European Union

Despite US-led attempts to broker peace, Russia has been shelling Ukraine with drones and missiles and Kyiv has blamed Moscow for deliberately stalling any peace efforts

NATO spokesperson Allison Hart called the event "yet another example of reckless Russian behaviour and NATO's ability to respond".

Brussels promises safety nets for farmers through the Common Agricultural Policy, the support feels inconsistent. And while you can just about mitigate for bad weather or a poor harvest; you can’t predict political indecision

Un atelier de formation des journalistes s'ouvre le lundi 22 septembre 2025 à Cotonou. L'initiative qui s'inscrit dans le cadre d'une convention entre la Haute autorité de l'audiovisuel et de la communication (HAAC), la Fondation Hirondelle mandatée par France Médias Monde et Radio France Internationale (RFI), vise à renforcer les capacités des professionnels des médias pour un traitement rigoureux, éthique et équilibré de l'information électorale pendant la période électorale.

Dans le cadre des élections couplées législatives et communales du 11 janvier 2026, suivies de l'élection présidentielle prévue pour le 12 avril (1er tour) et du scrutin de 2e tour prévu pour le 10 mai 2026, le renforcement des capacités des journalistes s'impose, en vue d'un meilleur traitement de l'information. La HAAC, appuyée par France Médias Monde et Radio France Internationale, organise dès lundi 22 septembre prochain, une session de formation en leur intention.
Ladite session selon les services de communications de la HAAC, marque le lancement d'un cycle de deux formations de cinq jours, organisées en deux groupes de 12 journalistes chacun, tous issus des radios partenaires de RFI au Bénin. Au total, 24 professionnels des médias, dont la majorité (22) vient de l'intérieur du pays, bénéficieront de cette initiative.
Des thématiques importantes telles que les obligations juridiques et déontologiques en période électorale ; les enjeux de la désinformation et des fake news ; la couverture de la campagne, des journées électorales et de l'annonce des résultats ; la sécurité des journalistes sur le terrain, ainsi que le contentieux électoral seront abordées au cours de la session qui sera animée par Magali Lagrange, journaliste au service Afrique de RFI.
Les participants à cette session de formation bénéficieront également d'une présentation générale du cadre juridique, des étapes du processus électoral et des objectifs journalistiques en contexte électoral.
Selon une publication de la HAAC, le programme mettra l'accent sur les ateliers pratiques, allant de la production de micros-trottoirs à la simulation de la couverture d'un meeting politique, en passant par des exercices interactifs d'interviews et de débats. « Chaque journée abordera une phase clé du processus électoral, avec une attention particulière portée au respect du pluralisme, à l'équilibre des temps de parole, à la parole des femmes et des jeunes, et à la responsabilité sociale du journaliste », renseigne la publication.

F. A. A.

Charlie Weimers with EU flag and the Sweden Democrat’s party symbol, a bluebell.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

On September 11, Charlie Weimers, a Swedish Member of the European Parliament and active within the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, rose up during a Parliamentary session and asked for a minute of silence to honour the memory of Charlie Kirk, who the day before had been shot and killed during a political meeting at the Utah Valley University in the U.S.

“Madam President, dear colleagues, the murder of political activist Charlie Kirk, a husband, loving father and patriot has shocked the world. We must strongly condemn political violence and rhetoric that incites violence. Will you stand with me in reflection and prayer in his honour, and I yield the rest of my time for a moment of silence.”

Charlie Weimers began his political career as a member of the Swedish Chrisitan Democrat Party, but later switched to the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist, right-wing populist party, which in spite of efforts to tune it down finds its roots in Neo-Nazi fringe organizations. It is now Sweden’s second largest political party with more than 20 percent of the electorate behind it.

There is nothing wrong in condemning murder political violence and defend freedom of speech, but this cannot hinder us from scrutinizing who is canonized as a victim of radical aggression. Charlie Kirk was 33 years old when he was murdered, leaving a wife and two small children behind. He had admitted that when he in 2012 started Turning Point USA, which eventually would become a rich and powerful organization, he had “no money, no connections and no idea of what I was doing.” At that time, Kirk had dropped out of college and been rejected by The U.S. West Point Military Academy. Nevertheless, he had rhetorical gifts for countering progressive ideas, being sensitive about cultural tensions, and endowed with an aptitude for making provocative declarations that resonated with frustrated college audiences, who followed and agreed with his web postings. Kirk’s frequent college rallies eventually attracted tens of thousands of young voters, as well as the attention and financial support of conservative leaders. President Trump was not wrong when he declared that:

The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.

