Agrégateur de flux

Intelligence Online understands Stuart Witchell, a veteran in financial investigations in Asia, former head of Asia-Pacific at JS Held, which

Paris - International firms' interest in arbitration cases keeps growingPrivate sleuth companies came in even greater numbers this year to

As growth slows, Beijing’s moves are drawing a global backlash.

Condemning a country’s human rights violations rarely works—but that doesn’t make it pointless

Diversifying Germany’s bilateral partnerships in the Indo-Pacific is one of the central goals of German policy. On the one hand, this diversification aims to reduce economic dependence on China, and on the other – in the context of systemic rivalry with authoritarian states – to bring about cooperation with states that share common values with Germany, so-called Wertepartnern (value-based partners). However, it is not clearly defined which values are fundamental to value-based partnerships. It also remains unclear which states in the Indo-Pacific are referred to as value-based partners and how these value-based partnerships differ from “normal” bilateral relations with other states in the region. Instead, this study shows that the significance that is rhetorically attached to cooperation with value-based partners is at odds with the vague concept of “value-based partnership” and its limited importance as a basis for bilateral cooperation. A comparison of value-based partners with a control group of non-value-based partners across different policy areas produces mixed results. The assumed correlation between being categorised as a value-based partner and closer international cooperation based on shared norms and values cannot, with any coherence, be demonstrated empirically. A comprehensive revision of the hitherto diffuse concept of value-based partnerships is recommended – either by normative sharpening, combined with a narrowing of the circle of states designated as value-based partners, or by eradicating the term from the political vocabulary.

When people argue that Israel and Hamas need to negotiate and make peace, they sometimes draw comparisons between Hamas and the IRA:

Yes, they have to negotiate w/ Hamas. Just like the Brits had to negotiate with the IRA in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. The IRA were terrorists. They almost killed Margaret Thatcher once. But negotiation was necessary for durable peace. Have to do it in Israel now & end the war https://t.co/3WblyxUcfB

— Zane (@zanealb04) March 8, 2024

It is not an unexpected sentiment.

Those negotiations led to the Good Friday Agreement in 2001, where the Irish Republican Army agreed to begin disarming. It was an amazing achievement.

CNN interviewed Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Powell praised the agreement, saying it "shows what can happen when one remains persistent and is determined to solve what appear to be intractable problems." Midway through the press conference, the topic of Israel came up.

The final question was, "Secretary Powell, does the situation in Northern Ireland not show us all that negotiations is really the only way forward in all of these situations?" Israel was not mentioned, but it clearly was on everyone's mind.

Powell responded:

what we have seen in Northern Ireland in the last 24 hours, which culminates a process that took many, many years long to get to this point, is an example of what can be achieved when people of good will come together, recognize they have strong differences -- differences that they have fought over for years -- but it's time to put those differences aside in order to move forward and to provide a better life for the children of Northern Ireland.

Very...tactful. He praised both the participants and the diplomatic process in general.

But Straw got in the last word:

It also has to be said that, before that happened, there had to be a change of approach by those who saw terrorism as the answer. And that approach partly changed because of the firmness of the military and police response to that terrorism. And if there had not been that firm response by successive British governments and others to the terrorist threat that was posed on both sides, we would not have been able to get some of those people into negotiation, and we'd not be marking what is a satisfactory day in the history of Northern Ireland today.

Before diplomacy could work, terrorism had to be defeated and those who practiced it had to reject it. And for that to happen, military force was necessary.

And terrorism still needs to be rejected. A diplomatic approach won't suffice.

Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, made this point in his Victory Project. He wrote in 2017 that Israel needs "to indicate to the Palestinians that this conflict, this war that they have been engaged in for a century, is over. And they lost. And they've got to recognize it." He describes a plan of deterrence that goes beyond tough tactics:

When Palestinian “martyrs” cause material damage, pay for repairs out of the roughly $300 million in tax obligations the government of Israel transfers to the Palestinian Authority (PA) each year. Respond to activities designed to isolate and weaken Israel internationally by limiting access to the West Bank. When a Palestinian attacker is killed, bury the body quietly and anonymously in a potter’s field. When the PA leadership incites violence, prevent officials from returning to the PA from abroad. Respond to the murder of Israelis by expanding Jewish towns on the West Bank. When official PA guns are turned against Israelis, seize these and prohibit new ones, and if this happens repeatedly, dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure. Should violence continue, reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies. In the case of gunfire, mortar shelling, and rockets, occupy and control the areas from which these originate.

