressman Chris Deluzio (PA-17) with colleagues on the powerful House Armed Services Committee, marked up the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—the large, annual defense bill that creates the policies related to our armed services and other national security-related efforts. Congressman Deluzio voted for the measure, which passed out of committee by a vote of 55-2.

    “The United States faces tremendous strategic challenges across the globe, including the war in Ukraine, intensifying competition with Communist China, and instability in the Middle East. All this activity is stressing the highly consolidated defense industrial base,” said Congressman Deluzio. “For too long, our government has neglected America’s manufacturing competitiveness and power. We need stronger accountability, transparency, and competition in government contracting to beef up our defense industrial base and to protect public money. While not a perfect bill, the 2026 NDAA takes on many of these important issues and more, and that’s why I voted yes last night.”  

    Specifically, the NDAA included Congressman Deluzio’s amendment to fight defense industry price gouging by requiring defense contractors to report when their products under sole source contracts increase by more than 25% of the price specified in the contract bid, over 25% more than the price of the product the preceding year, or by 50% more than the government paid for the product at any time over the last five years.   

    During the NDAA markup, Congressman Deluzio successfully secured several important wins, including some that will specifically benefit the people and economy of Western Pennsylvania. 

    This legislation: 

    • Implements an assessment and evaluation of the use of inland waterways for national defense purposes, and an assessment of vulnerabilities in our Marine Transportation Systems and associated infrastructure.
    • Authorizes an additional two and a half million dollars in funding to improve long range precision fires technology. This kind of research is ongoing at Western Pennsylvania institutions like the University of Pittsburgh.
    • Requires a new report about the technology and disposal methods of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). This is important because the Defense Department has previously considered incinerating PFAS “forever chemicals” in East Liverpool, Ohio—just across the border from Pennsylvania’s 17th District.
    • This year’s NDAA also includes the text of Congressman Deluzio’s bill, the Depot Investment Reform Act. This bill strengthens federal investment in military depots, including those in Pennsylvania, like the Letterkenny and Tobyhanna Army Depots.   

    Congressman Deluzio secured additional national priorities in this defense bill. This legislation:

    • Strengthens the “right to repair,” requiring contractors to give access to tools, parts, and information for major weapon systems so that our military and servicemembers can repair their own equipment.
    • Adjusts annual reporting on the U.S. Navy’s shipyard modernization efforts at the four public shipyards to include efforts related to the incorporation of digital hardware, software, and cloud storage.
    • Extends the number of days that national guardsmen can be activated by a governor of a state to respond to an emergency like a natural disaster from 3 to 14 days, with possible extensions of 7 and up to 46 days.
    • Requires a report on the Department of Defense’s efforts to incorporate artificial intelligence data centers on Department of Defense land. This report will analyze the risks, benefits, impacts, and footprint of those facilities.
    • Requires the Department of Defense to identify shortfalls and propose solutions for shortfalls of critical minerals and other materials in the National Defense Stockpile. This will better inform the United States’ current readiness and preparedness for any future conflict.
    • Fights consolidation in the defense industry by requiring the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate impacts of mergers and acquisitions on the defense industrial base and competition in the defense industry.
    • Requires that contractors who are negotiating sole-source contracts with the government provide timely and critical pricing data to the government. This will assist the military in getting the best deal for our servicemembers and will steward good use of American public dollars.
    • Requires the Department of Defense to assess the current competitive environment for contracts under $10 million. This will help the military and Congress assess whether recent policy changes have been effective in uplifting small businesses and growing the defense industrial base. 

    A full summary of the Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA as prepared by Democratic committee staff can be found here

    The NDAA now goes to the House Floor for a vote, and the final bill will be negotiated with the Senate. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Passing of Jean-Pierre Azéma

    Source: Universities – Science Po in English

    It is with deep sadness that we announce the passing of Jean-Pierre Azéma, historian and professor at Sciences Po, who died on Monday, 14 July 2025, in his eighty-seventh year.

    Alongside Serge Berstein, Jean-Noël Jeanneney, Pierre Milza, and Michel Winock, Jean-Pierre Azéma was one of the founding members of the group of historians at Sciences Po who, under the benevolent guidance of René Rémond, brought together scholars of contemporary history with a particular focus on modern political developments.

    A specialist in the Second World War, the Occupation, the Resistance and the Vichy regime, he established himself from the 1970s onwards as one of France’s foremost experts on the period. He authored numerous landmark publications — including De Munich à la Libération, 1938–1944 (Seuil, 1979) and Jean Moulin: Le politique, le rebelle, le résistant (Perrin, 2003) — and contributed to major collective volumes such as Vichy et les Français (Fayard, 1992).

    After teaching in secondary education, notably at the Lycées Lakanal and Henri IV, Jean-Pierre Azéma joined Sciences Po in 1973 as an assistant professor. There, he rejoined Serge Berstein and Pierre Milza, who had arrived a few years earlier, and was later followed by his lifelong friend and former schoolmate Michel Winock. A few years later, he was promoted to full professor – among the very first in the field of history at Sciences Po.

    Over the course of thirty-five years, Jean-Pierre Azéma taught with unwavering dedication and intellectual rigour across all levels of instruction at Sciences Po. As lecturer of the first-year general history course, he trained and inspired generations of students in the “année préparatoire” (undergraduate programme), his deep erudition and colourful temperament leaving a lasting impression.

    He was also a key figure in Sciences Po’s graduate programme in history, mentoring numerous master’s and doctoral students with both generosity and high standards (among them Alya Aglan, Anne Simonin, Guillaume Piketty, and Florent Brayard).

    “In history, you need the real stuff,” (by which he meant sources), he would often remind his students, regardless of their level — as recalled by historian Nicolas Offenstadt, one of his former undergraduate and postgraduate students.

    A committed member of the academic community, Jean-Pierre Azéma also served the institution in other capacities. For over a decade, he co-chaired Sciences Po’s Joint Committee, a university body established in the wake of May 1968, bringing together faculty and students in equal numbers — the forerunner of today’s Student Life and Education Committee (CVEF). In this role, he played a vital part in mediating between interests, always with integrity and without demagoguery.

    Beyond Sciences Po, his scholarly reputation led to frequent public engagement. He was notably cited by the civil parties during the Maurice Papon trial. He also brought historical insight to wider audiences through his contributions to L’Histoire magazine, his collaboration with Claude Chabrol on the documentary L’œil de Vichy, and his role as historical advisor for the acclaimed television series Un village français.

    For years, students, faculty, and staff at Sciences Po encountered the instantly recognisable figure of Jean-Pierre Azéma — often distinguished by his trademark scarf, long a vivid red, which never left his neck. Many will retain the memory of a professor whose mischievous gaze and intellectual passion brought history vividly to life.

    Our thoughts are with his family, his loved ones, and all those at Sciences Po who knew, respected, and loved him.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Call for bids: Building peaceful interethnic relations in Mostar

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    World news story

    Call for bids: Building peaceful interethnic relations in Mostar

    British Embassy Sarajevo is inviting bids by 6 August 2025 for a project to strengthen peaceful interethnic relations in Mostar and surrounding areas.

    Old Bridge, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Introduction

    A stable and less divided Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is a top priority of the UK government. Recent scoping and engagement across the country has identified that ethnic tensions remain high, often localised and in some instances, communities are severely divided.

    Mostar, the largest city in the Herzegovina region, is a stark example of this division with communities living in de facto segregation. For this reason, the UK has invested in peace and reconciliation efforts in Mostar – including a flagship project to support the rejuvenation of public spaces between 2022 and 2024.

    The project achieved significant engagement from the public, and ‘increased interpersonal connections through establishing a participatory process to identify which and how public spaces should be rejuvenated. (This was the most cited reason for why citizens believed that relations between citizens was better than they were a year ago in the end of line survey).

    Building on this success, we are now commissioning for a short-term follow-on project (until 31 March 2026) that uses public spaces to bring individuals together, across ethnic divisions through activities that directly support peaceful interethnic relation, community cohesion and societal resilience.

    Activities should deliver for Mostar but can additionally work with neighbouring areas (for example Stolac) if it supports the project objective. Proposals must focus on one or several of the following goals and clearly identify which ones they are seeking to address:

    • using sport as a method to bring people, including women and girls, together from all backgrounds, particularly those more resistant to inter-ethnic engagement, and promote common values and undermine divisive narratives
    • using music as a method to bring people together from all backgrounds, particularly those more resistant to inter-ethnic engagement, and promote common values and undermine divisive narratives
    • addressing and countering inter-ethnic tensions in Mostar related to football hooliganism
    • enabling inter-religious cooperation in promoting interfaith and interethnic cooperation and collaboration to reduce tensions and divided living

    Detailed information

    Only not-for-profit organisations are invited to bid. This includes international organisations (IOs), international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and local civil society organisations (CSOs), who can also apply in a consortium of CSOs.

    Successful projects should have sustainable outcomes and should clearly identify their intended impact. They may also build on projects by other organisations, complementing their efforts. All bids should make clear how they complement existing activities in Mostar supported by other donors and international partners.

    The minimum indicative funding for projects is £120,000 and maximum £250,000. This may be in addition to co-funding and self-funding contributions. Co-funded projects will be regarded favourably.

    Projects must be completed by the 31 March 2026. Where appropriate, bidders are encouraged to describe how their project could be further scaled up if additional funding became available.

    All project management, project administration, and overhead costs should be detailed and not to exceed 12% of total budget. Budgeting overheads as a flat percentage is not supported, and any such costs should be fully detailed in the budget.

    We are unable to fund academic courses or English language courses. The purchase of IT and other equipment over £500 per item will require prior approval of the embassy, but such procurement should not constitute a significant part of the overall project budget.

    The British Embassy Sarajevo will carry out due diligence of potential grantees, including seeking references, as part of the selection process.

    Bidding is competitive and only selected project/s will receive funding. The embassy reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids without incurring any obligation to inform the affected applicant(s) of the grounds of such acceptance or rejection. Due to the volume of bids expected we will not be able to provide feedback on unsuccessful bids.

    Bidding process

    Bidders should fill in a standard project proposal form (Annex A) and include a breakdown of project costs in the activity-based budget (ABB) (Annex B).

    Annex A: Project Proposal Form

    Annex B: Activity-Based Budget (ABB)

    Budgets must be Activity Based Budgets (ABB), all costs should be indicative, in GBP. Successful implementers should be able to receive project funding in either BAM or GBP.

    Successful bids must have a clear Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) objective explicit in the project documentation and an explanation of a positive impact of the project on advancing gender equality and social inclusion.

    All projects or activities must align with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and assess climate and environmental impact and risks, taking steps to ensure that no environmental harm is done and, where relevant, support adaptation.

    An information session will be held at at 10am (BiH time) on 23 July 2025. Email meliha.muherina@fcdo.gov.uk to receive the meeting invitation.

