LyrArc Article Gist
After UAE leaves OPEC and US increases oil production (Venezuela+), China reducing imports keeps oil prices low and keeps Hormuz closure from affecting oil prices. This has major impact on all countries that are affected by the shortage of oil as this puts more oil into the market (about 4 million barrels a day that China imported through Hormuz), and by lowering oil prices helps China as it pays less for oil it imports from other sources outside Hormuz. It also helps poor countries such as India and China, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, rest of Asia, Africa and Latin America. By keeping oil prices low China also help climate change action by accelerating its renewable energy production. India and EU, US, also increase renewable energy production as a consequence of Hormuz, leading to strong climate change action. These are some of the positive side of Hormuz as the world with China leading the way learns that it is best to do without Hormuz. Though China does not say this publicly China does not want to see more nuclear weapons capable countries in volatile regions. This is true also of India, Indonesia, and EU. China  (And India) also consider it a high priority for its economy to maintain trade relations with the US. This is rarely stated in the Media today. What this means is that oil prices can be kept low as the largest nations together EU, US, China, India, Japan join together to keep oil prices low not repeating the situation during an earlier naval blockade April 13 to June 18 2026 of prices going to $125 a barrel. China has some of the largest coal reserves and oil strategic reserves in the world which make it possible for China to do this. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Only the week before Tuesday April 7 Pakistan Foreign Minister Dhar failed to convince China to get involved. April 7th Tuesday in the US 1.30 pm US time, 8 pm Islamabad Pakistan time, China finally decided to jump in to convince Iran to accept peace talks in Islamabad. It is quite possible that behind the scenes the US was talking with China which has a 25 Year Comprehensive Agreement with Iran signed in 2021 that is the main support for the Iranian economy. China acted to reassure Iran that talks in Islamabad would proceed smoothly, and persuade Iran to accept ceasefire and talks. Why? Knowing that brinksmanship by US and Iran would lead to unforeseen consequences and hurt China's economy with oil price volatility as well as  hurt the US economy, and hurt the prospects for the planned May14-15 visit by DJT to Beijing to improve economic and political ties, both China and the US wanted to do everything to prevent this from happening. The result a hastily arranged peace talks in Islamabad so that by 4 am Islamabad time on Wednesday or 6.30 pm US time on Tuesday evening the ceasefire had already been agree to by US and Iran, according to this report in The Guardian from Pakistan. The crux of the matter was that it would affect US and China's economy with oil volatility, and US-China relations by jeopardizing May 14-15 revised date for DJT visit to Beijing. This good sense prevailed over all the war rhetoric and the media information and disinformation. It is confusing because of all the misinformation, but becomes clear when one understands this in the context provided in this report from Pakistan by the Guardian. Why Pakistan? For Pakistan the missile attack the day before of a Saudi petrochemical complex by Iran was drawing Saudis into the war and Pakistan has signed a defense agreement with Saudi Arabia that requires Pakistan to support Saudi Arabia if it gets into a war. For Pakistan it was a fragile situation that would be a catastrophe with unforeseen consequences on its economy. Already schools are closed for 1 month in Pakistan and oil is in short supply, paying for it at $115 or $125 a barrel would put severe strain on Pakistan. Who wins, who loses is being told in the media- much less on the good sense that prevailed  the efforts and the predicament of the large powers China, India, the US, and Germany, European Union, the poorer countries, all hurt economically, caught in a war they do not want, do not need. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Full text of the Memorandum of Understanding  agreement reached between the US and Iran as presented by the NYT with NYT's comments on paragraphs. NYT takes a skeptical view of the Memorandum while at the same time opposing the war, not making exactly clear what it is standing for in a set of complex negotiations. Much of the media does not reflect the situation in the rest of the world especially in the poor countries, the fact that China, India, Russia, US, almost the entire Middle East, Africa and Latin America support denuclearization in the Middle East- the US simply taking on the burden of achieving this and having to take up a naval blockade for this purpose. As it affects China's vital interests and agreement was reached with China and Russia, it has the support of the EU and India, and the rest of the world, including the Arab world and Egypt, the elected government of Iran if not the military (the RGC). This is not mentioned in the Comments made by NYT. Pakistan was the mediator and it is clear that the countries that are bearing the brunt of this crisis are countries such as Egypt, Turkey, India and Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, the poorer countries and billions of people including also China's less developed regions, where oil prices and lack of supplies have hit the people hardest. In this sense there is a collective responsibility for ensuring it works for every major country in the world, that has never happened before, and will be the strongest reason for this agreement being the right step at the right time. For all of these countries the future of East Asia and of West Asia is at stake, of EU and the US, of North Africa and the Arab world, and these countries will push for a new direction for the entire West Asian region as well as its relations with East Asia. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
More than a retreat it gives the US, EU, India, China and the nations in Asia and Africa, Latin America most affected by higher oil prices and lower economic growth a time to pause and rethink dependence on the Gulf region for oil supplies. It is not mentioned in the media yet there has to be a link between the US president's visit to Beijing and Beijing's support for a normalized US China relationship, and offering its support for a settlement. This gives EU, China, India, Japan, and poorer nations in Africa, Asia, such as Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Brazil, some relief from reduced access to oil supplies. US is also planning a supply from Venezuela to India to take pressure off oil supplies in Asia by offering Venezuela as an alternative source. China is in many ways joining the US to bring about a denuclearized Middle East, doing it in a quieter way with Iranian public opinion making a shift to put its economic development ahead of missile development. As the two sides have different interpretations and it is still only a Memorandum of Understanding it is not a situation where the US is sending billions of dollars to support the military in Iran as Obama had done. Attention will shift to the Iranian economy over the next 12 months.  US conveys that it has nothing to gain from wrecking the Iranian economy or nation as the Iranian people if avote were held today would clearly choose putting the economy first by huge margins considering the widespread protests in Iran in 2025 that started this crisis. The US naval blockade was effective and is always an option, with US and partners having greater experience in the situation presented by the narrow straits in Hormuz. Arab partners also acted with restraint and is itself an opportunity for Iran to change direction. China's making cuts of 3 million barrels a day in oil supplies from Hormuz is itself along with acceleration of renewable energy in both China and India is one of the dividends of this crisi. Another is the gradual shift to alternative supplies from other regions of the world so that Hromuz region can no longer dictate oil prices in the world. Accelerating Venezuelan and UAE, US, other oil and gas  supply growth will also put increase supply and renewables reduce  demand growth as a result of the crisis to break the hold on oil prices of the oil cartels of Qatar, and Saudis. As a transition fuel oil can be be kept below $50 a barrel, not at prices at the whims of the princes in the Middle East at the expense of the people of the Arab world from Egypt the most populous and Tunisia, Morocco, to the Muslim nations such as Turkey and Pakistan,Iran itself which bore the brunt of this Hormuz crisis. The US has several priorities including in its relations with oil cartels dominated Mexico that  brings drugs and people across US borders, with other nations in EU and Asia that have benefitted through deindustrialization in the US leaving it poorer across a vast part of America. Advancing objectives in one area such as denuclearization does not mean not addressing priorities at home and in relations with other regions. China shares American interest in denuclearization of the Middle East this should now be put to the test. It is an entirely different situation in 2026 than what weak leaders from Bush to Obama allowed to happen by  wars in the Middle East - the US naval blockades of 2025/2026 are entirely different in cost in terms of men and dollar investment and used to convey America's determination not to waste vital resources of the Nation. The best policy is not to pursue policy for absolute wins but make intelligent choices and in some situations pause to reflect on the best course of action and other ways to reach goals. By getting China and the US as world powers for denuclearization even though this is not vocally said, both gain and both will come up with solutions. ...

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.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Agreement was reached for the civilian nuclear deal between India and the U.S. in all night talks, just as President Bush landed in New Delhi. Bush is changing the whole dynamic of India/Pakistan and U.S. relations in a manner comparable to Nixon's visit to China and handshake with Mao. It will never be the same. Divide and rule policies inherited from the British colonization period which pitted India and Pakistan in relation to western interests is put into the dustbin of history. A new period in the relations of the western nations with Asia is beginning, Japan in the Meiji period, China with its opening after the Nixon visit, and India now after the Bush visit. See the speech to the Asia Society by Bush. In this sense Bush and Rice are making huge farreaching changes coinciding with the changes they see in Asia, in a way not even fully understood by themselves and much less by the American press and even less by the American public.

LyrArc Article Gist
India agrees to an immediate ceasefire after a call from Pakistan's head of military operations for a ceasefire. The conflict started with attack on tourism that was reviving the Kashmir economy after three decades through a terrorist attack killing 26 tourists in Phalgam, Kashmir on  April 22, 2025 in the mountains near the Pir Panjal range. 24 million tourists visited Kashmir in 2024. Indian response was swift on May 7 early morning hours attacking 18 terrorist camps inside Pakistan occupied Kashmir and inside Pakistan. India called it a act of self-defense to Pakistan sponsored state terrorism going back to 1947. What is different in this brief 4 day war is that India made it economic with efforts at IMF to make terrorism an issue for loans to Pakistan, and ending the Indus Waters Treaty on water sharing. Pakistan economy is struggling with no debt relief from China, making it turn to the IMF, a politically split population with Opposition leader Imran Khan in jail, and continued domination by the military over civilian govenrment. On May 9 drone attacks were launched from Pakistan using Turkish made drones in large numbers on cities and towns in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab. Blackouts were placed in India by May 8 in all cities in the north and in Pakistan. India responded with its own drones and missile attacks on three military airbases as the war broadened to military targets on May 10. US mediated a ceasefire through Saudis and Turkey. Earlier Saudis and Iran were in New Delhi with whom India has good relations to get a ceasefire. Mr. Trump's efforts behind the scenes secured an agreement. VP Vance had cut short an Indian trip in Jaipur on April 22. India and the US are allies in the Indo-Pacific, and India and Russia have decades of friendly relations. China now uses Pakistan as a proxy state, but does not provide the economic aid it needs, for which it has turned to the IMF.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
One needs to look at India -US relations over the long span 1900-2025  looking only at the long haul. In taking a look at the relationship in this way Gandhi's letter to FDR during the Quit India Movement from Wardha July 1 1941, and FDR's reply (with Churchill and FDR fighting Japan in 1941) ranks as memorable and long lasting, far likely to prevail as an idea that holds the imagination of it's peoples than the pulls and shifts of different administrations. Even in the  depth of the war against the Nazis in Europe, and the Imperial Japanese Army rampaging through China, Gandhi felt comfortable looking to America as a friend. Churchill was the antagonist at the time unwilling to let the British Empire fade, and FDR was a friend through the Second World War. Gandhi opens his letter to FDR saying "Dear Friend. I twice missed coming to your great country... I have profited greatly from the writings of Thoreau and Emerson..." And FDR writing back "I shall hope that our common interest in democracy and righteousness will enable your countrymen and mine to make common cause..." For India the powerful words of Cordell Hull his Secretary of State, were offered by FDR with unmistakable goals of freedom and democratic process for India. Eisenhower and Dulles support for Pakistan in the 1950's into 1970's, a period of China and India in the 1970's and 1990's shifting away from old economic arrangements, till India US under Biden 2020 where India as with FDR  was "the closest in the world" to the US, following China's shift to Communist rule and now competition with the US. Taking this long perspective India and the relationship with America will be determined by the 1.8 billion people of the two countries (with Indonesia 2.1 billion people), and the potential for this is vast and only growing by the year. There is a natural affinity and feeling that is only now coming into its own because of a shared responsibility, and a shared understanding, as parts of the former British Empire, separated in 1783 and 1947. And the mutual desire to build the modern world on the terms left by advances of science and technology combined with the ancient civilization of the Bible, Buddhism and the Upanishads. In this sense modern India is made with America and does not exist separate from America, and modern America forward is made with India and does not exist separate from India. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bhutan is a small mountain kingdom in north eastern India, bordering Tibet. Historically close ties with Tibet continued after China's takeover of Tibet following the coming to power of China's Communist Party in 1949. This led to a friendship treaty with India in 1949. A narrow piece of terrritory with 34 square kilometres is part of the dispute between China and India. India opposed the move to build Chinese roads in the area leading to a standoff that is now over 50 days. This territory is significant because it connects India's central plains to the northeastern states. Bhutan opposes the Chinese road work but tries to maintain friendly relations with China. The close relationship between India and Bhutan is part of the situation that emerged after China's takeover of Tibet. The Royal Bhutan Army's salaries are paid by India, road construction is done by India, and subsidies for food and kerosene were provided by India. A parliamentary democracy with a monarch was established in Bhutan under king Jigme Wangchuk, and elections were held in 2008, 2013. This has led to more openness towards China, leading to concern in India.  Bhutan is a popular destination for Chinese tourists who pay $250 for a visa. Indians do not need a visa. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In an effort to normalize trade relations Pakistan's government plans to move forward with a step by step approach that will end the restrictions on Indian imports by Jan 1, 2013. The first step is ending a system that allows a list of 2000 import items from India and replacing it with a list of 600 items from India that are banned, allowing the flow of all other goods. This negative list will be eliminated by the end of 2012 leaving in place restrictions on sensitive defense items and some staple goods. Ashfaque Khan, dean of Pakistan's National University of Sciences and Technology Business School advises the government on trade issues. The trade between India and Pakistan stands at $2.7 billion for the year ending March 2011. This is much smaller than the $60 billion in trade between India and China which is growing. The trade between India and Pakistan is likely to grow significantly in the next ten years as trade barriers are removed and normal trade is established.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Russian position for a ceasefire in Ukraine and peace talks is set forth by president Putin. "Our principled position is that state of Ukraine must be neutral, non aligned and free of nuclear weapons." Putin wants Ukraine to give up Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, Russian speaking regions in the east of Ukraine. Capitals of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions and some of the territory is controlled by Ukraine today. It means that Russia could accept a ceasefire under the present lines of control. It also means Ukraine would not be part of NATO, though it could be part of the European Union, as a peace settlement. All western sanctions on Russia would have to be lifted. Throughout the decade of this war Russia has maintained close connections to the Russian speaking eastern part of Ukraine with historically close ties to Russia and as Ukraine public opinion shifted to the EU Russia began its efforts to bring these regions under its control even when German-Russian relations were better during Merkel years. Russia has the support of China and Brazil in its position. At some point if a settlement is reached one possibility is that the line of actual control or LAC would be put in place. It happened in the Korean War, when the demilitarized zone was setup and in other conflicts on the Indian border with China and Pakistan, in Cyprus between Greece and Turkey. For it to happen Russia will have to dispel fears in the EU and the US that Russia will continue the conflict at some later stage till all its objectives are achieved. This requires removing the perception that Putin is set on achieving all his objectives to reopen the war at some later stage. Mr. Putin hinted at this by saying "today we are making a concrete real peace proposal," and adding that Russia was not ''talking about freezing the conflict, but its final resolution." In this situation it is the western doubt about Putin's intentions that is another barrier to a settlement on European security, with continued destruction in Ukraine when the war has entered a stalemate where both sides have exhausted their resources and have little to gain by prolonging this conflict. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A rapid increase in the number of Russians with favorable views of the US going up past 30% as one sign of the effort to improve US Russia relations by Trump and Putin is seen in March 2025. A call by Trump to Putin will take place March 18, 2025 to start discussions on how to settle the Ukraine conflict including land, power plants and exchanges and getting to the root cause of the war- NATO expansion. Some solutions include NATO being disbanded in its current form as archaic as there is no Soviet Union, its original goal being stopping Soviets from setting pro- Soviet governments, setup in Czechoslovakia and attempts to do this in Greece and Turkey. Truman formed NATO for this purpose in 1949 after the Berlin Blockade by Soviets. WIth nuclear arsenals being replenished in Russia and China, India, Japan, small nuclear states such as North Korea, Pakistan, the situation is different today with responsible policies needed today on this issue which are impeded by the idea of NATO on the borders of Russia and the Eastern European and British view of Russia as the pre-eminent threat not shared by India, Brazil, China and the new administration of DJT in the US. A long period of peaceful coexistence and arms control developed in the late 1960's, 1970's and 1980's between the US, German Federal Republic and Soviet Union/ GDR Germany. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist cites a think tank that says about 600,000 young educated Kashmiri adults are jobless. Kashmiri religious and political leaders worry that their youngest followers might take up radical positions. The violent insurgency has so far subsided but is now replaced with stone pelting and hartals (strikes). The fear is that the influence of moderate leaders such as Mr Geelani, who is in his eighties, will be replaced with leaders who would reignite tensions and an insurgency. Dr Mushtaq Margoob, of the psychiatric hospital in Srinagar, talks about the throngs of patients with stress and anxiety, with the youngest the most damaged. He sees "a collective anger, a traumatized generation." A three man team, comprising 2 academics and a journalist, was sent by the central government to Kashmir to prepare a series of reports by talking to all sides in the conflict The team has proved ineffective as the members do not carry political weight to influence decisions. A Wahhabi organization, al Hadith is using Saudi funds to establish itself as a strong welfare, religious, and cultural force. The non-muslim minority in Kashmir sees al Hadith as bringing Saudi Islamization to a region long known for its Muslim's religious tolerance, building community centres, mosques, schools and clinics. Are there creative better ways to bring peace to Kashmir and redirect the resources India has to commit to the region, Pakistan has to commit to its border with India, and the U.S. has to commit to its ground war in Afghanistan. For now India is locked into a silence about Kashmir in international discussions, Pakistan is playing out its own "security objectives" in Afghanistan, and the U.S. is locked into its anti-terrorism objectives in Afghanistan. Only by connecting all these dots can peace and redirection of resources be achieved. The U.S., Pakistan and India, would come up with a creative solution only if each side finds itself pushed to the point where continued commitment of resources is no longer tenable because of economic crises, or the US and the Western alliance see the need to pull South Asia together to act as a balancing element in Asia in relation to China and Japan; and push for negotiations with an offer of stronger economic ties. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The nuclear trade deal with India and approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. If passed by Congresas in September the deal goes into effect. At the NSG, New Zealand, Austria and China were the holdouts and had to be persuaded by the United States. Under the deal India cannot conduct nuclear weapons tests and if it does its upto the USA to decide if it will continue to supply India with nuclear materials and technologies. India is running short of uranium and other nuclear materials it needs for its civilian andnuclear weapons programs since it was refused access by the NSG after earlier tests decades before. It also depends on how the US sees China and Pakistan in relation to India and its nuclear programs. One thing is certain India will push forward aggressively with new nuclear energy programs and setup its own nuclear energy reactors to provide its growing energy needs and to reduce existing shortages and also lower its oil bill. So in the next couple of years or the next decade the world will certainly see the peaceful development of nuclear energy and development of new technologies in the nuclear energy field as India becomes a key user and developer of nuclear energy technologies. At that point India may become a part of the fabric of peaceful nuclear energy development in the world as it meets asignificant part of its energy needs through nuclear reactors. It will be a welcome development as it will ease the burden on oil supplies that in the case of China became a key part of the upward pressure on oil prices as China relied mostly on oil and gas for energy needs. This is probably the thinking in the current Republican administration as it pushed hard for this nuclear deal to supply India....

LyrArc Article Gist
Defense Secretary Gates does not see Russia as the threat it was in the Cold War, first because Russia's conventional forces are a "shadow" of what they were during the Cold War, and Russia has adverse demographic trends that will diminish Russia's ability in conventional forces. He sees the Georgian war in the context of Russia's seeking to exorcize, as he puts it, past humiliations. And Gates sees opportunities in the relationship with Russia. Such things as Russia's willingness to work with the US on Afghanistan. Evidence of this is Russia supporting the renwal of the UN resolution on Afghanistan. Another indication is that Russia he says is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan, and has been supportive to provide alternative routes for Europeans to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan. These views come across in an interview on December 17, with Charlie Rose, a five time elected Congressman, for the PBS Charlie Rose show. They are also reflected in an article in Foreign Affairs journal's current issue. Gates was a CIA analyst and has some insightful observations. Gates told Charlie Rose that he does not see the Islamic radicals and violent Islamic extremists as a threat in the same way as the threat in the Cold War years. This threat is not as big as the threat to freedom during the Cold War. He says the failure in strategic communications was huge as agencies of the US government engaged in activities in other countries, like the Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency, were neglected starting in the in the 1990's. Communications in other countries of what the US represented and stands for was left to the Pentagon, a role the Pentagon was ill-suited for. He sees the Islamic terrorism as more of an ideological conflict. Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, in December, Gates pointed to these communications failures as a real challenge for the new administration. But he now sees a huge opportunity in this past failure, and ways of addressing it creatively, in addition to commiting resources and people to this effort. Walter Pincus wrote this article, and its part of the fineprint analysis effort at the Washington Post in which speeches, reports, and other documents are examined by people like Pincus, to catch the really important things, uncovering the fine print that really makes the headlines. Another aspect of this fineprint effort is that there are a huge number of reports, and speeches and documents that had a tone reminiscent of the Cold War during the Georgia war and yet they do not correctly reflect the real situation about Russia, as Gates sees it from his analysis of what is actually happening. Gates has used Foreign Affairs, the Dec 17 Charlie Rose Show on PBS in which he was interviewed, and the speech at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, to communicate his views and analysis. They are important to underline and emphasize precisely because they show that all that cold war hysteria reporting and speeches may be misleading and lead to improper conclusions and mistakes in policy, wasted effort, wasted resources, and lost lives. And just as the US strategic communications was starved of resources and effort, so also this necessary work to retrieve and give emphasis to the important things is neglected. One additional link to this is the speech, discussion, and QA session in Washington DC at the time of the G20 summit in which President Medvedev and the new administration's elder statesman and diplomat Marilyn Albright, former secretary of state, expressed their hopes and plans for a new era in Russian-American relations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ghannouchi of Tunisia's Ennahada Party puts forward ideas for a pathway that Islamists could follow to integrate into the political life of Middle Eastern countries- compromise, working together with non-Islamist parties for the common good, focussing on economic development, pursuing moderate Islamist ideas, bringing in those excluded from the political process thorough a new inclusiveness, and respecting the opposition. He sees the successful election in Tunisia in which Ennahada worked with the opposition parties to ensure a smooth transition, as a model for other countries and the Arab neighborhood. In 2014 another process of smooth transition after elections, and respect for the opposition, happened in Indonesia with the election of Jakarta governor Widodo to be the new president. This set another model of respect for democracy, fair elections, respect for the opposition, focus on economic development and inclusiveness, for Muslim countries in another part of the world. Pakistan is another Muslim country which is working to create a model in the presence of much violence from Pakistan Taliban, and interventions by the military in politics. Assistance from the U.S. helped Iraq make the transition under the Bush administration till it unraveled with the policies of the Obama administration. Libya had the potential to make the transition with continued western cooperation and support- a change in administrations in the U.S. and France resulted in policies not supportive of a stable transition. The whole process now needs to be fostered carefully by western liberal democracies. Here Ennahada's Ghannouchi tells the world about the lessons learned by Islamist parties themselves for pathways to embrace for more inclusive societies focussed on economic development and progress....

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ajami cites his own memories of Egypt's Gamal Abdul Nasser, who had a way with crowds and rhetoric in the Arab world, as giving him an insight into the way Barack Obama found his way into the American imagination as a popular leader in 2008. He points out that the coalition of black people who put their faith in him as one of their own, of white educated professionals who liked his cool image, of Hispanics who had hope for better immigration policies, and working class Americans who set aside reservations of elitism to give their support, was put together on the basis of hope and charisma and the uncanny ability of Obama to let himself be seen as all things to all people. Because of the way it was put together it was bound to come apart, particularly for a candidate without enough experience, says Ajami. The aloofness of the president, reliance on Congressional leaders Reid and Pelosi, and relying on a very small circle of advisors whose eyes were focussed on reelection, made this more so. He cites as one example, the controversial decision on Syria's chemical weapons made on a walk with chief of staff Dennis McDonough. Ajami gives a picture of how Obama may be seen from the outside, especially in the Arab and Muslim world- from Turkey and Egypt to Saudi Arabia- a sense of illusions. A European and particularly a German perspective also may have similiar sense of illusions about having gone for the ride and believing the image put out by image handlers. The lack of sensitivity to German sentiments about the tapping of chancellor Merkel's mobile phone- herself a former East German resident of the Soviet backed GDR- bringing this out. A similiar sense seems to have taken hold in Brazil, after Brazilian president Rousseff cancelled a trip because of lack of sensitivity to the tapping of her phone, as she is a survivor of brutal dictatorships in Brazil. This is ironically a full circle, as happens in these situations of euphoria encouraged by politicians inevitably followed by disillusionment, because Turkey, Germany and Brazil were some of the countries where enthusiasm for the new president was highest. More so because president Lula of Brazil, Merkel of Germany,and Erdogan of Turkey were leaders Obama seemed to relate to the most. This acts as a cautionary note for the future....