China's ZTE to post nine-month loss of up to 1.75 billion yuan
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Chinese mobile phone and telecoms equipment maker ZTE Corp will report a loss of as much as 1.75 billion yuan ($279.2 million) in the first 9 months of 2012, it said in a preliminary results announcement on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on Sunday.
The Shenzhen-based company has suffered as a slowing economy has hurt sales and margins have come under pressure. ZTE said its loss will be between 1.65 billion yuan and 1.75 billion yuan. That could be a fall of more than 260 percent compared with the same period last year. Basic earnings per share will be a loss of between 0.48 yuan and 0.51 yuan.
The company is due to report final results at the end of the month.
ZTE said its results during the period were hurt by the Iranian market. The United States is investigating the company over the sale of banned U.S. computer equipment to Iran, which could be used to monitor landline, mobile and Internet communications. ZTE said it is cooperating with U.S. authorities.
Iran is under global sanctions because of allegations it is trying to develop nuclear weapons - something the country denies.
ZTE's bigger Chinese rival, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, is also under scrutiny by the United States. U.S. lawmakers have accused the company of being a potential security threat.
For the full ZTE Hong Kong Stock Exchange announcement, please see: http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2012/1014/LTN20121014006.pdf
($1 = 6.2672 Chinese yuan)
(Reporting by Claire Baldwin; Editing by Louise Heavens)
SOURCE: ( Yahoo.com)
The Shenzhen-based company has suffered as a slowing economy has hurt sales and margins have come under pressure. ZTE said its loss will be between 1.65 billion yuan and 1.75 billion yuan. That could be a fall of more than 260 percent compared with the same period last year. Basic earnings per share will be a loss of between 0.48 yuan and 0.51 yuan.
The company is due to report final results at the end of the month.
ZTE said its results during the period were hurt by the Iranian market. The United States is investigating the company over the sale of banned U.S. computer equipment to Iran, which could be used to monitor landline, mobile and Internet communications. ZTE said it is cooperating with U.S. authorities.
Iran is under global sanctions because of allegations it is trying to develop nuclear weapons - something the country denies.
ZTE's bigger Chinese rival, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, is also under scrutiny by the United States. U.S. lawmakers have accused the company of being a potential security threat.
For the full ZTE Hong Kong Stock Exchange announcement, please see: http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2012/1014/LTN20121014006.pdf
($1 = 6.2672 Chinese yuan)
(Reporting by Claire Baldwin; Editing by Louise Heavens)
SOURCE: ( Yahoo.com)
200 Muslim rebels arrive to sign Philippine pact
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — Worn down by decades of fighting and failed peace agreements, Muslim rebel leaders were euphoric but cautious Monday before they sign a preliminary peace pact with the Philippine government aimed at ending one of Asia's longest-running insurgencies.
The agreement is the first major step toward a final settlement that grants minority Muslims in the southern Philippines broad autonomy in exchange for ending the violence that has killed tens of thousands of people and crippled development. Many of the rebel leaders interviewed said a lot of work lies ahead in convincing Filipino Muslims to accept a new administrative region.
A product of 15 years of negotiations facilitated by neighboringMalaysia, which wants stability on its doorstep, the agreement sets in motion a roadmap to a final document that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Philippine President Benigno Aquino III's government plan to clinch before his six-year terms ends in 2016.
The signing will be witnessed by Aquino, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and rebel chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, who will set foot for the first time in Manila's Malacanang presidential palace, where officials prepared a red-carpet welcome.
"That first step alone signifies a giant leap in the relations between the two sides," said the presidential adviser for the peace process, Teresita Deles.
Michael Mastura, a member of the rebel negotiating team, likened Monday's agreement to a takeoff. "But then we have to fly, reach a plateau, and move on."
Sonny Davao, deputy chief of the rebel army, said guerrilla commanders were ready to shift from armed struggle to helping build a new Muslim-administered region.
"We have to transform ourselves because we have responsibilities and obligations to our people and to Islam," said Davao, who shed his camouflage uniform for a dark coat with tie for the signing ceremony. "We are one in supporting the decision of our entire leadership."
Murad has seldom appeared in public in past years. Aquino met Murad secretly in Tokyo for the first time last year to underscore their commitment to settle the rebellion.
