Podcasts about Suez

How did Britain cease to be global? In Untied Kingdom: A Global History of the End of Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2023), Professor Stuart Ward tells the panoramic history of the end of Britain, tracing the ways in which Britishness has been imagined, experienced, disputed and ultimately discarded across the globe since the end of the Second World War. From Indian independence, West Indian immigration and African decolonization to the Suez. Crisis and the Falklands War, he uncovers the demise of Britishness as a global civic idea and its impact on communities across the globe. He also shows the consequences of this diminished 'global reach' in Britain itself, from the Troubles in Northern Ireland to resurgent Englishness and the startling success of separatist political agendas in Scotland and Wales. Untied Kingdom puts the contemporary travails of the Union for the first time in their full global perspective as part of the much larger story of the progressive rollback of Britain's imaginative frontiers. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How did Britain cease to be global? In Untied Kingdom: A Global History of the End of Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2023), Professor Stuart Ward tells the panoramic history of the end of Britain, tracing the ways in which Britishness has been imagined, experienced, disputed and ultimately discarded across the globe since the end of the Second World War. From Indian independence, West Indian immigration and African decolonization to the Suez. Crisis and the Falklands War, he uncovers the demise of Britishness as a global civic idea and its impact on communities across the globe. He also shows the consequences of this diminished 'global reach' in Britain itself, from the Troubles in Northern Ireland to resurgent Englishness and the startling success of separatist political agendas in Scotland and Wales. Untied Kingdom puts the contemporary travails of the Union for the first time in their full global perspective as part of the much larger story of the progressive rollback of Britain's imaginative frontiers. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

How did Britain cease to be global? In Untied Kingdom: A Global History of the End of Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2023), Professor Stuart Ward tells the panoramic history of the end of Britain, tracing the ways in which Britishness has been imagined, experienced, disputed and ultimately discarded across the globe since the end of the Second World War. From Indian independence, West Indian immigration and African decolonization to the Suez. Crisis and the Falklands War, he uncovers the demise of Britishness as a global civic idea and its impact on communities across the globe. He also shows the consequences of this diminished 'global reach' in Britain itself, from the Troubles in Northern Ireland to resurgent Englishness and the startling success of separatist political agendas in Scotland and Wales. Untied Kingdom puts the contemporary travails of the Union for the first time in their full global perspective as part of the much larger story of the progressive rollback of Britain's imaginative frontiers. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/australian-and-new-zealand-studies

How did Britain cease to be global? In Untied Kingdom: A Global History of the End of Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2023), Professor Stuart Ward tells the panoramic history of the end of Britain, tracing the ways in which Britishness has been imagined, experienced, disputed and ultimately discarded across the globe since the end of the Second World War. From Indian independence, West Indian immigration and African decolonization to the Suez. Crisis and the Falklands War, he uncovers the demise of Britishness as a global civic idea and its impact on communities across the globe. He also shows the consequences of this diminished 'global reach' in Britain itself, from the Troubles in Northern Ireland to resurgent Englishness and the startling success of separatist political agendas in Scotland and Wales. Untied Kingdom puts the contemporary travails of the Union for the first time in their full global perspective as part of the much larger story of the progressive rollback of Britain's imaginative frontiers. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

La ciudad egipcia de Sharm El Sheikh, a orillas del Mar Rojo y al sur de la penísula del Sinaí, alberga corales y peces de una gran diversidad, haciendo de este lugar uno de los lugares predilectos para el buceo. El parque nacional Ras Mohammed, no muy lejos de Sharm, protege desde 1983 una superficie de 480 km cuadrados, tanto zona terrestre como acuática. RFI fue a conocer estos arrecifes, considerados los segundos más antiguos del planeta.   Por Ivonne SánchezLa ciudad egipcia de Sharm el Sheikh se encuentra en el extremo sur de la península del Sinaí, del lado asiático. Una curiosidad es que Egipto se encuentra en dos continentes, Africa y Asia, siendo el Golfo de Suez la barrera natural.Y es aquí donde un viejo pueblo pesquero se ha convertido en las últimas décadas en uno de los lugares más importantes para bucear. Sus altas y rojas montañas también son emblemáticas de esta región árida y albergan una fauna y flora específicas como los manglares y las acacias.El parque nacional Ras Mohammed, no muy lejos de Sharm el Sheik, protege una superficie de 480 km cuadrados, una cuarta parte concierne la zona terrestre y el resto la parte acuática.Con vistas al Mar Rojo y a la isla de Tirán, nos encontramos con Ahmed Mido, guía de esta región quien nos da la bienvenida, escuche aquí el reportaje en su versión completa:Agradecemos a Ahmed Mido por la entrevista en español y a Islam Nabil por su hospitalidad en Sharm El Sheikh durante la realización de este reportaje. 

Ce n'est pas un ingénieur mais un diplomate qui, en la personne de Ferdinand de Lesseps, ouvre vers l'Orient un chemin maritime attendu depuis des millénaires : le canal de Suez. Mention légales : Vos données de connexion, dont votre adresse IP, sont traités par Radio Classique, responsable de traitement, sur la base de son intérêt légitime, par l'intermédiaire de son sous-traitant Ausha, à des fins de réalisation de statistiques agréées et de lutte contre la fraude. Ces données sont supprimées en temps réel pour la finalité statistique et sous cinq mois à compter de la collecte à des fins de lutte contre la fraude. Pour plus d'informations sur les traitements réalisés par Radio Classique et exercer vos droits, consultez notre Politique de confidentialité.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

VOV1 - Cơ quan Quản lý Kênh đào Suez (SCA) hôm qua (13/5) đã công bố mức giảm 15% phí vận chuyển đối với tàu container có trọng tải từ 130.000 tấn trở lên, trong vòng 90 ngày, bắt đầu từ 15/5.

durée : 00:02:27 - Stéphen Delcourt, manager de l'équipe FDJ - SUEZ

Bắc Kinh và Matxcơva đẩy mạnh hợp tác ở Bắc Cực, được cho là nơi có 25 % dự trữ dầu khí của thế giới chưa khai thác. Đây cũng là một vị trí chiến lược cho phép rút ngắn lộ trình giao thương hàng hải giữa Nga với Trung Quốc, phục vụ chiến lược xoay trục sang châu Á của tổng thống Vladimir Putin. Chiến tranh Ukraina càng kéo dài, bang giao Nga - Trung càng thắm thiết.  Chủ tịch Trung Quốc là thượng khách của tổng thống Nga Vladimir Putin tại Matxcơva nhân lễ kỷ niệm 80 năm chiến thắng Đức Quốc Xã hôm 09/05/2025.Sau trên dưới 50 lần tiếp xúc kể từ khi hai nhà lãnh đạo này lên cầm quyền, đôi bên phô trương những cử chỉ thân mật của những người bạn « lâu năm », của một mối bang giao « đang ở cấp cao nhất trong lịch sử ». Giới quan sát cho rằng đây là một màn trình diễn có phối hợp của đôi bên vào lúc Nga và phương Tây vẫn đối đầu với nhau về chiến tranh Ukraina, còn Trung Quốc thì đang đọ sức với Hoa Kỳ trong một cuộc chiến thương mại.Bên cạnh những tuyên bố chung « phản đối các biện pháp đơn phương hạn chế trao đổi về mậu dịch và tài chính » toàn cầu-ngụ ý nhắm vào Mỹ và phương Tây, Nga và Trung Quốc cam kết mở rộng việc sử dụng đồng nội tệ trong các giao dịch song phương, để bớt lệ thuộc vào đô la Mỹ. Matxcơva và Bắc Kinh « tăng cường quan hệ kinh tế, thương mại và khoa học công nghệ » đồng thời kêu gọi tránh biến trí tuệ nhân tạo thành một công cụ phục vụ « những tham vọng chính trị và mưu đồ bá quyền ».Trong số các hồ sơ hợp tác song phương, chủ đề nổi cộm hơn cả đó là các chương trình hợp tác Nga-Trung tại Bắc Cực, một khu vực « rất gần với lãnh thổ của Hoa Kỳ ».Cách nay ba năm, phát biểu trên đài truyền hình nhà nước, tổng thống Vladimir Putin đã nhấn mạnh : « Mở rộng hành lang giao thương qua Bắc Cực là rất quan trọng, vì qua đó chúng ta có thể khai thác trọn vẹn tiềm năng xuất khẩu của Nga, hoạt động một cách có hiệu quả, đặc biệt là trong các dịch vụ giao thương với Đông Nam Á ».Chuyên gia về an ninh, quốc phòng Nga Isabelle Facon thuộc Quỹ Nghiên Cứu Chiến Lược của Pháp trong một bài phân tích gần đây (Nga và Trung Quốc tại Bắc Cực : những tính toán hai mặt và bó buộc của Matxcơva) lưu ý : Từ 2016 đôi bên đã « đẩy mạnh hợp tác ở Bắc Cực trong khuôn khổ chương trình Arktika do Matxcơva khởi xướng với mục đích chia sẻ và đẩy mạnh những trao đổi về khoa học kỹ thuật ».Nga thì tìm kiếm các mối đối tác mới, còn Trung Quốc thì muốn mở rộng ảnh hưởng tại một vùng biển được coi là mang tính chiến lược về quân sự-do sát cạnh lãnh thổ Hoa Kỳ, và nhất là về mặt thương mại.Sự hiện diện của tàu phá băng Trung Quốc Tạp chí tài chính Mỹ Forbes tiết lộ từ tháng 7/2024 ba tàu phá băng của Trung Quốc đã được triển khai đến khu vực. Hai tháng sau, Học Viện Hải Quân Hoa Kỳ đưa tin tàu Trung Quốc đi qua « Tuyến Đường Hàng Hải Phương Bắc do Nga kiểm soát. Tàu chở hàng của Nga để bán sang Châu Âu và Châu Á, bất chấp các lệnh trừng phạt Âu Mỹ đã ban hành từ khi tổng thống Putin xâm lược Ukraina ».Tại Bắc Cực, Nga chiếm thế áp đảo, kiểm soát 45 % các vùng nước của Bắc Băng Dương, và 53 % các bờ biển. Vị trí áp đảo này hơn hẳn so với những quốc gia khác trong khu vực như Hoa Kỳ, Canada, Na Uy, Đan Mạch (với hòn đảo Groenland), Phần Lan, Thụy Điển, Iceland. Vào lúc Trái đất đang bị hâm nóng, khối lượng băng tuyết tại đây đã tan 40 % so với thời điểm 1980 các tuyến đường hàng hải và viễn cảnh khai thác tài nguyên càng trở nên hấp dẫn hơn.Để duy trì thế thượng phong, Matxcơva từ hơn chục năm nay đã tìm cách lôi kéo Trung Quốc vào cuộc, bởi tuyến đường hàng hải phương Bắc cho phép thu ngắn đáng kể hành trình đưa hàng hóa của Nga sang Trung Quốc hay châu Âu, thay vì phải đi qua Kênh Đào Suez hay Sừng Châu Phi.Tuần báo Courrier International trích dẫn phân tích của chuyên gia về địa chính trị Viện nghiên cứu Na Uy (Fridtjof Nansen Institute) Andreas Osthagen : « Một số khu vực tại Bắc Cực được cho là rất giàu các tài nguyên mà đến nay chưa được khai thác. Đây là một vùng còn rất nghèo nàn về cơ sở hạ tầng, các cơ sở về năng lượng tại đây còn kém mở mang. Do vậy các tập đoàn công nghiệp quốc tế ngại đến đây hoạt động. Cả khu vực Bắc Cực chưa được khai thác đúng mức (...) Trong khu vực thì không mấy khi có chuyện tranh chấp về lãnh thổ, hay tranh chấp về các đường biên giới và tranh chấp chủ quyền, nhưng phải hiểu Bắc Cực là một không gian mang tính chiến lược cao, chủ yếu liên quan đến vấn đề quyền chủ quyền  (…) Khi NATO tổ chức tập trận chung với các nước liên quan thì lập tức Nga cũng có hành động tương tự tại khu vực này để khẳng định quyền chủ quyền (…) Căng thẳng có phần gia tăng từ khi Phần Lan gia nhập Liên Minh Bắc Đại Tây Dương cho nên Nga càng khẩn trương hơn tìm kiếm các mối liên minh mới. Đầu tiên hết trong số này là Trung Quốc. Về phía Bắc Kinh thì ông Tập Cận Bình muốn mở rộng ảnh hưởng của Trung Quốc trong khu vực cũng như ở khắp nơi trên thế giới. Bắc Kinh đẩy mạnh đầu tư và thúc đẩy dự án con đường tơ lụa qua Bắc Cực. »Lợi ích về tài nguyên Năm 2008, Cơ Quan Địa Chất Hoa Kỳ USGS thẩm định hiện có ít nhất 10 % trữ lượng dầu hỏa và 30 % trữ lượng về khí đốt của thế giới vẫn còn ngủ yên ở Bắc Cực. Vào lúc Trung Quốc vừa là nguồn tiêu thụ năng lượng lớn nhất thế giới, lại vừa dồi dào các phương tiện cả về tài chính lẫn kỹ thuật, hợp tác Nga Trung là kịch bản lý tưởng.Vấn đề đặt ra là tới nay, Nga cũng như 7 quốc gia còn lại bao quanh Bắc Băng Dương đều không có nhiều phương tiện để thăm dò, khai thác các nguồn tài nguyên này, một phần do thời tiết khí hậu khắc nghiệt chưa cho phép, một phần do chính những thẩm định về tiềm năng của khu vực cũng chưa được xác định một cách vững chắc.Trong khi đó, như vừa giải thích, « căng thẳng về địa chính trị gia tăng giữa Mỹ và Nga »,đặc biệt là từ khi Phần Lan gia nhập Liên Minh Bắc Đại Tây Dương, Matxcơva lôi kéo thêm Bắc Kinh về phía mình ở một vùng biển ngay sát cạnh Hoa Kỳ : Eo biển Bering nằm cách Bắc Cực khoảng 100 km về phía nam. Khoảng cách giữa bờ biển ở cực đông của vùng Tchoukota thuộc về nước Nga và vùng duyên hải ở cực tây bang Alaska của Hoa Kỳ chỉ là 85 km.Cho nên, việc cặp bài trùng Nga-Trung Quốc tăng cường hiện diện ngay sát cạnh lãnh thổ và lãnh hải Hoa Kỳ là một yếu tố chiến lược mà cả Matxcơva lẫn Bắc Kinh đều không thể bỏ qua.Một chút nghi kỵ Nga-TrungTuy nhiên, bà Isabelle Facon Quỹ Nghiên Cứu Chiến Lược của Pháp trong bài tham luận trên Đài Quan Sát Bắc Cực đã lưu ý : Thứ nhất Trung Quốc là đối tác quan trọng nhất, nhưng không phải là vị khách duy nhất được tổng thống Vladimir Putin mời tham gia cùng « thăm dò » tài nguyên ở Bắc Cực. Chủ nhân điện Kremlin đã mời từ Ấn Độ đến Hàn Quốc, Nhật Bản đồng hành. Tại thượng đỉnh APEC ở Bali-Indonesia, năm 2013 cũng ông Putin đã mời « các đối tác kinh tế trong khu vực cùng phát triển dự án Tuyến Đường Hàng Hải Phương Bắc ».Thứ nhì, về phía Trung Quốc, ông Tập Cận Bình cũng không đợi đến chiến tranh Ukraina năm 2022 mới quan tâm đến Bắc Cực. Bắc Kinh cũng không chỉ trông cậy vào Nga như « cánh cổng duy nhất mở ra Bắc Băng Dương ».Theo nhà nghiên cứu Isabelle Facon, do nhu cầu tiên thụ năng lượng quá lớn, Bắc Kinh từng « mở rộng bang giao » với các thành viên Hội Đồng Bắc Cực, từ Đan Mạch đến Iceland hay Na Uy. Hành động này khiến Matxcơva hoài nghi và cho rằng Trung Quốc lại áp dụng chiến thuật « chia để trị » và bắt đầu xem Bắc Kinh như một mối thách thức tiềm tàng.Ngày 25/04/2023 Nga và Trung Quốc đã ký kết hiệp ước Mourmansk, tên một hải cảng của Nga hướng ra Bắc Băng Dương. Văn bản này trước hết là « một thông điệp mà Matxcơva và Bắc Kinh gửi tới tất cả các thành viên khác trong Hội Đồng Bắc Cực (vốn đã ngừng liên hệ với Nga từ khi nổ ra chiến tranh Ukraina), đứng đầu là Hoa Kỳ. Thông điệp ấy là « giờ đây, nước Nga đã sẵn sàng thách thức NATO trong khu vực chiến lược và nhạy cảm này », theo ghi nhận của tuần báo The Times.Do vậy, việc lôi kéo Trung Quốc về phía mình ở Bắc Cực chỉ là một sự tiếp nối của chính sách « Chinh phục lại Bắc Cực » mà Matxcơva đã từng bước hình thành từ đầu những năm 2010, có thể là « trước đó nữa ».Nga đang tận dụng việc khai thác Con Đường Hàng Hải Phương Bắc để đưa dầu hỏa nhanh hơn đến tay khách hàng lớn nhất là Trung Quốc. Trong tính toán này, Nga có thêm một đồng minh bất ngờ và quý giá đó là yếu tố thời tiết : do hiện tượng khí hậu bị hâm nóng làm tan băng, giao thương trong vùng biển sát Bắc Cực này càng được thuận lợi.

