#government grants Singapore

[cksaksen-blog]

Big Changes to Singapore’s Welfare System: What Every Family Needs to Know!

The Singapore government has rolled out several key welfare initiatives aimed at improving support for the elderly, expanding housing grants for low-income families, and strengthening family welfare programs. These changes will provide increased financial aid in areas like healthcare, housing, and childcare, ensuring that vulnerable groups in society have better access to essential…

[onlineproxychecker]

Maximizing Efficiency for SMEs in Singapore: Government Grants, Inventory Management, and E-Invoicing Solutions

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of Singapore's economy. To stay competitive, SMEs must adopt efficient business solutions. This article explores how government grants for SMEs, effective inventory management systems in Singapore, and the InvoiceNow e-invoicing solution can help SMEs achieve operational excellence.

Leveraging Government Grants for SMEs

Understanding Government Grants

The Singapore government offers various grants to support SMEs in adopting technology and improving operations. These grants aim to reduce financial burdens and encourage innovation. For SMEs, understanding the available grants is crucial to fully leverage these opportunities.

Types of Government Grants

Severalgovernment grants for SMEs are available. For example, the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) supports the adoption of IT solutions and equipment. The Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) helps businesses grow and transform by funding projects in areas like innovation and productivity.

Benefits of Government Grants

Government grants provide financial assistance, allowing SMEs to invest in essential technology and systems. These grants can cover up to 80% of the project costs, making it easier for SMEs to implement necessary upgrades without straining their budgets. By taking advantage of these grants, SMEs can enhance their competitiveness and sustainability.

Implementing an Inventory Management System in Singapore

Importance of Inventory Management

Effective inventory management is crucial for any business, particularly for SMEs. An efficient inventory management system in Singapore ensures that businesses maintain optimal stock levels, avoid stockouts, and reduce excess inventory. This leads to better cash flow management and improved customer satisfaction.

Features of an Effective Inventory Management System

A good inventory management system offers real-time tracking, automated reordering, and detailed reporting. Real-time tracking provides accurate inventory levels, helping businesses make informed decisions. Automated reordering ensures that stock levels are always adequate, reducing the risk of stockouts. Detailed reporting helps businesses analyze inventory trends and optimize their inventory strategies.

Benefits for SMEs

Implementing an inventory management system helps SMEs streamline operations and reduce manual errors. It also improves order fulfillment and enhances customer satisfaction. With an effective inventory management system, SMEs can reduce carrying costs and increase profitability.

Embracing the InvoiceNow E-Invoicing Solution

What is InvoiceNow?

InvoiceNow is an e-invoicing solution that simplifies the invoicing process. It allows businesses to send and receive invoices electronically through a secure network. This eliminates the need for paper-based invoices and reduces processing time.

How InvoiceNow Works

The InvoiceNow e-invoicing solution operates on the Peppol network, a global e-invoicing standard. Businesses can send invoices directly from their accounting system to their customers' systems. This ensures that invoices are received promptly and accurately, reducing the risk of errors.

Benefits of InvoiceNow

Using InvoiceNow streamlines the invoicing process and improves cash flow. It reduces administrative costs associated with paper invoices and speeds up payment cycles. Additionally, InvoiceNow enhances data accuracy and reduces the risk of invoice disputes. For SMEs, adopting InvoiceNow can lead to significant time and cost savings.

Combining Solutions for Maximum Impact

Integrating Grants, Inventory Management, and E-Invoicing

By leveraging government grants for SMEs, businesses can fund the implementation of advanced inventory management systems in Singapore and InvoiceNow e-invoicing solutions. This integrated approach ensures that SMEs can optimize their operations comprehensively.

Real-World Example

Consider an SME in the retail sector. By using a government grant, the business can implement a robust inventory management system to keep track of stock levels in real-time. At the same time, adopting InvoiceNow can streamline the invoicing process, ensuring faster payments and reducing administrative overheads. This combination enhances operational efficiency, leading to increased profitability and growth.

Conclusion

In today's competitive business environment, SMEs in Singapore must adopt innovative solutions to stay ahead. Utilizing government grants for SMEs, implementing an effective inventory management system in Singapore, and embracing the InvoiceNow e-invoicing solution are crucial steps toward achieving this goal.

By integrating these solutions, SMEs can enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and improve customer satisfaction. This not only boosts their competitive edge but also ensures sustainable growth in the long term. Leveraging these tools and resources is essential for SMEs aiming to thrive in Singapore’s dynamic market.

[fatehbaz]

If you wanted to know more about the saga of protests and resistance against Canada’s open-pit copper mining in Panama:

---

Screenshot and headline from: “Canadian firm blames Panama for closure of copper mine.” AP News. 16 December 2022.

---

Headline from: “Panama: Canadian mining company First Quantum denied to expand copper exploitation area for alleged failure with environmental commitments.” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. 26 January 2023.

---

Headline from: Valentine Hilaire. “Panama won’t allow Canada’s First Quantum to expand its copper mine operations.” Reuters. 26 January 2023.

---

Headline by: The Associated Press. “Panama reaches 20-year deal with Canadian copper mine.” As republished at ABC News. 8 March 2023.

---

An excerpt and explanation:

In Panama, a dispute has emerged of a type that is common to countries in Central and South America: a huge transnational company has invested in the country’s resource wealth, resulting in a conflict over suitable payments to the government that draws in officials from the company’s nation of origin in defence of corporate profits. In this case, the company in question is First Quantum Minerals, a mining giant with lucrative investments across the Global South -- and the country of origin is Canada.

This summer [2022], Panamanians rose up in nationwide protests against the neoliberal status quo imposed on the country by the government of Laurentino Cortizo.  Beginning on July 1, these protests brought together diverse groups including teachers, students, trade unionists, farmers, and Indigenous organizations [...]. The causes of the summer 2022 protests go back decades and help illustrate the dynamics of the current conflict between First Quantum (and their backers in Ottawa) and the Panamanian state.

Throughout the 1990s, Canada aggressively pushed for states in Central and South America to adopt neoliberal reforms that would permit more foreign investment and fewer regulations for transnational companies. [...]

Several protest movements emerged in Panama in the 2010s in opposition to the effects of free market reforms generally and the predominance of Canadian mining specifically.  At the heart of these resistance movements is the Canadian-owned Cobre Panamá mine, which is the largest foreign investment in the country [...].

---

Cobre Panamá was owned by the Toronto-headquartered Inmet Mining until 2013, at which point it was acquired by Vancouver-based First Quantum. In 2011, the Martinelli government attempted to limit the Indigenous Ngäbe-Buglé nation’s rights to autonomy and self-government in order to grant mining companies access to minerals on their land. Meanwhile, Martinelli repealed a law that prevented foreign governments from investing in the mining sector -- a gift to Canada’s Inmet Mining, which at the time was seeking financing from the sovereign wealth funds of Singapore and South Korea.

