Mediaboss Marketing

Nightly protests in North Macedonia over the last week have left dozens of people injured

SKOPJE, North Macedonia (AP) - Nightly protests in North Macedonia over the past week have left dozens injured. At the heart of the turmoil is the small Balkan country's long-running quest to join the European Union, a process that has faced one hurdle after the other.

The most recent obstacle is a veto by EU member Bulgaria. A French proposal for a compromise to address Bulgaria's concerns has divided North Macedonia, sparking the sometimes violent protests. France's plan also met deep objections in Bulgaria and helped to bring down the government, which had accepted the compromise.

WHAT IS THE DISPUTE ABOUT?

North Macedonia has been an EU candidate for 17 years. The country emerged from the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s and sought to forge a strong national identity. But in a region where borders and ethnicities have shifted and overlapped over centuries, it was beset by problems from the start.

The country's chosen name, Macedonia, sparked outrage in neighboring Greece, which said the term harbored expansionist aims against its own province of the same name and was an attempt to usurp Greek history and culture. Athens held up Skopje's EU and NATO membership bids for years, until a 2019 deal was reached that included the smaller country changing its name to North Macedonia.

But the following year, neighboring Bulgaria blocked the renamed nation's attempts to join the EU, accusing Skopje of disrespecting shared cultural and historic ties. Among Bulgaria's key demands were acknowledgment that the language of North Macedonia derived from Bulgarian, and the recognition of a Bulgarian minority.

The size of the Bulgarian community in North Macedonia is a matter of contention. Official data from the 2021 census put it at 3,504 people, or about 0.2% of the population. Bulgaria has doubted the figure, noting that about 90,000 of North Macedonia's roughly 2 million population received dual Bulgarian citizenship over the last two decades based on their family roots. About 53,000 more applications are pending.

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

North Macedonia's EU bid is tied to a similar bid by neighboring Albania. Both countries see joining the 27-nation bloc as a means of securing stability and prosperity in an increasingly unstable world. The EU prospects of the Western Balkan countries gained increased attention in the wake of the bloc's efforts to bring Ukraine closer following the Russian invasion.

WHAT IS THE FRENCH PROPOSAL?

France held the rotating EU presidency between January and June and so has been deeply involved in negotiations to break the deadlock. EU leaders held a summit with Western Balkan nations last month, during the same week they made Ukraine and Moldova candidates for EU membership.

French President Emmanuel Macron hoped to present unblocking the EU bids of North Macedonia and Albania as a major success. On Thursday, the French Embassy in Skopje posted a message from Macron.

Once again, North Macedonia has reached a crucial moment in its history. Seventeen years after receiving candidate status, a historic opportunity has opened: . The choice is yours, he said.

Macron's proposal envisages concessions from both sides. The government in Skopje would commit to changing its constitution to recognize a Bulgarian minority, protect minority rights and banish hate speech.

The French leader stressed the proposal doesn't question the official existence of a Macedonian language, but he noted that, like all deals, it rests on compromises and on a balance.

HOW WAS THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED?

The compromises in the French proposal led to rifts in both countries.

Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov's centrist government was toppled in a no-confidence vote on June 22. A junior governing partner quit the fragile four-party coalition, describing Petkov's willingness to lift the veto of North Macedonia as a national betrayal. An early election could result in a stronger presence in parliament of nationalist and pro-Russia lawmakers.

The National Assembly already has approved the proposal, but legislators set additional conditions for agreeing to North Macedonia's EU membership. They included proper constitutional protection for Bulgarians living in North Macedonia, and no assumption that Bulgaria would recognize Macedonian as a separate language from Bulgarian.

In North Macedonia, both President Stevo Pendarovski and the government of Prime Minister Dimitar Kovacevsk backed the proposal as a reasonable compromise. Accepting it will be neither a historic triumph, as one camp would call it, nor a historic failure or debacle, as those in the other camp say, Pendarovski said.

The government has stressed the proposal does not endanger national interests or identity. But the center-right main opposition party, the VMRO-DPMNE, as well as others, disagree, saying the deal favors Bulgarian demands that question North Macedonia's history, language, identity, culture and heritage.

Biljana Vankovska, a law professor at the Saint Cyril and Methodius University's Institute for Security, Defense and Peace, slammed the French proposal as bowing to the nationalistic and chauvinistic demands of Bulgaria.

It is unbelievable that a small nation was asked to give up its language, history and constitution-making powers to external powers in order to start the EU accession process, she said.

Political analyst Albert Musliu, head of the Association for Democratic Initiatives think tank, argued the proposal offers North Macedonia a chance to start membership talks with the EU.