    Proposals should be emailed to emma.fowler@fcdo.gov.uk by 5pm (BiH time) on 6 August 2025. Include the name of the bidder in the email subject line.

    Successful bids are expected to start on 1 September 2025 and conclude on 31 March 2026. Successful shortlisted bidders will be informed by mid-August.

    Evaluation criteria

    • the proposal should clearly state which of the listed goals it is seeking to address and how it will measure whether the activity is contributing to the goal
    • quality of project: how well defined and relevant the outcome is and how outputs will deliver this change; ability to leverage bigger funding would be an advantage
    • value for money: the value of the expected project outcomes, the level of funding requested and institutional contribution
    • local knowledge and previous experience: evidence of the project team’s understanding the context, socio-political challenges, previous experience of implementing similar activities/related fields with evidenced results, ability to manage and deliver a successful project. Evidence of how the project will learn from tested experiences, respond to opportunities and changing political circumstances
    • fluent understanding of the local language
    • gender-sensitive approach
    • alignment with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
    • demonstrated experience of working with conflict affected communities
    • ability for the project to engage and leverage relationships with all societal tracks (including but not limited to local authorities, civil society actors, academia, law enforcement agencies, the private sector and media)

    Background information

    The UK’s commitment

    The successful project will be funded via British Embassy Sarajevo, from the Western Balkans Freedom and Resilience Programme (FRP). The FRP has 2 outcomes.

    • improved reconciliation and peacebuilding outcomes for conflict-affected communities, with a focus on building connections across conflict divides and strengthening access to transitional justice processes
    • empowerment of women and girls through tackling CRSV, GBV and promoting women’s meaningful participation in decision-making processes

    The embassy in BiH commits to delivering for these outcomes by supporting initiatives which put BiH on a positive pathway to achieve long term and inclusive peace for all citizens. It acknowledges this can only be achieved by locally owned activities that ultimately contribute to conflict prevention, reconciliation and peacebuilding.

    Thematic background

    The demographic of BiH was fundamentally changed by the war in the 1990s, with many communities now ethnically homogenous. Mostar remains one of the few genuinely multi-ethnic cities.

    Yet true peace and reconciliation has not been achieved, memories and traumas of the conflict endure, with deeply held engrained views of accepting a divided reality. Assessment shows the divided school system is fostering further societal division, together with external influences stoking tensions within the city.

    To reverse the trend of division, group activities like football or music have an opportunity to facilitate interethnic engagement. Moreover, whilst there are activities for young people, groups engaged with are not including the hardest to reach factions. Participants in cross community activities are predominantly those who have public will for a multi-ethnic way of life, failing to reach the truly divided and problematic elements within the community.

    Activities of hooligan groups can be major trigger points for destabilisation in general, but in BiH this is exacerbated by an unresolved conflict. In Mostar, the two football clubs have long had distinct ethnic links, playing into tribalism and identity politics. There is a live risk of individuals being manipulated to extend behaviour to violence and political extremism. This is then multiplied with social media through the spreading of hate speech and extremist behaviours and ideologies.

    Religion is woven within ethnic divides in BiH. Despite this, religious leaders in Mostar have pioneered their own initiatives and demonstrate positive engagement both as a group and as a unifying voice with key decision makers. This has supported progress in supporting minority voices and facilitating increased dialogue across ethnicities.

    Building on success

    The project should build on the success of ‘Project Mostar’ which worked with local communities to rebuild public spaces and which addressed shared civic, social, and economic needs. Project sites include various open public spaces, such as Bunica and Trimuša park, as well as numerous indoor spaces, such as museums, cultural centres, puppet theatres etc.

    The project contributed to integration of marginalised groups, including persons with disabilities and women and girls, into mainstream cultural and social life, breaking down barriers and normalising their participation. While evidence of cross-community engagement in cultural spaces is still emerging, the project did demonstrate other impacts such as job creation through women’s empowerment, improved work conditions in cultural institutions and care centres, and potential boosts to tourism.

    The initial ‘project Mostar’ focused on providing spaces and using a participatory process to ensure increased community ownership of public spaces. This call for bids seeks to reinforce the success of the previous project by supporting activity in public spaces which facilitates interethnic interaction and understanding of shared principles.

    Successful projects will have time bound and realistic outputs that focus on engaging communities across the divide through activity whilst being underpinned by a clear understanding of how activity is contributing to the relevant outcome. Implementers are required to apply conflict sensitivity to all elements of project design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation.

    Updates to this page

    Published 16 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Supporting Families of Missing, Murdered Indigenous People

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    A renewed partnership between the Province of Nova Scotia and Government of Canada will ensure that more families of missing and murdered Indigenous people have help when they need it most.

    The agreement provides more funding for Nova Scotia’s Family Information Liaison Unit, a program co-ordinated through provincial Victim Services. A portion of funding also goes to the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association for its work on community outreach and prevention.

    With the additional funding, the unit will add a full-time case co-ordinator with Victim Services and a full-time community outreach position at the association.

    “Through Nova Scotia’s Victim Services, we strive to provide supports that are culturally responsive and easy to navigate so that people can access justice and move toward healing,” said Attorney General and Justice Minister Becky Druhan. “The Family Information Liaison Unit is an important resource for Indigenous families, and I’m so pleased to see it continue and expand.”

    The unit provides specialized support services to families of missing and murdered Indigenous people in a family-centred, culturally grounded and trauma-informed manner. It helps gather information from government sources about the family’s loved one, including assistance in addressing unanswered questions, and also makes connections between family members and cultural advisors, Elders and other culturally grounded community supports.

    The funding is provided by Justice Canada through the Federal Victims Strategy’s Victims Fund. The new agreement provides a total of almost $2.2 million over five years, an increase of almost $800,000 from the previous five-year agreement.


    Quotes:

    “For many families, getting information about a missing or murdered loved one is an essential part of the healing process. This support will help more families in Nova Scotia get the answers they deserve. It means more staff on the ground to guide families, stronger outreach in Mi’kmaw communities across Nova Scotia, and services that are grounded in culture, compassion and trust.”
    Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

    “Too many Mi’kmaw families in Nova Scotia have faced barriers when searching for answers about their loved ones. This funding will ensure they’re met with compassion, understanding and culturally grounded care when it matters most.”
    Leah Martin, Minister of L’nu Affairs

    “We are committed to empowering women, girls and two-spirit people and providing them with vital resources and safe spaces for growth. This new funding is essential in our work towards improving safety, implementing preventative measures and raising awareness of the FILU program. The addition of an outreach and prevention worker will also enable us to provide direct support and resources to MMIWG2S families and survivors.”
    Dawn McDonald, Executive Director, Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association


    Quick Facts:

    • family information liaison units were established in 2016 and support the government of Canada’s commitments made in the Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People
    • they are also a key mechanism to implement victims’ right to information under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights
    • in 2023, the Government of Canada increased support to allow the units to serve families of all missing and murdered Indigenous people, including men and boys
    • there are units in all provinces and territories, funded through the federal Victims Fund

    Additional Resources:

    National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1448633299414/1534526479029

    Nova Scotia’s Family Information Liaison Unit: https://novascotia.ca/just/victim_services/_docs/17-46137_Family_Info_Liaison_Unit_Fact_Sheet.pdf

    Nova Scotia Victim Services: https://novascotia.ca/just/victim_services/

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: ‘Handling of security case smeared’

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government today said it strongly condemned organisations in the US and other Western countries for slandering and smearing the Hong Kong SAR Government for its handling, in accordance with the law, of the case of Lai Chee-ying and related custodial arrangements.

     

    In a press statement, the Government said such slanders had fully exposed the malicious and despicable intentions of anti-China organisations and media to undermine the rule of law in Hong Kong.

     

    The Government highlighted that it has emphasised time and again that as legal proceedings involving Lai Chee-ying are ongoing, it is inappropriate for anyone to comment on the case in an attempt to interfere with the court’s exercise of independent judicial power and to pervert the course of justice.

     

    It said foreign organisations have nevertheless continued to distort the truth, discredit Hong Kong’s judicial system and trials, and make false and misleading statements about the treatment provided to Lai Chee-ying during his custody, in an attempt to glorify criminal behaviour and exert pressure on Hong Kong’s courts.

     

    In addition, it stressed that while Lai Chee-ying’s legal representative has clarified that he has received suitable treatment and care in prison, foreign organisations have turned a blind eye to this in order to carry out malicious political manoeuvres and pursue ulterior motives.

     

    The Hong Kong SAR Government stressed that it opposes all such actions.

     

    Separately, the Correctional Services Department said that it handles matters relating to Lai Chee-ying no differently from those regarding any other persons-in-custody.

     

    It also reiterated that Lai Chee-ying’s removal from association from other persons-in-custody has been in accordance his own request and was approved by the department after considering all relevant factors in accordance with the law.

     

    The department remarked that remarks by organisations from the US and other Western countries regarding Lai Chee-ying’s solitary confinement therefore deliberately twist the facts, reflecting a malicious intention to smear and attack the Hong Kong SAR Government.

     

    The Government also stressed that all cases in Hong Kong, including Lai Chee-ying’s case, are handled strictly on the basis of evidence and in accordance with the law. It said the Department of Justice controls criminal prosecutions, free from any interference and that all defendants in Hong Kong receive a fair trial under the safeguards of the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Muhammadu Buhari: Nigeria’s military leader turned democratic president leaves a mixed legacy

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kester Onor, Senior Research Fellow, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs

    Nigeria’s former president, Muhammadu Buhari, who died in London on 13 July aged 82, was one of two former military heads of state who were later elected as civilian presidents. Buhari was the military head of state of Nigeria from 31 December 1983 to 27 August 1985 and president from 2015 to 2023.

    The other Nigerian politician to have been in both roles is former president Olusegun Obasanjo . He was a military ruler between 1976 and 1979 and elected president between 1999 and 2007.

    Buhari led Nigeria cumulatively for nearly a decade. His time as military head of state was marked with a war against corruption but he couldn’t do as much during his time as president under democratic rule.

    As a political scientist who once served in the Nigerian Army, I believe that former president Buhari’s government’s war on terrorism was largely underwhelming, despite promises and early gains.

    In his elected role, Buhari maintained a modest personal lifestyle and upheld electoral transitions. Nevertheless his presidency was marred by economic mismanagement, a failure to implement bold structural reforms, ethnic favouritism, and an unfulfilled promise of change.

    He did leave tangible infrastructural footprints, a focus on agriculture, and foundational efforts in transparency and anti-corruption.

    So his mark on Nigeria’s development trajectory was mixed.

    Early years

    Buhari was born on 17 December 1942, to Adamu and Zulaiha Buhari in Daura, Katsina State, north-west Nigeria. He was four years old when his father died. He attended Quranic school in Katsina. He was a Fulani, one of the major ethnic nationalities in Nigeria.

    After completing his schooling, Buhari joined the army in 1961. He had military training in the UK, India and the United States as well as Nigeria.

