PDA

View Full Version : Daley: Aid to Pakistan paused



Julie
10 Jul 11,, 19:14
July 10, 2011

White House chief of staff Bill Daley said Sunday the United States is holding back $800 million in U.S. aid to the Pakistani military.

Appearing ABC's "This Week," the top adviser to President Barack Obama said the relationship needs to be improved, and until then money will stop flowing to the Pakistani armed forces.

"Our relationship with Pakistan is very complicated," Daley said. "Obviously, they have been an important ally in the war on terrorism. They’ve been the victim of an enormous amount of terrorism. But right now, they have taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid which we were giving to their military and we’re trying to work through that."

Aid to Pakistan has been a politically perilous issue since Osama bin Laden was found in the country. And members of Congress have, on several occasions, indicated that aid should be cut.

Daley: Aid to Pakistan paused - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0711/Daley_Aid_to_Pakistan_paused.html)

Parihaka
10 Jul 11,, 21:06
Well huzzah

Double Edge
10 Jul 11,, 21:10
Dawn says (http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/10/us-suspends-some-pakistan-military-aid-obama-aide.html), some aid ;)


According to The New York Times, about $800 million in military aid and equipment, or over one-third of the more than $2 billion in annual US security assistance to Pakistan, could be affected by the suspension.

So whats the status of the remaining $1.2 billion ?

Julie
10 Jul 11,, 21:57
Seems they make the funds in installments, and they are withholding a payment. ;) It's about damn time !

S2
10 Jul 11,, 23:06
HERE (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=1&hp) is the NYT story. It has the details and nature of the holdbacks and suspensions.

Double Edge
10 Jul 11,, 23:46
right, much better now.


But many of the recent aid curtailments are clearly intended to force the Pakistani military to make a difficult choice between backing the country that finances much of its operations and equipment, or continuing to provide secret support for the Taliban and other militants fighting American soldiers in Afghanistan.
This is the part i have trouble understanding. If more aid did not help change their behaviour how is reducing aid going to do it :)

It seems more like a move to make Americans feel better rather than anything else.


There is growing opposition on Capitol Hill to sending security assistance to Pakistan. Last week, the Republican-controlled House approved a Pentagon budget bill that limits the Defense Department from spending more than 25 percent of its projected $1.1 billion budget for training and equipping Pakistani troops next year, unless the secretaries of defense and state submit a report to Congress showing how the money will be spent to combat insurgencies.
Not more than 25% of 1.1 billion ?

but...


American officials say they would probably resume equipment deliveries and aid if relations improve and Pakistan pursues terrorists more aggressively. The cutoffs do not affect any immediate deliveries of military sales to Pakistan, like F-16 fighter jets, or nonmilitary aid, the officials said.
This will be a short lived cut then after Pakistan stages a nice show.


Comments last week by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also reflected a potentially more confrontational approach to Pakistan. Admiral Mullen, who is retiring in two months, became the first American official to publicly accuse Pakistan of ordering the kidnapping, torture and death of the journalist, Saleem Shahzad, whose mutilated body was found in early June.
On a different note, i found Mulllen's statement at the time rather surprising. It appeared like arm twisting. That Mullen is retiring shortly goes some way in understanding why he made that statement.

Zinja
11 Jul 11,, 00:27
A step in the right direction in my opinion. In fact i would wish to see this become US's official foreign policy: all American flag burning countries can kiss good bye to US aid of ANY SORT. Whether they are hit by a hurrican, outbreak of ebola, or they are invaded by martians, Americans will que at stadiums to watch a J-Lo show while they and their children beg for a drop of water on their tongues.

S2
11 Jul 11,, 01:42
The first hints of trouble with Pakistan appeared by late 2001/early 2002. When afforded the opportunity, they'd hardly been aggressive about stopping the exodus of afghan taliban and others from Afghanistan into their country. It was already evident almost immediately that something was terribly amiss.

Then the long litany of events that have followed. By 2007 I'd largely written off hope of a tangible reversal of an increasingly apparant policy of proxy warfare. All this derived by open source information freely available on the internet and elsewhere. If so, what had our officials with access to so much more detailed information determined? Nothing that's occurred since has surprised me in the least despite my lack of access to this classified information. I can only assume that our government professionals and elected officials from two administrations over nearly three terms have the patience of JOB or are seriously derelict in their responsibilities.

There's never been a tangible reason for hope that matters might reverse themselves in Pakistan. Not once.

Of course, calling matters as they actually were would mean acknowledging Pakistan as an open enemy to our ambitions and the U.N. mission. This would have required presenting our other allies (and ourselves) with some stark choices. Combat forces would have taken a priority of supply within Afghanistan and would have to be carefully calibrated to assure that force levels didn't exceed a reduced logistic/supply capability. We'd have to far more aggressively and diligently work to open alternative routes through CAR/Russia. This would have entailed diplomatic commitments we evidently weren't prepared to accede.

Most of all, it would have required acknowledging that ANY effort on Afghanistan's behalf required addressing Pakistan as an enemy combatant nation possessing nuclear weapons and teetering internally between 2002-2010. It's clear that our elected officials and professional bueraucrats weren't ready for such a harsh reality. "...harsh...", to be sure but reality nonetheless.

Beyond all of the above, Iraq would have been absolutely put on the back burner under changed circumstances. We weren't prepared to do any of the above and were likely certain that virtually all of our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have absolutely bailed. Thus we have the situation we're faced with today.

Pakistan, given the hand it was dealt and its internal predisposition, has played matters adroitly albeit with a exceedingly self-destructive tunnel-vision. They suffer now, will suffer more in the near future and likely will come out the biggest loser of this whole charade. Perhaps it needed to unfold in the manner it has but the alternatives have long-since receded as possible courses of action.

Squirrel
11 Jul 11,, 02:48
Pakistan, given the hand it was dealt and its internal predisposition, has played matters adroitly albeit with a exceedingly self-destructive tunnel-vision. They suffer now, will suffer more in the near future and likely will come out the biggest loser of this whole charade. Perhaps it needed to unfold in the manner it has but the alternatives have long-since receded as possible courses of action.

The timing of the withdraw from Afghanistan coupled with any hint of withholding any aid will surely impede future stability efforts put forth by the Pakistani military. Also, given that as far as I can see, US-India relations have been quiet recently. We will see how supportive their big red pal China is when Pakistan is having a national existential crisis amidst a resurgence of US-India relations and rampant extremism at home.

Zonk.

tankie
11 Jul 11,, 10:52
All we need now is the UK to stop aid as well ,,,,,,and keep it stopped . :grump:


new emoticons r good ;)

nvishal
11 Jul 11,, 11:30
Bad news for the uighurs

Deltacamelately
11 Jul 11,, 11:40
Is the average American on the streets, aware of the amount of wealth being spent as aids on the Pakistanis?

Are they also aware of the deceit perpetrated repeatedly by the Pak Military?

I ask, because I think it can only be one of these two things -

1. They are unaware of both the above, or
2. They have a patience level that can beat us Indians hand down.:cool:

Doktor
11 Jul 11,, 12:11
^^^Ignorance is blessed ;)^^^

Chogy
11 Jul 11,, 14:10
Is the average American on the streets, aware of the amount of wealth being spent as aids on the Pakistanis?

A certain percentage of people: "Pakistan? I know it's a country... somewhere."

Others: "So what? There's a new Transformers movie this afternoon."

Most Americans are weary of numbers associated with national budgets and governments. When Trillions of $$ are bandied about, a couple of billion seems like chump change. I agree it is terribly irresponsible.

S2
11 Jul 11,, 14:59
One in forty to fifty I'd guess are aware to some extent of the issues. That would include most in the armed forces, elected officials and key aides, policy-makers, scholars, students and concerned citizens like those here. About 4-6 million from a population of approx. 230,000,000.

The government, I believe, likes this issue below the nat'l radar as much as possible.

ace16807
11 Jul 11,, 15:20
On a different note, I've noticed some speculation that Pakistan will end up trying to strengthen ties with the PRC. The question is, will the PRC reciprocate?

payeng
11 Jul 11,, 15:20
Keep your money, Pakistan's military tells US (http://www.smh.com.au/world/keep-your-money-pakistans-military-tells-us-20110711-1ham2.html)

ace16807
11 Jul 11,, 15:25
Of course Pakistan will tell the US to keep its money. It would appear that relations have soured to a point that there's no hope of salvaging much of anything. Pakistan would rather appear "strong" and and tell the US they can f**k off rather than bow to US pressure.

payeng
11 Jul 11,, 15:38
On a different note, I've noticed some speculation that Pakistan will end up trying to strengthen ties with the PRC. The question is, will the PRC reciprocate?

