World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Gerlad Seib points out that one should look less at what president Trump accomplished in the first 100 days and more at how he operated and learned during this initial period. This is certainly true because much of what happened in the first 100 days contradicts some of the tone that Trump setup during the campaign. When it comes to governing Trump has made an effort to learn and adapt and show resilience in the face of early setbacks on the travel ban and the health care bill, the Flynn episode. After this early period Trump took on a more disciplined approach, gave more room to and listened to more respected advisors- Tillerson on foreign affairs in shaping policy with Russia leading to Tillerson's presence at Lucca massacre memorial in Italy sending a clear signal about U.S. policies in line with its role in the past century in world affairs, Gary Cohn and Ross on economic policy and seeking Cohn's advice on tax plan, Ross's on NAFTA negotiations with Mexico. As a result the NAFTA fears were calmed down with statements by Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, that the goal was a win-win relationship with Mexico. Trump worked with his party in Congress to have the Supreme Court nomination of Gorsuch approved. Meetings with Merkel of Germany and Jinping of China were carefully planned and new relationships established as Seib points out, without ruffling trade relations. The appointment of Robert Lighthizer, as Trade Representative, also shows that efforts to give the U.S. a more level playing field in trade will be resolutely pursued in the win-win context. Lyrarc has profiled Lighthizer earlier in this decade after his op-eds in the media as he correctly anticipated the changing public mood on the need for fairness in trade relations. On relations with China and South Korea, Jim Mattis has taken the lead, and Pence's visit to South Korea also show deftness in handling what is one of the most difficult issues in foreign affairs. Mattis and Tillerson also have helped reinforce the Republican party policies on NATO and Europe, with the visit of NATO secretary general Stoltenberg to the White House. In the end it is how much you can learn in the first year, how much you listen, and the courage to act in difficult situations, the willingness to act contrary to one's instincts and self interest where necessary, that matters. This is especially true in an environment where as Seib points out the Democratic Party stands opposed to the Trump administration following a bitter election campaign.   ...
The Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
World Bank projections of Indian growth rate are lowered from 6.6% to 5.8% because of DJT US administration's 50% tariff on imports from India. "It is in America’s national interest, then, for South Asia, and especially India, to grow at a rapid clip. That would create a counterweight in Asia to China’s massive economic and military expansion." This is the opinion of the Editorial Board of The Washington Post. It goes on to say that -  "But Trump is determined to negotiate a grand trade bargain with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, so he didn’t impose secondary sanctions on their purchases of Russian crude.Trump wants U.S. trade policy to be more self-interested, but it doesn’t serve America’s strategic interests to strengthen China’s position relative to its neighbors. At some level, the administration surely knows this." The Washington Post has identified a basic flaw in the US policy towards India. Both parties in America have fallen into a trap of believing that first Japan, then China with accelerated economic expansion in the 1920's and 30's and in the 2000's and 2010's  are not going to run into issues with such expansion, this being the military and the separation from US economic cooperation that enabled the economic expansion of both Asian countries. Another aspect is that in 1950 China was similar in size of economy to India at 1.18, in 1903 and in 1962 at 1.18, and the gap between China and India is only a story of the last 2 decades. By 2047 India surely has the potential to close this gap with economic and technological integration with the US and European economies that were the pillars of China's economic expansion in an earlier period.  There are other aspects of culture and size- The Bhagavad Gita and the Bible provided Gandhi with an integrated view of western civilization. With its interactions and adoption of western institutions and government, of law, the new Indian state and its neighbor Indonesia represent 1.7 billion people in Asia, with Japan and the Philippines 2 billion people twice the size of China.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