After his death Kirk has been praised for showing up at campuses where he talked with anyone who would approach him. Conservative journalists have declared him to be one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. Kirk’s message was readily embraced by youngsters who accepted his view that Democrats had spent hundreds of billions of dollars on illegal immigrants and foreign nations, while the young “lost generation” of the U.S. had to pinch their pennies, but would not be able to own a home, never marry, and even be forced to work until they died, abused and childless. However, he also gave them hope, telling these unfortunate youngsters that they did not have to stay poor and accept being worse off than their parents. They just had to avoid supporting corrupt political leaders, who were lying to them only to take advantage of their votes. Kirk assured his young audience that it is an undeniable fact that cultural identity is disappearing, while sexual anarchy, crime and decadence reign unabated, private property is a thing of the past, and a ruling “liberal” class controls everything. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was probably right when she said that Kirk had inspired millions of young people “to get involved in politics and fight for our nation’s conservative values.”

Kirk allied his Turning Point USA not to any poor radical fringe groups, but to conservative, wealthy donors and influencers. He preached a “Christian Message” well adapted to several members of such groups, declaring that Turning Point USA was dedicated to “recruiting pastors and other church leaders to be active in local and national political issues.”

Kirk fervently defended the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed “, declaring that it was worth “a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can keep a Second Amendment which protect our other God-given rights”.

However, Kirk was not happy about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed “discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in employment, education, and public accommodations.” He stated that the Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake” and declared that if the majority of Americans were asked if they respected the Civil Rights Act the answer would have been a “no”. Adding the caveat that “I could be wrong, but I think I’m right.”

Undoubtedly, there was a racist ingredient in Kirk’s ideology. He did for example state that the concept of white privilege was a myth and a “racist lie”. In October 2021, he launched an Exposing Critical Racism Tour to numerous campuses and other institutions, to “combat racist theories”, by which he meant the propagation of an understanding of the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, social and political laws and mass media, all of which Kirk considered to be propaganda and an unfounded brainchild of liberal Democrats. He blamed the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programmes for threatening U.S. competitiveness and security, even claiming that upon sitting in a plane and realising that the pilot was “Black”, he could not help thinking “’Hey, I hope he’s qualified”.

Like most populist, “patriotic”, European right-wing political parties, not the least the Sweden Democrats, though they nowadays try to hide it more carefully than before, Kirk endorsed the so-called “great replacement theory”. This way of thinking assumes that powerful, nefarious actors, for some obscure reason, are trying to replace an upright indigenous, generally white-skinned population with immigrants of “doubtful” origin. Kirk did not even hesitate to state that Democrats supposedly wanted to make the U.S. “less white”.

Kirk also argued that humans have no significant effect on global climate change and joined antivax activists by, among other statements, calling the mandatory requirements for students to get the COVID-19 vaccine “medical apartheid”. Kirk was outspoken when it came to claim that Trump’s loss in the president elections of 2022 was due to fraud, supported the “stop the steal” movement and denied that the violent attacks on the Capitol were an insurrection.

Opposing political violence and supporting free speech does not mean that you have to sanctify a victim like Charlie Kirik, who after all was a racist and an incendiary agitator against underprivileged groups, as well as he degraded scientists who warned against climate change and vaccine denial. It is not defensible that such a voice, no matter how despicable it might be, is silenced by violence and murder. However, we cannot refrain from pointing out the great harm the kind of agitation Kirk devoted himself to can cause. As an educator, I have often been forced to experience how children suffer from racism and bigotry preached and condoned by influencers like Charlie Kirk. Accordingly, to sanctify such persons and tolerate their prejudiced ideology is hurtful and dangerous.

Furthermore, let us not be fooled by deceitful propaganda trying to convince us that Charlie Kirk’s so called “debates” were neither aggressive, nor mendacious. They were brutally provocative; opponents were shouted down, or belittled. The rhetoric was hateful, contempt was poured out over women, Black people, immigrants and Muslims, queer and trans people. Liberals were branded as enemies, science demeaned. And, yes – Charlie Kirk turned to young people, who felt frustrated, marginalized and despised, telling them that he wanted to give them hope and a will to fight injustice. But at what price? Based on what truth? Incitement to violence and contempt for humanity might be safeguarded in the name of free speech, but it should never be accepted and defended. It must be attacked through an unconstrained press based on facts, a well-founded science, and an unfaltering respect for human rights.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

"Sanctions" were the word of the week in Brussels, as the European Commission took a substantial step in pressuring Israel to desist from its brutal tactics in Gaza and, separately, unveiled its 19th round of sanctions against Russia

Swedish daily says Oslo's scheme could hit consumers' wallets

Written by Pieter Baert.

