Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Minister Wu’s Forum 2000 speech stressed shared values with #Czechia🇨🇿 & other #EU🇪🇺 states as well as democratic unity for economic resilience. Grateful for #Japan’s🇯🇵 support, #Taiwan🇹🇼 backs #Australia🇦🇺 #Lithuania🇱🇹 & others, showing solidarity against #PRC coercion! WATCH🔽

外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC (Taiwan) 🇹🇼

468,159 subscribers

36,493 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika #Czechia #EU #Japan #Taiwan #Australia #Lithuania #PRC

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Yorum

Leo profil fotoğrafı

Leo2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 。。可悲可笑。。如果你是中华民国外交部长，请记得日本人在中华民国首都屠杀三十万同胞，但至今不承认！不道歉！向杀害自己人民的且拒不承认的国家低头！真的是个卖国政府能做出的行为！

邻居佳小哥哥🇨🇳 profil fotoğrafı

邻居佳小哥哥🇨🇳2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 犊蛙生气了，不干人事还不能问了，这种只能回家放牛，放牛不能多1个就可以了多了数不清楚

Yu Chen profil fotoğrafı

Yu Chen2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 猪头🐷大白天说傻话

加游勝 profil fotoğrafı

加游勝2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 AIT主席羅森柏格：美國不支持台灣獨立，台獨狗沒市場啦，美國都不鳥你們台獨狗了

Wild Fish Group profil fotoğrafı

Wild Fish Group2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 Does anyone know the foreign minister of which country this is? ＃taiwan🇯🇵 or #Japan’s🇯🇵

Dinwiddie profil fotoğrafı

Dinwiddie2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 Taiwan🇹🇼, GO!

mchotdream profil fotoğrafı

mchotdream2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 只能靠大陆人民帮你抬抬人气

Tammy Lei Wu profil fotoğrafı

Tammy Lei Wu2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 'Showing solidarity against #PRC'?, what on earth a you talking about?, we as Chinese mainland China have done nothing to you or Taiwan, just remember Ukraine!

Gordon Joke Chang profil fotoğrafı

Gordon Joke Chang2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 这肥头大耳的😂😂😂

山剑 profil fotoğrafı

山剑2 yıl önce

@Forum_2000 “吴”龟爬不了多久了，等着吃集体饭吧。

Benzer Videolar

Hindu Forum Canada Salutes Shawn Binda! We request everyone to watch the entire video — it is an eye-opener for Hindus worldwide. Mr. Shawn Binda delivered a terrific and powerful speech about Hindu identity at the Candlelight Vigil held on April 26, 2025, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Joined by Hindu organizations, as well as the Jewish, Iranian, Baloch, and wider Canadian communities, we stood together in unwavering solidarity against the Islamist-Jihadi terror unfolding in Kashmir, India. This unity was unprecedented — Canadian, Iranian, Baloch, Israeli, and Indian flags flew together in a powerful display of support and a shared commitment to truth, justice, and humanity. Hindu American Foundation CoHNA (Coalition of Hindus of North America) HSS (UK) INSIGHT UK Vishva Hindu Parishad -VHP Hindu IT Cell Hindu Academy Swarajya Rashmi Samant

Hindu Forum Canada Salutes Shawn Binda! We request everyone to watch the entire video — it is an eye-opener for Hindus worldwide. Mr. Shawn Binda delivered a terrific and powerful speech about Hindu identity at the Candlelight Vigil held on April 26, 2025, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Joined by Hindu organizations, as well as the Jewish, Iranian, Baloch, and wider Canadian communities, we stood together in unwavering solidarity against the Islamist-Jihadi terror unfolding in Kashmir, India. This unity was unprecedented — Canadian, Iranian, Baloch, Israeli, and Indian flags flew together in a powerful display of support and a shared commitment to truth, justice, and humanity. Hindu American Foundation CoHNA (Coalition of Hindus of North America) HSS (UK) INSIGHT UK Vishva Hindu Parishad -VHP Hindu IT Cell Hindu Academy Swarajya Rashmi Samant

Hindu Forum Canada #HFC

237,792 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Beijing Fired the Guns. The Indo-Pacific Fired Back. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) tried to intimidate the region. Instead, it exposed how many countries are prepared to confront its coercion. As senior diplomats gathered in Manila, Beijing launched two days of live-fire drills near Dongshan Island in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan condemned the exercises as military provocation and gray-zone intimidation. At the same time, China’s maritime forces continued pressuring the Philippines in the South China Sea, while a Chinese destroyer conducted live-fire training in waters Japan claims as its exclusive economic zone. The pattern is unmistakable. Beijing pressures one democracy, probes another country’s waters, disputes international law, then labels every defensive response “provocation.” This is intimidation wrapped in propaganda. But the pushback is widening. United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that no country may restrict commerce and travel through international waterways, including the Taiwan Strait. Japan protested the naval firing near Okinotori. Australia called China’s nuclear-capable missile test “provocative and destabilising,” citing inadequate notification and an opaque military buildup. Fourteen governments also reaffirmed that there is no legal basis for China’s expansive South China Sea claims. Their joint statement opposed the use of coast guard, military, and maritime militia forces to harass, obstruct, or intimidate lawful operations. Taiwan deserves particular credit for recognizing that the threat is not confined to warships. President Lai Ching-te has called for stronger defenses against Beijing’s infiltration, legal warfare, election interference, and transnational repression. His government’s planned measures include victim-reporting and protection mechanisms, deeper coordination with democratic partners, stronger laws, and penalties for local collaborators who assist Chinese repression. That is the correct response. The CCP’s method is to combine military pressure abroad with covert influence, disinformation, and fear inside democratic societies. It tests borders, institutions, and political will simultaneously. The international community should stop treating these incidents as isolated. They form one campaign: weaken resistance, normalize coercion, and force free societies to accept Beijing’s rules. Taiwan is refusing. Japan, Australia, the Philippines, the United States, and other partners are answering. That united response exposes the authoritarian and predatory nature of the CCP’s ambition. ACI — Aric Chen | Insights Editor’s note: The accompanying video report is from the Newsweek program I anchor.

Beijing Fired the Guns. The Indo-Pacific Fired Back. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) tried to intimidate the region. Instead, it exposed how many countries are prepared to confront its coercion. As senior diplomats gathered in Manila, Beijing launched two days of live-fire drills near Dongshan Island in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan condemned the exercises as military provocation and gray-zone intimidation. At the same time, China’s maritime forces continued pressuring the Philippines in the South China Sea, while a Chinese destroyer conducted live-fire training in waters Japan claims as its exclusive economic zone. The pattern is unmistakable. Beijing pressures one democracy, probes another country’s waters, disputes international law, then labels every defensive response “provocation.” This is intimidation wrapped in propaganda. But the pushback is widening. United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that no country may restrict commerce and travel through international waterways, including the Taiwan Strait. Japan protested the naval firing near Okinotori. Australia called China’s nuclear-capable missile test “provocative and destabilising,” citing inadequate notification and an opaque military buildup. Fourteen governments also reaffirmed that there is no legal basis for China’s expansive South China Sea claims. Their joint statement opposed the use of coast guard, military, and maritime militia forces to harass, obstruct, or intimidate lawful operations. Taiwan deserves particular credit for recognizing that the threat is not confined to warships. President Lai Ching-te has called for stronger defenses against Beijing’s infiltration, legal warfare, election interference, and transnational repression. His government’s planned measures include victim-reporting and protection mechanisms, deeper coordination with democratic partners, stronger laws, and penalties for local collaborators who assist Chinese repression. That is the correct response. The CCP’s method is to combine military pressure abroad with covert influence, disinformation, and fear inside democratic societies. It tests borders, institutions, and political will simultaneously. The international community should stop treating these incidents as isolated. They form one campaign: weaken resistance, normalize coercion, and force free societies to accept Beijing’s rules. Taiwan is refusing. Japan, Australia, the Philippines, the United States, and other partners are answering. That united response exposes the authoritarian and predatory nature of the CCP’s ambition. ACI — Aric Chen | Insights Editor’s note: The accompanying video report is from the Newsweek program I anchor.

Aric Chen

13,865 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

🇨🇦 Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the World Economic Forum at Davos that the U.S.-led “rules-based international order” is finished and “will not return.” “For decades, countries like Canada benefited from what was called the rules-based international order,” Carney said. “We joined its institutions. We praised its principles. We benefited from its predictability.” But, he added, “we knew the story… was partially false.” “The strongest would exempt themselves when convenient,” Carney said, arguing that “trade rules were enforced asymmetrically,” and “international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or its victim.” “We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.” That “pleasant fiction,” he states, no longer works. The new world is one where economic integration and financial infrastructure are openly used by hegemons—hinting at the United States—as “weapons” for “economic coercion.” Carney rejected reliance on bilateral deals with dominant powers. “When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness,” he said. “This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.” Instead, he called for “values-based realism,” urging middle powers to act together and build a third path that is not a “world of fortresses,” but partnerships with partners with shared standards. If you are not at the table,” Carney said, “you are on the menu.” His remarks were met with a rare standing ovation in the room. Full speech below.

🇨🇦 Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the World Economic Forum at Davos that the U.S.-led “rules-based international order” is finished and “will not return.” “For decades, countries like Canada benefited from what was called the rules-based international order,” Carney said. “We joined its institutions. We praised its principles. We benefited from its predictability.” But, he added, “we knew the story… was partially false.” “The strongest would exempt themselves when convenient,” Carney said, arguing that “trade rules were enforced asymmetrically,” and “international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or its victim.” “We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.” That “pleasant fiction,” he states, no longer works. The new world is one where economic integration and financial infrastructure are openly used by hegemons—hinting at the United States—as “weapons” for “economic coercion.” Carney rejected reliance on bilateral deals with dominant powers. “When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness,” he said. “This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.” Instead, he called for “values-based realism,” urging middle powers to act together and build a third path that is not a “world of fortresses,” but partnerships with partners with shared standards. If you are not at the table,” Carney said, “you are on the menu.” His remarks were met with a rare standing ovation in the room. Full speech below.