 U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, views China's response in trade negotiations as one of conducting extended negotiations that lead to little change. This has continued says Lighthizer for over a decade putting the U.S. at a serious disadvantage in trade. At a White House meeting in August 2017 Lighthizer convinced president Trump that China was in his words "tap, tap, tapping us along."  This confirmed president Trump's own instincts about the U.S. trading relationship with China. Lighthizer is a veteran of trade negotiations, having experience in the Reagan administration as the Deputy Trade Representative in 1983 in negotiations with Japan, when Japan was in a similar situation that China is today. At the time trade negotiations with Japan were getting nowhere. Lighthizer is said to have turned one Japanese response in negotiations into a paper plane and sent it flying right back. Lighthizer does not seek the limelight but is serious about his role having published op-eds in the NYT and WSJ since 2000 about how U.S. trading relationships were putting the U.S. and U.S. workers at an unfair advantage. Many of these op-eds are in the Lyrarc archive and a Search with the term "Lighthizer" would bring up these articles. This report in NYT shows how the role of Lighthizer was not anticipated by China when it sent Liu He to Washington in November 2017 to negotiate with the U.S. President Trump made certain Liu He and other Chinese leaders would have to talk to Lighthizer first. In a session with president Jinping laid out U.S. views that the past negotiations had accomplished little and new negotiations had to be undertaken very differently from negotiations in the past. Earlier in July trade negotiations conducted by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were "shut down" by president Trump because China continued to repackage earleir offers which meant little to the U.S. As a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher LLP Lighhizer represented steel industry clients hurt by subsidized Chinese steel industry imports. Mr. Trump and Lighhizer have bonded well because their instincts have been the same- that the U.S. had not been well represented in earlier negotiations by lawyers who saw themselves as speaking for American exporters.  Lighthizer is also a seasoned trade negotiator and has waited for the right time and situation to tackle the unbalanced trading relationship with China. For 30 years Lighhizer represented American manufacturers as he practiced trade law at the Skadden law firm. His strategy has been to get the administration to unite behind a clear trade strategy. He says "I try to be friendly in trade negotiations. I am not the theatrical type. The art of persuasion is about knowing where the leverage is." At this time the leverage lies in the huge trade surplus of about $300 billion China has with the U.S. The U.S. goal is to bring this down by $100 billion through this new negotiating strategy as earlier negotiations have failed. ...
The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Atul Aneja looks at Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's comments on the India- China relationship in March 2018.  The comments by Wang Yi show an extraordinary effort by the Foreign Minister to push for better relations. He raises the need for greater dialogue and "mutual trust" to improve the relations. Wang visited India in December during the period of tense relations and the post-Doklam meeting between prime minister Modi and president Jinping on the sidelines of the BRICS meeting in Xiamen. India's Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale visited China in Feb. 2017. A China-India economic dialogue is planned for April, 2018, preceded by visits of Commerce Minister Zhong Shan and Guo Yezhou, Vice Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China. Compared to the comments by both sides during the Doklam crisis there appears to be a significant change in policy. Wang refers to "more far-sighted leaders" who have realized the importance of the India- China relationship as that between the two largest developing countries each with a population of 1 billion.  In the context of events in early March with pressure from the Trump administration on trade with China- calling for China to come up with plans to reduce the trade surplus in 2018- and the growing influence of Mr. Lighthizer as a trusted advisor of president Trump and exit of Gary Cohn, this could be a strategic move.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's statement calling for a list of goods for tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods leaves China without a clear response and facing new risks. The U.S. exports about $150 billion in goods to China so that China would have to impose penalties to respond at the same level. Placing restrictions on American firms on access to China's market, and imposing other penalties would have the effect of reinforcing the perception of unfair practices targeting American business and lead to hardening of U.S. response.  The U.S. sees itself as being in a better position with the U.S. economy experiencing a growth trend. China with large local government and bank debt faces a difficult situation. President Jinping's policy of reducing the risks of bad debt in the banking system involved sacrificing some growth to stabilize the system. China's GDP growth in 2017 was 6.9%, the target at 6.5%. Future targets and actual growth now look to be much lower.The trade war with the U.S. has the effect of dampening growth leading to calls for the central bank to loosen its monetary stance. In response to Trump's announcement the People's Bank of China pumped $31 billion into the nation's banks. China is studying Japan's response in the 1980's and 1990's when the U.S. took strong action against Japan's growing trade surplus. Japan responded by appreciating its currency and using stimulus to cushion the effect of lower exports on the economy. The stimulus led to the housing bubble and over time a period of low growth and stagnant economy. The large China stimulus in 2008-2009 has compounded the problems in the banking system. Not deleveraging and controlling financial risks in China's banking system because of the trade war would bring a new set of risks. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
