Connect with us

EVENTS

What does Biden’s visit to Berlin mean for NATO and EU?

Published

5 months ago

on

Spread the love

US President Joe Biden will meet with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer in the German capital, Berlin, this week, as his presidency draws to an end.

His visit, initially scheduled for last week, included a meeting at Germany’s Ramstein air base, where he was set to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and key European leaders. After Biden’s visit was cancelled, Zelenskyy made stops in London, Rome, Berlin, and Paris to present his “Victory Plan” to European leaders.

With Biden preparing to hand over the reigns to either former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris, governments across Europe have been making plans for both scenarios, but Europe is going to need to reduce its dependence on the US either way.

Euronews spoke with transatlantic expert Rachel Tausendfreund to discuss the US-EU relations amid ongoing discussions about Ukraine’s potential NATO membership.

Tausendfreund stresses that Europe needs to procure more weapons and ammo together and coordinate together.

“Separately, they’re all buying a decent amount of things or producing a decent amount of material,” she says, adding that because NATO member states are working alone, the capacity is “much lower than it should be.”

France supports producing fighter jets and munitions as a European initiative, but there are other countries, such as Germany, who say that weapons should be bought from wherever it is cheapest and most efficient, including from Israel, causing tension between states.

What would it mean for NATO if Trump wins?

“There are two scenarios. The optimistic kind of French scenario is that finally everyone will agree with France that Europe can’t rely on the US forever and therefore need to establish strategic autonomy. And that would also mean less reliance on US systems because you need also political support sometimes to use some of these weapon systems,” Tausendfreund explains.

She says that is an optimistic scenario that is unlikely to happen because countries on the eastern flank of Europe, who feel vulnerable due to their proximity to Russia, lean on their relationship with the US and focus on their own defences, which can lead to continued fragmentation within Europe for NATO member states.

Regarding the future of Ukraine, Tausendfreund suggests that if Trump were to win the election in less than three weeks, there would likely be a decrease in support for Ukraine.

She believes Trump is going to push Ukraine into negotiations almost immediately, using military support as leverage to pressure Kyiv into talks. “By early January, they’ll be forced to negotiate, regardless of the situation,” she says, underlining that it will probably be important to Trump to get some kind of deal so that he can sell it as a win.

The best-case scenario for NATO under a Trump presidency would be to have a strong EU response and coordination with the UK, leading to a Europeanisation of NATO that keeps the alliance robust, according to the expert. NATO states would need to achieve this by increasing capacity and filling in gaps that could be left if the US withdraws support.

“A positive scenario is you have really a Europeanised NATO where the Europeans are providing 60% of the defence and deterrence capability,” Tausendfreund says.

However, if NATO states and the EU doesn’t ramp up its defence capabilities, then it could become very weak by 2025, she warns.

And what about the consequences for NATO if Harris wins?

“I think we’re looking at one maybe two years of solid support, but with an eye to finding an exit strategy,” Tausendfreund says.

She hopes that a presidency under Kamala Harris could encourage the EU to coordinate together to strength the European pillar. She warns that if Europe continues along this path of not being united in making decisions, that the effects will be negative, and can lead to weakened European security, by 2027 or 2028.

“The US simply doesn’t have the capacity to stay focused on Europe to the extent that it has,” she explains.

On the topic of Ukraine, Tausendfreund says that “if Harris wins, you can expect the same level of support rhetorically as we’ve had in the Biden administration. And I actually think another big spending package would be possible, even if the Republicans have control of the Senate, because a significant number of Republicans, maybe not quite a majority, but close, actually support aiding Ukraine, as long as the political pressure is not that high.”

The future of NATO

Either way, the pressure to arm NATO is unlikely to diminish, regardless of who is elected. Without better cooperation between member states, Russia could feel emboldened and “make trouble on the continent,” the expert says.

Ukraine’s potential NATO membership?

“Ukraine will need pretty strong security guarantees from the NATO’s partners, be it in the form of membership or just in the form of bilateral security guarantees. Well, for that to work, these allies have to be credible security givers and they’re the Europeans that have a lot of work to do,” Tausendfreund adds.

And about Zelenskyy’s peace plan?

“It’s an ambitious plan. It’s clearly just putting on paper what he thinks they would need in order to win. I’m not sure that it’s very realistic he’s going to get it. He’s not going to get it from Biden. I don’t think that’s going to happen,” Tausendfreund says. But under a Harris administration, there could be more support.

