Oh yes, of course I very much agree with your point that grass roots diplomacy works. But what I meant to say was about more than mere diplomacy. As you just said, grassroots diplomacy works better with democracies, it also works with all other different kinds of institutions. There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia, which is warming up to India very quickly. There was no democracy in the most communist of all states - the USSR, and India was close ally then. In fact, greatest amount of cultural exchange that post-independence India underwent through, was with the communist USSR.
You do raise valid exceptions to the democracy rule. AM already addressed the Saudi situation, and I would argue that the India/USSR relationship was driven mainly by the respective governments. Most of the cultural exchanges were dictated by the authorities, rather than spontaneously occuring at the grass roots levels for the simple reason that both countries had closed, authoritarian societies. India only opened up to the world fully after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The best interest of any two nations lie in peaceful economic cooperation. If there were no cold war, the US and the USSR would be the most powerful and most promising economies today. However, each of them had to burden its own people and its own state by diverting their resources to be spent on countering each other. It will always be beneficial for China and India to cooperate on economic terms than to go through self-destructive arms race.
I am not sure I agree. There is a school of thought that believes that scientific (and economic) innovation and progress is driven by conflict. The classic example is the warring Greek tribes defeating the much larger Persian Empire. Or the tiny European countries emerging out to conquer the globe.
Yes, I do very much agree with the points you put forth, but here I want to add something too. The media always caters to those who are ignorant of the actualities. And those who are ignorant and seek the media for information, are the ones who barely affect the relationships of any two states.
For example, a shop-owner in Pakistan or a car dealer in the US would not affect US-Pak relations, no matter how misguided he/she is by the media. On the second hand, a US army general posted in Islamabad or a Pakistani Consular posted in DC may somewhat influence what transpires between the two nations, but then they will not be seeking out the media to understand what is going on.
An errant individual may cause short term harm to the relationship, but overall state policy and the debate is very much framed by the media. I agree that the average voter has neither the time nor the desire to learn the finer details of foreign affairs. All they care about is who will keep the jobs secure and the house prices up, so they go by the media soundbites. That is why the media decides which issues are important. Case in point here in Australia, asylum seekers make up a tiny fraction of total migration, yet they have become the target of dog whistle politics, with every major party vowing to 'turn back the boats'.
In conclusion, I think the media is given much more credit than it deserves when it comes to diplomatic relations between two states - Pakistani media is as good as absent in the US, yet in general Americans are very sympathetic toward Pakistan and still consider it a close ally of the US. But then, the perception of the general populace does not dictate diplomacy of the state.
I would disagree. I have no doubt that the average American, or Westerner, has a far more favorable image of India than of Pakistan. And that is because of media images of Pakistan v/s those of India.
Please excuse me for replying to you on your response to VsDoc, but I had to say this - Indians (barring the ignorant 5% of them anywhere) do NOT think of India as the next, or next to next... superpower! Indians are fine with India prospering without it being a superpower. We are all aware of the poverty and inequality in India, as our country is also marred by widespread corruption as is yours. In fact, I have seen more Pakistanis using 'superpower' term with India than Indians themselves. We are only being hopeful for a prosper India, and it stops at that.
Well, India acts arrogantly at the governmental level with Pakistan, and ordinary Indians seem to have a strange attitude towards Pakistan. At the risk of stereotyping, I have found South Indians to be far more reserved and less belligerent than Northerners.
Nice thread and good to see so many positive and sane replys.
The question of "Why China will chose India over Pakistan" can be extended to "Why world is choosing India over Pakistan". And by these I do not talk about defence related issues but rather culturally.
I think you are agreeing that India's greatest asset is its soft power. I don't think that ordinary people, or countries, care that much about democracy and secularism in their friends. Most westerners are fine being friends with China, except for a few outspoken activists. Similarly, most Westerners or Western governments wouldn't really care if Pakistan was a democracy, a theocracy or whatever, as long as it provided a strong market for their goods.
In the history of past 3000+ years, India and China have been greatest economies and markets in the world, and lived very peacefully and had enormous amount of cultural exchange.
I am not sure that the dynamics of past centuries necessarily apply any more. We are getting to the point where resource contention is a very dire reality. And it will only get worse in the coming decades.
Uzbekistan takes aid from the US and used to house a base or two. Tajikistan has had American, Indian and French troops stationed on its land since 9/11.
The Uzbek base is on borrowed time. The US was almost evicted under Russian pressure, but only managed to remain after Obama relented on the European missile shield. I haven't followed the issue lately, but both those decisions may be reversed now, and the US may be out of Uzbekistan already. As for Tajikistan, they will evict the US if Russia sneezes.
As for "All it takes is one nuke from Pyong Yang and Seoul is toast." No one is going to use nukes unless they want to commit suicide with their country. Using nukes is like declaring war on the whole world, as the whole world would take a very tough stance against you.
North Korea is not a very sane country. There's no telling what they might do under pressure.
As for Pakistan, Pakistan can easily be shifted back and forth between China and the US depending on how serious each is in keeping it as an ally. China currently holds a slight upper hand, but Paksitan is still heavily dependent on the US economically, poliotcally and somewhat militarly.
If you think Pakistan will ever allow US military operations from its soil against China, you are completely wrong. It
will not happen.
In your first post you mentioned a fake program was developed by Australia so people from India could come in??
Mate i have worked for DIAC and i am telling you all this from experience - In the beginning the GSM policy was very simple (Study and if your profession is in demand
regardless of your country of origin get residence) - just like any other newly started program but overtime it got matured and holes were fixed. Now unless you have experience no chance!
I am extremely familiar with the Australian migration process. The cookery and hairdressing occupations were put on the skilled occupation list to coincide with John Howard's trip to India where he launched the travelling road show promoting Australian student visas. They were only removed after the huge media publicity about attacks on Indian students revealed the ongoing migration loophole and the government was embarrassed.
ok tell me do you know about Working holiday scheme? Anyone from Category A country can come here and work for 2 years without any issue and than settle if they want to - how easy is that no fuss.
They can
not settle automatically after a working holiday visa. In fact, they can't even keep the same job for more than 3 (or 6) months at a time during the visa.
When hairdressing was in demand student from any country was able to come study and stay there was no barrier as to what your home country is.
Student visas from India were rubber-stamped by the Australian travelling road show. There was no similar rubber-samping for other countries, certainly not for Pakistan. Students from other countries did take advantage of the scheme, but the overwhelming beneficiaries were students from India. The Chinese student numbers did not balloon as much as Indians. Australia has always had high Chinese migration. The student scheme was instituted to boost Indian migration.
Now talking about Study roadshow, that is to attract students so they come here and pay fees, income from overseas students makes up for 13% of GPD here.
That nonsense has already been debunked; most of the money spent by foreign students is actually earned within Australia.