*Key fundamental views for today*    Strategy| FWRY and EGAL offer value post yesterday's sell-offMacro| Core Inflation up in April, no threat to expected easing pathMacro| Restoring normal traffic to the Suez canal might take monthsMacro| The Government will tap international financial markets before mid-2025JUFO| ST performance may remain under pressure on plunge in orange juice concentrates w/wARCC| Two-month quota suspension casts doubt on ARCC FY25 earningsMFPC| Stable Q for MFPC, maintain equalweightADIB| strong 1Q25; penalized by lack of cash dividends  Weekly Commodities Update 

Matt Boczkowski Matt Boczkowski has a diverse work experience in various industries and roles. Matt is currently the CEO of Aquaporin A/S, a company focused on water filtration through biotechnology. Before that, he held multiple roles at SUEZ, including Vice President Industrial Strategy, Growth, Market Development, and Global Director of Marketing and Growth Initiatives. Matt…More

Ce lundi 28 avril, l'attaque de Donald Trump sur l'Égypte concernant la gratuité pour les navires américains empruntant la voie du Canal de Suez a été abordée par Caroline Loyer dans sa chronique, dans l'émission Good Morning Business, présentée par Laure Closier, sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au vendredi et réécoutez la en podcast.

HEADLINES :- Saudi Arabia's PIF has raised its target for assets under management by 2030 to $2.67 - trillion- Saudi Arabia and Qatar to pay back Syria's debt to the World Bank- Trump poised to offer Saudi Arabia over $100 billion arms package, reports Reuters- Trump Wants a 'Free' US Ride in the Suez Canal- All-time AED100-million record set at latest RTA number plate auction

VOV1 - Sáng nay, tại Phủ Chủ tịch, diễn ra lễ đón chính thức Thủ tướng Nhật Bản Ishiba Shigeru, Chủ tịch Đảng Dân chủ Tự do thăm chính thức Việt Nam. Sau lễ đón, hai nhà lãnh đạo đã tiến hành hội đàm.-  Chủ tịch nước Lương Cường thăm Khu di tích Chủ tịch Hồ Chí Minh và dâng hương tưởng nhớ Người tại Nhà 67.- Thủ tướng Phạm Minh Chính chủ trì lễ đón Thủ tướng Nhật Bản Ishiba Shigeru nhân chuyến thăm chính thức nước ta. Ngay sau lễ đón, 2 nhà lãnh đạo tiến hành hội đàm.- Ủy ban Thường vụ Quốc hội cho ý kiến đối với Dự án Luật sửa đổi, bổ sung một số điều của Luật Quốc tịch Việt Nam. Dự án luật sẽ trình Quốc hội tại Kỳ họp thứ 9 diễn ra đầu tháng 5 tới.- Nhiều địa phương thông qua chủ trương sắp xếp, hợp nhất đơn vị hành chính.- Chi tiêu quân sự toàn cầu ở mức 2.720 tỷ đôla Mỹ trong năm 2024, tăng 9,4% so với năm 2023 và là mức tăng mạnh nhất theo năm kể từ sau Chiến tranh Lạnh.- Dư luận Ai Cập phản ứng trước yêu cầu của Mỹ về kênh đào Suez. 

In today's competitive global landscape the responsibilities of CFOs are diversifying more than ever. The fast paced digital revolution, geopolitical uncertainty, economic volatility and the environmental impact of climate change means the modern CFO must adapt to future proof the financial health of their organisations. The need to remain agile and requires fleet of foot finance leaders. In the modern world, technology is helping CFOs to gain visibility over their business functions and react to an ever evolving global landscape. In this Episode of The Next Five, Anna Manz, CFO of Nestlé explains the need to keep pace with consumer change, how technology can help with forecasting, but that a team's ability to adpat to change is vital. Chris Thorn, UK CFO at Suez discusses the unique pressures and opportunities of private and public partnerships, how to react and work with regulation and legislation changes and the role tech also plays for CFOs. Salvatore Lombardo, CPTO at Coupa explains how technologies such as AI can be a welcome tool in the CFOs arsenal, if used correctly. Sources: FT resources, PWC.This content is paid for by Coupa and is produced in partnership with the Financial Times' Commercial Department. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

VOV1 - Giới chức Ai Cập đã lên tiếng bác bỏ đề xuất của Tổng thống Mỹ về miễn thu phí đối với các tàu của Mỹ di chuyển qua kênh đào Suez của Ai Cập.

Hamas ready to release all hostages for five-year Gaza truce Kashmir simmers as Indian forces blow up several homes Russia announces complete 'liberation' of Kursk region Attacker still at large after deadly stabbing in French mosque Trump wants US ships to travel free in Panama, Suez canals

Macmillan overcame the terrible legacy of the Suez catastrophe and, running an economy focused on growth to fund increasing living standards, giving him the opportunity to annouce that people had never had it so good. That reflect both a genuine concern with eliminating poverty and as an effective electoral strategy, pulled off the trick by increasing the Conservative majority in its third consecutive general election win in 1959.Meanwhile, in the Labour Party, in opposition, the left-right split was causing serious dissension, with Nye Bevan leading the left and winning great support for his brilliance and his charisma, but a lot of criticism too for the damage done by views that were sometimes extremist. His group of troublemakers included the young and ambitious Harold Wilson. He, however, when he realised that aligning with the left wing was getting him nowhere, drifted rightwards, ending up by taking Bevan's seat on the Labour Shadow Cabinet instead of backing his resignation from it. He then supported the rightwinger Gaitskell's campaign to become Labour leader against Bevan. Macmillan found himself facing Gaitskell and Wilson in opposition to him as his continued dash for economic growth, alongside fear or inflation and pressure on the currency, led to his alternating between periods of economic relaxation and periods of retrenchment. Gaitskell and Wilson denounced ‘boom and bust' economics.Things were beginning to turn nasty for Macmillan. But we haven't seen how nasty yet.Illustration: Supermac as seen by Vicky Public Domain.Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

The canal was designed as a sea-level waterway stretching approximately 120 miles across the Isthmus of Suez, and its completion in 1869, ten years after work began, significantly reduced travel time between Europe and ...

The F4U Corsair comes into its own from the Pacific, to the Atlantic, Korea, Suez to the "Football War"! Images for F4U Corsair Links to other episodes mentionned: OS2U Kingfisher F6F Hellcat - Made to Order Polikarpov Po-2 P-40 Warhawk F9F Panther Devotion Movie Review Connect with me! I love comments! https://www.facebook.com/WorldofWB Twitter (X): @WorldofWarbird Tanner's Twitter (X): jet jockey Threads: world_of_warbirds_podcast Insta: world_of_warbirds_podcast bpearce29@gmail.com

The Corsair comes into its own from the Pacific, to the Atlantic, Korea, Suez to the "Football War". Images for F4U Corsair Links to other episodes mentionned: OS2U Kingfisher F6F Hellcat - Made to Order Polikarpov Po-2 P-40 Warhawk F9F Panther Devotion Movie Review Connect with me! I love comments! https://www.facebook.com/WorldofWB Twitter (X): @WorldofWarbird Tanner's Twitter (X): jet jockey Threads: world_of_warbirds_podcast Insta: world_of_warbirds_podcast bpearce29@gmail.com

Anthony Eden started his premiership well, chalking up a general election win and the lowest level of unemployment Britain has seen at any time since the Second World War. Little else went well, however. His Foreign Secretary, Harold Macmillan made a statement to the House of Commons exonerating Kim Philby from suspicion of being a Soviet spy. That was a statement he would live to regret.Far worse for Eden was what happened in Egypt. The nationalist Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal in 1956. Despite Eden's lack of enthusiasm for European integration and his far greater commitment to the Commonwealth, and to the so-called special relationship between the UK and the United States, he decided to respond without consulting the US and in concert with France, one of those European powers he was so unenthusiastic on getting close to. They in turn colluded with Israel to invade the Egyptian territory of Sinai, after which they would react with horror, call on both sides to cease firing, and when that didn't happen, send in troops themselves.Unfortunately, the world reacted with widespread anger at the actions of the Israeli-French-British coalition. The US, indeed, put huge pressure on Britain by threatening to sell British bonds, which would have massively damaged the British currency. They later blocked oil supplies to Britain.The result was that though the military action only got started on 29 October 1956, when Israel went into the Sinai, Britain called a ceasefire on 7 November. That angered the French, who have behaved with little confidence in the British or American military ever since. It also led to the ultimate defeat of the coalition, with the British government having to announce an unconditional withdrawal of its forces on 3 December 1956.Eden was made the scapegoat for the debacle. He resigned in January 1957, after less than two years in post. Many expected the succession to go to Rab Butler, who'd deputised for Eden while the latter was away recovering from a collapse in his health at the height of the crisis, but Harold Macmillan proved much too wily for him, outmanoeuvring him and taking the top position himself.We'll be getting to know Macmillan era next week.Illustration: Smoke rises from oil tanks beside the Suez Canal hit during the initial Anglo-French assault on Port Said, 5 November 1956. Public DomainMusic: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

En 2024, presque 20 ans tout juste après sa mort, un secret saisissant du journaliste et ancien rédacteur en chef de L'Express, Philippe Grumbach, est dévoilé : il fut l'agent BROK, affilié au KGB. En 1956, en pleine crise du canal de Suez, Grumbach est déjà un espion soviétique. Et il mène certaines de ses missions au sein même de sa rédaction...Bientôt, le voilà qui murmure à l'oreille des plus grandes figures politiques de son époque.

durée : 00:02:51 - La réponse de Suez après les plaintes de riverains installés près du site d'enfouissement de déchets de Saint-Fraimbault-de-Prières

On Episode 827 of WHAT THE TRUCK?!?, Dooner is talking about the shockwaves that have been reverberating throughout the trade community due to the trade war. The Maritime Professor Lauren Beagan drops in to talk about the massive collapse in container bookings that has happened over the past month. How soon will we feel the pain in volumes on the trucking side? Beagan also breaks down recent maritime policy regarding new port fees as well as the Panama and Suez canals. Port of Huntsville CEO Butch Roberts believes we're in for an inland port renaissance. We'll find out how the port works, whom it serves and why big investments in air and intermodal will be a boon for shippers. Plus, gambling bookkeeper busted; Kodiak goes SPAC; Indiana Jones and the Great Circle drops on PS5; and more. Indiana Jones and the Great Circle 00:55 Headlines: $4M gambling theft; Kodiak goes SPAC 03:31 The power of inland ports | Port of Huntsville 08:15 It's not a Bug, it's a feature 22:12 Navigating a trade war | Lauren Beagan 22:44 Port fees and maritime policy | Lauren Beagan 42:12 Catch new shows live at noon EDT Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays on FreightWaves LinkedIn, Facebook, X or YouTube, or on demand by looking up WHAT THE TRUCK?!? on your favorite podcast player and at 5 p.m. Eastern on SiriusXM's Road Dog Trucking Channel 146. Watch on YouTube Check out the WTT merch store Visit our sponsor Subscribe to the WTT newsletter Apple Podcasts Spotify More FreightWaves Podcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Episode 827 of WHAT THE TRUCK?!?, Dooner is talking about the shockwaves that have been reverberating throughout the trade community due to the trade war. The Maritime Professor Lauren Beagan drops in to talk about the massive collapse in container bookings that has happened over the past month. How soon will we feel the pain in volumes on the trucking side? Beagan also breaks down recent maritime policy regarding new port fees as well as the Panama and Suez canals. Port of Huntsville CEO Butch Roberts believes we're in for an inland port renaissance. We'll find out how the port works, whom it serves and why big investments in air and intermodal will be a boon for shippers. Plus, gambling bookkeeper busted; Kodiak goes SPAC; Indiana Jones and the Great Circle drops on PS5; and more. Indiana Jones and the Great Circle 00:55 Headlines: $4M gambling theft; Kodiak goes SPAC 03:31 The power of inland ports | Port of Huntsville 08:15 It's not a Bug, it's a feature 22:12 Navigating a trade war | Lauren Beagan 22:44 Port fees and maritime policy | Lauren Beagan 42:12 Catch new shows live at noon EDT Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays on FreightWaves LinkedIn, Facebook, X or YouTube, or on demand by looking up WHAT THE TRUCK?!? on your favorite podcast player and at 5 p.m. Eastern on SiriusXM's Road Dog Trucking Channel 146. Watch on YouTube Check out the WTT merch store Visit our sponsor Subscribe to the WTT newsletter Apple Podcasts Spotify More FreightWaves Podcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Comment les entreprises de taille intermédiaire peuvent-elles réussir leur transformation numérique dans un monde toujours plus digitalisé ? Frédéric Charles, directeur Smart City chez Suez Digital Solutions et enseignant à l'ESSEC Business School, partage son expertise sur les défis et les leviers de cette mutation essentielle.Episode en partenariat avec Ready For IT 2025.À l'occasion du salon Ready for IT 2025, Frédéric Charles dresse un état des lieux sans complaisance : dette technique, systèmes d'information vieillissants, pression de l'hyperpersonnalisation, exigence croissante des clients… Pour autant, les ETI disposent d'atouts spécifiques : une culture collaborative, une agilité structurelle et une proximité managériale souvent plus marquée que dans les grands groupes.Frédéric Charles insiste sur l'importance d'une approche progressive : moderniser sans tout casser, miser sur les bons outils (CRM, supply chain), mais surtout investir dans la conduite du changement. Car la transformation numérique est avant tout une affaire humaine : impulser une vision, accompagner les équipes, et accepter ce qu'il appelle « le grand saut », à la fois économique, organisationnel et psychologique.-----------

