Fidel Castro, who defied 10 US presidents in his 50 year rule, dies aged 90

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.

Singapore, Jul 11: Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has secured a “clear mandate” with his ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) winning 83 of the 93 contested parliamentary seats in the general election held amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, with the Opposition gaining ground by winning a record 10 seats.

The ruling party, in power since independence in 1965, secured 61.24 percent of the total votes cast in the election, down from 69.9 percent in 2015. About 2.6 million Singaporeans voted on Friday.

“We have a clear mandate, but the percentage of the popular vote is not as high as I had hoped for,” 68-year old Lee told a PAP’s post-results press conference on Saturday morning.

The opposition Workers’ Party secured 10 seats and defeated a team in the Group Representation Constituency of Sengkang led by former Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Ng Chee Meng who is also the Secretary-General of the power National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).

The Prime Minister assured it is “only right” that Workers’ Party’s Indian-origin secretary-general Pritam Singh be “formally designated” as the Leader of the Opposition, and that he will be provided with “appropriate staff support and resources to perform his duties”.

Lee took the results in “these circumstances” as an “endorsement” of the party’s policies and plans as he had called the elections amidst Covid-19 pandemic.

For latest updates and live news on coronavirus, click here

“We’ll take this forward and work with Singapore to realise those plans and solve the problems which we have,” Channel News Asia quoted the premier as saying.

Lee, who leads the PAP as secretary-general, said, “Singaporeans understand what’s at stake and why we must come together to uphold our national interests.”

He pledged to use this mandate “responsibly” to deal with the Covid-19 situation and economic downturn, to take Singapore “safely through the crisis and beyond”.

“The results reflect the pain and uncertainty that Singaporeans feel in this crisis, the loss of income, the anxiety about jobs, the disruption caused by the circuit breaker and the safe distancing restrictions,” he said.

This was not a “feel-good” election, said Lee, Singapore’s third prime minister who faces the city state’s worst recession with the economy projected to shrink between 7 and 4 per cent.

Lee acknowledged that the result also showed a “clear desire” for a diversity of voices in Parliament.

“Singaporeans want the PAP to form the government, but they, and especially the younger voters, also want to see more opposition presence in parliament,” he noted.

Lee added that he looks forward to the participation and contribution of the Opposition in parliament.

Singh, whose Workers’ Party team retained Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), will have 10 elected MPs now, up from six previously. His fellow member also retained the Hougang single-member constituency seat.

“Whether it works out… and whether it’s seen as a strengthening of Singapore will depend not only on what the PAP does but also on what the Opposition does because the Opposition now has 10 MPs elected from constituencies,” said Lee.

He assured that the ruling party will listen to Singaporeans and do its best to address their concerns, and “try to win” their support, whether or not they voted for the PAP.

When asked by the media if the party had lost the youth vote, he noted that different generations have different life experiences, and the young have significantly different life aspirations and priorities compared to the older generations.

“That’ll have to be reflected in our political process and in the government’s policies because, in the end, the government’s policies must be to achieve the aspirations of every generation of Singaporeans,” Lee said, assuring Singaporeans.

He hoped that the new generations of Singaporeans “look critically, but with an open mind” at what previous generations have done, “examine what’s relevant and what continues to make sense to them in a new environment” and “learn from these experiences hard-won by their parents and grandparents”.

This is so that they do not have to “learn them all over again and pay a high price which has already been paid”.

Lee added that he was, naturally, disappointed at the loss of the newly formed Sengkang GRC, which the Workers’ Party won with 52.13 percent of the valid votes.

“Ng Chee Meng and his team -- Lam Pin Min, Amrin Amin and Raymond Lye -- always knew it was going to be a tough fight,” he said.

“They gave it their all, but Sengkang voters have spoken, and we respect their decision.”

Lee described it as a “major loss to my team” and to the fourth-generation leaders, especially as Ng is the secretary-general of the Labour Movement, the NTUC.

Singh, 43, told a press conference following the results that his team would “continue to endeavour for good outcomes on the ground” and to represent voters “faithfully in parliament”.

“Today’s results are positive, but we have to hit the ground running. We should not get over our head with the results. There’s much work to do. And I can assure you this Workers’ Party team is committed to serve Singapore,” he stressed.

The PAP contested all 93 seats and the Workers’ Party 21 seats. Nine other political parties also contested the elections.

A total of 192 candidates contested for seats through 17 Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs).

The new visa regulations requiring international students in the US with an F-1 visa to take at least one in-person course or face the prospect of deportation is likely to "cause uncertainties and difficulties" for some students, the Indian Embassy has said.

"These new modifications at a time when many of the US universities and colleges are yet to announce their plans for the new academic year are likely to cause uncertainties and difficulties for some Indian students wishing to pursue their studies in the US," said a spokesperson of the Indian Embassy.

Responding to media queries, the spokesperson said the Indian government has taken up the matter with concerned US officials.

At the India US Foreign Office Consultations held on July 7, Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla conveyed India's concerns on the matter to Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale.

According to a recent report of Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), there were 1,94,556 Indian students enrolled in various academic institutions of the US in January this year. Of these 1,26,132 were males and 68,405 were females.

Noting that partnership in higher education is a key component of the strong people-to-people ties between India and the US, the spokesperson said in the last two decades Indian students in American universities and colleges have been the harbingers of a strong partnership between technology and innovation sectors between the two countries.

The spokesperson hoped that the US authorities would provide adequate flexibility in their visa rule, keeping in mind the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic for the Indian students community.

We continue to engage all the stakeholders in the matters, including the US administration officials, Congressional leaders, universities and colleges as well as the Indian students community in the US as we move forward towards the 2020-21 academic year to further strengthen our bilateral partnership in higher education, the spokesperson said.

Announced by the SEVP on July 6, the new rules provide temporary exemptions for nonimmigrant students on F-1 and M-1 visas taking online classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic for the fall semester of the 2020 academic year.

While these modifications do provide some flexibility for US universities and colleges to adopt a hybrid model -- that is a mixture of online and in person classes -- they also restrict international students on F-1 and M-1 visas from taking courses entirely online, the spokesperson said.