Mediaboss Marketing

The European Union takes note of the preliminary results of the constitutional referendum held in Tunisia on 25July, for which turnout was low. A broad consensus among the various political forces, including political parties and civil society, is both essential for the success of a process that preserves the democratic acquis and necessary for all the major political and economic reforms Tunisia will undertake. The legitimacy and sustainability of those reforms will depend on it.

The preparations and arrangements for the parliamentary elections scheduled for December should therefore be seen as an opportunity to foster a genuine exchange within the framework of an inclusive national dialogue. As the European Union and the Venice Commission have repeatedly pointed out, that dialogue will be an important condition for establishing a legislative framework which ensures the legitimacy and representativeness of the future parliament. The election of the parliament will be the cornerstone of the return to normal functioning of the countrys institutions, with full respect for democratic principles, in particular the separation of powers, consolidation of the rule of law, pluralism and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Freedom of expression, press freedom, freedom to demonstrate and the other fundamental freedoms are essential values of democratic states to which the European Union attaches particular importance and which must be preserved.

The European Union will continue to follow developments closely, and will stand by the Tunisian people and listen to their needs at this crucial time for the country. The European Union reaffirms that it is ready and willing to provide political support for a successful democratic transition. It will also continue to support the Tunisian people as they respond to the major socio-economic and financial challenges facing the country, which have been aggravated by the impact of the Russian aggression against Ukraine on food and energy security and which call for urgent structural reforms.

See the original post:
Tunisia: Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on the constitutional referendum - Prsidence franaise du Conseil de...

The European Union has committed its member states to reduce their natural gas consumption by 15 percent from next month until March next year. The energy ministers of the 27 EU countries adopted an EU Commission proposal on Tuesday.

The way in which the cuts are implemented is up to the individual states and the targeted savings are voluntary. However, if an acute emergency occurs, mandatory savings targets can also be adopted if at least 15 member states representing 65 percent of the population agree. Originally, the EU Commission wanted to reserve the right to declare an energy emergency, but could not enforce this position.

The austerity decision is being sold as an act of solidarity because all countries, regardless of how much they are affected by possible supply shortfalls, have to make the same savings. The reduction of demand across the EU is an expression of the principle of solidarity enshrined in the EU Treaty, the Commissions text states.

In fact, it is a war measure that was enforced by the EU Commission and the German government with brute force. The aim is to enable Europe to continue the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine for months and years, until Russias military defeat.

Brussels and Berlin fear that resistance to energy scarcity, inflation and horrendous rearmament costs could lead to resistance and that social pressure on governments could jeopardize the EUs cohesion. Therefore, the concentrated power of the EU apparatus is used to push through the austerity measures and to bring all members into line.

Like any war, the war against Russia, driven by the United States and the European powers with billions of dollars in arms, requires unity, discipline, material sacrifice and the suppression of any internal opposition. The massive energy crisis, which has caused the prices of gas and petrol to explode and threatens to lead to a massive energy outage during the coming winter, is a direct result of the war in Ukraine.

Even before the reactionary Russian attack on Ukraine, the commissioning of the completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which, with an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic metres, could meet 15 percent of the total European demand, was permanently cancelled. Other pipelines, which have been supplying Russian gas to the EU through Ukraine or Belarus for decades, stopped operating due to the war.

Nord Stream 1, which has the same capacity as Nord Stream 2, currently supplies 40 percent of its capacity and only 20 percent from Thursday. Moscow has justified the supply reduction with the necessary maintenance of turbines, some of which fell victim to Western sanctions, and has denied the intention of wanting to stop operations altogether.

The EU has rejected this as an excuse and accused Russia of deliberately trying to use gas as a political weapon. German Economics Minister Robert Habeck accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of playing a perfidious game: he tried to weaken the great support for Ukraine and drive a wedge into German society.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has always been a reliable supporter of Western propaganda, also accused Moscow of terrorizing the West by curbing Nord Stream 1 and inciting an open gas war against united Europe.