About 300 Muslims from Manila and southern provinces held a noisy rally outside the palace on Sunday in support of the preliminary accord, yelling "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great." They called for more development in the resource-rich but impoverished southern Mindanao region, the homeland of minority Muslims in the predominantly Roman Catholic nation.
Security has been tightened in the capital, although no disruptions were expected.
The agreement is to be signed by government negotiator Marvic Leonen and his rebel counterpart, Mohagher Iqbal. It outlines general agreements on major issues, including the extent of power, revenues and territory of a new Muslim autonomous region to be called Bangsamoro.
It calls for the establishment of a 15-member Transition Commission to draft a law creating the new Muslim-administered region. Rebel forces will be deactivated gradually "beyond use," the agreement says, without specifying a timetable.
The deal is the most significant progress in years of tough bargaining with the 11,000-strong Moro group to end an uprising that has left more than 120,000 people dead and displaced about 2 million others. Western governments have worried over the presence of small numbers of al-Qaida-linked militants from the Middle East and Southeast Asia seeking combat training and collaboration with the Filipino insurgents.
One of those extremist groups, the Abu Sayyaf, is not part of any negotiations, but the hope is that the peace agreement will isolate its militants and deny them sanctuary and logistical support they had previously received from rebel commanders.
One of those hardline commanders, Ameril Umbra Kato, broke off from the main Moro insurgents last year. Kato's forces attacked the army in August, prompting an offensive that killed more than 50 fighters in the 200-strong rebel faction.
Abu Misri Mammah, a spokesman for Kato's forces, said Sunday that his group does not recognize the peace accord.
"That's a surrender," he said. "We won't waver from our armed struggle and continue to aspire for a separate Muslim homeland that won't be a creation of politicians."
Mastura said that rebel leaders have to forge a strong peace deal that could withstand any opposition.
"It is easy, just gather a few men and disturb, because there are many firearms around. But that's not the mainstream line," Mastura said. "That is why we have to show that this is the way rather than their way."
The new Muslim region is to include an existing autonomous territory made of five of the country's poorest and most violent provinces. The Moro rebels earlier dropped a demand for a separate Muslim state and renounced terrorism.
Iqbal has said his group would not lay down its weapons until a final peace accord is concluded. He said the insurgents could form a political party and run in democratic elections to get a chance at leading the autonomous region.
___
Associated Press writer Oliver Teves contributed to this report.
Source: (Yahoo.com)
The agreement is the first major step toward a final settlement that grants minority Muslims in the southern Philippines broad autonomy in exchange for ending the violence that has killed tens of thousands of people and crippled development. Many of the rebel leaders interviewed said a lot of work lies ahead in convincing Filipino Muslims to accept a new administrative region.
A product of 15 years of negotiations facilitated by neighboringMalaysia, which wants stability on its doorstep, the agreement sets in motion a roadmap to a final document that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Philippine President Benigno Aquino III's government plan to clinch before his six-year terms ends in 2016.
The signing will be witnessed by Aquino, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and rebel chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, who will set foot for the first time in Manila's Malacanang presidential palace, where officials prepared a red-carpet welcome.
"That first step alone signifies a giant leap in the relations between the two sides," said the presidential adviser for the peace process, Teresita Deles.
Michael Mastura, a member of the rebel negotiating team, likened Monday's agreement to a takeoff. "But then we have to fly, reach a plateau, and move on."
Sonny Davao, deputy chief of the rebel army, said guerrilla commanders were ready to shift from armed struggle to helping build a new Muslim-administered region.
"We have to transform ourselves because we have responsibilities and obligations to our people and to Islam," said Davao, who shed his camouflage uniform for a dark coat with tie for the signing ceremony. "We are one in supporting the decision of our entire leadership."
Murad has seldom appeared in public in past years. Aquino met Murad secretly in Tokyo for the first time last year to underscore their commitment to settle the rebellion.
About 300 Muslims from Manila and southern provinces held a noisy rally outside the palace on Sunday in support of the preliminary accord, yelling "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great." They called for more development in the resource-rich but impoverished southern Mindanao region, the homeland of minority Muslims in the predominantly Roman Catholic nation.
Security has been tightened in the capital, although no disruptions were expected.