Israel has used some of these suggestions, such as subtracting from the tax money that goes to the PA in response to Abbas's pay-to-slay program. And in light of the Hamas massacre of October 7, Israel may consider stricter measures, both in terms of Gaza and the West Bank. The measures themselves are not purely punitive. Their goal is deterrence and ultimately to show the Palestinian Arabs that they have lost.

That would be the opposite of the approach of the Dalai Lama to the terrorist attack of 9-11:

How to respond to such an attack is a very difficult question. Of course, those who are dealing with the problem may know better, but I feel that careful consideration is necessary and that it is appropriate to respond to an act of violence by employing the principles of nonviolence. The Dalai Lama (YouTube screenshot)
And yet even here, he leaves some wiggle room for a stronger, harsher approach:

Of course, in particular instances a more aggressive approach may also be necessary. Two years later, the Dalai Lama raised eyebrows when the New York Times reported, Dalai Lama Says Terror May Need a Violent Reply

The Dalai Lama, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and one of the world's most prominent advocates of nonviolence, said in an interview yesterday that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence... He goes on to say that ''terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures" and even suggests, at the time, that it was ''too early to say'' whether the war in Iraq was a mistake. 

In 2009, the Dalai Lama was still saying the same thing:

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa [non-violence] because the minds of terrorists are closed.

And if the minds of terrorists are closed, then as Jack Straw suggested, military force is necessary, and as Daniel Pipes says, you have to convince them that they have lost.

Who knows? Maybe even Biden understands that to a degree. In an interview following his State of the Union Address, Biden was asked when Hamas really wants a ceasefire:

Biden admits the futility of a ceasefire and acknowledges that Hamas will use the opportunity to rearm itself for more attacks -- before pausing and going back to attacking Israel, with an outlandish accusation that it is carpet-bombing Gaza, consistent with his unquestioning acceptance of Hamas's exaggerated number of casualties.

If Hamas is allowed to live to fight another day -- it will.
The fact remains -- Israel will not win unless Hamas loses.

 

L’Assemblée nationale débat mardi et mercredi d’une proposition de loi du député Renaissance Sacha Houlié visant à lutter contre les ingérences étrangères. Le texte prévoit notamment la création d’un registre pour les "agents étrangers" et un renforcement des prérogatives des services de renseignement. "Dans un contexte où nous observons une agression très forte des régimes autoritaires vers les démocraties, on a besoin de ce type de mesures", affirme Sacha Houlié à France 24.

Why nations must adopt a more comprehensive approach to space governance amid increasing geopolitical challenges.

Ryyan Alshebl left Syria in 2015 amid the ongoing war. Eight years later, he was elected mayor of the German town Ostelsheim — aged 29. He talked to EUobserver about his journey, the threat of extremism and humanitarian asylum systems.

From March 2018 to December 2019, the media reported on The Great March of Return. Each Friday, the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza approached the barrier separating Gaza from Israel in "spontaneous," "peaceful" protests, demanding the right to return to their homes in "Palestine." It didn't take long for Hamas to coopt the protests. Soon, amidst the smoke of burning tires and under cover of night, Gazans attempted to break through the fence into Israel.

These were not peaceful protests; they were destructive riots. But how does international law apply to civilian rioting in support of military objectives?

Which paradigm is applicable: Conduct of Hostilities or Law Enforcement -- or a combination of the two? 

And the media insisted on portraying the March as a series of "peaceful protests."

The March was useful for Hamas. It put pressure on Israel to deal with masses of Gazans at the barrier, many of whom tried to break through and infiltrate into Israel. The Gazans who were killed or injured became frontpage news generating worldwide condemnations of Israel

By the end of 2019, Hamas "postponed" the weekly riots.But on October 7, 2023, Hamas penetrated the barrier -- murdering, raping, and kidnapping Israeli civilians.

