Pres. Obama's visit.

[chetak]

http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/medium- ... -advantage

Media’s ‘Pak obsession’ worked to India’s advantage?

Now that the Obamas have left India, two questions might usefully be asked about the progress of their visit.

The first relates to Obama’s speech in Parliament. Indian officials say they were surprised to hear Obama deliver a sort of endorsement of India’s right to a permanent seat in the Security Council. The President also took a slightly more India-pleasing position on Pakistan during his speech to Parliament than he had earlier in his visit. Moreover, the joint statement issued by India and America at the end of the Obama trip called for Pakistan to take action against the perpetrators of 26/11. This was a big deal in diplomatic terms. It was as though the US was endorsing India’s claim that Pakistan was not doing enough to bring the 26/11 terrorists to justice.

There is no doubt that Obama told us more of what we wanted to hear at the end of his visit than he had at the start. Was this pre-planned? Was he building up to a Big Bang during the Parliament speech while playing down expectations earlier?

Or was there an element of course correction?

Without the benefit of inside information, we cannot say anything with certainty. But it does seem possible that the US President and his party, recognising that the trip was not going well, decided that they did not want it to end in failure. Hence, the attempt to please India and to say the things we wanted to hear.

For anyone with any knowledge of American politics, the idea of course correction is a reasonable one. American politicians are enormously sensitive to public opinion. Their actions are guided by regular opinion-research, by an examination of the media and by consistent monitoring of the Internet. Unlike Indian politicians who tend to make up their minds on policy issues and are reluctant to change course mid-way, American politicians are much more willing to correct the course and to chart a more popular path through a troubled region.

It is not outlandish to imagine the Obama team looking at the response and deciding that the President needed to say something that sounded more substantive. After all, when Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, visited India, he brought the nuclear deal with him. This President had nothing as substantive to offer. Could it be that he decided that India would not be satisfied with a bit of Presidential dancing and required something meatier to regard the trip as a success?

If this was indeed the case, then the Big Bang with which Obama ended his trip makes perfect sense. While much is read into his statement about Pakistan becoming a safe haven for terrorists, you could argue that he was merely re-stating the US position that Al Qaeda and Taliban elements were taking refuge in Pakistan. Similarly, the statement on the Security Council sounded dramatic but offered sufficient wriggle room because of the vagueness of the time frame and the lack of specifics about UN reform. Anyway, the US has already made a similar commitment about a permanent seat to Japan.

But because these statements sounded more dramatic than they may actually turn out to be, Obama ended his trip in a blaze of glory.

If you accept that the answer to the first question about whether there was a course question is yes, then a second question needs to be asked.

Did the media have anything to do with the change of tone in Obama’s statements?

By the end of Obama’s first day in India, sections of the media had got increasingly belligerent. There were complaints that the President was behaving like a travelling salesman and that his real interest was in pleasing the folks back home by promising them more jobs and economic benefits. Obama was not doing enough for India, many people said. Unlike Bush, he had nothing concrete to offer. He was too frightened of antagonising Pakistan to even name the country.

On the second day, when he delivered a long and rambling answer to a school-girl’s question about Pakistan, portraying it as a victim of terror, more voices in the media had joined in the protests. The general feeling was that the Obamas had failed to connect with the Indian people.

It was only on the last day that Obama won over India when he finally expressed some concerns about terrorism emanating from Pakistan and threw in a reference to the Security Council seat, no matter how vague these statements may seem on close examination.

So, here’s my question: did the Indian media actually help our country get what it needed? Did our belligerence serve to push Obama in the right direction? Many wise men complained that the media were needlessly obsessed with Pakistan. But did that obsession actually work to India’s advantage? Did Obama’s advisors, looking at the failure of the media to be impressed by his statements, decide that they had to pump up the volume and add a few more welcome riffs?

I have no idea what the answers to these questions are. But you have to concede that it seems like a plausible scenario. A Presidential visit appears to be in trouble because of negative media commentary and so, the President finally changes course.

In that case, should we stop asking our media to always be responsible and restrained? With an image-conscious US President, the media can often be more effective tools of change than the work of well-meaning diplomats.
(19 votes, average: 3.11 out of 5)

Posted by Vir Sanghvi on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 6:42 pm

[RamaY]

^

Vir Sanghvi is trying to claim credit where none exists. He is trying to project as if Media works for Indian interests.

In general the fourth-estate is supposed to reflect public mood. In this case it did just that.

If Media is really obsessive about Paki-Terrorism; it should press Indian Govt to act. But it did nothing of that sort in past 2 years. Instead it continued to spread lies about yindoo-terrorism.

This Vir Sanghvi guys looks like a talented chameleon. He jumped from giving kashmir away (as if it is fathers property) to so-called change of heart articles (on ayodhya?) and now to this non-existent nationalist character in media.

[ramana]

You know if you hangout in Dilli corridors or outhouses(pai khanas) you develop this sense of being in the know and look at every little gesture or nuance or pause and spin it as big deal.

They used ot be called the Kremlin watchers and others as China hands(before 1971). All are BS.

Clear and simple Obama had to change the message midway due to the frosty reception in India to his non-words on TSP at the heart of the 26/11 terrorists attack. His speech that TSP suffers more from terrorism begs the question by whom?
Terror in TSP is a self inflicted abomination while terror in India is from TSP. If the durg addict injects himslef its TSP's probem. But when he does it to India wih US benign protection then it another problem. SOlution. More stimulus and QE3.

[svinayak]

So, here’s my question: did the Indian media actually help our country get what it needed? Did our belligerence serve to push Obama in the right direction? Many wise men complained that the media were needlessly obsessed with Pakistan. But did that obsession actually work to India’s advantage? Did Obama’s advisors, looking at the failure of the media to be impressed by his statements, decide that they had to pump up the volume and add a few more welcome riffs?

I have no idea what the answers to these questions are. But you have to concede that it seems like a plausible scenario. A Presidential visit appears to be in trouble because of negative media commentary and so, the President finally changes course.

Speech and talks are one thing for a one individual.
But does a large powerful nation changes its policy due to pressure from a handful of newspapers in another country.
Changing the US policy towards India will not be based on Indian public opinion or op eds in Indian news papers. It will be based on US national interest. There is no cost to US in keeping the current policy going forward.

