Your Excellency, Mrs. María Juliana Ruiz Sandoval Ms. Ana Maneno, Mr. Mohammad Yahya Qanie,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen;
I am delighted to open this High-level Global Conference on Youth-Inclusive Peace Processes, co-hosted by the State of Qatar, Colombia, Finland, and the United Nations, and co-organized by the office of the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth, Education Above All Foundation, and Search For Common Ground, in partnership with the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (UNDPP), the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), and the United Network of Young Peacebuilders.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the ground-breaking vision of Her Highness Sheikha Moza Bint Nasser – UN SDG advocate, and Founder and Chairperson of Education Above All (EAA) Foundation.
Her Highness has worked tirelessly to promote the empowerment of youth in conflict-prevention and peace-building. I would also like to acknowledge the instrumental role of Education Above All in this regard.
The State of Qatar encourages the participation of young people in all stages of peace processes, including in decision-making. With this in mind, the Department of Youth Affairs of the Ministry of Culture and Sports has been directed to draft Qatar’s first National Youth Strategy.
Drafted in consultation with our youth, the strategy is a declaration of a common national vision that defines the needs and priorities of Qatar’s youth.
It is worthy of note that the first international Symposium on youth participation, held in Helsinki in March 2019, resulted in the launch of the first global policy paper on youth participation in peace processes.
I trust this conference will follow this path in arriving at shared political commitments to advance the global Youth, Peace, and Security Agenda, and deliver concrete solutions for sustainable youth-inclusive processes world-wide.
I am pleased that this conference will launch international guidelines to advance the global Youth, Peace and Security Agenda, and a five year-strategy on strengthening youth-inclusive peace processes, to be implemented at the national level.
To conclude, the State of Qatar is committed to continue working closely with the United Nations to effectively implement the main outcomes of this conference as part of our joint efforts to strengthen global youth-inclusive peace processes.
I thank you all for joining us, and look forward to our impactful deliberations here today.
Marnus Labuschagne will open the batting for Australia and Josh Hazlewood has been selected in the bowling line-up for the World Test Championship final against South Africa at Lord’s, captain Pat Cummins said on the eve of the game on Tuesday.
Labuschagne has been moved up the order to accommodate the return of Cameron Green, who underwent back surgery in October and was ruled out of the home season, while Hazlewood is fit again after a calf injury to replace of Scott Boland.
“Cam Green has been coming back in great form in the last few weeks and we thought he deserved a spot in the batting lineup. We thought three probably suits him best,” Cummins told a press conference.
“For Marnus moving one spot up, it’s not too different to batting at three. He’s done well here in England in the past.”
Leaving out Boland, who had been one of the heroes of Australia’s 3-1 test series win over India this year, had been a difficult decision.
“There are some guys where you genuinely say, you’ve done nothing wrong, don’t change a thing and that’s Scotty. He is just really unfortunate to miss out.
“The message to Scotty is there’s a lot of test cricket coming up in the next couple of years and just because your mid-30s doesn’t mean that’s the end of your career.
“By having a squad of fast bowlers, hopefully we can extend all our care for an extra couple of years.”
An element of selection criteria was to reward those who had contributed to defending champions Australia winning 13 of 19 tests in the two-year WTC cycle and reaching yet another final.
“I think our selectors have probably shown you that they’re happy and they’d rather give someone an extra little run than pull the pin too early. I think it’s partly rewarding those guys that got us here.”
Cummings said defending the title was high on the Australian priority list, even after all their success in the limited-overs formats.
“It’s a trophy we’ve spoken a lot about over the last couple of years. “Test cricket is my favourite format. You’ve got to basically win in all different conditions to make it into this final. If we can retain that mace, that’s a pretty awesome thing for this team.”
Australia team: Usman Khawaja, Marnus Labuschagne, Cameron Green, Steve Smith, Travis Head, Beau Webster, Alex Carey (wicketkeeper), Pat Cummins (captain), Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon, Josh Hazlewood.
Union Minister for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Shivraj Singh Chouhan is spearheading the ongoing Viksit Krishi Sankalp Abhiyan (VKSA), a national campaign launched on May 29 from Puri, Odisha. The 15-day initiative, which concludes on June 12, aims to connect scientific research with agricultural practice on the ground, targeting over 1.5 crore farmers across more than 700 districts. The effort is supported by 16,000 agricultural scientists and 2,170 interdisciplinary teams.
At the launch event in Bhubaneswar, the Minister said the campaign would focus on modern technologies, soil health, natural farming, and crop diversification to ensure food security and adequate reserves. He announced the deployment of expert teams to assist farmers with seed varieties, fertiliser use, crop selection, and sustainable practices.
During a visit to Jammu and Kashmir on May 30, Chouhan referred to farmers living in border areas as the second line of defence, acknowledging their continued efforts in agriculture despite adverse conditions. “VKSA is bringing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of ‘Lab to Land’ into action,” he said, adding that the campaign is contributing to the broader goal of developing Indian agriculture.
On May 31, in Panipat, Haryana, Chouhan reiterated the importance of direct farmer interaction. “I try to live the life of a farmer. I am a farmer’s son. I drive a tractor and also do the sowing myself,” he said, describing agriculture as central to the Indian economy. He added that even a small increase in productivity per hectare could lead to substantial gains at the national level.
In Dabthuwa village of Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, Chouhan interacted with farmers directly and later addressed a media gathering in Jangethi village. He said that the goal of VKSA is to increase production, reduce input costs, ensure fair pricing for produce, and prevent post-harvest losses.
In Bihar’s Motihari, the Minister announced ₹6 crore worth of upcoming agricultural projects at the local Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) and emphasized the role of scientists in promoting advanced techniques to improve productivity.
In Pune, Maharashtra, Chouhan met farmers at the Narayangaon KVK and visited local farm markets and cold storage facilities. Speaking about inputs, he said, “The government is moving towards enacting a strict law for taking action against any company or person making fake fertilizers or pesticides and supplying those to farmers.” He also underlined the role of scientists in providing on-ground guidance tailored to regional agricultural needs.
During a Kisan Chaupal held in Patiala, Punjab, the Minister supported farmer-led policy feedback and encouraged the adoption of sustainable practices such as direct-seeded rice. “Policies will now be shaped by inputs from farmers—not by bureaucrats,” he said. He also addressed concerns about excessive pesticide use, noting its impact on costs and crop quality.
In Dehradun, Uttarakhand, Chouhan spoke about the export potential of the region’s agricultural produce. He called for a renewed focus on natural farming, water conservation, and technological innovation. “The sacred land of Uttarakhand brings renewed energy to the mind, intellect, and spirit,” he said, citing the importance of direct farmer engagement in evaluating the effectiveness of government schemes.
At the ICAR-Central Citrus Research Institute, Chouhan held a review meeting and urged scientists to focus on export-quality seed development and value addition. “Technology-driven, farmer-centric solutions are essential for increasing incomes in citriculture,” he said.
In Bhopal on June 7, Chouhan described the campaign’s intent as scientific, not political. “The government is working with the spirit of ‘One Nation, One Agriculture, One Team’,” he said. He credited record production of major crops to collaborative efforts between scientists and farmers.
On June 8, during his visit to the ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research in Bengaluru, Chouhan addressed 500 farmers and advocated for demand-driven research informed by farmer feedback. He emphasized the need for sustainable practices and a robust advisory system.
In Telangana’s Ranga Reddy district on June 9, the Minister held multiple interactions with farmers, many of whom shared positive outcomes from diversification and integrated farming. Speaking at a gathering in Ibrahimpatnam, he said, “Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, continuous efforts are being made for agricultural advancement.” He also noted that tomato, potato, and onion farmers will benefit from the Market Intervention Scheme.
According to official data, the campaign has reached approximately 87.8 lakh farmers across 85,480 villages through 46,181 field visits made by 2,170 dedicated teams between May 29 and June 8.
During his visit to the ICAR-Indian Institute of Millets Research (IIMR) in Hyderabad, Chouhan laid the foundation for a Global Centre of Excellence on Millets.
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
May peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you,,,
I welcome you all to Doha on the occasion of the seventh edition of the Global Security Forum, under the theme “The Impact of Non-State Actors on Global Security”.
At this time, this forum holds exceptional significance, as it brings us together at a moment when the world—more than ever—requires profound and sincere dialogue, as well as innovative partnerships capable of addressing the challenges of our turbulent world.
Distinguished Attendees,
Our international system is currently undergoing profound transformations that compel us to reassess our concepts of security and stability.
Conflicts are no longer transient events that can be contained; rather, they have evolved into prolonged phenomena that interconnect and overlap, imposing on the world complex crises that feed into one another—from Ukraine to Gaza, passing through the multiple crises in our region.
At the core of this intricate scene, we observe the persistence and expansion of conflicts both temporally and geographically, with no clear prospects for resolution. This is due to the absence of collective political will and the prioritization of narrow interests over the requirements of just and comprehensive peace.
At the core of this intricate scene, we observe the persistence and expansion of conflicts both temporally and geographically, with no clear prospects for resolution. This is due to the absence of collective political will and the prioritization of narrow interests over the requirements of just and comprehensive peace.
This persistence leaves behind entire generations growing up under the shadow of violence, despair, and loss of hope, which is perhaps the most perilous consequence of these conflicts.
Children of Gaza, Syria, Sudan, and Ukraine are not merely statistics in the reports of international organizations; rather, they represent the future of our societies and serve as a reflection of our success or failure in creating a world that is safer and more humane.
And even if wars were to cease tomorrow, we would find ourselves facing the immense challenge of reconstruction—not only to repair the physical destruction but also to rebuild communities on social and psychological levels.
Amid the multiplicity of crises and the decline in international funding, issues such as the reconstruction of Syria or Gaza appear to have become deferred aspirations on the agenda of the international community.
Therefore, our vision for the solution is not limited to ceasefires and ending wars alone; it extends to establishing solid foundations for comprehensive and sustainable recovery, through collective responsibility and genuine international commitment.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Amidst these intertwined challenges, the role of humanitarian organizations, civil society institutions, media entities, and local initiatives has emerged as a pivotal element in the equation of security and peace.
These entities have become the first line of defense in responding to crises, often overcoming bureaucratic and political constraints that hinder official bodies.
However, on the other hand, we face non-state actors who exploit security vacuums and thrive on chaos and suffering, ranging from terrorist groups to organized crime networks.
The rogue actions of certain states, which are met with only a small amount of wisdom and a great deal of weakness and complacency from some governments, serve as a pretext for infiltrating the hearts and minds of people and hijacking the role of the sole defender of their rights.
Amidst this crisis-ridden landscape, the truth is obscured, and blame is scattered: Is the root cause the rogue states themselves, the weak governments failing to fulfill their duties, or the absence of wisdom, which has become a rare commodity in an era where standards are blurred and balances disrupted?
Herein lies the importance of this year’s forum theme— the lines between construction and destruction, between those who seek peace and those who invest in war, must be drawn clearly and precisely.
Addressing these challenges requires a smart approach; one that supports and empowers positive forces while containing and drying up the sources of terrorist and criminal organizations that exploit the suffering of peoples to advance their own agendas.
This can only be achieved through more inclusive global governance and strategic partnerships between governments and civil society.
DistinguishedAttendees,
What has been happening in the Gaza Strip for more than a year and a half offers painful lessons about this dynamic.
Amid unprecedented destruction and a humanitarian disaster that has crossed all red lines, humanitarian organizations and local initiatives play a crucial role in keeping the lifeline flowing, in conveying the suffering of civilians to the world, and even in contributing to mediation and negotiation efforts.
What is most painful, and a stain on the conscience of the entire world, is that food and medicine have become weapons in this war. The death of children from hunger and cold is exploited as a tool to achieve narrow political objectives, while an entire population is besieged and denied the most basic rights to receive aid, without any accountability.
The State of Qatar will continue, in partnership with the Arab Republic of Egypt, the United States of America, and regional partners, its diligent efforts to achieve a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza and to ensure the unobstructed flow of humanitarian aid.
We firmly believe that supporting the Palestinian people is not a matter of political negotiation, but a moral and humanitarian duty rooted in our commitment to justice.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Despite the bleakness of the overall situation, positive indicators emerge that must be upheld and strengthened.
In Syria, we observe a nation undergoing reconstruction, with its people striving to shape a new vision for their country, while recognizing the sensitivity of the current phase and the necessity for a comprehensive national discourse.
In Lebanon, the election of a President of the Republic and the formation of the government represent an opportunity to revitalize institutions and strengthen confidence in the state and its future, provided that this is accompanied by substantial reforms and genuine engagement of civil society.
We also observe encouraging positive signs, as recently witnessed here in Doha, through hosting peace talks between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda, which resulted in reaching preliminary understandings on a ceasefire, de-escalation, and confidence-building measures.
These models demonstrate how formal processes, when combined with community initiatives, can help create a supportive environment for national reconciliation and regional stability.
The diverse experiences we witness affirm a fundamental truth: sustainable security cannot be achieved solely through top-down decisions, but rather by building cohesive communities capable of resilience, through expanding partnerships and activating the role of all societal components in shaping the future.
Distinguished Attendees,
The State of Qatar has always been committed to the principle of dialogue as a fundamental means of resolving conflicts and building peace.
We believe that constructive engagement with humanitarian organizations, civil society, the private sector, and academic circles constitutes an integral part of any serious effort to achieve sustainable stability.
Based on our extensive experience in mediation and conflict resolution, we have realized that achieving genuine peace requires establishing channels of dialogue with all influential parties, respecting the specificities of each community, acknowledging historical grievances, and addressing them with a spirit of justice and reconciliation.
Despite all the challenges we face, I firmly believe that hope remains our choice.
The ability to bring about positive change is still within our reach, if there is genuine will, if we can rise above narrow interests, and if we place the human being—his dignity, rights, and aspirations—at the heart of every policy and initiative.
In the State of Qatar, we are committed to continuing our role as an active partner in efforts toward peace and development. This includes supporting political solutions to conflicts, humanitarian actions, and building safety nets that protect communities from extremism and violence.
We look forward to this forum serving as a platform for innovative ideas and practical solutions, and as a step towards closer partnerships between governments and communities, for a world that is safer, more just, and more respectful for human dignity.
I wish you fruitful discussions and thank you for listening
May peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you,,,
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Your Highness the Amir – may God protect him,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Distinguished Guests,
May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.
It is my great pleasure to welcome you all to Doha, the capital of the State of Qatar. Doha has grown into a prominent center for international dialogue and active diplomacy, and a global platform where leaders, policymakers, and thinkers come together to exchange ideas and promote cooperation.
This year’s Qatar Economic Forum takes place amidst major political and economic transformations, underscoring the urgent need for dialogue platforms that bring together decision-makers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and thought leaders to chart future investment opportunities and formulate a collective stance on the challenges we face, most notably international stability and sustainable growth.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza remains, despite the tireless efforts of the State of Qatar—working in close coordination with our partners in the sisterly Arab Republic of Egypt and the United States of America—to bring this tragic war to an end, yet unfortunately we continue to witness repeated setbacks to achieving a ceasefire.
When the Israeli-American soldier, Idan Alexander, was released, we hoped it would mark a turning point—an opportunity to halt the violence and begin the path toward peace. Instead, that moment was met with an intensified campaign of bombardment, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians.
This aggressive and irresponsible behavior continues to undermine every opportunity for peace. Nevertheless, we remain firmly committed to pursuing our diplomatic efforts, alongside our partners, until this war is brought to an end—until all hostages and detainees are released, and the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Gaza is alleviated, and the region is no longer held hostage by constant and imminent threats.
Regarding Syria, the recent decision to lift U.S. sanctions on this brotherly nation marks a significant step in the right direction. We hope to see similar measures to follow. This sends a clear and vital message to the region and the world: that our collective priority must be to offer people emerging from conflict a genuine opportunity to rebuild their lives and shape a better future.
Distinguished Guests,
Political stability and economic prosperity are deeply interconnected—neither can be achieved in isolation from the other.
From this standpoint, the State of Qatar pursues an active and principled diplomatic approach, grounded in impartial mediation and constructive engagement to help resolve conflicts peacefully, recognizing that lasting peace is the foundation for any sustainable development.
We regard every diplomatic effort we undertake as an investment in a more secure and prosperous future. When a young student in Gaza completes their education, or a Syrian family returns home after years of displacement, we see the tangible and meaningful impact that stability has—not only on individual lives, but on entire economies and societies.
Distinguished Guests,
In the State of Qatar, we aspire to build a diversified and prosperous economy —one driven by knowledge, innovation, and aligned with the pace of the global technological revolution, characterized by flexibility and adaptability. We aspire for Qatar to be a beacon of technological advancement and a global center for investment and business, built on trust, and for Qatar to always remain a reliable partner, whether in energy or investment, as well as in diplomacy.
In line with this vision, we are actively working to translate our aspirations into reality by diversifying our foreign investments to enhance our strategic balance and contribute to the development of a long-term, sustainable economy. The Qatar Investment Authority continues to play a central role in this effort, pursuing long-term strategic partnerships across the globe. Over the past year, it has made significant investments spanning the United States, Africa, and China.