Now, riots against Israel are again in the news, but this time they are around the world. These are pro-Palestinian riots, and they are not peaceful -- but that does not stop the media from calling them "protests" even while describing the destruction they cause. After all, no one wants to admit the government is losing control:o  NBC: Buildings vandalized during pro-Palestinian rally in West Hartford: police
o  LA Daily News: Lawmakers call for DOJ investigation of pro-Palestinian vandalism at LA veterans cemetery
o  ABC News: Pro-Palestinian protesters deface front of the New York City Public Library
o  Axios: Multiple congressional offices hit with pro-Palestinian vandalism
o  Washington Times: Pro-Palestinian marchers push against White House fence, vandalize national monuments during protestBeyond the destruction, another goal of the riots is disruption:o  Reuters: Hundreds of Pro-Palestinian protesters arrested after blocking NYC bridges, tunnel
o  Haaretz: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Block Access to New York Times Newsroom, Accuse Staff of 'Complicity in Genocide'
o  NBC: Thousands of pro-Palestine protesters block downtown LA streets to call for ceasefireo  AP: Pro-Palestinian protesters block airport access roads in New York and Los Angeleso  ABC: Pro-Palestinian protests block New York City bridges, Holland Tunnel; over 300 arrestedSome have questioned the methods of the rioters. After all, how can they hope to change people's minds when they resort to violence and inconveniencing people? This misses the point. The rioters and those organizing them are not interested in reason and dialogue. They are pushing an agenda.
And they are using public disruptions as leverage.
This is not a new form of protest. It is an application and even a refinement of hybrid warfare. The NATO Review explains the concept:Conflicts are fought in new, innovative, and radically different ways. With the advent of modern hybrid warfare, they are less and less about lethal or kinetic force.

It is important to note here that the concept of hybrid warfare might not be entirely new. Many practitioners contend that it is as old as war itself. Nevertheless, it has gained significant currency and relevance in recent years as states employ non-state actors and information technology to subdue their adversaries during or—more importantly—in the absence of a direct armed conflict. [emphasis added]  Back in 2018, during The March, The Begin-Sadat Center For Strategic Studies made the connection between the Hamas-inspired riots and how other countries were also weaponizing unarmed civilians. For example, during the Russian campaign in Georgia:Those campaigns made deliberate and effective use of the combination of military force and civilian activity. In the fighting in Georgia, for example, armored forces were able to enter the north of the country thanks to the efforts of Russian-oriented Georgian-Abkhaz civilians, who, in a preparatory move, seized the tunnels and bridges of the expressway that leads to the capital, Tbilisi.
This is not limited to Russia, nor does there have to be a military component: "Similarly, Beijing is making use of thousands of civilian fishing boats in its efforts to extend its sovereignty over the South China Sea."
According to The NATO Review, hybrid warfare does not require a context of all-out war:What takes the centre stage here is the role of civilians: how they think and act in relation to the state. Contemporary digital and social media platforms allow hybrid actors to influence this to the detriment of the adversary state with considerable ease. The Russian online disinformation campaigns, some of which are very subtle yet grave, against some Western states constitute a good case in point. [emphasis added]The riots we are seeing are not spontaneous. They are a means to push an agenda, demanding that Biden and the Democratic Party support a ceasefire in Gaza. The alternative is the disruption of Biden's presidential campaign. 
These riots are not like the anti-Israel protests we are used to. The Toronto Sun points out that instead of the smaller, less organized anti-Israel protests we are used to, now: Hundreds, sometimes thousands, participate. They’ve got professionally-rendered signs and banners. They’ve got transportation, and food and drink. And they’ve got organizers who wear uniforms and control the crowds.

But there is more to this than just better organization; there is also better funding. But the money is for more than just staffing and supplies. People are being paid to riot:

pro-Palestine — and, increasingly, pro-Hamas — protestors are being paid to protest.  To block highways and roads.  To intimidate and threaten Jews and non-Jews. To cause chaos.

