Volunteers clean up shores of Geneva lake as plastic waste tops 100 tons a year

Despite daily city efforts, plastic waste continues to enter the lake, driven mostly by land-based sources, head of Green Earth Action Foundation's Geneva office tells Anadolu

Beyza Binnur Dönmez |01.08.2025 - TRT/AA


Some of the collected waste will be used in an art installation displayed during UN plastic treaty talks in Geneva, says Baptistelle Paldino

GENEVA

More than 50 volunteers rolled up their sleeves on an afternoon in Geneva to tackle one of today's most pressing environmental threats: plastic pollution.

Armed with gloves, reusable bags and a shared sense of purpose, participants gathered at Baby Plage, a small sand beach, for a lakeside cleanup organized by the Green Earth Action Foundation.

The citizen-led initiative aimed to raise awareness, collect waste and empower the local community to take concrete action in the face of growing environmental risks.

According to the foundation, nearly 100 tons of plastic waste flow into Lake Geneva every year, much of it invisible to the naked eye but harmful to aquatic biodiversity, water quality and even human health.

"Plastic is a disaster. It's a disaster for our ecosystems and for us, basically," Baptistelle Paldino, the head of the foundation's Geneva office and projects, told Anadolu in an interview. "But it’s a real disaster at the moment because of the microplastics that it delivers everywhere."

The event Wednesday focused not only on cleaning up the shoreline of Lake Geneva but also on promoting behavioral change. Awareness-raising activities were held on-site to inform participants about the effects of plastic on aquatic ecosystems and the importance of waste sorting and reduction at the source.

"This is also why we not only wanted to clean this beach, but we also wanted to include this very technical raising awareness part," said Paldino.

She urged people to be mindful of their waste when visiting the lake, encouraging them to take their plastic bottles, cups and other items home, sort them properly, and dispose of them responsibly.

Plastic collected at cleanup to feature in UN art installation as treaty talks begin

The Geneva cleanup followed similar efforts around the world organized earlier this year by the foundation's global ambassadors.

"These ambassadors in April were all achieving a task that is good for the planet," Paldino explained. "Some were cleaning coastal areas or cleaning some beaches. And we're like, okay, we need to do this in Geneva."

According to Paldino, the city cleans the lakefront daily, sometimes even multiple times a day. But the problem persists.

"So when I say 100 tons of plastic is literally in Lake Leman (Lake Geneva) every year, this is even more concerning when we know that the city is cleaning every day," she said. "Despite all these efforts, we still have some plastic that ends up in the lake."

She also warned of the impact on the food chain.

“Some animals can just eat it...and in the end, it ends up on our plates," she said. "So now the issue is that some children here at school (are) getting maybe some fish from Lake Leman, and they are directly eating plastic."

Paldino said studies suggest that an average person may ingest the equivalent of a credit card’s worth of plastic every week -- a figure she described as disturbing and a clear sign that plastic pollution has become inescapable.

"We need to recycle it, and we are here to collect it, recycle and use it to send a powerful message," she said.

To encourage more sustainable habits, the foundation distributed reusable water bottles and cups during the cleanup.

"With one bottle only, you reduce by 10 the amount of plastic that you can have within a day, within your life," said Paldino.

The collected waste will be repurposed for a large-scale art installation by Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong, to be displayed at Place des Nations, the UN Geneva Office, during the second part of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5.2). The piece is intended to visually confront delegates negotiating what could become the first legally binding global treaty on plastic pollution.

Made from plastic waste collected during Wednesday's beach cleanup, the installation is going to show the world, while negotiating on plastic, "what real plastic is," said Paldino.

Despite the scale of the problem, the foundation's message remains rooted in optimism and collective effort.

"Continue doing these activities, and you can make your difference as well," Paldino said, referring to reducing plastic consumption, sorting and recycling.

"What we really promote within the Green Earth Action Foundation is about being hopeful. And we really want to empower young generations, young women, young climate leaders to be able to take part in these initiatives," she added.

Can Europe and China Forge a Climate Connection?

Aug 01, 2025



Earlier this year, the Chinese firm CATL, the world’s largest battery-maker, unveiled an electric-vehicle (EV) battery capable of delivering a remarkable 520 kilometers (323 miles) of driving range after just five minutes of charging. The announcement came a month after BYD, China’s leading EV manufacturer, launched its own ultra-fast charging system. In solar, too, the numbers are staggering: Chinese firms can now produce over 1,200 gigawatts of solar panels annually.

These feats are a product of the global green-tech race, which China leads by a wide margin. Some frame this as a problem of Chinese oversupply. But another way of looking at it is that the rest of the world isn’t deploying these technologies fast enough. While China’s green-manufacturing engine is running at high speed, others are idling.

Given this, Europe confronts a strategic choice. It can respond with defensive industrial policy: securing supply chains, raising tariffs, and futilely attempting to catch up. Or it could forge a shared competitiveness agenda, which would allow Europe to use its strengths – rulemaking, coalition-building, and norm-setting – to shape the deployment environment, define standards, and guide green investment frameworks.

Despite the breakdown in ties between the European Union and China in recent years, the idea of collaborating on clean trade and investment is not so far-fetched. The climate transition is the defining political and economic challenge of the twenty-first century. And on this front, the EU and China have become interdependent: if Europe pumps the breaks on decarbonization, Chinese assets could be stranded, whereas China could face retaliation if it refuses to collaborate or align with global norms. The question now is whether they can constructively shape their interdependence.

Taking advantage of the narrow window for establishing a climate partnership requires a deal that promotes each government’s core economic interests. For the EU, that means reducing reliance on Chinese imports while moving up the value chain. For China, it means maintaining access to a high-value export market amid a shifting global trade environment. Success requires pragmatism on both sides.

Whether the EU and China can cooperate effectively depends on several factors. First, they must reach an agreement on local-content requirements. The EU should target domestic production of at least 40% of green technologies by 2030 – not just low-paid assembly, but higher-value activities like research and development – to create jobs and build resilience.

Second, any partnership must open the door for joint ventures, which have helped China reach the technological frontier and are already emerging in the EU battery and automotive sectors. If correctly structured, such partnerships can drive mutual gains while building cooperation into long-term industrial strategies.

