Nobel 2017 season opens with medicine prize

New Delhi, 17: Tensions on the Indo-China border have spiked to the highest since 1962 after over 20 troops, including an Indian commanding officer, were killed in the face-off in Galwan valley that has seen a six-week long standoff underway with the Peoples Liberation Army.

The Army said that the soldiers – including the Commanding Officer of 16 Bihar regiment in charge of the area – died while a `de-escalation process’ was underway. Sources said that this death toll could rise up as some soldiers are currently not accounted for after PLA troops attacked with spiked sticks and stones in the Galwan valley.

Chinese side also has casualties but the number is still not known. The Indian death toll is perhaps the worst single day loss in decades and has come at a time when thousands of troops are forward deployed in Eastern Ladakh.

ET was the first to report on May 12 about a massive troop build up in the Galwan valley, which is an old flashpoint that had seen action in the 1962 war as well.

There have been reports of casualties on the Chinese side in the clash but numbers are currently not available. Worryingly, information from the ground suggests that several Indian soldiers, including four officers, are missing and could have been taken captive by a vastly larger Chinese force. Their status is still not known.

“During the de-escalation process underway in the Galwan Valley, a violent face-off took place yesterday night with casualties. The loss of lives on the Indian side includes an officer and two soldiers. Senior military officials of the two sides are currently meeting at the venue to defuse the situation,” an Indian Army statement reads.

The Ministry of External Affairs said that the clash occurred when the Chinese side violated the LAC. “On the late-evening and night of 15th June, 2020 a violent face-off happened as a result of an attempt by the Chinese side to unilaterally change the status quo there. Both sides suffered casualties that could have been avoided had the agreement at the higher level been scrupulously followed by the Chinese side,” a statement reads.

The loss of the Commanding Officer is especially devastating and he had been directly involved in de-escalation talks with the Chinese side, including one hours before the clash took place. Sources said that the talks on Monday morning had led to an agreement for Chinese forces to withdraw from Indian territory as part of the disengagement.

According to one version, the CO had gone to the standoff point with a party of 50 men to check if the Chinese had retreated as promised. As the Indian side proceeded to demolish and burn illegal Chinese structures on its side of the LAC, including an observation post constructed on the South bank of the river, a fresh stand off took place as a large force of Chinese troops returned back.

Sources said that a Chinese force in excess of 250 quickly assembled near Patrol Point 14 and were physically stopped by Indian soldiers from entering Indian territory. Soldiers from both sides did not use firearms but the Chinese soldiers carried spiked sticks to attack.

Given the terrain of the region, a part of the standoff and clash took place in the middle of the Galwan river that is currently flowing at full spate, leading to high casualties as injured soldiers got swept away. Indian soldiers have to cross the Galwan river at atleast five points to reach PP 14, which marks the LAC.

Chinese media reports on Tuesday quoted the spokesperson from its Western Theatre Command as laying claim over the Galwan valley region and blaming the Indian side for the clash. Reports quoted Col Zhang Shuili as saying that India has violated the consensus made during Army commander level talks.

As reported, Galwan river area has a painful history with China, with Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers surrounding a freshly set up Indian Army post in July 1962, in what would be one of the early triggers to the Sino-Indian war. At an Army post that was overrun at Galwan, 33 Indian soldiers were killed and several dozen taken captive in 1962.

In the past, the Doklam crisis in 2017 saw tensions building up along the Pangong Tso lake as well with soldiers engaging in a fight with sticks and stones. However, the Eastern Ladakh standoff is of a much more serious nature, with over 6000 Chinese troops lined up with tanks and artillery, faced off with a larger Indian forces. Troop build up has also been reported across the borders in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal.

Washington, Apr 17: The confirmed coronavirus death toll in the United States reached 32,917 on Thursday, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University.

The toll as of 8:30 pm (0030 GMT Friday) marked an increase of 4,491 deaths in the past 24 hours, by far the highest daily toll in the pandemic so far.

But the figure likely includes "probable" deaths related to COVID-19, which were not previously included. This week, New York City announced it would add 3,778 "probable" coronavirus deaths to its toll.

As of Thursday night, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had recorded 31,071 coronavirus deaths, including 4,141 "probable" virus deaths.

The US has the highest death toll in the world, followed by Italy with 22,170 dead although its population is just a fifth of that of the US.

Spain has recorded 19,130 deaths, followed by France with 17,920.

More than 667,800 coronavirus cases have been recorded in the United States, which has seen a record number of deaths over the past two days.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump unveiled plans Thursday evening to reopen the US economy, allowing each state's governor "to take a phased deliberate approach to reopening their individual states".

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.