Drop Site

1,159,669 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Rear Admiral (Ret.) Mark Montgomery, who has served 32 years in the U.S. Navy as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer: "Taiwan 🇹🇼 is probably the most important country in the world to the United States 🇺🇸 economy. It's a close, if it isn't it's a close second or third to 🇨🇳China and Canada 🇨🇦. It's our fourth largest trading partner. Canada🇨🇦 and Mexico🇲🇽 is because of geographic proxiity, so it's really them (Taiwan 🇹🇼) and 🇨🇳 China. And Germany 🇩🇪 and Japan 🇯🇵, the big powerhouses, they're small, less trade with the United States. Trump hates this trade because it's $200 billion from Taiwan, $50 billion from the US, he hates that trade deficit. I call it, to use his vernacular, a Big Beautiful Trade Deficit because that $200 billion coming over from Taiwan includes $170 billion of compute. And what I mean by compute is semiconductor chips and some micro electronics to go along with them. That $170 billion drives 4 trillion+ dollars of US GDP. And not some Davos bullshit mathematics. This is real 4 trillion. It's not replaceable. The chips that drive our phones, our F-35s, our F-150 trucks, our TVs, our refrigerators, anything we're building in the United States, it's got Taiwanese chips in it. They're 95% of the high-end chips, 70% to 75% of the legacy chips come from Taiwan. There's not a replacement for it. It is indispensable to the United States. So when the President's dismissive of the need to defend Taiwan or questions the value of it, he completely is bereft of facts which you know is disappointing that Secretary Besset, the Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Commerce can't make it clear to the President that we need Taiwan as much as Taiwan needs us, maybe more. As a result, we've got to do a better job of partnering with Taiwan, figuring out how we build our military security together to match our economic coupling because we're not going anywhere without them. We're not going to build our way out of dependence on Taiwanese chips. You'd like to argue against supporting a democracy, a thirving democracy with a first amendment and free press, freedom of assembly, free elections, fair elections that lead to split government, which causes beatdowns inside the parliament (lol). You know this is democracy at its greatest. Why would we not support that? Why would we throw our lot, why would be like, well, you know, possibly we should talk to the uh CCP, which is where President Xi, his elections are all 90, I'm sorry, he doesn't even have "99% elections" now, he has "100% elections". And if you remember how he treated his predecessor at the last big Communist Party get together, he frog marched out his predecessor for even thinking about possibly not agreeing with a minor thing that Xi says. There are many, many reasons to support Taiwan that both the Left in America and the conservatives in America and business in America ought to support here. There is no reason not so support Taiwan other than President Trump likes strong-men. He's attracted to Xi. He's attracted to Kim Jong-un. He's attracted to Putin. Heck, he's attracted to the President of Syria who's an ISIS and Al Qaeda alumni. But the President says, "Hey, he's a good looking man." This prediliction for authoritarian leaders, it's not healthy. It's not right. Taiwan is the right place for US allegiances to be." Mark Montgomery Pyotr Kurzin The Global Gambit (GG)

Rear Admiral (Ret.) Mark Montgomery, who has served 32 years in the U.S. Navy as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer: "Taiwan 🇹🇼 is probably the most important country in the world to the United States 🇺🇸 economy. It's a close, if it isn't it's a close second or third to 🇨🇳China and Canada 🇨🇦. It's our fourth largest trading partner. Canada🇨🇦 and Mexico🇲🇽 is because of geographic proxiity, so it's really them (Taiwan 🇹🇼) and 🇨🇳 China. And Germany 🇩🇪 and Japan 🇯🇵, the big powerhouses, they're small, less trade with the United States. Trump hates this trade because it's $200 billion from Taiwan, $50 billion from the US, he hates that trade deficit. I call it, to use his vernacular, a Big Beautiful Trade Deficit because that $200 billion coming over from Taiwan includes $170 billion of compute. And what I mean by compute is semiconductor chips and some micro electronics to go along with them. That $170 billion drives 4 trillion+ dollars of US GDP. And not some Davos bullshit mathematics. This is real 4 trillion. It's not replaceable. The chips that drive our phones, our F-35s, our F-150 trucks, our TVs, our refrigerators, anything we're building in the United States, it's got Taiwanese chips in it. They're 95% of the high-end chips, 70% to 75% of the legacy chips come from Taiwan. There's not a replacement for it. It is indispensable to the United States. So when the President's dismissive of the need to defend Taiwan or questions the value of it, he completely is bereft of facts which you know is disappointing that Secretary Besset, the Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Commerce can't make it clear to the President that we need Taiwan as much as Taiwan needs us, maybe more. As a result, we've got to do a better job of partnering with Taiwan, figuring out how we build our military security together to match our economic coupling because we're not going anywhere without them. We're not going to build our way out of dependence on Taiwanese chips. You'd like to argue against supporting a democracy, a thirving democracy with a first amendment and free press, freedom of assembly, free elections, fair elections that lead to split government, which causes beatdowns inside the parliament (lol). You know this is democracy at its greatest. Why would we not support that? Why would we throw our lot, why would be like, well, you know, possibly we should talk to the uh CCP, which is where President Xi, his elections are all 90, I'm sorry, he doesn't even have "99% elections" now, he has "100% elections". And if you remember how he treated his predecessor at the last big Communist Party get together, he frog marched out his predecessor for even thinking about possibly not agreeing with a minor thing that Xi says. There are many, many reasons to support Taiwan that both the Left in America and the conservatives in America and business in America ought to support here. There is no reason not so support Taiwan other than President Trump likes strong-men. He's attracted to Xi. He's attracted to Kim Jong-un. He's attracted to Putin. Heck, he's attracted to the President of Syria who's an ISIS and Al Qaeda alumni. But the President says, "Hey, he's a good looking man." This prediliction for authoritarian leaders, it's not healthy. It's not right. Taiwan is the right place for US allegiances to be." Mark Montgomery Pyotr Kurzin The Global Gambit (GG)

Daniel Ku 顧仲文 🇹🇼🇨🇦

60,335 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

Last week, for the first time in the Romanian Parliament, the words "I am Taiwanese" were spoken, both in Hokkien and Mandarin, the most widely spoken languages in that country. They were spoken to assert a simple and firm truth: We cannot afford another nation martyred by a dictatorial regime, following the fate of Ukraine. We cannot allow Taiwan to become a target of political expansionist ambitions, economic and societal control, of a regime that does not respect human rights domestically and the rules of good neighborliness and collaboration internationally. My statement is a continuation of the efforts I make as co-chair of the Interparliamentary Alliance on China (Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC)) and member of the Formosa Club (The Formosa Club) to ensure that the Indo-Pacific region is not monopolized by an undemocratic player like the People's Republic of China, a player that has proven to prioritize the repressive interests of its party elite over the legitimate interests and aspirations, rights of its own citizens, national and religious minorities, and neighboring nations. This was abundantly proven this weekend when 10 Chinese warplanes crossed the median line separating the territorial waters of the People's Republic of China from those of Taiwan, in a blatant act of provocation. Below is the text of my statement from the Romanian Parliament on Wednesday, June 7, 2023: -------------------------- Dear colleagues, "Wǒ shì táiwān rén!" "Góa sī Tâi-oân lâng!" These two phrases, spoken today for the first time in the Romanian Parliament, mean "I am Taiwanese!", in Mandarin and Hokkien, two of the languages spoken in Taiwan. Through these words, the citizens of this country affirm their identity, an identity they have the right to have and to express freely. Identity is the key to a free and diverse society, where each individual has the right to express their culture, values, and aspirations. In Taiwan, this identity is flourishing, fueled by a rich history and a people dedicated to the values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights. Let's not forget that, like any free people, the Taiwanese identity is not defined by political conflicts or demarcation lines on the map, but by the people who call this island home. People who, despite pressures and challenges, continue to fight for democracy, civil rights, and freedom. And that's why, two weeks ago, I had the distinct honor of representing Romania at the inaugural meeting of the Formosa Club, a gathering of over 30 parliamentarians and MEPs who support Taiwan. As a member of the Romania-Taiwan friendship group, I witnessed a historic meeting that reaffirmed the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, an area of crucial importance for global security and prosperity. In this forum, we conveyed a clear and powerful message: any existing disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait must be addressed through peaceful means and the status quo should not be unilaterally changed, against the will of the Taiwanese people. Any aggressive and reckless behavior not only harms reconciliation efforts but also unnecessarily escalates tensions in the region, an action we firmly oppose. Taiwan is an indispensable member of the international community, with much to offer in a range of fields. Taiwan's continued exclusion from international organizations is not in line with global interests. We consistently support Taiwan's meaningful involvement in meetings, mechanisms, and activities of multilateral institutions, including but not limited to the World Health Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Criminal Police Organization, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Taiwan is a key partner and a democratic ally in the Indo-Pacific region. Every democracy, including Taiwan, has the right to develop comprehensive relationships with other countries to advance the common interests of their peoples and to promote the values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We underline the urgent need to strengthen our cooperation with Taiwan, such as through the establishment of trade, investment, and sectoral agreements, to enhance the resilience of our supply chains and our democracies. We reiterate our intention to continue standing with Taiwan and to do everything in our power to ensure its democracy, while strengthening the close ties between Taiwan, the EU, other European democracies, and transatlantic countries, to defend our common values and the global liberal democratic order. I invite you to join this cause, to support Taiwan's meaningful participation in international institutions, and to recognize its value as a member of the international community. It is time to strengthen our cooperation with Taiwan, to establish trade, investment, and sectoral agreements, to enhance the resilience of our supply chains and our democracies. The right to development, to promote the values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law is not a privilege, but a fundamental right. These are not only Taiwan's values, but also our values, Romania's values, Europe's values. In conclusion, I want to assure you that I will continue to stand with Taiwan and do everything possible to ensure its democracy, while strengthening the closer ties between Taiwan, Romania, the EU, other European democracies, and transatlantic countries. Together, we can defend our common values and the global liberal democratic order. Thank you. Cătălin Teniță - MP representing Bucharest, member of the Partidul REPER

