Category: Trade

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Compensation to postmasters reaches £1 billion milestone

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Compensation to postmasters reaches £1 billion milestone

    More than £1 billion has been paid out to over 7,300 postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal – one of the biggest miscarriages of justice of our time.

    • Today’s data reveals over £1bn has been paid out in financial redress to thousands of postmasters across the UK  
    • This includes £245m in the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme launched last summer  
    • Redress for victims of Horizon scandal has more than quadrupled under this government – delivering on a key manifesto commitment

    More than £1 billion has been paid out to over 7,300 postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal – one of the biggest miscarriages of justice of our time.

    This figure is a total across the Horizon-related redress schemes, with data published by the government today (Monday 9 June).

    This milestone marks the Government’s ongoing commitment to deliver redress and justice to postmasters as swiftly as possible. Whilst Government cannot fully put right what postmasters have been through, what is being delivered is increased redress and ensuring the compensation process work better than it has done previously.

    Post Office Minister Gareth Thomas said:  

    Since entering government, it has been our priority to speed up the delivery of compensation to victims of the Horizon Scandal and today’s milestone shows how much progress has been made.  

    We are settling cases every day and getting compensation out more quickly for the most complex cases, but the job isn’t done until every postmaster has received fair and just redress.

    Since entering government, redress paid out to victims of the Horizon Scandal has more than quadrupled to £1,039 million, delivering on a key manifesto promise to ensure justice and compensation are delivered swiftly for those sub-postmasters shamefully affected by the Horizon IT scandal. 

    Ministers continue to review each scheme to ensure the process is as smooth as it can be, and welcome feedback and scrutiny from postmasters, campaigners and Parliament and recognise the tireless campaigning in this area over many years. Reforms to increase the roll out of redress has included the following steps.

    Since July 2024, the government has also launched the Horizon Convictions Redress scheme – providing redress to postmasters who had their convictions overturned by the Post Office Offences Act (and the equivalent legislation in Scotland) and also launched the Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals process.

    In March, Ministers made a commitment that claims for redress under the Post Office’s Overturned Convictions scheme would be transferred into the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Post Office would cease to be involved in the administration of redress for overturned convictions. This is something that postmasters, campaigners and Parliamentarians have called for. As of 3 June, these cases have all been transferred and all future redress for these claimants will be managed by DBT. 

    Other milestones include:  

    • Launching the Post Office Process Review (PPR) helping to provide redress to postmasters who suffered financial losses caused by products, processes or policies that were designed or delivered incorrectly.  

    • Beginning Horizon Shortfall Scheme fixed-sum payments of £75,000 for those who don’t want to go through the full assessment process.  

    • Announcing the upcoming publication of a Green Paper which will give the public the chance to have their view on the future of Post Office.  

    • Committing to develop an effective and fair redress process for those affected by the Capture IT system.

    Updates to this page

    Published 9 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Scotland Office: First government trade mission since UK-EU deal

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Scotland Office: First government trade mission since UK-EU deal

    Minister Kirsty McNeill teams up with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce to champion Scotland and the UK in Spain

    Boosting trade and investment between Scotland and Spain is top of the agenda as a group of 16 Scottish female entrepreneurs, led by UK Government Minister Kirsty McNeill and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC), arrive on Spanish soil today (Monday 9th June). 

    The Scotland Office led trade mission will meet with Spanish entrepreneurs, business leaders and politicians to maximise the benefits of the recent UK-EU deal, tackle the Scottish gender export gap, promote Brand Scotland’s iconic goods and services and encourage Spanish investment into Scotland.

    A recent report found that trade in Scotland could increase by more than £10 billion over two years if women-led businesses exported at the same rate as those led by men.

    Women from Scotland’s world class food and drink, tech, manufacturing, energy, tourism, travel, legal services, consultancy, marketing and cosmetic sectors are on the trade mission.

    UK Government Scotland Office Kirsty McNeill said:

    I’m very proud to be teaming up with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and fantastic Scottish women entrepreneurs on a trailblazing mission to Spain to help kickstart economic growth, create jobs and attract investment to Scotland as part of the UK Government’s Plan for Change.

    I want the UK to be a leader in promoting gender diversity in international trade and this is a unique opportunity for our women business leaders to build international connections, explore market opportunities, and connect with other female entrepreneurs in one of Scotland’s and the UK’s largest EU markets. 

    Through Brand Scotland, we are now giving our country the global platform it deserves. 

    Chief Executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce Dr Liz Cameron CBE said:

    This trade mission marks a bold step forward in advancing Scotland’s global trade ambitions. By connecting some of our most dynamic women entrepreneurs and leaders with key players in Barcelona, we are opening new doors of opportunity, innovation, and growth. Scotland’s businesswomen are global in their outlook, ambitious in their vision, and ready to lead the way in forging deeper connections around the world.

    The collaboration between the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and Scotland Office is a powerful partnership which will boost business growth, increase exports, and champion Scotland as a world-leading trading nation. This mission expands our market access and ensures the future of our business community is more representative, resilient, and internationally competitive.

    This visit marks the first Brand Scotland trade mission since the signing of a partnership agreement between the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scotland Office on Friday (June 6th). The deal, backed by a £100,000 UK Government grant, is focused on showcasing Scottish businesses globally and attracting inward investment. 

    Spain is the UK’s seventh largest trading partner (2024) and Scotland’s 10th with total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) being £64.6 billion, while the UK is the number one European destination for Spanish investment (€83 billion stock). Last year Scotland’s goods exports to Spain reached £0.7 billion, with food and drink leading the way at over £212 million. Most recent figures show that Spain was the number six export destination for Scotch whisky, with sales worth £196 million in 2024. Spain is also among the most valuable destinations for Scottish seafood exports, including a top 20 destination for Scottish salmon exports.

    The trio of trade deals secured by the Prime Minister in recent weeks offers a huge opportunity for Scotland and the UK’s economy. 

    The agreement with the EU directly addresses challenges faced by Scottish exporters since 2019, especially in the food and drink sector, as it makes it significantly easier to sell Scottish goods to markets such as Spain (see stakeholder quotes annexed below).

    The two day trade mission comes after Minister McNeill hosted a gathering of female business leaders from across Scotland in Edinburgh in May to identify and tackle export challenges they face. 

    While in Spain the Minister will also participate in cultural initiatives, including a concert for Ukraine, being organised by the British Embassy in Madrid. 

    Further information

    Trade mission, list of delegates:

    Dr Liz Cameron CBE, Director & Chief Executive, Scottish Chambers of Commerce

    Dr Jeanette Forbes OBE, CEO, PCL Group

    Dr Poonam Gupta OBE, CEO & Founder, PG Paper Company Ltd

    Arjumand Ara Sheikh, Principal Solicitor and Associate CIPD, Strand Solicitors

    Elaine Borland, Owner, Blowin’Free

    Beth Wright, Co-Founder, HCW Consulting Partners

    Becky Hain, Co-Founder, HCW Consulting Partners

    Katie Cameron, Co-Founder, HCW Consulting Partners

    Sophie Rankine, Managing Director, Sophie Gets Social Ltd

    Lucy Harper, Head of Public Affairs, Lumo

    Shona Cowan, Director, Go-You Ltd

    Rebecca Wilson, Owner, Bec Wilson Creative

    Arabella Harvey, Founder & CEO, Raven Botanicals

    Amber Knight, Director, MacNeil Shellfish Limited

    Libby McQuarrie, Commercial Executive, MacNeil Shellfish Limited

    Rosalind Wardley-Smith, International & Operations Executive Scottish Chambers of Commerce

    Agenda

    Today (Monday) the Minister will attend a women in business lunch in Madrid for senior female business leaders. This will be chaired by Sir Alex Ellis, His Majesty’s Ambassador to Spain. She will also meet with the newly appointed CEO of Navantia UK, Donald Martínez, to discuss Navantia’s progress and future plans for their two shipyards in Scotland. 

    Tomorrow (Tuesday) in Barcelona the Minister and all women trade delegation will meet Spanish women business leaders, Barcelona Chambers of Commerce, the British Chambers of Commerce and Deputy Mayor of Barcelona, Maria Eugènia Gay Rossell. The Minister will also meet the President of Catalonia, Salvador Illa to discuss new opportunities for trade and investment for both the UK and Spain.

    Stakeholder quotes

    Head of Trade Marketing – Europe at Seafood Scotland Marie-Anne Omnes said:

    The timing and geographic focus of this ministerial trade mission are highly relevant. Spain is a key market for Scottish companies and presents significant growth opportunities that initiatives like these can help identify. Spanish consumers are knowledgeable about seafood and Scottish products, with an understanding of the importance of product origin. It is essential to strengthen relationships at both government and corporate levels, especially considering that the new trade agreement could facilitate more direct trade between the two countries.

    Director of central Scotland-based MacNeil Shellfish Amber Knight said:

    The partnership between the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scotland Office is a game-changer for Scottish exporters. For businesses like ours, anchored in rural communities and operating across European markets, this agreement provides the visibility, credibility, and connections needed to grow with confidence. Our expansion into Spain, with a new distribution hub in North Spain is just the beginning. With this renewed focus on promoting Scotland’s world-class products internationally, we can scale our reach, strengthen our brand, and help put Scotland’s sustainable seafood firmly on the global map.

    Updates to this page

    Published 9 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI: FrontFundr Marks 10 Years of Democratizing Private Markets, Surpasses $285M in Capital Raised

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, June 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FrontFundr, Canada’s leading equity crowdfunding platform, is celebrating a decade of impact, innovation, and community-driven capital. Since launching on May 29, 2015, the platform has processed over $285 million in investments from over 19,000 investors into 269 private market campaigns, transforming how Canadians invest—and who gets to participate.

    In just ten years, FrontFundr has grown from a bold idea into a powerful engine for innovation, access, and financial inclusion. The platform now boasts a community of 56,000+ users, 30,000+ investments, and a track record that includes record-setting raises and high-profile exits.

    “What started as an experiment in opening up capital markets has grown into a movement,” said Peter-Paul Van Hoeken, Founder and CEO of FrontFundr. “Our journey reflects the evolution of private investing in Canada—more inclusive, more accessible, more transparent, and more aligned with the values of today’s investors.”

    A Decade of Deal-Making and Milestones

    • Blossom Social, a social network for investors, broke the Canadian equity crowdfunding record in 2025 with a $1.93M raise in under 6 hours—surpassing its own 2024 record of $1.34M.
    • Sheringham Distillery, the award-winning spirits company behind Seaside Gin, raised $1.2M from over 800 investors, turning loyal fans into shareholders and expanding distribution across North America.
    • HEMPALTA, a Calgary-based cleantech company, closed a successful raise in 2022 and listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange in 2024, providing a liquidity event for early investors.
    • tiptap, the company behind touchless giving technology, raised on FrontFundr in both 2020 and 2023—scaling nationally and powering donation campaigns with organizations like the Salvation Army.

    These standout campaigns represent a broader surge in momentum. In 2024 alone, FrontFundr facilitated $68.3M in capital across 66 campaigns, marking its strongest year to date.

    A Broader Movement Toward Inclusive Investing
    FrontFundr has seen meaningful shifts in investor demographics, with women now representing 26% of all investors and individuals in their 30s emerging as the most active group. This growing diversity reflects the platform’s mission to make private investing more accessible, inclusive, and representative of the wider population.

    That same commitment extends to the companies raising capital on the platform. Thirty-four percent of the businesses in FrontFundr’s portfolio are led by underrepresented groups—including 19% founded or led by women.

    Importantly, the model is delivering results: 87% of companies funded through FrontFundr remain active, with 13.7% having already achieved liquidity events—including notable 2024 exits from Hempalta and Liquid Wind.

    Innovation That Scales With the Market
    Over the past year, FrontFundr introduced a redesigned investment workflow, launched the FrontFundr Elite Circle for experienced investors, and partnered with leading U.S.-based platforms StartEngine, Republic, and WeFundr to give Canadians access to top-tier AI and tech opportunities south of the border. These improvements helped drive a 17% increase in average investment size and a 97% jump in new investors last year alone.

    Celebrating a Decade—and Looking Ahead
    To mark its 10-year milestone, FrontFundr will host a community celebration on Tuesday, June 10th at OneEleven in Toronto, featuring a fireside chat with CEO Peter-Paul Van Hoeken, investor panels, and a showcase of standout campaigns. The event brings together investors, founders, and ecosystem partners to reflect on the last decade—and toast to the next one.

    “We’ve seen what’s possible when everyday people are invited to invest in the ideas they believe in,” said Trieste Reading, VP of Growth at FrontFundr. “Over the past decade, we’ve built more than a platform—we’ve built a movement. Now we’re scaling that vision across Canada and beyond, proving that inclusive capital is the future of investing.”

    About FrontFundr
    FrontFundr is Canada’s leading private markets investing platform, empowering startups and growth-stage companies to raise capital from their biggest supporters—everyday Canadians. Since 2015, FrontFundr has enabled thousands of investors to access vetted investment opportunities in private companies, reshaping who gets to participate in building the future. Learn more at www.frontfundr.com.

    Media Contact:
    Trieste Reading
    VP of Growth, FrontFundr
    trieste@frontfundr.com
    +1 (604) 910-5074

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Frank Elderson: The rule of law as a constitutional pillar of European central banking

    Source: European Central Bank

    Keynote speech by Frank Elderson, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB and Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB, at the Italian constitutional court

    Rome, 9 June 2025

    Introduction

    Thank you very much for inviting me.

    The writings, judgments and speeches of many among this distinguished audience have shaped our understanding of the rule of law. I find it a privilege – and slightly daunting – to address you today on such a fundamental issue.

    Today I am speaking to you as a central banker and banking supervisor. However, before I do so, allow me to take a moment to speak from a more personal perspective. Not as an official, but as the young law student I once was, reflecting on how I first came to understand and appreciate the rule of law.