If you ask me whether it is fair, then yes, the proposal is unfair, but international order is not based on fairness, he said.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Bulgaria has accepted the French proposal, which now requires the backing of North Macedonia's parliament. The text is now at committee level in parliament. No plenary session has been scheduled.

___

Toshkov reported from Sofia, Bulgaria. Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed

___

Follow AP's coverage of the European Union at https://apnews.com/hub/european-union

FILE - People wave the old and current national flags during a protest in front of the government building in Skopje, North Macedonia, Saturday, July 2, 2022. Nightly protests in North Macedonia over the past week have left dozens injured. At the heart of the turmoil is the small Balkan country's long-running quest to join the European Union, a process that has faced one hurdle after the other. (AP Photo/Boris Grdanoski, File)

FILE - People light flares and throw eggs and stones on the foreign ministry building during a protest in Skopje, North Macedonia, late Tuesday, July 5, 2022. Nightly protests in North Macedonia over the past week have left dozens injured. At the heart of the turmoil is the small Balkan country's long-running quest to join the European Union, a process that has faced one hurdle after the other. (AP Photo/Boris Grdanoski, File)

FILE - People protest in front of the parliament building in Skopje, North Macedonia, late Tuesday, July 5, 2022. Nightly protests in North Macedonia over the past week have left dozens injured. At the heart of the turmoil is the small Balkan country's long-running quest to join the European Union, a process that has faced one hurdle after the other. (AP Photo/Boris Grdanoski, File)

FILE - Police confront protesters near the parliament building in Skopje, North Macedonia, late Tuesday, July 5, 2022. Nightly protests in North Macedonia over the past week have left dozens injured. At the heart of the turmoil is the small Balkan country's long-running quest to join the European Union, a process that has faced one hurdle after the other. (AP Photo/Boris Grdanoski, File)

FILE - People enter a tunnel while marching through a street during a protest in Skopje, North Macedonia, Wednesday, July 6, 2022. Nightly protests in North Macedonia over the past week have left dozens injured. At the heart of the turmoil is the small Balkan country's long-running quest to join the European Union, a process that has faced one hurdle after the other. (AP Photo/Boris Grdanoski, File)

Read the original post:
EXPLAINER: North Macedonia: ? thorny road to the EU - The Durango Herald

On 28 June 2022, the Council of the European Union adopted its negotiating position on the draft Regulation which would ban the import and export of six core agricultural commodities to and from the European Union where these products have been linked to deforestation.

The policy driver is the belief1 that ending deforestation is a necessary condition of achieving net zero (negating greenhouse gases, such as carbon and methane, produced by human activity), delivering benefits for all. The commodities in question are beef, soya, palm oil, coffee, cocoa and timber and derived products such as leather, chocolate and furniture.

In November 2021, we published a briefing in which we set out the background and details of the draft Regulation (Regulation) proposed by the European Commission (Commission). We also provided an analysis of the likely implications of the Regulation and future developments in this area.

The Regulation is now at the first reading stage and the Council of the European Union (EU Council) adopted its negotiating position on 28 June 2022. In this article we outline the proposed changes brought about by the EU Councils negotiating position, the considerations that businesses should take into account and the likely next steps.

EU Council position

The EU Council press release2, released on 28 June 2022, confirms that it has now adopted its negotiating position (general approach) on the Regulation. This includes mandatory due diligence rules for all operators and traders who place, make available or export the six core agricultural commodities to and from the European Union (EU) beef, soya, palm oil, coffee, cocoa and timber and derived products such as leather, chocolate and furniture.

The EU Council has simplified and clarified the due diligence system to avoid duplication of obligations and reduce the administrative burden for operators and member states authorities. It has also added the possibility for small operators to rely on larger operators to prepare due diligence declarations. In addition, it has proposed a benchmarking system, which would assign EU member states and third countries a risk category (high, standard or low) depending on that countrys deforestation risk profile. The EU Council has confirmed that this would result in enhanced monitoring for high-risk countries and simplified due diligence for low-risk countries. The EU Council has also clarified the control obligations and set quantified objectives of minimum control levels for standard- and high-risk countries.

The proposed text on penalties and enhanced cooperation with partner countries was maintained. In terms of other changes, the EU Council responded to concerns by heavily forested EU member states that the definition of forest degradation in the Commission proposal, as defined in Article 2, was too broad by amending the definition. The EU Council therefore narrowed the scope of the definition to read as follows: forest degradation means structural changes to forest cover, taking the form of the conversion of primary forests into plantation forests or into other wooded land in place of the previous version: harvesting operations that are not sustainable. The EU Council also included references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The changes adopted by the EU Council are perhaps most notable for what they have not included, than what they have included. The scope of relevant commodities, as defined in Article 2, has not been increased except insofar as to amend the detailed list of specific products in the annex3. This has received criticism from some campaigners, who believe that the Regulation should go further to cover more commodities, including rubber, and to close loopholes which they claim allow banks to finance deforestation4.

