Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News: SECNAV Del Toro Names Future Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine USS Atlanta (SSN 813)

    Source: United States Navy

    ATLANTA (Oct 23, 2024) – Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced that the future Virginia-class Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine SSN 813 will be named USS Atlanta. Del Toro made the announcement during a ship naming ceremony at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum, in Atlanta, on Oct. 23.

    The future USS Atlanta honors the city of Atlanta, and the crews of the five previous Navy vessels named Atlanta.

    The naming selection of the future USS Atlanta (SSN 813) continues the trend of naming Virginia-class submarines after cities. Secretary Del Toro previously named USS Long Island (SSN 809), USS San Francisco (SSN 810), USS Miami (SSN 811), and USS Baltimore (SSN 812).

    “The city of Atlanta shares a storied and historic relationship with our Navy. Since the founding of our great nation, Atlantans from all walks of life have answered the call to service, including President Jimmy Carter, who helped advance our nuclear submarine program alongside Admiral Rickover, “the Father of the Nuclear Navy,” said Del Toro. “It has been 25 years since the Navy has had a ship named after the proud legacy of the city of Atlanta. Today, it is my honor and privilege to name the next Virginia-class submarine, SSN 813, USS Atlanta.”

    Congresswoman Nikema Williams, from Georgia’s 5th Congressional District joined Secretary Del Toro for the ceremony honoring Atlanta.

    “The naming of this ship is a testament to Atlanta’s history as the cradle of the civil rights movement,” said Williams. “As this vessel sails across the globe, it will carry with it the legacy of civil and human rights leaders like Congressman John Lewis and President Jimmy Carter, embodying Atlanta’s unbreakable spirit and the fight for justice that continues today.”

    Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens also served as a guest in the official party and highlighted the honor and meaning behind the naming of the Navy’s newest submarine.  

     “Thank you, Secretary Del Toro for allowing Atlanta to take its place among the great American cities with namesake vessels,” said Dickens. “We envision the future USS Atlanta sailing and submerging as a testament to some of the same values that this city holds…protecting this nation with courage and strength.

    Secretary Del Toro also named the ship sponsor at the ceremony, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms.

     The ship’s sponsor fills a vital role throughout the life of a warship, serving as the bond between the ship, her crew, and the nation they serve,” said Del Toro. “I am honored that Mayor Bottoms accepted the invitation to serve as ship sponsor. As a leader and champion for the people of Atlanta, she represents the best of our nation, and I thank her for her lifelong commitment to our Navy, to our service men and women, and to the United States of America.”

    The city of Atlanta has strong ties to American history. Founded in 1836, the city (originally named Terminus) was incorporated as Atlanta in 1847. Following its destruction in the Civil War, Atlanta rapidly rebuilt, became the state capital in 1868, and is now an important center of industry, finance, and transportation. The greater Atlanta region was home to Naval Air Station Atlanta (1943-2009) and hosted squadrons from Reserve Carrier Air Wing 20, and Marine Aircraft Group 42.

    The first Atlanta, a screw gunboat (1858-1859) was renamed Sumpter after commissioning. The second, a protected cruiser (1886-1912) primarily served in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico and as a barracks ship. The third Atlanta (CL-51), a light cruiser (1941-1942), screened Task Force 16 carriers Enterprise and Hornet during the Battle of Midway, supported the Guadalcanal campaign in July and August, and defended Enterprise at the Battle of the Eastern Solomons on 24 August 1942. From 12-13 November 1942, Atlanta took part in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, during which she helped sink the Japanese destroy Akatsuki, and later received the Presidential Unit Citation and the embarked Flag Officer, Rear Admiral Norman Scott, was awarded a posthumous Medal of Honor. Suffering extensive torpedo damage, she was scuttled. The fourth Atlanta (CL-104), a light cruiser (1944-1970) served off Japan with the Fast Carrier Task Force where she conducted shore bombardment missions. The fifth Atlanta (SSN-712), a nuclear fast attack submarine (1982-1999), homeported in Norfolk, VA, completed multiple deployments and fleet readiness exercises during the Cold War before being decommissioned.

    Attack submarines are designed to seek and destroy enemy submarines and surface ships; project power ashore with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Special Operation Forces (SOF); carry out Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions; support battle group operations; and engage in mine warfare.

    More information on attack submarines can be found here

    Read Secretary Del Toro’s full remarks here.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Global: Harris and Trump differ widely on gun rights, death penalty and other civil liberties questions

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Donovan A. Watts, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Auburn University

    The Bill of Rights secures key liberties for U.S. citizens against the government’s power. U.S. Congress via Wikimedia Commons

    As the election nears, voters are considering the two leading presidential candidates’ records on a wide range of issues, including civil liberties – a broad term used to describe the constitutionally protected freedoms that protect citizens from excessive government power. These key freedoms are contained in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For example, the protection for free speech under the First Amendment and the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment define people’s abilities to criticize the government and own weapons for private use.

    In turn, as a scholar of American politics, I have seen that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have very different records on these crucial American rights.

    First Amendment freedoms of speech and press

    As California’s attorney general, Harris indirectly found herself in a battle with the First Amendment. For many years, state law required nonprofit organizations registered in California to report names and addresses of donors of amounts over US$5,000 in a single year. In 2010, the year before Harris became attorney general, her predecessor began actually enforcing that law, which Harris continued when she took office in 2011. In 2014, several conservative groups sued Harris, saying her office’s enforcement of the law was violating their First Amendment right to give money anonymously.

    Part of Harris’ job was to oversee the defense of the law in court, arguing that soliciting donor names did not bar donor disclosure requirements like California’s. The case lasted beyond her term as California’s top law enforcement officer: The U.S. Supreme Court declared parts of the law unconstitutional in 2021, after Harris had become vice president.

    While he was president, Trump’s First Amendment record was more about the media than free speech. He repeatedly declared the press “the enemy of the people.” He has suggested that media outlets who provide coverage he dislikes lose their broadcasting licenses and has pressed to change laws about libel in ways that would make it easier for public figures to file suit against unfavorable coverage.

    As California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris worked to reduce gun violence in the state.
    Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

    Second Amendment right to bear arms

    Dating back to her tenure as a district attorney in San Francisco and as California’s attorney general, Harris has been an advocate for stricter gun control laws. However, she is not seeking to take away Americans’ guns – and recently revealed that she herself is a gun owner.

    When serving as district attorney in San Francisco, Harris worked with the city’s mayor at the time, Gavin Newsom, to develop some of the strictest local gun regulations in the country. In December 2004, Proposition H was placed on the ballot and passed by majority vote in November 2005. Proposition H banned possessing a handgun within San Francisco, with a few exceptions, and banned purchasing, possession, distribution and manufacturing of all firearms in the city. However, the proposition was overruled by the San Francisco Superior Court, which said gun ownership should be regulated at the state level.

    And in 2008, as the U.S. Supreme Court was preparing to hear a key gun control case, Harris led 18 elected prosecutors who urged the justices that a broad right to gun ownership could endanger local and state firearm laws. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess firearms.

    However, the Supreme Court’s ruling did not stop Harris in her continued fight for gun regulation. She pushed for additional funding to confiscate guns from thousands of people whom California law said were banned from having them. Later as a U.S. senator from 2017 to 2021, Harris continued to advocate for gun regulation by sponsoring bills that would have enacted universal background checks and ban assault rifles.

    During Harris’ term as vice president, she oversaw the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which seeks to focus government attention on a wide range of policies to reduce gun violence, including restrictions on firearms, increased mental health services and new powers for prosecutors to use against people who use firearms when committing a crime.

    In 2019, while he was president, Donald Trump spoke to a National Rifle Association meeting and expressed support for the organization.
    AP Photo/Michael Conroy

    Trump’s record on firearms, meanwhile, has been mixed. As president, he signed legislation in 2017 that softened background check requirements for gun buyers with particular mental illness diagnoses. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, he objected to the fact that many local orders to close businesses to protect public health included shutting gun shops.

    Yet in 2018, he also moved to ban bump stocks – a device attached to a semiautomatic firearm that enables it to fire more rapidly. His ban was overturned by the Supreme Court in June 2024.

    Trump also supported and signed the Fix NICS Act, a bipartisan law that strengthened reporting to the federal gun background checks system by requiring federal agencies to submit semiannual certification reports to the attorney general on their compliance with recordkeeping and transmission requirements.

    Eighth Amendment protections against ‘cruel and unusual punishments’

    The Eighth Amendment’s protection against “cruel and unusual punishments” has often been used by the Supreme Court to evaluate uses of the death penalty.

    Harris has consistently pledged to refuse to seek the death penalty in criminal cases, noting a multitude of systemic flaws that result in its disproportional application based on defendants’ race and income. She also noted the cost to taxpayers of keeping prisoners on death row. Harris’ position was tested just months into her service as district attorney when a police officer was shot and killed in the line of duty in 2004. Harris declined to seek the death penalty for the shooter, who was convicted of murder and is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

    While attorney general of California, however, she defended in court the state’s power to impose the death penalty. But when, in March 2024, the state’s governor – Newsom – declared a halt to executions, sparing all 737 people on California’s death row, Harris praised the action.

    Trump’s record on capital punishment dates back long before his political career. In 1989, he took out full-page newspaper ads calling for the return of the death penalty in New York. He specifically wanted it to be applied to the Central Park Five, five young Black and Hispanic men who were wrongly accused of raping and beating a woman. They pleaded not guilty but served years in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence and the actual criminal’s confession.

    During his term as president, Trump resumed federal executions after a 17-year hiatus, executing 13 people in the last six months of his presidency, the last of which was just four days before his term ended.

    All in all, as voters decide who to vote for in the upcoming election, analyzing both candidates’ record on civil liberties is a good step in making an informed decision.

    Donovan A. Watts 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. Harris and Trump differ widely on gun rights, death penalty and other civil liberties questions – https://theconversation.com/harris-and-trump-differ-widely-on-gun-rights-death-penalty-and-other-civil-liberties-questions-240762

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Manitoba Government Begins Searching Prairie Green Landfill

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Manitoba Government Begins Searching Prairie Green Landfill


    The Manitoba government has begun the third stage of the Prairie Green Landfill search for the remains of Morgan Harris and Marcedes Myran, Premier Wab Kinew announced today.

    “Our government is making significant progress in our compassionate search of the Prairie Green Landfill,” said Kinew. “This is about doing the right thing and sending a message to all Manitobans that you matter and deserve dignity. When someone goes missing, we go looking.”

    The search facility pad is nearing completion and excavators have begun moving materials above the targeted zone at the landfill, while the engineering assessment of the targeted zone has also been completed. Meanwhile, recruitment for workers has been ongoing, with the job postings for technicians closing earlier in October.

    The pilot test program was completed in June 2024, which aimed to refine the search methodology, characterize deposited waste material and further understand potential challenges.

    The province has implemented a five-stage approach to conducting the search. Stage four will involve the excavation and search of the targeted zone where the remains of the two women are believed to be located. Stage four is on track to begin in late fall 2024, noted the premier.

    – 30 –

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Manitoba Government Helping More Vulnerable Manitobans Stay Housed

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Manitoba Government Helping More Vulnerable Manitobans Stay Housed

    – – –
    New Community-Based Support Services Will Improve Housing Stability for Manitobans with Complex Mental Health Needs: Smith


    The Manitoba government will be helping more Manitobans through a new initiative to ensure individuals with serious, long-term mental health disorders can access comprehensive wraparound supports that help keep them housed, Housing, Addictions and Homelessness Minister Bernadette Smith, minister responsible for mental health, announced today.  

    “Meeting the needs of people living with severe, complex mental health disorders requires a range of programs and services,” said Smith. “This investment will build effective and sustainable services along that continuum of care by providing supports right in the community. We will help vulnerable Manitobans stay out of hospitals and emergency rooms by providing safety and stability in their homes.” 

    The new $4.3-million initiative will establish a co-ordination hub and expand community-based care, adding 22 new mental health workers to Manitoba’s mental health service system, the minister noted.  The investment will enable Shared Health to establish two new interdisciplinary teams that use the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model to treat and support up to 300 individuals with severe mental illnesses in community settings.   

    “These new teams fill a major gap in the suite of community-based services in Winnipeg, supporting Manitobans who often have several co-occurring and complex mental health and addiction needs,” said Arlene MacLennan, director of health services for adult outpatient mental health and addictions, Shared Health. “There is strong evidence from other jurisdictions that this flexible, co-ordinated and streamlined approach reduces costly visits to hospitals and emergency departments, and helps individuals manage their mental health and substance use problems so they can increase stability and make improvements in their lives.”  

    ACT is an evidence-based service delivery model that provides comprehensive, community-based mental health and addiction services, crisis intervention, medication management, community integration, peer support and housing support services. Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams also use the ACT approach but can adapt the support provided, based on the individual’s needs and without some of the constraints of individual services, such as the length of time a service may be offered.   

    Shared Health will also pilot a new FACT/ACT Hub to support comprehensive assessments of individuals in the community and in hospital. The investment is a significant first step in building housing with support services while improving access to mental health-care wraparound supports, the minister noted.  

    The hub will also work to standardize ACT services across the province and provide provincial oversight, added Smith. 

    – 30 –

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Cooper Proposes $3.9 Billion in State Funding to Spur Hurricane Helene Relief and Recovery

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: Governor Cooper Proposes $3.9 Billion in State Funding to Spur Hurricane Helene Relief and Recovery

    Governor Cooper Proposes $3.9 Billion in State Funding to Spur Hurricane Helene Relief and Recovery
    mseets

    Less than a month after Hurricane Helene hit Western North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper today shared a state budget recommendation to help rebuild stronger to withstand future storms. Governor Cooper recommends an initial $3.9 billion package to begin rebuilding critical infrastructure, homes, businesses, schools, and farms damaged during the storm.

    “Helene is the deadliest and most damaging storm ever to hit North Carolina,“ said Governor Cooper. “This storm left a trail of destruction in our beautiful mountains that we will not soon forget, but I know the people of Western North Carolina are determined to build back better than ever. These initial funds are a good start, but the staggering amount of damage shows we are very much on the front end of this recovery effort.”

    Initial damage estimates are $53 billion, roughly three times Hurricane Florence estimates in 2018 and the largest in state history. A strong recovery will require significant investments by private insurers as well as the federal, state and local governments. Large scale disasters fueled by climate change in recent years have shown the challenges and enormous costs of recovery as well as the need to ensure structures are hardened are they are rebuilt to withstand future storms. Successful recoveries require significant early investments to ensure communities have the tools to fully rebuild.

    Economy

    The economic devastation from Hurricane Helene is unparalleled. Thousands of businesses in the region suffered damages leaving business owners and workers suffering. The Governor’s funding package includes $650 million to address economic losses and physical damage for non-agricultural businesses and non-profit organizations. This would include a revival of the pandemic-era Business Recovery Grant Program, which helped North Carolina’s economy recover faster than the national average. Governor Cooper has already increased unemployment insurance benefits through an executive order with a bipartisan and unanimous vote of the Council of State.

    Housing

    The Governor’s budget recommendation includes $650 million to address physical damage to residential structures and cost of housing assistance. These investments would jumpstart permanent housing construction in advance of potential federal funds, which can take months or years to be approved.

    Utilities and Natural Resources

    Critical and high-risk infrastructure was damaged across the region, including water and sewer systems in multiple communities and power generation facilities. Much of this infrastructure is in geographically isolated locations and challenging to reach, slowing restoration of services to communities. The Governor’s funding package includes $578 million to address the physical damage and cleanup of energy, water, waste clean-up, telecommunications, dams and other infrastructure.

    Transportation

    Hurricane Helene severely impacted approximately 5,000 miles of state-maintained roads across the affected area in Western North Carolina, including several major national interstates and critical transportation corridors. The proposed funding package includes $55 million to address physical damage and state revenue implications of the transportation infrastructure damage.

    Agriculture

    The funding package includes $422 million to address physical damage and business disruption for agricultural enterprises. This storm caused significant damage to hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural land and hundreds of structures.

    Recovering From Additional Recent Disasters

    As North Carolina is still recovering from other recent natural disasters, Governor Cooper’s proposed budget includes $420 million for needs related to PTC-8, Tropical Storm Debby, and funds to complete homeowner assistance for Hurricanes Florence and Matthew.

    The full Budget Recommendation can be found here.

    ###

    Oct 23, 2024

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Investment in Marine Infrastructure to Support Recovery Through the Florida Disaster Fund

    Source: US State of Florida

    Governor DeSantis also announced discounts on fishing licenses and progress on Florida’s efforts to take over management of Red Snapper in the Atlantic.

    STEINHATCHEE, Fla.—Today, Governor Ron DeSantis announced the award of $1,000,000 in funding from the Florida Disaster Fund to the Fish and Wildlife Foundation of Florida to support the rebuilding of fishing and aquaculture infrastructure damaged by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. The funding will go toward the rebuilding of boat slips and docks, the repair of fish houses, impacted aquaculture businesses, and other important infrastructure repairs for Florida’s fishing economy across the Big Bend region.