    As a law student at the University of Amsterdam in the early 1990s, I often cycled past a monument to Henk van Randwijk, a member of the anti-Nazi resistance during the Second World War. The monument is simple. A plain red brick wall, bearing the final lines of Van Randwijk’s most famous poem in simple white lettering:

    een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht
    zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen
    dan dooft het licht …

    a people that bows to tyrants
    will lose more than body and belongings
    then, the light goes out …

    I would sometimes stop, park my bicycle against a tree, and contemplate these words, hearing the echo of the heinous crimes committed on the streets of Amsterdam, and far beyond, during those hellish years when the light had indeed gone out.

    I would think of the US military cemetery in Margraten, in the South of the Netherlands, where my parents used to take me and my sisters as children to see the endless rows of meticulously kept graves, each honouring one of the 10,000 US soldiers buried there, who had given their lives so that the light might shine once again in all its splendour.

    I would continue my way to law school, thinking of one of the most fundamental lessons our professors had taught us: if the horrors of the past are to be avoided, if minorities are to be protected, if the individual is to be free, democracy needs to be accompanied by the rule of law. We studied the small, but fundamental, book, “Democracy and the Rule of Law”, which I keep on a shelf facing my desk to this day. Our professors never tired of explaining how vital the word “and” is in that title: the rule of law is both a precondition for democracy, and an essential limit to majority rule. For tyranny, which Van Randwijk’s poem so poignantly warns against, can be exercised not only by a single ruler, but also by half the population plus one. Put succinctly, democracy protects the majority against the minority, while the rule of law protects the minority, even a minority of one, against the majority. And this, so we were taught, is why we need both.

    Although the importance of the rule of law has been impressed on me since my earliest days, I am not speaking to you today as a historian, a legal scholar, or a young law student. Today I speak to you as a central banker and banking supervisor. Today, I intend to show that the rule of law is of the highest relevance for us as a central bank and supervisor to deliver on our mandate. In addition, I will present the case that we have a specific role to play in upholding the rule of law.

    The rule of law is not merely the bedrock upon which lawyers, judges and legal scholars build their work. In recent years, its pivotal role in fostering economic prosperity has come to the forefront of public debate, underscoring its profound relevance far beyond the boundaries of the legal profession.

    The rule of law is not a binary concept – it is not simply present or absent. Instead, it exists on a continuum, shaped by various factors such as constraints on government powers, independent courts, the absence of corruption, and respect for human rights. Its strength is also wide-ranging, varying significantly across jurisdictions, and it evolves over time. For many decades, the global rule of law experienced a steady and encouraging ascent. However, some recent indicators suggest that this progress may have reached its peak, while others point to signs of retreat.[1]

    Today I will discuss how the rule of law supports central banks in delivering on their price stability mandate, and banking supervisors in fostering financial stability.

    It is worth emphasising that the connection between the rule of law and a thriving economy is well-established: a strong rule of law correlates consistently with robust and sustained economic growth.[2]

    Last year, economists Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for their groundbreaking research, which persuasively demonstrated not just such a correlation, but a causal relationship between weak institutions – closely linked with a poor rule of law – and lower economic growth.[3] Their findings highlight an important insight: economies thrive when institutions are strong, as institutional strength enables investors, entrepreneurs and consumers to make long-term decisions with confidence, knowing that contracts will be enforced, corruption fought and property rights upheld. Institutional reliability thus forms the backbone of innovation, creativity and sustained growth.

    However, this relationship is not one-directional. Strong economic growth, in turn, reinforces institutional resilience, creating a virtuous cycle in which institutional strength and economic prosperity feed into one another.[4]

    Central banks are a crucial part of this mutual dependence. They are significantly more effective in delivering on their mandates when the rule of law is strong. At the same time, strong central banks and strong supervisors are essential institutions in supporting a strong economy. As such, within their mandates, central banks and prudential supervisors have a vital role to play in upholding, promoting and, when necessary, determinedly defending the rule of law.

    Why does the rule of law matter for the European Central Bank?

    The Treaty on European Union proudly declares that the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The rule of law forms the backbone of some of the most tangible and far-reaching achievements of our European Union – ranging from the single market and the protection of human rights to the mutual recognition of judgments. Few aspects of European integration reflect its unity more clearly than the shared commitment to upholding the rule of law.

    For the ECB, the rule of law is a critical foundation of its mandate in multiple important ways. Today, I will focus on three closely connected areas: first, the role of the rule of law in laying the very foundations for, and safeguarding trust in, money; second, the importance of the rule of law for delivering on our mandates; and third, the role of the rule of law supporting price and financial and price stability by ensuring the independence of the central bank.

    Money

    Let me start with trust in money. Aristotle declared long ago that money was introduced by convention as a kind of substitute for a need or demand, and its value is derived not from nature but from law.[5] While money has classically been thought of as serving the functions of medium of exchange, store of value, unit of account and means of payment, it is the law which determines whether a thing is money and what nominal value is attributed to it. It is the law which determines which things are legal tender.[6]

    Modern money is “fiat money” meaning that it has no intrinsic value. Following the end of the gold standard with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, its value is also no longer tied to physical assets like gold. Instead, the value of our money rests entirely on trust – trust in public authorities, trust in the institutional frameworks that uphold it, and, fundamentally, trust in the central bank as the issuing authority.

    Consider the euro banknotes in your pockets. The paper itself holds no intrinsic value. The worth we collectively assign to those €10, €20 or €50 banknotes is rooted in a strong legal foundation. Law gives central bank money legal tender status, meaning that it must be accepted for settling a debt. Trust in all other forms of “money”, such as commercial bank deposits, ultimately rests on convertibility at par with central bank money. The law thus helps preserve the value of today’s banknotes as well as the savings in your bank account.[7]

    We are currently taking a pivotal step in adapting central bank money to the digital age, by progressing towards the possible issuance of a digital equivalent: a digital euro. As cash today, which will remain available, a digital euro builds on the treaty-based competence to issue legal forms of public money, leveraging advanced technology within a robust legal framework to ensure people trust the numbers on their screens. The rule of law underpins these frameworks, transforming algorithms into a reliable and trustworthy form of public money.

    Delivering on our mandates

    Let me now turn to the function of the rule of law in enabling central banks to effectively deliver on their mandates.

    For central banks to effectively fulfil their mandate of price stability, they must carefully assess the economic outlook. This assessment requires leveraging models and historical patterns to forecast economic developments. However, for us to be able to predict and forecast economic developments, the economy must operate within a framework of consistent and transparent rules. The rule of law plays a vital role in this regard. By fostering predictability and stability, it provides the essential foundation for robust economic analysis and informed monetary policy decision-making.

    The effectiveness of the ECB’s banking supervision mandate to promote the safety and soundness of banks also hinges on a strong legal system with enforceable supervisory decisions. The laws give the supervisor a broad toolkit to ensure that banks remain safe and sound. For instance, this toolkit includes the power to require banks to hold more capital as part of the bank-specific annual Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process, and the power to sanction banks if they do not adhere to prudential rules.

    Beyond these broader principles, a sound legal system is indispensable for central banking operations in practical terms. For instance, the legal requirement for adequate collateral is a cornerstone of both monetary policy implementation and financial stability. Yet collateral can only be deemed adequate if the legal framework guarantees that central banks can enforce their rights over it when necessary.

    Another example is the central bank’s reliance on accurate statistics to carry out its mandate effectively. To ensure that reporting agents fulfil their obligations, central banks require enforceable sanctioning powers.

    All these examples show that the rule of law is a precondition of central banking and prudential supervision.

    Central bank independence

    The effectiveness of a central bank in achieving its price stability mandate rests on its independence. Like the judiciary and other independent agencies, independent central banks are part of a constitutional model that recognises the role of independent institutions as checks and balances on executive and legislative power. Most legal systems in advanced economies ensure that the power to create money should be entrusted to bodies operating outside the electoral cycle to mitigate a time-inconsistency problem: the tendency of policymakers to prioritise short-term gains over long-term stability.[8] Independence insulates the central bank from the short-term pressures of daily politics, enabling it to focus on its mandate.

    Hence central bank independence, price stability and the rule of law are closely intertwined. Empirical evidence suggests that price stability depends on both the strength of the rule of law and the independence of the central bank. Social trust in the central bank depends on the overall level of trust in the legal system as a whole. If a perfectly independent central bank were to operate in a system with systematic deficiencies in the rule of law, it would not be able to deliver effectively on its mandate.[9] In short, an independent central bank can only function if its decisions are seen as credible, and, crucially, credibility depends on the overall system based on the rule of law functioning well.

    Moreover, the distinct character of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) also illustrates the crucial importance of the rule of law for the ECB. As the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled, the ESCB is based on a highly integrated system that brings together national central banks and the ECB.[10] National central banks are not merely national institutions – they are also integral components of the ESCB. Importantly, the governors of the national central banks of the euro area are also members of the ECB’s Governing Council, which is responsible for taking monetary policy decisions.

    A similar principle applies to the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). For instance, the Joint Supervisory Teams that inspect banks are composed of staff from both the ECB and national competent authorities (NCAs). Likewise, the ECB Supervisory Board includes representatives from both the ECB and NCAs.

    Because of the integrated nature of both the ESCB and the SSM, which both bring together national authorities and the ECB, rule of law deficiencies at the national level can affect the functioning of the ESCB, the SSM and the ECB. Respect for the rules governing the organisation and safeguarding the independence of these national components of the ESCB and the SSM are thus essential to achieving their mandates of price and financial stability.

    What central banks can do to support the rule of law

    Now that we have explored how the rule of law is a precondition for central banks and supervisors being able to deliver on their mandates, let us turn to the other side of the coin: the role of the European Central Bank in upholding and protecting the rule of law.

    Clearly, central banks cannot oversee the general conditions of the rule of law – that is not their mandate. But central banks do have specific responsibilities in this context.

    First, central banks must themselves adhere to rule of law principles under the scrutiny of courts. And second, central banks have instruments at their disposal that can be used to reinforce the legal fabric that supports the rule of law.

    Let me start with the former: central banks are fully embedded in the rule of law architecture. For instance, the Treaties explicitly place the ECB under the jurisdiction of the CJEU, and the ECB’s actions – in all areas, including monetary policy, banking supervision and transparency – have been subject to judicial scrutiny.[11] Compared with other major central banks, the ECB is among those most frequently brought before court.[12] By contrast, most other central banks are practically exempt from the jurisdiction of the courts when conducting monetary policy.[13] The preliminary reference procedure has also brought ECB monetary policy measures before the CJEU.[14] In essence, even when discretion is granted to the ECB by the courts or the legislature, it is discretion within the bounds of the law – not beyond it – and both its scope and conditions remain subject to judicial review.

    This duty of the ECB has both a negative and a positive dimension. Not only is the ECB responsible for remaining within the confines of the law, it also has to react when other institutions with which it cooperates threaten to violate the law.[15]

    Legal scrutiny by the courts is not the only form the legally required ECB’s accountability takes, however. In fact, a key pillar of our transparency and accountability to citizens includes explaining our decisions to the public and reporting regularly to elected bodies. For example, the ECB publishes detailed accounts of the monetary policy meetings of the Governing Council, explains its policies in dedicated press conferences and answers questions from Members of the European Parliament. (MEPs). Moreover, the President of the ECB and the Chair of the Supervisory Board appear regularly in front of the European Parliament to exchange views with MEPs. This not only makes monetary policy and banking supervision more understandable, but also proactively submits our institution to public scrutiny. Public scrutiny is an indispensable element of the rule of law: the law must be seen to be upheld for its acceptance by the general public.

    Let me now turn to the ECB’s role in maintaining the rule of law. And I would like to be crystal clear again: in the EU, maintaining the rule of law is mainly a task for the courts and the political institutions. But the ECB also has responsibilities in this area, and I will outline five that I think are particularly important.

    First, the Treaties give the ECB special powers to monitor respect for central bank independence, in particular personal independence. The Statute of the ESCB, which is a Protocol of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU (TFEU), exceptionally empowers the Governing Council of the ECB and national governors to bring to the European Court of Justice an action for annulment of a national measure that does not respect the independence of central bank governors.[16] This is the only case where the EU legal order provides for an annulment by the European Court of Justice of a national measure. I am sure that the jurists in today’s audience will immediately recognizes how exceptional this is. By allowing a direct change of the legal reality within the national legal order by means of an EU remedy, the Statute of the ESCB ensures, very effectively, that the rule of law is upheld.

    Second, the ECB Governing Council has the role of acting as guardian of the Treaties vis-à-vis the national central banks in the same way as the Commission is guardian of the Treaties vis-à-vis the Member States.[17] While the ECB has never instituted infringement proceedings against a national central bank before the CJEU, the very existence of this power enables the ECB to ensure compliance by national central banks with the requirements of central bank independence and the prohibition of monetary financing of the public sector. Another as yet unused power of the ECB under the Statute of the ESCB/ECB is the power of the ECB Governing Council, by a two thirds majority vote, to prohibit national central banks from performing functions other than those specified in the Statute where these interfere with the objectives and tasks of the ESCB.[18] The existence of this power enables the ECB to ensure that the functions of national central banks do not interfere with ESCB’s primary objective of price stability or the monetary policy and other tasks of the ESCB.

    Third, the Treaties require national and EU authorities to consult the ECB on any draft legislation that falls within its fields of competence.[19] The ECB enjoys a privileged position in directly influencing national legislation at the stage of its adoption and raising issues of legality. The ECB has issued numerous opinions on draft national legislation concerning the institutional structure and governance of national central banks. A recurring theme in many of these opinions has been the compatibility of amendments to the statutes of national central banks with the Statute of the ESCB, particularly regarding Member States’ obligation to ensure the independence of their national central banks and the prohibition of monetary financing.

    Fourth, the Treaties require the ECB to issue convergence reports.[20] At least once every two years, or at the request of a Member State with a derogation from adopting the euro, the ECB reports to the Council on the progress made by the Member States with a derogation on the fulfilment of their obligations regarding the achievement of Economic and monetary union. Last week, the ECB published its report on Bulgaria.[21] These convergence reports receive more attention with regard to their economic dimensions, but they also include an important examination of the compatibility between national and EU law.[22] Whilst this ECB instrument only addresses the legislation of Member States that have not adopted the euro, it is a means of consolidating and developing EU standards, including where rule of law issues might be at stake.