These moves sparked protests that continued into 2012. Martinelli responded to demands for the annulment of mining and hydroelectric concessions on Indigenous territory with violence by dispatching riot police. The police killed one protestor, injured thirty-two, and detained forty.  The protestors did not budge; instead, they blocked the entrances to Cobre Panamá and another mine owned by the Canada’s Petaquilla Minerals.  Eventually Martinelli relented and vowed not to approve mining projects on or near Ngäbe-Buglé lands.’

---

During the 2011-2012 conflict, nobody in the Canadian government issued a single statement on the matter.  When protestors took to the streets again in 2022, Ottawa released a statement that totally omitted the reasons behind the uprising.

Following the economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cortizo government declared that Panama’s recovery would rely on incentivizing foreign investment in the mining sector. Social movements have by and large rejected this new arrangement due to the history of corrupt collaboration between state officials and foreign companies and the weakness of environmental protections.

---

For example, in April 2022 the Panama Worth More Without Mining Movement -- which arose in opposition to the Canadian-owned Cobre Panamá mine -- released a report that found over 200 “serious” breaches of environmental commitments by the project managers, including the breaking of reforestation promises, “the felling of 876 hectares… in an area of high biodiversity and international importance,” and “the discharge of waste from the tailings tank into natural bodies of water without official endorsement.”

Following the summer 2022 protests, the Cortizo government announced plans to reform the mining sector by instituting greater regulations on foreign companies. In the meantime, the Panamanian state and First Quantum were in the process of negotiating a renewed contract. Jason Simpson, CEO of Canada’s Orla Mining (which is hoping to begin extraction at its Cerro Quema gold project), said, “The biggest story in Panama is Cobre Panamá, so as the government works through their renewed contract law for First Quantum’s asset there, that’ll take priority… We’ll be patient for that to be resolved and then we hope to get working on construction in Panama.”

The negotiations for the renewal of the Cobre Panamá contract began in September 2021. The two parties agreed that First Quantum would provide Panama with between 12 and 16 percent of its gross profit, a new rate that would replace the previous two percent revenue royalty. [...]

---

Much like Ottawa jumped to the defence of Centerra Gold following Kyrgyzstan’s nationalization of the Kumtor gold mine last year, the Trudeau government has taken a keen interest in Cobre Panamá and, according to the unnamed Reuters source, is actively backing the mining company’s position. Given Canada’s long history of support for neoliberal reforms and transnational investment in Central and South America, Ottawa’s support for First Quantum in these negotiations should come as no surprise.

---

Headline and text by: Owen Schalk. “Ottawa backs Canadian mining giant in dispute with Panama.” Canadian Dimension. 26 December 2022. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph contractions added by me.]

[usafphantom2]

The flight deck of HMS Eagle photographed in the Gulf of Aden during the British withdrawal from the Aden colony, November 1967.

Image: IWM (HU 106844) <1/2>

@IWM via X

A Short History Of The Aden Emergency

In 1839 Britain captured the town of Aden (now part of Yemen) in the south of the Arabian Peninsula.

Like the later seizure of Cyprus (1878) and of Egypt (1882), the occupation of Aden was a strategic rather than commercial undertaking, guarding the lines of communication with India. With British Somaliland on the ‘horn of Africa’, Aden provided control of the entrance to the Red Sea.

Following the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, Britain established protectorates in the hinterland of South Arabia to act as a buffer against the Ottomans who occupied Yemen. In 1937 Aden became a Crown Colony.

Following her humiliation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, Britain granted independence in February 1959 to the Federation of South Arabia, which was formed from the Aden colony and the surrounding protectorates, in order to stabilise the region, which had been dogged by years of unrest fuelled by Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism.

Having replaced Cyprus as the base of Middle East Land Forces, Aden was of even greater strategic importance to Britain, maintaining with Far East Land Forces in Singapore its global presence. In 1962 the British government announced that a permanent British garrison would be maintained in Aden. Yet in 1967, the British were forced to withdraw from the colony.

Aircraft include De Haviland Sea Vixen FAW.2s of 899 Naval Air Squadron and Blackburn Bucaneer S.1 and S.2s of 800 Naval Air Squadron. HMS Albion, HMS Fearless and HMS Auriga are visible behind.

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.5 Will privatising “the commons” increase liberty?

“Anarcho”-capitalists aim for a situation in which “no land areas, no square footage in the world shall remain ‘public,’” in other words everything will be “privatised.” [Murray Rothbard, Nations by Consent, p. 84] They claim that privatising “the commons” (e.g. roads, parks, etc.) which are now freely available to all will increase liberty. Is this true? Here we will concern ourselves with private ownership of commonly used “property” which we all take for granted (and often pay for with taxes).

Its clear from even a brief consideration of a hypothetical society based on “privatised” roads (as suggested by Murray Rothbard [For a New Liberty, pp. 202–203] and David Friedman [The Machinery of Freedom, pp. 98–101]) that the only increase of liberty will be for the ruling elite. As “anarcho”-capitalism is based on paying for what one uses, privatisation of roads would require some method of tracking individuals to ensure that they pay for the roads they use. In the UK, for example, during the 1980s the British Tory government looked into the idea of toll-based motorways. Obviously having toll-booths on motorways would hinder their use and restrict “freedom,” and so they came up with the idea of tracking cars by satellite. Every vehicle would have a tracking device installed in it and a satellite would record where people went and which roads they used. They would then be sent a bill or have their bank balances debited based on this information (in the fascist city-state/company town of Singapore such a scheme has been introduced). In London, the local government has introduced a scheme which allowed people to pay for public transport by electronic card. It also allowed the government to keep a detailed record of where and when people travelled, with obvious civil liberty implications.

If we extrapolate from these to a system of fully privatised “commons,” it would clearly require all individuals to have tracking devices on them so they could be properly billed for use of roads, pavements, etc. Obviously being tracked by private firms would be a serious threat to individual liberty. Another, less costly, option would be for private guards to randomly stop and question car-owners and individuals to make sure they had paid for the use of the road or pavement in question. “Parasites” would be arrested and fined or locked up. Again, however, being stopped and questioned by uniformed individuals has more in common with police states than liberty. Toll-boothing every street would be highly unfeasible due to the costs involved and difficulties for use that it implies. Thus the idea of privatising roads and charging drivers to gain access seems impractical at best and distinctly freedom endangering at worse. Would giving companies that information for all travellers, including pedestrians, really eliminate all civil liberty concerns?

Of course, the option of owners letting users have free access to the roads and pavements they construct and run would be difficult for a profit-based company. No one could make a profit in that case. If companies paid to construct roads for their customers/employees to use, they would be financially hindered in competition with other companies that did not, and thus would be unlikely to do so. If they restricted use purely to their own customers, the tracking problem appears again. So the costs in creating a transport network and then running it explains why capitalism has always turned to state aid to provide infrastructure (the potential power of the owners of such investments in charging monopoly prices to other capitalists explains why states have also often regulated transport).

Some may object that this picture of extensive surveillance of individuals would not occur or be impossible. However, Murray Rothbard (in a slightly different context) argued that technology would be available to collate information about individuals. He argued that ”[i]t should be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist [sic!] society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data.” [Society Without A State”, p. 199] So with the total privatisation of society we could also see the rise of private Big Brothers, collecting information about individuals for use by property owners. The example of the Economic League (a British company which provided the “service” of tracking the political affiliations and activities of workers for employers) springs to mind.

And, of course, these privatisation suggestions ignore differences in income and market power. If, for example, variable pricing is used to discourage road use at times of peak demand (to eliminate traffic jams at rush-hour) as is suggested both by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman, then the rich will have far more “freedom” to travel than the rest of the population. And we may even see people having to go into debt just to get to work or move to look for work.

Which raises another problem with notion of total privatisation, the problem that it implies the end of freedom of travel. Unless you get permission or (and this seems more likely) pay for access, you will not be able to travel anywhere. As Rothbard himself makes clear, “anarcho”-capitalism means the end of the right to roam. He states that “it became clear to me that a totally privatised country would not have open borders at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned .. . no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property.” What happens to those who cannot afford to pay for access or travel (i.e., exit) is not addressed (perhaps, being unable to exit a given capitalist’s land they will become bonded labourers? Or be imprisoned and used to undercut workers’ wages via prison labour? Perhaps they will just be shot as trespassers? Who can tell?). Nor is it addressed how this situation actually increases freedom. For Rothbard, a “totally privatised country would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and property owners [not the same thing, we must point out] desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the US really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state… and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.” [Nations by Consent, p. 84 and p. 85] Of course, the wishes of non-proprietors (the vast majority) do not matter in the slightest. Thus, it is clear, that with the privatisation of “the commons” the right to roam, to travel, would become a privilege, subject to the laws and rules of the property owners. This can hardly be said to increase freedom for anyone bar the capitalist class.

Rothbard acknowledges that “in a fully privatised world, access rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership.” [Op. Cit., p. 86] Given that there is no free lunch, we can imagine we would have to pay for such “rights.” The implications of this are obviously unappealing and an obvious danger to individual freedom. The problem of access associated with the idea of privatising the roads can only be avoided by having a “right of passage” encoded into the “general libertarian law code.” This would mean that road owners would be required, by law, to let anyone use them. But where are “absolute” property rights in this case? Are the owners of roads not to have the same rights as other owners? And if “right of passage” is enforced, what would this mean for road owners when people sue them for car-pollution related illnesses? (The right of those injured by pollution to sue polluters is the main way “anarcho”-capitalists propose to protect the environment — see section E.4). It is unlikely that those wishing to bring suit could find, never mind sue, the millions of individual car owners who could have potentially caused their illness. Hence the road-owners would be sued for letting polluting (or unsafe) cars onto “their” roads. The road-owners would therefore desire to restrict pollution levels by restricting the right to use their property, and so would resist the “right of passage” as an “attack” on their “absolute” property rights. If the road-owners got their way (which would be highly likely given the need for “absolute” property rights and is suggested by the variable pricing way to avoid traffic jams mentioned above) and were able to control who used their property, freedom to travel would be very restricted and limited to those whom the owner considered “desirable.” Indeed, Murray Rothbard supports such a regime (“In the free [sic!] society, they [travellers] would, in the first instance, have the right to travel only on those streets whose owners agree to have them there.” [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 119]). The threat to liberty in such a system is obvious — to all but Rothbard and other right-“libertarians”, of course.

To take another example, let us consider the privatisation of parks, streets and other public areas. Currently, individuals can use these areas to hold political demonstrations, hand out leaflets, picket and so on. However, under “anarcho”-capitalism the owners of such property can restrict such liberties if they desire, calling such activities “initiation of force” (although they cannot explain how speaking your mind is an example of “force”). Therefore, freedom of speech, assembly and a host of other liberties we take for granted would be eliminated under a right-“libertarian” regime. Or, taking the case of pickets and other forms of social struggle, its clear that privatising “the commons” would only benefit the bosses. Strikers or political activists picketing or handing out leaflets in shopping centres are quickly ejected by private security even today. Think about how much worse it would become under “anarcho”-capitalism when the whole world becomes a series of malls — it would be impossible to hold a picket when the owner of the pavement objects (as Rothbard himself gleefully argued. [Op. Cit., p. 132]). If the owner of the pavement also happens to be the boss being picketed, which Rothbard himself considered most likely, then workers’ rights would be zero. Perhaps we could also see capitalists suing working class organisations for littering their property if they do hand out leaflets (so placing even greater stress on limited resources).

The I.W.W. went down in history for its rigorous defence of freedom of speech because of its rightly famous “free speech” fights in numerous American cities and towns. The city bosses worried by the wobblies’ open air public meetings simply made them illegal. The I.W.W. used direct action and carried on holding them. Violence was inflicted upon wobblies who joined the struggle by “private citizens,” but in the end the I.W.W. won (for Emma Goldman’s account of the San Diego struggle and the terrible repression inflicted on the libertarians by the “patriotic” vigilantes see Living My Life [vol. 1, pp. 494–503]). Consider the case under “anarcho”-capitalism. The wobblies would have been “criminal aggressors” as the owners of the streets have refused to allow “subversives” to use them to argue their case. If they refused to acknowledge the decree of the property owners, private cops would have taken them away. Given that those who controlled city government in the historical example were the wealthiest citizens in town, its likely that the same people would have been involved in the fictional (“anarcho”-capitalist) account. Is it a good thing that in the real account the wobblies are hailed as heroes of freedom but in the fictional one they are “criminal aggressors”? Does converting public spaces into private property really stop restrictions on free speech being a bad thing?

Of course, Rothbard (and other right-“libertarians”) are aware that privatisation will not remove restrictions on freedom of speech, association and so on (while, at the same time, trying to portray themselves as supporters of such liberties!). However, for them such restrictions are of no consequence. As Rothbard argues, any “prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or for use of some person’s or community’s land area.” [Nations by Consent, p. 85] Thus we yet again see the blindness of right-“libertarians” to the commonality between private property and the state we first noted in section F.1. The state also maintains that submitting to its authority is the requirement for taking up residence in its territory. As Tucker noted, the state can be defined as (in part) “the assumption of sole authority over a given area and all within it.” [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 24] If the property owners can determine “prohibitions” (i.e. laws and rules) for those who use the property then they are the “sole authority over a given area and all within it,” i.e. a state. Thus privatising “the commons” means subjecting the non-property owners to the rules and laws of the property owners — in effect, privatising the state and turning the world into a series of monarchies and oligarchies without the pretence of democracy and democratic rights.

These examples can hardly be said to be increasing liberty for society as a whole, although “anarcho”-capitalists seem to think they would. So far from increasing liberty for all, then, privatising the commons would only increase it for the ruling elite, by giving them yet another monopoly from which to collect income and exercise their power over. It would reduce freedom for everyone else. Ironically, therefore, Rothbard ideology provides more than enough evidence to confirm the anarchist argument that private property and liberty are fundamentally in conflict. “It goes without saying that th[e] absolute freedom of thought, speech, and action” anarchists support “is incompatible with the maintenance of institutions that restrict free thought, rigidify speech in the form of a final and irrevocable vow, and even dictate that the worker fold his arms and die of hunger at the owners’ command.” [Elisee Reclus, quoted by John P. Clark and Camille Martin (eds.), Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 159] As Peter Marshall notes, ”[i]n the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the open air when it is enjoyed by all.” [Demanding the Impossible, p. 564]

Little wonder Proudhon argued that “if the public highway is nothing but an accessory of private property; if the communal lands are converted into private property; if the public domain, in short, is guarded, exploited, leased, and sold like private property — what remains for the proletaire? Of what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of war to enter the regime of police?” [System of Economic Contradictions, p. 371]

[royalpain16]

THE SECOND ANNUAL SUMMIT WILL UNVEIL THE FIFTEEN 2023 EARTHSHOT PRIZE FINALISTS WHO ARE TRAILBLAZING CLIMATE SOLUTIONS TO REPAIR OUR PLANET BY 2030

The Earthshot Prize and Bloomberg Philanthropies today announced they will co-host the second Earthshot Prize Innovation Summit on September 19, 2023, in New York City with the founder of The Earthshot Prize, Prince William, expected to attend.

Held during New York Climate Week and the 78th Session of the UN General Assembly, the Summit will convene previous Earthshot Prize Winners and Finalists with policymakers, global business leaders, philanthropists, and climate activists to scale their innovative solutions.

At the Summit, The Earthshot Prize will reveal this year’s 15 Finalists and introduce their groundbreaking climate and environmental solutions to repair our planet this decade on one of the biggest international stages.

To help drive meaningful change, and accelerate the collaborations and investments needed to scale those solutions, the Summit will connect the new and previous Earthshot Prize Finalists and Winners with forward-thinking business leaders, philanthropists, and governments already working to regenerate the planet. September’s Summit begins the countdown to The Earthshot Prize’s third annual Awards ceremony in Singapore, where, on November 7, 2023, five of the 15 Finalists will be awarded a catalytic £1 million to scale their cutting-edge solutions.

Alongside Prince William, Michael R. Bloomberg, Global Advisor to the Winners of The Earthshot Prize, will address the assembled guests. Other featured speakers will include policymakers, business leaders, climate innovators, and previous Earthshot Prize Winners and Finalists. The full agenda will be announced in due course

Founded by Prince William and The Royal Foundation in 2020, The Earthshot Prize is a global environmental prize to discover, accelerate, and scale ground-breaking solutions that can help put the world firmly on a trajectory toward a stable climate where communities, oceans, and biodiversity thrive in harmony by 2030.

Inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s Moonshot, which united millions of people around the goal of reaching the moon, The Earthshot Prize recognizes Finalists and Winners across five challenges, or ‘Earthshots’: Protect and Restore Nature, Clean our Air, Revive our Oceans, Build a Waste-free World, and Fix our Climate. The Prize aims to turn the current pessimism surrounding environmental issues into optimism and will discover 50 winners over 10 years with the power to repair the planet

The inaugural 2021 Earthshot Prize Finalists have already driven incredible impact with more than 1.5 million people benefiting directly from their solutions. Over 7,000 hectares of land and almost 2.1 million hectares of ocean have been protected or restored, while over 35,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions have been reduced, avoided, or sequestered. The 2022 Finalists, announced this past autumn, are well on their way to creating similar impact.

To help accelerate the work of the inaugural Finalists at last year’s Earthshot Prize Innovation Summit, Bloomberg Philanthropies committed more than $20 million through direct grants, co-funding, and other efforts to support the success of the inaugural Finalists and Winners of The Earthshot Prize 2021, including:

Scaling Takachar’s technology, which reduces smoke emissions from agricultural waste by up to 98%, through a pilot program in villages in the state of Punjab and Haryana, India.

Supercharging Pristine Seas’ 30×30 ocean protected goal through funding major ocean expeditions, helping establish more marine protected areas, and enhancing diplomacy and advocacy efforts. Pristine Seas has already helped establish 26 marine reserves worldwide, across an area over twice the size of India.

Scaling Coral Vita’s research capabilities to identify new restoration sites and monitor both restoration progress and local marine health after installation. Coral Vita’s cutting-edge methods to grow coral up to 50 times faster than nature can help replant our oceans and give new life to dying ecosystems.

Expanding the capacity of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs and Blue Map App to scale its data, research, and reporting capabilities.

Convening at least ten North American and European cities in partnership with C40 and NRDC to accelerate efforts to address food waste and food insecurity by sharing best practices from and helping to scale the City of Milan’s Local Food Waste Hub initiative, which currently provides about 260,000 meals to those most in need, to other cities.

As a mayor, entrepreneur, and philanthropist, Michael R. Bloomberg has long been a global leader in the fight against climate change. He has committed more than $1 billion to efforts across the world to mobilize cities and local leaders to reduce emissions, improve air quality, advance the global transition to clean energy, protect and preserve ocean ecosystems, and help unlock billions of dollars in sustainable finance.

Bloomberg helps lead a number of efforts including the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, America Is All In Coalition, Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, Climate Finance Leaders Initiative, and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.

“To effectively tackle the climate crisis, we need to invest in innovative solutions and new ideas that can accelerate global progress and help repair the planet. This year’s Earthshot Prize Finalists are great examples of the kind of bold action and creative thinking we need, and our team is looking forward to working with Prince William to support them as they expand their ambitions.”

Michael R. Bloomberg, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions, Founder of Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies, and 108th Mayor of New York City

“The Earthshot Prize scours the world to find entrepreneurs and innovators who exemplify the power of human ingenuity to address our most significant climate and environmental challenges. Our next class of Finalists are on the cutting-edge of some of the most exciting ideas and technologies, and with the support of our Global Alliance Partners and the global community gathering at the UN General Assembly, they have the potential to transform communities around the world for the better. By spotlighting the incredible work of our 2023 Finalists at the Earthshot Prize Innovation Summit, we hope to inspire a wave of positive change and unlock a more sustainable and resilient future.”