The agreement is to be signed by government negotiator Marvic Leonen and his rebel counterpart, Mohagher Iqbal. It outlines general agreements on major issues, including the extent of power, revenues and territory of a new Muslim autonomous region to be called Bangsamoro.
It calls for the establishment of a 15-member Transition Commission to draft a law creating the new Muslim-administered region. Rebel forces will be deactivated gradually "beyond use," the agreement says, without specifying a timetable.
The deal is the most significant progress in years of tough bargaining with the 11,000-strong Moro group to end an uprising that has left more than 120,000 people dead and displaced about 2 million others. Western governments have worried over the presence of small numbers of al-Qaida-linked militants from the Middle East and Southeast Asia seeking combat training and collaboration with the Filipino insurgents.
One of those extremist groups, the Abu Sayyaf, is not part of any negotiations, but the hope is that the peace agreement will isolate its militants and deny them sanctuary and logistical support they had previously received from rebel commanders.
One of those hardline commanders, Ameril Umbra Kato, broke off from the main Moro insurgents last year. Kato's forces attacked the army in August, prompting an offensive that killed more than 50 fighters in the 200-strong rebel faction.
Abu Misri Mammah, a spokesman for Kato's forces, said Sunday that his group does not recognize the peace accord.
"That's a surrender," he said. "We won't waver from our armed struggle and continue to aspire for a separate Muslim homeland that won't be a creation of politicians."
Mastura said that rebel leaders have to forge a strong peace deal that could withstand any opposition.
"It is easy, just gather a few men and disturb, because there are many firearms around. But that's not the mainstream line," Mastura said. "That is why we have to show that this is the way rather than their way."
The new Muslim region is to include an existing autonomous territory made of five of the country's poorest and most violent provinces. The Moro rebels earlier dropped a demand for a separate Muslim state and renounced terrorism.
Iqbal has said his group would not lay down its weapons until a final peace accord is concluded. He said the insurgents could form a political party and run in democratic elections to get a chance at leading the autonomous region.
___
Associated Press writer Oliver Teves contributed to this report.
Source: (Yahoo.com)
US Digs into Cyber Warfare- Asian Times
Recently the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee took a meat-ax to Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, and its little brother ZTE in a 60-page report on national-security issues posed by the two companies.
The conclusion:
· They're commies.
· We can't trust 'em. Or, as the executive summary put it:
The United States should view with suspicion the continued penetration of the US telecommunications market by Chinese telecommunications companies. [1]
Specifically, the committee recommended that the government
not purchase any Huawei or ZTE equipment.
The committee rubbed further salt in the wound by recommending that private companies not buy any Huawei or ZTE telecommunications equipment either.
It also invited the legislative branch to expand the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to enable it to block procurement of Chinese telecommunication equipment by US customers, in addition to exercising its traditional powers of blocking foreign investment deemed harmful to US security. CFIUS had previously blocked Huawei's participation in a deal to take 3Com private - which was brokered by Mitt Romney's Bain Capital - and recently denied Huawei's attempt to buy 3Leaf, a California cloud computing company.
Certainly not the clean bill of health that Huawei was hoping for when it invited the US government to investigate its operations.
It is clear that the Chinese companies were given the Saddam Hussein treatment. Just as the Iraqi despot was put in the impossible position of proving a negative - that he did not have any weapons of mass destruction - Huawei and ZTE executives were called upon to prove their companies were not untrustworthy.
Mission unaccomplished, for sure.
The public committee report is little more than a litany of complaints about unclear answers, insufficient disclosure, inadequate clarification, failure to alleviate concerns, making non-credible assertions, failure to document assertions, failure to answer key questions, refusal to be transparent, and so on and so forth. Huawei, in particular, was dinged for "a lack of cooperation shown throughout this investigation".
The committee's conclusion:
Throughout the months-long investigation, both Huawei and ZTE sought to describe, in different terms, why neither company is a threat to US national-security interests. Unfortunately, neither ZTE nor Huawei [has] cooperated fully with the investigation, and both companies have failed to provide documents or other evidence that would substantiate their claims or lend support for their narratives.
To drive a stake into the heart of any dreams that Huawei or ZTE had of providing "mitigation assurances" - bureaucratese for acceptable measures to allay US security concerns - the committee made the interesting decision to dump all over the British government.
