Murphy,+Akira

 China appears set to change it's monetary policy, specifically to counter the wide-spread belief that the central bank undervalues the value of the Renminbi to make exports cheaper. In recent years, there have been increasing calls for China to stop currency manipulation, where the Central Bank of China ensures that the Renminbi (also commonly called the Yuan) remains lower against the dollar then it would naturally be if the exchange rates was allowed to fluctuate like other countries. The US administration has remained silent on the issue in recent weeks, apparently to avoid making it look like they were applying pressure to the Chinese, and that trhe decision was the Chinese Government's own. Anonymous insiders expect this to occure before Chinese president Hu Jintao arrives next week to talk to American President Barack Obama.

Sources:

New York Times - BBC -

The BBC article was published significantly earlier then the new York Times article and therefore lacks much of the up to the minute info that the new York Time's article possess. Therefore it is more speculative and interested in giving more background, focusing on why China might do such a thing and the effects it might have. the New York Time article focuses in on the information provided by the anonymous tipsters and how China may be very close to changing monetary policy. However, it also has quite a bit of back story and explanation. Finally the BBC is a British institution and the new York Times an American one, therefore they have different national focuses.

Reading the BBC article would give someone less information about what is going on right now, but it would provide them with a better understanding of the historical context the decision is made in, and give the reader a much more British oriented view. The New York Times would emphasize the American element, and also would make the reader more knowledgeable about the latest developments in the story. Conversely, the reader would have less knowledge of the topic overall (if they had no prior knowledge). I, personally, would recommend reading both.

In the Iraqi elections, the results seem very close. Prime minister Nuri al-Malaki seems to have a slight lead in the polls, particularly in the south of Iraq, while his main opponent Iyad Allawi was keeping the race tight. Both Mr. Allawi and Mr. Maliki represent the more secular factions in the Iraqi elections, and both have similar platforms. The election is currently being indicted for fraud by Mr. Allawi's party which the Electoral Committee promises to investigate. Analysists think it unlikely that any coalition will actually take a majority in the elections, and will necessitate further coalitions with one of the minor parties

Sources:

New York Times - [] BBC -

The main differences between the articles are due to the fact that the new York Times article was written later then the BBC article was. Therefore, the New York Times article has more accurate and up to date details then the BBC article. The New York Times could see that Al-Maliki was pulling ahead in the polls, the BBC could not. Therefore they had different focuses. The BBC was more a brief bulletin on the situation to keep oneself up to date; while the new york times could give a broader overview and focus on more aspects.

Reading the BBC article would merely give one out of date information, so I would recommend the New York Times article.

Mashinda Rajapaksa was reelected to president of Sri Lanka by over six million votes two days ago. After a tough campaign against the leader of the final campaign against the Tamil Tigers rebel group, Sarath Fonseka, Mr. Rajapaksa succeeded in winning by a wide margin. Mr. Fonseka's allies in his anti-Mr. Rajapaksa campaign failed to deliver, and the Tamils, expected to support him, came in record low numbers. Although Mr. Fonseka was the leader of the military that many claim to have committed human right's violations in the Tamil stronghold of northern Sri Lanka, he portrayed himself as committed to healing ethnic divides and allowing the Tamils greater self rule. Mr Rajapaksa had expected an easy campaign having defeated the 26 year Tamil Tiger insurgency, but a combination of anger of the violence and a claims of increased nepotism, a coalition coalesced around Mr. Fonseka to oppose him.

Sources:

New York Times-[] BBC-[]

The main differences between the articles was the level of detail. The New York Times article provided an exhaustive investigation of the election, with every party analyzed and many possible reasons that Mr. Fonseka failed. Huge amounts of background were provided, and the campaigns of both candidates analyzed. The BBC relied far more on Mr. Rajapaksa's statements and speech, which the New York times hardly touched. it provided a lot less detail and only broadly sketched the events leading up to the election.

Reading the BBC article would give you a far more biased view, heavily weighted towards Mr. Rajapaksa's statements. One who read the New York Times article would have a vastly greater and deeper understanding of the election, while the BBC article would provide only a cursorary glance at what was actually happening.

A foreign Ministry official gave the first indication on the status of noted Chinese political activist Gao Zhisheng. The Spokesperson, Ma Zhaoxu, stated that “The relevant judicial authorities have decided this case, and we should say this person, according to Chinese law, is where he should be," This comes after Mr. Gao's arrest in 2009, presumably for his anti-governmental stance in a number of cases, supporting such groups as the Falun Gong, those whose lands were seized by the government, and protesters. None of his family, lawyers, associates or friends had received word from him since his detainment. It has been widely assumed that he was being held by the police. worry about his death had peaked a few weeks ago when his brother claimed that he had talked to one of the police responsible for arresting Mr Gao, and that the officer said that Mr. Gao had gone "missing."

Sources:

The Wall Street Journal-[] The new York Times-[] The two articles both cover the quote from Mr. Ma, although the New York Times provides more. Both articles shared most of the major facts in the case. The New York Times also provides more background, detailing more about how his wife and son fled China, and Mr. Gao's previous entanglements with the Chinese authorities. The New York times also discussed more how Mr Gao's brother had tracked down the policeman, and of the growing concern for his well being, along with more details on what exactly Mr. Gao had done to upset the Chinese Government. The Wall Street Journal provided more context for the oddness of the governments actions, and how they differ from the normal policies of the PRC. Finally, the New York Times provided more context in the current world political scheme.

If one had read the New York Times article only, then one would have a much better understanding of the case in it's context, because of all the details provided on Mr. Gao. One would also understand the case better as relates to current AMerican-Chinese relations. However, the Wall Street Journal would provide one with a better grasp of how the case differs from standard procedure for the PRC, and a clearer explanation of what had been said. Both are reliable options with no major differences.

In Guinea over 60 people were arrested by the reigning junta after the attack on Captain Moussa Dadis Camara because they were 'involved'. Reports are very... incomplete, but it appears that the government is punishing any members of the military who saw the attack, or are suspected of engaging in it, and there is also some information suggesting that the capital of Conakry is being put under a reign of terror. it is believed that Lt. Aboubacar, captain of the presidential guard and the man who shot Camara, is still at large prompting the governments response. Camara remains in Morocco recovering from the bullet wound.

Sources: BBC-[] Al Jazeera-[|http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/12/20091210175750706642.html]

The BBC Article was written with many more references to what was happening outside the military, while the Al-Jazeera article only had one paragraph talking about fear in Conakry. The Al-Jazeera article also talked more in-depth about who was being attacked and who was doing the executions/torture to these people. The BBC article also talked way more about what was the international and aid group opinion of the situation, with far more analysis, while Al-Jazeera was just reporting what was known at the time.

I think that these actions are what naturally happens when an autocratic and unstable government is forced into a precarious position. These crackdowns are bad, but i cannot see any way to stop them without major intervention. At the same time we really don't want another civil war in the Area, which this could rapidly spiral into.

In a break with the previous administration of Thabo Mbeki, President Jacob Zuma of South Africa announced a nationwide campaign against AIDS to mark World AIDS day. The initial focus of his plan is to stop pregnant HIV positive mothers giving the disease to their children through the use of antiviral drugs, but he also stated that the people of South Africa must unite to defeat AIDS like they did against Apartheid. The failure of Tha bo Mbeki's regime to use the antivirals, as p art of a general reluctance in South Africa to combat AIDS, allowed over 35,000 children to be born HIV positive in a nation already with the world's highest AIDS rate.

Sources: New York Times- [] BBC- []

The BBC article had a more sensationalist title, but it's tone was mostly the same as the New York Time's article. The New York Times focused more on the actual speech itself and the history of Jacob Zuma, while the BBC had far more coverage on people's reaction to it. If you were to only read the New York Time's article, Jacob Zuma's action would seem less important then the if you had read the BBC article, because the BBC's article had more people talking about how wonderful it was that he had done this, and the New York Times discussed his previous tawdry history with AIDS. In the end the BBC article seemed more hopeful.

I think this is wonderful, but I am doubtful real change will come to South Africa until a true opposition party appears to fight the ANC. The ANC for all it's greatness was allowed to fester and rot with power, and as such was able to feed the popular delusions about AIDS which this policy is far too late in combating.

In Egypt riots occurred after a 1-0 lost to Algeria, the countries long term enemy in soccer. The riots injured at least 35 people, 11 police officers, burnt many cars, and ransacked the Algerian Embassy. The last time Egypt went to the soccer world cup was in 1989, and Algeria only six years before. The government had played the match in Khartoum as extremely important for national dignity, after a year that saw a sinking economy and rising tensions in the nation. After they're 2-0 victory in Cairo last week, the Egyptians felt sure they would win.

Sources: New York Times- [] Los Angeles Times: []

The new York Times article focused more on the idea that the Egyptians felt that their 'dignity' was infringed, and hurt and that it must be restored. The Los Angeles Times saw this event as a way for the government to gain strength and popular support in an unstable country, while the New York Times showed the government as somewhat taken aback. it appeared that th LA Times thought that this was a government conspiracy thing, while the NY Times thought it was a true popular uprising.

I don't particularly like sports. I just don't see the point in rioting over something like this. Its so... unimportant compared to the other problems Egypt faces, like a repressive government, or a bad economy. I can't decide whether I believe the LA or NY times more. I think government conspiracies are unlikely, but this seems like one that could be pulled off.

President Armando Guebeza of the Frelimo party, was declared the resounding victor in Mozambiques October general election. Capturing 75% of the vote with 2,974,627 votes, his Frelimo party now has 191 seats out of 250 in the national parliment. This continues a Frelimo control of the country unbroken since independence from Portugal in 1975, and since the democratic electios started in 1992 after a bitter civil war. Some worried that this super majority might destabilize the country by handing too much power to Frelimo.

Sources: BBC News-[] Reuters (via the new York Times)-[]

The Reuters article was extremely brief, just a paragraph, and made the election sound much better then the BBC article did. While Reuters did mention they could change the constitution at will, the BBC article was able to go more in depth and discuss how this majority lead some to have fears of this even though many think it unlikely. It was also able to provide more history on the subject.

Imthink that this is very bad for Mozambique. Having a functioning opposition is critical for keeping the people in power in check, which a struggling country like Mozambique desperately needs.

Zimbabwean prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC, has called off a month long boycott of the unity government with Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party. He gave Robert Mugabe one month to solve the issues that caused the boycott, such as the arrest of an aide on terrorism charges and Robert Mugabe's failure to go through with political deals. He announced this at a meeting of the SADC, a regional group that was responsible for implementing the power sharing agreement.

Sources: BBC News- [] Xinhua News Agency- []

The Xinhua news agency article focused more on the internal politics of Zimbabwe, while the BBC had much more emphasis on the role of the SADC. You can see this as the SADC is mentioned only thrice in the Xinhua article while the BBC mentions the SADC's demands on when the conflict should be solved and focuses on how the announcement was named at the SADC conflict. This makes it appear more caused by the Zimbabweans in the Xinhua article, while the BBC represents a more complex take. The Xinhua news agency also uses troika in front of each use of the SADC which... I have no idea what that means. At all. So the Xinhua news agency article comes off as a bit more incomprehensible.

I think the problems in Zimbabwe won't be solved until Robert Mugabe is kicked out and free elections are held, along with a large of investment. I think the action is good, but unlikely to achieve anything.

Manfred Nowak, a UN torture investigator, was stopped from entering into Zimbabwe, officially due to a scheduling conflict with officials from other nearby African Nations. Mr. Nowak was intending to enter Zimbabwe to objectively investigate the activities of Zanu-PF, the party of Robert Mugabe, against the opposition MDC party and international aid workers. Some have claimed that they Zanu-PF has started up another round of violence like last year against the MDC, and that it sought to prevent aid workers from doing their job. Mr. Nowak, and other analysts, felt that although Mr. Nowak had a letter of invite from the prime minister, he was detained which seems to suggest that the internal elements of the government are in conflict.

Sources: BBC-[] New York Times-[] The BBC article was far more in depth then the New York Times article which was only a paragraph long and discussed only the barest details. Because of this the New York Times article provided less background on the conflicts in Zimbabwe, and focused more on the reaction of Mr. Nowak, and how the international community reacted, giving the perception that Zimbabwe was trying to stop him from entering as an oppressive regime, while the BBC Article suggests that he was turned back due to some internal conflicts within the government.

I think these actions are terrible, and a sign of growing instability in Zimbabwe. I think an international peacekeeping force must be assembled, preferably from the UN and nearby nations, and that this coalition must attempt to stop any violence and return Zimbabwe to its former place as a good nation in Africa. I had hopes for the unity government, although I'm not sure why considering Mugabe's past actions.