LyrArc Article Gist
France lags behind Germany and other countries in competitiveness. France's share of European exports decreased from 15.6% in 2000 to 12.5% in the first 5 months of 2011, according to Coe-Rexecode, an economics consultancy firm. Germany has used the last decade to lower social spending and state spending, bring wage restraint, and making industry more productive. France has not experienced a similiar process. Competitiveness and growth is needed for France to improve public finances. After the rise in borrowing costs to Italy France's premium over Germany to borrow for 10 years went up to 71 basis points on July 13, it is now at 62 points. France's trade deficit is rising and was 7 billion euros in April and May, according to Societe Generale.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Social Democrats suffered defeat and the lowest share of the vote in any election since 1949. THe SPD got only 23% of the vote down from 34% in the last election. The centre left parties in UK, France, Italy and Poland are also facing serious divisions between balancing social protections and business freedoms in a period of global competition. With its promarket reforms the SPD lost much of its traditional working class base.

LyrArc Article Gist
In a closely watched election Mr. Wilders of the far Right in Netherlands gains 20 seats, far behind centre right People's Party for Freedom and Democracy of prime minister Rutte who won 33 seats. The Dutch Green party which is strongly pro- Europe went from 4 seats to 14 seats, the Christian Democratic Appeal party gained 19 seats and the pro-European Democrats 66 party also gained 19 seats. In the 150 member parliament Rutte needs 76 seats to form a new coalition government, and he is likely to ally with these other parties to form a new government that supports strongly the European Union. This editorial in the NYT says the people of the Netherlands turned out in large numbers to support pro-European Union parties. Next the focus is on France and Marie Le Pen's challenge from the far Right. Cyber threats from Russia are seen as a way to discredit otherwise strong candidates, and the French government is taking this seriously. Chancellor Merkel said she "was very happy that a high turnout led to a very pro-European result," and president Hollande said this was "a clear victory against extremism."  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist says Scots should get fiscal autonomy, and manage their own affairs including setting minimum wage, and tax rates. It says England should not subsidize Scotland as it currently does, and this will lead to Scotland bearing additional cost of about 8 billion pounds. It reminds readers that only about 50% of Scottish voters voted for the Scottish National party in the 2015 general election, and once Scotland has to balance its own books voters would have a chance to rethink the level to which they want a welfare state. As in Quebec the nationalist party may not have the same voter support when it has to tackle the difficult tasks involved in self government. This also means Scots would not be voting on how to manage affairs in England, leading to a federation for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

LyrArc Article Gist
A group of 7 blind climbers and 4 sighted companions climb up to the top of Mount Kilimanjaro at 18800 feet in Tanzania. It took 9 hours facing high winds and freezing temperatures to climb the last 3000 feet.

The group was selected from hundreds of volunteers from Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya and went through 2 weeks of training.  This is a project of John Wilson of Britain's Sightsavers designed to "help create a new image of of blindness in Africa." Geoffrey Salisbury of the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind describes the difficult trek and conditions. Three pairs of worn boots of the hikers can be seen in the Ugandan National Museum. See pictures of the hikers and trek in the high altitude of Mount Kilimanjaro.