Keen on Chinese investment in its backbone telecommunications networks, the British government accepted the reassurance provided by a cyber-security center, funded by Huawei and staffed by UK citizens with security clearances, with the job of vetting Huawei products for hinky bits.
The US intelligence committee dismissed these efforts as futile given the complex, opaque and frequently updated character of telecommunications software:
The task of finding and eliminating every significant vulnerability from a complex product is monumental. If we also consider flaws intentionally inserted by a determined and clever insider, the task becomes virtually impossible.
In terms of specific evidence of Huawei and ZTE malfeasance, there is little meat on the bones of the public document.
On the technical side, the evidence supporting Huawei and ZTE infiltration of the US telecommunications software presented in the public report was less than earth-shaking:
Companies around the United States have experienced odd or alerting incidents using Huawei or ZTE equipment. Officials with these companies, however, often expressed concern that publicly acknowledging these incidents would be detrimental to their internal investigations and attribution efforts, undermine their ongoing efforts to defend their systems, and also put at risk their ongoing contracts.
Similarly, statements by former or current employees describing flaws in the Huawei or ZTE equipment and other potentially unethical or illegal behavior by Huawei officials were hindered by employees' fears of retribution or retaliation.
Presumably, the confidential annex to the committee report makes a more compelling case, but one has to wonder.
According to The Economist:
Years of intense scrutiny by experts have not produced conclusive public evidence of deliberate skulduggery, as opposed to mistakes, in Huawei's wares. BT, a British telecoms company that buys products vetted in [the cyber-security center at] Banbury, says it has not had any security issues with them (though it rechecks everything itself, just to be sure). [2]
In a sign that no existential smoking cyber-guns had been revealed, the worst punishment for Huawei's lack of cooperation that the committee could apparently mete out (other than trying to destroy Huawei's US business) was threatening to forward information to the Justice Department concerning possible corporate malfeasance in the routine areas of immigration violations, fraud and bribery, discrimination, and use of pirated software by Huawei in its US operations.
It can be taken as a given that the People's Republic of China (PRC) is intensely interested in cyber-espionage - diplomatic, military, and commercial - against the United States and cyber-warfare against US government, security, and public infrastructure if and when the need arises.
However, the case that Huawei is a knowing or even a necessary participant in these nefarious schemes is unproved.
Nevertheless, Huawei's attempts to generate a clean bill of health for itself with Western critics are pretty much futile.
That's because government weaponization of communications technology is a given - for everybody, in the West as well as in China.
Beneath the freedom-of-information rhetoric, the West is converging with the East and South when it comes to protecting, monitoring and controlling its networks.
In the United States, providing government law enforcement with back-door access to networks, aka "lawful intercept", is a legal requirement for digital telecom, broadband Internet, and voice-over-IP service and equipment providers under the CALEA (Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act) law. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently lobbying the US administration and the Federal Communications Commission to require that social-media providers such as Facebook provide similar access so that chats and instant messaging can also be monitored in real time or extracted from digital storage.
In Europe, similar law-enforcement access is institutionalized under the standards of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
Particularly in the environment after the attacks of September 11, 2001, law enforcement has expressed anxiety about "going dark" - losing the ability to detect and monitor communications by bad actors as data and telecommunications moved from fixed-wire analog systems to digital, wireless, and band-hopping protocols.
The situation is aggravated by the availability of theoretically unbreakable public/private key 128-bit encryption.
(I say "theoretically", by the way, because creation of the private key relies on a random-number generator on the encrypting computer. A recent study found that some programs were spitting out non-random random numbers, raising the possibility that a certain spook agency of a certain government had been able to diddle with the programs to generate certain numbers preferentially, giving said spook agency a leg up to crack the private keys through otherwise ineffective brute-force computing techniques.) [3]
Recently the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee took a meat-ax to Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, and its little brother ZTE in a 60-page report on national-security issues posed by the two companies.
The conclusion:
· They're commies.
· We can't trust 'em. Or, as the executive summary put it:
The United States should view with suspicion the continued penetration of the US telecommunications market by Chinese telecommunications companies. [1]
Specifically, the committee recommended that the government
not purchase any Huawei or ZTE equipment.
The committee rubbed further salt in the wound by recommending that private companies not buy any Huawei or ZTE telecommunications equipment either.
It also invited the legislative branch to expand the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to enable it to block procurement of Chinese telecommunication equipment by US customers, in addition to exercising its traditional powers of blocking foreign investment deemed harmful to US security. CFIUS had previously blocked Huawei's participation in a deal to take 3Com private - which was brokered by Mitt Romney's Bain Capital - and recently denied Huawei's attempt to buy 3Leaf, a California cloud computing company.
Certainly not the clean bill of health that Huawei was hoping for when it invited the US government to investigate its operations.
It is clear that the Chinese companies were given the Saddam Hussein treatment. Just as the Iraqi despot was put in the impossible position of proving a negative - that he did not have any weapons of mass destruction - Huawei and ZTE executives were called upon to prove their companies were not untrustworthy.
Mission unaccomplished, for sure.
The public committee report is little more than a litany of complaints about unclear answers, insufficient disclosure, inadequate clarification, failure to alleviate concerns, making non-credible assertions, failure to document assertions, failure to answer key questions, refusal to be transparent, and so on and so forth. Huawei, in particular, was dinged for "a lack of cooperation shown throughout this investigation".
The committee's conclusion:
Throughout the months-long investigation, both Huawei and ZTE sought to describe, in different terms, why neither company is a threat to US national-security interests. Unfortunately, neither ZTE nor Huawei [has] cooperated fully with the investigation, and both companies have failed to provide documents or other evidence that would substantiate their claims or lend support for their narratives.
To drive a stake into the heart of any dreams that Huawei or ZTE had of providing "mitigation assurances" - bureaucratese for acceptable measures to allay US security concerns - the committee made the interesting decision to dump all over the British government.
Keen on Chinese investment in its backbone telecommunications networks, the British government accepted the reassurance provided by a cyber-security center, funded by Huawei and staffed by UK citizens with security clearances, with the job of vetting Huawei products for hinky bits.
The US intelligence committee dismissed these efforts as futile given the complex, opaque and frequently updated character of telecommunications software:
The task of finding and eliminating every significant vulnerability from a complex product is monumental. If we also consider flaws intentionally inserted by a determined and clever insider, the task becomes virtually impossible.
In terms of specific evidence of Huawei and ZTE malfeasance, there is little meat on the bones of the public document.
On the technical side, the evidence supporting Huawei and ZTE infiltration of the US telecommunications software presented in the public report was less than earth-shaking:
Companies around the United States have experienced odd or alerting incidents using Huawei or ZTE equipment. Officials with these companies, however, often expressed concern that publicly acknowledging these incidents would be detrimental to their internal investigations and attribution efforts, undermine their ongoing efforts to defend their systems, and also put at risk their ongoing contracts.
Similarly, statements by former or current employees describing flaws in the Huawei or ZTE equipment and other potentially unethical or illegal behavior by Huawei officials were hindered by employees' fears of retribution or retaliation.
Presumably, the confidential annex to the committee report makes a more compelling case, but one has to wonder.
According to The Economist:
Years of intense scrutiny by experts have not produced conclusive public evidence of deliberate skulduggery, as opposed to mistakes, in Huawei's wares. BT, a British telecoms company that buys products vetted in [the cyber-security center at] Banbury, says it has not had any security issues with them (though it rechecks everything itself, just to be sure). [2]
In a sign that no existential smoking cyber-guns had been revealed, the worst punishment for Huawei's lack of cooperation that the committee could apparently mete out (other than trying to destroy Huawei's US business) was threatening to forward information to the Justice Department concerning possible corporate malfeasance in the routine areas of immigration violations, fraud and bribery, discrimination, and use of pirated software by Huawei in its US operations.
It can be taken as a given that the People's Republic of China (PRC) is intensely interested in cyber-espionage - diplomatic, military, and commercial - against the United States and cyber-warfare against US government, security, and public infrastructure if and when the need arises.
However, the case that Huawei is a knowing or even a necessary participant in these nefarious schemes is unproved.
Nevertheless, Huawei's attempts to generate a clean bill of health for itself with Western critics are pretty much futile.
That's because government weaponization of communications technology is a given - for everybody, in the West as well as in China.
Beneath the freedom-of-information rhetoric, the West is converging with the East and South when it comes to protecting, monitoring and controlling its networks.
In the United States, providing government law enforcement with back-door access to networks, aka "lawful intercept", is a legal requirement for digital telecom, broadband Internet, and voice-over-IP service and equipment providers under the CALEA (Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act) law. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently lobbying the US administration and the Federal Communications Commission to require that social-media providers such as Facebook provide similar access so that chats and instant messaging can also be monitored in real time or extracted from digital storage.
In Europe, similar law-enforcement access is institutionalized under the standards of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
Particularly in the environment after the attacks of September 11, 2001, law enforcement has expressed anxiety about "going dark" - losing the ability to detect and monitor communications by bad actors as data and telecommunications moved from fixed-wire analog systems to digital, wireless, and band-hopping protocols.
The situation is aggravated by the availability of theoretically unbreakable public/private key 128-bit encryption.
(I say "theoretically", by the way, because creation of the private key relies on a random-number generator on the encrypting computer. A recent study found that some programs were spitting out non-random random numbers, raising the possibility that a certain spook agency of a certain government had been able to diddle with the programs to generate certain numbers preferentially, giving said spook agency a leg up to crack the private keys through otherwise ineffective brute-force computing techniques.) [3]
Poisoning the (Female) Tourist in Asia Thailand
This summer, four young women set off on vacations in
Southeast Asia. Here’s what they had in common: They were all from North
America; they were all in their 20s; they were all pretty, bright, adventurous.
And one more commonality: They all died.
Audrey and Noemi Belanger
Two of these deaths occurred in June in Thailand, two in June in Vietnam. All
four women were diagnosed with the symptoms of acute poisoning. And while some
explanations have been offered by the authorities, these have been either
vague, improbable (see my recent post on the deaths in Thailand) or
opaque (see CNN’s Friday story on the deaths in Vietnam). My
favorite statement is one from the Thai police declaring
that it could be “months before official results are revealed if
ever.” (Emphasis mine).
If ever? What kind of a police response is that? Does it mean that
investigators know something they don’t want to tell? Or that they don’t have a
clue? It’s no wonder that the rumor mills are spinning stories of murder, of a
serial killer stalking female tourists in Southeast Asia, of a police cover-up
to protect the valued tourist industry. The serial killer idea, of course,
builds on earlier mysteries: the 2009 death of a Seattle woman, still unsolved
today. The similar and also unexplained death of a 22-year-old woman from
Norway the same year. An odd cluster of deaths in another Thai city
during winter of last year, including a 23-year-old woman from New Zealand.
The other theory circulating is that the police are covering up the careless
use of insecticides by Asian hotels; an explanation denied, of course, by the
hotel industry. It doesn’t explain, of course, why most of these deaths involve
females in their 20s. But there’s some support for it from an independent
investigation into the 2011 death of New Zealander Sarah Carter.
Carter was staying at a hotel in Chiang Mai, Thailand, when she died (along
with five other tourists). The police blamed a coincidental outbreak of food
poisoning. But Carter’s family turned over tissue samples to investigative
journalists from a New Zealand television station. The resulting laboratory
analysis reportedly found traces of an old-time organophosphate pesticide
called chlorpyrifos.
Sarah Carter
This insecticide
has been around since the mid-1960s. It’s a Dow Chemical Company product sold in the United
States under the tradename Dursban. Like all organophosphate pesticides, it’s
highly effective due to its action on the the nervous system Although it’s only
considered moderately toxic to humans, chlorpyrifos is linked to neurological
effects and can pose developmental risks to children. Although still widely
used in agriculture, it’s no longer registered for use in residential settings
in the U.S. But Dow does market it for such uses in developing countries,
leading to suspicions that it had been surreptitiously sprayed in Carter’s
hotel to treat for bed bugs.
The problem with this theory — as with so many of the theories floated in the
case of these Asian tourist deaths — is that it doesn’t hold up well under
scrutiny. Autopsies reportedly found myocarditis (put simply, an inflammation
of the heart muscle) in some of the dead tourists but the classic symptoms of
chlorpyrifos poisoning tend to be those of classic neurotoxicity,
starting with dizziness and loss of coordination, ending with a gradual
shutdown of heart and lungs. As Thailand’s tourism-focused publication, Phuket
Wan, reported the investigation into the death of Sarah Carter
and others in 2011 simply ended in mystery.