[SwamyG]

Terror in TSP is a self inflicted abomination while terror in India is from TSP. If the durg addict injects himslef its TSP's probem. But when he does it to India wih US benign protection then it another problem. SOlution. More stimulus and QE3.

The hallmark of a well-liked guru is when she/he expands or contracts complex concepts into easily understandable concepts. The above analogy is one such action. Too good. A verbose document or post is useless if it is not useful to the reader. The number of brilliant people on this planet is in small numbers, bulk of us are all normal dudes and dudettes.

[SwamyG]

Next decade to be fantastic for GE in India: Jeff Immelt

Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO, GE, in an exclusive interview with CNBC-TV18’s Shereen Bhan, said the US president’s visit to India would be a game changer for both countries and that he saw it as a win-win situation on both sides, if they played their cards right.

[ramana]

SwamyG, I read elsewhere that Reliance bought from PRC in one deal almost the entire amount that GE hopes to do business in India in a year!

[CRamS]

Next decade to be fantastic for GE in India: Jeff Immelt

Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO, GE, in an exclusive interview with CNBC-TV18’s Shereen Bhan, said the US president’s visit to India would be a game changer for both countries and that he saw it as a win-win situation on both sides, if they played their cards right.

Guys, sometimes you get the gut feeling if someone is a used car salesman or genuine. I recently attended a Q&A session that Tom Friedman moderated with Jeff Immelt (just the 2 of them) on energy-related issues. Very smart guy. Even there Jeff Immelt said similar things about India, and he seemed more upbeat over India than China. As much a business man he is, he does seem to have genuine respect, and should I say a soft corner for India . Even his criticism was on the mark, but not with a mocking tone, for e.g., he said India needs massive infrastructire investment; one just needs to drive from Mumbai airport to your hotel to get a feel for the mess .

[VikramS]

y. Even there Jeff Immelt said similar things about India, and he seemed more upbeat over India than China. As much a business man he is, he does seem to have genuine respect, and should I say a soft corner for India

Immelt is one of the few CEOs who has gone public about the difficulty of doing business in China. CCP's take their technology and throw them out modus operandi is now sinking in to most US CEOs. They are being extra cautious about what they send there.

[SwamyG]

Tom Friedman ( I posted his article earlier) is another one of those guys; he now admits he was wrong when he wrote his book - World is Flat. He feels it is flatter. India should use the fears of USA and China and not succumb to any one of them. A 21st century non-alignment is called for now. S.E.Asian countries, if one goes by Western reports, are not exactly comfortable with the growing China.

[CRamS]

Tom Friedman ( I posted his article earlier) is another one of those guys; he now admits he was wrong when he wrote his book - World is Flat. He feels it is flatter.

Any links on his admission? That would be surprising to me.

[SwamyG]

When he admitted he was wrong, he does not mean in a negative manner ; he implies India is growing faster & the globe is connected more than originally he thought. He actually pats himself on the back. See from 9:40 and 10:20; of course the entire interview is "Tomish" too.

Here is a video link of the interview.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11281

[Gus]

Thomas Friedman is now too invested in the 'India and China are growing fast, we better focus on blah blah blah..instead of blah blah blah' thing. Everything he writes is pretty much the same thing..a bit boring nowadays.

[CRamS]

Thomas Friedman is now too invested in the 'India and China are growing fast, we better focus on blah blah blah..instead of blah blah blah' thing. Everything he writes is pretty much the same thing..a bit boring nowadays.

He sure does have his faults. But more ominous is if all this renewable enrgy stuff and global warming looses steam, he looses a lot of credibility, especially with the right wing mood in the country. The tea party Nazis look at renewable energy, and a govt energy policy promoting renewables etc as "big govt telling me which energy source I should adopt" . And coming from Obama, the Uber commandant Glenn Beck will declare that it is a Muslim conspiracy to attack what the founding fathers said about energy .

[krisna]

SwamyG, I read elsewhere that Reliance bought from PRC in one deal almost the entire amount that GE hopes to do business in India in a year!

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=2520

This is clearest in the deal, announced late last month, in which Reliance Power agreed to buy some $10 billion in clean-burning coal-fired generation capacity from Shanghai Electric Company. This overshadows the $2.5 billion deal GE signed during President Obama's trip to sell Reliance gas-fired generators. It's about equal to the total $10 billion in all product lines that GE hopes to sell in India in coming years.

[RamaY]

I am not sure where this belongs... so throwing it on Obama

What weaponry Pakistan got for $10B military aid from USA? Perhaps Indian should bargain at those price levels for military H/W from Unkil

[ShauryaT]

Posting in Full.

For Immediate Release November 8, 2010

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

TO THE JOINT SESSION OF THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT

Parliament House

New Delhi, India

5:40 P.M. IST

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Vice President, Madam Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and most of all, the people of India.

I thank you for the great honor of addressing the representatives of more than one billion Indians and the world's largest democracy. (Applause.) I bring the greetings and friendship of the world's oldest democracy --- the United States of America, including nearly three million proud and patriotic Indian-Americans. (Applause.)

Over the past three days, my wife Michelle and I have experienced the -- and dynamism of India and its people -- from the majesty of Humayun's Tomb to the advanced technologies that are empowering farmers and women who are the backbone of Indian society; from the Diwali celebrations with schoolchildren to the innovators who are fueling India's economic rise; from the university students who will chart India's future, to you ---leaders who helped to bring India to this moment of extraordinary promise.

At every stop, we have been welcomed with the hospitality for which Indians have always been known. So, to you and the people of India, on behalf of me, Michelle and the American people, please accept my deepest thanks. (Applause.) Bahoot dhanyavad. (Applause.)

Now, I am not the first American President to visit India. Nor will I be the last. But I am proud to visit India so early in my presidency. It's no coincidence that India is my first stop on a visit to Asia, or that this has been my longest visit to another country since becoming President. (Applause.) For in Asia and around the world, India is not simply emerging; India has emerged. (Applause.)

And it is my firm belief that the relationship between the United States and India --- bound by our shared interests and our shared values --- will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. This is the partnership I've come here to build. This is the vision that our nations can realize together.

