Thailand and Cambodia Clash Again in Border Dispute

BANGKOK — Thai and Cambodian troops clashed for a third day on Sunday in the first major territorial encounter since an informal cease-fire that followed four days of fighting in February. At least 10 people were killed and thousands of residents were evacuated from border areas, according to reports from both sides.

The United Nations called on the countries to settle the conflict peacefully, with an effective and verifiable cease-fire. The exact cause of the latest clash, which began early Friday, was unclear, with the two sides accusing each other of making the first move in what was mostly a long-range artillery duel.

The fighting was reported at border areas 100 miles west of Preah Vihear, an 11th-century temple that has been the focus of armed tensions since it was listed in 2008 by the United Nations as a World Heritage site under Cambodian administration.

Both nations claim ownership of a strategic area of 1.8 square miles near Preah Vihear. Two other ancient Hindu temples in the border area are the focus of the latest eruption of fighting.

In his weekly television address, the prime minister of Thailand, Abhisit Vejjajiva, accused Cambodia of starting the fighting. “When there is firing into Thailand, we must fire back,” he said.

Mr. Abhisit added: “We must not fall into Cambodia’s trap in trying to spread a picture of conflict, or say the conflict is unsolvable through bilateral talks.”

A sticking point in efforts at negotiations is Thailand’s resistance to Cambodia’s demand for mediation by international bodies. In the past, outside judgments have favored Cambodia. In 1962, the World Court ruled that Preah Vihear, which stands on a border bluff overlooking the Cambodian countryside, belonged to Cambodia.

The disputes involve border demarcations between the two countries made by former French colonial administrators and include references to competing maps and interpretations of maps.

The conflicting claims are a rallying cry for nationalists on both sides. In Thailand, they have become a focus of the antigovernment “yellow shirt” protests in recent months.

In February, the United Nations forwarded a Cambodian request for mediation to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in which both sides agreed to allow unarmed military observers to be posted along the border.

But the Thai military resisted that plan, and the country’s foreign minister, Kasit Piromya, said that his government was trying to secure the cooperation of the armed forces to find a peaceful settlement.

Cambodia accused Thailand over the weekend of firing artillery shells “loaded with poisonous gas” and of flying jet fighter sorties over Cambodian territory. Thailand rejected the accusations as groundless.

 

Thai, Cambodian Armies Clash on Border; 6 Killed

BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand and Cambodia exchanged artillery and gunfire for several hours Friday in a flare-up of a long-running border dispute, and their militaries said six soldiers were killed.

The fighting near the ancient temples of Ta Krabey and Ta Moan forced thousands of civilians on both sides to flee. Cambodia says artillery fell on villages and other areas as far as 13 miles (21 kilometers) inside its territory.

It was the first skirmish reported since four days of fighting in February, when eight soldiers and civilians were killed near the 11th century Preah Vihear temple, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) to the east of Friday's fighting.

A decades-old border dispute over ancient temples and the land surrounding them has fueled nationalist passions in both countries. Clashes have erupted several times since 2008, when Preah Vihear was given U.N. World Heritage status.

Each side blamed the other for the resumption of fighting.

Thai army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Siriya Khuangsirikul said three Thai soldiers had been killed, and 13 wounded, one critically. Cambodian defense spokesman Lt. Gen. Chhum Socheat said three Cambodian soldiers were killed and six wounded.

Cambodia's Bayon TV, which has close links to the government, showed footage Friday night of damaged houses and civilians being evacuated by farm vehicles to schools and Buddhist pagodas 50 kilometers (30 miles) from the front lines.

A statement from the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Thailand said the country had "exercised its inherent right of self-defense on the basis of necessity, proportionality and strictly directed at military targets from where the attacks were launched by Cambodian troops."

Indonesia, chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, called for an immediate cease-fire and further efforts to resolve the border dispute. Fighting stopped by early afternoon, but no cease-fire had been reached, Cambodia said.

Tensions between the neighbors have been exacerbated in recent months in part by pressure from influential Thai nationalist groups, which have protested in Bangkok urging the government to take back land awarded to Cambodia by an international court ruling.

The flare-up comes as the Thai military raises its profile in domestic politics ahead of a general election expected to be held by early July. The army had previously effectively vetoed an agreed-on plan to station Indonesian observers to monitor the border situation.

Cambodia in a note from Foreign Minister Hor Namhong to the president of the U.N. Security Council accused Thailand of refusing to accept the Indonesian monitors so it could carry out "this deliberate act of aggression."

Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told reporters his government was investigating the cause of Friday's clash and said despite a pause in fighting, the situation was volatile.

"What we would like reiterate is the position of troops of both countries are close to each other. Therefore, any movement can lead to clashes," Abhisit said.

Abhisit called for a meeting of one of the bilateral committees the two countries have set up to discuss border issues.

Reiterating Thailand's stance on its dispute with Cambodia, he said it was not necessary for ASEAN or other multinational bodies to take up the matter, because then "it will be harder to solve."

Cambodia insists bilateral talks are unproductive and a third party's participation would be useful.

___

Sopheng Cheang reported from Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

 

A Clash Over the Airwaves

 

Those annoyances are likely to get worse, as airwaves that carry cellphone signals and wireless Internet connections grow ever more crowded.

The Federal Communications Commission has a solution: reclaim airwaves from “inefficient“ users — specifically, television broadcasters — and auction them off to the highest bidder, sharing some of the proceeds with television stations that volunteer to give up airwaves, known in the trade as spectrum.

Broadcasters, however, are furious with the plan, setting the stage for an old media vs. new media lobbying battle with cellphone companies and the government.

“We’re in full battle mode to protect broadcasters from being forced to give up spectrum,“ said Gordon H. Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters and a former United States senator, addressing his members at their meeting here last week. The CTIA, the lobbying group for the wireless industry, quickly fired back, accusing broadcasters of “desperate and inaccurate stall tactics,” said Steve Largent, the group’s president, who is a former Oklahoma congressman and member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Broadcasters have long been under siege, their audiences slipping away to cable television, their advertisers defecting to the Internet. Although giving up spectrum would go unnoticed by most viewers, the fight to hold onto a chunk of the airwaves could be the industry’s biggest battle in years.

“We are not going to volunteer,“ said Leslie Moonves, the CBS chief executive. “Spectrum is our lifeblood.“ CBS owns and operates 14 stations in the large markets that the F.C.C. is considering for spectrum sell-offs.

Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, in whose hallways the battle is likely to be fought over the next year, have already challenged the assertion that the auctions would be completely voluntary.

“Sounds kind of like a bank holdup to me,“ Representative John D. Dingell, a prominent Michigan Democrat, told Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, at a hearing in February. “You hold a gun at the teller’s head and say, ‘We know that you are going to voluntarily give me this money. If you don’t, I’m going to shoot you.’?“

To the government, the overcrowded cellphone spectrum and wireless broadband networks have put the United States on the verge of a “spectrum crisis“ that, unaddressed, will threaten the nation’s technological leadership and economic growth. The 120 megahertz of spectrum being sought from the broadcasters would increase the amount available for cellphones and other wireless devices by about 22 percent, to 667 megahertz. On top of that, the Obama administration has said it wants to free an additional 380 megahertz for wireless Internet use.

“This growing demand is not going away,“ Mr. Genachowski told broadcasters last week. “The only thing that can address the growing overall demand for mobile is increasing the overall supply of spectrum and the efficiency of its use.“

From the days of analog signals, television bands leave broad spaces between stations to prevent interference — hence, their inefficiency. For cable TV or satellite viewers, airwave changes make no difference in reception. But for the 11 million households that still use an antenna to receive over-the-air signals (and thus do not subscribe to cable or satellite) there could be some interference between stations as the F.C.C. tries to press TV signals into a tighter spectrum bands.

Government officials deny this, but as the conversion to digital broadcasting showed, there can be unexpected consequences when you mess with the physics of broadcasting.

Mr. Genachowski has garnered support for the idea of reclaiming spectrum from some broadcasters. Also, a group of 112 economists who specialize in telecommunications, competition policy and auction design sent a letter to President Obama urging him to push Congress to approve incentive auctions. Three bills have been introduced in Congress supporting the idea.

But some members of Congress have opposed the plan, and the broadcasters’ group is a formidable foe. The group spent nearly $14 million on lobbying last year and made another $886,000 in campaign contributions toward the 2010 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, in Washington.

 

A Clash Over the Airwaves

 

Those annoyances are likely to get worse, as airwaves that carry cellphone signals and wireless Internet connections grow ever more crowded.

The Federal Communications Commission has a solution: reclaim airwaves from “inefficient“ users — specifically, television broadcasters — and auction them off to the highest bidder, sharing some of the proceeds with television stations that volunteer to give up airwaves, known in the trade as spectrum.

Broadcasters, however, are furious with the plan, setting the stage for an old media vs. new media lobbying battle with cellphone companies and the government.

“We’re in full battle mode to protect broadcasters from being forced to give up spectrum,“ said Gordon H. Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters and a former United States senator, addressing his members at their meeting here last week. The CTIA, the lobbying group for the wireless industry, quickly fired back, accusing broadcasters of “desperate and inaccurate stall tactics,” said Steve Largent, the group’s president, who is a former Oklahoma congressman and member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Broadcasters have long been under siege, their audiences slipping away to cable television, their advertisers defecting to the Internet. Although giving up spectrum would go unnoticed by most viewers, the fight to hold onto a chunk of the airwaves could be the industry’s biggest battle in years.

“We are not going to volunteer,“ said Leslie Moonves, the CBS chief executive. “Spectrum is our lifeblood.“ CBS owns and operates 14 stations in the large markets that the F.C.C. is considering for spectrum sell-offs.

Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, in whose hallways the battle is likely to be fought over the next year, have already challenged the assertion that the auctions would be completely voluntary.

“Sounds kind of like a bank holdup to me,“ Representative John D. Dingell, a prominent Michigan Democrat, told Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, at a hearing in February. “You hold a gun at the teller’s head and say, ‘We know that you are going to voluntarily give me this money. If you don’t, I’m going to shoot you.’?“

To the government, the overcrowded cellphone spectrum and wireless broadband networks have put the United States on the verge of a “spectrum crisis“ that, unaddressed, will threaten the nation’s technological leadership and economic growth. The 120 megahertz of spectrum being sought from the broadcasters would increase the amount available for cellphones and other wireless devices by about 22 percent, to 667 megahertz. On top of that, the Obama administration has said it wants to free an additional 380 megahertz for wireless Internet use.

“This growing demand is not going away,“ Mr. Genachowski told broadcasters last week. “The only thing that can address the growing overall demand for mobile is increasing the overall supply of spectrum and the efficiency of its use.“

From the days of analog signals, television bands leave broad spaces between stations to prevent interference — hence, their inefficiency. For cable TV or satellite viewers, airwave changes make no difference in reception. But for the 11 million households that still use an antenna to receive over-the-air signals (and thus do not subscribe to cable or satellite) there could be some interference between stations as the F.C.C. tries to press TV signals into a tighter spectrum bands.

Government officials deny this, but as the conversion to digital broadcasting showed, there can be unexpected consequences when you mess with the physics of broadcasting.

Mr. Genachowski has garnered support for the idea of reclaiming spectrum from some broadcasters. Also, a group of 112 economists who specialize in telecommunications, competition policy and auction design sent a letter to President Obama urging him to push Congress to approve incentive auctions. Three bills have been introduced in Congress supporting the idea.

But some members of Congress have opposed the plan, and the broadcasters’ group is a formidable foe. The group spent nearly $14 million on lobbying last year and made another $886,000 in campaign contributions toward the 2010 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, in Washington.

 

A Clash Over the Airwaves

 

Those annoyances are likely to get worse, as airwaves that carry cellphone signals and wireless Internet connections grow ever more crowded.

The Federal Communications Commission has a solution: reclaim airwaves from “inefficient“ users — specifically, television broadcasters — and auction them off to the highest bidder, sharing some of the proceeds with television stations that volunteer to give up airwaves, known in the trade as spectrum.

Broadcasters, however, are furious with the plan, setting the stage for an old media vs. new media lobbying battle with cellphone companies and the government.

“We’re in full battle mode to protect broadcasters from being forced to give up spectrum,“ said Gordon H. Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters and a former United States senator, addressing his members at their meeting here last week. The CTIA, the lobbying group for the wireless industry, quickly fired back, accusing broadcasters of “desperate and inaccurate stall tactics,” said Steve Largent, the group’s president, who is a former Oklahoma congressman and member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Broadcasters have long been under siege, their audiences slipping away to cable television, their advertisers defecting to the Internet. Although giving up spectrum would go unnoticed by most viewers, the fight to hold onto a chunk of the airwaves could be the industry’s biggest battle in years.

“We are not going to volunteer,“ said Leslie Moonves, the CBS chief executive. “Spectrum is our lifeblood.“ CBS owns and operates 14 stations in the large markets that the F.C.C. is considering for spectrum sell-offs.

Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, in whose hallways the battle is likely to be fought over the next year, have already challenged the assertion that the auctions would be completely voluntary.

“Sounds kind of like a bank holdup to me,“ Representative John D. Dingell, a prominent Michigan Democrat, told Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, at a hearing in February. “You hold a gun at the teller’s head and say, ‘We know that you are going to voluntarily give me this money. If you don’t, I’m going to shoot you.’?“

To the government, the overcrowded cellphone spectrum and wireless broadband networks have put the United States on the verge of a “spectrum crisis“ that, unaddressed, will threaten the nation’s technological leadership and economic growth. The 120 megahertz of spectrum being sought from the broadcasters would increase the amount available for cellphones and other wireless devices by about 22 percent, to 667 megahertz. On top of that, the Obama administration has said it wants to free an additional 380 megahertz for wireless Internet use.

“This growing demand is not going away,“ Mr. Genachowski told broadcasters last week. “The only thing that can address the growing overall demand for mobile is increasing the overall supply of spectrum and the efficiency of its use.“

From the days of analog signals, television bands leave broad spaces between stations to prevent interference — hence, their inefficiency. For cable TV or satellite viewers, airwave changes make no difference in reception. But for the 11 million households that still use an antenna to receive over-the-air signals (and thus do not subscribe to cable or satellite) there could be some interference between stations as the F.C.C. tries to press TV signals into a tighter spectrum bands.

Government officials deny this, but as the conversion to digital broadcasting showed, there can be unexpected consequences when you mess with the physics of broadcasting.

Mr. Genachowski has garnered support for the idea of reclaiming spectrum from some broadcasters. Also, a group of 112 economists who specialize in telecommunications, competition policy and auction design sent a letter to President Obama urging him to push Congress to approve incentive auctions. Three bills have been introduced in Congress supporting the idea.

But some members of Congress have opposed the plan, and the broadcasters’ group is a formidable foe. The group spent nearly $14 million on lobbying last year and made another $886,000 in campaign contributions toward the 2010 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, in Washington.

 

Yemen Police and Protesters Clash as Deal Is Sought to End Political Crisis

The violence came as the Gulf Cooperation Council, a six-nation regional group, sought to broker an end to the political crisis. Yemen’s Saba news agency said government officials were meeting with the council in Abu Dhabi after similar meetings with opposition representatives on Sunday.

Gunfire erupted in the capital on Tuesday as government supporters threw rocks and beat protesters with sticks while security forces used tear gas and a water cannon to push back a march in the center of the city. “First they used the water cannon on us, then tear gas, then as we were running away they shot at us,” said Talal al-Azany, a protester who works with a local human rights organization.

One protester died of a gunshot wound to the head, and doctors said 10 others were wounded; it was unclear whether security forces or plainclothesmen had opened fire. A witness said a protester threw a gasoline bomb at the water cannon.

At a mosque turned medical clinic inside the demonstration area in Sana, about 100 men lay on the floor, some wounded, some beaten, some suffering from tear gas. “You see how our government works,” said Dahan Ali, an older protester using crutches after being shot in the leg during a clash on Sunday

Canisters of the tear gas used against protesters in Yemen show expiration dates as many as 10 years past. Many protesters have severe reactions to the gas, including seizures and foaming at the mouth. Yemeni doctors believe that these reactions prove that the gas has some sort of nerve agent in it, though the leftover canisters bear labels saying CN gas and CS gas, used for crowd control.

On Sunday night, one man had to be held down to the floor by four others as his body spasmed. “The victims convulse in ways that is not normal for tear gas,” said a doctor at the makeshift clinic, Tarek Noman. He said he treated exposure with Pralidoxime, a medicine used to counter nerve gas and phosphorus pesticides.

In Taiz, the violence broke out as demonstrators tried to march along a central street and were confronted by security forces, who began shooting after protesters began to burn barricades in the street, Reuters reported. Taiz is home to the country’s longest sit-in, with protesters claiming a central area since mid-February and demanding the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

A video posted online Tuesday showed a member of the security forces firing from a moving car in Taiz, though it was unclear when the video was taken. Protesters there have said that both security forces and plainclothes government supporters have repeatedly shot at them over the last two weeks.

According to a plan backed by Western nations, Mr. Saleh would hand over presidential powers to his vice president and then leave office a month later under a guarantee of immunity from prosecution for himself and his family. Presidential elections would be held after 60 days, in accordance with the country’s Constitution. The plan is seen as a compromise between what the ruling party and the opposition have been seeking.

Yemen’s opposition coalition, known as the Joint Meetings Parties, has indicated its support for the plan; Mr. Saleh has yet to respond.

A high-ranking Yemeni official, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to speak to the news media, said Mr. Saleh was seeking a guarantee that leading figures from the opposition, notably Maj. Gen. Ali Mohsin al-Ahmar, would leave Yemen for a set period of time if Mr. Saleh agreed to step down. The official described such an arrangement as a tribal method of settling scores and meant to ensure that the president saved face.

Youth protesters are planning marches for Wednesday in cities throughout the country in memory of the first protester killed in this uprising, Mohammed al-Alwani, who died Feb. 16 in the southern port city Aden.

The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to meet on Tuesday over the worsening political situation in Yemen, a country riven by tribal conflict in the north and a separatist movement in the south that has become a haven for Al Qaeda. Counterterrorism officials say the unrest has allowed the terrorist group to operate more freely and plot attacks against Western targets.

Laura Kasinof reported from Sana, and J. David Goodman from New York.

 

Canada leaders clash in TV debate

 12 April 2011 Last updated at 21:43 ET  Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to elect only 12 more MPs to form a majority government Canada's embattled prime minister has clashed with three opposition leaders in the first of two televised debates, ahead of the 2 May election.

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff accused Mr Harper of deceit, saying Canadians "don't have confidence in your management of the economy".

Mr Harper said the opposition had provoked an unnecessary election at a key time for the economy.

Polls suggest the Conservatives will likely win re-election.

The election was prompted by a non-confidence vote in Canada's parliament after Mr Harper's government was criticised for failing to provide details about areas of spending, which included a budget for new fighter jets.

The Conservatives have about 40% support, according to recent poll, with the main opposition Liberal Party on about 30%.

But with nearly 25% of voters said to be still undecided, correspondents say the televised debates could have an impact on the election.

Questions over spending

Mr Harper was immediately put on the defensive by Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe over controversies surrounding G8/G20 summit spending and corporate tax cuts.

A leaked draft report on last summer's G8/G20 summit in Canada alleged the government spent millions of dollars on dubious projects and that parliament was "misled" about the spending.

Mr Duceppe called on Mr Harper to release the auditor general's report that alleged the Canadian government misinformed parliament to win approval for a $50m (￡32) G8 fund that put money toward questionable projects.

The report, which Auditor General Sheila Fraser has said she will not release until after the new parliament is seated, suggests the process by which the funding was approved may have been illegal.

Mr Ignatieff and New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton soon jumped into the conversation, demanding answers on spending practices.

"The Conservative Party is the problem here when it comes to the economy," Mr Layton said.

Mr Layton added that Conservative corporate tax cuts contributed to "why people can't make ends meet, why so many people are still out of work".

"Your policies don't address them," he said.

Mr Ignatieff also accused Mr Harper of pushing corporate tax cuts, which he said the Liberal Party would end in order to pay for a student grants programme.

"We can invest in Canadian learning," Mr Ignatieff said.

"That's a billion-dollar investment ... you spent that in 72 hours on the G8/G20 photo-op."

The debate was seen as a good chance for Mr Ignatieff, who has been portrayed as an elitist in political attack ads, to improve his image.

But despite an energetic campaign, Mr Ignatieff has made little headway in opinion polls, with his party trailing the Conservatives by 8.5 points in a Nanos Research poll released on Tuesday.

'Unnecessary election'

During the English-language debate on Tuesday evening, Mr Harper said opposition parties had provoked what he believed was an unnecessary election at a time when Canadians should be focusing on the economy.

But Mr Ignatieff struck back at Mr Harper, saying Canada was "having an election because you didn't tell parliament the truth".

Mr Ignatieff's Liberal Party, which has governed Canada for longer than any other group, is struggling partly because they are now competing with the New Democrats for the same portion of the electorate.

The debate was broken down into six portions, which saw two of the four leaders debating in six-minute showdowns.

Each segment began with a question from a Canadian voter, and ended with a brief free-for-all debate involving all four leaders.

A debate in French, which is the other official language of Canada, will take place on Wednesday evening.