Last week, for the first time in the Romanian Parliament, the words "I am Taiwanese" were spoken, both in Hokkien and Mandarin, the most widely spoken languages in that country. They were spoken to assert a simple and firm truth: We cannot afford another nation martyred by a dictatorial regime, following the fate of Ukraine. We cannot allow Taiwan to become a target of political expansionist ambitions, economic and societal control, of a regime that does not respect human rights domestically and the rules of good neighborliness and collaboration internationally. My statement is a continuation of the efforts I make as co-chair of the Interparliamentary Alliance on China (Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC)) and member of the Formosa Club (The Formosa Club) to ensure that the Indo-Pacific region is not monopolized by an undemocratic player like the People's Republic of China, a player that has proven to prioritize the repressive interests of its party elite over the legitimate interests and aspirations, rights of its own citizens, national and religious minorities, and neighboring nations. This was abundantly proven this weekend when 10 Chinese warplanes crossed the median line separating the territorial waters of the People's Republic of China from those of Taiwan, in a blatant act of provocation. Below is the text of my statement from the Romanian Parliament on Wednesday, June 7, 2023: -------------------------- Dear colleagues, "Wǒ shì táiwān rén!" "Góa sī Tâi-oân lâng!" These two phrases, spoken today for the first time in the Romanian Parliament, mean "I am Taiwanese!", in Mandarin and Hokkien, two of the languages spoken in Taiwan. Through these words, the citizens of this country affirm their identity, an identity they have the right to have and to express freely. Identity is the key to a free and diverse society, where each individual has the right to express their culture, values, and aspirations. In Taiwan, this identity is flourishing, fueled by a rich history and a people dedicated to the values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights. Let's not forget that, like any free people, the Taiwanese identity is not defined by political conflicts or demarcation lines on the map, but by the people who call this island home. People who, despite pressures and challenges, continue to fight for democracy, civil rights, and freedom. And that's why, two weeks ago, I had the distinct honor of representing Romania at the inaugural meeting of the Formosa Club, a gathering of over 30 parliamentarians and MEPs who support Taiwan. As a member of the Romania-Taiwan friendship group, I witnessed a historic meeting that reaffirmed the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, an area of crucial importance for global security and prosperity. In this forum, we conveyed a clear and powerful message: any existing disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait must be addressed through peaceful means and the status quo should not be unilaterally changed, against the will of the Taiwanese people. Any aggressive and reckless behavior not only harms reconciliation efforts but also unnecessarily escalates tensions in the region, an action we firmly oppose. Taiwan is an indispensable member of the international community, with much to offer in a range of fields. Taiwan's continued exclusion from international organizations is not in line with global interests. We consistently support Taiwan's meaningful involvement in meetings, mechanisms, and activities of multilateral institutions, including but not limited to the World Health Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Criminal Police Organization, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Taiwan is a key partner and a democratic ally in the Indo-Pacific region. Every democracy, including Taiwan, has the right to develop comprehensive relationships with other countries to advance the common interests of their peoples and to promote the values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We underline the urgent need to strengthen our cooperation with Taiwan, such as through the establishment of trade, investment, and sectoral agreements, to enhance the resilience of our supply chains and our democracies. We reiterate our intention to continue standing with Taiwan and to do everything in our power to ensure its democracy, while strengthening the close ties between Taiwan, the EU, other European democracies, and transatlantic countries, to defend our common values and the global liberal democratic order. I invite you to join this cause, to support Taiwan's meaningful participation in international institutions, and to recognize its value as a member of the international community. It is time to strengthen our cooperation with Taiwan, to establish trade, investment, and sectoral agreements, to enhance the resilience of our supply chains and our democracies. The right to development, to promote the values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law is not a privilege, but a fundamental right. These are not only Taiwan's values, but also our values, Romania's values, Europe's values. In conclusion, I want to assure you that I will continue to stand with Taiwan and do everything possible to ensure its democracy, while strengthening the closer ties between Taiwan, Romania, the EU, other European democracies, and transatlantic countries. Together, we can defend our common values and the global liberal democratic order. Thank you. Cătălin Teniță - MP representing Bucharest, member of the Partidul REPER

Catalin Tenita🇷🇴

38,647 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

🇮🇱🇦🇺⚠️ WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?! Westerners need to watch this clip of Netanyahu because what he’s saying is deeply manipulative, invasive, and frankly unacceptable. Here, Netanyahu is lecturing a sovereign Western country, blaming Australia’s elected government for a terror attack carried out on Australian soil, because Canberra didn’t obey Israel’s political demands. Here’s what he literally claims: 🔹 Australia “caused” antisemitism by recognizing a Palestinian state. 🔹 Albanese “let the disease spread” by not following Israel’s preferred policy. 🔹 The Bondi attack happened because Australia showed “weakness.” 🔹 Western governments must act according to what Israel expects, or terrorism will “consume you as well.” There were no condolences, no expressions of solidarity, only political coercion using a domestic Australian tragedy as leverage. There is zero evidence linking the Bondi attack to Australia’s diplomatic position, and yet Netanyahu frames a lone attacker as the consequence of Western governments refusing to align with him. It gets worse, Mossad has now entered the Bondi investigation. Israel is inserting itself directly into an internal Australian case while its Prime Minister publicly blames Australia for the attack. Ask yourself: Since when does a foreign leader get to publicly shame a Western government for its democratic foreign policy? Since when is a domestic terror investigation handed influence from a foreign intelligence service? And why is he blaming Australians, instead of the attacker? Netanyahu’s message to the West is “Follow our political line or your citizens will die, and it will be your fault.” That crosses every line of respect between sovereign states and sounds like a direct threat. The fact more Westerners are not furious at this level of intrusion and manipulation is astonishing.

🇮🇱🇦🇺⚠️ WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?! Westerners need to watch this clip of Netanyahu because what he’s saying is deeply manipulative, invasive, and frankly unacceptable. Here, Netanyahu is lecturing a sovereign Western country, blaming Australia’s elected government for a terror attack carried out on Australian soil, because Canberra didn’t obey Israel’s political demands. Here’s what he literally claims: 🔹 Australia “caused” antisemitism by recognizing a Palestinian state. 🔹 Albanese “let the disease spread” by not following Israel’s preferred policy. 🔹 The Bondi attack happened because Australia showed “weakness.” 🔹 Western governments must act according to what Israel expects, or terrorism will “consume you as well.” There were no condolences, no expressions of solidarity, only political coercion using a domestic Australian tragedy as leverage. There is zero evidence linking the Bondi attack to Australia’s diplomatic position, and yet Netanyahu frames a lone attacker as the consequence of Western governments refusing to align with him. It gets worse, Mossad has now entered the Bondi investigation. Israel is inserting itself directly into an internal Australian case while its Prime Minister publicly blames Australia for the attack. Ask yourself: Since when does a foreign leader get to publicly shame a Western government for its democratic foreign policy? Since when is a domestic terror investigation handed influence from a foreign intelligence service? And why is he blaming Australians, instead of the attacker? Netanyahu’s message to the West is “Follow our political line or your citizens will die, and it will be your fault.” That crosses every line of respect between sovereign states and sounds like a direct threat. The fact more Westerners are not furious at this level of intrusion and manipulation is astonishing.

DD Geopolitics

77,475 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Netanyahu Announces Pardon Request, Citing National Interest and U.S. Coordination “Citizens of Israel, almost a decade has passed since the investigations against me began. The trial has been ongoing for nearly 6 years, and is expected to continue for many more. As exonerating evidence that completely disproves the false claims against me is revealed in court, and as it becomes clear that the case against me was built through serious violations, my personal interest was and remains to continue this process to its end, until full acquittal on all counts. But the security and political reality, the national interest, demands otherwise. Israel faces enormous challenges, alongside tremendous opportunities. To counter these threats and seize these opportunities, national unity is essential. The ongoing trial tears us apart from within, fuels fierce disagreements, and deepens divisions. I am sure, like many others, that ending the trial immediately would help lower tensions and promote the broad reconciliation our country so desperately needs. I’ve struggled with this decision, but recent events have tipped the scales. Due to the judicial panel’s decision, I’m required to testify 3 times weekly, 3 times a week. This is an impossible demand not required of any other Israeli citizen. I’ve also considered President Trump’s repeated appeals to Israel’s president. President Trump called for an immediate end to the trial, so we could work together on vital shared interests between Israel and the United States, in a time window that may not return. Dear citizens of Israel, I have been repeatedly elected in democratic elections and trusted by you to continue serving as Prime Minister of Israel, primarily to achieve these historic goals. For these reasons, my attorneys have submitted a pardon request to the president today. I expect anyone who has the country’s best interests at heart to support this step.” Amit Segal

Netanyahu Announces Pardon Request, Citing National Interest and U.S. Coordination “Citizens of Israel, almost a decade has passed since the investigations against me began. The trial has been ongoing for nearly 6 years, and is expected to continue for many more. As exonerating evidence that completely disproves the false claims against me is revealed in court, and as it becomes clear that the case against me was built through serious violations, my personal interest was and remains to continue this process to its end, until full acquittal on all counts. But the security and political reality, the national interest, demands otherwise. Israel faces enormous challenges, alongside tremendous opportunities. To counter these threats and seize these opportunities, national unity is essential. The ongoing trial tears us apart from within, fuels fierce disagreements, and deepens divisions. I am sure, like many others, that ending the trial immediately would help lower tensions and promote the broad reconciliation our country so desperately needs. I’ve struggled with this decision, but recent events have tipped the scales. Due to the judicial panel’s decision, I’m required to testify 3 times weekly, 3 times a week. This is an impossible demand not required of any other Israeli citizen. I’ve also considered President Trump’s repeated appeals to Israel’s president. President Trump called for an immediate end to the trial, so we could work together on vital shared interests between Israel and the United States, in a time window that may not return. Dear citizens of Israel, I have been repeatedly elected in democratic elections and trusted by you to continue serving as Prime Minister of Israel, primarily to achieve these historic goals. For these reasons, my attorneys have submitted a pardon request to the president today. I expect anyone who has the country’s best interests at heart to support this step.” Amit Segal

Open Source Intel

659,233 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Netanyahu after formally requesting that President Herzog pardon him in his criminal trial: Citizens of Israel, almost a decade has passed since the investigations against me began. The trial has been ongoing for nearly 6 years, and is expected to continue for many more. As exonerating evidence that completely disproves the false claims against me is revealed in court, and as it becomes clear that the case against me was built through serious violations, my personal interest was and remains to continue this process to its end, until full acquittal on all counts. But the security and political reality, the national interest, demands otherwise. Israel faces enormous challenges, alongside tremendous opportunities. To counter these threats and seize these opportunities, national unity is essential. The ongoing trial tears us apart from within, fuels fierce disagreements, and deepens divisions. I am sure, like many others, that ending the trial immediately would help lower tensions and promote the broad reconciliation our country so desperately needs. I’ve struggled with this decision, but recent events have tipped the scales. Due to the judicial panel’s decision, I’m required to testify 3 times weekly, 3 times a week. This is an impossible demand not required of any other Israeli citizen. I’ve also considered President Trump’s repeated appeals to Israel’s president. President Trump called for an immediate end to the trial, so we could work together on vital shared interests between Israel and the United States, in a time window that may not return. Dear citizens of Israel, I have been repeatedly elected in democratic elections and trusted by you to continue serving as Prime Minister of Israel, primarily to achieve these historic goals. For these reasons, my attorneys have submitted a pardon request to the president today. I expect anyone who has the country’s best interests at heart to support this step.