    In 1975 he was appointed military governor of North Eastern State (now Borno State), after being involved in ousting Yakubu Gowon in a coup that same year. He served as governor for a year.

    Buhari later became federal commissioner for petroleum resources, overseeing Nigeria’s petroleum industry under Obasanjo. Obasanjo had become head of state in 1976 when Gowon’s successor, Murtala Muhammed, was assassinated in a failed coup that year.

    In September 1979, he returned to regular army duties and commanded the 3rd Armoured division based in Jos, Plateau State, north central. Nigeria’s Second Republic commenced that year after the election of Shehu Shagari as president.

    The coup that truncated the Shagari government on 31 December 1983 saw the emergence of Buhari as Nigeria’s head of state.

    Buhari’s junta years

    Buhari headed the military government for just under two years. He was ousted in another coup on 27 August 1985.

    While at the helm he vowed that the government would not tolerate kick-backs, inflation of contracts and over-invoicing of imports. Nor would it condone forgery, fraud, embezzlement, misuse and abuse of office and illegal dealings in foreign exchange and smuggling.

    Eighteen state governors were tried by military tribunals. Some of the accused received lengthy prison sentences, while others were acquitted or had their sentences commuted.

    His government also enacted the notorious Decree 4 under which two journalists, Nduka Irabor and Dele Thompson, were jailed. The charges stemmed from three articles published on the reorganisation of Nigeria’s diplomatic service.

    Buhari also instituted austerity measures and started a “War Against Indiscipline” which sought to promote positive values in the country. Authoritarian methods were sometimes used in its implementation. Soldiers forced Nigerians to queue, to be punctual and to obey traffic laws.

    He also instituted restrictions on press and political freedoms. Labour unions were not spared either. Mass retrenchment of Nigerians in the public service was carried out with impunity.

    While citizens initially welcomed some of these measures, growing discontent on the economic front made things tougher for the regime.




    Read more:
    Why Buhari won even though he had little to show for first term


    Buhari, the democrat

    Buhari’s dream to lead Nigeria again through the ballot box failed in 2003, 2007 and 2011. To his credit, he didn’t give up. An alliance of opposition parties succeeded in getting him elected in 2015.

    The legacy he left is mixed.

    Buhari’s government deepened national disunity.

    His appointments, often skewed in favour of the northern region and his Fulani kinsmen, fuelled accusations of tribalism and marginalisation. His perceived affinity with Fulani herdsmen, despite widespread violence linked to some of them, further eroded public trust in his leadership.

    His anti-corruption mantra largely did not succeed. While some high-profile recoveries were made, critics argue that his anti-corruption war was selective and heavily politicised.

    Currently, his Central Bank governor is on trial for corruption charges.

    The performance of the economy was also dismal under his tenure. Not all these problems could be laid at his feet. Nevertheless his inability to tackle the country’s underlying problems, such as insecurity, inflation and rising unemployment, all contributed. He presided over two recessions, rising unemployment, inflation, and a weakened naira.

    He did, however, succeed on some fronts.

    He tried with infrastructure. The Lagos-Ibadan expressway, a major road, was almost completed and he got the railways working again, completing the Abuja-Kaduna and Lagos-Ibadan lines. He also completed the Second Niger Bridge.

    There was an airport revitalisation programme which led to improvements in Lagos, Abuja and Port Harcourt airports.

    Buhari signed the Petroleum Industry Act after nearly 20 years’ delay. This is now attracting more investments into the oil industry.

    He also initiated some social investment schemes like N-Power, N-Teach and a school feeding programme. They provided temporary jobs for some and gave some poor people more money in their pockets. N-Power is a youth empowerment programme designed to combat unemployment, improve social development and provide people with relevant skills.

    These programmes later became mired in corruption which only became known after he left office.

    There was also an Anchor Borrowers Scheme to make the country more sufficient in rice production. Again, it got enmeshed in corruption and some of its officials are currently standing trial.

    In the fight against corruption, the Buhari administration made some progress through the Treasury Single Account, which improved financial transparency in public institutions. The Whistle Blower Policy also led to the recovery of looted funds.




    Read more:
    Why Buhari’s government is losing the anti-corruption war


    Security failures

    Buhari oversaw a deterioration of Nigeria’s security landscape. Banditry, farmer-herder clashes, kidnapping and separatist agitations escalated.

    In 2015 Buhari campaigned on a promise to defeat Boko Haram and restore territorial integrity in the north-east. Initially, his administration made some progress. Boko Haram was driven out of several local government areas it once controlled, and major military operations such as Operation Lafiya Dole were launched to reclaim territory.

    However, these initial successes were not sustained. Boko Haram splintered, giving rise to more brutal factions like the Islamic State West Africa Province. This group continued to launch deadly attacks.

    Buhari’s counter-terrorism strategy was often reactive, lacking a clear long-term doctrine. The military was overstretched and under-equipped. Morale issues and allegations of corruption in the defence sector undermined operations.

    Intelligence coordination remained poor, while civil-military relations suffered due to frequent human rights abuses by security forces. Community trust in the government’s ability to provide security dwindled.

    Buhari’s second coming as Nigeria’s leader carried high expectations, but he under-delivered.

    Kester Onor 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. Muhammadu Buhari: Nigeria’s military leader turned democratic president leaves a mixed legacy – https://theconversation.com/muhammadu-buhari-nigerias-military-leader-turned-democratic-president-leaves-a-mixed-legacy-261079

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: What makes ‘great powers’ great? And how will they adapt to a multipolar world?

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

    When greats clash! In this case, in the 1974 film ‘Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla.’ FilmPublicityArchive/United Archives via Getty Images

    Many column inches have been dedicated to dissecting the “great power rivalry” currently playing out between China and the U.S.

    But what makes a power “great” in the realm of international relations?

    Unlike other states, great powers possess a capacity to shape not only their immediate surroundings but the global order itself – defining the rules, norms and structures that govern international politics. Historically, they have been seen as the architects of world systems, exercising influence far beyond their neighborhoods.

    The notion of great powers came about to distinguish between the most and least powerful states. The concept gained currency after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 – events in Europe that helped establish the notion of sovereign states and the international laws governing them.

    Whereas the great powers of the previous eras – for example, the Roman Empire – sought to expand their territory at almost every turn and relied on military power to do so, the modern great power utilizes a complex tapestry of diplomatic pressure, economic leverage and the assertions of international law. The order emerging out of Westphalia enshrined the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which allowed these powers to pursue a balance of power as codified by the Congress of Vienna based on negotiation as opposed to domination.

    This transformation represented a momentous development in world politics: At least some portion of the legitimacy of a state’s control was now realized through its relationships and capacity to keep the peace, rather than resting solely on its ability to use force.

    From great to ‘super’

    Using their material capabilities – economic strength, military might and political influence – great powers have been able to project power across multiple regions and dictate the terms of international order.

    In the 19th-century Concert of Europe, the great powers – Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia – collectively managed European politics, balancing power to maintain stability. Their influence extended globally through imperial expansion, trade and the establishment of norms that reflected their priorities.

    During the 20th century, the Cold War brought a stark distinction between great powers and other states. The U.S. and the Soviet Union, as the era’s two “superpowers,” dominated the international system, shaping it through a rivalry that encompassed military alliances, ideological competition and economic systems. Great powers in this context were not merely powerful states but the central actors defining the structure of global politics.

    Toward a multipolar world

    The post-Cold War period briefly ushered in a unipolar moment, with the U.S. as the sole great power capable of shaping the international system on a global scale.

    This era was marked by the expansion of liberal internationalism, economic globalization and U.S.-led-and-constructed multilateralism.

    However, the emergence of new centers of power, particularly China and to a lesser extent Russia, has brought the unipolar era to a close, ushering in a multipolar world where the distinctive nature of great powers is once again reshaped.

    In this system, great powers are states with the material capabilities and strategic ambition to influence the global order as a whole.

    And here they differ from regional powers, whose influence is largely confined to specific areas. Nations such as Turkey, India, Australia, Brazil and Japan are influential within their neighborhoods. But they lack the global reach of the U.S. or China to fundamentally alter the international system.

    Instead, the roles of these regional powers is often defined by stabilizing their regions, addressing local challenges or acting as intermediaries in great power competition.

    Challenging greatness

    Yet the multipolar world presents unique challenges for today’s great powers. The diffusion of power means that no single great power can dominate the system as the U.S. did in the post-Cold War unipolar era.

    Instead, today’s great powers must navigate complex dynamics, balancing competition with cooperation. For instance, the rivalry between Washington and Beijing is now a defining feature of global politics, spanning trade, technology, military strategy and ideological influence. Meanwhile, Russia’s efforts to maintain its great power status have resulted in more assertive, though regionally focused, actions that nonetheless have global implications.

    Great powers must also contend with the constraints of interdependence. The interconnected nature of the global economy, the proliferation of advanced technologies and the rise of transnational challenges such as climate change and pandemics limit the ability of any one great power to unilaterally dictate outcomes. This reality forces great powers to prioritize their core interests while finding ways to manage global issues through cooperation, even amid intense competition.

    As the world continues to adjust to multiple centers of power, the defining feature of great powers remains an unmatched capacity to project influence globally and define the parameters of the international order.

    Whether through competition, cooperation or conflict, the actions of great powers will, I believe, continue to shape the trajectory of the global system, making their distinctiveness as central players in international relations more relevant than ever.

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

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

    ref. What makes ‘great powers’ great? And how will they adapt to a multipolar world? – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-great-powers-great-and-how-will-they-adapt-to-a-multipolar-world-260969

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why is Israel bombing Syria?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    Conflict in Syria has escalated with Israel launching bombing raids against its northern neighbour.

    It follows months of fluctuating tensions in southern Syria between the Druze minority and forces aligned with the new government in Damascus. Clashes erupted in the last few days, prompting Israeli airstrikes in defence of the Druze by targeting government bases, tanks, and heavy weaponry.

    Israel Minister Amichai Chikli has called the Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa

    a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay.

    Despite the incendiary language, a ceasefire has been reached, halting the fighting – for now.

    Syrian forces have begun withdrawing heavy military equipment from the region, while Druze fighters have agreed to suspend armed resistance, allowing government troops to regain control of the main Druze city of Suwayda.

    What do the Druze want?

    The Druze are a small religious minority estimated at over one million people, primarily concentrated in the mountainous regions of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Jordan.

    In Syria, their population is estimated at around 700,000 (of around 23 million total Syrian population), with the majority residing in the southern As-Suwayda Governorate – or province – which serves as their traditional stronghold.

    Since the 2011 uprising against the Assad regime, the Druze have maintained a degree of autonomy, successfully defending their territory from various threats, including ISIS and other jihadist groups.

    Following Assad’s fall late last year, the Druze — along with other minority groups such as the Kurds in the east and Alawites in the west — have called for the country to be federalized.