These accusations are absurd. They are reminiscent of the burglar who cries Stop the thief! to distract the police. In reality, it is the EU that is pursuing the stated goal of driving Russia into ruin through economic sanctions. According to the official decision, the EU no longer wants to import fossil fuels from Russia by 2027 at the latest. The militaristic tone of the accusations confirms that the EU is not concerned with energy security, but with the instrumentalization of energy policy as a weapon of war.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used all her authority to oblige all EU members to reduce gas consumption. The Christian Democratic Union politician already played a leading role as German Defense Minister in reviving German militarism. In 2014, the government in which von der Leyen was a member supported the right-wing coup in Kiev, which laid the seeds for todays war.

The von der Leyen gas savings plan is based on the controversial Article 122 of the Treaty on European Union, which allows the EU to intervene deeper than usual in the national sovereignty of the member states in emergencies.

Already during the euro crisis, when the EU helped the banks out of the crisis with billions, and forced countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain to make brutal social cuts, it invoked this article. Likewise, after the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, when it again made available hundreds of billions for a reconstruction fund in favour of banks and corporations.

This time, however, von der Leyen met with considerable resistance. Countries in the south, which now meet their gas demand from North Africa, were reluctant to agree to a programme that primarily benefits Germany, which is particularly dependent on Russian gas supplies.

The Spanish Minister for the Environment, Teresa Ribera, initially rejected the plan outright. Her country would not make any disproportionate sacrifices. No Spanish family would have to fear cuts in the gas supply in winter, she said, explaining this was because Spain has done its homework and not lived beyond its means.

Like the German government, the Spanish government fully supports the proxy war against Russia. But the arrogance with which the German government faced more heavily indebted countries during the euro crisis and forced them to take drastic austerity measures has not been forgotten.

On Monday, the diplomats of the 27 EU member states negotiated well into the night, until they finally reached a majority agreement thanks to numerous special arrangements. For example, a number of countriesCyprus, Malta and Irelandwhich are not connected to the gas network of other member states, are excluded from the austerity objectives.

In the end, only Hungary voted against the decision to reduce gas consumption. Viktor Orbns government, which maintains good relations with Russian President Putin, is now also rejecting economic sanctions against Russia.

But the centrifugal tendencies in the EU are enormous. In Italy, Mario Draghis government of national unity has also broken up over the question of war. While Draghi unreservedly supported NATOs war course, Silvio Berlusconis right-wing Forza Italia and Lega refused to deliver arms to Ukraine. It is unclear what the government will do after the elections at the end of September.

What welds the ruling class of Europe together is the fear of working class uprisings. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock recently declared that if no more gas came from Russia, then we as Germany can no longer provide any support at all for Ukraine, because we are then occupied with popular uprisings.

The Baden-Wrttemberg Prime Minister Winfried Kretschmann, a member of the Greens like Baerbock, also warned against a split in society, commenting, If we walk into a gas emergency, the centrifugal forces will be great, greater than in the case of the Coronavirus.

The escalation of the war in Ukraine serves not least to direct these internal tensions outwardeven if it leads to a third, nuclear world war.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Visit link:
European Union demands rationing of natural gas to wage war - WSWS

The European Unions General Court on Wednesday rejected a Russian state-sponsored broadcasters appeal of a temporary ban from EU airwaves in light of a Russian propaganda campaign seeking to justify the countrys invasion of Ukraine.

The Council of the European Union, one of the legislative bodies of the European Parliament, adopted measures in March, shortly after the invasion began, to prohibit certain media outlets from broadcasting within or to the EU until July 31, according to the ruling.

The council argued that Russia has targeted civil society in the EU and neighboring countries by grievously distorting and manipulating the facts of the conflict through certain media outlets under the direct or indirect control of the Russian government.

RT France, the French version of the state-run Russian channel RT, filed the appeal to remove the ban, but the court rejected its arguments.

The ruling states that the immediate implementation of a ban designed to limit the spread of propaganda in support of military aggression was necessary for the bans effectiveness. It also states that the council met conditions that the law has established for when freedom of expression can be limited.

The court found that the council cited concrete, precise and consistent evidence that RT France actively supported Russian aggression toward Ukraine before the invasion and justified it in the aftermath.

The ruling states that the measures the council has implemented do not infringe on RT Frances freedom to conduct a business because they are temporary and reversible.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the Russian government will take similar measures of pressure against Western news outlets operating in Russia, multiple outlets reported.

