Connect with us

South Asia

India-Japan 2+2 Strategic Dialogue Resets Strategic Ties

Published

on

India-Japan bilateral ties reached another milestone when the maiden Foreign and Defence Ministerial Dialogue (2+2) was held on 30 November in New Delhi during which the two sides discussed boosting defence and security ties besides other issues of mutual interest. While the Indian delegation was led by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, Japan’s Foreign Affairs Minister Toshimitsu Motegi and Defence Minister Taro Kono led the Japanese side. The 2+2 ministerial dialogue is seen as an upgrade of the meeting between foreign and defence secretaries of the two countries, the first round of which took place in 2010. The upgrade to the ministerial level talks follows an agreement reached between Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi and his Japanese counterpart Abe Shinzo during the 13th India-Japan Annual Summit held in Japan in October 2018. So far, India holds similar ministerial level 2+2 dialogue only with the US and with the start of similar format with Japan, the strategic congruence between the three countries comes into focus.

The significance of this bilateral ministerial meeting can be deciphered from the fact that it came weeks ahead of the annual summit of the two prime ministers, the 14th summit, scheduled to be held in Guwahati later in December 2019. The choice of Guwahati as the summit venue is in line with the Modi government’s policy to hold such high-profile meets outside Delhi to give glimpses of India’s rich cultural history to visiting dignitaries. The Japanese Prime Minister may also visit Imphal in neighbouring Manipur, once a battlefield between Japan and the Allied forces during World War II and pray for peace.  

The 2+2 meeting provided an opportunity for the two sides to review the status and exchange further views on strengthening defence and security cooperation between the two countries and also aimed to give stronger spine to the existing India-Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership. Besides, the two sides exchanged views on the situation in the Indo-Pacific region and their respective efforts under India’s ‘Act East Policy’ and Japan’s ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision’ for achieving their shared objective of peace, prosperity and progress to realize a better future for the people of the two countries and the region.

The 2+2 ministerial dialogue reflects the growing relations between the two countries, especially on strategic and security issues. The focus was on seeking ways to advance cooperation for peace and progress in the Indo-Pacific region and the desire of both countries to create a rules-based framework to ensure the Indo-Pacific region remains free, fair and inclusive. The two countries, both major importers of energy, are keen to ensure freedom of navigation in regional waters against the backdrop of China’s increasingly assertive behaviour. India and Japan have also made progress in efforts aimed at maritime domain awareness in regional waters and are currently engaged in negotiations for an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement, which is aimed at boosting joint efforts on military hardware.

The armies and air forces of the two countries held their first bilateral exercises in 2018. Though there is a great deal of convergence of interests in the strategic and security domains, a Japanese proposal to sell the Shin Maywa US-2 amphibious aircraft to the Indian Navy appears to have run into trouble, largely due to the cost of the aircraft. If an agreement on this strategic asset is concluded enabling India to purchase the aircraft, it could enhance India’s capability mix in the context of the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) efforts. It would also be a good addition to India’s recent maritime capability acquisitions including the P-8I maritime patrol aircraft and the potential acquisition of the Sea Guardian armed drone.

Japan is keen that an agreement on this is reached as soon as possible. In order to entice India for this acquisition, Japan has committed to manufacture 30 percent of the aircraft in India and this could eventually help improve Indian defense manufacturing. The two have also established a working group to study the possibilities in Visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) Based Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Augmentation Technology for UGV/robotics. Opportunities in the areas of technology collaboration are significant. Defense electronics is particularly important for India since its domestic defense electronic manufacturing segment is still at a nascent stage and it has to partner with its strategic partners in building a domestic capability base but also direct procurement of those capabilities in the interim.

At the last 2+2 dialogue at the official level in 2018, the two sides had “discussed measures to strengthen cooperation in fields such as counterterrorism, maritime security, defence equipment and technology

[and]

peacekeeping operations”. These issues were taken up at a higher level at the ministerial level dialogue. During the India-Japan defence dialogue last September, defence minister Rajnath Singh and his Japanese counterpart Takeshi Iwaya had stressed that peace and stability in the Indian and Pacific Oceans are “crucial for ensuring prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region”. They had also discussed the security situation in the Indo-Pacific, including developments on the Korean peninsula and the South China Sea. The Prime Ministers of India and Japan in their Vision Statement in October 2018 had reiterated their commitments to working together towards a free and open Indo-Pacific. Both sides have an inclusive approach in the region and defined their emerging Asian strategic framework with that goal in mind. Both see China’s approach in the region as being exclusivist. There is a clear clash between their two visions of the region.

