CANBERRA, Australia: The director of a seabed hunt for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 on Tuesday disagreed with a new book’s conclusion that the pilot likely flew the plane beyond the search area to deliberately sink it in unexplored depths of the Indian Ocean.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau believes the airliner mostly likely ran out of fuel and crashed after flying far off course en route from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing on March 8, 2014. It believes all 239 passengers and crew on board were likely long dead inside a depressurized cabin and cockpit.
Search director Peter Foley, who coordinated the search on Malaysia’s behalf, was quizzed by a Senate committee on theories in Canadian air crash investigator Larry Vance’s new book “MH370: Mystery Solved.”
The book argues that two wing flaps found on islands off Africa in 2015 and 2016 point to pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah performing a controlled ditching outside the 120,000 square kilometers (46,000 square miles) that were scoured by sonar in an A$198 million search that ended in January last year. It says Shah’s aim was to keep the plane largely intact so it would disappear as completely as possible in the remote southern ocean.
Foley, who said he has read the book, pointed to evidence that the plane was not under anyone’s control when it hit the water.
He said analysis of the satellite transmissions of the flight’s final moments showed the jet was in a fast and accelerating descent at the end. Debris from within the plane’s interior found washed up on the west coast of the Indian Ocean suggested significant energy on impact, Foley said.
“If it was being controlled at the end, it wasn’t very successfully being controlled,” Foley said. “The flaps weren’t deployed,” he added.
The book argues that the two recovered flaps show evidence that they had been deployed as the pilot slowed the plane for a gentle landing on water.
Foley said an analysis at the bureau’s headquarters in Canberra of the second flap found on the island of Pemba, off the coast of Tanzania, in June 2016 determined it was “probably not deployed.”
But French authorities prevented an Australian analyst from “doing anything meaningful in terms of analysis” of the first flap found. That flap, known as a flaperon, was found on the French island of Reunion in July 2015. French authorities are holding the flaperon as evidence for a potential criminal prosecution.
Foley said his bureau could not conclude that the flaperon had lost its trailing edge because it was deployed when the plane hit the water.
While the bureau has not said who had initially flown the plane off course, Foley said “it’s absolutely evident” that someone had, ruling out some mechanical or electrical malfunction.
Texas-based technology company Ocean Infinity renewed the search this year on the basis that Malaysia would pay it up $70 million if it could find the wreckage or the plane’s black boxes.
Foley said he still hopes the search will succeed within weeks.
“If they’re not, of course, that would be a great sadness for all of us,” he said.
MH370 search director disagrees with pilot ditch theory
MH370 search director disagrees with pilot ditch theory
Australian police shoot boy dead after stabbing with ‘hallmarks’ of terrorism
SYDNEY,: Australian police said on Sunday they had shot dead a boy after he stabbed a man in Western Australia’s capital Perth, in an attack authorities said indicated terrorism.
There were signs the 16-year-old, armed with a kitchen knife, had been radicalized online, state authorities said, adding they received calls from concerned members of the local Muslim community before the attack, which occurred late on Saturday night.
The attack, in the suburb of Willetton, had “hallmarks” of terrorism but was yet to be declared a terrorist act, police said.
“At this stage it appears that he acted solely and alone,” Western Australia Premier Roger Cook told a televised press conference in the state capital Perth, regarding the attacker.
The victim, stabbed in the back, was stable in hospital, authorities said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he had been briefed on the incident by police and intelligence agencies, which advised there was no ongoing threat.
“We are a peace-loving nation and there is no place for violent extremism in Australia,” Albanese said on social media platform X.
The incident comes after New South Wales police last month charged several boys with terrorism-related offenses in investigations following the stabbing of an Assyrian Christian bishop while he was giving a live-streamed sermon in Sydney, on April 15.
The attack on the bishop came only days after a stabbing spree killed six in the Sydney beachside suburb of Bondi.