My confidence in our shared future is grounded in my respect for India's treasured past --- a civilization that's been shaping the world for thousands of years. Indians unlocked the intricacies of the human body and the vastness of our universe. It's no exaggeration to say that our Information Age is rooted in Indian innovations --- including the number zero. (Applause.)

Of course, India not only opened our minds, she expanded our moral imaginations -- with religious texts that still summon the faithful to lives of dignity and discipline, with poets who imagined a future "where the mind is without fear and the head is held high" -- (applause) -- and with a man whose message of love and justice endures --- the father of your nation, Mahatma Gandhi. (Applause.)

For me and Michelle, this visit has, therefore, held special meaning. See, throughout my life, including my work as a young man on behalf of the urban poor, I've always found inspiration in the life of Gandhiji and his simple and profound lesson to be the change we seek in the world. (Applause.) And just as he summoned Indians to seek their destiny, he influenced champions of equality in my own country, including a young preacher named Martin Luther King. After making his pilgrimage to India a half-century ago, Dr. King called Gandhi's philosophy of non-violent resistance "the only logical and moral approach" in the struggle for justice and progress. (Applause.)

So we were honored to visit the residence where Gandhi and King both stayed --- Mani Bhavan. And we were humbled to pay our respects at Raj Ghat. And I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as President of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi and the message he shared and inspired with America and the world. (Applause.)

An ancient civilization of science and innovation; a fundamental faith in human progress -- this is the sturdy foundation upon which you have built ever since that stroke of midnight when the tricolor was raised over a free and independent India. (Applause.) And despite the skeptics who said this country was simply too poor, or too vast, or too diverse to succeed, you surmounted overwhelming odds and became a model to the world.

Instead of slipping into starvation, you launched a Green Revolution that fed millions. Instead of becoming dependent on commodities and exports, you invested in science and technology and in your greatest resource --- the Indian people. And the world sees the results, from the supercomputers you build to the Indian flag that you put on the moon.

Instead of resisting the global economy, you became one of its engines --- reforming the licensing raj and unleashing an economic marvel that has lifted tens of millions of people from poverty and created one of the world's largest middle classes.

Instead of succumbing to division, you have shown that the strength of India --- the very idea of India --- is its embrace of all colors, all castes, all creeds. (Applause.) It's the diversity represented in this chamber today. It's the richness of faiths celebrated by a visitor to my hometown of Chicago more than a century ago --- the renowned Swami Vivekananda. He said that, "holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character."

And instead of being lured by the false notion that progress must come at the expense of freedom, you built the institutions upon which true democracy depends --- free and fair elections, which enable citizens to choose their own leaders without recourse to arms -- (applause) -- an independent judiciary and the rule of law, which allows people to address their grievances; and a thriving free press and vibrant civil society which allows every voice to be heard. This year, as India marks 60 years with a strong and democratic constitution, the lesson is clear: India has succeeded, not in spite of democracy; India has succeeded because of democracy. (Applause.)

Now, just as India has changed, so, too, has the relationship between our two nations. In the decades after independence, India advanced its interests as a proud leader of the nonaligned movement. Yet, too often, the United States and India found ourselves on opposite sides of a North-`South divide, estranged by a long Cold War. Those days are over.

Here in India, two successive governments led by different parties have recognized that deeper partnership with America is both natural and necessary. And in the United States, both of my predecessors --- one a Democrat, one a Republican --- worked to bring us closer, leading to increased trade and a landmark civil nuclear agreement. (Applause.)

So since that time, people in both our countries have asked: What's next? How can we build on this progress and realize the full potential of our partnership? That's what I want to address today --- the future that the United States seeks in an interconnected world, and why I believe that India is indispensable to this vision; how we can forge a truly global partnership --- not just in one or two areas, but across many; not just for our mutual benefit, but for the benefit of the world.

Of course, only Indians can determine India's national interests and how to advance them on the world stage. But I stand before you today because I am convinced that the interests of the United States --- and the interests we share with India ---are best advanced in partnership. I believe that. (Applause.)

The United States seeks security --- the security of our country, our allies and partners. We seek prosperity --- a strong and growing economy in an open international economic system. We seek respect for universal values. And we seek a just and sustainable international order that promotes peace and security by meeting global challenges through stronger global cooperation.

Now, to advance these interests, I have committed the United States to comprehensive engagement with the world, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. And a central pillar of this engagement is forging deeper cooperation with 21st century centers of influence --- and that must necessarily include India.

Now, India is not the only emerging power in the world. But relationships between our countries is unique. For we are two strong democracies whose constitutions begin with the same revolutionary words --- the same revolutionary words -- "We the people." We are two great republics dedicated to the liberty and justice and equality of all people. And we are two free market economies where people have the freedom to pursue ideas and innovation that can change the world. And that's why I believe that India and America are indispensable partners in meeting the challenges of our time. (Applause.)

Since taking office, I've, therefore, made our relationship a priority. I was proud to welcome Prime Minister Singh for the first official state visit of my presidency. (Applause.) For the first time ever, our governments are working together across the whole range of common challenges that we face. Now, let me say it as clearly as I can: The United States not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it, and we have worked to help make it a reality.

Together with our partners, we have made the G20 the premier forum for international economic cooperation, bringing more voices to the table of global economic decision-making, and that has included India. We've increased the role of emerging economies like India at international financial institutions. We valued India's important role at Copenhagen, where, for the first time, all major economies committed to take action to confront climate change --- and to stand by those actions. We salute India's long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions. And we welcome India as it prepares to take its seat on the United Nations Security Council. (Applause.)

In short, with India assuming its rightful place in the world, we have an historic opportunity to make the relationship between our two countries a defining partnership of the century ahead. And I believe we can do so by working together in three important areas.

First, as global partners we can promote prosperity in both our countries. Together, we can create the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future. With my visit, we are now ready to begin implementing our civil nuclear agreement. This will help meet India's growing energy needs and create thousands of jobs in both of our countries. (Applause.)

We need to forge partnerships in high-tech sectors like defense and civil space. So we've removed Indian organizations from our so-called "entity list." And we'll work to remove -- and reform our controls on exports. Both of these steps will ensure that Indian companies seeking high-tech trade and technologies from America are treated the same as our very closest allies and partners. (Applause.)