Other campaigners argue that the Regulation offers insufficient protection to indigenous communities and that it has as many holes as a Swiss cheese5. One argument raised by the environment ministers of some countries is that the Regulation is too narrow and that the definition of forest degradation that has been amended by the EU Council should be expanded to cover other ecosystems and also secondary forests6. In the adopted general approach, the EU Council emphasised the importance of assessing the need and feasibility of extending this scope to other commodities and ecosystems in the first review of the text within two years; the preparatory work for that review is due to start as soon as the text enters into force. It also highlights that the expansion of the forest degradation definition will have to be addressed in the first review of the text7.

The simplified due diligence procedure has been criticised by some environmentalists who believe that it will leave loopholes to exploit8. For instance, some environmentalists have argued that the same strict requirements should be universally applied, to prevent goods being laundered through low-risk countries9.

The EU Council has maintained the Commissions proposal to require traceability information for all volumes sourced by operators. Geolocation and traceability requirements are a core part of the Regulation. In practice, commentators indicate that would require mapping farms with precise GPS coordinates, checking that against evidence of deforestation using satellite images, inspecting the fields, tracing products digitally from farm to factory and putting in place deforestation risk assessment and mitigation measures. This may raise challenges for commodities such as palm oil where mills typically process fruit from a number of different farms which they blend. In addition, collecting geolocation data of smallholders and co-operatives could raise significant challenges.

Other concerns relating to the EUs traceability plans have been raised by industry associations including COCERAL, FEDIOL and FEFAC10. They have argued that the traceability requirements, which have been included as part of the operators risk assessment, impose an obligation on the operator to consider the risk of mixing with products of unknown origin or produced in areas where deforestation or forest degradation has occurred or is occurring. They claim that the separation of verified and non-verified products will have a disruptive effect on supply chains and would also require the building of new infrastructure. This could have the potential to undermine existing deforestation efforts in high-risk countries as operators switch to more low-risk areas11. Whilst these plans have the potential to be costly, they have received support from some NGOs12.

One further proposed change that was made was to amend the applicable timeline contained within the definition of deforestation-free from 31 December 2020 to 31 December 202113. Importers should therefore consider that the qualification of deforestation-free products applies for land not deforested since 31 December 2021 and not the original date of 31 December 2020. Whilst this imposes less of a retrospective obligation on importers, and would likely be welcomed by importers for that reason, it would still be necessary to undertake a retrospective analysis of land producing the relevant commodities.

Next Steps

The Regulation will now commence the next stage of the legislative process and will have its first reading in the European Parliament. The European Parliament is expected to adopt its position on the Regulation in the plenary session on 12 September 2022, before engaging in further discussions with the EU Council14 in the latter stages of 2022 to agree the final text.

As we stated in our first briefing15, if approval is obtained, the Regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The main provisions of the Regulation will apply 18 months from the entry into force of the Regulation.

Originally posted here:
An update: European Union draft law seeking to ban imports and exports of commodities from regions at risk of deforestation - Lexology

Approximately a year ago, August 2021, Dr Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) wrote an opinion article in which he rhetorically asked What Would Happen to the World Without the United States. That article was and still is an informative and thought provoking. It offers an insight into the need for global cooperation, peace and solidarity. It brings into memory the Communist slogans: the world without nuclear, peace and development, friendship and international solidarity.

After the historic fall of the Soviet era, Russia really dreamed of raising its status by joining international organizations. Over the past three decades, it became a member of many global bodies, participating actively at the United Nations. In addition, Russia, however, created the Greater Eurasia Union, BRICS a group of states comprising Brazil, India, China and South Africa and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). With the changes taking place, Russia has exited some of the foreign organizations including, Group of Eight (G-8), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). There are currently hot debates whether to let it go out of the Group of Twenty (G-20).

Reports have categorically stressed that the course of events is becoming irreversible. According to one report: Russia does not intend to tolerate the subversive actions carried out by the collective West towards setting up a rules-based order to replace international law trampled upon by the United States and its satellites. But today we are close to the beginning of nuclear war. The worlds economy has been shattered, with skyrocketing prices, defficit in supplies of oil and gas to some parts of the world. The world has all the untapped natural resources to make people lives sustainable, but now an estimated half of the global population is under unbearable fear and strain, majority struggling to make a living.

Rather this article seeks to focus specifically on Russia and the world. We attempt to imagine What Happens to Russias World Without the United States and Europe. Relations have soared these few years and almost at the verge of collapse completely. Another Cold war indeed, reminiscent of the previous ideological confrontation between the East and the West. We imagine Russia today without the two powers; the United States and Europe.

What Would Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe? In his article published on RIAC website last August 2021, Dr Andrey Kortunov, the Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) offered the definition or the descrption of the United States as often referred to as an indispensable nation.

The term was first used in January 1997 by President Bill Clinton during his second inaugural address. And thereafter, Madeleine Albright would mention it in her speeches and writings on numerous occasions after that. The underlying idea of indispensability here is that it suggests it would simply be impossible to maintain even relative order in the world let alone resolve fundamental global and regional issues without the United States. It is likely no coincidence that the coinage came about and gained traction at a time when we were living in an almost completely unipolar world, when U.S. influence and authority around the globe had risen to never-before-seen heights over an incredibly short period of time, he wrote in his article.

The situation is now evolving differently and how indispensable are the United States and Europe. Can we do, due to due to some circumstances, without them today? Russia, over the past few months exited out of a number of international organizations, and therefore moving into self-isolation. Russia globe-trotting to make alliances against the United States and Europe. It leads new alliance for creating a new world political and economic order. But, what would happen to Russia if the Federation Council and the State Duma legislate to prohibit the use of Western and European languages, for instance English and French, due to the absolute hatred for these two regions hegemony. What if Russia has to prohibit the use of English, especially in its educational institutions, throughout the Russian Federation.

Russia-Europe-United States cultural and educational cooperation have ultimately collapsed. It has crippled and ridiculed the work with civil society. Russia has closed the British Council, the American Educational Council with its Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) programme, and Alliance Franaise and Geothe Institute. These are the largest cultural networks of Britain, the United States, France and Germany. While Russia struggles with its own non-profit NGO Russkiy Mir primarily tasked to popularize Russian language, literature and Russian culture around the world, it found it necessary to halt non-political and non-profit educational branches of western ones that operated under their diplomatic missions in the Russian Federation.

The FLEX programme, created as the best way to ensure long-lasting peace and mutual understanding between the U.S. and the countries of Eurasia, enables young people, over 35,000 students who compete annually, to learn about the United States, and to teach Americans about their countries, mostly from the former Soviet republics. These educational and cultural centers have practically helped thousands of Russian students, with government-sponsored grants, to acquire comparative knowledge in various academic fields abroad. While some, after the training programmes, still remain abroad, others returned to contribute their quota in sustainable development in Russia.

What Would Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe? The United States corporate business engagement is simply not comparable to Russias economic footprints in the United States. On April 29, 2021, President Vladimir Putin held videoconference with leaders of several corporate French companies-members of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI France-Russia) to discuss some aspects of Russian-French trade, economic and investment cooperation, including the implementation of large joint projects as well as the prospects for collaborative work in the Russian Federation.

From the historical records, France has been and remains a key economic partner for Russia, holding the 6th place among the EU countries (European Union is made up of 27 member-countries) in the amount of accumulated investment in the Russian economy and 5th place in the volume of trade. Over 500 companies with French capital are operating in various sectors of the Russian economy. Despite a certain decline in mutual trade in 2020, the ultimate figure quite acceptable at US$13 billion. French investment in Russia is hovering around US$17 billion, while Russian investment in France is only US$3 billion.

There are EU countries such as Britain, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Spain playing significant economic role in Russia. Their level of business are far higher than Russia in Europe. Undeniably, Russia is only an energy supplier, but its economic involvement is comparatively little. Many Western and EU companies are suspending their business operations. The Kremlin and Russian authorities say the United States and European Union bloc are taking systematic and well-thought-out measures to destabilize the economy of Russia. Several systematic, very serious measures corresponding to the extraordinary unfriendly conditions that were placed upon us by unfriendly actions (of other countries), well thought out measures, are being taken, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov, said during one of his media conferences.

United Russia the largest political party in Russia, which supports President Putins policies has proposed to nationalization of the enterprises of those Western companies that refused to operate in the Russian Federation. On March 7, Secretary of United Russias General Council Andrey Turchak said that the state legislative commission approved the initiative providing for the possibility of nationalizing the property of foreign corporations leaving the Russian market.