Gun and knife crime is rare in Australia, which consistently ranks among the safest countries in the world, according to the federal government. (Reporting by Sam McKeith in Sydney; Editing by Christian Schmollinger and William Mallard)
North Korea’s UN ambassador says new sanctions monitoring groups will fail
- Earlier this year, Russia vetoed the annual renewal of a panel of experts amid US-led accusations that North Korea has transferred weapons to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine
SEOUL: Efforts led by the US and other Western countries to form new groups to monitor sanctions on North Korea will fail, the country’s UN envoy said on Sunday, according to state media KCNA.
Ambassador Kim Song made the comment in response to a joint statement the US and its allies issued this week calling to continue the work of a UN panel of experts monitoring longstanding sanctions against Pyongyang for its nuclear weapons and missile programs.
Earlier this year, Russia vetoed the annual renewal of the panel amid US-led accusations that North Korea has transferred weapons to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine.
“The hostile forces may set up the second and third expert panels in the future but they are all bound to meet self-destruction with the passage of time,” KCNA quotes Kim as saying in a statement.
Last month, US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield visited the Demilitarized Zone, a heavily fortified border between the two Koreas, which remain technically at war and urged Russia and China to stop rewarding North Korea for its bad behavior.
Her trip came after Russia rejected the annual renewal of the multinational panel of experts that has over the past 15 years monitored the implementation of UN sanctions aimed at curbing North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.
China publicizes for the first time what it claims is a 2016 agreement with Philippines
- The move threatens to further raise tensions in the disputed waterway, through which much of the world’s trade passes and which China claims virtually in its entirety
TAIPEI, Taiwan: For the first time, China has publicized what it claims is an unwritten 2016 agreement with the Philippines over access to South China Sea islands.
The move threatens to further raise tensions in the disputed waterway, through which much of the world’s trade passes and which China claims virtually in its entirety.
A statement from the Chinese Embassy in Manila said the “temporary special arrangement” agreed to during a visit to Beijing by former president Rodrigo Duterte allowed small scale fishing around the islands but restricted access by military, coast guard and other official planes and ships to the 12 nautical mile (22 kilometer) limit of territorial waters.
The Philippines respected the agreement over the past seven years but has since reneged on it to “fulfill its own political agenda,” forcing China to take action, the statement said.
“This is the basic reason for the ceaseless disputes at sea between China and the Philippines over the past year and more,” said the statement posted to the embassy’s website Thursday, referring to the actions of the Philippines.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Duterte have denied forging any agreements that would have supposedly surrendered Philippine sovereignty or sovereign rights to China. Any such action, if proven, would be an impeachable offense under the country’s 1987 Constitution.
However, after his visit to Beijing, Duterte hinted at such an agreement without offering details, said Collin Koh, senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies based in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and an expert on naval affairs in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly Southeast Asia.
“He boasted then that he not only got Chinese investment and trade pledges, but also that he secured Philippine fishermen access to Scarborough Shoal,” Koh said, referring to one of the maritime features in dispute.
Beijing’s deliberate wording in the statement “is noteworthy in showing that Beijing has no official document to prove its case and thus could only rely mainly on Duterte’s verbal claim,” Koh said.
Marcos, who took office in June 2022, told reporters last month that China has insisted that there was such a secret agreement but said he was not aware of any.
“The Chinese are insisting that there is a secret agreement and, perhaps, there is, and, I said I didn’t, I don’t know anything about the secret agreement,” said Marcos, who has drawn the Philippines closer to its treaty partner the US “Should there be such a secret agreement, I am now rescinding it.”
Duterte nurtured cozy relations with Chinese President Xi Jinping during his six-year presidency while openly being hostile to the United States for its strong criticism of his deadly campaign against illegal drugs.
While he took an almost virulently anti-American stance during his 2016 visit to Washington’s chief rival, he has said he also did not enter into any agreement with Beijing that would have compromised Philippine territory. He acknowledged, however, that he and Xi agreed to maintain “the status quo” in the disputed waters to avoid war.