Security experts are urging Europe to take a more united approach in producing weapons, and say they need to accelerate making tough decisions for the future of NATO.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

EVENTS

Alleged N80.2bn Fraud: Yahaya Bello Paid Children’s School Fees in Dollars, in Advance

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 6, 2025

By

Spread the love

The Third Prosecution Witness, PW3, Nicholas Ojehomon in the trial of a former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello, on Thursday, March 6, 2025, narrated before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, how the defendant paid his children’s school fees in dollars and in advance until their graduation.

The witness, an internal auditor in the American International School, Abuja , AISA, who stated that though he didn’t know Yahaya Bello in person, said he was aware that he was a parent to children enrolled in the school.

“I did not know the defendant personally, but I am aware that he is a parent of children enrolled in our school,” he said. Upon reviewing the school’s admission letters, the witness identified the defendant’s children as Zayan Bello, Zara Bello, Farid Bello, Na’ima Bello, and Nana Fatima Bello. He also confirmed that each child was admitted in different academic years. His examination of Exhibit 12, which is the agreement for prepaid tuition fees, revealed that Ali Bello, Yahaya Bello’s cousin had contacted the school in 2021 to pay the children’s fees in advance until their graduation.

Prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro SAN tendered a set of documents in evidence that included certified copies of the AISA admission letters to the defendant’s children, a contractual agreement for prepaid tuition until graduation, teller copies of payments, email correspondences between Ali Bello, Yahaya Bello’s cousin and the school, as well as statements of account from TD Bank USA and the American International School. There was no objection from the defence counsel, and the court admitted the documents as exhibits.

When asked about the payments made, the witness confirmed that significant sums were paid for each child. According to him, Farid Bello’s fees amounted to $90,074, Zara Bello’s to $87,470, Na’ima Bello’s to $26,241, and Nana Bello’s to $18,707.

The prosecution also presented Exhibit 17, a letter from the American International School to the EFCC requesting a valid account number for the refund of the fees. The document indicated two amounts: $845,082.84 and $750,910.84, with the latter sum earmarked for a refund to the EFCC. Exhibit 18, which is a letter from the EFCC to AISA, showed that the refund was to be made in a Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) account.

Earlier, the Second Prosecution Witness, PW2, Williams Abimbola, a compliance officer with the United Bank for Africa (UBA), who testified under subpoena presented documents, including a statement of account belonging to the Kogi State Government House. The statement, marked as Exhibit 8, showed a total credit of N53.56 billion and a total debit of N53.55 billion between January 2019 and December 2020.

During cross-examination, the PW2 confirmed that several N10 million withdrawals were made in favour of one Abdulsalam Hudu on December 12, 2018. She further stated that the transactions were done using cheques, processed over the counter.

The prosecution counsel, during re-examination of PW2, clarified that Exhibit 2P1, being the certificate of compliance, was signed on behalf of Edward Bamanga, being the relevant bank official, thus confirming the authenticity of the financial documents. “All records presented are verifiable and were duly obtained in line with legal procedures,” the prosecution counsel stated.

The defence counsel J.B. Daudu, SAN, bickered that the witness as an Abuja-based compliance officer of UBA could scrutinize an account, domiciled in Lokoja Branch of her bank.

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till Friday, March 7, 2025 for continuation of trial.

Visit www.efcc.gov.ng for more stories

Continue Reading

EVENTS

GOVERNOR UZODIMMA RECEIVES NDDC BOARD IN OWERRI, APPLAUDS LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

Published

5 hours ago

on

March 6, 2025

By

Spread the love

 

The Imo State Governor, Distinguished Senator Hope Uzodimma on Tuesday received the Board of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) at the Executive Council Chamber in Owerri. The delegation, led by NDDC Chairman Mr. Chiedu Ebie and the State’s Board Representative, Hon. Dr. Kyrian Uchegbu Ph.D, was on an official visit to discuss ongoing and upcoming developmental projects in the state.

During the meeting, the Governor commended the NDDC for its commitment to teamwork and proficiency in managing projects. He particularly praised their diligence in executing contracts and exploring innovative ways to enhance infrastructural development across the Niger Delta region.

He expressed his appreciation for the NDDC’s steadfast focus under the leadership of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. He also reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to supporting initiatives that drive progress and enhance the well-being of the people of Imo State.

“We are grateful for the NDDC’s dedication to development and teamwork. Their proficiency has introduced new ways of managing projects, and their diligence in contract execution is commendable,” the Governor stated.
The meeting further reinforced the partnership between the Imo State Government and the NDDC, ensuring that critical projects aimed at improving infrastructure and fostering regional growth remain a priority.