We can pursue joint research and development to create green jobs; give India more access to cleaner, affordable energy; meet the commitments we made at Copenhagen; and show the possibilities of low-carbon growth.

And together, we can resist the protectionism that stifles growth and innovation. The United States remains --- and will continue to remain --- one of the most open economies in the world. And by opening markets and reducing barriers to foreign investment, India can realize its full economic potential as well. As G20 partners, we can make sure the global economic recovery is strong and is durable. And we can keep striving for a Doha Round that is ambitious and is balanced --- with the courage to make the compromises that are necessary so global trade works for all economies.

Together, we can strengthen agriculture. Cooperation between Indian and American researchers and scientists sparked the Green Revolution. Today, India is a leader in using technology to empower farmers, like those I met yesterday who get free updates on market and weather conditions on their cell phones. And the United States is a leader in agricultural productivity and research. Now, as farmers and rural areas face the effects of climate change and drought, we'll work together to spark a second, more sustainable Evergreen Revolution.

Together, we're improving Indian weather forecasting systems before the next monsoon season. We aim to help millions of Indian farmers -- farming households save water and increase productivity, improve food processing so crops don't spoil on the way to market, and enhance climate and crop forecasting to avoid losses that cripple communities and drive up food prices.

And as part of our food security initiative, we're going to share India's expertise with farmers in Africa. And this is an indication of India's rise --- that we can now export hard-earned expertise to countries that see India as a model for agricultural development. It's another powerful example of how American and Indian partnership can address an urgent global challenge.

Because the wealth of a nation also depends on the health of its people, we'll continue to support India's effort against diseases like tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, and as global partners, we'll work to improve global health by preventing the spread of pandemic flu. And because knowledge is the currency of the 21st century, we will increase exchanges between our students, our colleges and our universities, which are among the best in the world.

As we work to advance our shared prosperity, we can partner to address a second priority --- and that is our shared security. In Mumbai, I met with the courageous families and survivors of that barbaric attack. And here in Parliament, which was itself targeted because of the democracy it represents, we honor the memory of all those who have been taken from us, including American citizens on 26/11 and Indian citizens on 9/11.

This is the bond that we share. It's why we insist that nothing ever justifies the slaughter of innocent men, women and children. It's why we're working together, more closely than ever, to prevent terrorist attacks and to deepen our cooperation even further. And it's why, as strong and resilient societies, we refuse to live in fear. We will not sacrifice the values and rule of law that defines us, and we will never waver in the defense of our people.

America's fight against al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates is why we persevere in Afghanistan, where major development assistance from India has improved the lives of the Afghan people. We're making progress in our mission to break the Taliban's momentum and to train Afghan forces so they can take the lead for their security. And while I have made it clear that American forces will begin the transition to Afghan responsibility next summer, I've also made it clear that America's commitment to the Afghan people will endure. The United States will not abandon the people of Afghanistan --- or the region --- to violent extremists who threaten us all.

Our strategy to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates has to succeed on both sides of the border. And that's why we have worked with the Pakistani government to address the threat of terrorist networks in the border region. The Pakistani government increasingly recognizes that these networks are not just a threat outside of Pakistan --- they are a threat to the Pakistani people, as well. They've suffered greatly at the hands of violent extremists over the last several years.

And we'll continue to insist to Pakistan's leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks must be brought to justice. (Applause.) We must also recognize that all of us have an interest in both an Afghanistan and a Pakistan that is stable and prosperous and democratic --- and India has an interest in that, as well.

In pursuit of regional security, we will continue to welcome dialogue between India and Pakistan, even as we recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries.

More broadly, India and the United States can partner in Asia. Today, the United States is once again playing a leadership role in Asia --- strengthening old alliances; deepening relationships, as we are doing with China; and we're reengaging with regional organizations like ASEAN and joining the East Asia summit --- organizations in which India is also a partner. Like your neighbors in Southeast Asia, we want India not only to "look East," we want India to "engage East" --- because it will increase the security and prosperity of all our nations.

As two global leaders, the United States and India can partner for global security --- especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years. Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member. (Applause.)

Now, let me suggest that with increased power comes increased responsibility. The United Nations exists to fulfill its founding ideals of preserving peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. These are the responsibilities of all nations, but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century. And so we look forward to working with India --- and other nations that aspire to Security Council membership --- to ensure that the Security Council is effective; that resolutions are implemented, that sanctions are enforced; that we strengthen the international norms which recognize the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all individuals.

This includes our responsibility to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Since I took office, the United States has reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and we've agreed with Russia to reduce our own arsenals. We have put preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism at the top of our nuclear agenda, and we have strengthened the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime, which is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Together, the United States and India can pursue our goal of securing the world's vulnerable nuclear materials. We can make it clear that even as every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear energy, every nation must also meet its international obligations --- and that includes the Islamic Republic of Iran. And together, we can pursue a vision that Indian leaders have espoused since independence --- a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

And this leads me to the final area where our countries can partner --- strengthening the foundations of democratic governance, not only at home but abroad.

In the United States, my administration has worked to make government more open and transparent and accountable to people. Here in India, you're harnessing technologies to do the same, as I saw yesterday at an expo in Mumbai. Your landmark Right to Information Act is empowering citizens with the ability to get the services to which they're entitled -- (applause) -- and to hold officials accountable. Voters can get information about candidates by text message. And you're delivering education and health care services to rural communities, as I saw yesterday when I joined an e-panchayat with villagers in Rajasthan.

Now, in a new collaboration on open government, our two countries are going to share our experience, identify what works, and develop the next generation of tools to empower citizens. And in another example of how American and Indian partnership can address global challenges, we're going to share these innovations with civil society groups and countries around the world. We're going to show that democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for the common man --- and woman.

Likewise, when Indians vote, the whole world watches. Thousands of political parties; hundreds of thousands of polling centers; millions of candidates and poll workers -- and 700 million voters. There's nothing like it on the planet. There is so much that countries transitioning to democracy could learn from India's experience, so much expertise that India can share with the world. And that, too, is what is possible when the world's largest democracy embraces its role as a global leader.