Third, trade measures must be carefully calibrated. While the EU has imposed tariffs as high as 45.3% on Chinese EVs, import barriers alone cannot close competitiveness gaps. At best, they can complement more strategic policy efforts such as local-content rules and industrial partnerships. If poorly implemented, they could further weaken Europe’s technological position, rather than buying it time to catch up with China.

Fourth, there is a need for structured mobility schemes. Some EU member states have begun restricting visas for Chinese engineers. This is short-sighted. Enabling European firms to host Chinese talent and vice versa would ensure that R&D and design, not just final assembly, occur in Europe.

Ultimately, finding a way to collaborate on decarbonization efforts would yield economic and geopolitical dividends for both sides. Collaboration with China would strengthen the EU’s resilience, bolster its industrial sector, and cement the bloc as a leader in clean tech. China would be able to offload surplus green goods, secure market access, and signal to the world that, while the United States is retreating from climate action, it remains dedicated to green growth.

The EU and China are more aligned than many realize. Both are net fossil-fuel importers. Both are major producers of zero-carbon technologies, and thus have an interest in sustaining global demand for green products. And, amid growing uncertainty, both have bet on the energy transition as the most viable path to competitiveness and innovation.

This window of opportunity will not stay open forever. As scientific and political timelines converge, the coming months are critical to keep the world on track to meet the Paris climate agreement’s 1.5° Celsius goal. The recent EU-China Summit laid the groundwork for closer cooperation on decarbonization. But, as pressure mounts to submit 2035 climate targets ahead of November’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, the next meeting of the Council of the EU in September, under the Danish presidency, will be pivotal.

With many European countries – most notably France – pushing for a clearer industrial and investment plan before committing to a strong 2035 emissions-reduction target, EU heads of state and government must devise a framework for transforming industry at the September meeting. An important part of that plan will be how the bloc engages with China.

By coalescing around the belief that the new must be built before the old can be phased out, Europe is starting to follow China’s strategy. But to do so, it must also learn from China’s coherent and systematic execution, which centers on long-term planning across the entire clean-tech value chain.

China, too, must step up with an ambitious 2035 emissions target that is aligned with its 2060 net-zero goal – meaning a roughly 30% reduction from peak emissions, which are expected to be reached this decade. This would bolster its international credibility and help create space for a strong EU target.

Both Europe and China have wagered their future on green growth. To make it a winning bet, and capture the full benefits of decarbonization, they must find common cause on clean trade and investment – one of the few areas where strategic self-interest and global public goods still converge.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025.
www.project-syndicate.org




Emmanuel GuerinFellow and Special Adviser to CEO at European Climate Foundation

Bernice LeeDistinguished Fellow and Special Adviser, Chatham House

Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on Climate Change: The dawn of a new era?

On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released a highly anticipated and widely debated Advisory Opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change.

By Athanasia Santikou
August 4, 2025

MODERN DIPLOMACY

Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ahead of the reading of an advisory opinion that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world, The Hague, Netherlands, July 23, 2025. REUTERS/Marta Fiorin

On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released a highly anticipated and widely debated Advisory Opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change.

In 2023, a group of students and youth activists, in coalition with legal experts and NGOs, took the initiative to raise the issue of climate change and its destructive impact. The General Assembly of the UN adopted by consensus a resolution entitled “Request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change.”

As atmospheric temperatures rise, anthropogenic GHG emissions continue to increase, and no clear guidelines are drawn in State practice, the destruction of the environment and the extinction of low-yielding States (initially) become inevitable.

UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement: cornerstones of climate change law

In the decade of 1990, the results and impact of climate change began to emerge. In 1994, at the Earth Summit in Rio, the UNFCCC was adopted, as the foundational legal instrument of Climate Change Law. The ultimate goal of the UNFCCC, according to Article 2, is to achieve stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. However, the Convention proved insufficient to achieve the target, as it did not include any binding enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. Subsequently, in 1997, although the Kyoto Protocol introduced legally binding targets for the reduction of GHG emissions, it had limited participation and object. In 2015, a shift was made, through the adoption of the Paris Agreement.

The interpretation of the Paris Agreement is a key aspect of the implementation of climate change law. The legal characterization of the Agreement has been controversial since the adoption of the text. Participant states in the proceedings of the Advisory Opinion made submissions with differing interpretations of the instruments in question.

The Paris Agreement is an international treaty without legally binding objectives, meaning that it has a legally binding framework without binding objectives. The dominant interpretation is based on a textual approach; the language used (“efforts,” “aims”) indicates an aspiring goal to respond to the threat of climate change without making the target legally binding. This controversy raises many questions regarding the implementation of the Paris Agreement, particularly at the level of international responsibility. Are states obliged to follow a course of conduct consistent with the objectives set in the agreement? Could states be held internationally responsible in case of non-compliance with the provisions of the agreement? All these questions have finally found their answers in Advisory Opinion.

In order for the Court to rule on the legal value of the Paris Agreement, it took into account the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

According to the A.O., the key link among those three instruments is deeper than their relation to climate change; they complement each other. This perspective introduces a dimension to the interpretation and implementation of climate change instruments. The UNFCCC establishes the ultimate objective: the need to respond to the threat of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement supplement and specify the general obligations contained in the UNFCCC. The conflicting dimension of these two instruments, in respect of their legal value, has come to an end. The voluntary nature of the provisions included in Paris A. does not absolve the enforceability and the legal obligations of the Kyoto regime.

NDCs: a legal strategy or a procedural obligation?

Nationally Determined Contributions, known as NDCs, are declarations under the Paris Agreement. NDCs are procedural obligations that embody the highest possible efforts by each state to reduce its national GHG emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change as soon as possible. In the context of interpreting the Paris Agreement, NDCs have constituted the most important, yet legally “weakest,” mitigation strategies. State practice demonstrated a lack of consensus regarding the binding nature of the targets set.