    And last but not least: the Statute of the ESCB provides the ECB with specific powers regarding international cooperation.[23] In practice this means that the ECB actively participates in international fora and institutions with a clear direction to uphold their role and the international rule of law. As you all know, public international law, from the World Trade Organization to the very fundamentals of international humanitarian law, is currently under a heavy strain, which makes our role regarding international cooperation all the more relevant.

    Conclusion

    Let me conclude.

    With these remarks, I hope to have shown that the rule of law is of the highest relevance for central banks and supervisors.

    First, it is a necessary condition for us to adequately deliver on our price and financial stability mandates. Here we depend (and count!) on those institutions whose mandate is specifically focused on upholding the rule of law, among which the legislature and, especially, you, the judiciary.

    Second, in specific areas the ECB itself has a role to play in safeguarding, nurturing and defending the rule of law. Within the limits of our competences, you can count on us to do so.

    The European Union is both creature and guarantor of the rule of law. It is a beacon of legal certainty, strong institutions and the protection of fundamental rights. All of us continuing to play our role – and we will play ours as much as we know that the courts will play theirs – will lead not only to the protection but to the growth of the quality and the depth of the rule of law.

    By thus further strengthening the rule of law, we will encourage investment, foster economic growth and enhance the international role of the euro.[24] And by doing so we will further solidify the foundations for freedom, peace and prosperity that will ensure that Van Randwijk’s light will never fade but will shine more brightly than ever before.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Trade turnover between China and Belt and Road countries grew by 3 percent in January-May 2025

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    BEIJING, June 9 (Xinhua) — Trade between China and countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative totaled 1.286 billion U.S. dollars in the first five months of 2025, up 3 percent year on year, data released by the General Administration of Customs showed Monday.

    In particular, during the reporting period, China’s exports to Belt and Road countries increased by 9.2 percent year-on-year to $743.206 billion, while imports decreased by 4.3 percent to $542.994 billion. -0-

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI: Subsea7 awarded contract offshore Trinidad and Tobago

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Luxembourg – 9 June 2025 – Subsea 7 S.A. (Oslo Børs: SUBC, ADR: SUBCY) today announced the award of a sizeable1 contract by Shell for the Aphrodite gas project offshore Trinidad and Tobago.

    The project involves the transportation and installation of subsea equipment at the Aphrodite development, located within Block 5a, at water depths of up to 290 metres.

    Project management and engineering activities will begin immediately at Subsea7’s office in Houston, Texas, with offshore operations planned for 2027.

    Craig Broussard, Senior Vice President for Subsea7 Gulf of Mexico, said, “Engaging with Shell from the outset has been key to building trust and driving efficiencies. This award in Trinidad and Tobago reflects our growing presence in the region, as well as our ongoing commitment to safe, predictable project delivery while supporting local talent and resources.”

    1. Subsea7 defines a sizeable contract as being between $50 million and $150 million.

    *******************************************************************************
    Subsea7 is a global leader in the delivery of offshore projects and services for the evolving energy industry, creating sustainable value by being the industry’s partner and employer of choice in delivering the efficient offshore solutions the world needs.
    Subsea7 is listed on the Oslo Børs (SUBC), ISIN LU0075646355, LEI 222100AIF0CBCY80AH62.

    *******************************************************************************

    Contact for investment community enquiries:
    Katherine Tonks
    Investor Relations Director
    Tel +44 20 8210 5568
    ir@subsea7.com

    Contact for media enquiries:
    Ashley Shearer
    Communications Manager
    Tel +1 713 300 6792
    ashley.shearer@subsea7.com

    Forward-Looking Statements: This document may contain ‘forward-looking statements’ (within the meaning of the safe harbour provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). These statements relate to our current expectations, beliefs, intentions, assumptions or strategies regarding the future and are subject to known and unknown risks that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘future’, ‘goal’, ‘intend’, ‘likely’ ‘may’, ‘plan’, ‘project’, ‘seek’, ‘should’, ‘strategy’ ‘will’, and similar expressions. The principal risks which could affect future operations of the Group are described in the ‘Risk Management’ section of the Group’s Annual Report and Consolidated Financial Statements. Factors that may cause actual and future results and trends to differ materially from our forward-looking statements include (but are not limited to): (i) our ability to deliver fixed price projects in accordance with client expectations and within the parameters of our bids, and to avoid cost overruns; (ii) our ability to collect receivables, negotiate variation orders and collect the related revenue; (iii) our ability to recover costs on significant projects; (iv) capital expenditure by oil and gas companies, which is affected by fluctuations in the price of, and demand for, crude oil and natural gas; (v) unanticipated delays or cancellation of projects included in our backlog; (vi) competition and price fluctuations in the markets and businesses in which we operate; (vii) the loss of, or deterioration in our relationship with, any significant clients; (viii) the outcome of legal proceedings or governmental inquiries; (ix) uncertainties inherent in operating internationally, including economic, political and social instability, boycotts or embargoes, labour unrest, changes in foreign governmental regulations, corruption and currency fluctuations; (x) the effects of a pandemic or epidemic or a natural disaster; (xi) liability to third parties for the failure of our joint venture partners to fulfil their obligations; (xii) changes in, or our failure to comply with, applicable laws and regulations (including regulatory measures addressing climate change); (xiii) operating hazards, including spills, environmental damage, personal or property damage and business interruptions caused by adverse weather; (xiv) equipment or mechanical failures, which could increase costs, impair revenue and result in penalties for failure to meet project completion requirements; (xv) the timely delivery of vessels on order and the timely completion of ship conversion programmes; (xvi) our ability to keep pace with technological changes and the impact of potential information technology, cyber security or data security breaches; (xvii) global availability at scale and commercially viability of suitable alternative vessel fuels; and (xviii) the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. Many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this document. We undertake no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
    This information is considered to be inside information pursuant to the EU Market Abuse Regulation and is subject to the disclosure requirements pursuant to Section 5-12 the Norwegian Securities Trading Act. 
    This stock exchange release was published by Katherine Tonks, Investor Relations, Subsea7, on 9 June 2025 at 08:00 CET.

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Municipality Finance issues a EUR 1 billion green benchmark under its MTN programme

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Municipality Finance Plc
    Stock exchange release
    9 June 2025 at 10:00 am (EEST)

    Municipality Finance issues a EUR 1 billion green benchmark under its MTN programme

    Municipality Finance Plc issues a EUR 1 billion green benchmark on 10 June 2025. The maturity date of the benchmark is 14 June 2032. The benchmark bears interest at a fixed rate of 2.625% per annum.

    The benchmark is issued under MuniFin’s EUR 50 billion programme for the issuance of debt instruments. The offering circular, the supplemental offering circular and the final terms of the benchmark are available in English on the company’s website at https://www.kuntarahoitus.fi/en/for-investors.

    MuniFin has applied for the benchmark to be admitted to trading on the Helsinki Stock Exchange maintained by Nasdaq Helsinki. The public trading is expected to commence on on 10 June 2025.

    Danske Bank A/S, DZ BANK AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main, J.P. Morgan SE and Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (publ) act as the Joint Lead Managers for the issue of the benchmark.

    MUNICIPALITY FINANCE PLC

    Further information:

    Joakim Holmström
    Executive Vice President, Capital Markets and Sustainability
    tel. +358 50 444 3638

    MuniFin (Municipality Finance Plc) is one of Finland’s largest credit institutions. The owners of the company include Finnish municipalities, the public sector pension fund Keva and the State of Finland. The Group’s balance sheet is over EUR 53 billion.

    MuniFin builds a better and more sustainable future with its customers. Our customers include municipalities, joint municipal authorities, wellbeing services counties, joint county authorities, corporate entities under the control of the above-mentioned organisations, and affordable social housing. Lending is used for environmentally and socially responsible investment targets such as public transportation, sustainable buildings, hospitals and healthcare centres, schools and day care centres, and homes for people with special needs.

    MuniFin’s customers are domestic but the company operates in a completely global business environment. The company is an active Finnish bond issuer in international capital markets and the first Finnish green and social bond issuer. The funding is exclusively guaranteed by the Municipal Guarantee Board.

    Read more: https://www.kuntarahoitus.fi/en/

    Important Information

    The information contained herein is not for release, publication or distribution, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, in or into any such country or jurisdiction or otherwise in such circumstances in which the release, publication or distribution would be unlawful. The information contained herein does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of, any securities or other financial instruments in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration, exemption from registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction.

    This communication does not constitute an offer of securities for sale in the United States. The notes have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) or under the applicable securities laws of any state of the United States and may not be offered or sold, directly or indirectly, within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons except pursuant to an applicable exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI China: US economic growth slows amid rising trade barriers

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

    This photo taken on March 29, 2023 shows the White House in Washington, D.C., the United States. [Photo/Xinhua]

    The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released its latest Economic Outlook on June 3, projects global GDP growth to decelerate from 3.3% in 2024 to 2.9% for both this year and the next. The United States economy is expected to see a significant slowdown, with growth dropping to 1.6% in 2025 and 1.5% in 2026. So, what’s behind this slowdown? Let’s take a closer look at the role of trade barriers.

    First, let’s get a handle on the current state of trade barriers. In recent years, the U.S. has been at the forefront of implementing a series of protectionist trade measures. These include imposing tariffs and erecting various trade barriers. For example, on May 23, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed directly imposing a 50% tariff on EU products starting from June 1. Products manufactured or produced in the U.S. would be exempt from this tariff. However, according to the latest news, after a phone call between President Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, it was decided to postpone the implementation of the 50% tariff on EU products until July 9. While the intention might have been to shield domestic industries and jobs, the reality has turned out to be quite different.

    Trade barriers have had a profound impact on U.S. exports. As a major export-oriented economy, the U.S. relies heavily on international markets for many of its industries. However, these barriers have diminished the competitiveness of U.S. products abroad. In retaliation for U.S. protectionist moves, other countries have also raised tariffs on U.S. goods. This has left U.S. exporters grappling with higher costs and shrinking market shares. Take U.S. agricultural exports, for example. Due to retaliatory tariffs from other nations, U.S. agricultural products have found it increasingly difficult to penetrate international markets. In 2024, the export value of U.S. soybeans was $24.5 billion, lower than the $27.7 billion in 2023 and the record high of $34.4 billion in 2022. This has led to a drop in domestic agricultural prices and a decline in farmers’ incomes.

    Trade barriers have also wreaked havoc on supply chains. In today’s globalized world, many U.S. industries depend on intricate global supply chains. These barriers have caused these supply chains to fracture and reconfigure. Numerous companies have had to scramble to find new suppliers, incurring additional costs and experiencing reduced production efficiency. For instance, U.S. manufacturing firms often rely on imported components. Trade barriers have disrupted the supply of these parts, forcing companies to spend more time and money seeking alternatives. This not only affects production but also drives up product prices. The manufacturing PMI for May shows that the prices index was as high as 69.4%. Although it slightly decreased compared to last month, it still remained at a high level, indicating that raw material costs have been rising for eight consecutive months.

    Trade barriers have led to a decline in business investment. Amid the uncertainty of the trade environment, many companies have become wary of future market prospects. They fear that escalating trade barriers could further erode their profits. As a result, they have cut back on investments in new projects and equipment. This not only hampers long-term corporate development but also has a negative impact on economic growth. For example, some U.S. tech companies had planned to expand production, but they have had to either delay or shelve these plans due to the impact of trade barriers. Green energy projects have also been suspended to varying degrees, with major clean energy projects not being spared. Flagship projects that have been put on hold include the $1 billion solar panel factory in Oklahoma by Italy’s Enel Green Power, the $2.3 billion battery storage facility in Arizona by South Korea’s LG Energy Solution, and the $1.3 billion lithium refinery in South Carolina by the world’s largest lithium miner, U.S.-based Albemarle.

    Lastly, trade barriers have eroded consumer confidence. Consumers are a vital part of the economy, and their spending behavior directly affects economic growth. Trade barriers have caused product prices to rise, increasing the cost of living for consumers. For example, in April 2025, the U.S. CPI increased by 3.4% year on year. At the same time, trade barriers have led to job losses, with unemployment in the U.S.at 4.2% in April, heightening consumers’ concerns about the economic outlook. This has led consumers to cut back on spending, which in turn has had a negative impact on economic growth.

    So, what does the future hold for the U.S. economy in the face of these trade barriers? In the short term, the U.S. economy is likely to continue facing the pressure of slower growth. The impact of trade barriers won’t vanish overnight, and companies will need time to adapt to the new trade landscape. In the long run, the U.S. will need to reassess its trade policies and seek more open and cooperative trade relations. Only by strengthening international cooperation and reducing trade barriers can sustainable economic growth be achieved.

    In summary, trade barriers are a key factor in the projected U.S. economy slowdown. They have affected U.S. exports, disrupted supply chains, reduced business investment and eroded consumer confidence. The U.S. must take proactive measures to address these challenges. 

    The author is an associate professor in economics at Beijing International Studies University.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meru Sheel, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies (IDIE) Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    EyeEm Mobile GmbH/Getty Images

    Measles has been rising globally in recent years. There were an estimated 10.3 million cases worldwide in 2023, a 20% increase from 2022.

    Outbreaks are being reported all over the world including in the United States, Europe and the Western Pacific region (which includes Australia). For example, Vietnam has reportedly seen thousands of cases in 2024 and 2025.

    In Australia, 77 cases of measles have been recorded in the first five months of 2025, compared with 57 cases in all of 2024.

    Measles cases in Australia are almost all related to international travel. They occur in travellers returning from overseas, or are contracted locally after mixing with an infected traveller or their contacts.

    Measles most commonly affects children and is preventable with vaccination, given in Australia in two doses at 12 and 18 months old. But in light of current outbreaks globally, is there a case for reviewing the timing of measles vaccinations?

