Rains lash parts of Saudi Arabia; severe weather claims 14 lives

Dubai, July 6: In an attempt to make a comeback in the tourism sector amidst managing covid-19 crisis, Dubai is all set to welcome holiday-makers from foreign countries from July 7.

It said those entering would have to present certificates to show they had recently tested negative for the coronavirus or would undergo tests on arrival at Dubai airports.

Reassuring tourists of several comprehensive measures to prevent the transmission of the pandemic, Dubai Tourism urged global travellers to make the city that boasts world class health and safety standards "a must-visit destination."

Dubai Tourism hosted a virtual forum for stakeholders and partners to share its industry outlook ahead of the city's reopening to international tourists.

The forum, which was attended by nearly 2,000 key executives from the aviation, travel and hospitality sectors and across tourism touch-points, provided a first-hand insight into current and post-pandemic strategies that will help accelerate tourism momentum and position Dubai as a safe global destination.

Helal Saeed Almarri, director general, Dubai Tourism, said that the city has put in place a robust strategy to manage the pandemic with the key priority being to safeguard the health and well-being of citizens, residents and guests.

Dubai, which saw a 5.1 per cent in tourist traffic to 16.73 million in 2019, remains top of mind for travellers and ranks high in global Internet search rankings for tourist destinations.

Dubai Tourism has launched marketing activities designed to convey positive messages about travel in today's environment, Dubai's preparedness, high standards of quality and safety, unique experiences that await visitors and also address traveller concerns across every touch-point in their journey.

The forum highlighted the preventive measures taken so far against Covid-19 that have further elevated the UAE's standing as one of the world's safest countries. The UAE is globally ranked No.3 in testing per million of population. It was also ranked No.3 in an international survey that assessed satisfaction with governments' response to the pandemic.

Over 350 influencers were also deployed to take the Dubai story in 14 different languages to a global audience spanning 18 markets, which yielded over 21 million engagements across multiple social media platforms.

New Delhi, Jan 11: Islamic preacher Zakir Naik has revealed that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government offered to drop false money-laundering charges against him and provide with a "safe passage to India" in return for his support to the government's move to revoke Article 370 of the Constitution.

In a statement issued by Naik's PR team on Saturday, the Islamic preacher said that he was approached by a representative of the Indian government in September, who offered him the said deal on Kashmir, which he refused.

"Three and a half months before, the Indian officials approached me for a private meeting with a representative of the Indian government. When he came to Putrajaya (a Malaysian city), in the fourth week of September 2019, to meet me, he said that he is coming after personally meeting and under the direct instructions of the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and the Home Minister of India Amit Shah," Naik said in a video statement released by his Mumbai-based PR team.

Naik, who has been living in Malaysia for the last three years, is facing charges of inciting communal disharmony and committing unlawful activities in India.

"(The representative) said that he wanted to remove the misconceptions and miscommunications between myself (Naik) and the Indian government, and wants to provide me a safe passage to India," he added. "He (the representative) said that he would like to use my connections to better the relationship between India and the other Muslim countries."

"The meeting lasted for several hours. He told me that he wanted me to support the BJP government when they revoked Article 370 in Kashmir. And I flatly refused," he added.

Naik said that after he refused the offer, he was further asked to not make public statements against the BJP or Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

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.