Surprisingly, albeit with a tone of relief, the ICJ ruled that the voluntary nature and state discretion in the process of making and enforcing NDC targets are limited. NDCs are not merely a procedural obligation to prepare, maintain, and communicate these declarations every five years. Notably, the Court concludes that NDC targets are not entirely discretionary; rather, they must achieve the individual targets set, as well as realize the overall mitigation target (Art. 2 Paris A.).

This obligation is based on the determination of key principles, such as the principles of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities, the Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development, Equity, and Intergenerational Equity. How could an LDC (Least Developed Country) be expected to reduce the same amount of GHG emissions, or bear the same extent of international responsibility, as an Annex II State? The IPCC itself underlined the essential role of the aforementioned principles in order to determine the existence and subsequently the extent of each state’s responsibility.

The legal “handcuffs” of international responsibility

The Court found it necessary to address the determination of state responsibility in the context of climate change. General questions on attribution and causation arose in the submissions of the participant States; the implications of the plurality of global emitters and whether responsibility can be traced and attributed to one specific entity, as well as the scientific certainty distinguishing climate effects attributable to anthropogenic GHG emissions from those resulting from natural climate variability.

The Court observed that, although it cannot give a comprehensive overview on the law of State Responsibility, as that would require a case-by-case examination, it does have the jurisdiction to assess certain actions or omissions that may give rise to state responsibility in the context of climate change.

The Advisory Opinion relied on ILC Articles on State Responsibility, emphasizing the provision that “the conduct of any organ of a State must be regarded as an act of that State”. State Responsibility is not governed by the emission of GHG per se, but by the breach of international obligations and norms pertaining to the protection of the climate system. This marks one of the most important observations of the Advisory Opinion, as this view does not establish a new causal link theory in the context of climate change, but a causal nexus between the wrongful act and the injury caused is sufficient.

Notably, private entities can no longer “hide” behind their status as non-subjects of International Law; States may be held internationally responsible if they fail to exercise due diligence by not taking the appropriate and necessary adaptation measures in relation to the emissions caused within their jurisdiction by private actors. Consequently, the Court indirectly wishes to intervene in national regulatory and legislative measures, safeguarding compliance with international environmental treaties.

Is the Advisory Opinion where we draw the line?

It was the first time that the Court ruled on an issue of climate change, even if only in the form of an advisory opinion. This marks the inaugural step of the climate change “ladder” and paves the way for any future contentious cases concerning this global challenge. Although an advisory opinion is not legally binding upon states, it carries significant weight in international law.

However, further action is required; the compliance mechanism embodied under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement has never been activated, nor have they established legally binding enforcement procedures to resolve disputes regarding climate change obligations. It is likely that the Advisory Opinion will encourage more states to pursue judicial remedies before the World Court. It may also serve as a basis for examining the establishment of a judicial framework, similar to UNCLOS, to facilitate recourse to judicial settlement under binding mechanisms.

The Advisory Opinion marks the dawn of placing the response to climate change among the highest national priorities and essential interests. Today, a small island sinks on the other side of the world; tomorrow—an entire continent. Let this Advisory Opinion prove that international law can, and will, work for the disadvantaged.


Athanasia Santikou
Athanasia Santikou is an undergraduate Law Student at Democritus University of Thrace, with a keen interest in Public International Law, legal advocacy and global affairs.

Body Of Last Miner Recovered From Chilean Mine After Collapse

The collapse occurred last Friday at El Teniente mining centre that trapped five miners and killed one on spot

Outlook News Desk
Curated by: Saswat Mishra
Updated on: 4 August 2025 


Relatives of a missing miner embrace in front of the offices of Codelco Photo: AP


Summary of this article


Body of last trapped miner recovered


Collapse in tunnel occurred due to a seismic event


Cause for Seismic Event under investigation


El Teniente mining centre located in the Andes mountain range in Chile collapsed on Friday due to a "seismic event", trapping five mining workers inside. The search operation for the workers ended on Sunday when the last worker remaining was found dead.

The collapse of some of the tunnels was caused by a 4.2 magnitude tremor on Thursday. Miners had been working deep below the surface. Whether the cause of the shaking was due to an earthquake or drilling remains under investigation. Operations at the mining center had been suspended since Friday after the tremors

"Today we finally found [dead] the last of the missing workers," Aquiles Cubillos, prosecutor for Chile's O'Higgins region, told reporters.



Death Toll Reaches 11 In Pakistan Coal Mine Collapse
BY PTI

The four other bodies had been discovered on Saturday and earlier on Sunday during a desperate search in collapsed mine tunnels, about 70km (43 miles) south-east of the capital Santiago. The overall death toll is now confirmed at six, as another person was killed at the time of the incident on Thursday reported BBC

El Teniente, which is operated by the Chilean state-owned mining firm Codelco, boasts of having more than 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles) of tunnels and is the largest underground copper deposit in the world. It is located high in the Andes mountains in central Chile.


Tsunami Threat Eases Across Pacific After Earthquake, Chile Remains on High Alert

Codelco has so far named two of the victims - Paulo Marín and Gonzalo Núñez Caroca - but said the others were yet to be identified "by the relevant authorities".


"We share the anguish this situation causes their families and the entire community," the copper mining company said.

Chile's mining industry is considered among the safest in the world, with a fatality rate of 0.02 percent in 2024, according to the National Geology and Mining Service of Chile.

Trump seeks pitches from bank chiefs on Fannie, Freddie stock offerings: Report

Trump is meeting top US bankers to discuss taking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public, reviving plans to privatise the mortgage giants after years under federal control.

Reuters
Aug 1, 2025

In Short

Meetings include J P Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America CEOs

Shares surged amid speculation on public stock offerings

Fannie and Freddie have repaid Treasury loans, posting profits post-2008 crisis

President Donald Trump is meeting with chiefs of major US banks to discuss monetising mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bloomberg News reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter. The pitches include a major public offering of stock, the report added.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been under federal conservatorship since 2008 following the financial crisis, during which both entities became insolvent amid the subprime mortgage meltdown.
advertisement

Since then, the companies have rebuilt capital reserves, repaid their treasury loans and returned to 

Shares of both firms, currently traded on over-the-counter markets, have surged amid speculation over privatization plans.