He said he hoped the channel could find loopholes to continue broadcasting.

Bloomberg reported that RT said it will appeal the ruling, which it said is an unprecedented and inadmissible attack on the principle of free expression.

See the rest here:
Judge tosses RTs appeal to overturn a European Union ban - The Hill

From Berlin and Paris to Brussels, Denmark and London to tour of Ghent and Bruges in Belgium, top officers of the City Beautiful crisscrossed Europe for a series of visits in 2015-2016. Even though the Department of Personnel, Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines regulating foreign travel state that the size of the delegation and duration of the visit should be kept to the bare minimum, and participation of officials in international fairs/exhibitions/workshops and conferences should be discouraged, the then UT adviser Vijay Dev was given permission to lead at least four delegations to Europe in 2015.

These details emerged following a request filed under the Right to Information Act about foreign tours undertaken by UT officials by the father of this correspondent.

The travels started in February-end, when Vijay Dev led a delegation comprising the then Home Secretary-cum-Secretary Tourism Anurag Agarwal, and director, tourism, Kavita Singh, to take part in ITB Berlin, an annual tourism trade fair, from March 4 to 8. Even though the four-day event was from March 4, the official trip lasted 10 days from February 28 to March 9, 2015.

Expenditure details from the office of Director Tourism show that Vijay Dev and Kavita Singhs Berlin trip cost Rs 9,92,314.

Despite repeated attempts by The Indian Express to reach Vijay Dev by email, WhatsApp and mobile, there was no response from him at the time of filing this report.

Two months later, Vijay Dev, who is at present the State Election Commissioner of Delhi and Chandigarh, led another delegation comprising the then Home Secretary Anurag Agarwal, and Secretary, Personnel, Vikram Dev Dutt to Villa Savoye in Poissy (Paris) to attend a meeting of Le Corbusiers architectural work owners from June 15 to June 17. RTI records show that the three IAS officers spent Rs 25 lakh during their stay in Paris from June 12-18, 2015 almost 40 per cent more than the the amount originally approved.

This meeting was also attended by chief architect Kapil Setia.

In October again, UT Adviser Vijay Dev, then Secretary Tourism, Vikram Dev Dutt, then MC Commissioner Bhawna Garg, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Prince Dhawan, and Indian Forest Service officer Santosh Kumar were given permission to attend one week working meeting visit to Brussels and Denmark from October 25 to 31, 2015 (excluding the journey time).

The permission cited cadre clearance conveyed by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, political clearance, and Ministry of External affairs. In this trip, Vikram Dev Dutts air ticket from Delhi to Brussels to Copenhagen to Helinski Vantaa and back to Delhi cost Rs 2,44,747 while the Chandigarh-Delhi return air fare was pegged at Rs 25,136. The records also mention ticket cancellation charges for Brussels to London for Vijay Dev, local taxi charges in Copenhagen and ticket fare for a city tour of Ghent and Bruges in Belgium for the entire delegation.

As per the RTI records, the Chandigarh Administration also approved the official visit of Vijay Dev, Home Secretary Anurag Agarwal (at present Chief Electoral Officer in Haryana) and tourism managing director Kavita Singh to the World Travel Mart in London from November 2 to 5, 2015. In February 2016, Dev was given permission to participate as leader of the Indian delegation in a two-day programme in London from February 18 to 19, 2016, to showcase solar achievements and to attract UK investors.

The department of personnel guidelines clearly state that participation of officials in international fairs/exhibitions/workshops and conferences should be discouraged, and if considered essential, only the officer directly dealing with the subject shall be deputed. But the RTI records show that officers seldom travelled alone.

Vikram Dev Dutt, then secretary, personnel and urban development, who is now chairman and Managing Director of Air India Asset Holding Limited, visited Paris twice in six months from June to November 2015. Dutt, who was part of the June 2015 trip to Paris, made another trip to the French capital in November-December. He was accompanied by chief architect Kapil Setia.

On November 23, 2015, an order by the Chandigarh Administration approved the official visit of Vikram Dev Dutt, Secretary Personnel cum Urban Planning, and Kapil Setia, Chief Architect, for attending the meeting on nominations for the world heritage list 2016 to be held on November 30, 2015 at Paris (excluding the journey time).