These initiatives reflect our strong confidence in the resilience and potential of global markets—especially emerging markets—and their role in shaping the future.
Domestically, Qatar’s economy maintained positive momentum, achieving real GDP growth of 2.4% in 2024, with total output reaching QAR 713 billion.
This growth has been driven largely by significant progress in Qatar’s non-oil sectors, which expanded by 3.4% annually—an encouraging sign of steady advancement toward the objectives outlined in our Third National Development Strategy.
By the end of 2024, new foreign direct investment (FDI) had reached QAR 9.9 billion, reflecting the growing confidence of international investors in the strength and resilience of the Qatari economy.
To sustain this momentum, the State of Qatar continues to enhance its legislative and administrative frameworks, aiming to create a more efficient, transparent, and investor-friendly business environment.
In this spirit, we are pleased to announce today the launch of the first package of incentives for all investors, focusing on strategic sectors such as advanced manufacturing, modern technology, and logistics. This initiative marks a significant step forward in fostering growth across key sectors that will serve as the foundation of our national economy’s future.
In addition to industrial growth, this year marked the launch of the Simaisma tourism project—one of the largest entertainment developments in the region. This project serves as a major catalyst for the real estate and tourism sectors, and a powerful driver of integrated economic development.
In the field of innovation and digital transformation, Qatar has further solidified its position as an emerging technology hub. In February 2025, we hosted the second edition of Web Summit, which brought together over 25,000 participants from 124 countries.
The summit successfully fostered meaningful connections between emerging tech ecosystems in Asia and Africa and leading global corporations and sovereign wealth funds—further enhancing Qatar’s role as a digital gateway between regions.
Reinforcing this momentum, Qatar recently secured the hosting rights for the Mobile World Congress (MWC) for the next five years, with the inaugural edition set for November. This achievement firmly establishes Qatar as a key player in the global digital economy.
To build on this progress, Qatar will soon launch a new, globally ambitious project, to be unveiled later this year.
Together, these milestones highlight Qatar’s determination to strengthen its position as a global economic and investment hub, and to chart a future grounded in diversity, innovation, and sustainability.
Distinguished Guests,
The State of Qatar is committed to playing a leading role in shaping a more balanced global economy—one that fosters genuine partnership and places human beings at the center of development. We envision Qatar as a platform where ideas converge, interests align, and progress is nurtured in an environment grounded in peace, stability, and investment.
In this spirit, we call for a holistic approach—one that integrates security with development, diplomacy with economic growth, and ensures that human dignity remains at the heart of any plans for prosperity.
Thank you for your kind presence. I wish you a productive forum and meaningful discussions. I look forward to engaging in a constructive dialogue during the sessions ahead, and to the emergence of new economic partnerships that will help drive sustainable development—both in our region and around the world.
May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.
Joumanna Bercetche (Bloomberg TV): President Trump was in the region last week. It was the first Lme a US President has paid a visit to Qatar since 2003. Howsignificant was this visit for the Gulf do you think? And also how do you think this
President’s approach to the region differs from his predecessors?
His Excellency: Well I believe that the President’s first trip to the GCC region, visiLng Saudi, Qatar, and UAE has been a great demonstraLon for the potenLal of that region. This sent a very strong message to the enLre world that there is a very high potenLal in that region. This region is flourishing, this region has a lot to do when it comes to contribuLng to the future technology and the revoluLon of arLficial intelligence and the need of course for power. Basically, we have had a great visit and I believe this is equivalent to the rest of the countries in the GCC. During that visit we had wide range of topics that’s being discussed whether it’s on regional security, on the future economic cooperaLon between the two countries and how to untap the potenLal between the two countries. These topics actually have varied whether it’s how to partner in arLficial intelligence, how to partner in energy and how to expand also in being a criLcal and vital part of the supply chain for the United States economy which is the leading economy in the world. I believe this was very much perceived in a posiLve way by the region and of course we know that the policy varies from one administraLon to another. We are glad to see that the Middle East, and GCC in parLcular, is a priority for this administraLon, and we believe that there is a lot of potenLal for both of us in the region and the United States that we can untap in the next few years. And also I think that one of the key elements of the President’s visit is making sure that the situaLon in this region remain stabilized and we have seen what a delicate period that we are going through in that region whether it’s on their talks, on the US talks with Iran, or with the situaLon in Gaza and the changes that happened in Syria. And we are hoping that these kind of engagements will lead us to a point where we can have all these conflicts seXled and hopefully being more focused on the prosperity of the region.
Joumanna Bercetche (Bloomberg TV): President Trump has been labeled a transacLonal President. He certainly likes to do deals. He has wriXen a book about the art of the deal and he likes things of value, especially if they come free. I want to ask you about the giY of this Boeing jet that Qatar wants to give to use as interim Air Force 1. It’s being met with a lot of controversy back home. What wasthe purpose of this giY? And is it as some criLcs say, an opportunity for Qatar togain influence with this administraLon?
His Excellency: Well look actually we have seen that there was a lot of controversy that’s being created out of this, what I call it, an exchange between two countries and basically the relaLonship that we have between Qatar and the United States is a very insLtuLonal relaLonship that witnessed different administraLons, and the insLtuLonal relaLonship remained very strong and at the backbone of this partnership. The plane story is a Ministry of Defense to Department of Defense transacLon which is basically done in full transparency and very legally and it is part of the cooperaLon that we have been always doing together for decades. For example, the airliYing in Afghanistan is something that we have almost 80% of that done by our air forces. The security deployment of the United States during the World Cup to support our efforts was done by the United States and I see it as a normal thing that happens between allies and basically I don’t know why people are thinking about it, that this is considered as a bribery or considered as something that Qatar wants to buy an influence with this administraLon. I don’t see any honestly valid reason for that and I believe that there is a huge issue in misconcepLon or unfortunately some spoilers who are trying to portray Qatar as a country that tries to buy its way. I believe if you look at the track record at least for the last 10 years whenever there is some scoop coming out in the media and trying to put Qatar under a spotlight that Qatar is bribing to get the World Cup or Qatar is bribing the EU Parliament or whatever, unLl like the end Qatar is trying to bribe the Prime Minister of Israel. I’m sure that, you know, it does tell you something that for the last 10 years, none of these cases has stand or had any proof that Qatar has done anything wrong. We are a country that would like to have strong partnership and strong friendship and anything that we provide to any country, it’s provided out of respect for this partnership and it’s a two ways relaLonship. It’s mutually beneficial for Qatar and for the United States and I believe everybody acknowledges this. I think that we need to overcome this stereotype of seeing Qatar as a small Arab naLon because it’s gas rich, it cannot find its way without buying it with money. It’s really a misconcepLon that hurts a lot not our reputaLon but the reputaLon also of other countries and insLtuLons.
Joumanna Bercetche (Bloomberg TV):Is the controversy worth it though if itmeans that there’s going to be further congressional scruLny of all of Qatar’sdealings now with the US?
His Excellency: Well, there is actually nothing that has been done by us under the table or like we are trying to do like a covert operaLon. It’s a Ministry of Defense to Department of Defense. There is a proper legal review now conducted between the two departments and nothing has happened yet actually. Now, our intenLon is to have a very clear exchange that the US is in need for to accelerate, you know, a temporary Air Force One. Qatar has the ability to provide this. We stepped up and basically a lot of naLons have giYed the US many things. I am not comparing that to the Statue of Liberty but I don’t know if this sounded a liXle bit maybe strange for the US because it’s coming from a small Arab naLon. I think that, you know, this has played some way a factor in this but I am hoping that people in the United States and even the poliLcians over there, they look at us as a friend, as a partner, as a reliable partner that we’ve been always there for the US whenever we were needed whether it’s in the war against terror, whether it’s in freeing American hostages from all around the world. It’s not something that we’ve been doing to buy an influence but this is a duty on us as a partner, as an ally of the United
States and as there is a duty for the United States towards Qatar.
Joumanna Bercetche (Bloomberg TV): I want to turn to regional geopoliLcs. Yesterday, the Israeli Prime Minister says that Israel is now carrying out operaLons with the purpose of taking over the Gaza Strip. They will carry out an unprecedented aXack on Hamas. That is a quote. The war is clearly entering into a new phase aYer a ceasefire that was negoLated earlier this year. Qatar played a pivotal role in that. It lapsed in March. The death toll conLnues to go up. There’s sLll what’s thought to be 20 hostages sLll alive in the Gaza Strip. There’s a humanitarian crisis going on there. What hope is there now for a lasLng ceasefire,
Your Excellency?
His Excellency: Well, it’s unfortunate that we’ve been seeing the situaLon unfolding in this way and it’s becoming very frustraLng for everyone and especially for us here in Qatar, we’ve been there from the beginning trying to mediate and trying to get to a deal where it alleviates the suffering of the PalesLnian people in Gaza and freeing the hostages and bringing them back to their family and trying to bring a path that will create a peaceful environment and security for both people. And that’s basically what we were aiming. And what I think that the last year and a half now has shown you that the only way forward is through negoLaLons. And unfortunately, that someLmes, you know, or many of the Lmes, these negoLaLons being sabotaged by poliLcal games with a very narrow vision and, you know, it’s just being postponed. One of the examples we had, the first deal that freed more than 100 Israeli hostages in November 23, it collapsed in one week. Then we had the second deal that’s been based on a framework that’s agreed on December 23 and we couldn’t announce it or we couldn’t finalize it unLl January 25. That states very clearly that this deal should include mulLple phases, that we have to do everything we can to avoid to return to the war and ensuring that all the hostages will be freed and there is a withdrawal from Gaza Strip and there is a clear way forward for the Gaza’s people to alleviate their situaLon. This deal has collapsed in 2nd of March and we have seen how the situaLon has been unfolding since then and the blockade on Gaza for now more than 60 days. And we are hearing also some responsible statements about the humanitarian situaLon over there, about, you know, the way of distribuLng these aids and distribuLng food in the form of meals and calculated calories for pre-qualified and pre-screened people. I think all these things that are happening has been unprecedented in our world today and it shouldn’t be acceptable for the internaLonal community. Yes, yet we have seen that, you know, unfortunately the Israeli government is carrying it out with impunity. Now, we conLnue our efforts despite everything and every aXempt to sabotage our efforts and try to also blackmail us and, you know, conLnuing aXacking us while we were the only country that’s helping together with Egypt and United States and we have just that this is just making us more determined to bring stability to the region, to end the war on Gaza, to free all the hostages and to bring them back to their family and to provide security for both people. The rounds of negoLaLons that took place in Doha in the past couple of weeks unfortunately didn’t lead us anywhere yet because there is a fundamental gap between the two parLes which is one party is looking for a parLal deal that might have the possibility to lead to a comprehensive deal and the other party is looking just for one-off deal and to end the war and to get all the hostages out and we couldn’t bridge this fundamental gap with whatever proposals we have provided given the past experience of the first deal that it collapsed and basically we are stuck in a situaLon that if this operaLon is starLng is just going to postpone the diplomaLc conclusion of the war which will end only diplomaLcally from our point of view and will just cost us a death toll on the PalesLnian side and also on the hostages side. Just I wanted to add one very important point to this. The delicacy of that situaLon in the region right now is criLcal and basically we have seen that the conLnuaLon of this campaign and this way and this behavior and it’s not only in Gaza but Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria is something becoming unbearable yet you have seen that all of us as governments, as countries we are calling for peace, we are calling for peaceful resoluLons and there is nothing stopping this kind of behavior. That will only add anger to the people in that region. This will add legiLmacy for non-state actors and is just going to fuel the narraLve of extremism and terrorism.
Joumanna Bercetche (Bloomberg TV): In President Trump’s speech last week in Riyadh, he talks about the birth of a new Middle East, the economic transformaLon and also the Gulf states playing an increasingly influenLal diplomaLc and mediaLon role and the prospect of regional stability. Can thereactually be regional stability in the absence of a soluLon to the PalesLnian and
Israeli conflict that has been going on for decades?
His Excellency: Well, we believe that this conflict is a core for the regional stability, and we hope that there will be a chance someLme soon. It requires a strong leadership, strong leadership from the PalesLnian side, from the Arab side and from the Israeli side because there will never be a deal without a compromise between all the parLes that ensuring that there are condiLons that can be created for the people to coexist together. This region has been for centuries with a beauLful social fabric that has different backgrounds and different ethnicity and different religions. Unfortunately, it’s been drained with these ancient wars and proxies that evolved over the last few decades. I cannot recall since I was born that there was a moment of stability in the region when we talk about the overall. We are blessed that the GCC was protected except during the Iraq war. But since we grew up, we grew up on just conflicts aYer another, aYer another.
Joumanna Bercetche (Bloomberg TV): We’ve got a couple of minutes, but I do want to ask you because you were in Tehran over the weekend. How likely is itthat you think we will get to an Iran-U.S. nuclear deal by the end of this year?
His Excellency: I believe there is a posiLve momentum. We had a very good conversaLon with President Trump when he was here. We see him as a President who tried to talk to everyone, which is something that we very much encouraged. Also, he is trying to avoid any conflict or any escalaLon. This determinaLon in itself is showing leadership and poliLcal will. On the other side, on Iran, we have seen and sensed the same posiLvity. Of course, Oman is leading the mediaLon, and we are trying to support their efforts. I have suggested that aYer the visit of President Trump to have a trilateral engagement with the Iranians and our Omani colleagues. We were discussing ideas that can bridge the gaps between the two parLes. We hope that those ideas will work. The last thing that we want in that region is a nuclear race or another round of escalaLon that is next to our countries.
Joumanna Bercetche (Bloomberg TV): Final quesLon on the Qatar economy. We have had the World Cup bump, you could call it. Of course, you have big visions of what you want to achieve in the next few years. What is the plan for the next fiveyears by 2030?
His Excellency: It is a very ambiLous plan. I have a friend who once told me that the World Cup was like an IPO for Qatar. I believe this was, thanks to God, this was a very successful IPO. It has been oversubscribed. We have seen the growth in many sectors aYer that. Basically, Qatar is trying to work on a transformaLon plan where we transform our economy into more being diversified, with a diversified base internally. We have been talking about this for the last 25 years and we have been working toward that objecLve. We are focusing on developing different sectors, whether it is on the manufacturing, on the logisLcs, on the educaLon, on the healthcare, on the tourism and technology. We have seen the technology revoluLon right now that is happening. We have seen that this technology revoluLon is not only happening away in the world, but countries like UAE is leading in arLficial intelligence or Saudi leading in data centers and we are trying to be part of this ecosystem and being a complementary for this region. Basically, we see that the potenLal is huge. The capability is there. Qatar has successfully built global brands in the last few decades. Qatar Airways is one of the main examples when you see that you have a leading airline being nominated number one for the last few years. This is something making us proud and we would like to see more and more brands coming out of Qatar like this.
Joumanna Bercetche (Bloomberg TV): Your Excellency, thank you so much. Thank you.
Based on the fraternal relations between the State of Qatar and the Syrian Arab Republic, and based on the common aspiration to enhance bilateral cooperation between the two countries, HE Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani received a high-level Syrian ministerial delegation headed by HE Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Asaad Hassan Al Shaibani, accompanied by seven ministers, which comes within the framework of strengthening the solid fraternal relations and bilateral cooperation between the two countries.
At the outset of the meeting, HE the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates conveyed the greetings of HE President of the Syrian Arab Republic Ahmed Al Sharaa to HH the Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, and his wishes for the State of Qatar, its government, and people, continued progress and prosperity. HE the Syrian Minister also expressed Syria’s deep appreciation for the State of Qatar’s initiatives and continuous efforts in support of the reconstruction process in Syria, praising Qatar’s firm stances toward supporting the Syrian people.
In turn, HE the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs conveyed the greetings of HH the Amir to HE the President of the Syrian Arab Republic, and His Highness’s wishes for continued health and happiness for His Excellency, and for continued progress and prosperity for the government and people of the Syrian Arab Republic.
The meeting discussed the bilateral relations between the two countries, emphasizing the depth of fraternal ties that unite them and their mutual commitment to strengthening and developing cooperation in various areas of common interest.
The meeting also discussed ways to expand bilateral cooperation in the energy, economy, trade, finance, tourism, communications, information technology, higher education, development, and other sectors, including:
Support and supply the Syrian Arab Republic with electricity.Settling the Syrian Arab Republic’s debt to the World Bank, jointly by the State of Qatar and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Providing joint financial support from the State of Qatar and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to support the salaries of public sector workers in the Syrian Arab Republic for a period of three months. The Qatari side reiterated the State of Qatar’s firm and supportive stances on the unity, sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as on the realization of the aspirations of its fraternal people for a dignified life and the building of a state of institutions and law. It also categorically rejected any attempts to undermine Syria’s unity or undermine its national sovereignty.
For its part, the Syrian side affirmed its pride in the State of Qatar’s supportive stance towards the Syrian people, praising its supportive role at various stages and reiterating the Syrian Arab Republic’s commitment to the principles of respecting the sovereignty of states and non-interference in their internal affairs.
The State of Qatar strongly condemns the shooting incident that occurred at a school in the Austrian city of Graz, which resulted in deaths and injuries.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterates the State of Qatar’s firm position rejecting violence, terrorism, and criminal acts, regardless of their motives and causes.
