The aim of the European Media Freedom Act is to protect media pluralism and independence in the EU single market, where media can operate more easily across borders without undue interference.

The Act will complement existing measures on the audiovisual market, setting clear rules and safeguards to ensure greater independence, transparency and cooperation between media market operators and thereby promote their economic development across borders.

The European Media Freedom Act will strengthen the editorial freedom of media companies and protect them from unjustified, disproportionate and discriminatory national measures, protecting the pluralism of European media landscape. Media companies will also benefit from fairer and more transparent allocation of state advertising expenditure.

This common set of rules for all EU media players will allow for greater legal certainty and more predictability in media market concentrations, making it easier for media market players to expand their operations across the European internal market. Media companies will be able to benefit from fair competition and better return on investment in the digital environment through, for example, new audience measurement transparency rules and new safeguards concerning content removals on very large online platforms.

Public service media play a special role in ensuring that citizens have access to information. However, because of their source of funding, public service media are particularly exposed to the risk of political interference.

This is why the Media Freedom Act pays particular attention to public service media and the challenges they face. The Regulation proposes that funding provided to public service media should be adequate and stable, thus ensuring editorial independence. The Regulation also stipulates that public service media providers shall provide a plurality of information and opinions, in an impartial manner. Finally, to ensure greater independence from partisan political influence, the head and the governing board of public service media will have to be appointed in a transparent, open and non-discriminatory manner and can be dismissed only in very specific circumstances.

Journalists and editors will be better protected from undue interference in editorial decision-making and, in the case of public service media, have assurances that their employer is equipped with adequate and stable funding for future operations, in accordance with their public service mission.

The Act also makes it clear that the use of spyware against media, journalists and their families is prohibited. In the same vein, the proposed rules clarify that journalists should not be prosecuted for protecting the confidentiality of their sources.

The accompanying recommendation sets out a catalogue of best practices to strengthen editorial independence and encourages the involvement of journalists in media companies’ decision-making as well as training opportunities.

The Regulation and Recommendation complement the measures to protect journalists issued by the Commission so far, such as the Recommendation on the safety of journalists and the proposed Directive to protect journalists and rights defenders from abusive litigation (anti-SLAPP).

The Act includes a series of new rights to protect the media and it also comes with a very targeted set of responsibilities. The Act includes some specific requirements for media providing news and current affairs content, as these media play a particularly important role in informing citizens and shaping public opinion.

First, those media have to be transparent about their ownership. This requirement builds on existing EU legislation applying to companies in general (company law and anti-money laundering rules).

Second, those media shall also take the measures that they deem appropriate with a view to guaranteeing the independence of individual editorial decisions and to disclosing any actual or potential potential conflict of interest.

The media have full freedom in deciding which measures are the best fit according to their business model, size and other specificities. However in order to bring more transparency and trust, and in the public interest, the Act requires them to take those important principles – transparency related to owners, actual or potential conflict of interest and the independence of individual editorial decisions – into account. 

This is not about regulating how media organise themselves. The overwhelming majority of media already have relevant measures in place.

It can be noted that the new Board has no role in monitoring those rules and is not a new oversight body for the press sector.

The Act prohibits the use of spyware against media, journalists and their families. This is the rule. The Act narrows down any possible exceptions to this rule on the ground of national security, which is a competence of the Member States, or in case of investigations of a closed list of crimes, such as terrorism, child abuse or murder. In such cases, the Act makes it very clear that it should be duly justified, on a case-by-case basis, in compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in circumstances where no other investigative tool would be adequate. The Act therefore provides in this respect concrete new guarantees at EU level.

Any affected journalist would have the right to seek effective judicial protection from an independent court in the respective Member State. Additionally, every Member State will have to designate an independent authority to handle complaints of journalists concerning the use of spyware against them. These independent authorities will issue, within three months of the request, an opinion regarding compliance with the provisions of the Media Freedom Act.

The Commission proposes to set up a new European Board for Media Services comprised of national media authorities. The Board will replace and succeed the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) established under the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). The Board shall act in full independence when performing its tasks.

The Board will play a specific role in the fight against disinformation, including foreign interference and information manipulation. It will coordinate national measures related to media services provided by media service providers established outside of the Union that target audiences in the Union and present risks to public security and defence.

The Act also foresees a mechanism of mutual assistance in case one regulatory authority needs the help of another to address risks to the internal market or public security.

It should be noted that regarding the oversight of the rules related to public service media providers, it is up to each Member State to designate one or more independent authorities or bodies that may be different from media regulators. This approach aims to take into account national specificities related to the oversight of public service media.

The Board is not responsible either for the oversight of other provisions of the Act related to the rights and duties of media service providers, including press publications.

The Media Freedom Act does not prevent or set specific thresholds for media market concentrations. It does however provide a framework regarding national rules and procedures for assessing media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence.

The objective of the proposal is to ensure a well-functioning internal media market. Without prejudice to applicable competition rules, the Regulation will ensure that Member States will assess media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence. This will be done on the basis of criteria set out in advance that take into account a number of elements, including effects on the formation of public opinion, safeguards for editorial independence and economic sustainability.

The Board will be able to issue opinions on draft assessments done by national regulatory authorities regarding media market concentrations that may affect the functioning of the internal market. It could also issue an opinion in cases where there is no such national assessment or consultation of the Board by a national authority or body. 

The Media Freedom Act requires that any national measures (legislative, regulatory or administrative, e.g. granting a licence or authorisation) which can affect operations of media service providers in the internal market should be justified, proportionate, reasoned, transparent, objective and non-discriminatory.

The Board will be able to intervene, upon request of the Commission, by issuing opinions on national measures, including legislative proposals adopted at national level. The Commission would also have a possibility to issue its own opinions on such measures.

In case of breach of the law, the Commission will be able to intervene, using the powers granted by the Treaties, including by launching infringement procedures.

State advertising is an important revenue source in the media sector, and market players should benefit from equal opportunities in accessing it.

With regard to advertising by public authorities (at national or regional level, or local authorities of cities with more than 1 million population) and state-owned enterprises, the European Media Freedom Act requires that the allocation of such state advertising to media is transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. The objective is to minimise the risks of public funds and other state resources being leveraged to serve partisan interests and to promote fair competition in the internal media market. Public authorities and state-owned enterprises will have to publish yearly information about their advertising expenditure allocated to media service providers, including the names of the media service providers from which advertising services were purchased and the amounts spent (annual amount and amount per provider).

The European Media Freedom Act builds on the Digital Services Act. The proposal offers additional protection against the unjustified removal by very large online platforms (above 45 million users in the EU) of media content produced according to professional standards. Such platforms will need to take all possible measures to communicate the reasons for suspending content to media service providers before the suspension takes effect. The procedure includes a series of safeguards to ensure that this early warning procedure is in line with other priorities of the Commission, such as the fight against disinformation. Any complaints lodged by media service providers must be processed with priority by those platforms. The proposal provides for a meaningful and effective dialogue between the parties to avoid unjustified content removals and for obligatory annual reporting by very large online platforms.

These provisions are accompanied by a structured dialogue organised by the European Board for Media Services between very large online platforms, the media sector and civil society to foster access to diverse offers of independent media on very large online platforms and to monitor adherence to self-regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting society from harmful content, including disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference.

The European Media Freedom Act builds on the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which coordinates certain aspects of Member State regulation on audiovisual media services. In particular, the proposal strengthens the cooperation of national media regulators, including with regard to the provisions of the AVMSD. Notably, the European Media Freedom Act establishes a framework for cooperation and mutual assistance among media regulators and introduces a new mechanism to facilitate the enforcement of the AVMSD obligations of video-sharing platforms. In addition, the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA), which was established under the AVMSD, will be replaced and succeeded by the European Board for Media Services, which will take on the tasks of ERGA under the AVMSD and new tasks under the proposal. The proposal and the accompanying Recommendation also build on the provisions of the AVMSD on transparency of media ownership.

At the same time, the proposed European Media Freedom Act introduces a number of new provisions going beyond the AVMSD, for example, on audience measurement systems, state advertising and the protection of journalistic sources. It also has a broader scope and is not limited to audiovisual media.

The Regulation introduces a right of customisation of the media offer on devices and interfaces used to access audiovisual media services, such as connected TVs. This means that users will be able to change the default settings and adapt them to their own preferences. It will apply, for example, to hardware (e.g. remote controls) or software shortcuts, applications and search areas.

When placing such devices and user interfaces on the market, manufacturers and developers will need to ensure that they include a functionality enabling users to freely and easily exercise this right.

The rules will not affect the Member States’ ability to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest (Article 7a of the revised Audiovisual and Media Services Directive).

Audience measurement is of key importance for the media and advertising ecosystems, as it helps the calculation of advertising prices, and thus further allocation of advertising revenues and the related planning, production or distribution of content by media service providers.

Building on the Digital Markets Act, the Regulation requires that the providers of audience measurement tools provide media service providers and advertisers with detailed information on the methodology used. The Media Freedom Act will also oblige regulatory authorities to encourage the drawing up of codes of conduct among providers of audience measurement tools to foster transparency, inclusiveness and non-discrimination.

With the new audience measurement rules, media companies will be able to benefit from fair competition and a better return on investment in the digital environment.

The European Media Freedom Act takes the form of a Regulation comprising common rules and safeguards that will be directly applicable across the European Union once adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. The Regulation is accompanied by a Recommendation that provides a catalogue of voluntary best practices collected from media companies and other media stakeholders and to be discussed with them in order to further support editorial independence. The aim is to help increase the resilience of the media against pressure. It also includes recommendations to media companies and Member States enhancing media ownership transparency. The Recommendation will apply immediately and is expected to lead to positive developments in the internal media market in the short term. In addition, a combination of a Regulation and a Recommendation allows taking into account specificities of media regulation and self-regulation at the EU level and in the Member States.

As the next step, the European Parliament and the Member States will discuss the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation under the ordinary legislative procedure. Once adopted by the co-legislators, the Regulation will be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Most provisions will apply 6 months after the entry into force of the Regulation. Provisions concerning the European Board for Media Services will apply already 3 months after the entry into force to lay the ground for a successful implementation.

The Media Freedom Act is a Regulation which means it is directly applicable in all Member States. This means that any alleged breaches can be brought before national Courts. The European Board for Media Services, together with the European Commission, will ensure the consistent application of the European Media Freedom Act and the wider EU media law framework. In the context of national measures affecting the operation of media service providers, the Board’s opinions will be an important element in any decision on whether a Member State has infringed the Act. In the most serious cases, the Commission would be able to intervene, using the powers granted by the Treaties, including launching infringement procedures.

The Recommendation accompanying the legislative proposal is non-binding. However, the Commission will monitor the implementation of the Recommendation by Member States and hold discussions regarding stakeholders’ actions to follow it up in relevant fora.

Inverting Queen Elizabeth II’s Steady Glass Cage Leadership Style

Commission proposes emergency market intervention to reduce bills for Europeans

New EU cybersecurity rules ensure more secure hardware and software products

European Union needs reflection on its strategic autonomy in a geopolitical sense

Has Europe actually faced socio-economic drought?

Europe Restricts Russian Travellers While Russia Opposes Tit-for-Tat Visa Requirements

Commission presents guidelines on stricter visa processing for Russian citizens

It is tough being a leader, especially a woman in a glass cage  as was the recently demised Queen Elizabeth ll ;overseeing an immensely wealthy global empire. Particularly when such an incredibly remarkable woman is there leading   not  necessarily because she wants to    but due to family tradition dating back hundreds of years .It was  then Princess Elizabeth’s turn  since  there were no males left  in the family lineup.  Afterall, her uncle the King  decided to abdicate for the sake of being in love leaving her father to become his reluctant successor  . When her father died she  served as she promised  she would as her father did; that is , until her last breath no matter how long or how short it would be to come around.

It would be a 70 years journey we will never know very much about ; mostly , the public pomp and circumstance , the Queen’s  gracious smiles and compassionate encouragements;  her public decrees, and  seemingly countless photo ops with the rich and famous and with conveniently posing commoners. And of course there is and will be the gossipy press and  royal family biographers, as a lucrative cottage industry,making their  matter of fact and sensational claims shooting in the dark most of the time since rarely do royal family  members break the circling of   secrecy wagons.

What she did as ultimate sacrifices as the supreme  symbolic though profoundly influential State leader, the Queen,  incarcerated in her  crystal clear glass cage,was  answering a family calling for public good service. To her, her family  calling meant serving  without partisan  public opinion about anything or anyone .Her inclination was to say and do  things  hidden from public view to such an extent we are hard put to know how she really felt about major events and circumstances which came to define her era.

She inherited a  family calling  of leadership over an ancient rather archaic  global and domestic patrimonial ,that is, ceremonial  family State  institution not made for the social media and otherwise digital era with its sense of lost of privacy and making family shortcomings and stumbles fodder for the tabloids ,prime time news, and reality shows. And neither  did she allow herself to  publicly blurt out her hurt about  or defense of family members who went astray.

She is now  transitioning to her  grave with her lips sealed before she died   for an eternity at least when it comes  to the itching prying  ears of the media driven public about her intimate family problems made so embarrassingly public .Never  letting   public outsiders know how much her  favorite grandson Prince Harry  hurt her so badly   with his mother  Princess Diana , her daughter-in-,law  doing the same . And his father, now King Charles III, her  eldest son,also deeply  hurting her though  finally reaching the throne  by  family tradition after her demise  tarnished by an adulterous past the British and global public shall never forget as they look into his still guilt ridden eyes.She was a Mum afterall with family issues so common but just the same could not murmur a word and had to keep her tears in her heart because of the family calling making  her wear that public stoic expression.

As the anti-colonial peanut gallery now is reminding us while  coldly indifferent to decent space for a time of compassionate family and public mourning, her Majesty the Queen, accomplished her astounding family calling without once condemning publicly the sins which through the centuries the British Crown has done to millions in enslavement,  genocide, stealing land, delegitimating indigenous cultures,  and taking their natural wealth and material arts and declaring them as their own. Yet her’s was the kind of public leadership done in silence so you know what she believed not in what she said but what she did; by  when she gets out of the way  of things happening or  by getting in the way. She could have allowed her son Prince  Andrew to get away scot free of his alleged scandalous sexual  behavior with a minor   when instead he was  by  her  authorization, ,stripped  of  most of his royal privileges with his  settlement bill being paid for with or without public funds.She could have blocked now  Princess  Meghan from marrying Prince Harry but welcomed her into the fold and even  gave her more than usual  daughter in law privileges. 

She could have refused to agree with Harold Wilson’s 1960 Winds of Change speech, one of her favorite  Prime Ministers ,but did not.  And  certainly, she would not have bothered to visit  the Crown’s first freed African country, Ghana the following year, let alone dance with President Kwane Nkrumah. Or why welcome President Nelson Mandela to Buckingham Palace over 30 years later?And she certainly could have denied her eldest son, now King Charles III ,permission to spend so much time focused on educational access to the disadvantaged and becoming an icon in the environmental justice movement. Actions speak louder than words and in fact ,are your words if due to policy or personal disposition you keep your views to yourself while  just staying steady at the helm of your leadership job.

I am far from a royalist and am well versed enough in British colonial history to know how much over the centuries the Queen’s ancestors plundered to  the highest degrees. Such  grotesque crimes against humanity  have  allowed her and her family , both immediate and extended ,to live such splendid cloistered  lives in the clutches indeed belly   of such a sadistically  cruel global and domestic sociopolitical and economic institution. It needs to be gotten rid of and as soon as possible. But it will take the sort of   dedicated steady  work ethic  Queen Elizabeth ll  possessed to do so. And it will demand  much more than  the 70 years  she devoutely clocked in each day. 

 Do anti-monarchists and anti-colonialists in Britain and around the world have that level of stamina let alone stomach and backbone   and more than that, the deepest  depth of will to stand , speak , organize, and effectively  act until the walls of empire come tumbling down in favor of genuine justice and peace for everyone? Or shall we merely look and comment after Queen Elizabeth ll is eulogized and buried next to her parents and sister  and soon to be exhumed husband as much as we looked and commented  before her demise to go spend eternity with her Jesus while doing nothing but barking criticisms, writing books, going to conferences,  and making empty fancy sounding proclamations we know can’t really work?

Meanwhile as Queen Elizabeth ll enters into her well deserved eternal rest let us all no  matter how we felt about her, give her  credit where it  is due in being such a remarkable lasting, steady leader tinkering with the system here and there. And those opposed to what she stood for, match and surpass her  resilient decades of loyalty to her institution and change it to meet the calls for  enduring justice  and peace for all characterizing what this century is  becoming all about. Even if it takes 70 plus more years to accomplish. 

My deepest condolences and prayers to the family of Queen Elizabeth and to her subjects of Great Britain and those others around the world now in mourning. And may we be forever grateful for her remarkable steady, resilient leadership gifts and talents. We must  more firmly employ what she taught us about  what steady persistent discreet and not so discreet  leadership is  to bring about the needed changes to heal the wounds of injustice her beloved family  institution has cruelly  caused millions and bring them and their descendants the deserving  enduring justice and peace only authentic wealth distributions and otherwise restorative justice  long steps with reparations outcomes  can render. 

Although modern Europe had exercised profound impacts on all the corners of the globe during the past centuries (1495-1945), it is undeniable that it declined substantially in the wake of the Second World War which was followed by the scenario of the bipolar domination by the United States and Russia (then the Soviet Union). The former has inherited from Europe culturally and institutionally but never been a part of its geography; the latter is a part of Europe geographically yet never integrated into it culturally, socially and even psychologically. Moreover, after 1945, Europe became a “thorny” question which required the two superpower to secure its security and equilibrium.

Given this, there is no question that Europe itself was unable to make it equal to the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the world affairs. To redress this fatal reality, the British elite policy-makers proposed that “To keep Germany down and keep Russia out of Europe, it had no option but to keep the U.S. in.” Since then, it is the United States that has secured a long-peace in Europe which has evolved into a civilian power in the name of the European Union during the Cold War and afterwards. By the eve of the new 21st century, it is widely held that “the United States of Europa”, though still emerging internationally, would aim to end American supremacy. For sure, this is what Washington can’t accept for the sake of its elite’s obsession with the “unilateral world order” mandated by the special destiny.

There is no question that the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union did push the European Union to undergo a rapid expansion of the quantity and quality as well. It is an ancient wisdom that a strong European Union should be built on its coherence and integration rather than the sheer binding together which leads to a potential disunity and diversity in all policy issues. However, the EU has been driven to include all European countries potentially including Ukraine while excluding Russia and Turkey although Ankara has submitted its request to be granted a full-membership of the EU from the early 1960s. Now Europe wants to play major role in the world affairs rather than being treated as the playground only. The key remains how the responses are from London and Washington, that is, the Anglo-American axis in the new century.

Historically speaking, as American scholar Walter Mead put it, there have been only two global powers as what Europeans still sometimes refer to as “Anglo-American” powers: United Kingdom and the United States. The British Empire was, and the United States is, concerned not just with the balance of power in one particular corner of the world but also the evolution of what we today call “world order”. A worldwide system of trade and finance have made both Britain and America rich, those riches are what gave them the capabilities to project the military force and intellectual impacts based on the latest technology globally to ensure the stability of their-dominated international systems. Now with acting as the Anglo-American axis in anti-Russian coalition, Washington and London have worked in concert to achieve their core goals: “To keep Russia down during the Ukrainian war and keep the EU disunited as much as they could. In doing so, they must act in concert to be involved into the hybrid war against Russia until the last Ukrainian man fighting in the war.

Given some controversial memories of the past and the nature of geopolitics, Poland and the Baltic states have been the closest allies of the United States and Britain during the Ukrainian war and its aftermath. Yet, some countries including the back-borne of the EU community—France and Germany—have revealed their practical needs and diplomatic traits to end the conflict in Europe. But they have failed all the efforts thus far due to the reasons that the U.S. and Britain have committed to providing the fuel to the burning fire in Ukraine. For sure, the United States has every reasons from history and geopolitics to bolster the European Union but also prevent its drifting off into a geopolitical vacuum. If it is separated from Europe in politics, economics and defense, America would become geopolitically an island off the shore of Eurasia where the transcontinental mass stretching from the Volga to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic Ocean is under the jurisdiction of China, Russia and their friendly countries such as Iran and Afghanistan now. Accordingly, the United States has resented the looming challenge when they covet Eurasia as the pivot of the grand chessboard. As U.S. strategists like Kissinger, Brzezinski and etc. once argued that “no matter which power, either of Europe or Asia, dominates Eurasia, that danger is seen by Washington as a structural threat to its primacy in the world.”[1] Yet, China and Russia will certainly react by all means to how the U.S. would have treated them in the world affairs.

China, Russia and their partners have expected the European Union to play the major role in dealing with the volatile world situation. Accordingly, it is necessary for France and Germany to act in concert in managing the present EU distress and then directing EU development in the future. Historically and strategically, it is proper to say that the first key milestone for rapprochement between Germany and France is the Elysee Treaty of friendship and reconciliation that was signed in 1963. Under the agreement, Paris and Bonn pledged to consult each other, prior to any decision, on all questions of foreign policy with a view to reaching an analogous position. Equally important is the Aachen Treaty signed by Berlin and Paris in 2019, which aims to enhance EU cohesion and provide joint security externally. Now acting as the two powerful engines of the EU, the accord between France and Germany will justify that the future of Europe depends closely on the consensus between the two leading powers in all terms.

Yes, some political groups have voiced their concerns or even anger that France and Germany have fallen into the exclusive Franco-German axis, leaving the rest of the EU membership in second row. Due to this, they have come to question the bloc’s nature and development trend. Given this, the U.S. and Britain have openly driven their closest allies bordering Russia to become more and more aggressive and even cross the bottom line in the anti-Russian campaign economically, militarily and diplomatically in the name of the so-called shared-values. The designs of the Anglo-American axis has insured the rules-based global trade system and economic order which had been weakened since the Trump administration. Yet, a peaceful and prosperous Europe will be a reality only when France and Germany are forged into a real power center. It stands to reason that the two countries have common responsibilities, complemented economies and compatible military capacity. In addition, Germany has acted as the EU’s economic engine and security pivot due to its location at the very heart of Europe.

Still, there are two challenges facing the Franco-German accord. First is history. France and Germany need to learn lessons from each other’s previous bid for mastery in Europe and global hegemony. The price Germany paid was its own destruction and France was totally demoralized as well in 1945. Second is the issue of EU distress. As Joschka Fischer put it earlier, Europeans must not allow wishful thinking to obscure their important facts, as occurred when the European Monetary Union was formed in the 1990s. It argues that there were earlier conflicts between individual member states regarding national economic and fiscal policy, along with their political culture and divergent mentality. But willful ignorance prevailed over rational analysis. Third is the resolve of the EU. Now with the Ukrainian crisis dragging on, the EU can’t make the short-sighted decision again. As consensus will not come easily, a genuine accord between Germany and France is required to struggle for strategic autonomy. Yet, as long as the U.S.-led anti-Russian campaign continues, Washington and London will make all efforts to call on their allies and partners to underscore continued international support for Ukraine. Although not all allies were rustled up, the most radical governments of the NATO and the EU are present at the banner of the U.S.-led crusade: e.g. Secretary of State Blinken flew into Brussels recently where he talked up “unity” among the West while proclaiming that what was at stake with the Ukrainian war was not going to be cost-free. Yet, the reality is that Russian analysts have a devastating assessment of Europe’s economic future, reporting that the EU’s short-sighted policies have already pushed the region into a full-blown economic crisis. Even some Western analysts share this view that the EU is suffering from the ongoing sanctions pressure, rather than the consequences of the energy crisis. Europe has almost canceled its exports to Russia, primarily technology and equipment exports. Everybody understands that Europe invented these problems all by itself, by blocking almost the entire exports to Russia for political reasons, while expecting no retaliatory measures, for some reason.

In sum, Europe has deeply-rooted legacy of statecraft to end wars and to create peace. Now is the right time for France and Germany to stand up for struggling for power, profits and prestige for the EU family rather than acting as a coadjutant of the Anglo-American axis.

[1] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 813; Also see Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (NY: Basic Books, 1997), p. 27.

The British Queen passed away around 6 PM on September 8, 2022 after a reign of over 70 years.  Quite naturally, she had become an institution, and many of her subjects could have been born, lived and died while she was monarch. 

World leaders who had met her remarked on her graciousness, wit and wisdom — accumulated no doubt through her travels, meeting endless people, and above all her regular weekly audience with the British prime minister who apprised her of important events and government business.  Over the years her experience must have also become valuable.

People who had met her also noted her genuine kindness and an ability to put people at ease in formal situations.  No doubt her sense of humor came in handy.

During my stay in London, I saw her many times at various ceremonies and events.  Trooping the color to celebrate the sovereign’s official birthday in June — her actual date of birth was in April — was one of them.  She would ride down The Mall, sitting side-saddle on her horse, all the way to Horse Guards Parade where she would take the salute.

A friend and I, seeing an open space just by the fence, quickly seized the spot overlooked by others.  We soon found out why.  As the ceremony commenced, a troop of horse guards lined up at the fence.  In front of me then was an enormous horse’s behind giving an extremely blinkered view of the occasion.  The horse’s anatomy is etched in my memory as is the flicking of his tail too close to my face for comfort.  To end it all, the horse coup de grace was an emptying of his bowels — a memory one would dearly wish to forget but remains unforgettable.

The Queen’s mother, also named Elizabeth, was the Chancellor of the University of London.  In England that is an honorary position for the executive officer is the Vice-Chancellor, akin to a U.S. university president.

Well, the Queen Mother came to visit King’s College.  She was welcomed by all the chief officers and proceeded to tour the classrooms and labs.  We were instructed to address her as Ma’am (a long ‘a’ followed by a short one).  We were in a room with wide tables where we could set up our engineering drawing  boards and their T-squares .  My place happened to be close to the aisle, and when the Queen Mother passed by she asked me what I was drawing.  “It’s a roof TRUSS Ma’am”– it was a structural engineering class.  She smiled and walked on.  I was so nervous the words “It’s a roof” were barely audible although “TRUSS” was loud and clear, and I have often wondered what she thought. 

Of course now there is a Truss in Britain’s future.  Liz Truss as prime minister is leading it with a cabinet that for the first time does not have a white male heading a principal ministry. 

The Cyber era which found its genesis with the advent of the global internet- through the US Department of Defense...

The aim of the European Media Freedom Act is to protect media pluralism and independence in the EU single market,...

In this article, we will examine one by one the points that do not yet enable studies and developments on...

On the 15th anniversary of the International Day of Democracy, commemorated on Thursday, the UN chief observed that “across the world,...

The Chinese president on Friday praised Iran’s independent position toward international developments and called the relations between Beijing and Tehran...

In the new global context of socio-economic systemic shocks, recommitting to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has never been more...

On Wednesday night, Iran signed a memorandum of commitments in the path to fully join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)....

Factionalism in the Chinese Communist Party: From Mao to Now

The Summit for Democracy Can Only Be a Success If It Focuses on Youth

Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Lithuania is on the brink of a social explosion

50 million people in modern slavery

Is a career in graphic design more accessible in 2022?

Myanmar: Increasing evidence of crimes against humanity since coup