As the world's two largest democracies, we must never forget that the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others. (Applause.) Indians know this, for it is the story of your nation. Before he ever began his struggle for Indian independence, Gandhi stood up for the rights of Indians in South Africa. Just as others, including the United States, supported Indian independence, India championed the self-determination of peoples from Africa to Asia as they, too, broke free from colonialism. (Applause.) And along with the United States, you've been a leader in supporting democratic development and civil society groups around the world. And this, too, is part of India's greatness.

Now, we all understand every country will follow its own path. No one nation has a monopoly on wisdom, and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another. But when peaceful democratic movements are suppressed --- as they have been in Burma, for example -- then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent. For it is unacceptable to gun down peaceful protestors and incarcerate political prisoners decade after decade. It is unacceptable to hold the aspirations of an entire people hostage to the greed and paranoia of bankrupt regimes. It is unacceptable to steal elections, as the regime in Burma has done again for all the world to see.

Faced with such gross violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of the international community --- especially leaders like the United States and India --- to condemn it. And if I can be frank, in international fora, India has often shied away from some of these issues. But speaking up for those who cannot do so for themselves is not interfering in the affairs of other countries. It's not violating the rights of sovereign nations. It is staying true to our democratic principles. It is giving meaning to the human rights that we say are universal. And it sustains the progress that in Asia and around the world has helped turn dictatorships into democracies and ultimately increased our security in the world.

So promoting shared prosperity, preserving peace and security, strengthening democratic governance and human rights -- these are the responsibilities of leadership. And as global partners, this is the leadership that the United States and India can offer in the 21st century. Ultimately, though, this cannot be a relationship only between presidents and prime ministers, or in the halls of this Parliament. Ultimately, this must be a partnership between our peoples. (Applause.) So I want to conclude by speaking directly to the people of India who are watching today.

In your lives, you have overcome odds that might have overwhelmed a lesser country. In just decades, you have achieved progress and development that took other nations centuries. You are now assuming your rightful place as a leader among nations. Your parents and grandparents imagined this. Your children and grandchildren will look back on this. But only this generation of Indians can seize the possibilities of the moment.

As you carry on with the hard work ahead, I want every Indian citizen to know: The United States of America will not simply be cheering you on from the sidelines. We will be right there with you, shoulder to shoulder. (Applause.) Because we believe in the promise of India. We believe that the future is what we make it. We believe that no matter who you are or where you come from, every person can fulfill their God-given potential, just as a Dalit like Dr. Ambedkar could lift himself up and pen the words of the constitution that protects the rights of all Indians. (Applause.)

We believe that no matter where you live --- whether a village in Punjab or the bylanes of Chandni Chowk -- (laughter) -- an old section of Kolkata or a new high-rise in Bangalore -- every person deserves the same chance to live in security and dignity, to get an education, to find work, to give their children a better future.

And we believe that when countries and cultures put aside old habits and attitudes that keep people apart, when we recognize our common humanity, then we can begin to fulfill these aspirations that we share. It's a simple lesson contained in that collection of stories which has guided Indians for centuries --- the Panchtantra. And it's the spirit of the inscription seen by all who enter this great hall: "That one is mine and the other a stranger is the concept of little minds. But to the large-hearted, the world itself is their family."

This is the story of India; this is the story of America --- that despite their differences, people can see themselves in one another, and work together and succeed together as one proud nation. And it can be the spirit of partnership between our nations --- that even as we honor the histories which in different times kept us apart, even as we preserve what makes us unique in a globalized world, we can recognize how much we can achieve together.

And if we let this simple concept be our guide, if we pursue the vision I've described today --- a global partnership to meet global challenges --- then I have no doubt that future generations --- Indians and Americans --- will live in a world that is more prosperous and more secure and more just because of the bonds that our generation has forged today.

So, thank you, and Jai Hind. (Applause.) And long live the partnership between India and the United States. (Applause.)

END 6:17 P.M. IST

[Vasu]

Thanks for posting, Shaurya. I'd been looking forward to reading it.

[abhik]

y. Even there Jeff Immelt said similar things about India, and he seemed more upbeat over India than China. As much a business man he is, he does seem to have genuine respect, and should I say a soft corner for India

Immelt is one of the few CEOs who has gone public about the difficulty of doing business in China. CCP's take their technology and throw them out modus operandi is now sinking in to most US CEOs. They are being extra cautious about what they send there.

In fact GE is one of the few global companies who's sales and operations in India is larger than in China.

[durvasa]

In fact GE is one of the few global companies who's sales and operations in India is larger than in China.

Not even close to being true. GE's India revenue has in fact come down last year

Latest Update: GE to pump $2 billion into China by 2012

GE China and India Revenue http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

"But GE has struggled to reach its goals in key markets. GE aimed to quadruple sales in India to $8 billion annually by 2010, a goal Mr. Immelt expressed in 2006, when revenues were $1.9 billion. Hurt by the GE Capital finance division, GE's India revenue fell to $1.6 billion last year from $2.1 billion a year earlier, even though GE Energy's sales rose in that period.

Mr. Immelt has shown signs of frustration with China as well. In 2008, he said GE wanted to reach $10 billion in sales in the country by 2010. But the company's China revenue totaled about $5.3 billion in 2009, up from $4.7 billion in 2008.

[abhik]

I remember the CEO saying this a couple years ago in an interview, sorry maybe he was talking about the future.

[Philip]

Obama's visit should be looked at further in the light if his Asian tour,where it appears that he clearly wants India to join in a US-led group of Asian nations,including OZ,to collectively ward off the Chinese.How practical this will be is a big Q,as in the case of India,threre remain key Qs about working with the US militarily,because of its Sino-Pak policies that are detrimental to India.AS oen analyst put it,India and the US share many characteristics together and are "partners",but not "allies".

[Sanku]

CT hat on>> Could US and China be working in Tandem, with China scaring the sheep and US herding them?

We need to move with that possibility in your mind.

[Philip]

The current weakness of our "strategic partner",underlining the need for the Mess-iah to take back billios in deals for Uncle Sam.