    They advocate for a decentralised model that would grant greater autonomy to regional communities.

    However, the transitional government in Damascus is pushing for a centralised state and seeking to reassert full control over the entire Syrian territory. This fundamental disagreement has led to periodic clashes between Druze forces and government-aligned troops.

    Despite the temporary ceasefire, tensions remain high. Given the core political dispute remains unresolved, many expect renewed conflict to erupt in the near future.

    Why is Israel involved?

    The ousting of the Assad regime created a strategic opening for Israel to expand its influence in southern Syria. Israel’s involvement is driven by two primary concerns:

    1. Securing its northern border

    Israel views the power vacuum in Syria’s south as a potential threat, particularly the risk of anti-Israeli militias establishing a foothold near its northern border.

    During the recent clashes, the Israeli military declared

    The Israeli Defence Forces will not allow a military threat to exist in southern Syria and will act against it.

    Likewise, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has stated he will not allow Syrian forces south of Damascus:

    We are acting to prevent the Syrian regime from harming them [the Druze] and to ensure the demilitarisation of the area adjacent to our border with Syria.

    In line with these warnings, the Israeli Air Force has conducted extensive strikes against Syrian military infrastructure, targeting bases, aircraft, tanks, and heavy weaponry.

    These operations are intended to prevent any future buildup of military capacity that could be used against Israel from the Syrian side of the border.

    2. Supporting a federated Syria

    Israel is backing the two prominent allied minorities in Syria — the Kurds in the northeast and the Druze in the south — in their push for a federal governance model.

    A fragmented Syria, divided along ethnic and religious lines, is seen by some Israeli policymakers as a way to maintain Israeli domination in the region.

    This vision is part of what some Israeli officials have referred to as a “New Middle East” — one where regional stability and normalisation emerge through reshaped borders and alliances.

    Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recently echoed this strategy, stating:

    A single Syrian state with effective control and sovereignty over all its territory is unrealistic.

    For Israel, the logical path forward is autonomy for the various minorities in Syria within a federal structure.

    The United States’ role?

    According to unconfirmed reports, Washington has privately urged Israel to scale back its military strikes on Syria in order to prevent further escalation and preserve regional stability.

    The US is promoting increased support for Syria’s new regime in an effort to help it reassert control and stabilise the country.

    There are also indications the US and its allies are encouraging the Syrian government to move toward normalisation with Israel. Reports suggest Tel Aviv has held talks with the new Sharaa-led regime about the possibility of Syria joining the Abraham Accords (diplomatic agreements between Israel and several Arab states), which the regime in Damascus appears open to.

    US Special Envoy Tom Barrack has described the recent clashes as “worrisome”, calling for de-escalation and emphasising the need for

    a peaceful, inclusive outcome for all stakeholders – including the Druze, Bedouin tribes, the Syrian government, and Israeli forces.

    Given the deep-rooted political divisions, competing regional agendas, and unresolved demands from minority groups, the unrest in southern Syria is unlikely to end soon.

    Despite another temporary ceasefire, underlying tensions remain. Further clashes are not only possible but highly probable.

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

    ref. Why is Israel bombing Syria? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-israel-bombing-syria-261259

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: China’s insertion into India-Pakistan waters dispute adds a further ripple in South Asia

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Pintu Kumar Mahla, Research Associate at the Water Resources Research Institute, University of Arizona

    Indian Border Security Force soldiers patrol near the line of control in Kashmir. Nitin Kanotra/Hindustan Times via Getty Images

    With the future of a crucial water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan up in the air, one outside party is looking on with keen interest: China.

    For 65 years, the Indus Waters Treaty has seen the two South Asian rivals share access and use of the Indus Basin, a vast area covered by the Indus River and its tributaries that also stretches into Afghanistan and China.

    For much of that history, there has been widespread praise for the agreement as a successful demonstration of cooperation between adversarial states over a key shared resource. But experts have noted the treaty has long held the potential for conflict. Drafters failed to factor in the effects of climate change, and the Himalayan glaciers that feed the rivers are now melting at record rates, ultimately putting at risk the long-term sustainability of water supply. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict over Kashmir, where much of the basin is situated, puts cooperation at risk.

    With treaty on ice, China steps in

    That latest provocation threatening the treaty was a terrorist attack in the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025. In response to that attack, which India blamed on Pakistan and precipitated a four-day confrontation, New Delhi temporarily suspended the treaty.

    But even before that attack, India and Pakistan had been locked in negotiation over the future of the treaty – the status of which has been in the hands of international arbitrators since 2016. In the latest development, on June 27, 2025, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a supplementary award in favor of Pakistan, arguing that India’s holding of the treaty in abeyance did not affect its jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, the treaty does not allow for either party to unilaterally suspend the treaty, the ruling suggested.

    Amid the wrangling over the treaty’s future, Pakistan has turned to China for diplomatic and strategic support. Such support was evident during the conflict that took place following April’s terrorist attack, during which Pakistan employed Chinese-made fighter jets and other military equipment against its neighbor.

    Meanwhile, in an apparent move to counter India’s suspension of the treaty, China and Pakistan have ramped up construction of a major dam project that would provide water supply and electricity to parts of Pakistan.

    So, why is China getting involved? In part, it reflects the strong relationship between Pakistan and China, developed over six decades.

    But as an expert in hydro politics, I believe Beijing’s involvement raises concerns: China is not a neutral observer in the dispute. Rather, Beijing has long harbored a desire to increase its influence in the region and to counter an India long seen as a rival. Given the at-times fraught relationship between China and India – the two countries went to war in 1962 and continue to engage in sporadic border skirmishes – there are concerns in New Delhi that Beijing may respond by disrupting the flow of rivers in its territory that feed into India.

    In short, any intervention by Beijing over the Indus Waters Treaty risks stirring up regional tensions.

    Wrangling over waters

    The Indus Waters Treaty has already endured three armed conflicts between Pakistan and India, and until recently it served as an exemplar of how to forge a successful bilateral agreement between two rival neighbors.


    Riccardo Pravettoni, CC BY-SA

    Under the initial terms of the treaty, which each country signed in 1960, India was granted control over three eastern rivers the countries share – Ravi, Beas and Satluj – with an average annual flow of 40.4 billion cubic meters. Meanwhile, Pakistan was given access to almost 167.2 billion cubic meters of water from the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.

    In India, the relatively smaller distribution has long been the source of contention, with many believing the treaty’s terms are overly generous to Pakistan. India’s initial demand was for 25% of the Indus waters.

    For Pakistan, the terms of the division of the Indus Waters Treaty are painful because they concretized unresolved land disputes tied to the partition of India in 1947. In particular, the division of the rivers is framed within the broader political context of Kashmir. The three major rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – flow through Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir before entering the Pakistan-controlled western part of the Kashmir region.

    But the instability of the Kashmir region – disputes around the Line of Control separating the Indian- and Pakistan-controlled areas are common – underscores Pakistan’s water vulnerability.

    Nearly 65% of Pakistanis live in the Indus Basin region, compared with 14% for India. It is therefore not surprising that Pakistan has warned that any attempt to cut off the water supply, as India has threatened, would be considered an act of war.

    It also helps to explain Pakistan’s desire to develop hydropower on the rivers it controls. One-fifth of Pakistan’s electricity comes from hydropower, and nearly 21 hydroelectric power plants are located in the Indus Basin region.

    Since Pakistan’s economy relies heavily on agriculture and the water needed to maintain agricultural land, the fate of the Indus Waters Treaty is of the utmost importance to Pakistan’s leaders.

    Such conditions have driven Islamabad to be a willing partner with China in a bid to shore up its water supply.

    China provides technical expertise and financial support to Pakistan for numerous hydropower projects in Pakistan, including the Diamer Bhasha Dam and Kohala Hydropower Project. These projects play a significant role in addressing Pakistan’s energy requirements and have been a key aspect of the transboundary water relationship between the two nations.

    Using water as a weapon?

    With it’s rivalry with India and its desire to simultaneously work with Pakistan on numerous issues, China increasingly sees itself as a stakeholder in the Indus Waters Treaty, too. Chinese media narratives have framed India as the aggressor in the dispute, warning of the danger of using “water as a weapon” and noting that the source of the Indus River lies in China’s Western Tibet region.

    Doing so fits Beijing’ s greater strategic presence in South Asian politics. After the terrorist attack, China Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaffirmed China’s support for Pakistan, showcasing the relationship as an “all-weather strategic” partnership and referring to Pakistan as an “ironclad friend.”

    And in response to India’s suspension of the treaty, China announced it was to accelerate work on the significant Mohmand hydropower project on the tributary of the Indus River in Pakistan.

    Construction at the Mohmand Dam.
    Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority

    Chinese investment in Pakistan’s hydropower sector presents substantial opportunities for both countries in regards to energy security and promoting economic growth.

    The Indus cascade project under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor initiative, for example, promises to provide cumulative hydropower generation capacity of around 22,000 megawatts. Yet the fact that project broke ground in Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed area in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, underscores the delicacy of the situation.

    Beijing’s backing of Pakistan is largely motivated by a mix of economic and geopolitical interests, particularly in legitimizing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. But it comes at the cost of stirring up regional tensions.

    As such, the alignment of Chinese and Pakistani interests in developing hydro projects can pose a further challenge to the stability of South Asia’s water-sharing agreements, especially in the Indus Basin. Recently, the chief minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders China, warned that Beijing’s hydro projects in the Western Tibet region amount to a ticking “water bomb.”

    To diffuse such tensions – and to get the Indus Waters Treaty back on track – it behooves India, China and Pakistan to engage in diplomacy and dialogue. Such engagement is, I believe, essential in addressing the ongoing water-related challenges in South Asia.

    Pintu Kumar Mahla is affiliated with the Water Resources Research Center, the University of Arizona. He is also a member of the International Association of Water Law (AIDA).

    Pintu Kumar Mahla has not received funding related to this article.

    ref. China’s insertion into India-Pakistan waters dispute adds a further ripple in South Asia – https://theconversation.com/chinas-insertion-into-india-pakistan-waters-dispute-adds-a-further-ripple-in-south-asia-258891

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Europe is stuck in a bystander role over Iran’s nuclear program after US, Israeli bombs establish facts on the ground

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Garret Martin, Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer, Co-Director Transatlantic Policy Center, American University School of International Service

    Iran Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, right, attends a news conference with EU foreign affairs representative Josep Borrell in Tehran on June 25, 2022. Atta KenareAFP via Getty Images

    The U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, sent shock waves around the world. It marked a dramatic reversal for the Trump administration, which had just initiated negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. Dispensing with diplomacy, the U.S. opted for the first time for direct military involvement in the then-ongoing Israeli-Iranian conflict.

    European governments have long pushed for a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet, the reaction in the capitals of Europe to the U.S. bombing of the nuclear facilities was surprisingly subdued.