LyrArc Article Gist
XI Jinping tells China's National People's Congress that "western nations- including the US- have implemented all round containment, encirclement and suppression against us, bringing unprecedentedly severe challenges to development." Addressing the private sector Chamber of Commerce representatives which create significant number of jobs in China he said the Communist Party "has always regarded private enterprises and private entrepreneurs as our own people, and will always support them whenever they run into difficulties." Job creation in China is a challenge with high youth unemployment estimated at about 20%. The pandemic worsened the situation for state finances and for unemployment for migrants, the construction slowdown has added to this. The burden of trillions of dollars of local government debt increased during the pandemic with the central government lacking the resources to help, creating problems in the local economies.  This WSJ report says Xi's speech seeks to present his government's performance in the light of these challenges and future challenges as growth slows in China. The trading relationship with US-EU added to employment and income problems for China's economy and people, yet it had one weakness an over concentration in manufacturing in one country that European and US business placed in one country. The building of a  new supply chain that creates manufacturing in other countries to reduce this concentration, and the limits placed on access to western technologies by China to protect US-EU in competition, places new development challenges for China, which Xi alludes to. In the past China was able to use huge stimulus to tackle its debt by creating more growth that supported this debt creation. The pandemic may finally have reversed this as trillions of dollars of debt have built up, and construction of homes and infrastructure has reached a saturation point. This is the kind of situation that Japan entered in the 1990's after three decades of torrid growth and development rates. History is being repeated as China like Japan is entering a new phase of an aging society. In this sense the challenges China is facing are very different from that of Russia. Creating jobs is a perennial problem in India and China with their large populations and rising aspirations of people after centuries of underdevelopment, something that Europe including Russia does not face in anywhere to a similar degree. in this sense there is more in common between the EU and Russia even when they are in a war, than Russia and China, and China has more in common with India. The struggle in Europe as Cambridge historian Brendan Simms has pointed out in his History of Europe, is more about the balance of power which is the story of European history since the 1450's where no one country has been allowed to act with impunity in invading its neighbors and other countries formed a concerted group to prevent this. Be it France, Austria, Britain or Russia that acted seemingly with impunity. China has little to do with it or Europe's history. President Biden is right to say that the US only competes with China in the economic and business fields, and seeks to find common ground on climate change and food insecurity. The US has supported China throughout the twentieth century since the time of Woodrow Wilson in 1913, around the period when Tsinghua University was established with US help. The US helped China during the Japanese invasion and the Cold War period ended with renewed relations.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US sends aircraft carrier group of the US 7th fleet with the aircraft carrier USS Reagan and destroyers on a freedom of navigation mission through the South China Sea. What is a freedom of navigation mission and what is the US goal? "Our presence in the Pacific is to demonstrate our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific," says commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, Captain Fred Goldhammer. Seen on a map the Paracel Islands are far from China's coast. They lie on the waters further south in the South China Sea closer to the coast of Vietnam and between Vietnam and the Philippines. Till 1974 the Paracel Islands were part of Vietnam. In that year China took control of these islands after a war with Vietnam. The name Paracel is of Portuguese origin on maps in the 16th century. There are 130 islands or reefs with total area of about 3 square miles spread out over about 6000 square miles of ocean in the middle of the South China Sea near the coast of Vietnam. The French had  weather station there in 1932. After independence South Vietnam controlled the islands. In 1974 the islands were taken over by China from Vietnam. The result is that by taking over the islands China put itself in the position it is in Tibet. In Tibet it has put itself right across the Himalayas in a position that interferes with security on the border with India in the Himalayas that for centuries almost going back to Buddhist times 2500 years ago had very little and most of the time no Chinese presence. The passes in the Tibetan region are at heights over 15,000 feet that were mostly inaccessible except by yaks and other animals for transport for most of the 2500 year period. This is true also of the Paracel and other islands in the South China Sea as they are right in the middle of the seas of open navigation used by traders before the coming of the Europeans and for ocean going trade since 1500. Britain and the US have enjoyed free and open navigation in these oceans which connect past the Philippines into the Pacific to the Japanese islands and on to Hawaii and the US Pacific coast. What the US and European allies are saying is that the free and open navigation of the seas has always been the case for the last thousand years in the Pacific. The taking of the islands in 