18 per cent of Americans say they could not put food on the table
Nearly one in five Americans have said that there had been times over the past year when they could not afford to put food on the table, despite record participation in a food stamp scheme.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... table.html

[SwamyG]

The tea party Nazis look at renewable energy, and a govt energy policy promoting renewables etc as "big govt telling me which energy source I should adopt" . And coming from Obama, the Uber commandant Glenn Beck will declare that it is a Muslim conspiracy to attack what the founding fathers said about energy .

That is because Americans have stopped studying their own past. All they are fed is how great the country was and is, and how great the founding fathers were ityadi. Do they know about the agricultural subsidies? Do they know about the history of "Public Relations"? Do they know about the freeway system setup by the government? Naah.....

Tom Friedman wasn't he one of the forefronts drumming up for the Iraq War. He was no Judith Miller, yet his constant war beating is an example of how "liberal" the media really is To boot, he is on the pro-Israeli camp.

[SwamyG]

CT hat on>> Could US and China be working in Tandem, with China scaring the sheep and US herding them?

We need to move with that possibility in your mind.

We should always have an independent mind; and not bow to any one Super Power. Compromises, yes; but never a chamcha of one these countries.

[SwamyG]

Obama fails to close South Korea free-trade deal
South Koreans have more spine? I saw pictures of protesters in SoKo. Were there any kind of protests in India?

[RamaY]

CT hat on>> Could US and China be working in Tandem, with China scaring the sheep and US herding them?

We need to move with that possibility in your mind.

Carrying the CT hat >>

That means G-2 mentality. It was played before US/USSR and India played its cards reasonably well.

India must learn from its mistakes of G2 V1.0, so it can come out as a winner in G-2 V2.0. Perhaps India should aim for a G1 in V3.0

[ramana]

Nightwatch comments
11/11/2010

Fallout from the President's Trip: Comment: In Asia the President's trip has dominated mainstream news reporting. Whenever the US asserts itself in this fashion, the rest of the world tends to duck. After the international spotlight moves on, the fallout begins.

For example, the Indian Air Force apparently has gagged, metaphorically, at the price Boeing is asking for the C-17 transports that the US is willing to sell. The Indians always balk at price and support packages, as the Russians know well. The Indian Air Force reaction suggests an invitation to other bids.

India also has pushed back on two important political issues. India today indicated it will make no change to its policy of supporting any country's right to peaceful nuclear programs, including Iran's. It also refused to support criticism of Burma over human rights abuses and lack of political freedoms. India said, in brief, it knows best how to handle its neighbors.

Pakistani commentators and officials have voiced serious concern about the US support for India becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council. President Zardari left on a three-day official visit to China on 11 November to attend the inauguration of the 16th Asian Games in Guangzhou. He is scheduled to meet with his Chinese counterpart President Hu and other top officials during his stay. Stopping Indian membership in the UN Security Council is likely to be an important agenda item, according to Pakistani analysts.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said today, "China thinks highly of India's position in international affairs, understands and supports India's desire to play a bigger role in the United Nations, and stands ready to maintain contact and consultations with other UN member nations, including India, on the issue of reforming the United Nations and its Security Council."

China's characterization of India's position - not role - in international affairs and the use of the words "understands and supports" are patronizing. The implication is that China is in no way prepared to back Indian permanent membership in the UN.

There will be more.

Obama's visit should be looked at further in the light if his Asian tour, where it appears that he clearly wants India to join in a US-led group of Asian nations,including OZ,to collectively ward off the Chinese. How practical this will be is a big Q,as in the case of India,threre remain key Qs about working with the US militarily,because of its Sino-Pak policies that are detrimental to India.AS one analyst put it,India and the US share many characteristics together and are "partners",but not "allies".

I think those three agreements were wink, wink nod to get the others to sign-up in the de-facto alliance. And by not agreeing to them the grand plan was put in abeyance.


That CISMOA whatnot were to assure the rest, that massa has offshored assets in case of trouble. Its bilateral treaties by default and by sub-rosa.

[Gus]

US is NOT the worlds oldest democracy...unless you consider that only white males can shoulder the great responsibility of democracy and women and blacks (together, more than 50%) can't have any say in who represents them.

True oldest democracy with universal suffrage is NZ, IIRC.

[ramana]

KS Garu sums up:

Telling it like it is to Pakistan

....
President Obama is due to carry out the next review of the Af-Pak strategy in December. One wonders whether his pronouncements in Delhi are a prelude to his shaping that strategy and also a way of making clear to people like General Petraeus where he stands on various issues like the Indian presence in Afghanistan and settlement with the Taliban. Our analysts should concentrate more on what will happen as the US drones further step up attacks on North Waziristan and the jihadis increase their attacks on Pakistani civilian targets. The developments in the next six months in the Af-Pak area are far more crucial than the five-year economic and military aid to Pakistan. A lot depends on General Kayani. While Pakistani generals, faced with reality, have been known to come to terms with it, Pakistani civilians like Jinnah and Bhutto behaved irrationally. Gandhi offered Jinnah prime ministership of India and he rejected it and chose to be the Quaid-e-Azam of a moth-eaten Pakistan. Bhutto chose to break up Pakistan to become the leader of one part. It is now for Kayani to make the choice.

Obviously Zardari and Gilani have no role in his views.

[ramana]

NSV of Newsinsight.net writes:

India consensus The Obama visit showcases the growing Indian power to influence great powers like the US, says N.V.Subramanian.


London, 10 November 2010: Thankfully, like China, India did not get baited by president Barack Obama's sweet talk that it was already a "risen" power. Because if India had "risen" to the bait, so to speak, the bite would have come, on Indian markets, Jammu and Kashmir, non-proliferation, and the like. In the circumstances, the American president's trip to India turned out better than expected for this country. Why is that?

In a 3 November 2010 commentary called "Summit & beyond," this writer had forecast such a happening. The forecast was based on a simple understanding of the power position of the US and India both in absolute terms and relative to each other. A spent American president of a spent United States was meeting a weak prime minister Manmohan Singh of an autonomously rising India.

Whether or not the PM squarely could face Obama on key Indian concerns and demands -- on Pakistani terrorism, permanent UN Security Council membership, easing dual-use technology exports to India, scrapping the protectionist witch-hunt against outsourcing, and so forth -- India would not let go. That was the essence of this writer's forecast. And it is nice to know that is how it happened. India brought a victorious conclusion to the Obama visit.