G7 statement

On 28 June 2025, the G7 issued a statement expressing a ‘shared understanding’ that the domestic and foreign profits of US-parented multinational groups would be excluded from the scope of Pillar Two, the OECD-G20 global minimum corporate tax framework. Instead, the G7 signalled readiness to work on a ‘side-by-side’ approach in which the US GILTI regime, its current minimum tax on foreign earnings of US parented groups – would co-exist with Pillar Two. The statement allowed for the withdrawal of proposed US retaliatory measures (‘section 899’) that had been included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

Reminder: Pillar Two applies a 15 % global minimum effective tax rate using a hierarchical rule order to ensure large multinational enterprises are taxed appropriately in each jurisdiction:

• 1. The Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-Up Tax (QDMTT) – Gives the local jurisdiction first claim to top up low-taxed domestic profits.
• 2. The Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) – The ultimate parent’s jurisdiction imposes a top-up tax on the local parent entity to make up for any remaining low-taxed profits of foreign entities.
• 3. The Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR) – If the IIR is not applied by the ultimate parent’s jurisdiction, the UTPR steps in as a backstop, with lower-tier jurisdictions imposing top-up taxes on local entities to make up for any remaining low-taxed profits in the parent jurisdiction or any other third jurisdiction.

Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523 introduced Pillar Two’s minimum tax rules in the EU.

Given the broad nature of the G7 statement, which speaks of ‘accepted principles’, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions at this stage. Based on its wording, a side-by-side approach – if endorsed by the OECD Inclusive Framework – could imply that non-US jurisdictions would not apply the UTPR to local entities of US-parented groups in respect of low-taxed profits arising in the US or in another jurisdiction that does not apply the QDMTT or the IIR. However, the statement does not explicitly clarify the specific terms of the exemption. For instance, it does not address how US intermediary parent entities within non-US multinational groups would be treated for minimum tax purposes, the potential creditability of the GILTI tax in relation to a jurisdiction’s QDMTT, or how the side-by-side approach would be defined in legislation.

NCTI and Pillar Two

As Pillar Two and the US’ GILTI (now called ‘NCTI’ under the OBBBA) operate on different principles and design features, it is difficult to assess to what extent the side-by-side approach could raise concerns about a level playing field or lead to base erosion and profit shifting among the multinational companies subject to each regime. Potential competitive disadvantages arise not only from differences in direct tax liabilities but also from the variations in the administrative and legal complexity of the respective regimes.

The OBBBA, signed into law in July 2025, introduced several adjustments allowing NCTI to more accurately reflect the real outcomes of Pillar Two. It increased the effective tax rate to 14 % (up from 13.125 %) and removed the carve-out for the Qualified Business Asset Investment (QBAI), thereby broadening the taxable base.

However, a key difference between the two systems remains: the ‘blending’ of income. Pillar Two requires corporate groups to meet a minimum level of tax in each jurisdiction where they operate (‘jurisdictional blending’), while the US’ NCTI allows income and foreign taxes to be blended across all foreign countries (‘global blending’). This way, low-taxed income can be offset with high-taxed income elsewhere and profits in some jurisdictions can be reduced by losses in others.

Table 1 – Key comparisons between OECD G20 Pillar Two and US NCTI

 OECD-G20 – Pillar TwoUS – NCTITax rate15 %14 %Tax baseBased on accounting incomeBased on US taxable incomeBlendingJurisdictional blendingGlobal blendingCarve-outsBased on payroll and tangible assets (SBIE)Payroll or tangible assets do not qualify for a carve-out

Note: The effective 14 % floor of NCTI results from the interaction of the 21 % US statutory corporate tax rate, the 60% inclusion of NCTI taxable income and the 90 % foreign tax credit limitation ((21 % * 60 %)/90 % = 14 %).

Additionally, the OBBA introduced broader corporate tax changes, such as permanent expensing for domestic R&D investments and a higher interest deductibility cap, to enhance US competitiveness.

Pillar One

The G7’s statement noted that the delivery of the side-by-side system ‘will facilitate further progress to stabilize the international tax system, including a constructive dialogue on the taxation of the digital economy’, referencing the negotiations on Pillar One. During the September 2025 plenary session, in response to questions from Members of the European Parliament on Pillar One and the prospects for a European digital services tax (DST), the European Commission acknowledged that Pillar One discussions were ‘on hold’ but could resume once a Pillar Two solution is reached. To give the OECD-led process space and time to deliver, the Commission stated that it does not intend to table a new proposal for a DST at this stage.