On the other hand, Dr Kortunov proposed to take a thought experiment: imagine if the United States were to completely depart from world politics, break all the international agreements to which Washington is a party, renounce all the obligations the country has undertaken, withdraw from all global and regional organizations, close the borders, shut down the embassies and consulates, freeze immigration and put all communication with the outside world on hold until things are looking better, focusing all its attention on building its biblical shining city upon a hill.

Dr Kortunovs question: What Would Happen to the World if the United States were erased from the map? To begin with, there would only be one nuclear superpower left in the world, and that would be Russia. Accordingly, the last foundations of bilateral U.S.Russia strategic arms control will collapse. It is unlikely that other nuclear powers would be particularly interested in entering into negotiations with Moscow on nuclear weapons, as the gap between Russia and all the other players is simply too great. It is even less likely that Moscow will agree to relinquish its unique nuclear advantage over the rest of the world. However, unconditional nuclear superiority does not automatically mean that Moscow would be able to freely dictate its will in global politics. The nuclear arsenals of other countries would continue to be effective deterrence instruments, and a war between the members of the nuclear club would be just as implausible as it is today.

That said, nuclear proliferation is likely to significantly aggravate. In the absence of the extended deterrence of the United States, many of its former allies and partners would think about acquiring nuclear weapons of their own. This primarily implies countries in East Asia (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt). The idea of building up a nuclear arsenal may also take hold in Germany. Some five or six new nuclear powers could appear in short order.

While it is unlikely that nuclear proliferation in East Asia would lead to a sharp escalation of military and political risks, the emergence of new nuclear states in the Middle East would be fraught with dire consequences both for the region and for the international community as a whole. That said, we should acknowledge that the threat of nuclear proliferation exists even today, and this can in large part be put down to the approach of the United States to resolving issues related to the Iranian nuclear programme.

The question is: Would NATO be able to Survive in a World Without the United States? Theoretically, yes, but only if the European great powers the United Kingdom, Germany and France put the maximum political, economic and military effort into it. The remaining countries in the bloc will have to increase their defence contributions by more than the two per cent on which Washington insists today to some four or five per cent. Even this, though, would not offset the losses that NATO would incur as a result of the U.S. withdrawal. Without American leadership, NATO would likely turn into a regional military and political instrument of the European Union while Londons role in the organization would be unclear seeing as it is no longer in the EU and NATO would have a far more modest role in world affairs than it has today. Without the United States, it is unlikely that NATO would continue to pursue its current global ambitions, and the remaining members may be rather reluctant to endlessly expand the organizations zone of geographic responsibility.

In a world without the United States, China would almost automatically become the undisputed leader in global technology. Although Europe, Japan, India and Southeast Asian nations would likely have greater incentive to join forces to challenge Chinas hegemony in this area. With this in mind, it is hard to say whether it would be possible to create a global technological ecosystem that would be independent of Beijing without the United States. This would largely depend on how rigid or flexible Beijings hegemony would actually turn out to be as well as on the extent to which China would manage to avoid monopolizing the new technologies that are fundamental to the global community at large.

Dr Kortunov wrote that the euro would inevitably become the main reserve currency once the dollar exits the global financial system. The Chinese yuan is not entirely convertible, which means that it would be a long time before China could compete with the European Union in the financial sphere. Other global currencies such as the British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc could gain in importance. European and Asian financial centres (London, Frankfurt, Shanghai, Singapore, etc.) would receive additional powerful incentives for development.

International financial institutions (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund), where the United States has traditionally played a leading role, would undergo sweeping and likely very painful reforms. As a sidenote, we shall argue that the United Nations would also suffer a profound institutional crisis, losing both its current headquarters in New York and approximately 22 per cent of its base budget, as well as the U.S. contributions to individual UN departments and programmes. The Arctic Council would suffer less, as the American sector of the Arctic is far smaller than that of Russia and Canada. What is more, the United States has not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which somewhat complicates Washingtons position in the Arctic Council.

The absence of the United States on the worlds energy markets could lead to a temporary revival of OPEC and a strengthening of Russias positions. The green and shale revolutions will continue unabated, however. Washingtons departure from the global arms and foodstuff markets would also result in a significant restructuring of these markets. Even with the joint efforts of the remaining players, the gap left by the United States in the arms market would be extremely difficult to fill.

With Hollywood no longer the centre of the global film industry, cities that used to hold that position -primarily Paris and Rome would have the chance to revive their former cinematic glory. However, European filmmakers would face tough competition on the global entertainment market from filmmakers of Indian and, in particular, Chinese origin The disappearance of New York from world fashion would give a second wind to Paris and Milan, while the United Kingdom would probably become the centre of musical life for a long time to come.