Este lunes un artículo publicado por Jeffrey Goldberg, editor en jefe de The Atlantic, ha destapado una de las filtraciones relativas a la seguridad nacional más sorprendentes de la historia reciente de Estados Unidos. Goldberg revelaba que hace unos días fue añadido a un chat de grupo en la aplicación Signal donde altos cargos de la administración Trump, entre ellos el secretario de Defensa Pete Hegseth y al vicepresidente JD Vance, discutían planes detallados sobre el ataque a los hutíes en Yemen. Este evento, rápidamente bautizado como "Signalgate", ha desatado una tormenta de críticas y ha hecho que muchos se pregunten sobre las medidas de seguridad del nuevo Gobierno respecto a la información de alto secreto. En el grupo, titulado "Houthi PC Small Group", había un total de 18 participantes, entre ellos figuras clave del Gobierno como el asesor de Seguridad Nacional Michael Waltz que, al parecer, fue quien invitó a Goldberg por error, el secretario de Estado Marco Rubio y la directora de Inteligencia Nacional Tulsi Gabbard. Según Goldberg, el 15 de marzo, horas antes de que los bombardeos contra objetivos hutíes comenzaran, Hegseth compartió un mensaje con detalles operativos específicos: tipos de armas, objetivos y cronogramas. "Sabía que el ataque se iba a producir dos horas antes de que explotaran las primeras bombas", ha dicho Goldberg, que inicialmente dudó de la autenticidad del chat, pero confirmó que era cierto cuando se produjo el primer ataque en Saná, la capital de Yemen. La conversación reveló tensiones internas dentro del gabinete. Vance expresó dudas sobre la operación, argumentando que beneficiaría más a Europa que a Estados Unidos, ya que Europa es mucho más dependiente del comercio por el canal de Suez que Estados Unidos. Sugirió incluso que la operación se retrasase un mes para evaluar el impacto económico y alinearlo con el mensaje de Trump sobre la autosuficiencia europea. "No estoy seguro de que el presidente sepa cuán inconsistente es esto con su discurso sobre Europa", dijo Vance de forma textual. Hegseth, por su parte, defendió la urgencia advirtiendo que retrasarse podría permitir filtraciones o ceder la iniciativa a Israel. A pesar de las diferencias, el ataque se ejecutó con éxito, según el Consejo de Seguridad Nacional, que calificó a ese grupo como una "coordinación reflexiva”. La inclusión de Goldberg en el chat expuso una brecha de seguridad de la que no hay precedentes. Signal, aunque encriptada, no está aprobada para discusiones secretas del Gobierno, que normalmente requieren canales seguros como la Sala de Situación de la Casa Blanca. Expertos en inteligencia han calificado el incidente como "asombroso" y “peligroso”. Han señalado que la presencia de un periodista en una discusión de esta naturaleza constituye una violación grave de los protocolos de seguridad operativa. Las reacciones no se hicieron esperar. Trump minimizó el incidente afirmando que no sabía nada al respecto y atacando a The Atlantic como un medio "en quiebra". Hegseth negó haber compartido "planes de guerra", tildando a Goldberg de "deshonesto", mientras Waltz asumió la responsabilidad por el error técnico. Sin embargo, figuras como la senadora Tammy Duckworth y el exsecretario Pete Buttigieg han exigido dimisiones. Los demócratas piden una investigación en profundidad, mientras que para los republicanos se trata de un error menor. El "Signalgate" plantea de cualquier modo una serie de preguntas: ¿cómo pudo un error tan elemental comprometer información sensible? ¿Qué revela sobre la competencia del círculo cercano de Trump? El Gobierno se cerrado sobre sí mismo y todo lo que esperan es que el temporal amaine cuanto antes. En La ContraRéplica: 0:00 Introducción 4:17 Atrapados en Signal 29:50 El coste de obra nueva 37:08 El juicio a Rita Maestre 45:49 Aborto · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #signal #vance Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

La Russie organise à partir de mercredi 26 mars le Forum international de l'Arctique. Un évènement pour parler du futur de cette région de 27 millions de kilomètres carrés, à la fois de sa gouvernance et de tout l'enjeu économique qu'il revêt. La carte postale est belle, une étendue de glace à perte de vue. Mais en dessous de cet or blanc, l'Arctique recèle d'immenses gisements de pétrole, de gaz naturel ou encore de minerais rares. D'après l'Institut d'études géologiques des États-Unis (USGS), c'est en moyenne un quart des réserves mondiales d'hydrocarbures restant à découvrir qui s'y trouvent. C'est beaucoup, et les pays voisins de ce continent l'ont bien intégré. D'abord la Russie, en y organisant notamment ce forum de l'Arctique à Mourmansk et en y investissant massivement dans l'extraction offshore. Mais les États-Unis l'ont également compris, d'où le projet du président américain Donald Trump d'acheter le Groenland pour que cette île et ses ressources deviennent américaines.À présent, équipons-nous d'un globe terrestre afin de comprendre ce qu'il se joue au pôle Nord. Si on le fait tourner, on voit que ce sont six nations qui bordent les eaux arctiques : le Canada, les États-Unis, la Russie, l'Islande, la Norvège et le Danemark par le Groenland. Ce sont ainsi ces six États, ainsi que la Suède et la Finlande qui font partie du conseil de l'Arctique. Cette organisation constitue l'enceinte politique de coopération régionale au sujet de ces 27 millions de kilomètres carrés. Ce sont autant d'États qui sont concernés par ce qu'il s'y joue. À lire aussiCanal de Panama, Canada, Groenland: le rêve expansionniste de Donald TrumpNouvelle route maritimeDu côté de Moscou, on ne s'en cache pas : la région est l'une de ses priorités. L'Arctique russe représente près de 7 000 kilomètres de côtes, soit toute sa frontière Nord.L'enjeu est primordial, notamment pour le passage de bateaux. Selon l'observatoire Copernicus, l'Arctique européen est la région qui se réchauffe le plus au monde. La fonte des glaces ouvre une autoroute maritime : la route maritime du Nord.Parce que la terre est ronde, reprenons notre globe pour nous faire une idée. À l'Est, en longeant les côtes russes, on arrive au détroit de Bering et aux ports chinois, japonais ou encore sud-coréens : 38 millions de tonnes de marchandises y ont transité l'an dernier. C'est un record, mais c'est dérisoire par rapport au 1,5 milliard de tonnes qui passent par le canal de Suez. Et par l'Ouest, en longeant cette fois les côtes canadiennes, l'Europe a accès à l'Asie sans passer par le canal de Suez.Ces routes sont plus courtes car comme la Terre est ronde, les distances sont réduites aux pôles. C'est donc plus rapide, d'une à deux semaines, et par conséquent moins cher.Par ailleurs, un nouvel acteur y investit beaucoup : la Chine. Le pays pourrait y voir une nouvelle route de la soie, mais polaire. D'autant qu'avec les sanctions occidentales conséquentes à la guerre en Ukraine, Moscou échange beaucoup avec Pékin. La Chine est d'ailleurs le premier acheteur sur le long terme de ressources de l'Arctique russe. Car finalement, au-delà de la question économique, l'Arctique représente un enjeu géopolitique majeur. Et paradoxalement, cette large étendue de glace est en effet l'un des points chauds de tensions internationales.

Sergey Radchenko's book, To Run the World: The Kremlin's Bid for Global Power, is a masterwork! In my mind, it's in pole position for best book of 2025. Sergey takes you into the mind of Soviet and Chinese leaders as they wrestle for global power and recognition, leaving you amused, inspired, and horrified by the small-mindedness of the people who had the power to start World War III. We get amazing vignettes like Liu Shaoqi making fun of the Americans for eating ice cream in trenches, Khrushchev pinning red stars on Eisenhower's grandkids, and Brezhnev and Andropov offering to dig up dirt on senators to help save Nixon from Watergate. Sergey earns your trust in this book, acknowledging what we can and can't know. He leaves you with a new lens to understand the Cold War and the new US-China rivalry — namely, the overwhelming preoccupation with global prestige by Cold War leaders. In this interview, we discuss… Why legitimacy matters in international politics, Stalin's colonial ambitions and Truman's strategy of containment, Sino-Soviet relations during the Stalin era and beyond, The history of nuclear blackmail, starting with the 1956 Suez crisis, Why Khrushchev couldn't save the Soviet economy. Co-hosting today is Jon Sine of the Cogitations substack. Outro music: Виталий Марков "Главное, ребята, сердцем не стареть" (YouTube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sergey Radchenko's book, To Run the World: The Kremlin's Bid for Global Power, is a masterwork! In my mind, it's in pole position for best book of 2025. Sergey takes you into the mind of Soviet and Chinese leaders as they wrestle for global power and recognition, leaving you amused, inspired, and horrified by the small-mindedness of the people who had the power to start World War III. We get amazing vignettes like Liu Shaoqi making fun of the Americans for eating ice cream in trenches, Khrushchev pinning red stars on Eisenhower's grandkids, and Brezhnev and Andropov offering to dig up dirt on senators to help save Nixon from Watergate. Sergey earns your trust in this book, acknowledging what we can and can't know. He leaves you with a new lens to understand the Cold War and the new US-China rivalry — namely, the overwhelming preoccupation with global prestige by Cold War leaders. In this interview, we discuss… Why legitimacy matters in international politics, Stalin's colonial ambitions and Truman's strategy of containment, Sino-Soviet relations during the Stalin era and beyond, The history of nuclear blackmail, starting with the 1956 Suez crisis, Why Khrushchev couldn't save the Soviet economy. Co-hosting today is Jon Sine of the Cogitations substack. Outro music: Виталий Марков "Главное, ребята, сердцем не стареть" (YouTube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! Acceso anticipado para Fans - ** VIDEO EN NUESTRO CANAL DE YOUTUBE **** https://youtube.com/live/YvxArRnwqzo +++++ Hazte con nuestras camisetas en https://www.bhmshop.app +++++ #historia #sigloXX Gracias a Carlos Caballero Jurado conoceremos el final de la hegemonía europea que se ve marcada por la crisis de Suez y la revuelta de Budapest en el año 1956. LIBROS DE CARLOS CABALLERO https://amzn.to/4epR1lj COMPRA EN AMAZON CON EL ENLACE DE BHM Y AYUDANOS ************** https://amzn.to/3ZXUGQl ************* Si queréis apoyar a Bellumartis Historia Militar e invitarnos a un café o u una cerveza virtual por nuestro trabajo, podéis visitar nuestro PATREON https://www.patreon.com/bellumartis o en PAYPALhttps://www.paypal.me/bellumartis o en BIZUM 656/778/825 Escucha este episodio completo y accede a todo el contenido exclusivo de BELLUMARTIS PODCAST. Descubre antes que nadie los nuevos episodios, y participa en la comunidad exclusiva de oyentes en https://go.ivoox.com/sq/618669

