tonight on "worldfocus" -- in iraq, friday prayers turned deadly as bombs explode near five shiite mosques in baghdad killing more than two dozen worshipers. china eases its one-child per family policy. tonight we look at why the most populist country in the world is suddenly worried how fast its population is aging. in britain its court has ruled it is legal for a husband to kill its wife.

tonight we look at the case that weighs life, death and love. and from the studios that brought you such music legends, as the beatles, get ready for the next singing sensation, the pope. from the world's leading reporters and analysts, here is what's happening from around the world. this is "worldfocus." made possible, in part, by the follow funders -- good evening, i'm martin savidge. for u.s. troops and iraqi civilians, this has been one of the least, that's right, least deadly months since the war in iraq began six years ago. in fact, a senior u.s. military officer has broken ranks with its superiors and president obama saying it's time for the united states to declare victory iraq and go home. but then there are days like today, when a series of bombs exploded near five shiite mosques in baghdad, killing at least 29 people. and shattering the perception at least for now that iraq is a

much safer place than it used to be. in tonight's "lead focus," the latest violence in iraq, what it says about security and the american mission as it winds down. >> the deadliest of today's attacks took place in the northern baghdad neighborhood of al shaab. according to iraqi officials at least 24 people were killed and 17 wounded in the explosion of a car bomb near a shiite mosque. worshipers had gathered at the mosque for friday prayers. the scene outside spoke to the carnage. prayer rugs were stained with blood, scores of shoes littered the ground. with all today's attacks having taken place at shiite mosques, those attacks are seen as an attempt to reignite sectarian fighting between shiites and sunnis. ernesto londono is in baghdad for the "washington post." >> caller: in this particular case the attacks appear to be designed to anger a follow worship, it's a movement. this is the political bloc that

for many years controlled the biggest shia militia in the country. so it could be an attack designed to try to get as much militia to retaliate against sunni. and to start a sectarian violence again. >> despite today's attacks, iraq has been relatively calm in recent months. so much so that earlier this week after meeting with iraqi officials, u.s. secretary of defense, robert gates, raised the prospect of accelerating the american withdrawal from the country. currently, there are about 130,000 u.s. forces there. it's also thought that today's attacks will not result in an increased presence by american troops on iraqi streets. at the end of last month, american troops withdraw from major urban areas relocating to base camps. >> caller: i don't see any sign that there is any desire from the iraqi government or from the united states military to have the americans return to the city in any significant way. that could clearly change.

but so far we have seen no evidence that anybody is pushing for that. >> for more on today's violence and what it means, we are joined once again by michael wahid hanna, who follows iraq closely who is a fellow with the foundation here in new york. we were just reporting that this is the least deadly month for civilians and for military personnel, the month july. and i'm wondering just the significance of today's attacks. how bad are they in that contrast? >> well, we're likely to see some bombings and some level of violence in iraq for years to come. and i'm pleasantly surprised at the transition, in terms of iraqi supremacy in terms of securing urban centers. and so i don't think this is going to have an appreciable impact on u.s. and iraqi planning that the point. because, again, they haven't had strategic impact. they haven't had undermined or threatened the iraqi government at this point. >> "the new york times" is also reporting today that there was a senior american military adviser

in baghdad who essentially said the time had come for the u.s. to declare a victory in iraq and to go home. is that realistic? >> i think more importantly is that that memo raises lots of important points and perhaps breaks us out of a bit of complacency in regard to iraq policy which has been somewhat driven by -- solely by time lines and hasn't thought about the big picture. about the cost of the u.s. presence. the potential for increased friction on the ground. the limitations on what the u.s. can do. i mean, it's not our country. the iraqis are increasingly sovereign, making decisions, and i think it's important that we think about what we want, the u.s. presence to look like and whether we can afford to have a smaller presence and perhaps shift to a more diplomatic approach and that might be a way to create a more sustainable framework for u.s./iraqi relations going forward. >> it definitely seems that there's been a significant change since the implementation of the news status of forces agreement. and that if i read you right,

perhaps the longer we stay, the greater the opportunity for there to be disagreements between our two governments. >> well, i mean, part of it is public posturing. it's an election year. maliki and the government want to be seen as the providers of security. and they want to be seen as nationalist leaders. and so there's definitely going to be some friction but there is also real friction in terms of the iraqis taking control of their country. and frankly that we should be something that we should be happy to see. than taking him bridge at rhetoric. and obviously there is some awkwardness right now in terms of defining proper roles. how the militaries will interact and so there is going to be some tension and those are things that could increase in the future and maybe undermine the relationship and the interaction between the united states and iraq going forwardly. >> quickly, secretary of >> quickly, secretary of defense gates, said that perhaps we could accelerate the withdrawal of troops next year. is today's bombings, are they likely to change that thought? >> i don't think so. not if security levels are uñ