Several countries have already implemented or announced digital services taxes (DSTs), with revenues steadily increasing over time, showcasing the continuous growth of the digital economy. In 2023, Spain, Italy and France collectively generated €1.4 billion from their DSTs. However, estimating the revenue potential of an EU-wide DST would heavily depend on key design parameters, such as the definition of in-scope activities (the types of digital services or business activities that would fall under the tax), the applicable tax rate, and the revenue thresholds.

Table 2 – Revenue of DSTs, € million, 2019-2023

Revenue (€ million)20192020202120222023Spain  €166€295€323France€277€375€474€621€668Italy €233€303€394€434

Data source: Data on Taxation Trends – European Commission. All three countries apply a 3 % DST on turnover from online advertising, user data sales and digital platforms, with a €750 million global revenue threshold and varying domestic thresholds: €3 million (Spain), €25 million (France), and €5.5 million (Italy; lowered to €0 in 2025).

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Side by side? The future of Pillar Two minimum corporate tax rules‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The accusation comes after Poland last week complained that around 20 Russian drones overflew its territory

France warns new rules could worsen medicine shortages

The revelations put fresh pressure on how far the EU’s privacy law goes, and spark new worries for politicians, security staff, and everyday citizens

The president of the European Central Bank also called for more detail on the Commission proposal

Health Minister Sylvi Kirilov suggested further vaccines could be added, signalling broader reforms to Bulgaria’s immunisation programme

Debate comes as von der Leyen calls for tougher restrictions on minors' social media use

France, Germany and Spain are partners in the €100 billion fighter jet programme, though Spain and its lead contractor Indra have so far stayed out of the Franco-German dispute

Committees

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Activists say the lack of a concrete 2035 UN climate pledge by a deeply divided EU is an embarrassment

Julia Francisco Martínez stands at the graveside of her husband Juan, a Honduran Indigenous defender who was found murdered in 2015. Credit: Giles Clarke / Global Witness

By Umar Manzoor Shah
LONDON & SRINAGAR, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

At least 146 land and environmental defenders were murdered or forcibly disappeared in 2024 for standing up against powerful state and corporate interests, according to a new report released by Global Witness.

The findings, published under the title Roots of Resistance, expose a persistent global crisis that has claimed 2,253 lives since 2012, and show that violence against those protecting land, forests, and communities continues with little sign of justice.

Although the 2024 figure is lower than the 196 killings recorded in 2023, Global Witness cautions that this does not represent progress. Instead, it reflects chronic underreporting, difficulties in verifying cases in conflict zones, and a climate of fear that silences victims’ families and communities.

Latin America: The Epicenter of Attacks

The report shows that 82 percent of documented killings took place in Latin America. Colombia once again topped the global list, with 48 killings accounting for nearly a third of all cases worldwide. The victims were mostly community leaders, Indigenous defenders, and small-scale farmers confronting mining, agribusiness, and organized crime.

Despite government pledges of reform, Colombia’s weak state presence in former conflict zones has allowed armed groups and criminal networks to dominate. This has created a deadly environment for activists who resist environmental destruction.

Mexico followed with 19 cases, including 18 killings and one disappearance. It marked the second most lethal year for Mexican defenders in the past decade. Brazil recorded 12 killings, half of them small-scale farmers.

The most alarming rise was seen in Guatemala, where killings spiked from four in 2023 to 20 in 2024, giving the country the highest per capita murder rate for defenders worldwide. This escalation took place despite the election of President Bernardo Arévalo, who had promised to curb corruption and inequality.

“Eighty-two percent of recorded attacks in 2024 were in Latin America, where we have consistently seen the highest proportion of cases for over a decade,” said Laura Furones, Senior Advisor at Global Witness and one of the report’s authors, in an interview with Inter Press Service. “Killings were concentrated in four countries, which together accounted for around 70 percent of the murders: Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Brazil.”

According to Furones, Latin America’s rich natural resources, combined with strong civil society movements and widespread impunity, make it both a hotspot for extraction-related conflicts and for reporting of violence. “High levels of impunity mean there is little disincentive for violence to stop,” she said.

Who Are the Victims?

The report found clear patterns in who is most targeted. In 2024, 45 Indigenous defenders and 45 small-scale farmers were killed or disappeared. Together, they made up nearly two-thirds of all cases.

These killings are closely linked to profit-driven industries. Mining was identified as the deadliest sector, connected to 29 killings. Logging was tied to eight deaths, agribusiness to four. Organized crime was implicated in nearly a third of all attacks, often working with or tolerated by state forces.

State actors themselves, including police and military, were linked to 17 killings. In Colombia, only 5.2 percent of murders of social leaders since 2002 have been resolved in court, leaving the intellectual authors of the crimes almost untouched.
“Impunity fuels this cycle of violence,” the report notes. “Without justice, perpetrators feel emboldened to repeat attacks.”

Documenting Violence in Hostile Environments

Global Witness compiles its data through a systematic process of reviewing public information, analyzing datasets, and collaborating with local and regional organizations in more than 20 countries. Each case must be verified by credible sources with detailed information about the victim and the link to land or environmental defense.

Still, Furones acknowledged that many attacks go undocumented, particularly in authoritarian states, regions with limited civil society, or conflict zones. “These figures are likely underestimates,” she said.

Personal Stories Behind the Numbers

Beyond the statistics, the report highlights individual defenders whose struggles illustrate the human cost of the crisis.

In Nigeria, the Ekuri community has spent decades protecting one of West Africa’s last tropical rainforests. Activists like Louis Friday, Martins Egot, and Odey Oyama face threats from armed loggers and corrupt officials. Oyama was arrested in January 2025 by a masked police squad and charged with “promoting inter-communal war,” a crime that carries a life sentence. He says the charges are retaliation for his conservation work.

In Chile, 72-year-old Mapuche leader Julia Chufil disappeared in November 2024 while fighting to reclaim ancestral land from forestry companies. She had faced harassment and bribery offers for years. Her family, leading the search for her, say authorities have treated them as suspects rather than victims.

In Colombia, campesino leader Jani Silva has been under state protection for over a decade due to death threats tied to her defense of the Perla Amazónica Peasant Reserve. While protection measures have kept her alive, Silva describes them as isolating and burdensome, underscoring the inadequacy of current mechanisms.

Expanding Tactics of Repression

The report stresses that lethal attacks represent only the most visible form of violence. Defenders face a spectrum of threats including harassment, sexual violence, smear campaigns, and criminalization.

“Of particular concern is the rising trend of criminalization, as restrictive laws are increasingly enacted worldwide to make peaceful protest a crime,” Furones said.

She added that toxic anti-defender narratives, combined with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), further erode protections.

Authorities in several countries have adopted laws specifically targeting protestors, intensifying crackdowns on land and climate activists. “States are unwilling to protect those who stand up for rights,” Furones said. “Instead, they use the law as a weapon against them.”

A Global Failure of Protection
The report warns that international agreements designed to safeguard defenders are being weakened. Nearly 1,000 defenders have been killed in Latin America since the adoption of the Escazú Agreement in 2018, which was meant to ensure their protection.

Global Witness calls for urgent action from governments and businesses. States must recognize land rights, strengthen laws against corporate abuse, and build effective protection mechanisms. Companies must respect Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, conduct rigorous human rights due diligence, and adopt zero-tolerance policies for attacks on defenders.

Indigenous Peoples are identified as especially vulnerable, living across 90 countries and managing more than a third of Earth’s protected land. Research shows Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities achieve better conservation outcomes than many official protected zones. Yet they often defend their territories with little state support, while their voices are excluded from decision-making.

“Particular protection of Indigenous Peoples requires breaking the cycle of violence,” Furones said. “This means respecting their right to self-determination and ending impunity.”

She cited the recent sentencing of illegal loggers in Peru for the murder of four Indigenous Saweto leaders as a rare but important example of accountability. “It shows the judiciary can play a role, even if justice comes only after a long and painful wait.”

Protection Mechanisms: Lifelines With Limits

State protection measures for defenders vary widely, from providing bulletproof vests and security escorts to emergency relocations. However, most programs are designed for individuals, not communities, despite the collective nature of defenders’ work.

As the case of Jani Silva shows, these measures can protect lives but also isolate defenders from their communities and impose psychological costs. Global Witness calls for expanding and improving protection systems to meet collective needs.

The Road Ahead

The report concludes that defenders remain at the frontline of protecting ecosystems and confronting the climate crisis, yet are increasingly under siege. Without stronger protections and accountability, the risks they face will persist.

Furones stressed that breaking the cycle of violence requires political will, robust legal systems, and corporate responsibility. “Study after study shows Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendant communities are the best guardians of forests and natural resources,” she said. “Protecting them is not just about human rights; it is also about protecting the planet.”

Furthermore, the Roots of Resistance report  has laid stress on the fact that  while governments and corporations profit from resource extraction, those who safeguard the environment pay with their lives. The global community now faces a choice and that is to strengthen protections and enforce accountability, or allow the cycle of violence to continue unchecked.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The second version of the draft Council conclusions responds to the rise of AI-generated news summaries by voicing support for bylined journalism, per a document obtained by Euractiv

EU environment chief Roswall hails new rules as win for both farmers and nature