Ce métal est appelé "l'or rouge" : le cuivre est de plus en plus recherché. L'offre, elle, est de moins en moins importante. Son cours établit un nouveau record jeudi 20 mars : 10.000 euros la tonne. Or, sans cuivre, pas de câbles ou de voitures électriques par exemple. Alors l'une des solutions pour limiter la dépendance de la France, c'est le recyclage. La filière n'est pas encore bien structurée en France,  mais quelques sites s'y collent. C'est le cas d'un site de Suez près de Douai, dans le Nord, où Nathan Bocard s'est rendu pour RTL. Ecoutez RTL inside avec Nathan Bocard du 20 mars 2025.Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Return of the Man-Child (3) (audio) David Eells – 3/19/25  Taking up where we left off, we read, And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel (Mat.2:6). We know that Jesus is always going to be the Shepherd; He's always going to be the King David over Israel. God is never going to change that, but there are some things that He might change, as we'll see. Previously, we learned that the Lord said, A body didst thou prepare for me (Heb.10:5). The Lord, Son of God, came in a body that was prepared for Him through Mary, a body of the Son of Man. We know that God's plan was for Jesus to leave an individual body and return in a corporate body so that He could minister all over the world. Today we are going to see the first-fruits of those who have fully entered into this by the grace of God. In other words, the first-fruits will be a body like the body of His temple that He spoke about when He said, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (Joh.2:19). (21) But he spake of the temple of his body. And we've discovered that's referring to His corporate body.   We know that the Lord comes in every one of us. For instance, He says, Try your own selves, whether ye are in the faith; prove your own selves. Or know ye not as to your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you? unless indeed ye be reprobate (2Co.13:5). (Col.1:27) … Christ in you, the hope of glory. Jesus Christ is in you! All through the Old Testament, Jesus was coming in vessels of honor through whom He ministered. For example, it says this: (1Pe.1:10) Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that [should come] unto you: (11) searching what [time] or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them. The Spirit of Christ was in great men of the Old Testament and that's what made them great men. He is the Shepherd; He is the Ruler; He is the King David and always will be, but He's going to repeat history because That which hath been is that which shall be (Ecc.1:9).   I'm reminded of a very famous text that speaks of Who Jesus is: (Isa.9:6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father (or “Father of eternity,” literally), Prince of Peace. (7) Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. God called Jesus to repeat history Himself. He was a King David in His day, Who was given, once again, the reins of government, which is in total agreement with what the Bible says about Him.   (Luk.1:31) And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (33) and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. So He would receive the throne of David forever, just as the Bible speaks about when it states, David shall never want (“lack”) a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel (Jer.33:17).   For example, the Bible says this: (Jer.33:14) Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform that good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and concerning the house of Judah. (15) In those days, and at that time, will I cause a Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David (now, this was a long time after David); and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. (16) In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is [the name] whereby she shall be called … That's a very strange text, but if nobody had changed what word was actually there in the Hebrew, that's what they would have had to translate; the word is “she.” It's strange because in Chapter 23 the word is “he,” but here it is “she.” Some people think, “Well, he made a mistake and they replaced it with ‘he.'” They didn't translate what was really there.   The word, “she” is used quite often in the Bible when referring to a corporate body of people and that's what this is. This is a corporate body, which God calls the “branch,” that is raised up as the seed of David. We know that Jesus Christ is our David on His throne all the way up through eternity, but as we saw earlier, the Spirit of Christ comes into many men and we have seen many from the beginning of Scripture to the end who are types of the Man-child. The Spirit of Christ comes into them and uses them, like a body of the son of David. (Jer.33:16) In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is [the name] whereby she shall be called: the Lord our righteousness. Notice that this is a corporate body of people, “our righteousness.” (Jer.33:17) For thus saith the Lord: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.   Now we know that Jesus the Son of God has been given the authority of David's throne for eternity, but the question is, what is the “man” that He abides in who does this work? This is what the branch is; it's a corporate body of men in whom the Spirit of Christ rules and reigns. (Jer.33:18) Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt-offerings, and to burn meal-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. (19) And the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying, (20) Thus saith the Lord: If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, so that there shall not be day and night in their season; (21) then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he shall not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. In other words, this is from the time of David up until the time of Christ and until our time; so it appears that He never broke His covenant with David. There was always a David upon the throne. Isn't that amazing?   I would suspect that you could not recognize this corporate body according to the flesh. (Luk.17:20) … The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. We're talking about a spiritual Israel, a spiritual Jerusalem, and a spiritual David. Many people recognize, that Jesus was the Son of David and that He was born of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom.1:3), but He was declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit (4). What body could the Lord be choosing in our day to fulfill this covenant of a man in whom Jesus Christ lives to occupy the throne? Well, it's the body of the Man-child (Revelation 12:5), which we've spoken of. (Jer.33:22) As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.   I am sure you could look at that in a certain way, meaning multiplied throughout history, but I suspect it also means (and the Lord likes to hide things like that) that in these days there will be a great number of Davids and that this, “the Lord our righteousness,” is a very large group of people. (Jer.33:25) Thus saith the Lord: If my covenant of day and night [stand] not (Is it still in effect? I would say so.), if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; (26) then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David my servant, so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (The seed of David is to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.): for I will cause their captivity to return, and will have mercy on them. In these days, we know that even with the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a remnant of them is once again going to turn to the Lord God of Israel.   We read in the last study that in Revelation 12, the son of David, this Man-child is caught up to the throne of God. And here we see the Bible says, Blessed be the Lord thy God, who delighted in thee, to set thee on his throne, to be king for the Lord thy God (2Ch.9:8). Many people see the Man-child caught up to the throne of God in heaven, but the Lord God is calling David's throne on Earth His throne. This is the throne of God. In fact, it says here, At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord (Jer.3:17). Jeremiah is talking about the New Jerusalem on Earth. There is still a throne of David. Not in natural Israel, but you can find it in spiritual Israel because we know that Jesus Christ is the Son of David, the eternal Lord of His Kingdom. And He's also coming in a body, A body didst thou prepare for me (Heb.10:5).   You may say, “That was referring to the body of the individual Jesus.” That's true, but everything repeats and it always repeats on a larger scale. We have the Word of God for that, which cannot be broken (Joh.10:35). So we have to believe that it will be the same thing once again. The Lord told me many years ago, “Everything that has happened in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts will happen again, except the cast of characters will be multiplied many times over.” The Lord thy God, who delighted in thee, to set thee on his throne, to be king for the Lord thy God (2Ch.9:8) is true of Jesus. It's true of the body of Jesus and we've already spoken of the manifestation of the body of Christ, that we all claim to be by faith, and rightly so. But we've discovered that there is also a manifestation of the body of Christ, that is, those in whom Christ lives. If Christ lives in you, then you manifestly are the body of Christ. We've taught that we grow into this wonderful position 30-, 60- and 100-fold, according to Jesus Himself, so God is fulfilling it in that way.   Let me share something else with you. Remember that the Lord told me that the Gospels were a type of the first 3½ years of the Tribulation period and the Book of Acts was a type of the second 3½ years. Now we know that other types of the end-time Man-child show different similarities. For instance, Joseph brought God's people through the seven years of famine, which is a type of the seven-year Tribulation. We also know that Moses took God's people geographically halfway through the wilderness and we know that Revelation chapters 12 and 17 speak of the first and second 3½ years, respectively, and call the “wilderness” the “Tribulation.” Moses went halfway through the wilderness and then was glorified. When I say halfway, I'm not talking about time-wise, but in geographical distance. Some people, myself included, believe that the Lord brought His people across what we now call the Gulf of Suez, high up near where Succoth was, where the Gulf narrowed down quite a bit. Then He carried them across the Sinai Peninsula, where they crossed the Gulf of Aqaba, which they called the “Red Sea.”   Apostle Paul said, Mount Sinai in Arabia (Gal.4:25), not in Sinai. Arabia is east of the Gulf of Aqaba. I had heard years ago that the explorer Ron Wyatt had come across the pillar that the Israelites had erected to identify the place where the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea and it was on the eastern shore of Aqaba. They also discovered out there the mountain that Exodus 19 speaks of being burnt and charred on the top because God's presence came down on it, which was Mt. Sinai, and found it as a place called Jabal al-Lawz, which means “the Mount of the Law.” That's interesting because that's where Moses received the Law. If you look, which I have, on several maps, you can see where the Israelites left Egypt and crossed the Gulf of Suez. And if you follow that on down to Jabal al-Lawz and then follow that point and return back up to where they crossed into the Promised Land, you find that it is like an isosceles triangle (where the two legs are approximately even).   I thought the Lord was pointing out to me at that time that Moses went halfway through the wilderness (meaning 3½ years) and at that point he was glorified. Like Moses, Jesus went 3½ years through His ministry before He was glorified. I believe that Mount Sinai is Jabal al-Lawz in Arabia. Many signs seem to confirm that, even though the Saudi Arabians have fenced the mount off. They do not want Christians going in there.   By the way, at the foot of Jabal al-Lawz is the altar where the golden calf was set. Of course, the golden calf isn't there anymore, but the altar is. There are quite a few other artifacts there, including several hieroglyphics depicting the golden calf scratched into the rocks in the area of the altar. These finds make it very plain that this is the correct spot and I believe Ron Wyatt even took pictures of chariot wheels submerged in the Gulf of Aqaba, which further makes the case that it was the real Red Sea, not the Gulf of Suez. It would have taken the Israelites three months to travel from Egypt to Jabal al-Lawz. It took them a lot longer to get to the Promised Land because they were disobedient by worshipping the golden calf, but it was geographically halfway. I believe the Lord was showing me the two 3½-year periods of the wilderness Tribulation.   At any rate, we have a pretty good confirmation right here: (Exo.34:29) And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in Moses' hand … The two tables of the Testimony are the same thing as the Tables of Witness, the Two Witnesses. The Man-child is going to give to God's people the Two Witnesses, upon whose heart the Word of God is written, not upon tables of stone. There's a fulfillment here of that. (Exo.34:29) And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses knew not that the skin of his face shone by reason of his speaking with him. In other words, Moses had come face-to-face with God. We know that we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory (2Co.3:18). This is the type and the shadow here of God's people, at least the first-fruits, coming into the Image of God. It even says, The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God (Exo.34:26). There is a type of the first-fruits here and it is Moses. It would have been Jesus in His time, but here it's Moses.   So after Moses came face-to-face with God, Moses manifested His glory. I believe what's being said here is that this is a glorified soul, not a glorified body. The Man-child goes through three stages of perfection. I believe that when Jesus started His ministry, He was perfected in Spirit by the Holy Spirit because He was anointed with the Holy Spirit. And when He was crucified, that's a parable about our being crucified, too, in a crucifixion of self 3½ years into the Tribulation. When a parable is first shown (and the Bible does say that Jesus was a sign (Isaiah 7:14), or in Hebrew, an uwth of something to come), it's literal, and the next time it's spiritual.   So we see that the first-fruits, who are only spiritually the Man-child and not physically, as Jesus was, are the spiritual fulfillment of this parable. In the midst of the Tribulation period, the Man-child is going to be glorified in soul because “self” has been crucified. At the end of the Tribulation period, he will be glorified in body. The progression is first spirit, then soul in the middle, and then body. These are the three stages of perfection that God is bringing Himself to in His people. In fact, When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day (2Th.1:10). And also, But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2Th.2:13).   Let's continue in Exodus. (Exo.34:30) And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. (31) And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses spake to them. They must have run on down the road because they had to turn around and return to him. (Exo.34:32) And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him in mount Sinai. (33) And when Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face. (34) But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the veil off (because he wanted to see the Lord clearly, face-to-face), until he came out; and he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. So, Moses was in communication with God face-to-face, but with the children of Israel behind a veil.   This will also be so with the ministry of the Man-child. Jesus said, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner (Joh.5:19). Jesus was in close fellowship with the Father; He walked in the Spirit; He saw the Father and He saw the people. Yet Jesus walked also behind a veil, as the Scripture clearly shows us, and we'll see that shortly. (Exo.34:35) And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone; and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him. We're told the same thing about the first-fruits. (Heb.10:19) Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, (20) by the way which He dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh.   So we enter into the presence of God through the veil, which is to say, through His flesh. Jesus' flesh was a veil. The people did not see the real Jesus. They didn't see the glorified man underneath that veil of flesh; they saw the veil. However, when the Lord went into the presence of God, He was in Spirit where there was no veil, speaking with the Father. This is the same thing we see here with Moses. Moses was a type of Jesus and a type of the Man-child. We're getting a description here of the kind of ministry that the Man-child is going to have and it's just like Jesus' ministry.   Seeing God face-to-face makes us capable of manifesting God before His people. (2Co.3:18) But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit. From behind that body of flesh, called a veil, there was a glorified soul, ready to walk through the other half of the wilderness.   Now we know that Moses went all the way through the wilderness, but that's only part of the picture. If we look at other different types of the Man-child, they'll show other parts of the whole picture. For example, we can also see Jesus in Acts where it says, And when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not (Act.16:7). So Jesus was a type of the second 3½ years of the Man-child during the Tribulation. We know that because the second part of the Tribulation started at the end of Jesus' ministry when He was crucified and it ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which was the destruction of the Harlot by the Beast. We see that the second 3½ years starts at the end of the first 3½ years and extends to the point of destruction of the Harlot by the Beast. The Book of Acts represents the 40 years between Jesus' ministry and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Forty is the number of tribulation.   We're seeing here a perfect parallel between Moses and Jesus. Some have thought that Jesus did not have a ministry after His 3½ years, but He did have a ministry of guiding His people for 3½ years, just like Moses went the other half of the distance through the wilderness to the Promised Land. Moses brought the people all the way and, in type, Jesus did that, too. His glorification in the second 3½ years represents what Moses was when “his face shone.” What we're really referring to in the end times is a glorified soul underneath a body, with the body being the veil that permitted men to look upon that which is glorified and have fellowship without being frightened. We would call it bearing fruit “100-fold.” When the Lord sows the seed of the Word in our hearts, it's to bring forth Himself in us, 30-, 60- and 100-fold (Matthew 13). That's not referring to the body; that's referring to the fruit of Christ in the soul, or in the heart, and that is what we are here for. What makes the first-fruits the first-fruits, is that they have come into this glorified soul and they have come into the crucifixion of self, which is the type that Jesus showed us.   If we look at the timing of Exodus 34, we find that it falls in the middle of the Tribulation period. How do we know that? Well, for instance, in Chapter 32, we see what happened there was, they made the image of the beast and worshipped it. That's a pretty clear sign of being the middle of the Tribulation period. What came along with worshiping the image of the Beast, according to Revelation 14, was the mark of the Beast. So we see them there in Chapter 32 bowing down to this image of the beast and we see God's rebuke of them, and we see the Tables of the Testimony were cast down and broken.   (Exo.32:19) And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. We know the two Tables of the Testimony represent the Two Witnesses corporate body because “witness” and “testimony” are the same word. So Moses the Man-child, as a type of Jesus Christ, brings the two witnesses with the Word of God written upon their heart to the people of God, which is what Jesus did with His disciples when He sent them out two-by-two. They were a corporate body of two witnesses to go to God's people and bring the Law, that was written upon their hearts, to them. It's an exact type and shadow of what we see here.   However, it says here, he saw the calf and the dancing (in other words, the people were worshiping the image of the beast): and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount (Exo.32:19). So not only did Jesus bring the Two Witnesses, but the people in their sins “broke” them. I believe that the Apostle John was the only one who died a natural death of old age. The rest of the apostles were all killed. The apostates “broke” their Two Witnesses. We see what God says about this situation a few verses later: (Exo.32:26) Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Whoso is on the Lord's side, [let him come] unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. These are the only people who did not worship the image of the beast from among the camp of God's people.   We're told that God has chosen us to be a kingdom of priests. (Exo.19:5) Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: (6) and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation … In other words, all of God's people were called to be priests because we all offer sacrifices unto God and we especially offer up this body as a living sacrifice unto the Lord. On the altar of the fiery trial, the old flesh is burned up, which is what our sacrificial life is supposed to be.   The people who did sacrifice, the Levites, did not join in with the rest in worshiping the image of the beast. The true Levites, the tribe that followed God, were God's inheritance. It was the firstborn from among all of Israel who were His inheritance and then God changed that to be the Levites. Those priests were His inheritance, He said, and God was their inheritance. Those Levites were the ones who were on the Lord's side. (Exo.32:27) And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Put ye every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. Well, as you know, those who worship the image of the Beast are slain because they no longer belong to the body of Christ; they belong to the Beast. The mark of the Beast is the sign of his ownership and those on whom have the mark, belong to him. They are dead; they're no longer living.   The Levites will have the authority to bring great judgment on the earth and, again, we're talking about the middle of the Tribulation period because we're referring to the mark and image of the Beast being manifested. This was the time that Moses was glorified; this was the time when the Two Witnesses were beginning to be killed. (Rev.11:8) And their dead bodies [lie] in the street of the great city (that's Babylon, not Jerusalem), which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. (9) And from among the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations do [men] look upon their dead bodies three days and a half, and suffer not their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. “Three days and a half” is half of the seven “days” of the 70th week of Daniel 9, which makes it 3½ years that the Two Witnesses will be killed. From the time of the middle of the Tribulation to the end of the Tribulation, they are being killed.   When they finish their testimony, this great group of witnesses (prophets) will be allowed by God to be killed and they're resurrected in the last trump of Revelation 11:15. But in response it is Moses, it is the Manchild, who sends the Levites forth to slay the members of the body of the Beast. (Exo.32:28) And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. (29) And Moses said, Consecrate yourselves today to the Lord, yea, every man against his son, and against his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day. (30) And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make atonement for your sin. (31) And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. (32) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.   Moses wanted to take the place of the people, which is also what Jesus did, but how many of you know that Jesus' sacrifice will not apply to everybody in the end? (Heb.10:26) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, (27) but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. People who live a life of willful sin and indulgence in the world will die. As the Bible says, If ye live after the flesh, ye must die (Rom.8:13). Walking after the flesh is to take the mark of the Beast because the mind of the flesh and the works of the flesh is to take the mark. Those people who are walking in sin willfully and do so up until death will have no sacrifice.   (Exo.32:33) And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. In other words, God would not take the sacrifice of Moses for those people who worshipped the image of the Beast and took the mark. In fact, in Revelation 14:9-11, He says that there is no sacrifice for them. This is a way of separating those people who are Christian in name only from those who are Levites, the kingdom of priests that God said would come. “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.” That sounds like reprobation to me.   (Exo.32:34) And now go, lead the people unto [the place] of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine angel shall go before thee; nevertheless in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them. (35) And the Lord smote the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. This is clearly referring to the time of the middle of the Tribulation period, when Moses in type as the Man-child is glorified, at least in soul underneath that body of flesh, in order to carry them all the way to the Promised Land, which in one parable we would call the “Kingdom of Heaven.” At the end of the seven years, that's exactly where God's people go. Just like Noah, they'll be in the Ark; it lifts off and they're in the Kingdom of Heaven.   I think it would make a very good study to do an Internet search for “Jabal al-Lawz” and learn about some of the things that have been discovered about this particular mountain. Again, it's not located in the middle of the wilderness by time; it's only the middle of the wilderness by geography, by distance. But that's where the altar of the golden calf was and that's where the fire burned the top of the mountain and where Moses was given the Law to give to the people. It's very interesting. Actually, the first time Moses was on the mountain was way back in Exodus 19 and this is the second time he's on the mountain because this had to fulfill the type. So we have Joseph going, as a type of the Man-child, seven years, and we have Moses, as a type of the Man-child, going through the first and the second half of the Tribulation, which were both called “the wilderness.” Now we have Jesus also going through the two halves, in the Gospels and the Book of Acts, as well.   As we said earlier, the Spirit of Jesus was surely in those disciples. Jesus said, It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life (Joh.6:63). His words went into those disciples and recreated Himself in them. The spirit in them was the Spirit of Christ. He had taken on a new body, but it was still the Spirit of Christ. When the first-fruits show up, I believe very shortly, in our day, this is what we're going to find. They are the body of the Son of David which sits upon God's throne. It's not a throne somewhere up there in the sky, but it's the throne here on the earth that spiritually is the leadership of God's people. The throne is the place of leadership.   I had quoted Jeremiah earlier, but only a part of it. It says, At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it (So you know it's not natural Jerusalem because the Gentiles are coming to it.), to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil heart (Jer.3:17). This is the end time, obviously, because this has not been true at any time in history. It has to be the “latter days” because, truly, when these people come to the throne, God has perfected them, matured them, and made them ready for the Kingdom of Heaven.   (Jer.3:18) In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north (which was captivity) to the land that I gave for an inheritance unto your fathers. Our early church fathers were given all of the land for an inheritance, but for 2000 years we have not entered into it. It was the same with Israel. In the beginning, God gave them the whole land, which represented the Land of Promise, but I don't think they ever set foot on any more than about a third of it and actually take possession of it.   Well, in these last days, we are going to take possession of all of the land that was given to our fathers; we're going to take possession of all of the Land of Promise, representing all of the promises of God that we're going to walk in. We are going to enter into the land of rest. (Heb.4:3) For we who have believed do enter into that rest … We're actually going to keep the real Sabbath, not the shadow, and it is to walk in all of the Land of Promise that the Lord gave unto us. Once again, God's people will be walking as the early disciples walked. They'll be walking in the power of God, in the anointing of God and in the knowledge of the truth, only this time it will be the latter rain.   When he began to walk with God, Moses was the one who had the former rain (or the latter rain, in type) because God took of the anointing that was upon Moses and put it upon the 70 elders. If you remember, that's the same thing that happened to Jesus. Jesus was the One Who came with the former rain and He was the only One Who had it, but the people whom He raised up as disciples were later given this anointing. When Jesus first sent His disciples out during the first 3½ years, they didn't have that anointing. What they had was authority given by the Lord. He said, “You go and do this,” and they went out and healed the sick and cast out devils and raised the dead (Matthew 10). Jesus was their authority. But then He said that God was also going to send “another Comforter” (John 14:16) and we know that was the Holy Spirit Who came in the middle of the Tribulation, on Pentecost, in the middle of the seven years and at the end of the 3½ years of Jesus' ministry. The disciples received the former rain and went out with that anointing to do the works of Jesus.   Jesus said the Spirit of God shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you (Joh.16:14). One of the jobs of the Holy Spirit is to recreate in us, through the anointing (because “Christ” means “anointed”), the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. It is impossible to do that without the anointing, which breaks the yoke (Isaiah 10:27). It is Not by might, nor by power (meaning man's might and power), but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts (Zec.4:6). The Lord is about to make this possible. The anointing that was upon Moses, the Lord later took and put upon those 70 elders. Jesus also had 70 whom He sent out and the anointing came upon them.   I especially like what it says a little further down in the text. (Jer.3:19) But I said, How I will put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of the nations! and I said, Ye shall call me My Father, and shall not turn away from following me. He had already said, “Neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil heart.” Wow! This is awesome! I dare say, that most of the people of God do not know Him as Father. They know Him as “God,” a very distant name. But know Him as Father? This is the relationship the Lord is going to establish by bringing us into the manifestation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19). Jesus was the Son of God and always called Him “Father.” Get out your concordance and look it up. He did not call Him all the names that the Jewish Christians or the Judaized Christians wanted to call Him. Jesus called Him “Father” and this is what He says we will call Him. This is what we'll know Him as – as “Father,” like Jesus knew Him. He used the term over and over, all the way through the Gospels.   These people are going to be coming back out of the land of the north (as we see from Jeremiah 3:14 on down), out of bondage, back to Zion. Zion is the place where King David ruled and Zion is the place where Jesus ruled, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Jesus was ruling in a new city of Jerusalem and the Apostle Paul told the disciples that they are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb.12:22) while they were on the earth. So, once again, God is restoring the Kingdom.   As Jesus came to restore the Kingdom, the Man-child is coming to restore, to rebuild spiritual, heavenly Jerusalem on this earth and to sit as the body in whom the King Jesus Christ lives. God has said, David shall never want (“lack”) a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel (Jer.33:17). Inside that “man” is going to be the King of kings and He is going to get all the credit. The King of kings is coming inside the body of the Son of David. Glory be to God! Isn't it neat the way God has put this parable together over and over, so we would understand sooner or later?   Father, in the Name of Jesus, we thank You so much, Lord, for helping us to see these wondrous things and we enjoy seeing the New Testament in our time, Lord, the Gospel time period. You are going to repeat this again. Oh, what a wondrous time we are coming to! A time of great glory, a time when the Lord Himself is coming to fellowship with us and live in our midst, as He lived in the midst of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, Lord. He came in the midst of His people. Jesus is Immanuel, “God with us,” and we thank You, Lord. We want so much for You to live in our midst. Those people who bowed to the golden calf, You were angered with and said You would no longer go in the midst of those people because they were a stiff-necked people. Lord, we know that's true of those who worship the image of the Beast, but it's not true of Your true people, who are Your true Levites, Your chosen ministers. Lord, we praise You and we thank You for the privilege of having You walking in our midst. We ask You, Lord, to finish the promise that You gave us, the promise that You gave to the fathers. Cause us to walk on all of the land that You gave to them, Lord, which our forefathers lost out on during the Dark Ages all the way up until the time we are in now. Thank You for being our Father and our Savior, in Jesus' name. Amen.  