    Some measles basics

    Measles is caused by a virus belonging to the genus Morbillivirus. Symptoms include a fever, cough, runny nose and a rash. While it presents as a mild illness in most cases, measles can lead to severe disease requiring hospitalisation, and even death. Large outbreaks can overwhelm health systems.

    Measles can have serious health consequences, such as in the brain and the immune system, years after the infection.

    Measles spreads from person to person via small respiratory droplets that can remain suspended in the air for two hours. It’s highly contagious – one person with measles can spread the infection to 12–18 people who aren’t immune.

    Because measles is so infectious, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends two-dose vaccination coverage above 95% to stop the spread and achieve “herd immunity”.

    Low and declining vaccine coverage, especially since the COVID pandemic, is driving global outbreaks.




    Read more:
    What are the symptoms of measles? How long does the vaccine last? Experts answer 6 key questions


    When are children vaccinated against measles?

    Newborn babies are generally protected against measles thanks to maternal antibodies. Maternal antibodies get passed from the mother to the baby via the placenta and in breast milk, and provide protection against infections including measles.

    The WHO advises everyone should receive two doses of measles vaccination. In places where there’s a lot of measles circulating, children are generally recommended to have the first dose at around nine months old. This is because it’s expected maternal antibodies would have declined significantly in most infants by that age, leaving them vulnerable to infection.

    If maternal measles antibodies are still present, the vaccine is less likely to produce an immune response.

    Research has also shown a measles vaccine given at less than 8.5 months of age can result in an antibody response which declines more quickly. This might be due to interference with maternal antibodies, but researchers are still trying to understand the reasons for this.

    A second dose of the vaccine is usually given 6–9 months later. A second dose is important because about 10–15% of children don’t develop antibodies after the first vaccine.

    In settings where measles transmission is under better control, a first dose is recommended at 12 months of age. Vaccination at 12 months compared with nine months is considered to generate a stronger, longer-lasting immune response.

    In Australia, children are routinely given the measles-mumps- rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 months and the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV, with “varicella” being chickenpox) vaccine at 18 months.

    Babies at higher risk of catching the disease can also be given an additional early dose. In Australia, this is recommended for infants as young as six months when there’s an outbreak or if they’re travelling overseas to a high-risk setting.

    A new study looking at measles antibodies in babies

    A recent review looked at measles antibody data from babies under nine months old living in low- and middle-income countries. The review combined the results from 20 studies, including more than 8,000 babies. The researchers found that while 81% of newborns had maternal antibodies to measles, only 30% of babies aged four months had maternal antibodies.

    This study suggests maternal antibodies to measles decline much earlier than previously thought. It raises the question of whether the first dose of measles vaccine is given too late to maximise infants’ protection, especially when there’s a lot of measles around.

    Should we bring the measles vaccine forward in Australia?

    All of the data in this study comes from low- and middle-income countries, and might not reflect the situation in Australia where we have much higher vaccine coverage for measles, and very few cases.

    Australia’s coverage for two doses of the MMR vaccine at age two is above 92%.

    Although this is lower than the optimal 95%, the overall risk of measles surging in Australia is relatively low.

    Nonetheless, there may be a case for broadening the age at which an early extra dose of the measles vaccine can be given to children at higher risk. In New Zealand, infants as young as four months can receive a measles vaccine before travelling to an endemic country.

    But the current routine immunisation schedule in Australia is unlikely to change.

    Adding an extra dose to the schedule would be costly and logistically difficult. Lowering the age for the first dose may have some advantages in certain settings, and doesn’t pose any safety concerns, but further evidence would be required to support this change. In particular, research is needed to ensure it wouldn’t negatively affect the longer-term protection that vaccination offers from measles.

    Making sure you’re protected

    In the meantime, ensuring high levels of measles vaccine coverage with two doses is a global priority.

    People born after 1966 are recommended to have two doses of measles vaccine. This is because those born before the mid-1960s likely caught measles as children (when the vaccine was not yet available) and would therefore have natural immunity.

    If you’re unsure about your vaccination status, you can check this through the Australian Immunisation Register. If you don’t have a documented record, ask your doctor for advice.

    Catch-up vaccination is available under the National Immunisation Program.

    Meru Sheel receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

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

    ref. Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier? – https://theconversation.com/measles-cases-are-surging-globally-should-children-be-vaccinated-earlier-257942

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mona Mashhadi Rajabi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

    Jade Gao/Getty Images

    When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs.

    However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning – far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years.

    Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump’s first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit.

    This trend accelerated with the newer “reciprocal” tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative.

    From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days

    Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A $5 dress or $3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot.

    Much of Shein’s production takes place in the so-called “Shein village” in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items.

    When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145% (since paused), and closing the “de minimis” loophole, which had allowed imports under US$800 to enter tariff-free.

    But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17%, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can’t provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer.

    So why does Australia matter?

    Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia.

    Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally.

    Just 3% of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis.

    The hidden costs of cheap clothes

    The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump’s tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies – together with the retreat from climate commitments – worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion.

    The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia.

    Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage.

    Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions.

    Will ethical fashion ever compete?

    Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates.
    Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards.

    Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential.

    Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing.

    Australia’s new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way.

    Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a $5 t-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step.

    Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm.

    Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game

    Trump’s trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than US$34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was.

    Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it.

    Mona Mashhadi Rajabi receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ), and a Business Research Grant from the University of Technology Sydney.

    Lisa Lake previously received funding from NSW Department of Education Innovation and Collaboration grant to establish the Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Fashion + Textiles.

    Martina Linnenluecke receives funding from The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Research Council. Her work is also supported by a Strategic Research Accelerator Grant from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

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

    ref. How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-trade-war-is-supercharging-the-fast-fashion-industry-257727

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • Political divide widens as Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Republicans and Democrats traded barbs on Sunday after President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles amid massive protests against increasing and divisive immigration raids.

    “Important to remember that Trump isn’t trying to heal or keep the peace. He is looking to inflame and divide,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said in one of the most direct rebukes.

    “His movement doesn’t believe in democracy or protest – and if they get a chance to end the rule of law they will take it.”

    Democratic Senator Cory Booker condemned Trump for deploying troops without California’s approval, warning it would only escalate tensions. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” he accused Trump of hypocrisy, and noted the president’s inaction on January 6, 2021 when thousands of his supporters raided the U.S. Capitol and his subsequent pardons for those arrested.

    Footage showed at least a half dozen military-style vehicles and riot shields on Sunday at the federal building in Los Angeles with federal law enforcement firing gas canisters to disperse demonstrators protesting against the ICE crackdown.

    California Governor Gavin Newsom and Trump sparred over the protests, with Newsom condemning the federal response as an overreach, saying Trump wants “a spectacle,” while the president accused Newsom of failing to maintain order.

    Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday defended Trump’s decision and said he had no concern about the National Guard deployment, adding, “One of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that in foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don’t think that’s heavy handed.”

    Republican Senator James Lankford said Trump is trying to de-escalate tensions, pointing to scenes of protesters throwing objects at law enforcement.

    He recalled similar unrest in 2020 in Seattle and Portland, where National Guard backed local law enforcement amid racial justice protests.

    The protests against the raids have become the latest focal point in a national debate over immigration, protest rights, and the use of federal force in domestic affairs. It also has fueled discussion on the boundaries of presidential power and the public’s right to dissent.

    (Reuters)

  • China’s May exports slow, deflation deepens as tariffs bite

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    China’s May export growth slowed to a three-month low as U.S. tariffs slammed shipments, while factory-gate deflation deepened to its worst level in two years, heaping pressure on the world’s second-largest economy on both the domestic and external fronts.

    The global trade war and the swings in China-U.S. trade ties have in the past two months sent Chinese exporters, along with their business partners across the Pacific, on a roller coaster ride and hobbled world growth.

    Exports expanded 4.8% year-on-year in value terms in May, slowing from the 8.1% jump in April and missing the 5.0% growth expected in a Reuters poll, customs data showed on Monday, despite a lowering of U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods which had taken effect in early April.

    Imports dropped 3.4% year-on-year, deepening sharply from the 0.2% decline in April and worse than the 0.9% downturn expected in the Reuters poll.

    Exports had surged 12.4% year-on-year and 8.1% in March and April, respectively, as factories rushed shipments to the U.S. and other overseas manufacturers to avoid U.S. President Trump’s hefty levies on China and the rest of the world.

    While exporters in China found some respite in May as Beijing and Washington agreed to suspend most of their levies for 90 days, tensions between the world’s two largest economies remain high and negotiations are underway over issues ranging from China’s rare earths controls to Taiwan.

    Trade representatives from China and the U.S. are meeting in London on Monday to resume talks after a phone call between their top leaders on Thursday.

    “Export growth was likely stalled by heavy customs inspections in May due to tightened export control efforts,” said Xu Tianchen, senior economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, noting that rare earth exports nearly halved last month, while electric machinery exports also slowed significantly.

    Underscoring the U.S. tariff impact on shipments, customs data showed that China’s exports to the U.S. slumped 34.5% year-on-year in May in value terms, widening from a 21% drop the previous month. Imports to the U.S. also lost further ground, dropping 18.1% from a 13.8% slide in April.

    China’s May trade surplus came in at $103.22 billion, up from the $96.18 billion the previous month.

    Other data, also released on Monday, showed China’s import of crude oil, coal, and iron ore dropped last month, underlining the fragility of domestic demand at a time of rising external headwinds.

    Beijing in May rolled out a series of monetary stimulus measures, including cuts to benchmark lending rates and a 500 billion yuan low-cost loan program for supporting elderly care and services consumption.

    The measures are aimed at cushioning the trade war’s blow to an economy that relied on exports in its recovery from the pandemic shocks and a protracted property market slump.

    China’s markets showed muted reaction to the data. The blue-chip CSI300 Index CSI300 and the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index SSEC were up around 0.2%.

    DEFLATIONARY PRESSURES

    Producer and consumer price data, released by the National Bureau of Statistics on the same day, showed that deflationary pressures worsened last month.

    The producer price index fell 3.3% in May from a year earlier, after a 2.7% decline in April and marked the deepest contraction in 22 months, while consumer prices extended declines, having dipped 0.1% last month from a year earlier.

    Cooling factory activity also highlights the impact of U.S. tariffs on the world’s largest manufacturing hub, dampening faster services growth as suspense lingers over the outcome of U.S.-China trade talks.

    Sluggish domestic demand and weak prices have weighed on China’s economy, which has struggled to mount a robust post-pandemic recovery and has relied on exports to underpin growth.

    Retail sales growth slowed last month as spending continued to lag amid job insecurity and stagnant new home prices.

    U.S. coffee chain Starbucks said on Monday it would lower prices of some iced drinks by an average of 5 yuan in China.

    The core inflation measure, excluding volatile food and fuel prices, registered a 0.6% year-on-year rise, slightly faster than a 0.5% increase in April.

    However, Zichun Huang, China economist at Capital Economics, said the improvement in core prices looks “fragile”, adding “we still think persistent overcapacity will keep China in deflation both this year and next.”

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI China: France’s fast fashion bill risks blowback from China, experts warn

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

    France’s proposed crackdown on ultra-fast fashion risks derailing billions of euros in trade with China, as experts accuse the bill of targeting Chinese e-commerce giants under the veneer of environmental concern.

    They made the comments as the bill, now under heated debate in the French National Assembly, claims to address the environmental footprint of cheap, disposable clothing. But its wording and intention have sharpened into singling out e-commerce giants like Shein, Temu and AliExpress, all of which are deeply embedded in China’s garment supply chain.

    “This isn’t about sustainability anymore,” said Wang Peng, a researcher at the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences. “It’s about weaponizing policy to suppress rising Chinese players and destabilize global free trade.”

    The French Trade Council and the Confederation of French Trade are among the most vocal backers. In a joint open letter, supported by 14 federations and over 230 brands, they called for the government to immediately delist the three Chinese platforms, claiming that “85 percent to 95 percent” of their goods fail to meet EU standards.

    But critics argue the legislation is too targeted to be purely environmental. Chen Jin, professor of the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, said that instead of regulating environmental impact across the board, the bill seems surgically designed to curb China’s growing dominance in fast fashion.

    It also echoed Audrey Millet, a fashion historian and University of Oslo scholar who was nominated for the Renaudot Essay Prize in 2022, who said that the bill is no longer about sustainability and it is possibly aimed at galvanizing votes ahead of the European Parliament elections.

    France has long relied on China as its top clothing supplier. According to the French Institute for Economic Research, the proposed bill could hike clothing prices by 5 to 10 euros per item—costs that would likely fall on French consumers.

    “Hostile policy moves like this won’t just hurt Chinese firms,” Wang warned. “They’ll hit French shoppers and shake the very foundation of bilateral trade”.

    Those foundations are already showing cracks. In February 2025, French cognac exports to China plummeted 72 percent year-on-year, according to Socialist Party lawmaker Fabrice Barusseau, who represents France’s cognac-producing region. China accounts for a quarter of France’s total cognac sales.

    Beyond spirits, Chinese consumers are propping up France’s entire luxury sector. LVMH’s top executive also warned French lawmakers that 80 percent of French cognac exports are sold in just two markets—China and the US—and that continued hostilities could upend the industry.

    Chinese consumers have fueled a historic rally in France’s CAC 40 index, with LVMH, Hermès, Kering and L’Oréal accounting for over a third of the index’s gains in 2023.

    “If Paris insists on pushing forward with a bill that’s seen as discriminatory and politically charged, Beijing won’t stay silent,” said Wang. “And when the response comes, it won’t just be Shein, Temu and Aliexpress that feel the sting—it could be French luxury brands, too.”

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: Nation’s trade in services accelerating

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

    A French couple Tristan and Anouk Masselin visit Yuyuan Garden area in east China’s Shanghai, Feb. 1, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Driven by burgeoning inbound tourism and robust growth in the knowledge-intensive service sector, China’s trade in services registered swift expansion in the first four months of the year, underscoring the country’s efforts in fostering new growth drivers amid rising trade barriers, analysts said.