1974 by China from Vietnam now put it up against the US and European allies, and their Asian allies, as it interferes with navigation in the open seas essential for trade and travel between Asia and the Pacific. This is how the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the taking over of the Paracel Islands have put China into the position of interfering in the normally open and free areas in the Himalayas and the Pacific. This is where the Quad group shares a common interest in preserving what always existed in history-  a free and open Pacific and a free and open Himalayas. It brings together the US, Japan, India and Australia which stretch all the way from the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean uninterrupted all the way through Indonesia to Australia and Japan and the US. From the Mediterranean through Egypt into the Indian Ocean all the way to the Pacific and the US keeping free and open seas for trade and navigation. Or across the Cape of Good Hope into the Indian Ocean and the Pacific to the US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report on Danish wind energy company Orsted, looks at the journey of the largest developer of wind energy in the world from a company sending natural gas from North Sea to Europe to a joint developer with Denmark's Vestas of offshore wind farms. Last year Orsted, pronounced Ehrr-sted in Danish for the O and named after a Danish scientist, decided to invest $57 billion in offshore wind farms by 2027. It was not easy and the path required a bold vision and bold action to invest in wind energy for the long term even as debt piled up from losses in natural gas competing with coal, climate change committments were not yet strong, subsidies were required to make wind energy competitive, and debt was piling up. It would take a decade of hard work and technological innovation to produce wind energy that could outcompete coal and natural gas on cost without subsidies. The year is 2009 with the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The predecessor company to Orsted was losing money in natural gas with lower cost coal energy generation in Europe at the time. Yet the mood was changing governments were willing to invest in renewables. In 2012 a new CEO Paulsen did a review of 12 businesses of this Danish energy company and decided wind energy was the only one with long term prospects. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference created new awareness for the need to come up with a long term solution for energy that has no negative health effects and is renewable. That Conference set a goal of 20% for renewable energy by 2020 in the total mix for Europe up from 14%. Paulsen saw an opportunity in the crisis at the company then called Danish Oil and Natural Gas. The new company was called Orsted and the old divisions in fossil energy were sold to invest in wind farms offshore. The way Paulsen saw the situation was that the company had to take radical action whether it wanted to do so or not. By 2012 Danish pension funds were investing in large offshore wind farms of Orsted, taking a stake of as much as 50% in the Nysted wind farm. The Danish government which owned 80% of Orsted thought its projects were risky. Hard work with Vestas which builds the turbines in Denmark paid off in developing a huge new turbine that would bring costs down 65% comparing 2020 with 2012.  In 2018 the European Union was spending about 92 billion euros or $112 billion on energy subsidies including to wind farms. Britain also heavily subsidized offshore wind farms such as Hornsea 1 at about $198 a megawatt hour for 15 years double the electricity price in recent years. Windy conditions and shallow waters in the North Sea were favorable. Technology was being developed with Vestas which would reduce the cost each year. By 2016 Orsted was listed in Copenhagen. The remaining oil and gas business was then sold for $1 billion. The returns are less in wind than coal and natural gas- about 7-8% a year but the big thing is that there is certainty in this compared to coal and natural gas which are volatile and uncertain. The lesson companies are learning in renewables is that with solar and wind technology can. bring down costs, a lot of hard work and creative work lies ahead, that crisis can be turned into opportunity for companies that can be focussed enough to produce results. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Saudis are now prepared to increase oil production after weeks of US diplomacy in exchange for security guarantees against attacks by Yemeni rebels and Iran. Russian oil output has declined by about 1 million barrels a day since the start of the war says WSJ. Drops in production lead to a rise in oil prices more than making up for the decline in revenues for Russia. This makes oil sanctions a weak deterrent for Russia in its invasion of Ukraine unless Saudis and UAE step in with increased oil production to make the EU embargo on Russian oil work effectively to cut Russian oil revenues financing the Ukraine invasion. Europe has stepped up with its embargo on about 90% of Russian oil- all except pipeline supplies to Hungary and Czech Republic, Slovakia as an exception. This will reduce oil production in Russia as EU is the biggest importer of Russian oil, bigger after previous German chancellor Merkel's failure to see the risks in such dependence and increased imports. For the oil embargo to lead to sharp reduction in Russian oil revenues that reduces financing of the Ukraine invasion, and for the EU oil embargo to bring results the missing piece is Saudi action to increase production. This may now be in place as Mr. Biden visits Riyadh next month. Crown Prince Salman of Saudi Arabia has pushed Saudi Arabia to make changes to modernize the country's culture providing the US with a partner that is now different than the Saudi Arabia