“Aside from the fact of having a handshake with President Xi Jinping, the only thing I remember was that status quo, that’s the word. There would be no contact, no movement, no armed patrols there, as is where is, so there won’t be any confrontation,” Duterte said.
Asked if he agreed that the Philippines would not bring construction materials to strengthen a Philippine military ship outpost at the Second Thomas Shoal, Duterte said that was part of maintaining the status quo but added there was no written agreement.
“That’s what I remember. If it were a gentleman’s agreement, it would always have been an agreement to keep the peace in the South China Sea,” Duterte said.
House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Marcos’s cousin and political ally, has ordered an investigation into what some are calling a “gentleman’s agreement.”
China has also claimed that Philippine officials have promised to tow away the navy ship that was deliberately grounded in the shallows of the Second Thomas Shoal in 1999 to serve as Manila’s territorial outpost. Philippine officials under Marcos say they were not aware of any such agreement and would not remove the now dilapidated and rust-encrusted warship manned by a small contingent of Filipino sailors and marines.
China has long accused Manila of “violating its commitments” and “acting illegally” in the South China Sea, without being explicit.
Apart from China and the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei also have overlapping claims in the sea that is rich in fishing stocks, gas and oil. Beijing has refused to recognize a 2016 international arbitration ruling by a UN-affiliated court in the Hauge that invalidated its expansive claims on historical grounds.
Skirmishes between Beijing and Manila have flared since last year, with massive Chinese coast guard cutters firing high-pressure water cannons at Philippine patrol vessels, most recently off Scarborough Shoal late last month, damaging both. They have also accused each other of dangerous maneuvering, leading to minor scrapes.
The US lays no claims to the South China Sea, but has deployed Navy ships and fighter jets in what it calls freedom of navigation operations that have challenged China’s claims.
The US has warned repeatedly that it’s obligated to defend the Philippines — its oldest treaty ally in Asia — if Filipino forces, ships or aircraft come under an armed attack, including in the South China Sea.
Japan seeks Sri Lanka recovery for regional stability
- Colombo has handed over to a Chinese firm a deep sea port built on a huge China loan after failing to pay
- Colombo defaulted on its $46 billion external debt in April 2022 and has failed to finalize any deals with foreign creditors so far
COLOMBO: Strategically placed Sri Lanka’s economic recovery was essential for stability in the Indo-Pacific region, Japan’s foreign minister said Saturday, urging Colombo to swiftly restructure its foreign debt.
Yoko Kamikawa said after talks with her Sri Lankan counterpart that Colombo should secure agreements with bilateral lenders and international sovereign bondholders to unlock suspended foreign funding.
The Sri Lankan government which defaulted on its $46 billion external debt in April 2022 had hoped to finalize deals with foreign creditors by April but there have been no final agreements yet.
Kamikawa said she “stressed the importance of reaching a debt restructuring agreement with all the creditors,” including China — the largest bilateral lender to the island.
“I also conveyed Japan’s intention to further support Sri Lanka’s development by swiftly resuming existing yen loan projects (after a debt restructuring deal),” she said.
She said Tokyo considered Colombo’s economic recovery as crucial for the entire region. The island is located halfway along the main east-west international shipping route.
“The restoration of stability and economic development of Sri Lanka, which is at a strategic location in the India Ocean, is essential for the stability and prosperity of the entire Indo-Pacific region,” she added.
Sri Lanka must secure agreement from all official creditors and a majority of private bondholders to continue with a four-year $2.9 billion bailout loan begun since March last year.
Japan, the second largest bilateral lender to the island has expressed concern about China’s big infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka and elsewhere in the region.
Tokyo maintains that the Chinese-funded projects did not meet international finance standards.