    Although uncertainties still cloud tariff negotiations with the United States, China is committed to opening its door even wider and enhancing its global competitiveness to respond to intensifying protectionism, they added.

    From January to April, China’s trade in services continued to grow at a relatively fast pace, with the total import and export value reaching 2.63 trillion yuan ($366 billion), a year-on-year increase of 8.2 percent, the Ministry of Commerce said in a news release on Friday.

    China’s trade in knowledge-intensive services recorded a steady increase during this period, with total imports and exports reaching over 1 trillion yuan, up 5.5 percent year-on-year, the ministry said.

    The export of travel services, in particular, grew 79.9 percent year-on-year during the first four months, recording the fastest growth among all subsectors, it added.

    Expanding openness

    The surge in the travel service sector is largely attributed to China’s unilateral visa exemption for citizens of 43 countries and its 144-hour visa-free transit policy for citizens from 54 countries. These measures have fostered a more convenient climate for foreign tourists coming to China, according to experts.

    “China’s willingness to invite the world in demonstrates the nation’s commitment to expanding openness even when certain countries practice unilateralism,” said Chen Jianwei, a researcher at the Academy of China Open Economy Studies of the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing.

    In addition, the country recently upgraded its instant tax refund system for foreign visitors, which, coupled with its improved payment services, makes China an appealing destination for both travel and shopping.

    While the US is attempting to reshape global supply chains through tariffs, China is taking a totally different approach, Chen said.

    China has reduced the minimum purchase threshold for tax refunds to 200 yuan from 500 yuan as part of the nation’s broader efforts to strengthen the clout of its consumer market and, thereby, cement its position in global supply chains, he said.

    “This will compel other countries and global companies to carefully weigh the costs of decoupling from China against the dividends of engaging with the Chinese market,” he added.

    Meng Pu, chairman of Qualcomm China, said: “Amid China’s fast-growing trade in services, we not only see greater efficiency and innovative applications brought by technology, but also the tremendous potential for win-win cooperation. Technology can only unleash its maximum value within an open and collaborative ecosystem.”

    Top negotiators from Beijing and Washington are scheduled to hold the first meeting of the China-US economic and trade consultation mechanism during Vice-Premier He Lifeng’s visit to the United Kingdom from Sunday to Friday.

    The meeting will come after the two countries held economic and trade talks in May in Geneva, Switzerland, during which they agreed on a 90-day pause on triple-digit tariffs to allow further negotiations.

    Zhao Jinping, vice-president of the China Association of Trade in Services, said that with the uncertain prospects of US tariffs on China’s trade in goods, it is crucial for China to tap into its trade in services as a means of buffering potential headwinds.

    Looking ahead, China will push for the high-standard opening-up of its services trade by actively aligning with international high-standard economic and trade rules, and go ahead with the implementation of the negative list for cross-border trade in services, he added.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: UN Ocean Conference to focus on biodiversity, subsidies, “30X30 goal”

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

    Volunteers pick up litter during a beach cleanup campaign at Flamengo Beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, March 22, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    The third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3), to be held in Nice, France, from June 9 to 13, 2025, will center on three core objectives: conserving marine biodiversity, eliminating harmful fisheries subsidies, and advancing the global “30×30” target.

    Rising ocean temperatures, acidification, and oxygen loss are undermining the ocean’s ability to regulate the climate, according to scientists from the One Ocean Science Congress. These environmental shifts, together with rising sea levels, pose a serious threat to global infrastructure and life on Earth, they warned in a recent statement meant to inform decision-makers gathering in Nice.

    In this context, UNOC3 will convene governments, international financial institutions, non-governmental organizations, researchers, civil society groups, and private sector stakeholders to address challenges and explore opportunities linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14: to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.

    The conference will feature ten plenary sessions and ten roundtable discussions, along with numerous side events.

    A top priority will be to secure the 60 ratifications needed to bring into force the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, known as the “BBNJ Agreement.” Adopted in 2023, the accord aims to safeguard marine ecosystems in international waters. So far, only 32 countries have ratified it. The deadline for reaching the 60-country threshold is Sept. 20, 2025.

    “The goal for Nice is to achieve at least 60 ratifications to ensure the agreement’s entry into force. We aren’t there yet… There is still a lot of work to be done,” French President Emmanuel Macron said, as quoted by Le Monde.

    The second objective targets the prohibition of harmful fisheries subsidies, widely seen as a major driver of global fish stock depletion. While the World Trade Organization adopted an agreement on this issue in June 2022, it still requires formal ratification by two-thirds of its members – or 111 countries – with only 101 having done so to date.

    Macron also emphasized the importance of combatting “illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing,” Le Monde reported.

    The third major aim concerns achieving the “30×30” goal – the commitment to protect 30 percent of the oceans by 2030. Currently, only around 8 percent of marine areas enjoy some form of protection.

    To close the financial gap and support ocean conservation, conference participants will discuss innovative funding instruments such as “Blue bonds” and “Blue loans” to advance a sustainable ocean economy. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-Evening Report: How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mona Mashhadi Rajabi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

    Jade Gao/Getty Images

    When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs.

    However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning – far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years.

    Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump’s first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit.

    This trend accelerated with the newer “reciprocal” tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative.

    From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days

    Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A $5 dress or $3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot.

    Much of Shein’s production takes place in the so-called “Shein village” in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items.

    When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145% (since paused), and closing the “de minimis” loophole, which had allowed imports under US$800 to enter tariff-free.

    But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17%, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can’t provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer.

    So why does Australia matter?

    Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia.

    Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally.

    Just 3% of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis.

    The hidden costs of cheap clothes

    The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump’s tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies – together with the retreat from climate commitments – worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion.

    The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia.

    Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage.

    Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions.

    Will ethical fashion ever compete?

    Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates.
    Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards.

    Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential.

    Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing.

    Australia’s new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way.

    Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a $5 t-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step.

    Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm.

    Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game

    Trump’s trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than US$34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was.

    Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it.

    Mona Mashhadi Rajabi receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ), and a Business Research Grant from the University of Technology Sydney.

    Lisa Lake previously received funding from NSW Department of Education Innovation and Collaboration grant to establish the Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Fashion + Textiles.

    Martina Linnenluecke receives funding from The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Research Council. Her work is also supported by a Strategic Research Accelerator Grant from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

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

    ref. How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-trade-war-is-supercharging-the-fast-fashion-industry-257727

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meru Sheel, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies (IDIE) Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    EyeEm Mobile GmbH/Getty Images

    Measles has been rising globally in recent years. There were an estimated 10.3 million cases worldwide in 2023, a 20% increase from 2022.

    Outbreaks are being reported all over the world including in the United States, Europe and the Western Pacific region (which includes Australia). For example, Vietnam has reportedly seen thousands of cases in 2024 and 2025.

    In Australia, 77 cases of measles have been recorded in the first five months of 2025, compared with 57 cases in all of 2024.

    Measles cases in Australia are almost all related to international travel. They occur in travellers returning from overseas, or are contracted locally after mixing with an infected traveller or their contacts.

    Measles most commonly affects children and is preventable with vaccination, given in Australia in two doses at 12 and 18 months old. But in light of current outbreaks globally, is there a case for reviewing the timing of measles vaccinations?

    Some measles basics

    Measles is caused by a virus belonging to the genus Morbillivirus. Symptoms include a fever, cough, runny nose and a rash. While it presents as a mild illness in most cases, measles can lead to severe disease requiring hospitalisation, and even death. Large outbreaks can overwhelm health systems.

    Measles can have serious health consequences, such as in the brain and the immune system, years after the infection.

    Measles spreads from person to person via small respiratory droplets that can remain suspended in the air for two hours. It’s highly contagious – one person with measles can spread the infection to 12–18 people who aren’t immune.

    Because measles is so infectious, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends two-dose vaccination coverage above 95% to stop the spread and achieve “herd immunity”.

    Low and declining vaccine coverage, especially since the COVID pandemic, is driving global outbreaks.




    Read more:
    What are the symptoms of measles? How long does the vaccine last? Experts answer 6 key questions


    When are children vaccinated against measles?

    Newborn babies are generally protected against measles thanks to maternal antibodies. Maternal antibodies get passed from the mother to the baby via the placenta and in breast milk, and provide protection against infections including measles.

    The WHO advises everyone should receive two doses of measles vaccination. In places where there’s a lot of measles circulating, children are generally recommended to have the first dose at around nine months old. This is because it’s expected maternal antibodies would have declined significantly in most infants by that age, leaving them vulnerable to infection.

    If maternal measles antibodies are still present, the vaccine is less likely to produce an immune response.

    Research has also shown a measles vaccine given at less than 8.5 months of age can result in an antibody response which declines more quickly. This might be due to interference with maternal antibodies, but researchers are still trying to understand the reasons for this.

    A second dose of the vaccine is usually given 6–9 months later. A second dose is important because about 10–15% of children don’t develop antibodies after the first vaccine.

    In settings where measles transmission is under better control, a first dose is recommended at 12 months of age. Vaccination at 12 months compared with nine months is considered to generate a stronger, longer-lasting immune response.

    In Australia, children are routinely given the measles-mumps- rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 months and the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV, with “varicella” being chickenpox) vaccine at 18 months.

    Babies at higher risk of catching the disease can also be given an additional early dose. In Australia, this is recommended for infants as young as six months when there’s an outbreak or if they’re travelling overseas to a high-risk setting.

    A new study looking at measles antibodies in babies

    A recent review looked at measles antibody data from babies under nine months old living in low- and middle-income countries. The review combined the results from 20 studies, including more than 8,000 babies. The researchers found that while 81% of newborns had maternal antibodies to measles, only 30% of babies aged four months had maternal antibodies.

    This study suggests maternal antibodies to measles decline much earlier than previously thought. It raises the question of whether the first dose of measles vaccine is given too late to maximise infants’ protection, especially when there’s a lot of measles around.

    Should we bring the measles vaccine forward in Australia?

    All of the data in this study comes from low- and middle-income countries, and might not reflect the situation in Australia where we have much higher vaccine coverage for measles, and very few cases.

    Australia’s coverage for two doses of the MMR vaccine at age two is above 92%.

    Although this is lower than the optimal 95%, the overall risk of measles surging in Australia is relatively low.

    Nonetheless, there may be a case for broadening the age at which an early extra dose of the measles vaccine can be given to children at higher risk. In New Zealand, infants as young as four months can receive a measles vaccine before travelling to an endemic country.

    But the current routine immunisation schedule in Australia is unlikely to change.

    Adding an extra dose to the schedule would be costly and logistically difficult. Lowering the age for the first dose may have some advantages in certain settings, and doesn’t pose any safety concerns, but further evidence would be required to support this change. In particular, research is needed to ensure it wouldn’t negatively affect the longer-term protection that vaccination offers from measles.

    Making sure you’re protected

    In the meantime, ensuring high levels of measles vaccine coverage with two doses is a global priority.

    People born after 1966 are recommended to have two doses of measles vaccine. This is because those born before the mid-1960s likely caught measles as children (when the vaccine was not yet available) and would therefore have natural immunity.

    If you’re unsure about your vaccination status, you can check this through the Australian Immunisation Register. If you don’t have a documented record, ask your doctor for advice.

    Catch-up vaccination is available under the National Immunisation Program.

    Meru Sheel receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

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

    ref. Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier? – https://theconversation.com/measles-cases-are-surging-globally-should-children-be-vaccinated-earlier-257942

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: MATSUI, SOTO, CASTOR, TONKO, AND COLLEAGUES DEMAND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RELEASE ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-CA)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Doris Matsui (CA-07) Congressman Darren Soto (FL-09), Congresswoman Kathy Castor (FL-14), and Congressman Paul Tonko (NY-20) led a group of 33 lawmakers in a letter to Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Executive Director Gloria Shepherd, demanding that they immediately release National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) funding, following the Government Accountability Office’s finding that the funding freeze is illegal. 

    The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program provides funding to states to build a nationwide network of publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers along major highways across the country. Congress authorized $5 billion for the NEVI program through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The program has already had a transformative effect, creating jobs and catalyzing private investment throughout America. However, on February 6, the Trump Administration notified states that they were suspending the program and freezing states’ funding. This has left hundreds of projects and thousands of workers across the country in limbo.

    On May 22, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that these actions by the Trump Administration violated the Impoundment Control Act by illegally withholding funds that had been authorized by Congress. Despite this clear and unambiguous finding by Congress’s nonpartisan watchdog, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget instructed DOT on Wednesday to disregard the GAO ruling. 

    In response,the lawmakers wrote, “Congress did not give the Executive Branch the authority to withhold or rescind NEVI funding that has been made available to the states, and Congress clearly did not intend for the Administration to retroactively disapprove or suspend approval of state plans.” 

    “The Trump Administration’s continued attacks on the U.S. automobile industry are not only unamerican but also illegal,” the lawmakers concluded.  “As such, we request that FHWA immediately rescind the memo issued on February 6th and enable states to begin spending NEVI funds without delay.” 

    Full text of the letter can be found below or HERE

    Dear Secretary Duffy and Director Shepherd,

    We write to express our continued alarm and opposition to the Trump Administration’s illegal impoundment of formula funds under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (NEVI). The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) has confirmed in a recent legal opinion that the Trump Administration’s actions withholding NEVI funding from expenditure violate the Impoundment Control Act, reaffirming what 52 Members of Congress have previously stated: this funding pause is not only harmful but illegal. Contrary to views expressed by the Office of Management and Budget,  the Administration’s actions clearly do not align with Congressional intent. The Trump Administration must immediately rescind the February 06, 2025, memorandum issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which suspended state electric vehicle infrastructure deployment plans and rescinded related guidance. States must be allowed to spend the funds to which they are legally entitled.  

    Congress authorized $5 billion for FY22 through FY26 in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for states to deploy EV charging infrastructure. Every state, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico submitted plans in accordance with the statute, and many have awarded contracts and deployed active charging stations. According to the GAO opinion, the $3,270,000,000 made available to states from FY22-FY25 constitutes an obligation and states are entitled to proceed with their programs. Congress did not give the Executive Branch the authority to withhold or rescind NEVI funding that has been made available to the states, and Congress clearly did not intend for the Administration to retroactively disapprove or suspend approval of state plans. The Trump Administration’s actions are therefore plainly counter to Congressional intent and illegal under the Impoundment Control Act.     

    NEVI is a critical investment in American infrastructure and innovation and is key to the long-term competitiveness of the American automobile industry. It is designed to increase accessibility and address range anxiety for Americans who choose to drive EVs. The program has already catalyzed significant private investment, and over 13,000 potential jobs could be at risk if the Administration does not release the NEVI funding.  Continued delay could lead to stranded assets and wasted expenditures. Importantly, a 2024 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory projected that the U.S. would need 182,000 publicly accessible direct current fast chargers (DCFC) to accommodate the growing EV market, nearly triple the current capacity of around 55,000 charging ports. 

    The Trump Administration’s continued attacks on the U.S. automobile industry are not only unamerican but also illegal. As such, we request that FHWA immediately rescind the memo issued on February 6th and enable states to begin spending NEVI funds without delay. Inaction on this request may very well be unconstitutional.  

     

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: New Zealand’s foreign policy stance on Palestine lacks transparency

    COMMENTARY: By John Hobbs

    It is difficult to understand what sits behind the New Zealand government’s unwillingness to sanction, or threaten to sanction, the Israeli government for its genocide against the Palestinian people.

    The United Nations, human rights groups, legal experts and now genocide experts have all agreed it really is “genocide” which is being committed by the state of Israel against the civilian population of Gaza.

    It is hard to argue with the conclusion genocide is happening, given the tragic images being portrayed across social and increasingly mainstream media.

    Prime Minister Netanyahu has presented Israel’s assault on Gaza war as pitting “the sons of light” against “the sons of darkness”. And promised the victory of Judeo-Christian civilisation against barbarism.

    A real encouragement to his military there should be no-holds barred in exercising indiscriminate destruction over the people of Gaza.

    Given this background, one wonders what the nature of the advice being provided by New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister entails?

    Does the ministry fail to see the destruction and brutal killing of a huge proportion of the civilian people of Gaza? And if they see it, are they saying as much to the minister?

    Cloak of ‘diplomatic language’
    Or is the advice so nuanced in the cloak of “diplomatic language” it effectively says nothing and is crafted in a way which gives the minister ultimate freedom to make his own political choices.

    The advice of the officials becomes a reflection of what the minister is looking for — namely, a foreign policy approach that gives him enough freedom to support the Israeli government and at the same time be in step with its closest ally, the United States.

    The problem is there is no transparency around the decision-making process, so it is impossible to tell how decisions are being made.

    I placed an Official Information Act request with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2024 seeking advice received by the minister on New Zealand’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.

    The request was refused because while the advice did exist, it fell outside the timeline indicated by my request.

    It was emphasised if I were to put in a further request for the advice, it was unlikely to be released.

    They then advised releasing the information would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand and the international relations of the government of New Zealand, and withholding it was necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

    Public interest vital
    It is hard to imagine how the release of such information might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or that the legal issues could override the public interest.

    It could not be more important for New Zealanders to understand the basis for New Zealand’s foreign policy choices.

    New Zealand is a contracting party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under the convention, “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they [the contracting parties] undertake to prevent and punish”.

    Furthermore: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide. (Article 5).

    Accordingly, New Zealand must play an active part in its prevention and put in place effective penalties. Chlöe Swarbrick’s private member’s Bill to impose sanctions is one mechanism to do this.

    In response to its two-month blockade of food, water and medical supplies to Gaza, and international pressure, Israel has agreed to allow a trickle of food to enter Gaza.

    However, this is only a tiny fraction of what is needed to avert famine. Understandably, Israel’s response has been criticised by most of the international community, including New Zealand.

    Carefully worded statement
    In a carefully worded statement, signed by a collective of European countries, together with New Zealand and Australia, it is requested that Israel allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza, an immediate return to ceasefire and a return of the hostages.

    Radio New Zealand interviewed the Foreign Minister Winston Peters to better understand the New Zealand position.

    Peters reiterated his previous statements, expressing Israel’s actions of withholding food as “intolerable” but when asked about putting in place concrete sanctions he stated any such action was a “long, long way off”, without explaining why.

    New Zealand must be clear about its foreign policy position, not hide behind diplomatic and insincere rhetoric and exercise courage by sanctioning Israel as it has done with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

    As a minimum, it must honour its responsibilities under the Convention on Genocide and, not least, to offer hope and support for the utterly powerless and vulnerable Palestinian people before it is too late.

    John Hobbs is a doctoral candidate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Australia: TV interview Andrew Clennell, Sky News

    Source: Australian Attorney General’s Agencies

    Andrew Clennell: Joining me live now is the Trade Minister, Don Farrell. Don Farrell, thanks for your time. Well, let’s talk about this first meeting with Donald Trump the PM is scheduled to have this week. Do you expect the meeting to occur and what do you expect to happen?

    Minister for Trade: Look, we’ll see what happens this time next weekend. You’re very obviously up to date with all of the latest and it sounds like you’re going to be there Andrew, so we can watch you report on it.

    Andrew Clennell: What do you think the response from the PM will be if Donald Trump echoes Pete Hegseth’s call for more defence spending?

    Minister for Trade: Look, one of the most important, or perhaps the most important obligation of any Federal Government is the defence of our country and Anthony Albanese and Richard Marles and our government take those responsibilities very, very seriously. We’re committed to the AUKUS program. In fact, the weekend before last, just before I went to Europe for the trade talks, I met with the UK Defence Industries Minister in Adelaide, with the Premier, and we endorsed, and re-endorsed Australia’s support for the, for the AUKUS submarine project. So, we are committed to the defence of this country. We are committed to a significant uplift in the, in the amount of spending. As you said, that’s going to be a project worth more than $360 billion. So, I think we’ve talked the talk here, Andrew. We are committed to the defence of this country and we are committed to increasing our spending to ensure that Australia stays safe in our region.

    Andrew Clennell: What did you make of the way that Pete Hegseth put that on Richard Marles at the Shangri-La dialogue and then released a statement concerning the request or the demand, putting the 3.5 per cent figure on that public statement?

    Minister for Trade: Look, the Americans will do what they want to do. That’s certainly the case in a whole range of areas now. But we have an excellent Defence Minister in Richard Marles. He’s very focused on ensuring that all of our defence capabilities are as strong as they can be and as strong as they need to be. We’re focused on what Australia needs to do and we’ll make our decisions based on what is in our national interest.

    Andrew Clennell: Well, on trade, the Opposition’s made a bit during the week while you’re away in Paris, we’ll get to that in a minute, but they made a bit of the fact that the UK have secured a 50 per cent reduction on steel tariffs. Why aren’t we getting the same? Or can we get the same? What do you make of that? I mean, you met Jamieson Greer, the US Trade Rep, last week. Were there any signs out of him we could get a deal on steel?

    Minister for Trade: Look, I did meet Jamieson Greer. I met him twice. And that’s on top of previous conversations I’ve had with him. The position I’ve put to Jamieson Greer is that the tariffs that the United States have imposed on Australia are unjustified. America has a trade surplus with Australia. Just to put that into perspective, trade between the United States and Australia is roughly $100 billion a year. That’s $70 billion worth of product we buy from the United States and $30 billion worth of product we sell to them. Now, that’s overwhelmingly in the United States favour. So, there is no justification for the United States to impose tariffs on Australia. So, the position I’ve put to Mr Greer, and I put it twice last week, is that we want all of the tariffs removed, not just some of them. We want all of them removed. And I made it clear to USTR Greer that we’ll continue to press for the removal of all of those tariffs.

    Andrew Clennell: You talk about the trade surplus, isn’t it the case that because of these tariffs, in April, it was a deficit reading here. Australia exported 2.29 billion in goods to the US while importing 3.99 billion in April?

    Minister for Trade: Well, that’s my point, Andrew. We are buying more from the United States than we’re selling to them. So, it doesn’t make any sense at all to impose a tariff on Australia. So, the argument that I’ve made, and I’m sure the Prime Minister will be making every opportunity that he gets, is we want all of these tariffs removed, not just some of them. 

    Andrew Clennell: How did Jamieson Greer react? Did he give any sort of hint to you that, oh, we could move on this, or was it like, this is the President’s position and tough luck.

    Minister for Trade: Look, he certainly made it clear that these are ultimately decisions that the President of the United States will make, but look it was a friendly discussion. It wasn’t a difficult discussion in terms of the relationship between us. I’m certainly of the view that we have the opportunity to continue to talk with Jamieson and Commerce Secretary Lutnick to put our case across that these tariffs on Australia are simply unjustified. We don’t imply, you know, we haven’t applied tariffs to the United States. We could do that. We could have done that. We’ve chosen not to do that. In the same way you might recall when I first came to this job, Andrew, we had $20 billion worth of tariffs and impediments imposed on us by China. We didn’t retaliate on that occasion. And bit by bit, we managed to get all of those tariffs that had been applied on Australia by China removed. I’d like to do the same with the United States. It’s only by open discussion, honest discussion with our allies in the United States that I think we can do that. But I certainly haven’t given up on the prospect of getting these tariffs removed. And every opportunity I get, I’ll continue to pursue that argument with the United States. At the same time, of course, we’re looking for –

    Andrew Clennell: Well, from what you’re saying, Don Farrell, about what Jamieson Greer said to you, it’s all down to Albo, if I can use his nickname. Because he’s saying to you that it’s the President’s decision, it’s his call, and our Prime Minister’s the one about to potentially to meet Donald Trump. So, it shapes as a pretty critical meeting, doesn’t it?

    Minister for Trade: Look, every meeting, I think, between an Australian Prime Minister and the US President will always be a critical meeting. And I have the greatest confidence in our Prime Minister to push the Australian point of view on this issue. But look, there’s a range of ways in which we communicate with the United States. Ambassador Rudd obviously does it. All of our Ministers who make contact with their equivalents in the United States make it clear what we want out of the relationship with the United States. And of course, most importantly, as you say, is the relationship between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States.

    Andrew Clennell: Are you expecting, if there isn’t a breakthrough here, further tariffs? Because there’s talk about Donald Trump making further decisions, certainly in relation to the UK at least, July 9 Liberation Day. So, perhaps rather than trying to get the 10 per cent off, it’s about the steel tariffs, but also about preventing even further action, this meeting, if it occurs, isn’t it?

    Minister for Trade: Look, the main topic at our discussions at the WTO and the OECD last week were on this very topic, Andrew, ensuring that there is a way that countries don’t increase the amount of protectionism. We advocate very strongly for free and fair trade. The way in which we have achieved our prosperity in this country is through that free and fair trade. And I think there’s a mood around the world to push the case for less protectionism and more free and fair trade. I took the opportunity last week to talk with my European counterparts. I met the French Trade Minister, the German Trade Minister, and of course, the most important one in that is the European Trade Minister. We had good discussions. My officials spent a couple of days after the meeting continuing those talks. I’m hopeful that those countries around the world who do believe in free and fair trade can reach agreement to extend free trade agreements across the globe, so that irrespective of what the Americans might choose to do, we have a greater diversity of trading partners.

    Andrew Clennell: What do you think’s been the effect of the Trump tariffs thus far on the Australian economy and the world economy?

    Minister for Trade: Look, there’s no doubt that it’s had an impact. When you impose those sort of tariffs, it’s inevitably going to impact growth. This is one of the arguments that we make to the Americans. If you want to grow your economy, the way to do it isn’t to impose tariffs, it’s to be engaged actively in free and fair trade. And so the more you impose tariffs, the greater impact that you have on your own economy and the world economy. And what we’re seeing now, of course, is the outcome of some of these policy decisions. So, I think it’s incumbent on Australia, on the rest of the world, to say to the Americans, look, these are exactly the wrong policies to adopt. You should be adopting the opposite policies. You should be opening up your economies. What we know is if you’re an outward facing trading company in Australia, your profits are going to be higher, but more importantly, the wages of your employees are going to be higher. So, we say to the Americans, and will continue to say to the Americans, these are the exact wrong policies to adopt.

    Andrew Clennell: Donald Trump has announced talks overnight between US and Chinese officials on Monday in London. Are you hoping for progress there? And how bad for Australia could this sort of US Tariffs on China situation get?

    Minister for Trade: Yeah, so I, while I was in Europe, of course, the speculation was that the Chinese and the Americans would quickly meet to discuss these issues. I met with my counterpart from China, Wang Wentao, that was our 10th meeting, and he’s made it very clear that just as we have done, they want these tariffs removed. So, I think that’s a very good sign and we would welcome any development that restored the free trade arrangement between the United States and China. And we would encourage those discussions. I know from talking with my Chinese counterpart, they’re very keen to get these tariffs removed. And these tariffs do have an impact, as you say, Andrew, on Australia. It’s one thing for the Americans to impose a 10 per cent tariff on Australia. But when they’re imposing those tariffs on other countries around the world that we trade with, that we sell our resources to, well, then that also has an impact on our economy.

    Andrew Clennell: Can you confirm what I’ve just reported that Australia apparently did come close to securing some kind of exemption from Donald Trump’s tariffs in April with a deal on critical minerals. And there was an indication from some sections of the US Administration to our officials that an exemption could be forthcoming, and then it all fell apart.

    Minister for Trade: Well, I’m not sure it’s all falling apart, Andrew. We continue to encourage the United States –

    Andrew Clennell: But Don Farrell, just on the key point here, were we close to a deal? Did people in the administration put us in a position where we were thinking a deal might be closed back then before that April announcement?

    Minister for Trade: Oh, look, Andrew, I’m not going to speculate on what might or might not have occurred had the circumstances been a little bit different, but I can certainly confirm that Australia pushed very hard for an exemption. And in the process of pushing very hard for that exemption, we did offer an expanded arrangement in terms of critical minerals. Australia is the lucky country, we have either the largest or the second largest of reserves of critical minerals. We have the technology to extract those critical minerals, and we are a reliable trading partner. So, we thought that in all of those circumstances, that would be an offer that would be attractive to the United States.

    Andrew Clennell: Was Kevin Rudd taking the lead in that? Was Kevin Rudd taking the lead in that as our ambassador?

    Minister for Trade: Kevin Rudd, of course, was involved in all of these discussions, as he should be. And he’s doing a very good job, I might say, in his communications with the US Government. But all of us, Madeleine King, our Resources Minister, myself, we have been all encouraging the United States to take up our offer to expand our relationship on critical minerals. Other countries are doing it. We’ve got an agreement now with the European Union, the Japanese, the South Koreans are all interested. The Singaporeans are interested in our critical minerals. We think we’ve got something to offer.

    Andrew Clennell: Sure.

    Minister for Trade: In that regard, the quality and our ability to extract –

    Andrew Clennell: How damaging to Australia in terms of this tariffs issue, do you think this Peter Navarro is? 

    Minister for Trade: Look, the Americans pick their advisors and we pick ours. My job is to continue to explain to the Americans firstly that the policies that they’re adopting are exactly the wrong policies to produce prosperity in the United States. So, we’ve got to continue to argue that point. And I think as time goes by, it’ll be increasingly obvious that these policies are the wrong policies. And secondly, my job is to convince the Americans that they shouldn’t be imposing tariffs on, firstly, a good ally to the United States like Australia, and secondly, that these tariffs are unjustified given the surplus situation that we have with the United States. 

    Andrew Clennell: Sure. In May, Donald Trump also threatened a 100 per cent tariff on foreign films. Is that coming, do you think?

    Minister for Trade: Look, I’m not sure where that’s up to at the moment. Again, we would strongly argue that the United States not do that. One of the reasons why America has looked to Australia in the area of film production is during COVID and the post-COVID period, we were able to deliver services, great quality filmmaking, when that wasn’t possible in the United States. So, we haven’t done this simply to benefit the Australian film industry, we’ve done it to benefit the American and the world film industry because we were able to produce wonderful films using all the latest technology. And that’s been a benefit to the United States film industry. Something that couldn’t have happened without Australia being engaged in this. So, again, we would say this is the wrong policy. We have got a good film industry in Australia. It’s an expanding film industry. They produce beautiful films. In fact, last week I went to the 50th anniversary of Sunday Too Far Away and met Jack Thompson. We’ve got a wonderful history of making films in this country.

    Andrew Clennell: Yeah, well, good actor. But look, I’m out of time here Don Farrell, I just want to ask one question which is pretty important I suspect, and that’s about the Paris talks with the EU on a trade deal. Are there any sticking points remaining? Are we taking off a luxury car tax in exchange for allowing our beef exports into the EU? Is there still issues of the use of the word prosciutto and parmesan? Could we be producing so called Australian made parmesan soon? And do you expect all this to be finalised for a visit by the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in July or August?

    Minister for Trade: Look, all of those things you’ve just mentioned, Andrew, are still issues. We haven’t yet got an agreement, but there was a lot of goodwill in the air in Paris last week. I’m confident that if that goodwill continues, that we can secure a new free trade agreement with the European Union. You know, there’s 450 million people, trillions of dollars of GDP in Europe. We’ve got lots of things that we can sell to the Europeans. I believe now that there’s an appetite to reach an agreement on both sides. The world has changed. Those countries that believe in free and fair trade have to work together, and I’m very confident, Andrew, that with a little bit of time, a little bit of hard work on our part, because it’s not going to be easy. If it was easy, somebody else would have done it. But we can get there and we can strike an agreement.

    Andrew Clennell: Trade Minister Don Farrell, thanks so much for your time.

    Minister for Trade: Good to talk to you, Andrew.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Africa: African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM): “Fitch’s Downgrade of Afreximbank’s Rating is Based on Flawed Loan Classification”

    Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:

    JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, June 8, 2025/APO Group/ —

    In line with Decision [Assembly/AU/Dec.631(XXVII)] of the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government and Article 6(g) of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) Statute (2020), which together mandate the APRM to provide support to African countries in the field of credit ratings. The APRM routinely undertakes independent analyses of rating actions and commentaries issued by international credit rating agencies on African sovereigns and multilateral financial institutions.

    On 4 June 2025, Fitch Ratings downgraded African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank), lowering its long-term foreign currency issuer default rating from ‘BBB’ to ‘BBB-’ with a negative outlook. Fitch justified its decision by citing a perceived increase in credit risk and weak risk management policies, based on its estimate that the bank’s non-performing loans (NPLs) stood at 7.1%. This estimate stems from Fitch’s classification of exposures to the sovereign Governments of Ghana (2.4%), South Sudan (2.1%) and Zambia (0.2%) as NPLs. Notably, this 7.1% figure is significantly higher than the 2.44% ratio reported by Afreximbank in its own disclosures.

    The APRM notes with concern Fitch Ratings’ misclassification of Afreximbank’s sovereign exposures to the Governments of Ghana, South Sudan and Zambia as NPLs. This classification raises critical legal, institutional and analytical issues which the APRM strongly contests. The assumption that Ghana, South Sudan and Zambia would default on their loans to Afreximbank is inconsistent with the 1993 Treaty establishing the Bank to which Ghana and Zambia are both founding members, shareholders and signatories. The Multilateral Treaty signed in 1993 is legally binding on all member countries, imposing specific legal obligations related to the Bank’s protection, immunities and financial operations.

    By virtue of this Treaty, loans extended by Afreximbank to its member countries are governed by a framework of intergovernmental cooperation and mutual commitment, rather than typical commercial risk principles. It is, therefore, legally incongruent to classify a loan to member countries as non-performing, especially when the borrower states are shareholders in the lender institution, no formal default has occurred and none of the sovereigns have repudiated the obligation.

    Fitch’s unilateral treatment of these sovereign exposures – as comparable to market-based commercial loans – despite their backing by treaty obligations and shareholder equity stakes, is flawed. Doing so reflects a misunderstanding of the governance architecture of African financial institutions and the nature of intra-African development finance. Fitch has misinterpreted the invitation extended by Ghana, South Sudan and Zambia to Afreximbank to discuss the loan repayments as signalling an intention to default and/or to lift the Preferred Creditor Status.

    The APRM calls upon Fitch Ratings to re-examine its criteria and assumptions in this case and to engage in technical consultations with Afreximbank and other relevant African stakeholders. Objective, transparent and context-intelligent credit assessments are critical to ensuring fair treatment of African institutions in the global financial system. The APRM reaffirms its commitment to promoting accuracy in the credit ratings.

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Employment Issues – Suspension of Te Roopu Taurima workers unacceptable – CTU

    Source: New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi

    The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi stands in solidarity with the 38 workers and PSA members who have been suspended without pay by disability residential care provider Te Roopu Taurima o Manukau Trust.

    “We condemn the actions of Te Roopu Taurima in the strongest possible terms and call on them to lift the suspensions on their workers and get back around the negotiating table,” said NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff.

    “Responding to low-level strike action by suspending workers without pay for six weeks is an extraordinarily cruel action that has no place in employment relations in this country.

    “The right to strike must be defended and upheld. Bullying and intimidation of workers is totally unacceptable.

    “These suspensions come after protracted mistreatment of workers by Te Roopu Taurima, including a partial lockout put in place right before Christmas.

    “This standoff has occurred because Te Roopu Taurima are trying to bring in 90-day trials, restrictions on secondary employment, while keeping wages low. They have rejected an independent recommended settlement by the Employment Relations Authority because they don’t want to resolve this issue fairly.

    “The NZCTU stands in solidarity with these workers and the PSA in their fight for decent pay and conditions at work,” said Wagstaff.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI China: China, EU discuss EV anti-subsidy case, brandy anti-dumping probe, export controls

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

    China’s Minister of Commerce Wang Wentao and European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security Maros Sefcovic held talks in Paris on June 3 on the EU’s anti-subsidy case involving Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), China’s anti-dumping investigation into brandy originating from the EU, and export control policies, a Ministry of Commerce spokesperson said Saturday.

    The two sides conducted focused, candid and in-depth discussions on urgent and important issues including the above during their talks, and instructed their work teams to step up efforts to make economic and trade preparations for the important agenda between China and the EU this year, the spokesperson said.

    They conducted a professional, in-depth discussion on the EV case, making a significant step in the right direction toward proper resolution of the case, the ministry said.

    Price commitment negotiations on the EV case between China and the EU have entered their final stage, but further efforts from both sides are still needed. The EU also proposed the exploration of new technical paths, which China will assess for feasibility from both legal and technical perspectives, according to the ministry.

    Both sides instructed their work teams to redouble efforts to find mutually acceptable solutions in a manner that complies with their respective legal provisions and WTO rules, and to resolve trade differences in the proper manner, the ministry said.

    On the brandy case, it noted that both sides had a “friendly and candid” discussion. French enterprises and relevant associations have submitted price commitment applications to the Chinese side, and they have reached an agreement with China’s investigatory authorities on the core terms of those price commitments.

    China is reviewing the complete text of the price commitments, and should they pass this review process, the final ruling announcement should be issued before July 5, according to the ministry.

    China has fully demonstrated its sincerity in resolving its trade differences with the EU through dialogue and consultation. It also hopes that the EU will work with China in the same direction, address China’s concerns properly, and create conditions for the further expansion of cooperation, the spokesperson said.

    Wang clarified China’s export control policies for the EU side, emphasizing that implementing export controls on rare earths and other items is a common international practice, according to the spokesperson.

    China attaches great importance to the concerns of the EU side, and is willing to establish a green channel for eligible applications and expedite the approval process, the ministry said. China has also instructed relevant work teams to maintain timely communication on this matter.

    Wang expressed hope that the EU side will work in the same direction with China and take effective measures to facilitate, guarantee and promote the compliant trade of high-tech products with China, according to the spokesperson.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: TV interview with Patricia Karvelas, ABC News Afternoon Briefing

    Source: Australian Attorney General’s Agencies

    Patricia Karvelas: Trade Minister Don Farrell is in Paris at the moment, meeting with his European counterparts on the sidelines of the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting. I spoke to him a short time ago. Minister, welcome to the program.

    Minister for Trade: Thank you, Patricia.

    Patricia Karvelas: You’ve said talks have been positive. What’s different this time round?

    Minister for Trade: The world has changed since the last time we had had negotiations with the Europeans. The fact that we’ve had the largest group of trade ministers meeting here in Paris this week, I think is a pretty good clue that most countries think that things have changed and that those countries that are committed to free and fair trade, as we are, need to do more to ensure that we make progress and show the rest of the world that we can in fact prosper by free and open trade. I think that’s the key thing that’s changed in the last 18 months, Patricia.

    Patricia Karvelas: And has there been an escalation in the interest, the enthusiasm, essentially because of the Trump agenda that’s upended global tariffs and the global tariff war?

    Minister for Trade: Look, I think certainly this week I’ve probably had more discussions with more countries in the space of two days than I’ve ever had in the past. Those countries that are interested in free and fair trade want to do more. You’ll recall one of our first interviews, Patricia, I was in Japan. We were renewing our trade relationship with Japan. We wanted to commit to diversifying our trading relationship and that’s exactly what we’ve done. We’ve got new trade agreements. We want to do more trade agreements. Every time we do one of those trade agreements, we improve the prosperity of our country. What we know is if you’re an outward facing company, then your profits are likely to be higher than one just selling internally. And secondly, and I think importantly, the wages of your staff likely to be higher. So, there’s lots of good reasons why we should trade, and other countries feel the same way.

    Patricia Karvelas: Can you name any countries that look like they might be interested in perhaps changing the arrangements between us and them where the actual dial has changed significantly?

    Minister for Trade: Well, you know, the European Union, that’s 27 countries just in one hit there. I had a very, very good meeting with the new Trade Commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič. Fortunately, he’s Slovakian and one of my staff speaks Slovakian, so that’s very good. He’s made it very clear that those 27 countries are interested in another crack at a free trade agreement. It was a very positive meeting. There was a lot of warmth in the room. We’ve sent our officials off today to Brussels to see if we can nut out the bones of an agreement. And if we can, we’re going to move very quickly on that one.

    Patricia Karvelas: What sort of time frame are you thinking?

    Minister for Trade: Look, I’m reluctant to set a timeframe because, of course, that creates expectations and, you know, if you don’t meet them, well, it looks like you’re not making progress. But both of us have agreed that we’ll move as quickly as we can. I had a very good meeting with my good friend, Trade Minister Goyal from India. He’s keen for a fresh trade agreement. We can do more with India. India, the largest country in the world now. A country where by 2030, they say that they’ll have 900 million people in what they describe as their middle class. And what we know is when people move into that middle class, their expectations of food and wine go up. And, of course, no country produces better food and wine than Australia.

    Patricia Karvelas: Well, I think we can agree on that. Let me take you to the EU sticking points. In the past, we’ve obviously had disputes over the naming rights of things like Prosecco or feta. Does it look like they might be moving on those issues?

    Minister for Trade: Look, it’s early, early days, Patricia. I’m hoping that with some goodwill and some tough bargaining, there’s still going to be plenty of tough bargaining to go on that, we can resolve all of the outstanding issues that were the impediments to getting an agreement last time. We have to be prepared to compromise. I think we have to make compromises if we’re going to get an agreement, but so do they. I think if we can, if we can reach a point where both of us feel that the agreement is in the best interest of both of our regions, then I think we can get there.

    Patricia Karvelas: Ok. And the opposition has already said that you need to be playing hardball. And clearly, they’re kind of putting out the markers of what they would consider, indeed, a fair deal for Australia. Are you playing hardball?

    Minister for Trade: I’m doing what I always do, Patricia, which is coolly and calmly negotiate these things through. I mean, you have to remember this opposition. When we came to government three years ago, we had $20 billion worth of trade impediments from China. That opposition didn’t get a single tariff removed, a single extra kilo of beef into China. Come last Christmas, we got the final impediments moved when we freed up crayfish sales back into China. And, you know, not only did we get that $20 billion worth of trade back, but when it did come back, we’re actually selling more than we were before the impediments were introduced. That’s certainly the case with a whole range of the products.