HEADLINES:- Google acquires Israeli cybersecurity startup Wiz for record $32 billion- HH Sheikh Tahnoon meets President Donald Trump on US visit- Egypt Suez Canal monthly revenue losses at around $800 million, Egypt President- First Mover Advantage – Noon's E-commerce Playbook

In this episode of the Warships Pod Dr Gary Blackburn returns to have a chat with host Iain Ballantyne about the impact of the second presidency of Donald Trump. Topics discussed include the transactional fashion in which the returning POTUS runs domestic and foreign policies along with defence matters, plus how he seems intent on creating a tripolar world in which the USA, Russia and China have their spheres of influence and every other nation must fall in line. Gary points out that none of it should be a shock and while a sense of moral outrage is understandable over some aspects, Trump made no secret of what he intended to do and why. Touching on NATO and its future, Gary suggests it may not be ‘a dead duck'. Iain asks Gary if a major difference between how the Trump administration operates and other US Presidents (and their teams) is that they put everything out there, rather than have big falling outs with allies behind closed doors? Among the other things Iain and Gary talk about are: the UK's habit of taking ‘capability holidays' and expecting the USA in years past to fill in the gaps; concerns about UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's ‘boots on the ground and jets in the air' proposal for peace-keeping in Ukraine; the UK defence budget and its inclusion of sea-based nuclear weapons and military pensions to ‘cook the books'; the global proxy war between the West and its allies on the one hand and Russia/China/N. Korea on the other; the importance for the UK staying militarily engaged beyond Suez. Looking at the UK's new Strategic Defence Review, Gary ponders whether or not raising the defence budget to 2.5 per cent by 2027 is enough and the dubious move to cut amphibious warfare vessels from the Royal Navy at this turbulent time. The April 2025 edition of Warships IFR magazine, which is mentioned during this podcast episode, is out on March 21st. For more details of Warships IFR and its various editions visit http://bit.ly/wifrmag  Dr Gary Blackburn is an honorary fellow of the Centre for Security Studies at the University of Hull. He has taught Security Studies and Military History at the Universities of Leeds and Hull, respectively - and has written for Defence Studies and The Critic, and for the latter about aspects of the UK's 2021 Integrated Review of Defence and Security. Follow him on X at @gjb70 Iain Ballantyne is the founding and current Editor of Warships IFR (first published in 1998) along with its ‘Guide to the Royal Navy' (since 2003) and ‘Guide to the US Navy' (since 2018). Iain is also author of the books ‘Hunter Killers' (Orion) and ‘The Deadly Trade' (Weidenfeld & Nicolson), both about submarine warfare, plus ‘Arnhem: Ten Days in The Cauldron' (published by Canelo). In 2017 Iain was awarded a Fellowship by the British Maritime Foundation, which promotes awareness of the United Kingdom's dependence on the sea and seafarers. Visit his web site Bismarckbattle.com and follow him on X @IBallantyn

VOV1 - Cơ quan quản lý kênh đào Suez hôm 10/3 cho biết, một tàu của Hy Lạp chở theo hơn 1 triệu thùng dầu, bị lực lượng Houthi tấn công đã được kéo an toàn qua Kênh đào Suez.

