the difference between Europe and India agriculture
Answers
Explanation:
On the surface, Europe and India could not be more dissimilar: culturally, historically, demographically. Identifying common strategic interests is challenging partly due to an absence of geographic proximity, partly due to the contraction of Europe’s own capabilities. But India and Europe are not so different. Both have had to rethink their place in the world as a result of China’s changed role on the global stage. This has also forced them to re-examine their relationships with global players like the United States, Russia, and Japan.
A recent articlei in The Economist described politics in India as “big and messy: hundreds of millions of voters, from vastly different backgrounds, are bound to hold widely divergent views. Concerns at local and state level often trump national ones, and national affairs can appear as an amalgam of assorted local rivalries.” Such a description could easily be used for Europe’s own situation where 27 member states vie to get their competing national interests onto Brussels’ agenda of priorities.
Lizza Bomassi
Lizza Bomassi is the deputy director of Carnegie Europe, where she is responsible for harmonizing Carnegie Europe’s strategic and operational priorities and managing relations with Carnegie’s global centers and programs as well as partner organizations in Europe
India and Europe also have similar neighborhood challenges. Countries on Europe’s eastern and southern flank look to Europe to offset Russian dominance (Europe’s east) and respond to ever more complicated domestic politics in the Middle East (Europe’s south). States in the Asia-Pacific increasingly look to India to balance out Chinese hegemony in the region.
India’s and Europe’s relationship with each otherii is often criticized for being overly cautious in its ambitions and lacking in concrete elements. This is also symptomatic of their shortcomings vis-à-vis the likes of China, Russia, the United States, and Japan: a generally uninspiring performance record and wanting in prioritization, ultimately leading to limited political clout. That India and Europe have so underperformed in their relationships with the global players is hardly surprising given their overall lack of internal coherence. Yet each of these relationships comes with its own set of challenges which are not necessarily insurmountable.
SIMILAR CHALLENGES MAKE FOR SIMILAR OPPORTUNITIES
EUROPE, INDIA, AND THE UNITED STATES
Europe’s relationship with the United States has always been a privileged one based on common values and shared history which has given the Americans a permanent security (almost political) footprint in Europe. Enough so that when the United States started looking towards the Pacific Rim to provide the stronger economic guarantees that the transatlantic relationship could no longer maintain; Europe’s reaction was one of restrained panic. These days the Americans expect their European cousins to assume a bigger role in providing for European security and beyond. This will probably remain a pipe-dream until Europe is able to put its financial house in order.
India’s relationship with the United States bears a surprising resemblance to the European relationship. President Obama’s “pivot” towards Asia has had the intended, or unintended, consequence of exerting pressure on the region’s more powerful countries such as India and Japan to adopt a larger security role and offset Chinese dominance in the region. This is especially true when looking at China’s increasingly aggressive attitude towards its neighbors in the South China Sea. Which role India will eventually come to play remains to be seen as the country struggles to balance its own ambitions as a global player with its traditionally non-interventionist policies.
INDIA AND CHINA, EUROPE AND RUSSIA
Europe’s relationship with Russia and India’s relationship with China are comparable in terms of what dominates their internal agenda’s and how that leads to tensions in their dealings with each other. Energy security is a case in point which highlights how the relationship with the other is both exacerbated and defined by a major national interest.