    “The Big Bend’s fishing industry took a direct hit from hurricanes Debby and Helene, and so did the hardworking Floridians who make their living on the water,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Today’s investments will help to rebuild critical waterside infrastructure and help get Floridians in the fishing and aquaculture industries back to full operations.”

    To unlock additional resources from the federal government, Governor DeSantis’ administration also initiated the process of submitting a federal fisheries disaster declaration to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. This declaration request would provide access to federal funding, subject to appropriation, for offshore, nearshore, and inshore fisheries to rebuild. Governor DeSantis requested a similar federal fisheries disaster declaration following Hurricane Ian and Hurricane Idalia.

    Governor DeSantis has also directed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to expedite any permits or approvals for businesses impacted on uplands or on the water to ensure the rebuilding of damaged structures is not delayed by bureaucracy.

    “Governor DeSantis has a proven track record of helping communities recover quickly and rebuild fully after storms,” said Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Executive Director Roger Young. “We are grateful for his leadership and support in assisting the fishing industry as it recovers from hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton.”

    Additionally, the Governor announced several discounts on fishing and hunting licenses, including lifetime licenses, to get anglers back on the water and provide a boon to the industry that serves them. This includes:

    • Half-off short-term licenses for Floridians from October 25, 2024, to January 3, 2025, for the annual and five-year multisport licenses for fishing and hunting; and
    • A 50% discount on lifetime sportsman licenses for children up to 17 years of age.
      • Age 4 or younger – $200 (normally $400)
      • Ages 5 to 12 – $350 (normally $700)
      • Ages 13 to 17 – $500 (normally $1,000)

    Additionally, FWC is offering annual salt water and freshwater combo licenses for just $5.

    Fishing and Florida are inseparable. Florida leads the nation in the number of saltwater fishing anglers, generating a $9.2 billion impact on the State of Florida’s economy. Additionally, the annual dockside value of commercial fisheries was estimated at $244 million. Today’s announcement will help Florida residents regenerate lost income and rebuild their businesses and infrastructure.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Majority of Eligible New Yorkers Registered as Organ Donors

    Source: US State of New York

    Governor Kathy Hochul today announced that for the first time, more than 50 percent of the eligible New York population has registered to become organ and tissue donors through New York’s Organ Donor Registry.

    “This is a very important milestone for New York and the thousands of New Yorkers who are waiting for a life-saving organ transplant,” Governor Hochul said. “It is the result of dogged efforts by advocates and my colleagues at the Departments of Motor Vehicles and Health to raise awareness about the never-ending need for organ and tissue donors. Making that decision to provide the gift of life to someone else is a great example of the giving spirit of New Yorkers.”

    This milestone is particularly significant for New York, which has historically had one of the lowest organ donor registry enrollment rates in the country, leaving thousands of New Yorkers waiting for a life-changing transplant, with about 400 New Yorkers losing their lives each year due to a shortage of donors. While much more work remains to ensure a life-changing transplant for every New Yorker in need, reaching the 50 percent mark is a major achievement considering the State was at just 22 percent a decade ago.

    Today, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Commissioner Mark J.F. Schroeder and leadership from the New York State Department of Health (DOH) joined Donate Life New York State, impacted families and elected officials in the Bronx, to celebrate this milestone and to continue to raise awareness in the community, which has one of the lowest rates of enrollments on the Registry.

    DMV Commissioner Mark J.F. Schroeder said, “I have been working and waiting for this moment since I started this job in early 2019. More than 80 percent of New Yorkers who enroll in the Organ Donor Registry sign up through the DMV, so we have made a concerted effort to educate our staff and our customers about the importance of organ donation. New York has lagged behind so many other states for too long, and through this partnership with DOH and Donate Life, we have been successful in turning that around and giving people waiting for organ transplants a fighting chance at a healthy future.”

    State Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said, “What could be more beautiful and loving than saving a life? I am so proud that more than 50 percent of our New York population has registered to become organ and tissue donors through New York’s Organ Donor Registry. Just one donor can save the lives of up to eight people while tissue donors can make a meaningful difference in the lives of up to 75 people. I thank everyone who has enrolled. These acts of selflessness make me even more proud to be a New Yorker.”

    Executive Director of Donate Life New York State Aisha Tator said, “When I joined Donate Life New York State more than a decade ago, achieving the mark of a majority of New Yorkers registered as organ and tissue donors was an ambitious goal, but thanks to our efforts alongside our partners — including years of work with DMV and DOH — today we are proud to celebrate this major milestone. The growth of the Donate Life Registry helped save the lives of about 3,000 New Yorkers last year. These are parents, children and community members who now lead happier and healthier lives. With 8,000 New Yorkers still waiting for a life-changing organ, our work is far from finished, and Donate Life New York State will continue building a culture of donation to improve the lives of the thousands of New Yorkers in need.”

    This progress, which has nearly tripled the number of lives saved annually through organ transplantation, would not have been possible without the relentless joint effort of DMV, DOH, elected officials across the political spectrum and Donate Life NYS — the nonprofit tasked by the State to lead donor registration enrollment campaigns and education efforts.

    Nearly 8,000 New Yorkers are currently on the waitlist for a life-changing organ. Today, this diverse group of State leaders, elected officials, advocates and impacted families encouraged their fellow New Yorkers to join the Registry and help further Donate Life’s mission of ensuring a life-changing transplant for every New Yorker in need. A single donor can save up to eight lives and heal 75 more through organ and tissue donation.

    New Yorkers can register to become organ donors on the Donate Life New York State website.

    Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said, “I want to commend the hard work of Donate Life New York State, the DMV and the Department of Health to celebrate this remarkable milestone in organ donor registration. For the first time, more than half of eligible New Yorkers have stepped forward to register as organ donors, a significant achievement that will save countless lives. There is still much more to be done, but today we celebrate the power of education, partnership and the generosity of New Yorkers. Together, we can continue this progress and ensure that every person in need of a transplant has the opportunity for a second chance at life.”

    State Senator Gustavo Rivera said, “Achieving over 50 percent enrollment in the Organ Donor Registry is a moment to celebrate the tireless efforts of Donate Life New York State, the Department of Health (DOH), the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), advocates, health care professionals and families who understand the importance of organ donation. As Chair of the Senate Health Committee, I have proudly passed legislation aimed at increasing outreach and enrollment so more New Yorkers can become organ donors. Since New York has one of the lowest organ donor rates in the nation and many people waiting for transplants, we must continue to implement measures to address organ donation and ensure that those in need receive the life-saving transplants they deserve.”

    State Senator Luis R. Sepúlveda said, “As someone deeply committed to improving health outcomes for the Bronx and beyond, I am proud to join Donate Life New York State, the DMV and the Department of Health in celebrating this milestone. Organ donation has the power to save lives, and crossing the 50 percent mark in statewide donor registry enrollment is a major step forward for New York. This is especially important for communities like the Bronx, where the need for transplants is disproportionately high. I look forward to continuing our work to raise awareness, dispel myths and encourage even more New Yorkers to become organ donors. Together, we can ensure that every New Yorker in need has access to the life-saving gift of a transplant.”

    Assemblymember Amy Paulin said, “Reaching the milestone of 50 percent organ donor registration in New York State represents hope for thousands of New Yorkers awaiting life-saving transplants. While we celebrate this progress, we must redouble our efforts to further increase enrollment and ensure that every New Yorker in need has the opportunity for a second chance at life. Every new registration has the potential to transform lives, and I thank Donate Life New York State, the DMV and the DOH for their tireless efforts in growing the donor registry.”

    Assemblymember Yudelka Tapia said, “As a mother who spent 16 years watching my eldest son endure the challenges of kidney failure, I know firsthand the incredible, life-changing power of organ donation. I will never forget the joy and gratitude we felt when we received the call that a donor match had been found, giving my son a new chance at life. Today, I am proud to join Donate Life NYS, the DMV and the Department of Health in celebrating this important milestone. Reaching a 50 percent registration rate is a tremendous achievement, but there’s still more we can do. Too many families, especially in communities like the Bronx, are still waiting for that same life-saving call. I encourage every New Yorker to register as an organ donor and be part of this movement of hope and generosity.”

    About New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

    The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is, for many people, their first interaction with state government. It is a multi-faceted agency, serving more than 15 million New Yorkers through driver licensing and non-driver identification, vehicle titling and registration, driver safety and education, regulating businesses that sell, repair and inspect vehicles and administering New York state motor vehicle laws.

    DMV and its more than 3,000 employees statewide have prioritized the safety of New Yorkers through traffic safety initiatives, combating and preventing identity fraud and protecting consumers. The agency is hard at work every day to “Shatter Perceptions” of what people think DMV is by continually adapting and adopting innovative strategies to better provide services to its customers where they are and in ways that are more efficient and convenient for them.

    About New York State Department of Health

    The New York State Department of Health has been overseeing the health, safety and well-being of New Yorkers since 1901 – from vaccinations to utilizing new developments in science as critical tools in the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. In the face of today’s new public health challenges and evolving health care system, health equity is foundational to everything the State Department of Health does to help all people achieve optimal physical, mental and social well-being.

    About Donate Life New York State

    Donate Life New York State is the statewide non-profit organization dedicated to increasing organ, eye and tissue donation in New York State. Our goal is to ensure a life changing transplant for every New Yorker in need. Since 2002, we’ve served as the voice for New York’s organ, eye and tissue donation community, bringing together recovery organizations, health professionals, community organizations and people whose lives have been touched by our mission. Donate Life NYS operates the New York State Donate Life Registry under contract with the State of New York, and advances organ, eye and tissue donation through public and professional education, Registry enrollment campaigns, legislative advocacy, social and behavioral research, strategic partnerships and collaborative forums with the greater donation and transplantation community.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Womack Hosts NIH Director Bertagnolli in Arkansas’ Third District

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steve Womack (AR-3)

    Rogers, AR—October 23, 2024…Congressman Steve Womack (AR-3) hosted National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Monica Bertagnolli, M.D., in the River Valley on Monday and in Northwest Arkansas on Tuesday. Congressman Womack, Director Bertagnolli, and Senator John Boozman (R-AR) visited medical organizations, gained a comprehensive understanding of the region’s medical needs, and saw the partnership between the NIH and local healthcare in action.

    Congressman Womack said, “It’s important to bring Washington to Arkansas to ensure Third District Arkansans’ needs are met and their voices are heard. I want leaders in our nation, such as Director Bertagnolli, to see the exciting medical research and advancements happening in the Third District while fully understanding the area’s healthcare needs. I’m grateful Director Bertagnolli took the opportunity to see firsthand the remarkable work of our local health providers, researchers, and partners. Senator Boozman and I look forward to a continued partnership with Director Bertagnolli to improve health outcomes for Arkansans.”

    Director Bertagnolli said, “The entire community – academic institutions, public health departments, health care providers, businesses, and state and federal government – all play a critical role in making health better for everyone. It is so inspiring to see how Arkansas is working to address the needs of their communities on all fronts, and partnering to eliminate the extra health challenges this region is experiencing. I am so grateful to Congressman Womack and Senator Boozman for hosting me. I have learned so much and am eager to bring more health research to Arkansas. The talent and dedication I have witnessed here makes me sure that we will make tremendous progress.”

    Senator Boozman said, “The collaboration in Northwest Arkansas and the River Valley as growing hubs for local and regional medical care as well as nationally recognized innovative research is a tremendous asset. NIH plays a critical role in funding this vital work through the grants and partnerships it supports that generate advanced treatments, cures and overall better outcomes in our communities. Congressman Womack and I were pleased to show Director Bertagnolli the impact of these investments and provide our medical professionals an opportunity to share their feedback directly with the leader of America’s premier health research organization.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Panetta Announces New Federal Investment to Further Modernize Monterey Regional Airport

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif)

    Monterey, CA – United States Representative Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) announced a new federal investment to support Monterey Regional Airport’s initial phase of terminal construction.  Rep. Panetta secured $14.2 million through the Airport Terminal Program (ATP) to fund the construction and replacement of a 70-year-old terminal, including the relocation of a LEED Platinum-certified terminal, improved internal airport access, and enhanced landside road access.  This includes a multimodal bus connection for the Monterey-Salinas Transit Company.  This funding was made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

    “Residents and visitors alike deserve a Monterey Regional Airport that is safe, reliable, and comfortable,” said Rep. Panetta. “I’m proud to ensure that the federal government is investing in local airports like ours to meet the demands of modern travelers with updated amenities and enhanced safety features.  With this federal support, we will continue to improve the mobility, economy, and quality of life in California’s 19th Congressional District.”

    “This new grant will be the first federal funding dedicated directly to the construction of the replacement terminal building,” said Monterey Regional Airport Executive Director Michael La Pier.  “With the design completed, we will be ready to move forward with the start of the construction in the spring with a completion some time in late 2026.  We’d like to thank Representative Panetta for his help and guidance in this process. It means a great deal to the airport to have such strong support in the District and in Washington.”

    Rep. Panetta continues working alongside local partners to ensure the federal government plays its role in modernizing the Monterey Regional Airport.  Previously, Rep. Panetta secured more than $64 million in federal funding to support new terminal design, tarmac improvements, and other modernization and safety initiatives.

    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $15 billion in airport infrastructure funding.  For more information on projects nationwide, visit: here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Graves: “Morganza Reach A Protects Terrebonne, Benefits the Nation”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Garret Graves (6th District of Louisiana)

    Congressman Garret Graves (South Louisiana) today announced the historic groundbreaking of “Reach A” in Dularge, Louisiana, of the Morganza-to-the-Gulf (MTG) hurricane protection project alongside project partners Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District (TLCD), the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

    “Construction of Reach A plugs a vulnerability gap that otherwise exposes Dularge, Houma, and surrounding communities,” Graves said. “Getting Morganza started and funded has been a top priority. Despite decades of federal inaction, in our short time in Congress we’ve pushed urgently to establish momentum to get the project funded and built as quickly as possible. This project will protect the lives and communities of the Bayou Region who feed and fuel our nation, and we could not leave the field without ensuring Morganza’s path to completion.”

    Reach A of the system was identified by the TLCD as a key vulnerability gap that left Houma and surrounding communities exposed to flood risk and storm surge. Reach A construction will occur over several phases, beginning with levee features to protect the Dularge community.

    “I want to remind you: local folks didn’t wait for the federal government and we didn’t either,” Graves added. “Dating back to 2008 (while serving as the Chair of CPRA) we worked with our parishes and levee districts to pull together hundreds of millions in state funding in addition to the half a billion we set aside from the Deepwater Horizon settlement. Our early and persistent protection measures have saved the American taxpayer billions in disaster recovery costs, while at the same time providing a major service to our nation’s energy security.”

    Morganza background

    Although the project became authorized for federal participation in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 (with amendments made to the project in WRDA 2014), at a cost of $15 billion, the 98-mile levee was widely seen as too expensive for the federal government to start investing in.

    That changed in November of 2018, when Graves requested the Army Corps revise the original federal role of the project by taking into account investments already made by state and local partners. Within the year, the Corps presented Graves with an Adaptive Criteria Assessment Report (ACAR) which brought the project’s cost down by more than two-thirds of the original estimate. Graves’s intention in officially blessing the work already done by the local levee boards was to increase the project’s benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and make it impossible for the federal government to not invest in the project.

    With a positive BCR secured, Graves correctly identified another hurdle: the annual bill which funds the federal government’s flood control investments not only sets limits on how many “new start” projects could be funded annually, but traditionally included language which limited these new starts to projects authorized within the Corps’ Construction account, while Morganza was part of the Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries (MR&T) account. Graves ensured that the House of Representatives’ funding bill included language which made MR&T eligible to receive a new start designation, and heavily lobbied the Senate to allow the change. The Senate relented and, after years of discussions with the White House Office of Management and Budget, Graves announced that the federal government would begin investing in the project in January of 2021.

    That year coincided with the return of congressional earmarks, and Graves has successfully secured $78.3 million in dedicated funding for the project to date through that process, $376 million in emergency supplemental funding, and another $93 million awaiting approval in the current funding cycle.

    According to the USACE, the MTG project would reduce the risk of flooding due to storm surge to more than 52,000 structures and over 200,000 people in an area.  Deterioration of coastal marshes due to saltwater intrusion, land subsidence and the lack of interchanges from the Mississippi River and Tributaries system have steadily increased storm surge inundation over time.  Flooding of homes occurred in Lafourche Parish with Hurricane Ida, near the proposed alignment that may be alleviated with the Project.

     

    ###

     

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Unemployment’s up, house prices are stagnating. But is the Victorian economy doing as badly as it seems?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hayward, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy, RMIT University

    The early 1990s in Victoria were tough. The economy was contracting severely, the population was shrinking, employment was collapsing and the unemployment rate skyrocketed to the highest in the land.

    A long-term Labor government got the blame for allowing state debt to spiral out of control. Victoria, reckoned a popular joke at the time, was “Australia’s Mexico without the sunshine”.

    Is it happening all over again?

    Some reporting in national media would suggest it is.

    The Australian Financial Review has recently run a series on the state, including a piece last week quoting business leaders saying the Victorian economy was in trouble.