President Trump has been threatening to “take back” the Panama Canal since he regained power. In this episode, listen to testimony from officials serving on the Federal Maritime Commission who explain why the Panama Canal has become a focus of the administration and examine whether or not we need to be concerned about an impending war for control of the canal. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Current Events around the Panama Canal March 5, 2025. the Associated Press. Sabrina Valle, Suzanne McGee, and Michael Martina. March 4, 2025. Reuters. Matt Murphy, Jake Horton and Erwan Rivault. February 14, 2025. BBC. May 1, 2024. World Weather Attribution. World Maritime News Staff. March 15, 2019. World Maritime News. July 29, 2018. Reuters. Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 U.S. Department of State. The Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” Michele Ruta. March 29, 2018. World Bank Group. The Trump-Gaza Video February 26, 2025. Sky News. Laws Audio Sources Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation January 28, 2025 Witnesses: Louis E. Sola, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Daniel B. Maffei, Commissioner, FMC , Professor, Scalia Law School, George Mason University Joseph Kramek, President & CEO, World Shipping Council Clips 17:30 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Between the American construction of the Panama Canal, the French effort to build an isthmus canal, and America's triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across Panama cost more than 35,000 lives. For the final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United States spent nearly $400 million, equivalent to more than $15 billion today. The Panama Canal proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and to the US economy. 18:45 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): But the Panama Canal was not just given away. President Carter struck a bargain. He made a treaty. And President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that that treaty is being violated right now. 19:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): President Trump has highlighted two key issues. Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit. 19:20 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the canal at a slow pace, so as to take nearly a decade. And Chinese companies control container points ports at either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability to block the canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation, I believe, poses acute risks to US national security. 19:50 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Meanwhile, the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans, because US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of Canal transits. US Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to warships. Canal profits regularly exceed $3 billion. This money comes from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees Panama chooses to levy for canal transits, and they have paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly 1/10 of its budget is paid for with canal profit. 21:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama has for years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost fleet, which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil profits to fund terror across the world. 21:40 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): And Chinese companies have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous Belt and Road Initiative has come to Panama. China often engages in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion. In Panama, it also seems to have exploited simple corruption. 32:40 Louis Sola: The Panama Canal is managed by the Panama Canal Authority, ACP, an independent agency of the Panamanian government. The ACP is a model of public infrastructure management, and its independence has been key to ensure a safe and reliable transit of vessels critical to the US and global commerce. 33:25 Louis Sola: In contrast, the broader maritime sector in Panama, including the nation's ports, water rights, and the world's largest ship registry, falls under the direct purview of the Panamanian government. 33:35 Louis Sola: Unfortunately, this sector has faced persistent challenges, including corruption scandals and foreign influence, particularly from Brazil and China. These issues create friction with the ACP, especially as it works to address long term challenges such as securing adequate water supplies for the canal. 33:55 Louis Sola: Although the ACP operates independently, under US law both the ACP and the government of Panama's maritime sector are considered one in the same. This means that any challenges in Panama's maritime sector, including corruption, lack of transparency, or foreign influence, can have a direct or indirect impact on the operations and long term stability of the canal. This legal perspective highlights the need for diligence in monitoring both the ACP's management and Panama government's policies affecting maritime operations. 34:30 Louis Sola: Since 2015, Chinese companies have increased their presence and influence throughout Panama. Panama became a member of the Belt and Road Initiative and ended its diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Chinese companies have been able to pursue billions of dollars in development contracts in Panama, many of which were projects directly on or adjacent to the Panama Canal. Many were no bid contracts. Labor laws were waived, and the Panamanian people are still waiting to see how they've been benefited. It is all more concerning that many of these companies are state-owned, and in some cases, even designated as linked to the People's Liberation Army. We must address the significant growing presence and influence of China throughout the Americas and in Panama, specifically. 35:20 Louis Sola: American companies should play a leading role in enhancing the canal's infrastructure. By supporting US firms, we reduce reliance on Chinese contractors and promote fair competition. 36:55 Daniel Maffei: Because the canal is essentially a waterway bridge over mountainous terrain above sea level, it does depend on large supplies of fresh water to maintain the full operations. Panama has among the world's largest annual rainfalls. Nonetheless, insufficient fresh water levels have occurred before in the canal's history, such as in the 1930s when the Madden Dam and Lake Alajuela were built to address water shortages. Since that time, the canal has undertaken several projects to accommodate larger, more modern ships. In the last couple of years, a trend of worsening droughts in the region, once again, has forced limits to the operations of the canal. Starting in June of 2023 the Panama Canal Authority employed draft restrictions and reduced the number of ships allowed to transit the canal per day. Now the Panama Canal limitations, in combination with the de facto closure of the Suez Canal to container traffic, has had serious consequences for ocean commerce, increasing rates, fees and transit times. 39:30 Daniel Maffei: Now, fortunately, Panama's 2024 rainy season has, for now, alleviated the most acute water supply issues at the canal, and normal transit volumes have been restored. That said, while the Panamanian government and Canal Authority have, with the advice of the US Army Corps of Engineers, developed credible plans to mitigate future water shortages, they also warned that it is likely that at least one more period of reduced transits will occur before these plans can be fully implemented. 41:55 Eugene Kontorovich: We shall see that under international law, each party to the treaty is entitled to determine for itself whether a violation has occurred. Now, in exchange for the United States ceding control of the canal which it built and maintained, Panama agreed to a special regime of neutrality. The essential features of this regime of neutrality is that the canal must be open to all nations for transit. That's Article Two. Equitable tolls and fees, Article Three. An exclusive Panamanian operation, Article Five. The prohibition of any foreign military presence, Article Five. Article Five provides that only Panama shall operate the canal. Testifying about the meaning of the treaty at the Senate ratification hearings, the Carter administration emphasized that this prohibits foreign operation of the canal, as well as the garrisoning of foreign troops. Now, Article Five appears to be primarily concerned about control by foreign sovereigns. If Panama signed a treaty with the People's Republic of China, whereby the latter would operate the canal on Panama's behalf, this would be a clear violation. But what if Panama contracted for port operations with a Chinese state firm, or even a private firm influenced or controlled in part by the Chinese government? The Suez Canal Company was itself, before being nationalized, a private firm in which the United Kingdom was only a controlling shareholder. Yet this was understood to represent British control over the canal. In other words, a company need not be owned by the government to be in part controlled by the government. So the real question is the degree of de jure or de facto control over a Foreign Sovereign company, and scenarios range from government companies in an authoritarian regime, completely controlled, to purely private firms in our open society like the United States, but there's many possible situations in the middle. The treaty is silent on the question of how much control is too much, and as we'll see, this is one of the many questions committed to the judgment and discretion of each party. Now turning to foreign security forces, the presence of third country troops would manifestly violate Article Five. But this does not mean that anything short of a People's Liberation Army base flying a red flag is permissible. The presence of foreign security forces could violate the regime of neutrality, even if they're not represented in organized and open military formations. Modern warfare has seen belligerent powers seek to evade international legal limitations by disguising their actions in civilian garb, from Russia's notorious little green men to Hamas terrorists hiding in hospitals or disguised as journalists. Bad actors seek to exploit the fact that international treaties focus on sovereign actors. Many of China's man made islands in the South China Sea began as civilian projects before being suddenly militarized. Indeed, this issue was discussed in the Senate ratification hearings over the treaty. Dean Rusk said informal forces would be prohibited under the treaty. Thus the ostensible civilian character of the Chinese presence around the canal does not, in itself, mean that it could not represent a violation of the treaty if, for example, these companies and their employees involved Chinese covert agents or other agents of the Chinese security forces. So this leads us to the final question, Who determines whether neutrality is being threatened or compromised? Unlike many other treaties that provide for third party dispute resolution, the neutrality treaty has no such provision. Instead, the treaty makes clear that each party determines for itself the existence of a violation. Article Four provides that each party is separately authorized to maintain the regime of neutrality, making a separate obligation of each party. The Senate's understanding accompanying to ratification also made clear that Article Five allows each party to take, quote, "unilateral action." Senator Jacob Javits, at the markup hearing, said that while the word unilateral is abrasive, we can quote, "decide that the regime of neutrality is being threatened and then act with whatever means are necessary to keep the canal neutral unilaterally." 46:35 Joseph Kramek: My name is Joe Kramek. I'm President and CEO of the World Shipping Council. The World Shipping Council is the global voice of liner shipping. Our membership consists of 90% of the world's liner shipping tonnage, which are container vessels and vehicle carriers. They operate on fixed schedules to provide our customers with regular service to ship their goods in ports throughout the world. 47:15 Joseph Kramek: As you have heard, using the Panama Canal to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific saves significant time and money. A typical voyage from Asia to the US or East Coast can be made in under 30 days using the canal, while the same journey can take up to 40 days if carriers must take alternate routes. From a commercial trade perspective, the big picture is this. One of the world's busiest trade lanes is the Trans Pacific. The Trans Pacific is cargo coming from and going to Asia via the United States. Focusing in a bit, cargo coming from Asia and bound for US Gulf and East Coast ports always transits the Panama Canal. Similarly, cargo being exported from US and East Coast ports, a large share of which are US Agricultural exports, like soybeans, corn, cotton, livestock and dairy also almost always transits the Panama Canal. The result is that 75% of Canal traffic originates in or is bound for the United States. 48:55 Joseph Kramek: We've talked about the drought in 2023 and the historic low water levels that it caused in Lake Gatún, which feeds the canal locks, a unique system that is a fresh water feed, as contrasted to an ocean to ocean system, which the French tried and failed, but which is actually active in the Suez Canal. These low water levels reduced transits from 36 transits a day to as low as 22 per day. Additionally, the low water levels required a reduction in maximum allowable draft levels, or the depth of the ship below the water line, which for our members reduced the amount of containers they could carry through the canal. This resulted in a 10% reduction in import volumes for US Gulf and East Coast ports, with the Port of Houston experiencing a 26.7% reduction. 51:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Are you aware of allegations from some vessel operators of disparate treatment such as sweetheart deals or favorable rebates by Panama for canal transits? Louis Sola: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, we have become aware through some complaints by cruise lines that said that they were not getting a refund of their canal tolls. When we looked into this, we found a Panamanian Executive Order, Decree 73, that specifically says that if a cruise line would stop at a certain port, that they could be refunded 100% of the fees. And as far as I know, that's the only instant where that exists. 53:05 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): So Panama was the very first Latin American country to join China's Belt and Road Initiative, and right now, China is building a fourth bridge across the Panama Canal for car traffic and light rail. Chairman Sola, why should Chinese construction of a bridge near Panama City concern the United States? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, we all saw the tragedy that happened here in the Francis Scott Key Bridge incident and the devastation that had happened to Baltimore. We also saw recently what happened in the Suez Canal, where we had a ship get stuck in there. It's not only the construction of the bridge, but it's a removal of a bridge, as I understand it, called the Bridge of the Americas. It was built in 1961 and that would paralyze cargo traffic in and out of the canals. 53:55 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama also recently renewed the concessions for two container ports to a Chinese company, Hutchison Ports PPC. Of course, Chinese companies are controlled by the Communist Party. How does China use control of those ports for economic gain? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, I am a regulator, a competition regulator. And the Chinese ports that you're referring to, let me put them into scope. The one on the Pacific, the Port of Balboa, is roughly the same size as the Port of Houston. They do about 4 million containers a year. They have about 28 game tree cranes. The one on the Atlantic is the same as my hometown in Miami, they do about 1 million containers. So where Roger Gunther in the Port of Houston generates about $1 billion a year and Heidi Webb in Miami does about $200 million, the Panama ports company paid 0 for 20 years on that concession. So it's really hard to compete against zero. So I think that's our concern, our economic concern, that we would have. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Commissioner Maffei, anything to add on that? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, I do too also think it is important. I would point out that you don't have to stop at either port. It's not like these two ports control the entrance to the canal. That is the Canal Authority that does control that. However, I think it's of concern. I would also point out that the Panamanian government thinks it's of concern too, because they're conducting their own audit of those particular deals, but we remain very interested as well. 56:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Would the facts discussed here be considered violations of the neutrality treaty in force right now between the United States and Panama? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think Senator, I think potentially they could, but it's impossible to say definitively without knowing more, in particular, about the degree of Chinese control and involvement in these companies. I think it's important to note that these port operation companies that operate the ports on both sides, when they received their first contract, it was just a few months before Hong Kong was handed over to China. In other words, they received them as British companies, sort of very oddly, just a few months before the handover. Now, of course, since then, Hong Kong has been incorporated into China, has been placed under a special national security regime, and the independence of those companies has been greatly abridged, to say nothing of state owned companies involved elsewhere in in the canal area, which raised significantly greater questions. Additionally, I should point out that the understandings between President Carter and Panamanian leader Herrera, which were attached to the treaty and form part of the treaty, provide that the United States can, quote, "defend the canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality," and I understand that as providing some degree of preemptive authority to intervene. One need not wait until the canal is actually closed by some act of sabotage or aggression, which, as we heard from the testimony, would be devastating to the United States, but there is some incipient ability to address potential violations. 58:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): If the United States determines that Panama is in violation of the treaty, what is the range of remedies the United States would have for that treaty violation? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think it may be shocking to people to hear today, but when one goes over the ratification history and the debates and discussions in this body over this treaty, it was clear that the treaty was understood as giving both sides, separately, the right to resort to use armed force to enforce the provisions of the treaty. And it's not so surprising when one understands that the United States made an extraordinary concession to Panama by transferring this canal, which the United States built at great expense and maintained and operated to Panama, gratis. And in exchange, it received a kind of limitation, a permanent limitation on Panamanians sovereignty, that Panama agreed that the United States could enforce this regime of neutrality by force. Now, of course, armed force should never be the first recourse for any kind of international dispute and should not be arrived at sort of rationally or before negotiations and other kinds of good offices are exhausted, but it's quite clear that the treaty contemplates that as a remedy for violations. 1:03:20 Louis Sola: I believe that the security of the canal has always been understood to be provided by the United States. Panama does not have a military, and I always believed that there's been a close relationship with Southern Command that we would provide that. And it would be nice to see if we had a formalization of that in one way or another, because I don't believe that it's in the treaty at all. 1:05:05 Daniel Maffei: While we were down there, both of us heard, I think, several times, that the Panamanians would, the ones we talked to anyway, would welcome US companies coming in and doing a lot of this work. Frankly, their bids are not competitive with the Chinese bids. Frankly, they're not that existent because US companies can make more money doing things other places, but even if they were existent, it is difficult to put competitive bids when the Chinese bids are so heavily subsidized by China. 1:06:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): What would China's incentive be to heavily subsidize those bids to undercut American companies and other companies? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, it's not a real short answer, but Senator, China's made no secret of its ambitious policies to gain influence of ports throughout the globe. It's invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries. It runs a majority of 17 ports, that does not include this Hong Kong company, right? So that's just directly Chinese-owned ports. So it has been a part of their Belt and Road strategy, whatever you want to call it, the Maritime Silk Road, for decades. So they believe that this influence, this investment in owning maritime ports is important to their economy. 1:07:05 Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): In 2021, Hutchison was awarded those two ports, Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, in a no-bid award process. Can you tell me, does the United States have any authority or recourse with the Panama Canal Authority under our current agreement with Panama to rebid those terminal concession contracts. And perhaps Mr. Kantorovich, that's more in your purview? Louis Sola: Senator, both of those ports were redone for 25 years, until 2047, I believe. And they have to pay $7 million is what the ongoing rate is for the Port of Houston- and the Port of Miami-sized concessions. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And it can't be rebid until after that date? Louis Sola: Well, I believe that that's what the comptroller's office is auditing both of those ports and that contract. That was done under the previous Panamanian administration. A new administration came in, and they called for an audit of that contract immediately. 1:20:10 Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Are the companies now controlling both sides of the Panama Canal, the Chinese companies, subject to the PRC national security laws that mandate cooperation with the military, with state intelligence agencies. Does anyone know that? Eugene Kontorovich: They're subject all the time. They're subject to those laws all the time by virtue of being Hong Kong companies. And you know, they face, of course, consequences for not complying with the wishes of the Chinese government. One of the arguments -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Wouldn't that be a violation of the treaty? And isn't that a huge risk to us right now that the Chinese -- Eugene Kontorovich: That is a threat to the neutrality -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): If they invaded Taiwan, invaded the Philippines, they could go to these two companies saying, Hey, shut it down, make it hard, sink a ship in the canal. And wouldn't they be obligated to do that under Chinese law if they were ordered to by the PLA or the CCP? Eugene Kontorovich: I don't know if they'd be obligated, but certainly the People's Republic of China would have many tools of leverage and pressure on these companies. That's why the treaty specifically says that we can act not just to end actual obstructions to the canal. We don't have to wait until the canal is closed by hostile military action. Thatwould be a suicide pact, that would be catastrophic for us, but rather that we can respond at the inchoate, incipient level to threats, and then this is up to the president to determine whether this is significantly robust to constitute -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): So aren't we kind of walking up to the idea of a suicide pact, because we've got two big Chinese companies on both ends of the Panama Canal, who, if there's a war in INDOPACOM, Taiwan that involves us and China, these companies would be obligated to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party and PLA? I mean, are we kind of walking up to a very significant national security threat already? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, certainly, there's a threat. And I think what makes the action of the Chinese government so difficult to respond to, but important to respond to, is that they conceal this in sort of levels of gray without direct control. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Let me ask you on that topic, as my last question, Professor, let's assume that we find out. And again, it wouldn't be surprising. I think you can almost assume it that these two companies have Chinese spies or military officials within the ranks of the employees of the companies. Let's assume we found that out, somehow that becomes public. But I don't think it's a big assumption. It's probably true right now. So you have spies and military personnel within the ranks of these two companies that are controlling both ends of the Panama Canal for you, Professor, and Chairman Sola, wouldn't that be a blatant violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty, if that were true, which probably is true? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, I do think it would be a clear violation. As former Secretary of State, Dean Ross said at the ratification hearings, informal forces can violate Article Five as well as formal forces. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Is there any evidence of Chinese spies or other nefarious Chinese actors embedded in these companies? Louis Sola: Senator, we have no information of that. That's not under the purview of -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): But you agree that would be a violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty? Louis Sola: I do. 1:26:25 Daniel Maffei: Senator Sullivan was talking about Hutchison Ports. That's actually the same company that runs terminals on both ends of the canal. I am concerned about that. However, if we want to be concerned about that, all of us should lose a lot more sleep than we're losing because if there are spies there, then there might be spies at other Hutchinson ports, and there are other Hutchinson ports in almost every part of the world. They own the largest container port in the United Kingdom, Felix Dow, which is responsible for nearly half of Britain's container trade. They control major maritime terminals in Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Myanmar, the Netherlands, South Korea and Tanzania. If owning and managing adjacent ports means that China somehow has operational control or strategic control over the Panama Canal, they also have it over the Suez, the Singapore Straits, the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel. 1:35:45 Louis Sola: The fees that I think we are looking at, or have been looked at, the reason that we went there was because of the auctioning of the slots. And so what Panama did is they had a smaller percentage, maybe 20% allocation, and then they moved it up to 30% and 40% because it became a money maker for them. So as they were doing -- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, let me interject here. The auctioning of the slots gives these the right to skip the queue? Louis Sola: Yes, ma'am. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, so just for the record there. Continue. Louis Sola: So the auctioning of the slots. Under maritime law, it's first come first serve, but Panama has always put a certain percentage aside, and they started to put more and more. So we got a lot of complaints. We got a lot of complaints from LNG carriers that paid $4 million to go through, and we got a lot of complaints from agriculture that didn't have the money to pay to go through, because their goods were gonna go down. So if you look at the financial statements -- I'm a nerd, I look at financial statements of everybody -- the canal increased the amount of revenue that they had from about $500 million to $1.8 billion in the last three years just because of those fees. So this is what is very concerning to us. 1:39:20 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): Do you know of any instances where the United States has been singled out or treated unfairly under the neutrality treaty in the operation of the canal? Daniel Maffei: I do not. I would add that one of the reasons why saying the US is disproportionately affected by raises in Canal fees and other kinds of fees at the canal is because the United States disproportionately utilizes the canal. 1:44:55 Louis Sola: We have a US port there, SSA, out of Washington State that I actually worked on the development of that many years ago, and helped develop that. That used to be a United States Navy submarine base, and we converted that. As far as the two ports that we have, they're completely different. One is a major infrastructure footprint, and also a container port that's moving 4 million containers a year. That's really phenomenal amount. That's more than Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and you've probably got to get Tampa and a little bit of Jacksonville in there to get that type of volume. And on the other side, we have a very small port, but it's a very strategic port on the Atlantic. So how are the operations done?I don't know how they don't make money. I mean, if you want to come right down to it, if they've been operating the port for 20 years, and they say that they haven't made any money, so they haven't been able to pay the government. That's what concerns me is I don't believe that we're on a level playing field with the American ports. 1:58:50 Eugene Kontorovich: I think the charges and fees are less of an issue because they don't discriminate across countries. We pay more because we use more, but it's not nationally discriminatory. 1:59:00 Eugene Kontorovich: The presence of Chinese companies, especially Chinese state companies, but not limited to them, do raise serious issues and concerns for the neutrality of the treaty. And I should point out, in relation to some of the earlier questioning, the canal, for purposes of the neutrality treaty, is not limited just to the actual locks of the canal and the transit of ships through the canal. According to Annex One, paragraph one of the treaty, it includes also the entrances of the canal and the territorial sea of Panama adjacent to it. So all of the activities we're talking about are within the neutrality regime, the geographic scope of the neutrality regime in the treaty. 2:00:30 Daniel Maffei: I actually have to admit, I'm a little confused as to why some of the senators asking these questions, Senator Blackburn, aren't more concerned about the biggest port in the United Kingdom being run by the Chinese. Petraeus in the port nearest Athens, one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean, is not just run by a Chinese-linked company, it's run directly by a Chinese-owned company, and I was there. So you're on to something, but if you're just focusing on Panama, that's only part. 2:01:45 Louis Sola: About a year ago, when we were having this drought issue, there was also a lot of focus on Iran and how they were funding Hamas and the Houthis because they were attacking the Red Sea. What the United States has found is that Iranian vessels are sometimes flagged by Panama in order to avoid sanctions, so that they could sell the fuel that they have, and then they can take that money and then they can use it as they wish. Panama, at the time, had a very complicated process to de-flag the vessels. There was an investigation, there was an appeals process. By the time that OFAC or Treasury would go ahead and identify one of those vessels, by the time that they were doing the appeals and stuff like this, they've already changed flags to somewhere else. So when we went to Panama, we met with the Panamanian president, and I must say that we were very impressed, because he was 30 minutes late, but he was breaking relations with Venezuela at the time because the election was the day before. We explained to him the situation. The very next day, we met with the maritime minister, with US embassy personnel and Panama actually adjusted their appeals process so to make it more expedient, so if the United States or OFAC would come and say that this Iranian vessel is avoiding sanctions, now we have a process in place to go ahead and do that, and 53 vessels were de-flagged because of that. 2:06:05 Sen. John Curtis (R-UT): Is there any reason that China can't watch or do whatever they want from this bridge to get the intel from these containers? And does that concern anybody? Louis Sola: Well, it definitely concerns Southern Command, because they've brought it up on numerous occasions that there could be some sort of surveillance or something like that on the bridges. 2:20:30 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): We segregate ourselves artificially in a way that they do not. We segregate ourselves. Let's talk about military. Let's talk about intelligence. Let's talk about economics. They don't. China doesn't work that way. It's a whole of government approach. They don't draw a delineation between an economics discussion and a military one. And their attack may not look like Pearl Harbor. It may look like an everyday ship that decides, you know, it pulls into the locks and blows itself up. And now the locks are non-functional for our usage, and we can't support an inter ocean fleet transfer, and our ability to defend it, as you referred to Chairman, is now inhibited by the fact that we no longer have the military infrastructure around the canal that we did just as recently as 1999. 2:21:10 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): So from a commercial perspective, do the shipping companies have concerns over the security of the narrow waterways? We've the Strait to Malacca, we've got the Suez Canal, we've got Gibraltar, we've got Panama. Is that a concern that's thrown around in the boardrooms of the largest shipping corporations in the world? Joseph Kramek: Senator, I think it's something they think about every day. I mean, really, it's drawn into sharp relief with the Red Sea. It was what I call a pink flamingo. There's black swans that just come up and there's pink flamingos that you can see, but you don't act. But no one really thought a whole lot that one of the most important waterways in the world could be denied, and moreover, that it could be denied for such a sustained period. The good news is that -- Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): And denied, I might add, by a disaffected non-state actor of Bedouins running around with rocket launchers, who also managed to beat us in a 20 year war in Afghanistan. My point to saying all this is we're just debating operational control of the canal, yet it seems very clear to all of us that a very simple act can debilitate the canal and eliminate our ability to use it in a matter of minutes with no warning, and we have no ability to intervene or stop that. To me, that means we do not have operational control of the canal. 2:30:40 Daniel Maffei: I will say that certainly we need to look at other kinds of ways to get US companies in positions where they can truly compete with the Chinese on some of these things. Blaming it all on Panama really misses the point. I've seen the same thing in Greece, where Greece didn't want to give the concession of its largest port to a Chinese company, but because of its financial difficulties, it was getting pressure from international organizations such the IMF, Europe and even maybe some of the United States to do so. So I just ask you to look at that. 2:31:20 Daniel Maffei: Panamanians are making far more on their canal than they ever have before. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's going to the right place. But where they're really making the money is on these auctions, and that is why it remains a concern of mine and I'm sure the chairman's. That is where we are looking at, potentially, using our authority under Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act where we could, if we can show that it is a problem with the foreign trade of the US, it's interfering with foreign trade of the US, there are certain things that we can do. Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 15, 2024 Clips 4:01:40 Marco Rubio: The thing with Panama on the canal is not new. I visited there. It was 2016. I think I've consistently seen people express concern about it, and it's encapsulized here in quote after quote. Let me tell you the former US ambassador who served under President Obama said: "the Chinese see in Panama what we saw in Panama throughout the 20th century, a maritime and aviation logistics hub." The immediate past head of Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, said, "I was just in Panama about a month ago and flying along the Panama Canal and looking at the state owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China on each side of the Panama Canal. They look like civilian companies or state owned enterprises that could be used for dual use and could be quickly changed over to a military capability." We see questions that were asked by the ranking member in the house China Select Committee, where he asked a witness and they agreed that in a time of conflict, China could use its presence on both ends of the canal as a choke point against the United States in a conflict situation. So the concerns about Panama have been expressed by people on both sides of the aisle for at least the entire time that I've been in the United States Senate, and they've only accelerated further. And this is a very legitimate issue that we face there. I'm not prepared to answer this question because I haven't looked at the legal research behind it yet, but I'm compelled to suspect that an argument could be made that the terms under which that canal were turned over have been violated. Because while technically, sovereignty over the canal has not been turned over to a foreign power, in reality, a foreign power today possesses, through their companies, which we know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict. And that is a direct threat to the national interest and security the United States, and is particularly galling given the fact that we paid for it and that 5,000 Americans died making it. That said, Panama is a great partner on a lot of other issues, and I hope we can resolve this issue of the canal and of its security, and also continue to work with them cooperatively on a host of issues we share in common, including what to do with migration. 4:38:35 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): Now, President Trump has recently talked a little bit about the fact that there are some questions arising about the status of the Panama Canal. When we look to the treaty at issue, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal, we're reminded that some things maybe aren't quite as they should be there right now. Given that the Chinese now control major ports at the entry and the exit to the canal, it seems appropriate to say that there's at least an open question. There's some doubt as to whether the canal remains neutral. Would you agree with that assessment? Marco Rubio: Yes. Here's the challenge. Number one, I want to be clear about something. The Panamanian government, particularly its current office holders, are very friendly to the United States and very cooperative, and we want that to continue, and I want to bifurcate that from the broader issue of the canal. Now I am not, President Trump is not inventing this. This is something that's existed now for at least a decade. In my service here, I took a trip to Panama in 2017. When on that trip to Panama in 2017 it was the central issue we discussed about the canal, and that is that Chinese companies control port facilities at both ends of the canal, the east and the west, and the concerns among military officials and security officials, including in Panama, at that point, that that could one day be used as a choke point to impede commerce in a moment of conflict. Going back to that I -- earlier before you got here, and I don't want to have to dig through this folder to find it again, but -- basically cited how the immediate past head of Southern Command, just retired general Richardson, said she flew over the canal, looked down and saw those Chinese port facilities, and said Those look like dual use facilities that in a moment of conflict, could be weaponized against us. The bipartisan China commission over in the House last year, had testimony and hearings on this issue, and members of both parties expressed concern. The former ambassador to Panama under President Obama has expressed those concerns. This is a legitimate issue that needs to be confronted. The second point is the one you touched upon, and that is, look, could an argument be made, and I'm not prepared to answer it yet, because it's something we're going to have to study very carefully. But I think I have an inkling of I know where this is going to head. Can an argument be made that the Chinese basically have effective control of the canal anytime they want? Because if they order a Chinese company that controls the ports to shut it down or impede our transit, they will have to do so. There are no independent Chinese companies. They all exist because they've been identified as national champions. They're supported by the Chinese government. And if you don't do what they want, they find a new CEO, and you end up being replaced and removed. So they're under the complete control of their government. This is a legitimate question, and one that Senators Risch had some insight as well. He mentioned that in passing that needs to be looked at. This is not a joke. The Panama Canal issue is a very serious one. 4:44:30 Marco Rubio: In 2016 and 2017 that was well understood that part of the investments they made in Panama were conditioned upon Panama's ability to convince the Dominican Republic and other countries to flip their recognition away from Taiwan. That happened. Jen Briney's Recent Guest Appearances Travis Makes Money: Give and Take: Music by Editing Production Assistance