But it is not the time to rest on oars. The "victory" alluded to in the previous paragraph is still notional. There is nothing tangible to grasp at like the Indo-US nuclear deal, which again became more pro-India than originally conceived on account of the pressure exerted by the opposition parties, the nuclear scientific and strategic communities, and so forth. These extra-governmental forces must continue to exert pressure on the government, together with robust intervention from industry, to gain win-win deals with the United States.

So far, this writer has not argued to compete with China to win concessions from America, because it is not about winning "concessions" or about "competing" with China. It is really about something which is grander and altogether more visionary. It is about making a powerful example of India's peaceful rise, in which necessarily the Indian worldview will gain international recognition and acceptance.

Obama's America is a natural commencement point for this project, basically because Obama has failed his voters after promising so much. The view on the ground in America is extraordinarily cynical. The prevailing opinion is that one set of "rascals" has replaced another set, and that the situation won't fundamentally change. It is here where the Indian example provides a powerful ray of hope.

Unlike China, India's rise is organic, largely powered by its own entrepreneurs, which was once the American way. India's rise is not parasitical like China's, whose mercantilism has savaged the world economy. Despite growing criticism, China will not move away from mercantilism. And to that, it is adding military assertiveness, whose victims are its East Asian and South Asian neighbours, including India.

India has a huge task ahead of selling itself to the world and particularly to America. The starting point has to be the Obama administration but it must embrace others, including Congress, Wall Street and big business, US opinion-makers, and civil society. American politicians say that Obama is staggeringly arrogant. He won't accept he was responsible for the Democratic rout in the mid-term elections. But this same "arrogant" Obama had to eat humble pie in India. This is the power of India, which no Indian government must be allowed to squander.

The road map ahead is clear. Obama still has notions of intervening in the Kashmir dispute. This could be his presidential, history-making "big idea". He must gently but purposively be directed to the more compelling "big idea" of starting China down the democracy road. Unless China is democratized, which does not seem possible in the foreseeable future, the world will not savour peace.

And particular to its interests, India must decisively move on issues like UNSC permanent membership, easing dual-use US exports, and so on. As a waning power, the United States can only make limited contributions in some of these areas. Which means India has to exert its influence in the world as it is beginning to do with some success with the US.

This calls for all-round engagement, where all elements of Indian power have to unite and work together. This happened intuitively during the Obama visit and now needs institutionalization and prioritization. To repeat, this cannot be left to governments of the day, because they may fail, or not provide adequate leadership, as prime minister Manmohan Singh often does not.

The ball is now in the court of India, and it is its only chance of success. There is a long and hard road to greatness that lies ahead.
...

A few things:
- I don't like MMS being not given credit for having pulled of a good visit. One cant give it to the media shill slike SInghiv wants to. It was the MMS passing the nuke liabiality law with India specific clauses that stymied the onslaught. It was sams as the J&K resolution by PVNR.
- Second MMS did stuff he had to: praise the QE2 in Delhi and not agree to trade balances as the primary cause in Seoul.
- Third transformation of PRC has to be with Asian ideas and not Western ideas of "democrazy". It has to be representative govt at the top. Representative of what China wants and not what DC wants.
-Fourthly now that there are financial resources(look at how much CWG loot etc are) nothing stops India from developing those technologies. Import the machines etc as needed. The days of hand wringing are over. For if those techs are imported they will come with golden shackles. "Sone ki hathkadi!"

- I agree there is a need to create a national consensus and all should agree on what is best for India. Can't leave it to opinion-makers or politicians.

[svinayak]

What is your comment on this article.

Opinion
Time to be a better neighbor, India. If you don't, China will.
President Obama's trip to India underscored India's importance in global security and global finances – a democratic counter to an aggressive China. But India's poor foreign policy and botched regional relations have been holding it back.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... China-will

By Maha Rafi Atal / November 9, 2010

New York
On Sunday, President Obama met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi. They discussed opportunities for expanded Indo-American trade, and both leaders highlighted the strategic importance of a strong and prosperous India in the face of Chinese expansion. But Prime Minister Singh did not acknowledge, and President Obama did not bring up, the most important obstacle to India’s success: its poor regional relationships.

From the outset, India’s promise as a rival to China has been that it is a power apart. It could not beat Beijing in a race for pure growth or military might. But in a contest over principles, India’s democratic progress offers the region a model that China cannot match. India should be a partner for countries seeking a fair alternative to alliance with its authoritarian neighbor.

But India is losing this contest, and it is losing it close to home. Now, as President Obama leaves India, it is worth asking: Why isn’t South Asia’s richest country leading more effectively in South Asia?

China is flexing its muscle

China is certainly flexing its muscle. Last month, it sought to restrict exports of rare earth minerals to Japan, made overtures to a secession movement in southern Sudan, and wrestled with the G20 over its currency and trade imbalance.

Nowhere has China been more assertive than in South Asia. In a strategy it calls the “string of pearls,” China is building ports and infrastructure in Bangladesh and Pakistan; digging up minerals in Pakistan and Afghanistan; and refining hydropower in Nepal and Afghanistan.

According to the International Monetary Fund, China’s trade with India’s neighbors totaled $16 billion in 2008, growing at 14 percent annually. India’s regional trade was barely holding steady at $11 billion.

India's overconfidence

Yet China’s success in the Subcontinent reflects India’s own foreign policy blunders.

First, India has been overconfident, assuming that regional neighbors would naturally choose it over Beijing without providing them with positive incentives to do so. That is the case in Bangladesh, a desperately poor country created with the assistance of Indian forces, whose multiple requests for economic aid and greater bilateral trade India has rebuffed. While Bangladeshis wonder why India does not do more, India wonders why Bangladesh is not more appreciative.

Beijing capitalizes on the gap between them.

Interfering and overbearing

Second, India has been overbearing, giving selective support to political movements inside neighboring states.

In Nepal, India backed a feudal aristocracy for four decades, reinstating the monarchy by force after repeated popular revolts. It trained the Nepalese military, and orchestrated political marriages between Nepalese aristocrats and wealthy Indian families. Pushing India out became the top priority of the Maoist guerilla movement that has majority support and an informal alliance with China.

As the UN peace mission holding Nepal together prepares to close in January, India is pitted against China to control the postwar settlement, with Nepal’s critical water resources (about 83,000 megawatts of hydropower) at stake. The confrontation is reminiscent of the situation in Burma (Myanmar), where China and India spent $10 billion last year to secure the support of a military junta guilty of abusing its own subjects.

As the weaker power, India has more to fear from these confrontations.

Shutting out the region

Third, India has been suspicious, choosing to shut out the region when relations go sour rather than addressing underlying tensions.

Earlier this year, the government announced an immigration regime that will restrict multiple entry visas. Multinationals have protested the move as a blow to business travelers from the West and the Persian Gulf, but its greatest victims are migrant laborers from Bangladesh and Nepal. Many will turn to China for employment instead; others will enter illegally, bringing crime with them.

Nowhere has suspicion been more crippling to Indian policy than in the case of Pakistan. So long as Kashmiri militants – with historic ties to Pakistan – continue to operate inside India, India maintains it cannot meet with Pakistan over the disputed border, or over critical resources like water and gas. But it is the ongoing dispute that creates the very basis for this militancy. In a country with porous mountain borders, such threats are virtually impossible to block out by force.

Yet New Delhi means to try.

Unfortunately, the United States has been an accomplice to India’s regional isolationism. In 2008, pressure from Washington shut down a natural gas project involving India, Pakistan, and Iran. Last year, Present Obama briefly considered appointing Amb. Richard Holbrooke as a regional envoy, with the authority to conduct dialogue between India and Pakistan, but narrowed his brief to Afghanistan and Pakistan over Indian opposition.

Asked about Pakistan at a town hall meeting in New Delhi on Sunday, the president reiterated that the United States would not intervene in the Kashmir dispute. Yet without an Indo-Pak peace, no strategy for Afghanistan can move forward.

The trappings of global status, without the substance

The West has lavished India with the trappings of global status: a seat at the G20, a temporary seat at the UN Security Council that may open the door to a permanent one, a controversial US-India nuclear deal, and two pending defense trades worth more than $15 billion dollars.

To read Indian newspapers or speak to diplomats is to believe that these gestures represent global influence. But in fact, they signal the rise of a Potemkin hegemon. If India is encircled by China’s string of pearls, and if migrants and militants compromise its borders, then it will be forced to waste its economic resources putting out local fires, unable to project power further afield.

Moreover, as they watch this regional saga, potential partners in Africa, the Middle East, or Central Asia see India as a country that treats its neighbors with contempt. Indian leaders can argue that other great powers have done the same, but the argument misunderstands the very nature and purpose of India’s rise, the unique role that ideals must play in India’s success.
author is making bogus arguments

To be sure there are steps India can take to reverse this course. If it accepts international mediation in Kashmir, if it becomes a neutral partner for peace in Burma and Nepal, and if it opens its markets to greater regional trade, it may yet salvage its position as the democratic counter-power to China. But these are long-term solutions, and the window to pursue them is shrinking.

Maha Rafi Atal is a journalist in New York, recently returned from India, Pakistan, and Nepal where she was a correspondent for the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

[ramana]

I read it today morning. First thing I wanst sure if the reporter's name was a nom de plume. Never heard of such a combination in real life. Having said that it looked to me like a Paki minded person for only they bring up regional harmony knowing full well its the TSP that is the princiapl reason by running terrorists through the neighborhood: Nepal, Bangla Desh and themselves.

India has many regional intiatives like SAARC, BMIST, IOR, ASEAN etc to get closer to the neighborhood.

All in all its sneering attitude makes it suspect. He should get acqauinted with treality and share the optimism.
Maybe he has to earn a living peddling his jaundiced bile!
He needs some chavana prash or Zandu Balm!

[Frederic]

I read it today morning. First thing I wanst sure if the reporter's name was a nom de plume. Never heard of such a combination in real life. Having said that it looked to me like a Paki minded person for only they bring up regional harmony knowing full well its the TSP that is the princiapl reason by running terrorists through the neighborhood: Nepal, Bangla Desh and themselves.

India has many regional intiatives like SAARC, BMIST, IOR, ASEAN etc to get closer to the neighborhood.

All in all its sneering attitude makes it suspect. He should get acqauinted with treality and share the optimism.
Maybe he has to earn a living peddling his jaundiced bile!
He needs some chavana prash or Zandu Balm!

Ramana, it is a "SHE" not a "he".

I smell a Paki in her.

Best
Fred

[manju]

I guess whoever operates the civilian power reactors (safeguarded) under the splitting plan can buy reactors while sher khan wont play ball with the military side. so DAE splits into 'moderate-secular' and 'right-wing-fundie' components

spot the RAAW agent in picture 2...

[SwamyG]

A spent American president of a spent United States was meeting a weak prime minister Manmohan Singh of an autonomously rising India.

Come on ramana garu, why did you not highlight the above? So why does NVS call MMS a weak PM? Any gyan. He would have used publicly available information to state that right? Is he saying MMS is a puppet in the hands of Sonia Gandhi or is he saying MMS is weak because INC is weak. Muppalla garu earlier said it was lame-duck session for INC too. What is happening in desh?

[CRamS]

I smell a Paki in her.

Best
Fred

And here is the clue

If it (India) accepts international mediation in Kashmir ....

Any well wisher of India, unlike someone like this Paki or "South Asian" who wants India to match China will either urge the international community to come hard on TSP for sponsoring terror in TSP, or at the least will eschew this international mediation BS.

[ramana]

All well meaning folks want charismatic leaders so they can become followers. MMS is not a charismatic leader for he cant even be elected to the Lok Sabha. However he is still a leader. The easy way out is to hanker after charisma for it justifies the follower.

[bart]

US is NOT the worlds oldest democracy...unless you consider that only white males can shoulder the great responsibility of democracy and women and blacks (together, more than 50%) can't have any say in who represents them.

True oldest democracy with universal suffrage is NZ, IIRC.

Good point, also, IIRC Iceland has continuously had a democratic setup since the 10th century.