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted Israel’s “right to defend itself and protect its people.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was equally supportive, arguing that “this is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us.” And a joint statement by the E3 – France, the U.K. and Germany – tacitly justified the U.S. bombing as necessary to prevent the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

    Europe’s responses to the Israeli and American strikes were noteworthy because of how little they discussed the legality of the attacks. There was no such hesitation when Russia targeted civilian nuclear energy infrastructure in Ukraine in 2022.

    But the timid reaction also underscored Europe’s bystander role, contrasting with its past approach on that topic. Iran’s nuclear program had been a key focal point of European diplomacy for years. The E3 nations initiated negotiations with Tehran back in 2003. They also helped to facilitate the signing of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which also included Russia, the European Union, China, the U.S. and Iran. And the Europeans sought to preserve the agreement, even after the unilateral U.S. withdrawal in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term.

    As a scholar of transatlantic relations and security, I believe Europe faces long odds to once again play an impactful role in strengthening the cause of nuclear nonproliferation with Iran. Indeed, contributing to a new nuclear agreement with Iran would require Europe to fix a major rift with Tehran, overcome its internal divisions over the Middle East and manage a Trump administration that seems less intent on being a reliable ally for Europe.

    Growing rift between Iran and Europe

    For European diplomats, the 2015 deal was built on very pragmatic assumptions. It only covered the nuclear dossier, as opposed to including other areas of contention such as human rights or Iran’s ballistic missile program. And it offered a clear bargain: In exchange for greater restrictions on its nuclear program, Iran could expect the lifting of some existing sanctions and a reintegration into the world economy.

    As a result, the U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018 posed a fundamental challenge to the status quo. Besides exiting, the Trump White House reimposed heavy secondary sanctions on Iran, which effectively forced foreign companies to choose between investing in the U.S. and Iranian markets. European efforts to mitigate the impact of these U.S. sanctions failed, thus undermining the key benefit of the deal for Iran: helping its battered economy. It also weakened Tehran’s faith in the value of Europe as a partner, as it revealed an inability to carve real independence from the U.S.

    U.S. President Donald Trump walks past French President Emmanuel Macron, center, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, right, in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025.
    Christian Hartmann/AFP via Getty Images

    After 2018, relations between Europe and Iran deteriorated significantly. Evidence of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism and Iran-linked plots on European soil hardly helped. Moreover, Europeans strongly objected to Iran supplying Russia with drones in support of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine – and later on, ballistic missiles as well. On the flip side, Iran deeply objected to European support for Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.

    These deep tensions remain a significant impediment to constructive negotiations on the nuclear front. Neither side currently has much to offer to the other, nor can Europe count on any meaningful leverage to influence Iran. And Europe’s wider challenges in its Middle East policy only compound this problem.

    Internal divisions

    In 2015, Europe could present a united front on the Iranian nuclear deal in part because of its limited nature. But with the nonproliferation regime now in tatters amid Trump’s unilateral actions and the spread of war across the region, it is now far harder for European diplomats to put the genie back in the bottle. That is particularly true given the present fissures over increasingly divisive Middle East policy questions and the nature of EU diplomacy.

    Europe remains very concerned about stability in the Middle East, including how conflicts might launch new migratory waves like in 2015-16, when hundreds of thousands of Syrians fled to mainland Europe. The EU also remains very active economically in the region and is the largest funder of the Palestinian Authority. But it has been more of a “payer than player” in the region, struggling to translate economic investment into political influence.

    In part, this follows from the longer-term tendency to rely on U.S. leadership in the region, letting Washington take the lead in trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it also reflects the deeper divisions between EU member nations.

    With foreign policy decisions requiring unanimity, EU members have often struggled to speak with one voice on the Middle East. Most recently, the debates over whether to suspend the economic association agreement with Israel over its actions in Gaza or whether to recognize a Palestinian state clearly underscored the existing EU internal disagreements.

    Unless Europe can develop a common approach toward the Middle East, it is hard to see it having enough regional influence to matter in future negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. This, in turn, would also affect how it manages its crucial, but thorny, relations with the U.S.

    Europe in the shadow of Trump

    The EU was particularly proud of the 2015 nuclear deal because it represented a strong symbol of multilateral diplomacy. It brought together great powers in the spirit of bolstering the cause of nuclear nonproliferation.

    Smoke rises from a building in Tehran after the Iranian capital was targeted by Israeli airstrikes on June 23, 2025.
    Elyas/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Ten years on, the prospects of replicating such international cooperation seem rather remote. Europe’s relations with China and Russia – two key signers of the original nuclear deal – have soured dramatically in recent years. And ties with the United States under Trump have also been particularly challenging.

    Dealing with Washington, in the context of the Iran nuclear program, presents a very sharp dilemma for Europe.

    Trying to carve a distinct path may be appealing, but it lacks credibility at this stage. Recent direct talks with Iranian negotiators produced little, and Europe is not in a position to give Iran guarantees that it would not face new strikes from Israel.

    And pursuing an independent path could easily provoke the ire of Trump, which Europeans are keen to avoid. There has already been a long list of transatlantic disputes, whether over trade, Ukraine or defense spending. European policymakers would be understandably reticent to invest time and resources in any deal that Trump could again scuttle at a moment’s notice.

    Trump, too, is scornful of what European diplomacy could achieve, declaring recently that Iran doesn’t want to talk to Europe. He has instead prioritized bilateral negotiations with Tehran. Alignment with the U.S., therefore, may not translate into any great influence. Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, after all, happened without forewarning for his allies.

    Thus, Europe will continue to pay close attention to Iran’s nuclear program. But, constrained by poor relations with Tehran and its internal divisions on the Middle East, it is unlikely that it will carve out a major role on the nuclear dossier as long as Trump is in office.

    Garret Martin receives funding from the European Union for the organization, the Transatlantic Policy Center, that he co-directs.

    ref. Europe is stuck in a bystander role over Iran’s nuclear program after US, Israeli bombs establish facts on the ground – https://theconversation.com/europe-is-stuck-in-a-bystander-role-over-irans-nuclear-program-after-us-israeli-bombs-establish-facts-on-the-ground-260740

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: July 16, 2025 Rep. Mullin Proposes Bill to Help Evaluate Safety of Autonomous Vehicles Washington, D.C. – In response to federal regulators weakening oversight as more driverless cars hit the roads, Rep. Kevin Mullin (CA-15) introduced a bill to require more robust safety data from autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers. AVs are already operating in numerous… Read More

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Kevin Mullin California (15th District)

    Washington, D.C. – In response to federal regulators weakening oversight as more driverless cars hit the roads, Rep. Kevin Mullin (CA-15) introduced a bill to require more robust safety data from autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers.

    AVs are already operating in numerous states including California, Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas, with several manufacturers getting their start in the San Francisco Bay Area where Rep. Mullin’s district is located. Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires AV companies to report some collision data, but it isn’t required to provide other basic metrics that would help the public to determine how safe they actually are.

    Rep. Mullin’s AV Safety Data Act would help ensure the public is entitled to basic transparency about how many miles driverless cars are traveling and when there are other types of incidents like unplanned stoppages or the blocking of emergency vehicles. Requiring this type of consistent data reporting would help compare safety rates across various manufacturers and help determine whether AVs are safer than human drivers.

    “Every day, people are interacting with AVs in my district – whether they’re hailing a ride or walking across the street as one approaches. The public deserves to know how safe autonomous vehicles actually are and that the federal government is working to ensure we’re protecting people on the road,” Rep. Mullin said. “The technology behind autonomous vehicles is rapidly developing and has the potential to dramatically improve safety on our roads. While there is no doubt AV technology will continue to evolve, we simply will not know if it is getting better without more independent, verifiable data collected at the national level. AV companies that are performing well and prioritizing safety should welcome this basic transparency effort.”

    In addition to codifying NHTSA’s existing collision data reporting requirements in law, the AV Safety Data Act would also require that companies report to NHTSA:

    • The number of miles traveled on public roads
    • AV collisions that result in any injuries to other human drivers, pedestrians or bicyclists
    • Information on unplanned stoppages and any impacts to law enforcement, first responders, or public transit agencies

    Since 2021, over 3,000 crashes have been recorded involving AVs and Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, which resulted in 53 fatalities and 303 injuries. Yet earlier this year, NHTSA weakened its AV reporting requirements. Lawmakers have been urging NHTSA to improve its AV safety data collection for years, and Rep. Mullin led several letters calling upon federal regulators to act in 2024 and 2023. While Rep. Mullin supports advancements in the AV industry, his bill seeks to help increase transparency and prioritize public safety on our roads.

    “Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are increasingly on our roadways. Yet, there are no minimum federal safety standards and insufficient data collection, transparency and accountability for advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and automated driving systems (ADS). The AV Safety Data Act will enhance reporting requirements for these vehicles,” Cathy Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. “Robust data is essential to evaluate performance, detect safety defects and inform sound policy. Advocates commends Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA) for his safety leadership and innovative thinking to introduce this bill and urges Congress to advance it. Road users, whether as drivers, passengers, pedestrians or bicyclists, deserve this oversight and consumer protection.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sudan’s war is an economic disaster: here’s how bad it could get

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Khalid Siddig, Senior Research Fellow and Program Leader for the Sudan Strategy Support Program, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

    Since April 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a devastating war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. What began as a struggle for power has turned into a national catastrophe. More than 14 million people have been displaced. Health and education systems have collapsed and food insecurity threatens over half the population of about 50 million.

    The war has disrupted key sectors, triggering severe economic contractions, and worsening poverty and unemployment levels.

    Sudan’s finance minister reported in November 2023 that the war had resulted in economic losses exceeding US$26 billion – or more than half the value of the country’s economy a year earlier. The industrial sector, which includes manufacturing and oil refining, has lost over 50% of its value. Employment has fallen by 4.6 million jobs over the period of the conflict. More than 7 million more people have been pushed into poverty. The agrifood system alone has shrunk by 33.6%. These estimates exclude informal economy losses.

    My research applies economy-wide models to understand how conflict affects national development. In a recent study, my colleagues and I used this approach to answer the question: what will happen to Sudan’s economy and poverty levels if the war continues through 2025?

    To assess the economic impact of the conflict, we used a Social Accounting Matrix multiplier model. This is a tool that captures how shocks affect different sectors and other agents of the economy, such as firms, government and households.

    Based on our modelling, the answer is devastating: the conflict could shrink the size of Sudan’s economy by over 40% from 2022 levels, plunging millions more into poverty.

    We modelled two scenarios to capture the potential trajectories of Sudan’s economy.

    The extreme scenario assumes a sharp initial collapse, with a 29.5% contraction in the size of the economy in 2023 and 12.2% in 2024, followed by a 7% decline in 2025, reflecting some stabilisation over time.

    The moderate scenario, based on World Bank projections, applies a 20.1% contraction in 2023 and a 15.1% drop in 2024, also followed by a 7% reduction in 2025, indicating a slower but more prolonged deterioration.

