No ban on day-dreaming: Javadekar on Rahul's prime ministerial aspirations

Washington, Mar 8: An attendee at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which also saw the participation of US President Donald Trump, has tested positive for COVID-19, the American Conservative Union (ACU) said.

The exposure occurred prior to the conference held in National Harbor, Maryland, just south of Washington D.C., Xinhua news agency quoted the ACU as saying in a statement on Saturday.

A New Jersey hospital tested the person, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the positive result, said the statement.

"The individual is under the care of medical professionals in the state of New Jersey, and has been quarantined," it said.

Trump and Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the gathering, which took place from February 26-29.

Also present at the event were a number of administration and cabinet officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, and newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Saturday that the White House was aware of the development.

"At this time there is no indication that either President Trump or Vice President Pence met with or were in close proximity to the attendee," Grisham said in a statement.

"The President's physician and US Secret Service have been working closely with White House Staff and various agencies to ensure every precaution is taken to keep the First Family and the entire White House Complex safe and healthy."

The news emerged as Washington D.C. and neighbouring state of Virginia respectively confirmed their first cases of COVID-19 on Saturday.

In a press conference on Saturday night, Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said a resident in his 50s showed symptoms of a respiratory virus in February. He was admitted to a hospital in the District on March 5.

The patient had no history of recent international travel, nor had he been exposed to anyone who was confirmed to be infected, according to Bowser.

The Mayor said D.C. health authorities were investigating the man's contact with other people before he went to the hospital.

A US Marine assigned to Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County, Virginia, tested positive on Saturday for COVID-19 and is currently being treated at Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, according to a Pentagon spokesman.

"The Marine recently returned from overseas where he was on official business," tweeted Jonathan Rath Hoffman, adding that Secretary of Defence Mark Esper and the White House have been briefed.

As of Saturday night, more than 420 cases of COVID-19 were reported in the US with 17 deaths, according to the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.

New Delhi, Apr 21: The historic rout in oil markets that sent US crude prices plummeting to as much as minus USD 40 a barrel is unlikely to translate into any big reduction in petrol and diesel prices in India as domestic pricing is based on different benchmark, and refineries are already filled up to brim and cannot buy US crude just yet.

With storage capacity already overflowing amid coronavirus-induced demand collapse, traders rushed to to get rid of unwanted stocks triggering the collapse of US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude for May delivery.

Indian Oil Corp (IOC) Chairman Sanjiv Singh said the collapse was triggered by traders unable to take deliveries of crude they had previously booked because of a demand collapse. And so they paid the seller to keep oil in their storage.

"If you look at June futures, it is trading in positive territory... around USD 20 per barrel," he said.

Low oil prices may seem good in short-term but in the long run it will hurt the oil economy as producers will have no surplus to invest in exploration and production which will lead to a drop in production, he said.

He did not comment on retail fuel prices that have been static since March 16.

Oil companies have not changed rates despite a fall in international prices as they first adjusted them against the increase that was warranted from a Rs 3 per litre hike in excise duty and close to Re 1 per litre additional cost of switching over to cleaner BS-VI grade fuel from April 1.

Petrol in Delhi is priced at Rs 69.59 a litre and diesel comes for Rs 62.29 per litre.

"The negative price has no direct impact on India or Indian oil prices, as this has taken place due to crude oil produced and traded within the US. India's prices are driven partly by another benchmark, the Brent, which is still trading at USD 25/barrel. Therefore, the retail price of fuels in India are unlikely to fall," said Amit Bhandari, Fellow, Energy and Environment Studies, Gateway House.

Also, Indian refineries are already overflowing as fuel demand has evaporated due to the unprecedented nationwide lockdown imposed to curb spread of COVID-19. So, they can't rush to buy US crude.

The refineries have already cut operating rate to half because the fuel they produce has not been sold yet.

India imports 4 million barrels/day (1.4 billion barrels/year) of oil. The country has been benefitting from the falling prices of oil for the last five years, when oil dropped from a peak of USD 110/barrel to USD 50-60/barrel last year, enabling India to invest in public service programmes.

"However, the additional USD 30 fall of this week is good for India - but there is also a downside. If oil prices are too low, the economies of oil-rich gulf countries will be hurt, threatening the job prospects of the 8 million Indians working in the Gulf countries. India is the largest recipient of foreign remittances due to these workers – very low oil prices will hurt this cash stream," Bhandari said.

He said the negative price of oil shows how much oil oversupply exists in international markets today. "Global oil consumption has fallen due to the COVID-19 pandemic that traders are willing to pay customers to get rid of the barrels they can't store. The world does not have enough storage capacity, and dumping the oil is an environmental crime."

The first half of April saw Brent crude oil prices plummet 63.6 per cent to USD 26.9 per barrel. Prices of Western Texas Intermediate (WTI), the American oil, had also fallen similarly by 63.1 per cent.

But on April 20, WTI prices turned rapidly negative because traders on the Nymex exchange rushed to offload their May futures positions a day before expiry of contracts (on April 21).

Such WTI futures are traded on the Nymex exchange with contracts settled in physical crude oil. Problem is, those who had gone long are unable to find storage facilities for the oil and had to liquidate their contracts before expiry. This caused the plunge in WTI prices.

Contrast to this, June WTI Nymex futures prices is hovering around USD 21, while Brent for June delivery is at USD 25.

Miren Lodha, Director, CRISIL Research said the demand for crude oil was declining already because of economic slowdown when the COVID-19 pandemic-driven lockdowns crushed it further.

Consequently, oil demand is expected to contract by 8-10 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2020 assuming demand recovery begins from the third quarter of the year, he said, adding if recovery doesn't happen by then, further demand destruction could occur.

On the supply side, producers reining in output following a strategic deal between OPEC members, Russia and the US.

Under this agreement, OPEC+ would reduce oil production by 9.7 mbpd for May and June, but gradually ease the curb to 7.7 mbpd between July and December 2020, and to 5.8 mbpd till April 2022 to stabilise prices.

"This is expected to reduce some surplus in the market by the end of 2020," Lodha said.

Crude oil demand is expected to decline by over 20 mbpd in April alone. Typically, monthly global demand is about 100 mbpd. Given this scenario, supply curbs would have limited influence.

Consequently, Brent oil prices is expected to be in the USD 25-30 range for the second quarter while increasing marginally in the last 2 quarters of 2020.

"The gigantic inventory build-ups and lack of storage facilities would also put pressure on prices," he said, adding overall Brent could average USD 30-35 in 2020, with a strong downward bias.