Minimal Invasive Diplomacy

An essential ingredient of what is called “improvement” in all processes and interactions is to make them, even if seemingly so, simpler, shorter, targeted, and what is generally termed as “less painful”
Though, the phenomenon is well understood, and must be part of upgrading any system over the years, the truest terminology that may now apply to diplomacy, politics, and corporate systems may come from some evolving and emergent practices in medicine, “Minimally invasive procedures”
To be precise, medicine has always acknowledged, as procedures and processes in other spheres may accept, that the more you swerve beyond the targeted tissue, the more the exercise of excising of “what comes in the way”. In general, it takes away some important preservatives from what one yearns as optimum outcomes. Presently that may be bound by biological limitations. “Minimally Invasive”, for the while is the most promising expressway in clinical research and therapy.
To give a literary flashback, while withholding the brilliant legalities which give a final spin to the great plot of Shakespeare’s, Merchant of Venice, if only a pound of flesh could be retrieved without a drop of blood more or a drop less, it would have been a perfect procedure. Perfect in the medical sense that would apply to any pound, pound and a half, or quarter, flawed, malicious, malignant, no matter where it was placed, if that could save a human life.
We complete a week and a month of expected tribulations after inauguration of President Trump. Mostly fuelled by an unconventional campaign, turbo charged in the winning lap, that was unexpectedly yet so precisely timed to the “finish”, the understandable sudden sullenness of the Democrats (they had power the previous eight years), broadcasting of mega operations on immigration bans, working visas, a wall with Mexico, and finally a straight onslaught on “Obamacare”, igniting internal combustion within the US. These are early extrapolations, but matters seem to be settling down.
To be in Houston, the George Bush and Republican stronghold, during the President Day week (20th Feb this year), though the great consumer market concentrates on the “weekend”, and two consecutive days of NBC watching, (American media may not always be transparent, but at the least is still translucent), gives a great data base on the co-ordinates on the direction in which the “political missile”, may be heading. Let me confess, it’s a mind exercise, that is an application of deductive clinical diagnosis making!
The first message that comes out is that war bugles were sounded more as a strategy by a President, also a real estate Moghul, to get more parity in bargaining, which was actually the filtrate of the campaign slogan “America First”.
The immigration agenda has been shifted to the legal department. The White House shall fight, but he President is less likely to make it a personal issue. Period.
Mid-time last week, John Kelly. Chief DHS (department home security), visited Mexico, and has come out with an amicable statement that “there shall be no mass undocumented immigrant round-ups”, also excluding any “military missions”, a word probably yet to be explained, but possibly to give life to the initial toughness, to be allowed to peter out with time.
Obamacare, was in a way retrieved form the Democrats, as the Republicans believed it was Guv Romney’s idea. Ambivalent voices are emanating from the GOP, that it may not be replaced, but the “flaws may be rectified”. That’s what I call “minimal invasive diplomacy”
A political dialogue, like some others on the centre-stage of world politics, where the best strategists and facilitators are on the job, is not for me to comment. Yet it was “minimal”, when President Trump discussed with PM Netanyahu, and said that the US is open to what-ever can be agreed upon, one state, or two states! Hopefully amicable results may emerge. Yet to hear anything on this from Nostradamus.
There was some ruffling when President Trump, within a week of taking over, argued Taiwan as its training partner. There was a withdrawal as China reacted. Objection sustained, nothing lost!
Then comes a statement that America would like to be at the “top of the pack”, if the nuclear race is to go on. Is it an answer to any of the issues likely to come up, or are already hovering? Is it a general appropriation of America’s armed superiority, or does it have specific implications? Probably a combination of conditions mentioned.
President Trump, with a corporate mind, amongst all else, has shown that one has to push people to take decisions, or fall in line. He is pretty used to seeing the balance sheet. That’s perhaps why he talked of giving the “self-ignition” to the American manufacturing industry. That‘s what he meant when he talked about dilapidated factory houses, and reclining, smokeless chimneys!
There is news, that the American-backed Iraqi forces have taken over the Mosul airport, pushing out the IS. This, however, has been going on for quite a while. Seems to be a “timer” for further aggression, or surrender and peace!
Lessons for India are, that as the other big Democracy, with economic ties, we have much to offer in Indian pharma generics, even branded generics, that would be profitable for us, and affordable for US health policy makers. Profits shall be revenues to structure our own healthcare systems.
Collaborations in IT should strengthen, and Indian automotive industry has shown promise, in turning Jaguar, and Land Rover around. Ford in India has been the largest exporter of SUVs the previous year.
Most Indian corporate hospitals are certified for insurance cover by the US. There could be a treaty where they set campuses at places in the US, and charge what is profitable to both countries. There can be prior certification, and the H1B may see a revival with reasonable clauses.
The Indian foreign ministry, to say the least, knows “minimally invasive”, imbibed through the mixture of cultures and religions, and the philosophy of the Mahatma.
“Isko mein shohrat kahoon, ya apni ruswai, /Koi mujh sey pehly, us gali mein merey afsaaney gaye”
(Should I take it as fame, or notoriety, /That my gossip preceded my entry to the street)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s