Poland, Baltics may withdraw from anti-personnel landmine treaty
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues, the four allies say that 'it is essential to evaluate all measures to strengthen our deterrence and defense capabilities,' according to a joint statement. This includes a potential return to using landmines to secure their respective borders with Russia.
The treaty bans the development, manufacturing, use, storage and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
Since ratifying the convention, 'the security situation in our region has fundamentally deteriorated,' the four defense ministries said in their statement. 'Military threats to NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus have significantly increased.'
In light of the unstable security environment in the region, 'we — the Ministers of Defence of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland —unanimously recommend withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention. With this decision, we are sending a clear message: our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our territory and freedom,' the statement reads.
Concluded in September 1997, the convention has gathered 133 signatories and 165 parties, according to the latest available data from the United Nations. Russia is not a signatory of the treaty, nor is the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour ex-leader Jeremy Corbyn says he's starting a new left-wing UK party
LONDON (AP) — Labour Party ex-leader Jeremy Corbyn said Thursday that he's forming a new left-leaning U.K. political party to advocate "mass redistribution of wealth and power' and take on his former colleagues at the ballot box. The new formation has a website — — but doesn't have a name yet. 'It's your party,' Corbyn said. 'We're going to decide (a name) when we've had all the responses, and so far the response rate has been massive.' Corbyn said that he hoped the new party would have its inaugural conference in the fall. Corbyn, 76, led Labour to election defeats in 2017 and 2019, but the veteran socialist campaigner remains popular with many grassroots supporters. and the new party has the potential to further fragment British politics. The long-dominant Labour and Conservative parties now have challengers on both left and right, including the environmentalist Green Party and hard-right Reform UK. Plans for a new party emerged earlier this month when lawmaker Zarah Sultana, who has been suspended from Labour for voting against the government, said that she would 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with Corbyn. At the time, Corbyn didn't confirm the news. On Thursday, he denied the party launch had been messy, saying the process was "democratic, it's grassroots and it's open." A longtime supporter of Palestinians and a critic of Israel, Corbyn was suspended from Labour in 2020 after Britain's equalities watchdog found anti-Jewish prejudice had been allowed to spread within Labour while he was leader. He was suspended after failing to fully accept the findings¸ claiming opponents had exaggerated the scale of antisemitism in Labour for 'political reasons.' Corbyn was reelected to Parliament last year as an independent. Prime Minister Keir Starmer succeeded Corbyn as Labour leader in 2020 and dragged the party back toward the political center ground. He dropped Corbyn's opposition to Britain's nuclear weapons, strongly backed sending weapons to Ukraine and stressed the party's commitment to balancing the books. Starmer won a landslide election victory a year ago, but has struggled to maintain unity among Labour lawmakers as the government struggles to get a sluggish economy growing and invest in overstretched public services. He has been forced into a series of U-turns by his own lawmakers, including one on welfare reform that left his authority severely dented. Jill Lawless, The Associated Press
Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
The GENIUS Act, Reading Between The Lines
Illustration Representing the GENIUS Act, First US Legislative Bill All of the crypto-sphere is atwitter with the implications of the final passage of the 'Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act'' or the ''GENIUS Act''. I went through the text of the act that was signed into law last week. Contrary to what the boosters of the bill believe, the implications for related digital assets and the economy are very mixed at best. As the first legislation to directly address one form of crypto-assets, the act is seminal. Of course, my own compatriots at the various blockchain companies and organizations are ecstatic over the act. It is best to temper your enthusiasm due to the details in the bill. First, the act focuses on payment stablecoins, and for other purposes. 