Unable to repay a huge loan taken from China in 2017 to build a deep sea port in southern Hambantota, Sri Lanka handed it over to a Chinese firm for $1.12 billion on a 99-year lease.
Sri Lanka ran out of cash to pay for even the most essential imports in 2022, leading to chronic shortages of food, fuel and medicines.
Then-president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who faced allegations of mismanagement and corruption, was forced to flee the country and resign in July 2022 after months of protests.
His successor, Ranil Wickremesinghe has raised taxes, cut subsidies and is enforcing painful economic reforms in line with the IMF bailout.
Biden and Trump offer worlds-apart contrasts on issues in 2024’s rare contest between two presidents
Biden and Trump offer worlds-apart contrasts on issues in 2024’s rare contest between two presidents
- Their track records and plans leave no doubt that the man voters choose in November will seek to shape the landscape of American life in ways wholly distinct from the other
WASHINGTON: Joe Biden and Donald Trump are two presidents with unfinished business and an itch to get it done.
Their track records and plans on abortion, immigration, taxes, wars abroad — you name it — leave no doubt that the man voters choose in November will seek to shape the landscape of American life in ways wholly distinct from the other.
The choices, if the winner gets his way, are sharply defined. The onward march of regulation and incentives to restrain climate change, or a slow walk if not an about-face. Higher taxes on the super rich, or not. Abortion rights reaffirmed, or left to states to restrict or allow as each decides. Another attempt to legislate border security and orderly entry into the country, or massive deportations. A commitment to stand with Ukraine or let go.
At no time in living memory have two presidents, current and former, competed for the office. Not since Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, both Republicans, in 1912, and that didn’t work out for either of them — Democrat Woodrow Wilson won that three-way race.
More than a century later, voters again get to judge two presidents on their records alongside their promises for the next four years. Here’s where they stand on 10 of the top issues:
Abortion
BIDEN: The president has called for Congress to send him legislation that would codify in federal law the right to an abortion, which stood for nearly 50 years before being overturned by the Supreme Court. He has also criticized statewide bans on abortion in Republican states and says he will veto any potential nationwide ban should one come to his desk. In the absence of legislation, his administration has taken narrower actions, such as proposals that would protect women who travel to obtain abortions and limit how law enforcement collects medical records.
TRUMP: The former president often brags about appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion. After dodging questions about when in pregnancy he believes the procedure should be restricted, Trump announced in April that decisions on access and cutoffs should be left to the states. He said he would not sign a national abortion ban into law. But he’s declined to say whether he would try to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone. He told Time magazine in recent interviews that it should also be left up to states to determine whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor their pregnancies.
Climate/Energy
BIDEN: In a second term, Biden could be expected to continue his focus on implementing the climate provisions of his Inflation Reduction Act, which provided nearly $375 billion for things like financial incentives for electric cars and clean energy projects. Biden is also enlisting more than 20,000 young people in a national “Climate Corps,” a Peace Corps-like program to promote conservation through tasks such as weatherizing homes and repairing wetlands. Biden wants to triple the group’s size this decade. Despite all this, it’s unlikely that the US will be on track to meet Biden’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2030.
TRUMP: His mantra for one of his top priorities: “DRILL, BABY, DRILL.” Trump, who in the past cast climate change as a “hoax” and harbors a particular disdain for wind power, says it’s his goal for the US to have the cheapest energy and electricity in the world. He’d increase oil drilling on public lands, offer tax breaks to oil, gas and coal producers, speed the approval of natural gas pipelines and roll back the Biden administration’s aggressive efforts to get people to switch to electric cars, which he argues have a place but shouldn’t be forced on consumers. He has also pledged to re-exit the Paris Climate Accords, end wind subsidies and eliminate regulations imposed and proposed by the Biden administration targeting energy-inefficient kinds of lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers and shower heads.
Democracy/Rule of law
BIDEN: Protecting democracy has been the raison d’etre behind Biden’s decision to run for reelection. In a symbolic nod to the Revolutionary War, Biden delivered his first campaign speech of 2024 near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where he spoke of George Washington’s decision to step down as the leader of the Continental Army after American independence was won. During the Jan. 5 speech, Biden said this year’s presidential contest is “all about” whether US democracy will survive and he regularly condemns Trump’s denial that he lost the 2020 general election. Biden has called the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol a “day that we nearly lost America — lost it all.”
TRUMP: The former president, who famously refused to accept his loss to Biden in 2020, has not committed to accepting the results this time. “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results,” Trump recently told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “If it’s not, you have to fight for the right of the country.” He has said he will pardon the Jan. 6 defendants jailed for assaulting police officers and other crimes during the attack on the Capitol. He vows to overhaul the Justice Department and FBI “from the ground up,” aggrieved by the criminal charges the department has brought against him. He also promises to deploy the National Guard to cities such as Chicago that are struggling with violent crime, and in response to protests, and has also vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Biden.
Federal government
BIDEN: The Biden administration is already taking steps to make it harder for any mass firings of civil servants to occur. In April, the Office of Personnel Management issued a new rule that would ban federal workers from being reclassified as political appointees or other at-will employees, which makes them easier to dismiss. That was in response to Schedule F, a 2020 executive order from Trump that reclassified tens of thousands of federal workers so they could be fired more easily.
TRUMP: The former president vows an overhaul of the federal bureaucracy, which he has long blamed for stymying his first term agenda: “I will totally obliterate the deep state.” He plans to reissue the Schedule F order stripping civil service protections. He’d then move to fire “rogue bureaucrats,” including those who ”weaponized our justice system,” and the “warmongers and America-Last globalists in the Deep State, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the national security industrial complex.” He’s pledged to terminate the Education Department and wants to curtail the independence of regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission.
Immigration
BIDEN: The president continues to advocate for the comprehensive immigration bill he introduced on his first day in office, which would grant an eight-year pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the US without legal status, with a faster track for young immigrants living in the country illegally who were brought here as children. That legislation went nowhere in Congress. This year, the president backed a Senate compromise that included tougher asylum standards and billions more in federal dollars to hire more border agents, immigration judges and asylum officers. That deal collapsed on Capitol Hill due to Trump’s opposition. Biden is currently considering executive action on the border, particularly if the number of illegal crossings increases later this year.
TRUMP: The former president promises to mount the largest domestic deportation in US history — an operation that could include detention camps and the National Guard. He’d bring back policies he put in place during his first term, like the Remain in Mexico program and Title 42, which placed curbs on migrants on public health grounds. And he’d revive and expand the travel ban that originally targeted citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. After the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, he pledged new “ideological screening” for immigrants to bar “dangerous lunatics, haters, bigots, and maniacs.” He’d also try to deport people who are in the US legally but harbor “jihadist sympathies.” He’d seek to end birthright citizenship for people born in the US whose parents are both in the country illegally.
Israel/Gaza
BIDEN: The war in Gaza, far more so than other national security considerations, has defined Biden’s foreign policy this year, with significant political implications. He has offered full-throated support for Israel since Hamas militants launched a surprise deadly assault on Oct. 7. But as the death toll in Gaza continues to climb, Biden has faced massive backlash at home. His administration is working to broker a temporary ceasefire that would release some hostages held by Hamas, which would also allow for more humanitarian aid to enter the war-torn region. Biden also calls for a two-state solution, which would have Israel existing alongside an independent Palestinian state.
TRUMP: The former president has expressed support for Israel’s efforts to “destroy” Hamas but he’s also been critical of some of Israel’s tactics. He says the country must finish the job quickly and get back to peace. He has called for more aggressive responses to pro-Palestinian protests at college campuses and applauded police efforts to clear encampments. Trump also proposes to revoke the student visas of those who espouse antisemitic or anti-American views.
LGBTQ Issues
BIDEN: The president and White House officials regularly denounce discrimination and attacks against the LGBTQ community. Shortly after he took office, Biden reversed an executive order from Trump that had largely banned transgender people from military service, and his Education Department completed a rule in April that says Title IX, the 1972 law that was passed to protect women’s rights, also bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The new rule was silent on the issue of transgender athletes.
TRUMP: The former president has pledged to keep transgender women out of women’s sports and says he will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that “only two genders,” as determined at birth, are recognized by the United States. He promises to “defeat the toxic poison of gender ideology.” As part of his crackdown on gender-affirming care, he would declare that any health care provider that participates in the “chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth” no longer meets federal health and safety standards and won’t get federal money. He’d take similarly punitive steps in schools against any teacher or school official who “suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body.” Trump would support a national prohibition of hormonal or surgical intervention for transgender minors and bar transgender people from military service.
NATO/Ukraine
BIDEN: The president has spent much of his time rebuilding alliances unraveled by Trump, particularly NATO, a critical bulwark against Russian aggression. Since the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Biden has pledged unceasing support to Kyiv and he made an unannounced visit there in February 2023 in a show of solidarity. His administration and Congress have sent tens of billions of dollars in military and other aid to Ukraine. The latest tranche of aid totaled $61 billion in weapons, ammunition and other assistance and is expected to last through this year. Continued US assistance is critical, Biden says, because he argues that Russian leader Vladimir Putin will not stop at invading Ukraine.
TRUMP: The former president has repeatedly taken issue with US aid to Ukraine and says he will continue to “fundamentally reevaluate” the mission and purpose of the NATO alliance if he returns to office. He has claimed, without explanation, that he will be able to end the war before his inauguration by bringing both sides to the negotiating table. (His approach seems to hinge on Ukraine giving up at least some of its Russian-occupied territory in exchange for a ceasefire.) On NATO, he has assailed member nations for years for failing to hit agreed-upon military spending targets. Trump drew alarms this year when he said that, as president, he had warned leaders that he would not only refuse to defend nations that don’t hit those targets, but “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent.”
Tariffs/trade
BIDEN: This is where Biden and his protectionist tendencies — in a continued appeal to working-class voters — have some similarities with Trump. Biden is calling for a tripling of tariffs on Chinese steel, a move that would shield US producers from cheaper imports. The current tariff rate is 7.5 percent for both steel and aluminum but Biden wants that to go to 25 percent. Biden has also said he opposes the proposed acquisition of US Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel, because it is “vital for it to remain an American steel company that is domestically owned and operated.”
TRUMP: The former president wants a dramatic expansion of tariffs, proposing a levy of perhaps 10 percent on nearly all imported foreign goods. Penalties would increase if trade partners manipulate their currencies or engage in other unfair trading practices. He would also urge Congress to pass legislation giving the president authority to impose a reciprocal tariff on any country that imposes one on the US Much of his trade agenda has focused on China. Trump has proposed phasing out Chinese imports of essential goods including electronics, steel and pharmaceuticals and wants to ban Chinese companies from owning US infrastructure in sectors such as energy, technology and farmland. Whether higher tariffs come from a Biden administration or a Trump one, they are likely to raise prices for consumers who have already faced higher costs from inflation.
Taxes
BIDEN: In his State of the Union address, Biden proposed raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and the corporate minimum tax to 21 percent as a matter of “fundamental fairness” that will bring in more money to invest in Americans. The current corporate rate is 21 percent and the corporate minimum, raised under the Inflation Reduction Act, is at 15 percent for companies making more than $1 billion a year. Biden also wants to require billionaires to pay at least 25 percent of their income in taxes and to restore the child tax credit that was enacted under his 2021 COVID-19 relief package, but has since expired.
TRUMP: The former president has promised to extend the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017 and that are due to sunset at the end of 2025. That package cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and roughly doubled the standard deduction and child tax credit.