It further said, The Administrator is further pleased to allow Vikram Dev Dutt to participate in United Nations Framework Convention on climate change on December 1 and December 2, 2015 at Paris.

Later, on December 14, the administrator sanctioned Rs 3,34,794 for Vikram Dutts Paris trip from November 28 to December 3, 2015. This included New Delhi to Paris return air fare of Rs 1,78,197, which was to be paid to Sector 17-based Grand Travel Planners along with accommodation charges of Rs 1,56,000.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

On December 14, 2015, he was sanctioned an allowance of Rs 35,640 plus an advance of Rs 36,000 already sanctioned.

This expenditure was to be met out of the UT Budget.

In February 2016, Vikram Dutt again went to Paris.

RTI records dated February 3,2016 state, The Administrator is pleased to allow Vikram Dev Dutt, IAS, Secretary Urban Planning, and Baldeo Purushartha IAS, Commissioner MC for attending the meeting of Indo-French Joint Working Group on Sustainable Urban development and technical visit from February 22 to February 25, 2016, excluding journey days, to be held in Paris, subject to cadre clearance and political clearance from MHA and MEA. Later, the clearances were received and an advance of Rs 1,49,959 was sanctioned for booking Vikram Devs air tickets from Chandigarh to Paris and back to Grand Travel Planners. On his return, this sum was revised to Rs 1,81,407 to include daily allowance etc.

Go here to read the rest:
European Union of the high and mighty: How UT officers made a beeline to that continent - The Indian Express

As the transition to a digital society is accelerating in recent years, especially after the coronavirus outbreak, the expectations of the European Citizens for a safer digital environment are growing. There is then an urgent need to combat cybercrime. In a previous article published on Lexology on this topic we had started to discuss of the ransomware attacks. We had thus described the relevant phenomenon and we had pointed out the legislative and policy frameworks in place in the European Union for facing this issue. In this second contribution, reference will now be made (always in an EU perspective) to the main actors in charge of dealing with the ransomware attacks (Chapter 2); we will then look at the strengths and weaknesses of the current system of EU defence from this invasive form of cyber-criminality (Chapter 3); finally, we will try to make some recommendations for improving the security of the Citizens within the European Union in such area (Chapter 4).

As already highlighted in our previous contribution[1] the first step towards the creation and development of an EU cybersecurity ecosystem was the adoption of a cybersecurity strategy in 2013[2]. This strategy identified the achievement of cyber-resilience and the development of industrial and technological resources for cybersecurity as its key objectives. As part of this strategy, the European Commission proposed the EU Network and Information Security directive2016/1148 (NIS Directive)[3].

We will now look at who are the main actors in charge of implementing the NIS Directive as well as the other initiatives advanced by the European Union to tackle the ransomware attacks.

In the first place, it shall be reminded that the NIS Directive has provided only that the EU countries shall put in place legal measures to boost the overall level of cybersecurity in Europe. This in essence with the intent of protecting the European critical infrastructure[4].

On the other hand, the NIS Directive has left basically to the free initiative of the Members States the regulation of aspects such as the sanctions to be imposed to the offenders in case of ransomware attacks. In addition, the NIS Directive did not impose on the EU Countries any obligation to share the information systematically with one another in case of cross-border ransomware attacks.

The above means that nowadays the single States of the European Union are the most important actors in the fight of the ransomware attacks. They indeed decide singularly on crucial aspects such as: (i) how the ransomware attacks shall be punished within their single jurisdiction; (ii) whether there must be any cooperation with the other Member States in case of ransomware attacks involving more countries.

It is then worthy to mention another important player which comes into consideration in the field of the cybersecurity in Europe, i.e. the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). ENISA contributes to the EU cyber policy, enhances the trustworthiness of ICT products, services and processes with cybersecurity certification schemes, cooperates with Member States and EU bodies, and helps Europe prepare for the cyber challenges of tomorrow [5].

ENISA was not entrusted with specific competences in the tackle of the ransomware episodes in the NIS Directive, but it is playing an important role de facto moving down the following directions:

Finally, it must be stressed that on 23 June 2021 the European Commission laid out a vision to build a newJoint Cyber Unit[8]. The Joint Cyber Unit will be a new body (with its own resources and offices) intended to provide full support to ENISA in ensuring an EU coordinated response to large-scale cyber incidents and crises such as the ransomware attacks. This new initiative is an important step which will allow ENISA (together with the Joint Cyber Unit) to further achieve a higher common level of cybersecurity within the European Union[9].