'For other purposes' could cover an unspecified number of purposes. The constitution of the Stablecoin Review Board and research into non-payment Stablecoins (the bulk of currently issued Stablecoin total value), into interoperability, into novel methods for detecting Anti-Money Laundering violations, and into the effects of foreign issued Stablecoins could be some of these 'other purposes.' Definitions Continued This act clarifies the definition of a Digital Asset Service Provider. The definition explicitly excludes wallet providers, blockchain protocol vendors, DeFi protocols etc. The removal of confusion that surrounded earlier enforcement actions which made all such activities suspect is a huge relief for such actors. Whew! Exchanges are still in purview. Payment stablecoins must obey the law. Freezing, burning, seizure and blocking transfer must be enforceable by a 'lawful order'. These cannot be implemented by ERC-20 based stablecoins. This is of course anathema to the free souls of the decentralized universe. This is in the act, any non-compliance with a lawful order results in huge daily fines and imprisonment. Also to folks that say, technology does not matter, business use cases over technology seem unaware of the fact that basic capabilities baked into the technical underpinnings are needed BEFORE any business use cases can come to fruition. Look at what the ERC-20 standard and free implementations unleashed on the world. Payment stablecoin issuers have to be regulated by either a Federal Agency, primarily the OCC or other regulators on the Federal level. There is another tier for State Level Payment Stablecoins which are meant to be regulated by state regulators. The state level issuers limit is $10B and federal issuers are limited to $50B. There are some provisions in the bill for the migration of State Regulated stablecoin issuers to federally regulated issuers. Other details including breaches of these limits are punted to a Stablecoin Review Board, making for an open-ended set of rules. The act constantly invokes the Review Board and the Treasury Secretary who is the leader of the Stablecoin Review Board giving them tremendous leeway for rule setting. Neither USDT nor USDC qualify as US payment stablecoins yet according to this act. USDT because Tether is based offshore, USDC does not have a bank charter yet. However, a safe harbor provision may get Circle off the hook while their charter is pending. As soon as USDC is approved by the OCC, they will be instantly not in compliance to the act, as USDC is more than $50 Billion in issuance. As we can see, current stablecoins are not usually used for payments. Where Are Payment Stablecoins? Payment stablecoins means a digital asset that is designed to be used as a means of payment or settlement; and the issuer is obligated to convert, redeem, or repurchase for a fixed amount of monetary value. It also represents that the issuer will maintain, or create the reasonable expectation that it will maintain a stable value. In other words, the payment stablecoin has to be used for payment and has to be stable with respect to a currency. Such a stablecoin is NOT a fiat currency, nor a bank deposit, nor a tokenized stablecoin of a bank deposit such as JP Morgan's Kinexsys. It is not clear that the current use of USDT and USDC falls within the term 'payment stablecoins'. Such payment uses cannot be distinguished from their most frequent use, to hold stable USD instead of volatile home currencies or to use as a stable parking place and an anchor in swap based AMMs and other daily arbitrage trading of volatile crypto-currencies. Stable USD may be a misnomer as USD has fallen in value in the last few months against a basket of currencies. Stability Of Stablecoins Any stablecoin whose basic function is stability with respect to a single fiat currency can only be assured by holding liquid reserves denominated in that fiat. For USD based stablecoins the act explicitly enjoins this to be cash, treasuries maturing in 93 days or less and repos as well as reverse repos based on these instruments. The act also warns against concentration risk. Significant portions of these reserves cannot be in one single institution. We have already seen this scenario play out during the collapse of SVB, which custodied more than $3B of Circle's assets. Only a last minute expansion by the FDIC of the limit to 'unlimited' saved Circle and many other startups. A Stablecoin functions as one of the representations of fiat money that it is based on. In the United States that would be the United Stated Dollar. The other forms available to retail participants are bank deposits and bank notes. Par price, that is the price between the different representations ties all these forms into the singleness of money. Par is 1:1, that is one dollar of bank deposits is equal to one dollar of currency. Stablecoins must follow this. Professor Mehrling has discussed this in a money view of stablecoins. There is no discussion of par in the act. The reserves which are a touch point between stablecoins and traditional markets is where the risk of contagion can start. The restricted redemption of Money Market Funds by BNP Paribas (my previous employer) in 2007 foreshadowed the 2008 financial crisis. A run on a stablecoin issuer could initiate a rapid sell-off in the reserves, including short duration treasury bills. A negative feedback loop on this sort of act can cascade into multiple assets as treasuries are the basis of fixed income and credit markets. We have seen that only bazookas with tremendous firepower through the buying backstop of an institution like the Fed can stem this blood-letting. These are reasonable scenarios to assess the risk of any stablecoin issuer. Additionally stablecoins are not protected by the FDIC, which can cause the panic to spread through retail investors in a very short period of time, maybe even minutes. The Fed will have to ride to the rescue to prevent the larger financial system from collapsing. How Do Issuers Make Money? No big issuers of Stablecoins currently pay interest. Most of the money made by the