In sunny and warm Washington, these are the days dominated by the visit of the Prime Minister of India Mr Manmohan Singh.
It’s undoubtedly an important visit. The world’s most powerful country and what shortly will be the world’s most popolous country. And they are both well-functioning democracies governed by the rule of the law and committed to an increasingly open global economy.
Mr Singh was given the honour of addressing a Joint Session of Congress, and I have linked to his speech, which gives a flavour of how modern India approaches the modern world.
He rightly stressed the success of India’s policy of liberalizing its economy:
”The economic policy changes that have been made in India have far-reaching implications. They have liberated Indian enterprise from government control and made the economy much more open to global flows of trade, capital and technology. Our entrepreneurial talent has been unleashed, and is encouraged to compete with the best. We will continue this process so that Indian talent and enterprise can realize its full potential, enabling India to participate in the global economy as an equal partner.”
That’s important. But what gets the immediate headline is the US offer to India of technology for the nuclear power production, lifting existing sanctions in that area. India needs the power for its future economic development.
Thus, the US accepts India as a nuclear weapons power, and stands ready to help it use also the possibilities of the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
An axis of democracies is being formed between North America and South Asia. Europe take note.
Sweden, on the contrary, is dismantling its technology and skill on nuclear plants, and above all, rejecting peoples opinion on this and other important issues.
The future of the democratic India seems much more promising than that of the post-democratic, pre-islamic Sweden, which already poses a threat in the region.
I agree that the swedish policies on nuclear power are hard-headed, at the least. But do you really have to use phrases as ”post-democratic” and ”pre-islamic”.
It’s really not that bad, you can cast your vote this coming election and participate in changing the balance of power (or not) if you want.
As for the second quote, that’s just wrong. Look at Britain. Are they ”pre-islamic”, or perhaps ”pre-hindu”, because of their large population of immigrants from these regions? No, Britain as a multi-cultural society has thrived.
The idea of democracy is to prevent misstakes, not to have to correct them all the time. That is more in line with dictatorship.
Once investments are dismantled, then what is the choice for voters?
What´s the limit of stupidity if constructive feedback is rejected or even massacred, as the case on emigration issues?
We are already lost deep in the mud of mullas.