The Ministry expresses the State of Qatar’s condolences to the families of the victims and to the government and people of Austria, and wishes the injured a speedy recovery.
The State of Qatar participated in the meeting of the political directors of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, which was held in the Spanish capital.
HE Special Envoy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ambassador Faisal bin Abdullah Al Hanzab represented the State of Qatar at the meeting.
During his speech, His Excellency reaffirmed the State of Qatar’s firm commitment to the mission and objectives of the Global Coalition, as well as its support for all efforts to mobilize all necessary resources to defeat ISIS, especially in the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Iraq.
His Excellency stressed that the State of Qatar welcomes the positive steps that have been taken in Syria towards national consensus and the consolidation of the rule of law and institutions, noting that lifting sanctions on Syria is an important step towards supporting stability and prosperity there.
HE the Special Envoy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs called for respect for the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, pointing out that any military action that detracts from this sovereignty is no less dangerous than combating terrorist groups.
The State of Qatar, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and the United States of America are pleased to announce the successful conclusion of joint mediation efforts, leading to an agreement between the parties in the Gaza Strip conflict on the exchange of prisoners and hostages, the restoration of sustained calm, and progress toward a permanent ceasefire between the two sides, in addition to the delivery of substantial amounts of humanitarian and relief aid to our Palestinian brothers and sisters in the Gaza Strip.
I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to our partners in the Arab Republic of Egypt and the United States of America, particularly the U.S. President-elect’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Mr. Steve Witkoff, and the Coordinator for Middle East and North Africa Affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, Mr. Brett McGurk, for their efforts that contributed to advancing the negotiations and reaching this agreement. Special thanks go to our brothers in the team from the sisterly Arab Republic of Egypt, and to His Excellency Minister Hassan Rashad, who worked diligently in partnership with their Qatari counterparts to achieve this agreement.
With the approval of both parties involved in the negotiations on this agreement, efforts are underway to finalize all executive procedures tonight. Subsequently, internal procedures will be undertaken by the Israeli government, after which the agreement will come into effect on Sunday, the 19th of January. The exact time for the implementation of the agreement will be determined at a later stage.
As for the details of the agreement, the initial phase, which spans 42 days, will involve a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces eastward, away from densely populated areas, to be stationed along the borders across all regions of the Gaza Strip. The phase will also include a prisoner and hostage exchange based on a specified mechanism, the exchange of remains of the deceased, the return of displaced individuals to their places of residence and facilitating the departure of patients and wounded individuals for medical treatment.
The first phase also includes intensifying the delivery of humanitarian aid and its secure and effective distribution on a wide scale across the Gaza Strip, rehabilitating hospitals, health centers, and bakeries, providing civil defense supplies and fuel, and delivering shelter necessities for displaced individuals who lost their homes due to the war.
Under the agreement, Hamas will, in the first phase, release 33 Israeli detainees, including civilian women, female soldiers, children, the elderly, and sick and injured civilians, in exchange for a number of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons and detention centers.
As for the details of the second and third phases, the agreement will be finalized during the implementation of the first phase.
The State of Qatar underscores the necessity for both parties to fully adhere to the implementation of the agreement in its three phases to spare civilian lives and shield the region from the repercussions of this conflict, paving the way for achieving comprehensive and sustainable peace. Qatar will continue to collaborate jointly with the sisterly Arab Republic of Egypt and the United States of America to ensure the parties’ commitments are upheld and to guarantee the continuation of negotiations for the implementation of the remaining phases.
We look forward to the concerted efforts of regional and international actors in providing humanitarian assistance and supporting the United Nations in delivering aid to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. The State of Qatar will spare no effort in extending support to our affected families in the Gaza Strip and providing all necessary measures to alleviate the suffering of the people of the Strip.
Since October 8, under the directives and direct follow-up of His Highness the Amir of the State of Qatar, we have spared no effort, working tirelessly day and night to reach this moment. Since the success of the mediation in halting the initial fighting last November and securing the release of 109 hostages in exchange for a number of Palestinian detainees, we have been continuously working to ensure the achievement of an agreement that spares innocent lives, halts the machinery of war, and restores hope for a secure future in our region, providing the peoples of the region with the chance to dream of a better future.
Over the course of 411 days, meetings and communications continued with our partners and the parties to the conflict. Today, we have reached this much-anticipated moment, but it is merely the beginning. The responsibility now falls on the parties, supported by mediators and the international community, to navigate toward the shores of peace. This will be the focus of our efforts in the upcoming phase.
I would like to extend my gratitude to all our regional and international partners who supported us in these efforts and throughout the journey until reaching this agreement.
In conclusion, I would like to say to our brothers and sisters in Gaza that the State of Qatar will always continue to support the Palestinian people. This issue is being given direct attention and constant follow-up by His Highness the Amir of the State, whether day or night, hour by hour, and minute by minute. We tell them, thanks be to God, who has enabled us to reach this state today, and we hope that this marks the final chapter of the days of war. We urge all parties to commit to implementing all provisions of this agreement and to adhere to the continuation of these measures as outlined in the agreement. The State of Qatar will remain consistently engaged with its partners to ensure the full implementation of this agreement and to restore comprehensive and sustainable calm in the Gaza Strip. Qatar will not abandon the people of Gaza.
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,
May the peace, blessings, and mercy of God be upon you.
Firstly, we extend our heartfelt congratulations to General Joseph Aoun on his appointment as President of the Republic. We congratulate Lebanon on the end of its presidential vacancy, and we hope that this significant step will pave the way for lasting security and stability in Lebanon.
We also look forward to the formation of the Lebanese government, hopefully soon, and to completing all necessary steps to strengthen state institutions in order to fulfill the aspirations of the Lebanese people.
Our visit today to Beirut is a gesture of support from the State of Qatar. The State of Qatar has always stood by Lebanon and its people, in both times of joy and times of hardship. God willing, you can always count on our unwavering support.
The State of Qatar has consistently supported our sisterly Lebanon in recent years, whether through humanitarian aid, support for community initiatives, or assistance to the Lebanese Army. This support will continue. We have reaffirmed with His Excellency the President, Qatar’s commitment to sustaining its support for the Lebanese Armed Forces, the military institution that unites all Lebanese.
We also emphasize the importance of upholding the agreement regarding the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from southern Lebanon and ensuring the full implementation of related resolutions. Furthermore, we urge all parties to adhere to Resolution 1701, with the ultimate goal of Lebanon regaining full sovereignty over all its territories.
The State of Qatar reaffirms its continued support for the Lebanese people. Once the government is formed, we look forward to collaborating with the Lebanese government to support state institutions and work on joint projects between our two countries.
Thank you.
In response to the First question, HE said:
The State of Qatar has always been present, and we are committed, by all means, to fulfilling our duty towards the brotherly Lebanese people, Lebanon, and our brothers across the region.
Regarding our support for the implementation of the resolution and the Israeli withdrawal agreement, as well as rejecting Israeli violations and attacks on Lebanon’s sovereignty, this is absolutely unacceptable. We consistently raise this issue in all our international discussions and in our contacts with the Israeli side. The State of Qatar will continue to play this role.
On another level, in terms of economic and reconstruction support, there is no doubt that the State of Qatar will remain present, as it has been on every occasion and during every event. We look forward to the completion of the government formation, after which these files will be discussed. We are hopeful of establishing a strategic partnership that will serve the interests of both our countries and people.
In response to the Second question, HE said:
The issue of stability in the Middle East is, first and foremost, tied to resolving the root causes of the conflicts. We are all aware that the core issue in the region is Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. The rejection of efforts to establish peace, including the two-state solution and the creation of an independent Palestinian state, will not lead to stability. Unfortunately, this situation allows extremists to exploit the chaos and take advantage of the reckless actions of the Israeli occupation to further their own agendas. The State of Qatar, without a doubt, completely rejects this.
Since the beginning of this year, there have been positive indicators, whether it is the filling of the presidential vacancy in Lebanon or the changes taking place in Syria. We wish all the best for these developments. Just as wars have had a successive impact on the region, we hope that peace will also have a similar, cascading effect, and we look forward to that with optimism.
Today, we are, of course, facing a difficult situation alongside our Palestinian brothers, both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, following the success of the ceasefire agreement. We are committed to continuing this agreement until it reaches its final phase, ensuring the complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. We also aim to put an end to the actions and violations that our brothers in the West Bank are enduring.
Regarding the issue of the partnership between the State of Qatar and Lebanon, we are awaiting, the formation of the government. Once that is complete, the State of Qatar will assess the sectors where Lebanon needs support. We will then work together to build a partnership, as I mentioned earlier, based on mutual benefit.
In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
May God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you,
First, I would like to extend a warm welcome to my friend, Mr. David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary of the friendly United Kingdom, in Doha to convene the Second Qatari-UK Strategic Dialogue.
Your Excellency, since the convening of the first Strategic Dialogue, the Qatari-British partnership has witnessed intensive efforts to deepen cooperation across various levels, where the visit of His Highness the Amir of the State to London last December represented a historic milestone in the progress of relations between our two friendly nations, during which we reaffirmed our commitment to strengthening the strong and historic bilateral partnership between the two countries.
The launch of the Second Strategic Dialogue today, under the theme “Partners for the Future”, represents another milestone in advancing the partnership between the State of Qatar and the United Kingdom. It also reaffirms our ongoing commitment to further strengthening cooperation across various sectors, including economy, trade, investment, defense, security, and collaboration in counter-terrorism efforts.
Under the framework of our strategic dialogue, 8 joint working groups are convening today to develop practical steps towards achieving the shared aspirations of both countries.
We are pleased to witness the launch of a working group in the field of technology, science, and innovation, as well as a working group in the field of health, reflecting the prospects available to advance the current cooperation between the State of Qatar and the United Kingdom in the areas of modern technology, artificial intelligence, and future opportunities, including their role in supporting healthcare applications and health data.
The prosperous future is a motto we all stand behind. Undoubtedly, the State of Qatar and the United Kingdom share a vital and thriving economic, trade, and investment partnership, which stands as a landmark we take pride in within our strategic collaboration.
The State of Qatar invests over 40 billion pounds sterling in the British economy, contributing to job creation, fostering growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom, while generating returns for the Qatari sovereign wealth fund to secure the future of upcoming generations in Qatar. The volume of trade exchange between the two countries exceeded 1.6 billion pounds sterling in the year 2024.
The State of Qatar continues to play a pivotal role among major global investors in the United Kingdom, being the primary partner of leading British companies. We regard the United Kingdom as one of our most significant investment partners, with a proven track record of success in key investment areas.
Our investments also contribute to supporting the growth of the British economy and its projects, increasing employment opportunities, fostering innovation, and promoting economic development in our two friendly nations, particularly in the fields of science, technology, sustainability, climate change adaptation, and digital advancement.
Your Excellency, this partnership is a strong testament to the shared commitment to creating prosperity and a bright future for our two friendly peoples.
Despite the distances that separate us, there is undoubtedly something unique about the relationship between our two friendly nations.
Whether it pertains to the thousands of Qatari students who have benefited from education in British schools, colleges, and universities, or the tens of thousands of British citizens in Qatar who work alongside us to achieve our national goals and aspirations, goodwill and dynamism remain at the core of this relationship.
Our joint efforts to expand this cooperation, particularly in the fields of education, culture, heritage, sports, health, research, and innovation—including genomics—have reaffirmed this bond, alongside our well-established traditions of cultural partnerships.
Your Excellency, our partnership has become more significant than ever in light of the major risks and the ongoing and escalating tensions that threaten international security. In strengthening this partnership and within the framework of our strategic dialogue today, we announce the signing of a Letter of Intent for cooperation in the fields of peace, reconciliation, and conflict resolution, which will enhance technical collaboration with a view to developing capacities in this domain, and supporting our international efforts to promote peace.
We also convened the inaugural Qatar-UK Development Taskforce to build upon joint efforts in addressing humanitarian challenges, global health, and fostering joint development initiatives, in light of doubling the Co-Funding Initiative for Financing Development Cooperation to $100 million.
We will work on exploring joint programs in priority areas, including but not limited to: the Gaza Strip, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Bangladesh.
However, the risks today are higher than ever before. The escalation, aggression, and ongoing Israeli siege on the occupied Palestinian territories and the Gaza Strip, along with the continued politicization of humanitarian aid, targeting of humanitarian workers, and the use of hunger as a tool for collective punishment, place our entire region on the brink of catastrophe.
This represents a challenge to our humanity, and leaving it unaccounted for is an open invitation to those who may be tempted to employ such inhumane methods to impose political will upon any nation striving for its freedom.
We hereby affirm our unwavering commitment to working towards de-escalation of tensions, urging Israel to cease obstructing the entry of humanitarian aid, and tirelessly supporting all efforts aimed at resolving disputes through dialogue and negotiation.
Today, Your Excellency, we witness positive developments in Syria, represented by the reconstruction of a state devastated by war, and opportunities for peace supported by negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran mediated by Oman. Furthermore, not to mention the ongoing negotiations concerning peace in Ukraine, alongside other international efforts aimed at realizing humanity’s aspiration for a just and lasting peace for our peoples.
We remain committed to supporting these efforts as we witness other crises with escalating humanitarian repercussions, foremost among them being the sisterly nations of Sudan and Yemen.
Our objective is to realize our shared vision of peace and prosperity for our peoples and to strengthen our future partnership towards progress.
I would like to extend my gratitude to you and the working teams for all the efforts exerted to ensure the success of this Second Strategic Dialogue. We look forward to reviewing these developments during the upcoming strategic dialogue.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
LCQ13: Disposal of yard waste Question:
The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) set up Y·PARK, a yard waste recycling centre, in 2021, with the purpose of converting recycled yard waste into useful materials to reduce disposal at landfills and associated carbon emissions. Y·PARK has a target handling capacity of about 11 000 tonnes in the first year, which would gradually increase to an annual average of around 22 000 tonnes. However, information from the Government shows that Y·PARK’s throughput last year was 6 876 tonnes. Besides, earlier on some trucks were reportedly driven from Y·PARK carrying yard waste to landfills in the New Territories West for disposal, and the EPD subsequently explained that the yard waste in question was not acceptable as it contained a large amount of impurities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of Y·PARK’s criteria for the recovery of yard waste, whether it has studied the reasons for the gradual decline in the amount of yard waste handled by Y·PARK in recent years, including whether this is affected by Y·PARK’s recovery criteria or the fact that yard waste producers recycle their own waste;
(2) as it is learnt that Y·PARK’s major sources of yard waste are (i) construction works and (ii) clearance work arising from regular vegetation maintenance, whether there is a statistical breakdown of the amount of yard waste respectively from (i) and (ii) handled by Y·PARK from 2021 to date; of the amount of yard waste that was sent to but not accepted at Y·PARK over the past three years, and whether it has looked into how such yard waste was subsequently disposed of (such as conversion into biochar and being sent to landfills);
(3) given that according to a paper submitted by the Government to the Subcommittee to Study Policy Issues Relating to Municipal Solid Waste Charging, Recovery and Recycling of this Council in January 2023, a pilot biochar plant in EcoPark, which will further convert recyclable products of Y·PARK into biochar, has an estimated capability of converting about 6 000 tonnes of local woody waste into some 1 200 tonnes of biochar annually, of the amounts of waste handled and biochar produced since the plant came into operation, and whether such amounts could meet the targets; if not, when they are expected to meet the targets; and
(4) given that according to the report on Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong, the amounts of yard waste recovered and disposed in Hong Kong in 2023 were 10 400 tonnes and some 83 000 tonnes respectively, while the amount of yard waste handled by Y·PARK in the same year was 8 609 tonnes, whether it has assessed if there is room for improvement in Y·PARK’s handling capacity; whether the Government has further strategies in place to enhance the recovery rate of yard waste?
Reply:
President,
After the onslaught of Super Typhoon Mangkhut, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) set up a temporary yard waste recycling centre, Y·PARK, in 2021 to collect and process yard waste generated from regular vegetation maintenance and public construction works on one hand, and to assist in treating large quantities of yard waste generated after emergency incidents such as super typhoons on the other. The service fees paid by the EPD to the contractor are not based on the amount of yard waste received, but on the quantity of recyclable products produced by the contractor, which reflects Y·PARK’s performance more accurately.
The reply to the question raised by the Hon Andrew Lam is as follows:
(1)To ensure the smooth operation of Y·PARK and the quality of the recyclable products, Y·PARK has established appropriate standards for yard waste recycling, including not accepting infected or infested wood, yard waste which is difficult to process such as tree stumps, pure twigs, leaves, grass clippings, or yard waste containing large amount of impurities. If yard waste is mixed with large amount of impurities, the chipping operations may be severely affected. For instance, Y·PARK’s wood chipper experienced mechanical failures due to metal rods hidden in the wood. Time and manpower were required to remove the rods, replace parts and repair the equipment. Such incidents could even halt the production line. Meanwhile, the quality of the recyclable products produced may be affected by impurities. For instance, plastics mixed into the recyclable products would limit their use in gardening. In this regard, the contractor of Y·PARK maintains communication with yard waste producers to explain how to properly separate waste at source to reduce instances where Y·PARK has to reject yard waste. (2) Since its commencement of operation in 2021 up to April this year, Y·PARK has received a total of approximately 31 540 tonnes of yard waste, of which more than 50 per cent from construction works and about 40 per cent from routine vegetation maintenance. The EPD does not have the quantity of rejected yard waste and information on its final disposal means.