Trump first signaled intentions to take the companies public in May, posting on Truth Social that he was giving "very serious consideration" to the move.

Trump met with JPMorgan JPM.N CEO Jamie Dimon last week at the White House and is meeting Goldman Sachs GS.N CEO David Solomon on Thursday, the report said.

Bank of America BAC.N CEO Brian Moynihan is also expected to meet with Trump in the coming days, the report added, with talks likely to include other banking executives as well.

Trump is asking the CEOs to provide ideas on strategies for taking the organizations public and exploring how their banks might participate in the process, the report said.

Representatives for BofA and Goldman declined to comment, while the White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

- Ends

Budapest mayor questioned by police over banned pride march

Zahra Fatima
BBC News

2 days ago

Getty Images
Budapest Mayor Gergely Karacsony arrives for questioning


Budapest's mayor has been questioned by police as a suspect in helping to organise a banned LGBTQ march in the city.

The event took place on June 28 despite warnings of potential legal repercussions by Hungary's nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose government passed a law earlier this year banning the event.

Organisers say that despite threats of fines, a record 200,000 people took part in the rally, which swiftly descended into an anti-government protest.

Wearing a rainbow T-shirt featuring the capital's coat of arms, Mayor Gergely Karacsony, who appeared at Hungary's National Bureau of Investigation on Friday, told supporters: "Neither freedom nor love can be banned in Budapest".

If charged and convicted, Karacsony could face up to a year in prison for organising and encouraging participation in a banned march.

"They described the accusation. I said that I considered this to be unfounded and that I will lodge a complaint against it," Karacsony told a crowd of some 200 supporters and journalists who had gathered outside the building where he was questioned for more than an hour.

"Neither freedom nor love can be banned in Budapest," said the mayor, who added: "If it cannot be banned, it cannot be punished."

Accompanied by his lawyer, Karacsony did not answer any questions posed by investigators but instead presented them with a statement of his own.

The annual pride march had been in doubt since the government passed a law in March restricting gatherings if they break child protection laws on the public promotion on homosexuality.

It was the latest measure from Orban's government targeting Hungary's LGBTQ+ community.

In 2020, Hungary abolished its legal recognition of transgender people, and in 2021, the government passed a law banning the depiction of homosexuality to under-18s.

Despite the ban, the mayor stood in defiance, vowing: "Budapest city hall will organise the Budapest Pride march as a local event on 28 June," and argued that police could not legally ban a municipal event.

Last month, police announced they would not take action against attendees who could have faced fines of up to €500 (£427; $586) for attending the Pride parade.

However, Hungary's National Bureau of Investigation, which is tasked with investigating serious and complex crimes, said it had launched a probe against an "unknown perpetrator" accused of organising the rally.

 

US Ninth Circuit affirms antitrust verdict against Google as Epic Games prevails again

Joshua Villanueva | George Washington U. Law School, US

AUGUST 2, 2025 

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday affirmed both a 2023 jury verdict and a permanent injunction in Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC. The Ninth Circuit held that Google violated federal and California antitrust laws by unlawfully maintaining monopoly power in the markets for Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge M. Margaret McKeown concluded that the district court did not err in its legal or factual determinations and acted within its discretion in crafting a three-year injunctive remedy designed to restore competition.

The court upheld a previous jury verdict and rejected Google’s argument that Epic was precluded from asserting different market definitions than those adopted in its earlier case against Apple, explaining that the prior litigation involved materially distinct facts and legal theories. The opinion emphasized that antitrust market definition is inherently context-dependent, noting that Apple’s vertically integrated iOS platform differs significantly from Google’s licensable Android system. Because Epic’s allegations concerned Android-specific barriers to app store competition—including default settings, security prompts, and OEM agreements—the panel held that the litigation raised a separate and non-precluded set of claims.

The court additionally rejected Google’s procedural challenges to the trial format, jury instructions, and Epic’s standing to seek nationwide relief. The panel held that Epic, as a developer who had been removed from the Play Store, faced a continuing threat of injury and was entitled to injunctive relief tailored to address marketwide anticompetitive effects. The opinion clarified that the geographic scope of the injunction—covering the relevant market as defined at trial—was consistent with traditional principles of antitrust equity and did not run afoul of recent US Supreme Court opinion on nationwide injunctions.

Turning to the district court’s decision to enter a permanent injunction, the court applied the standards under Section 16 of the Clayton Act and reaffirmed the district court’s broad discretion to craft forward-looking relief. The court upheld key provisions of the injunction, including a mandate that Google allow rival app stores to access the Play Store’s app catalog and to distribute through the Play Store itself, subject to reasonable security measures. The opinion emphasized the connection between these remedies and the jury’s findings, stating that the provisions were “a reasonable method of eliminating the consequences of [Google’s] illegal conduct.”

The court rejected Google’s contention that the injunction imposed an unlawful “duty to deal,” distinguishing the post-verdict remedial context from the rule in Verizon v. Trinko. It also found that the injunction’s pricing provision—requiring that Google charge no more than a reasonable, cost-based fee to rival app stores using Play Store infrastructure—did not conflict with Image Technical Services v. Eastman Kodak Co., and was appropriate to prevent evasion of the remedy through excessive pricing.

Epic filed suit in 2020 after Google removed its video game “Fortnite” from the Google Play Store. The removal followed Epic’s implementation of “Project Liberty,” a direct-billing mechanism that bypassed Google Play Billing and avoided the 30 percent commission Google typically charges on in-app purchases. After extensive litigation, a jury found in December 2023 that Google had willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power and had unlawfully tied use of the Play Store to its proprietary billing system. In October 2024, the district court entered a permanent injunction requiring Google to cease certain contractual practices, allow sideloading alternatives, and make changes to Play Store policies to enable broader competition.

 

 

CJEU raises bar for safe country designation in landmark asylum ruling

Kareem Assaf | Nottingham Law School, GB

AUGUST 3, 2025 1

The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has issued a landmark ruling Friday that tightens legal requirements for EU member states wishing to designate “safe countries of origin” for accelerated asylum processing.