    We estimated the annual figures and report only the aggregate impacts through 2025 for clarity.

    We found that if the conflict endures, the value of Sudan’s economy will contract by up to 42% from US$56.3 billion in 2022 (pre-conflict) to US$32.4 billion by the end of 2025. The backbone of livelihoods – agriculture – will be crippled. And the social fabric of the country will continue to fray.

    How we did it

    Our Social Accounting Matrix multiplier model used data from various national and international sources to show the impact of conflict on the value of the economy, its sectors and household welfare.

    We connected this to government and World Bank data to reflect Sudan’s current conditions.

    This allowed us to simulate how conflict-driven disruptions affect the value of the economy, its sectors and household welfare.

    What we found

    Under the extreme scenario, we found:

    • Gross domestic product collapse: Gross domestic product (GDP) measures the total value of all goods and services produced in a country within a year. It’s a key indicator of economic health. We found that the value of Sudan’s economy could contract by up to 42%. This means the country would be producing less than 60% of what it did before the conflict. This would affect incomes, jobs, government revenues and public services. The industrial sector – heavily concentrated in Khartoum – would be hardest hit, with output shrinking by over 50%. The value of services like education, health, transport and trade would fall by 40%, and agriculture by more than 35%.

    • Job losses: nearly 4.6 million jobs – about half of all employment – could disappear. Urban areas and non-farm sectors would be worst affected, with over 700,000 farming jobs at risk.

    • Incomes plummet: household incomes would decline across all groups – rich and poor, rural and urban – by up to 42%. Rural and less-educated households suffer the most.

    • Poverty spikes: up to 7.5 million more people could fall into poverty, adding to the 61.1% poverty level in 2022. In rural areas, the poverty rate could jump by 32.5 percentage points from the already high rural poverty rate pre-conflict (67.6% of the rural population). Women, especially in rural communities, are hit particularly hard. Urban poverty, which was at 48.8% pre-conflict, increases by 11.6 percentage points.

    • The agrifood system – which includes farming, food processing, trade and food services – would lose a third of its value under the extreme scenario.

    Why these findings matter

    Sudan was already in a fragile state before the war. It was reeling from decades of underinvestment, international sanctions and institutional breakdown.

    The war has reversed hard-won gains in poverty reduction. It is also dismantling key productive sectors – from agriculture to manufacturing – which will be essential for recovery once the conflict ends. Every month of continued fighting adds to the damage and raises the cost of rebuilding.

    Our projections already show major economic collapse, yet they don’t include the full extent of the damage. This includes losses in the informal economy or the strain on household coping strategies. The real situation could be even worse than what the data suggests.

    What needs to be done

    First and foremost, peace is essential. Without an end to the fighting, recovery will be impossible.

    Second, even as conflict continues, urgent action is needed to stabilise livelihoods. This means:

    • supporting agriculture in areas that remain relatively safe. Food production must be sustained to prevent famine.

    • restoring critical services where possible – particularly transport, trade and retail – to keep local economies functioning

    • protecting the most vulnerable, such as women in rural areas and the elderly, through expanded social protection and targeted cash assistance.

    Third, prepare for recovery. The international community – donors, development banks and NGOs – must begin laying the groundwork for post-conflict reconstruction now. This includes investment in public infrastructure, rebuilding institutions and re-integrating displaced populations.

    The bottom line

    Sudan’s war is more than a political crisis. It is an economic catastrophe unfolding in real time. One that is deepening poverty, destroying livelihoods and erasing years of progress.

    Our research provides hard numbers to describe what Sudanese families are already experiencing every day.

    The country’s economy is bleeding. Without a shift in the trajectory of the conflict, recovery could take decades – if it happens at all.

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

    ref. Sudan’s war is an economic disaster: here’s how bad it could get – https://theconversation.com/sudans-war-is-an-economic-disaster-heres-how-bad-it-could-get-260609

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Sudan’s war is an economic disaster: here’s how bad it could get

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Khalid Siddig, Senior Research Fellow and Program Leader for the Sudan Strategy Support Program, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

    Since April 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a devastating war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. What began as a struggle for power has turned into a national catastrophe. More than 14 million people have been displaced. Health and education systems have collapsed and food insecurity threatens over half the population of about 50 million.

    The war has disrupted key sectors, triggering severe economic contractions, and worsening poverty and unemployment levels.

    Sudan’s finance minister reported in November 2023 that the war had resulted in economic losses exceeding US$26 billion – or more than half the value of the country’s economy a year earlier. The industrial sector, which includes manufacturing and oil refining, has lost over 50% of its value. Employment has fallen by 4.6 million jobs over the period of the conflict. More than 7 million more people have been pushed into poverty. The agrifood system alone has shrunk by 33.6%. These estimates exclude informal economy losses.

    My research applies economy-wide models to understand how conflict affects national development. In a recent study, my colleagues and I used this approach to answer the question: what will happen to Sudan’s economy and poverty levels if the war continues through 2025?

    To assess the economic impact of the conflict, we used a Social Accounting Matrix multiplier model. This is a tool that captures how shocks affect different sectors and other agents of the economy, such as firms, government and households.

    Based on our modelling, the answer is devastating: the conflict could shrink the size of Sudan’s economy by over 40% from 2022 levels, plunging millions more into poverty.

    We modelled two scenarios to capture the potential trajectories of Sudan’s economy.

    The extreme scenario assumes a sharp initial collapse, with a 29.5% contraction in the size of the economy in 2023 and 12.2% in 2024, followed by a 7% decline in 2025, reflecting some stabilisation over time.

    The moderate scenario, based on World Bank projections, applies a 20.1% contraction in 2023 and a 15.1% drop in 2024, also followed by a 7% reduction in 2025, indicating a slower but more prolonged deterioration.

    We estimated the annual figures and report only the aggregate impacts through 2025 for clarity.

    We found that if the conflict endures, the value of Sudan’s economy will contract by up to 42% from US$56.3 billion in 2022 (pre-conflict) to US$32.4 billion by the end of 2025. The backbone of livelihoods – agriculture – will be crippled. And the social fabric of the country will continue to fray.

    How we did it

    Our Social Accounting Matrix multiplier model used data from various national and international sources to show the impact of conflict on the value of the economy, its sectors and household welfare.

    We connected this to government and World Bank data to reflect Sudan’s current conditions.

    This allowed us to simulate how conflict-driven disruptions affect the value of the economy, its sectors and household welfare.

    What we found

    Under the extreme scenario, we found:

    • Gross domestic product collapse: Gross domestic product (GDP) measures the total value of all goods and services produced in a country within a year. It’s a key indicator of economic health. We found that the value of Sudan’s economy could contract by up to 42%. This means the country would be producing less than 60% of what it did before the conflict. This would affect incomes, jobs, government revenues and public services. The industrial sector – heavily concentrated in Khartoum – would be hardest hit, with output shrinking by over 50%. The value of services like education, health, transport and trade would fall by 40%, and agriculture by more than 35%.

    • Job losses: nearly 4.6 million jobs – about half of all employment – could disappear. Urban areas and non-farm sectors would be worst affected, with over 700,000 farming jobs at risk.

    • Incomes plummet: household incomes would decline across all groups – rich and poor, rural and urban – by up to 42%. Rural and less-educated households suffer the most.

    • Poverty spikes: up to 7.5 million more people could fall into poverty, adding to the 61.1% poverty level in 2022. In rural areas, the poverty rate could jump by 32.5 percentage points from the already high rural poverty rate pre-conflict (67.6% of the rural population). Women, especially in rural communities, are hit particularly hard. Urban poverty, which was at 48.8% pre-conflict, increases by 11.6 percentage points.

    • The agrifood system – which includes farming, food processing, trade and food services – would lose a third of its value under the extreme scenario.

    Why these findings matter

    Sudan was already in a fragile state before the war. It was reeling from decades of underinvestment, international sanctions and institutional breakdown.

    The war has reversed hard-won gains in poverty reduction. It is also dismantling key productive sectors – from agriculture to manufacturing – which will be essential for recovery once the conflict ends. Every month of continued fighting adds to the damage and raises the cost of rebuilding.

    Our projections already show major economic collapse, yet they don’t include the full extent of the damage. This includes losses in the informal economy or the strain on household coping strategies. The real situation could be even worse than what the data suggests.

    What needs to be done

    First and foremost, peace is essential. Without an end to the fighting, recovery will be impossible.

    Second, even as conflict continues, urgent action is needed to stabilise livelihoods. This means:

    • supporting agriculture in areas that remain relatively safe. Food production must be sustained to prevent famine.

    • restoring critical services where possible – particularly transport, trade and retail – to keep local economies functioning

    • protecting the most vulnerable, such as women in rural areas and the elderly, through expanded social protection and targeted cash assistance.

    Third, prepare for recovery. The international community – donors, development banks and NGOs – must begin laying the groundwork for post-conflict reconstruction now. This includes investment in public infrastructure, rebuilding institutions and re-integrating displaced populations.

    The bottom line

    Sudan’s war is more than a political crisis. It is an economic catastrophe unfolding in real time. One that is deepening poverty, destroying livelihoods and erasing years of progress.

    Our research provides hard numbers to describe what Sudanese families are already experiencing every day.

    The country’s economy is bleeding. Without a shift in the trajectory of the conflict, recovery could take decades – if it happens at all.

    – Sudan’s war is an economic disaster: here’s how bad it could get
    – https://theconversation.com/sudans-war-is-an-economic-disaster-heres-how-bad-it-could-get-260609

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI Africa: President Ramaphosa explains position on commissions of inquiry

    Source: Government of South Africa

    President Cyril Ramaphosa has defended the establishment of commissions of inquiry as a necessary tool to uphold integrity and accountability in South Africa’s criminal justice system.

    Delivering the Presidency Budget Vote for 2025/26 in Parliament on Wednesday, the President cautioned against premature calls for punitive action based on untested claims.

    This as he addressed the recent uproar surrounding allegations made by the South African Police Service’s (SAPS) KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. 

    In an address to the nation last Sunday, President Ramaphosa placed Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave of absence with immediate effect. 

    The President outlined the scope of a judicial commission of inquiry that will focus on investigating “allegations relating to the infiltration of law enforcement, intelligence and associated institutions within the criminal justice system by criminal syndicates”.

    READ | Mkhwanazi allegations: What the judicial commission of inquiry will probe

    Among the allegations that the commission may investigate are the facilitation of organised crime; suppression or manipulation of investigations; inducement into criminal actions by law enforcement leadership; commission of any other criminal offences and intimidation, victimisation or targeted removal of whistleblowers or officials resisting criminal influence. 

    “These allegations are serious. They are also untested. It is therefore necessary that we establish the facts through an independent, credible and thorough process so that we can ensure accountability and safeguard public confidence in the police service,” the President said.