According to Dr Kortunov, the departure of Apple and its iPhones and MacBooks from the portable electronics markets would create a vacuum that a dozen of the biggest electronics giants in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan would fight to fill. Americas self-imposed isolation would send shockwaves through higher education and science markets globally to reverberate for decades to come.

Quite naturally, the world would not lapse. It would survive the departure of the United States just like it survived the extinction of the dinosaurs and woolly mammoths. It would be difficult and extremely uncomfortable at first, especially for those international players who have been hiding in the shadow of the American superpower for decades. The withdrawal of the United States would lead to a number of crises and conflicts and a long period of instability and uncertainty as the struggle for the American legacy would inevitably be long and tense. Somehow, we would still get through it! Plus, the world already had a preview of Washington as an unpredictable and unreliable partner during Donald Trumps presidency. It will actually be easier to resolve certain problems without Washington, since the U.S. is often part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

According to Dr Kortunov, the world would miss the United States. We would miss the American optimism, the American energy and the American drive. We would miss the high-rise buildings of Manhattan, the narrow streets of the French Quarter in New Orleans and the expansive prairies of the Great Plains. We would miss the country music, the Chicago-style steaks and the Californian nutmeg chardonnay. We would miss Halloween, Thanksgiving and, perhaps, Independence Day. Just like the entire world would miss Russia, Argentina, Ethiopia and New Zealand. Every single country is unique and indispensable in its own way. In this sense, the United States truly is an indispensable nation, he asserted in his conclusion.

European Russia accounts for about 75% of Russias total population. But demographical documents further indicate that 1.8 million Russians live in the European Union (majority in Britain, Germany and France), 1.3 million Russians live in the United States (majority in New York and Washington) and in Canada. Both the United States and Canada, and European Union have provided better living conditions for Russians more than for American, Canadian and European citizens (in fact very small number) who live in the Russian Federation.

But then, the rhetorical questions are: What Would Really Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe? Can Russia lead the emerging global economic order? Is Russia ready to support developing countries where the United States and Europe have failed? Is Moscow a financial hub and host to international organizations representation offices as in New York and Washington? Can Russia turn into superpower with hegemony characteristics, and provide the same conditions for foreigners like the United States and Europe? Is this the end of Russians American and European Dream?

Dr Andrey Kortunovs distinctive question is: What Would Happen to the World Without the United States? Special gratitude for food-for-thought and thought-provoking question from Dr Andrey Kortunov, the Director General of RIAC. The Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) is a non-profit academic and diplomatic think tank that was established in February 2010. The RIAC makes strengthening peace, friendship and solidarity its direction of activities, and works closely with the state, academic community, business, and civil society in an effort to find foreign policy solutions to complex diverse issues.

Read this article:
What Would Happen To Russia Without The United States And Europe? OpEd - Eurasia Review

Thursday, July 7th 2022 - 09:54 UTC This is a big step forward that illustrates our ambitions towards the climate and biodiversity, said French Energy Transition ministeer, Agns Pannier-Runacher.

The European Council, the body that sets the political agenda of the European Union (EU), agreed on a proposal to limit the entry and trade of commodities where production has contributed to deforestation or forest degradation worldwide.

The agreement sets rules for operators who work with palm oil, beef, wood, coffee, cocoa, and soybeans, as well as certain derivatives such as leather, chocolate, and furniture.

We must ensure that the products we consume in Europe do not contribute to the depletion of the planets forests. The innovative text we have adopted will make it possible to fight deforestation in the EU and outside it. This is a big step forward that illustrates our ambitions towards the climate and biodiversity, said French Minister for Energy Transition, Agns Pannier-Runacher.

According to the European Council, EU political leaders also agreed to simplify and clarify the environmental due diligence system that governs commodity market activity. A comparative assessment system was also adopted, classifying the risk of deforestation for specific productions into three levels.

Other measures agreed on were regarding EU emissions trading system, emissions and removals from land use, land-use change, and forestry, the creation of a social climate fund (SCF) and new CO2 emission performance standards for cars and vans.

Among the most eye-catching measures are the addition of maritime shipping in the EU emissions trading system (ETS), the creation of a new, separate emissions trading system for the buildings and road transport sectors, the allocated 59 billion for the SCF, the overall objective to remove 310 million tons of CO2 equivalent by improving land and forestry use, and the end of the sale of combustion-engine cars by 2035.

Frans Timmermans, the Commission's Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, told reporters that it is a very good day for the European Green Deal, and a very good day for the European Union.

Read this article:
European Union gets tough on trade affecting deforestation and forest degradation - MercoPress

GAITHERSBURG, Md., July 5, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Novavax,Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX), a biotechnology company dedicated to developing and commercializing next-generation vaccines for serious infectious diseases, today announced that the European Commission (EC) has approved the expanded conditional marketing authorization (CMA) of Nuvaxovid (NVX-CoV2373) COVID-19 vaccine in the European Union (EU) for adolescents aged 12 through 17. The approval follows the positive recommendation made by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use on June 23, 2022.

"With this authorization, we are extremely pleased to be able to offer our Nuvaxovid COVID-19 vaccine to adolescents in the EU," said Stanley C. Erck, President and Chief Executive Officer, Novavax. "Our protein-based vaccine was developed using an innovative approach to traditional technology and has demonstrated efficacy and safety in both adolescents and adults."

The authorization was based on data from the ongoing pediatric expansionof PREVENT-19, a pivotal Phase 3 trial of 2,247 adolescents aged 12 through 17 years across 73 sites in the U.S., to evaluate the safety, effectiveness (immunogenicity), and efficacy of Nuvaxovid. In the trial, Nuvaxovid achieved its primary effectiveness endpoint and demonstrated 80% clinical efficacy overall at a time when the Delta variant was the predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 strain in the U.S.

Preliminary safety data from the trial showed the vaccine to be generally well-tolerated. Serious and severe adverse events were low in number and balanced between vaccine and placebo groups, and not considered related to the vaccine. Local and systemic reactogenicity was generally lower than or similar to adults, after the first and second dose. The most common adverse reactions observed were injection site tenderness/pain, headache, myalgia, fatigue, and malaise. There was no increase in reactogenicity in younger (12 to <15 years old) adolescents compared to older (15 to <18 years old) adolescents. No new safety signal was observed through the placebo-controlled portion of the study.

The EC granted CMA for Nuvaxovid to prevent COVID-19 in individuals aged 18 and over in December 2021. In addition to the EC's expanded CMA, Indiahas granted emergency use authorization in the 12 through 17 year-old population.

Authorization in the U.S.

NVX-CoV2373 has not yet been authorized for use in the U.S. and the trade name Nuvaxovid has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Important Safety Information

For additional information on Nuvaxovid, please visit the following websites:

About NVX-CoV2373NVX-CoV2373 is a protein-based vaccine engineered from the genetic sequence of the first strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease. The vaccine was created using Novavax' recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike (S) protein and is formulated with Novavax' patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant to enhance the immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies. NVX-CoV2373 contains purified protein antigen and can neither replicate, nor can it cause COVID-19.

The Novavax COVID-19 vaccine is packaged as a ready-to-use liquid formulation in a vial containing ten doses. The vaccination regimen calls for two 0.5 ml doses (5 mcg antigen and 50 mcg Matrix-M adjuvant) given intramuscularly 21 days apart. The vaccine is stored at 2- 8 Celsius, enabling the use of existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels. Use of the vaccine should be in accordance with official recommendations.

Novavax has established partnerships for the manufacture, commercialization and distribution of NVX-CoV2373 worldwide. Existing authorizations leverage Novavax' manufacturing partnership with Serum Institute of India, the world's largest vaccine manufacturer by volume. They will later be supplemented with data from additional manufacturing sites throughout Novavax' global supply chain.

About the NVX-CoV2373 Phase 3 TrialsNVX-CoV2373 continues being evaluated in two pivotal Phase 3 trials.

PREVENT-19 (thePRE-fusion protein subunitVaccineEfficacyNovavaxTrial | COVID-19) is a 2:1 randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of NVX-CoV2373 with Matrix-M adjuvant in 29,960 participants 18 years of age and over in 119 locations inthe U.S.andMexico. The primary endpoint for PREVENT-19 was the first occurrence of PCR-confirmed symptomatic (mild, moderate or severe) COVID-19 with onset at least seven days after the second dose in serologically negative (to SARS-CoV-2) adult participants at baseline. The statistical success criterion included a lower bound of 95% CI >30%. A secondary endpoint was the prevention of PCR-confirmed, symptomatic moderate or severe COVID-19. Both endpoints were assessed at least seven days after the second study vaccination in volunteers who had not been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. In the trial, NVX-CoV2373 achieved 90.4% efficacy overall. It was generally well-tolerated and elicited a robust antibody response after the second dose in both studies. Full results of the trial were published in theNew England Journal of Medicine(NEJM).