(3) The first Pilot Biochar Production Plant (PBPP) in Hong Kong established by the EPD was originally scheduled to commence production in November 2023, with an estimated handling capacity of processing about 6 000 tonnes of local wood materials and producing about 1 200 tonnes of biochar annually. The PBPP commenced its testing in May 2023, during which many technical issues were overcome and various operational conditions (including processing temperatures, duration, and different types of wood-based raw materials) were adjusted and tested, in order to identify the optimal operating conditions and ensure high-quality biochar can be produced with less energy consumption. The PBPP finally commenced production in October 2024. From the start of the PBPP’s testing stage to the end of April 2025, the PBPP has processed over 1 200 tonnes of local wood materials from yard waste, converting them into more than 270 tonnes of biochar. The purposes of setting up the PBPP are to explore the technical feasibility of converting local wood materials from yard waste into biochar, as well as to study the quality of the biochar produced and its practical applications in the local market. As such, the actual processing quantity of the PBPP is adjusted based on testing needs and is also affected by the supply of wood materials and local market demand for biochar applications. With the PBPP entering production stage for only about six months, the EPD will consolidate operational experiences with a view to gradually increasing its processing quantity upon establishing technical requirements and market applications.
(4) In order to further enhance the yard waste processing quantity of Y·PARK, the EPD are adopting a multi-pronged approach to increase the yard waste recycling rate. Measures include: (i) the EPD will continue to liaise with relevant government departments and other yard waste producers, encouraging them to adhere to the principles of reduce, reuse, and recycle, and treat and reuse yard waste on-site as far as possible, while yard waste that cannot be treated or reused on-site could be delivered to Y·PARK or other suitable recycling facilities for treatment; (ii) to encourage the Y·PARK contractor to recycle collected yard waste as far as possible to increase its recycling rate. The current contract stipulates that the service fees paid by the EPD to the contractor are based on the quantity of recyclable products produced, providing a financial incentive to the contractor; and (iii) in the long run, the Government reserves land in the New Territories North New Town to establish a larger-scale yard waste recycling facility to enhance yard waste handling capacity. Issued at HKT 12:08
Tesla tentatively plans to begin offering rides on its self-driving robotaxis to the public on June 22, CEO Elon Musk said on Tuesday, as investors and fans of the electric vehicle maker eagerly await rollout of the long-promised service.
Musk has staked Tesla’s future on self-driving vehicles, pivoting away from plans to build a cheaper EV platform, and much of the company’s valuation hangs on that vision.
But commercializing autonomous vehicles (AV) has been challenging with safety concerns, tight regulations and soaring investments, and many have been skeptical of Musk’s plans.
“We are being super paranoid about safety, so the date could shift,” Musk said in a post on X in response to a question from a user about public robotaxi rides that the EV maker plans to first offer in Austin, Texas.
Musk also said starting June 28, Tesla vehicles will drive themselves to a customer’s house from the end of the factory line.
A successful robotaxi launch is crucial for Tesla as sales of its EVs have softened due to rising competition and a backlash against Musk’s embrace of far-right political views in Europe, and his recent work for U.S. President Donald Trump before their public falling out.
Musk has promised a paid robotaxi service in Austin starting with about 10-20 of its Model Y SUVs that will operate in a limited area and under remote human supervision.
The company then plans to expand operations to other U.S. states later in the year, including California which has stringent AV regulations.
“Austin >> LA for robotaxi launch lol,” Musk said on X, in an apparent reference to the southern Californian city of Los Angeles.
Tesla has been testing its self-driving vehicles on public streets in Austin, Musk said last month. Earlier on Tuesday, Musk re-posted a video on X that showed a Model Y making a turn at an Austin intersection with no human driver and the word “Robotaxi” written on it, and followed closely by another Model Y.
The vehicles were using a new version of Tesla’s advanced driver assistance software, called Full Self-Driving (FSD), Musk said in a separate X post.
Little else is known about Tesla’s robotaxi service, including where it will operate, the extent of remote supervision and how the public can use the service.
The inaugural Adelaide University Vice Chancellor, Professor Nicola Phillips
Following a comprehensive global search, Australia’s new major university announces Professor Nicola Phillips as its new Vice Chancellor and President (Vice Chancellor) with effect from 12 January 2026.
The Adelaide University Transition Council has unanimously resolved to appoint Prof. Nicola Phillips as the new Vice Chancellor of Adelaide University following exceptional global interest and a high-quality candidate field.
Chancellor of the Adelaide University Transition Council (Transition Council), Ms Pauline Carr, said that finding the right person to lead the institution through its formative years was imperative.
“We are delighted to announce Prof. Phillips as the new Vice Chancellor of Adelaide University as we boldly take our next steps as Australia’s new comprehensive university for the future,” Carr said.
Prof. Phillips joins Adelaide University from the University of Melbourne, where she is currently the Provost and has served as both Acting and Interim Vice Chancellor. With some 30 years of experience in the higher education sector across Australia and the United Kingdom, Prof. Phillips has cultivated a deep understanding of the sector and brings a local and global perspective to the position.
“Throughout her career, Prof. Phillips has been a formidable force, guiding significant step-changes across contemporary academic delivery, student access and equity, Aboriginal knowledges, online education, and cultural inclusivity – with strong alignment to Adelaide University’s strategic direction as a differentiated member of Australia’s Group of Eight,” Carr said.
“The Transition Council would also like to recognise the monumental and continued contributions of the founding co-Vice Chancellors, Professors Peter Høj AC and David Lloyd, who are establishing the solid foundations on which the institution will see sustained success. They will also be instrumental in transitioning the leadership from now until when Prof. Phillips begins the role as well as winding down the foundation universities.”
Prof. Phillips will actively shape Adelaide University as it begins operations.
“I am thrilled to be joining Adelaide University at a time of unmatched potential and possibilities – and to call South Australia home,” Prof. Phillips said.
“I look forward to leading Adelaide University and establishing the institution as a trailblazer for change, where education and research of the highest quality reach into all corners of our society to transform the lives of individuals and communities.”
The global search was led by the Adelaide University Transition Council, in partnership with executive search firm, Korn Ferry, and informed by the Recruitment Recommendations Panel comprising internal and expert external members.
Insights on selection criteria deemed most important were also provided by staff, students, alumni and key partners. Inspirational and visionary leadership, being a visible role model with high ethical standards, and building a cohesive and constructive culture as well as having strong academic credentials were identified amongst some of the most valued attributes.
Prof. Phillips will commence in the role from 12 January 2026 to align with Adelaide University’s opening of its inaugural academic year.
About Professor Nicola Phillips Professor Nicola Phillips is an esteemed leader and academic with some 30 years of experience in the higher education sector across Australia and the United Kingdom. She is a Professor of Political Economy with interests in global economic development, labour standards and inequality.
Educated at King’s College London and the London School of Economics and Political Science, Prof. Phillips held positions at the Universities of Warwick, Manchester and Sheffield before becoming Vice President & Vice Principal (Education) at King’s College London, and then Provost at the University of Melbourne in September 2021. She has held visiting fellowships and professorships across the world, including the Australian National University, the University of British Columbia, and the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México.
Among many notable honours, Prof. Phillips holds a Fellowship of the UK Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS) and a Fellowship of the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), and was awarded The J. Ann Tickner Prize from the International Studies Association (ISA) for combining bravery in pursuing pioneering research that pushes the boundaries of the discipline with a deep commitment to teaching and mentorship.
Los Ángeles — En un discurso pronunciado esta noche ante casi 40 millones de californianos y estadounidenses en todo el país, el Gobernador Gavin Newsom condenó la militarización ilegal de Los Ángeles por parte del Presidente Trump y advirtió que las acciones del Presidente marcan un peligroso punto crucial para la nación.
“Lo que estamos atestiguando no es la aplicación de la ley, sino el autoritarismo,” dijo el Gobernador Newsom a los californianos. “Lo que más desea Donald Trump es su lealtad. Su silencio. Que sean cómplices en este momento. No se rindan ante él.”
El Gobernador Newsom relató recientes redadas federales en comunidades latinas, la apropiación de 4,000 miembros de la Guardia Nacional de California y el despliegue de más de 700 miembros de la Infantería de Marina en las calles de una ciudad estadounidense – todo ello sin consultar con las autoridades estatales ni locales. “Trump está desplegando una redada militar en Los Ángeles,” dijoNewsom. “Sus acciones son cobardía disfrazada como fortaleza.”
El Gobernador, al calificar este momento de reflexión nacional, le pidió a los estadounidenses tomar medidas pacíficas. “El cargo más importante en una democracia no es el de Presidente ni el de Gobernador, sino el de ciudadano.”
Vea y lea el discurso completo en inglés abajo, como escrito:
[embedded content]
Discurso del Gobernador Newsom a California: La Democracia en una Encrucijada
Quiero decir algunas palabras sobre los acontecimientos de los últimos días.
El fin de semana pasado, agentes federales realizaron redadas a gran escala en sitios de trabajo en Los Ángeles y sus alrededores.
Estas redadas continúan hasta en este momento.
California no es un estado ajeno a la aplicación de la ley migratoria.
Pero en lugar de enfocarse en inmigrantes indocumentados con antecedentes penales graves y personas con órdenes de deportación firmes —una estrategia que ambos partidos han apoyado desde hace tiempo— esta administración está impulsando deportaciones masivas.
Atacando indiscriminadamente a familias inmigrantes trabajadoras, sin importar sus orígenes ni el riesgo que corren.
Lo que está sucediendo ahora es muy diferente a todo lo que hemos visto antes.
El sábado por la mañana, cuando agentes federales saltaron de una camioneta sin identificación cerca del estacionamiento de un Home Depot, empezaron a detener a la gente.
Un ataque deliberado contra una comunidad mayoritariamente latina.
Una escena similar se desarrolló cuando una empresa de ropa fue allanada en el centro de Los Ángeles.
En otras acciones: una ciudadana estadounidense, con 9 meses de embarazo, fue arrestada. Se llevaron a una niña de cuatro años.
Familias separadas. Amigos desaparecidos.
En respuesta, los angelinos salieron a ejercer su derecho constitucional a la libertad de expresión y reunión.
Para protestar contra las acciones de su gobierno.
A su vez, el Estado de California y la Ciudad y el Condado de Los Ángeles enviamos a nuestros agentes de policía para ayudar a mantener la paz, y con algunas excepciones, tuvieron éxito.
Como muchos estados, California no es ajeno a este tipo de disturbios civiles. Los gestionamos con regularidad… y con nuestros propios cuerpos policiales.
Pero esto, de nuevo, fue diferente.
Lo que siguió fue el uso de gas lacrimógeno. Granadas aturdidoras. Balas de goma.
Agentes federales deteniendo a personas y socavando sus derechos al debido proceso.
Donald Trump, sin consultar con las autoridades policiales de California, desplegó a 2,000 miembros de la Guardia Nacional de nuestro estado en nuestras calles.
Ilegalmente y sin motivo alguno.
Este descarado abuso de poder por parte de un Presidente avivó la situación… poniendo en riesgo a nuestra gente, a nuestros oficiales y a la Guardia Nacional.
Fue entonces cuando comenzó una espiral de declive. El redobló la apuesta por su peligroso despliegue de la Guardia Nacional, poniendole más leña al fuego.
Y el Presidente lo hizo a propósito.
Mientras que la noticia se difundía por Los Ángeles, la ansiedad de familiares y amigos aumentaba. Las protestas se reanudaron.
Por la noche, varias docenas de infractores de la ley se volvieron violentos y destructivos. Vandalizaron propiedades. Intentaron agredir a agentes de policía.
Muchos de ustedes han visto videos de autos incendiándose en las noticias.
Si incitan a la violencia o destruyen nuestras comunidades, rendirán cuentas.
Ese tipo de comportamiento criminal no será tolerado. Punto final.
Ya se ha arrestado a más de 370 personas. Estamos revisando las grabaciones para abrir casos adicionales, y serán perseguidos con todo el peso de la ley.
Una vez más, gracias a nuestro cuerpo policial y a la mayoría de los angelinos que protestaron pacíficamente, esta situación se estaba calmando y se había concentrado en tan solo unas pocas cuadras en el centro de la ciudad.
Pero eso no era lo que quería Donald Trump.
Una vez más, él optó por la escalación; optó por aún más fuerza.
El prefirió el teatro por encima de la seguridad pública: federalizó a 2,000 miembros adicionales de la Guardia Nacional.
Desplegó a más de 700 miembros de Infantería de Marina Estadounidense.
Estos son hombres y mujeres entrenados a combatir en suelo extranjero, no en la aplicación de la ley nacional.
Honramos su servicio. Honramos su valentía. Pero no queremos que nuestras calles sean militarizadas por nuestras propias Fuerzas Armadas. Ni en Los Ángeles. Ni en California. Ni en ninguna parte.
Hemos visto vehículos de policía no distintivos en los estacionamientos de las escuelas. Niños, con miedo de asistir a su propia graduación.
Trump está desplegando una redada militar en Los Ángeles, que va mucho más allá de su intención declarada de perseguir a delincuentes violentos y peligrosos.
Sus agentes están arrestando a trabajadores de restaurante, jardineros, jornaleros y costureras. Eso es simplemente cobardía. Sus acciones son cobardía disfrazada como fortaleza.
El gobierno de Donald Trump no está protegiendo a nuestras comunidades – las está traumando. Y ese parece ser el objetivo.
California seguirá luchando por nuestra gente, por toda nuestra gente, incluso ante las cortes.
Ayer, presentamos una impugnación legal contra el imprudente despliegue de tropas estadounidenses por parte del Presidente Trump en una ciudad principal estadounidense.
Hoy, solicitamos una orden judicial de emergencia para detener el uso del ejército estadounidense en actividades policiales en Los Ángeles.
Si cualquiera de nosotros puede ser secuestrado de las calles sin orden judicial, basándose únicamente en sospechas o el color de la piel, entonces ninguno de nosotros está a salvo.
Los regímenes autoritarios empiezan por atacar a las personas con menos capacidad de defensa. Pero no se detienen ahí.
Trump y sus leales se alimentan de la división porque les permite tomar más poder y ejercer aún más control.
Por cierto, Trump no se opone a la anarquía ni a la violencia, siempre y cuando le sirvan a él mismo.
¿Qué más evidencia necesitamos que el 6 de enero?
Les pido a todos que se tomen un momento para reflexionar sobre este peligroso momento.
Un presidente que no quiere regirse por ninguna ley ni constitución.
Perpetrando un ataque unificado contra las tradiciones estadounidenses.
Este es un Presidente que, en poco más de 140 días, ha despedido a los organismos de control del gobierno que podrían exigirle responsabilidades por corrupción y fraude.
Ha declarado una guerra contra la cultura, la historia, la ciencia; contra el conocimiento mismo. Bases de datos, literalmente desapareciendo.
Está deslegitimando a las organizaciones de noticias y atacando la Primera Enmienda.
Amenazando con desfinanciarlas, él está dictando lo que las universidades pueden enseñar.
Atacando a los bufetes de abogados y al poder judicial, que son la base de una sociedad civil ordenada.
Exigiendo que un gobernador sea arrestado sin otra razón más que, en sus propias palabras, “por haber sido elegido.”
Y todos sabemos que este sábado ordenará a nuestros héroes estadounidenses —el ejército de los Estados Unidos— a realizar una exhibición vulgar para celebrar su cumpleaños, tal como lo han hecho otros dictadores fallidos en el pasado.
Miren, esto no se trata sólo de las protestas en Los Ángeles.
Cuando Donald Trump buscó la autoridad absoluta para comandar la Guardia Nacional, hizo que esa orden se aplicara a todos los estados de esta nación.
Se trata de todos nosotros. Se trata de ustedes.
California puede ser el comienzo, pero claramente no terminará aquí. Otros estados son los siguientes.
La democracia es la siguiente.
La democracia está bajo ataque ante nuestros ojos; el momento que temíamos ha llegado.
Está demoliendo el proyecto histórico de nuestros padres fundadores.
Las tres ramas de gobierno independientes e iguales.
Ya no hay pesos y contrapesos. El Congreso no existe. El líder Johnson ha abdicado por completo de esa responsabilidad.
El estado de derecho ha cedido cada vez más ante el gobierno de Don.
Los padres fundadores de esta nación no vivieron ni murieron para presenciar este momento.
Es hora de que todos nos levantemos pacíficamente.
El Juez Brandeis lo expresó mejor: en una democracia, el cargo más importante no es el de Presidente, ni mucho menos el de Gobernador. El cargo más importante es el de ciudadano.
En este momento, todos debemos levantarnos y rendir cuentas ante un mayor nivel de responsabilidad.