    The President told Parliament that he recently established two commissions. The second commission of inquiry which he announced last Sunday, chaired by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, follows another established in May, led by Judge Sisi Khampepe into apartheid-era crimes.

    “It is therefore strange that some people have voiced strong opposition to the establishment of this commission of inquiry. Some have said that I should take immediate punitive steps against the Minister on the basis of untested allegations. Not only would this be unfair, but it would create a dangerous precedent. The commission should be allowed to do its work,” the President explained.

    Rejecting the narrative that such commissions yield no real outcomes, the President highlighted key examples including the South African Revenue Service Commission, the Commission into the Public Investment Corporation, and the implementation of recommendations from the High-Level Panel on the State Security Agency and the Expert Panel into the July 2021 unrest.

    “Some people have resurrected the tired line that the commissions and panels that we have established have not produced any meaningful results. This view is wrong. It is not borne out by evidence. 

    “These commissions resulted in disciplinary actions and the cancellation of unlawful contracts. The implementation of the recommendations of the High-Level Panel on the State Security Agency (SSA) have contributed significantly to SSA’s stabilisation and recovery, improved oversight and accountability, and the structural reforms contained in the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Act,” he said. 

    Following the recommendations of the Expert Panel into the 2021 Civil Unrest, the President explained that government has taken steps to ensure better intelligence coordination, capacitating public order policing, strengthening community policing forums and streamlining the functioning of the National Security Council.

    In the three years since the final report of the State Capture Commission was presented to the President, government has undertaken major reforms based on its recommendations.

    The President noted that eight new laws have been enacted to strengthen the country’s anti-corruption institutions, enhance the procurement system, reform the intelligence services, and improve corporate accountability and public administration.
    He emphasised that government continues to act on the outcomes of the State Capture Commission, with more than R11 billion in assets recovered, an additional R10.6 billion frozen, and dozens of high-profile criminal cases enrolled.

    “These commissions and panels show a government that takes responsibility, that is committed to transparency and accountability, that does not fear independent scrutiny, and that is determined to take corrective action where lapses have taken place.

    “Each of these commissions and panels unearthed information and made findings that were critical to understanding the events that took place. They were essential in ensuring accountability and providing recommendations on strengthening our institutions and processes,” the President said. – SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hawley Urges DOJ to Swiftly Implement RECA for Radiation Survivors

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo)
    Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), urging the Department to prioritize implementation of the expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. The Senator’s expansion provision revives RECA for survivors, allows tens of thousands of new claimants to receive life-saving assistance—including those across Missouri—and protects the program for years to come.
    “I write to ensure prompt implementation of the reauthorized and expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (‘RECA’), as passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. The Department of Justice plays a central role in administering RECA, and with the enactment of the expanded law, the Department is now responsible for receiving, evaluating, and processing a broader universe of claims. I urge you to devote sufficient manpower and departmental resources for this important work,” wrote Senator Hawley.
    He continued, “It is critical that the Department promptly renews its claims process and application, given that prospective claimants have until December 31, 2027, to submit their paperwork. Timely processing of new claims is both feasible and imperative under the law, especially given the age and health of many claimants. The current RECA statute also explicitly allows the Department to use existing funds and resources to process RECA claims. Congress included this provision to ensure that the Department has sufficient resources to implement RECA fully and without delay.”
    Senator Hawley offered his support in implementing the program, saying, “I will closely monitor the Department’s implementation of the law in the months ahead and respectfully request an update on the Department’s implementation progress by August 1, 2025. I stand ready to work with you and the Department to ensure a fair, efficient, and accessible claims process for new RECA claimants.”
    Read the full letter here or below.  
    Brett ShumateAssistant Attorney GeneralU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530
    Dear Assistant Attorney General Shumate:
    I write to ensure prompt implementation of the reauthorized and expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (“RECA”), as passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. The Department of Justice plays a central role in administering RECA, and with the enactment of the expanded law, the Department is now responsible for receiving, evaluating, and processing a broader universe of claims. I urge you to devote sufficient manpower and departmental resources for this important work.
    As you know, RECA compensates victims and their families who have been exposed to radiation from the federal government’s nuclear programs. Since Congress created the program in 1990, it has provided benefits to tens of thousands of Americans who have developed cancer or other specified diseases after being exposed to radiation from atomic weapons testing or uranium mining, milling, or transporting. Many harrowing tales have emerged for decades after the United States shuttered its test sites and uranium mines, as negligently stored waste continued infiltrating waterways and communities across the country. Now, President Trump and Congress have extended the program to cover more victims and geographic areas.
    It is critical that the Department promptly renews its claims process and application, given that prospective claimants have until December 31, 2027, to submit their paperwork. Timely processing of new claims is both feasible and imperative under the law, especially given the age and health of many claimants. The current RECA statute also explicitly allows the Department to use existing funds and resources to process RECA claim.[1]Congress included this provision to ensure that the Department has sufficient resources to implement RECA fully and without delay.
    I will closely monitor the Department’s implementation of the law in the months ahead, and respectfully request an update on the Department’s implementation progress by August 1, 2025. I stand ready to work with you and the Department to ensure a fair, efficient, and accessible claims process for new RECA claimants.
    Sincerely,
    Josh HawleyUnited States Senator

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: LaLota’s Office Returns $11.3+ Million to Suffolk Residents

    Source: US Representative Nick LaLota (NY-01)

    HAUPPAUGE, NY – Congressman Nick LaLota (NY-01) announced today that his office has recovered more than $11.3 million for Suffolk County residents since taking office in January 2023. These funds include delayed or wrongly withheld Social Security payments, Veterans’ benefits, IRS refunds, and other federal reimbursements secured through direct constituent casework. This milestone comes just days after Congressman LaLota helped deliverover $5,000 in annual SALT deduction relief for many Long Island families by negotiating key provisions in H.R. 1 – the One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law on July 4, 2025.

    “From Day One, our team has focused on delivering results—through both legislative wins and direct constituent service,” said LaLota. “We’ve returned over $11.3 million to Long Islanders from the IRS, VA, and Social Security, and helped small business owners recover funds they were owed. Now, thanks to the SALT cap increase I fought for, middle-class families on Long Island can keep $2,500 to $7,500 more of their hard-earned income each year. Whether it’s cutting through red tape or cutting your taxes, we’re here to help. If you need assistance with a federal agency, contact my Hauppauge office at (631) 289-1097 or visit LaLota.house.gov.”

    Background:

    Federal dollars Congressman Nick LaLota’s office has returned to his constituents since taking office in January 2023 include:

    • Internal Revenue Service (IRS): $5,571,717.63

    • Social Security Administration (SSA): $1,054,559.03

    • Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): $44,903.71

    • Office of Personnel Management (OPM): $126,507.32

    • Small Business Administration (SBA): $20,833.00

    • Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS): $6,083.04

    • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): $315,104.84

    • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS): $6,494.30

    • Railroad Retirement Board: $90,000.00

    • Department of Education: $109,872.55

    LaLota’s staff in Hauppauge is able to assist Long Islanders with the federal bureaucracy and receive government benefits they have earned. These include Social Security, Medicare, Veterans’ benefits, the IRS, passports and visas, and small business assistance.

    LaLota’s office in Hauppauge can be reached at 631-289-1097. Mail can be sent to 515 Hauppauge Road, Suite 3B, Hauppauge, NY 11788. Visit https://lalota.house.gov/ for more information.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Government response to the ACMD’s report on barriers to research: part 2

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Correspondence

    Government response to the ACMD’s report on barriers to research: part 2

    Government response to the ACMD’s report on the consideration of barriers to research: part 2.

    Documents

    Government response to the ACMD’s report on barriers to research: part 2

    Request an accessible format.
    If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email alternativeformats@homeoffice.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

    Details

    Updates to this page

    Published 16 July 2025

    Sign up for emails or print this page

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Mike Levin Joins Bipartisan Coalition to Reintroduce Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill: The Dignity Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Levin (CA-49)

    July 15, 2025

    Washington, D.C.—Today, Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49) joined Reps. Veronica Escobar (TX-16) and Maria Elvira Salazar (FL-27), along with 17 of their colleagues, to reintroduce a historic, bipartisan immigration bill: the Dignity Act of 2025. After more than two years of negotiation, this bill is an updated compromise agreement that addresses legal status and protections for undocumented immigrants, border security, asylum reform, and visa reform.

    Watch Rep. Levin’s remarks here.

    The Dignity Act makes meaningful reforms to several aspects of our immigration system:

    • It grants legal status and protections to undocumented immigrants already living in the United States;
    • It reforms the asylum screening process to provide opportunity for review and access to council;
    • It creates new regional processing centers, so migrants do not have to make the perilous journey to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum;
    • It invests in border security and modernizes our land ports of entry;
    • It mandates accountability for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);
    • It provides protections for Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) holders.

    “It’s long past time for Congress to do its job when it comes to immigration reform. Mass deportations are not the answer. Neither is punishing working families or tearing apart communities. We can invest in border security and still uphold our values. We can enforce our laws and still protect families. These ideas aren’t mutually exclusive — they’re fundamentally American,” said Rep. Levin “For those who are contributing positively to our society and economy, we need a better process and a realistic path for them to stay in this country. These are our neighbors and our friends. Let’s honor that promise — by protecting Dreamers, improving pathways to legal status, securing the border, and passing the Dignity Act.”

    The last time Congress passed immigration reform was in 1996, which was driven by Republicans and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That bill eliminated several legal immigration pathways, essentially making fewer people eligible for legal status while making more people deportable.

    As we are witnessing historic executive overreach and redirection of resources to our border, it is clear Congress needs to update our immigration laws. And it is not like Congress has not had the opportunity; over the last 10 years, eight major pushes for immigration reform have failed:

    • In 2013, the Senate on a bipartisan basis passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, but House Republicans refused to take up the bill.
    • In 2018, a bipartisan group of Senators advanced the Uniting and Securing America Act to protect Dreamers and provide pathway to citizenship, but Senate Republicans blocked it.
    • Again in 2018, the Senate tried to advance the United and Securing America Act “Common Sense” Proposal Amendment, but Senate Republicans blocked it.
    • Yet again in 2018, the Uniting and Securing America Act made it to the Senate floor but was blocked.
    • In 2019, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act, but Senate Republicans blocked it.
    • In 2021, the House again passed the American Dream and Promise Act, but Senate Republicans again blocked it.
    • In 2021 and 2022, the President proposed record funding for more border agents, more asylum officers, more immigration judges, more border technology, and more detention capacity. Republicans in Congress failed to fund these both requests.
    • In 2024, Republican Senator James Lankford (R-OK) led a bipartisan group of senators to fund a border security and foreign aid package, which failed due to significant pushback from Republicans such as Donald Trump.