Finally, it is worth to be mentioned also the role played by the Council in tackling the cyber-crimes (and thus the ransomware attacks).

In this regard, in our previous contribution on this topic[10] we had reminded that the EU tried to reinforce its global response to the cyber-attacks (including ransomware) by establishing a Framework for a Joint EU Diplomatic Response to Malicious Cyber Activities (the so called Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox)[11]. This framework basically allows the EU and its Member States (by way of an initiative to be taken by the Council) to use all necessary measures ... to prevent, discourage, deter and respond to malicious cyber activities [and thus also to the ransomware attacks] targeting the integrity and security of the EU and its member states .... In particular, the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox gives the possibility to the Council to impose ... sanctions on persons or entities that areresponsible for cyber-attacks or attempted cyber-attacks, who provide financial, technical or materialsupportfor such attacks or who areinvolvedin other ways ... [12].

It is noticeable that, based on the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox, the Council has been able to imposerestrictive measures againstcertain individualsand entitiesresponsible for or involved in theransomware-attacks publicly known asWannaCry andOperation Cloud Hoppe[13]. The sanctions imposed to the entities involved included severe measures such as thetravelban and theassets freeze.

Of course, it must not be forgotten that it is not particularly simple for the Council to take collective actions (such as the ones indicated above) based on the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox. And indeed, the European Unions decision-making process to be activated in these cases is the same one to be applied for the foreign policy matters, requiring thus the unanimous decision of all EU governments. This is certainly a very high threshold not easy to be reached[14]. It follows that it is rather complicated for the Council to issue sanctions based on the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox.

Being understood all the above, we will now try to summarize the main strengths and weaknesses of the European Union framework put in place for fighting the phenomenon discussed.

In the first place, it must be noted that the implementation of the NIS Directive and of the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox has been very important at least in raising awareness in the European States regarding the cyber-criminal activities such as the ransomware attacks.

The NIS Directive has indeed given an incentive to the Member States to increase their cybersecurity capabilities for protecting themselves from these forms of criminality.

The Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox has, in turn, granted the possibility to sanction directly certain entities and individuals which have committed, inter alia, ransomware crimes.

On the other hand, both the legal frameworks mentioned above have their downsides.

The NIS Directive resulted in fragmentation at different levels across the internal market (given that for example such directive did not provide for a system of harmonized sanctions to be applied in the European Countries). In addition, the ENISA has not been given enough powers to help the EU Member States to tackle issues such as the ransomware attacks.

Further, the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox requires a too burdensome process for dealing with the cyber-crimes. Indeed, as we have seen above, the Council can focus just on the major events and, in any case, the unanimity of the EU Countries is required to take actions against offenders committing for example ransomware attacks.

As it may be appreciated the phenomenon of the ransomware attacks is quite a complicated one. In the EU the battle is open and efforts are indeed spent by the different stakeholders involved to combat this issue effectively.

On the other hand, there is certainly room for improvement.

Based on the above findings (and on what has been discussed in the other article published on Lexology on this topic[15]), we will then try to suggest some recommendations aimed at tackling the ransomware phenomenon in a more efficient way within the European Union. In this regard it is noted the following:

Finally, apart from the above actions and recommendations (which are indeed directed at bolstering the fight of the specific kind of cybercrime at subject matter) one final consideration is worthy to be made.

It shall indeed not to be forgotten that issues such as the ransomware attacks in many cases can be avoided at the very beginning explaining to the users how to avoid them.

It is thus of the utmost importance that are continued to be promoted specific initiatives and dialogues with the EU Citizens regarding the common ransomware attack scenarios with the effect of aiming to raise awareness and share good practices and practical recommendations [18]. This with the final goal to eliminate the issue even before the crime is perpetrated counting on the fact that the EU Citizens (if properly trained) should be able not to fall into the traps posed on their way by the cybercriminals.

Read the original:
The European Union's efforts to tackle the phenomenon of ransomware attacks (Part II) - Lexology