Hannah Jones, The Earthshot Prize CEO

[energy-5]

Sustainable Development in Singapore: An Exemplar of Modern Urban Ecology

Strategic Advancement in Green Building: In an ambitious endeavor, Singapore aims for 80% of its buildings to be green-certified by 2030, a significant milestone considering its urban density. Changi Airport, an epitome of this initiative, integrates a myriad of eco-friendly features, including the Rain Vortex, the world's tallest indoor waterfall, enhancing its reputation as the "World's Best Airport" for eight consecutive years.

Solar Energy Initiatives: Singapore's commitment to renewable energy is evident in its solar power achievements. Surpassing 820 megawatt-peak (MWp) in solar capacity at the end of 2022, the nation is on track to reach its 2025 target of 1.5 gigawatt- (GWp).

Enhancements in Public Transportation: Singapore's sustainable transport strategy aims for 75% of peak-hour commutes to be via public transport by 2030. The expansion of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system and the introduction of eco-friendly buses are pivotal in this endeavor, aiming to reduce reliance on private vehicles and lower carbon emissions.

Promotion of Electric Vehicles (EV): The government's extension of the Electric Vehicle Common Charger Grant until December 2025 underscores its commitment to enhancing EV infrastructure. This initiative, covering up to 50% of the cost of smart chargers, has led to the approval of 267 EV charger applications across 107 condominiums since July 2021.

Vision of a "City in a Garden": Singapore's approach to urban development harmoniously blends with environmental stewardship, as seen in its goal to plant one million trees by 2030. The iconic Gardens by the Bay, with its Supertrees, symbolizes this blend of ecological innovation and urban living, integrating features like solar energy collection and rainwater harvesting.

Singapore's multifaceted approach to sustainability is a testament to its visionary leadership, integrating technology, policy, and community involvement to create a living model of a sustainable urban future.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Melissa Chen: I Came to America for Freedom, but Now It’s Looking More Like the Country I Left

I grew up in Singapore, where I felt first-hand what it was like to live in a society where free speech is restricted. Social harmony is prioritized over civil liberties in Singapore's multi-cultural society, fomenting a culture of fear and self-censorship on top of legal prohibitions.

I moved to America for college when I was 17. I wanted a challenging education and a social milieu that valued the free exchange of ideas because I knew that was the only way to grow intellectually and cultivate emotional resiliency. It wasn’t until I was in graduate school that I realized that the America I had sought was increasingly resembling the conditions in which I grew up in in Singapore.

Across town from me in Boston, Harvard University had disinvited a record number of speakers, for reasons including their views on topics like immigration, Israel, and sexual orientation. Harvard’s guidelines banned “behavior evidently intended to dishonor such characteristics as race, gender, ethnic group, religious belief, or sexual orientation.” This guideline was nearly identical to what was law in Singapore.

But even worse than that, an intolerant ideology that promoted collective guilt and racial essentialism had begun to emerge. I noticed my white and male classmates were not being allowed to express opinions that addressed issues related to people of color or women. Phrases like “check your privilege” became a part of everyday conversation. This was something that I never witnessed in Singapore, a nation that was prosperous despite its faults because of its focus on the equality of all people.

After university, I co-founded an organization named Ideas Beyond Borders, where we translated and digitied texts about Enlightenment ideas into Arabic for free. We worked with translators who lived in places like Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iran and Iraq. My exposure to so many failed states led me to see the common denominators that undergirded societal dysfunction and civil conflict; many of these places were severely dogged by extremism, intolerance, and sectarianism.

Even more than my life in Singapore, this provided me with an intense appreciation for the freedoms we have here in America. Why were the students around me so focused on the problems with my white male classmates and teachers, while they largely ignored the injustices I was witnessing around the world?

And since I’ve graduated, it seems like these trends have spread through our nation far beyond the reaches of academia. While so many were focused on American culture wars, including for example asking Disney to fire Gina Carano for supposedly offensive tweets, few were paying attention while Disney made deals to film with the government in Xinjiang, China, where Uighur Muslims were being held in concentration camps. 

This way of looking at the world has a goal of raising awareness of racial injustice. That’s laudable. But within this conception of the world there is also a simplistic and reductive understanding of power dynamics in which oppression must always come from people seen as  white, male, western, heterosexual, cisgender, or ablebodied – and be inflicted upon those seen as marginalized – people of color, colonized or indigenous people, women, LGBT, or the disabled. 

This lens ignores the struggle against real repression globally, including what I have witnessed in Singapore and the Middle East. In doing so, it empowers illiberal, authoritarian forces, from China, to Russia, to the stirrings of Islamist groups eager to rebuild their caliphate.

All around the world, from pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong to feminists in Egypt, countless people seek the freedoms that we in the West take for granted. Meanwhile, we are undoing the ideas that have made the modern West the most progressive place on the planet, while shielding the world’s most brazen abusers of human rights from criticism.

If you care about justice for oppressed people, it’s incumbent on us to push back against bad ideas. America has problems, and we need to improve, but the center of the struggle for human dignity isn’t here. Please, let’s keep America the country I wanted to come to.

I’m Melissa Chen. Join me in defending pro-human values at FairForAll.org.

[readingsquotes]

"In May 2023, India and Israel signed a new bilateral agreement to bring forty-two thousand additional Indian laborers to Israel. Modi’s most recent agreement with Netanyahu aims to fast-track current plans even more, lifting restrictions to hasten migrant workers’ entry into Israel. The temporary, low-wage migrants from rural and small-town North India, some of the poorest regions in the country, are desperate for decent employment—so desperate that they’re willing to work for a regime that is actively engaged in what the International Court of Justice has called a “plausible genocide.” They’re seeking paid work they’ve failed to find within India’s growing but deeply unequal and caste-bound economy. Bilateral deals like the one between India and Israel give off the sheen of newness, appearing to be the products of a twenty-first century age of hypermobile capital. But in fact, the two countries are dusting off a time-worn strategy from the colonial archive: importing and exporting racially marked temporary labor to manage political and economic problems in one fell swoop."

....

Bilateral mobility agreements like the India-Israel deal are nothing new. Across the world, more and more states—Singapore, Bahrain, Canada, and the United States among many others—have begun to employ temporary, closed-term migrant labor programs. In the Middle East, autocratic Gulf states have long relied on such schemes. And in addition to contracting Palestinian labor, Israel has long relied on Thai, Filipino, Nepali, and Indian workers, too. Typically, these states have two goals. On the one hand, they want to preserve the ethnic composition of a privileged national citizenry. On the other, they need large amounts of cheapened laborers, especially in the domestic, construction and retail sectors, to grow. Contract labor schemes have allowed them to do both: with them, states can access a mass supply of workers without having to grant any of them citizenship. Israel, for example, offers five-year, temporary immigration channels for migrant workers, but gives them no option for family reunification or naturalization.