In its decision on Friday, the CJEU upheld the legality of expedited asylum procedures in principle but made clear that such classifications must be based on rigorous, transparent evidence and subject to meaningful judicial review. The ruling stems from a case brought by two Bangladeshi asylum seekers transferred by Italy to Albania, where their claims were swiftly rejected under Italy’s classification of Bangladesh as a “safe” country. The court found that Italy failed to provide sufficient legal transparency or procedural safeguards, rendering the process incompatible with EU law.

The judgment casts serious doubt on Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s flagship “Albania model,” which aimed to detain and process asylum seekers outside the EU. Legal experts say the ruling could be fatal to the plan. “It will not be possible to continue with what the Italian government had envisioned before this decision,” said Dario Belluccio, counsel for one of the asylum seekers. The detention facilities in Albania have remained largely unused, and a recent audit found their cost was seven times that of similar infrastructure in Italy.

Meloni condemned the ruling as “surprising” and politically motivated, arguing it strips elected governments of the tools needed to combat “mass illegal immigration” and defend borders. However, the CJEU emphasized that no country can be considered safe unless all population groups are protected, a point that aligns with earlier domestic rulings questioning blanket classifications.

Germany, which has also moved to tighten its asylum policies, faces growing legal challenges of its own. In June, the Berlin Administrative Court ruled that turning away asylum seekers at the border violates EU law. The court found that Germany’s policy of immediate rejection was in breach of the EU’s Dublin III Regulation, which mandates individual assessments and prohibits summary returns without due process.

Together, the CJEU and Berlin rulings highlight a widening legal gap between national migration enforcement policies and EU legal obligations. As the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact approaches its June 2026 implementation, the legal boundaries of national asylum policies are being redrawn in real time.

Moment NYC manhole shoots fire onto street as terrified pedestrians run

Jessica Kwong

August 1, 2025 

METRO UK

Manholes exploded – with fire – in terrifying incidents that sent pedestrians running in a Brooklyn neighborhood.

A video shared on the safety network app Citizen showed cars driving on a street in the Bushwick neighbourhood shortly before 5.30pm on Thursday when a column of flames shot up from a manhole.

In the clip, a bright orange plume was seen from a distance and it cut out as the person recording it appeared to duck for cover.

The burst happened as a firefighter moved a barrier on Central Avenue between Myrtle Avenue and Stockholm Street. The firefighter was on site because the New York City Fire Department was investigating reports of higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide, WABC reported

Two manholes erupted with fire in Brooklyn’s Bushwick neighbourhood on Thursday (Pictures: @CitizenAppNYC)

No one was injured from the sudden eruption.

Con Edison, which supplies energy in New York City, responded to the scene.

However, two hours later, another manhole less a mile away spewed fire, at Lewis Avenue and Pulaski Street.

A video posted to the Citizen app showed flames coming from inside the manhole and spreading across the street and encroaching on businesses and vehicles.

A post on the Citizen app showed a fireball erupting from a manhole, nearly hitting a firefighter (Picture: X/@CitizenAppNYC)

About 60 firefighters and first responders rushed to the scene and extinguished the blaze before it hurt anyone or caused any property damage.

It happened a week after two other manhole fires occurred on Remsen Avenue in Brooklyn’s East Flatbush neighbourhood and knocked out power to five buildings and caused a small gas leak that forced evacuations, according to WABC. Con Edison said it was caused by an electrical fire.

It happened three months after a series of manhole explosions – without fire – just missed hitting a grandmother and her two grandchildren who were walking on a sidewalk after an Easter egg hunt in Poughkeepsie, which is about 80 miles north of Manhattan.

New York City has roughly 350,000 manholes across its five boroughs that cover a network of underground cables and gas lines. The cables are prone to overheating from air conditioner use in the summer and can cause the manhole explosions.

LONG READ

‘No land, no home, no future’: Himalayan Lepchas fear new dam

A glacial lake outburst flood in October 2023 washed away Sikkim’s largest hydropower dam, Teesta III, killing more than 50 people and displacing thousands.

The 1200-megawatt Teesta III dam at Chungthang in North Sikkim was swept away during a glacial lake outburst flood on October 4, 2023

 [Arunima Kar/Al Jazeera]

By Arunima Kar
31 Jul 2025

AL JAZEERA

Sikkim, India – It was the middle of the night when Tashi Choden Lepcha was jolted awake by the tremors that shook her mountainside home in Naga village. Perched above the Teesta River, which flows through a gorge just below, Naga is a remote village in India’s northeastern Himalayan state of Sikkim. For centuries, it has been home to the Indigenous Lepcha people.

“It felt like an earthquake,” the 51-year-old mother of five says of the events of October 4, 2023. “The whole house was shaking. It was raining heavily, there was no electricity, and we couldn’t see anything.”

In the pitch dark and amid the heavy downpour that night, Lepcha roused her three children, aged 13, 10 and five, and rushed out of the house with her husband, panicking. Together with a few neighbours, they searched for a safe space on higher ground. That’s when they noticed a distinct smell of mud and something like gunpowder.

Moments later, an enormous, tsunami-like wave surged down with terrifying force. Lepcha didn’t know it at the time, but it was a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF), which had been triggered by the sudden avalanche of ice and rock into the South Lhonak Lake – a glacial lake high up in the Teesta basin in North Sikkim.

The impact breached the lake’s moraine wall, releasing more than 50 million cubic metres of water. The flood destroyed the 1,200-megawatt Teesta III dam – Sikkim’s largest hydropower plant, located at Chungthang on the River Teesta, the largest river in Sikkim, which originates in the eastern Himalayas. The dam’s collapse released an additional five million cubic metres (equivalent to 2,000 Olympic swimming pools) of reservoir water.

The high-velocity flood in the Teesta River valley carried about 270 million cubic metres of sediment and debris along with it, causing widespread devastation across Sikkim, parts of West Bengal and Bangladesh through which the Teesta flows.

At least 55 people were killed, 74 went missing, and more than 7,025 were displaced. The flood damaged nearly 26,000 buildings, destroyed 31 bridges and flooded more than 270 square kilometres of farmland. It also triggered 45 landslides, damaged four dams and destroyed long stretches of National Highway 10.