From the Palestinian Authority's pay-to-slay program, we have now arrived at the pay-to-riot program. The people who hold the money call the shots. Since the organizers are still paying out despite the riots, vandalism, and chaos  -- it appears that the rioting, vandalism, and chaos are what the organizers want.

According to Francesca Block, writing for The Free Press, one of those funding this chaos on the streets of the US is the American-born tech entrepreneur, Neville Roy Singham. He is the founder and one of the lead supporters of The People’s Forum. The group helped to organize at least four protests after October 7 as of November 14.  One of them was on October 8, before Israel had taken any action in Gaza:

The New York Times found ties between Singham and "a lavishly funded influence campaign that defends China and pushes its propaganda":

What is less known, and is hidden amid a tangle of nonprofit groups and shell companies, is that Mr. Singham works closely with the Chinese government media machine and is financing its propaganda worldwide.The article describes him as "a socialist benefactor of far-left causes." Singham denies any connection with the Chinese Communist Party or China itself. However, according to the article:He and his allies are on the front line of what Communist Party officials call a “smokeless war.” Under the rule of Xi Jinping, China has expanded state media operations, teamed up with overseas outlets and cultivated foreign influencers. The goal is to disguise propaganda as independent content. "Smokeless war" is a good description of hybrid warfare.
The August 2023 Times article makes no mention of Israel, Palestinian Arabs, or Gaza, but as a supporter of far-left causes Singham's People's Forum supporting violent protests is not surprising. For China, the riots are not necessarily a question of supporting Gaza, but rather using pro-Palestinian protests and the chaos they create to undermine the US. These Chinese media interests are helping sow discord in the U.S., Rep. Mike Gallagher, the chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, told The Free Press.

“The Chinese Communist Party uses tools like Confucius Institutes on college campuses, TikTok’s addictive algorithm, and organizations like those that Mr. Singham funds to divide and weaken America,” Gallagher said. If Gallagher is right, the chaos created by these "protests" is not a bug.
They are a feature.
Which means that Israel is not the only target.

Loopholes in international regulations on ship recycling are resulting in major human and environmental damage.

The monstrous terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in Russia triggered discussions about the need to reinstate death penalty in the country. It is the legal side of the issue that is being discussed, since the moratorium was established by the Constitutional Court. Russian officials believe that the moratorium on the death penalty that was introduced in Russia in 1996 in connection with the entry into the Council of Europe should be suspended. State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin believes that there is no need for any referendum here — it would only be enough for the Constitutional Court to lift it. Lawyers believe executions will return to Russia Experts maintain that according to the Constitutional Court's clarification from 2009, the binding nature of this or that political decision shall remain unchanged. However, the head of the State Duma Committee on Legislation, Pavel Krasheninnikov, said that there are grounds for lifting the moratorium.

A Károlyi és Társa Kft. 1990 óta foglalkozik építőipari kivitelezéssel, középületek, ipari- és lakóépületek építésével.

A fejlesztési beruházás keretében a Mezőberény, Vásártér utca 10. szám alatti üzemcsarnok bővítése valósult meg mintegy 834 m2-el. A csarnoképület utcai végében kiépített új iroda és szociális helyiségek szolgálják a dolgozók megfelelő munkahelyi körülményeit.

A projekt keretében egy 15 kWp teljesítményű napelemrendszer telepítése is megvalósult, melyet az új épületrész tetőzetére helyeztek el.

A vállalkozás a projekt során új termelőeszközöket is beszerzett, melyek a JCB 4CX Pro Stage5 AEC típusú földmunkagép, egy 3 tonna teherbírású dízelüzemű targonca, két db védőgázas Weldi -Míg 4500 W típusú hegesztőberendezés, valamint egy MBS 300 DG PRO típusú fémfűrészgép.

A projekt keretében a Károlyi és Társa Kft. a szervezeti struktúra és tevékenységek optimalizálását segítő szakértői szolgáltatást is igénybe vett, valamint 3 fő angol nyelvi képzése is megvalósult.