South China Morning Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Hamburg is the key city in Germany's trade with China. About half of $200 billion in trade between Germany and China passes through the port of Hamburg. The South China Morning Post looks at the dilemma in Hamburg over relations with China in the post Merkel era. Merkel maintained strong and close ties with China signing an agreement with China her last year in office. This was when Mr. Trump was US president. Since then president Biden has changed US policy towards Europe. The South China Morning Post points out that The Greens and the FDP key partners of Scholz in a new coalition government, are critical of Merkel's policy towards China in its overall relationship with the US and the rest of the world. Scholz was mayor of Hamburg, and a partner in Merkel's coalition government in which he was vice chancellor. Scholz has talked very little on what the new German policy would be. China seeks to maintain its economic ties in the next few years with Germany while reducing its dependence on other countries under Xi Jinping's new vision for China that seeks to depend less on trade and real estate for its economy and growth. Yet the pace of change has accelerated during the pandemic with a new global supply chain emerging from the chaotic years of 2020-2021. US policy under president Biden is similar to policies under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's during the economic and political crises, and look to be setting a new path to the future for the rest of the world. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ makes the America centric thinking mistake of forgetting where China started from in assessing progress and China's new priorities. In 1960 the World Bank shows China per capita at $90 which does not change much till 1990 when it was $300, the Deng opening to western technology and capital pushed it up to $3000 the year 2000 (US $36,000) and $4500 in 2010 (US $50,000) when the global financial crisis hit. Since 2010 the Chinese economy was burdened by high local government debt and struggled to get to $10,000 in 2020 under Xi Jinping's first two terms as president. Yet it paid a huge price for this -the chance of Bo Xilai (2014) upsetting the twin banners of Science and Modernization of the May 4th 1919 movement that set the course of China for 100 years uninterrupted through the Nationalists, the Japanese occupation, the Maoist CCP, the Deng CCP opening and Jinping CCP pullback. The huge inequality was seen as an opportunity for Bo Xi Lai or some other leader to capitalize on moving China in an unknown direction that posed risks for the future of China. Even then the first preference of Xi would be to carry on with what had worked after Deng. Yet it was clear that working class votes were shifting the dynamics of elections after the Trump election and closing the doors to open access to western capital, technology, and investment. With Trump in erratic and uncertain ways, with Biden after the elections of 2020 consistent and with single minded determination to limit flows. Not just Xi, any other Chinese leader would have had to have the internal discussions about the need to shift back to a model China was familiar with and one that worked before- that of state intervention in the economy, that of reducing the inequalities that posed risks for the CCP's survival as forging a path for stability to carry out the twin banners of the May 4, 1919 Movement - Science and Modernization as China's salvation. Unlike the hysteria about China posing a challenge to the US these internal debates of Xi and the party may have concluded that the US with about half the population of China's as it grows with immigration in the future and multiple times the per capita GDP was a country that no other country was going to come close to. In this sense the supply chains are deceptive as these are likely to be completely redone under the Biden administration to bring most important manufacturing back to China. It is in this context that Xi had limited room to manoeuvre and decided to focus on stability for the long term to fulfill China's dream of the May 4, 1919 Movement of the last 100 years for Science and Modernization casting aside the risks associated for instability of the inequality that comes with more of the western type of growth, and with the climate change risks also associated with it. Lower growth gives China a chance to correct some of the flaws of the hyper growth that was partly of its own making and partly thrust upon it by investors from the outside, so that the new climate would best serve the goals of the May 4, 1919 Movement of keeping high the banners of Science and Modernization. This kind of rethinking is also going on in the US in the same manner about inequalities and hardships for workers and families, with some of the anger directed at China as internal political sentiment- hence the trillions of dollars moved by the Biden administration to address the flaws of growth under free markets and intervene in the economy where needed as in climate change to give firm sense of direction. In a sense the direction taken in different contexts the American and the Chinese are the same - address the problems of workers and families, of the people, as Lincoln had pointed out and striven so hard for, so that Labor is the more important than Capital, and workers and families vital to the nation.   ...