I would ask why not? Pakistan have always shared a healthy relation with PRC, plus Pakistan can prove to be the gateway to Arabian sea for PRC, but the point is would US take that chance of loosing a stratigic ally to the benefit of PRC?

antimony
11 Jul 11,, 18:22
This may be just me, but I think the US would be well advised to actively participate in infrastructure projects directly rather than giving aids and funds to bodies they know to be dubious.

antimony
11 Jul 11,, 18:35
Is the average American on the streets, aware of the amount of wealth being spent as aids on the Pakistanis?

Are they also aware of the deceit perpetrated repeatedly by the Pak Military?

I ask, because I think it can only be one of these two things -

1. They are unaware of both the above, or
2. They have a patience level that can beat us Indians hand down.:cool:

I hardly think it is a matter of a of patience of the Americans.

Cases in point : the 911 incidents were met by an American led azz whomping of epic proportions on Al Queda (of course, they got a tad carried over with the whole extending WoT on Iraq thing).

We responded to the Kandahar incidents by releasing Masood Azhar and associated scumbags; to the Kargil incident by not crossing the LoC, to the 2001 Parliament attacks by mounting a large operation and then climbing down and to the 26/11 incidents with statements of strong displeasure. Our patience, I fear, is limitless :frown::mad:

Chogy and S2

I also do not buy into the ignorant American sterotype. Most Americans, as much I have dealt with them are perfectly cognizant of world wide going ons, at least the ones I have met in the State of Washington. They also do not shy away from challenging the government on details of policy, a look at the tea party movement should shed any doubts to that.

Pedicabby
11 Jul 11,, 20:51
Aid to the Pakistan military? Why does a military with nukes need aid?

Double Edge
11 Jul 11,, 23:16
Keep your money, Pakistan's military tells US (http://www.smh.com.au/world/keep-your-money-pakistans-military-tells-us-20110711-1ham2.html)

The chief spokesman for the Pakistan military, Athar Abbas, said the military had received no formal notification of any aid being cut. ''We have conducted our [anti-extremist] military operations without external support or assistance,'' said Major-General Abbas. ''Reports coming out of the US are aimed at undermining the authority of our military organisations.''

Stories critical of Pakistan are leaked on an almost daily basis to the American press, riling Pakistani public and official opinion against Washington. Many in Pakistan believe there is a concerted American effort to weaken Pakistan and its armed forces, which are some of the largest in the world.
This is an interesting angle. Does anybody agree ?

Dreadnought
12 Jul 11,, 06:06
This is an interesting angle. Does anybody agree ?

You mean questioning their military authority as effective?:whome:

S2
12 Jul 11,, 06:19
"This is an interesting angle. Does anybody agree ?"

It's nonsense that's directed for domestic consumption. Nobody in their right mind would look at the parade of dollars and our most senior flag ranks to Rawalpindi and draw any conclusion but that America was DEEPLY committed to promoting a strong and viable Pakistani military-albeit one embedded with values that could be respected by all.

We fell short but not for a lack of trying. In fact we tried TOO hard employing the so-called techniques of diplomatic soft-power with their military elite and came up all-too-often embarassingly empty.

vsdoc
12 Jul 11,, 07:32
I kind of agree with Antimony here. You know there is more than a superficial and limited shift in concerned perception amongst the general lay populace when Pakistanis living in the US and elsewhere abroad increasingly start passing themselves off as Indians - either actively or passively. I have seen this in the US, I have seen this in the UK, I have seen this in France, I have seen this in Switzerland. These are not good times to be a Pakistani. Especially on the flip side when we know what it would take for us to ever say or even imply (or not correct) that we were Pakistani to someone else.

antimony
12 Jul 11,, 07:47
"This is an interesting angle. Does anybody agree ?"

It's nonsense that's directed for domestic consumption. Nobody in their right mind would look at the parade of dollars and our most senior flag ranks to Rawalpindi and draw any conclusion but that America was DEEPLY committed to promoting a strong and viable Pakistani military-albeit one embedded with values that could be respected by all.


Captain,

Maybe so, but I still think America would have been better served by active participation in civilian institutions and infrastructure. Roads, bridges, schools and hospitals financed by and built under American supervision would probably had yielded better "hearts and minds" results than the military aid vanishing into a black hole.

Double Edge
12 Jul 11,, 08:05
You mean questioning their military authority as effective?:whome:
No, I meant that I did not see these American reports as aiming to weaken the military. I do not get that impression at all.


"This is an interesting angle. Does anybody agree ?"

It's nonsense that's directed for domestic consumption. Nobody in their right mind would look at the parade of dollars and our most senior flag ranks to Rawalpindi and draw any conclusion but that America was DEEPLY committed to promoting a strong and viable Pakistani military-albeit one embedded with values that could be respected by all.

We fell short but not for a lack of trying. In fact we tried TOO hard employing the so-called techniques of diplomatic soft-power with their military elite and came up all-too-often embarassingly empty.
Right

Double Edge
12 Jul 11,, 08:23
I kind of agree with Antimony here. You know there is more than a superficial and limited shift in concerned perception amongst the general lay populace when Pakistanis living in the US and elsewhere abroad increasingly start passing themselves off as Indians - either actively or passively. I have seen this in the US, I have seen this in the UK, I have seen this in France, I have seen this in Switzerland. These are not good times to be a Pakistani. Especially on the flip side when we know what it would take for us to ever say or even imply (or not correct) that we were Pakistani to someone else.
Outside the UK maybe, but within the UK, to certain segments of the public we are ALL Pakistani :biggrin:

They don't distinguish. If you look the part then thats all that matters to them.

So i've heard of ppl referring to themselves as British Hindu as oppposed to muslim. A distinction that wasn't really present pre-9/11. A further specialisation has since been added.

nvishal
12 Jul 11,, 10:11
Aid chart (US to Pakistan) from Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan)

http://i52.tinypic.com/2zedzyh.png

nvishal
12 Jul 11,, 17:07
We will see how supportive their big red pal China is
From what i understand, china prefers to stay "low profile" wrt its activities with pakistan. Coming for pakistans rescue at this point is equivalent to undermining US's efforts and an explicit challenge.

China aims to bypass india through pakistan to cultivate its economy and energy requirements. The question is if this "requirement" is precious/important enough for china to come out openly in support of pakistan and thereby challenge the US in the process.

Arguably, mainland pakistan stands to become a "theatre" in the future; one stretching till punjab.

I think china is several decades behind US's might. So it is difficult for me to imagine china coming forward at least for a country like pakistan.

Squirrel
12 Jul 11,, 19:14
From what i understand, china prefers to stay "low profile" wrt its activities with pakistan. Coming for pakistans rescue at this point is equivalent to undermining US's efforts and an explicit challenge.

China aims to bypass india through pakistan to cultivate its economy and energy requirements. The question is if this "requirement" is precious/important enough for china to come out openly in support of pakistan and thereby challenge the US in the process.

Arguably, mainland pakistan stands to become a "theatre" in the future; one stretching till punjab.

I think china is several decades behind US's might. So it is difficult for me to imagine china coming forward at least for a country like pakistan.

China and Pakistan both like to make big shows of words, and even bigger shows of their cooperation, because, there hasn't been much substantial happenings between the two. As for undermining US efforts - it wouldn't be a first.

China has repeatedly supported nations that the US doesn't have the greatest of relationships with (Libya anyone? next stop Angola). From what I understood, Pakistan was trying to pressure China into making a power play for that port city (starts with a "G", dont remember at the moment), thereby slighting Singapore (who, like many other Far East nations, has been regularly expressing concern over China's activities in the region to the US). China is in no hurry to make some big grabs where the US is firmly rooted (which I wonder how in the world China calmed the nerves of the Philippines over the Spratleys).

Pakistan, having played both sides for so long, is far too vulnerable to play hardball with the US, and knows that China is not a solution. Agreed.

As for China alone, the game of whack-a-mole will continue.

Double Edge
12 Jul 11,, 19:25
I think china is several decades behind US's might. So it is difficult for me to imagine china coming forward at least for a country like pakistan.
Not if they want to fight on two fronts.

Pakistan playing the china card: how substantial? | SAAG | Jun 30 2011 (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers46/paper4578.html)

Squirrel
12 Jul 11,, 19:32
Not if they want to fight on two fronts.

Pakistan playing the china card: how substantial? | SAAG | Jun 30 2011 (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers46/paper4578.html)

There is conflict with China proxies all over the world. It is truly the New Cold War.

nvishal
12 Jul 11,, 20:27
@DE
from the SAAG article...

