6:20 am, Friday, 10 October 2025
BREAKING NEWS
Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes. SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS
Home / International, Top News

Trump’s Gaza plan will be seen as flying in face of international law  

sarakhon desk

Spain rejects Israel’s suggestion it should accept Palestinians from Gaza  

Reuters,

Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares on Thursday rejected the suggestion by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz that Spain should accept displaced Palestinians from Gaza. “Gazans’ land is Gaza and Gaza must be part of the future Palestinian state,” Albares said in an interview with Spanish radio station RNE. Katz ordered the army to prepare a plan for the “voluntary departure” of residents from the Gaza Strip, according to Israeli media. This instruction followed U.S. President Donald Trump’s shock announcement that the United States plans to take over Gaza, resettle its Palestinian residents, and transform the territory into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Katz further asserted that Spain, Ireland, and Norway—countries that recognized a Palestinian state last year—are legally obligated to admit any resident from Gaza.

Trump’s Gaza plan will be seen as flying in face of international law  

BBC,

When US President Donald Trump began speaking about Gaza as a demolition site, calling to “clean out that whole thing,” his remarks were initially seen as off-the-cuff. However, in the lead-up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit—in Oval Office comments and during a press conference—it became evident that Trump was profoundly serious about his proposals. His plans represent the most radical shift in the established US stance on Israel and the Palestinians in recent history and are likely to be viewed as a direct challenge to international law. Trump and his officials frame the plan to permanently “resettle” all Palestinians from Gaza as a humanitarian gesture, arguing that there is no alternative because Gaza has effectively become a “demolition site.” Critics warn that this proposal, which could forcibly displace over two million people, amounts to ethnic cleansing and collective punishment. Arab leaders have categorically rejected the idea, cautioning that it could destabilize the region and undermine prospects for lasting peace.

Amazon plans to spend $100 billion this year to capture ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ in AI  

CNBC,

Amazon announced on Thursday that it will boost its capital expenditures to $100 billion in 2025, significantly exceeding last year’s spending of roughly $83 billion. CEO Andy Jassy explained during an investor call following the fourth-quarter earnings report that the vast majority of this investment will be directed toward artificial intelligence initiatives, particularly for AWS. “We spent $26.3 billion in Q4, which is indicative of the annualized capex rate we expect in 2025,” Jassy stated. The company is rapidly investing in data centers, networking equipment, and hardware to meet the surging demand for generative AI, especially in the wake of the popularity of ChatGPT. In this competitive environment, other tech giants such as Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta have also unveiled plans for substantial investments in AI and data infrastructure. Despite mixed quarterly results and a slight decline in shares, Jassy assured investors that these strategic expenditures will yield long-term benefits for both customers and shareholders.

Argentina says it will withdraw from the World Health Organization, echoing Trump  

Independent,

Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, has ordered the country’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, citing “profound differences” with the U.N. agency over its approach to health management. This decision echoes actions taken by U.S. President Donald Trump, who initiated the process to exit WHO on his first day back in office. Although Argentina’s contribution to the WHO budget is modest—about $8 million out of an estimated $6.9 billion for 2024–2025—the move is expected to further strain global health cooperation. Spokesperson Manuel Adorni explained at a press conference in Buenos Aires that WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to what he described as the largest shutdown “in the history of mankind,” underscored the deep-seated differences. Adorni stressed that Argentina will not permit any international organization to interfere with its sovereignty or national health policies. The decision is pending implementation and comes ahead of Milei’s forthcoming trip to the United States, scheduled to coincide with a summit of right-wing leaders.

More News:
The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant
Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes.
SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION
Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross
IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES
GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE
05:50:32 pm, Friday, 7 February 2025

Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement

The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant

Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes.

SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION

Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross

IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES

GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE

OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY

PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS

TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS

News Title :
Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes. SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS

Trump’s Gaza plan will be seen as flying in face of international law  

05:50:32 pm, Friday, 7 February 2025

Spain rejects Israel’s suggestion it should accept Palestinians from Gaza  

Reuters,

Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares on Thursday rejected the suggestion by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz that Spain should accept displaced Palestinians from Gaza. “Gazans’ land is Gaza and Gaza must be part of the future Palestinian state,” Albares said in an interview with Spanish radio station RNE. Katz ordered the army to prepare a plan for the “voluntary departure” of residents from the Gaza Strip, according to Israeli media. This instruction followed U.S. President Donald Trump’s shock announcement that the United States plans to take over Gaza, resettle its Palestinian residents, and transform the territory into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Katz further asserted that Spain, Ireland, and Norway—countries that recognized a Palestinian state last year—are legally obligated to admit any resident from Gaza.

Trump’s Gaza plan will be seen as flying in face of international law  

BBC,

When US President Donald Trump began speaking about Gaza as a demolition site, calling to “clean out that whole thing,” his remarks were initially seen as off-the-cuff. However, in the lead-up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit—in Oval Office comments and during a press conference—it became evident that Trump was profoundly serious about his proposals. His plans represent the most radical shift in the established US stance on Israel and the Palestinians in recent history and are likely to be viewed as a direct challenge to international law. Trump and his officials frame the plan to permanently “resettle” all Palestinians from Gaza as a humanitarian gesture, arguing that there is no alternative because Gaza has effectively become a “demolition site.” Critics warn that this proposal, which could forcibly displace over two million people, amounts to ethnic cleansing and collective punishment. Arab leaders have categorically rejected the idea, cautioning that it could destabilize the region and undermine prospects for lasting peace.

Amazon plans to spend $100 billion this year to capture ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ in AI  

CNBC,

Amazon announced on Thursday that it will boost its capital expenditures to $100 billion in 2025, significantly exceeding last year’s spending of roughly $83 billion. CEO Andy Jassy explained during an investor call following the fourth-quarter earnings report that the vast majority of this investment will be directed toward artificial intelligence initiatives, particularly for AWS. “We spent $26.3 billion in Q4, which is indicative of the annualized capex rate we expect in 2025,” Jassy stated. The company is rapidly investing in data centers, networking equipment, and hardware to meet the surging demand for generative AI, especially in the wake of the popularity of ChatGPT. In this competitive environment, other tech giants such as Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta have also unveiled plans for substantial investments in AI and data infrastructure. Despite mixed quarterly results and a slight decline in shares, Jassy assured investors that these strategic expenditures will yield long-term benefits for both customers and shareholders.

Argentina says it will withdraw from the World Health Organization, echoing Trump  

Independent,

Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, has ordered the country’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, citing “profound differences” with the U.N. agency over its approach to health management. This decision echoes actions taken by U.S. President Donald Trump, who initiated the process to exit WHO on his first day back in office. Although Argentina’s contribution to the WHO budget is modest—about $8 million out of an estimated $6.9 billion for 2024–2025—the move is expected to further strain global health cooperation. Spokesperson Manuel Adorni explained at a press conference in Buenos Aires that WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to what he described as the largest shutdown “in the history of mankind,” underscored the deep-seated differences. Adorni stressed that Argentina will not permit any international organization to interfere with its sovereignty or national health policies. The decision is pending implementation and comes ahead of Milei’s forthcoming trip to the United States, scheduled to coincide with a summit of right-wing leaders.

Editorial : Swadesh Roy

Editorial Office

First Floor, Capita Lake Front. Block J, House# 66, Banani Rd 18 Extension, Dhaka 1213