steeped in tradition and inward looking under previous rulers. Under president Obama Democrats favored Iran and reduced security guarantees that were set up since president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met the Saudi King in 1944 aboard an American ship during the war. The turn of events with Russian invasion of Ukraine with Chinese support have created risks of a China invasion of Taiwan with aggressive action of China. President Biden has made this clear and stated straightforwardly the American position on Ukraine- Russia winning by invading a neighboring country sets the precedent for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This is why the US remains resolute with its European partners in seeing to it that Ukraine remains as Biden said in the NYT  "independent, sovereign and able to deter invasion and defend itself." For Europe it is about defending its neighborhood from the Baltic Sea to Bulgaria in the Balkans with American support. For the US it is about keeping its leadership presence in Asia in an alliance with Japan, India, Australia and most of South East Asia including Indonesia, Bangladesh with a population of close to 3 billion people. China which was supported by the US throughout the period of colonial dominance since the 18th century preventing its breakup and foreign rule as happened in India, and a major recipient of American aid and investment in the 20th century is now where Japan stood in the two decade period 1925 -1945 with its aggressive expansion under Japanese imperialist rule. In this sense the world is moving back to the days of the Free World's struggle in the days after the Iron Curtain fell over Europe with Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe. Saudis, UAE, and Turkey as part of NATO, are also moving back to the positions they had over a long period for centuries from 1800. Saudi Arabia and UAE came into prominence after discovery of oil and were backwaters to Egypt and Turkey which were supported by Britain to keep Russia from advancing in Asia and Europe during that period. India under the British Empire is now in the Indo-Pacific Framework with Japan which was inward looking and under European influence for most of the last 200 years.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The issues related to India's borders all hinge on Tibet says the Council on Foreign Relations. Sardar Patel and Nehru had differences of their own on whether the McMahon Line set by the British in a treaty with Tibet as an independent country was the border with Tibet or the border with China.  Between 1913 and 1950 Tibet was an independent country, with an Indian High commissioner in Lhasa between 1947 and 1950. After the Cold War set in and China and the Soviet Union fought to defend the rights of colonial peoples the U.S. and Britain did not recognize Tibet as a part of China. Nehru simply remained with the British status quo of the McMahon line as the Indian border with Tibet, without any clear acceptance  of the invasion of Tibet in 1950 by China, yet accepting the new status quo after the invasion, differing from Sardar Patel on the issue. This is why no clear picture emerges from looking at the official positions of the two countries, and a better understanding can be gained by looking at the border issue from the Council of Foreign Relations in the U.S.   Essentially the border issue is not beneficial for what it gives back to each of the two countries. China sees itself rejecting the period of its weakness during the Japanese invasion so that it reasserts its position to borders that stretch outside where Chinese people live. India sees itself rejecting the weakness during the British period and the early post British period during which India was occupied with the issues relating to partition of British India and the partition of Kashmir. This is why the Council on Foreign Relations can provide a better understanding from and independent perspective.  Both sides have little to gain. China by being at the Tibetan border puts itself in a position where it has little to gain being on the border with a large rapidly industrializing country with a population of over 1 billion.  At over 4000 metres or 20,000 feet the territory and landscape is not one that humans can adapt too in any way, except for a few military personnel doing their term of duty of 6-12 months from India or China. China is even further away from the border as it is a remote border from Beijing, Shanghai, Canton or Chengdu, thousands of kilometres when it is just 8 hours from Srinagar by highway to Leh, Ladakh, and the Nepalese border very close to the Bihar state in India. The very distance suggests remoteness, with customs traditions in the region very different from that in China, suggesting very little connection between Beijing near Mongolia and Tibet or Ladakh very close to India by road or rail. To get some idea how close the Tibet border is to India consider that Rasuwagadhi Fort border point between Nepal and Tibet is only 127 miles by road from Kathmandu. The distance by rail from the Indian border in Bihar to the Nepalese border is only 34 kilometres with a new upgraded rail connection. Being this close India is likely to upgrade infrastructure throughout the northeast region as it upgrades infrastructure, roads and bridges and rail throughout India at an accelerated pace for economic development.