Netanyahu after formally requesting that President Herzog pardon him in his criminal trial: Citizens of Israel, almost a decade has passed since the investigations against me began. The trial has been ongoing for nearly 6 years, and is expected to continue for many more. As exonerating evidence that completely disproves the false claims against me is revealed in court, and as it becomes clear that the case against me was built through serious violations, my personal interest was and remains to continue this process to its end, until full acquittal on all counts. But the security and political reality, the national interest, demands otherwise. Israel faces enormous challenges, alongside tremendous opportunities. To counter these threats and seize these opportunities, national unity is essential. The ongoing trial tears us apart from within, fuels fierce disagreements, and deepens divisions. I am sure, like many others, that ending the trial immediately would help lower tensions and promote the broad reconciliation our country so desperately needs. I’ve struggled with this decision, but recent events have tipped the scales. Due to the judicial panel’s decision, I’m required to testify 3 times weekly, 3 times a week. This is an impossible demand not required of any other Israeli citizen. I’ve also considered President Trump’s repeated appeals to Israel’s president. President Trump called for an immediate end to the trial, so we could work together on vital shared interests between Israel and the United States, in a time window that may not return. Dear citizens of Israel, I have been repeatedly elected in democratic elections and trusted by you to continue serving as Prime Minister of Israel, primarily to achieve these historic goals. For these reasons, my attorneys have submitted a pardon request to the president today. I expect anyone who has the country’s best interests at heart to support this step.

Amit Segal

126,151 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

🇪🇺 The European Union or the consummate art of selective indignation By Brainless Partisans 🏴‍☠️☢️☣️🪆 When António Costa, President of the European Council, solemnly invokes international law and European values, his speech is solemn, well-structured, almost liturgical. Europe, he tells us, is not just a geographical entity: it is a community of values. A moral force. A coherent whole. On paper, the intention is noble. In practice, however, the exercise is more like a balancing act than a founding principle. Because, let's talk about this coherence. The European Union claims it cannot tolerate violations of international law, whether in Cyprus, Latin America, Greenland, Ukraine, or Gaza. Everyone is carefully mentioned, as in a statement of diplomatic balance... except that the balance is only rhetorical. Values? Those that justify unconditional support for a Ukrainian government undermined by documented corruption scandals, in the name of a higher geopolitical imperative. The moral stance is firm, but flexible depending on the ally. A collective force? With member states unable to agree on defense, debt, energy, or even the definition of the priority enemy. A force, yes, but fragmented, conditional, and often paralyzed by its own vetoes. Consistency? The kind that vigorously condemns certain occupations, tolerates others with embarrassment, and ignores a few with carefully calibrated silence. The kind that imposes uniform ideological policies—energy, economic, or regulatory—whose effects have contributed to ruining entire sections of member states' economies, in the name of abstract principles decided far from industrial, social, and budgetary realities. International law becomes an argument, not a rule: it is waved when it is useful and put away when it is inconvenient. As for economic consistency, it is sacrificed on the altar of moral posturing. Basically, this argument is not wrong. It is simply incomplete. The European Union is not a community of homogeneous values: it is a coalition of interests dressed up as principles, where ethics are negotiated at the top and adapted to the balance of power at the time. Europe does not tolerate violations of international law, except when they are strategically useful, politically costly to denounce, or economically too embarrassing to address. But let us reassure ourselves: as long as the vocabulary remains impeccable, the European conscience remains officially intact.

🇪🇺 The European Union or the consummate art of selective indignation By Brainless Partisans 🏴‍☠️☢️☣️🪆 When António Costa, President of the European Council, solemnly invokes international law and European values, his speech is solemn, well-structured, almost liturgical. Europe, he tells us, is not just a geographical entity: it is a community of values. A moral force. A coherent whole. On paper, the intention is noble. In practice, however, the exercise is more like a balancing act than a founding principle. Because, let's talk about this coherence. The European Union claims it cannot tolerate violations of international law, whether in Cyprus, Latin America, Greenland, Ukraine, or Gaza. Everyone is carefully mentioned, as in a statement of diplomatic balance... except that the balance is only rhetorical. Values? Those that justify unconditional support for a Ukrainian government undermined by documented corruption scandals, in the name of a higher geopolitical imperative. The moral stance is firm, but flexible depending on the ally. A collective force? With member states unable to agree on defense, debt, energy, or even the definition of the priority enemy. A force, yes, but fragmented, conditional, and often paralyzed by its own vetoes. Consistency? The kind that vigorously condemns certain occupations, tolerates others with embarrassment, and ignores a few with carefully calibrated silence. The kind that imposes uniform ideological policies—energy, economic, or regulatory—whose effects have contributed to ruining entire sections of member states' economies, in the name of abstract principles decided far from industrial, social, and budgetary realities. International law becomes an argument, not a rule: it is waved when it is useful and put away when it is inconvenient. As for economic consistency, it is sacrificed on the altar of moral posturing. Basically, this argument is not wrong. It is simply incomplete. The European Union is not a community of homogeneous values: it is a coalition of interests dressed up as principles, where ethics are negotiated at the top and adapted to the balance of power at the time. Europe does not tolerate violations of international law, except when they are strategically useful, politically costly to denounce, or economically too embarrassing to address. But let us reassure ourselves: as long as the vocabulary remains impeccable, the European conscience remains officially intact.

Brainless Partisans 🏴‍☠️☢️☣️🪆

12,828 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

⭕️ LEAKED Email: Kat Abughazeleh “firmly an interventionist,” foreign policy adviser says Kat Abughazaleh, a socialist Democratic candidate in Illinois’ 9th District and one of the only Palestinian-Americans seeking office in 2026, was described by her national security adviser as “firmly an interventionist” who “won’t stop until Russia is made to pay for its crimes,” in written responses detailing her foreign policy vision, obtained by Drop Site. Ben Mermel wrote in an email to a Washington-based progressive foreign policy activist that Abughazaleh believes “the world is better off when America takes a leading role” and that the U.S. has “an obligation to support pro-democracy movements around the world, from Iran to Venezuela.” He added that “Kat wholly supports the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as its affiliated organizations (NDI, IRI, and the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center),” and said Congress should expand tools “from sanctions to NGO support” to advance those efforts without always resorting to “kinetic force.” The DC-based activist had written to Mermel saying he had noticed unusually hawkish language on the campaign website related to Ukraine and Taiwan and was looking for clarification. In his response, Mermel said that on Taiwan she would amend the Taiwan Relations Act by “dropping our strategic ambiguity” and make clear the U.S. would counter Chinese aggression “with force,” arguing the region now requires “a firmer hand.” On Ukraine, Mermel wrote she would “hold the line,” support “funding the Ukrainian war effort to the hilt,” back long-range strikes on Russian strategic targets, deploy additional U.S. “air, naval, and ground assets” to NATO’s front line, and that “She supports the seizure and redistribution of Russian assets in Europe and the United States, for the purpose of financing the war effort.” Abughazaleh did not respond to a request for comment, but a source close to the campaign told Drop Site that the adviser’s email did not accurately represent her views, saying, “Kat is committed to taking on authoritarianism but is vehemently against the military industrial complex and the continuation of failed US intervention approaches.” Abughazaleh has consistently argued against U.S. support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and, at a recent forum, said she opposes U.S. strikes on Iran. Mermel in 2024 attended a pro-Israel protest held to counter the encampment at George Washington University. He has been Abughazaleh’s National Security Adviser since July 2025, according to Legistorm. The full exchange is posted below. Watch the report on Breaking Points:

⭕️ LEAKED Email: Kat Abughazeleh “firmly an interventionist,” foreign policy adviser says Kat Abughazaleh, a socialist Democratic candidate in Illinois’ 9th District and one of the only Palestinian-Americans seeking office in 2026, was described by her national security adviser as “firmly an interventionist” who “won’t stop until Russia is made to pay for its crimes,” in written responses detailing her foreign policy vision, obtained by Drop Site. Ben Mermel wrote in an email to a Washington-based progressive foreign policy activist that Abughazaleh believes “the world is better off when America takes a leading role” and that the U.S. has “an obligation to support pro-democracy movements around the world, from Iran to Venezuela.” He added that “Kat wholly supports the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as its affiliated organizations (NDI, IRI, and the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center),” and said Congress should expand tools “from sanctions to NGO support” to advance those efforts without always resorting to “kinetic force.” The DC-based activist had written to Mermel saying he had noticed unusually hawkish language on the campaign website related to Ukraine and Taiwan and was looking for clarification. In his response, Mermel said that on Taiwan she would amend the Taiwan Relations Act by “dropping our strategic ambiguity” and make clear the U.S. would counter Chinese aggression “with force,” arguing the region now requires “a firmer hand.” On Ukraine, Mermel wrote she would “hold the line,” support “funding the Ukrainian war effort to the hilt,” back long-range strikes on Russian strategic targets, deploy additional U.S. “air, naval, and ground assets” to NATO’s front line, and that “She supports the seizure and redistribution of Russian assets in Europe and the United States, for the purpose of financing the war effort.” Abughazaleh did not respond to a request for comment, but a source close to the campaign told Drop Site that the adviser’s email did not accurately represent her views, saying, “Kat is committed to taking on authoritarianism but is vehemently against the military industrial complex and the continuation of failed US intervention approaches.” Abughazaleh has consistently argued against U.S. support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and, at a recent forum, said she opposes U.S. strikes on Iran. Mermel in 2024 attended a pro-Israel protest held to counter the encampment at George Washington University. He has been Abughazaleh’s National Security Adviser since July 2025, according to Legistorm. The full exchange is posted below. Watch the report on Breaking Points:

Drop Site

1,822,691 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

The NHS should not adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It is a document that has 1. No legal standing. 2. Deliberately conflates Zionism (a racist, supremacist and openly genocidal ideology) with Judaism. 3. Deliberstely seeks to indemnify Israel from criticism (a state that is guilty of occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleanising and genocide - according to the International Court of Justice, the highest legal body of the united nations) under cover of defining any criticism, or comparison of Israel’s crimes with those of other fascist states as “racist”. 4. By extension, this illegal and illegitimate definition (adopted unilaterally by Theresa May in 2018, without any reference to the wider British public) seeks to protect Israel’s backers - notably the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties, among others, from being exposed to criticism and legal action for their own complicity in genocide in Palestine. 5. In this way Wes Streeting is seeking to use ‘Lord’ Mann (another rabid zionist) and his own position as health secretary to outlaw opposition to his own crimes, “chill” freedom of speech and suppress opposition to British-Israeli Genocide. It is an immoral, racist, anti-democratic initiative, made more immoral by his own long history of political support and promotion, as well as direct funding from the genocide-supporting Israel lobby. Don’t accept it. Action must be taken against Streeting, Starmer, Lammy, Reeves and all those guilty of and complicit in Genocide.

The NHS should not adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It is a document that has 1. No legal standing. 2. Deliberately conflates Zionism (a racist, supremacist and openly genocidal ideology) with Judaism. 3. Deliberstely seeks to indemnify Israel from criticism (a state that is guilty of occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleanising and genocide - according to the International Court of Justice, the highest legal body of the united nations) under cover of defining any criticism, or comparison of Israel’s crimes with those of other fascist states as “racist”. 4. By extension, this illegal and illegitimate definition (adopted unilaterally by Theresa May in 2018, without any reference to the wider British public) seeks to protect Israel’s backers - notably the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties, among others, from being exposed to criticism and legal action for their own complicity in genocide in Palestine. 5. In this way Wes Streeting is seeking to use ‘Lord’ Mann (another rabid zionist) and his own position as health secretary to outlaw opposition to his own crimes, “chill” freedom of speech and suppress opposition to British-Israeli Genocide. It is an immoral, racist, anti-democratic initiative, made more immoral by his own long history of political support and promotion, as well as direct funding from the genocide-supporting Israel lobby. Don’t accept it. Action must be taken against Streeting, Starmer, Lammy, Reeves and all those guilty of and complicit in Genocide.

The Communists

21,239 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif warmly welcomed Iranian President Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian and his delegation to Pakistan amid reaffirming Islamabad’s commitment to strengthening bilateral ties across multiple sectors, including trade, economic development, infrastructure and reconstruction, and promoting peace and stability in the region. During his opening remarks at the delegation-level talks, the Prime Minister said it was a great pleasure to receive the Iranian President in Islamabad and thanked him for accepting his invitation to visit Pakistan. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said, “I have no doubt that the brave and resilient people of Iran, with their immense capabilities and natural resources, will transform their country into a flourishing economy.” Pakistan and Iran would continue joint efforts to achieve shared prosperity, he added. The prime minister thanked the Iranian leadership for trusting Pakistan’s sincere and honest mediation efforts and assured Tehran that Pakistan would continue to play a constructive role in promoting lasting peace. “True brotherhood requires no questions or answers,” the Prime Minister remarked, emphasizing that Pakistan would continue supporting peace initiatives based on dignity, honour and mutual respect. The prime minister conveyed his warm regards to Iran’s Supreme Leader and praised the Iranian leadership for its efforts that led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the achievement of a ceasefire with “dignity and honour.” Expressing solidarity with the people of Iran, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif offered his deepest condolences over the loss of innocent lives, including children, women, boys and girls, during the recent conflict. He commended President Pezeshkian’s sagacious, calm and vigilant leadership that had helped pave the way for a more peaceful future. Highlighting the role of Pakistan’s military leadership, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif particularly acknowledged the efforts of Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, whom he credited with working tirelessly to facilitate dialogue and support the signing of the MoU. “He worked untiringly through difficult days and nights with one mission: to do everything humanly possible to stop a war that could have brought devastation across vast regions,” the prime minister said. He also referred to the first technical-level session held in Switzerland and thanked Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Ishaq Dar as well as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi for their diplomatic engagements and shuttle diplomacy efforts. The prime minister further appreciated the support extended by Qatar and other brotherly countries for advancing the peace initiative. He also lauded the contributions of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for their support and efforts toward regional stability. PM Shehbaz Sharif noted that he had informed Parliament about President Pezeshkian’s visit and said the people of Pakistan were delighted to welcome the Iranian leader. Reaffirming the close ties between the two neighbouring countries, he stated, “Iran and Pakistan are brothers, and we stand together in times of happiness and sorrow.” Addressing speculation regarding the contents of the MoU, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif clarified that ballistic missiles were neither included in the agreement nor discussed during negotiations, as the issue was not on the agenda. He cautioned against any misunderstanding regarding the agreement and suggested that certain elements had attempted to undermine peace efforts. The prime minister emphasized that there should be no confusion about the MoU’s scope, reiterating that it focused on promoting peace and stability and did not contain any provisions related to ballistic missile issues.

Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif warmly welcomed Iranian President Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian and his delegation to Pakistan amid reaffirming Islamabad’s commitment to strengthening bilateral ties across multiple sectors, including trade, economic development, infrastructure and reconstruction, and promoting peace and stability in the region. During his opening remarks at the delegation-level talks, the Prime Minister said it was a great pleasure to receive the Iranian President in Islamabad and thanked him for accepting his invitation to visit Pakistan. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said, “I have no doubt that the brave and resilient people of Iran, with their immense capabilities and natural resources, will transform their country into a flourishing economy.” Pakistan and Iran would continue joint efforts to achieve shared prosperity, he added. The prime minister thanked the Iranian leadership for trusting Pakistan’s sincere and honest mediation efforts and assured Tehran that Pakistan would continue to play a constructive role in promoting lasting peace. “True brotherhood requires no questions or answers,” the Prime Minister remarked, emphasizing that Pakistan would continue supporting peace initiatives based on dignity, honour and mutual respect. The prime minister conveyed his warm regards to Iran’s Supreme Leader and praised the Iranian leadership for its efforts that led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the achievement of a ceasefire with “dignity and honour.” Expressing solidarity with the people of Iran, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif offered his deepest condolences over the loss of innocent lives, including children, women, boys and girls, during the recent conflict. He commended President Pezeshkian’s sagacious, calm and vigilant leadership that had helped pave the way for a more peaceful future. Highlighting the role of Pakistan’s military leadership, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif particularly acknowledged the efforts of Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, whom he credited with working tirelessly to facilitate dialogue and support the signing of the MoU. “He worked untiringly through difficult days and nights with one mission: to do everything humanly possible to stop a war that could have brought devastation across vast regions,” the prime minister said. He also referred to the first technical-level session held in Switzerland and thanked Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Ishaq Dar as well as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi for their diplomatic engagements and shuttle diplomacy efforts. The prime minister further appreciated the support extended by Qatar and other brotherly countries for advancing the peace initiative. He also lauded the contributions of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for their support and efforts toward regional stability. PM Shehbaz Sharif noted that he had informed Parliament about President Pezeshkian’s visit and said the people of Pakistan were delighted to welcome the Iranian leader. Reaffirming the close ties between the two neighbouring countries, he stated, “Iran and Pakistan are brothers, and we stand together in times of happiness and sorrow.” Addressing speculation regarding the contents of the MoU, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif clarified that ballistic missiles were neither included in the agreement nor discussed during negotiations, as the issue was not on the agenda. He cautioned against any misunderstanding regarding the agreement and suggested that certain elements had attempted to undermine peace efforts. The prime minister emphasized that there should be no confusion about the MoU’s scope, reiterating that it focused on promoting peace and stability and did not contain any provisions related to ballistic missile issues.

Prime Minister's Office

10,964 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater!” How many times have you heard advocates of censorship say that? Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz repeated it last night in his debate with Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance. In so doing, Walz spread misinformation. It’s not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s a myth. The expression refers to a 1919 Supreme Court opinion superseded by the 1969 Brandenberg v. Ohio decision. Tim Walz had previously claimed that spreading misinformation about elections was illegal. It’s not. How could it be? If the government censored disfavored views on elections, how would we ever know if our elections were truly free and fair? I debunked Walz’s claim on X last night, and it’s happily now been viewed over 10 million times. As satisfying as that is, it’s still not enough. If Walz and Harris get elected, they may attempt to ramp up the censorship we have been documenting and denouncing. As such, all of us who care about freedom of speech must push ourselves to find ways to persuade our fellow citizens of the benefits of free speech over censorship. Now, you might not feel like making the case for free speech personally to friends and family, and you certainly don’t need to. But many people have emailed me over the last three years expressing dismay at how many Democrats they know are in favor of free speech. I share their dismay. Support among Democrats for government censorship of online misinformation grew from 40% to 70% between 2018 and 2023. It was shocking to testify before Congress on free speech issues last year only to discover how many Democrats wanted more censorship. And so I made this video for people looking for a way to talk to friends and family about censorship, one of the greatest threats to our democracy. After working on free speech issues three years ago, I realized that I had taken my support for free speech for granted. I had forgotten that my parents and others had taught me the importance of free speech. It wasn’t something that came naturally. I still remember when my father explained to me why the Supreme Court let Nazis march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. I remember being shocked by this and thinking such a thing lacked compassion. Only gradually, over several years, I saw the wisdom of free speech, not simply in allowing fundamental human expression but also as the best response to lies and hatred. That raises a few questions: Will the same approach that worked with me work with people today? Who needs to be persuaded, exactly? And what appears to move them? Over the last few years my colleagues and I have read through the public opinion research, interviewed, and spoken with hundreds of people in the West. One significant finding is that the people in favor of censorship today tend to be more female than male and more on the political Left than Right. And I’m happy to say that I finally feel confident in explaining what moves them to favor free speech and more opposed to censorship. The research on support for free speech is mixed. Initially, older adults were more inclined to favor restrictions, but polling by the Pew Research Center shows that this gap has closed. Similarly, a 2022 Knight Foundation survey indicated that younger people, while valuing free speech highly, have become more supportive of limiting online harmful content. However, a recent 2024 survey of Australians found that younger people were more supportive of free speech and against censorship than older people. The main reason women and people on the left are more supportive of censorship appears to be to reduce harm. This is consistent with the research by psychologists Jonathan Haidt and others that where conservatives tend to hold a broader set of traditional values, progressives have reduced the number of core values they hold strongly to just one: compassion. Earlier research found people on the Left also hold the value of freedom, but it is notably selective, as rising Democratic support for censorship shows. “Women are more supportive of illegalizing insults of immigrants, homosexualindividuals, transgender individuals, the police, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, Jewish people, and Christians, and are more supportive of banning sexually explicit public statements and flag burning,” noted psychologist Cory Clark in Psychology Today in 2021. “One likely reason for this pattern is that women are more averse to interpersonal harm and have a relatively stronger concern for protecting others.” So, to move people to support free speech, we should first appeal to compassion since it’s the core value of Democrats, progressives, liberals, and people on the Left today. After you anchor people in compassion, you can make the intellectual case for why free speech is more compassionate than censorship. This approach is also critical to avoid triggering cognitive dissonance, which is the discomfort individuals feel when they realize they hold contradictory beliefs or are confronted with information that challenges their existing views. If people feel attacked or cornered, they often respond by doubling down on their beliefs to reduce this discomfort, a phenomenon known as "motivated reasoning" or "defensive processing." Avoiding accusatory language, empathetic listening, and framing the conversation around shared values can prevent defensive responses and encourage reflection. “If you must present evidence threatening to the audience’s worldview,” wrote a team of psychologists in 2016, “you may be able to reduce the worldview backfire effect by presenting your content in a worldview-affirming manner.” Readers of Public may recall what I discovered when interviewing people on the streets of Dublin, Ireland, about free speech. Simply slowing people down and forcing them to engage in “slow thinking” rather than “fast thinking” made them more receptive to free speech arguments. Slowing people down allows them to relax, remember the past, and imagine potential futures. And simply asking questions demonstrates respect and triggers a feeling of obligation by most people to offer truthful answers. How you approach the topic will depend on whether you’re talking with a friend or relative or moderating a presidential debate, but it should include affirming shared values. You might say, “There’s been a lot of debate about censorship and misinformation. Most of us, myself included, care a lot about protecting vulnerable people and countering bad information while protecting people’s right to free speech. I’m curious how you think about these issues, and I wondered if I could ask you how you think about them.” Assuming you get permission to go further, here are the three key questions I would recommend... Please subscribe now to support free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater!” How many times have you heard advocates of censorship say that? Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz repeated it last night in his debate with Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance. In so doing, Walz spread misinformation. It’s not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s a myth. The expression refers to a 1919 Supreme Court opinion superseded by the 1969 Brandenberg v. Ohio decision. Tim Walz had previously claimed that spreading misinformation about elections was illegal. It’s not. How could it be? If the government censored disfavored views on elections, how would we ever know if our elections were truly free and fair? I debunked Walz’s claim on X last night, and it’s happily now been viewed over 10 million times. As satisfying as that is, it’s still not enough. If Walz and Harris get elected, they may attempt to ramp up the censorship we have been documenting and denouncing. As such, all of us who care about freedom of speech must push ourselves to find ways to persuade our fellow citizens of the benefits of free speech over censorship. Now, you might not feel like making the case for free speech personally to friends and family, and you certainly don’t need to. But many people have emailed me over the last three years expressing dismay at how many Democrats they know are in favor of free speech. I share their dismay. Support among Democrats for government censorship of online misinformation grew from 40% to 70% between 2018 and 2023. It was shocking to testify before Congress on free speech issues last year only to discover how many Democrats wanted more censorship. And so I made this video for people looking for a way to talk to friends and family about censorship, one of the greatest threats to our democracy. After working on free speech issues three years ago, I realized that I had taken my support for free speech for granted. I had forgotten that my parents and others had taught me the importance of free speech. It wasn’t something that came naturally. I still remember when my father explained to me why the Supreme Court let Nazis march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. I remember being shocked by this and thinking such a thing lacked compassion. Only gradually, over several years, I saw the wisdom of free speech, not simply in allowing fundamental human expression but also as the best response to lies and hatred. That raises a few questions: Will the same approach that worked with me work with people today? Who needs to be persuaded, exactly? And what appears to move them? Over the last few years my colleagues and I have read through the public opinion research, interviewed, and spoken with hundreds of people in the West. One significant finding is that the people in favor of censorship today tend to be more female than male and more on the political Left than Right. And I’m happy to say that I finally feel confident in explaining what moves them to favor free speech and more opposed to censorship. The research on support for free speech is mixed. Initially, older adults were more inclined to favor restrictions, but polling by the Pew Research Center shows that this gap has closed. Similarly, a 2022 Knight Foundation survey indicated that younger people, while valuing free speech highly, have become more supportive of limiting online harmful content. However, a recent 2024 survey of Australians found that younger people were more supportive of free speech and against censorship than older people. The main reason women and people on the left are more supportive of censorship appears to be to reduce harm. This is consistent with the research by psychologists Jonathan Haidt and others that where conservatives tend to hold a broader set of traditional values, progressives have reduced the number of core values they hold strongly to just one: compassion. Earlier research found people on the Left also hold the value of freedom, but it is notably selective, as rising Democratic support for censorship shows. “Women are more supportive of illegalizing insults of immigrants, homosexualindividuals, transgender individuals, the police, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, Jewish people, and Christians, and are more supportive of banning sexually explicit public statements and flag burning,” noted psychologist Cory Clark in Psychology Today in 2021. “One likely reason for this pattern is that women are more averse to interpersonal harm and have a relatively stronger concern for protecting others.” So, to move people to support free speech, we should first appeal to compassion since it’s the core value of Democrats, progressives, liberals, and people on the Left today. After you anchor people in compassion, you can make the intellectual case for why free speech is more compassionate than censorship. This approach is also critical to avoid triggering cognitive dissonance, which is the discomfort individuals feel when they realize they hold contradictory beliefs or are confronted with information that challenges their existing views. If people feel attacked or cornered, they often respond by doubling down on their beliefs to reduce this discomfort, a phenomenon known as "motivated reasoning" or "defensive processing." Avoiding accusatory language, empathetic listening, and framing the conversation around shared values can prevent defensive responses and encourage reflection. “If you must present evidence threatening to the audience’s worldview,” wrote a team of psychologists in 2016, “you may be able to reduce the worldview backfire effect by presenting your content in a worldview-affirming manner.” Readers of Public may recall what I discovered when interviewing people on the streets of Dublin, Ireland, about free speech. Simply slowing people down and forcing them to engage in “slow thinking” rather than “fast thinking” made them more receptive to free speech arguments. Slowing people down allows them to relax, remember the past, and imagine potential futures. And simply asking questions demonstrates respect and triggers a feeling of obligation by most people to offer truthful answers. How you approach the topic will depend on whether you’re talking with a friend or relative or moderating a presidential debate, but it should include affirming shared values. You might say, “There’s been a lot of debate about censorship and misinformation. Most of us, myself included, care a lot about protecting vulnerable people and countering bad information while protecting people’s right to free speech. I’m curious how you think about these issues, and I wondered if I could ask you how you think about them.” Assuming you get permission to go further, here are the three key questions I would recommend... Please subscribe now to support free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

10,563,804 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The West’s Support For Israel Is The #1 Threat To Free Speech President Trump has made a post on Truth Social saying federal funding will be cut to universities which allow “illegal protests” on their campuses, obliquely referring to pro-Palestine demonstrations against Israel’s genocidal atrocities. “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” Trump said. “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS!” Elise Stefanik, Trump’s nominee for ambassador to the UN, made it clear that this was the Trump administration taking a position on “anti-Israel hate.” “Antisemitism and anti-Israel hate will not be tolerated on American campuses,” tweeted Stefanik with a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post. Trump’s declaration follows a completely insane statement from health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr which makes the targeting of pro-Palestine protests much more explicit. “Anti-Semitism — like racism — is a spiritual and moral malady that sickens societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues,” said Kennedy. “In recent years, the censorship and false narratives of woke cancel culture have transformed our great universities into greenhouses for this deadly and virulent pestilence. Making America healthy means building communities of trust and mutual respect, based on speech freedom and open debate.” Leaving aside Kennedy’s ridiculous claim that antisemitism “kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues” in modern times and all the weird mental contortions he’s performing to turn this into a Health and Human Services issue, conflating pro-Palestine protests with antisemitism and then claiming it needs to be eliminated as a “pestilence” squarely contradicts Kennedy’s asserted support for “speech freedom and open debate.” Kennedy’s bat shit crazy remarks align with an accompanying statement from Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, who says, “Americans have watched in horror for more than a year now, as Jewish students have been assaulted and harassed on elite university campuses. Unlawful encampments and demonstrations have completely paralyzed day-to-day campus operations, depriving Jewish students of learning opportunities to which they are entitled.” They are using the completely fictional narrative of “antisemitism” on university campuses to stomp out protests against Israeli atrocities in the United States. They couldn’t be more transparent about it. Which is why civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) immediately released statements denouncing this move by the Trump administration. “It is disturbing to see the White House threatening freedom of speech and academic freedom on U.S. college campuses so blatantly,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the ACLU. “We stand in solidarity with university leaders in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus. Trump’s latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, harkens back to the McCarthy era and is at odds with American constitutional values and the basic mission of universities.” “Today’s message will cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” says FIRE. “Paired with President Trump’s 2019 executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti-Semitism, and his January order threatening to deport international students for engaging in protected expression, students will rationally fear punishment for wholly protected political speech.” If you support freedom of speech you now have an ethical obligation to oppose Israel, even if you didn’t before. Western governments’ support for Israel is the biggest threat to free speech in our society today. Civil rights are being stomped out throughout the western world to protect Israeli information interests, and speech is being suppressed in support of Israel more aggressively than with any other topic. We’re not seeing this level of all-out warfare against free expression on any other frontline — not Russia, not vaccines, not “election security”, not on any kind of ideological front. The west’s support for Israel is the number one threat to free speech in the west today, and nothing else comes anywhere close. Trump’s latest announcement about “illegal protests” against Israel on university campuses is just the latest escalation in what has been an ongoing assault on all criticism of the Zionist entity. We’re seeing journalists and activists persecuted and fired for opposing Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza, protests violently shut down by police, new laws shoved through at alarming speed to help target pro-Palestine demonstrators, massive amounts of social media censorship across all major platforms — all while the mainstream press commit extremely egregious journalistic malpractice with obfuscations in their reporting and punditry designed to spin Israel’s abuses in a positive light. Even if you’ve never cared about Israel before, you should be opposing it if you care about the existence of free speech in your society. Hell, you should be aggressively resisting this war on speech even if you support Israel. When civil liberties are being snuffed out one by one with increasing brazenness in defense of a foreign state, then everyone who claims to stand for freedom has an obligation to stand against it. Reading by Tim Foley:

The West’s Support For Israel Is The #1 Threat To Free Speech President Trump has made a post on Truth Social saying federal funding will be cut to universities which allow “illegal protests” on their campuses, obliquely referring to pro-Palestine demonstrations against Israel’s genocidal atrocities. “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” Trump said. “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS!” Elise Stefanik, Trump’s nominee for ambassador to the UN, made it clear that this was the Trump administration taking a position on “anti-Israel hate.” “Antisemitism and anti-Israel hate will not be tolerated on American campuses,” tweeted Stefanik with a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post. Trump’s declaration follows a completely insane statement from health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr which makes the targeting of pro-Palestine protests much more explicit. “Anti-Semitism — like racism — is a spiritual and moral malady that sickens societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues,” said Kennedy. “In recent years, the censorship and false narratives of woke cancel culture have transformed our great universities into greenhouses for this deadly and virulent pestilence. Making America healthy means building communities of trust and mutual respect, based on speech freedom and open debate.” Leaving aside Kennedy’s ridiculous claim that antisemitism “kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues” in modern times and all the weird mental contortions he’s performing to turn this into a Health and Human Services issue, conflating pro-Palestine protests with antisemitism and then claiming it needs to be eliminated as a “pestilence” squarely contradicts Kennedy’s asserted support for “speech freedom and open debate.” Kennedy’s bat shit crazy remarks align with an accompanying statement from Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, who says, “Americans have watched in horror for more than a year now, as Jewish students have been assaulted and harassed on elite university campuses. Unlawful encampments and demonstrations have completely paralyzed day-to-day campus operations, depriving Jewish students of learning opportunities to which they are entitled.” They are using the completely fictional narrative of “antisemitism” on university campuses to stomp out protests against Israeli atrocities in the United States. They couldn’t be more transparent about it. Which is why civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) immediately released statements denouncing this move by the Trump administration. “It is disturbing to see the White House threatening freedom of speech and academic freedom on U.S. college campuses so blatantly,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the ACLU. “We stand in solidarity with university leaders in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus. Trump’s latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, harkens back to the McCarthy era and is at odds with American constitutional values and the basic mission of universities.” “Today’s message will cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” says FIRE. “Paired with President Trump’s 2019 executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti-Semitism, and his January order threatening to deport international students for engaging in protected expression, students will rationally fear punishment for wholly protected political speech.” If you support freedom of speech you now have an ethical obligation to oppose Israel, even if you didn’t before. Western governments’ support for Israel is the biggest threat to free speech in our society today. Civil rights are being stomped out throughout the western world to protect Israeli information interests, and speech is being suppressed in support of Israel more aggressively than with any other topic. We’re not seeing this level of all-out warfare against free expression on any other frontline — not Russia, not vaccines, not “election security”, not on any kind of ideological front. The west’s support for Israel is the number one threat to free speech in the west today, and nothing else comes anywhere close. Trump’s latest announcement about “illegal protests” against Israel on university campuses is just the latest escalation in what has been an ongoing assault on all criticism of the Zionist entity. We’re seeing journalists and activists persecuted and fired for opposing Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza, protests violently shut down by police, new laws shoved through at alarming speed to help target pro-Palestine demonstrators, massive amounts of social media censorship across all major platforms — all while the mainstream press commit extremely egregious journalistic malpractice with obfuscations in their reporting and punditry designed to spin Israel’s abuses in a positive light. Even if you’ve never cared about Israel before, you should be opposing it if you care about the existence of free speech in your society. Hell, you should be aggressively resisting this war on speech even if you support Israel. When civil liberties are being snuffed out one by one with increasing brazenness in defense of a foreign state, then everyone who claims to stand for freedom has an obligation to stand against it. Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

119,027 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

KAGAME GIVES WARNING TO USA President Donald J. Trump & RDC He says those who sanctioned Kabarebe are FOOLISH...Kagame who invaded DRC and killed over 6 millions make himself a victim in his July 4th Reception speech in Kigali! Paul Kagame boasts and threatens the Congolese authorities and the entire International Community. He issues his threats against RDC 🇨🇩 and the USA in particular, as well as other powerful Western countries and regional countries in general, with an arrogance never seen before While these same Western countries created and supported him from the beginning until now, didn’t they know they were creating A MONSTER in Rwanda and the African Great Lakes region that would be difficult, if not impossible, to control? And that Paul Kagame is showing his creators his true MONSTER face by shamelessly threatening them, how will they manage to control him, since bringing him to reason is no longer possible? The Peoplesof the RGLA demand that the powerful countries that created Kagame, the MONSTER, do what is necessary to strip him of his ability to harm the region. This is truly urgent, otherwise he will finish what he started: setting the entire region ablaze because for only his life matters, not the lives of others!! FOR OVER 30 THE ENTIRE REGION HAS ENDURED ALL KINDS OF HORRORS THAT PAUL KAGAME AND HIS #FPR REGIME IMPOSE. THE REGION WANTS TO BREATHE AND DESERVES BETTER! President Donald J. Trump UK Prime Minister Élysée Présidence RDC 🇨🇩 Ntare Rushatsi House Secretary Marco Rubio U.S. Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs DIRCO South Africa Parlement européen en France European Parliament UE en RDC🇪🇺 EU Delegation to Rwanda Chef de Mission - Ambassade des États-Unis à Kin U.S. Embassy Kigali United Nations Human Rights Watch Canada in Rwanda and Burundi Netherlands Embassy in Kigali German Embassy Kigali SADC Secretariat Ambassade de France au Rwanda 🇫🇷🇪🇺 African Union East African Community From:

KAGAME GIVES WARNING TO USA President Donald J. Trump & RDC He says those who sanctioned Kabarebe are FOOLISH...Kagame who invaded DRC and killed over 6 millions make himself a victim in his July 4th Reception speech in Kigali! Paul Kagame boasts and threatens the Congolese authorities and the entire International Community. He issues his threats against RDC 🇨🇩 and the USA in particular, as well as other powerful Western countries and regional countries in general, with an arrogance never seen before While these same Western countries created and supported him from the beginning until now, didn’t they know they were creating A MONSTER in Rwanda and the African Great Lakes region that would be difficult, if not impossible, to control? And that Paul Kagame is showing his creators his true MONSTER face by shamelessly threatening them, how will they manage to control him, since bringing him to reason is no longer possible? The Peoplesof the RGLA demand that the powerful countries that created Kagame, the MONSTER, do what is necessary to strip him of his ability to harm the region. This is truly urgent, otherwise he will finish what he started: setting the entire region ablaze because for only his life matters, not the lives of others!! FOR OVER 30 THE ENTIRE REGION HAS ENDURED ALL KINDS OF HORRORS THAT PAUL KAGAME AND HIS #FPR REGIME IMPOSE. THE REGION WANTS TO BREATHE AND DESERVES BETTER! President Donald J. Trump UK Prime Minister Élysée Présidence RDC 🇨🇩 Ntare Rushatsi House Secretary Marco Rubio U.S. Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs DIRCO South Africa Parlement européen en France European Parliament UE en RDC🇪🇺 EU Delegation to Rwanda Chef de Mission - Ambassade des États-Unis à Kin U.S. Embassy Kigali United Nations Human Rights Watch Canada in Rwanda and Burundi Netherlands Embassy in Kigali German Embassy Kigali SADC Secretariat Ambassade de France au Rwanda 🇫🇷🇪🇺 African Union East African Community From:

Rev Christine Coleman

21,519 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

$We live in an increasingly fractured, polarised world where principles and values we once took for granted in Australia are being undermined. Today the Albanese Labor government gets away with doing things that would simply not have been acceptable in Australia a generation or two ago. Labor may have won the 2025 election with only 35% of the primary vote, but that hasn’t made the problems Labor created go away. We still have a cost-of-living crisis. We still have a housing crisis. We still have record immigration, increasing debt, huge budget deficits and declining economic productivity. The Prime Minister’s so-called productivity roundtable of his sycophants won’t change things at all unless it includes people who understand productivity and business: people like Gina Rhinehart, Solomon Lew, Gerry Harvey and Dick Smith. Taxpayers are still forced to foot the bill for subsidising renewable projects in the pursuit of net zero, coupled with rises in our electricity bills of more than 300% over the past 20 years or so. And more recently, Labor has gambled with our national security. For decades, Australia’s defence has mainly been funded by American taxpayers. America’s nuclear deterrence has prevented global war between major powers, America supplies us with our military platforms and our advanced weapons, and under AUKUS America will hand over to Australia the most closely-guarded military technology on the planet: nuclear propulsion. Yet our current Labor government is publicly appearing less than grateful for this generous support from the ‘arsenal of democracy’. Labor is ghosting our most important ally – the United States – and to all appearances is sucking up to communist China, Australia’s most potent adversary. China routinely commits acts of aggression against Australia as if it’s entitled to do so, and is not hiding its intentions to militarily and economically dominate our region. America simply wants the countries with which it shares close alliances and democratic values to step up and do some of the heavy lifting by increasing their defence spending. It’s called growing a back bone and taking responsibility to defend yourself instead of relying on Americans to fund your battles with their money and lives. The Prime Minister is gambling that he won’t have to, and that is a big mistake. It’s a purely political mistake based on arrogance. It’s not principled. Labor hates everything about Trump and Republicans. Labor has failed to appreciate the importance of America to our security, and that our relationship with the world’s most powerful nation must endure beyond the current occupants of the Lodge and the White House. It’s impossible to imagine Bob Hawke – Labor’s most successful and longest-serving Prime Minister – supporting this. He was a noted champion of the US alliance despite the very conservative Reagan and Bush administrations being in the White House. Hawke was also a vocal critic of communist China, especially after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Hawke understood Australian principles. Prime Minister Albanese never got the memo, and now our relations with America are declining when we can least afford it. This is not in our best interests. Australia needs a statement of binding principles to govern how we conduct ourselves on the world stage, and to ensure petty politics does not risk important international relationships that must last well beyond every three-year Parliamentary term. This statement needs to say who we are, what Australia stands for, and who we stand with: · democracies like the US and Israel, not communist dictatorships or terrorist regimes; · we stand for the rule of law, self-determination and freedom; and · international peace and order, reinforced by a strong military to deter those who – like China – would disrupt that peace and order. These are One Nation’s principles. They should be Australia’s principles. They used to be. They were principles that didn’t even need stating a generation ago, but Australia is heading down a path under Labor where we cannot be certain of them any longer.$

We live in an increasingly fractured, polarised world where principles and values we once took for granted in Australia are being undermined. Today the Albanese Labor government gets away with doing things that would simply not have been acceptable in Australia a generation or two ago. Labor may have won the 2025 election with only 35% of the primary vote, but that hasn’t made the problems Labor created go away. We still have a cost-of-living crisis. We still have a housing crisis. We still have record immigration, increasing debt, huge budget deficits and declining economic productivity. The Prime Minister’s so-called productivity roundtable of his sycophants won’t change things at all unless it includes people who understand productivity and business: people like Gina Rhinehart, Solomon Lew, Gerry Harvey and Dick Smith. Taxpayers are still forced to foot the bill for subsidising renewable projects in the pursuit of net zero, coupled with rises in our electricity bills of more than 300% over the past 20 years or so. And more recently, Labor has gambled with our national security. For decades, Australia’s defence has mainly been funded by American taxpayers. America’s nuclear deterrence has prevented global war between major powers, America supplies us with our military platforms and our advanced weapons, and under AUKUS America will hand over to Australia the most closely-guarded military technology on the planet: nuclear propulsion. Yet our current Labor government is publicly appearing less than grateful for this generous support from the ‘arsenal of democracy’. Labor is ghosting our most important ally – the United States – and to all appearances is sucking up to communist China, Australia’s most potent adversary. China routinely commits acts of aggression against Australia as if it’s entitled to do so, and is not hiding its intentions to militarily and economically dominate our region. America simply wants the countries with which it shares close alliances and democratic values to step up and do some of the heavy lifting by increasing their defence spending. It’s called growing a back bone and taking responsibility to defend yourself instead of relying on Americans to fund your battles with their money and lives. The Prime Minister is gambling that he won’t have to, and that is a big mistake. It’s a purely political mistake based on arrogance. It’s not principled. Labor hates everything about Trump and Republicans. Labor has failed to appreciate the importance of America to our security, and that our relationship with the world’s most powerful nation must endure beyond the current occupants of the Lodge and the White House. It’s impossible to imagine Bob Hawke – Labor’s most successful and longest-serving Prime Minister – supporting this. He was a noted champion of the US alliance despite the very conservative Reagan and Bush administrations being in the White House. Hawke was also a vocal critic of communist China, especially after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Hawke understood Australian principles. Prime Minister Albanese never got the memo, and now our relations with America are declining when we can least afford it. This is not in our best interests. Australia needs a statement of binding principles to govern how we conduct ourselves on the world stage, and to ensure petty politics does not risk important international relationships that must last well beyond every three-year Parliamentary term. This statement needs to say who we are, what Australia stands for, and who we stand with: · democracies like the US and Israel, not communist dictatorships or terrorist regimes; · we stand for the rule of law, self-determination and freedom; and · international peace and order, reinforced by a strong military to deter those who – like China – would disrupt that peace and order. These are One Nation’s principles. They should be Australia’s principles. They used to be. They were principles that didn’t even need stating a generation ago, but Australia is heading down a path under Labor where we cannot be certain of them any longer.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