Si ejercen sus derechos bajo la Primera Enmienda,por favor, háganlo pacíficamente.
Sé que muchos de ustedes sienten profunda ansiedad, estrés y miedo.
Pero quiero que sepan que USTEDES son el antídoto contra ese miedo y esa ansiedad.
Lo que más desea Donald Trump es su lealtad. Su silencio. Ser cómplices en este momento.
NO se rindan ante él.
Recent news
Jun 10, 2025
News What you need to know: In an address delivered to nearly 40 million Californians and Americans nationwide tonight, Governor Gavin Newsom condemned President Trump’s unlawful militarization of Los Angeles and warned that the President’s actions mark a dangerous…
Jun 10, 2025
News LOS ANGELES – Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are standing up all states by filing a lawsuit and request to block President Trump and the Department of Defense’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles and the takeover of a California National Guard (Cal…
Jun 10, 2025
News “Turning the military against American citizens” What you need to know: Standing up for American citizens and the Nation’s foundational ban on martial law in peacetime, California Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are requesting the court step in to…
Source: Novosibirsk State University – Novosibirsk State University –
Portal Superjob published a rating of the best Russian universities by the salary level of IT specialists who graduated from the university in 2019-2024. Novosibirsk State University took 7th place, it comes right after the universities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Two more universities are in the same position – Kazan Federal University and National University of Science and Technology “MISIS”. The average income of NSU graduates working in the IT sector was 230 thousand rubles, an increase of 30 thousand rubles compared to last year.
At NSU, the IT direction is one of the key ones: for example, if you look at the distribution of budget places based on the results of the 2024 admission campaign, more than 20% are in IT. NSU has a specialized Faculty of Information Technology, which turns 25 this year, at the same time IT is represented in almost all faculties and in all institutes. The Mechanics and Mathematics Faculty has a program in systems programming, the Physics Faculty has a program in physical informatics, and the Humanities Institute has a program in fundamental and applied linguistics.
Machine learning and artificial intelligence have also been actively developing at NSU in recent years. At the end of April this year, the university won a government grant to train top IT specialists and is launching a new bachelor’s degree program in Applied Artificial Intelligence from September 2025. It will be developed in cooperation with industrial partners Rostelecom and Innotech (T1). The pilot enrollment will be 150 students. Grant support will allow students to study for free and receive scholarships from partner companies.
About the rating methodology
The rating was prepared by the SuperJob research center based on an analysis of the average salaries of graduates of Russian universities graduating in 2019–2024. The source of information is the SuperJob resume database (more than 30 million resumes) and other open sources. The data collection period is 2 months before the rating release date. The sample for each university participating in the rating is at least 70 resumes of graduates of specialized faculties of the specified graduation years, excluding resumes of interns, junior specialists, and applicants with less than 1 year of work experience in their specialty. Resumes for positions in the fields of development, information security, software testing, DevOps, analytics, data research, Machine Learning, Data engineering, etc. are considered.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
UNITED NATIONS, June 10 (Xinhua) — China’s envoy said Tuesday that China opposes the politicization of human rights issues in Myanmar.
Sun Lei, China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, made the remarks at an informal meeting of the General Assembly on Myanmar.
The meeting was organized in accordance with General Assembly resolution 79/182. China, he said, had distanced itself from the consensus on the resolution. “We oppose the politicization and instrumentalization of the human rights issue and reject the practice of exerting public pressure on such issues.”
As a friendly neighbor, China supports Myanmar in choosing a development path suited to its national conditions and in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national stability while steadily advancing its domestic political agenda, he said.
The international community should focus its efforts on overcoming differences and resolving problems, rather than raising tensions and further complicating the situation, Sun Lei said.
According to him, the Myanmar people are currently in dire need of an end to the fighting and humanitarian aid. China has actively participated in promoting peace talks and achieved positive results. “We will continue to play a constructive role in helping Myanmar achieve stability and reconciliation. And we hope that the international community will work in the same direction.”
The issue of the return of refugees to Myanmar’s Rakhine State from Bangladesh should ultimately be resolved through dialogue and consultation between the two countries. China has long made active diplomatic efforts in this regard and has provided numerous batches of humanitarian aid to both sides. The international community should support Myanmar and Bangladesh in strengthening communication and determination to accumulate favorable conditions and create a favorable environment for the repatriation process, Sun Lei said. -0-
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla., June 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE: BRO) (“Brown & Brown” or the “Company”) today announced the pricing of its public offering of 39,215,686 shares of its common stock (the “common stock”), par value $0.10 per share, at a price to the public of $102.00 per share, for an aggregate offering amount of $4 billion. The offering is expected to close on June 12, 2025, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions. In addition, the Company has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional $400 million in shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts.
J.P. Morgan and BofA Securities are acting as lead book running managers of the offering. BMO Capital Markets and Truist Securities are acting as additional book running managers of the offering and Wells Fargo Securities, BTIG, PNC Capital Markets LLC, Fifth Third Securities, Morgan Stanley, Citizens Capital Markets, Barclays, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Dowling & Partners and Raymond James are acting as co-managers of the offering.
The Company expects that the net proceeds of the offering will be approximately $3.9 billion, after deducting underwriting discounts and expenses and assuming no exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares. The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the offering to fund a portion of the consideration payable pursuant to that certain agreement and plan of merger by and among RSC Topco, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“RSC”), the Company, Encore Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and Kelso RSC (Investor), L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, solely in its capacity as the equityholder representative, pursuant to which the Company will acquire RSC, the holding company for Accession Risk Management Group, Inc. (the “Transaction”), and to pay fees and expenses associated with the foregoing. If the Transaction is not consummated, the Company intends to use the net proceeds of the offering for general corporate purposes.
The Company has filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) an automatic shelf registration statement (including a prospectus) on Form S-3 dated May 5, 2023 (File No. 333-271708) and a related preliminary prospectus supplement, dated June 10, 2025, to which this communication relates, and the Company will also file a final prospectus supplement relating to the shares of common stock. Investors should read the preliminary prospectus supplement and base prospectus in the registration statement, including the information incorporated by reference therein, and the other documents the Company has filed with the SEC for more complete information about the Company and the offering. You may obtain these documents for free by visiting EDGAR on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. Alternatively, a copy of the prospectus supplement relating to the offering may be obtained by contacting J.P. Morgan Securities LLC at J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, c/o Broadridge Financial Solutions, 1155 Long Island Avenue, Edgewood, NY 11717, by email at prospectus-eq_fi@jpmchase.com and postsalemanualrequests@broadridge.com or BofA Securities, Inc. at BofA Securities, NC1-022-02-25, 201 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28255-0001, Attn: Prospectus Department, Email: dg.prospectus_requests@bofa.com.
This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the common stock of the Company, nor shall there be any sale of such securities in any state or other jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction. The securities being offered have not been approved or disapproved by any regulatory authority, nor has any such authority passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the prospectus supplement or the shelf registration statement or prospectus relating thereto.
About Brown & Brown, Inc.
Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE: BRO) is a leading insurance brokerage firm providing customer-centric risk management solutions since 1939. With a global presence spanning 500+ locations and a team of more than 17,000 professionals, we are dedicated to delivering scalable, innovative strategies for our customers at every step of their growth journey.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the “safe harbor” provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. You can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “plan” and “continue” or similar words. Brown & Brown has based these statements on its current expectations about potential future events. Although Brown & Brown believes the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this press release are based upon reasonable assumptions within the bounds of Brown & Brown’s knowledge of its business and the transaction, a number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements, whether oral or written, made by Brown & Brown or on its behalf. Many of these factors have previously been identified in filings or statements made by Brown & Brown or on its behalf. Important factors which could cause Brown & Brown’s actual results to differ, possibly materially from the forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to, the following items: (a) risks with respect to the timing of the Transaction; (b) the possibility that the anticipated benefits of the Transaction are not realized when expected or at all; (c) risks related to the financing of the Transaction, including that financing the Transaction will result in an increase in Brown & Brown’s indebtedness and that Brown & Brown may not be able to secure the required financing in connection with the Transaction on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all; (d) the unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial information reflecting the Transaction is based on assumptions and is subject to change based on various factors; (e) risks relating to the financial information related to RSC; (f) risks related to RSC’s business, including underwriting risk in connection with certain captive insurance companies; (g) the risk that certain assumptions Brown & Brown has made relating to the Transaction prove to be materially inaccurate; (h) the inability to hire, retain and develop qualified employees, as well as the loss of any of Brown & Brown’s executive officers or other key employees; (i) a cybersecurity attack or any other interruption in information technology and/or data security that may impact Brown & Brown’s operations or the operations of third parties that support it; (j) acquisition-related risks that could negatively affect the success of Brown & Brown’s growth strategy, including the possibility that Brown & Brown may not be able to successfully identify suitable acquisition candidates, complete acquisitions, successfully integrate acquired businesses into its operations and expand into new markets; (k) risks related to Brown & Brown’s international operations, which may result in additional risks or require more management time and expense than Brown & Brown’s domestic operations to achieve or maintain profitability; (l) the requirement for additional resources and time to adequately respond to dynamics resulting from rapid technological change; (m) the loss of or significant change to any of Brown & Brown’s insurance company or intermediary relationships, which could result in loss of capacity to write business, additional expense, loss of market share or material decrease in Brown & Brown’s commissions; (n) the effect of natural disasters on Brown & Brown’s profit-sharing contingent commissions, insurer capacity or claims expenses within Brown & Brown’s capitalized captive insurance facilities; (o) adverse economic conditions, political conditions, outbreaks of war, disasters, or regulatory changes in states or countries where Brown & Brown has a concentration of Brown & Brown’s business; (p) the inability to maintain Brown & Brown’s culture or a significant change in management, management philosophy or its business strategy; (q) fluctuations in Brown & Brown’s commission revenue as a result of factors outside of its control; (r) the effects of significant or sustained inflation or higher interest rates; (s) claims expense resulting from the limited underwriting risk associated with Brown & Brown’s participation in capitalized captive insurance facilities; (t) risks associated with Brown & Brown’s automobile and recreational vehicle finance and insurance dealer services businesses; (u) changes in, or the termination of, certain programs administered by the U.S. federal government from which Brown & Brown derives revenues; (v) the limitations of Brown & Brown’s system of disclosure and internal controls and procedures in preventing errors or fraud, or in informing management of all material information in a timely manner; (w) Brown & Brown’s reliance on vendors and other third parties to perform key functions of its business operations and provide services to its customers; (x) the significant control certain shareholders have; (y) changes in data privacy and protection laws and regulations or any failure to comply with such laws and regulations; (z) improper disclosure of confidential information; (aa) Brown & Brown’s ability to comply with non-U.S. laws, regulations and policies; (bb) the potential adverse effect of certain actual or potential claims, regulatory actions or proceedings on Brown & Brown’s businesses, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity; (cc) uncertainty in Brown & Brown’s business practices and compensation arrangements with insurance carriers due to potential changes in regulations; (dd) regulatory changes that could reduce Brown & Brown’s profitability or growth by increasing compliance costs, technology compliance, restricting the products or services Brown & Brown may sell, the markets it may enter, the methods by which it may sell Brown & Brown’s products and services, or the prices it may charge for its services and the form of compensation it may accept from its customers, carriers and third parties; (ee) increasing scrutiny and changing laws and expectations from regulators, investors and customers with respect to Brown & Brown’s environmental, social and governance practices and disclosure; (ff) a decrease in demand for liability insurance as a result of tort reform legislation; (gg) Brown & Brown’s failure to comply with any covenants contained in its debt agreements; (hh) the possibility that covenants in Brown & Brown’s debt agreements could prevent Brown & Brown from engaging in certain potentially beneficial activities; (ii) fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; (jj) a downgrade to Brown & Brown’s corporate credit rating, the credit ratings of Brown & Brown’s outstanding debt or other market speculation; (kk) changes in the U.S.-based credit markets that might adversely affect Brown & Brown’s business, results of operations and financial condition; (ll) changes in current U.S. or global economic conditions, including an extended slowdown in the markets in which Brown & Brown operates; (mm) disintermediation within the insurance industry, including increased competition from insurance companies, technology companies and the financial services industry, as well as the shift away from traditional insurance markets; (nn) conditions that result in reduced insurer capacity; (oo) quarterly and annual variations in Brown & Brown’s commissions that result from the timing of policy renewals and the net effect of new and lost business production; (pp) intangible asset risk, including the possibility that Brown & Brown’s goodwill may become impaired in the future; (qq) changes in Brown & Brown’s accounting estimates and assumptions; (rr) future pandemics, epidemics or outbreaks of infectious diseases, and the resulting governmental and societal responses; (ss) other risks and uncertainties as may be detailed from time to time in Brown & Brown’s public announcements and SEC filings; and (tt) other factors that Brown & Brown may not have currently identified or quantified. Assumptions as to any of the foregoing, and all statements, are not based upon historical fact, but rather reflect Brown & Brown’s current expectations concerning future results and events. Forward-looking statements that Brown & Brown makes or that are made by others on Brown & Brown’s behalf are based upon a knowledge of Brown & Brown’s business and the environment in which it operates, but because of the factors listed above, among others, actual results may differ from those in the forward-looking statements. Consequently, these cautionary statements qualify all of the forward-looking statements Brown & Brown makes herein. Brown & Brown cannot assure you that the results or developments anticipated by Brown & Brown will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that those results or developments will result in the expected consequences for Brown & Brown or affect Brown & Brown, its business or our operations in the way it expects. Brown & Brown cautions readers not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements made herein are made only as of the date of this press release, and Brown & Brown does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or correct any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that subsequently occur or of which Brown & Brown hereafter becomes aware.
For more information:
Investors
R. Andrew Watts Chief Financial Officer (386) 239-5770
Media
Jenny Goco Director of Communications (386) 333-6066
Australia, together with the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, has imposed sanctions on two ministers in the Israeli government for “inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank”.
Australia and the other countries were immediately condemned by the United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called for them to be lifted.
The move comes as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to leave on Friday for the G7 in Canada, where he is expected to meet UN President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the conference.
Australia’s signing up for the sanctions is just another complication for the anticipated meeting. The Australian government is under pressure from the US administration to significantly boost its defence spending. Meanwhile, Australia is seeking a deal to get some exemption from the Trump tariffs.
The sanctions are on National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
They include bans on travel to Australia, a freeze on any assets they might have here, and a prohibition on anyone in Australia directly or indirectly making assets available to them.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the two ministers “have been the most extremist and hard line of an extremist settler enterprise which is both unlawful and violent”.
The Israeli ministers are accused of major violations of human rights, including escalating physical violence and abuse by Israeli settlers. A few days ago they marched through Jerusalem’s Muslim Quarter with a group that chanted “death to Arabs”.
In a social media post, Rubio said the sanctions “do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war”.
“We reject any notion of equivalence: Hamas is a terrorist organization that committed unspeakable atrocities, continues to hold innocent civilians hostage, and prevents the people of Gaza from living in peace. We remind our partners not to forget who the real enemy is.”
Urging the reversal of the sanctions, Rubio said the US “stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel”.
Asked whether he was concerned the sanctions would damage Australia’s relations with the US, Albanese told reporters he was not: “Australia makes its own decisions based upon the assessments that we make”. He pointed out the action was in concert with the Five Eyes countries of Canada, the UK and new Zealand.
Shadow Foreign Minister Michaelia Cash said sanctioning democratically elected officials of a key ally was “very serious”.
“Labor should be clear who initiated this process, on what basis they have done so and who made the decision”, Cash said. The government should also say what, if any, engagement it had had with the US on the matter, she said.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
After United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested multiple people on alleged immigration violations, protests broke out in Los Angeles.
Authorities have been using “less lethal” weapons against crowds of civilians, but these weapons can still cause serious harm.
Footage of an Australian news reporter being shot by a rubber bullet fired by police – who appeared to deliberately target her – has been beamed around the world. And headlines this morning told of an ABC camera operator hit in the chest with a “less lethal” round.
This has provoked debate about police and military use of force.
As the term suggests, less lethal (also called non lethal or less-than-lethal) weapons are items that are less likely to result in death when compared with alternatives such as firearms.
Less lethal weapons include weapons such as:
pepper spray
tear gas
tasers
batons
water cannons
acoustic weapons
bean-bag rounds
rubber bullets.
They are designed and used to incapacitate people and disperse or control crowds.
They are meant to have temporary and reversible effects that minimise the likelihood of fatalities or permanent injury as well as undesired damage to property, facilities, material and the environment.
In Australia in 2023, for example, 95-year-old aged care resident Clare Nowland was tasered, fell backwards, hit her head and died from her head injury.
In 2012, responding to a mistaken report about an armed robbery, police physically restrained, tasered and pepper sprayed 21-year-old Roberto Curti multiple times. He died but his exact cause of death (and whether the use of less lethal weapons played a causal role) was not clear.
Do these weapons work to quell unrest?
The impetus for police and military use of less lethal force came about, in part, from backlash following the use of lethal force in situations where it was seen as a gross overreaction.
One example was the 1960 Sharpeville massacre in South Africa, when police officers in a black township opened fire on an anti-apartheid protest, killing 69 civilians.
In theory, less lethal force is meant to provide a graduated level of response to events such as riots or protests, where the use of lethal force would be disproportionate and counter-productive.
It is sometimes described as the “next step” to use after de-escalation techniques (like negotiation or verbal commands) have failed.
Less lethal weapons can be used when some degree of force is considered necessary to restore order, neutralise a threat, or avoid full-blown conflict.
How well this works in practice is a different story.
There can be unintended consequences and use of less lethal force can be seen as an act of aggression by a government against its people, heightening existing tensions.
The availability of less lethal weapons may also change perceptions of risk and encourage the use of force in situations where it would otherwise be avoided. This in turn can provoke further escalation, conflict and distrust of authorities.
Samara McPhedran 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
We now have the (almost!) final results from the 2025 federal election – with only Bradfield still to be completely resolved.
Labor won 94 of the 150 House of Representatives seats (up 17 from 77 of 151 in 2022), the Coalition 43 (down 15) and all Others 13 (down three). It also won 62.7% of seats, its highest seat share since 1943, when it won 49 of 75 seats (65.3% of seats).
Since the beginning of the two-party system in 1910, the 28.7% of seats for the Coalition is the lowest ever seat share for the Liberal and National parties combined, or their predecessors. The Coalition had won 23 of the 75 seats in 1943, its previous worst result (30.7% of seats).
The Poll Bludger said on Wednesday the Liberals could lodge a court challenge to their 26-vote loss in Bradfield to Teal Nicolette Boele within 40 days of the official declaration of the poll (return of the writs).
Owing to the possibility of a challenge in Bradfield, the Australian Electoral Commission does not want to disturb the ballot papers, which would be required for a Labor vs Liberal two-party count in Bradfield. A two-party count may not be completed until after the courts rule on any Liberal challenge.
This article has two-party votes and swings nationally, in metropolitan and non-metropolitan seats and in every state and territory. I will report the current AEC figures, but the Bradfield issue means they will overstate Labor slightly nationally, in metropolitan seats and in New South Wales.
Labor won the national two-party vote against the Coalition by 55.28–44.72, a 3.1% swing to Labor since the 2022 election. This is also Labor’s biggest two-party share since 1943, when they won by an estimated 58.2–41.8. Since the 2019 election, which the Coalition won by 51.5–48.5, Labor has had a swing to it of 6.8%.
The last time either major party won a higher seat share than Labor at this election was in 1996, when the Coalition won 94 of the 148 seats (63.5% of seats) on a national two-party vote of 53.6–46.4. The last time a major party exceeded Labor’s two-party share at this election was in 1975, when the Coalition won by 55.7–44.3.
Swing to Labor was bigger in cities
The AEC has breakdowns for metropolitan and non-metropolitan seats. Metropolitan seats include seats in the six state capitals, Canberra and Darwin. In these seats, Labor won the two-party vote by 60.7–39.3, a 4.1% swing to Labor. In non-metropolitan seats, the Coalition won the two-party by 52.3–47.7, a 1.8% swing to Labor.
In 2019, Labor won the two-party vote in metropolitan seats by 52.1–47.9, so the two-election swing to Labor in those seats was 8.6%. The Coalition won the two-party vote in non-metropolitan seats by 56.8–43.2, so the two-election swing to Labor was 4.5%.
In April 2022, I wrote that Labor could do better in future elections because Australia’s big cities have a large share of the overall population. At this election, voters in metropolitan seats made up 58.3% of all voters. The Coalition will need to do much better in the cities to win future elections.
In all the mainland states, the swing to Labor in the cities exceeded the swing in the regions. In global elections in the last ten years, support for left-wing parties has held up better in cities than elsewhere.
Tasmania was the big exception to this rule. In non-metropolitan Tasmanian seats, Labor won the two-party vote by 59.0–41.0, an 11.8% swing to Labor. In metropolitan seats, Labor won by 70.1–29.9, a 4.7% swing to Labor.
State and territory results
The table below shows the number of seats in a state or territory and nationally, the number won by Labor, the Labor percent of the seats, the number of Labor gains, the Labor two-party vote share, the two-party swing to Labor since 2022, the number of Other seats, the change in Other seats and the number of Coalition seats.
I have ignored redistributions, with Labor gains calculated as the number of seats Labor won in 2025 minus the number it won in 2022. Labor gained Aston at an April 2023 byelection, then held it at this election. As it was not won by Labor in 2022, it counts as a Labor gain.
In Queensland, Labor gained seven seats, five from the Liberal National Party (including Peter Dutton’s Dickson) and two from the Greens. But these gains came from a low base, as Labor won just five of 30 Queensland seats in 2022. Queensland remains the only state where the Coalition won the two-party vote (by 50.6–49.4) and won a majority of the seats.
In NSW, Teal independent-held North Sydney was abolished in the redistribution, but Teal Boele gained Bradfield from the Liberals, and the Nationals lost Calare to former Nationals MP turned independent Andrew Gee. Labor also gained two seats from the Liberals.
In Victoria, Labor-held Higgins was abolished, but Labor gained three seats from the Liberals and one from the Greens (Adam Bandt’s Melbourne). The Coalition gained its one seat when Liberal Tim Wilson narrowly defeated Teal Zoe Daniel in Goldstein.
In Western Australia, Bullwinkel was created as a notional Labor seat, and Labor held it. Labor also gained Moore from the Liberals. In South Australia and Tasmania, Labor gained three seats from the Liberals. Tasmania’s 9.0% swing to Labor was the biggest of any state or territory.
Before the election, it was expected Victoria would be a drag on Labor owing to the unpopularity of the state Labor government. Labor took 71% of Victoria’s seats and had a 1.5% two-party swing to it.
However, relative to the national swing, Victoria was poor for Labor, and it was only ahead of WA and the Northern Territory in swing terms at this election. In 2022, there was a huge 10.6% swing to Labor in WA, so Victoria’s two-election swing to Labor was much lower than anywhere else except the NT.
The ACT’s two-party swing of 5.5% to Labor followed a 5.3% swing in 2022. With two senators, a quota for election is one-third or 33.3%. If the ACT’s two senators keep going to the left, it will be difficult for the Coalition to avoid a hostile Senate even if they win elections for the House.
Other election results and a Morgan poll
In the previous parliament, the 16 Others included four Greens, but the 13 Others at this election include only one Green. This will make the Others more right-wing than in the last parliament.
Turnout at this election was 90.7% of enrolled voters, up 0.9% since 2022. But the informal rate rose 0.4% to 5.6%. The informal rate was 13% or higher in five western Sydney seats.
A large share of non-English speakers, confusion with NSW’s optional preferential voting system at state elections and long candidate lists all contributed to the high informal vote rate at this election.
A national Morgan poll, conducted May 5 to June 1 from a sample of 5,128, gave Labor a 58.5–41.5 lead, from primary votes of 37% Labor, 31% Coalition, 11.5% Greens, 6% One Nation and 14.5% for all Others. Labor led in all states including Queensland, the only state the Coalition won at the election.
Adrian Beaumont 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.
Earlier this year, I attended a housing conference in Sydney. The event’s opening address centred on the way Australia seems to be becoming like 18th-century England – a country where inheritance largely determines one’s opportunities in life.
There has been a lot of media coverage of economic inequities in Australian society. Our tax system has been partly blamed for this problem. The case for long-term, visionary tax reform has never been stronger. And one area of tax reform could be a wealth tax.
First, let’s be clear about one thing. Unlike the superannuation tax reforms currently being debated for those with more than A$3 million in superannuation, the wealth tax we’re talking about would apply to a very different cohort: billionaires.
A recent article in the Financial Times re-examined a proposal to impose such a tax on the world’s highest-net-worth individuals. It also pointed out these efforts would need to be globally coordinated.
Such taxes could collect significant sums of money for governments. It’s previously been estimated a billionaire tax could raise US$250 billion (more than A$380 billion) globally if just 2% of the net worth of the world’s billionaires was taxed each year.
The case for a wealth tax
Inequality is on the rise and the argument for a wealth tax can’t be ignored – not least here at home. According to the Australia Institute, the wealth of Australia’s richest 200 people has soared as a percentage of our national gross domestic product (GDP) – from 8.4% in 2004 to 23.7% in 2024.
If that sounds dramatic, the picture is far worse in the United States. So, what would a wealth tax look like in Australia (noting that in reality a globally coordinated effort would be needed)?
The starting point for this is understanding of why high-net-worth individuals seemingly pay very low taxes.
High net worth, low tax rate
Income taxes only take into account any amounts that are received in the hands of the taxpayer – whether that is a company, a person or a trust.
Most high-net-worth individuals do not receive much income directly but “store” their wealth in companies and other corporate structures.
In Australia, the maximum applicable tax rate for companies is 30%. Note that the highest tax rate in Australia for individuals is 45% plus the 2% medicare levy, effectively 47%.
Assets such as real estate may also be held by companies or trusts, and the increase in value of these assets is not taxed until they are sold (through capital gains tax).
Even then, those gains may not be paid out directly to the high-net-worth individual who owns these entities.
Unrealised gains
So, how do we tax wealth that is sitting in various businesses (company structures) or other entities, but isn’t taxed at present because the “income” or “gains” from these are not taxable in the hands of the wealthy individuals who own them?
This goes into the murky area of taxation of unrealised gains. Here, we need to tread very carefully. But we also need to recognise that we already do this, albeit rather subtly, and most of us are not billionaires.
In your rates notice from your local council, for example, the increase in value of your residence or investment property is used to calculate your rates.
The real difficulty, to carry on with this example, is that your residence or investment property is typically held in your name and so the tax can be directly levied on you.
A luxury residence in Miami Beach, Florida, owned by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon. The US is home to the most billionaires of any country in the world. Felix Mizioznikov/Shutterstock
Making tax unavoidable
As we’ve already explained, the bulk of the assets or net worth of wealthy individuals is not directly attributable to them. Does this mean we should give up altogether?
Not quite. UNSW professor Chris Evans has pointed out that while we may not be able to effectively tax all the net worth of the wealthy, there are some things we can tax and they can’t avoid it.
An obvious example is real estate. You can pack your bags and bank accounts and move to a low-tax country, but you can’t move your mansion overlooking Sydney Harbour.
Real estate, both residential and commercial, provides one clear way in which we could implement a partial wealth tax. This method (which also has fewer valuation issues than value stored in a company in the form of retained profits) also counters the argument that the wealthy will simply move to other jurisdictions that won’t tax them.
There is plenty of academic research looking at various wealth tax initiatives in other countries. We should learn from these, including the experience in Switzerland and Sweden.
In Sweden, for instance, research found the behavioural effects of wealth taxation were less pronounced than those of income taxation, but the system had so many loopholes that evasion was an option for some people.
Change faces headwinds
In a very uncertain world that features ongoing wars and an unpredictable US president, any change that seeks to address issues of inequity is going to be met with resistance by those who hold power.
Some billionaires in the US, however, have expressed their support for being taxed more in a letter signed by heirs to the Disney and Rockefeller fortunes. That offers some hope, and suggests the discussion about wealth taxes should not be relegated to the “too hard” basket.
Some steps towards taxing the uber-rich would be better than the status quo.
Venkat Narayanan 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.
Last week, President Donald Trump ordered an investigation into “who ran the United States while President Biden was in office”, alleging top aides masked the “cognitive decline” of his predecessor. The announcement referenced revelations in a new book by journalists Jake Tapper (CNN) and Alex Thompson (Axios).
Original Sin made headlines last month for revealing that Biden’s declining physical and cognitive health had been hidden from the public by his closest aides and his loyal but overly protective wife, Jill Biden.
Whatever merit there is in Trump’s order must be seen alongside his bottomless cynicism. He seizes on the two authors’ investigative journalism to continue tarnishing his predecessor’s reputation, while doing everything in his power to bully news companies such as CBS over almost meritless defamation cases and to cut the funding of public media organisations PBS and NPR.
Review: Original Sin – Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson (Hutchinson Heinemann)
In November 2020, Biden was seen by many as a hero. He won the American election and saved the country from Donald Trump, who scholars judged among the worst presidents in the nation’s history, not least because just over 384,500 people died from COVID-19 that year.
Today, just as many see Biden as a villain. He said he would be a “bridge” president. He knew he would have ended his second term aged 86 if he had won and served it, so said he would hand over to a successor well in time for the 2024 election. But he didn’t. Not until three and a half weeks after his wincingly bad performance in a debate with Trump last June.
By then it was too late for his Democratic Party to go through its usual primaries process. Biden anointed his vice president Kamala Harris as his successor, but with only 107 days to campaign before the election, it is more accurate to say he gave her what football commentators call a “hospital pass”.
Donald Trump regained the presidency. Four months into his second term, all but his most loyal supporters (and this time he has made sure to surround himself only with loyal supporters) think it is already much worse than his first.
Whatever Biden achieved in his presidency is being forgotten amid the horror at watching America’s democratic institutions assaulted by an authoritarian leader determined to undo Biden’s policies, especially on climate change.
What on earth happened? How much responsibility does Biden bear? Did the news media subject Biden to sufficient scrutiny before the debate last June? Was everyone except the MAGA base suffering from a new variant of what conservative commentators long ago dubbed “Trump derangement syndrome”?
In short order, the answers are: Biden declined faster and worse than had been anticipated; a lot; the media possibly didn’t scrutinise him enough, but it’s more complicated than that – and, yes, “Trump derangement syndrome” was a factor, though not quite in the way conservative commentators thought.
Clooney’s alarm
Original Sin’s most spectacular revelation was that at a Democrat fundraising event last year, Biden did not appear to recognise George Clooney – who as well as being an actor, is a longtime Democrat supporter and a friend of the president.
Clooney was shocked by Biden’s frail appearance. “Holy shit,” he thought, according to the authors, as he watched Biden enter the room, taking tiny steps with “an aide guiding him by his arm”. The book describes the excruciating moment in detail:
“You know George,” the assisting aide told the president, gently reminding him who was in front of him.
“Yeah, yeah,” the president said to one of the most recognizable men in the world, the host of this lucrative fundraiser. “Thank you for being here.”
“Hi, Mr. President,” Clooney said.
“How are ya?” the president replied.
“How was your trip?” Clooney asked.
“It was fine,” the president said.
It was obvious to many standing there that the president did not know who George Clooney was. […]
“George Clooney,” the aide clarified for the president.
“Oh, yeah!” Biden said. “Hi, George!”
A Hollywood VIP who witnessed the moment told the authors “it was not okay”, describing it as “uncomfortable”. Clooney felt he had to sound the alarm publicly, which he did in an impassioned opinion piece for The New York Times a few weeks later, on July 10. He wrote about how he loved and respected Biden, but
the one battle he cannot win is the fight against time. None of us can. It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe ‘big F-ing deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate.
Just days after publicity about the book began, news broke that Biden has stage four prostate cancer – and that he had not had a prostate test for more than a decade.
The ‘loyalty police’
Tapper and Thompson’s book derives not only from their day jobs, but from reporting they have done since last November’s election, including interviews with 200 people. Some of them, even now, prefer to speak on background rather than be named.
Through them, they tell a bracing story with three main themes.
First, there is the unblinking loyalty of close aides. Chief strategist Mike Donilon had been with Biden since 1981. Bruce Reed was a speechwriter and longtime political consultant. Steve Ricchetti had been Biden’s chief of staff when he was vice president, and was also a friend who would watch the morning political shows with him. All four of Richetti’s children worked in the Biden administration, the authors write.
Jill Biden’s longtime aides, Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal, were fiercely protective of the Bidens as much as the office of the president. “Are you a Biden person?” they would ask, leading other aides to label them the “loyalty police”.
Collectively, the close aides were known as The Politburo. Kamala Harris’ aides called them a “cabal of the unhelpful”. Time and again, they responded to queries about Biden’s health with firm assurances he was doing fine – even though the president needed to be supplied with cue cards when he was meeting his cabinet secretaries.
Biden, like previous presidents, had an annual medical check-up and was given a clean bill of health. But doctors outside the White House noted that his cognitive abilities were not tested. Asked about this, aides – and Biden himself – would say he passed a cognitive test every day of his presidency, which was a superficially plausible but practically meaningless statement.
Some aides genuinely believed in Biden, while others harboured doubts. The latter suppressed those to focus on the task of defeating Trump in 2024. One told Tapper and Thompson: “He just had to win, and then he could disappear for four years – he’d only have to show proof of life every once in a while.” Which sounds pretty much like the plot of the 1989 movie, Weekend at Bernie’s, except the situation was anything but comic.
Biden’s aides admonished journalists, including Alex Thompson, for even raising the issue of the president’s health. Worse, they shielded Biden from what his own pollsters were saying about his dire prospects for re-election.
The oldest presidential candidates
For Biden, work usually began at 9am, included two hours in the afternoon for “POTUS time”, and finished at 4.30pm when he had dinner. Availability for evening events was limited. By 2024, cabinet secretaries in the Biden administration told Tapper and Thompson that Biden could not be relied upon to be available at 2am for the kind of emergency the presidency can require.
After the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, born the same year as Biden, froze in public a second time, in 2023, his fellow Republican Nikki Haley said, “The Senate is the most privileged nursing home in the country […] You have to know when to leave.”
When the Democrats did unexpectedly well at the 2022 midterm elections, Biden’s aides took that as a sign he should run again, rather than note the level of protest in the midterm vote, which came soon after the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade decision on abortion.
The opinion polls, though, were telling. An early November 2022 Ipsos poll had the president’s approval rating at a low 39%, Tapper and Thompson report. Two thirds of those surveyed said they thought the country was on the wrong track. When Ipsos ran a poll after the midterm election, 68% said Biden might not be up for the challenge of running in 2024. Worse, almost half of Democrats agreed.
Biden’s aides may have been right to marvel at what their boss could still do, and to resent the media harping on about Biden’s age while turning a blind eye to his cheeseburger-chomping, Coke-slurping political nemesis, only four years younger. The bitter fact for them is that by 2020 Biden looked and sounded frail while Trump looked and sounded commanding.
Trump may have lied repeatedly during the debate last June, but in a real sense that was not news; Trump lies as easily as he breathes. What was news was watching a mumbling, open-mouthed US president freeze on live television.
Grisly anecdotes and Hunter Biden
Original Sin is replete with grisly anecdotes about Biden’s decrepitude. “The guy can’t form a fucking sentence”, thought one aide attending to him onboard Air Force One. This leads to the second main theme: the tragic circumstances that appear to have accelerated the decline.
It is well known that personal tragedy has scarred – and in crucial ways shaped – Biden’s life and career. He lost his first wife, Neilia, and their one-year-old daughter, Naomi, in a car accident in 1972. Their young sons, Beau and Hunter, were in the car. They survived but Hunter suffered a fractured skull, an injury with lifelong effects, according to Tapper and Thompson.
Beau served as an army officer in the Iraq war. On his return, he was elected attorney-general of Delaware in 2006 and 2010. He planned to run for governor in 2016. But a year earlier, the brain cancer for which he was first treated in 2013 recurred; he died in May 2015. In a worrying precursor to later actions, the Bidens kept Beau’s illness a secret. “Beau’s death aged him significantly,” a longtime Biden confidant told Tapper and Thompson. “His shoulders looked smaller. His face looked more gaunt. In his eyes, you could just see it.”
A year later, Hunter Biden became addicted to crack cocaine. Ashley, Biden’s daughter by his second wife Jill, also struggled with addiction. Both spiralled downwards after Beau’s death, which weighed heavily on their father. As the authors write:
After Beau’s death in 2015, Biden desperately and understandably clung to Hunter. He would privately refer to him as ‘my only living son.’ But Biden aides felt that Hunter manipulated his father’s blind love for his own aims. The president struggled to say no to Hunter. Aides felt that he had tragically become Hunter’s chief enabler.
In 2021 Hunter published a memoir, Beautiful Things, and travelled round the country in an effort to provide hope to others struggling with addiction. The memoir’s candour provided valuable information to David Weiss, a special counsel appointed by Attorney-General Merrick Garland in 2023.
Weiss had been previously appointed by the first Trump administration to investigate the contents of a laptop Hunter Biden left at a repair shop. Biden had not interfered with Garland’s decision, as he did not want to be seen as behaving the way his predecessor had.
Weiss charged Hunter Biden over his possession of a handgun while being addicted to cocaine. A plea deal broke down and Hunter faced trial in 2024. The Biden family attended each day of the trial. Biden felt guilty, believing Hunter would never have been on trial if he wasn’t the president’s son.
There is little doubt the Republicans weaponised Hunter Biden’s actions, but he gave them plenty of ammunition. He had had an extramarital affair with his brother’s widow and had introduced her to cocaine, to which she became addicted. There is more, but you get the (tawdry) picture.
Then, after the election in November, Biden did what he had repeatedly said he wouldn’t, exercising his power as president to pardon his son. It may have been the understandable action of a besieged father, but Biden did not frame it that way, blaming Garland, wrongly, for pursuing the case.
Equally to the point, the authors report that Trump’s lawyers took note, believing the Hunter Biden pardon “gave them a great deal of leeway on whether they could pardon and free from prison the hundreds of convicted January 6 insurrectionists” from the 2021 Capitol riot. Which of course Trump did as soon as he took office in January 2025.
The old adage has it that two wrongs don’t make a right. But for a politician who had won the presidency promising to be everything Trump was not, it was a fatal, final blow to Biden’s credibility.
The media ‘missed a lot’
The third theme of the book asks how much of all this the news media reported during Biden’s presidency. Some, but not all of it – including some by Thompson, who recently won a White House Correspondents’ Association award for his disclosures.
Both he and his co-author acknowledge they and other journalists did not dig hard enough to reveal the extent to which the Biden administration was hampered by the president’s declining health. Said Thompson:
Being truth-tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves. We – myself included – missed a lot of this story, and some people trust us less because of it […] We should have done better.“
It is worth keeping this in perspective. The news media’s failings in the lead up to the Iraq war in 2003 were more significant. Then, too many journalists swallowed the administration’s lines justifying its decision to invade a country, while the work of those who did report sceptically was buried well inside the newspaper. There, it “played as quietly as a lullaby”, as The New York Times’ first public editor, Daniel Okrent, wrote in 2003.
The war’s reporting led to a lot of soul searching in American newsrooms. If there was a coverup in the media about the Biden administration, it wasn’t very effective, wrote media critic Jon Allsop in the New Yorker. “Not least because the majority of the public thought Biden was too old long before the debate.”
The other element infecting both the mainstream media and social media is divisiveness, rancour and hostility. It is hard, for journalists and the public, to see political information other than through a hyper-partisan lens. I felt this acutely when reading the section in Original Sin about Biden getting drawn into the FBI’s investigation of Trump for withholding classified documents – when the FBI found Biden had done essentially the same thing. (Though it should be stressed Biden, unlike Trump, cooperated at all times.)
‘Well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’
It was through this investigation that special counsel Robert Hur’s recording of a long interview with Biden came to light. Journalists were backgrounded that Hur was a right-wing operative; he was anything but that, write Tapper and Thompson. He treated Biden fairly and respectfully. In the interview, excerpts of which run to seven pages of the book, Biden rambles and needs regular reminding of facts – including the year his son Beau died.
In Hur’s report, released in 2024, he found Biden had inappropriately retained classified documents but he did not recommend pressing charges. To a jury, Hur concluded, Biden would present “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. He was making the kind of decision prosecutors routinely make about the likelihood of a conviction.
Hur was attacked by the White House and much of the media as a partisan warrior who had brought up the death of the president’s son in the interview, when it was Biden who mentioned it himself. If Hur really had been a partisan warrior, the authors write, he would have recommended continuing with the prosecution.
Several months later, after the disastrous Biden-Trump debate, friends and colleagues texted Hur saying he must have felt vindicated. “Hur told them that all he felt was sad. How could anyone look at Joe Biden at that debate and not feel bad?”
It is true that aides, and sometimes the news media, have covered up previous presidents’ health issues, such as Franklin Roosevelt’s paralysis from polio, John Kennedy’s debilitating back pain that required heavy doses of painkillers, and Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease.
Tapper and Thompson argue the coverup of Biden’s health problems is the most consequential in presidential history.
Underplays Biden’s achievements
The authors successfully prosecute their case about Biden’s responsibility for his own demise. Perhaps worried they may not be believed by Democrat supporters, they continue amassing evidence well beyond that point, which means the minutiae of aides continuing to deny the reality of Biden’s decline becomes repetitive.
Their relentless focus on Biden’s decline also means they underplay both his achievements as a president and the breadth of his character. At one point, they admiringly refer to Richard Ben Cramer’s book about the 1988 presidential campaign, What it Takes, which includes Biden’s failed attempt to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
Cramer’s book is a massive 1,047 pages. He interviewed more than a thousand people and took so long on the book it came out during the next presidential campaign, in which Bill Clinton was elected.
One reviewer, Richard Brownstein, wrote of it: “Presidential elections are the white whale of American journalism – and in Cramer they have found a manic Melville.” But it is written in an intimate, novelistic style, taking the reader deep into the lives and thoughts and feelings of the candidates, George H.W Bush, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Gary Hart and Biden.
Cramer told Robert Boynton in an interview for his 2005 book, The New New Journalism, he was amazed political journalists spend so little time talking to childhood friends, family and early colleagues.
If you want to understand how someone got to the point where he [sic] is a credible candidate for president of a nation of 250 million people, you’d better godamn-well know how he is wonderful. But most journalists don’t care about that.
As such, Cramer provides a deeper, richer portrait of Biden as an idiosyncratic and flawed, but also impressive politician, who was a force of nature in his youth. By comparison, Original Sin reads like an autopsy: which in a way, it is. If you want to remember why Biden became an effective politician in the first place, seek out a copy of What it Takes.
In the end, though, whatever achievements Biden had as president are being overtaken by his disastrous decision to try to hang on for a second term. By the evidence presented in Original Sin, “Honest Joe” was, like many politicians, prey to ego and overvaulting ambition, and prone to secrecy when it suited him.
He and his aides thought – and astonishingly still do think – he was the person best able to repel the return of a person they feared (with good reason) would do enormous damage to the country. Biden said this after the November election, earning Harris’s ire, for which he apologised, and Donilon affirmed it in an interview with the authors early this year.
The savage irony is, by their actions, Biden and his team eased Trump’s path to victory last November. Now, it is not just Americans but the rest of the world who are left to deal with the second Trump administration.
Matthew Ricketson 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.
As more and more people spend time chatting with artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as ChatGPT, the topic of mental health has naturally emerged. Some people have positive experiences that make AI seem like a low-cost therapist.
But AIs aren’t therapists. They’re smart and engaging, but they don’t think like humans. ChatGPT and other generative AI models are like your phone’s auto-complete text feature on steroids. They have learned to converse by reading text scraped from the internet.
When someone asks a question (called a prompt) such as “how can I stay calm during a stressful work meeting?” the AI forms a response by randomly choosing words that are as close as possible to the data it saw during training. This happens so fast, with responses that are so relevant, it can feel like talking to a person.
But these models aren’t people. And they definitely are not trained mental health professionals who work under professional guidelines, adhere to a code of ethics, or hold professional registration.
Where does it learn to talk about this stuff?
When you prompt an AI system such as ChatGPT, it draws information from three main sources to respond:
background knowledge it memorised during training
external information sources
information you previously provided.
1. Background knowledge
To develop an AI language model, the developers teach the model by having it read vast quantities of data in a process called “training”.
Where does this information come from? Broadly speaking, anything that can be publicly scraped from the internet. This can include everything from academic papers, eBooks, reports, free news articles, through to blogs, YouTube transcripts, or comments from discussion forums such as Reddit.
Are these sources reliable places to find mental health advice? Sometimes.
Are they always in your best interest and filtered through a scientific evidence based approach? Not always. The information is also captured at a single point in time when the AI is built, so may be out-of-date.
A lot of detail also needs to be discarded to squish it into the AI’s “memory”. This is part of why AI models are prone to hallucination and getting details wrong.
2. External information sources
The AI developers might connect the chatbot itself with external tools, or knowledge sources, such as Google for searches or a curated database.
When you ask Microsoft’s Bing Copilot a question and you see numbered references in the answer, this indicates the AI has relied on an external search to get updated information in addition to what is stored in its memory.
Meanwhile, some dedicated mental health chatbots are able to access therapy guides and materials to help direct conversations along helpful lines.
3. Information previously provided
AI platforms also have access to information you have previously supplied in conversations, or when signing up to the platform.
When you register for the companion AI platform Replika, for example, it learns your name, pronouns, age, preferred companion appearance and gender, IP address and location, the kind of device you are using, and more (as well as your credit card details).
On many chatbot platforms, anything you’ve ever said to an AI companion might be stored away for future reference. All of these details can be dredged up and referenced when an AI responds.
And we know these AI systems are like friends who affirm what you say (a problem known as sycophancy) and steer conversation back to interests you have already discussed. This is unlike a professional therapist who can draw from training and experience to help challenge or redirect your thinking where needed.
What about specific apps for mental health?
Most people would be familiar with the big models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, or Microsofts’ Copilot. These are general purpose models. They are not limited to specific topics or trained to answer any specific questions.
But developers can make specialised AIs that are trained to discuss specific topics, like mental health, such as Woebot and Wysa.
However, these studies have all examined short-term use. We do not yet know what impacts excessive or long-term chatbot use has on mental health. Many studies also exclude participants who are suicidal or who have a severe psychotic disorder. And many studies are funded by the developers of the same chatbots, so the research may be biased.
This evidence all suggests AI chatbots may be an option to fill gaps where there is a shortage in mental health professionals, assist with referrals, or at least provide interim support between appointments or to support people on waitlists.
Bottom line
At this stage, it’s hard to say whether AI chatbots are reliable and safe enough to use as a stand-alone therapy option.
More research is needed to identify if certain types of users are more at risk of the harms that AI chatbots might bring.
It’s also unclear if we need to be worried about emotional dependence, unhealthy attachment, worsening loneliness, or intensive use.
AI chatbots may be a useful place to start when you’re having a bad day and just need a chat. But when the bad days continue to happen, it’s time to talk to a professional as well.
Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research project funding from OpenAI in 2024-2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.
Laura Neil receives funding through the Australian government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Centaine Snoswell 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.
Director General David Cheng-Wei Wu warmly welcomed Secretary-General Chen Pin-Shan of Taiwan’s Miaoli County Government, who led the expedition team on “Renewable Energy and Industrial Development” to Sydney. We had lively discussions on Australia’s energy transition, green energy and solar power development, and on organizing large cultural and tourism events. Miaoli County will host the Taiwan Lantern Festival again in 2027. This trip included a visit to Vivid Sydney for inspiration. The county government aims to offer a unique experience for domestic and international visitors.
Speech by Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, at the People’s Bank of China in Beijing
Beijing, 11 June 2025
It is a pleasure to be back here in Beijing.
Some years ago, I spoke about how a changing world was creating a new global map of economic relations.[1]
Maps have always reflected the society in which they are produced. But in rare instances, they can also capture historical moments when two societies meet at the crossroads.
This was evident in the late 1500s during the Ming Dynasty, when Matteo Ricci, a European Jesuit, travelled to China. There Ricci went on to work with Chinese scholars to create a hybrid map that integrated European geographical knowledge with Chinese cartographic tradition.[2]
The result of this cooperation – called the Kunyu Wanguo Quantu, or “Map of Ten Thousand Countries” – was historically unprecedented. And the encounter came to symbolise China’s openness to the world.
In the modern era, we saw a similar moment when China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. The country’s accession to the WTO signified its integration into the international economy and its openness to global trade.
China’s entry into the WTO went on to reshape the global map of economic relations at a time of rapid trade growth, bringing significant benefits to countries across the world – particularly here in China.
Since that time, the global economy has changed dramatically. In recent years, trade tensions have emerged and a geopolitically charged landscape is making international cooperation increasingly difficult.
Yet the emergence of tensions in the international economic system is a recurring pattern across modern economic history.
Over the last century, frictions have surfaced under a range of international configurations – from the inter-war gold exchange standard, to the post-war Bretton Woods system, to the subsequent era of floating exchange rates and free capital flows.
While each system was unique, two common lessons cut across this history.
First, one-sided adjustments to resolve global frictions have often fallen short, regardless of whether deficit or surplus countries carry the burden. In fact, they can bring with them either unpredictable or costly consequences.
Such adjustments can be especially problematic when trade policies are used as a substitute for macroeconomic policies in addressing the root causes.
And second, in the event that tensions do emerge, durable strategic and economic alliances have proven critical in preventing tail risks from materialising.
In contrast to eras when ties of cooperation were weak, alliances have ultimately helped to prevent a broader surge in protectionism or a systemic fragmentation of trade.
These two lessons have implications for today. Frictions are increasingly emerging between regions whose geopolitical interests may not be fully aligned. At the same time, however, these regions are more deeply economically integrated than ever before.
The upshot is that while the incentive to cooperate is reduced, the costs of not doing so are now amplified.
So the stakes are high.
If we are to avoid inferior outcomes, we all must work towards sustaining global cooperation in a fragmenting world.
Tensions across history
If we look at the history of the international economic system over the past century, we can broadly divide it into three periods.
In the first period, the inter-war years, major economies were tied together by the gold exchange standard – a regime of fixed exchange rates, with currencies linked to gold either directly or indirectly.
But unlike the pre-war era, when the United Kingdom played a dominant global role[3], there was no global hegemon. Nor were there impactful international organisations to enforce rules or coordinate policies.
The system’s flaws quickly became apparent.[4] Exchange rate misalignments caused persistent tensions between surplus and deficit countries. Yet the burden of adjustment fell overwhelmingly on the deficit side.
Facing outflows of gold, deficit countries were forced into harsh deflation. Meanwhile, surplus countries faced little pressure to reflate. By 1932, two surplus countries accounted for over 60% of the world share of gold reserves.[5]
One-sided adjustments failed to resolve the underlying problems. And without strong alliances to contain tail risks, tensions escalated. Countries turned to trade measures in an attempt to reduce imbalances in the system – but protectionism offered no sustainable solution.