    “I have seen firsthand the devastating consequences of our broken immigration system, and as a member of Congress, I take seriously my obligation to propose a solution. Realistic, common-sense compromise is achievable, and is especially important given the urgency of this moment. I consider the Dignity Act of 2025 a critical first step to overhauling this broken system,” said Rep. Escobar. “Immigrants – especially those who have been in the United States for decades – make up a critical component of our communities and also of the American workforce and economy. The vast majority of immigrants are hard-working, law-abiding residents; and, despite how maligned they have been by the administration, most Americans recognize that it is in our country’s best interest to find a solution. We can enact legislation that incorporates both humanity and security, and the Dignity Act of 2025 offers a bipartisan, balanced approach that restores dignity to people who have tried to navigate a broken system for far too long. The reintroduction of this legislation includes changes that reflect the challenges in today’s political environment. I’m proud of my bipartisan work with Rep. Salazar, who has been a strong partner on this issue since December 2022. It is our hope that Congress seizes the opportunity to take an important step forward on this issue.”

    “The Dignity Act is a revolutionary bill that offers the solution to our immigration crisis: secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and provide an earned opportunity for long-term immigrants to stay here and work. No amnesty. No handouts. No citizenship. Just accountability and a path to stability for our economy and our future,” said Rep. Salazar.

    The Dignity Act is also cosponsored by Democratic representatives Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Susie Lee (NV-03), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Hilary Scholten (MI-03), Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), Adam Gray (CA-13), Laura Gillen (NY-04), and Jake Auchincloss (MA-04) and Republican representatives Dan Newhouse (WA-04), Mike Lawler (NY-17), David Valadao (CA-22), Mike Kelly (PA-03), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-08), Gabe Evans (CO-08), Marlin Stutzman (IN-03), Don Bacon (NE-02), and Young Kim (CA-40).

    A summary of the bill can be found here.

    ##

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Sues FEMA for Cutting Bipartisan Funding for Natural Disasters

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a coalition of 19 other states in suing the Trump administration over its deadly decision to illegally shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which has supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen. Since the 1990s, FEMA has provided billions of dollars to state and local governments to support infrastructure improvements to prepare for natural disasters. These funds have been proven to save lives, protect property, and reduce the cost of rebuilding after a disaster strikes. While BRIC has received bipartisan support and funded projects in all 50 states, the administration abruptly and illegally terminated the program earlier this year, jeopardizing billions of dollars intended to help communities prepare for disasters nationwide. With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a court order to stop the termination of the BRIC program and prevent the administration from illegally reallocating its funds.

    “This administration’s decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk,” said Attorney General James. “New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes. This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters.”

    The BRIC program provides financial and technical assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to implement new measures that protect communities from natural disasters. The program’s grants cover up to 75 percent of a project’s costs, and can rise to 90 percent for small rural communities, making them a critical lifeline. BRIC funding supports the construction of evacuation shelters and flood walls, protections for water and power infrastructure, and improvements to roads and bridges. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding. Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with New York among the states receiving the most BRIC funding. 

    New York has 38 BRIC projects throughout the state totaling over $380 million that are all in jeopardy as a result of the termination of the program. New York City, which is particularly vulnerable to flooding, is expecting to receive BRIC funds for 19 different projects. This includes $50 million for the Central Harlem Cloudburst Flood Mitigation Project, which is designed to provide flood protection measures to over 45,000 city residents vulnerable to flash flooding of the Harlem River. 

    Multiple studies have shown that BRIC funds more than pay for themselves by preventing costly damage during disasters. Each dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of $6 in post-disaster costs, with some investments saving even more. BRIC program funds have helped avoid over $150 billion in costs and saved lives in communities throughout the country.

    Despite the program’s success and longtime bipartisan support, the Trump administration unlawfully terminated the program in April 2025, diverting over $4 billion out of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation fund and into funds for post-disaster grants. This abrupt termination has jeopardized critical projects throughout the country. Communities have been forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of projects that depend on BRIC funding. Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have already spent millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. As a result, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.

    Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the abrupt termination of BRIC is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has written into law that disaster preparedness is a core part of FEMA’s mission and has appropriated funds for BRIC. Congress has also specified that the executive branch cannot alter this mission or reduce FEMA’s ability to carry out any of its core functions unless the law changes. FEMA also cannot refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the Constitution. In addition, Attorney General James and the coalition argue that President Trump’s FEMA administrator and his successor, who carried out BRIC’s termination, were not lawfully appointed to run FEMA and lack the authority to shut down the program.

    With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from spending BRIC funds on other purposes and a permanent injunction to reverse the termination of the BRIC program and require the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governor of Pennsylvania.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Sues FEMA for Cutting Bipartisan Funding for Natural Disasters

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a coalition of 19 other states in suing the Trump administration over its deadly decision to illegally shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which has supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen. Since the 1990s, FEMA has provided billions of dollars to state and local governments to support infrastructure improvements to prepare for natural disasters. These funds have been proven to save lives, protect property, and reduce the cost of rebuilding after a disaster strikes. While BRIC has received bipartisan support and funded projects in all 50 states, the administration abruptly and illegally terminated the program earlier this year, jeopardizing billions of dollars intended to help communities prepare for disasters nationwide. With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a court order to stop the termination of the BRIC program and prevent the administration from illegally reallocating its funds.

    “This administration’s decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk,” said Attorney General James. “New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes. This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters.”

    The BRIC program provides financial and technical assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to implement new measures that protect communities from natural disasters. The program’s grants cover up to 75 percent of a project’s costs, and can rise to 90 percent for small rural communities, making them a critical lifeline. BRIC funding supports the construction of evacuation shelters and flood walls, protections for water and power infrastructure, and improvements to roads and bridges. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding. Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with New York among the states receiving the most BRIC funding. 

    New York has 38 BRIC projects throughout the state totaling over $380 million that are all in jeopardy as a result of the termination of the program. New York City, which is particularly vulnerable to flooding, is expecting to receive BRIC funds for 19 different projects. This includes $50 million for the Central Harlem Cloudburst Flood Mitigation Project, which is designed to provide flood protection measures to over 45,000 city residents vulnerable to flash flooding of the Harlem River. 

    Multiple studies have shown that BRIC funds more than pay for themselves by preventing costly damage during disasters. Each dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of $6 in post-disaster costs, with some investments saving even more. BRIC program funds have helped avoid over $150 billion in costs and saved lives in communities throughout the country.

    Despite the program’s success and longtime bipartisan support, the Trump administration unlawfully terminated the program in April 2025, diverting over $4 billion out of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation fund and into funds for post-disaster grants. This abrupt termination has jeopardized critical projects throughout the country. Communities have been forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of projects that depend on BRIC funding. Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have already spent millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. As a result, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.

    Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the abrupt termination of BRIC is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has written into law that disaster preparedness is a core part of FEMA’s mission and has appropriated funds for BRIC. Congress has also specified that the executive branch cannot alter this mission or reduce FEMA’s ability to carry out any of its core functions unless the law changes. FEMA also cannot refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the Constitution. In addition, Attorney General James and the coalition argue that President Trump’s FEMA administrator and his successor, who carried out BRIC’s termination, were not lawfully appointed to run FEMA and lack the authority to shut down the program.

    With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from spending BRIC funds on other purposes and a permanent injunction to reverse the termination of the BRIC program and require the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governor of Pennsylvania.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration for Illegally Shutting Down Longstanding Disaster Prevention Program

    Source: US State of California

    Over a billion in funding potentially at stake for California projects to address flooding, wildfires, landslides, drought, and earthquakes

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful termination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. Since 2020, FEMA has made billions of dollars available under the BRIC program to prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters before they happen. From flooding to wildfires to landslides to earthquakes, California is uniquely at risk from natural disasters and the largest beneficiary of this program; already, it has been awarded tens of millions of dollars, and if the program continues, could receive over a billion more for projects that FEMA had selected for grant funding. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, alongside a coalition of 19 other states, asks the court to compel FEMA to reverse the unlawful termination of the BRIC program so that communities across the country can protect themselves from natural disasters before they strike.  

    “Nearly thirty years ago, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress recognized a simple fact: Preparing for disasters, instead of just reacting to them, saves money and lives,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to. As we continue to build a climate resilient California, we deserve a federal government that is a partner, not a roadblock in our efforts – and that’s exactly what Congress intended.” 

    Across five Presidential administrations, Congress and FEMA have worked together to provide funding through FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation program so that communities across the nation can invest in projects that reduce harm from natural disasters. The rationale is simple: by proactively fortifying our communities against disasters before they strike, rather than just responding afterward, we will reduce injuries, save lives, protect property, and, ultimately, save money that would otherwise be spent on post-disaster costs. 

    Given the program’s effectiveness in protecting both people and pocketbooks, it is little surprise that it has had broad bipartisan support. The bill codifying the program passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 415–2 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent before President Bill Clinton signed it. More recently, during President Trump’s first term, a bipartisan group of legislators overwhelmingly passed a bill by a vote of 398–23 in the House and 93–6 in the Senate that provided the program with an additional funding stream. And in 2021, Congress invested another $1 billion in the program through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

    In California, projects that have been awarded funding include: 

    • A project in City of Rancho Palos Verdes to reduce geologic landslide movement that threatens most of the City’s residents and infrastructure, including a major arterial roadway that provides community and emergency access, sanitation sewer lines located along this roadway, electric and communication lines, potable water lines, and gas lines. Without this project, landslide movement will continue to threaten critical infrastructure, damage homes and property, and endanger lives. 
    • A project in the City of Sacramento to mitigate flooding of five major interchanges, 3.9 miles of a major interstate highway, a runway at an airport, surface streets, 27,000 housing units, and more. Among other things, the project would have improved floodwall sections, improved levee sections, and relocated a pump station. 
    • A project in Kern County to seismically retrofit the Kern Valley Healthcare District’s hospital that provides acute care and emergency medical services to a remote population in the mid-northern region of the Kern River Valley area. Unless seismically retrofitted, the hospital may soon need to close. This would force hundreds of thousands of Californians to seek services at hospitals over two hours away. 

    In Texas, where heavy rains turned into devastating floods earlier this month, FEMA was set to provide hundreds of million in federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation projects, including for several flood mitigation projects.

    All that changed when Cameron Hamilton, who the Trump Administration unlawfully installed to act as FEMA’s Administrator, suddenly shut down the program. His unilateral decision to shutter the nation’s largest, most popular, and most cost-effective pre-disaster mitigation program is illegal. Neither Cameron Hamilton nor his successor, David Richardson, were lawfully appointed or qualified to run FEMA, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and statutory requirements. Their purported termination of the BRIC program flatly contravenes Congress’s decision to continue to fund it, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Congress’s power of the purse. In their lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition urge the court to reverse FEMA’s unlawful decision to shut down this program – before the devastating impact of this loss of funding results in permanent damage to our communities.  

    Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Pennsylvania, in filing the lawsuit.  

    A copy of the lawsuit will be available here. 

    MIL OSI USA News