Some reputed strategic analysts have opined that if ever there is a war between China and the United Sates it would not be over Taiwan but over Pakistan. It does make a lot of sense for such an assertion when China’s oversized strategic stakes and investments in Pakistan are considered and all those would stand endangered should a United States military intervention against Pakistan ever occur. In terms of strategic eventualities nothing should ever be ruled out.

However there is one major strategic complication for China should it feel inclined or be drawn into a military conflict with the United States over Pakistan. This is that such a military confrontation of China with the United States over Pakistan would not be restricted to South Asian confines. China would then have to be prepared for a two-front war with the United States, the first in Pakistan and South Asia and this situation forcing the United Sates to open a second front in East Asia.
This is true. China is making a considerable investment in pakistan which stretches from one corner of the country to the other. If pakistan becomes a "theatre", all that investment will be in jeopardy.

It is difficult to believe that china can openly confront the US. I mean, will the war stay limited within pakistan or will the US extend strikes to mainland china? If so, then it will clearly be a strategic mistake by china.

Although i think china still has hopes for the gwadar port. But a military intervention by US in pakistan is going to put all of chinas plans to knot.

Parihaka
12 Jul 11,, 20:50
In business China is making very good friends. It's in the ailing and aged political leadership that China's friends are less than stellar. North Korea and Pakistan are not countries I'd choose to be associated with. I expect China's support of Pakistan to alter over the next 20 years as China's businessmen discover the benefits of trading with India and vice versa.

ace16807
12 Jul 11,, 20:52
China has repeatedly supported nations that the US doesn't have the greatest of relationships with (Libya anyone? next stop Angola).

Eh? So they have workers there, but that's not because of the US-Libya relationship.



From what I understood, Pakistan was trying to pressure China into making a power play for that port city (starts with a "G", dont remember at the moment), thereby slighting Singapore (who, like many other Far East nations, has been regularly expressing concern over China's activities in the region to the US). China is in no hurry to make some big grabs where the US is firmly rooted (which I wonder how in the world China calmed the nerves of the Philippines over the Spratleys).

Gwadar is a distant prospect regarding a potential PLAN base. The port is relatively isolated in Baluchistan and constructing a naval base there would be a logistical nightmare, especially considering the unstable nature of the region. Chinese nationals in the region have already been targeted. Gwadar failed to live up to what Pakistan hoped it would be (a port a-la Singapore), so they're half hoping that the PRC will salvage something out of that. Illusions that it would even reach shipping volume remotely close to Singapore are long gone. Really this whole deal reflects a desparate Pakistan rather than an opportunistic China.



Pakistan, having played both sides for so long, is far too vulnerable to play hardball with the US, and knows that China is not a solution. Agreed.

As for China alone, the game of whack-a-mole will continue.[/QUOTE]

Squirrel
12 Jul 11,, 21:33
Eh? So they have workers there, but that's not because of the US-Libya relationship.




Gwadar is a distant prospect regarding a potential PLAN base. The port is relatively isolated in Baluchistan and constructing a naval base there would be a logistical nightmare, especially considering the unstable nature of the region. Chinese nationals in the region have already been targeted. Gwadar failed to live up to what Pakistan hoped it would be (a port a-la Singapore), so they're half hoping that the PRC will salvage something out of that. Illusions that it would even reach shipping volume remotely close to Singapore are long gone. Really this whole deal reflects a desparate Pakistan rather than an opportunistic China.



Pakistan, having played both sides for so long, is far too vulnerable to play hardball with the US, and knows that China is not a solution. Agreed.

As for China alone, the game of whack-a-mole will continue.[/QUOTE]

Totally in agreement. It was actually Pakistan that made the premature announcement that China was to take over Gwadar, then China said "not so fast," effectively. It was definitely some wishful thinking on behalf of the Pakistanis.

Double Edge
12 Jul 11,, 22:02
In business China is making very good friends. It's in the ailing and aged political leadership that China's friends are less than stellar. North Korea and Pakistan are not countries I'd choose to be associated with. I expect China's support of Pakistan to alter over the next 20 years as China's businessmen discover the benefits of trading with India and vice versa.
Am getting that impression as well, China is going to tell the US look we don't want to kill you we just want to sell you everything. And they will say that not just to the US or India, but the world.

Fighting with your customers is bad for business. They are not going to be drawn into any premature conflicts. N.Korea & Vietnam is yesterdays China.

What i'm unsure about is whether the US will do anything to tempt them in the mean time. If these are truly two drunks walking down the road leaning on each other then one would think not.

classical1939
13 Jul 11,, 17:57
I hardly think it is a matter of a of patience of the Americans.

Cases in point : the 911 incidents were met by an American led azz whomping of epic proportions on Al Queda (of course, they got a tad carried over with the whole extending WoT on Iraq thing).

We responded to the Kandahar incidents by releasing Masood Azhar and associated scumbags; to the Kargil incident by not crossing the LoC, to the 2001 Parliament attacks by mounting a large operation and then climbing down and to the 26/11 incidents with statements of strong displeasure. Our patience, I fear, is limitless :frown::mad:

Chogy and S2




I also do not buy into the ignorant American sterotype. Most Americans, as much I have dealt with them are perfectly cognizant of world wide going ons, at least the ones I have met in the State of Washington. They also do not shy away from challenging the government on details of policy, a look at the tea party movement should shed any doubts to that.


Three blasts in mumbai... Time to show the world some more patience.... :mad:

Double Edge
13 Jul 11,, 20:19
Three blasts in mumbai... Time to show the world some more patience.... :mad:
World ?

What about those that run mumbai.

Am not interested in any foreign hand blah blah.

Just tell me why they were successful.

classical1939
13 Jul 11,, 21:48
World ?

What about those that run mumbai.

Am not interested in any foreign hand blah blah.

Just tell me why they were successful.

you hinting at the underworld?

Double Edge
13 Jul 11,, 22:02
Nobody has claimed responsibilty as yet so cannot say.

antimony
14 Jul 11,, 05:30
In business China is making very good friends. It's in the ailing and aged political leadership that China's friends are less than stellar. North Korea and Pakistan are not countries I'd choose to be associated with. I expect China's support of Pakistan to alter over the next 20 years as China's businessmen discover the benefits of trading with India and vice versa.

On that note, an interesting article on the ET

Growing number of Chinese business executives working in India not willing to go back - Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-07-10/news/29758084_1_chinese-businessmen-chinese-executives-china-minmetals)

Excerpt :

Eric is part of a growing cadre of Chinese businessmen who have tied their fortunes to India's star, attuning their lives and crafting corporate strategies around a booming 1.3-billion-person market. In the blizzard of clothes, chemicals, metals, electronic goods and toys from China, one key export to India - executives - has largely gone unnoticed. The number of visas issued to Chinese executives increased nearly four-fold to 60,000 between 2004 and 2010, according to Chinese embassy data.
.
.
.
For many Chinese, the India story has played out like a series of never-ending sequels. "I was not keen to come to India. But India was a big shock to me. It is just as modern as China," says Liu. His idea of India was built on a diet of Mithun Chakraborty movies. That India was "traditional" and the malls, restaurants and roads that greeted him in India came as a pleasant surprise.

Indians too would be just as surprised with the attempts of Chinese businessmen to adapt, given that they were screaming foul at Indian conditions not long ago. "They have taken to India just as a duck takes to water," says an Indian businessman who has interacted with Sinosteel executives.


Dovetails neatly into my view that people to people and business to business contacts and relations drive bi-lateral relations, not governments. Indian people and businesses have been quite close with the USA even during the cold war era, while the Indian government leaned towards USSR.

S2
14 Jul 11,, 14:13
"Dovetails neatly into my view that people to people and business to business contacts and relations drive bi-lateral relations, not governments. Indian people and businesses have been quite close with the USA even during the cold war era, while the Indian government leaned towards USSR."

Concur. I've long contended that America would conquer the world with Mickey Mouse, Elvis and MTV. Tongue-in-cheek, to be sure, but my way of suggesting that business and culture are everything and government miniscule by comparison.

vsdoc
15 Jul 11,, 06:51
Concur. I've long contended that America would conquer the world with Mickey Mouse, Elvis and MTV. Tongue-in-cheek, to be sure, but my way of suggesting that business and culture are everything and government miniscule by comparison.

For the sake of my generation, please add Baywatch to the list as well. Immense impact on socio-cultural upliftment out here. And in terms of liberalization, coincided right up there with Manmohan Singh and color TV historically.