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Modi's visit to the US comes at a time when US president Biden is eager to show the US is fully engaged in the Indo-Pacific region with its allies in the Quad 4 countries- Australia, Japan and India. The recently announced Aukus defense agreement brought together 2 members of the Quad 4 the US and Australia, plus the UK. Aukus is designed to strengthen US presence as a naval power in the Indo-Pacific region in the Indian and Pacific oceans around India, Southeast Asia, China, and across the Pacific. After a futile engagement in Afghanistan the US is reorganizing its presence where it is strongest- in the oceans. In a way that Britain once did in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the US is dominant in the high seas. US naval power far exceeds that of all navies in the world combined. This is meant to reassure India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia and Japan, which together have close to twice the population of China, that the US has not diminished its presence in any way from that it had in the 1950's following the Second World War. With this new framework India enters discussions that will focus on health to deal with the pandemic and its after effects, with security and rule of law in the Indo-Pacific region, with trade, technology, new supply chain manufacturing structure in which India plays a key role. With this new focus and clearing past engagements made by other US  presidents, including some mistaken policies, the US emerges as a new force in the Indian ocean, China seas and Pacific ocean region.  On September 23 Modi meets Tim Cook for what could be new supply chain arrangements that Apple could be preparing as it and other US corporations build new supply chain structures to rebuild US manufacturing technologies capabilities that were lost to China over the period 2000-2020. During that period manufacturing technology knowhow was shifted out of the US in a mistaken policy that assumed design and invention were sufficient for the US to keep. The first step in this direction was a change of CEO's at Intel Corp with US president Biden pushing for new US technology reclaiming policy. Following that the new CEO at Intel Corp, Patrick Gelsinger, completely reassessed Intel's mistaken policies of ceding its entire semiconductor manufacturing technologies capabilities to Taiwan and China. Intel made a U turn and is now investing all or most of $50 billion in the US instead of in China or Taiwan.  On September 24 Modi meets Mr Biden to discuss trade, investment, defense, and security. On the same day the leaders of Japan, Australia, Mr. Suga and Mr. Morrison join Modi and Biden for the Quad 4 talks. Indian infrastructure capabilities and Indian economic growth would be key goals to strengthen India along its land borders along Tibet occupied region and Himalayas as part of the overall effort to build a new US and allied presence in Asia.  On September 21 Modi attends a Covid Summit that will look at the way forward in the aftermath of the pandemic and ways to vaccinate the remaining unvaccinated population in the world, as well as vaccination passports.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The close alliance between the CDU and the CSU in Bavaria appears to be unraveling. The immigrants at German borders have dwindled down a trickle, about 11,000 immigrants today compared to the wave of immigrants entering Germany in 2015. The CSU's prime minister in Bavaria Mr. Soder and the Federal Interior minister from the CSU Mr. Seehofer, blame the conflict between the two parties on the 2015 decision by Merkel on immigration. The German ARD broadcaster shows 62% of Germans favor stronger action on immigration. The pressure on the CSU comes from the gains by the anti-immigration party AfD in recent national elections. The CSU hopes that by shifting its own position on immigration to a standoff with the CDU and Merkel's position it can hold off the Afd in the elections in Bavaria in October 2018. The pressure on Merkel comes from members in the CDU and from the SPD leadership, which have accomodated some of the criticism of open immigration to reduce the immigrants at German borders, yet now see the need to meet any challenges to Merkel's authority. This is why the head of the SPD, Ms. Nahles called Mr. Soder's push for a confrontation on the immigration issue as acting "like a bonzai Trump." The CDU party leaders in Bavaria call for a "axis of the willing" joining leaders of the governments in Austria and Hungary. and the newly elected government in Italy to impose immediate controls on immigration at the borders. Merkel says she is open to different points of view within the CDU-CSU alliance, but action should be based on keeping the European Union together, and be taken after EU meetings in Brussels. Will this result in a fall of the government? Angela Merkel has adapted to the changing situation on immigration leading to the small trickle in new immigrants at German borders today. Even if the AfD anti immigration party joins the CSU the percentage of the vote for the AfD is mainly in the eastern part of Germany, and CSU in Bavaria, with 12.6% voting AfD in 2017 elections, and about 7% voting CSU mainly in Bavaria. This compares with the Left at 8.9%, Greens at 9.2%, and SPD at 20.5% for a combined 38.6% of the vote that favor Merkel's new coalition policies. This combined with the 25% of the vote gained by Merkel's CSU party gives it about 64% of the vote and about 489 seats in the 709 seat German parliament. A test of Merkel's authority is not likely to be sustained. By making this a pro-European position Merkel has shifted the issue from one of immigration which is now minimal and one on which Merkel has adapted her policies to a stand on Germany as leader with France of the European Union. At this particularly sensitive time when Germany and France are negotiating with the U.S. on trade and Britain on Brexit, German public opinion is likely to consider the impact of new elections and more uncertainty as not good for Germany. With the SPD, Left, Greens and CSU having 64% of the vote, and the anti immigrant parties CSU, AFD about 20% concentrated in the less economically developed eastern part and in Bavaria, the chances that Merkel's position would be weakened or her authority challenged is very unlikely.