KSrelief chief meets UNICEF official in Brussels
BRUSSELS: Dr. Abdullah Al-Rabeeah, adviser at the Royal Court and supervisor general of the Saudi aid agency KSrelief, recently conducted high-level discussions with UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell during the European Humanitarian Forum in Brussels.
The meeting, which included Saudi EU Ambassador Haifa Al-Jedea, focused on joint humanitarian and relief initiatives designed to enhance child welfare programs across global crisis zones.
Russell praised the ongoing partnership between UNICEF and KSrelief, highlighting how their collaboration has successfully delivered aid to millions of vulnerable children worldwide. She described the relationship as 'an outstanding example of international humanitarian cooperation dedicated to serving children globally.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Pope Leo XIV faces funding challenges for cash-strapped Vatican
VATICAN CITY: The world's smallest country has a big budget problem. The Vatican doesn't tax its residents or issue bonds. It primarily finances the Catholic Church's central government through donations that have been plunging, ticket sales for the Vatican Museums, as well as income from investments and an underperforming real estate portfolio. The last year the Holy See published a consolidated budget, in 2022, it projected €770 million ($878 million), with the bulk paying for embassies around the world and Vatican media operations. In recent years, it hasn't been able to cover costs. That leaves Pope Leo XIV facing challenges to drum up the funds needed to pull his city-state out of the red. Withering donations Anyone can donate money to the Vatican, but the regular sources come in two main forms. Canon law requires bishops around the world to pay an annual fee, with amounts varying and at bishops' discretion 'according to the resources of their dioceses.' US bishops contributed over one-third of the $22 million (€19.3 million) collected annually under the provision from 2021-2023, according to Vatican data. The other main source of annual donations is more well-known to ordinary Catholics: Peter's Pence, a special collection usually taken on the last Sunday of June. From 2021-2023, individual Catholics in the US gave an average $27 million (€23.7 million) to Peter's Pence, more than half the global total. American generosity hasn't prevented overall Peter's Pence contributions from cratering. After hitting a high of $101 million (€88.6 million) in 2006, contributions hovered around $75 million (€66.8 million) during the 2010's then tanked to $47 million (€41.2 million) during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many churches were closed. Donations remained low in the following years, amid revelations of the Vatican's bungled investment in a London property, a former Harrod's warehouse that it hoped to develop into luxury apartments. The scandal and ensuing trial confirmed that the vast majority of Peter's Pence contributions had funded the Holy See's budgetary shortfalls, not papal charity initiatives as many parishioners had been led to believe. Peter's Pence donations rose slightly in 2023 and Vatican officials expect more growth going forward, in part because there has traditionally been a bump immediately after papal elections. New donors The Vatican bank and the city state's governorate, which controls the museums, also make annual contributions to the pope. As recently as a decade ago, the bank gave the pope around €55 million ($62.7 million) a year to help with the budget. But the amounts have dwindled; the bank gave nothing specifically to the pope in 2023, despite registering a net profit of €30 million ($34.2 million), according to its financial statements. The governorate's giving has likewise dropped off. Some Vatican officials ask how the Holy See can credibly ask donors to be more generous when its own institutions are holding back. Leo will need to attract donations from outside the US, no small task given the different culture of philanthropy, said the Rev. Robert Gahl, director of the Church Management Program at Catholic University of America's business school. He noted that in Europe there is much less of a tradition (and tax advantage) of individual philanthropy, with corporations and government entities doing most of the donating or allocating designated tax dollars. Even more important is leaving behind the 'mendicant mentality' of fundraising to address a particular problem, and instead encouraging Catholics to invest in the church as a project, he said. Speaking right after Leo's installation ceremony in St. Peter's Square, which drew around 200,000 people, Gahl asked: 'Don't you think there were a lot of people there that would have loved to contribute to that and to the pontificate?' In the US, donation baskets are passed around at every Sunday Mass. Not so at the Vatican. Untapped real estate The Vatican has 4,249 properties in Italy and 1,200 more in London, Paris, Geneva and Lausanne, Switzerland. Only about one-fifth are rented at fair market value, according to the annual report from the APSA patrimony office, which manages them. Some 70 percent generate no income because they house Vatican or other church offices; the remaining 10 percent are rented at reduced rents to Vatican employees. In 2023, these properties only generated €35 million euros ($39.9) in profit. Financial analysts have long identified such undervalued real estate as a source of potential revenue. But Ward Fitzgerald, the president of the US-based Papal Foundation, which finances papal charities, said the Vatican should also be willing to sell properties, especially those too expensive to maintain. Many bishops are wrestling with similar downsizing questions as the number of church-going Catholics in parts of the US and Europe shrinks and once-full churches stand empty. Toward that end, the Vatican recently sold the property housing its embassy in Tokyo's high-end Sanbancho neighborhood, near the Imperial Palace, to a developer building a 13-story apartment complex, according to the Kensetsu News trade journal. Yet there has long been institutional reluctance to part with even money-losing properties. Witness the Vatican announcement in 2021 that the cash-strapped Fatebenefratelli Catholic hospital in Rome, run by a religious order, would not be sold. Pope Francis simultaneously created a Vatican fundraising foundation to keep it and other Catholic hospitals afloat. 'They have to come to grips with the fact that they own so much real estate that is not serving the mission of the church,' said Fitzgerald, who built a career in real estate private equity.
