LyrArc Article Gist
900 million eligible voters in India means this is the largest election ever. The election will take place in 7 phases in April and May from April 11 to May 19. Votes will be counted on May 23. The election is for 543 seats in parliament, the Lok Sabha. Turnouts are high with 66% turning out in the last election that brought Mr. Modi and the BJP to power.  Unlike elections in Britain a lot is spent in each election, about $5 billion in the last election and double that this time. The U.S. elections in 2016 had spending of $6.5 billion as a comparison. Women vote at about the same rate as men and more women than men are expected to vote this time. Prime minister Modi won the last election with promises of development and infrastructure. He is delivering on infrastructure but building manufacturing and generating jobs in the formal sector remains a tougher task for any administration in 4 years. During the first term Mr. Modi made needed changes including introducing the GST tax to integrate India's fragmented market and get rid of a patchwork of regional state taxes. He introduced a whole range of projects and yojanas which are setting the stage for widening the middle class, and improving living conditions. Some of the problems such as the bad loans in the banking system date back to previous administrations and the government has taken steps to clean up this problem by refinancing banks and introducing a bankruptcy law. This has slowed GDP growth to about 7%. However this would have happened under any administration.  The brief war with Pakistan in February 2019 has added another dimension to this election with questions about whether this may help Mr. Modi because of his strong stand against terrorism camps in Pakistan.  In the end it all comes down to whether the public still believes the BJP party under Modi is best qualified to develop the infrastructure to modernize the country and improve services, and whether it can create enough of the manufacturing capabilities to generate jobs needed. It may not be that the BJP under Modi has  not made mistakes in the process of learning how best to tackle development, but whether a patchwork of regional parties led by the opposition Congress party is in a position to provide the strong decisive direction to make quick decisions on development. Getting the agreement of a number of regional parties such as the party in West Bengal state or the Uttar Pradesh state when it was under a previous administration of Mrs Mayawati means an even slower rate of decision making as it leads to lack of speedy decision making. Whether voters have short memories and forget the slow rate of infrastructure development under previous administrations or have a willingness to give the BJP a chance to show what it can do under Modi for development can eventually decide this election. An example of what this means is in how the Mumbai Metro is being pushed through to timely delivery- Metro Rail's head Mrs. Ashwini Bhide simply says she feels for the people of Mumbai who have suffered from delays in development of needed infrastructure for so long, with millions doing appalling rides in a creaky old rail system. In her view it should have been done yesterday. It is this attitude that can make or break the current administration, and whether it can get this message through to voters one more time. Most who have this attitude are aware that China is now laying enough concrete every two years than America did in the whole 20th century, as reported in the Guardian newspaper, and are equally passionate about delivery of services and rapid development of badly needed infrastructure.         ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chuck Hagel on the need to bring in more countries to handle difficult situations such as the one the US faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says thats why the world now has a G20 and not a G8. No country can face these situations alone especially when there is a mutual interest of many countries in these situations. He calls it a 20th century reaction to 21st century realities. He says the 2 wars cost more than a trillion dollars. One sees a new respect for international institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and GATT renamed WTO, even with Republicans. Chuck Hagel's point makes a lot of sense and is generally accepted in people's understanding of the situation from the Defence Department to the Administration, and among respected politicians. It is putting it onto practice that is the hard part. As Hagel puts it, it is important to remember what Lyndon Johnson told Senatior Russell, that he knew the Vietnam war could not be won, and yet he did not want to pull out and be the first American President to lose a war. This is a contradiction because if it can't be won its going to be lost under the next President or the one after that, in this case Gerald Ford. Hagel says it not ours to win and lose. Here he points to the interconnectedness and shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the U.S., whether it is economic, terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy or water and food shortages, is also a threat to global partners ansd rivals. So its wrong to view engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lens that says its about winning or losing. And he asks win what? Too many cultural, ethnic and religious dynamics are involved for any one nation to control. Hagel concludes by saying that the US, the Defense Department, the Obama administration, must get this right, as it affects the global architecture for the next generation. Fresh thinking is needed. Single issue engagement is obsolete in the 21st century in dealing with global partners or rivals, or countries with aspects of both....

LyrArc Article Gist
The India-Pakistan-Afghanistan issues are still framed in the old way in terms of communalism, cold war then and the war on terrorism now. These policies were a legacy of the colonial policies of an earlier empire designed to preserve foreign rule, with a policy of perpetuating divisions between communties on religious and other lines. Modernization, the spread of mass communications that makes possible the reduction of prejudice and division by assimilating different values and beliefs into acommon aspiration for progress and better living standards, and the spread of education, commerce, and technological progress, create the conditions that should put this behind us. Put behind us communalism, and the political and military structures of communal states. Pakistan needs to be transformed from a communal state with a military structure designed to preserve that state - resulting in conflicts with its neighbors- into a state that represents a community and a religion, but in all other ways seeks peaceful coexistence and economic integration with the rest of South Asia. A good example of this is Mexico with its own culture, language and religion (Spanish Catholicism), and Canada with its own bilingual French-English heritage and British political structures and allegiances, both arriving at an arrangement of peaceful coexistence and economic integration with the USA with its different political structures and culture and sporadic conflicts with Canada and Mexico. This has promoted the peaceful development of the North American region. The US involvement in the region can then be seen as a misguided effort that continued framing the region's differences in the old British way or in a cold war stereotyping, first with John Foster Dulles in the India-Pakistan conflicts, and then with Reagan in the Afghan anti-Soviet war. This has worked to exacerbate the conditions that led to slow progress in the drive for economic development, infrastructure building and modernization in all of South Asia. Just as in Europe, as in North America, the processes of economic development work best when a policy of inclusiveness and integration of different communities and people is followed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ in June 2016 points out the dangers in the U.S. president Obama not facing up to the threat in the Middle East since 2013 leading to the fall of Mosul,  and in not clearly focussing on the threat since then. This has created divisions inside Europe and the U.S. in internal politics, and is being exacerbated with the rise of far right groups in Europe and by Trump in the U.S. It points out that by not clearly identifying the threat president Obama has given "illiberal" policy a boost. It says Hillary Clinton should be careful to formulate her own position in line with policy that has been pursued since FDR.

LyrArc Article Gist
This view from Udo Bauer of DW.com about the Berlin elections says the result with the CDU and the SPD each losing about 6-7% of the votes cast is more about the unpopularity of the CDU candidate Henkel and the SPD candidate Muller. He says Muller had about the charisma and appeal of a paper clip compared to the previous Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit who showed vision and assertive action. Other local issues were important in the election including crumbling infrastructure and dissatisfaction with services. The AfD won about 14% of the votes with its appeal to voters opposed to the refugee policy of chancellor Merkel. Yet Bauer thinks, like the Republican party in the past this could be a passing phenomenon, after voters have expressed their grievances about chancellor Merkel's "we can manage it" on the refugees. Something Merkel now says people read too much into. The SPD too has a lot to reflect on for handling local issues, says Bauer.

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ says Europe should plan for expanding its role in defense, because the U.S voters in the primaries for both political parties appear to be calling for less U.S. engagement in the world. It says Trump, Sanders, and Clinton voters are moving towards less engagement, and calling for the U.S. to spend less in overseas engagements, more at home. It points out that only Britain, Estonia, Greece, Poland and the U.S. spend the 2% of GDP on defense that is considered a requirement for NATO membership.

LyrArc Article Gist
A look at the views of Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia and Strobe Talbott, a State Department advisor, on how the Obama administration missed signals of a more assertive policy from Russia during the period Medvedev was president. At the time Medvedev offered a softer tone from Russia and the U.S. extended cooperation. With the return of Putin as president for a second term, his more strident views on the role of Russia in the world following the collapse of the Soviet Union have emerged, especially in tems of policies in Syria and Ukraine.