Both Teesta III and Teesta V, another hydroelectric dam near Dikchu in Balutar, have remained shut since they were severely damaged during the flood. Repair work is continuing, but neither of the dams has generated electricity for almost two years.

Scientists say the scale of the destruction makes it one of the most devastating flooding disasters recorded in the Himalayas in recent decades.

[Teesta Bazar in Kalimpong, downstream from the Teesta III dam, was badly damaged by the 2023 flooding, Arunima Kar/Al Jazeera]

Rebuilding amid ruin

Today, Naga village, located about 73 kilometres from Sikkim’s capital, Gangtok, is deserted due to continuous land subsidence. Houses are cracked, have collapsed or are still standing but leaning towards the river flowing below. The main NH10 road passing through the village has been destroyed with long, deep cracks.

In all, about 150 families lost their homes and land in the flood and now face an uncertain future. Lepcha’s family lost both their houses, which collapsed in the landslides. They, along with 19 other families, are now living temporarily in a government tourist lodge in Singhik, about 10km from their home.

As the region struggles to recover, and communities along the Teesta remain displaced and vulnerable, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) has approved plans to rebuild the Teesta III dam without any public consultation, despite concerns about the risk of future glacial lake outburst floods and the fact that the Himalayan range running across Sikkim is seismically sensitive.

With the ongoing monsoon season, the Teesta’s water levels have risen significantly. This has already caused several landslides in North Sikkim, washing away the under-construction Sankalang bridge and cutting off large parts of the region.

Long stretches of roads across North Sikkim are still unpaved, muddy and full of rubble. Several bridges damaged during the 2023 flood and the monsoon next year are yet to be rebuilt.

The quality control lab at the Chungthang dam site has also been swept away, halting construction work. “It looks like a war-torn area. How will they rebuild Teesta III?” asks Gyatso Lepcha, a climate activist with Affected Citizens of Teesta (ACT), a group of Lepchas campaigning against large hydropower projects and environmental conservation in the region.

“A detailed risk assessment considering future climate scenarios, glacial behaviour, hydrological changes, and sedimentation rates is essential before deciding to rebuild the dam in the same location,” says Farooq Azam, senior cryosphere specialist at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).

In the absence of such an assessment, the region’s Lepcha communities, who fear further disaster, are protesting against the construction.

Naga village in north Sikkim, with its cracked and sinking houses and roads, is deserted following the glacial lake flood in 2023 [Arunima Kar/Al Jazeera]

A controversial dam

Sikkim is home to 40 of India’s 189 potentially dangerous glacial lakes across the Himalayan region, many of which are at risk due to rising temperatures and glacial melt driven by climate change.

Built on a river already lined with dams constructed by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), the Teesta III dam was originally pitched as a renewable energy project.

Approved in 2005 with a budget of Rs 5,705 crore (about $667m), the dam actually cost more than Rs 14,000 crore ($1.6bn) to build by the time it became operational in 2017. Delays were caused by the 2011 earthquake, which destroyed major infrastructure, and also repeated flash floods and landslides.

The dam faced criticism from environmentalists and the All India Power Engineers Federation (AIPEF), which described it as a “failed example of public-private partnership” for the massive cost overruns, years of delay, ecological damage and disregard for Indigenous rights and livelihoods.

The operator, Sikkim Urja Limited (formerly Teesta Urja Ltd or TUL), was forced to sell electricity at half the agreed rate as buyers, including the states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, refused to pay higher prices. In 2017, transmission delays caused yet more losses of about Rs 6 crore ($701,000) per day from June to September 2017.

Following the devastating flooding of 2023, the estimated reconstruction cost for the dam is now Rs 4,189 crore ($490m), but experts question how such a large-scale reconstruction could be completed at less than a third of its original building cost.

An investigation in May this year renewed concerns about the project. The Sikkim Vigilance Police, a special police force, found irregularities in the process used to select the independent power producer, who, according to the findings of the police investigation, lacked the qualifications for a project of this scale. It was alleged that critical dam design parameters had been compromised as a result.

Other reports have found that environmental assessments also overlooked key risks. A 2006 biodiversity report [PDF] from Delhi University had identified the Chungthang region as a highly sensitive ecological zone. Yet the project received swift environmental clearance from the environment ministry based on a report which claimed that little to no significant wildlife existed in the area. The clearance procedure also bypassed the ministry’s own directive that no dams could be approved in Sikkim until a full “carrying capacity study” (a study of an area’s capacity for supporting human life and industry) of the Teesta basin had been completed.

“What was the hurry to give clearance for rebuilding even before the Central Water Commission and Central Electricity Authority cleared the design?” asks Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator of South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), an advocacy group working on the water sector. “The Environmental Impact Report (EIA) used was done before 2006, which didn’t consider the risk of a GLOF. It contributed to the disaster, and now the same flawed EIA is being used again. Even the dam safety report prepared after the collapse hasn’t been made public or considered for this decision.”

Teesta Bazar in Kalimpong, West Bengal, endured extensive destruction in the October 2023 glacial lake outburst flood [Arunima Kar/Al Jazeera]

While a “concrete faced rockfill dam” is planned this time – supposedly more resilient to flooding than the old “concrete gravity dam” design – experts and local communities still worry this won’t be enough because, they say, key impact studies are incomplete.

Al Jazeera reached out to MoEF&CC with questions about why the Teesta III reconstruction had been approved without a new EIA, despite concerns over safety and ecological impacts. Questions were also sent to Sikkim Urja Ltd regarding reconstruction plans and structural safety and to NHPC about the cumulative impacts of multiple dams along the Teesta. Emails and calls to all these offices remained unanswered by the time of publication.

Tunnelling and blasting during the original construction of Teesta III, before it opened in 2017, led to landslides, erosion and damage to homes. Yet, no comprehensive assessment has been conducted on seismic risks, reduced river flow or long-term ecological impacts.

“Our soil is fragile,” says Sangdup Lepcha, president of ACT. “We are seeing more landslides every year. During the GLOF, the soil was completely washed away. If tunnels are dug again under our villages, the area could collapse.”