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Washington Post uses Frequently Asked Questions to give readers an understanding of the India China border conflict. The roots of the conflict lie in  China's claim to Tibet based on Chinese troops going to aid Tibet in 1792. This based on the Qing dynasty sending troops to aid Tibet after a Nepalese invasion of Tibet. Tibet and Nepal are neighboring countries in the Himalayan mountains,  Nepal has a border with Indian state of Bihar, and Tibet is north and northeast of Nepal, all in close proximity of several hundred kilometres from India but four thousand kilometres from Beijing near Korea and Japan. The Sino Nepalese war, called the Gurkha war in Chinese, was the result of a dispute between Nepal and Tibet over debased silver coinage supplied by Nepal to Tibet and Tibet's demand for compensation, as well as a dispute about salt supplied by Tibet to Nepal. Chinese forces were repelled by  the Nepalese Gorkhas, and eventually the conflict was settled with a peace treaty between Nepal and Tibet with Chinese mediation for the Tibetan side. When the British East India company intervened in the region in 1815 China was not present, and when Nepal and Tibet had another war in 1855 China was not present.  For the first half of the twentieth century Tibet printed its own stamps and was an independent country negotiating treaties with Britain. China's brief intervention in 1792 is the fact cited by China for its claim to Tibet. Crossing the high mountains to get to Tibet from China's western frontier was for most of history and during this 1792 intervention, a journey that took 3 or 4 months with yaks and mules. Because of the sheer logistics China was present only in a symbolic way in Tibet or Nepal, both regions far more autonomous and remote from China than say a Finland near Russia. It takes 5 hours to go from Helsinki to St Petersburg in Russia. This is about the distance between the border with Nepal in Bihar, India, to Tibetan border with Nepal. By contrast it takes four thousand kilometres journey from Beijing to Tibet and over steep mountain ranges and rivers which would took months of journey with mules and yaks all the way into the twentieth century.  Finland was part of Sweden till 1809 when it became part of Russian Empire, till 1917 when it became an independent country. The Soviet Union invaded Finland one more time before World War II and was repelled, but this is attributed to Russian fears that Finland could be used as a base for an invasion of Russia. Tibet was a buffer between the British Empire and China. Chinese Nationalists party and Communist party thinking may have changed after Japan's invasion of China in the thirties, making extending China's western frontiers to the borders of India as part of the new nationalist idea.  How else can one see Beijing in East Asia throughout its history suddenly at the border with India after its takeover of Tibet in 1950. The period in 1950 when India was just coming out of the partition and tackling millions of refugees on the border with newly created Pakistan.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sharp swings in attitudes have left America divided in terms of education. A comparable situation exists also in the UK as areas with more education access have separated from areas with less access to higher education. As the WSJ analysis points out at one time social cohesion prevailed in the postwar years till 1970 with educational attainment playing a small part leaving social cohesion intact. Even in the period 1970-1990 when there was a shift for college educated women to prefer Democratic Party and white men without a college degree to prefer Republicans this was not a significant gap. The Democratic Party appealed to less educated union voters in manufacturing industries as well as it did with college educated men and women. This gradually fractured during the Clinton and Obama administrations as the Democratic Party  moved closer to the higher educated and drawing more support from new tech industries than manufacturing. Nowhere is this more evident  than in the way college educated women have shifted to the Democratic Party and white men without a college degree have moved to the Republican Party. Swings of different types are normal in elections and politics. But swings purely based on education are rare in American politics and not healthy for the democratic system of government. As the analysis from WSJ/NBC News shows college educated women favor Democratic Party by 33 percent margin. And the swing is even deeper for white men without a college educated degree who favor Republican by a 42% margin. This is the situation before the 2018 U.S. Congressional elections. The combined group of college educated women and white men without a college degree make up 40% of the U.S. voting public. This makes each group unreachable for the other party, a situation unimaginable for many of America's leaders if they would be living today- from presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. White voters make up 70% of the electorate, and a situation where they would be unreachable for Democrats would be unthinkable or unimaginable for Truman, John Kennedy. And Eisenhower would also find it unimaginable that he would have to writeoff college educated women in his campaign.  By returning the Labour Party to its roots Britain is combatting this tendency for fracturing of social cohesion. In the way the UK's Blair administration moved away from Labour party's roots in manufacturing and the trade unions, the Democratic administrations under Clinton and Obama  moved away from manufacturing industries and the trade unions.   Most of the postwar leaders of the stature of Eisenhower and Kennedy would have seen such a situation as a significant failure in political leadership. ...