Authentix, Inc. signe un contrat de 10 ans avec le Botswana Unified Revenue Service en vue de fournir un programme de gouvernance du marché pour le marquage numérique et le suivi du tabac et des produits alcoolisés.

ADDISON, Texas et GABORONE, Botswana, 3 août 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Authentix a annoncé aujourd’hui avoir signé un contrat de 10 ans avec le Botswana Unified Revenue Service (BURS) pour une solution de marquage fiscal et de suivi numérique du tabac et des produits alcoolisés vendus dans le pays. Ce programme de timbres fiscaux numériques vise à prévenir le commerce illicite et les contrefaçons tout en veillant à ce que les citoyens bénéficient de produits authentiques et sûrs.

Le nouveau système numérique de suivi et de traçabilité permettra d’augmenter les recettes fiscales perçues auprès des fabricants et des importateurs en renforçant la conformité industrielle, en réduisant le commerce illicite et en empêchant la sous-déclaration des volumes. Ce nouveau contrat porte sur le marquage et le suivi numérique d’environ 500 millions d’unités de produits par an.

Authentix TransAct™, une plateforme de données informatiques sécurisée basée sur le SaaS, sera associée à l’impression directe de codes produits numériques sécurisés et sérialisés pour former la principale solution de suivi et d’application numérique de haute sécurité du secteur. Ce système permettra de réduire et de dissuader les activités frauduleuses, protégeant ainsi la population des effets néfastes de la contrebande et garantissant une concurrence équitable à tous les acteurs légaux du secteur. Ce programme national comprendra la mise en œuvre, la formation, le support technique, l’installation du matériel, la maintenance continue et la gestion du programme assurée par le bureau des opérations d’Authentix au Botswana.

Kevin McKenna, PDG d’Authentix, a déclaré : « Nous sommes ravis que BURS nous ait choisis et fait confiance pour la mise en œuvre et la gestion de la première et très importante solution de suivi numérique de ces produits dans le pays. Nous sommes impatients de travailler avec BURS et de mettre en œuvre ce programme afin que les citoyens du Botswana en retirent rapidement de nombreux avantages. »

En collaborant avec des gouvernements du monde entier, les programmes de gouvernance des marchés d’Authentix ont permis de garantir l’authentification et la traçabilité des produits tout en récupérant des milliards de dollars de recettes fiscales.

À propos d’Authentix :

En tant qu’autorité en matière de solutions d’authentification, Authentix prospère dans la complexité de la chaîne d’approvisionnement. Authentix fournit des solutions d’authentification avancées pour les gouvernements, les banques centrales et les produits commerciaux, assurant la croissance des économies locales et garantissant que la sécurité des billets de banque demeure intacte et que les produits commerciaux bénéficient de meilleures opportunités de marché. L’approche de partenariat d’Authentix et son expertise éprouvée du secteur inspirent l’innovation et aident les clients à atténuer les risques pour augmenter les revenus et acquérir un avantage concurrentiel. Basée à Addison, au Texas (États-Unis), Authentix, Inc. a des bureaux aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni, en Arabie saoudite, en Asie et en Afrique. De plus, l’entreprise offre ses services aux clients dans le monde entier. Pour en savoir plus, rendez-vous sur le site https://www.authentix.com. Authentix® est une marque déposée d’Authentix, Inc.

Logo – https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/429526/Authentix_Logo.jpg

Biden Celebrates Semiconductor Legislation to Boost US Competitiveness Against China

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden virtually joined Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer Tuesday to celebrate the CHIPS and Science Act, which aims to boost U.S. competitiveness against China by allocating billions of dollars toward domestic semiconductor manufacturing and scientific research.

“This bill makes it clear the world’s leading innovation will happen in America. We will both invent in America and make it in America,” Biden said. He was scheduled to join the event in person but had to remain in isolation after testing positive for COVID-19 again on Saturday in what his physician described as a “rebound” case.

In the coming days, Biden is expected to sign the legislation, which passed in a 243-187 vote in the House of Representatives and 64-33 vote in the Senate last week.

The $280 billion act includes $52 billion in incentives for domestic semiconductor production and research, as well as an investment tax credit for semiconductor manufacturing. Advocates say it will allow the U.S. to catch up in the global semiconductor manufacturing race currently dominated by China, Taiwan and South Korea.

Last year, a semiconductor shortage affected the supply of automobiles, electronic appliances and other goods, causing higher inflation globally and pummeling Biden’s public approval among American voters.

Michigan, a major hub for the American auto industry, has been one of the states hardest hit by the semiconductor shortage.

“This bill will mean humming factories and lower costs on electronics, medical devices, farm equipment and cars for working families,” Whitmer said.

The act includes $4.2 billion to fund defense initiatives and the U.S. mobile broadband market, particularly efforts to promote non-Chinese 5G equipment manufacturing.

Catching up with China

The U.S. share of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity has decreased from 37% in 1990 to 12% today, largely because other governments have offered manufacturing incentives and invested in research to strengthen domestic chipmaking capabilities, according to a state of the industry report by the Semiconductor Industry Association.

Now China accounts for 24% of the world’s semiconductor production, followed by Taiwan at 21%, South Korea at 19% and Japan at 13%, the report said.

With the CHIPS Act, the administration hopes to bring as much semiconductor manufacturing to the U.S. as practically possible, said Bonnie Glick, director of the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue University.

“And what can’t be reasonably onshore, either because it’s cost prohibitive or other allied countries simply do it better, we can ally-shore manufacturing and support that,” she told VOA.

The two allies the administration has leveraged are South Korea and Japan, both of which Biden visited in May. In Seoul, he toured a Samsung computer chip factory that is the model for a $17 billion facility that the South Korean technology giant is setting up in the U.S. state of Texas.

Last week, the U.S. and Japan launched a new joint international semiconductor research hub under a “bilateral chip technology partnership” to bolster manufacturing for 2-nanometer chips as early as 2025.

Washington has also persuaded Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd. (TSMC) to open a U.S. foundry to produce advanced semiconductors. The $12 billion facility in the state of Arizona was completed last month and is scheduled to start production of 5 nm chips by 2024. TMSC also has plants in China.

“We’re back in the game,” Biden said Tuesday. “Remember, we invented these chips, we modernized these chips, we made them work, and there’s a lot more we can get done.”

The CHIPS Act has laid out a clear strategy for Washington, said Volker Sorger, Professor at the George Washington University and co-founder of Optelligence Company.

“Gain autonomy and eliminate political dependencies on these global supply chain values,” Sorger told VOA.

That strategy puts the U.S. on a collision course with China, which also aims to be the global leader in semiconductors. In 2015, Beijing launched the Made in China 2025 project, which aimed to increase chip production from less than 10% of global demand at the time to 40% in 2020 and 70% in 2025.

The Made in China 2025 program and the People’s Liberation Army’s goal of military-civil fusion make it “overtly clear that Beijing is seeking to dominate global technology and supply chains through anti-competitive trade practices and infiltration of dual-use technology research,” Glick said.

The U.S. government has been pushing for stricter export regulations to China by prohibiting export of equipment needed for manufacturing chips at 14 nm and below. “That would mark an escalation from the previous ban covering 10 nm and below,” Glick added.

Taiwan’s strategic importance

Taiwan — a self-governed island that Beijing claims to be its breakaway province — lies at the heart of the increasingly tense U.S.-China rivalry.

Taipei has dominated manufacture of the world’s most high-tech chips, accounting for 92% of the global production of 10 nm or smaller semiconductors, essentially creating what some observers have characterized as a “silicon shield” that ensures American support in the event of a Chinese attack, as well as a deterrence to such a move.

A military conflict over Taiwan could disrupt TMSC’s semiconductor production and have disastrous effects on global manufacturing.

U.S.-China tensions are already spooking technology investors. TSMC shares fell nearly 3% on Tuesday as U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi landed in Taipei in a visit she said demonstrated American solidarity with the Taiwanese people.

Beijing has condemned the visit, the first by a U.S. House speaker in 25 years, as a threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

Rare earths

The CHIPS Act does not include provisions to secure supply chains of rare earths — and other critical minerals used in semiconductors and other high-tech elements — to reduce the nation’s dependence on China, a major producer of these elements.

“I don’t know that we have developed a coherent strategy on accessing both rare and nonrare elements,” Glick said.

Last June, following Biden’s executive order to improve supply chains, the administration released a report concluding that the U.S. was overly reliant on China for critical minerals. Currently, China controls 87% of the global permanent magnet market, 55% of rare earths mining capacity and 85% of rare earths refining.

Earlier this year, the administration announced actions it said would bolster the supply chain of these elements, including a contract for U.S. company MP Materials to process heavy rare earth elements at its California production site — the first processing and separation facility of its kind in the nation.

Source: Voice of America

Invasive Reptiles, Amphibians Cost World $17 Billion

Two invasive species — the brown tree snake and the American bullfrog — cost the world more than $16 billion between 1986 and 2020, according to a study.