...

The Modi-Netanyahu labor deal has an even older historical predecessor: British indenture. In the nineteenth century, as chattel slavery came to an end in Britain, indentured labor from countries such as India and China was introduced as a more “humane” alternative. The practice was abolished in 1920, but a century later, traces of its institutional legacy live on in migrant labor programs. Indian and other Asian workers were desirable across the Gulf region because they were seen as politically “docile,” a powerful racial trope with particular roots in nineteenth-century indenture practices. They were also desirable because, as sociologist Andrzej Kapiszewski notes, “Asian governments became often involved in the recruitment and placement of their workers, facilitating their smooth flow to the Gulf countries.” The governments of India, Pakistan, and the Philippines, lured by the healthy remittances promised to them, were all too eager to help in the importation of their workers.

...

If modern states have ensured the brutal subjugation of both populations living, and workers laboring, in their borders through colonial means, then the resistance to those tactics must be anticolonial in response.

[spectra-gt-23]

ARTIFICE ACT OF NIKOLA

Nikola Corporation, a once-promising player in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry, faced a significant downfall after being exposed for fraud and misrepresentations. Founded in 2014 by Trevor Milton, Nikola aimed to be a global leader in zero-emission transportation, particularly with hydrogen-powered trucks. The company secured partnerships with reputable automotive players and garnered substantial investments, reaching a valuation of $34 billion at its peak.

However, in September 2020, a report by Hindenburg Research accused Nikola of significant misrepresentations and fraudulent claims about its technology and business. The report alleged that Nikola's proprietary technology was acquired from other companies, and it raised questions about Milton's past ventures, which were also marred by lawsuits and exaggerated misrepresentations. The revelations led to a rapid decline in Nikola's stock price and the withdrawal of partnerships, including General Motors.

The fraud allegations prompted investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice. Milton was charged with securities and wire fraud, accused of misleading investors about Nikola's products and technology to boost the company's stock value. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. Nikola attempted to distance itself from Milton, stating that he had not been involved in the company since his resignation in September 2020.

The case study raises several discussion points, including the use of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) as a means of raising capital, the impact of remuneration policies on executive behavior, the composition and independence of Nikola's board of directors, the role of short-sellers in exposing fraudulent practices, and the differences in legal and regulatory environments between the U.S. and Singapore.

The document also highlights red flags in Nikola's statements and actions that could have been detected earlier through proper due diligence by investors. It questions the viability of the SPAC route to going public, considering the potential for fraudulent activities. The case study emphasizes the need for robust corporate governance, independent boards, and transparent disclosure practices to prevent such misrepresentations and fraud in the future.

Furthermore, the document mentions the controversies surrounding Milton's previous ventures and his retention of a significant shareholding in Nikola, which potentially grants him control over the company. It discusses the severance terms negotiated by Milton, allowing him to retain substantial benefits even after his departure from the company.

Overall, the Nikola case serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of fraudulent practices, the importance of thorough due diligence by investors, and the need for effective corporate governance to protect shareholders' interests and maintain trust in the market. The future of Nikola remains uncertain as it faces legal challenges, loss of partnerships, and a lack of capital and resources Nikola Corporation, a once-promising player in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry, faced a significant downfall after being exposed for fraud and misrepresentations. Founded in 2014 by Trevor Milton, Nikola aimed to be a global leader in zero-emission transportation, particularly with hydrogen-powered trucks. The company secured partnerships with reputable automotive players and garnered substantial investments, reaching a valuation of $34 billion at its peak.

TASK AT HAND

You are Nikola's New Chief Executive Officer and have been tasked with the company's Re-launch. Create strategies for the company to ensure its survival in the EV market and gain the highest market share.

DELIEVERABLES

• Executive Summary

• Reasons behind the financial failure of the company from the point of view of mistakes in strategic decision making.

• Given the events of Nikola, design a business model for a new EV company ensuring transparency, sustainability, and innovation.

• Present your venture to potential investors highlighting the lessons learned from Nikola’s case. Assuming Nikola wants to rebuild its brand, devise a 5-year strategic plan that can help the company regain trust and establish a solid market position.

• Given the EV industry's dynamics, conduct a SWOT analysis for Nikola post-crisis, identifying potential markets and segments they could target.

• Evaluate the financial risks involved in investing in start-ups, especially in the high-tech domain, and devise a plan to mitigate such risks.

• Public Relations Strategy to revive the trust and goodwill of the stakeholders.

REQUIREMENTS

A) Report of maximum 50 pages.

B) PPT of minimum 12 slides.

C) Poster for the Launch

Brownie points for extra deliverables (promotional video, logo, tagline, etc.)

Deadline : 4:30 am (19th October )

For any further queries please contact :

Manan : 7490921044

Sneha: 6375388745

Mail (to Submit the assignment): spectra23.gt@gmail.com

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

The promise and peril of Brazil’s Fake News law

Who moderates the moderators?

In the past five years, “fake news” laws have popped up everywhere. In Singapore, government ministers have used a new law to demand retractions from uncooperative newspapers. In France, the local fake news law unintentionally forced Twitter to sinkhole a government hashtag. The most alarming consequences of these new laws have come in Turkey and Russia, where fake news rules have been used to power a broader crackdown on opposition groups and dissenting speech. The laws vary widely in details, but they all capitalize on the public desire to rein in speech platforms like Facebook and YouTube, and use it to grant new powers to the government.

Brazil hasn’t passed a fake news law yet — but there’s one facing the Parliament, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Introduced in April, the bill would place severe new restrictions on what social networks can promote online, including liability for platforms that spread “untrue facts.” The bill also has a new “must-carry” clause that obliges platforms to host public interest announcements. (Tech Policy Press has an excellent write-up on the provisions of the bill, highlighting how some of those restrictions may violate the right to free expression.) Crucially, the law isn’t just aimed at Facebook; it would also apply to messaging services like WhatsApp, which play an even larger role in spreading news than conventional social networks.

Some version of the bill has been kicking around since 2020, but it’s come back to the forefront after a string of alarming incidents. January 8, 2022, saw a mob of Bolsonaro supporters storm key government buildings in the Brazilian capital (in an eerie echo of the January 6 Capitol attack in the U.S.), and many in the country see the incident as driven by online misinformation. More recently, a rise in school shootings in Brazil has been connected with hate speech and online radicalization, adding urgency to any proposal that might address the problem.

Continue reading.