Cathy Huynh and Kari Bowerman
The possibility of chlorpyrifos or some other insecticide poisoning has also
been raised in this summer’s deaths of American Karin Bowerman, 27, of Lake
Geneva, Wisconsin, and Canadian Cathy Huynh, 26, of Hamilton, Ontario. The two
friends – both working as English language teachers in South Korea – were
backpacking in Vietnam, when they were admitted to a hospital in the beach town
of Nha Trang in late July, suffering from vomiting, dehydration and difficulty
breathing. Bowerman died that day; Huynh two days later.
China media: Xi Jinping's new leadership
Hong Kong papers say
political reform during Xi Jinping's time is unlikely
The climax of China's week-long Communist Party congress
- the unveiling of the Politburo Standing Committee - fills Friday's
newspapers.
The People's Daily editorial says the new
Standing Committee under General Secretary Xi Jinping's leadership will be a
"strong collective leadership to take on a historic mission".
The editorial says the party congress proved the Communist Party "is a
mature, united, harmonious and innovative Marxist Party that can always retain
its vanguard role".
"Socialism with Chinese character is an unprecedented, majestic undertaking,"
it went on.
"On the new journey, we have greater responsibility and a heavier burden. We
must maintain firmer belief and make more tenacious efforts in order to seize a
new victory for socialism with Chinese characteristics."
A front-page commentary in the People's Daily
Overseas Edition says party members reaffirmed their "religious faith" in
communism as the party anthem was played. "Western society should learn that
China's communism is not identical to that of the Cold War era", it says.
The
Global Times' English editorial says: "Public opinion will wield
more and more influence over China's politics and the Party is increasing its
capacity to react to this trend. Therefore, a more vigorous reform could be
expected."
"However, as Chinese have been deeply marked by the Cultural Revolution and
tragic experiences of some foreign countries, they are willing to seek change
while remaining wary of 'revolution'."
The paper's Chinese editorial criticised Western
media's "contradictory" view of China by being optimistic about China's future
while criticising its political system.
"As long as China maintains quicker development than the West, passes a few
more key points, then Western media's description of China's political system
will eventually collapse from inside."
Regional papers focus on how to implement the policies laid out in President
Hu Jintao's speech to the congress.
The Beijing Times' editorial says the greatest
task for all party members now is to take responsibility and "write the story
of people's livelihood and well-being", and the key is to "distribute promptly,
fairly and in an increased amount the fruit of development to the people".
Focusing on Xi Jinping's speech, Beijing News' editorial says: "We all familiar
with the repeated promises from the ruling party of improving people's life. Xi
Jinping, in his speech, used more simple and more colloquial language to
express the promise. This is refreshing."
"People have the right to long for a better life. The ruling party has
demonstrated its commitment by promising a path to make this right a dream come
true."
Meanwhile, the Beijing Times and other papers also praised
Hu Jintao's "noble character and unimpeachable integrity" for handing over
party and military leadership simultaneously.
Guangzhou's Southern Metropolis Daily publishes
on its front page a photo showing Mr Xi and Mr Hu shaking hands, apparently
trying to portray the power transition as a peaceful one.
China Daily's editorial says: "Former CPC
General Secretary and Central Military Commission Chairman Hu Jintao resigned
from both positions at the same time has been aptly read as full confidence in
the Party's new leaders."
"As they bid farewell to the forefront of national leadership, Hu Jintao and
his retiring CPC colleagues deserve congratulations and thanks for what they
have brought about and left behind. They have given us plenty of reasons to be
confident."
But newspapers in Hong Kong, such as the Hong Kong Standard and AM730, say commentators do not believe the new
party leadership will bring any political reform to China.
Commentators told Hong Kong newspapers that although Hu Jintao intends to end
gerontocracy - rule by old men - the fact that six of the seven Standing
Committee members are backed by former President Jiang Zemin implies no
political reform will be possible during Xi Jinping's time.
The editorial of Ming Pao Daily News says Xi
Jinping could face a personnel problem as five of his colleagues will reach
their retirement age by the next party congress in 2017, breaking the chain of
stable leadership formation for two consecutive party congress.
US President Obama has urged
Burma's rulers to continue political reforms, ahead of a historic visit.
On Monday, Mr Obama will be the first serving American president to visit
Burma, which has been praised in the West for reforms over the past year.
Answering critics who have highlighted continued human rights abuses in
Burma, Mr Obama said the country was moving in "a better direction".
But he said "much greater progress" was needed in future.
"I don't think anybody is under any illusion that Burma's arrived, that
they're where they need to be," Mr Obama told reporters at a press conference
in Thailand.
"On the other hand, if we waited to engage until they had achieved a perfect
democracy, my suspicion is we'd be waiting an awful long time," he added.
Mr Obama is on a tour of South East Asia, which began in the Thai capital
Bangkok on Sunday - his first foreign trip after his re-election as
president.
There he met Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and King Bhumibol, the
world's longest-serving monarch.
Unresolved
conflicts
In Burma, he is due to hold talks with President Thein Sein and opposition
leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
He will also give a speech at Rangoon University, one of the hotbeds of
pro-democracy protests in 1988 that were violently suppressed by the
regime.
In the past year, the Burmese authorities have freed hundreds of political
prisoners and held the country's first contested election.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
Campaigners are asking why such an important visit had to
happen so soon, apparently before Mr Obama's people had secured any concessions
from the Burmese government”
End
Quote
Jonathan Head BBC News,
Rangoon
Over the past year the US and other Western nations
have relaxed the sanctions they had imposed on Burma, which was ruled by a
brutal military regime for five decades.
However, around 300 political prisoners remain in detention, according to
rights groups.
Ethnic conflicts also remain unresolved, including an increasingly bitter
confrontation between Muslim Rohingyas and Buddhist Rakhine people in Rakhine
state.
US officials say they have been seeking assurances that Burma had distanced
itself from North Korea, after accusations emerged in 2010 that the two states
were sharing nuclear technology.
After visiting Burma, Mr Obama will head to Cambodia to join a meeting of the
regional bloc Asean.
Analysts say the US is trying to counter the dominating influence of China in
the region.
But US officials have repeatedly insisted that they want to work with
China.
Burma's rulers to continue political reforms, ahead of a historic visit.
On Monday, Mr Obama will be the first serving American president to visit
Burma, which has been praised in the West for reforms over the past year.
Answering critics who have highlighted continued human rights abuses in
Burma, Mr Obama said the country was moving in "a better direction".
But he said "much greater progress" was needed in future.
"I don't think anybody is under any illusion that Burma's arrived, that
they're where they need to be," Mr Obama told reporters at a press conference
in Thailand.
"On the other hand, if we waited to engage until they had achieved a perfect
democracy, my suspicion is we'd be waiting an awful long time," he added.
Mr Obama is on a tour of South East Asia, which began in the Thai capital
Bangkok on Sunday - his first foreign trip after his re-election as
president.
There he met Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and King Bhumibol, the
world's longest-serving monarch.
Unresolved
conflicts
In Burma, he is due to hold talks with President Thein Sein and opposition
leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
He will also give a speech at Rangoon University, one of the hotbeds of
pro-democracy protests in 1988 that were violently suppressed by the
regime.
In the past year, the Burmese authorities have freed hundreds of political
prisoners and held the country's first contested election.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
Campaigners are asking why such an important visit had to
happen so soon, apparently before Mr Obama's people had secured any concessions
from the Burmese government”
End
Quote
Jonathan Head BBC News,
Rangoon
Over the past year the US and other Western nations
have relaxed the sanctions they had imposed on Burma, which was ruled by a
brutal military regime for five decades.
However, around 300 political prisoners remain in detention, according to
rights groups.
Ethnic conflicts also remain unresolved, including an increasingly bitter
confrontation between Muslim Rohingyas and Buddhist Rakhine people in Rakhine
state.
US officials say they have been seeking assurances that Burma had distanced
itself from North Korea, after accusations emerged in 2010 that the two states
were sharing nuclear technology.
After visiting Burma, Mr Obama will head to Cambodia to join a meeting of the
regional bloc Asean.
Analysts say the US is trying to counter the dominating influence of China in
the region.
But US officials have repeatedly insisted that they want to work with
China.
RSS Feed