The delegation led by their NDDC Chairman, Mr. Chiedu Ebie, announced the first-ever Niger Delta Sports Festival, scheduled to hold from April 2nd to April 8th in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. This historic event is expected to foster unity and promote sports development among the states in the Niger Delta.

#HopeNewAndElectronicMediaCenter

Continue Reading

EVENTS

Why we restored Amaewhule-led leadership of Rivers Assembly — Supreme Court

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 6, 2025

By

Spread the love

A Certified True Copy, CTC, of the Supreme Court judgment on the political crisis in Rivers State has shed light on why the apex court restored the leadership of the State House of Assembly under Martin Amaewhule.

In a 62-page judgment obtained on Thursday by Ekwutosblog , the Supreme Court made it clear that there was no iota or shred of evidence to support the claim that 27 members of the House of Assembly had defected from the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC.

To worsen the situation, the judgment, signed by Justice Emmanuel Agim, revealed that the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, who had raised allegations of defection against the 27 lawmakers, later withdrew the allegations of his own volition at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

By failing to substantiate the defection claims against the Amaewhule-led leadership, the Supreme Court held that, in the eyes of the law, no defection had taken place, and consequently, the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain.

Justice Agim, who endorsed the judgment, specifically stated that there cannot be a House of Assembly except as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution. He added that the Constitution neither envisaged nor supported Governor Fubara’s position of recognising only four members as the legitimate House of Assembly.

As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that it was an aberration for Governor Fubara to make any requests, nominations, or presentations to the Rivers State House of Assembly unless they were directed to the leadership under Hon. Martin Amaewhule, who is believed to be loyal to the faction of former Governor Nyesom Wike.

The judgment stated: “What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8th respondent (Fubara) initiated the prevention of sittings of the Rivers State House of Assembly, constituted by the number of members as prescribed by Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution, long before the issue of the remaining 27 members defecting to another political party arose.

“The said activities of the 8th respondent (Fubara) were adjudged by the concurrent holdings of the Court of Appeal in its judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 as illegal and unconstitutional long before the allegation of defection started.

“Against the background of these concurrent findings and holdings in the Court of Appeal judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024, it is reasonable to conclude that the cross-appellant’s reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the doctrine of necessity is intended to continue his brazen subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution, and legitimate government in Rivers State.

 

“Having, by his own admission, engaged in a series of illegal activities aimed at preventing the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from participating in the House’s proceedings and carrying out their legitimate legislative duties, his resort to Sections 102 and 109 of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution, and democratic government in Rivers State.

“The 8th respondent (Fubara) had effectively collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat due to defection can validly arise. There must be a functioning House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place.

“The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It is an engagement in chicanery.

“Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise. Section 102 of the Constitution, which provides that ‘A House of Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership and the presence of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate such proceedings,’ cannot be relied upon to validate the proceedings of a House of Assembly in the absence of over 90% of its members. Neither can it justify a vacancy created by the illegal exclusion of members, nor justify the contrived illegal exclusion of 27 members and officials from the House, the illegal shutting down of the House, the destruction of the legislative building, or the blocking of access to the House by legislators and officials.

“A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that constitute a state government under the 1999 Constitution. In this case, the Executive arm has chosen to collapse the Legislature, allowing the Governor to rule without legislative oversight, effectively as a despot. As it stands, there is no functioning government in Rivers State.

“The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo. It cannot be used to justify or protect the illegal actions of the 8th respondent and his despotic rule over Rivers State.

“It applies only to genuine situations that were not contemplated by the Constitution or any law, where extraordinary but legitimate actions are required to protect the public interest.

“The 8th respondent’s fear of impeachment by the House of Assembly is no justification for his attacks on the Legislature, the Constitution, the Government of Rivers State, and the rule of law.

“Political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the Governor of a State or any person. What the 8th respondent has done is to destroy the government due to his fear of being impeached.

“In light of the foregoing, I hold that Cross-Appeal No. SC/CV/1175A/2024 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

“The part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is hereby affirmed. The said judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is hereby restored.

“For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the Government of Rivers State, its organs, departments, and officials any money belonging to Rivers State until an Appropriation Law is enacted by the Rivers State House of Assembly, constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution.

“The Rt. Honourable Martin Chike Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume sitting, unhindered, as Speaker and members, respectively, of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

“The Rivers State House of Assembly should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.”

Continue Reading

Trending