issuers is based on the yield difference between issuing a zero interest stablecoin and the reserves that they hold. This is the classic example of other people's money making money for your enterprise. In the case of Tether, this payout is in the billions and makes the most money per employee of any enterprise, except for shadowy enterprises such as drug dealing or other illicit activities. If we had negative interest rates on Treasuries or other qualified digital assets, this source of yield farming by the issuers will dry up. Issuers will have to increase their fees, they might also slide into loss-making enterprises. The 48 pages of the act deals with the seniority of Stablecoin claims, guidelines on custody, commingling of assets and other ideas from traditional finance. The Genius Of The Act It is to convince the crypto-universe that it is beneficial to them while advancing traditional institutions for issuing, custodying and exchanging stablecoins. Traditional banking or non-banking institutions who already have bank charters, scale and know-how for customer on-boarding, AML and KYC are the winners. It is to allow a form of private money to come into being and shut out the issuance of CBDCs. It is to remain relatively mum on par price which is only implied. It is to convince the world that the velocity of money unleashed by the near instant settlement at low cost will not have monetary policy implications.
USA Today
8 minutes ago
- USA Today
GOP senators call for special counsel to probe Obama over 2016 Trump-Russia investigation
GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn are calling for a special counsel to investigate whether Obama was involved in undermining Trump's 2016 bid. WASHINGTON - Two Republican senators are calling for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether former President Barack Obama and his staff were involved in an effort to undermine Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The push by Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas comes after National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard in a July 23 press briefing alleged she had evidence the Obama administration promoted a 'contrived narrative' that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump, arguing that it wasn't true. Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump, according to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 2019 final report and a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee assessment. Trump had long said the investigations into his first White House campaign and its connections with Moscow are a hoax. 'For the good of the country, we urge Attorney General Bondi to appoint a special counsel to investigate the extent to which former President Obama, his staff, and administration officials manipulated the U.S. national security apparatus for a political outcome,' Graham and Cornyn wrote in a joint statement. "With every piece of information that gets released, it becomes more evident that the entire Russia collusion hoax was created by the Obama Administration to subvert the will of the American people," they added. Gabbard had released previously classified documents that she claimed 'directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment.' One was a report from the House Intelligence Committee drafted by Republicans in 2017 and revised in 2020. But The New York Times reported the documents don't indicate any evidence of criminal behavior, despite Gabbard's claims, and merely show Obama administration officials pressuring intelligence agencies to complete their review quickly. In 2023, then Justice Department special counsel John Durham released a report that detailed flaws in the department and FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election led by Mueller. But Durham also concluded there was no need for wholesale changes at the Justice Department and FBI, which had already overhauled its policies. Trump accuses Obama of treason On July 22, Trump accused Obama of treason without any evidence, as Reuters reported. 'They tried to steal the election, they tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever imagined, even in other countries,' Trump said during remarks in the Oval Office. Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Obama, dismissed Trump and Gabbard's allegations, calling them 'ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' Trump has been facing backlash from his MAGA base over the release of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's criminal files. Asked for comment on the calls for a special counsel probe into Obama, the Department of Justice referred USA TODAY to a July 23 press statement announcing the formation of a 'Strike Force' that would 'investigate potential next legal steps' stemming from Gabbard's disclosures. 'The Department of Justice is proud to work with my friend Director Gabbard and we are grateful for her partnership in delivering accountability for the American people. We will investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice,' Bondi said in a statement. The FBI is also investigating former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, who both served under the Obama administration, for possible criminal conduct related to their efforts in the Trump-Russia investigation, according to CNN. Contributing: Kinsey Crowley and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters
