, 3 10 . 20 . 1978 3 . . . . . . . . 60 . , , . . . . , . . 2020 100 2050 . .

, . , , . . . , . . . . . . . 1 . . , , , . . . . . . , , . , , . .

The Road Ahead for China's Reforms

China's Third Plenary party meeting has just unveiled a sweeping reform agenda for the next decade. Despite several crucial gaps, overall the new agenda is robust and substantive, marking the most ambitious reform program in two decades. In terms of long-term significance, this pivotal meeting is perhaps surpassed only by the historic third plenum in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping dramatically changed the course of China by embarking on market reforms and opening up to the outside world. Yet despite stunning successes to date, China's transition to a free market economy is far from complete. While the private sector has expanded, state and state-owned enterprises continue to occupy the commanding heights of the economy. Excessive regulations stifle innovation. Because of serious structural imbalances and institutional deficiencies, pessimists predict that China will be stuck in the "middle income trap" with unstable and potentially explosive social and political consequences at home and abroad. The future of China and, to some extent, of the world, thus depends on her efforts to deepen economic reforms. There is too much at stake. That is why it is so encouraging that China's leadership has reaffirmed its strong commitment to reforms. The Party has publicly pledged as many as 60 specific policy and institutional reforms. If implemented, they could transform China into a dynamic modern market economy with rule of law, open competition and entrepreneurship. Yet without courage and perseverance, difficult reforms cannot be sustained. In the years prior to President Xi Jinping's ascendency to the helm, the Party has disappointed the public by under-delivering many reform promises. There are three main reasons why Mr. Xi must seize the current momentum and follow through with bold actions. First, reforms are essential to the realization of the "Chinese Dream." President Xi has articulated a highly attractive vision for China: namely, to double national income by 2020 and to transform the country into a modern, high income, civilized, and democratic nation by 2050, when the People's Republic celebrates its Centennial. Just as Deng's vision of modernization marshaled China's energy and resources for economic development, Xi's "Chinese Dream" is a brilliant construct that can rally and reenergize both the Party and people to embark on a shared mission. If Deng is remembered as the great architect of reforms that set in motion China's modernization, Xi's legacy will likely be judged by his ability to complete unfinished

reforms and his decisive role in leading China to economic and cultural greatness. However, overly intrusive and often corrupt bureaucracy, inefficient state-owned enterprises, and the absence of a level playing field for private enterprises and a massive rural population hobble China's continuing progress. If the "Chinese Dream" is to be more than just a pipe dream, President Xi must pursue serious reforms that unleash China's vast potential. Second, there are numerous pressing challenges immediately facing the country. Most of these challenges cannot be effectively addressed with quick fixes or fiscal and monetary stimuli. China's traditional growth engine, long powered by exports and government-led investment spending, is clearly losing steam. There has been a colossal misallocation of capital and acute economic imbalances. Widening urbanrural disparities and increasing social tensions persist. The broad structural reforms outlined in the Party's new blueprint could fend off these mounting pressures to ensure long-term social stability. Finally, strong reforms are the only means to meet the rising expectation of the Chinese people. China's current growth model has led to the greatest reduction of poverty in human history. Yet at least 100 million Chinese, predominantly rural citizens, continue to live in poverty. At the same time, China's newly affluent middle class who are well-traveled, internet-savvy and independent-minded demand continuous improvements in quality of life. This includes cleaner air and water, safer food, less corruption and improved public services. Chinese entrepreneurs yearn for less state interference, greater economic freedom, fairer competition and more effective protection of property rights. The exodus of wealthy and successful Chinese emigrating overseas in recent years is an alarming trend that underscores social dissatisfaction. President Xi can restore public confidence through vigorous reforms. It is therefore reassuring that Chinese leaders have wisely embraced far-reaching structural reforms. With a blockbuster game plan in place, it is now all about execution. Delays or half measures would dismay China's poor, entrepreneurs and middle-class consumers while bolstering the case of China bears and naysayers both within and outside China. President Xi's credibility, the Party's legitimacy and China's future are all on the line. With Xi's decisive leadership, hopefully China can succeed.

 , . . . ( ) . . , . . . . . , . , , . , . . ( 18 3 ( 3 ) ) . . .

 . 7 ( ) . , , , . 19 () , . 8 30 . . IT , , . . 1,700 . . . . , , , . , . . . . . , 2014 .

BEIJINGAfter decades of relying on state banks, China's top leaders are giving the go-ahead to create new, privately held banks, opening up a sector that has been mostly off-limits to private capital and indirectly acknowledging that the current system isn't working. A program endorsed last week by the Communist Party leadership calls for letting private investors that meet certain as-yet-undefined requirements set up small and medium-size banks and other financial institutions. The move, while vague, signals Beijing's greater willingness to support China's private sector, which has been starved for financial resources long dominated by state firms, despite being an increasingly important part of the economy. It comes after several nimble, well-known private companies have expressed interest in setting up banks, and it marks a change in strategy for the government. China's banking system has for decades effectively been the sole domain of state-owned companies, whose senior managers answer to political masters. A mainstay of China's economic growth model, the banks turned Chinese households' prodigious savings into cheap capital funneled to stateowned industrial firms. While that model underpinned the China boom, it has led to overcapacity, underused infrastructure and mountainous debt. Beijing for years has urged the state banks to lend more to private firms, which have typically struggled to access bank credit, and to help them unleash their entrepreneurial skill. With those efforts having fallen short, the government is moving to open up the sector and spur competition. "The official endorsement at the top level through this document reflects policymakers' determination to promote fair competition in the banking sector," wrote Jianguang Shen, chief economist at Mizuho Securities Asia. "The reform would also help channel funds more efficiently to small non-state enterprises." On Tuesday Zhang Hongli, a vice president at Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China's biggest bank by assets, said he welcomes the entry of nonstate-owned banks into the financial system. "Competition is a good thing," he said. This isn't the first time Beijing has flagged its intention to open the sector, with the State CouncilChina's cabinetsaying in July that it would allow private investors "willing to take on the risk" to set up banks.

Since then, big-box appliance retailer Suning Commerce Group Co., property developer Macrolink Real Estate Co., fashion retailer Shanxi Baiyuan Trousers Chain ManagementCo. and Internet giant Tencent Holdings Ltd. have all expressed an interest in setting up banks. On Tuesday, Wang Jianlin, chairman of Dalian Wanda Commercial Properties Co., one of China's biggest developers, said he plans to expand his firm into financial services but is waiting for details on the new rules before deciding what to do. Since August, the State Administration of Industry and Commerce has approved more than 30 applications to register new bank names, a preliminary step in advance of applying for a license. Despite the absence of guidelines on setting up banks, many of China's retail and tech companies have already been providing online financial services like payment systems, small loans and even investment products. Analysts say they could readily make the transformation into banks. Retailer Suning, given the millions of customers that already use its online payment system and its network of almost 1,700 brick-and-mortar outlets, "could develop into a genuine force in banking," although that will depend on the regulations, Nomura Securities International said in a note. Small and medium-size firms are major employers, but seen as a credit risk by state banks, they have traditionally relied on loans from informal sources friends, family, other business, and underground banks to run their businesses. Giving those firms better access to credit offers Beijing the prospect of growth, more jobs and innovation. Without the resources or long-standing relationships to lend to state firms, which are perceived as being a lower credit risk given the implicit government backing, the newly created banks will likely target private firms, which they will be able to charge higher interest rates. A consortium of firms that is looking to set up a bank in Shanxi province in central China plans to lend predominately to small and micro firms and rural customers, said Fang Ming, who is heading up the group's plans. He said the consortium plans to submit an application for a banking license to the China Banking Regulatory Commission by the end of the year, and hopes to open the bank in 2014.

: ,

. . (CIA) 20 . 13 . . , , 2010 . . , , . 18 () : . . , . 9.11 . 2001 32 . () . CIA . . CIA . 2009 .

 . . 2009 CIA . . CIA . CIA . . CIA 35 . . . . CIA . . . , . . , . 2009 . CIA . CIA

 . , . . . . . 2009 CIA . . . CIA . CIA . . 2009 12 (Khost) CIA . 10 , . . . CIA . . CIA . . . CIA . .

 . . . . . . . . 2007 9 , 17 . 4 . . . , () . ( ), . 2007 . . . . 2009 . 2 3 . . 4 . 9 10 .

 . . . , . . . . . . . . . ( ) . 40% . . .

Blackwater's Founder Blames U.S. for Its Troubles MIDDLEBURG, Va.Blackwater founder Erik Prince personifies the hidden hand in America's terror wars. His company secretly armed and maintained drones in Pakistan, trained CIA hit teams, and collected $2 billion as a government security contractor. Mr. Prince said he looks back on that adventure as "13 lost years." The billions of dollars are gone now, and he blames the U.S. government. After a series of federal investigations, government contract battles and critical congressional hearings, Mr. Prince sold Blackwater in 2010. Following continued controversy over his most recent pursuits while based in Abu Dhabi, Mr. Prince has returned to Virginia to write a new chapter of his lifeas an entrepreneur buying oil, land and minerals in Africa On Monday, he is also releasing a memoir, "Civilian Warriors: The Inside Story of Blackwater and the Unsung Heroes of the War on Terror." It is his attempt to defend his work, challenge public perceptions of Blackwater and settle scores with a government he says made him a scapegoat when things went badly overseas. Mr. Prince's rise-and-fall became emblematic of the shifting political currents since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. When al Qaeda struck the U.S. in 2001, Mr. Prince was a 32-year-old former Navy SEAL running a modest security training business he had built with family money in Moyock, N.C. In his memoir, published by Penguin Random House's Portfolio Penguin, Mr. Prince says he provided the Central Intelligence Agency with links to Afghan warlords who helped the U.S. topple the Taliban and drive al Qaeda fighters into hiding. From there, Blackwater's business grew exponentially. In interviews, Mr. Prince and former Blackwater officials provided previously unreported details of the company's dealings with the CIA and its former director, Leon Panetta. Blackwater's fortunes, which dimmed as the Iraq war dragged on, sank markedly when President Barack Obama took office in 2009 and sought distance from President George W. Bush's war policies.

A chief target of Mr. Prince's ire is Mr. Panetta, who in 2009 shut down the covert training operation for CIA "hit teams" that former Blackwater officials said took place on Mr. Prince's Virginia property. The CIA had been sending officers for training at Blackwater's North Carolina training facility. But it wanted something closer to its Langley, Va., headquarters, former company officials said. So they asked Mr. Prince to build a small shooting range on his rural Virginia land. "They needed a place that was only 35 minutes away from work," said Gary Jackson, the former Blackwater president. "Erik was OK with that, and he has the property, and we had the money." The trainings, including live-fire exercises, drew some complaints over the years from neighbors, Mr. Jackson said. The CIA declined to comment on Mr. Prince's work for the agency. At the time, former Blackwater officials said, the company also was working on America's clandestine drone program. Former company officials said that a few dozen Blackwater employees, taking the place of American military forces, maintained drones armed with Hellfire missiles in Pakistan. The company didn't fly them, but prepared them to launch attacks. "I didn't have any drone pilots," said Mr. Jackson, in his most detailed comments yet on the company's covert work. "We loaded them, we protected them in secret bases, and we were hanging Hellfires on them." When that information became public in 2009, right after Mr. Panetta canceled the Blackwater hit-team training, the CIA director ended the company's role in maintaining the drones. Mr. Prince said he is convinced that Mr. Panetta outed him as a CIA "asset" at a closed congressional hearing that year, adding that it was unthinkable for a CIA director to reveal the real name of a covert operative to lawmakers. A representative for Mr. Panetta said the former CIA director was required to brief Congress on covert operations and wasn't responsible for how others handled that information. Last month, Mr. Prince said, he finally had a chance to confront Mr. Panetta when the two unexpectedly met at a small dinner in Washington. "He was unapologetic," Mr. Prince said. "He said, 'Well, we were taking a lot of guff for

you guys.' That was the best he could come up with. At that point [in 2009], the company was doing everything his organization was asking for. Exactly everything." "No one was out to scapegoat anyone in the relationship with Blackwater, but there were some issues that arose that prompted a serious look at contracts with the company," said one former CIA official involved in the discussions. "There was a perception that they were trying to run some of their own operations untethered from agency oversight." Mr. Prince disputed allegations that Blackwater ever had "gone rogue." Indeed, he said two of his men might be alive if they had disobeyed the CIA in December 2009 at a base in Khost, Afghanistan. At Camp Chapman, Two Blackwater guards were among 10 killed when a Jordanian posing as a valued informant was able to get on the base without being searched and detonated a suicide vest. "I wish our guys at Khost had gone rogue, because the Khost bombing probably wouldn't have occurred," he said. "They followed instructions, unfortunately, and didn't search the asset in violation of all those agency protocols. I wish they had." Along with its clandestine work, Blackwater had a much more public role providing security for American diplomats and CIA spies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blackwater guards were caricatured as war-zone cowboys. Blackwater convoys were feared in Iraq. The drivers were under State Department orders to do everything necessary to protect the agency's workersdirectives that Mr. Prince alleges forced Blackwater to use aggressive tactics. The State Department didn't comment on the allegation. The company's first high-profile client in Iraq was Paul Bremer, the American diplomat who oversaw the U.S. government's early reconstruction efforts in Iraq. "Their job was to keep me alive," said Mr. Bremer. "I can say they never fired a shot in my presence, so they weren't a bunch of cowboys running around shooting at people." Blackwater guards were involved in a series of deadly shooting incidents that alienated Iraqi citizens and the government. In September 2007, they killed 17 Iraqis in Baghdad's Nisour Square while protecting a State Department employee.

Last month, the Justice Department renewed the prosecution of four Blackwater guards involved in the shooting. A federal grand jury returned voluntary manslaughter charges in the case, which still generates anger in Iraq. "On balance, I think [Blackwater] operated in irresponsible ways which led to a lot of hostility toward our country," said Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat and former chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who grilled Mr. Prince during a 2007 hearing. "They were overpaid for their work, and there was little, if any, accountability to the U.S. or the Iraqi governments." Following the Nisour Square shooting, the U.S. tightened its oversight and training of contractors to try to prevent another such incident, said Alex Gerlach, a State Department spokesman. Mr. Prince faulted the State Department for canceling its work with Blackwater in 2009. And he argued that Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, two years ago would be alive if the State Department still used Blackwater guards. "If we had been doing security in Benghazi, it wouldn't have happened," he said. "I mean, there would be four Americans alive. Having done almost 100,000 movements in different areas over a period of nine years in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can say with pretty high assurance that that wouldn't have happened to us." After the Obama administration cut most ties with Blackwater, Mr. Prince sold the company and moved to Abu Dhabi, where he quickly became embroiled in further controversy. Mr. Prince said he served as an adviser in setting up a privately trained antipiracy security force in Somalia that was accused of violating a U.N. arms embargo. And he was a consultant on a failed effort to set up a security force in Abu Dhabi made up largely of former Colombian soldiers. Now, Mr. Prince says, he is done working for t he U.S. government. He has invested millions in setting up Frontier Resource Group, a private-equity firm that operates in more than a dozen African countries. The firm is building an oil refinery in South Sudan, owns a cement factory in the Democratic Republic of Congo, conducts aerial gas and oil surveys across the continent, and is looking at taking over idle oil wells damaged by insurgents in Nigeria, he said.

Mr. Prince says he knows he won't persuade many Americans that Blackwater wasn't an evil war profiteer. The people who matter, he says, are those Blackwater saved around the world. "The people we helped in the field, they know what the legacy is," he said. "The 40% or so of Americans that really can't stand the name of Blackwater, that's fine, I'll never really win them over anyway. And I really don't care."

 , 24 () ? . . . . . , . ( 5% ) . . , 90% . 2010 . . . 2 . (treasured sword) . 8 . (KNDU) .

 . 2003 8 2011 . (2003 ) . 25 () . . , . .

How Does North Korea View the Iran Nuclear Deal? What has North Korealearned from the historic accord Iran and the world powers struck on Sunday? That its nuclear weapons development program can stay on course, some experts say. The agreement which set limitations to Tehrans uranium enrichment capabilities in return for sanctions relief drew some cheers from the South Korean government and media. Following the deal, Seoul called on Pyongyang to follow Iran towards dialogue and halt its nuclear weapons program. But experts say the accord may actually push North Korea in the opposite direction. Chang Yong-seok, a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University, said the sole aspect of the deal that will interest the North Korean leadership is that Iran managed to keep its uranium enrichment capabilities. North Korea will keep refusing to budge, and this sets a precedent for why it doesnt have to, said Mr. Chang. The accord struck in Geneva permitted Iran to continue enriching uranium at a low level up to 5% that Tehran says it needs for a civilian nuclear program. Much higher levels of enrichment are needed for atomic weapons, but scientists say the production of 90% weapons-grade material is a relatively short hop from lower-purity enrichment. In 2010, North Korea revealed a facility north of Pyongyang for enriching uranium, a second path to making nuclear weapons in addition to its plutonium reactor at the same site. North Korea has already tested nuclear bombs three times, with some speculating that its latest test in February may have been a uranium-based device. North Korea refers to its nuclear arsenal as a treasured sword needed to defend itself from the threat of invasion by the U.S. Satellite images taken in

August this year show North Korea may be doubling the size of its known uranium enrichment facility. Han Yong-sup, vice-president at Korea National Defense University in Seoul, said China and Russias involvement in the Geneva deal might generate some concern for North Korea, but Pyongyangs view of a nuclear program as a guarantor of the regimes survival is unlikely to change. Mr. Han noted that North Korea has cited the late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafis case as an example it aims to avoid. Mr. Gadhafi agreed to roll back Libyas weapons of mass destruction program in late 2003 and was ousted from power eight years later in a popular uprising, assisted by Western powers. Theyve always said Libya made a wrong move, said Mr. Han. On Monday, South Koreas foreign ministry repeated its call for North Korea to denuclearize but added that applying the Iranian deal to North Korea faces limitations due to differences in conditions. North Korea says its ready for talks about its nuclear program without preconditions, but the U.S. and South Korea have said that Pyongyang must first show it is prepared to adhere to previous commitments to denuclearize before new talks can begin. North Korea has yet to say anything publicly about the Geneva agreement.

 , . . . . (Horn of Africa) . . , . (IBM) 2011 237 . 2012 75 . 10 14 10 . 2 . . 2013 9 17 . 99 . , . , , (UAE), . 2005 4 2012 12 4 . 2012 .

 CTF-151 . . . . . AP 10 30 () 6 . 2009 33 9 . . . , , 80% . 2012 3,700 . 2005 4 3 . . . . . ,

 . . , , UAE . . . . 2000 3,000 3 4,000 ~3 8,000 . 2012 . . . .

Somali Pirates Shift Course to Other Criminal Pursuits Piracy off the coast of Somalia, one of the world's crucial shipping lanes, has plunged this year because of aggressive military and intelligence steps that have made it too costly for seafaring bandits to operate, regional diplomats and naval officials said. The success, however, has had an unintended consequence: The Somali crime lords behind the pirate networks have shifted to other illicit trade, sometimes in partnership with al Qaeda-linked militant groups like al-Shabaab, aiding terrorism in the Horn of Africa, diplomats and intelligence officials said. "None of these operations exists in a vacuum," said a regional intelligence official who traces terrorism financing across Gulf states. Al Qaeda and smugglers "trade off the same connections, the same sea routes and the same protection rackets." In 2011, there were 237 piracy-related events in the waters off Somalia, according to the International Maritime Bureau, which monitors piracy and the effect on commercial shipping. In 2012, the figure dropped to 75. This year, as of Oct. 14 there were 10 incidentsonly two of them hijackings. The United Nations reports similar figures. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said last week there had been 17 attacks in the first nine months of 2013 in the Arabian Sea, compared with 99 in the same period last year. Most of the piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the adjacent Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean has been controlled by Somali organized crime lords whose business networks stretch between their homeland and Gulf Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Iran, according to U.N. and regional diplomats who follow crime and terrorism issues. The Somalis have helped finance pirate ships and have laundered an estimated $400 million in ransom paid by shipping companies between April 2005 and December 2012, regional diplomats and U.N. investigators said. Their profits began to slip in 2012 when navies and shipping companies began beefing up military defenses.

The international naval force known as Task Force 151 stepped up its use of drones and other intelligence gathering resources, allowing them to better position warships to intercept pirates, said Commodore Jeremy Blunden, the British naval officer currently in charge of the fleet. Meanwhile, the commercial shipping industry has standardized the use of armed guards on vessels carrying oil and valuable products through the waterways. The practice had been controversial because it contravened common seafaring ways. But it proved cost-effective, say shipping company executives who are reaping the advantages of lower insurance rates as a result. Countries have also stepped up legal prosecution of pirates in recent years, adding risk for Somali pirate financiers, who face loss of crews and ships. On Wednesday, a Spanish court handed multiple-year sentences to six Somalis convicted of piracy and arms possession, according to the Associated Press. The only surviving pirate who attacked the Maersk Alabama merchant vessel in 2009the story on which the Hollywood movie "Captain Phillips" is basedis serving a 33-year sentence in a U.S. prison. The aggressive military response changed the risk-reward ratio for Somali piracy financiers, who must pay upward of 80% of their earnings to corrupt Somali officials, local warlords and other middlemen, military officials and diplomats said. In 2012, Somali pirates only managed to rake in $37 million in payments, or about three quarters of the annual average received since 2005, according to a World Bank report. "We've put a fire blanket over the problem," said Capt. William Nault, the chief of staff for the international naval force taking the lead on counterpiracy patrols in the area. "We've raised the cost [analysis] for them." Somali piracy bosses, however, have proven nimble businessmen. As piracy profits decreased, they refocused resources on other long-standing illicit operations, including arms smuggling and region's lucrative trade in charcoal made from Acacia trees, according to diplomats and law-enforcement officials in the region who monitor illicit activity. In a report issued to the U.N. Security Council this summer, diplomats watching violations of U.N. sanctions in Somalia provide evidence of alleged links between

the Somali businessmen suspected of running the pirate networks and smuggling rings and al-Shabaab. The militant group is battling Somali government forces and African peacekeepers to try to establish a fundamentalist Islamic government. The U.N. report presents telephone records and other surveillance that links alleged Somali financiers of piracy with business partners in Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the charcoal smuggling network. The report also alleges similar business links between these same actors and weapons smuggling into Somalia. Most weapons sales to Somalia are prohibited under U.N. sanctions, as is the charcoal trade there. Counterterrorism officials say that the charcoal trade is one of the main avenues that al-Shabaab finances its terrorism operations and pays for the weapons they use to fight the Somali government and African peacekeepers. The business has grown from roughly $30 million a year in the late 2000s to a business now worth an estimated $340 million-$380 million a year, according to the U.N. The White House slapped a trade ban on Somali-sourced charcoal in 2012 because of the alleged trade links to al-Shabaab. The U.N. investigators complain that while regional governments understand the threat of terrorism financing, there has been no political will to arrest the men at the top of the Somali crime networks. The majority of recent pirate trials involve men at the midrange of these organizations or foot soldiers suborned into piracy for their sailing knowledge, a regional counterterrorism official said. U.N. investigators have recommended adding these Somalis to an international sanctions list, and some diplomats argue that they should be prosecuted for sanctions violations or terrorism ties.

 , 22 () . . . 25 () . . . 25 55 , 136 , 9 . ( ) . , . . () . () . 27 . . ( ) . , . 1986 630 2010 850 . 2011 27km . . .

 . . . ? . , . 89 . 1975 . . . () . . , . 2009 . . 22 () () . . 1986 170km . 2011 2012 . , .

 . . . . , . . . 2010 . . , . . . 2010 15 .

Pipeline Deaths Put China's Urbanization in Focus BEIJINGExplosions at a pipeline that left dozens dead and upended cars and sidewalks in a busy Chinese port city have renewed focus on industrial facilities in densely populated areasan issue of rising importance as Beijing pushes an ambitious urbanization plan. Regulators and the pipeline's operator, China's largest refining company, began exchanging blame on Monday over the Friday incident in the eastern city of Qingdao, which drew widespread attention across the country and prompted a visit by President Xi Jinping to a local hospital to meet with victims. Authorities on Monday raised the death toll to 55, with 136 injured and nine still missing.

Chinese authorities said Monday that the blasts exposed problems caused by human error and that the accident was a "very serious dereliction of duty," China's official Xinhua news agency said, citing Yang Dongliang, director of the State Administration of Work Safety. Mr. Yang said the problems included how the pipeline and the city's sewage and underground cable systems had become intertwined. But he also cited "negligence of duty of pipeline supervision and unprofessional handling of oil leakage before the blasts." A representative for China Petrochemical Corp., known as Sinopec Group, said the government investigation was continuing and the cause of the blast had yet to be determined. But the company defended its conduct, saying authorities in another city with oversight over the pipeline didn't sign off on an overhaul. The representative also said the area around the pipeline wasn't as populated when it was completed 27 years ago. "The city began to expand and people gathered," the Sinopec representative said. "Buildings and other utility pipelines were built near our oil pipelines." Qingdao's rapid urbanization and fast-paced industrialization illustrates the challenges that China's leaders face in planning for economic growth. Qingdao's population jumped to 8.5 million in 2010 from 6.3 million in 1986. In 2011, Qingdao completed a 17-mile bridge across Jiaozhou Bay to alleviate traffic that choked a highway that curved around the bay. That structure connects

its downtown with the district of Huangdao, where Friday's explosions occurred, and accelerated Huangdao's development. "I wonder why so many factories and companies have been built in the area, and why people are being directly exposed to pollution and explosions," said a Huangdao resident calling herself Xiao Rou on her microblog. "Why doesn't the government take measures?!I hope the government can give us a safe home." Sinopec and other companies have previously faced protests in several cities over efforts to build or expand industrial facilities near densely populated areas. Last year, residents in the eastern Chinese city of Ningbo forced officials to suspend the planned $8.9 billion expansion of a petrochemical facility run by Sinopec, which began operating in the area in 1975. Part of the new facility was supposed to produce the industrial chemical paraxylene, which residents feared could be damaging to their health and the environment. Such incidents come as China pushes to move more rural residents into the cities as a way to spur greater consumption to help rebalance its economy. A blueprint for reform by China's leaders released this month called for greater access to urban services for rural migrants and greater land rights for rural residents, which could give them added impetus to sell and move. In 2009, China's State Council, or cabinet, began deliberating precautions on construction around pipelines. "Rapid urbanization had resulted in the reckless construction of buildings and roads within buffer areas for the pipelines in recent years, making their protection increasingly difficult," Xinhua said at the time. The explosions on Friday occurredas workers tried to clear a spill from a leak that began in the early hours. Authorities said there were explosions in two areas. The pipeline, built in 1986, carries crude oil from Huangdao to processing facilities in the city of Weifang about 170 kilometers, or about 100 miles,away. Sinopec said it submitted plans to Weifang's Ministry of Environmental Protection to overhaul sections of the pipeline in 2011 and 2012, but the plans were rejected. Sinopec warned Weifang that nearby roads, houses and buildings could create potential hazards, the representative added. "If there were any incidents, we wouldn't be able to repair our pipelines conveniently and immediately," the Sinopec representative said. However, "the

[Weifang] government didn't agree with our plans to repair the aging pipeline, so we couldn't do it." Representatives from Weifang and its environmental protection branch didn't reply to requests to comment. Although the pipeline crosses through several regions and ends in Qingdao, Sinopec said it was required by Chinese law to seek permission from local authorities in Weifang, where the company's pipeline subsidiary is registered.A Huangdao municipal government spokeswoman referred questions to Sinopec. Sinopec's pipeline hasn't been immune to past problems. Oil spills and fires resulted from two 2010 incidents, according to company statements, though no casualties were reported. Sinopec blamed the buildup of trash on a section of the pipeline and illegal construction near it. Xinhua quoted the Chinese president as saying on Sunday that safety must be improved in the pipeline industry, and he called for stronger inspections and punishments for violations. Mr. Xi added that pipeline operators should carry out surprise inspections and enforce a "zero-tolerance" policy for violations. Although China has had other pipeline explosions in the past, Friday's blasts were the deadliest in recent memory. In 2010, a series of oil-pipeline explosions rocked the shipping and tourism city of Dalian, sparking fires that blazed for 15 hours. However, there were no casualties.

-P5+1 24 () 5 . . ( 20% ) , 1 . . 6 60~70 . 6 . . . . , . . . (Arak) . 1 9,000 .

 . (, ) . . 24 . (bad agreement). . . 5 ( P5+1) . P5+1 . P5+1 2 . . P5+1 (EU) . 6 , . . . 2 .

 24 . . , ( ) . 23 () . . , . . (IAEA) , . ( 3.5~5%) . 6 ( 6 ) . P5+1 . . (NPT) . . P5+1 IAEA NPT . IAEA .

 . 23 . . . ( ) , . 6 60~70 . . . P5+1 42 . 500 . 6 . EU , , , . EU 6 20~30 , . . . 6 250 . . 6 140~160 .

 . . 1979 ( ) . . . , . 24 .

Major Powers Reach Deal With Iran To Freeze Nuclear Program GENEVAThe U.S. and five other world powers struck a historic accord with Iran on Sunday, agreeing to ease part of an economic stranglehold in exchange for steps to cap Tehran's nuclear program and ensure the Islamist government doesn't rush to develop atomic weapons. The agreement calls for Iran to stop its production of near-weapons-grade nuclear fuelwhich is uranium enriched to 20% purityand for the removal of Tehran's stockpile of the fissile material, which is estimated to be nearly enough to produce one nuclear bomb. Iran, in return, will gain relief from Western economic sanctions that U.S. officials believe will provide between $6 billion and $7 billion in badly needed foreign exchange for Tehran over the next half-year. The agreement reached in Geneva is an interim deal for about six months that will allow international powers to try to strike a permanent pact, an effort that experts said would be the true test of Iran's new government, headed by revitalization-minded President Hasan Rouhani. President Barack Obama called the agreement "an important first step toward a comprehensive solution" of the Iranian nuclear dilemma and credited his administration's push for diplomacy and its adoption of stern economic sanctions for "a new path toward a world that is more secure." "The first step that we have taken today marks the most significant and tangible progress that we have made with Iran since I took office," he said, adding that the next steps "won't be easy." While U.S. officials argued that the deal will roll back Iran's nuclear program, critics of the diplomacy are likely to seize on key Western concessions, including a signal that Washington ultimately will agree to accept Iran's enrichment of uranium and would leave open for now the future of Tehran's plutonium-producing reactor in Arak. Israel, which has been a strong opponent of U.S. efforts to negotiate with Iran, was quick to criticize the development. "This is a bad agreement. It gives Iran exactly what it wants: both substantial easing of sanctions and preservation of the most substantial parts of its nuclear program,'' said a statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office on Sunday. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tried Sunday to rally support for the deal in the face of lukewarm reaction from U.S. congressional allies and hostility from critics. "We make sure that these sanctions don't get lifted in a way that reduces the pressure on Iran," Mr. Kerry said on CNN's "State of the Nation." "The Iranian nuclear program is actually set backward and is actually locked into place in critical places." The first test will be whether Congress presses ahead with a new round of broader sanctions, despite the administration's entreaties. The U.S. House of Representatives has already voted for

such an effort. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) last week said he was prepared to hold a Senate vote when Congress returns from its Thanksgiving recess, citing skepticism about the trustworthiness of Iran. A spokesman didn't reply to questions about whether the new diplomatic deal would change those plans. U.S. lawmakers took to the airwaves Sunday morning to question whether the deal would work, with some suggesting that the Obama administration had made a strategic miscalculation. "Instead of easing them, now is the time to tighten those sanctions," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) on ABC's "Face the Nation." He predicted that "you're going to see a strong movement in the United States Senate to move ahead to tighten sanctions," even if the new deal meant that legislation would have to be worded in a way that accounted for the six-month deal. He said the Obama administration can proceed with the deal without Congress's approval. Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," expressed skepticism about the deal on "Fox News Sunday, saying "I think we all greet it with skepticism." He said that the arrangement suggested that Iranian officials "view this administration as weak," and "see this as their window of opportunity to negotiate with an administration that has shown that it really doesn't have a lot of the intestinal fortitude that other administrations have had." In a sign of the tension with Congress, the Obama administration's Democratic allies offered only tepid support for the deal. Many Democrats left open the possibility that Congress should still tighten sanctions. In general, Congress believes that the current sanctions are what brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place, and lawmakers recall how the Obama administration fought off the last round of sanctions in 2011. "I think this is a marginal improvement," said Rep. Steny Hoyer (D., Md.), the House minority whip, on CBS's "Face the Nation." Mr. Hoyer said that he believed the Senate should still move ahead with a vote on tougher sanctions on Iran that mirrored legislation already passed in the House, but that the U.S. should hold off implementing them for six months so that they could serve as a warning to Iran and an incentive to reach a final deal. The first-stage deal also takes no steps to force Iran to ship out or destroy the roughly 19,000 centrifuge machines it has amassed to produce nuclear fuel. U.S. lawmakers and key American allies have said Iran will abandon its nuclear program only if international pressure is increased. "This deal appears to provide the world's leading sponsor of terrorism with billions of dollars in exchange for cosmetic concessions," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) a leading proponents of increasing sanctions on Iran during the talks.

The deal was completed during three exhaustive negotiating sessions over the past month in Geneva involving Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, a diplomatic bloc called the P5+1.

Mr. Kerry and the foreign ministers of the other members of the P5+1 states traveled to the Swiss lakeside city over the weekend to push through the final agreementtheir second such visit in two weeks. American and Iranian officials called the deal a potential turning point in Tehran's relations with the international community and an important "first step" in ending the decadelong standoff over Iran's nuclear program. "The agreement creates the time and space for a comprehensive solution," said Catherine Ashton, the European Union's foreign policy chief, who leads the P5+1. U.S. and European officials said the six months that the interim agreement covers will be used to forge a broader accord that permanently ends the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear work. Iranian officials stressed this week that the nuclear program only had civilian uses. France played a major role in the negotiations, with Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius insisting publicly during a previous round of talks two weeks ago that a draft agreement being discussed wasn't strong enough. In a statement early Sunday, Mr. Fabius acknowledged that the discussions were long and difficult but said the Geneva accord "amounts to a first major step" to resolve the nuclear dispute. Mr. Fabius said the deal includes strict oversight of Iran's commitments and that "we will have to be vigilant on their implementation." Speaking to reporters after the deal was signed, U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed Iran would win sanctions relief under the accord affecting its gold and precious metals trade, its petrochemicals sector and including the unfreezing of assets by U.S. officials. American, European and Iranian officials described on Saturday a testy three days of talks that were needed to forge the final deal. The question of what to do with Iran's heavy water reactor nearing completion in the city of Arak nearly killed an agreement in the later stages of the diplomacy, said these officials. France was pushing for a complete dismantling of the reactor on the grounds that there exists no nonmilitary rational for building the facility. The U.S. government shared this position.

Under the deal, Iran agreed to significantly increase inspections of Arak by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency and agree not to start the facility or lead it with nuclear fuel. Iran also agreed to cap its enrichment of uranium to levels only usable as fuel for a reactor, which is a purity of 3.5% to 5%. Iran committed to maintaining its total stockpile of the low-enriched nuclear fuel at its current level, which is around six tons, during the six-month period. Iran and the P5+1 also forged a compromise over the issue that over the past few days looked as though it could squelch a dealTehran's demand that the international community accept its "right" to continue producing nuclear fuel domestically. Tehran cites the U.N.'s nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as affording every signatory that legal right to enrich uranium, provided it is used for civilian purposes. Successive U.S. administrations have denied this right exists and have supported multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities. In a compromise, the P5+1 agreed to a text that says Iran will enjoy all the rights of treaty signatories, provided Iran satisfies all of the IAEA's questions about the alleged military dimensions of Iran's program. But the U.S. and its partners won't be forced to formally accept that Iran will be allowed to enrich. Still, the compromise is seen as a victory for Iran, which has campaigned for a decade on this issue. U.S. officials on Saturday acknowledged that Iran will likely be allowed to maintain some enrichment capacity on its soil as part of a final deal. "We're interested in exploring how Iran might end up with a limited and tightly controlled facility to enrich," said a senior U.S. official. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif touted the deal as vindicating Tehran's position. "Iran enjoys that right and its important to recognize that right. This recognition is there," Mr. Zarif told reporters. "We believe that to be our right." U.S. officials said the agreement will provide sanctions relief of between $6 billion to $7 billion over the next six months, a number far below estimates made by critics of the agreement, including the government of Israel. The Obama administration also stressed that any easing of the sanctions could be quickly reversed if Iran is found not complying with the agreement.

U.S. officials said the P5+1 immediately will begin helping Iran repatriate about $4.2 billion in oil revenues that it hasn't been able to access overseas as a result of the sanctions. Iran is estimated to have $50 billion in these revenues overseas, which its government has been unable to access. The funds will be returned to Iran in monthly installments of $600 million. The agreement also calls for the U.S. and European Union to ease the ban on Iran's trade in petrochemicals, precious metals, automobiles and airplane spare parts. U.S. and European officials said they didn't believe that such commerce could derive more than a few billion dollars in revenues for Tehran over the next six months. But they said some of the tradesuch as access to airline partsis critical to Iran, which has increasingly found its jetliners grounded because of safety concerns. U.S. officials stressed that the sanctions relief would still be dwarfed by the revenue Iran is still losing because of the pervasive sanctions that remain in place. These diplomats estimated that Iran still is likely to lose around $25 billion over the six months to the U.S. and European embargo against oil purchases. They also believed Tehran will continue to find itself unable to repatriate the earnings from the oil its does sell in Asia and the Middle East, because of sanctions. One official said Iran was likely to find itself unable to access another $14 billion to $16 billion in oil earnings over the next six months. "The pressure of the sanctions will continue to grow," said a second American official involved in the Geneva talks. U.S. and Iranian officials both said the agreement had potentially profound implications for global security and stability in the Middle East. Before Mr. Rouhani's August inauguration, diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran was largely frozen, as it had been since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Over the past three months, however, Mr. Obama has held a phone conversation with President Rouhani, and Secretary of State John Kerry and Mr. Zarif have held hours of negotiations in Geneva. "I think this is potentially a significant moment," Mr. Kerry said following the negotiations. "But I'm not going to say this is an end unto itself." Mr. Rouhani tweeted after the agreement was signed Sunday: "We are confident that the agreement between Iran and the West will have a positive impact on other regional and global issues."