¿Qué eventos definieron el nacimiento del Ejército de Defensa de Israel (IDF) tras la creación del Estado de Israel en 1948? ¿Cómo la lucha por la supervivencia en los primeros años del país transformó a Israel en una potencia militar regional? En este episodio, Julio Sandoval regresa para llevarnos a través de una historia fascinante, profundizando en las estrategias, los conflictos y las decisiones que marcaron los primeros 20 años del IDF. Desde la Guerra de Independencia hasta la Guerra de los Seis Días, analizaremos cómo Israel pasó de un ejército incipiente a convertirse en una fuerza capaz de cambiar el curso de la historia de la región.Exploraremos el papel de los tres comandos regionales del IDF, las unidades clave que se forjaron en estos primeros años y los momentos decisivos como la toma de Latrun, la Guerra de Desgaste, y la dramática confrontación por el Canal de Suez. También discutiremos la implicancia de potencias como Gran Bretaña y Francia, las primeras acciones terroristas de los fedahines, y el impacto de la Guerra Fría en la política militar israelí, incluyendo su temida apuesta atómica.¿Cómo contribuyó la intervención de Egipto, Siria y Jordania a la explosión del conflicto en 1967? ¿Por qué la Guerra de los Seis Días cambió para siempre la geopolítica del Medio Oriente? Únete a nosotros mientras desentrañamos cómo estos momentos definieron el futuro de la región y el impacto del IDF en la historia moderna.Si no escuchaste el episodio 253, te recomendamos escuchar la primera parte, donde exploramos el origen de los grupos de defensa judíos en Palestina, como la Haganá, el Irgun y el Palmaj, y cómo fueron esenciales en la creación del ejército que conocemos hoy. ¡No te lo puedes perder!

Exactly a month into his new term, President Donald Trump's latest major pick, Kash Patel, has been appointed as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation after a grueling confirmation in the US Senate. Tulsi Gabbard had earlier been confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence. Both these are positive from India's point of view: they signal that the sinister Deep State may well be reined in, after decades of anti-India activism on its part.Over the last week or two, there have been revelations after revelations of bad faith on the part of the disgraced US establishment, most notably in the shadowy USAID agency, which, it appears, was the absolute “Heart of Darkness” of the Deep State, neck-deep in covert operations, election interference, and general mayhem all over the world, and certainly in India.Trump himself emphasized that $21 million in covert funds had gone towards affecting election outcomes in India. Presumably the reduced majority Modi got in 2024 could be traced back to this. Fortress AmericaThe general contours of Trump's foreign policy are beginning to emerge. I predicted a month ago, before Trump had taken over, in ‘Greenland, Canada, Panama: Chronicles of a Foreign Policy Foretold', that Western Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular, would find themselves treated as irrelevant to the new order to come. That has happened.In fact, things have gone beyond what I anticipated. In a nutshell, Trump is downgrading the Atlantic, and his focus will be on the Americas, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. Which, from a historical perspective, makes sense: the world's economic center of gravity is moving towards Asia; trade flows in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans are increasingly more important than in the Atlantic; and a few centuries of European domination are pretty much over.Sorry Europe, Atlanticism is at an endTo put it bluntly, the vanity that Europe is a ‘continent' is now being exposed as hollow: to be precise, it is merely an appendage, an outpost, to vast Asia. Europe is at best a subcontinent, like India is; it should probably be renamed as ‘Northwest Asia'. The saga of ‘Guns, Germs and Steel' post the Industrial Revolution is winding down rapidly. There is some schadenfreude in that the UK becomes even more irrelevant: just a small, rainy island off NW Asia.The Putin-Trump dialog suggests that Ukraine, and even NATO, are now superfluous. Atlanticism has been a constant in US foreign policy, mostly pushed by two forces:* Eastern European-origin State Department officials who have inherited a blood-feud with Russia from their ancestors, eg. Brzezinski, Albright, Nuland, Blinken, Vindman* an ancient intra-Christian schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and (for a change) an alliance of Roman Catholics and Western Protestants like Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists.It is time that the Americans realized they've been turned into cats'-paws by these forces, and turned their backs on these ancient animosities, which have almost no relevance today. In fact one could argue that a NATO-Russian alliance is the right solution in the medium term, because otherwise both could become puppets of China. Bringing the Ukraine war to an end is a start.The general tone of the Trump White House implies a Fortress America. In practice, this seems to mean that instead of being Globocop, the US focuses on a) the Americas, North and South, b) the Pacific Ocean, d) the Indian Ocean, in that order.A new Monroe Doctrine in the AmericasThe attention being paid to Canada and Mexico over and above the tariffs issues suggests that there is a plan to create a stronger and more unified North American entity; the noises about “Canada the 51st state” and “Gulf of America” suggest that maybe a new NAFTA-style agreement could be inked, especially now that the warming Arctic Ocean makes the thawing tundra of Canada more appealing.It is true that there is no immediate thrust for a Monroe Doctrine-style exclusive US ‘sphere of influence' in South America, but I suspect it is coming. Already, there have been positive vibes between Trump and Argentina's Milei, and Salvador's Bukele: the former for his DOGE-style chainsaw-wielding that's showing results, and the latter for his strong law enforcement.The Island Chains and other red lines in the PacificIn the Pacific, there has been pushback against China's moves on the Panama Canal: there are two Hong-Kong-based entities (read proxies of the Chinese government) controlling ports around it: Balboa on the Pacific side, and Cristobal on the Atlantic side.On the other hand, there is increasing global support (with the judicious use of Chinese carrots such as BRI) for the annexation of Taiwan by China, including, if necessary, by force. A Lowy Institute study (“Five One Chinas: The Contest to Define Taiwan”) suggests that some 119 UN member states accept the official Chinese position on ‘reunification'. Only 40 countries are not on board with China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.It is very likely that there will be a showdown between the US and China over Taiwan, within the next two years. It is said that Xi Jinping has given a timeframe of 2027 for all this. It will be interesting to see how many states that condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine will condemn China's future attack on Taiwan. Chances are that many will be strategically silent.Japan, Australia, South Korea and other friends of the US will have a hard time keeping the peace in the Pacific. The “Three Island Chains” act as increasingly critical red lines to contain an aggressive China. In fact, the Asia Maritime Initiative is speaking of five island chains (“China's Reach Has Grown, So Should the Island Chains”), including those in the Indian Ocean (remember the “String of Pearls” intended to tighten around India's throat).The three island chains: 1. Taiwan, Japan, Philippines; 2. Guam, Marianas; 3. Hawaii(Source: China is making waves in the Pacific, Alexandra Tirziu, Jan 2024 https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-pacific-conflict/)Meanwhile, in a show of aggression far from its shores, three Chinese warships indulged in “live firing” in international waters between Australia and New Zealand, and commercial aircraft were warned to keep away. This is a warning to Australia, which, thanks to AUKUS foolishness, cancelled French submarines and now await British submarines… in the 2040s.The increasing relevance of the Indian Ocean and the Middle EastMuch of the world's trade, including 75% of global maritime trade and 50% of its daily oil shipments, go through the Indian Ocean.The main issues will be the control of the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz, and the alternative routes being explored by China via the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand, possible use of Coco Islands and other Myanmarese ports including Sittwe and (a bit of a stretch for China) access to Chittagong. There are also troublesome pirates, including Houthis, that make for perilous journeys leading to the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aden, and the Red Sea.Interestingly, the US is making moves in the Indian Ocean that will support both the IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor) and I2U2, the India-Israel-UAE-US economic partnership. IMEC is the old Spice Route, revivified.There is also the proposed Ben-Gurion Canal through the Negev Desert in Israel that would benefit Saudi Arabia as well (its futuristic NEOM city is nearby), and this would be made feasible by Trump's proposed transformation of Gaza. It would be an alternative to Suez.Following up on the Abraham Accords, Trump 2.0 would like to bring the Gaza war to an end, and create an environment in the Middle East where Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE et al will form a counter and a buffer to the machinations of Iran and Turkey.The Indo-US joint communique is a statement of intentIt is in this global context that we need to analyze the joint communique between the US and India after the Trump-Modi summit. Both nations will be attempting to advance their own strategic doctrines. The US would like India to become a non-treaty ally. India would like to keep its multi-alignment policy going, along with Atmanirbharatha. These may make any bilateral progress a little rough but some give and take will work.There are a few specific areas of interest:* Defense* There is an effort by the US to wean India away from its dependency on Russia for weapons. The most evident carrot here is the F-35 advanced fighter jet, which has now been offered to India for the first time, along with other conventional weapons such as Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stryker infantry combat vehicles, as well as the P8i Poseidon anti-submarine patrol aircraft, and various drones* The P8i is already in service in India, and it would help keep an eye on the southern Bay of Bengal with its proximity to China's submarine pen on Hainan Island* The F-35 raises some questions. In the Bangalore Air Show it was pitted against the Russian Su-57, which is a lot less expensive. Also, the F-35 needs extraordinary levels of maintenance for its ‘stealth' coating. Finally, should India invest in building its own AMCA 5th-generation fighter jet rather than buying?* Even though there will be co-production agreements, the US is a whimsical supplier (remember Tarapur), and there will be little transfer of technology, so military procurement and cooperation must be carefully thought through by India* Trade and Investment* The goal is to reach $500 billion in bilateral trade by 2030, which would involve a doubling from current levels ($200 billion in 2023). Besides, the Trump doctrine of reciprocal tariffs and zero trade imbalance may make some of this difficult* Indian firms are planning to invest $7.35 billion in the US* Energy* India will now get access to US civil nuclear technology, but there's a small twist: the clauses invoking civil liability for nuclear damage will be deleted. This is reminiscent of Pfizer's covid-era contract with developing countries: Pfizer was assured of indemnity (with the local governments being liable) in case of injury or death caused by its vaccine. This sounds like a bad idea* India will increase its purchases of US oil and natural gas. This is a win-win: it will increase US imports to India, thus reducing the trade deficit, and India will be assured of additional supplies* Technology and Innovation* A whole raft of actions have been proposed, including a tie-up between the US National Science Foundation and the Anusandhan National Research Foundation in India, a program called TRUST, another called INDUS innovation, and one in the area of space collaboration, titled NISAR* Multilateral Cooperation* The Quad, IMEC and I2U2 figured in communique, but also something called the Indian Ocean Strategic Venture. I note this nomenclature progress with approval: there used to be the Asia-Pacific, then it was the Indo-Pacific, and now the Indian Ocean is being singled out* In the area of counter-terrorism, the communique explicitly named Pakistani entities such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Toiba, among others. This is a welcome change from the shadow-boxing indulged in by the Biden administration and others, whereby Pakistani terrorists were treated as ‘assets'* The extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian now in a Los Angeles jail, to India for investigation into his role supporting David Headley, in the 26/11/2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, is a welcome sign, after the curious Biden exertions in the Pannun case* People to people links* Indian parents are spending $8 billion a year to support 300,000 Indian students in the US. This amounts to a sort of ‘foreign aid', and also incidentally supplies a lot of especially STEM graduates to the US economy* Facilitating visas, which have become frustratingly difficult for Indian business and leisure travelers to the US. Last year, the wait for just a visa interview was 452 days in Chennai (as compared to 15 days in Beijing), which probably was the result ot the Biden State Department ‘punishing' India for refusing to toe their Ukraine sanctions line* The legal movement of students and professionals between the two countries is to be eased.Overall, this is a statement of intent: both Modi and Trump are laying their cards on the table, and they will both (as they should) bargain hard to benefit their own nations. But India is no longer being treated as a pariah as it was since the Pokhran blasts, the denial of cryogenic rocket engines (via, yes, the Biden Amendment), and so on.As Trump moves towards the inevitable multipolar world, he does not wish to leave Asia to eager hegemon China; as he wishes to move the US out of military entanglements in far-off places (for which he expects Europe and others to bear the burden of their own defense), it is natural for him to want India to punch its weight in Asia.A mutually beneficial relationship free of the supercilious lectures by previous Democratic administrations (eg Daleep Singh on Ukraine sanctions, and he was, ironically enough, the great-grand-nephew of Dalip Singh Saund) would be welcome from the Indian point of view. Having a counterweight to China, and a G3 instead of a G2, would likewise be useful from the US point of view. Thus, there are glimpses of a possible win-win situation.2222 words, 22-02-2025 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. But what if you're a germ? As the USA.I.D demolition continues, we're beginning to see the outlines of what might be a network of real corruption - and it's not just the tinfoil hats saying it. How will the US public deal with having the wool pulled from their eyes? And will the Beltway liberals ever recover? Meanwhile, Britain has agreed to the deal of the century. The Mauritians get: £18 billion. We get: to give them a strategically important series of islands. The Chagos saga must already rank as the most tawdry fiasco since Suez. What no one can understand is: why? Finally, while it's retreating from aid, the US imperium is once again reasserting itself over the periphery when it comes to tech. With the Silicon Valley set signed up behind Trumpism, Europe is being asked to bend the knee, not just on market access, but on their much eroded rights to online free speech. What can you say?

Goodbye, Tahrir Square: Coming of Age as a Jew of the Nile (Cherry Orchard Books, 2025) is a first-person memoir written from the standpoint of a Jewish boy growing up in Egypt during the watershed years that shaped the Middle East into the powder keg it is today. Described as the “Holden Caulfield of the Nile” for his rebellious attitude, the boy witnessed—between the ages of seven to fourteen—the 1952 revolution that overthrew King Farouk and gave rise to the dictatorship of Gamal Abdel Nasser; the 1956 Suez war that marked the end of the British empire; and in its wake the destruction of the Jewish community that had lived in Egypt since Biblical times. Though set in times of revolution and war, Goodbye, Tahrir Square is not a political book. It is the story of a boy whose close-knit extended Sephardic family, full of rich traditions and colorful characters, is suddenly torn asunder by the forces of revolution and war. A man-child coming of age like a wild cactus in the rubble of the past, overcoming a hostile environment, forging friendships that transcend ethnic and religious animus, and finding his own identity as he awakens to literature, history, art, archaeology, and the magic of love and sex. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Goodbye, Tahrir Square: Coming of Age as a Jew of the Nile (Cherry Orchard Books, 2025) is a first-person memoir written from the standpoint of a Jewish boy growing up in Egypt during the watershed years that shaped the Middle East into the powder keg it is today. Described as the “Holden Caulfield of the Nile” for his rebellious attitude, the boy witnessed—between the ages of seven to fourteen—the 1952 revolution that overthrew King Farouk and gave rise to the dictatorship of Gamal Abdel Nasser; the 1956 Suez war that marked the end of the British empire; and in its wake the destruction of the Jewish community that had lived in Egypt since Biblical times. Though set in times of revolution and war, Goodbye, Tahrir Square is not a political book. It is the story of a boy whose close-knit extended Sephardic family, full of rich traditions and colorful characters, is suddenly torn asunder by the forces of revolution and war. A man-child coming of age like a wild cactus in the rubble of the past, overcoming a hostile environment, forging friendships that transcend ethnic and religious animus, and finding his own identity as he awakens to literature, history, art, archaeology, and the magic of love and sex. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

Goodbye, Tahrir Square: Coming of Age as a Jew of the Nile (Cherry Orchard Books, 2025) is a first-person memoir written from the standpoint of a Jewish boy growing up in Egypt during the watershed years that shaped the Middle East into the powder keg it is today. Described as the “Holden Caulfield of the Nile” for his rebellious attitude, the boy witnessed—between the ages of seven to fourteen—the 1952 revolution that overthrew King Farouk and gave rise to the dictatorship of Gamal Abdel Nasser; the 1956 Suez war that marked the end of the British empire; and in its wake the destruction of the Jewish community that had lived in Egypt since Biblical times. Though set in times of revolution and war, Goodbye, Tahrir Square is not a political book. It is the story of a boy whose close-knit extended Sephardic family, full of rich traditions and colorful characters, is suddenly torn asunder by the forces of revolution and war. A man-child coming of age like a wild cactus in the rubble of the past, overcoming a hostile environment, forging friendships that transcend ethnic and religious animus, and finding his own identity as he awakens to literature, history, art, archaeology, and the magic of love and sex. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Goodbye, Tahrir Square: Coming of Age as a Jew of the Nile (Cherry Orchard Books, 2025) is a first-person memoir written from the standpoint of a Jewish boy growing up in Egypt during the watershed years that shaped the Middle East into the powder keg it is today. Described as the “Holden Caulfield of the Nile” for his rebellious attitude, the boy witnessed—between the ages of seven to fourteen—the 1952 revolution that overthrew King Farouk and gave rise to the dictatorship of Gamal Abdel Nasser; the 1956 Suez war that marked the end of the British empire; and in its wake the destruction of the Jewish community that had lived in Egypt since Biblical times. Though set in times of revolution and war, Goodbye, Tahrir Square is not a political book. It is the story of a boy whose close-knit extended Sephardic family, full of rich traditions and colorful characters, is suddenly torn asunder by the forces of revolution and war. A man-child coming of age like a wild cactus in the rubble of the past, overcoming a hostile environment, forging friendships that transcend ethnic and religious animus, and finding his own identity as he awakens to literature, history, art, archaeology, and the magic of love and sex. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

Goodbye, Tahrir Square: Coming of Age as a Jew of the Nile (Cherry Orchard Books, 2025) is a first-person memoir written from the standpoint of a Jewish boy growing up in Egypt during the watershed years that shaped the Middle East into the powder keg it is today. Described as the “Holden Caulfield of the Nile” for his rebellious attitude, the boy witnessed—between the ages of seven to fourteen—the 1952 revolution that overthrew King Farouk and gave rise to the dictatorship of Gamal Abdel Nasser; the 1956 Suez war that marked the end of the British empire; and in its wake the destruction of the Jewish community that had lived in Egypt since Biblical times. Though set in times of revolution and war, Goodbye, Tahrir Square is not a political book. It is the story of a boy whose close-knit extended Sephardic family, full of rich traditions and colorful characters, is suddenly torn asunder by the forces of revolution and war. A man-child coming of age like a wild cactus in the rubble of the past, overcoming a hostile environment, forging friendships that transcend ethnic and religious animus, and finding his own identity as he awakens to literature, history, art, archaeology, and the magic of love and sex. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Send me a text!Learn about the Three Musketeers and the first 100 hour war as Egypt's Gamel Nasser steals the Suez and the limelight, declaring victory after defeat.Different quotes Support the showwar102podcast@gmail.comhttps://www.reddit.com/r/War102Podcast/https://war102.buzzsprout.com

La présence française à Djibouti s'explique par des raisons historiques, stratégiques, économiques et militaires qui remontent à l'époque coloniale et se prolongent dans le cadre des relations bilatérales actuelles.1. Un héritage colonialLa France établit sa présence à Djibouti à la fin du XIXe siècle. En 1862, elle acquiert le territoire d'Obock, qui devient plus tard la Côte française des Somalis en 1896, avant d'être renommé Territoire français des Afars et des Issas en 1967. Djibouti obtient son indépendance en 1977, mais des liens forts subsistent avec la France, notamment en matière militaire, économique et linguistique.2. Une position géographique stratégiqueDjibouti est situé à l'entrée de la mer Rouge, au carrefour des routes maritimes reliant l'Europe, le Moyen-Orient et l'Asie via le canal de Suez. Cette position en fait un point stratégique pour le commerce mondial et la sécurité maritime, particulièrement pour la surveillance des zones sensibles comme le détroit de Bab-el-Mandeb, un passage clé pour les pétroliers et les cargos.La France a longtemps considéré Djibouti comme un point névralgique pour le contrôle de cette région, notamment pour protéger ses intérêts en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient.3. Une base militaire majeureDjibouti abrite l'une des plus importantes bases militaires françaises à l'étranger. Après l'indépendance, la France a signé des accords de défense avec Djibouti, permettant le maintien de ses forces armées dans le pays. Aujourd'hui, environ 1 500 soldats français y sont stationnés, soutenant des missions dans la région, comme :•La lutte contre le terrorisme et la piraterie maritime.•Le soutien aux opérations en Afrique de l'Est et dans la Corne de l'Afrique.•La coopération militaire avec Djibouti et d'autres partenaires régionaux.4. Un partenariat économique et diplomatiqueOutre les enjeux militaires, la France conserve des liens économiques avec Djibouti, notamment dans les secteurs des infrastructures et des télécommunications. Djibouti est aussi membre de l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, renforçant les échanges culturels et linguistiques entre les deux pays.ConclusionLa présence française à Djibouti est à la fois un héritage colonial et un choix stratégique contemporain. Elle répond à des enjeux géopolitiques liés à la sécurité maritime, à la lutte contre le terrorisme et au maintien d'un rayonnement français dans cette région clé du monde. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Everything old is new again in international politics. According to Jill Kastner, co-author of A Measure Short of War: A Brief History of Great Power Subversion, today's international tensions over Ukraine, Taiwan and Greenland mark a return to historical normalcy after a brief period of global American unipolarity. Kastner explains that subversion—defined as hostile or unwanted action on a rival's territory—has been a constant tool of statecraft throughout history. She presents subversion as a rational choice between diplomacy and war, where states make cost-benefit calculations about their actions. Citing historical examples from Thucydides' Athens and Elizabeth I's England to modern-day geopolitics, she explains how nations use subversive tactics when diplomatic channels fail, but war seems too costly. Let's hope she's right when it comes to heading off a Chinese war over Taiwan or an American invasion of Greenland. Dr Jill Kastner is an independent scholar and historian based in London. Her work focuses on international relations from the Cold War to the present, with an emphasis on intelligence and subversive activities both covert and overt. Jill completed her PhD at Harvard in 1999 under the guidance of Ernest May and Philip Zelikow before joining the Presidential Recordings Project at the University of Virginia's Miller Center for Public Affairs. She has contributed book chapters on various Cold War crises, including Suez and Berlin, and written for The Nation and Foreign Affairs. She served as the executive editor and collaborator for Hope and History: A Memoir of Tumultuous Times, the political memoir of Ambassador William J. vanden Heuvel. She is currently collaborating with William C. Wohlforth on a book about the history of subversion, due out with Oxford University Press next year. Prior to her PhD, Jill worked as a television news producer on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. She is a member of Chatham House, the Pilgrims of the US/UK, and the Harvard Club of New York.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In the first women's team preview of 2025 Patrick and Benji go over the FDJ - Suez team.This show is sponsored by JOIN Cycling. Lanterne Rouge listeners can access JOIN Cycling with an exclusive risk free 30-day free trial period. Head over to our website for more information: https://join.cc/lanternerouge/Timestamps:00:00 Intro00:37 2024 review11:50 Transfers36:35 Schedules40:45 predictions and hot takes Our merch has dropped! Custom designs painstakingly crafted by Louemans on t-shirts, mugs and hats with all your favourite catchphrases from the podcast. Check it out at ⁠⁠https://shop.lanternerouge.com⁠⁠If you enjoy LRCP please support us by subscribing and leaving us a like and comment! You can also send us a tip here https://ko-fi.com/lanternerougecyclingpodcast