    Reference was made to the latest unemployment figures as supporting evidence. Victoria’s unemployment rate has risen over the last year, and at 4.4% is now the highest in the country. Rising numbers of company failures and stagnant house prices were also cited.

    Earlier in the month, data showing a falling rate of Victorian business start-ups was highlighted, while another Financial Review article examined the decline in the number of conferences. All this was referred to as evidence of a state struggling under the weight of

    $8.6 billion in levies [imposed] in [Labor’s] 2023 budget to curb a mountain of state debt that is forecast to reach $188 billion by 2028.

    The Australian also ran a feature on Victoria echoing the same themes.

    Readers were asked, “What the hell has gone wrong with Victoria?”. Public debt and taxation figured as prominent causes of an economic catastrophe in the making. The Australian deemed the state to be

    at best, trapped in stagnation, forcing it to cover falling private investment and expenditure with ever greater public largesse. And at worst […] as the spending and debt build-up sets off the alarms, a vicious spiral is triggered […] until the whole Ponzi scheme collapses.

    But are things that bad? What does the economic data actually show?

    Some positive signs

    It is true that unemployment in Victoria is rising, and is also high compared to the rest of the country. But it has been stable for the last four months, reflecting the impact of interest rate increases over the previous couple of years.

    Also, looking back over the last 40 years, the increase has been from a very low base, and remains at an historically low level – and a long way off the highs of the 1990s.



    The number of people in the labour force is continuing to grow at a healthy clip. The participation rate is now the highest on record.

    Last month, the labour force increased in seasonally adjusted terms by 20,000, and almost all of these additional people ended up in employment.

    The growth in employment since the end of the pandemic is notable.

    Since January 2023, employment has increased by 268,000, or 8% in seasonally adjusted terms. That’s 37% of the jobs added in the whole of Australia during that time.

    Yes, the share of job growth is falling, but it is still higher than the state’s population share, and it is from an unbelievably high base (55% of all jobs created nationally in July were in Victoria).

    The Australian Financial Review acknowledged that the latest jobs data were indeed “unexpectedly strong”.

    What about business insolvencies?

    Victorian insolvencies are on the rise (up 61% in September compared to the same month last year). But so too are they across Australia, with the national number rising at a higher clip (up 70%).

    What about the number of conferences in Victoria? We simply cannot be sure whether they are up or down, because there is no consistent data base to settle the matter.

    And while Victoria may have fallen behind other states in the number of new startups per 1,000 businesses, the actual number of businesses has increased by more than 31,000, or 3%, since the beginning of the year.

    How are house prices and rents holding up?

    Yes, house prices are tumbling. In real terms, they are around 20% below their pandemic peak, at least partly caused by a bundle of new property taxes introduced in the 2023/24 state budget to help pay for pandemic-related debt.

    But with housing affordability at an all-time low courtesy of high interest rates, that is no bad thing, especially for those keen to buy their first home.

    That fall in house prices stands in contrast to a boom in rents over the same time period.

    Over the last 12 months, median rents in Victoria have increased by 13.3%, and by 4.3% over the last quarter. In the March quarter, the rental stock fell for the first time on record, perhaps supporting those who see an economy in trouble.

    But that fall amounted to barely 10,000 dwellings, or only 2.7% of the stock. Those properties had to be sold to someone, and it is likely many were sold to first time buyers who, in changing tenure, had no net effect on the rental market. A redistribution of wealth like that may be no bad thing.

    Debt is high – but so is infrastructure spending

    There is no doubt the Victorian economy has been slowing, as has the rest of the country. That is exactly the outcome sought by the Reserve Bank when it pushed up interest rates last year.

    But there is little evidence to show Victoria is following the disastrous path of the early 1990s.

    Back then, state debt grew alarmingly because of a savage recession. This time round, state debt has grown strongly, but largely to fund a construction pipeline on a scale the state has not seen before.

    Infrastructure spending is now running close to $25 billion a year, almost five times what it was a decade ago. There’s a lot of jobs in those numbers, and shortly a lot of that infrastructure will come on line, boosting the state’s economic potential.



    There is one other factor driving Victoria’s surprisingly resilient economy. Net international migration increased by 152,000 in the year to March 2024 – almost 30% of the Australian total – driven partly by the return of international students.



    Very fast, migration-driven population growth is not being matched by increased output, and the state’s household income per person is continuing its long-term decline, leading some to argue it has become a “poor state”.

    Treasurer Tim Pallas will hope that the increase stock of debt-funded infrastructure provides the productivity boost sorely needed to turn that around.

    While on several indicators Victoria’s economy is slowing, this largely reflects a national trend. Drilling down into the data shows there are signs of growth, which suggest alarm at this stage is not justified.

    David Hayward 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. Unemployment’s up, house prices are stagnating. But is the Victorian economy doing as badly as it seems? – https://theconversation.com/unemployments-up-house-prices-are-stagnating-but-is-the-victorian-economy-doing-as-badly-as-it-seems-241762

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: If a Year 12 student gets an early offer for uni, does it mean they stop trying?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew J. Martin, Scientia Professor and Professor of Educational Psychology, UNSW Sydney

    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Early entry schemes for university – where students get an offer before their final exams – are increasingly popular.

    For example, more than 27,000 students applied to the Universities Admissions Centre (which mostly deals with New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory unis) for an early offer in 2024. This was a record number and an almost 19% increase on 2023.

    On the one hand, early offers are seen as a way to reduce pressure on Year 12 students. But they are also increasingly criticised, with concerns students may stop trying once they receive an offer.

    Our new research shows applying for an early offer does not make a significant difference to how hard a student tries leading up to their final exams or their final results.

    What are early offers?

    The main round of university offers is in December-January, after students have done their final exams in the previous October and November and have their final results or ATAR.

    With early entry offer schemes, universities assess students using criteria other than (or on top of) final results.

    Amid concerns about students reducing their efforts, in February this year, federal and state education ministers agreed there would be no university offers until September. Federal Education Minister Jason Clare is pushing for a new, national approach to early entry by 2027.

    Year 12 students around Australia sit their final exams in October and November.
    Monkey Business Images/ Shutterstock



    Read more:
    ‘I don’t believe I would have gotten into university’: how early entry schemes help Year 12 students experiencing disadvantage


    Our research

    Our new study investigated the role of early entry offers on Year 12 students’ academic and personal wellbeing.

    We looked at three types of students: students applying for and receiving an early offer, students applying for but not receiving an early offer, and students who did not apply for an early offer.

    We then looked at multiple forms of academic and personal wellbeing, including:

    • the ATAR

    • motivation at school (their interest, energy, and drive to learn) and enjoyment of school

    • how students dealt with academic challenges (also called “academic buoyancy”)

    • study burnout

    • overall life satisfaction, mental health and self-esteem.

    Who did we study?

    The study involved Year 12 students in 2022 from schools in New South Wales.

    The average age for participants was 17, most (68%) were female, the majority (69%) lived in an urban area, just under a quarter (23%) were from a non-English speaking background, and just over half were from government schools (52%).

    We tracked the ATARs of 1,512 students for whom we had early offer data.

    We also surveyed a subset of 525 students from this group. We surveyed them in term 2 of Year 12 and then followed up with a second survey in term 4, about 2 weeks before their final exams.

    The surveys included questions about their academic and personal wellbeing. Both surveys were done online.

    What we found

    In terms of early entry status, 16% did not apply for an early offer, 21% applied but were unsuccessful, and 63% received an early offer.

    Using statistical modelling to control for prior differences in achievement and motivation between the groups, as well as age, gender, school type and learning difficulties, we found an early offer did not appear to have an impact on a student’s ATAR.

    We also found no impact on their motivation, effort, burnout or mental health.

    In fact, the best predictors of students’ final results were their previous results and their efforts earlier in Year 12.

    As our research showed, the findings for these predictors were statistically significant, meaning we can have confidence the results were not due to chance.

    This mirrors other research that suggests you can predict a student’s ATAR from their Year 11 results.

    Students in our study did not stop trying if they had an early offer to uni.
    Jacob Lund/ Shutterstock

    One important difference

    We did find one statistically significant effect. Those receiving an early offer scored about 10% higher in academic buoyancy than the other two groups.

    This means these students reported they were better able to overcome academic challenges, such as difficult assessment tasks and competing deadlines, as they approached their final exams.

    We found this difference even after controlling for any prior group differences in academic buoyancy.

    But we note it was only a relatively small effect.

    Why was there so little difference?

    Some possible explanations about why early offers did not appear to make much difference include:

    • Year 12 is a busy year full of activities (from formals and other events, to plans for life after school). It could be early entry status is quickly absorbed in all the demands of the final year and becomes normalised

    • the joy or relief of an early offer is short-lived and students return to their emotional equilibrium or their typical “set point” in terms of outlook on life

    • the ATAR looms large in students’ lives, so they may still want to do as well as they can – regardless of whether they get an early offer or not.

    What does this mean?

    Our study suggests receiving an early offer for university does not make much of a difference to final outcomes.

    So this suggests students can apply for an early entry offer if they want to.

    But once the application is submitted, they need to return their focus to factors that are influential in final outcomes — such as their learning, motivation, and engagement through Year 12.


    Helen Tam, Kim Paino, Anthony Manny, Mitch Smith and Nicole Swanson from the Universities Admissions Centre helped with the research on which this article is based.

    Andrew J. Martin has received funding from the Australian Research Council, International Boys’ Schools Coalition, NSW Department of Education, and Commonwealth Department of Education.

    ref. If a Year 12 student gets an early offer for uni, does it mean they stop trying? – https://theconversation.com/if-a-year-12-student-gets-an-early-offer-for-uni-does-it-mean-they-stop-trying-241787

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cultural burning isn’t just important to Indigenous culture – it’s essential to Australia’s disaster management

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhiamie Williamson, Research Fellow, Monash University

    Toa55/Shutterstock

    Last month, Australia’s newly appointed minister for emergency management, Senator Jenny McAllister, and Senator Tony Sheldon, special envoy for disaster recovery, took part in a cultural burn outside Lismore in New South Wales, as part of the National Gathering on Indigenous Disaster Resilience.

    It was significant to see members of the federal government listening to and taking direction from a cultural burn expert, Oliver Costello of Jagun Alliance, before undertaking a burn.

    Cultural burning is increasingly being used in disaster management. Pictured: Oliver Costello, Senator Jenny McAllister, Bhiamie Williamson and Senator Tony Sheldon at a cultural burn held during the National Gathering.
    Gabrielle Connole, CC BY-NC-ND

    It represented a hopeful sign that cultural burning might be increasingly used as a tool for disaster mitigation. After all, McAllister isn’t the minister for Indigenous affairs or the environment – her role is emergency management. At last month’s meeting, Indigenous peoples spoke of their desire and inherent right to be involved in disaster management.

    Cultural burning is, of course, vitally important to culture. But these gentle, regular burns were one of the main ways Indigenous groups managed land. They created mosaics of burned and unburned land, reducing the chance of megafires by burning fuel loads and creating safe havens in dangerous times.

    Networks of Indigenous groups have begun using fire to once again care for Country all around Australia. These are positive signs. But there is more to do to dismantle remaining barriers to mainstreaming cultural burning – and making it possible to use these ancient techniques to reduce, or avoid, disasters.

    An ancient practice rekindled

    The evidence of Indigenous land management using fire is significant and growing.

    This evidence has emerged through formal truth-telling processes such as Yoorrook, whose commissioners heard about the deliberate suppression of Indigenous land management in Victoria. It has come from ongoing academic research stitching settler accounts of the land and observations of how Indigenous groups used fire. In 1802, for instance, the settler John Murray recorded his amazement at how Boon Wurrung people set and controlled fire in Victoria’s Western Port Bay. The fire, which “must have covered an acre of ground”, was “dous’d […] at once”.

    In Mary Gilmore’s account of 19th-century colonial life in the New South Wales Riverina, she writes:

    As to fire, it was [Indigenous people] who taught our first settlers to get bushes and beat out a conflagration […] Indeed, it was a constant wonder, when I was little, how easily [Indigenous people] would check a fire before it grew too big for close handling or start a return fire when and where it was safest.

    These historical observations are complementary to the work of passing on knowledge of fire to the next generation. Taken together, they reveal a fundamental truth about Australia – it is a land of fire, and Indigenous people are the masters.

    The return of parcels of land to Indigenous groups in recent decades means we can restart these ancient fire regimes, through Indigenous rangers and other organisations.

    The return of ancient practices

    The management of land over deep time by Indigenous groups has meant people and the land effectively co-evolved.

    Since 1788, colonisation and Indigenous dispossession have radically altered many parts of Australia. Land was cleared for farms, cities, roads and infrastructure. Rivers were dammed for irrigation.

    Grasslands and yam fields were converted to livestock farms or cropping. Forested areas in some areas were cleared and in other areas thickly regrew, replacing the park-like mix of grassland and stands of trees produced by Indigenous land management. Thirsty crops such as cotton were planted, siphoning off huge volumes of water from lakes and rivers.

    John Glover’s 1838 painting shows open savannahs and grasslands in the Surrey Hills district of north-west Tasmania. In our time, this area has become temperate rainforest.
    Art Gallery of NSW

    Even the creation of national parks transformed landscapes, as Western practices of more passive management replaced active Indigenous management.

    The suppression of cultural burning brought yet more difficult change to Australia’s plants and animals. Australia now has one of the highest extinction rates of animals in the world. But cultural burning is being applied as a method to help protect vulnerable species, such as the Corroboree Frog.

    Over years, Indigenous groups have worked diligently and strategically to rekindle this ancient practice. But they have also reimagined it. It’s time to ask the question: what would it mean to bring back cultural burning at scale?

    No longer do Indigenous groups apply fire as a normal and everyday rhythm of life, stopping to light small fires as they walk. It’s now much more deliberate, requiring careful planning, creation of fire breaks and management of fire using trucks and heavy machinery.

    Even ignition is done differently. For a ceremony, firesticks will be used, with further lighting done using drip torches. In remote areas, fires are lit from helicopters, making it possible to cover vast areas.

    Combining these ancient and contemporary practices creates something fundamentally new. We require innovative discourses to better describe these developments.

    Indigenous Yika rangers burn using drip torches.
    Rohan Carboon/Indigenous Desert Alliance, CC BY

    New fire season, new hazards

    This fire season is likely to be a dangerous one. The seasonal bushfire outlook released by the Australasian Fire and Emergency Council projects the risk of early fires and a higher-than-usual bushfire risk over vast areas of Australia.

    Large parts of Australia are forecast to have a higher fire risk this spring.
    Australasian Fire and Emergency Council, CC BY-SA

    Recent rainy La Nina years triggered rapid vegetation growth in many areas, increasing the fuel load. Fire authorities are worried about what a forecast hot, dry, windy summer will mean.

    In recent years, Indigenous ranger groups have been undertaking cool burns as much as possible. In arid areas, there are fears of fast-moving grass fires due to the spread of introduced and highly flammable buffel grass.

    As danger from climate change intensifies, making volatile and combustible landscapes safer poses challenges both complex – and urgent.

    Indigenous groups around Australia have begun the work of rekindling cultural burns, but barriers still remain. Responsibility for fire management in state forests, national parks and on private land has long been split between government authorities and landholders. It’s time this disaster management work by Indigenous groups was recognised and magnified by governments.

    To mainstream cultural burning will mean finding ways of sharing the knowledge of when and how to burn, and resourcing Indigenous groups to undertake training and burns. Doing this will not only benefit the land and Indigenous groups, but all Australians.




    Read more:
    Before the colonists came, we burned small and burned often to avoid big fires. It’s time to relearn cultural burning


    Bhiamie Williamson leads the National Indigenous Disaster Resilience Program at Monash University. He is also a Director of the environmental charity Country Needs People.

    ref. Cultural burning isn’t just important to Indigenous culture – it’s essential to Australia’s disaster management – https://theconversation.com/cultural-burning-isnt-just-important-to-indigenous-culture-its-essential-to-australias-disaster-management-241269

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Being mentally flexible might influence our attitudes to vaccination, a new study shows

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Gomes-Ng, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Auckland University of Technology

    Getty Images

    Making decisions about our health is a complex and sometimes difficult process.

    On top of our own attitudes, experiences and perspectives, we are inundated with information from other people (friends, family, health professionals) and from external sources (news or social media) about what it means to be healthy.

    Sometimes, this information is consistent with what we think about our own health. At other times, it may contradict our own beliefs. And to make things even more complicated, sometimes this information is deliberate misinformation.

    How do we make sense of all this when making decisions about our health? What determines whether we hold fast to our attitudes, or change our minds?

    Most of us can probably relate to this. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we had to change many of our behaviours to slow the spread of the virus. This meant working from home, wearing a mask, staying in our “bubbles”, and eventually getting the vaccine.

    While the decision to get vaccinated was an obvious one for many people, it was not as straightforward for others. Research from the period immediately before the COVID vaccine became available in New Zealand showed a sizeable minority was unsure about or unlikely to be vaccinated.

