These narratives are generally constructed from two sources.  The first source draws from historical events.  These events are simplified and often altered to highlight a moral value.  For instance, Britain has created a narrative around the signing of the Magna Carta.  This event has become a symbol of Britain’s inherent love of egalitarian liberty.  In reality, the event was an attempt by Norman barons to supplant the monarchy with an oligarchy.  It was over 600 years before a true democracy was established in Britain.

The other source of national narratives draws on common symbols and experiences.  For many countries, the national flag is the embodiment of national pride.  Holidays, such as Independence Day, also are common rallying points for patriotism.  Objects in everyday life, such as food or transportation, are also utilized for their symbolic value.  After all, what is more American than apple pie?  Comparing both the narratives and the symbols on which they are based is vital for two countries forging a closer relationship, such as the United States and India.  Both use a mode of transportation to create a national narrative, but with strikingly different storylines.

Life is a Highway
Despite rising oil prices and environmental concerns car ownership is still deemed necessary in the United States.  The typical argument for the importance of car ownership focuses on the sheer size of the country.  Urban planning and climate are also common examples of why Americans <i>need</i> cars.  American policy remains focused on maintaining the automotive industry at the expense of mass transportation.  Arguably, this is evidenced in the distribution of relief money during the recent economic crisis.

One of the real reasons why cars are necessary is because American has used the symbol of a convertible racing down an open highway as its definition of freedom.  From the post-WWII era, cars have meant independence.  Individuality, mobility, and self-discovery are all attached to the concept of an American car.  Since Jack Kerouac’s On the Road cars have been associated with a rite of passage that is uniquely American.  Nearly every American can tell you his personal narrative of earning a driver’s license.

American’s transportation narrative can be directly contrasted with India’s.  It is currently popular to compare these two democracies and enumerate all the ways that they are influencing each other.  Business, military, and political ties are growing.  The Indian diaspora is making its mark on the US, while American media has found a home in India.  All of these exchanges have not yet altered the symbolic narrative based on the Indian train.

Chal Chaiyya (Let’s Go)
While the Ambassador and Maruti cars have made their mark on Indian transportation, it is only when talking about train journeys that most Indians will wax nostalgic.  Stories center on long train journeys where all the travelers in a compartment told stories and shared food long into the night. Famous movies, such as <i>Dil Se</i> focus on connections made on train platforms and in railway compartments.  Train travel in India is a communal experience that is available to all its citizens, thanks to its graduated fare rates.  Generally, those who can afford to travel in air conditioned compartments do so, but it is rare to find a college student who doesn’t have a story about the time his group of friends took the sleeper coach for holiday travel.

The narrative of India’s trains is about a communal experience.  The narrative of American’s cars is about an individual journey.  At this basic level one can see that there are fundamental differences between the orientations of these two cultures.  Recognizing and celebrating these differences will help to smooth the path of cultural exchange.  It is easy enough to eat chicken tikka masala or watch Hollywood movies.  It is harder to understand America’s emphasis on the individual or India’s emphasis on the community.  What may seem like nepotism to one is hiring trusted employees to the other.  What may seem like selfishness to one is independence to the other.  Recognizing and understanding national narratives can create more comprehensive international relationships.

The release came a week after Burma held its first elections (in 20 years), which was coincidentally won by the biggest military-backed party (Union Solidarity and Development Party). The Burmese government however, did not allow for any international election monitors to enter country, a move which has been condemned by the international community and leaders at the United Nations.

Suu Kyi’s own party, the National League for Democracy won the last election in 1990 but was not allowed to take power, in 1991 she was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for her work.

Despite the excitement and joy regarding Suu Kyi’s release, no one knows what is to happen next. Will she and the NLD begin the move forward and push towards regime change? Will this result in her being arrested once again? Why did the government release her so soon after the election? There is room for much speculation as to why the release came at this time: perhaps the government hopes to improve their legitimacy and international image or are constructing a diversion for international press covering their “failed” election. This may even be a relatively short lived period of freedom for Suu Kyi, as no one is to know if the government will arrest her again to reassert their power.

It is without a doubt that the NLD and followers of Suu Kyi are ecstatic about her release, but we can not help but worry what the repercussions will be in the coming weeks.

Although anxiety exists, it was a proud day full of promise and hope, here Suu Kyi expresses her positive outlook for her people’s future:

“We must work together, we Burmese tend to believe in fate, but if we want change we have to do it ourselves.”

Follow Aung San Suu Kyi via BBC news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11752993

Today, India’s growth rate is 8%, compared to the United States’ growth of only 2%.  High tech companies such as Infosys and Wipro are moving out of the back office to become world names.  Some of India’s brightest minds are actually moving out of Silicon Valley and back to Bangalore.  For these reasons and more, the US is hoping to court Indian businessmen and officials to strengthen the economic ties between the two nations.

Even ten years ago such deal making, especially in the sale of dual-use technology, would have been nearly unthinkable.  In 1998, India conducted a series of five nuclear tests over the course of three days.  Pokhran II shocked the international community, especially when Pakistan conducted reciprocal tests a few weeks later.  The US led efforts to sanction India and that corner of South Asia was dubbed the “most dangerous place on earth.”  Remarkably, the US is now selling dual-use technology to a country it once alleged to be irresponsible with its nuclear technology.

This episode was nothing compared to the tensions between the two nations during the Cold War.  While India was a democracy and therefore a potential ally of the US, she was also the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement.  At that point in history the US had no time for nations that were not actively supporting its fight against communism.  That is why India was often branded a Soviet ally and neglected as the US armed friendly, but coup-ridden Pakistan.  Today, the tables have not quite turned.  America is still Pakistan’s ally and needs its valuable hinterland to continue to wage war in Afghanistan.  However, both India and US are playing the same waiting game: Pakistan must first deal with its domestic terrorism problem before full negotiations can resume.

Finally, after sixty years of tensions, the relationship between India and the US is taking its natural course.  The US is world’s oldest democracy and India’s is the largest.  Both countries work very hard to integrate a large and diverse population into the national fold.  There are mutual traditions of free press and human rights.  Beyond immediate economic benefits, a stronger partnership between these two giants can help maintain a liberal peace in the South Asian region.

The road to Indo-US cooperation has been long and winding.  Hopefully Obama’s visit to India this November will be looked back on as the decisive turning point in this journey.  A stronger partnership will increase net gains to both nations.

As my finance professor used to tell me — simply follow the money. A recent report from The Deutsch Bank Climate Change Advisors assessed that from 2000 to 2008 China had capital flows into clean energy in the amount of $41,196 M whereas the U.S. had 52,120M, India had 7,446M and Germany had 36,611M. From the numbers it is clear that the U.S. is still, so far, the most attractive environment for cleantech investment. But what is particularly notable for China is the large size of clean energy investment as a proportion of GDP in 2008. There is a political impetus for the development of green technology in China that is lacking in the U.S.

China already manufactures the cheapest solar panels in the world, and ranks in the top five for wind. According to this report, solar module prices are set to continue falling and the list of distressed solar companies needing to raise funds in the public market will only get longer. Indeed, competition has characterized the global solar PV market for some time now, and when supply catching up with demand the result is cheaper, more efficient solar panels. That can only be positive step towards the promotion of globally sustainable energy growth.

Perhaps there wasn’t much of a race to begin with. There are enough opportunities in the renewable energy value chain that it is possible for China to excel in manufacturing and the U.S. to excel in innovation (Apple?). To accelerate the uptake of renewable energy globally, we need both manufacturing expertise and cutting edge innovation. The U.S. should view China has a partner and not a threat in the development of greentech, given that each country features a different set of competitive advantages. It is time that the U.S., hopefully with appropriate incentives from the government, finds its niche in the industrialization of renewable energy; if not in manufacturing, then in the incubation of innovation and development of human capital.

The Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission is a major initiative to “promote ecologically sustainable growth while addressing India’s energy security challenge.” The objective of the scheme is to enable the rapid scale-up of capacity and technological innovation so that the cost of solar energy by 2022 would be comparable to the cost of conventional energy like coal or oil for electricity. The Clinton Climate Initiative is even more optimistic, stating that “Solar power in India will cost less than coal energy in five years.” The use of solar power will also help India to curb carbon emissions and ease its frustrating power shortage.

Dubbed “the most ambitious plan to develop solar energy over the next three or four decades,” its target is the deployment of 20,000 MW of solar power by 2022. To see just how ambitious the plan is, consider that as of October 2009 there were only 6 MW¹ of installed solar power capacity in India. The plan also seeks to deliver 20 million solar lighting systems for rural areas by 2022, but as of October 2009 only 510,877 have been installed. Through this policy, the government has provided the market with a strong signal that is sure to attract many investors to reconsider the potential solar opportunities in India. Aided by generous incentives from the central government, that target might yet be met.

One of these incentives is concessional financing in the form of low interest loans and accelerated depreciation for up to 80% of the capital cost. Others include generation-based incentives which means that the central government will pay the power producer Rs 12 for every unit of electricity that is fed into the grid. Another part of the policy that is expected to be a key driver of solar generation is the fixed obligation of state utilities to purchase solar power from independent developers.

To be sure, the scaling-up of solar energy on such a massive scale is a risky undertaking. In this regard, India is arguably the global pioneer among developing countries. Critics argue that the money poured into this scheme could be better used to connect the rural poor to the existing grid infrastructure in order to connect them with a large-scale, conventional power source. But fossil fuel is quickly reaching its limits, both in terms of fuel availability and the environmental damage it causes. The Government of India has made the right move to place their bet on a cleaner, newer type of technology. Jeffrey Sachs argues in The End of Poverty that energy systems for remote rural areas are one of the essential elements for ending poverty. With the help of a forward-looking government and energy sector, Solar energy definitely has the potential to be such an element.

For more information on the JNNSM, visit: http://mnes.nic.in/pdf/mission-document-JNNSM.pdf

1. In addition to 2.4 MW of off-grid solar photovoltaic power plants and street lights

Now that the proposal is public, the many sides of this controversy are beginning to take shape. Despite the many economic ties that the two countries have forged in the last few years (the “silk road” pipeline, Chinese investment in Kazakh oil companies), many issues still remain. Kazakhstan wants foreign investors to pour money into its agricultural sector and is willing to provide up to 3.5 million hectares of land, of which 1 million has recently been leased by China. China benefits from this deal because the farmland is suitable for growing soybeans, which constitute a large part of animal feed. Inevitably, the use of farmland by the Chinese means that there will be migration into Kazakhstan and therefore intensify the clash of cultures. Given that there are many ethnic Uighurs scattered throughout Kazakhstan, and given the Chinese government’s tumultuous record with this group in the Xinjiang province, it is no surprise that some people in Kazakhstan feel threatened by this so-called “expansionism.” As they see it, this is not simply a lease of land from one country to another, but a threat of exploitation and expansion against the context of increasing ethnic tensions between the Chinese and its immediate neighbours. The choice that the Kazakhstan government has made is a tough one — we can only wait and see if the benefits exceed the costs.

June started off with a plane crash of an Airbus flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. President Obama went to Cairo to make a speech about Muslims and the U.S — some people thought it was pretty good while others had more measured reactions. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, widely reported to be sickly with cancer, tapped his youngest son Jong Un as successor, and his sushi chef said he’s just like his dad. Palau decided to accept a few of the Uighur Guantanamo detainees, and a few of them were also taken in by Bermuda. The Bermudans, however, weren’t so happy about how that happened. A little later, Iran had a Presidential election. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won under most likely fraudulent circumstances because more people voted in some towns than existed there. People protested, and Twittered, and protested some more, with violent repercussions. New York Times reporter David Rohde escaped after 7 months of being held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In a seemingly pro-feminist move (but actually to the chagrin of many feminists), Nicolas Sarkozy supported a ban of the burqa in France. In Honduras, President Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a coup, and the U.S. military finally withdrew troops from Iraq to focus more instead on efforts to curb Taliban influence in Afghanistan.

In Urumqi, China, riots broke out between the majority Han Chinese and the minority Uighurs, and ethnic tension has remained heightened since, including recent claims that Uighurs are attacking Han Chinese with HIV infected needles. Two hotels were bombed in Jakarta, Indonesia. Hillary Clinton went to the Congo and brought attention to the use of rape and sexual violence as a tool of war (against men, too). Bill Clinton flew to North Korea and saved journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who had been captured in March and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. It was a good week to be a Clinton.

Former President of the Philippines Corazon Aquino died. RIP, Cory. In Taiwan, there was a really big typhoon. Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial was held over the question of whether or not she violated the terms of her house arrest when a crazy American guy swam through a lake to visit her on a supposedly divine mission. She was found guilty. The American was freed (but remained crazy). Everybody found out that private contractor organization Blackwater (now Xe) was hired by the CIA to assassinate targets. Scotland allowed the one convicted Lockerbie bomber to return to Libya because he is dying of cancer. Everybody was really, really mad, especially because it was probably because of oil. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe came down with the H1N1 virus. The Darfur conflict was reported as coming to an end. Afghanistan held Presidential elections which showed incumbent Hamid Karzai leading, but like Iran, this was probably also fraud. Unlike Iran, they’re actually recounting votes and throwing out bad ones.

Hopefully, that’s refreshed your mind with a whirlwind of memories from the past three months. But here are a couple of things that perhaps you might have missed:

China reversed its one child policy, but only in Shanghai.

Cambodia set out to host a “Miss Landmine” pageant to challenge traditional beauty standards by promoting a pageant for landmine victims. The pageant was quickly banned.

A Ukranian polka band came up with this cover of Katy Perry’s “Hot n Cold.”

Some of the lawsuits over harmful pesticide effects made by Nicaraguan farmers for Dole Food Co. turned out to be fraudulent (involving faked sterility tests, among other indicators), effectively casting doubt on all the other farmers who might have actually been harmed by the pesticides.

China tried to use electroshock therapy to cure teens of Internet addiction. The practice was quickly banned.

Canada granted refugee status to a white man from South Africa who claimed he was being persecuted in his native country on the basis of his race.

An IT company in South Africa ran a test to see what could send data faster: South African Internet service or a carrier pigeon. The pigeon won.

Anything missing? Of course. Drop a comment to add in any other summer global affairs news that slipped through the cracks!

We should be vigilant…

Bangladesh seeks help to repatriate Myanmar migrants