Sangdup, who lives in Sanggong village in Lower Dzongu, says the 10km stretch from Namprikdang to Dikchu is the only remaining stretch of the Teesta without any dams.

Many worry that if the rebuilding of Teesta III continues without safeguards, it will put villages at risk. “We have already seen what happened in Naga,” says Sangdup. “Why is the project getting emergency clearance while affected families are still waiting for rehabilitation?”

Teesta Bazar in Kalimpong, West Bengal, was one of the worst-hit areas downstream of the Sikkim dam during the October 2023 glacial lake outburst flood. Roads are still unstable and cracked, and many houses are sinking into the Teesta River [Arunima Kar/Al Jazeera]

Sacred land

Dzongu, a region bordering the Kanchenjunga Biosphere Reserve in North Sikkim, is a protected reserve for the Indigenous Lepcha community. Known for their spiritual ties to the rivers and mountains, the Lepchas from Dzongu have long resisted large-scale hydropower projects in the region to protect their identity, livelihoods and the biodiversity of the region.

When multiple dams were proposed in the early 2000s along the Teesta basin – a river the Lepchas revere as a living deity – ACT spearheaded protests against dam construction. Their hunger strikes and protests led to the cancellation of four major hydropower projects in Dzongu and four outside.

“We are animists,” says Mayalmit Lepcha, ACT’s general secretary. “Our traditions, culture, identity, and everything else are tied to Mount Kanchenjunga, Teesta, Rangeet and Rongyong rivers here.”

Despite their long history of activism, the communities say they were ignored during the public consultation process, even though their land and rivers would be used for the proposed 520 MW Teesta IV hydroelectric project.

At least 16 villages lie near the potential construction site, across the agricultural belt of North Sikkim. The project would include building tunnels underneath Hee Gyathang and Sanggong villages in Dzongu to carry water to the power station. The siltation tunnel, which will divert sediment-laden water away from the main reservoir, is supposed to run beneath the Tung Kyong Dho, a sacred lake known for its rich biodiversity.

Songmit Lepcha, from Dzongu’s Hee Gyathang village, told Al Jazeera that she lost her livestock and plantation during flash floods in June last year. “We are scared of rebuilding our homes,” Songmit said, her voice filled with worry.

Opposition Citizen Action Party (CAP) leader Ganesh Rai told Al Jazeera that he is particularly worried about the new plans to rebuild the dam to a height of 118.64 metres, twice as high as the original. “With climate change intensifying, any future breach could submerge all of Chungthang,” he said. “It won’t just affect Dzongu but everyone downstream.”

That could include settlements in Dikchu, Rangpo, Singtam and Kalimpong, and Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri districts in West Bengal, which were severely affected by the 2023 flood. In places like Bhalukhola near Melli, families have been living in makeshift relief camps since the 2023 floods. Conditions are difficult, with limited access to clean water, sanitation and medical care.

Leboon Thapa’s house in Bhalukhola, Kalimpong, was destroyed by the 2023 glacial lake outburst flood in Sikkim. He has been living with his parents in a single, cramped room in the relief camp alongside the Teesta highway since then [Arunima Kar/Al Jazeera]

Struggles downstream

The 2023 flood did not just destroy 22-year-old Leboon Thapa’s family home in Bhalukhola in north Bengal, about 100km downstream from the site of the old Teesta III dam. It also disrupted his dreams of a professional football career.

Leboon is now living with his parents in a single, cramped room inside a relief camp along the Teesta highway, which is situated above Bhalukhola. They are sandwiched between works being done to widen the highway in front of their site, and the ongoing tunnel construction work for the Sevoke-Rangpo railway project behind them. The exposed location leaves them at risk of landslides and flooding.

“If they are rebuilding the dam, they must build protection walls here for our safety,” says the lanky, athletic young man, looking around at what’s left of his village. The fields he played football in as a child, as well as the playground he once ran about in, are now buried under silt and debris. “We only have this land. If we lose it, where do we go?”

About 10km further downstream in Teesta Bazar, 68-year-old Tikaram Karki lost his house and motorcycle repair shop to the 2023 flooding. His home, built above the riverbank, began cracking and sliding just a few days after the flood.

“We were hiding in the mountains in the rain. When we came back at 6am, there were no houses, roads, or electricity,” he says, as he stands next to what remains of his house and shop, both of which are leaning steeply towards the Teesta. He smiles even as he talks about his losses since that dreadful night.

Tikaram now lives in a rented house with his family of four. He is paying Rs 8,000 ($93) monthly rent while struggling with financial losses as he has no way to run his business.

He received some compensation from the West Bengal state government, but it does not cover all he has lost. “I have been living here for 30 years and spent Rs 30 lakh ($35,000) building my house. I only got Rs 75,000 ($876) in compensation. What will happen with that?”

Like others here, Tikaram says he believes the destruction was made worse by years of poor planning and unchecked silt buildup caused by the dam, which raised the riverbed of the Teesta.

“If they had cleared the silt during the dry months, we wouldn’t be so vulnerable now,” he says.

“I cannot tell the government not to build the dam, but they should build proper protection for all the people still living along Teesta,” adds Tikaram.

Tikaram Karki’s home and motorcycle repair shop in Teesta Bazar, Kalimpong, are sinking into the Teesta River following the October 2023 flood, which caused massive destruction to property in the region [Arunima Kar/Al Jazeera]

Rising risk

In a January 2025 study by an international team of scientists and NGOs published in the Science journal, researchers warned that South Lhonak Lake is one of the more rapidly expanding and hazardous glacial lakes in Sikkim. The lake expanded from 0.15 square kilometres in 1975 to 1.68sq km by 2023, posing a danger of flooding to the communities downstream.

“The Teesta-III dam played a significant role in amplifying the downstream impact of the South Lhonak GLOF disaster,” Azam, at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), tells Al Jazeera.

Azam explains that while the disastrous flood could not have been prevented, its impact could have been significantly reduced through better infrastructure planning and active monitoring of the lake. “Reinforced spillways, sediment handling systems, and early warning systems linked to upstream sensors could have provided critical response time,” he says.