In fact, if current account positions narrowed at all, it was only because of the fall-off in world trade and output. The volume of global trade fell by around one-quarter between 1929 and 1933[6], with one study attributing nearly half of this fall to higher trade barriers.[7] World output declined by almost 30% in this period.[8]
During the Second World War, leaders took the lessons to heart. They laid the groundwork for what became the Bretton Woods system in the early post-war era: a framework of fixed exchange rates and capital controls.
This marked the beginning of the second period.
The new regime was anchored by the US dollar’s convertibility into gold, with the International Monetary Fund acting as a referee. Trade flourished during this era. Between 1950 and 1973[9], world trade expanded at an average rate of over 8% per year.[10]
But again, frictions emerged.
In particular, the United States had shifted from initially running balance of payments surpluses to persistent deficits. At the heart of this shift was the role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and source of liquidity for global trade.
While US deficits provided the world with vital dollar liquidity, those very same deficits strained the dollar’s gold convertibility at USD 35 per ounce, threatening confidence in the system.
By the late 1960s, foreign holdings of US dollars – amounting to almost USD 50 billion – were roughly five times the size of US gold reserves.[11]
Ultimately, these tensions proved unsustainable as the United States was unwilling to sacrifice domestic policy goals – which generated fiscal deficits – for its external commitments.
The Bretton Woods system ended abruptly in 1971, when President Nixon unilaterally suspended the US dollar’s convertibility into gold and imposed a 10% surcharge on imports.
The goal behind the surcharge was to force US trading partners to revalue their currencies against the dollar, which was perceived as being overvalued.[12] As in earlier periods, this was a one-sided adjustment – though now aimed at shifting the burden onto surplus countries.
Crucially, however, the downfall of Bretton Woods unfolded within the context of the Cold War. Countries operating under the system were not just trading partners – they were allies.
And so, everyone had a strong geopolitical incentive to pick up the pieces and forge new cooperative agreements that could facilitate trade relationships, even in moments of pronounced volatility.
We saw this several months after the “Nixon Shock”, when Western countries negotiated the Smithsonian Agreement.
This agreement was a temporary fix to maintain an international system of fixed exchange rates. It devalued the US dollar by over 12% against the currencies of its major trading partners and removed President Nixon’s surcharge.[13]
And we saw a strong geopolitical incentive at work again with the Plaza Accord in the 1980s – an era of floating exchange rates and free capital flows – when deficit and surplus countries in the Group of Five[14] sat down to try and resolve tensions.
Of course, neither agreement ultimately succeeded in addressing the root causes of tensions. But critically, the risk of a broader turn toward protectionism – which was rising at several points[15] – never materialised.
The contrast is telling.
Both the inter-war and post-war eras revealed that one-sided adjustments cannot sustainably resolve economic frictions – whether on the deficit or surplus side.
Yet the post-war system proved far more resilient, because the countries within it had deeper strategic reasons to cooperate.
Frictions threatening global trade today
In recent decades, we have been moving into a third period.
Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen the rapid expansion of truly global trade.
Trade in goods and services has risen roughly fivefold to over USD 30 trillion.[16] Trade as a share of global GDP has increased from around 38% to nearly 60%.[17] And countries have become much more integrated through global supply chains. At the end of the Cold War, these chains accounted for around two-fifths of global trade.[18] Today, they account for over two-thirds.[19]
Yet this globalisation has unfolded in a world where – increasingly – not all nations are bound by the same security guarantees or strategic alliances. In 1985 just 90 countries were party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Today, its successor – the WTO – counts 166 members, representing 98% of global trade.[20]
There is no doubt that this new era has amplified the benefits of trade.
Some originally lower-income countries have experienced remarkable gains – none more so than China.
Since joining the WTO, China’s GDP per capita has increased roughly twelvefold.[21] The welfare impact has been equally profound: almost 800 million people in China have been lifted out of poverty, accounting for nearly three-quarters of global poverty reduction in recent decades.[22]
Advanced economies, too, have benefited, albeit unevenly. While some industries and jobs have faced pressure from heightened import competition[23], consumers have enjoyed lower prices and greater choice. And for firms able to climb the value chain, the rewards have been substantial – especially in Europe.
Today, EU exports to the rest of the world generate more than €2.5 trillion in value added – nearly one-fifth of the EU’s total – and support over 31 million jobs.[24]
But the weakening alignment between trade relationships and security alliances has left the global system more exposed – a vulnerability now playing out in real time.
According to the International Monetary Fund, trade restrictions across goods, services and investments have tripled since 2019 alone.[25] And in recent months, we have seen tariff levels imposed that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.
This fragmentation is being driven by two forces.
The first is geopolitical realignment. As I have outlined in recent years, geopolitical tensions are playing an increasingly decisive role in reshaping the global economy.[26] Countries are reconfiguring trade relationships and supply chains to reflect national security priorities, rather than economic efficiency alone.
The second force is the growing perception of unfair trade – often linked to widening current account positions.
Current account surpluses and deficits are not inherently problematic, particularly when they reflect structural factors such as comparative advantage or demographic trends.
But these imbalances become more contentious when they do not resolve over time and create the perception that they are being sustained by policy choices – whether through the blocking of macroeconomic adjustment mechanisms or a lack of respect for global rules.
Indeed, while in recent decades the persistence of current account positions has remained fairly constant, the dispersion of those positions – that is, how widely surpluses and deficits are spread across countries – has shifted significantly.
In the mid-1990s current account deficits and surpluses were similarly dispersed within their respective groups: both were relatively evenly distributed among several countries.[27]
Today, that balance has changed. Deficits have become far more concentrated, with just a few countries accounting for the bulk of global deficits. In contrast, surpluses have become somewhat more dispersed, spread across a wider range of countries.
These developments have recently led to coercive trade policies and risk fragmenting global supply chains.
Making global trade sustainable
Given national security considerations and the experience during the pandemic, a certain degree of de-risking is here to stay. Few countries are willing to remain dependent on others for strategic industries.
But it does not follow that we must forfeit the broader benefits of trade – so long as we are willing to absorb the lessons of history. Let me draw two conclusions for the current situation.
First, coercive trade policies are not a sustainable solution to today’s trade tensions.
To the extent that protectionism addresses imbalances, it is not by resolving their root causes, but by eroding the foundations of global prosperity.
And with countries now deeply integrated through global supply chains – yet no longer as geopolitically aligned as in the past – this risk is greater than ever. Coercive trade policies are far more likely to provoke retaliation and lead to outcomes that are mutually damaging.
The shared risks we face are underscored by ECB analysis. Our staff find that if global trade were to fragment into competing blocs, world trade would contract significantly, with every major economy worse off.[28]
This leads me to the second conclusion: if we are serious about preserving our prosperity, we must pursue cooperative solutions – even in the face of geopolitical differences. And that means both surplus and deficit countries must take responsibility and play their part.
All countries should examine how their structural and fiscal policies can be adjusted to reduce their own role in fuelling trade tensions.
Indeed, both supply-side and demand-side dynamics have contributed to dispersion of current accounts positions we see today.
On the supply side, we have witnessed a sharp rise in the use of industrial policies aimed at boosting domestic capacity. Since 2014, subsidy-related interventions that distort global trade have more than tripled globally. [29]
Notably, this trend is now being driven as much by emerging markets as by advanced economies. In 2021, domestic subsidies accounted for two-thirds of all trade-related policies in the average G20 emerging market, consistently outpacing the share seen in advanced G20 economies.[30]
On the demand side, global demand generation has become more concentrated, especially in the United States. A decade ago, the United States accounted for less than 30% of demand generated by G20 countries. Today, that share has risen to nearly 35%.
This increasing imbalance in demand reflects not only excess saving in some parts of the world, but also excess dissaving in others, especially by the public sector.
Of course, none of us can determine the actions of others. But we can control our own contribution.
Doing so would not only serve the collective interest – by helping to ease pressure on the global system – but also the domestic interest, by setting our own economies on a more sustainable path.
We can also lead by example by continuing to respect global rules – or even improving on them. This helps build trust and creates the foundation for reciprocal actions.
That means upholding the multilateral framework which has so greatly benefited our economies. And it means working with like-minded partners to forge bilateral and regional agreements rooted in mutual benefit and full WTO compatibility.[31]
Central banks, in line with their respective mandates, can also play a role.
We can stand firm as pillars of international cooperation in an era when such cooperation is hard to come by. And we can continue to deliver stability-oriented policies in a world marked by rising volatility and instability.
Conclusion
Let me conclude.
In a fragmenting world, regions need to work together to sustain global trade – which has delivered prosperity in recent decades.
Of course, given the geopolitical landscape, that will be a harder challenge today than it has been in the past. But as Confucius once observed, “Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbours”.
Today, to make history, we must learn from history. We must absorb the lessons of the past – and act on them – to prevent a mutually damaging escalation of tensions.
In doing so, we all can draw a new map for global cooperation.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
There were few surprises as Spain women’s team coach Montse Tome on Tuesday announced the 23-player squad for next month’s Women’s European Championships.
Spain travels to Switzerland as the reigning world and UEFA Nations League champion, and will play Portugal, Belgium and Italy in the group stage.
“The players have done an incredible job to be here, I am happy with the selection and I also remember the players who have been with us, who haven’t made the 23, but I was thinking about what will be needed in the Euros,” said Tome.
Tome has included 10 players from FC Barcelona in her squad, including Aitana Bonmati and Alexia Putellas, along with goalkeeper Cata Coll and defender Irene Paredes.
“We have experience at club and international level and also young players, so I don’t worry about a lack of experience, we have players who can play in different positions and I think we have the capacity to do well,” added the coach, who insisted she was confident the players would arrive in good condition for the tournament.
One player who missed out is Jenni Hermoso, who made headlines after the 2023 World Cup after she was the victim of an unsolicited kiss by former Spanish Football Federation President Luis Rubiales.
“I have spoken to her and with her coach and we carried out the work we did with the other players. We have looked at our season and we valued what we need and what we don’t need.”
“Every squad is difficult and this is the hardest for me as coach and the technical staff,” revealed Tome.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
China is rolling out extended marriage leave in at least 27 provincial-level regions as part of ongoing efforts to foster a more family-friendly society.
The government of Sichuan Province, one of the country’s most populous regions, has unveiled a plan to extend marriage leave from three to 20 days, with an additional five days for those who opt for a premarital medical checkup.
The proposal is currently open for public comment throughout June.
“Previously, with only three days off, it could be a challenge to get home for a wedding itself — forget about a honeymoon!” said Wang Mengdi, an employee at a Sichuan-based human resources firm. “But with 25 days, you have ample time to enjoy a decent honeymoon.”
Shandong Province in east China, the ancestral home of Confucius, with a permanent population exceeding 100 million, further reinforced its cultural emphasis on family bonds by extending marriage leave from three days to a maximum of 18 days through legislative action in January.
Currently, China grants newlyweds a three-day marriage leave at the national level, a tradition that dates back to 1980.
“The one- to three-day marriage leave can barely meet the needs of today’s young couple for wedding preparation and ceremonies. This has even impacted marriage registration and fertility rates to some extent,” said Xu Jinmei, a senior legislator in Shandong.
Amid rapid industrialization and urbanization, millions of young adults have migrated from their hometowns in pursuit of education and career opportunities. Despite this mobility, the deeply rooted tradition of returning home for wedding celebrations remains strong.
The custom requires substantial time investments, as many must travel a long way back home to hold their weddings.
Provincial-level regions in China have the autonomy to determine the length of marriage leave, often influenced by local customs and demographic policies. The provinces of Shanxi and Gansu offer the most generous policies, allowing up to 30 days of paid leave for newlyweds.
The incentive measures were rolled out amid marriage registration declines in China. Official data show that 1.81 million couples registered to tie the knot in the first quarter of 2025, down 8 percent year on year. After a brief rebound in 2023, registrations fell again last year, reaching the lowest level since 1980.
Scholars attribute the drop to several factors, including a shrinking pool of marriage-age adults and waning enthusiasm for matrimony.
“In the 1980s, more than 20 million people were born each year in China. But since 2000, that number has dropped to just over 10 million annually. So naturally, the base number for marriage registrations is much lower now,” said Jiang Quanbao, a professor at the institute for population and development studies at Xi’an Jiaotong University.
Li Ting, a demographer at Renmin University of China in Beijing, noted that higher levels of education and a growing sense of individualism have combined to significantly challenge traditional views on marriage.
“In the past, young people got married around the time they graduated or started working, but now many won’t consider marriage until they’re planning to have children,” Li added.
In a country where the traditional belief is that marriage should precede childbearing, declining marriage rates have become one of the factors behind falling birth rates.
In response to these challenges, authorities across the country have introduced various measures to foster a newlywed-friendly society.
China streamlined marriage registration. Since May, couples have been able to register their marriage anywhere in the country without presenting a household registration booklet.
Local authorities have also extended maternity leave and paternity care leave to support family planning.
However, some worry that extended marriage leave, maternity leave, and other benefits could end up becoming empty promises due to the economic pressures faced by enterprises.
Zhai Zhenwu, president of the China Population Association, noted that the overall extension of marriage leave and maternity leave is not that costly. “This should not be a barrier to extending maternity leave,” he said.
Zhai also proposed that local budgets help enterprises to offset some of the costs of maternity and marriage leave policies.
The suggestion appears to have resonated with policymakers, as reflected in the draft policy statement from Sichuan provincial authorities.
The policy document open for public consultation noted that governments at or above the county level should coordinate multi-channel funding to establish a reasonable cost-sharing mechanism for marriage and parental leave, striving to guarantee the full implementation of the leave.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Padilla, Schiff Demand Answers From Trump Administration on Reckless Decision to Deploy Hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles
Senators: “We strongly oppose this deployment and request you clarify the legal authority that purports to grant the President and you the ability to deploy active-duty personnel on American streets under these circumstances.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) demanded answers regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to deploy approximately 700 Marines to Los Angeles. In their letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, the Senators requested that the Administration clarify and provide the legal authority that purports to grant the President and the Department of Defense the ability to deploy active-duty military personnel on American streets.
“The presence of the Marines was not requested by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, or California Governor Gavin Newsom. Moreover, local and state law enforcement officers are carrying out their missions to protect the public amid ongoing immigration raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. We strongly oppose this deployment and request you clarify the legal authority that purports to grant the President and you the ability to deploy active-duty personnel on American streets under these circumstances,” wrote the Senators.
“A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them. That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable. In this instance, this extraordinary action was also irresponsibly rushed and lacked clear communication to government officials or the U.S. public. The notification from NORTHCOM did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment,” continued the Senators.
Senator Padilla has been outspoken in slamming the Los Angeles ICE raids and Trump’s misguided mobilization of the National Guard and U.S. Marine Corps. Earlier today, Padilla spoke on the Senate floor to blast President Trump for manufacturing a crisis by launching indiscriminate ICE raids across Los Angeles and deploying the National Guard and active-duty servicemembers to the region. Yesterday, Padilla, Schiff, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) demanded answers from top Trump Administration officials regarding the arrest and detention of David Huerta, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California and SEIU-United Service Workers West. Padilla has joined national and local TV and radio broadcasts in the past few days to condemn the Trump Administration’s cruel immigration enforcement in Los Angeles and across the country.
Full text of the letter is available here and below:
Dear Secretary Hegseth,
According to a U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) notification to Congress on June 9, 2025, approximately 700 Marines have been deployed in support of Task Force 51, the unit comprised of National Guard troops called into federal service by President Trump and operating in Los Angeles. You explained subsequently that these “… active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order.”
The presence of the Marines was not requested by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, or California Governor Gavin Newsom. Moreover, local and state law enforcement officers are carrying out their missions to protect the public amid ongoing immigration raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. We strongly oppose this deployment and request you clarify the legal authority that purports to grant the President and you the ability to deploy active-duty personnel on American streets under these circumstances.
A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them. That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable. In this instance, this extraordinary action was also irresponsibly rushed and lacked clear communication to government officials or the U.S. public. The notification from NORTHCOM did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment. As such, we ask that you provide immediate answers to the following questions:
What is the legal authority for the Marine deployment and any activity they will be authorized to undertake? Please provide any Department of Defense analysis on the legal authority for this action. What is the specific mission for the Marine deployment and how has that mission been communicated to the Marines?
Will the Marines engage in, and have legal authority to engage in, law enforcement activities?
Please also clarify any requests made of the Department of Defense by other federal entities, such as the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, regarding the scope of the Marines’ mission and duties.
What are the rules of engagement for the Marines while deployed to Los Angeles? The NORTHCOM notification indicates that “Task Force 51 forces have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.” How much training was provided to the Marines involved and at what time? What crowd control equipment was issued to the Marines prior to or during their deployment, and what training have they received on proper use of that equipment? Given that the Marines, who are trained to be among the most lethal forces in the U.S. military, may have direct contact with U.S. civilians as part of the domestic deployment, please clarify the precise rules of engagement that have been provided to them or under which they are expected to operate.
Given the significant questions about the role of the Marines as part of this operation, we respectfully request answers to these questions within 48 hours or a stand down of their mobilization.
