Kim Jong-Un calls on North to mass-produce nukes, missiles

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.

Beijing, Apr 17: China denied Friday it had covered up the extent of its coronavirus outbreak, as it responded to growing questions from Western powers led by the United States.

A foreign ministry spokesman acknowledged that the virus's rapid spread had contributed to undercounting that resulted in China raising its death toll earlier Friday, but he added "there has never been any concealment, and we'll never allow any concealment."

The allegations China is too close to the World Health Organization (WHO), were an attempt at "smearing" Beijing, Zhao said.

US President Donald Trump has questioned China's handling of the pandemic and whether it had been completely transparent since the virus emerged in the central city of Wuhan late last year.

On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab and French President Emmanuel Macron also expressed doubts about China's virus response.

These doubts were spotlighted again on Friday when authorities in Wuhan, which has borne the brunt of Chinese deaths, abruptly raised its death toll by 50 percent -- or 1,290 deaths -- to a new total of 3,869.

That also pushed the nationwide death toll up sharply to 4,632, based on official national data released earlier in the day.

Wuhan authorities cited several reasons for the missed cases, including that the city's medical staff were overwhelmed in the early days as infections climbed, leading to "late reporting, omissions or mis-reporting".

Zhao said such miscounting was to be expected in the initial stages of a major disease outbreak.

US President Donald Trump -- under fire himself for initially denying the seriousness of the pandemic -- has accused the WHO of doing the same and being too trusting of China's assurances over the outbreak.

On Tuesday he announced a suspension of US funding to the world body.

Asked about the US allegations, Zhao defended the WHO and China.

"I think they are all smearing China and cooking up stories about China," he said, without specifying which countries he was referring to.

China has largely brought the contagion under control domestically via tough measures including the unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan and tens of millions of people in surrounding areas, but not before it spread worldwide.

May 30: Warning of the tightrope walk ahead as governments battle the coronavirus crisis, Nobel laureate Peter Charles Doherty has expressed concern about densely populated countries such as India relaxing lockdown norms while also describing a complete shutdown as “an economic and social impossibility”.

The Australian immunologist, who cautioned that the number of COVID-19 cases will rise in the coming days, said the earliest time frame for an effective vaccine “going into large numbers of people” is nine to 12 months.

"If all goes well with testing, we could know if some of the candidate vaccines are both safe and effective as early as September/October. Then, rolling a vaccine out will depend on the type of product and how quickly it can be made, put in vials and so forth," Doherty told PTI in an email interview from Melbourne.

The novel coronavirus, he added, does not change fast like influenza and, from what is known so far, “the same vaccine should work everywhere”.

Doherty, who is with the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the Doherty Institute, University of Melbourne, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1996 for his discovery of how the body’s immune system distinguishes virus-infected cells from normal ones.

Discussing the lockdown, he said, "If it was purely a matter of hard science, everywhere should stay locked down. But that’s pretty much an economic and social impossibility.”

The expectation, he said, is the numbers will rise and limiting spread will depend on people acting responsibly and the capacity for rapid response and extensive contact testing.

“And in a densely populated country like India I think that it will be very difficult," the scientist said.

Several countries, including India, began relaxing lockdown norms in mid-May despite the WHO’s warning about a second wave. India’s lockdown began on March 25 and has since been extended. The fourth phase ends on Sunday.

Asked whether there are any alternatives to a lockdown, the 79-year-old said, "There is no other option other than closing borders. South Korea, for example, conducted massive, intensive testing and contact tracing in a wealthy country with a very disciplined population. Otherwise, not till we have effective vaccines."

He added that he personally doesn’t see the point of closing borders for people coming in if there’s already a high incidence of disease in the community, “unless it’s to avoid the need to care for them and use scarce hospital beds".

According to Doherty, the coronavirus "is a new virus which has come straight out of nature".

“It (the virus) has moved so rapidly across the world because of people travelling on international planes as well as tourist ships," he added.

The immunologist also warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, and said current and planned trials of the anti-malaria drug should be stopped.

“My understanding is that the use of the drug in severe disease is definitely contra-indicated, but it’s not yet clear whether, if taken under medical supervision, it could have some useful effect if taken early on, or as a preventive. Those trials just haven’t been done properly," Doherty noted.

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has backed the use of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive against COVID-19 even after the WHO suspended clinical trials of the drug citing safety concerns.

Asked whether plasma therapy can be an effective treatment for COVID-19, Doherty said, "We lack good properly controlled trials but, especially if the plasma has been tested for antibody levels and there’s evidence of good activity, it could be helpful. If I had the disease and was offered plasma therapy I would certainly accept, but I would not take hydroxychloroquine."

Doherty is also very optimistic about herd immunity developing against the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

"We think that (herd immunity) will cut in and have an obvious effect when, say, 60 per cent of people have been infected. Best hope is to boost herd immunity with a vaccine," he stated.

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through vaccination or previous infections.

The number of COVID-19 cases have crossed 5.9 million and the fatalities 3,65,000, according to the Johns Hopkins University on Saturday. 

In India, the death toll has risen to 4,971 and the number of cases to 1,73,763, according to the Union Health Ministry on Saturday.

Several states, including Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, have reported a rise in number since lockdown norms were relaxed in early May and migrant workers reached home.

In Uttar Pradesh, for instance, the number of infections rose from around 3,000 on May 4 to 6,532 on May 26. Similarly, Bihar’s numbers increased from around 500 to over 2,700 in the period.