    These people were more likely to be young, female and less educated, and were primarily concerned about unknown future side effects. Our new research suggests cognitive (mental) flexibility may also have something to do with attitudes towards vaccination.

    A flexible mind

    Past research suggests mental flexibility plays an important role in our decision-making. Imagine changing the way you do something at work, having a discussion with someone with a different opinion, or being told you should make healthier choices (such as exercising more).

    Some people navigate these situations with ease. Others find it more difficult to adapt. Mental flexibility describes this ability to adapt our attitudes, thoughts or behaviours when faced with new or changing information.

    Studies show mental flexibility influences how extreme our opinions are, how likely we are to believe misinformation or “fake news”, whether we make pro-environmental choices or engage in health-promoting behaviours (sun protection or physical exercise, for example).

    To increase vaccination coverage, governments often use education campaigns that emphasise the safety, effectiveness and importance of vaccination. However, these campaigns don’t always succeed in reducing feelings of uncertainty about vaccination.




    Read more:
    Vaccine hesitancy is one of the greatest threats to global health – and the pandemic has made it worse


    We wanted to know why, and we thought mental flexibility might play a role. To test this, we surveyed 601 New Zealanders on their opinions and experiences of vaccination.

    Some questions asked about external factors, such as how easy they thought it was to access or afford vaccines. Other questions asked about internal factors, such as personal beliefs about vaccination, perceptions of their own heath, and how important or safe they thought vaccines were.

    Overall, our participants reported few external barriers to vaccination, with 97% saying they found vaccines accessible or affordable. These percentages are promising, and may reflect the government’s continued efforts to make it easier to get a vaccine.

    In comparison, internal factors played a larger role in vaccine uncertainty or hesitancy. In particular, nearly a quarter (22%) of participants reported concerns about the health risks of vaccines. And 12% said they didn’t trust the processes or people who developed vaccines.

    Health information campaigns don’t always succeed in reducing anxiety or uncertainty.
    Getty Images

    Testing adaptive behaviour

    We also asked our participants to play a game designed to measure mental flexibility.

    This involved matching cards based on a rule – for example, match the cards with the same number of objects. The rule would randomly change during the game, meaning participants had to adapt their behaviour as the game went on.

    Interestingly, people who found it harder to adapt to the rule changes (meaning they had lower levels of mental flexibility) also reported more internal barriers to vaccination.

    For example, when we split participants into two groups based on their mental flexibility, the low-flexibility group was 18% more likely to say vaccination was inconsistent with their beliefs. They were also 14% more likely to say they didn’t trust vaccines, and 11% more likely to report concerns about the negative side effects of vaccines.

    This wasn’t the case for external factors. Mental flexibility didn’t predict whether people thought vaccines were accessible or affordable.

    Information is sometimes not enough

    These results suggest making decisions about our health – including whether or not to get vaccinated – depends on more than receiving the “right” information.

    Simply being told about the importance of vaccination may not be enough to change attitudes or behaviours. It also depends on each person’s unique cognitive style – the way they perceive and process information.

    Declining vaccination rates have been a concern worldwide, including in New Zealand, since well before the pandemic. Our findings suggest health education campaigns may be more effective if they take into account the role of cognitive flexibility.

    One technique is to change the way information is framed. For example, instead of just presenting facts about the safety or importance of vaccination, education campaigns could encourage us to question our own perspectives, or to imagine alternative realities by asking “what if?” questions.

    Research shows this type of framing can engage our deliberative thought processes (the ones that help us to think deeply and critically), increase mental flexibility, and ultimately make us more receptive to change.

    Stephanie Gomes-Ng received funding from the Ember Korowai Takitini Trust for this research. The funders had no influence over the study’s conceptualisation, design, methodology, data collection or interpretation, nor the decision to publish.

    ref. Being mentally flexible might influence our attitudes to vaccination, a new study shows – https://theconversation.com/being-mentally-flexible-might-influence-our-attitudes-to-vaccination-a-new-study-shows-241559

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Abortion is back in the headlines in Australia. The debates in the United States tell us why

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Flowers, Senior Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University

    The 2022 news that the US Supreme Court had overturned Roe v Wade and ended the constitutional right to abortion sent shockwaves around the world.

    For Australian opponents of abortion who had long looked to the US for leadership and inspiration, it prompted rejoicing.

    As a leader of Cherish Life Queensland put it, “if the USA can do it, with God’s help, so can we”.

    In late 2024, the abortion issue has suddenly erupted in Queensland and South Australia. A subset of local conservatives, energised by the fall of Roe v Wade and the example of Donald Trump, are embracing the divisive “culture war” tactics that dominate US politics.

    Abortion and Australian politics in 2024

    In the 2020 Queensland election, the Liberal National Party (LNP) has promised a “review” of the legislation that had decriminalised abortion two years prior. However, the party has spent most of the 2024 campaign studiously avoiding the issue.

    That is, until Robbie Katter MP, of Katter’s Australia Party, threw a spanner in the works.

    On October 8, Katter announced that if the LNP won, as was widely predicted, he would immediately introduce a private member’s bill to repeal the state abortion law.

    LNP leader David Crisafulli, who voted against decriminalisation, insists that changing the law is “not part of our plan”.

    However, last week Crisafulli was asked 132 times about abortion and the issue of conscience votes and refused to provide a clear answer.

    In the final leaders’ debate on Tuesday night, Crisafulli finally said there would be no change to abortion law and he was “pro-choice”.

    However, that is unlikely to be the end of the issue – opposition to abortion runs deep in the LNP.

    Party policy in 2018 was that abortion should remain a criminal offence. Despite being a conscience vote, the three LNP members who voted for decriminalisation were threatened with “punishment” afterwards.

    In 2024, several new antiabortion candidates are running for the LNP. Former Liberal senator Amanda Stoker is a particularly high-profile one, having repeatedly addressed the Brisbane March for Life rally.

    The furore over the future of reproductive rights in Queensland occurred in parallel with controversy over anti-abortion legislation introduced by state Liberal MP Ben Hood in South Australia.

    His bill required anyone needing to end a pregnancy after 28 weeks to have labour induced and for the baby to be delivered alive, regardless of the health outcomes for the pregnant person or infant.

    Peak medical and legal bodies condemned the bill, which critics described as a “forced birth” measure. It was narrowly defeated in the upper house on October 16.

    Federally, Senator Jacinta Price has also called for abortion to be back on the “national agenda” and condemned abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Her stance is out of step with abortion law in all Australian jurisdictions.




    Read more:
    Abortion is now legal across Australia – but it’s still hard to access. Doctors are both the problem and the solution


    Public and party opinion

    This sudden uptick in anti-abortion politics does not reflect Australian attitudes.

    A 2024 poll found 75% of Queenslanders agreed that decriminalising abortion had been the right action.

    This view was shared across partisan and geographical lines, held by 73% of LNP voters and 78% of regional Queenslanders.

    Historian Cassandra Byrnes demonstrates that these pro-choice attitudes have deep roots. A majority of the public opposed the police raids on abortion clinics that occurred under Nationals premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

    A 2020 poll of South Australians found 80% supported decriminalisation. And 63% considered that later abortion should be available “when the woman and her healthcare team decide it is necessary”.

    The LNP’s hostility towards decriminalisation was also markedly different from the approach in other states.

    Notably, in both New South Wales and South Australia, prominent Liberals, including premiers, voted to decriminalise abortion.

    In South Australia, two senior Liberals, Minister for Human Services Michelle Lensink and Attorney-General Vickie Chapman, led the cross-party group that achieved law reform.

    Importing the culture wars

    When Australian states and territories debated decriminalisation, anti-abortion opponents relied heavily on tactics, pseudoscientific evidence and outright misinformation that first emerged in the United States.




    Read more:
    How the US right-to-life movement is influencing the abortion debate in Australia


    For example, in 2008, one Victorian group controversially distributed graphic photographs of aborted fetuses, and American diagrams and descriptions of later abortion procedures.

    Now, as Australian conservatives seek to reopen the debate over abortion, American influence underpins the rhetoric and framing.

    For decades, opponents of abortion in the United States focused on chipping away abortion rights and eroding access. They never accepted that abortion was health care.

    Since 1995, their central focus was also on the statistically rare abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation. This focus has been imported wholesale into Australia.

    The anti-abortion activism surrounding Hood’s bill reflects these approaches. Opponents of abortions waged a broad and stigmatising campaign against abortion after 22 weeks and six days, the legal point in South Australia after which two medical practitioners must approve an abortion.

    Hood’s bill is best interpreted as an anti-abortion “messaging” exercise rather than a genuine attempt to amend the law.

    For decades, this was the default tactic motivating Republicans when they introduced extreme, unenforceable bills. The purpose was not legislative change but to amplify their rhetoric and arguments and energise conservative voters.

    Opposition to abortion is also part of a broader rightward shift taking place among some state Liberal branches.

    In South Australia, conservatives launched a power grab after abortion was decriminalised in 2021. This included a significant recruitment drive among Pentecostals.

    A similar recruiting focus on conservative religious faith groups has also occurred in Victoria, triggered by LGBTQI+ victories.

    In South Australia, the party takeover is openly led by Senator Alex Antic. He made a name for himself through his hostility to COVID-19 vaccines and his opposition to trans and abortion rights.

    Antic praises Trump and seeks out connections with conservatives who are or have been close to him, including Steven Bannon and Donald Trump junior.

    Meanwhile, in Queensland, Crisafulli’s desperate efforts not to be pinned down on abortion offer a local version of themes in the 2024 presidential election.

    Because Republicans have experienced significant voter backlash over abortion, Trump has charted an uneasy course.

    Trump claims sole responsibility for the end of Roe v Wade while simultaneously denying any connection to the abortion bans now in place in many states.

    Like Crisafulli, Trump has been unclear about what his victory would mean for reproductive rights.

    Political commentator Mark Kenny concludes that an “ideological battle” is unfolding among Australian Liberals.

    As in the United States, unwavering hostility to abortion is proving central to these politicians as a way to signify their priorities to voters and define themselves against others in their party.

    Prudence Flowers has received funding from the South Australian Department of Human Services. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.

    ref. Abortion is back in the headlines in Australia. The debates in the United States tell us why – https://theconversation.com/abortion-is-back-in-the-headlines-in-australia-the-debates-in-the-united-states-tell-us-why-241778

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ernst Prevents Tax Dollars from Funding Anti-Second Amendment Groups

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)
    WASHINGTON – To combat discrimination against gun owners, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) is supporting theFirearm Industry Non-Discrimination (FIND) Act to stop the federal government from entering into contracts with entities that promote anti-Second Amendment policies.
    Because of her tireless commitment to protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners, Senator Ernst recentlyearned an “A+” rating from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). 
    This summer, Ernst crushed some clays at Ingawanis Adventure Base in Bremer County.
    “Taxpayers should not be funding groups that are actively working to erode and eliminate their God-given right to protect themselves and their families,” said Ernst. “The Second Amendment is foundational to this country and under no circumstance should the federal government be doing businesses with those looking to infringe upon the Constitution. I will always stand up for gun owners and protect their rights from gun grabbers in Washington.”
    “We’re thankful for Senator Ernst’s focus on protecting the rights of lawful citizens practicing their Second Amendment. Her support of the FIND Act will halt discriminatory practices against the firearm industry in their tracks. We look forward to continuing our work with Senator Ernst to expose and correct the infringement of our Constitutional rights,” said John B. McLaughlin, Iowa Firearms Coalition Chairman.
    “Under the Firearm Industry Non-Discrimination (FIND) Act, ‘woke’ corporations that choose to use their financial might to deny essential services to members of the firearm industry would no longer benefit from taxpayer-funded federal contracts. We thank Senator Ernst for supporting the FIND Act and for her commitment to preserving and protecting the Second Amendment rights of her constituents and the industry that makes the exercise of those rights possible. It is because of her efforts that Senator Ernst earned an A+ on the 2024 NSSF Congressional Report Card, which is a comprehensive analysis of our elected representatives’ positions on firearm and ammunition industry priorities in the 118th Congress,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
    “It’s been a joy to work with Sen. Ernst and her office to protect the 2nd Amendment and to know that we woman have such a strong supporter in her,” said Jeanelle Westrom, Iowa Director of Women for Gun Rights.
    Click here to read the bill.
    Background:
    Senator Ernst has fought back against numerous attempts by the Biden-Harris administration to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
    She led the FIREARM Act to protect gun dealers’ Second Amendment rights in the face of the Biden Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) “zero tolerance” crackdown.
    Ernst worked to hold the ATF accountable by standing up against ATF agents knocking on the doors of private residences, where many law-abiding gun owners live, and asking them to display a recently purchased firearm.
    She has also exposed the ATF’s routine misclassification of administrative positions as law enforcement jobs, improperly costing the federal agency millions in pay and enhanced benefits over a five-year span.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy To Cosponsor Legislation To Hold Georgian Officials Accountable For Corruption, Human Rights Abuses, And Anti-Democratic Efforts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy

    October 23, 2024

    WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday announced his intention to join U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Jim Risch (R-Id.) in introducing the Georgian People’s Act, legislation that would hold Georgian government officials and individuals responsible for corruption, human rights abuses, and efforts to advance the foreign influence law or facilitate its passage. 
    The legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Dan Sullivan (R-Ark.), Angus King (I-Maine), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and George Helmy (D-N.J.) have also requested to join the Senators’ Georgian People’s Act when the Senate reconvenes in November.
    “Russia’s use of corruption, propaganda and violence doesn’t just threaten Georgia’s future as a strong, independent nation—it puts the entire international order at risk of collapse,” said Murphy. “As Putin and his cronies try to undermine Georgia’s democracy and impose a government that will do their bidding, this bipartisan legislation makes clear the United States stands firmly with the Georgian people who overwhelmingly support democracy and a future in Europe.”
    “I’m pleased that a number of my Senate colleagues recognize the urgency of the situation in Georgia and have agreed to cosponsor the Georgian People’s Act in the U.S. Senate,” said Shaheen. “Together, we’re sending a strong message that there is robust bipartisan support for our legislation and our posture towards Georgia and support for the Georgian people’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations will remain unchanged no matter which party controls Washington.” 
    “This bill sends a strong message from Congress that the U.S. is united behind the Georgian people as they pursue a future in the transatlantic community,” said Risch. “We recognize the Georgian people’s desire for European integration and are committed to making U.S. policy that supports the opportunity for them achieve it.” 
    “The Georgian government’s embrace of pro-Russian policies and away from a Euro-Atlantic future is concerning,” said Tillis. “I am proud to co-sponsor this bill to hold the Georgian government officials accountable and reaffirm the U.S. support for the Georgian people.” 
    “The Georgian government’s shift towards Russia’s authoritarian regime and away from its European partners is alarming,” said Cornyn. “This legislation would hold Georgia’s corrupt leaders accountable and signal to the Georgian people that the U.S. stands with them in their pursuit of a Euro-Atlantic future.” 
    “While the Georgian people have demonstrated overwhelming support for a democratic future, their government has become increasingly under Russia’s influence—most recently passing a law to restrict civil society and free speech,” said Romney. “Our legislation would hold Georgian government officials responsible for corruption and demonstrate the United States’ commitment to the Georgian people’s fight for democracy and rule of law.” 
    “A free, secure, sovereign Georgia, aligned with the US and its allies is in the national interest, both of Georgia and the United States,” said Sullivan. “Georgia’s apparent drift back into Russia’s orbit is bad for the stability of the region. No one understands this better than the Georgian people themselves. According to polling from the International Republican Institute, 90% of Georgians want their nation to be part of the Western, free World, not the Russian World.” 
    “The United States stands with the Georgian people and their pursuit of a Euro-Atlantic future. The Georgian government’s recent efforts to align with Russia reject the desires of Georgians and pose a significant threat. Our bipartisan bill would hold Georgian government officials accountable for corruption and express our support for the transatlantic aspirations of the Georgian people,” said Young. 
    Full text of the legislation is available HERE. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: McClellan Launches 2024-2025 Youth Advisory Council

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (Virginia 4th District)

    Semester-Long District Program Will Give High School Students a Behind-the-Scenes Look at Congress

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (VA-04) announced the launch of her inaugural Youth Advisory Council District Program to provide high school students with a platform to engage with McClellan, her congressional staff, and current events through monthly meetings. 

    “Active and informed citizens make up the foundation of a thriving democracy. From its inception, young people have played an invaluable role in pushing our nation forward. Our students should be given every opportunity to learn about our democratic process, share their perspectives, and have their voices heard,” said Congresswoman McClellan. “Throughout my career in public office, I have worked to demystify our political processes, inform my constituents, and empower them to participate. My inaugural Youth Advisory Council program will give high school students in Virginia’s Fourth the opportunity to learn more about the inner workings of Congress, the role of congressional staff, and my work in Washington.” 

    Open to all high school students currently residing or attending school in Virginia’s Fourth Congressional District, the Youth Advisory Council consists of monthly meetings with members of McClellan’s Washington, D.C. and District staff. Council members will delve into the legislative process, constituent casework and district outreach, and congressional communications and media relations. Council members will also have the opportunity to engage directly with McClellan, culminating in a policy discussion and volunteer oppo​​unity with the Congresswoman. 

