GovTech Innovation Forum and Awards 2025 Archives
The GovTech Innovation Forum and Award 2025 celebrated the pioneering achievements of public sector entities who dedicate themselves and their technology to improving the lives of UAE citizens. Revisit this exceptional evening with our highlight video.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
31 minutes ago
- The National
Trump signs proclamation banning travel from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran and Yemen
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation that bans people from 12 countries from entering the US. The decision follows attack in Boulder, Colorado, that targeted a march in support of Israeli hostages. The travel ban covers Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The measure also partially limits entry of people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The alleged attacker, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is from Egypt, which is not on the list. 'We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen,' Mr Trump said in a video posted on social media, adding that the decision comes after he ordered the Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review 'high-risk regions' that should have restrictions imposed. The list is subject to revision, he said. The countries facing the total ban were found 'to be deficient with regards to screening and vetting and determined to pose a very high risk to the United States,' according to a statement provided by the White House. The President said that the travel ban from his first term was one of his most successful policies and said they were 'key' to preventing terror attacks on American soil. Mr Trump enacted a so-called Muslim ban during his first term, barring citizens of several Muslim-majority countries and others from entering the US. In the first Trump administration, travellers from Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen were barred from entry. The policy went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The President has blamed the immigration policies of former president Joe Biden for rising crime in the country, and he has been swift to issue executive orders cracking down on people entering the country illegally.
Arabian Post
an hour ago
- Arabian Post
Renewed Race For Gulf-India Aviation Sector Trophy As Stakes Increase Further
By K Raveendran Strong signs of undercurrents are emerging in the aviation space between India and the Gulf. There is renewed tussle over landing rights — the coveted permissions that determine which airlines get to fly where, how often, and with how many seats. For years, this battleground has been tilted in favour of Gulf-based giants, particularly Emirates and later Etihad, both of which have entrenched themselves so deeply in the India-Gulf sector that they dominate passenger volumes, especially among the vast Indian expatriate population in the Gulf. But recent movements suggest that the terrain may be shifting again, albeit not necessarily in India's favour, raising concerns about whether past missteps are being repeated or even institutionalized. The first wave of this dominance came during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, a period that aviation experts and political observers often recall with unease. During this time, India's aviation rights — especially in the high-demand Gulf sector — were offered up with a generosity that baffled many. The most glaring beneficiary was Emirates, which capitalised on India's fragmented aviation policy and the aggressive diplomacy of Dubai government. The role of Praful Patel, then Union Civil Aviation Minister, and N. Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, has often come under scrutiny for facilitating deals that disproportionately benefited Gulf carriers. The underlying implication, often whispered but never proven in courts, was that kickbacks were exchanged for each seat Emirates filled on its India routes — a suggestion that continues to fester in the collective memory of Indian aviation policy circles. At that time, Emirates enjoyed a distinct monopoly, owing largely to the fact that it was the sole UAE-based carrier of international standing. With Dubai's rise as a global aviation hub and Emirates' unmatched marketing muscle, the airline quickly scaled up its footprint in India, locking in prime time slots and lucrative routes with little resistance. In effect, Emirates became the default choice for millions of Indians flying to the Gulf and beyond, eclipsing the capacity and visibility of Indian carriers like Air India. This asymmetry didn't just result in a business setback for Indian aviation — it triggered a slow bleeding of India's aviation sovereignty. The profits, the passenger data, the traffic, and the global prestige of being a gateway carrier all accrued to Emirates, while Indian airlines floundered under the weight of policy paralysis and state apathy. Things became even more complicated when Etihad entered the fray. As Abu Dhabi's flagship carrier, Etihad's arrival introduced a new axis of influence in the India-Gulf aviation theatre. Where earlier it was just Emirates leveraging its ties with Indian authorities to expand its rights, now both Emirates and Etihad were competing not just with each other but also for the same slice of the Indian aviation pie. The diplomatic equation thus had to be recalibrated. No longer could Dubai's interests automatically translate into Emirates' gain. Abu Dhabi, backed by the UAE federal structure, began asserting its claim, demanding equitable treatment for Etihad. India, in turn, found itself in a quagmire. Granting more rights to one Gulf emirate risked offending the other. But instead of revisiting its entire bilateral framework or strengthening Indian carriers to hold their ground, Indian policymakers chose the path of least resistance: acquiescing to more requests from both sides. The result was that foreign carriers ended up with the lion's share of rights, while Indian carriers, with limited international ambitions and fleet capacity at the time, were left watching from the sidelines. Fast forward to today, and the script seems eerily familiar. Both Emirates and Etihad are once again lobbying for increased landing rights and additional seat allocations. This comes at a time when the dynamics of the aviation industry have evolved significantly. There is renewed focus on strategic aviation corridors, a post-pandemic surge in travel, and a stronger realisation globally that aviation is not just commerce — it is a soft power instrument. Yet despite all this, India appears to be on the verge of conceding even more ground. That this is happening without a thorough review of how previous concessions impacted national interests is particularly disheartening. A disturbing undertone to this situation is the re-emergence — or rather, the persistence — of the very individuals who were instrumental in the original giveaways. These actors, once thought to have exited the stage after presiding over what some call the 'Great Indian Aviation Surrender,' are now reappearing in various roles, emboldened by their earlier success and perhaps by the lack of accountability. The risk here is not just the erosion of market share but the institutionalization of a defeatist approach to aviation diplomacy, where India negotiates from a position of weakness rather than asserting its growing economic and geopolitical clout. However, the new player that adds an unexpected twist to this ongoing narrative is IndiGo. As India's largest airline by a considerable margin, IndiGo is no longer content with its domestic dominance. It wants in on the Gulf bonanza, and it is using its size, efficiency, and growing international aspirations to demand a bigger seat at the table. This changes the calculus considerably. For the first time in years, there's an Indian private player with both the appetite and the capacity to challenge Gulf airlines on their turf. IndiGo's entry into the fray has the potential to reshape the competitive landscape — provided, of course, the government aligns national policy with corporate ambition. To avoid repeating past mistakes, India must initiate a root-and-branch review of its bilateral air service agreements. The country needs a clear aviation doctrine — one that articulates when, how, and under what conditions foreign airlines may operate in India. This doctrine must prioritize Indian interests, encourage domestic capacity building, and align with broader national objectives. It must also be shielded from short-term political compulsions and the influence of lobbying networks that have historically undermined strategic policymaking. (IPA Service)
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding full humanitarian access to Gaza
The US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Wednesday demanding an 'immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire' in Gaza and full humanitarian access, as aid groups warn of famine-like conditions in the enclave after months of war. The resolution received 14 votes in favour, with only the US opposing it. The draft resolution, proposed by the 10 non-permanent council members, also urged the 'immediate lifting of all restrictions' on humanitarian aid into Gaza, ensuring safe and large-scale distribution throughout the besieged enclave. Washington's veto blocked the measure, which required at least nine "yes" votes and no vetoes from the five permanent members – the US, Russia, China, Britain or France – to pass. The veto is the first by Washington since US President Donald Trump took office in January. And it's the fifth draft resolution on the Gaza war vetoed by the US since the conflict started in October 2023. The Security Council has struggled to act on the conflict, with previous ceasefire attempts also failing. 'US opposition to this resolution should come as no surprise,' acting US Charge D'Affaires Dorothy Shea told Council members. 'It is unacceptable for what it does say. it is unacceptable for what it does not say, and it is unacceptable for the manner in which it has been advanced." She stressed that the United States has been clear that it would not support 'any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza." "We cannot allow the Security Council to reward Hamas is intransigence,' she added. The text, drafted by Slovenia alongside Algeria and Guyana, repeated the council's demand for the 'immediate, dignified and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups". 'It was never our intention to provoke a veto,' Slovenia's ambassador to the UN, Samuel Zbogar, told council members. 'We were aware of different positions inside the council. This is why the draft resolution had only one focus, a humanitarian one." Mr Zbogar called on the council to 'unite around this urgent demand for unimpeded humanitarian access and for food to be delivered to starving civilians'. Starving civilians and inflicting immense suffering is inhumane, he argued, and against international law. 'No war objective can justify such action,' he said. '14 votes in favour however carries a strong message. Enough of suffering of civilians. Enough of food being used as a weapon. Enough is enough is enough.' Israel has come under mounting international pressure to halt its war in Gaza, a conflict sparked by Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack on Israeli soil. Criticism has intensified over the chaotic aid distribution in Gaza, where Israel imposed a complete blockade for over two months before permitting a limited number of UN aid vehicles to enter in mid-May. The amount of aid Israel has authorised to enter Gaza amounts to 'a teaspoon', when a flood of humanitarian assistance is needed, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said last month. Meanwhile, the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF) has faced backlash for allegedly violating established aid principles by coordinating relief efforts with a military party to the conflict. The war, now in its 20th month, has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza authorities. The Palestinian militant group Hamas is still holding 58 hostages taken during the October 7 attacks. About a third are believed to still be alive.