A megvalósított fejlesztések a vállalkozás hatékonyabb termelését segítik elő, továbbá a képzés és szervezeti struktúra korszerűsítésére vonatkozó tanácsadás a vállalat irányításában, a munkaerő felkészültségében jelent előrelépést, és hozzájárul a munkahelyek megtartásához is.

A Széchenyi Terv Plusz program GINOP_PLUSZ-1.2.3-21 számú pályázati kiírásán 125 059 300 forint támogatást elnyert, 178 656 143 forint összköltségvetésű fejlesztés 2022. február 28-án indult és 2024. február 29-én zárult.

Big-Agri is using markets in developing countries to sell products banned in Europe — despite their harmful effects on health and the environment.

While they woo dictators and autocrats, EU policymakers are becoming ever more estranged from the world's democrats. The real tragedy is the erosion of one of Europe's key assets: its huge reserves of soft power, writes Shada Islam.

Le déficit public de la France a atteint 5,5 % du PIB en 2023, à 154 milliards d'euros, a dévoilé, mardi, l'Insee. Ce chiffre est plus fort que les 4,8 % de déficit réalisés en 2022 et que les 4,9 % initialement prévus par le gouvernement pour 2023. 

(B2) Il ne faut pas s'y tromper. Face à des menaces qui s'aiguisent, l'impulsion donnée pour la défense européen au dernier sommet européen reste modeste, la dynamique entamée au printemps 2022 s'émousse, l'ambition reste limitée.

Des progrès ont été inclus dans les conclusions adoptées jeudi (21 mars) au soir. Un changement de braquet sûrement comme nous l'avons constaté (Lire : [Décryptage] Industrie et capacités de défense. Les Vingt-sept changent de braquet). Mais pas ce « changement de paradigme » tant vanté par les uns (Charles Michel) ou cette « révolution copernicienne » tant désirée par les autres (Emmanuel Macron).

Des avancées intéressantes

Les dirigeants européens ont avalisé en effet jeudi (21 mars) une série d'avancées en matière d'Europe de la défense : l'appel à la banque européenne d'investissement pour assouplir sa politique de prêts, la volonté d'avancer sur la réutilisation des revenus exceptionnels des avoirs gelés publics russes, un mandat donné à la Commission d'étudier toutes les options pour trouver d'autres sources de financement pour la défense, et la bénédiction donnée à la nouvelle stratégie pour l'industrie de défense proposée par Thierry Breton, etc. Des avancées auxquelles il faut ajouter la hausse du budget de la facilité européenne pour la paix de cinq milliards €, déjà engagée.

Des projets qui datent

Tous ces projets de réforme sont, en fait, sur la table depuis à peu près deux ans, depuis le sommet de Versailles qui s'est tenu en mars 2022, juste après le déclenchement de l'intervention militaire russe en Ukraine. Ils en sont l'aboutissement pour certains, une étape pour d'autres. Et pour avoir de nouvelles idées, notamment sur le financement, il faudra attendre juin prochain pour un premier rapport, encore quelques mois donc pour préciser ces idées et avoir des propositions concrètes, et sans doute encore un ou deux ans avant leur mise en place. Si tout va bien ! Car l'année 2024 est déjà « gelée », les Européens étant en campagne électorale et les institutions européennes en plein renouvellement.

Une révolution à demi-copernicienne

Affirmer « le principe que les Européens ont besoin de produire davantage et de bâtir une industrie de défense qui permette de (se) fournir (eux-mêmes) », est certes « une petite révolution copernicienne » si on reprend les mots d'Emmanuel Macron, à l'issue du sommet le 22 mars. Car jusqu'à présent le consensus « implicite était que les Européens (...) achetaient toujours à l'extérieur ». Mais c'est oublier la réalité géopolitique.

Un sens de l'urgence loupé

Avec une possible nouvelle offensive russe d'ici cet été, le blocage toujours latent du paquet d'aide américaine pour l'Ukraine, voire le retour de Trump au pouvoir aux USA, le résultat peut ainsi apparaitre assez faible et manque d'ambition. Le fameux « sens de l'urgence » vanté par quelques dirigeants européens est peu présent. L'impression est plutôt de revivre la seconde partie de 2021 ou début 2022, quand chacun attendait, en se disant que le pire ne va pas arriver. Les Européens retournent ainsi à leur pêché mignon : le procrastinage, la remise à plus tard des décisions délicates, le manque d'audace.