maintained at that -- at these types of levels. i don't think we'll see a rethink. again, they haven't had strategic effect. and they don't threaten the government, iraq the at the moment. >> michael wahid hanna, thank you very much. >> thank you. this week in washington, the obama administration highlighted the great importance of the u.s. relationship with china, especially on economic matters. china is, after all, the biggest lender to the united states economy. but while 200 chinese economic officials were in washington, chinese authorities continue to crackdown on human rights groups back home. in one move, a prominent legal scholar was taken into custody, and he hasn't been heard from since. and it didn't stop there, as we hear from melissa chan of al jazeera english. >> reporter: the center is an organization that helps people fight discrimination in china.

its operated for years. but wednesday on, the authorities showed up, unannounced, to collect evidence and investigate supposed illegal activities. the problem? the publication of the office's newsletter. it has apparently not been cleared by the government. >> translator: i suspect our antidiscrimination activities have offended many people including big corporations, common officials and wealthy businessmen. >> reporter: it's the latest blow to the handful of organizations in china that push for social change and justice. here at the center, they fight discrimination against women, gays and hiv carriers. across town, another organization under fire. is a legal aid office specializing on human rights issues. last week, police marched in to confiscate most of the computers and office equipment. many of the attorneys here have had their licenses revoked over the last few months because of

their work. >> translator: the fine slop on the legal office and the possibility of our closure would be a blow to civil society. it also sends a clear signal to other organizations fighng for human rights in the public interest to be more careful. it's very worrying. >> reporter: these groups are china's social conscience. the ones who help families such as those whose babies were sickened by toxic milk formula or those who raise the profile of paralist groups. over recent months the government has embarked on what appears to be a coordinated strategy to clamp down on these organizations. the campaign seems to be working. >> translator: most rights lawyers are based in beijing and over the last few months, i'd say the affect has been huge.

i'm guessing about 70% of rights attorneys have been harassed. >> reporter: the authorities are using technicalities to handicap organizations. in the case of the law center, officials have launched a tax investigation. and say the office is not properly registered. what many suspect is that this is china silencing organizations that highlight difficult issues. october 1st, is the 60th anniversary of the people's republic of china, a very sensitive date. officials have decided on a heavy-handed strategy to deal with rights lawyers and ngos. the assault on these institutions means that after the dust settles, if the government succeeds, then there may be no one left to fight for the public interest. melissa chan, al jazeera, beijing. two other stories from china worth noting. in a rare disclosure on family planning, the government says 13 million abortions are

performed in china each year, more than any other country. it said the real number could be even much higher because many abortions are performed outside of hospitals. the reasons include poor sex education and china's long-standing, one-child policy. but now there are signs that china maybe relaxing that policy, as we hear from tom eagleton of abc in australia. >> reporter: china's trying to almost half its population of 1.3 billion by cutting the birthrate. since the one-child policy was introduced in 1980, there have been few exceptions to the rule, but limits parents to a single offspring, but the three-decade experiment with social engineering is coming at a cost. a rapidly aging population. >> translator: it's inevitable that would happen, but we have to avoid the aging society issue from getting too bad. if it goes too far, we cannot afford the burden. >> reporter: the problems most acute in affluent cities where there's a longer life expectancy and a higher cost of living.

now in shanghai, couples are being encouraged to have a second child. as long as both parents are from one-child families. the move's giving hope to millions of budding chinese parents. betty who had her first child and already wants another one, even though she lives in beijing and her husband has two brothers, she thinks the government will grant her wish in three or four years. >> translator: hopefully the government's policy will be more flexible and it will be easier for us to have a second child. >> reporter: but architects of the one-child policy, like professor, say that's not likely. he says the government's main goal of population control at any cost hasn't changed when the law was first passed. >> translator: to advocate for the one-child policy is not the perfect option. but in order to quickly decrease the birthrate, it's either that or nothing at all. >> reporter: getting to the population target of 700

million's going to take another 70 years or even more if life expectancy continues to rise. tom eagleton, abc news, beijing. >> on tonight's "blogwatch," we see that not everyone is happy with relaxing the one-child policy on shanghai. on chinese news website one writer asks -- on world financial marking today stocks closed higher on major exchanges in asia, while they were down slight flee europe. here's how the day ended on wall street. ending a month that saw broad gains on the world's stock markets. from britain, a story that

struck us about decisions on life and death. the issue's assisted suicide involving a woman with multiple sclerosis who eventually plans to end her life at a clinic in switzerland. question, would her husband be prosecuted for helping her when he return home? government a groundbreaking judgment the house of lords ruled that the government must clarify its position on the matter. james blake of itn reported on the ruling yesterday. >> reporter: leaving the house of lords after her landmark victory. it's taken two years of legal battles and many disappointments to get here. >> ecstatic. of course i'm relieved. it's like -- it's like lifting a huge great weight. >> reporter: debbie has not been fighting for a change in the law. this is not a battle for her right to die. instead, she wants the law clarified. she suffers from multiple sclerosis and when the time comes she wants her partner to help her travel afraid to die

but assisting a suicide is a crime and it's up to the director of public prosecutions to decide whether or not to prosecute, and until now, he's kept his reasons secret. but today the lords have ruled that will change. dpp must write and publish a new policy. >> the fact that he's now going to be looking at that and coming up with a policy, it means i don't have to make a decision while i'm still physically able to do -- to go to switzerland, myself or whatever. >> reporter: both high court and the court of appeal had previously ruled it was up to parliament to change the law on assisted suicide. but the lords have now decided with debbie. the director of public prosecutions have said he will publish an interim policy on assisting suicide abroad by the end of september and then it'll be opened up to consultation. one former lord chancellor said the dpp is effectively creating new law. >> already the director of public prosecution's been

saying, i'm not going to prosecute the compassionate assister of the loved one, but what this judgment is doing is saying, right, if that's de facto position, if that's the position in practice, let's reflect it now, in policy statemts that have to be given -- >> reporter: about 115 people have ended their lives at the clinic in switzerland. most helped by others. and so far none of those have been prosecuted. although people have been questioned by the police. back in 2002 diane campaigned for a commitment that effectively no one assisting a suicide would be prosecuted. but in that case the house of lords ruled against her. this latest ruling will only apply to those helping people traveling abroad. >> the fact it makes my life longer is perfect. such a huge weight lifted. >> it gives her an opportunity to relax. the opportunity to, you know, enjoy more life.

>> five years. >> five more with me. >> reporter: but there is still not much time for fighting. debbie does not know exactly when the pain of m.s. will compel her to travel to switzerland to end her life, but the ruling today, she says, means she will travel with her partner, and that will delay her decision to go. in this week's roundtable discussion we're going to take a look at the united states and how it's doing with some of its major foreign policy initiatives. with continuing turbulence after last month's presidential election how will iran respond to the u.s. deadline for making its changes in its nuclear program? after the u.s. and israel held talks this week is there any real hope for a breakthrough in dispute over settlements? and after this week's meetings with chinese officials, where is that relationship going? we're joined once again tonight, by susan chira.

foreign editor of "the new york times." and gideon rose, managing editor of "foreign affairs" magazine. welcome back to both of you. >> thank you. >> i'm going to begin with a quote. >> okay. >> the subject matter is iran. it sounds a bit like a game show. who said this? " they do not understand that our relationship is based on affection. based on faith. and is a father/son relationship." gideon? >> i have absolutely no idea. >> mahmoad, as he was responding about what was a very turbulent week. and there has been great reporting about this divide that appears to be blooming between the supreme leader and mahmoud ahmadinejad. how bad is the political situation in iran? >> you know everybody who watches this says that they don't know exactly what's going to happen next. that it's clear this was a major turning point in the history of the islamic republic. and it can't go back to where it was before, but it's also likely that the ultimate playing out of the crisis will take a much longer time frame. and you're not going to see any

major change right away. so it's going to destabilize the republic in the long term, but probably not in the short term. >> the meantime, susan, the united states is anxiously waiting to hear something back on the overture that the obama administration has made. are we likely to hear anything? and if we do, are we likely to like what we hear? >> i think that, to be honest, any journalist who predicts anything about iran right now would be foolish. it's very unstable, i think. as gideon said, i agree that iran is in a tumultuous period. it's not that this regime is going to implode but it may not be able to function. the factualism which is endemic to iran is even worse. and i think it's possible, you know, early signs were that the iranian regime, before this election, was intrigued by the obama overtures. it wasn't clear they were going to respond in a way that the united states would find acceptable but they were interested.

so the question is, if they're able to sort of pull together and paper over some of these differences, what will the response be? again, some people have suggested a potential compromise that would allow some measure of enrichment supervised by, say the iaea. but it's unclear that iran will be sufficiently organized to offer anything in the short term. >> right they're all trying to hang on to their js and hang onto the country. what's the u.s. supposed do then? >> well, really watch and wait. make itself ready for talks. try to be constructive. but not push the situation too hard or too fast and not do anything rash. basically, stay out of this one and let it play out and see what's going on. make sure there are real clear red lines established what we will not tolerate but otherwise see what happens.

>> but superfuges keep resuming. >> it does move forward so you want to say that one of your red lines is -- well, the first red line is getting to the point of weaponization. second red line, really that you can't cross is weaponizing, but -- and essentially -- but watch this play out for another few months at least i would say. >> all right, let's turn to israel and the u.s. with the big meetings that took place if israel. the stumbling block still appears to be and a very difficult thorn on the side of the u.s./israeli issue. the settlement on the west bank. is there any sign of a breakthrough? >> my sense in speaking to actually our state department correspondent mike lanler is that in the short term we don't expect any immediate breakthrough. the obama administration did signal a real clear break from the bush administration. a much tougher line on the settlements. called a total freeze. this is played very poorly in israel. and in fact as an op-ed piece in "the times" pointed out this week and apparently the obama administration was listening there's a sense that president obama may not have explained his case directly enough to the israeli people.

because it's gotten people's backs up. at the same time of course that has some value when you are trying to prove to the arab world that you're more neutral but they may have put themselves in a little bit of a short-term box because on the one hand having put down a very, very clear hard line about the total freeze, it makes it difficult to compromise without suggesting to the arab world that once again from their perspective the united states doesn't take a hard enough line about israel. >> who's going to bend first in this? >> well, you know it's an interesting question, whether they realize just -- whether the obama administration realized just how tough they were being and just how strongly they were handling this issue -- >> you don't think they knew, no? >> well, there might have been some misunderstanding about just how tough they should be and they might have blundered into a slightly larger crisis with israel than they wanted to or intended to get into. on the other hand, i think what the israelis are starting to wake up to is that there is

really a new guy in town and the last two administrations -- both clinton and bush jr. -- so you have essentially 16 years of american policy that was very, very, very pro-israel. and this one is a little bit more hands off. we're going back, to essentially, bush one and carter, in which the israelis are basically going to find that they don't always get their way and they don't always have a friend in the white house who is absolutely going to take everything the israelis say as face value. >> i want to turn to china real quick before we run out of time. another big week of meetings there. where is this relationship going between the u.s. and china? >> i think right now what we see the administration strategy is emphasizing the economic aspects of the relationship. over some of the human rights, political issues and i think they're accentuating the positive because right now with the economy so uncertain and china such a big economic engine, they don't want to

confront chin about some of the existing issues. about foreign exchange currency adjustments and so on and trade issues so they're accentuating the positives in meetings this week. and putting on the back burner some of the more troubling issues. >> and what are the troubling issues? >> the troubling issues are disputes over just how each side is going to play its currency and its reserves and economic policies and domestic stimuluses. each side how they are going to deal with human right, strategic issues but this relationship will go well. frankly, iran, israel, these are important but chronic and somewhat low-grade policies. the u.s./china relationship is going to be the defining feature of international politics in the next several decades. it has to go well because the consequences of it going badly are horrible for everybody. it will go well. >> so the president said it, that it would define the 21st century. >> and here he was being more correct. >> gideon rose and susan chira, thank you both for joining us. >> thank you.

finally tonight, he is no stranger to performing, though he himself may not see it quite that way, but the fact is he has appeared before millions. mostly speaking, but sometimes singing. and now a well-known record label has signed him. he's none other than the pope den dict xvi. gavin records will feature him on a record called alma mater featuring the pope speaking and singing prayers. supply the pope's vocals from previous speeches and speeches. recorded the accompaniments in london's abbey road studios. the studios of course of players thplace that famous musicians record almost all of their albums. two of the beatles. john lennon and paul mccartney stleen in this photograph from 1968. will the pope achieve rock star

status as his previous predecessor pope paul benedict ii did? we'll have to see. comes out at the end of october. and on that note that is "worldfocus" here in friday evening and this week. if you missed any of this week's programs, you can catch up with them again by going to our website, that's worldfocus.org. i am martin savidgk. as always, thank you very much for joining us. we'll look forward to seeing you back here on monday. until then, have a great weekend. "worldfocus" is made possible, in part, by the following funders -- "worldfocus" is made

possible, in part, by the -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com