Researchers say the already-hefty price tag should be seen as a lower limit on the true cost of invasive reptiles and amphibians, especially in under-studied regions such as Africa and South America. The study results were published in the online journal Scientific Reports.

Invasive species are animals, plants or other living things that aren’t native to the places where they live and damage their new environments. Humans spread many of the more than 340 invasive reptile and amphibian species — as stowaways in cargo or through the exotic pet trade, for instance.

Invasive reptiles and amphibians can damage crops, destroy infrastructure, spread disease and upset ecosystems. The damage is costly, but scientists still don’t fully understand the extent of the economic impact wrought by invasive species.

For the study, biologist and study author Ismael Soto of the University of South Bohemia, and Ceske Budejovice in the Czech Republic, and his colleagues, estimated the global cost of invasive reptiles and amphibians using a database called InvaCost. The database collects the results of thousands of studies, reports and other documents produced by scientists, governments and non-governmental organizations.

The data revealed that invasive reptiles and amphibians have cost at least $17 billion worldwide between 1986 and 2020.

“But this cost mostly focused on two species — the brown tree snake [and] the American bullfrog,” Soto told VOA in an interview via Zoom. “But there are almost 300 invasive species of reptiles [and] amphibians. So, this means that our cost is really underestimated.”

The two species have received a disproportionate amount of attention from researchers, said economist Shana McDermott of Trinity University, who was not involved in the study.

“When you talk about invasives, people immediately will probably say, ‘Oh, the brown tree snake,’ just because its impacts are so wide-ranging,” she said via Zoom. “It’s got ecosystem biodiversity impacts. It’s got impacts to human health — it sends people to the hospital every year with bites. It takes down energy infrastructure. … And so, of course, people are like, ‘Oh God! That’s an incredibly dangerous invasive! Let’s understand it better.'”

The research bias toward a few well-known species also skews the distribution of costs worldwide. For instance, 99.6% of the $10.4 billion in costs from reptile invasions were in Oceania and the Pacific Islands, largely reflecting damage dealt by the brown tree snake in Hawaii, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands. Likewise, most damage from amphibians was in Europe.

But that doesn’t mean invasive reptiles and amphibians aren’t problematic elsewhere. Soto said there are many invasive amphibians in Africa, but their costs probably haven’t been quantified.

“There’s not enough research in these countries [to] detect the economic costs,” he said.

Soto also noted that the current cost estimate only includes costs that are easily quantified. Destroyed crops or property are easier to count than reduced quality of life or indirect damage to human health and assigning dollar values to ecological damage is trickier still, McDermott said.

“We’re still in this very early stage of trying to understand the economic costs, and trying to understand how invasive species impact ecosystems, how they impact people’s quality of life,” she said, adding that she wants to include the price of biodiversity losses in future cost estimates.

Soto and McDermott agreed that future studies should not only quantify the costs of more species in more regions but also project how the costs will evolve with time, especially as climate change continues to facilitate the spread of more invasive species.

“There is a lot still left to be determined. … I do think that quantifying it is the first step, though,” said McDermott. “Unless you can put a dollar value on it, unfortunately, you don’t get [policymakers’] attention for policy. So, this is an incredibly important topic. … We really shouldn’t be waiting on more studies to act.”

Source: Voice of America

Reporter’s Notebook: Remembering Al-Zawahiri’s Last News Conference

In 1998, I joined a group of journalists traveling to Afghanistan’s Khost province to meet the leaders of a militant group who’d already logged a string of attacks and were announcing a new terrorism conglomerate. As we arrived, Arab fighters fired into the air to welcome their leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and his patron-in-chief, Osama bin Laden, at their makeshift headquarters in the eastern Afghan province, not far from the Pakistan border.

The sky lit up with tracer rounds and the tall mountains echoed gunfire and jihadist chants of camouflaged bodyguards as the two white-robed men disembarked from their Toyota trucks. At the time, bin Laden was already a known figure in the region; al-Zawahiri’s name was then confined mostly to Egyptian media, but the cleric brought with him an air of seriousness and international focus for the cluster of Arab, Afghan, Punjabi, Kashmiri and Bengali fighters congregating in Afghanistan.

Despite his years in an Egyptian prison, al-Zawahiri, who had studied medicine as a younger man, left his mark on militant Islamist movements in his home country, including an alleged role in the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, a leadership role in the Islamic Jihad, and the 1995 attack on the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad. He also popularized the writings of Egyptian radical Sayyid Qutb, making him well-known among his extremist contemporaries.

Both in their 40s, al-Zawahiri and bin Laden had contrasting physiques. The former was significantly shorter (hardly 5 feet or 152 centimeters tall) and rounder than the tall and slim bin Laden, who was five years his junior — an age gap the slender Saudi appeared to respect.

It was May 26, 1998, and the two men, along with another Saudi radical, Sheikh Taseer, sat in a hall before 13 journalists to announce the merger of a new terror conglomerate, the International Islamic Front. None of them then used the title al-Qaida for the joint venture.

Al-Zawahiri was then leader of the Egypt-based Jama’at-ul-Jehad (Islamic Jihad) and bin Laden told the reporters that the newly formed front had won the support of al-Zawahiri’s organization. The two had a common goal: taking out infidels from the Arabian Peninsula.

That much was announced by bin Laden during the presser, but al-Zawahiri explained the purpose of their new group in a more informal discussion during a break for tea, during which he spun stories promoting their cause. Bin Laden opted to watch, letting the articulate al-Zawahiri indulge reporters’ curiosity about the group’s plans, life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, and his doctrine of revenge.

Throughout the discussion, al-Zawahiri’s embrace of Islamist fundamentalism at age 15 and his deep dive into radicalism was evident.

He introduced us to loyalists, including Muhammad Showqi al-Islambuli, brother of Khalid Islambuli, the main assailant in Sadat’s murder. He appeared to take special pride announcing that he was also hosting the three sons of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the radical Egyptian cleric with ties to the 1993 bombing at New York’s World Trade Center.

Foreshadowing of larger war

Calling himself a staunch enemy of the U.S. and its allies in the Arab world, he recited a litany of complaints against the West while referencing attacks on U.S. bases and personnel in Saudi Arabia and Somalia, foreshadowing the war that his followers would soon expand. In August that year, terrorists backed by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri attacked U.S. embassies in Tanzania, and Kenya. Around 200 people, including 12 Americans, were killed in the August 7 attacks. The U.S. retaliated weeks later, firing cruise missiles at a training camp in Khost, near where journalists had interviewed the men about two months before.

While al-Zawahiri at the time was already an ideological leader in his movement with bin Laden, the August attacks expanded his public profile.

It was al-Zawahiri who was talking on a satellite phone with a journalist in Peshawar about the terrorist attack in eastern Africa that was traced by the U.S. and used to train Tomahawk missiles on the compound. The two men survived the attack, but the compound crumbled as about 20 Pakistani radicals were killed in an instant.

But that was not the last time that the U.S. missed al-Zawahiri. Intel communities later said he also survived the U.S.-led bombing of the cave complex at Tora Bora, a mountainous range on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in December 2001.

When they were both alive, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri were believed to be living together in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s first reign, from 1996 to 2001. Some videotapes showed them walking together along rocky mountain slopes after the 9/11 attacks. Al-Zawahiri was lucky again in May 2011 when U.S. Navy SEALs killed bin Laden in a compound in Abbottabad, a garrison city in Pakistan. Analysts believed al-Zawahiri was probably hiding somewhere else along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, or perhaps somewhere closer to bin Laden inside Pakistan.

Afghanistan was then not a desirable location for al-Qaida leaders, in part because U.S.-led forces had the ability to strike anywhere within the country. Following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan last August, media reports said the al-Qaida leader felt comfortable moving to a house in central Kabul, where on Sunday a U.S. drone strike killed him while he stood on a balcony.

Source: Voice of America

Republic of Congo president’s party wins 111 of 151 seats

BRAZZAVILLE— Republic of Congo President Denis Sassou Nguesso’s party won 111 seats in the 151-member National Assembly after two rounds of legislative elections, according to official results announced Tuesday.

The polls were marked by a low turnout, according to observers, and the authorities did not give the final abstention rate.

After the second round, Nguesso’s Labour Party (PCT) added nine seats to the 102 seats it won in the first round, according to results read out on state television by the minister responsible for the election, Guy-Georges Mbaka.

Former Congolese opposition leader Claudine Munari defeated the minister for small and medium-sized enterprises Jacqueline Lydia Mikolo.

The Union of Humanist Democrats of the late opposition leader Guy-Brice Kolelas won seven seats in the national assembly, the same number as the Pan-African Union for Social Democracy, which had been the main opposition party.

“Peace, serenity and national cohesion have been preserved,” said Mbaka.

The Congolese National Assembly will take shape in the coming days, while a reshuffle of the government is being considered, according to government sources.

Source: NAM NEWS NETWORK