Arab News
11 hours ago
- Arab News
Trains and talks: Turkiye's dual track in Ukraine war
Since the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's airspace has been closed and its roads have been unsafe for travel. Thus, trains have become the primary means of access. Over the past three years, numerous foreign leaders who have wanted to show their solidarity with Ukraine have taken trains to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky in the capital Kyiv. The 10-hour overnight train journey that takes them from southeastern Poland to Kyiv has come to be known as 'iron diplomacy' and acts a symbol of commitment. Typically, the schedule and exact route of these train journeys are kept confidential and two alternate routes are always prepared — one for the actual train and another for a decoy 'ghost train' to mitigate the risk of an attack. This was a precaution particularly used during then-US President Joe Biden's trip last year. Among the latest officials to embark on this symbolic journey was Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who was accompanied by a delegation of journalists. The Turkish media became the first to be given access to the train, which was heavily guarded, with security personnel both on board and along the route. Typically, during these journeys, the curtains remain closed to minimize visibility for Russian drones. However, the curtains were left open during Fidan's journey — signaling Turkiye's weight in the war and the changing conditions on the ground. This iron diplomacy is more than just taking world leaders from Poland to Ukraine via rail, it is pivotal in maintaining international support for Ukraine. Each journey demonstrates that, despite the war, Ukraine remains connected to the world. It is also an essential platform for fostering diplomacy and maintaining global attention on the war. Iron diplomacy was one of the ways that Ankara aimed to show its solidarity with Ukraine during challenging times. For Turkiye, these diplomatic efforts reflect a broader strategy. Iron diplomacy was one of the ways that Ankara aimed to show its solidarity with Ukraine during challenging times. Dr. Sinem Cengiz Since the start of the war, Ankara has carefully positioned itself as an actor capable of engaging with both Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among its latest attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the war is the so-called Istanbul process, which aims to bring the two sides together for peace talks. Two rounds of talks have been held under the Istanbul process, in May and June. Last month's meeting, which coincided with a visit by US President Donald Trump to the Gulf, did not result in a ceasefire but did achieve an agreement on a prisoner exchange. Monday's most recent round, chaired by Fidan and Turkiye's security establishment, also failed to secure a ceasefire. However, Fidan noted a 'more optimistic tone' as negotiations resumed. The lack of tangible progress is likely due to the complex nature of the war and lack of sufficient will from the two sides. From the Istanbul process, Turkiye's broader goal is to convene a high-level summit between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Zelensky and Putin — a summit that could be a potential turning point in the war. With the Istanbul process, Turkiye has succeeded in bringing both parties together and it now aims to become the primary actor by creating a diplomatic space beyond the traditional US-Russia framework. Here, Ankara's role defies easy categorization. While some label it a mediator or negotiator, Turkiye more accurately acts as a facilitator. While a mediator, who enters the process to assist parties in search of a solution, is unfamiliar with the system or conflicting situation, the facilitator is part of the system where the wars arose. Turkiye is part of the geopolitical landscape impacted by the war — that is the Black Sea region. This region, historically vital to Turkiye's security and strategic interests, has become even more critical amid the ongoing Western-Russian rivalry. This proximity gives Ankara both the incentive and the leverage to remain engaged. Turkiye's motivation also stems from its desire to expand its influence on the international stage, safeguard regional stability and carve a role for itself in the postwar settlement. The lack of tangible progress is likely due to the complex nature of the war and lack of sufficient will from the two sides. Dr. Sinem Cengiz So far, all efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated peace have failed. However, a glimmer of hope remains for a diplomatic breakthrough that could finally end the war. This is why both the US and the EU have placed their hopes in Turkiye, while Ankara, in turn, is relying heavily on its carefully managed relationships with both Moscow and Kyiv. Although the West has often been uneasy about Turkiye's close ties with Russia, there is now growing recognition — both in Washington and across European capitals — of the value of having a partner that can maintain open lines of communication with the Kremlin. This shift is evident in Trump's cautious approach in order to avoid any problems with Turkiye and the EU's increasing emphasis on Ankara's role in ensuring regional security and acting as a diplomatic bridge between East and West. Despite its vocal support for Ukraine's NATO aspirations and its alignment with Western institutions, Turkiye has successfully compartmentalized its relationship with Russia. Turkiye relies on two main characteristics of a facilitator to achieve success: trust and persuasiveness. Ankara's continued trust-building with both Moscow and Kyiv makes it uniquely suited for the role of potential facilitator, while its style of personal diplomacy plays a significant role in its persuasiveness. If Turkiye can secure a breakthrough via the Istanbul process, it would be a game-changer not only for Ankara but also for Europe and Russia. Such an outcome would also confirm the words of veteran Turkish ambassador Ertugrul Apakan: 'Success might sometimes only be achieved after many failed attempts ... There is no single recipe for successful mediation, just as no conflict is the same as another.'
Arab News
12 hours ago
- Arab News
Britain still has work to do on defense
The British government last week published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review. Led by former Defence Secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, the review outlines the major geopolitical challenges facing Britain and offers 62 recommendations to make the UK and its allies more secure. The government accepted all of them. Unsurprisingly, the review identifies Russia as the most acute threat to UK security. However, it also highlights the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Iran. While many of the findings reaffirm existing concerns, the review makes three particularly important observations and course corrections that deserve attention. First, it shows that the UK is taking seriously the military lessons from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After three years of near-nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, the need for robust air defense is clearer than ever. The review pledges £1 billion in new funding for homeland air and missile defense, a long-overdue investment. Another lesson from Ukraine is the critical importance of a strong defense industrial base capable of producing large quantities of munitions and artillery shells. At points during the war, Russia and Ukraine were expending more shells in a week than some European countries manufacture in an entire year. When the time came to supply Ukraine, many European nations lacked sufficient stockpiles. This was a wake-up call — especially for countries that had allowed their defense industries to atrophy. The UK is now taking steps to address this. The review commits £6 billion to build six new munitions and missile factories, including £1.5 billion for an 'always-on' production facility. This means Britain will be able to rapidly surge production in a crisis without starting from scratch. Additionally, the review commits to producing 7,000 long-range strike weapons in the near term, another recognition of evolving battlefield needs. Second, the review firmly reorientates the UK toward European security by adopting a 'NATO First' policy. This means prioritizing Britain's role in the alliance above other regional or global commitments. The timing is appropriate. Since Britain left the EU in 2019, its place in Europe has often been questioned. But following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK has reasserted its leadership role in European defense — both within NATO and through bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Luke Coffey The explicit commitment to NATO First is a welcome signal to Britain's European partners. It affirms that, even outside the EU, the UK remains a key pillar of the continent's defense architecture. Third, while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK will continue to project power globally. The review confirms plans to produce a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed jointly with the US and Australia under the AUKUS partnership. This capability extends Britain's reach far beyond Europe and demonstrates that, in the words of the review, 'NATO First does not mean NATO only.' The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Each of the six Gulf monarchies is mentioned by name, and the review reaffirms Britain's long-standing naval presence in Bahrain — an essential strategic foothold in the region. Despite these strengths, the review contains gaps and raises concerns, particularly around funding. Accepting all 62 recommendations is politically bold, but doing so without guaranteed funding is risky. Although the government has pledged to increase defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, this falls short of the 3–5 percent levels being discussed by NATO leaders before their summit this month in The Hague. Take, for example, the eight new attack submarines: there is no full funding commitment. The government promises new investment 'in future years,' but offers no guarantees. A so-called Defense Investment Plan will be published this year to detail how these ambitions will be financed. But for now, this ambiguity leaves observers uncertain. Why accept all recommendations if the Treasury hasn't formally agreed to pay for them? Another concern is the lack of whole-of-government coordination. Unlike the previous Conservative-led government, which conducted numerous Strategic Defence and Security Reviews, the Labour government dropped the 'security' component. Past reviews incorporated not only military planning, but also issues such as cybersecurity, border control, counterterrorism, and resilience against pandemics and disinformation. These are vital elements of national security, and omitting them risks undermining Britain's broader preparedness. The new review does warn of threats from cyberattacks, assaults on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns, but these threats are often outside the remit of the armed forces to address. Unless the government embraces a cross-departmental approach and integrates other security agencies into defense planning, it risks creating dangerous blind spots. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the size of the British armed forces. If there is one lesson from Ukraine, it is that large, professional armies still matter. Britain's Army currently stands at just 74,400 soldiers. The review proposes to increase this to 76,000 after the next election, a marginal boost that will also take years to implement. This is insufficient. Moreover, a smaller conventional force shrinks the recruitment pool for the UK's elite special forces, who are typically drawn from the regular military. Despite these challenges, the review is an important first step. Its focus on NATO, industrial resilience, and lessons from Ukraine are encouraging signs that Labour is serious about restoring Britain's defense credibility. But serious work remains. Unless the government fully funds its promises, addresses the absence of cross-government security integration, and expands the armed forces in a meaningful way, the review will fall short of its ambitions. When Labour last came to power in 1997, they published a defense review in 1998 but then failed to produce another during their entire 13 years in office. This time, they should follow the Conservative model and commit to conducting reviews every few years. As this review rightly notes, the world is becoming more dangerous. It is in everyone's interest for Britain to remain a strong, credible force on the global stage. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.