The pediatric expansion of PREVENT-19 is a 2:1 randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 with Matrix-M adjuvant in 2,247 adolescent participants 12 to 17 years of age in 73 locations in the United States, compared with placebo. In the pediatric trial, NVX-CoV2373 achieved its primary effectiveness endpoint (non-inferiority of the neutralizing antibody response compared to young adult participants 18 through 25 years of age from PREVENT-19) and demonstrated 80% efficacy overall at a time when the Delta variant of concern was the predominant circulating strain in the U.S.Additionally, immune responses were about two-to-three-fold higher in adolescents than in adults against all variants studied.

PREVENT-19 is being conducted with support from the U.S. government, including the Department of Defense, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health at HHS. BARDA is providing up to$1.75 billionunder a Department of Defense agreement (# MCDC2011-001).

Additionally, a trial conducted in the U.K. with 14,039 participants aged 18 years and over was designed as a randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded study and achieved overall efficacy of 89.7%. The primary endpoint was based on the first occurrence of PCR-confirmed symptomatic (mild, moderate or severe) COVID-19 with onset at least seven days after the second study vaccination in serologically negative (to SARS-CoV-2) adult participants at baseline. Full results of the trial were published inNEJM.

About Matrix-M AdjuvantNovavax' patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant has demonstrated a potent and well-tolerated effect by stimulating the entry of antigen-presenting cells into the injection site and enhancing antigen presentation in local lymph nodes, boosting immune response.

About NovavaxNovavax, Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX) is a biotechnology company that promotes improved health globally through the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative vaccines to prevent serious infectious diseases. The company's proprietary recombinant technology platform harnesses the power and speed of genetic engineering to efficiently produce highly immunogenic nanoparticles designed to address urgent global health needs. NVX-CoV2373, the company's COVID-19 vaccine, has received conditional authorization from multiple regulatory authorities globally, including the European Commission and the World Health Organization. The vaccine is currently under review by multiple regulatory agencies worldwide and will soon be under review in the U.S. for use in adults, adolescents and as a booster. In addition to its COVID-19 vaccine, Novavax is also currently evaluating a COVID-seasonal influenza combination vaccine candidate in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial, which combines NVX-CoV2373 and NanoFlu*, its quadrivalent influenza investigational vaccine candidate, and is also evaluating an Omicron strain-based vaccine (NVX-CoV2515) as well as a bivalent Omicron-based / original strain-based vaccine. These vaccine candidates incorporate Novavax' proprietary saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant to enhance the immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies.

For more information, visitwww.novavax.comand connect with us on LinkedIn.

*NanoFlu identifies a recombinant hemagglutinin (HA) protein nanoparticle influenza vaccine candidate produced by Novavax. This investigational candidate was evaluated during a controlled phase 3 trial conducted during the 2019-2020 influenza season.

Forward-Looking StatementsStatements herein relating to the future of Novavax, its operating plans and prospects, its partnerships, the timing of clinical trial results, the ongoing development of NVX-CoV2373, a COVID-seasonal influenza investigational vaccine candidate, the scope, timing and outcome of future regulatory filings and actions, including Novavax' plans to supplement existing authorizations with data from the additional manufacturing sites in Novavax' global supply chain, additional worldwide authorizations of NVX-CoV2373 for adolescents, the potential impact and reach of Novavax and NVX-CoV2373 in addressing vaccine access, controlling the pandemic and protecting populations, and the efficacy, safety and intended utilization of NVX-CoV2373 are forward-looking statements. Novavax cautions that these forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. These risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, challenges satisfying, alone or together with partners, various safety, efficacy, and product characterization requirements, including those related to process qualification and assay validation, necessary to satisfy applicable regulatory authorities; difficulty obtaining scarce raw materials and supplies; resource constraints, including human capital and manufacturing capacity, on the ability of Novavax to pursue planned regulatory pathways; challenges meeting contractual requirements under agreements with multiple commercial, governmental, and other entities; and those other risk factors identified in the "Risk Factors" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" sections of Novavax' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We caution investors not to place considerable reliance on forward-looking statements contained in this press release. You are encouraged to read our filings with the SEC, available at http://www.sec.gov and http://www.novavax.com, for a discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements in this press release speak only as of the date of this document, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of the statements. Our business is subject to substantial risks and uncertainties, including those referenced above. Investors, potential investors, and others should give careful consideration to these risks and uncertainties.

Contacts:InvestorsAlex Delacroix | 240-268-2022[emailprotected]

MediaAli Chartan | 240-720-7804[emailprotected]

SOURCE Novavax, Inc.

More:
Novavax Nuvaxovid COVID-19 Vaccine Conditionally Authorized in the European Union for Adolescents Aged 12 Through 17 - PR Newswire