South China Morning Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, gives insights into the Chinese position in trade war with the U.S.  China has its own internal groups which support China being able to take a leadership role in world affairs. Xi Jinping made giving China a prominent role in the world a feature of his presidency. China  has this internal audience and its own sense that China's resurgence was won with hard work and cooperation, plus dedication of the Chinese people. In the past Japan and South Korea also used state subsidized industries, and subsidies to gain leadership in key business sectors involving high technology. China would see this state subsidies model as its own model of development. From this standpoint the U.S. demands on subsidies as unfair competition could be seen as changing a key part of its economic model.  Asking China to put everything in writing and show tangible proof of enforcement as the U.S. insisted in talks, was too much for the Chinese side. China said trust us to do this, and lift the tariffs based on our verbal assurances. The U.S. having seen decades of no progress on this point, wanted tangible proof before tariffs were lifted. Added to the demands on subsidies were the demands for no more of what the U.S. calls stealing of U.S. technology through forced transfer of technology by U.S. firms as a condition to operate in Chinese markets. With the U.S. lagging in 5G technology and Huawei ahead the issue resonates on the U.S. side. Add to this Mr. Trump's key voter base includes the former Democratic party supporting workers who have shifted to him because of trade agreements and policies of Clinton and Obama that hurt American workers through seemingly endless closure of manufacturing plants from Chinese competition.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Blinken Wang Yi meeting at the G-2- in Indonesia is the first high level meeting between US and China since March when the Ukraine war started. In the press briefing after the meeting Blinken said "more than four months into this brutal invasion the PRC stands by Russia." He pointed to Beijing support of Russia at the United Nations, dissemination of Russian talking points through Chinese state media and joint military exercizes with Moscow. One aspect of the relations that is beyond the control or good intentions of the two countries top diplomats is the tit for tat response that began with the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump may have seen this as a way to talk to the voter base fed up with two decades of one sided trade with China with manufacturing shipped out to China and local communities of families and workers in regions across the US losing jobs and in decline. Much of this shift was done by US companies during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations over two decades. The strident tone adopted by Trump was met by tit for tat responses in Chinese media till the pandemic when it assumed a new aspect of Chinese origins of the coronavirus. The result is that Sinophobia in the US is met by a response in Chinese media and in the thinking of the Chinese leadership under Jinping that now sees the relationship as having already shifted during the pandemic. The paradox in this is that the US in its effort to get other countries on its side is only beginning to make an effort of get America's own companies and large business investors on its side. Most American companies are still continuing trade and business with China as before.  The same situation exists with the shift of manufacturing from Japan and the European Union to China, with the loss of jobs and decline of local communities that depended on manufacturing. Japanese and European companies are acting in ways that are similar to American companies. Having managed the shift of manufacturing from European Union and Japan to China these companies have done little to change this business situation in 2022 carrying on as before. This is the paradox of the current situation that business both in the US and EU, and Japan is not on the side of their governments, even as their governments attitude to China, particularly now after the pandemic and the Ukraine war has shifted drastically. Alongside this is the popular opinion that has shifted gradually over the last 10 years in the US and EU, first in these very local communities that lost manufacturing to China, and then across broader sections of the public, and now across whole regions of America, Britain, the EU and Japan. This shift in popular opinion has little interest in the way business conducts business overseas or governments conduct diplomacy in nuanced statements. As a result neither the governments of the US, EU and Japan or the business of the US, EU and Japan are in control of this shifting situation that has its momentum and pace operating quite independently of governments and business. And public opinion across America, Europe, Japan, and also in India is moving in an entirely new direction.     ...
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Events before and after the hacking of emails during the U.S. presidential election of 2017 and contacts with Russia of Republican party leaders and campaign officials for the Trump campaign are discussed in this report by the BBC.