    The application period is now open. Eligible high school students can submit their applications now until December 30th, 2024. The Council will begin in late January and run through early May. 

    Additional information, including application requirements, program overview, and upcoming deadlines are available on McClellan’s website

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Protecting Albertans’ rights and freedoms

    Source: Government of Canada regional news (2)

    In response to increasing concerns that regulated professional bodies may be going too far in limiting individual freedom of expression and imposing compulsory training beyond the scope of their professional practice, Alberta’s government is launching an engagement this fall that will include hearing directly from affected members.

    As part of the province’s commitment to protecting the civil liberties of all Albertans, the government is considering legislative changes to clarify that professional regulatory bodies are limited to regulating members’ professional competence and behaviour. The engagement will ensure that professional regulatory bodies uphold the rights and freedoms of their members, and that Albertans can share their experiences and opinions. 

    “Freedom of expression is a bedrock in a democratic society. We’re committed to standing up for Albertans’ freedom and that includes ensuring Albertans are not coerced into self-censorship because of threats from their professional regulated bodies. Organizations that regulate professionals must strike a balance that upholds competence and ethics without restricting members’ rights and freedoms and we are working to ensure that balance is met.”

    Danielle Smith, Premier

    “We have heard from professionals receiving complaints from regulators, and in some cases facing actual disciplinary action for expressing personal beliefs and opinions unrelated to their professional competencies. This situation could result in self-censorship and infringe on their ability to speak and express opinions freely. We are initiating this review to ensure members’ rights and freedoms are protected.”

    Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

    Eleven ministries with regulated professions in scope for this review will collect information and engage with professional regulatory bodies and other relevant groups as needed to inform policy decision-making.

    The review will be informed by input from professional regulatory bodies, regulated professionals and other organizations, associations or experts. These groups will be invited to share their views on whether regulatory oversight goes beyond professional competence and ethics in areas such as freedom of expression and opinion, training not related to professional competence, vexatious and bad faith complaints, third-party complaints and protection for those holding other roles in addition to their role as a regulated professional.

    Quick facts

    • Professional regulatory bodies protect the public interest by setting standards of competence and conduct for their members and disciplining those who fail to meet them.
    • The right to freedom of expression is protected under Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    • The review will include 118 regulated professional bodies under the mandates of 11 ministries.
      • These 118 professions and trades are governed by 67 different regulatory bodies. This number includes some provincial government ministries that directly regulate professions.
    • Each ministry did an inventory of the regulated professions under their mandates and determined which should be included in the review. Professions may be excluded from the review if:
      • They are not self-regulating.
      • Regulation for the profession is not yet in force.
      • There is no regulatory body or means to handle public complaints or disciplinary action against any member.
      • There is little or no regulatory role beyond certification.

    Related information

    • Regulated Professions Engagement

    Multimedia

    • Video with Premier Danielle Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: In Bipartisan Push, Maryland, Virginia Lawmakers Call on President to Address Venezuelan Crab Imports

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (2nd District of Maryland)

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen, Ben Cardin (both D-Md.), Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine (both D-Va.) along with U.S. Representatives Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), John Sarbanes (D-Md.), Rob Wittman (R-Va.), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), David Trone (D-Md.), and Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) wrote to President Joe Biden outlining their concerns with the recent surge of crabmeat imports from Venezuela and its impact on the Chesapeake Bay region’s seafood economy as well as public health. In their letter, the lawmakers urge the President to launch an investigation through the International Trade Commission into the harm that these imports pose to our domestic seafood industry, and press the Administration to encourage a fairer seafood trade relationship. 

     “We write to express our significant concerns with the influx of crabmeat from Venezuela, which has threatened the viability of local fisheries across the Chesapeake Bay. Domestic seafood producers in Maryland and Virginia have experienced significant strain due to the influx of imported Venezuelan crabmeat, some of which is mislabeled and contaminated. In 2018, Venezuelan crabmeat mislabeled as originating from Maryland caused an outbreak of foodborne illnesses, resulting in multiple hospitalizations,” the lawmakers began.

    Highlighting the economic damage caused by Venezuelan imports, they wrote, “Since then, the supply of imported crabmeat has increased, threatening the future livelihood of domestic industry and creating the conditions for a 62 percent decrease in the domestic supply. This has harmed crab fishing industries throughout the Chesapeake Bay, which produces 50 percent of the United States’ total blue crab harvest, a proportion that is now diminishing year over year. There are now fewer than 20 Maryland crab picking and seafood processing companies, down from 53 in 1995.”

    They go on to urge the President to:

    1. Direct the United States International Trade Commission to conduct an investigation, per Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, looking into the harm caused by Venezuelan crabmeat imports and recommending remedies.
    2. Use the full array of informal actions available to you to address this trade issue, including through negotiations, utilization of World Trade Organization Committees, bilateral dialogues, and other activities.

    The full text of the letter is available here and below. 

    Dear President Biden: 

    We write to express our significant concerns with the influx of crabmeat from Venezuela, which has threatened the viability of local fisheries across the Chesapeake Bay. Domestic seafood producers in Maryland and Virginia have experienced significant strain due to the influx of imported Venezuelan crabmeat, some of which is mislabeled and contaminated. In 2018, Venezuelan crabmeat mislabeled as originating from Maryland caused an outbreak of foodborne illnesses, resulting in multiple hospitalizations. Since then, the supply of imported crabmeat has increased, threatening the future livelihood of domestic industry and creating the conditions for a 62 percent decrease in the domestic supply. This has harmed crab fishing industries throughout the Chesapeake Bay, which produces 50 percent of the United States’ total blue crab harvest, a proportion that is now diminishing year over year. There are now fewer than 20 Maryland crab picking and seafood processing companies, down from 53 in 1995. 

    Chesapeake Bay crab fisheries and processors follow a strict set of regulations to ensure that the Bay remains one of the most sustainable crab fisheries in the world, that the blue crabs harvested there are of the highest quality, and that the industry does no harm to other species. Foreign competitors often confront little or no such regulation. Not only does this imbalance put local fisheries and seafood businesses at a steep disadvantage, it can also put consumers at increased risk. Consumers are often misled about what they are eating, and sometimes even made sick, as was the case when imported Venezuelan crabmeat was linked with multiple cases of Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections. 

    We urge your Administration to use all of the tools at its disposal to remedy this unsustainable situation. Specifically, we urge you to: 

    1. Direct the United States International Trade Commission to conduct an investigation, per Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, looking into the harm caused by Venezuelan crabmeat imports and recommending remedies.
    2. Use the full array of informal actions available to you to address this trade issue, including through negotiations, utilization of World Trade Organization Committees, bilateral dialogues, and other activities.  

    The Chesapeake Bay crab industry has faced numerous challenges, and the region has worked hard to preserve the blue crab population over the years. This industry carries unique cultural importance for the broader Mid-Atlantic region, enriching and enhancing the regional culinary landscape. Without the federal government stepping in to protect American manufacturers from unfair competition, they might not make it through this crisis. If they do not, Maryland, Virginia, and the country, will be all the poorer for it. 

    Sincerely,

     ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Some reports published in media mentioning shortage of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) to affect prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Some reports published in media mentioning shortage of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) to affect prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position

    Subsidy on DAP has not been reduced at all; MRP of DAP has been maintained at Rs. 1350/- per 50 Kg bag since Covid times

    For Rabi season, the increase in subsidy has been effected by two Cabinet decisions

    Total budgetary allocation increased to Rs.24,475 crores for Rabi 2024-25

    Posted On: 23 OCT 2024 8:46PM by PIB Delhi

    Some reports published in the media recently claiming shortage of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) across the country and its resultant effect on prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position.

    It is clarified that the MRP of DAP has been maintained at Rs. 1350/- per 50 Kg bag since Covid times.

    Further, the subsidy on DAP has not been reduced at all. Instead, for the benefit of farmers, via two Cabinet decisions, an increase in subsidy has been effected for Rabi 2024.

    Firstly, Rs. 3500/- per MT as a special package costing Rs. 2625 crores has been provided to make the price sustainable for companies for procurement of DAP so that the procurement capacity at company level remains unaffected by the price volatility.

    Secondly, the overall increase in prices in the international market has been taken care of by another Cabinet decision by which subsidy has been linked to the market prices. Thus, if the procurement price of P&K fertilizer, including DAP, increases in the global market, the procurement capacities of the companies are not affected. Therefore, farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries.

    In addition to this, the total budgetary allocation for Rabi 2024-2025 has been increased to Rs. 24,475 crores.

    It may be noted that the availability of DAP has been affected somewhat by several geo-political factors including the long route taken by the vessels through Cape of Good Hope instead of Red sea. However, intensive efforts have been made by the Department of Fertilizers to augment the availability substantially during Sept–Nov, 2024.

    *****

    MV/AKS

    (Release ID: 2067500) Visitor Counter : 210

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI: Greenway Technologies Announces Gas to Hydrogen System H-Reformer®

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ARLINGTON, Texas, Oct. 23, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Greenway Technologies, Inc. (OTC: GWTI), (“Greenway”), is an advanced gas-to-liquids (“GTL”) and gas-to-hydrogen (“GTH”) technology development company. Greenway has developed and marketed a patented system, the G-Reformer®, that converts natural gas (methane) from various sources to a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (syngas). Continued ongoing research has developed a new version of the G-Reformer®, named the “H-Reformer®,” which converts natural gas to hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The H-Reformer® system is modular and small enough to be deployed in areas close to consumption, eliminating the cost of compressing and transporting the resultant hydrogen while separating and removing created carbon dioxide.

    Two significant changes have been made to the original G-Reformer® to make a reforming system focused on hydrogen creation rather than syngas creation. First, enhancements to the controlling software have modified the G-Reformer® to convert approximately 50% of the created carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide while also producing additional hydrogen. The H-Reformer® also includes an extension to the reforming vessel used in the G-Reformer®. This module will house the physical components needed to convert the remaining carbon monoxide to hydrogen and carbon dioxide within the reforming unit. The result is the generation of considerably more hydrogen per unit of natural gas input than the original G-Reformer® produces and high conversion of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is externally separated from resultant hydrogen by commercially available processes, yielding highly pure hydrogen and liquid carbon dioxide, which will be removed, sold, or sequestered. This new reforming system is named the H-Reformer®.

    Created hydrogen will be available for use at the point of manufacture. Hydrogen compression or liquefaction costs are also eliminated for applications that do not need compressed hydrogen (e.g., electrical power generation). In cases where compressed hydrogen is required, the hydrogen can undergo the compression process at the consumption site while eliminating hydrogen transportation.

    Unlike other natural gas-to-hydrogen technologies, the Greenway reforming process does not require external heating sources, resulting in a highly efficient and lower carbon-generating process. When pipeline-quality fossil natural gas is the input, the system will make “blue hydrogen.” When renewable pipeline-quality methane is the input, the system will make “green hydrogen.” These distinctions are important for associated clean air credits, which depend on the input natural gas source and the resultant carbon’s disposition.

    The Greenway system is modular and can be scaled by adding additional H-Reformer® modules. The system produces hydrogen at an extremely low cost per unit compared to other technologies.

    Currently, Greenway is in discussions with several prospective parties interested in creating hydrogen for various potential uses.

    Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

    This news release contains “forward-looking statements,” as that term is defined in Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Statements in this news release which are not purely historical are forward-looking statements and include any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such forward-looking statements include, among other things, the ongoing effects of the pandemic on delays and orders regarding Greenway’s proprietary gas-to-liquids system, potential business developments and future interest in our clean fuel technologies.

    Actual results could differ from those projected in any forward-looking statements due to numerous factors. Such factors include, among others, general economic and political conditions, the continuation of the JV withThe University of Texas at Arlington, and the ongoing impact of the pandemic. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release, and we assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the beliefs, plans, expectations and intentions contained in this news release are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions will prove to be accurate. Investors should consult all the information set forth herein and should also refer to the risk factors disclosure outlined in our annual report on Form 10-K for the most recent fiscal year, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other periodic reports filed from time-to-time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    CONTACT:
    Robert Kevin Jones
    Greenway Technologies, Inc.
    kevin.jones@gwtechinc.com

    For more information, visit GWTI’s website: www.gwtechinc.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Europe: JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Azerbaijan, violation of human rights and international law and relations with Armenia – RC-B10-0133/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Rasa Juknevičienė, François‑Xavier Bellamy, Michael Gahler, Andrzej Halicki, David McAllister, Sebastião Bugalho, Nicolás Pascual De La Parte, Isabel Wiseler‑Lima, Daniel Caspary, Loucas Fourlas, Sandra Kalniete, Łukasz Kohut, Andrey Kovatchev, Andrius Kubilius, Miriam Lexmann, Vangelis Meimarakis, Ana Miguel Pedro, Davor Ivo Stier, Michał Szczerba
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Raphaël Glucksmann, Udo Bullmann, Matthias Ecke, Francisco Assis
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Emmanouil Fragkos, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Assita Kanko, Marion Maréchal, Aurelijus Veryga, Geadis Geadi, Rihards Kols, Bert‑Jan Ruissen, Charlie Weimers
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Nathalie Loiseau, Petras Auštrevičius, Helmut Brandstätter, Benoit Cassart, Olivier Chastel, Bernard Guetta, Karin Karlsbro, Ľubica Karvašová, Moritz Körner, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Marie‑Agnes Strack‑Zimmermann, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Sergey Lagodinsky
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    European Parliament resolution on the situation in Azerbaijan, violation of human rights and international law and relations with Armenia

    (2024/2890(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to its previous resolutions on Azerbaijan, Armenia and the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh,

     having regard to the relevant documents and international agreements, including but not limited to the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and the Alma-Ata Declaration of 21 December 1991,

     having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, ratified by Azerbaijan in 2002 and to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

     having regard to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,

     having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 22 April 1996 between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part[1],

     having regard to the statements by the European External Action Service spokesperson of 29 May 2024 on the human rights situation in Azerbaijan and of 3 September 2024 on early parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan,

     having regard to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 2527 (2024) of 24 January 2024 entitled ‘Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan’,

     having regard to the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of the Election Observation Mission to the Early Presidential Elections held on 7 February 2024 and to the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission to the Early Parliamentary Elections in Azerbaijan held on 1 September 2024,

     having regard to the report of 29 March 2023 by the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on Azerbaijan and to the memorandum of 21 October 2021 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on the humanitarian and human rights consequences following the 2020 outbreak of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh,

     having regard to the orders of the International Court of Justice of 22 February 2023, of 6 July 2023 and of 17 November 2023 on the request for the indication of provisional measures for the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v Azerbaijan),

     having regard to Rules 136(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

    A. whereas the choice of Azerbaijan’s capital Baku as the venue for the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), scheduled to take place from 11 to 22 November 2024, has sparked controversy, notably owing to Azerbaijan’s worsening human rights record, as well as recent and blatant violations of international law, including aggressive behaviour towards its neighbour Armenia; whereas respect for fundamental human rights and civil society participation are enshrined in the host country agreement through which the Azerbaijani Government committed to uphold these rights; whereas in the lead-up to this major international conference, the Azerbaijani authorities have intensified their repression of civil society organisations, activists, opposition politicians and the remaining independent media through detentions and judicial harassment; whereas corruption and a lack of judicial independence further undermine governance;

    B. whereas civil society organisations list over 300 political prisoners in Azerbaijan, including Gubad Ibadoghlu, Anar Mammadli, Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, Tofig Yagublu, Ilhamiz Guliyev, Aziz Orujov, Bahruz Samadov, Akif Gurbanov and many others; whereas there are credible reports of violations of prisoners’ human rights, including detention in inhumane conditions, torture and refusal of adequate medical care;

    C. whereas prominent human rights defender and climate advocate, Anar Mammadli, has been in pre-trial detention since 30 April 2024 on bogus charges of conspiracy to bring illegal foreign currency into the country and his health has deteriorated significantly while in custody; whereas Gubad Ibadoghlu, a political economist, opposition figure and one of the finalists for the 2024 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, was arrested by Azerbaijani authorities in July 2023 and remained in detention until 22 April 2024, when he was transferred to house arrest; whereas his health has deteriorated significantly since his arrest, as a result of torture, inhumane detention conditions and refusal of adequate medical care, thus endangering his life; whereas the health of Gubad Ibadoghlu’s wife, Irada Bayramova, continues to deteriorate as a result of the physical violence she suffered during her detention by the Azerbaijani authorities; whereas on 4 December 2023 human rights activist Ilhamiz Guliyev was arrested on politically motivated charges a few months after he gave an anonymous interview to Abzas Media about the alleged police practice of planting drugs on political activists;

    D. whereas for more than a decade and with increasing determination, Azerbaijani authorities have been reducing space for civil society, arbitrarily closing down non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and arresting or forcing into exile civil society representatives; whereas in recent years, the Azerbaijani authorities have imposed increasingly stringent restrictions on civil society organisations; whereas activists, journalists, political opponents and others have been imprisoned on fabricated and politically motivated charges;