This time around, the ministerial dialogue added strategic heft to the special relationship in the wake of growing Chinese assertiveness on regional affairs.  No wonder, maritime cooperation in the Indo-Pacific topped in the ministerial talks. There is strategic congruence between the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and the Indian Navy demonstrated by participation in multilateral exercises, including participation as observers. Both the Japan-India-US trilateral maritime exercise ‘Malabar 2019’ held from late September to early October 2019, and the second Japan-India-US trilateral mine-countermeasures exercise (MINEX) held in July 2019 are aimed at deepening cooperation in the maritime domain. Similar trilateral exercises in the same framework are likely to continue at an annual basis. 

Besides, the Armies and Air Forces of India and Japan held their first bilateral exercises, ‘Dharma Guardian’ and ‘Shinyuu Maitri’ in 2018. Last year, Japan also joined the India-US Air Force exercise ‘Cope India’ as an observer for the first time. The two countries have made steady progress in Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) based on implementing the arrangement for deeper cooperation between the two navies, signed in 2018. With an eye on China, both the countries are also close to concluding negotiations on Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ASCA), a military logistics sharing pact. Such an agreement could expand the strategic reach and influence of both the militaries that would allow both countries to access each others’ naval bases. While Japan could gain access to Indian facilities in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India could have access to Japan’s naval facility in Djibouti. India took more than a decade to finalize such an agreement with the United States, but now that it has been done once, New Delhi has found it less problematic to do others. It has now concluded such deals also with France and South Korea; talks for a similar deal with Australia are at an advanced stage. The negotiations for the ASCA with Japan commenced after the October 2018 summit meeting. Discussions on global commons including maritime, outer space, and cyber space have been key themes in the dialogue process.

When India opted to stay out of the RCEP in November 2019 Bangkok summit, reports surfaced that Japan shall make a big push to convince India to join the mega pact. But soon it transpired that Japan itself would not be a part of the RCEP without India. Japan’s deputy minister for economy, trade and industry Hideki Makihara made it clear that Japan was at the moment thinking only of negotiations. China has sought to accelerate the RCEP deal but India is unwilling without adequate safeguards and commensurate market access to the rest of the 15 RCEP members for its IT and services sector.

In a meeting with Kono and Motegi in New Delhi, Prime Minister Modi reiterated that joining the free trade pact in its present form would be detrimental to India’s interests. Modi was assured that Tokyo was working with other RCEP countries to address “core concerns” raised by India. Kono and Motegi referred to the RCEP joint statement issued in Bangkok which said India had outstanding issues and that all participating countries will work together to resolve these in a mutually satisfactory way. China in particular that hoped to benefit massively through market access in India seems to be perturbed by India’s decision not to join the RCEP deal, effectively wrecking its aim to create the world’s largest free trade area having half of the world’s population.  

Japan sees free trade as one of the pillars of its Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy and is keen that India joins the RCEP. Japanese foreign ministry deputy press secretary Atsushi Kaifu, who accompanied Motegi to India underlined to working with India for regional peace and prosperity by enhancing connectivity. Japan acknowledges its commitment to the infrastructure development and increase connectivity, with the north-east as the focus area. It remains unclear at the moment if India will be willing to change its stance on the RCEP.

War against terror is a common issue between India and Japan. In strong words on Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism, the ministers from both sides asked Islamabad to take “resolute and irreversible” steps against terror networks operating from its soil. The two countries called upon Islamabad to “fully comply” with its international commitments to deal with terrorism including the steps prescribed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The Indian defence and foreign ministers will be meeting their US counterparts Mike Pompeo and Mark Esper for the next round of the 2+2 dialogue on December 18. It is likely that some of the issues discussed with the Japanese counterparts would be shared with Pompeo and Esper, contributing further towards mutual understanding.            

The India-Japan ministerial level 2+2 strategic dialogue is an important initiative. It emphasizes the deep interest that both sides have to further strengthen their security and strategic engagements. Unlike Japan’s relations with China, Koreas and some ASEAN countries which suffer from the shadow of history, India-Japan ties have no such historical baggage, the only aberration being when Japan reacted harshly after India detonated a nuclear bomb in 1998. The China factor also propels both to see common grounds and their worldviews are shaped accordingly. India and Japan alone are unlikely be able to cope with the China challenge. They need a larger coalition to balance China effectively. The Quad initiative could be a possible channel that can address issues in the larger Asia and the world.

Professor (Dr.) Rajaram Panda, former Senior Fellow at IDSA and ICCR India Chair Professor at Reitaku University, Japan is currently Lok Sabha Research Fellow, Parliament of India, and Member of Governing Council, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Similarities between Trump-Modi Policies and their Actions

Published

on

President Donald Trump calls PM Narendra Modi the father of India; according to him he has been successful in combining every section of society like a father combines the whole family through caring for the needs, necessities and reservations of his children. Including praise for PM Modi, President Trump has raised very serious matters for the nations of the world in his recent speeches. Throughout his tenure, President Trump has remained centred on the idea of “American Exceptionalism.” As evident in his statements, he has already expressed in one of his recent speeches that “The future does not belong to globalists, the future belongs to patriots”. He further explained that this is the rise of nationalism and fall of globalism. Though, whatever the ideology guiding President Trump’s statements and strategies it still creates several complexities for the world, especially for weaker developing nations. In the same way, PM Modi has expressed his ideas and thoughts – as influenced by RSS ideology – which are also based on a similar sense of superiority albeit based around a predominantly Hindu inspired nationalism.

Taking into account this idea of America as the saviour of the world -, as evident in its penchant to intervene in any part of the world -the US has created its own definitions what is just and unjust. Likewise, PM Modi’s more hands-on approach to Kashmir and even to a certain extent Gujrat represents a similar approach couched in a sort of ‘saviour’ complex. According to PM Modi, the ancient books of Hinduism give the lesson of humanity throughout the world that it is protected under their responsibility. In this regard, they will work in collaboration with other states who also want to protect the same cause of saving humanity as described by both President Trump and PM Modi during the Howdy-Modi gatherings in United States. Thus, hinting at perhaps a dangerous penchant for a more interventionist approach to world politics.

Now this is psychological rhetoric used by different entities to provide a moral justification for their actions in an attempt to make their actions legal and just in front of a specifically targeted audience. As such this kind of manoeuvring, used by States and individual rulers via looking over the changing global dynamics, is all about gaining interests, power, dominance and influence. There was a period when Narendra Modi was banned in America as well as some other countries of the world. He was banned because of the numerous atrocities, massacres, misconducts and the spread of RSS extremist ideology. He was the central person who was allegedly involved in the massacre of the Babri Masjid in Gujrat, India. He has been an active member of the RSS for a very long period of time. As such he remains famous for his fascist, extremist, hawkish and discriminatory policies imposed on the people of India. These include his harsh policies against the people of Jammu and Kashmir which are glaring proof ofseveral human rights violations.

PM Modi and President Trump have the same ambitions despite the varying differences between the status, development levels, technology, and economies of their respective countries. However, there are numerous similarities within their ideologies, policies and actions as they are mostly inspired by their far-right more conservative electoral bases. Such types of states or individual rulers use beliefs and ideologies for legitimizing their actions. In this regard, United States of America has been practicing these policies and actions within various parts of the world like Palestine, Middle East, Afghanistan. If America is imposing such injustices such a significant share of the world’s population while projecting itself as the saviour of human right violations, then any state with the ability to project power and influence could exploit the situation against the pretext of saving human right violations. As evident, it is this same mentality that has led to the deterioration of the security of various parts of world.

Similarly, Narendra Modi’s ideology has been generating serious issues for the security of South Asia. In this regard, PM Modi along with several other RSS stalwarts have been accused of spreading violence, discrimination and hatred against India’s marginalized communities such as Dalits, Sikhs Christians particularly Muslim and other religious minorities. The recent controversy embroiling the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is an example of such violent and extremist policies which have already resulted in mass agitations and strikes throughout India. The policies and actions adopted by PM Modi have been the cause of various problems within India as well as in the region including the repeated threats from BJP leaders against Pakistan.

When there are nuclear states being led by such leaders who have already fought several wars over multiple issues, they require a certain maturity, sense of responsibility, rationality and understanding in their behaviours as well as the actions of their rulers. Such kind of statements and behaviours portray a picture of madness or irrationality which can generate various problems for the peace and security of both nations as well as regional stability. Both PM Modi and President Trump would do well to ponder over that together during their forthcoming meetings in India which is considered very important for the strategic partnership of India as well as regional security and stability.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Dysfunctional Government of Pakistan

Rafaqat Khalil

Published

on

The def of successful government is to control defined territories, population, conduct diplomatic relation with other state, succeed in providing peace & stability to their public & monopolize legitimate violence in their territory. While a stateless or failed government can not create peace, law & order for their population, no control over their territory, weak & dependent institution. There will be no economic stability & no control over the distribution of goods. The massive economic violence, warlord’s & unequal distribution of resources make a failed government.

Resent example of weak government is Pakistan. Where disintegration occur, civilian dependent institute, selection on the name of election, ruling of bureaucrat instead of serving, no check & balance system on institute, monopoly on foreign & internal policy, no freedom of expression, demand of right & protest is a crime. Instead of rule of Law, autocracy is on peak.

That’s why this country face major challenges like humanitarian, extremism, sectarianism, violence, poverty, foreign aid budget, enforced disappearance, disease & philanthropic resources. On the slogan of national interest public face insecurity & unsafety. Because interference is on peak, instead of own constitutional duties s/he interfere in dealing of other. When the nondemocratic forces influence the weak democratic institute then the contract between the state & citizen will be weaker. And majority of population will be unpleasure from law & order implementation.

Where does Pakistan stand in term of democracy, freedom, rule of law, independence of Judiciary and sovereignty of parliament? Are we the people of Pakistan is not democratic? Is democracy will not solve our problem like politics of dynasty, personality-oriented politics, presidential and parliamentary form of government, check and balance in legislature, judiciary and executive, power of president and PM, making and amending of constitution?  Procedure of Election and action against rigging and horse trading. The superpower and indigenous conspiracies and its short- and long-term effects? Devolution of power to local government system and participation of women in our politics? Literacy rate and influence of clergy on public?

The genesis of the present situation is that in Pakistan politics has never been based on some specific philosophy, programmed or principles. It has been in negation of all the ingredients of democracy. It has always been confined to prison or personalities. Ever since partition the only motive of alliances has been for personal gain, power and wealth. Political parties are the personal fiefdom of political leaders; scions of interrelated families of Landlords, Pirs, Nawabs, industrialists, business tycoons and Generals. They conspire and intrigue with civil/ military bureaucracy to achieve, retain and perpetuate power.

The historical background of the issue irradiates that our provincial and national politics have been helpless victims of the power hogging syndrome. Whoever reaches the throne, sets about misusing all the power that he can lay his lands on, whether, it is covered by the rules or not. However, the local government was degenerated into an instrument for perpetuating the British Raj. Bureaucracy was imposed on the people’s representatives; Deputy commissioners were the pillars of British Empire. Nothing much changed after independence in the year 1947. Pakistan inherited a highly centralized political system. Even the idea of federation envisaged by the successive reconstitutions was negated by the preponderance of the central government’s power in legislative, financial, administrative and political fields. The ruling classes confirm to the colonial traditions of governing the entire country from a strong center.

Now it’s the basic responsibility of international community, actors, Institutions & nongovernmental organizations to address these issues immediately. Empowering political parties, strengthening constitution, independent & effective judiciary, reviewing a professional military & police service, effective & influential governance, stopping humanitarian and security problem and holding free & fair election. To return from a weak government to a functioning govt. 

Continue Reading

South Asia

Pakistan- Afghanistan- Turkey Trilateral Summits and its implication for the region

Rahat Shah

Published

on

This essay aims to critically explain the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Turkey Trilateral Summits and its implications for the region. These summits were initiated by Turkey to normalize the bilateral relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We found that these summits have somehow normalized the relations, but still, there is a need for a formal treaty such as strategic partnership and consensus. The author holds that if both states sign these two treaties, then it will lead them to build a common security community and focus on the positive-sum game, instead of zero. Moreover, it will provide them the opportunity for confidence-building and security reassurance. If they succeed to do so will vital implications for the region. For instance, it will confidently overcome the issue of terrorism which is problematic to the security of the whole region.

Turkey was the first Muslim country that tried to ameliorate Pakistan and Afghanistan’s relations during the post 9/11 decades. Ankara began to hold a presidential summit known as the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Turkey Tripartite Summit in April 2007. Since 1947, the bilateral relations between Islamabad and Kabul have been weakened mainly due to security reasons. The security reason is very diaphanous as the Afghanistan government did not agree to recognize the Durand Line border due to their claim that some part of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtoon Khowa province belongs to Afghanistan. In fact, it is an international 2,430-kilometre border that separates both states from each other. The Duran Line represents the name of Henry Mortimer Durand, a foreign secretary of the colonial government of India. He was an official who demarcated the border between Afghanistan and British India after diplomatic negotiations in 1893. However, in 1947, after the independence of Pakistan, this became a security tension between Islamabad and Kabul. Besides, bilateral security issues it is widely believed that the terrorists such as Al-Qaida and Taliban are taking benefit of this border and are easily moving from Afghanistan to Tribal area of Pakistan.

In Sep 2005, due to the threat of terrorism, Islamabad decided to commence the fencing of the border where work was begun in Apr 2007. Nevertheless, this was unacceptable to Afghanistan because they hold the claim that it will weaken the free movement of the Pashtun tribe. The Afghan government further argued that fencing is nothing more than the division of our Pashtoon tribes because the fencing cannot stop terrorism. Both state blame on each other for terrorism as it is noted that “the Afghan government has been blaming Pakistan for harboring key Taliban leaders on its soil and providing them with sanctuaries to stage war against Afghan forces and their foreign counterparts. However, Pakistan has often rejected the allegations and has claimed that it is extending support to the Afghan peace process”. On the other side Pakistan claims that India is using Afghan soil for terrorists’ activities against Pakistan.

However, Turkey tried to eschew any possible conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan but it bore no fruits. As in May 2007, the Afghan forces tore the fencing, which consequently led both side troops to serious conflicts. Same On 5 May 2017, an armed skirmish occurred after Afghan forces attacked a Pakistani census team in Chaman, in Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan. At least 15 people died on both sides in the immediate border clash. It is one of a series of similar border-related incidents between the two countries. This plight confirmed that there are misunderstandings and a deficit of trust between both states. Even both states were informally agreed in 2007 in Turkey during Trilateral summits that both will respect the territorial integrity and will not interfere in the domestic affair of each other. Given this, Turkish President Abdullah Gul again invited the two countries in the same year to resolve the issue and promised to hold a summit every year until relations between the two countries were normalized. Further, in the second summit, the three states decided to work on shared military exercises and to share intelligence information on terrorism. Turkey also assured that both states need to build contact between their parliaments which are essential for trust-building. With the passage of time these summits somehow brought the both states at conclusion to avoid any possible conflicts and interference in each other domestic affairs but it still need formal proper agreements for positive results which are important for the whole region.

Implication for the region

Now, for instance, these trilateral summits succeed, then what will be the implication for the region? The first and foremost implication will be the resolution of Afghan’s issue itself. For instance, if both Pakistan and Afghanistan get agree for strategic partnership and flexible consensus, then both can build common security where they will think for win-win security cooperation instead of zero-sum. The common security will build trust between them as the international system is anarchic and no one knows the intention of other states, especially the presence of India in Afghanistan is hideous for Pakistan. The flexible consensus will bring both states at one page to mutually formulate the policies that serve best their specific interests.

The second most significant advantage will be if both states build common security then will surely overcome terrorism which is not only problematical to the security of both states but as well as to the whole region. For instance, terrorism has no boundary and no religion which means it can continue its activities anywhere they want. One of the Vulnerable region is the Central Asian Republican States which are strategically vital regions for the all great and major powers due to natural resources if the terrorism in Afghanistan rooted out then there will be no future threat to this region.

Suggestion

There is no doubt that Turkey is working to normalize relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but it needs to change its current policy based on informal processes because formal agreements are needed. In short, only spoken agreements are not enough Turkey should convince both states for strategic partnership and flexible consensus which is very important for the security of the whole region. The strategic partnership which is rival to relic power politics as the strategic partnership provides the opportunity of the win-win situation instead of zero sums. Where the flexible consensus is important due to its ability to bring both states policymaker at the same page to formulate mutual beneficial policies and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Newsdesk46 mins ago

ADB Approves CNY130 Million Private Sector Loan to Support Coronavirus Response in China

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) today signed an agreement for a private sector loan of up to CNY130 million ($18.6...

South Asia3 hours ago

Similarities between Trump-Modi Policies and their Actions

President Donald Trump calls PM Narendra Modi the father of India; according to him he has been successful in combining...

Eastern Europe5 hours ago

South Caucasus’ Role will be overshadowed by the US-Russia Competition Elsewhere in Eurasia

Recent geopolitical developments in Eurasia indicate that the South Caucasus’ relative importance could be overshadowed by West-Russia competition over Belarus,...

Reports7 hours ago

Uganda Can Create Higher Labor Productivity Jobs by Improving Trade and Business Environment

Uganda’s economy needs to gradually create more jobs for its fast-growing and youth population. To accelerate economic growth and drive...

Hotels & Resorts9 hours ago

Hyatt Expands Presence in Turkey with Plans for Hyatt Regency Izmir Istinye Park

Hyatt Hotels Corporation announced today that a Hyatt affiliate has entered into a franchise agreement with Orjin Konaklama Yönetim Hizmetleri...

Europe11 hours ago

‘Westlessness’: Shaping Anew the EU’s Power

The endurance of a political order cannot be permanently measured in the absence of any instrument, neither can it be...

EU Politics13 hours ago

Future EU-UK Partnership: Q&A on the negotiating directives

What has the Council adopted today? The General Affairs Council has today adopted a decision, as expected, to authorise the...

Trending