WSJ Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mike Flynn, who briefly held the position of National Security Adviser before resigning, tells the FBI and Congressional officials that he is willing to be interviewed if he is given immunity for prosecution. Flynn, a former general, resigned after accepting that he misled White House officials about the phone conversations with the Russian ambassador. Also an issue and seen as improper is that Flynn was paid for speeches by Russia's state sponsored network RT just before becoming an adviser to the Trump campaign, according to documents given to a congressional oversight committee.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
With so much coverage of other aspects of China,  to really understand China and Xi Jinping one has to understand the rural urban situation in China. Xi's long experience as a teenager in the cultural revolution of Mao was in rural areas, the 8 years he spent there till the age of 22, as this report by James Areddy with help of Yijun, Cheng and Qi aptly shows. It traces the shift and mass migration to cities starting with Deng's modernization drive in 1979. This shift of labor to city and town factories as the U.S. and Europe shifted factories and production to China is the story of our times. How it has both helped and hurt China and how it has become the dominant issue of our times, and a lesson for India in the middle of its own modernization and shift of labor to cities. It has helped China modernize with the shift during 1979 to 2016 and run into a road block with president Trump leading a movement in the U.S. of people most hurt by the outsourcing of factories and production to China. It was not meant to be this way. Yet the shift also led to ripping up the fabric of communities and towns with loss of factories across America over three decades. Because China is a large country the impact was huge decade after decade, leading to a backlash against lost jobs in the U.S. and in Europe.  Xi Jinping has romantic view of rural China as he spent 7 years in Shanxi province rural areas during the cultural revolution under Mao. During this period he toiled as part of farm labor alongside villagers which allowed him to get to know villagers and farmers in the countryside well, and formed his view of the world around him. As it is described in a description of the man in Chinese sources- "He arrived at the village as a slightly lost teenager and left as a 22 year old man determined to do something for the people."  China's system separated migrants from city dwellers not  giving same rights to better education, to schools and housing, and official documents separating the two, city dwellers and migrant populations from rural areas. As a result as China modernized and population shifted -shown here in excellent graphic charts over four decades- in 1979 from about 80% in rural areas and 20% in urban the shift goes to 50-50 by 2001. Today it is 40-60 with 60% in rural areas but a population of 40% suffering from severe inequalities and  low incomes. So that GDP per capita of $10,000 for China is deceiving. The real incomes in average disposable income is about $4300 in urban and $1700 in rural area, according to National Bureau of Statistics. High school education is hard enough to get in rural areas, medical care is very basic and the $1700 would hardly get a room in low income housing in a large town in China, says premier Li Keqiang. Keqiang did his masters thesis on urbanization and has studied this shift from his college days. Just as in Gandhi's India, Mao's China is the story of the villages, with 128,000 villages for 600 million people in Mr. Xi Jinping's anti-poverty drive. Hong Kong other issues have to be understood in the context of these concerns of China's leadership today- the sense that strong central leadership alone can keep the country together and bring a decent life to the people in the villages and in the countryside outside the cities.  Modernization of cities still set in the context of China's vast rural population and essential to its full uplift and progress. Xi has allocated $80 billion each year to bring roads, schools, medical facilities, and other amenities including electricity and modern heating. The idea now is to shift people back to the villages, find opportunities for jobs and livelihoods in farming, tourism with guesthouse facilities, and other occupations in the villages. The villages are being turned into attractive places to live one by one in this party drive and providing new enthusiasm and support for the party's efforts. India can learn from this experience in China. The western nations of the U.S. and Europe can no longer and will no longer undertake the wholesale shift of factories with loss of jobs to China or India to offer the prospect of bringing these countries to the kind of urbanization and overall prosperity of small nations like Japan and South Korea, which are a tiny fraction of the population of China and India+ Pakistan + Bangladesh. As a result China is changing strategy now with a return to some aspects of the informal economy in Chengdu with street peddlers and tiny retail, and return of migrants back to better built and improved villages in the countryside. A better life than in cities is possible this view says for people from these rural areas, if the rural areas are given modern facilities and construction and resources are allocated, job creation locally tackled. The villages can offer better air quality, better quality of life where villagers who earlier migrated to cities with ownership of land, when they are modernized with better roads and have better facilities for education, housing and healthcare, better amenities. The new approach is to strike a good balance for urbanization, by modernizing and investing in villages and small towns, so that cities can cope and overall life can be better than with mass migration and wholesale urbanization. It is also a balance that works well for the U.S. and Europe which can redirect manufacturing to their home regions as part of a better distributed and balanced supply chain than the one that was unwittingly built over the last three decades.    ...
Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The leaders of India and China, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping will meet at a 2 day summit in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, China, on April 27, 2018.  The meeting is significant because for the first time the 2 leaders will meet on a one on one basis for a significant part of the time without aides to get a better understanding of each other, and a get a sense of how to establish a good relationship between the 2 countries. Ma Jiali of the China Reform Forum, a think tank affiliated with the Communist Party's Central Party School says a better relationship would serve China's interests for regional calm, so that China can focus on internal issues of tackling poverty in the interior of China, tackle economic issues arising from a difficult trading relationship with the U.S. including the tariffs of the Trump administration.  China's leadership have not anticipated the decisions made by president Trump and the Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to take a strong stand on correcting an imbalance in trade that leads to about $1 billion in trade deficit each day for the U.S. with China. Previous administrations in the U.S. have not taken action. Also at issue in the U.S. China relationship is for the first time transfer of technology for "Made in China 2025." China's earlier advances were made with a free flow of technology from the U.S. and Europe.  The last time the two leaders met was in 2014. This time the issues of border relations in the Himalayas, and the relations with China in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean region, the growing relationship between Australia, U.S., India and Japan, are seen in a different light with the strong disagreements on trade relations with the U.S.  China sees a need for improving relations with India. Prime Minister Modi faces new elections in 2019 and the need to focus on infrastructure and development to win a second term in office for the ruling BJP Party.  A reduction in tensions serves the interest of both countries and leaders.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The new data security law that went into effect Sept 1, 2021, limits the amount of sensitive information China will share with foreign companies, and investors. All data related activities are subject to government oversight says this report in WSJ, including collection, storage, use and transmission. Companies in China now are reluctant to share information.  Because the law is ambiguous about what is sensitive information this makes companies more reluctant. The result is a China that is more opaque than before. It is driven by antagonism in the US over the effect on American workers of manufacturing and supply chains shifted to China. The response of the Chinese government is to turn the country inward, looking to self sufficiency, data security, and an environment that looks at foreigners with suspicion, says this report in WSJ. The pandemic has increased this view of foreigners in China, after China's experience with a deteriorating trade relationship with the US. Xi Jinping has not left the country since the pandemic started in January 2020. China has also seen an alarming drop in passengers going overseas or coming into China from 50 million in the first 8 months of 2019, to 1 million in the first 8 months of 2021, a drop of 49 million passengers, according to data from the Civil Aviation Administration. Government directives are to minimize foreign travel as a result of the pandemic. People in the US see the operations in China of companies such as Apple and now Tesla as a sign of how well the system of international cooperation is functioning without realizing that these companies never had the understanding of the history and culture of the country after two centuries of struggle against colonialism. When the situation takes a different turn as it has after Mr. Trump raised the issue of American workers and loss of manufacturing, and after the pandemic created unexpected distrust, there is very little these companies have to offer to keep the relationship between two of the world's population blocs, between North America and the closely related population of South America, with the people of China, a billion people on each side. This shows that the relationship cannot be left only to the business and private sector driven by profit and business interests, that all sections of the population in China and in the US need to be involved for a stable relationship with ongoing human and cultural contacts at all levels. ...

Why India avoids alliances

The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Economist article looks at India-China relations and the Wuhan Summit between prime minister Modi and president Xi Jinping. It sees India's reluctance to follow a containment strategy in an historical light from the period in which India followed a non-alignment policy in the early post independence period under prime minister Nehru. During the period of the Eisenhower administration with Secretary of State John Foster Dulles India adhered to a strict nonalignment policy avoiding choosing sides in the Cold War. As a result U.S. policy tilted towards Pakistan during the Eisenhower administration. A balance was restored under president Kennedy, with Adlai Stevenson a close friend of India.  The short Sino-Indian war of 1962 led to a situation in which the U.S. backed India and improvement of relations. A semblance of non-alignment in foreign relations continued under Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi. By 1990 with the opening of the Indian economy to foreign investment, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the integration of China into the global economy, a new period of good bilateral relations with the U.S. and Europe was maintained. In 2017 the potential for a conflict in Doklam, Bhutan revived fears from 1962 in India. In 2018 After the U.S. administration of Donald Trump and Trade Representative Lighthizer imposed trade tariffs on China and restrictions on export of advanced technologies China pursued a policy of conciliatory relations with India. China's relations also improved with Japan and South Korea as the U.S. policy was unanticipated and seen as a significant change that would seriously affect China's economy. India's response was to pursue a policy of good relations with China and the U.S., even as the economies of the U.S. and India were drawn closer in India's pursuit of modernization.  ...
Washington Post Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
International New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us