    E. whereas according to human rights defenders, crackdowns on civil society have occurred around other major international events hosted by Azerbaijan, including Eurovision 2012 and the European Games 2015;

    F. whereas the Azerbaijani regime appears to extend its repressive actions beyond its borders; whereas the ongoing crackdown on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan is also reflected in reports of transnational repression and reprisals against family members of detainees; whereas, since 2020, Mahammad Mirzali, an Azerbaijani dissident blogger, has been the target of several assassination attempts in France; whereas, on 29 September 2024, Vidadi Isgandarli, a critic of the Azerbaijani regime living as a political refugee in France, was attacked in his home and succumbed to his injuries two days later; whereas the Azerbaijani authorities have also engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of EU citizens, as seen in the case of Théo Clerc, prompting at least one Member State to formally warn its citizens against travelling to Azerbaijan owing to the risk of arbitrary detention;

    G. whereas Azerbaijan has implemented a systematic policy of bribing officials and elected representatives in Europe in order to downplay Azerbaijan’s human rights record and to silence critics, as part of a widely used strategy described as ‘caviar diplomacy’; whereas some cases have been investigated and some of those involved have been prosecuted and convicted by national courts in several EU Member States;

    H. whereas a number of European Court of Human Rights decisions have found that Azerbaijan has violated human rights; whereas according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, more than 320 court judgments against Azerbaijan have not yet been executed or have been only partially implemented, which is the highest number among all state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights;

    I. whereas on 3 July 2024, the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) publicly denounced Azerbaijan’s ‘refusal to improve the situation in the light of the Committee’s recommendations’ and the ‘persistent lack of cooperation of the Azerbaijani authorities with the CPT’;

    J. whereas the PACE decided in January 2024 not to ratify the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation, noting its ‘very serious concerns as to …[Azerbaijan’s] respect for human rights’; whereas the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe noted that its Monitoring Committee’s rapporteurs were not allowed to meet with people who had been detained on allegedly politically motivated charges, and that the Azerbaijani delegation refused to allow the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to visit the country;

    K. whereas according to the Election Observation Mission led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), the early presidential election held on 7 February 2024 took place in a restrictive environment and was marked by the stifling of critical voices and the absence of political alternatives; whereas Azerbaijan held early parliamentary elections on 1 September 2024 in what the OSCE/ODIHR-led International Election Observation Mission described as a restrictive political and legal environment that did not enable genuine pluralism and resulted in a contest devoid of competition; whereas in the period leading up to the parliamentary elections, several government critics were detained;

    L. whereas media legislation in Azerbaijan has become increasingly repressive, with the February 2022 media law effectively legalising censorship; whereas several other laws affecting the media also violate the country’s international obligations with regard to freedom of expression and press freedom; whereas public criticism of the authorities is subject to severe penalties;

    M. whereas according to Reporters Without Borders, virtually the entire media sector in Azerbaijan is under official control, with no independent television or radio broadcasts from within the country, and all critical print newspapers shut down; whereas the authorities continue to suppress the last remaining independent media and repress journalists who reject self-censorship; whereas Azerbaijan has intensified its repression against the remaining independent media, such as Abzas Media, Kanal 13 and Toplum TV, through detentions and judicial harassment;

    N. whereas the Azerbaijani laws regulating the registration, operation and funding of NGOs are highly restrictive and arbitrarily implemented, thus effectively criminalising unregistered NGO activity; whereas Freedom House’s 2024 index ranks Azerbaijan among the least free countries in the world, below Russia and Belarus;

    O. whereas gas contracts between Gazprom and SOCAR for the delivery of one billion cubic metres of gas from Russia to Azerbaijan between November 2022 and March 2023 have raised significant concerns about the re-export of Russian gas to the European market, particularly in the context of the signed memorandum of understanding on the strategic partnership in the field of energy; whereas the EU aims to reduce European dependence on Russian gas, but this agreement could be seen as undermining that goal, as Russian gas would still be flowing into Azerbaijan, thus potentially freeing up Azerbaijani gas for increased re-export to the EU; whereas there are also worrying reports of Russian gas being rebranded as Azerbaijani for sale in the EU;

    P. whereas Azerbaijani leaders have engaged in anti-EU and anti-Western rhetoric; whereas Azerbaijan has intensified its disinformation campaigns targeting the EU and its Member States, with a specific focus on France; whereas Azerbaijan has actively interfered in European politics under the guise of ‘anti-colonialism’, notably in overseas countries and territories such as New Caledonia;

    Q. whereas in addition, in September 2023, after months of the illegal blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan launched a pre-planned, unjustified military attack on the territory, forcing over 100 000 ethnic Armenians to flee to Armenia, which amounts to ethnic cleansing; whereas as a result, Nagorno-Karabakh has been almost entirely emptied of its Armenian population, who had been living there for centuries; whereas this attack represents a gross violation of human rights and international law, a clear breach of the trilateral ceasefire statement of 9 November 2020 and a failure to uphold commitments made during EU-mediated negotiations;

    R. whereas the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh lost their property and belongings while fleeing the Azerbaijani military push in 2023 and have been unable to recover them since; whereas actions amounting to ethnic cleansing have continued since then; whereas the EU has provided humanitarian aid to people displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas credible reports confirm the organised destruction of Armenian cultural and religious heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas Azerbaijani leaders and officials repeatedly use hate speech against Armenians;

    S. whereas both Azerbaijan and Armenia are bound by international humanitarian law and the Third Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war from all forms of torture and cruel treatment; whereas reports indicate that 23 Armenian prisoners are currently being held in Azerbaijani prisons without adequate legal representation, including eight former leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh, some of whom have received long prison sentences;

    T. whereas in February 2023, the EU deployed the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA) to observe developments at the international border with Azerbaijan; whereas Azerbaijan has refused to cooperate with EUMA and the mission has been the target of disinformation by Azerbaijani authorities and government-controlled media; whereas the Azerbaijani leadership continues to make irredentist statements with reference to the sovereign territory of Armenia; whereas the Azerbaijani army continues to occupy no less than 170 km2 of the sovereign territory of Armenia;

    U. whereas Armenia and Azerbaijan have engaged in negotiations on a peace treaty, the normalisation of their relations and border delimitation, both before and after the 2023 attack on Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas, despite mediation efforts by the EU and others, no peace agreement has been signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia; whereas, although both governments have stated that they are close to an agreement, recent remarks by the Azerbaijani president raise concern about Baku’s willingness to find a compromise to conclude the negotiations;

    V. whereas the EU fully supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Azerbaijan and Armenia and actively supports efforts towards a sustainable peace agreement between the two countries, achieved by peaceful means and respecting the rights of the population concerned;

    W. whereas since Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Azerbaijan has deepened its relations with Russia, including political and economic ties, as well as increased cooperation between their intelligence services; whereas Russia has openly backed Azerbaijan in its aggressive behaviour towards Armenia;

    1. Strongly condemns the domestic and extraterritorial repression by the Azerbaijani regime against activists, journalists, opposition leaders and others, including EU nationals, which has noticeably intensified ahead of COP29; urges the Azerbaijani authorities to release all persons arbitrarily detained or imprisoned on account of their political views, to drop all politically motivated charges and to cease all forms of repression, both within and beyond Azerbaijan; recalls in this context the names of Tofig Yagublu, Akif Gurbanov, Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, human rights defenders and journalists, including Ulvi Hasanli, Sevinj Vagifgizi, Nargiz Absalamova, Hafiz Babali and Elnara Gasimova, Aziz Orujov, Rufat Muradli, Avaz Zeynalli, Elnur Shukurov, Alasgar Mammadli, Ilhamiz Guliyev and Farid Ismayilov, as well as of civil society activists arrested after March 2024 such as Anar Mammadli, Farid Mehralizade, Igbal Abilov, Bahruz Samadov, Emin Ibrahimov and Famil Khalilov; expresses deep concern about the environment of fear that this has created inside the country, leaving civil society effectively silenced;

    2. Reiterates its call for the Azerbaijani authorities to drop all charges against Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu and allow him to travel abroad, unhindered and to the country of his choice, to reunite with his family, to receive the medical care he urgently needs and attend the Sakharov Prize ceremony in Strasbourg in December 2024; calls on Azerbaijan to ensure that he receives an independent medical examination by a doctor of his own choosing and to allow him to receive treatment abroad; calls on all EU representatives and individual Member States to actively support the release from house arrest of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu and insist on his release in every exchange with the Azerbaijani authorities;

    3. Demands that freedom of the press and expression be guaranteed and that media organisations not be restricted; calls, therefore, on the Azerbaijani Government to release journalists working for Abzas Media and Toplum TV, including Ulvi Hasanli, Sevinj Vagifqizi and Alasgar Mammadli;

    4. Considers that Azerbaijan’s ongoing human rights abuses are incompatible with its hosting of COP29; urges EU leaders, in particular Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to use COP29 as an opportunity to remind Azerbaijan of its international obligations and to meaningfully address the country’s human rights record in their interactions with the Azerbaijani authorities, including by calling for the unconditional release of all persons arbitrarily detained or imprisoned on account of their political views and by requesting to meet with political prisoners while in the country; calls for the EU and its Member States to do their utmost to ensure that United Nations Climate Change conferences are not hosted in countries with poor human rights records;

    5. Reminds the Azerbaijani authorities of their obligations to respect fundamental freedoms, and calls on them to repeal repressive legislation that drives independent NGOs and media to the margins of the law; calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to repeal repressive legislation on the registration and funding of NGOs to bring them into line with Venice Commission recommendations;

    6. Recalls that the 1996 EU-Azerbaijan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which is the legal basis for bilateral relations, is based on respect for democracy and the principles of international law and human rights and that these have been systematically violated in Azerbaijan;

    7. Reminds the Azerbaijani Government of its international obligations to safeguard the dignity and rights of detainees, ensuring that they receive adequate medical care, are detained in humane conditions and are protected from any mistreatment; calls on the Azerbaijani Government to swiftly comply with long-standing recommendations of the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on the subject of the widespread recourse to physical ill treatment – including, on occasion, torture – by the police in Azerbaijan; calls on the Azerbaijani Government to implement all the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights;

    8. Reiterates its call for EU sanctions to be imposed under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime on Azerbaijani officials who have committed serious human rights violations; calls on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights to request meetings with political prisoners in Azerbaijan;

    9. Insists that any future partnership agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan be made conditional on the release of all political prisoners, the implementation of legal reforms and the overall improvement of the human rights situation in the country, as well as on Azerbaijan demonstrating its genuine readiness to faithfully engage in the negotiation of a peace agreement with Armenia and to respect the rights of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians;

    10. Calls for the EU to end its reliance on gas exports from Azerbaijan; calls on the Commission to suspend the 2022 memorandum of understanding on the strategic partnership in the field of energy and to act accordingly;

    11. Reaffirms its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Azerbaijan and Armenia and strongly supports the normalisation of their relations based on the principles of the mutual recognition of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, in accordance with the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration; reiterates its demand for the withdrawal of Azerbaijan’s troops from the entirety of Armenia’s sovereign territory; calls on Azerbaijan to unequivocally commit to respecting Armenia’s territorial integrity; highlights that Azerbaijan’s connectivity issues with its exclave of Nakhchivan should be resolved with full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia; reiterates its position that the EU should be ready to impose sanctions on any individuals and entities that threaten the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Armenia;

    12. Condemns any military aggression, use of force or hybrid threats against Armenia, as well as foreign interference and attempts to destabilise the political situation in Armenia; welcomes, furthermore, the decision to adopt the first assistance measure under the European Peace Facility in support of Armenian armed forces and calls for the cooperation between Armenia and the EU to be further reinforced in the field of security and defence; welcomes the actions undertaken by several Member States to provide defensive military support to Armenia and urges the Member States to consider similar initiatives; welcomes the new momentum in bilateral relations between the EU and Armenia, which is strongly supported by the authorities in Yerevan; calls on the Commission and the Council to actively support Armenia’s desire for increased cooperation with the EU;

    13. Expresses its support for the activities of the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA) and underscores the important role it plays; reiterates its concern regarding the repeated smear campaigns originating from Azerbaijan against EUMA; calls on EUMA to continue to closely monitor the evolving security situation on the ground, provide transparent reporting to Parliament and actively contribute to conflict resolution efforts; calls for the EU and its Member States to strengthen EUMA’s mandate, increase its size and extend its duration;

    14. Supports all initiatives and activities that could lead to the establishment of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the signing of a long-awaited peace agreement; calls on Azerbaijan to demonstrate genuine efforts to this end; warns Azerbaijan that any military action against Armenia would be unacceptable and would have serious consequences for the partnership between Azerbaijan and the EU; welcomes the Armenia-Azerbaijan joint statement of 7 December 2023 on confidence-building measures; welcomes the progress made in the framework of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border delimitation process, which has led to an agreement on several sections of the border; encourages both sides to take further steps on the remaining sections; calls for the EU to cease all technical and financial assistance to Azerbaijan that might contribute to strengthening its military or security capabilities; calls on the Member States to freeze exports of all military and security equipment to Azerbaijan;

    15. Calls for the full implementation of all orders issued by the International Court of Justice, including the order of 17 November 2023 indicating provisional measures regarding the safe, unimpeded and expeditious return of people who fled Nagorno-Karabakh; recalls that the decision to host COP29 in Baku was made after Azerbaijan failed to comply with the above-mentioned International Court of Justice order as well as those of 7 December 2021 and of 22 February 2023; reiterates its call for independent investigations into the abuses committed by Azerbaijani forces in Nagorno-Karabakh; reiterates its call on the Azerbaijani authorities to allow the safe return of the Armenian population to Nagorno-Karabakh, to genuinely engage in a comprehensive and transparent dialogue with them, to provide robust guarantees for the protection of their rights, including their land and property rights, the protection of their distinct identity and their civic, cultural, social and religious rights, and to refrain from any inflammatory rhetoric that could incite discrimination against Armenians; urges the Azerbaijani authorities to release all 23 Armenian prisoners of war detained following Azerbaijan’s retaking of the Nagorno-Karabakh region;

    16. Reiterates its call for the EU institutions and the Member States to continue to offer assistance to Armenia to deal with the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh; calls for the EU, in this regard, to provide a new package of assistance to Armenia to help the Armenian Government address the humanitarian needs of refugees; welcomes all efforts by the Government of Armenia to provide shelter and aid to the displaced Armenians;

    17. Expresses deep concern regarding the preservation of cultural, religious and historical heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh following the massive exodus of its Armenian population; urges Azerbaijan to refrain from further destruction, neglect or alteration of the origins of cultural, religious or historical heritage in the region and calls on it instead to strive to preserve, protect and promote this rich diversity; demands the protection of the Armenian cultural, historical and religious heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh in line with UNESCO standards and Azerbaijan’s international commitments; insists that Azerbaijan allow a UNESCO mission to Nagorno-Karabakh and grant it the necessary access;

    18. Deplores steps taken by Azerbaijan towards the secessionist entity in occupied Cyprus, which are against international law and the provisions of UN Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984); calls on Azerbaijan to respect the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of states and to not invite the secessionist entity in occupied Cyprus to any meetings of the Organization of Turkic States;

    19. Condemns Azerbaijan’s repeated attempts to denigrate and destabilise Member States, including through the so-called Baku Initiative Group; condemns in particular its support for irredentist groups and disinformation operations targeting France, especially in the French departments and territories of New Caledonia, Martinique and Corsica; recalls that these methods were used against Germany in 2013; denounces the smear campaigns targeting Denmark; regrets the smear campaign aimed at damaging France’s reputation by calling into question its capacity to host the 2024 Olympic Games, launched by actors suspected of being close to the Azerbaijani regime;

    20. Condemns the arbitrary arrests of EU citizens based on spurious accusations of espionage and their disproportionate sentencing;

    21. Strongly condemns the public insults and direct threats made by Azerbaijani diplomatic or government representatives, or members of the Azerbaijani Parliament, targeting elected officials of EU Member States; demands, in this regard, that access to EU institutional buildings be denied to the Azerbaijani officials concerned until further notice;

    22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the President, Government and Parliament of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the President, Government and Parliament of the Republic of Armenia, the Director-General of UNESCO, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the misinterpretation of UN resolution 2758 by the People’s Republic of China and its continuous military provocations around Taiwan – RC-B10-0134/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Michael Gahler, Miriam Lexmann, Sebastião Bugalho, Rasa Juknevičienė, Danuše Nerudová
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Kathleen Van Brempt, Tonino Picula
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Adam Bielan, Mariusz Kamiński, Charlie Weimers, Michał Dworczyk, Alexandr Vondra, Veronika Vrecionová, Ondřej Krutílek, Rihards Kols, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Alberico Gambino, Bert‑Jan Ruissen, Carlo Fidanza
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Engin Eroglu, Petras Auštrevičius, Helmut Brandstätter, Dan Barna, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, João Cotrim De Figueiredo, Bernard Guetta, Svenja Hahn, Ľubica Karvašová, Karin Karlsbro, Moritz Körner, Nathalie Loiseau, Jan‑Christoph Oetjen, Ana Vasconcelos, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Markéta Gregorová
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    European Parliament resolution on the misinterpretation of UN resolution 2758 by the People’s Republic of China and its continuous military provocations around Taiwan

    (2024/2891(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to its previous resolutions on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan,

     having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 on a new EU-China strategy[1],

     having regard to its recommendation of 21 October 2021 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on EU-Taiwan political relations and cooperation[2],

     having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the EU and the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific[3],

     having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on the situation in the Strait of Taiwan[4],

     having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2023 on EU-Taiwan trade and investment relations[5],

     having regard to the Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, approved by the Council on 21 March 2022,

     having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 16 September 2021 entitled ‘The EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ (JOIN(2021)0024),

     having regard to the EU’s ‘One China’ policy,

     having regard to the EU-China summit of 7 December 2023,

     having regard to the European Council conclusions on China of 30 June 2023,

     having regard to the visits of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 25 to 27 July 2023 and of the Committee on International Trade of 19 to 21 December 2022 to Taiwan,

     having regard to the statement of 1 September 2024 by the Spokesperson of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the latest dangerous actions in the South China Sea,

     having regard to the statements by the Spokesperson of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on China’s military drills around Taiwan, including the most recent statement of 14 October 2024,

     having regard to the G7 Foreign Ministers’ statements of 18 April 2023 and of 3 August 2022 on preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,

     having regard to the statement by the Chair of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting of 23 September 2024,

     having regard to the joint declaration by the G7 Defence Ministers of 19 October 2024,

     having regard to the urgency motion on Taiwan passed by the Australian Senate on 21 August 2024,

     having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971,

     having regard to the motion on UN Resolution 2758 passed by the Dutch House of Representatives on 12 September 2024,

     having regard to the press statement by the US Department of State of 13 October 2024,

     having regard to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

     having regard to Article 7 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), concluded on 9 May 1992,

     having regard to Rule 5 of the Standing Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),

     having regard to Article 4 of the Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol),

     having regard to Article 8 and Article 18(h) of the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO),

     having regard to Rules 136(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

    A. whereas UN Resolution 2758 was passed by the UN General Assembly on 25 October 1971 and shifted the official recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China (PRC); whereas today Taiwan, while not being a member of the United Nations, maintains diplomatic relations with 11 of the 193 United Nations member states, as well as with the Holy See;

    B. whereas the EU and Taiwan are like-minded partners that share the common values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law; whereas Taiwan is a vibrant democracy, with a flourishing civil society; whereas Taiwan held peaceful and well-organised elections on 13 January 2024;

    C. whereas following the adoption of UN Resolution 2758, Taiwan lost its access to participation in multilateral forums, such as the WHO;

    D. whereas Taiwan has never been part of the PRC; whereas the Republic of China was established in 1912 and the PRC in 1949;

    E. whereas UN Resolution 2758 addresses the status of the PRC, but does not determine that the PRC enjoys sovereignty over Taiwan, nor does it make any judgement on the future inclusion of Taiwan in the UN or any other international organisation; whereas, however, the PRC continues to misinterpret UN Resolution 2758 to block Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations and unilaterally change the status quo; whereas these actions highlight the PRC’s ambition to alter the existing multilateral international order and undermine international law, and can be seen as an expression of systemic rivalry;

    F. whereas the EU continues to maintain its own ‘One China’ policy, which is different from the PRC’s ‘One China’ principle; whereas the EU’s long-standing position has been to support the status quo and a peaceful resolution of differences across the Taiwan Strait, while encouraging dialogue and constructive engagement;

    G. whereas through their statement of 23 September 2024 the G7 members, among other things, underlined their support for ‘Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where it is’;

    H. whereas supporting Taiwan’s participation in international organisations does not undermine the EU’s commitment to its ‘One China’ policy, which remains the political foundation of EU-China relations;

    I. whereas over the past decade the PRC has persistently tried to increase its influence over international institutions, using this to sideline Taiwan and prevent Taiwanese passport holders, including journalists, non-governmental organisation workers and political activists, from accessing international institutions; whereas the PRC exercises transnational repression by misusing extradition treaties to target Taiwanese people abroad and therefore put them at risk of arbitrary persecution and human rights abuses;

    J. whereas the statutes of most international organisations tasked to address global issues, including the WHO, the UNFCCC, Interpol and the ICAO, provide opportunities for entities such as Taiwan to participate without infringing on the rights of member states;

    K. whereas Taiwan has consistently demonstrated a peaceful and cooperative attitude globally, has significantly enhanced global developments and thus could contribute greatly to the work of various international organisations;

    L. whereas the PRC is a one-party state that is entirely controlled and ruled by the Chinese Communist Party;

    M. whereas in a speech on Taiwan’s national day of 10 October 2024, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te stated that the PRC has ‘no right to represent Taiwan’ and reiterated that the two sides are ‘not subordinate’ to each other; whereas the PRC has justified its recent military exercise by claiming that President Lai Ching-te is pursuing a separatist strategy;

    N. whereas on 14 October 2024 the PRC launched a large-scale military drill, named Joint Sword-2024B, that simulated a blockade of Taiwan; whereas during this exercise a record number of 153 PRC aircraft,18 warships and 17 PRC coastguard ships were detected around Taiwan;

    O. whereas during the exercises four formations of the PRC coastguard patrolled the island and briefly entered its restricted waters; whereas the very frequent deployment of the coastguard by the PRC in the Strait in what the PRC considers ‘law enforcement’ missions is putting constant pressure on the Taiwanese authorities and causing a dangerous increase in the risk of collisions, in what is one of the most concrete indications of the PRC’s intention to erode the status quo; whereas the exercises launched on 14 October 2024 were the fourth round of large-scale war games by the PRC in just over two years;

    P. whereas these activities were condemned by Taiwan as an ‘unreasonable provocation’ and are the latest in a series of war games conducted by the PRC against Taiwan; whereas these military drills came days after Lai Ching-te, Taiwan’s new president, gave a speech vowing to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty in the face of challenges from the PRC;

    Q. whereas the median line, which was set up in a decades-old tacit agreement between both sides of the Taiwan Strait, was designed to reduce the risk of conflict by keeping the military aircraft from both sides of the Strait at a safe distance and thus prevent fatal miscalculations; whereas the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army violated the median line only four times between 1954 and 2020, but now routine incursions reflect Beijing’s intent to irreversibly reset long-standing benchmarks;

    R. whereas the press statements by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the US Department of State reaffirm that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait are of strategic importance for regional and global security and prosperity; whereas the High Representative’s statement recalls the need to preserve the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, opposes any unilateral actions that change the status quo by force or coercion and calls on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid any actions that may further escalate cross-Strait tensions;

    S. whereas on 23 May 2024 the PRC launched a military drill called Joint Sword-2024A, just days after the inauguration of Lai Ching-te as the new President of Taiwan;

    T. whereas over the past few years the PRC has held similar military drills around Taiwan; whereas these military drills have increased in intensity and have been moved closer and closer to Taiwan’s mainland; whereas during a previous drill in August 2022 the PRC also fired missiles into Japan’s exclusive economic zone;

    U. whereas on top of military pressure the PRC has long been pursuing a sophisticated strategy of targeting Taiwan with foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI), including hybrid and cyberattacks with the goal of undermining Taiwan’s democratic society;

    V. whereas the PRC, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, has said that it will not renounce the use of force to seek unification with Taiwan;

    W. whereas the PRC’s 2005 Anti-Secession Law includes the use of non-peaceful means, triggered by ambiguous thresholds, to achieve what the PRC calls ‘unification’ with Taiwan; whereas such military action is a grave threat to the security and stability of the entire region, with potentially dire global consequences; whereas EU and US deterrence is of strategic importance to dissuade the PRC from undertaking any unilateral action against Taiwan;

    X. whereas the PRC’s increasingly aggressive behaviour, in particular in its own neighbourhood, such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, poses a risk to regional and global security; whereas since 2019 the PRC has violated the Taiwanese air defence identification zone (ADIZ) with increasing regularity; whereas the PRC has been behaving aggressively across vast areas of the Indo-Pacific and exerting varying degrees of military or economic coercion, which has led to disputes with neighbours such as Japan, India, the Philippines and Australia;

    Y. whereas the EU has condemned the dangerous actions conducted by Chinese coastguard vessels against lawful Philippine maritime operations in the South China Sea on 31 August 2024; whereas this incident is the latest in a series of actions endangering the safety of life at sea and violating the right to freedom of navigation and overflight in compliance with international law; whereas maritime security and freedom of navigation must be ensured in accordance with international law and, in particular, UNCLOS;

    Z. whereas the PRC is supporting Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, in particular through the export of dual-use goods to Russia and the ongoing involvement of PRC-based companies in sanctions evasion and circumvention;

    AA. whereas as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the PRC has a responsibility to work for peace and stability in the region, and particularly in the Taiwan Strait;

    AB. whereas through its 2021 strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, the EU and its Member States increased their presence in the region, including through a higher military presence of certain Member States and the continued passage of military ships through the Taiwan Strait;

    AC. whereas Taiwan is located in a strategic position in terms of trade, notably in high-tech supply chains; whereas the Taiwan Strait is the primary route for ships travelling from China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan towards Europe; whereas Taiwan dominates semiconductor manufacturing markets, as its producers manufacture around 50 % of the world’s semiconductor output; whereas the EU’s strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific argues for increasing trade and investment cooperation with Taiwan;

    AD. whereas the EU is Taiwan’s fourth largest trading partner after the PRC, the United States and Japan; whereas in 2022 Taiwan was the EU’s 12th largest trading partner; whereas the EU is the largest source of foreign direct investment in Taiwan; whereas Taiwanese investments in the EU remain below their potential;

    AE. whereas members of the Australian Senate and of the Dutch House of Representatives have recently adopted motions concerning the distortion of UN Resolution 2758 by the PRC and called for support for Taiwan’s greater participation in multilateral organisations;

    1. Reiterates that Taiwan is a key EU partner and a like-minded democratic friend in the Indo-Pacific region; commends Taiwan and the Taiwanese people for their strong democracy and vibrant civil society, demonstrated once more by the peaceful and well-organised elections of 13 January 2024;

    2. Opposes the PRC’s constant distortion of UN Resolution 2758 and its efforts to block Taiwan’s participation in multilateral organisations; calls for the EU and its Member States to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in relevant international organisations such as the WHO, the ICAO, Interpol and the UNFCCC; further calls on the UN Secretariat to grant Taiwanese nationals and journalists the right to access UN premises for visits, meetings and newsgathering activities;

    3. Strongly condemns the PRC’s unwarranted military exercises of 14 October 2024, its continued military provocations against Taiwan and its continued military build-up, which is changing the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, and reiterates its firm rejection of any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait; lauds the restraint and disciplined reaction of the Taiwanese authorities and calls for regular exchanges between the EU and its Taiwanese counterparts on relevant security issues;

    4. Reaffirms its strong commitment to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait; underlines that any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, particularly by means of force or coercion, will not be accepted and will be met with a decisive and firm reaction;

    5. Underlines that UN Resolution 2758 takes no position on Taiwan; strongly rejects and refutes the PRC’s attempts to distort history and international rules;

    6. Reiterates the EU’s commitment to its ‘One China’ policy as the political foundation of EU-China relations; recalls that the EU’s China strategy emphasises that constructive cross-strait relations are part of promoting peace and security in the whole Asia-Pacific region and that the EU supports initiatives aimed at dialogue and confidence-building;

    7. Underlines that in Taiwan it is up to the people to democratically decide how they want to live and that the status quo in the Taiwan Strait must not be unilaterally changed by the use or threat of force;

    8. Reiterates its strong condemnation of statements by Chinese President Xi Jinping that the PRC will never renounce the right to use force with respect to Taiwan; underlines that the PRC’s use of force or threats or other highly coercive measures to achieve unification is incompatible with international law; expresses grave concern over the PRC’s use of hostile disinformation to undermine trust in Taiwan’s democracy and governance; reiterates its previous calls for the EU and its Member States to cooperate with international partners in helping to sustain democracy in Taiwan, keeping it free from foreign interference and threats; underlines that only Taiwan’s democratically elected government can represent the Taiwanese people on the international stage;

    9. Condemns the PRC’s systematic grey-zone military actions, including cyber and disinformation campaigns against Taiwan, and urges the PRC to halt these activities immediately; calls, in this regard, for cooperation between the EU and Taiwan to be deepened further to enhance structural cooperation on countering disinformation and foreign interference; welcomes the posting of a liaison officer at the European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan to coordinate joint efforts to tackle disinformation and interference as a first important step towards deeper EU-Taiwan cooperation, and calls for the EU to further deepen cooperation with Taiwan in this key area; praises the courage of the Taiwanese people and the proportionate and dignified reactions of the Taiwanese authorities and institutions in the face of intensifying Chinese threats and activities;

    10. Firmly rejects the PRC’s economic coercion against Taiwan and other countries, as well as against EU Member States, and underlines that such practices are not only illegal under World Trade Organization rules, but that they also have a devastating effect on the PRC’s reputation around the world and will lead to a further loss of trust in the PRC as a responsible actor; stresses the independent right of the EU and its Member States to develop relations with Taiwan in line with their interests and shared values of democracy and human rights without foreign interference; calls on EU and Member State missions abroad to address and provide alternatives to malign PRC business practices, especially in the Global South;

    11. Is very concerned at the adoption of the so-called guidelines for punishing ‘diehard Taiwan independence separatists’ for committing crimes of secession and the incitement of secession jointly announced by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the ministries for public security and state security and the justice ministry in June 2024, which could lead to harsh punishments for the crime of secession, up to and including the death penalty; strongly condemns the sentencing of one Taiwanese activist to nine years in prison in September 2024 after his arrest in the PRC in 2022, as well as the constant harassment of Taiwanese people working and living in the PRC;

    12. Is seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas; recalls the importance of respecting international law, including UNCLOS and, in particular, its provisions on the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means and on maintaining the freedom of navigation and overflight; calls on all countries that have not done so to swiftly ratify UNCLOS; calls for the EU and its Member States to step up their own maritime capacities in the region; reminds the PRC of its responsibilities, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to uphold international law and emphasises the obligation to resolve disputes peacefully;

    13. Reaffirms its grave concerns about China’s increasing military investments and capabilities; expresses grave concerns about the renewed Chinese and Russian commitment to further strengthen their military ties and condemns the Chinese supply of components and equipment to Moscow’s military industry; welcomes the Council decision to impose sanctions on Chinese companies for supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine; deplores the ‘no limits’ partnership between Russia and the PRC; welcomes the increasing commitment and military presence of the United States in the Indo-Pacific; reiterates its calls for a coordinated approach to deepening EU-US cooperation on security matters, including through transatlantic parliamentary dialogue;

    14. Strongly welcomes the close cooperation and alignment of Taiwan with the EU and the United States in responding to Russia’s war against Ukraine and issuing sanctions in response to this blatant violation of international law; recalls Taiwan’s help in addressing the humanitarian crisis caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its continuous involvement and support for the Ukrainian government and countries hosting Ukrainian refugees;

    15. Highlights that the PRC’s various actions in the field of cognitive and legal warfare are slowly undermining the status quo, as well as intensifying grey-zone activities that are intended to circumvent detection, existing laws and response thresholds; calls for the EU to establish and enforce its redlines through its toolbox of sanctions, including sectoral sanctions, against hybrid activities and cyberthreats, and to coordinate strong diplomatic and economic deterrence measures with liked-minded partners;

    16. Expresses its gratitude for Taiwan’s help and assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic;

    17. Recognises the importance of Taiwan in securing global supply chains, especially in the high-tech sector where Taiwan is the leading producer of semiconductors, and calls for the EU and its Member States to engage in closer cooperation with Taiwan;

    18. Calls on the Commission to launch, without delay, preparatory measures for negotiations on a bilateral investment agreement, or other kinds of agreement, with Taiwan; highlights the potential for cooperation on foreign direct investment screening policy and on tackling economic coercion and retaliation;

    19. Applauds the increase in freedom of navigation exercises conducted by several EU countries, including France, the Netherlands and Germany; notes that these activities are in line with international law and calls for more cooperation and coordination with regional partners in order to increase freedom of navigation operations in the region;

    20. Welcomes visits by former and current Taiwanese politicians to Europe, including the recent visit of former President Tsai Ing-wen to the European Parliament on 17 October 2024; welcomes, furthermore, continued exchanges of its Members with Taiwan and encourages further visits of official European Parliament delegations to Taiwan; additionally encourages further exchanges between the EU and Taiwan at all levels, including political meetings and people-to-people encounters;

    21. Encourages, in this light, increased economic, scientific and cultural interactions and exchanges, focusing, among other areas, on youth, academia, civil society, sports, culture and education, as well as city-to-city and region-to-region partnerships; reiterates its call on the Member States to engage in meaningful and structural technical cooperation with Taiwan’s National Fire Agency and National Police Agency and with local administrations in the field of civil protection and disaster management;

    22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the governments of the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan.

     

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP23211 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council – B10-0150/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
    Members responsible: Martin Häusling, Biljana Borzan, Anja Hazekamp

    B10‑0150/2024

    European Parliament resolution on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP23211 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2024/2838(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP23211 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council[1],

     having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed[2], and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,

     having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 26 April 2024, at which no opinion was delivered, and the vote of the Appeal Committee on 29 May 2024, at which again no opinion was delivered,

     having regard to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers[3],

     having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 29 November 2023, and published on 18 January 2024[4],

     having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’)[5],

     having regard to Rule 115(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

    A. whereas, on 11 December 2019, Pioneer Overseas Corporation, based in Belgium, submitted, on behalf of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., based in the United States, an application to the national competent authority of the Netherlands (the ‘application’) for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP23211 (the ‘GM maize’), in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM maize for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

    B. whereas, on 29 November 2023, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 18 January 2024;

    C. whereas the GM maize contains genes conferring resistance to glufosinate and produces insecticidal proteins;

    Lack of assessment of the complementary herbicide

    D. whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013[6] requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices influence the outcome of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide-tolerant plants;

    E. whereas the vast majority of GM crops have been genetically modified so that they are tolerant to one or more ‘complementary’ herbicides which can be used throughout the cultivation of the GM crop, without the crop dying, as would be the case for a non-herbicide tolerant crop; whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds[7];

    F. whereas herbicide-tolerant GM crops lock farmers into a weed management system that is largely or wholly dependent on herbicides, and does so by charging a premium for GM seeds that can be justified only if farmers purchasing such seed also spray the complementary herbicides; whereas heightened reliance on complementary herbicides on farms planting the GM crops accelerate the emergence and spread of weeds resistant to those herbicides, thereby triggering the need for even more herbicide use, a vicious circle known as ‘the herbicide treadmill’;

    G. whereas the adverse impacts stemming from excessive reliance on herbicides will worsen on soil health, water quality, and above and below ground biodiversity, as well as leading to increased human and animal exposure, potentially also via increased herbicide residues on food and feed;

    H. whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction 1B and therefore meets the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council[8]; whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018;

    I. whereas assessment of herbicide residues and metabolites found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs;

    Member State competent authority and stakeholder comments

    J. whereas Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period, including that the monitoring plan concerned does not ensure that relevant information for the monitoring of the product is gathered and therefore cannot be considered adequate, as well as that the insecticidal protein produced by the plant has not been adequately assessed;

    Ensuring a global level playing field and upholding the Union’s international obligations

    K. whereas the conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture[9] call on the Commission to reassess its approach on market access for agri-food imports and exports, given the challenge of diverging standards of the Union and its trading partners; whereas fairer trade relations, at a global level, coherent with goals for a healthy environment were one of the main demands of farmers during the demonstrations of 2023 and 2024;

    L. whereas a 2017 report by the United Nations’ (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health[10]; whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (UN SDG) Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination[11];

    M. whereas the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (‘Kunming-Montreal Framework’), agreed at the COP15 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UN CBD) in December 2022, includes a global target to reduce the risk of pesticides by at least 50 % by 2030[12];

    N. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the UN SDGs and the UN CBD;

    Reducing dependency on imported feed

    O. whereas one of the lessons from the COVID-19 crisis and the still ongoing war in Ukraine is the need for the Union to end the dependencies on some critical materials; whereas in the mission letter to Commissioner-designate Christophe Hansen, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asks him to look at ways to reduce imports of critical commodities[13];

    Undemocratic decision-making

    P. whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, Parliament adopted 38 objections to placing GMOs on the market;

    Q. whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

    R. whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee[14];

    S. whereas the vote on 26 April 2024 of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States; whereas the vote on 29 May 2024 of the Appeal Committee again delivered no opinion;

    T. whereas on 2 July 2024, the Commission authorised the placing on the market of the GM maize;

    1. Considers that Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

    2. Considers that Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826 is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council[15], to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

    3. Calls on the Commission to repeal Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1826;

    4. Calls on the Commission not to authorise herbicide-tolerant GM crops, due to the associated increased use of complementary herbicides and therefore the increased risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health in line with the One Health approach;

    5. Highlights, in this regard, that authorising the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides that are banned in the Union, such as glufosinate, is incoherent with the Union’s international commitments under, inter alia, the UN SDGs and the UN CBD, including the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Framework[16];

    6. Expects the Commission, as matter of urgency, to deliver on its commitment to come forward with a proposal to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the Union are not produced for export;

    7. Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs[17]; expresses its deep disappointment, however, that, since then the Commission has continued to authorise GMOs for import into the Union, despite ongoing objections by Parliament and no qualified majority of Member States in favour;

    8. Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN SDGs; reiterates its call for draft implementing acts to be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum explaining how they uphold the principle of ‘do no harm’[18];

    9. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – Multilateral development banks: State of play and reform proposals – 23-10-2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are supranational financial institutions that support developing countries to help them achieve various goals. While the support is primarily financial, many MDBs have accumulated a good deal of experience, which allows them to propose non financial services too, such as policy advice, capacity building, technical assistance and training. MDBs are a key element in the multilateral development system. This wide-ranging remit, as well as the fact that MDBs are able to pursue public policy goals at minimal fiscal cost to member governments, explains the success of these institutions over the past 80 years, as well as their growing number: today, there are more than 20 MDBs around the world. Although their members, clients and goals may differ, MDBs share common characteristics, play similar roles, and conform broadly to the same institutional model. In the past decade, MDBs have been facing several challenges, both from within (legacy MDBs competing for relevance with other, newer MDBs) and outside their system (new needs and goals, such as contributing to the fight against climate change). Several countries, non-governmental organisations and think tanks have called for these banks to change in order to adapt to this new environment. Important discussions have been taking place among stakeholders. While discussions are ongoing, several MDBs are committed to reform.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: New era begins for post-secondary in Lethbridge

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Polytechnic education provides a wide range of hands-on learning opportunities for students, developing valuable skills that can be used throughout a career. By focusing on practical training in high-demand fields, these institutions not only ensure that graduates are prepared to meet the needs of the evolving job market but also support the province’s economic growth and innovation.

    Lethbridge College officially became Alberta’s newest polytechnic institution, Lethbridge Polytechnic, on Sept. 3. On Oct. 23, the redesignated institution officially celebrated its new status and unveiled its new logo at a gathering of students and administration, community supporters and other dignitaries. 

    “Seeing the exciting, new visual identity really brings home the fact that this is the start of a whole new era for Lethbridge Polytechnic. Students in southern Alberta will have new options to pursue polytechnic education programs without having to travel to our province’s largest centres. This will help them reduce living costs while they study and lessen their time away from family and familiar support networks. And they will have expanded career options in their own region upon graduating.”

    Rajan Sawhney, Minister of Advanced Education

    “I’m thrilled to see Lethbridge College become Lethbridge Polytechnic. This will help create even more opportunities for students to gain the skills and knowledge they need for success. As an alumnus myself, I know just how valuable and important this institution is to our community.”

    Nathan Neudorf, MLA for Lethbridge-East

    The new name and visual identity reflect a changing mandate. As Lethbridge Polytechnic, the institution has an expanded capacity to create career-focused degree, diploma, certificate and apprenticeship education programs. The new designation also gives Lethbridge Polytechnic greater flexibility to align more effectively with local student and business needs.

    Since it was established as Lethbridge Junior College in 1957, Lethbridge Polytechnic has played a key role in the economic, social and cultural life of Lethbridge and surrounding area. The transition to Lethbridge Polytechnic enhances the post-secondary system in southern Alberta, adding its own distinct programming to existing university, college and First Nations College programs to meet the diverse needs of the region’s communities.

    The unveiling of our new logo is about more than just a new design. It symbolizes our transition from Lethbridge College to Lethbridge Polytechnic, marking our evolution as an institution that’s forged on providing industry-driven, hands-on education. This transition represents the spirit of innovation, collaboration and community that runs through everything we do.”

    Michael Marcotte, board chair, Lethbridge Polytechnic

    The logo is the result of talking to people who know our institution well. The result speaks to our past and future, and the caring, inclusive environment students say they find here.”

    Brad Donaldson, president and CEO, Lethbridge College

    The redesignation of Lethbridge Polytechnic is aligned with the goals of the Alberta 2030: Building Skills for Jobs strategy. The institution will offer an environment for applied research that aligns with high-demand industries in Alberta. Alberta’s government continues to work with Lethbridge Polytechnic to ensure a successful transition to polytechnic status.

    Quick facts

    • Polytechnic institutions in Alberta must offer apprenticeship education, and diploma and certificate programs. They are also able to offer degree programs.
    • Polytechnic status in Alberta supports the advancement of applied research and industry-driven results.
    • The Alberta 2030: Building Skills for Jobs strategy is a transformational vision and direction for Alberta’s higher education system, which will develop a highly skilled and competitive workforce, strengthen innovation and commercialization of research and forge stronger relationships between employers and post-secondary institutions.

    Related information

    • Alberta 2030: Building Skills for Jobs | Alberta.ca

    Related news

    • Enhancing post-secondary learning in Lethbridge (June 25, 2024)

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Some reports published in media mentioning shortage of DAP to affect prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position

    Source: Government of India

    Some reports published in media mentioning shortage of DAP to affect prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position

    Subsidy on DAP has not been reduced at all; MRP of DAP has been maintained at Rs. 1350/- per 50 Kg bag since Covid times

    For Rabi season, the increase in subsidy has been effected by two Cabinet decisions

    Total budgetary allocation increased to Rs.24,475 crores for Rabi 2024-25

    Posted On: 23 OCT 2024 8:46PM by PIB Delhi

    Some reports published in the media recently claiming shortage of DAP across the country and its resultant effect on prospects of Rabi crop are misleading, misplaced and devoid of factual position.

    It is clarified that the MRP of DAP has been maintained at Rs. 1350/- per 50 Kg bag since Covid times.

    Further, the subsidy on DAP has not been reduced at all. Instead, for the benefit of farmers, via two Cabinet decisions, an increase in subsidy has been effected for Rabi 2024.

    Firstly, Rs. 3500/- per MT as a special package costing Rs. 2625 crores has been provided to make the price sustainable for companies for procurement of DAP so that the procurement capacity at company level remains unaffected by the price volatility.

    Secondly, the overall increase in prices in the international market has been taken care of by another Cabinet decision by which subsidy has been linked to the market prices. Thus, if the procurement price of P&K fertilizer, including DAP, increases in the global market, the procurement capacities of the companies are not affected. Therefore, farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries.

    In addition to this, the total budgetary allocation for Rabi 2024-2025 has been increased to Rs. 24,475 crores.

    It may be noted that the availability of DAP has been affected somewhat by several geo-political factors including the long route taken by the vessels through Cape of Good Hope instead of Red sea. However, intensive efforts have been made by the Department of Fertilizers to augment the availability substantially during Sept–Nov, 2024.

    *****

    MV/AKS

    (Release ID: 2067500) Visitor Counter : 38

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: MoUs signed between NIEPVD Dehradun and Six Institutions for the welfare of Divyangjan

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Posted On: 23 OCT 2024 8:20PM by PIB Delhi

    The National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD), Dehradun (under D/o Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities – DEPwD, M/o Social Justice and Empowerment), signed important Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with six institutions, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to the empowerment of Divyangjan.

     

    On this occasion, Secretary (DEPwD) Shri Rajesh Aggarwal said, “Today marks a significant milestone, and we are confident that the positive impact of these collaborations will be evident in the lives of Divyangjan in the near future.” This partnership is a crucial step towards enhancing the capabilities and welfare of Divyangjan by ensuring access to essential resources and support.

    The MoUs, with institutions including Uttarakhand Open University (Haldwani), National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT) Haridwar, Max Hospital Dehradun, NGOs Pratham (Mumbai), National Association for the Blind (NAB) Delhi and Torchit Pvt. Ltd. (Ahmedabad), aim to promote the welfare and upliftment of Divyangjan.

    The partnership would focus on areas such as modern technology, artificial intelligence, psychological support, protection against online fraud, ease of access to technology, utilization of modern teaching-learning materials, and technical training for teachers working in special education.

    *****

    VM

    (Release ID: 2067488) Visitor Counter : 10

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP): A Journey Towards Affordable Healthcare

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Posted On: 23 OCT 2024 7:15PM by PIB Delhi

    A significant transformation occurred in India’s healthcare landscape with the launch of the “Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana” (PMBJP) in November 2016. This initiative aims to provide high-quality generic medicines at affordable prices, making essential healthcare accessible to all citizens. By ensuring that quality does not come at a premium, PMBJP is dedicated to improving health outcomes and promoting health equity across the nation.

    This initiative, driven by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, aims to ensure that every individual has access to essential medications without the financial burden often associated with branded drugs. With PMBJP stores (Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendras) offering generic alternatives that maintain the same quality and efficacy, it empowers communities and promotes healthier lives across the nation. The PMBJP offers an extensive product basket that includes 2047 medicines and 300 surgical devices, catering to various therapeutic groups

    At the core of PMBJP are several key objectives that guide its mission:

    1. Raising Awareness: One of the primary goals is to educate the public about the benefits of generic medicines, emphasizing that affordability does not compromise quality. The initiative works to dispel the myth that high prices are synonymous with high quality.
    2. Encouraging Prescriptions of Generic Drugs: PMBJP aims to inspire healthcare professionals, particularly those in government hospitals, to prescribe generic alternatives, thereby promoting cost-effective treatment options.

    v Enhancing Accessibility: The initiative seeks to provide a wide range of commonly used generic medicines across various therapeutic categories, ensuring that essential healthcare products are available to everyone, especially the marginalized.

     

    The Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP) reached a significant milestone, with Janaushadhi medicines worth Rs. 1,000 crore sold in the year 2024-25 till 20th October 2024. This accomplishment is particularly noteworthy as it was achieved two months earlier than in the previous year.

     

    This impressive growth is attributed to the unwavering support of citizens, who have embraced the PMBJP by purchasing medicines from over 14,000 Jan Aushadhi Kendras (JAKs) across the country. These Kendras serve as accessible points for quality healthcare, providing a friendly environment where individuals can find the medications they need without the burden of high costs.

    In the month leading up to this milestone, PMBJP also achieved a noteworthy sales figure of Rs. 200 Crores in September 2024 alone, showcasing the initiative’s rapidly increasing popularity. The growth in sales and the number of JAKs—from just 80 in 2014 to more than 14,000 today—reflects an astonishing increase of over 170 times in a decade. This expansion highlights PMBJP’s commitment to reaching every corner of India, making quality healthcare a reality for millions.

     

    Financial Year

    Number of PMBJP Kendras Functional

    Yearly Addition

    Cumulative

    2022-23

    694

    9,304

    2023-24

    702

    10,006

    2024-25

    4,074

    14,080

      *As on 23 October 2024                                                                                                

    Looking to the Future                                                                                      The vision for PMBJP is both ambitious and impactful, with plans to establish 25,000 Jan Aushadhi Kendras throughout India in the next two years. This expansion aims to further empower communities and enhance accessibility to healthcare, particularly for those who are

    underserved. Nearly 1 million people visiting these user-friendly Kendras daily, the PMBJP ensures that quality healthcare is within reach for everyone, transforming lives and improving

    health outcomes across the nation. By increasing the number of Kendras, PMBJP is dedicated to ensuring that every citizen can easily access the medications they need.

    Quality You Can Trust                                                                                    Quality assurance is a fundamental aspect of the PMBJP. Medicines are procured from manufacturers who comply with stringent standards, including WHO Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). Each batch of drugs undergoes rigorous testing at laboratories accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL). This ensures that every product meets the highest standards of safety, efficacy, and compliance before reaching the consumer.

    By offering medicines at prices that are generally 50% lower—and in some cases 80% to 90% less than those of branded alternatives—PMBJP plays a crucial role in alleviating the financial burden of healthcare, particularly for those in need. This approach not only promotes health equity but also empowers individuals to prioritize their health without the stress of exorbitant costs.

    Conclusion                                                                                                      The Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana is a shining example of how thoughtful initiatives can make a profound impact on society. The recent achievement of reaching Rs. 1000 Crores in sales in October 2024 serves as a testament to the trust and support of the community. PMBJP continues to pave the way for accessible, quality healthcare, ensuring that every citizen can enjoy a healthier future.

    By focusing on affordability and accessibility, PMBJP stands as a beacon of hope, championing health equity and empowering individuals across India. As it moves forward, the initiative not only transforms healthcare delivery but also inspires a collective vision of a healthier, more equitable nation.

    Reference:

    https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2066709 https://www.india.gov.in/spotlight/pradhan-mantri-bhartiya-janaushadhi-pariyojana

    https://janaushadhi.gov.in/pmjy.aspx#:~:text=Under%20the%20scheme%2C%20dedicated%20outlets

    ,are%20functional%20across%20the%20country. https://janaushadhi.gov.in/pmjy.aspx#

    Click here to download PDF

    ****

    Santosh Kumar/ Sheetal Angral/ Ishita Biswas

    (Release ID: 2067441) Visitor Counter : 40

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News