The night the flood hit, the dam’s power station was still operating. According to Thakkar, authorities had received alerts well in advance, but there were no standard operating procedures or emergency protocols in place about opening spillway gates during such situations. “And there has been no accountability since,” he added.

Thakkar says he is deeply concerned that the dam is being rebuilt without taking into account the flood potential based on current rainfall patterns.

“And what happens to the other downstream dams when this one releases excess water during the next flood?” he asked. “None of them are being redesigned to withstand that kind of excess flow.”

At the end of May, there was a landslide at the Teesta VI dam site in Singtam. “This is happening every monsoon,” said Gyatso.

Rai criticises the state’s priorities, saying the government was “pushing for more dams instead of strengthening disaster preparedness” at a time when the frequency of extreme weather events is expected to increase.

Once a thriving town, Chungthang in North Sikkim is now strewn with rocks, boulders and a deep layer of sand and debris after the 1,200-megawatt Teesta III dam was destroyed by a massive glacial lake outburst flood from South Lhonak Lake, above, in Lachen [Arunima Kar/Al Jazeera]

‘No Future Here’

Nearly two years after the October 2023 flood, Tashi Choden Lepcha still has no home. Her voice chokes up as she speaks about her houses in Naga village.

“We were born there, raised children there. Now we have nothing,” she says of herself and her husband, wiping her tears. Her brother used to live next door: he lost everything as well.

After the disaster, she, her husband and children stayed in a school building in Naga. But when cracks appeared in the school walls, they were shifted to Singhik. The lodge, too, is beginning to show cracks in the kitchen and bathroom.

Her husband and children have since relocated to Siliguri, about 150km away, for work and education, while she stayed behind alone because she teaches at Naga Secondary School.

The government gave them Rs 1.3 lakh ($1,520) in compensation, but most of it went on the cost of moving their belongings to different locations.

There have been discussions about allocating land higher up in the mountains for the displaced families. But many of them fear it could take years before they are rehoused. “If the government gives us land in a safe location, we can build a house. How long can we live like this? We have no future here,” she says now.

Most people in the surrounding villages share her fears. They want the dam project scrapped or moved to a safer location.

Mayalmit echoes this call for caution. “We’re going to have more GLOFs, there’s no doubt,” she says.

“People will have confidence only if decisions are based on proper impact assessments, considering all factors, and done in a transparent way,” Thakkar adds. “But that’s not happening now, which is why there’s scepticism about hydro projects among locals.”

He says that Indigenous communities must be part of the decision-making process. “They’re the ones most at risk, and also the most knowledgeable.”

Praful Rao of Save The Hills, an NGO working in disaster management in North Bengal and Sikkim, has called for joint disaster planning between the two states. “What happens upstream affects us downstream. It is time we work together for science-based disaster planning, not blindly push dam projects for revenue.”

While hydroelectricity is important for India’s energy future, Rao warns against unchecked expansion. “You can’t build dams every few kilometres. We need to study how many this fragile region can safely support.”

Mayalmit urges central and state authorities to reconsider the approval. “Don’t act against Indigenous rights, the environment. I speak for the rivers, the birds and the animals here.”

Source: Al Jazeera

India Will Not Buy F-35 Fighter Jets from the United States

August 1, 2025
By: Peter Suciu

NATIONAL INTEREST

The cancellation comes from Indian reactions to US tariffs, Russian defense ties, and a preference for domestic military production over foreign hardware purchases.

Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump opened the door to India purchasing the fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. However, New Delhi has all but slammed shut that door, after Trump also announced a 25 percent tariff on Indian goods that was to go into effect on Friday.

Indian officials were reportedly “shocked and disappointed” by the news. While New Delhi hasn’t made any retaliatory moves of its own, it is also not seeking to move forward with efforts to acquire the multi-role stealth fighter.

Trump’s 25 percent tariffs could hinder the Pentagon’s efforts to persuade India to shift its military hardware acquisition away from Russia. New Delhi remains Moscow’s largest foreign customer, and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Washington has engaged in a gradual effort to deepen defense-industrial ties, which has included the sale of the MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and the P-8I maritime patrol aircraft.

Why Did the United States Offer the F-35 to India?

President Trump had pitched the Lightning II to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the latter’s visit to the White House in February, the first foreign visit of Trump’s second term.

“We’ll be increasing military sales to India by many billions of dollars. We’re also paving the way to provide India with the F-35 stealth fighters, ultimately,” Trump told reporters in February, according to Reuters.

Even at the time, there were questions about whether such a deal could materialize.

For one, India operates the same S-400 Triumf air defense system that caused NATO member Turkey to be expelled from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program during Trump’s first term. It is difficult to reconcile how New Delhi would be approved to operate the stealth fighter when Washington and NATO had taken a hard line that the F-35 and S-400 were incompatible and that Turkey’s adoption of both would compromise the aircraft’s security.

India also has numerous partnership deals, including the licensed production of Russian hardware, and New Delhi has made it clear that this is a direction it would seek to continue heading as part of its “Make in India” initiative.

“The government is more interested in a partnership focused on jointly designing and manufacturing defense equipment domestically,” an Indian official told Bloomberg on Thursday.

Russia Wants to Sell Fighter Jets to India

Russia’s military-industrial conglomerate Rostec has repeatedly proposed a partnership for the production of the Sukhoi Su-57 (NATO reporting name Felon), but so far, nothing has materialized.

However, last month, another proposal was presented that would see the Su-57E, the export model of the Felon, and the Sukhoi Su-35M (NATO reporting name Flanker-E/M) air superiority fighter manufactured under license.

The Defense Blog reported that it could include a “full technology transfer” for the fifth-generation fighter, which could be assembled domestically at India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s Nasik facility. The same factory has manufactured over 220 Sukhoi Su-30MKI (NATO reporting name: Flanker-H) fighters.

Whether New Delhi moves forward with any deal with Moscow has yet to be seen, but it is clear that this is more than just tariffs.

“Buying is not enough, we want to build,” the unnamed Indian official added.

That could allow the Su-57 to claim a big win over the F-35.

About the Author: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu has contributed over 3,200 published pieces to more than four dozen magazines and websites over a thirty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. He is based in Michigan. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.