    Patricia Karvelas: There have been improvements. Let me put this to you. The EU wants greater access to our skilled migrant scheme. Is that something that you’re willing to look at?

    Minister for Trade: Look, these are all things that they can raise, and we’re raising issues too. As much as I’d like to do the negotiations on the ABC.

    Patricia Karvelas: Ok, but is that a hard no for you or are you open to that concept?

    Minister for Trade: Look, look, look, they are entitled to put issues on the table just as we are. And we’ll work through all of those issues. And I think my job is to come up with the best possible agreement that improves the prosperity of Australian businesses and Australian workers. And that’s exactly what I’m going to do in this process.

    Patricia Karvelas: Now, you’ve also met with Jamieson Greer, that’s the US Trade Representative, on the sidelines there of this OECD meeting. I’m guessing you pretty much pressed the case on tariffs. Did you ask, Minister, for the same deal as the UK has on metals’ tariffs? Because we’ve got that 50 per cent tariff now. Have you asked for the 25 per cent tariff?

    Minister for Trade: No, I’ve asked for a better deal, Patricia. I’ve asked for the removal of all tariffs on Australian products. And the reason for that is that, and I think we might have discussed this on a previous occasion, our trade relationship with the Americans roughly works this way. It’s worth $100 billion, $70 billion is what the Americans sell us, $30 billion is what we sell them. The trade relationship between Australia and the United States is overwhelmingly in the United States interest benefit. And so, I think that the best position that we can adopt is simply that we don’t accept that we should be subject to reciprocal tariffs when the trade relationship is so overwhelmingly in favour of the United states.

    Patricia Karvelas: Sure, but the UK currently, though Minister, with respect, does have a better. I mean, it’s still a tariff, but it has a better rate of tariff than we do. So, you might have asked for something better, but currently the UK has the better deal. Have you been trying to press for a deal? Are we likely to get a deal with the US?

    Minister for Trade: What we would like, Patricia, is for the United States to honour the free trade agreement that’s been in place now for 20 years which says that all of these products should be going into the United States tariff free. That’s our position, Patricia, and that’s what we want the Americans to do. And that’s what I’ll continue to press Mr Greer and Mr Lutnick for.

    Patricia Karvelas: What reception did you get when you asked?

    Minister for Trade: Look, he understood, and he acknowledged. In fairness to him, he acknowledged that the trade relationship between Australia and the US is very much in their favour. I mean, look, he’s a busy man let me tell you. What the Americans have done is tear up 80 post war years of trade agreements and said that they want to rewrite those trade agreements in the space of 90 days. Now, we’re already 60 days into that 90 days, and only one agreement has been released – reached – and that’s the one that you referred to with the United Kingdom. So, obviously –

    Patricia Karvelas: Just to be clear, are you hopeful that we will get a deal just like the UK has now?

    Minister for Trade: I want a better deal than the UK. I want America to honour its obligations under our free trade agreement and remove all of those tariffs: the 10 per cent tariffs on goods other than steel and aluminium and the 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium.

    Patricia Karvelas: But you have to accept that that’s unlikely given Trump’s agenda, right so that’s where the negotiation comes in. Right now we don’t have a deal at all.

    Minister for Trade: Patricia, no, well that’s true, that’s true. We don’t have a deal. But Patricia, anybody who thinks that they know how this is all going to play out is kidding you. There’s still a long way to go out, to go in this process. Already we’ve seen pushback in the American legal system to the introduction of these tariffs decisions, overturning the tariffs. Sure, there’s a long way to go in the legal processes there. But look, we’re, we’re going to be staying calm. We haven’t retaliated. Some countries have retaliated. I met with the Chinese Trade Minister, Wang Wentao, that was my tenth meeting with him. He indicated to me what their response to the Americans was. I indicated to him that Australia was not going to retaliate. We didn’t retaliate when we were subject to tariff increases by China. We’re not going to retaliate against the United States. We have a very strong defence relationship with the United States. But, Patricia, we are going to press our arguments strongly for the removal of these tariffs.

    Patricia Karvelas: You mentioned defence. I just need to check, are you linking the defence spending at all with this?

    Minister for Trade: No. We are not two separate issues. We have an excellent Defence Minister in Richard Marles, and he’ll continue to progress the the AUKUS discussions. We’re not going to link the two. You might recall that Mr. Dutton was proposing to link the two I think –

    Patricia Karvelas: I recall absolutely, which is why I’m checking. Minister, we’re out of time, but thank you so much for joining us all the way at a very different time from Paris. Appreciate your time.

    Minister for Trade: Great to talk with you, Patricia.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Vice Premier of the State Council of China to visit the UK, hold first meeting of China-US economic and trade consultation mechanism

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

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

    BEIJING, June 7 (Xinhua) — At the invitation of the British government, He Lifeng, member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Vice Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), will visit the UK from June 8 to 13, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in Beijing on Sunday.

    As specified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while in the United Kingdom, He Lifeng will hold the first meeting of the China-US Trade and Economic Consultation Mechanism together with US representatives. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Carney announces new parliamentary secretary team

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced a new parliamentary secretary team focused on building Canada strong.

    Canadians elected this new government with a mandate to define a new economic and security relationship with the United States, to build a stronger economy, to bring down costs, and to keep our communities safe. Parliamentary secretaries will support their respective cabinet ministers and secretaries of state to deliver on this mandate.

    The new parliamentary secretary team is appointed as follows:

    • Karim Bardeesy becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
    • Jaime Battiste becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations
    • Rachel Bendayan becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
    • Kody Blois becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
    • Sean Casey becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence
    • Sophie Chatel becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
    • Madeleine Chenette becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Sport)
    • Maggie Chi becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
    • Leslie Church becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour, for Seniors, and for Children and Youth, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families (Persons with Disabilities)
    • Caroline Desrochers becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure
    • Ali Ehsassi becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy (Canada-U.S. Trade)
    • Mona Fortier becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
    • Peter Fragiskatos becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
    • Vince Gasparro becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)
    • Wade Grant becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
    • Claude Guay becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
    • Brendan Hanley becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs
    • Corey Hogan becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
    • Anthony Housefather becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience
    • Mike Kelloway becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade
    • Ernie Klassen becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries
    • Annie Koutrakis becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families
    • Kevin Lamoureux becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
    • Patricia Lattanzio becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
    • Ginette Lavack becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services
    • Carlos Leitao becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
    • Tim Louis becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy (Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy)
    • Jennifer McKelvie becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure
    • Marie-Gabrielle Ménard becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)
    • David Myles becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Nature)
    • Yasir Naqvi becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (International Development)
    • Taleeb Noormohamed becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation
    • Rob Oliphant becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
    • Tom Osborne becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
    • Jacques Ramsay becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
    • Pauline Rochefort becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)
    • Sherry Romanado becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
    • Jenna Sudds becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)
    • Ryan Turnbull becomes Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

    Prime Minister Carney also announced that Élisabeth Brière will serve as Deputy Chief Government Whip, and Arielle Kayabaga will serve as Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

    Quote

    “Canada’s new parliamentary secretary team will deliver on the government’s mandate for change, working collaboratively with all parties in Parliament to build the strongest economy in the G7, advance a new security and economic partnership with the United States, and help Canadians get ahead.”

    Quick Fact

    • Parliamentary secretaries are chosen by the Prime Minister to assist ministers and secretaries of state.

    Associated Link

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • India calls for global action on extreme heat risk at UNDRR session in Geneva

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Calling extreme heat a “global crisis,” Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Dr. P. K. Mishra urged coordinated international action during a keynote address at the Special Session on Extreme Heat Risk Governance hosted by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) in Geneva on Thursday.

    Dr. Mishra’s remarks echoed the urgency expressed by the UN Secretary-General, highlighting that rising temperatures now pose a systemic threat to public health, economic stability, and ecological resilience worldwide.

    “Heatwaves are no longer seasonal inconveniences; they are transboundary, systemic risks—especially for densely populated urban areas,” Dr. Mishra said, emphasizing the need for global collaboration on early warning systems, climate-resilient infrastructure, and equity-focused interventions.

    India’s Proactive Heat Risk Management

    Detailing India’s experience, Dr. Mishra said the country has shifted from reactive disaster response to proactive and integrated heat risk management under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

    He noted that since 2016, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has issued comprehensive national guidelines for heatwave management—revised in 2019—which have enabled decentralized action through Heat Action Plans (HAPs).

    India now has over 250 cities and districts across 23 heat-prone states operating localized HAPs, supported by NDMA’s advisory and technical frameworks. The Ahmedabad Heat Action Plan, a pioneering model, was cited as a successful example of how early warning systems, inter-agency coordination, and community outreach can significantly reduce mortality during heatwaves.

    Whole-of-Government, Whole-of-Society Approach

    Dr. Mishra highlighted India’s “whole-of-government and whole-of-society” strategy, engaging ministries including health, agriculture, urban development, labor, power, education, and infrastructure.

    “Extreme heat deeply impacts communities, and India has actively incorporated traditional wisdom and local experiences into its response,” he said, pointing to the role of schools in spreading climate awareness and of primary health centers in delivering frontline care during heat events.

    India’s response also includes long-term urban resilience measures such as cool roof technologies, passive cooling centers, greening of urban spaces, and the revival of traditional water bodies. Importantly, the integration of Urban Heat Island (UHI) assessments into urban planning is becoming a standard practice in several cities.

    Policy Shift to Enable Funding for Mitigation

    Announcing a major policy shift, Dr. Mishra said that National and State Disaster Mitigation Funds (SDMF) can now be used for heatwave mitigation, allowing local governments, private sector entities, NGOs, and individuals to co-finance adaptation projects. This move, he said, reflects India’s commitment to shared responsibility and community-driven resilience.

    A Call for Global Cooperation

    While acknowledging India’s progress, Dr. Mishra identified key global challenges, including the need for a localized heat-humidity index using real-time data, and the development of affordable, culturally appropriate passive cooling innovations.

    He stressed that vulnerable populations—such as women, outdoor workers, the elderly, and children—are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat, and called for international mechanisms to ensure equitable adaptation.

    Concluding his address, Dr. Mishra affirmed India’s support for the UNDRR’s Common Framework for Extreme Heat Risk Governance, describing it as a vital platform for shared learning, data sharing, institutional capacity building, and joint research.

    “India is fully committed to sharing its expertise, technical capacities, and institutional strengths with global partners,” he said. “We must ensure a resilient, coordinated, and proactive global response to the rising threat of extreme heat.”

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Speech by CE at International Science, Technology and Innovation Forum of Boao Forum for Asia 2025 Hong Kong Conference (English only)

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    ​Following is the speech by the Chief Executive, Mr John Lee, at the International Science, Technology and Innovation Forum of the Boao Forum for Asia 2025 Hong Kong Conference today (June 7):

    Honourable Vice-Chairman Edmund Ho (Vice-Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and President of the International Science, Technology and Innovation Forum of Boao Forum for Asia), Deputy Director Liu Guangyuan (Deputy Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)), Deputy Commissioner Li Yongsheng (Deputy Commissioner of the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in the HKSAR), Professor Frederick Ma (Chairman of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council), distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI China: Chinese FM to attend FOCAC ministerial meeting of coordinators, 4th China-Africa Economic and Trade Expo

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

    Chinese FM to attend FOCAC ministerial meeting of coordinators, 4th China-Africa Economic and Trade Expo

    BEIJING, June 6 — Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi will attend the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinators on the Implementation of the Follow-up Actions of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Changsha, central China’s Hunan Province, from June 10 to 12, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson announced on Friday.

    Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, will also attend the opening ceremony of the Fourth China-Africa Economic and Trade Expo, also to be held in Changsha, said the spokesperson.

    When answering a related query at a regular press briefing, spokesperson Lin Jian said Wang Yi and representatives from the 54 African members of the FOCAC will attend the events.

    The FOCAC Beijing Summit was successfully held in September last year. Chinese President Xi Jinping attended the opening ceremony of the summit and delivered a keynote speech. China and Africa reached extensive common understandings on joining hands to advance modernization and building an all-weather China-Africa community with a shared future for the new era.

    The China-Africa relationship has been at its best in history, Lin noted.

    He added that following the summit, the two sides have been working closely together to actively implement the common understandings reached by the leaders and the outcomes of the summit, and have made important progress and achieved many early harvests.

    He said that China will enhance coordination with African countries with a focus on implementing the six proposals and 10 partnership initiatives put forward by President Xi for jointly advancing modernization, so that people in China and Africa will benefit more from the outcomes of the FOCAC summit.

    The two sides will work together to create more great stories about the high-quality development of China-Africa cooperation and send a strong message of solidarity and collaboration among members of the Global South, Lin said.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: China sees strengthened global influence in maritime arbitration: CCPIT chairman

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

    China’s international influence in maritime arbitration continues to grow steadily, with a marked increase in foreign-affairs-related cases and broader global engagement, said Ren Hongbin, chairman of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT).

    Ren, who is also director of the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC), made the remarks during a high-level dialogue on maritime and commercial arbitration in Beijing on Friday.

    In 2024, CMAC ranked among the world’s leading maritime arbitration institutions in terms of case volume. Foreign-affairs-related disputes last year increased 55 percent from 2023 and accounted for 39 percent of CMAC’s caseload, involving parties from 40 countries and regions, according to Ren.

    China is now home to 284 arbitration institutions nationwide, which have collectively handled over 5 million cases with a combined value exceeding 9 trillion yuan (about 1.25 trillion U.S. dollars) and involving disputing parties from more than 100 countries and regions.

    Looking ahead, Ren called for innovation-driven development in arbitration services and urged institutions to actively explore the application of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence.

    Leveraging information technology will reduce costs, improve efficiency and increase transparency, boosting the credibility and competitiveness of arbitration services on the global stage, Ren said. 

    MIL OSI China News