Faire face aux lacunes et à une possible défaillance américaine

Or, les défis sont intenses. Les Européens doivent tout d'abord mettre les bouchées doubles pour pallier leurs lacunes industrielles, rattraper leur "retard à l'allumage" sur la production de munitions qui a entrainé un déficit de 500.000 obus environ sur la promesse d'en fournir un million à l'Ukraine. Ils doivent aussi se préparer à assumer la défaillance - ou pire le blocage total - de leur allié américain. Attendre encore deux ans pour que les pistes ébauchées lors de ce sommet soient mises en œuvre parait hors du temps.

Garder un cap et une unité interne

Le sens de l'unité qui a été bien utile jusqu'à présent pourrait défaillir. Viktor Orban, le premier ministre hongrois, diverge régulièrement de l'intérêt général. Son voisin slovaque le suit à mi-mot. Le consensus fort sur le soutien à l'Ukraine de 2022 n'est plus tout à fait présent parmi les 27. La montée en puissance d'une droite nationale (RN en France, FPÖ en Autriche, AFD et consorts en Allemagne) moins dure sur la Russie, voire conciliante, ne laisse pas augurer une discussion aussi aisée à l'avenir. Enfin, il n'est pas sûr que le futur quintet de direction européenne soit aussi déterminé et harmonieux, du moins sur la défense, que l'actuel (1).

Garder le rythme et l'audace

Les risques sont multiples. L'agressivité russe n'est pas le seul défi des Européens. Le retour des menaces maritimes ou de conflits localisés en Afrique ou au Moyen-Orient est bien présent. Sans compter un possible retour du terrorisme. Baisser la garde, affaiblir le rythme est donc très risqué. La rapidité de décision doit s'imposer. Quitte à innover et sortir des carcans habituels. Les Européens doivent retrouver le dynamisme, l'audace et l'ambition qui les avait caractérisés, au printemps 2022.

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

Une task-force spéciale défense

Aucun dispositif n'a été mis en place pour pallier le vide institutionnel durant la période électorale (un Parlement européen en vacances durant trois mois). Aucune solution n'a non plus été proposée pour résoudre la fragmentation du pouvoir qui existe bien entre les différentes institutions sur les questions de défense : Commission européenne, Haut représentant, Parlement (pour la partie législative), Conseil des ministres, Conseil européen, etc.

Sans changer un iota des traités, une task-force spéciale pourrait facilement être mise en place sous l'autorité conjointe des trois principaux concernés (Conseil européen, Commission européenne, Haut représentant), avec l'aide des experts militaires de l'état-major de l'UE et experts capacitaires de l'agence européenne de défense. À l'image de ce qui s'est fait au début de la crise.

1. Il y a entre l'Allemande Ursula von der Leyen à la tête de la Commission européenne, l'Espagnol Josep Borrell chef de la diplomatie et défense européenne, le Français Thierry Breton en charge du marché intérieur et de l'industrie de défense, le Belge Charles Michel du côté du Conseil européen et la Maltaise Roberta Metsola, une sorte de quintet assez cohérent, convergent pour avancer, proposer, décider sur la partie défense et le soutien à l'Ukraine. Assez exceptionnel à signaler. Car sur le reste, tout les divises, les caractères, les appartenances politiques jusqu'à des egos qui se frottent de temps à autre en public.

La Macédoine du Nord pourrait bientôt accueillir des soldats ukrainiens blessés en convalescence, mais aussi des enfants évacués des zones de guerre, à la demande du Président Zelensky, formulée lors du récent Sommet de Tirana. La Croatie a déjà accueilli des soldats blessés.

- Le fil de l'Info / Relations internationales, Radio Slobodna Evropa, Macédoine du Nord, Ukraine

March is proving to be a tough month for Wagner recruiters. Messages posted to closed channels on Telegram reveal that the parastatal paramilitary group is urgently seeking new blood to relieve personnel stationed in the Central African Republic.Since publishing job