52,109 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🇺🇸 Before extending my wishes for a blessed Christmas to all, a few reflections on the growing divide between the European Union and the United States. The topic was discussed by a Dutch news outlet with a pro-EU perspective (video). But it warrants some deeper reflection. The European Union is quick to attribute its problems to external forces: to Putin, to Trump, to “foreign disinformation.” Yet anyone willing to look honestly will see that much of what is going wrong in Europe today is the direct result of choices made by the EU itself—structural, ideological, and institutional. As early as 2005, citizens in the Netherlands and France drew a clear line. They voted against the European Constitution. That signal was not respected. Instead, largely the same substance was introduced through a different route via the Lisbon Treaty. Legally permissible, perhaps—but politically and democratically deeply problematic. It marked the beginning of a profound breach of trust between European citizens and European institutions. In 2016, this pattern repeated itself. The Dutch electorate voted “no” to the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement. Once again, the outcome was set aside through an additional declaration. The solemn promise that Ukraine would never become an EU member and that military involvement was excluded later proved to be of little value. The message was clear: democratic input is accepted only when it aligns with the preferred course. This points to a deeper issue: the EU’s democratic deficit. The European Commission is not directly elected, yet it holds the exclusive right of legislative initiative. The European Parliament cannot introduce legislation on its own. National parliaments often receive EU proposals late in the process and have limited ability to amend or reject them. Power continues to concentrate at a level increasingly insulated from direct democratic accountability. This shift is reinforced by the European Court of Justice. EU law effectively takes precedence over national law, including constitutional law. Through ever-expanding interpretations of the treaties, competencies steadily migrate toward Brussels without an explicit democratic mandate. Member states have few meaningful tools to reverse this trend. Economically, the EU has made fundamental errors as well. The introduction of the euro brought together economies with vastly different levels of productivity, debt, and fiscal discipline. The policies of the European Central Bank cannot suit all member states simultaneously. The result has been inflation, growing wealth inequality, and declining purchasing power—particularly in fiscally responsible countries. National governments bear the consequences, yet possess little monetary sovereignty. On top of this, the EU has imposed an energy transition insufficiently grounded in economic reality or global competition. High energy costs and excessive regulation have eroded the competitiveness of European industry. Investment is leaving, production is relocating, and the cost of living is becoming unaffordable for a growing share of the population. The same pattern appears in migration and border policy. The issue is not only scale and lack of control, but also cultural impact. Large-scale immigration without effective integration undermines social cohesion. European culture—shaped by history, traditions, values, and shared norms—is under pressure. Culture is not secondary. *Politics is downstream from culture.* When the cultural foundation erodes, political instability inevitably follows. This is reflected in tensions around security, education, housing, healthcare, and the loss of a shared societal framework. At the same time, the EU continues to layer regulation upon regulation. Small and medium-sized enterprises—the backbone of the European economy—are increasingly burdened by complex, costly, and often ideologically driven obligations. Entrepreneurship gives way to bureaucratic survival. Agriculture faces a similar top-down approach. Farmers are confronted with far-reaching measures imposed without realistic alternatives or sufficient public support. Food security is treated as an afterthought, even though the Covid crisis demonstrated just how vulnerable Europe has become. Strategic autonomy begins with energy *and* food. Fundamental freedoms are also under pressure. Under the banner of combating disinformation, authorities increasingly seek to define what may and may not be said, even as it becomes clear in hindsight that official EU positions on Covid, climate policy, and geopolitics were often incomplete or incorrect. At the same time, citizens’ privacy is curtailed in the name of security, while the European Commission itself operates with striking opacity. Trust erodes when those who govern fail to lead by example. Public funds are also used to finance NGOs that influence or implement policies the EU itself cannot formally pursue. This circumvents democratic oversight and weakens accountability. In foreign policy, the EU is evolving into a geopolitical actor without a clear democratic mandate. Sanctions, arms deliveries, and strategic decisions with far-reaching consequences are made with little public debate. The relationship between EU defense initiatives, NATO, and national armed forces is increasingly unclear. For decades, the EU has presented itself as a project of peace and prosperity. Yet in recent years, diplomacy in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has largely been replaced by escalation and sanctions. These sanctions have primarily harmed European citizens through reduced purchasing power and economic security, while serious peace initiatives have been ignored—or even actively undermined. The fundamental problem of the European Union is not external, but internal: a system that concentrates ever more power, provides ever less accountability, and grows ever more distant from the citizens it claims to represent. The Tower of Babel is wobbling. Rather than assigning blame elsewhere, European leaders must look in the mirror, accept responsibility, and return to first principles: economic cooperation through the internal market, respect for national democracies, cultural sovereignty, and a realistic, diplomatic foreign policy—including support for genuine peace negotiations. I wish everyone a blessed Christmas. 🎄✝️

🇺🇸 Before extending my wishes for a blessed Christmas to all, a few reflections on the growing divide between the European Union and the United States. The topic was discussed by a Dutch news outlet with a pro-EU perspective (video). But it warrants some deeper reflection. The European Union is quick to attribute its problems to external forces: to Putin, to Trump, to “foreign disinformation.” Yet anyone willing to look honestly will see that much of what is going wrong in Europe today is the direct result of choices made by the EU itself—structural, ideological, and institutional. As early as 2005, citizens in the Netherlands and France drew a clear line. They voted against the European Constitution. That signal was not respected. Instead, largely the same substance was introduced through a different route via the Lisbon Treaty. Legally permissible, perhaps—but politically and democratically deeply problematic. It marked the beginning of a profound breach of trust between European citizens and European institutions. In 2016, this pattern repeated itself. The Dutch electorate voted “no” to the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement. Once again, the outcome was set aside through an additional declaration. The solemn promise that Ukraine would never become an EU member and that military involvement was excluded later proved to be of little value. The message was clear: democratic input is accepted only when it aligns with the preferred course. This points to a deeper issue: the EU’s democratic deficit. The European Commission is not directly elected, yet it holds the exclusive right of legislative initiative. The European Parliament cannot introduce legislation on its own. National parliaments often receive EU proposals late in the process and have limited ability to amend or reject them. Power continues to concentrate at a level increasingly insulated from direct democratic accountability. This shift is reinforced by the European Court of Justice. EU law effectively takes precedence over national law, including constitutional law. Through ever-expanding interpretations of the treaties, competencies steadily migrate toward Brussels without an explicit democratic mandate. Member states have few meaningful tools to reverse this trend. Economically, the EU has made fundamental errors as well. The introduction of the euro brought together economies with vastly different levels of productivity, debt, and fiscal discipline. The policies of the European Central Bank cannot suit all member states simultaneously. The result has been inflation, growing wealth inequality, and declining purchasing power—particularly in fiscally responsible countries. National governments bear the consequences, yet possess little monetary sovereignty. On top of this, the EU has imposed an energy transition insufficiently grounded in economic reality or global competition. High energy costs and excessive regulation have eroded the competitiveness of European industry. Investment is leaving, production is relocating, and the cost of living is becoming unaffordable for a growing share of the population. The same pattern appears in migration and border policy. The issue is not only scale and lack of control, but also cultural impact. Large-scale immigration without effective integration undermines social cohesion. European culture—shaped by history, traditions, values, and shared norms—is under pressure. Culture is not secondary. Politics is downstream from culture. When the cultural foundation erodes, political instability inevitably follows. This is reflected in tensions around security, education, housing, healthcare, and the loss of a shared societal framework. At the same time, the EU continues to layer regulation upon regulation. Small and medium-sized enterprises—the backbone of the European economy—are increasingly burdened by complex, costly, and often ideologically driven obligations. Entrepreneurship gives way to bureaucratic survival. Agriculture faces a similar top-down approach. Farmers are confronted with far-reaching measures imposed without realistic alternatives or sufficient public support. Food security is treated as an afterthought, even though the Covid crisis demonstrated just how vulnerable Europe has become. Strategic autonomy begins with energy and food. Fundamental freedoms are also under pressure. Under the banner of combating disinformation, authorities increasingly seek to define what may and may not be said, even as it becomes clear in hindsight that official EU positions on Covid, climate policy, and geopolitics were often incomplete or incorrect. At the same time, citizens’ privacy is curtailed in the name of security, while the European Commission itself operates with striking opacity. Trust erodes when those who govern fail to lead by example. Public funds are also used to finance NGOs that influence or implement policies the EU itself cannot formally pursue. This circumvents democratic oversight and weakens accountability. In foreign policy, the EU is evolving into a geopolitical actor without a clear democratic mandate. Sanctions, arms deliveries, and strategic decisions with far-reaching consequences are made with little public debate. The relationship between EU defense initiatives, NATO, and national armed forces is increasingly unclear. For decades, the EU has presented itself as a project of peace and prosperity. Yet in recent years, diplomacy in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has largely been replaced by escalation and sanctions. These sanctions have primarily harmed European citizens through reduced purchasing power and economic security, while serious peace initiatives have been ignored—or even actively undermined. The fundamental problem of the European Union is not external, but internal: a system that concentrates ever more power, provides ever less accountability, and grows ever more distant from the citizens it claims to represent. The Tower of Babel is wobbling. Rather than assigning blame elsewhere, European leaders must look in the mirror, accept responsibility, and return to first principles: economic cooperation through the internal market, respect for national democracies, cultural sovereignty, and a realistic, diplomatic foreign policy—including support for genuine peace negotiations. I wish everyone a blessed Christmas. 🎄✝️

Rob Roos 🇳🇱

47,917 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce