US allows UN denounce Israeli settlements

Seoul, Apr 15: Wearing masks and gloves, South Korean voters cast their ballots on Wednesday to elect 300 parliamentary lawmakers amid the coronavirus outbreak.

Voting kicked off at 6 am (local time) and was to run until 6 pm (local time) at 14,330 polling stations across the country, according to the National Election Commission (NEC). The number of eligible voters is 44 million, according to Yonhap news agency.

The once-in-four-years legislative election is widely seen as a referendum on President Moon Jae-in, whose five-year term will end in mid-2022, as well as a test of the country's fight against COVID-19 under the leadership of Moon, The Strait Times reported.

South Korea has received international praise for its massive testing capability and other innovative measures, such as drive-through testing and high-tech contact tracing.

Experts, therefore, expect the ruling Democratic Party (DP) to extend its lead in Parliament, given that the government's handling of the virus outbreak is viewed positively both at home and abroad, as per The Strait Times.

At least 10,564 people in the country have been infected by coronavirus, which has claimed 222 lives. About 2,800 patients are undergoing treatment.

The number of new cases has fallen from a high of 813 on February 29 to below 50 for six days in a row as an intensive social distancing campaign that started on March 21 remained in place.

Several surveys cited by the newspaper also showed that voters consider the pandemic as the biggest factor in their decision. A recent poll showed that 72.6 per cent of respondents rated the government's response to the outbreak as positive.

The NEC has said that public safety at polling stations will be a priority to prevent any possible spread of the virus.

All 14,330 polling stations and 251 counting stations will be disinfected on polling day, the NEC was quoted.

Voters will undergo temperature screening and those registering temperatures of 37.5 degrees Celsius or higher or display respiratory symptoms will have to exercise their franchise at a separate booth.

Tuesday was the last of 13 days of campaigning, which saw most candidates reducing their ground activities and face-to-face encounters with voters. Instead, the candidates boosted their online presence with videos and social media engagements in a bid to win votes, according to The Strait Times.

In addition, the government has also decided to temporarily lift quarantine rules to permit self-isolators to vote in the elections. Some 50,000 people in self-isolation who have no symptoms and expressed a willingness to vote will be allowed to cast ballots after the regular voting ends in the evening.

Los Angeles, Apr 30: Los Angeles will begin offering coronavirus">coronavirus testing for free to all citizens regardless of whether they have symptoms, Mayor Eric Garcetti said on Wednesday, adding that LA is the first major US city to take such an initiative.

During the press conference, Garcetti announced that all county residents can now get free coronavirus">coronavirus testing. 

He said the announcement will only apply to city residents for now, but that a similar plan is in development for Los Angeles County,
Garcetti also took to Twitter to announce the same. "Announcing that L.A. is now the first major city in America to offer free COVID-19 testing to all residents. 

While priority will still be given to those with symptoms, individuals without symptoms can also be tested. Sign up at Coronavirus.LACity.org/Testing," he said
Under the new guidelines, priority for the same- or next-day testing will still be given to people with symptoms, such as a fever, cough, and shortness of breath. The free testing will also be prioritized for certain critical frontline workers who interact with the public.

Until now, only residents with symptoms as well as essential workers and those in institutional settings like nursing homes could be tested.

On Wednesday, the LA County reported 1,541 new cases, bringing the total to 22,485 - a seven per cent increase since yesterday.

This includes a backlog of cases that were processed. In the city, there were 683 new cases on Wednesday, bringing the total to 10,380 -- a 7 percent increase since yesterday.

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.