[croissaint0]

The Dutch East India Company, also known as VOC (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) is the most successful company in history, which cost, in its best years, an astronomical 7.4 trillion dollars, which is more than the GDP of any modern country. It is thanks to this company that Amsterdam has been the financial center of capitalism for two centuries.

VOC was founded in 1602, and the Dutch government granted it a monopoly on Dutch trade in the East Indies (modern Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore). The company was one of the first multinational corporations in the world and had a huge impact on world trade and politics. She traded spices, textiles and other goods from the East Indies and established trading posts and colonies throughout the region, and also played a significant role in the Dutch colonization of modern South Africa.

I think we are unfairly ignoring the Dutch boy in the fandom:(

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 2.7

457 – Leo I becomes the Eastern Roman emperor. 987 – Bardas Phokas the Younger and Bardas Skleros, Byzantine generals of the military elite, begin a wide-scale rebellion against Emperor Basil II. 1301 – Edward of Caernarvon (later king Edward II of England) becomes the first English Prince of Wales. 1313 – King Thihathu founds the Pinya Kingdom as the de jure successor state of the Pagan Kingdom. 1365 – Albert III of Mecklenburg (King Albert of Sweden) grants city rights to Ulvila (Swedish: Ulvsby). 1497 – In Florence, Italy, supporters of Girolamo Savonarola burn cosmetics, art, and books, in a "Bonfire of the vanities". 1756 – Guaraní War: The leader of the Guaraní rebels, Sepé Tiaraju, is killed in a skirmish with Spanish and Portuguese troops. 1783 – American Revolutionary War: French and Spanish forces lift the Great Siege of Gibraltar. 1795 – The 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution is ratified. 1807 – Napoleonic Wars: Napoleon finds Bennigsen's Russian forces taking a stand at Eylau. After bitter fighting, the French take the town, but the Russians resume the battle the next day. 1812 – The strongest in a series of earthquakes strikes New Madrid, Missouri. 1813 – In the action of 7 February 1813 near the Îles de Los, the frigates Aréthuse and Amelia batter each other, but neither can gain the upper hand. 1819 – Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles leaves Singapore after just taking it over, leaving it in the hands of William Farquhar. 1842 – Battle of Debre Tabor: Ras Ali Alula, Regent of the Emperor of Ethiopia defeats warlord Wube Haile Maryam of Semien. 1854 – A law is approved to found the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Lectures started October 16, 1855. 1863 – HMS Orpheus sinks off the coast of Auckland, New Zealand, killing 189. 1894 – The Cripple Creek miner's strike, led by the Western Federation of Miners, begins in Cripple Creek, Colorado, United States. 1898 – Dreyfus affair: Émile Zola is brought to trial for libel for publishing J'Accuse…! 1900 – Second Boer War: British troops fail in their third attempt to lift the Siege of Ladysmith. 1900 – A Chinese immigrant in San Francisco falls ill to bubonic plague in the first plague epidemic in the continental United States. 1904 – A fire begins in Baltimore, Maryland;[12] it destroys over 1,500 buildings in 30 hours. 1940 – The second full-length animated Walt Disney film, Pinocchio, premieres. 1943 – World War II: Imperial Japanese Navy forces complete the evacuation of Imperial Japanese Army troops from Guadalcanal during Operation Ke, ending Japanese attempts to retake the island from Allied forces in the Guadalcanal Campaign. 1944 – World War II: In Anzio, Italy, German forces launch a counteroffensive during the Allied Operation Shingle. 1951 – Korean War: More than 700 suspected communist sympathizers are massacred by South Korean forces. 1962 – The United States bans all Cuban imports and exports. 1974 – Grenada gains independence from the United Kingdom. 1979 – Pluto moves inside Neptune's orbit for the first time since either was discovered. 1984 – Space Shuttle program: STS-41-B Mission: Astronauts Bruce McCandless II and Robert L. Stewart make the first untethered space walk using the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU). 1986 – Twenty-eight years of one-family rule end in Haiti, when President Jean-Claude Duvalier flees the Caribbean nation. 1990 – Dissolution of the Soviet Union: The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party agrees to give up its monopoly on power. 1991 – Haiti's first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, is sworn in. 1991 – The Troubles: The Provisional IRA launches a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street in London, the headquarters of the British government. 1992 – The Maastricht Treaty is signed, leading to the creation of the European Union. 1995 – Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, is arrested in Islamabad, Pakistan. 1999 – Crown Prince Abdullah becomes the King of Jordan on the death of his father, King Hussein. 2001 – Space Shuttle program: Space Shuttle Atlantis is launched on mission STS-98, carrying the Destiny laboratory module to the International Space Station. 2009 – Bushfires in Victoria leave 173 dead in the worst natural disaster in Australia's history. 2012 – President Mohamed Nasheed of the Republic of Maldives resigns, after 23 days of anti-governmental protests calling for the release of the Chief Judge unlawfully arrested by the military. 2013 – The U.S. state of Mississippi officially certifies the Thirteenth Amendment, becoming the last state to approve the abolition of slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment was formally ratified by Mississippi in 1995. 2014 – Scientists announce that the Happisburgh footprints in Norfolk, England, date back to more than 800,000 years ago, making them the oldest known hominid footprints outside Africa. 2016 – North Korea launches Kwangmyŏngsŏng-4 into outer space violating multiple UN treaties and prompting condemnation from around the world. 2021 – The 2021 Uttarakhand flood begins.

[usafphantom2]

US and allies warn Houthis of "consequences" if attacks on ships continue

Fernando Valduga

The U.S. and its allies issued a firm warning to the Houthi rebels in Yemen on January 3, telling the group to stop attacks on ships in the Red Sea or face "consequences".

“The Houthis will bear responsibility for the consequences if they continue to threaten lives, the global economy and the free flow of trade on the region's critical waterways,” said a joint statement from the U.S. and 12 other countries.

As of January 2, the Iranian-backed Houthis have carried out 24 attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea since November 19, according to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The crew of 25 people on a ship has been held captive since November.

The U.S. wanted to "send a very clear warning to the Houthis," a senior administration official told reporters on January 3.

The Houthis began attacking Red Sea ships following the war between Israel and Hamas. The Houthis said they defend "our brothers in the Gaza Strip".

The Houthis attacked commercial ships with drones, small attacks on boats and missiles, including the "first time that anti-ship ballistic missiles were used anywhere, much less against commercial ships," according to the senior administration official.

The U.S. defended itself against Houthi attacks with Navy fighters and missile defense systems. British and French ships also shot down drones launched by the Houthis.

The U.S. military has prepared attack options against the Houthis if the Biden administration decides to use force against targets in Yemen, according to U.S. officials.

British Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said the United Kingdom is “willing to take direct action” if the attacks continue.

“I would not expect another warning” before the U.S. could take more energetic measures, added the senior U.S. administration official.

The U.S. military recently used force against the Houthis in self-defense. On December 31, four small boats fired at U.S. Navy helicopters that came to the aid of a commercial ship under attack. The helicopters responded, killing members of the group and sinking three of the boats, according to the senior administration official and CENTCOM. The Houthis said that 10 of their members were killed in this incident. The senior government official said that the Houthis could be trying to kidnap the ship or damage it in a suicide bombing.

"The ongoing Houthi attacks on the Red Sea are illegal, unacceptable and deeply destabilizing," says the statement by the governments of the United States, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, New Zealand and the United Kingdom warning about the case. "May our message now be clear: we call for an immediate end to these illegal attacks and the release of ships and crews detained illegally."

An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council was held on January 3 to discuss the Houthi threat. The president of the Joint General Staff of the Air Force, General Charles Q. Brown Jr., spoke with his UK counterpart, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, on January 3 and "discussed the illegal Houthi attacks underway," according to a reading of the Call of the Employees Set.

"I think this demonstrates that the U.S. and its partners are trying to operate responsibly, but that there is a limit to the behavior they are willing to accept," said retired Army General Joseph L. Votel, who led the 2016-2019 CENTCOM.

The Houthis have missile and drone launchers, coastal radars and weapons storage facilities that could be targeted if the U.S. or other nations decide to use force.

The U.S. launched a limited salvo of cruise missiles at three coastal radar sites in Yemen in 2016, in response to attacks on Houthis ships during Votel's time as commander of CENTCOM.

“The message is considered, as would be expected, but it clearly highlights that there are consequences associated with continuous attacks and that these nations will hold evil actors accountable,” said Votel, an illustrious senior member of the Middle East Institute. He added that the declaration “emphasises the importance of taking advantage of all forms of national power, in this diplomatic and informative case, to put pressure on the Houthis and their Iranian supporters”.

Iran and the so-called Axis of Resistance of groups aligned with it launched attacks in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war. But some U.S. officials and regional security experts say that the Houthis are more unpredictable and hard-lined than other groups supported by Iran.

Ships run a particular risk near Yemen because they have to use the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to cross between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, a critical bottleneck.

“Almost 15% of global maritime trade passes through the Red Sea, including 8% of global grain trade, 12% of oil traded by sea and 8% of world trade in liquefied natural gas,” the joint statement noted.

The U.S. launched the multinational Operation Prosperity Guardian in December to help defend against the Houthi attacks. American F/A-18 fighters from the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower slaughtered Houthi drones. Sometimes, U.S. Air Force fighters have been active in the Red Sea, said a senior U.S. defense official. The U.S. is also known to operate MQ-9 drones off the coast of Yemen, and the U.S. and the UK have operated P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft in the region in the past.

"Especially when it comes to awareness of the maritime domain, air power is always a significant contributor to this," said Pentagon press secretary, Major General of the Air Force, Patrick S. Ryder, on December 21.

The Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea are connected by the Suez Canal, but commercial cargo ships have been forced to redirect their ships around the Cape of Good Hope, off the southern coast of Africa, causing significant delays and costs for the global economy.

“These attacks threaten innocent lives around the world and constitute a significant international problem that requires collective action,” the joint statement states. "We remain committed to the rules-based international order and are determined to hold evil actors responsible for illegal seizures and attacks."

Source: Air & Space Forces Magazine

Tags: Military AviationNATO - North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationWar Zones - Middle East

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.

Related news

AERONAUTICAL ACCIDENTS

Uganda loses one of its new Mi-28 helicopters in an accident

03/01/2024 - 18:20

MILITARY

Norway will send its F-16 fighters to Denmark to train Ukrainian pilots

03/01/2024 - 16:00

MILITARY

Aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford will return from mission in defense of Israel

03/01/2024 - 08:27

BRAZILIAN AIR FORCE

FAB signs contract for logistical support of Armed Forces H225M aircraft

03/01/2024 - 08:07

B-2 over-volut at Rose Bowl 2024 in Pasadena, California. (Photo: Mark Holtzman / West Coast Aerial)

MILITARY

VIDEOS: How was the overfly of the B-2 bomber at the Rose Bowl on the first day of 2024

02/01/2024 - 20:01

MILITARY

South Korea selects ELTA Systems radar solutions for its new early warning aircraft

02/01/2024 - 16:00

[mhgrf]

Our country's regional visa-free policy for foreigners mainly includes:

Hong Kong and Macao foreign tour groups to enter Guangdong 144-hour visa-free policy. Citizens of countries with diplomatic ties with China holding ordinary passports may visit the nine cities in the Greater Bay area and the Shantou Bay Area without the need for a visa after entering the region through a group of Hong Kong and macao-registered travel agents, activities will be held in the cities of Guangzhou, Foshan, Zhaoqing, Shenzhen, Dongguan, Huizhou, Zhuhai, Zhongshan, Jiangmen and Shantou, group in and out, stay less than 144 hours.

Visa-free entry policy for tour groups from ASEAN countries to Guilin, Guangxi. Group tours (2 or more) from ASEAN countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia) , with an ordinary passport, you can enter or leave the country visa-free through the Guilin Airport and travel agencies in Guilin, stay no longer than 144 hours.

Visa-free entry policy for foreign tour groups by cruise. Foreign tour groups (2 or more persons) on cruises and received by travel agencies in China, visa-free group visits are available from 13 cruise ports in Tianjin, Dalian, Shanghai, Lianyungang, Wenzhou and Zhoushan, Xiamen, Qingdao, Beihai, Haikou and Sanya, the tour group shall travel with the same cruise to the next port until the departure of this cruise, activities for Tianjin, Hebei, Liaoning, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan and other 11 coastal provinces (autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the central government) and Beijing, stay no longer than 15 days.

4th, 59 countries personnel entry Hainan 30 days visa-free policy. Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Norway, Ukraine, Italy, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ireland, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Monaco, Belarus and 59 other countries hold ordinary passports, for short-term reasons such as tourism, business, visit, family visit, medical treatment, convention and exhibition, sports competition, etc. (except for work and study reasons) , visa-free entry to Hainan may be granted, the scope of activities shall be within the administrative area of Hainan province, and the entry and exit ports shall be all open ports of Hainan province, and the stay time shall not exceed 30 days.

Visa-free 144-hour entry policy for foreign tour groups from Hong Kong and Macao. Citizens of countries with diplomatic relations with China who hold ordinary passports and visit Hong Kong and Macao may visit Hainan visa-free if they are in a group of two or more members of a travel agency legally registered in Hong Kong and Macao, activities for the administrative area of Hainan province, the entry and exit ports for all open ports in Hainan province, the use of group entry and exit mode, stay less than 144 hours.