|  |  |  | | | | | The Guardian World News | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow the day's developments as sparks fly over Syrian airliner intercepted by Turkey
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Christine Lagarde of the IMF warns that without growth, the future of the global economy is in jeopardy, as Germany's Wolfgang Schäuble hits back over austerity study
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Teenager found shot dead after US border patrol agent opened fire on people throwing rocks from across Mexican border A teenage boy has died after a US border patrol agent opened fire on a group of people throwing rocks from across the Mexican border. Agents in Nogales, Arizona, responded to reports of suspected smugglers near the border on Wednesday night and watched two people abandon a quantity of narcotics and run back to Mexico, according to the border patrol. As the agents approached to investigate, people on the Mexican side of the border began throwing rocks at them and ignored orders to stop, the agency said. One agent opened fire. The Sonora state attorney general's office in Mexico said 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, from Nogales, Sonora, was found dead at the border from gunshot wounds. The office did not say definitively whether the boy had been shot by the agent, noting only that police had received reports of gunshots and found his body on a pavement near the border. Mexico's foreign relations department said it "forcefully condemned" the shooting and called such deaths "a serious bilateral problem". "The disproportionate use of lethal force during immigration control actions is unacceptable under any circumstances. The repeated nature of this type of cases has drawn a reaction of rejection from Mexican society and all of the country's political forces," it said. The department said it had asked US authorities for an "exhaustive, transparent and timely investigation" of the shooting. The border patrol declined to comment further and would only say that one person "appeared to have been" shot by the agent. The FBI is investigating. Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican embassy in Washington, said Mexican authorities would also investigate. Border agents are generally allowed to use lethal force against rock throwers. In 2010 a 15-year-old boy was shot and killed by a border patrol agent firing his weapon from El Paso, Texas, into Juarez, Mexico. Some witnesses said people on the Mexican side of the river, including the teen, were throwing rocks at the agent as he tried to arrest an illegal immigrant crossing the Rio Grande. Last year a federal judge in El Paso dismissed a lawsuit by the boy's family on the grounds that the teen was on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande when he was shot. US law gives the government immunity when such claims arise in a foreign country, the judge noted. A US justice department investigation, which included interviews with more than 25 civilian and law enforcement witnesses, determined that no federal civil rights charges could be pursued because "accident, mistake, misperception, negligence and bad judgment were not sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation".
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Biden gives strong performance against Paul Ryan, repairing some of the uncertainty after Obama's poor showing last week Joe Biden dominated the vice-presidential debate against opponent Paul Ryan on Thursday night with an aggressive and confident performance that gave heart to the Democratic base but risked alienating undecided voters. Biden's combative approach in Danville, Kentucky, went some way towards undoing the damage done by Barack Obama's listless performance last week, scoring point after point against Ryan in a 90-minute debate dominated by foreign issues such as Iran, Afghanistan and Syria and domestic issues including tax and the deficit. But his demeanour may have proved divisive as he repeatedly dismissed Ryan, talked over him, interrupted, laughed and at one point sighed, "Oh God". Although the night on balance belonged to Biden, the disparity between him and Ryan was not as pronounced as that last week between an aggressive Romney and a passive Obama. Much of the debate was on foreign policy, playing into Biden's strength as a former chairman of the Senate foreign affairs committee. He was animated in making his points in a way that Obama failed to do and the laughter may have been deliberate, to try to belittle Ryan. On Iran and Syria, Biden tried to portray Ryan as leaning towards taking the US into another conflict, one that war-weary Americans did not want. "Facts matter," he said, lecturing Ryan on the details of Iran's nuclear programme, saying it was not yet close to achieving a weapons capability. On domestic policy, Biden pushed Ryan on plans to cut the tax bills of the wealthy, saying they did not need it, and also questioned how Ryan could get the deficit down. Biden said no one in history managed to do this. "With all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey," Biden said of Ryan and Romney's plans in general. "Not a single thing he said is accurate." Ryan got in a hit when he got personal, noting that unemployment in Scranton, Pennsylvania – Biden's hometown – had risen. But when Ryan went on to say, "That's how things are going all across America," the vice-president interrupted. "That's not how things are going. You don't read the statistics," he said, referring to the drop in unemployment to 7.8% announced on Friday. Biden raised the secret video in which Romney was dismissive of 47% of the population as freeloaders, a line that Obama singularly failed to bring up last week, to the dismay of Democrats. Ryan said the 47% remark was not what Romney had meant to say. But Biden failed to unnerve his younger opponent or to force him into making any gaffes. Ryan even succeeded in forcing Biden into making one error, potentially serious, in relation to the Benghazi attack that left a US ambassador dead along with three other Americans. Biden said the Obama administration had been unaware that there had been a request by security on the ground in Libya to at least keep the size of protection team intact and preferably increase it. But a state department official, giving evidence in front of a Congressional committee on Wednesday, confirmed there had been such a request. Ryan scored another point when he asked why the US ambassador to Paris was protected by a marine detachment but not the ambassador in Libya. "Our ambassador in Paris has a marine detachment guarding him. Shouldn't we have a marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi, a place we knew there was an al-Qaida cell with arms?" Ryan asked. Republicans afterwards focused on Biden's behaviour, in particular what they described as his incessant grinning and smirking, as potentially a vote-loser. Brendan Buck, Ryan's press officer, in the Spin Room, said: "The big takeout tonight is Joe Biden's dental work. There is a time for laughter. It is not endearing to see a person laughing in a serious debate ... I do not think it will play well with people who saw it on a splitscreen." The pressure now switches to Obama to produce an equally good performance against Romney when the two meet in the second of three presidential debates on Tuesday in Long Island, New York. The president, who watched the debate on board Air Force One, said: "I'm going to make a special point of saying that I thought Joe Biden was terrific tonight." Democratic party activists badly needed a lift after a week in which they have expressed dismay and puzzlement over Obama's failure last week and the subsequent dramatic and continuing slide in the polls. The instant snapshots after the debate were mixed. CBS awarded the night to Biden by 50% to Ryan's 31% but CNN put Ryan on 48% to Biden's 44% and CNBC 50% to Ryan and 36% to Biden. These polls tend to be unreliable. Both teams will now anxiously await the first serious polls, though it is unlikely that a vice-presidential debate will make much impact on voter intentions. The main benefit for Democrats is as a morale-booster. Obama's main strategist, David Axelrod, claimed it was a clear win for Biden. "It was like looking at the school principal debating the student president." Asked about the risk of Biden's laughter alienating independent voters, Axelrod insisted laughter was inevitable "when you are debating an opponent who is seriously evading and distorting facts. You react to that."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Biden won on substance and Ryan on style but when anything can happen, everything matters. Even vice-presidential debates "Once there were two brothers," Thomas Marshall, the 28th vice-president, said. "One went away to sea; the other was elected vice-president. And nothing was heard of either of them again." It says something about what's going on the top of the ticket that so many would want to hear from the two vice-presidential contenders. After seven years of running for office, Mitt Romney only managed to introduce himself to the American public in a favourable light last week, and needed to build on that. After six years building a reputation as a formidable orator, Barack Obama managed to come across as a distracted lightweight just over a month before polling day. Since then, erratic polls suggest a volatile electorate which is neither sufficiently satisfied with the incumbent, nor sufficiently impressed by his opponent, to make up its mind. And in a situation where anything can happen, everything matters. Even vice-presidential debates. Both Joe Biden and Paul Ryan were tasked with different goals for the night underpinned by one basic maxim: do no harm. For Biden, known for his logorrhoea, that meant no gaffes; for Ryan, unknown still to most Americans, that meant presenting himself as a plausible candidate to be a heartbeat from the presidency. Both achieved that, though Biden came closest to blowing it. Beyond that, however, Ryan had to continue the upward trend his boss started last week, while Biden had to dig his team out of the hole his boss dug last week. Neither achieved that, although Biden came closest to achieving it. By far the most impressive person on the stage was the moderator, Martha Raddatz. Asking incisive questions, pushing for cogent answers, calmly prodding for clarity and brevity. She kept them in line and, as much as is possible, on point. That was no mean feat. Biden was so combative that at times he appeared thuggish. He badgered, bulldozered, hectored and harassed. At some moments, the debate appeared to owe more to WWE than CNN. This was probably Biden overcompensating for his boss's lacklustre performance last week. Occasionally he overdid it. Where some had questioned whether Obama had taken a sleeping pill, Biden looked like he was on steroids. For much of the evening, this worked. But his digs could be gratuitous, and his exasperation overly theatrical. "You're Jack Kennedy now?" he said after Ryan once mentioned the former president. At times the age difference, along with the smirking, eye rolling and forceful interventions, made him look like an angry father taking his impudent son to the woodshed. Ryan parried this well. He was competent, knowledgeable and likeable enough. He broke no hearts and swung no votes. But he turned no stomachs and lost no votes, either. For Biden, however, it was a high-risk strategy to come across so angry, particularly at a time when Democrats are losing women voters. But while he lost some with his aggression, there were others he undoubtedly won over with his authenticity. "Just get out the way!" he told Ryan at one point. "Stop talking about how you care about people and show me something!" Ryan, though, was so evasive at times that it would have been rude for Biden not to intervene. Asked specifics, either by Raddatz or Biden, Ryan would talk only in generalities. Asked what he would do differently, he would simply offer a marginally different talking point. There were moments when he was so on message that you expected him to end his contribution with the words: "my name's Paul Ryan and I approved this message." No debacle was anticipated and none occurred. No breakthrough was anticipated and none occurred either. They fought to a bloodied draw in which Biden won on substance and Ryan won on style. Now both can sail off to sea, never to be heard of again.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Can Joe Biden outwit Paul Ryan in the US vice presidential debate and revive Democratic hopes? Follow the action here live
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Conservatives slam as 'outrageous' Stephanie Cutter's claim that Romney is using the attack in Libya for political advantage The Obama campaign was facing intense criticism from conservatives on Thursday after a senior official said the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was only an issue because Mitt Romney was exploiting the deaths for political gain. The president's deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, told CNN attention was being paid to the killing of the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans on September 11 because the Republican presidential candidate and his running mate, Paul Ryan, are seeking electoral advantage. "The entire reason that this has become the, you know, political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan," said Cutter. "It's a big part of their stump speech, and it's reckless and irresponsible, what they're doing." Cutter added that Ryan "made a political circus all over this country of the terrible tragedy that happened in Libya." Her remarks drew an immediate rejection from the Romney campaign, which called them "outrageous". The Romney campaign press secretary, Andrea Saul, dismissed Cutter's charge. "The reason it is an issue is because, for the first time since 1979, an American ambassador was assassinated – and President Obama's foreign policy strategy of 'leading from behind' is failing," she said. "This administration has continually misled the American public about what happened in Benghazi and, rather than be truthful about the sequence of events, has instead skirted responsibility and dodged questions. The American people deserve straight answers about this tragic event and a president who can provide leadership, not excuses." Other Republicans said the administration has questions to answer not only as to how the attack occurred but why it initially claimed that the assault was a backlash against an anti-Muslim video before calling it a terrorist attack. The Obama campaign defended Cutter's remarks by saying that while Romney and Ryan have "turned a national tragedy into a political circus, the president has been focused on getting the facts, finding the terrorists responsible, and bringing them to justice". Immediately after the Benghazi attack, Romney criticised Obama for sending "mixed signals" to foes in the Middle East. Since then Romney has accused the president of "keeping the facts" about the killings from the American people and chided him for not being quick enough to call the assault on the consulate a "terrorist attack". Ryan has been even more strident in repeatedly portraying the Libya attack as evidence of the failure of Obama's foreign policy. "If you turn on the TV today you can see that the Obama foreign policy is unravelling before our eyes," Ryan said in Iowa earlier this month. "It's not just an isolated incident where we lost four Americans in Libya. That's a tragedy. But it's part of a bigger story of the unravelling of this agenda all over the world. We've distanced our ally Israel, we are not advancing our interests in the Middle East, and the president is promising that we're going to have these devastating cuts to our national defence." Cutter's remarks followed Wednesday's clearly partisan Congressional hearing into the killings in Benghazi. Democrats on the House of Representatives oversight committee accused the Republican chairman, Darrel Issa, of politicising them by attempting to suggest that the White House had attempted to cover up an al-Qaida attack by initially claiming the attack was prompted by popular outrage against an anti-Muslim video. However, testimony from two former heads of US diplomatic security in Libya was damaging to the Obama administration after they told the committee that requests for additional agents to protect US officials and premises in the face of a growing threat from armed militias were rejected by the state department before the attack on Benghazi. Cutter denied Republican assertions of a cover-up. "The administration has been open and honest from day one about the Benghazi attack," she said "As more information has become available, they've made that information available to the American people and to members of Congress. But, you know, when a crisis occurs, when an attack occurs, that information is gathered and over time it's more clear what happened."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Conservatives criticise as 'outrageous' Obama adviser's claim that Romney is using the attack in Libya for political advantage The Obama campaign was facing intense criticism from conservatives on Thursday after a senior official said the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was only an issue because Mitt Romney was exploiting the deaths for political gain. The president's deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, told CNN attention was being paid to the killing of the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans on September 11 because the Republican presidential candidate and his running mate, Paul Ryan, are seeking electoral advantage. "The entire reason that this has become the, you know, political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan," said Cutter. "It's a big part of their stump speech, and it's reckless and irresponsible, what they're doing." Cutter added that Ryan "made a political circus all over this country of the terrible tragedy that happened in Libya." Her remarks drew an immediate rejection from the Romney campaign, which called them "outrageous". The Romney campaign press secretary, Andrea Saul, dismissed Cutter's charge. "The reason it is an issue is because, for the first time since 1979, an American ambassador was assassinated – and President Obama's foreign policy strategy of 'leading from behind' is failing," she said. "This administration has continually misled the American public about what happened in Benghazi and, rather than be truthful about the sequence of events, has instead skirted responsibility and dodged questions. The American people deserve straight answers about this tragic event and a president who can provide leadership, not excuses." Other Republicans said the administration has questions to answer not only as to how the attack occurred but why it initially claimed that the assault was a backlash against an anti-Muslim video before calling it a terrorist attack. The Obama campaign defended Cutter's remarks by saying that while Romney and Ryan have "turned a national tragedy into a political circus, the president has been focused on getting the facts, finding the terrorists responsible, and bringing them to justice". Immediately after the Benghazi attack, Romney criticised Obama for sending "mixed signals" to foes in the Middle East. Since then Romney has accused the president of "keeping the facts" about the killings from the American people and chided him for not being quick enough to call the assault on the consulate a "terrorist attack". Ryan has been even more strident in repeatedly portraying the Libya attack as evidence of the failure of Obama's foreign policy. "If you turn on the TV today you can see that the Obama foreign policy is unravelling before our eyes," Ryan said in Iowa earlier this month. "It's not just an isolated incident where we lost four Americans in Libya. That's a tragedy. But it's part of a bigger story of the unravelling of this agenda all over the world. We've distanced our ally Israel, we are not advancing our interests in the Middle East, and the president is promising that we're going to have these devastating cuts to our national defence." Cutter's remarks followed Wednesday's clearly partisan Congressional hearing into the killings in Benghazi. Democrats on the House of Representatives oversight committee accused the Republican chairman, Darrel Issa, of politicising them by attempting to suggest that the White House had attempted to cover up an al-Qaida attack by initially claiming the attack was prompted by popular outrage against an anti-Muslim video. However, testimony from two former heads of US diplomatic security in Libya was damaging to the Obama administration after they told the committee that requests for additional agents to protect US officials and premises in the face of a growing threat from armed militias were rejected by the state department before the attack on Benghazi. Cutter denied Republican assertions of a cover-up. "The administration has been open and honest from day one about the Benghazi attack," she said "As more information has become available, they've made that information available to the American people and to members of Congress. But, you know, when a crisis occurs, when an attack occurs, that information is gathered and over time it's more clear what happened."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | • Biden pressured to pick up slack from Obama's debate
• Two new polls released in swing states tell different stories
• Romney: uninsured don't 'die in their apartment'
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Payment of $7.5m won in court may become subject of new case and perjury allegations in wake of damning Usada report Lance Armstrong could end up in court facing allegations of perjury and an attempt to reclaim millions of dollars of bonus money if a Texas-based insurance company decides to try to win back a payment to the disgraced cyclist that was made for winning the 2004 Tour de France. SCA Promotions had promised to pay Armstrong $5m in bonus money if he managed five consecutive Tour de France wins, but refused to do so amid widespread media rumours of doping. Armstrong took the company to arbitration, where he received a settlement of $7.5m, made up of the original bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. In the wake of a damning report accusing Armstrong of being at the centre of "sport's most sophisticated, professionalised and successful" doping programme, there is every prospect that the issue will be legally revisited, perhaps including charges of perjury if Armstrong can be shown to have lied during testimony first time around. Jeff Dorough, a lawyer for SCA, told the Guardian that the firm would await a reaction to the report – which was published by the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) – from the world cycling governing body, the International Cycling Union (UCI). The UCI has not yet officially responded to the Usada investigation. "We will readdress the issue when we see if there is inaction or action from UCI," Dorough said. However, it is believed that it is likely that SCA will eventually take legal action, given the exhaustive nature of the Usada report. In more than 1,000 pages Usada detailed the alleged doping using testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of Armstrong's US Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams between 1998 and 2005. The study accused Armstrong, who has always protested his innocence, of effectively running a systemic blood-doping ring. The SCA case is not the only potential legal threat to Armstrong. An investigation into allegations that Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs was dropped earlier this year by Andre Birotte, the US attorney for the central district of California. Birotte's office offered little explanation for the move, which came as a surprise to many in the global cycling community. A spokesman for Birotte's office, Bruce Riordan, said: "Our office declines to comment on the matter in question." Some experts, however, believe that the investigation may be reopened as widespread outrage over the allegations in the Usada report creates political pressure to explain why it was dropped in the first place. "The US attorney's office is always subject to political pressures. The criticism now will hit home and there is a good chance that the government will indict and charge Armstrong," said Peter Keane, a law professor at the Golden Gate University. Mike Straubel, from Valparaiso University, agreed. "It is more of a political question than a legal one, but I would say there is a 70% chance of the case being reopened," he said. But others suspect there is little appetite for a re-opening a prosecution against Armstrong. They argue that the likelihood is that government lawyers had already amassed the same evidence as Usada, but had been put off by the high burdens of proof associated with putting a criminal case in front of a jury. The Guardian also understands that this aspect is a serious concern to government lawyers as they digest the reaction to the Usada report. "I think everything in the Usada report, the government already saw. I don't think it is new information to them. Are they going to prosecute Lance Armstrong? I think the answer is no," said top California criminal attorney Paula Canny. Canny said Birotte and his team were likely mindful of the political implications of taking on the Armstrong case again, as the alleged crimes took place several years ago and involve a man who is still deeply involved in the fight against cancer. They would also likely base a case on issues like fraud, rather than steroid abuse in a sporting competition. "They have a different and very high standard of proof that they would have to get," she said. Any decision by Birotte to re-open the Armstrong investigation would come after two other high-profile sports cases that ran into trouble. In December 2011, prosecutors were able to convict the baseball star Barry Bonds of obstructing justice, but not of steroid abuse. In June this year, another baseball icon, Roger Clemens, was acquitted of all charges in a perjury trial over steroids. "If I were a betting man I would say they are absolutely, positively not going to re-open the investigation," said Professor Jordan Kobritz, chair of the Sports Management Department at SUNY Cortland. Kobritz said that any criminal prosecution would be tough to prove to a jury and would cost millions of dollars. "It is a giant leap. But even if you took [that leap], there are better ways of spending taxpayers' money than prosecuting Lance Armstrong," he said. For the moment Armstrong is holding firm to his line that he has been the victim of a witch hunt. His lawyer, Tim Herman, has called the Usada report a "hatchet job" put together by people with grudges to settle or personal interests to look out for. That argument seems to have won through – for the moment at least – with sponsors and the cyclist's charity, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which is renowned for the Livestrong yellow bracelets that have become a world symbol of the fight against cancer. The LAF president, Doug Ulman, backed Armstrong and slammed Usada. "Usada appears motivated more by publicity rather than fulfilling its mission. Lance Armstrong's legacy as a cancer fighter is literally second to none," he said in a statement. Armstrong's cancer work may also provide a cover for his many sponsors to stand by him, betting that the general public will still see his work in fighting the illness that nearly killed him as being far more important than his sporting behaviour. The sports giant Nike has issued a supportive statement and a host of other sponsors – representing everything from bikes to energy products – have simply declined to comment. For Kobritz, that silence speaks volumes. Even the Post Office – which sponsored his racing team – has declined to address the allegations. "A lot of people who think he's guilty are going to say: 'So what? Maybe he did dope but look at what else he's done,'" Kobritz said. However, he added: "If anyone still believes he was not doping, then they believe in Santa Claus."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Senator calls for federal investigation as Florida and Indiana report new deaths and and number of infections rises to 170 US health authorities said on Thursday that more people than previously thought had received possibly tainted steroid injections and that 14,000 patients could be at risk of contracting meningitis in an unprecedented outbreak of the disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the number of people at risk, which is 1,000 higher than earlier estimated, had been revised after consultations with health authorities. Fourteen patients have died from meningitis and 170 people have been infected, the CDC said in its latest update. The number of infections had risen by 33 since Wednesday. Florida reported a second death from meningitis and Indiana reported its first death from the outbreak. Meningitis cases have been confirmed in 11 states. Senator Richard Blumenthal, who sits on the Senate's health oversight committee, asked federal authorities to investigate whether a Massachusetts specialty pharmacy that produced the steroid had misled regulators about its operations. The outbreak has developed into a major health scandal, with authorities scrambling to determine how vials of a steroid used mainly to treat back pain were contaminated, and to track down those affected and treat them. It has also raised questions about how the pharmaceuticals industry operates and is regulated. Blumenthal, who is a former Connecticut state attorney general and federal prosecutor, said he had reached no conclusions but that an investigation was warranted. "The company, its officers, employees and maybe others may have violated state and federal criminal laws in their potential misrepresentations to government agencies regarding their products," Blumenthal said. Blumenthal said he had submitted his request for a federal criminal investigation in a letter to the US attorney general, Eric Holder. "The fact that death and serious injuries resulted from the potential violations of law certainly is relevant, and the misstatements or fraud could constitute a violation of federal mail and wire fraud prohibitions," Blumenthal said. Lawmakers have come under pressure to close what critics see as a loophole in oversight that left the New England Compounding Company (NECC), the Massachusetts pharmacy linked to the tainted steroids, largely exempt from federal regulation. The US Food and Drug Administration regulates only the ingredients and their suppliers, not the practice known as "compounding", which is subject to a patchwork of state oversight. State and federal officials are now investigating NECC, which distributed thousands of vials of a contaminated steroid made at a complex situated next to a waste and recycling facility in a western suburb of Boston. The company has suspended operations and recalled all of its products. NECC is owned by Gregory Conigliaro, an engineer, and his brother-in-law Barry Cadden, a pharmacist who was in charge of pharmacy operations. The waste and recycling facility is another of Conigliaro's business interests. Compounding pharmacies such as NECC are permitted to make medications based on specific prescriptions for individual patients. State and federal regulators are investigating why NECC shipped thousands of vials of preservative-free methylprednisolone acetate steroid to healthcare facilities in multiple states. "It does seem like the agencies, both at the state and the federal level, may have been misled by some of the information we were given," Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick told reporters on Wednesday. The number of cases has grown rapidly. In six states – Tennessee, Michigan, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and Indiana – the outbreak has claimed lives. Five new cases have been reported in Tennessee, which remains the hardest-hit state with 49 cases. Michigan added 11 cases to reach 39 and Virginia added three to reach 30 and Indiana six to reach 21. The other states reporting cases are Maryland (13), Florida (seven), Ohio (three), Minnesota (three), New Jersey (two), North Carolina (two) and Idaho (one), the CDC said. Thousands of people received the injections to relieve back pain and other complaints and are at risk of infection. Meningitis is an infection of the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord. Symptoms include headache, fever and nausea. Fungal meningitis, unlike viral and bacterial meningitis, is not contagious.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Centers for Disease Control says total number of deaths from fungal meningitis now stands at 14, with 170 people infected Two more people have died from fungal meningitis linked to steroid injections, bringing the total to 14 deaths since the outbreak began last month, the US Centers for Disease Control said on Thursday. A total of 170 people have been stricken with a rare fungal meningitis in 11 states since the outbreak began, according to the latest CDC tally, up from 137 listed on Wednesday. The CDC also said on Thursday that more people than had been thought received possibly tainted steroid injections, and that 14,000 patients could be at risk of contracting meningitis. That number is 1,000 higher than the earlier estimation. Florida reported its second death in the outbreak and Indiana its first. The CDC also confirmed the first case in Idaho, the 11th state to report a case. Fungal meningitis cannot be transmitted from person to person. The widening outbreak has alarmed US health officials and focused attention on regulations of pharmaceutical compounding companies such as the one that produced the drugs, the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Massachusetts. The steroid is used as a painkiller, usually to alleviate back pain. Meningitis is an infection of the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord. Patients show a variety of symptoms including severe headaches and fever.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Judges say California court 'abused its discretion' by banning sales of Samsung smartphone for infringing Apple patents A US appeals court on Thursday overturned a preliminary injunction on the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone, dealing a blow to Apple in its battle against Google's increasingly popular mobile software. Apple is waging war on several fronts against Google, whose Android software powers many of Samsung's devices. A high-wattage trial in August, to determine whether Samsung's products infringed Apple patents, ended with a sweeping victory for the iPhone manufacturer. The US court of appeals for the federal circuit ruled that the district court in California had "abused its discretion in entering an injunction". The appeals court has sent the case back to a lower California court for reconsideration. The Nexus is an ageing product in Samsung's line-up, with a plethora of new tablets and smartphones intended for launch before Christmas. But the overturning of the pre-trial ban is something of a slap across the face for Apple, because the patents in the Nexus case – which involve software-enabled features such as click-to-zoom – are directly related to features of Android, which powers the majority of the world's smartphones. On Wednesday, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt called the intensifying struggle between Apple and his company a "defining fight" for the future of the mobile industry. "We've not seen… competitive fights on this scale," he said, in an interview with tech blog AllThingsDigital in New York.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | IMF chief Christine Lagarde says only with greater co-operation and courage can governments hope to prevent repeat of crisis Spain defied renewed pressure to accept an international bailout on Thursday, a stance that could last for several more weeks or even months despite the humiliation of having its credit rating cut to near junk status. As the head of the International Monetary Fund called on governments to co-operate to heal a fractured global economy, credit rating agency Standard and Poor's said recession was limiting Spain's policy options and any delay in seeking a rescue risked a further downgrade. Moody's said it may soon follow suit. Prime minister Mariano Rajoy, however, struck a defiant tone when he said that tough labour reforms and the rebuilding of its tarnished banking sector meant the IMF's dire forecast for Spain's economy would not be realised. "If we follow that strategy … we'll see that the reality turns out to be better than the forecasts," he said. Rajoy's position was strengthened as Spain's key 10-year bond yield remained unchanged on Thursday despite the S&P move. He is thought to want to wait at least until after regional elections on 21 October to ask for aid and even later if the European Central Bank's bond buying keeps borrowing costs down. He is supported by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who does not want to explain another bailout to her voters. Speaking at its annual meeting in Tokyo, IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned that only with greater co-operation and courage could governments hope to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. After banking regulators told her some parts of the financial system were as unsafe as before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, she said policymakers needed to take immediate action to resolve issues hanging over from the crisis. "There are threats on the horizon, threats that can be addressed, should be addressed but are not necessarily addressed," she said. Europe has come under fire for its failure to end the eurozone debt crisis. Leaders in the US and Asia have become frustrated at delays in agreeing measures to bolster Greece, Spain and Portugal. Lagarde said: "We expect action and we expect courageous and co-operative action on the part of our members." The IMF has expressed frustration with Europe's piecemeal response to its debt crisis and warned that a recent respite in borrowing costs for debt-laden countries such as Spain may prove short-lived unless eurozone leaders come up with a comprehensive and credible plan. The IMF itself came under fire after it admitted in its World Economic Outlook report that officials had underestimated the effects of austerity measures on economic growth. The report found that for every £1 of spending cuts the economy shrank by about £1.30, compared with the previous estimate of 50p. The IMF was a strong supporter of the austerity measures adopted by western countries including Britain in the aftermath of the financial crisis, but it has U-turned in recent months and urged governments to plan their reforms over longer periods to lessen the impact on growth. Lagarde said on Thursday that struggling countries should have more time to meet budget cuts. "It is sometimes better to have a bit more time," she said. "That is what we advocated for Portugal, this is what we advocated for Spain and this is what we are advocating for Greece." Lagarde also said, however, that she backed the IMF's chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, who argued it was necessary to pursue government spending cuts or risk a backlash from international money markets and a rise in borrowing costs. The chancellor, George Osborne, is expected to admit next month in his autumn statement that he has missed at least one of his deficit reduction targets. He has already announced an extension of the government's rolling five-year austerity programme to 2018. Oxfam warned that the IMF's focus on the eurozone should not be at the expense of the world's poorest. "It's imperative that the poorest countries are not overlooked at this meeting. Europe's crisis needs to be fixed because the fallout is seriously threatening developing countries.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Turkish prime minister's claims contradict Russian denial that plane forced to land in Ankara was carrying military equipment Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayipp Erdogan, has accused Russia of directly supplying munitions to the Syrian government, after Turkish jets intercepted a plane en route from Moscow to Damascus. Russia had earlier flatly denied that the Syrian plane, which was forced to land in Ankara, was carrying any military equipment. But Erdogan told reporters: "These were equipment and ammunition that were being sent from a Russian agency … to the Syrian defence ministry," the Associated Press reported. "Their examination is continuing and the necessary [action] will follow." Erdogan's comments clearly implied that he was accusing Moscow of lying. Earlier, in angry exchanges, Russia had accused the Turkish authorities of endangering Russian lives when the Syrian Air Airbus was intercepted by Turkish F16 fighter jets on Wednesday evening. Turkish media reports said cargo confiscated from the plane before it was allowed to leave Ankara included radios, antennae and equipment "thought to be missile parts". Syria immediately condemned the Turkish action as piracy. Turkey said previously that it had received an intelligence tip-off that the plane had illegal cargo on board. Erdogan warned last year that Turkey would be willing to take measures to "stop and confiscate" any shipment of military supplies, by air or sea, to Syria in contravention of its own unilateral embargo. The incident underlines sharp and growing disagreements over the crisis – the bloodiest of the Arab spring – which Syrian opposition activists say has cost 30,000 lives in the last 19 months. On a new and alarming front, Turkey and Syria have traded artillery fire several times over their border in the past week. Diplomats said Turkey was flexing its muscles after Russia refused to condemn Syria at the United Nations last week when mortar shells fired by the Syrian army killed five civilians in a Turkish border village. Birol Akgün, of Ankara's Institute of Strategic Thinking, told Zaman newspaper: "This is a signal to both Syria and third parties, such as Russia and Iran." Russia is Syria's closest ally and has supplied it with weapons as well as providing diplomatic and political cover in the UN security council. Turkey has called for President Bashar al-Assad to step down and has allowed limited supplies of weapons to be delivered across the border to the Syrian rebels. Syria protested that the Airbus passengers were in a "very bad psychological state". One of them, a Syrian aviation official, alleged that Turkish officials pointed guns at crew and handcuffed passengers. "We had no cargo on that aeroplane," Vyacheslav Davidenko, spokesman for Russia's state arms export company Rosoboronexport, told Reuters. "We always deliver our weapons in full compliance with international norms. Sending weapons on a passenger aeroplane breaks about every law there is," he said. Russian and Chinese objections mean there are no international arms sanctions in force against Syria. Moscow has balked at western pressure to cut co-operation with or pressure the Syrian regime and has made several unsuccessful attempts to deliver renovated helicopters. One shipment was sent back as it rounded the coast of Scotland in the summer. "Russia is not interested in escalating the conflict in Syria," said Ruslan Aliyev, an analyst at the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow-based consultancy with links to Russia's defence community. "Secretly delivering weapons to Syria would put at risk Russia's image and reputation and [Vladimir] Putin's personal reputation. No Russian leader would go on such a risky venture." Assad sought to calm tensions with Ankara, describing Syria and Turkey as brothers in an interview published on Thursday. He insisted Turkey had "no reason to go to war" over the cross-border clashes. "We should work on this issue together," he told the left-leaning Turkish newspaper Aydinlik. "In times like this, countries should correct their mistakes by talking to each other." Inside Syria, meanwhile, battles continued in Idlib province, near the Turkish border, as rebels sought to consolidate control of a strategic town on the main north-south highway. Rebels said they captured Maaret al-Numan on Wednesday. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said clashes continued after rebels attacked a military convoy and nearby checkpoints. The Syrian Revolution General Commission reported 47 deaths in Idlib, Deraa, Damascus and Homs.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Virginia and Florida, where the president once commanded a strong lead, have moved toward toss-ups as election day nears Mitt Romney has closed the gap on Barack Obama in the national polls, increasing pressure on Joe Biden to put in a strong performance in Thursday's vice-presidential debate with his Republican counterpart Paul Ryan in Kentucky. A slew of new polls showed that while Obama retains a slight advantage, he has lost the significant lead he enjoyed over Romney in the battleground states since his lacklustre performance in the first presidential debate last week. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll published late on Wednesday put Romney ahead of Obama in Virginia, on 48% to Obama's 47%, a three-point shift in the Republican's favour since last week. Virginia is traditionally Republican but Obama managed to take it in 2008. In Florida it is a tie, with Obama on 48% to Romney's 47%, almost the same as last week. In Ohio, another of the swing states, Romney has cut into Obama's lead: they now stand at Obama 51% to Romney's 45% compared with 51%-43% last week. In contrast to the NBC poll, a Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS poll of likely voters in Colorado and Virginia found little change, except in a post-debate hardening in support among Republicans. The poll suggested a dead heat in Colorado, with Romney leading 48%-47%, and Obama ahead 51%-46% in Virginia. There was some relief for the Obama camp in new figures out from the department of labor showing the number of Americans seeking unemployment benefit has dropped to 339,000, suggesting the job market is picking up. It follows last Friday's drop in the unemployment rate to 7.8%. The figures could help the Obama team shore up its defences, though the danger is that it is all coming too late to have a major impact on the election. The University of Virginia politics professor, Larry Sabato, in his Crystal Ball blog, concludes the debate is costing Obama significantly in the race and is shifting Florida to Romney and moving Virginia from leaning Obama to a toss-up. Sabato said he is moving Florida to leaning Republican, even though the polling there still indicates it is a toss-up. "We're also moving Virginia back from leans Democratic to toss-up. We know that the Obama campaign has long fretted about Virginia, understanding that the 2008 Obama vote was no predictor of 2012 success in the Old Dominion. There's no longer any compelling justification that Obama has the advantage here. We could see it going to either candidate by a point or two or three," Sabato said. But Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, disputed on Thursday there is a slide in the polls as a result of Obama's poor debate. "I think it was mostly last week. These polls that you conducted don't measure the days since the debate; they measure from what happened before the debate to after," Axelrod said in a CBS interview. "I don't think there's big momentum. There's no doubt Governor Romney collected a couple of points, mostly Republican-leaning independents, as a result of the last debate." Axelrod, who has been helping Biden prepare for the debate, predicted a robust performance: "I think the big challenge for him [Biden] is to pin Congressman Ryan down. You know, [Ryan] was on television a couple of weeks ago and he was asked to explain Governor Romney's tax plan and he said: 'I don't have enough time to explain it. It's too complicated to explain.' He's got 90 minutes tonight. So hopefully he'll have enough time to explain it, and explain how they won't explode the budget and put a new burden on the middle class." Asked if Biden would come at Ryan like a cannonball, as Ryan suggested, Axelrod quoted Truman saying that just telling it like it is would be enough to make an opponent feel as if they are in hell. Biden would hold him to the facts, Axelrod said. Biden's mission in the debate is to produce a strong performance to steady Democratic nerves after Barack Obama's listless performance last week. The vice-president has been tasked in particular with going after Ryan with the accusation that Romney plan to cut the taxes of the wealthy by $5tn, a figure the Republicans dispute. Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, said Ryan will also focus on the economy, contrasting Romney's plans for economic recovery with the president. She suggested he will also look at Biden's recent remark, which the Republicans see as a gaffe, in which he said the working class and middle class had been "buried" by the economic crisis. As well as domestic issues, the debate will cover foreign affairs, giving Ryan a chance to attack the administration's handling of the Middle East and to raise the controversy over the killing of the US ambassador and three others at the US consulate in Benghazi.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ratings agency S&P downgrades the country's credit rating to BBB-minus as IMF head Christine Lagarde calls on governments to co-operate to heal the world economy
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow the day's developments after Turkey intercepted a Syria passenger plane suspected of carrying Russian arms
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Obama administration move means street gang that started in LA is subject to US sanctions, enabling assets to be seized The Obama administration has listed a Central American street gang as an international criminal organisation subject to US sanctions. This is first time the designation has been given to such a group in the US. MS-13, which started as a Los Angeles gang composed largely of Salvadorian immigrants, is believed to have as many as 10,000 members across 46 US states and Central America. Members have been accused of kidnapping, murder, drug smuggling and human trafficking. MS-13 stands for Mara Salvatrucha, and the decision announced by the US treasury department will enable federal authorities to seize assets associated with a gang considered one of the world's most dangerous. Investigators from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement have long targeted the group, arresting thousands of suspected members in recent years. The agency's director, John Morton, described the classifying of MS-13 as an international criminal organisation as a "powerful weapon" in the continuing effort to dismantle the gang. "This designation allows us to strike at the financial heart of MS-13," he said on Thursday. The administration's decision will now make it easier for Ice and other federal investigators to target and seize millions of dollars in profits from drug and human trafficking, among other crimes, Morton said, adding that those profits are routinely funnelled back to the group's bosses in Central America. By declaring the group a transnational criminal organisation, the government is also making it more difficult for gang members to use banks and wire transfer services to move criminal profits. MS-13 members are known for being particularly violent and in the past have been blamed for gruesome murders, including that of a pregnant Virginia teenager who left the gang and became an informant. Brenda Paz, 17, was stabbed to death in 2003 and her body was left along the Shenandoah River, west of Washington. Other international criminal groups that have been subject to similar US sanctions include the Yakuza, a Japanese organized crime group, and the Zetas drug cartel in Mexico.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Publisher pledges to use alternative sources as activist rejoices: 'The Jungle Book will no longer be destroying the jungle' Environmentalists campaigning to prevent the wholesale destruction of the Indonesian rainforest scored a major victory today after coaxing the Walt Disney company, one of the world's largest children's books publishers, to revamp its paper purchasing policies and sever ties with two of Asia's most controversial pulp and paper manufacturers. After two years of occasionally testy exchanges and intense negotiation with the Rainforest Action Network, a San Francisco-based advocacy group, Disney agreed in a new written policy to do everything it could to safeguard endangered forests and their ecosystems, which support the sorts of animals celebrated in Disney feature films and their multi-media spinoffs. "Disney is adding its voice to the growing chorus of companies demonstrating that there's no need to sacrifice endangered forests in Indonesia or elsewhere for the paper we use every day," Ran's executive director Rebecca Tarbotton said in a statement. Or, as another activist for the organization put it: "The Jungle Book will no longer be destroying the jungle." Disney will now avoid the mixed tropical hardwoods typically harvested in the Indonesian rainforest and will seek alternative sources such as recycled paper and wood harvested according to the recommendations of the internationally recognized Forest Stewardship Council. It will also cut ties with Asian Pulp and Paper (APP), the third largest paper manufacturer in the world, and with the Asian Pacific Resources International Holdings (April). Both companies have been blamed by activists for exploiting the Indonesian rainforest, which is disappearing at an estimated rate of 2.5 million acres a year. The company said in a news release accompanying its new written policy that would "work with non-governmental organizations to identify and prioritize regions with poor forest management and high rates of deforestation". It also pledged to issue annual reports on its progress. Disney is the ninth major US publisher to switch its paper purchasing policy in response to an alarming study published by the Rainforest Action Network in 2010, which offered scientific proof that pulp from endangered trees were turning up in the glossy colour pages of children's books, cookery books and coffee-table style art books. Unlike the other eight publishers, however, Disney initially held out, offering only token changes and dismissing calls from Ran for a broader policy review. Negotiations began in earnest only after Ran activists, dressed as Mickey and Minnie Mouse, chained themselves to the gates of Disney headquarters in the Los Angeles suburb of Burbank in May 2011 and erected a huge banner reading "Disney: Destroying Indonesia's Rainforests". Within a week of that protest, initially dismissed by Disney as a "no more than publicity stunt", a delegation of senior executives had flown up to Ran's offices in San Francisco and begun serious negotiations. The problem, according to Robin Averbeck, who has spearheaded Ran's Disney campaign, was that top management did not wake up to the reality of what was going on until the protest encouraged them to take a more careful look. "Transparency in the supply chain is very challenging. The pulp comes from a forest to a paper mill to a broker to a printer to a supplier to Disney," Averbeck said. "When a company has Disney's enormous global reach, its arms are so long they often don't know what their hands are doing." She and other negotiators for Ran said that it didn't take long for the senior executives to understand how damaging it could be to Disney's brand to be associated with the destruction of ancient forests, the dwindling of Sumatran tigers and elephants, and a major contribution to global warming. Nailing down a new policy was highly intricate, because of the number of moving parts. Disney products are manufactured in close to 25,000 factories worldwide, about 10,000 of them in China. The new purchasing agreement does not just cover books – it applies to theme park brochures and cruise ship menus and corporate stationery. Ran has been remarkably successful in challenging big corporations on this issue, largely because of the startling analysis it conducted on a number of paper products in its 2010 study. It commissioned a specialist laboratory in Wisconsin to examine paper samples under a microscope and identify the wood types in the pulp – the paper industry equivalent of using DNA analysis to draw conclusions from a crime scene. Since then, numerous corporations in and out of publishing – they include Random House, Pierson/Penguin, Mattel and Tiffany – have changed their paper purchasing practices. The lone holdout among those identified in the 2010 report as a rainforest menace is HarperCollins, the book publishing division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire, which Ran continues to define as a "laggard". HarperCollins began negotiations with Ran, like the other companies, but pulled out for reasons that have never been spelled out publicly. HarperCollins, however, defended its policies, and contested Ran's right to decide whether they meet an appropriate standard. "We use only acceptable fibre sources, and have worked with printers to eliminate the use of Indonesian fibre," company spokeswoman Erin Crum said. Crum held up HarperCollins's UK division as a model for the industry, saying it was one of the first to seek certification from the Forest Stewardship Council and now uses FSC-certified paper in at least 60% of its products.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Publisher pledges to use alternative sources as activist rejoices that 'The Jungle Book will no longer be destroying the jungle' Environmentalists campaigning to prevent the wholesale destruction of the Indonesian rainforest scored a major victory on Wednesday after coaxing the Walt Disney company, one of the world's largest publishers of children's books, to revamp its paper purchasing policies and sever ties with two of Asia's most controversial pulp and paper manufacturers. After two years of occasionally testy exchanges and intense negotiation with the Rainforest Action Network (Ran), a San Francisco-based advocacy group, Disney agreed in a new written policy to do everything it could to safeguard endangered forests and their ecosystems, which support the sorts of animals celebrated in Disney feature films and their multimedia spinoffs. "Disney is adding its voice to the growing chorus of companies demonstrating that there's no need to sacrifice endangered forests in Indonesia or elsewhere for the paper we use every day," Ran's executive director Rebecca Tarbotton said in a statement. Or, as another activist for the organization put it: "The Jungle Book will no longer be destroying the jungle." Disney will now avoid the mixed tropical hardwoods typically harvested in the Indonesian rainforest and will seek alternative sources such as recycled paper and wood harvested according to the recommendations of the internationally recognized Forest Stewardship Council. It will also cut ties with Asian Pulp and Paper (APP), the third largest paper manufacturer in the world, and with the Asian Pacific Resources International Holdings (April). Both companies have been blamed by activists for exploiting the Indonesian rainforest, which is disappearing at an estimated rate of 2.5 million acres a year. The company said in a news release accompanying its new written policy that it would "work with non-governmental organizations to identify and prioritize regions with poor forest management and high rates of deforestation". It also pledged to issue annual reports on its progress. Disney is the ninth major US publisher to switch its paper purchasing policy in response to an alarming study published by the Rainforest Action Network in 2010, which offered scientific proof that pulp from endangered trees were turning up in the glossy colour pages of children's books, cookery books and coffee-table style art books. Unlike the other eight publishers, however, Disney initially held out, offering only token changes and dismissing calls from Ran for a broader policy review. Negotiations began in earnest only after Ran activists, dressed as Mickey and Minnie Mouse, chained themselves to the gates of Disney headquarters in the Los Angeles suburb of Burbank in May 2011 and erected a huge banner reading "Disney: Destroying Indonesia's Rainforests". Within a week of that protest, initially dismissed by Disney as a "no more than publicity stunt", a delegation of senior executives had flown to Ran's offices in San Francisco and begun serious negotiations. The problem, according to Robin Averbeck, who has spearheaded Ran's Disney campaign, was that top management did not wake up to the reality of what was going on until the protest encouraged them to take a more careful look. "Transparency in the supply chain is very challenging. The pulp comes from a forest to a paper mill to a broker to a printer to a supplier to Disney," Averbeck said. "When a company has Disney's enormous global reach, its arms are so long they often don't know what their hands are doing." She and other negotiators for Ran said that it didn't take long for senior executives to understand how damaging it could be to Disney's brand to be associated with the destruction of ancient forests, the dwindling of Sumatran tigers and elephants, and a major contribution to global warming. Nailing down a new policy was highly intricate, because of the number of moving parts. Disney products are manufactured in close to 25,000 factories worldwide, about 10,000 of them in China. The new purchasing agreement does not just cover books – it applies to theme park brochures and cruise ship menus and corporate stationery. Ran has been remarkably successful in challenging big corporations on this issue, largely because of the startling analysis it conducted on a number of paper products in its 2010 study. It commissioned a specialist laboratory in Wisconsin to examine paper samples under a microscope and identify the wood types in the pulp – the paper industry equivalent of using DNA analysis to draw conclusions from a crime scene. Since then, numerous corporations in and out of publishing – they include Random House, Pierson/Penguin, Mattel and Tiffany – have changed their paper purchasing practices. The lone holdout among those identified in the 2010 report as a rainforest menace is HarperCollins, the book publishing division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire, which Ran continues to define as a "laggard". HarperCollins began negotiations with Ran, like the other companies, but pulled out for reasons that have never been spelled out publicly. HarperCollins, however, defended its policies, and contested Ran's right to decide whether they meet an appropriate standard. "We use only acceptable fibre sources, and have worked with printers to eliminate the use of Indonesian fibre," company spokeswoman Erin Crum said. Crum held up HarperCollins's UK division as a model for the industry, saying it was one of the first to seek certification from the Forest Stewardship Council and now uses FSC-certified paper in at least 60% of its products.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Revamped package will offer limited relief from sanctions and other incentives for Iran to limit enrichment of uranium Six global powers will launch a new diplomatic push after the US elections aimed at defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis in the next few months and avoiding the eruption of a new Middle East conflict next year. A "reformulated" proposal will offer limited relief from existing sanctions and other incentives for Iran to limit the level of enrichment of its uranium stockpile. A new attempt will be made to sequence the steps required to reach a deal to overcome the mutual distrust that helped sink previous rounds of negotiations, where each side appeared to wait for the other to make the first major concession. "We recognise that the Iranians need something more with which they can sell a deal at home, and we will expect real change on the other side. It is about getting the sequencing right. That is what this next round will be about," a European official said. "If Iran is prepared to do enough, sanctions will be on the table," another western diplomat said. "It shouldn't expect the [the six-power group] to blink first – but if it's ready to take genuine steps we're ready to respond. This could include sanctions relief – but only for the right moves by Iran. Sanctions are biting in Tehran and we're not going to lift them without making solid progress on our concerns." If the step-by-step approach fails there could be an attempt to "go big" with an ambitious, comprehensive settlement that would allow Iran to continue producing uranium at low levels (under 5%) of enrichment but under stricter international monitoring and controls. "Currently we are stalled because Iran is asking too much and offering nothing in return. One way forward might be for Iran to offer much more and make an accordingly bigger demand at the same time," the western diplomat said. Officials involved in the nuclear talks believe there is a window of opportunity for diplomacy between the US elections on 6 November and next spring, with a resumption of high level talks between the group of six powers (the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) with the Iranian chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in late November or December. "Elections obviously mean there's a great deal of uncertainty, but there'll be more clarity after November and clearly that's an opportunity," a western diplomat said. Britain will be represented at those talks by Mark Sedwill, formerly the UK's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, who has been named the new political director of the Foreign Office. Much will hinge on the outcome of next month's presidential elections. The plan assumes that either Barack Obama wins a second term, or that Mitt Romney wins but allows the diplomatic initiative to go forward unchanged. If a victorious Romney insists on a full policy review after taking office, the nuclear diplomacy could be derailed for months. Diplomats who took part in the last abortive round of high-level talks in Moscow in June said that Jalili made it clear that Iran did not think it was worth negotiating seriously until it was known who the US president would be next year. Western officials also believed that the devastating effect of new energy and banking sanctions had made Tehran readier to engage in substantive bargaining. "Their economy is falling about their ears, so we think they are rather more willing to engage now than in Moscow," a European diplomat said. In an effort to ratchet up the pressure, European foreign ministers are due to meet in Luxembourg on Monday to agree a further tightening of sanctions, imposing bans on more Iranian banks and closing loopholes in shipping restrictions imposed in the summer. The diplomatic opening is expected to close again in the spring, as the Iranian leadership is likely to be distracted by the campaign for the country's own presidential elections in June. Iranian politics is just one of the clocks ticking on the new diplomatic initiative. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned at the UN general assembly last month that the Iranian nuclear programme would reach Israel's "red line" by "by next spring, at most by next summer", implying that Israel might then take military action in a bid to destroy Iranian nuclear sites and set back the programme. That red line, which Netanyahu illustrated at the UN with a marker pen on a picture of a bomb, is defined by Iranian progress in making 20%-enriched uranium, which would be much easier than 5% uranium to turn into weapons-grade fissile material should Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, take the strategic decision to "break out" from Iran's observance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to try to make a weapon. Tehran insists it has no such intention. A report published this week by the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington said that if Iran tried to break out now, it would take its centrifuge plants between two and four months to make enough weapons-grade uranium for a single warhead. As Iran builds up its 20% uranium stockpile, the ISIS report said a breakout could take less than one month, giving Israel and the west much less time to respond and increasing the chance of a pre-emptive strike. However, it would take several times longer to build even a small nuclear arsenal, and Iran itself has set back that timetable by converting about a third of its 20% stockpile into oxide fuel, which would be harder to turn into weapons-grade material. The 20%-enriched uranium stockpile would be at the heart of the new diplomatic effort. In the June Moscow meeting, the six-nation group of negotiators proposed that Iran stop producing it, ship its stockpile of almost 200kg out of the country and shut its underground centrifuge plant in Fordow where much of it is made. In return, Iran would be given fuel plates to use in its Tehran medical research reactor (for which it says it requires the 20% uranium), help with nuclear safety, and spare parts for civilian airliners which are currently under sanctions. In return, Jalili presented an uncompromising document which called for all sanctions to be lifted with no let-up in Iranian enrichment. "Their ideas are a non-starter from an American perspective," a senior US administration official said. However, several US analysts criticised the west's negotiating stance at Moscow, arguing Iran had no incentive to offer concessions on enrichment when there was no prospect of relief from punishing sanctions. "The offer of airplane parts was an insult," said George Perkovich, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He argued that for a deal to stick, Khamenei had to retain the capacity to restart uranium enrichment at the underground site at Fordow as a form of insurance in case the west broke its side of the bargain. "The supreme leader is absolutely convinced that the US will renege, so what is his leverage? It has to be Fordow. He has to be sure he can go back to Fordow and crank it up." Western officials said that at a meeting in Istanbul in July, experts from Iran and the six-nation group discussed compromise options for stopping production at Fordow in a way that would also allow it to be restarted. They insist that it was privately made clear to Jalili in Moscow that significant sanctions relief would follow if Iran showed a readiness to compromise on 20% enrichment, but some now acknowledge that a more concrete offer needs to be made for Jalili to be able to "sell" the deal to Iran's supreme leader. Jim Walsh, an expert on the Iran nuclear programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said: "This period between the US elections and the Iranian elections is the last best chance to turn this thing around… I think the Iranians are ready and the Americans are ready. It's a question of the whether the optics and politics can be made to line up this time."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Revamped package will offer limited relief from sanctions and other incentives for Iran to limit enrichment of uranium Six global powers will launch a diplomatic drive after the US elections aimed at defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis in the next few months and avoiding the eruption of a new Middle East conflict next year. A "reformulated" proposal will offer limited relief from existing sanctions and other incentives for Iran to limit the level of enrichment of its uranium stockpile. An attempt will be made to sequence the steps required to reach a deal to overcome the mutual distrust that helped sink previous rounds of negotiations, where each side appeared to wait for the other to make the first major concession. "We recognise that the Iranians need something more with which they can sell a deal at home, and we will expect real change on the other side. It is about getting the sequencing right. That is what this next round will be about," a European official said. "If Iran is prepared to do enough, sanctions will be on the table," another western diplomat said. "It shouldn't expect [the six-power group] to blink first – but if it's ready to take genuine steps we're ready to respond. This could include sanctions relief – but only for the right moves by Iran. Sanctions are biting in Tehran and we're not going to lift them without making solid progress on our concerns." If the step-by-step approach fails there could be an attempt to "go big" with an ambitious, comprehensive settlement that would allow Iran to continue producing uranium at low levels (under 5%) of enrichment but under stricter international monitoring and controls. "Currently we are stalled because Iran is asking too much and offering nothing in return. One way forward might be for Iran to offer much more and make an accordingly bigger demand at the same time," the western diplomat said. Officials involved in the nuclear talks believe there is a window of opportunity for diplomacy between the US elections on 6 November and next spring, with a resumption of high level talks between the group of six powers (the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) with the Iranian chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in late November or December. "Elections obviously mean there's a great deal of uncertainty, but there will be more clarity after November and clearly that's an opportunity," one western diplomat said. Britain will be represented at the talks by Mark Sedwill, formerly the UK's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, who has been named the new political director of the Foreign Office. Much will hinge on the outcome of next month's presidential elections. The plan assumes that either Barack Obama wins a second term, or that Mitt Romney wins but allows the diplomatic initiative to go forward unchanged. If a victorious Romney insists on a full policy review after taking office, the nuclear diplomacy could be derailed for months. Diplomats who took part in the last abortive round of high-level talks in Moscow in June said Jalili made it clear that Iran did not think it was worth negotiating seriously until it was known who the US president would be next year. Western officials also believe that the devastating effect of new energy and banking sanctions made Tehran readier to engage in substantive bargaining. "Their economy is falling about their ears, so we think they are rather more willing to engage now than in Moscow," a European diplomat said. In an effort to ratchet up the pressure, European foreign ministers are due to meet in Luxembourg on Monday to agree a further tightening of sanctions, imposing bans on more Iranian banks and closing loopholes in shipping restrictions imposed in the summer. The diplomatic opening is expected to close again in the spring, as the Iranian leadership is likely to be distracted by the campaign for the country's own presidential elections in June. Iranian politics is just one of the clocks ticking on the new diplomatic initiative. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned at the UN general assembly last month that the Iranian nuclear programme would reach Israel's "red line" by "next spring, at most by next summer", implying that Israel might then take military action in a bid to destroy Iranian nuclear sites and set back the programme. That red line, which Netanyahu illustrated at the UN with a marker pen on a ~picture of a bomb, is defined by Iranian progress in making 20%-enriched uranium, which would be much easier than 5% uranium to turn into weapons-grade fissile material should Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, take the strategic decision to "break out" from Iran's observance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to try to make a weapon. Tehran insists it has no such intention. A report published this week by the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington said that if Iran tried to break out now, it would take its centrifuge plants between two and four months to make enough weapons-grade uranium for a single warhead. As Iran builds up its 20% uranium stockpile, the ISIS report said a breakout could take less than one month, giving Israel and the west much less time to respond and increasing the chance of a pre-emptive strike. However, it would take several times longer to build even a small nuclear arsenal, and Iran itself has set back that timetable by converting about a third of its 20% stockpile into oxide fuel, which would be harder to turn into weapons-grade material. The 20%-enriched uranium stockpile would be at the heart of the new diplomatic effort. In Moscow meeting in June, the six-nation group of negotiators proposed that Iran should stop producing it, ship its stockpile of almost 200kg out of the country and shut its underground centrifuge plant in Fordow where much of it is made. In return, Iran would be given fuel plates to use in its Tehran medical research reactor (for which it says it requires the 20% uranium), help with nuclear safety, and spare parts for civilian airliners which are currently under sanctions. In return, Jalili presented an uncompromising document which called for all sanctions to be lifted with no let-up in Iranian enrichment. "Their ideas are a non-starter from an American perspective," a senior US administration official said. However, several US analysts criticised the west's negotiating stance at Moscow, arguing Iran had no incentive to offer concessions on enrichment when there was no prospect of relief from punishing sanctions. "The offer of airplane parts was an insult," said George Perkovich, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He said that for a deal to stick, Khamenei had to retain the capacity to restart uranium enrichment at the underground site at Fordow as a form of insurance in case the west broke its side of the bargain. "The supreme leader is absolutely convinced that the US will renege, so what is his leverage? It has to be Fordow. He has to be sure he can go back to Fordow and crank it up." Western officials said that at a meeting in Istanbul in July, experts from Iran and the six-nation group discussed compromise options for stopping production at Fordow in a way that would also allow it to be restarted. They insist that it was privately made clear to Jalili in Moscow that significant sanctions relief would follow if Iran showed a readiness to compromise on 20% enrichment, but some now acknowledge that a more concrete offer needs to be made for Jalili to be able to "sell" the deal to Iran's supreme leader. Jim Walsh, an expert on the Iran nuclear programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said: "This period between the US elections and the Iranian elections is the last best chance to turn this thing around… I think the Iranians are ready and the Americans are ready. It's a question of the whether the optics and politics can be made to line up this time."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Girl shot by Taliban in Pakistan remains in critical condition, and local government posts reward for attackers' capture A Pakistani schoolgirl fighting for her life after being shot by Taliban gunmen has been transferred to a specialist hospital in the army garrison town of Rawalpindi. Malala Yousufzai, 14, was unconscious and in a critical condition after being shot in the head and neck as she left school in Swat on Tuesday, but doctors said she had moved her arms and legs slightly overnight. On Wednesday surgeons at an army hospital in the regional capital, Peshawar, removed a bullet from Malala's head. She has been taken to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology in Rawalpindi for further treatment. "Pray for her," her distraught uncle, Faiz Mohammad, said before the ambulance left Peshawar. Two British doctors who were attending a seminar in Pakistan at the time of the attack joined local surgeons in treating Malala on Thursday. One of the two other girls shot along with Malala is out of danger; the other remains in a critical condition. A Taliban spokesman said Malala had been targeted for trying to spread western culture, and said they would try to kill her again if she survived. Malala's father, Ziauddin Yousufzai, who runs a girls' school, said his daughter had defied threats for years, believing the good work she was doing for her community was her best protection. The regional governor, Masood Kausar, said officials had identified the attackers. The local government has posted a 10 million rupee reward for their capture. "The security agencies are closely working with each other and they have a lot of information about the perpetrators. We hope our security agencies will soon capture them and bring to justice," Kausar said. The attack outraged many in Pakistan, and there were small, impromptu rallies in many cities. Schools closed across Swat in protest over the shooting, and a small demonstration was held in her home town, Mingora. Pakistan's president, prime minister and the heads of various opposition parties joined the human rights group Amnesty International and the United Nations in condemning the attack. Yousufzai had spent the last three years campaigning for girls' education after the Taliban shut down girls' schools. She received Pakistan's highest civilian award but also a number of death threats. In 2009 the army pushed the Taliban out of Mingora, but the attack showed the militia's ability to strike even inside heavily patrolled towns.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Girl shot by Taliban in Pakistan remains in critical condition, and local government posts reward for attackers' capture A Pakistani schoolgirl fighting for her life after being shot by Taliban gunmen has been transferred to a specialist hospital in the army garrison town of Rawalpindi. Malala Yousufzai, 14, was unconscious and in a critical condition after being shot in the head and neck as she left school in Swat on Tuesday, but doctors said she had moved her arms and legs slightly overnight. On Wednesday surgeons at an army hospital in the regional capital, Peshawar, removed a bullet from Malala's head. She has been taken to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology in Rawalpindi for further treatment. "Pray for her," her distraught uncle, Faiz Mohammad, said before the ambulance left Peshawar. Two British doctors who were attending a seminar in Pakistan at the time of the attack joined local surgeons in treating Malala on Thursday. One of the two other girls shot along with Malala is out of danger; the other remains in a critical condition. A Taliban spokesman said Malala had been targeted for trying to spread western culture, and said they would try to kill her again if she survived. Malala's father, Ziauddin Yousufzai, who runs a girls' school, said his daughter had defied threats for years, believing the good work she was doing for her community was her best protection. The regional governor, Masood Kausar, said officials had identified the attackers. The local government has posted a 10m rupee reward for their capture. "The security agencies are closely working with each other and they have a lot of information about the perpetrators. We hope our security agencies will soon capture them and bring to justice," Kausar said. The attack outraged many in Pakistan, and there were small, impromptu rallies in many cities. Schools closed across Swat in protest over the shooting, and a small demonstration was held in her home town, Mingora. Pakistan's president, prime minister and the heads of various opposition parties joined the human rights group Amnesty International and the United Nations in condemning the attack. Malala had spent the last three years campaigning for girls' education after the Taliban shut down girls' schools. She received Pakistan's highest civilian award but also a number of death threats. In 2009 the army pushed the Taliban out of Mingora, but the attack showed the militia's ability to strike even inside heavily patrolled towns.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Authorities say Qassem Aqlan was on his way to work when a gunman on a motorcycle opened fire and fled the scene A masked gunman assassinated a Yemeni security official who worked for the US embassy in a drive-by shooting near his home in the capital Sana'a on Thursday, officials said. Yemeni officials said the killing bore the hallmarks of an attack by the al-Qaida offshoot in Yemen, but it was too early to determine whether the group was behind it. The assassination resembles other attacks recently that have targeted Yemeni intelligence, military and security officials. Those attacks are believed to be in retaliation for a military offensive by Yemen's US-backed government against Yemen-based Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which Washington considers the most dangerous offshoot of the global terror network. AQAP has called for attacks on US embassies in a bid to exploit the anti-American sentiment that has swept the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world in the past month over an anti-Islam film produced in the United States. Initially, the film was linked to an attack on the US consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi on September 11 which left four Americans dead including US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. US officials said later the attack was not linked to the video. AQAP praised the killing of US diplomats in Libya, describing it as "the best example" for those attacking embassies to follow. Yemeni officials identified the embassy security official as Qassem Aqlani, in his fifties. He was on his way to work when a gunman on a motorcycle opened fire at him and fled the scene. The attack was in western Sana'a, close to Aqlani's home, while the embassy is located in eastern Sana'a. Aqlani had been working for the US embassy for nearly 20 years, said the officials who spoke condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. Most recently, he was in charge of investigating a 12 September assault on the US embassy by angry Yemeni protesters over the anti-Islam film. Protesters stormed the embassy and set fire to a US flag before government forces dispersed them with tear gas. That attack came one day after the killings of the Americans in Benghazi. AQAP had taken advantage of a security and political vacuum created by last year Arab Spring-inspired uprising and seized territories and cities in the south. The government-led offensive has pushed the militants out to mountainous areas from where they have been staging suicide attacks and assassinations inside cities. Two weeks ago, a top intelligence official, Colonel Abdullah al-Ashwal, was also killed in a drive-by shooting in Sana'a.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ratings agency S&P downgrades the country's credit rating to BBB-minus as IMF head Christine Lagarde calls on governments to co-operate to heal the world economy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow live updates as tensions between Turkey and Syria escalate further after Ankara grounded a Syrian passenger plane which was allowed to leave after an arms inspection
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow live updates after Turkey's decision to ground a Syria passenger plane over suspicions about Russian arms prompts a diplomatic spat
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Two candidates prepped to square off in increasing crucial vice-presidential debate as new polls released in swing states
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Novelist, the first ever Chinese literature Nobel laureate, praised for 'hallucinatory realism' Chinese author Mo Yan has become the first Chinese author ever to win the Nobel prize in literature. The Swedish Academy, announcing his win this lunchtime, said that "with hallucinatory realism", Mo Yan "merges folktales, history and the contemporary". His win makes him the first Chinese writer to win the Nobel in its 111-year history: although Gao Xingjian won in 2000, and was born in China, he is now a French citizen; and although Pearl Buck took the prize in 1938, for "her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces", she is an American author. The Nobel goes to the writer "who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction", with previous winners including Samuel Beckett, Doris Lessing and, last year, the Swedish poet Tomas Tranströmer. Mo Yan's writing, said head of the Swedish Academy Peter Englund this lunchtime, draws from his peasant background, and from the folktales he was told as a child. Leaving school at 12, the author went to work in the fields, eventually gaining an education in the army. He published his first book in 1981, but he first found literary success with Red Sorghum, a novel which was also made into an internationally successful movie by Zhang Yimou. "He writes about the peasantry, about life in the countryside, about people struggling to survive, struggling for their dignity, sometimes winning but most of the time losing," said Englund. "The basis for his books was laid when as a child he listened to folktales. The description magical realism has been used about him, but I think that is belittling him – this isn't something he's picked up from Gabriel García Márquez, but something which is very much his own. With the supernatural going in to the ordinary, he's an extremely original narrator." The eminent professor of Chinese literature Howard Goldblatt, who has translated many of Mo Yan's works into English, compared the author's writing to Dickens in a recent interview with China Daily, saying that both write "big, bold works with florid, imagistic, powerful writing and a strong moral core". "I see parallels with works like William Vollmann's Europe Central, with its historical sweep (Red Sorghum) and trenchant criticism of monstrous behavior by those in power (The Garlic Ballads)," said Goldblatt. "And, of course, there are writers Mo seems to prefer, the modernist Faulkner, the magic-realist Garcia Marquez, and the Japanese Oe Kenzaburo. And don't forget another "oldie": Rabelais, with his bawdy humour and scatological exuberances." Goldblatt said that the author's satirical novel Jiuguo (The Republic of Wine) "may be the most technically innovative and sophisticated novel from China I've read", while his Shengsi pilao (Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out) is "a brilliant extended fable", and Tanxiangxing (Sandalwood Death) "is, as the author contends, musical in its beauty". Red Sorghum is made up of five interwoven stories, set over several decades during the 20th century, touching on topics including the Japanese occupation and the difficult lives of poor farm workers. Mo Yan's 1996 novel Fengru feitun, translated into English as Big Breasts and Wide Hips in 2004, portrays 20th century China through the life of a single family, starting with the story of Xuan'er, six months old in 1900 when she is abandoned in a vat of flour. "By the time she has blossomed into the province's number-one golden lotus girl, her bound feet are no longer in vogue and the best her aunt can do is marry her to a blacksmith in exchange for his mule. But this is no Wild Swans - from here, Mo Yan, author of Red Sorghum, steers his provocative story towards a masculine perspective, as he follows one family through China's war with Japan to the cultural revolution and beyond," said the Guardian in its review, which called the book an "astonishing" novel. "Blending bawdy humour, gory violence and pungent imagery, Mo Yan paints a unique portrait of China's 20th century, and cleverly dramatises the unsustainable predicament of a society fixated on bearing boys." The author's most recent novel, Wa, is the story of the consequences of the single-child policy implemented in China. Nicky Harman, a Chinese translator and lecturer at Imperial College, London, hailed Mo Yan's win as "amazing" news. "He's a great writer and will now be better known. That's good news for all Chinese writers, because it will bring English readers a bit closer," she said. "I'm sure they will be deliriously happy in China. He's very well thought of there." Informing Mo Yan – a pen name meaning "don't speak" – of his win today, Englund said the author, who was at the home in China where he lives with his 90-year-old father – was "overjoyed and scared".
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Novelist, the first ever Chinese literature Nobel laureate, praised for 'hallucinatory realism' Chinese author Mo Yan, who left school for a life working the fields at the age of 12, has become the first Chinese citizen ever to win the Nobel prize in literature, praised by the Swedish Academy for merging "folk tales, history and the contemporary" with "hallucinatory realism". The win makes Mo Yan the first Chinese citizen to win the Nobel in its 111-year history: although Gao Xingjian won in 2000, and was born in China, he is now a French citizen; and although Pearl Buck took the prize in 1938, for "her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces", she is an American author. The Nobel, worth eight million kronor, goes to the writer "who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction", with previous winners including Samuel Beckett, Doris Lessing and, last year, the Swedish poet Tomas Tranströmer. Over the past month the Chinese press has become increasingly vocal about the possibility of a Chinese writer taking the award, with commentors equating "bagging the prize to Chinese literature gaining the world's recognition". With the Nobel going to a European seven times in the last decade, all evidence was pointing to a winner from outside Europe, and Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami emerged as the frontrunner at betting firm Ladbrokes. Mo Yan, at 9/1, "definitely slipped under the radar", said the firm's spokesman Alex Donohue. Born in 1955 to parents who were farmers, Mo Yan - a pseudonym for Guan Moye; the pen name means "don't speak" - grew up in Gaomi in Shandong province in north-eastern China. The cultural revolution forced him to leave school at 12, and he went to work in the fields, completing his education in the army. He published his first book in 1981, but found literary success in 1987 with Hong gaoliang jiazu (Red Sorghum), a novel that an internationally successful movie by director Zhang Yimou, set against the horrific events that unfolded as Japan invaded China in the 1930s. "He writes about the peasantry, about life in the countryside, about people struggling to survive, struggling for their dignity, sometimes winning but most of the time losing," said permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy Peter Englund, announcing the win. "The basis for his books was laid when as a child he listened to folktales. The description magical realism has been used about him, but I think that is belittling him – this isn't something he's picked up from Gabriel García Márquez, but something which is very much his own. With the supernatural going in to the ordinary, he's an extremely original narrator." Informing Mo Yan of his win today, Englund said the author, who was at the home in China where he lives with his 90-year-old father – was "overjoyed and scared". Nicky Harman, a Chinese translator and lecturer at Imperial College, London, hailed Mo Yan's win as "amazing" news. "He's a great writer and will now be better known. That's good news for all Chinese writers, because it will bring English readers a bit closer," she said. "I'm sure they will be deliriously happy in China. He's very well thought of there." SOAS professor of Chinese Michel Hockx, who knows Mo Yan personally, said the author was probably the most translated living Chinese writer, "very well known, very respected [and] although he's had his spats with the literary censors ... generally speaking not regarded as politically sensitive". Hockx dismissed criticism from China that the author is "too close to the establishment to merit the Nobel". "I don't like the idea that Chinese writers are only good if they challenge the government – a good writer is a good writer. It's not a good yard stick of anything; are the only good British writers the ones who speak out against the war?" he said. "Choosing a dissident is the safe choice [for the Nobel committee] – to choose an author with a strong literary reputation, because of the strength and power of his work, is a very brave choice." Speaking to Granta earlier this year, Mo Yan – one of a group of Chinese writers to travel to the UK for the London Book Fair – said that avoiding censorship was a matter of subtlety. "Many approaches to literature have political bearings, for example in our real life there might be some sharp or sensitive issues that they do not wish to touch upon. At such a juncture a writer can inject their own imagination to isolate them from the real world or maybe they can exaggerate the situation – making sure it is bold, vivid and has the signature of our real world. So, actually I believe these limitations or censorship is great for literature creation," he said. Mo Yan, according to Hockx, "knows how to write a good story", filling his tales of remote communities "with a magical atmosphere, without shying away from the harsh and sometimes violent realities that he has witnessed". His 1996 novel Fengru feitun, translated into English as Big Breasts and Wide Hips in 2004, starts with the story of Xuan'er, six months old in 1900 when she is abandoned in a vat of flour, and follows her family's life through the war with Japan and the cultural revolution. Wa (Frog), Mo Yan's most recent novel, tells of the consequences of the single-child policy implemented in China through the story of a rural gynaecologist. "He expertly handles the use of local language and dialect, and as his career progressed he became increasingly experimental with his narration, to the extent that he once even made himself a character in one of his novels," said Hockx. "All his novels create unique individual realities, quite different from the political stories that were told about the countryside in the Maoist years, when Mo Yan grew up." The eminent professor of Chinese literature Howard Goldblatt, who has translated many of Mo Yan's works into English, compared the author's writing to Dickens in a recent interview with China Daily, saying that both write "big, bold works with florid, imagistic, powerful writing and a strong moral core". Goldblatt said that the author's satirical novel Jiuguo (The Republic of Wine) "may be the most technically innovative and sophisticated novel from China I've read", while his Shengsi pilao (Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out) is "a brilliant extended fable", and Tanxiangxing (Sandalwood Death) "is, as the author contends, musical in its beauty".
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Yekaterina Samutsevich claims they will 'deceive the authorities' to perform again and denies any split in the group's ranks Pussy Riot's Yekaterina Samutsevich, who was freed from prison on 10 October, has declared that the Russian punk band will continue mounting protest concerts. "We are not finished," she said in her first interview since leaving jail. "We [just] have to somehow get round the authorities to deceive them in some clever way." Although two of Samutsevich's bandmates remain behind bars, the 30-year-old shows no sign of abandoning the movement that turned the three women into enemies of the Russian state. She has reunited with other members of the protest group, telling reporters that Pussy Riot is "more united than ever … fighting for the freedom of Masha and Nadia!" In an interview last night with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Samutsevich underlined Pussy Riot's plan to continue. "[We are not] going to end our political protest," she said. "The situation in the country has deteriorated since our performance and the trial itself is a testimony to that." They will just be "more cautious", Samutsevich explained, in light of Vladimir Putin's "mega authoritarian project". "We have to act in such a way so that they do not know, do not learn about the concerts ahead of time before it's too soon, so that we wouldn't be caught and jailed afterward," she said. During her imprisonment, Samutsevich said, she and the other sentenced Pussy Riot members were kept in separate holding cells, each with three or four other women. "We were always recorded; we were always on camera," she said, but they were never abused and she "never felt scared". Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, who have been ordered to serve their two-year prison sentences, are "very, very upset" about being taken away from their young children. "But they are holding up very well." Samutsevich also denied that there is any kind of splintering within Pussy Riot, leading to or as a result of her suspended sentence. "There's never been any kind of split," she said. "We remain together and that's why we're strong … And if anyone tries to picture us as being split, this is completely untrue." Pussy Riot are still discussing the location and nature of their next public protest. It will definitely not be at the Moscow cathedral where they performed their "punk prayer" in February: not only does the band wish to make clear that they have "no religious hatred", they never go back to the same site twice. "Once we have one performance in one venue, the next performance will be in a different spot, in a different place on a different subject, on another political subject, but very different," Samutsevich said. "Anything is possible."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Yekaterina Samutsevich claims they will 'deceive the authorities' to perform again and denies any split in the group's ranks Pussy Riot's Yekaterina Samutsevich, who was freed from prison on 10 October, has declared that the Russian punk band will continue mounting protest concerts. "We are not finished," she said in her first interview since leaving jail. "We [just] have to somehow get round the authorities to deceive them in some clever way." Although two of Samutsevich's bandmates remain behind bars, the 30-year-old shows no sign of abandoning the movement that turned the three women into enemies of the Russian state. She has reunited with other members of the protest group, telling reporters that Pussy Riot is "more united than ever … fighting for the freedom of Masha and Nadia!" In an interview last night with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Samutsevich underlined Pussy Riot's plan to continue. "[We are not] going to end our political protest," she said. "The situation in the country has deteriorated since our performance and the trial itself is a testimony to that." They will just be "more cautious", Samutsevich explained, in light of Vladimir Putin's "mega authoritarian project". "We have to act in such a way so that they do not know, do not learn about the concerts ahead of time before it's too soon, so that we wouldn't be caught and jailed afterward," she said. During her imprisonment, Samutsevich said, she and the other sentenced Pussy Riot members were kept in separate holding cells, each with three or four other women. "We were always recorded; we were always on camera," she said, but they were never abused and she "never felt scared". Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, who have been ordered to serve their two-year prison sentences, are "very, very upset" about being taken away from their young children. "But they are holding up very well." Samutsevich also denied that there is any kind of splintering within Pussy Riot, leading to or as a result of her suspended sentence. "There's never been any kind of split," she said. "We remain together and that's why we're strong … And if anyone tries to picture us as being split, this is completely untrue." Pussy Riot are still discussing the location and nature of their next public protest. It will definitely not be at the Moscow cathedral where they performed their "punk prayer" in February: not only does the band wish to make clear that they have "no religious hatred", they never go back to the same site twice. "Once we have one performance in one venue, the next performance will be in a different spot, in a different place on a different subject, on another political subject, but very different," Samutsevich said. "Anything is possible."
| | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire