India-Japan Relationship in Global Trend
Prof. Girijesh PANT, Dean of International Studies, Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli, Prof. Lalima Varma, Dr. H. S. Prabhakar,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is my great pleasure to be back at JNU. I am especially happy to have this opportunity in my current capacity as the President of the Japan International Cooperation Agency. On this occasion, I feel that I am triply privileged to deliver a speech here at JNU.
I am privileged, firstly, because the current relationship between India and Japan is very good, perhaps the "closest" in the last six decades. Japan and India have laid solid foundation seeking mutually rewarding relations in the field of economic development, trade, investment, culture, science and technology, politics, and security. At the prime ministers' meeting in Tokyo on May 29th, Prime Minister Abe and Prime Minister Singh reaffirmed their commitment for furthering development of the "Japan-India Strategic and Global Partnership," an initiative established by themselves in 2006.
I am privileged, secondly, because JNU is an intellectual center in India fostering academic and policy-related studies on India's relations with Japan and other East Asian countries. I have been tremendously benefitted academically by my close associations with Professors Varma, Prabhakar and many others. I am looking forward to many comments and advice in today's discussion.
I am privileged, thirdly, because JICA is a public purpose organization of the Government of Japan best known in this country. Many of JICA's staff, experts and volunteers have contributed to the economic development of India. And it is a real privilege for me to speak to this great audience on behalf of JICA.
Since my contribution to JICA's substantive work has still been rather limited, let me contribute to JICA's work by PR activities.
As those familiar with history know, Japan's first ODA loan was extended to India in 1958. Since then, we have expanded operations in various fields, through variety of our assistance modalities such as technical cooperation, ODA loans and investment, and grant aid. India has been the largest partner country of the Japanese bilateral ODA since 2005. The volume of ODA has been increasing steadily and the last fiscal year recorded the largest commitment equivalent to 3.5 billion USD.
The Metro projects in India are some of the highly visible JICA assisted projects. They cover four major cities, Delhi, Kolkata, Bengaluru and Chennai. We are about to sign the loan agreement for a new ODA loan to Mumbai Metro Line 3 project.
In addition to infrastructure development, JICA has also supported human resources development, HRD. This is based on India's development dynamics and reflects changing needs of the industry sector.
One of the good examples of such HRD initiative is a very unique program called the Visionary Leaders for Manufactures Program, VLFM. The chief advisor of the program, Professor Shoji Shiba, was a professor of MIT. The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) invited Professor Shiba to India for supporting Indian manufacturing sector. In 2007, JICA, the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council (NMCC) and CII kick-started VLFM with close collaboration with IIM Calcutta, IIT Kanpur and IIT Madras. The program provided "breakthrough" approach created by Professor Shiba, and it intends to create an "innovation" in the manufacturing sector. This program comprises four programs for CEOs, senior managers, middle managers, and small- & medium- enterprises. More than 800 locomotive leaders, who would lead future manufacturing sector, have been trained through the program. Recognizing such contribution, the Government of India conferred the prestigious Padma Shri Award on Professor Shiba recently. Now, VLFM has renewed its name as "Champions for Societal Manufacturing" Program and upgraded the framework from March 2013 onwards.
Another vital example is a set of projects for the Indian Institute of Technology at Hyderabad. This is in order to meet with the growing demand for qualified human resources in the area of science and engineering through a holistic approach. These projects include joint research initiatives, academic exchanges and IIT-H campus development. From the Japanese side, the government, universities and private firms have formed a consortium to be engaged in the project by using their comparative advantages. We are also inviting IITH students to Japan for Master and Ph.D courses.
Lastly, I would like to introduce young individuals' effort for cooperation and friendship between the two countries. That is the Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers (JOCV) program. JICA resumed dispatching volunteers to India in 2006, and since then 41 young Japanese volunteers have been working in India: 31 as Japanese Language Instructors, 6 as Judo Instructors, 2 as Midwifes, and 2 as Extension Educators. There is now a language teacher, Ms. Moriyama, posted here at JNU. The needs of Japanese language learning and health sector have been arising and we are willing to expand these grass-roots activities gradually.
In India's 12th Five Year Plan, 8.2 percent growth and significant improvements in social indicators are aspired. In order to achieve these targets, the Plan mentions 1 trillion-USD investment in five years for infrastructure development. It will definitely contribute to better investment climate in India.
At the Prime Ministers' meeting in Tokyo last month, they shared the view that improvement of business environment is significant to enhance bilateral investment and trade. The two prime ministers expressed their expectation of more predictable and transparent business environment including tax administration. Relaxation of financial regulations in India was also welcomed for increasing investment volume.
JICA, in its role, would like to cooperate with the Government of India in achieving this policy. I would like to share some of the on-going JICA- assisted projects as good examples for infrastructure development and investment climate improvement.
The current flagship projects of two governments are the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) and the Chennai Bengaluru Industrial Corridor (CBIC). As for DMIC, the two governments launched a 9 billion USD financial facility and listed candidate projects for financing. JICA has dispatched an expert to DMIC Development Corporation to work closely with the related ministries. Construction work of Western Dedicated Freight Corridor, the largest JICA-assisted project in India, will start soon, showing visible progress this year. These inter-state development initiatives will bring much more favorable investment climate in the region.
We will start preparing a master plan for CBIC in September this year.
The master plan will draw a long term pragmatic ideas and will contribute to formulating strategic industrial policies for the target states. We intend to reflect real voices of foreign investors as much as possible.
Further, a new policy-based lending, Tamil Nadu Investment Promotion Program, TNIPP, was formally announced in the prime ministers' meeting in Tokyo last month.
The objective of TNIPP is to further improve the investment climate in Tamil Nadu by strengthening concrete policy actions and enhancing quality of urban infrastructure in the state. Tamil Nadu is now the largest investment destination in India for Japanese companies. Though the government of Tamil Nadu has taken actions to improve investment climate, the Japanese investors have been raising their concerns such as delay of infrastructure projects, slow processing of investment applications, and land acquisition issues. TNIPP is a new type of cooperation to support improving policies as well as physical infrastructure, thus reflecting the needs of investors.
So, I think I have established the case that JICA has been working positively for the betterment of Indian society and economy. In fact, there are many more projects JICA is working in India. For further information, please refer to our pamphlet entitled, "Operations and Activities in India."
But, JICA's activities are only part of Japan's engagement in India. The private sector of Japan is also playing a very important and constructive role.
The trade volume of the two countries has been increasing steadily. The import from Japan to India has expanded to 12.5 billion USD in the fiscal year 2012, 1.6 times bigger than that of 5 years ago. The export from India to Japan was 6.1 billion USD, which has expanded by two times during the same period.
Some people may argue that in comparison with China's trade with India, Japan's trade volume is still small. India's exports to Japan are less than half its exports to China, and its imports from Japan are only 27 % of its imports from China.
However, exclusive attention to trade statistics can be misleading to understand the on-going international economic relations.
Probably, more significant than trade is foreign direct investment, as it connects economies in a much deeper sense.
In fact, the net flow of FDI from Japan to India was 2.8 billion USD in 2012, more than ten times increase from 2005. That is the third largest FDI inflow into India after Mauritius and Singapore. The share of Japan in the total cumulative FDI to India ranks the 4th place after Mauritius, Singapore and U.K. Recently, the presence of Japanese companies in India has increased two fold from 2008; as of November 2012, there are 926 companies operating in India. In comparison, China's FDI into India 2011 was 180 million USD, only 8 percent of Japan's FDI in the same year.
Starting with Maruti Suzuki, the auto industry has been one of the main- stream of the Japanese investment to India. In 2012, the total production share of the Japanese auto companies like Maruti Suzuki, Toyota, Nissan and Honda was about 38%. Major companies are installing their R&D facilities in India and considering India as a strategic location for establishing production centers. Some auto companies regard India as an "export hub" and they have started exporting from India to Europe, Middle-east and Africa.
Obviously, the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, CEPA, effectuated in August 2011, is expected to boost the trade volume, too. The tariffs have been scheduled for elimination by 90 % on Indian and 97 % on Japanese goods over the next ten years.
But I would like to emphasize the impact of economic integration that is taking place on a much larger scale involving both India and Japan. Prime Minister Abe mentioned the "confluence of the two seas" in his speech in the Indian parliament in 2007. Now, we are in fact observing increasing integration connecting the two oceans, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. As Prime Minister Singh said in his speech to Japan-India Association last May, "The Indo-Pacific region is witnessing profound social and economic changes on a scale and at a speed rarely seen in human history." In the last quarter of the 20th century, we saw a dramatic rise of the Pacific economies. In the first quarter of the 21st century, we are witnessing the rise of the Indian Ocean countries.
First, South Asia and Southeast Asia is being more and more connected. Exports from ASEAN to India tripled from 2005 to 2011. India-ASEAN summit in December 2012, stressed the political, economic and security cooperation and the importance of ASEAN-India connectivity. As highlighted in the Vision Statement of ASEAN-India Commemorative Summit, the commitment of India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway project is a good example "to add greater momentum to the growing trade and investment linkages between ASEAN and India."
Here, I would like to point out the involvement of Japanese business behind this growing connectivity between Southeast Asia and India. As many of you know, many ASEAN countries are production centers of many Japanese companies. 91 percent of automobile production in Thailand are made by six Japanese auto-makers. Though I do not have exact statistics, trade between Southeast Asia and India contains many products and components made in Japanese plants in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, components made in Indian plants of Japanese companies like Toyota are now exported to Southeast Asia.
Second, South Asia and Africa is being connected, too. Trade between India and Sub-Saharan Africa increased nearly six times from 2005 to 2011, from 8.6 billion USD in 2005 to 51.3billion USD in 2011.
This increasing connection between India and Africa reflected the remarkable opportunities in Africa. Africa is now one of the growth centers of the world with more than 5% annual growth over the past decade and is expected to grow in the coming years.
Japan's engagement in Africa is increasing.
FDI Stock from Japan in Africa grew six times from 2005 to 2011, from 1.3 billion USD to 8.1 billion USD.
And as I mentioned earlier, some of the major Japanese companies regard India as an export hub to other countries and regions including Africa. Toyota, Honda, and Suzuki are all exporting automobiles made in India to Africa.
Two weeks ago, Japan held the 5th Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) in Yokohama, Japan. Under the adopted "Yokohama Declaration 2013" and "Yokohama Action Plan 2013-2017", Japan committed to the expansion of investment and trade relationship with Africa through private sector development, infrastructure development and sustainable economic growth. Our cooperation with Africa will lead to creating better economic environment not only in Africa but also in the Indian Ocean.
The Indian Ocean, together with the Pacific Ocean, connects the thriving economies of North America, Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
In his speech at The Japan-India Association last May in Tokyo, Prime Minister Singh pointed out that "maritime security across the linked regions of the Indian and Pacific Oceans is essential for regional and global prosperity." As a maritime nation, Japan also commits to the maritime security in the Indian Ocean.
The India-Japan relationship is often called "strategic," as PMs Singh and Abe's "Strategic Global Partnership" indicates. It may be strategic in geopolitical sense. In this age of "power shifts" with many economies emerging and re-emerging, cooperation between India and Japan is a stabilizing factor. But it is not to counter anybody. The media sometimes depicts Japan's approach to India as an attempt to encircle China. It seems absurd to encircle one of the most important economic partners for both India and Japan. China is also a very important partner of growing connectivity of the two oceans.
Indeed, the Indo-Japanese relationship is a strategic partnership. But I would like to emphasize the strategic importance of creating mega region of economic prosperity connecting the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean for both countries.
JICA is proud of joining this endeavor in Southeast Asia, Africa, and South Asia, especially India.
Thank you very much.
Source: jica.go.jp
The Emerging Japan-India Relationship: Nuclear Anachronism, Militarism and Growth Fetish 新興の日印関係—核アナクロニズム、軍国主義、成長固執
P K SundaramThe emerging India-Japan relationship has been met with extreme reactions – from enthusiasm and protests in India and Japan, to concern in China. This new “strategic partnership,” and particularly the nuclear cooperation under negotiation, does not portend well for Asia. P K Sundaram, a strong advocate of better relations between the people of India and Japan, tells us why.
Strong ties between India and Japan can be seen as a pre-requisite for the emergence of Asia and could, in the context of a broader Asian regionalism, provide a way out of the morass created by a 20th century dominated by the West: militarism and wars, ecological crises and growth-obssessed economies. However, the current architecture of the bilateral relationship is centered on increased joint military initiatives and negotiations of civil nuclear cooperation and partnership for corporate-centric economic growth in India that is unleashing horror on its rural poor and ruining its fragile ecosystems. In particular, absent a change in course, it will fuel an anachronistic drive for nuclear energy in India, which is being imposed by the government through brutal repression amid massive peaceful protests by its farmers, fishermen and citizens.
Contours of the partnership
The Indian PM's visit to Tokyo last in late May 2013 was part of a decade-long “strategic and global partnership” between India and Japan. Excepting 2012, the Prime Ministers of the two countries have met every year since 2006 and Japan is the only partner with whom India has a consistent 2+2 dialogue between the Foreign and Defence Secretaries. The US-India-Japan trilateral track-2 strategic dialogue shortly preceded the Indian PM's visit. The current framework of India-Japan relations has four major impications:
1) Regional balance and stability in Asia: the current phase of close India-Japan relations is animated by a shared strategic agenda of encircling and countering China. The recent visit became more significant following heightened tensions with China over the latter's alleged incursion in Ladakh. Before the current border tensions, India and Japan had last year launched joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean. Joint exercises between the Coast Guards of India and Japan were also held in Chennai in January 2012, and in Tokyo Bay in November 2012. Enhanced naval and maritime cooperation figures prominently in the joint statement issued last week. The strategic partnership between India and Japan spans a wide range of issues – from war in Afghanistan to the extended ASEAN security dialogues. While the two partners maintain that the maritime cooperation is for tackling piracy and ensuring safe commerce on the seas, China has considered it a threat to its interests in the Indian Ocean and part of the larger US strategy to encircle China.
 Singh and Abe May 2013 |
Finalizing a civil nuclear commerce agreement with Japan, together with the purchase of US-2 Japanese military aircraft, are among the key points in the negotiations. While in his last visit to Japan in 2010 the Indian PM said that he “will not force” Japan to export nuclear technology to India, this time, prior to Singh’s visit, the Abe government announced that it is committed to a nuclear partnership with India.
The agreement has been in the pipeline for several years and has faced strong opposition from the pro-disarmament constituency in Japan, animated by post-war peace sentiments. However the India-Japan nuclear deal and the current framework for strategic ties between the two countries deserves a wider critique as it has very serious implications on multiple levels.
2) Final blow to a nuclear non-proliferation regime guaranteeing nuclear profits: One of the key components of the multi-layered bilateral dialogue is negotiating a civil nuclear agreement with India. Besides allowing access to Japanese technology for its civilian nuclear facilities, the nuclear agreement is also crucial for US and French nuclear corporations. Their projects, worth billions of dollars, are stuck because certain crucial components for those reactors have to be supplied by Japanese companies – which cannot happen without a bilateral nuclear agreement between India and Japan. Such a bilateral agreement is important for the US since its major nuclear corporations, Westinghouse and General Electric (GE), are now owned by the Japanese companies Toshiba and Hitachi. Hence, both the US and France have been pushing Japan to enter into a nuclear agreement with India.However, Japan's decision to reward a country that has conducted nuclear tests and is continuously advancing its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems would be a fatal blow to the nonproliferation regime and would further reduce prospects for global disarmament. At a time when there are intense international pressures to prevent Iran from acquiring advanced civil nuclear capabilities as a serious threat to the proliferation regime, this would extend an India-US nuclear deal under which the US steered selective exemption for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) rules in 2008 (these prohibit the supply of nuclear technology to non-signatories of the NPT). In fact, the NSG evolved out of the international response after India conducted its first nuclear tests in 1974 with the material and expertise it acquired from Canada, US, France and other countries under the rubric of the “peaceful” use of nuclear energy.
When US trade restrictions on India imposed in the aftermath of India's second nuclear tests in 1998 started hurting the US more than India, the US gradually shifted course and began calling India a “responsible” nuclear power. The United States mainstreamed India's nuclear status under a deal between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush; India understood the US compulsion of keeping India aligned with the American global war of terror. In practical terms, India outmaneuvered the decades old international consensus on nuclear commerce by using the attraction of its emerging market and middle class consumer base, the importance of its strategic support to the West, and by offering lucrative reactor deals in return – 10,000 MW each to the US and French, openly doled out on the eve of the NSG negotiations.
The Japanese government at that time highlighted the irony of the India-US nuclear entente but finally gave in to US pressure and supported India's exemption in the NSG. Japanese civil society, particularly peace organizations and associations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims, expressed strong reservations. Hibakusha groups condemned the Japanese government for buckling under pressure:
“Despite the history of the atomic bombing, the government of Japan accepted the US-India Nuclear Agreement, which affords exceptional treatment for India, without even making an effort to minimize the blow to the NPT system. In doing so, it ignored statements issued by groups representing hibakusha (A-bomb sufferers) living in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the Mayors of both these cities, by the Governors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Prefectures, by local councils and prefectural assemblies, as well as the united calls of Hibakusha groups, nuclear disarmament groups and other peace groups throughout Japan which for years have been striving for nuclear disarmament. The government also ignored recent cross-party expressions of opposition by members of the Japanese Diet. As citizens of the country that was attacked by nuclear weapons, we are overwhelmed with shame that we have such a government.”
However, the Japanese government has been maneuvering to finalize a nuclear agreement with India. Beside the pressures from the US and France mentioned above, the commercial interests of its own nuclear companies are another essential factor, particularly after their huge financial losses due to the Fukushima accident and the idling of most of Japan's reactors.
As in response to the Indo-US nuclear deal, Japanese hibakusha and peace groups have opposed a Japan-India nuclear agreement. The 2010 Nagasaki Peace Declaration notedA Japan-India nuclear deal will strengthen the race to militarization and heighten the risk of nuclear war in Asoa.: “a nation that has suffered atomic bombings itself is now severely weakening the NPT, which is beyond intolerable.”
India, which cut a deal with the US and nuclear agreements from France, Russia and other countries without signing the CTBT, is reluctant to do so with Japan. Reportedly, India even denied inclusion of a test ban clause in the bilateral nuclear agreement, which would fall short of an internationally binding CTBT. All that India is offering is a voluntary declaration of a moratorium on nuclear tests (and lucrative contracts to Japanese firms). In the recent joint statement, while Abe Shinzo stressed the importance of CTBT, Manmohan Singh reiterated his insistence on the voluntary moratorium. Mainstream Japanese newspapers have discussed the irony of Japan choosing between the progress of its economy and nonproliferation and held that both are equally important, however, the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun has unequivocally supported the nuclear agreement and called it a 'key to boosting bilateral ties.” Differing views on CTBT has been pointed out in the media as the reason for the failure to conclude a nuclear agreement during Singh’s visit. Despite the positive cacophony before the Japan trip, the complete absence of the word “nuclear” from the Indian PM's speech in Tokyo on 27th May signalled his realization of the difficulties faced by the LDP.
However, there is widespread speculation that the Japanese government will abandon its insistence on honoring the CTBT and finalize the agreement with India once the Liberal Democratic Party returns to power with a stronger mandate after the upcoming July elections.
In this 15th year since India's 1998 nuclear tests, the legitimization of nuclear weapons by Japan would set a bad precedent for other countries and would boost the nuclear and conventional arms race in South Asia. Contrary to initial claims that nuclear weapons would bring strategic stability to South Asia, India’s defence budget has gone up from Rs. 35,277 crore in 1998 to a whopping 2,03,671.1 crore in 2013 accelerating a regional arms race. According to a SIPRI report published in March, India this year became the world's largest importer of arms. The modernization of nuclear arsenals and the diversification of delivery systems is also proceeding unabated in the region. A Japan-India nuclear deal will strengthen the race to militarization and heighten the risk of nuclear war in Asia.
3) Fuelling India's nuclear energy expansion
The bargain legitimizing India's nuclear weapons in return for its purchase of reactors from the US, Russia, France and now Japan has translated into horror for the common people of India. While the India-US nuclear deal was touted as a convergence of the world’s oldest and biggest democracies, the Government of India is repressing large, grassroots anti-nuclear movements and ignoring the voices of village-level democratically elected bodies. India has plans to build at least 20 more reactors in the next 20-30 years, and has announced ambitious plans to produce 25% of its total electricity by nuclear power – a 100 fold expansion compared to its present nuclear capacity. This expansion has threated people with displacement and the loss of livelihood, radiation and threats to health and safety, and the forcible acquisition of agricultural land and irreversible damage to fragile ecosystems in several parts of the country.
Popular protests on the issue of nuclear power in India have stemmed from three concerns: livelihood issues for the Indian poor, the inherent dangers of nuclear reactors and fears of an accident after Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the complete lack of transparency, accountability and efficiency of the Indian nuclear establishment.
Movements in every part of the country have risen in protest. Koodankulam on the southernmost tip, Mithivirdi on the West Coast, Kovvada on the East, Chutka in the middle of the country, Gorakhpur close to the capital, and Domiasiat in the far Northeast (which is being eyed by the nuclear establishment for uranium mining). Protests in all of these places have been intense yet remarkably peaceful. People at the grassroots, including large numbers of women and children, have deployed non-violent forms of resistance over several years.
 Villagers marching in protest at reactors at Koodankulum |
 Fishermen protest peacefully near the reactor in boats with black flags |
 Police enter Idinthikar and beat peaceful demonstrators |
The Supreme Court of India has recently given a go ahead to the Koodankulam reactors, overlooking the blatant violations of the regulator's own norms. The Court’s verdict rests on three hugely contested premises: the judges’ belief in the necessity of nuclear energy for India’s progress, their faith in the country’s nuclear establishment to responsibly perform its role, and the judges’ notion of the larger public interest amidst the apprehensions of small sections of people who they believe should make way for the country’s progress. Not only have the judges given judicial sanctity to these contestable propositions, they have also completely overlooked the Koodankulam-specific violations of safety norms raised by the petitioners. This is perhaps the world's only reactor being commissioned without an independent assessment of its environmental impact, without a natural source of fresh water, with thousands of people living a mere 700 metres from the reactor, and without accommodating the post-Fukushima lessons about the risk of housing the spent fuel pool in the main reactor building.
Proposed reactor projects in other places are being punished for violating such norms. The French EPR-design being implemented in Jaitapur is untested and has run into 100% cost over-runs in Finland, the only place where these new reactors are being built. It's cost in India is expected to triple. The Finnish regulator has taken Areva to court for safety violations and for undermining the terms of agreement. The four reactors being built in Gorakhpur near New Delhi have almost no water source. The small canal intended to provide water to cool these reactors ran completely dry earlier this year.
There are serious problems in the functioning of the Indian nuclear industry. India has a history of missing its nuclear power production targets miserably. Not only has it been inefficient, it has been marked with dangerous accidents, cover-ups and gross violations of best practice standards. This includes the hiring of casual workers for radiation-related work, employing them without adequate safety gear, training or health insurance, and getting away with impunity in cases of accident. Its nuclear regulator, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, is a toothless body that is dependent on the same Department of Atomic Energy for funds and expertise that it is designed to regulate.
Japan’s attempt to compensate for financial losses incurred from the Fukushima accident and to spur its own troubled nuclear power industry by selling technology to other countries is very unfortunate. Japan is seeking to enter new nuclear markets in Turkey, Vietnam, Jordan, India, Bangladesh, UAE, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. Japanese corporations like Mitsubishi, Hitachi and Toshiba are slated to gain huge profits through these deals. However these countries lack a nuclear safety culture and trained human resources, nor do they have significant experience in running nuclear facilities safely and accountably. Japan is also considering setting up a nuclear waste repository in Mongolia that has been fiercely opposed by local people. Japan's policy to rehabilitate its nuclear corporations by promoting nuclear exports has been criticized domestically. In a recent editorial the Japan Times wrote:
“Mr. Abe is trying to promote the export of nuclear technology at a time when the nuclear crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant remains ongoing and many Fukushima residents still live in fear of exposure to radioactive substances released by the plant. Some 150,000 of them still cannot return to their homes and communities due to radioactive contamination. In addition, important questions concerning the cause of the Fukushima nuclear crisis have yet to be resolved despite the studies by investigation committees set up by the government and the Diet.”
4) Japan's partnership with the Indian elite's anti-people and eco-destructive model of growthThe Indian government is obsessed with achieving a 9-10% annual growth rate in coming years. However the surge in the growth rate over the last few years has been entirely jobless. In fact a recent study concluded that India has had negative job growth. The major reason is that while growth is negative in the manufacturing sector, agriculture is facing its worst crisis in India's recorded history and is experiencing a sharp decline. Indian farmers' suicides is the only thing growing in its agriculture sector: the government’s own data acknowledges that at least 270,940 Indian farmers have taken their lives since 1995 – after the neoliberal economic reforms picked up pace. 46 farmers daily committing suicide in India is a cruel joke in the face of its elite's claims of the country's rise. The income gap in India is likely to become even worse in the coming years. This model of progress brings devastation and misery to the Indian poor, particularly to rural and tribal populations, from all directions – massive displacement and loss of livelihood threatens especially the millions of agrarian workers who do not own land and who work on others' fields and, hence, do not receive any compensation when the villages are acquired for “development” projects.
The current 2+2 architecture of India-Japan relations prioritizes defense ties and a completely misleading and irrational model of economic “growth” over all else.
In her letter to the Japanese and Indian Prime Ministers on the eve of the agreement, Lalita Ramdas, an eminent Indian anti-nuclear and women's rights activist, wrote:
“we want you to use this opportunity to welcome the assistance and collaboration with our Japanese friends in finding practical solutions and making the investments so necessary in renewable energy – especially solar and wind. Recent press reports speak of the Green Phoenix rising from the Ashes. Their aim is to be totally self sufficient from renewable sources alone in Fukushima Prefecture by 2040. Imagine that India, China and Japan could together transform the global energy scenario into a safer, cleaner and certainly greener future. This could be a wonderful moment for Asia and one on which there is need for powerful, independent and collective leadership!”
The current economic partnership between India and Japan would spur such a callous and nakedly lopsided “progress” in India. One such collaborative project that found prominent mention in the joint statement is an instructive case. The Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) project is a highly eco-destructive project to develop a high-speed road of 1700 kms from Delhi to Mumbai and build mega cities along this road. Thousands of villages would be displaced, land owners would make huge profits, and the agriculture in 6 states would be ruined. The DMIC would require about 10,000 hectares for the road and 20,000 hectares for the industrial zone, tearing through densely populated states and farmland. This is the biggest urbanization plan in India's history and would also mean its largest displacement of people – far more even than the bloody transfer of population during the India-Pakistan partition. To complete and sustain this project newer power plants and new mines would be required that would mean more displacement and the further erosion of India's rapidly depleting green cover. These 6 states in North India produce most of its food grain and the farmers are largely dependent on river and groundwater. Even beyond the project area, farmers would face acute water crises since this project would suck dry their ground water and irrigation canals. A massive movement of farmers is already emerging against this project.
Conclusion:
Japan pursued nuclear energy vigorously in the last half of the 20th century despite being the victim of nuclear weapons, and it embraced the neoliberal model of capitalism. Both the Fukushima accident and the Japanese economy's decline over the last two decades should make it re-think the twin goals of neoliberal growth and the ongoing development of nuclear energy. India, as a developing country, is standing at a crucial threshold where it can learn from Japan and cooperate with it in the realization of a more humane economy. The two countries should cooperate in exploring a nuclear-free energy future by pooling talents, resources and technologies. India and Japan can become harbingers of comprehensive disarmament by jointly launching global initiatives rather than diluting the NPT and becoming the pawns of other's militarist interests in Asia.
 People of Koodankulam praying for victims of Hiroshima |
P K Sundaram is Research Consultant with the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, India. He can be contacted at pksundaram@gmail.com
Reccommended citation: P K Sundaram, "The Emerging Japan-India Relationship: Nuclear Anachronism, Militarism and Growth Fetish," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 11, Issue 22, No. 1, June 2, 2013.
- See more at: http://www.japanfocus.org/-P_K-Sundaram/3949#sthash.pHjDqmvr.dpuf
The Emerging Japan-India Relationship: Nuclear Anachronism, Militarism and Growth Fetish 新興の日印関係—核アナクロニズム、軍国主義、成長固執
P K SundaramThe emerging India-Japan relationship has been met with extreme reactions – from enthusiasm and protests in India and Japan, to concern in China. This new “strategic partnership,” and particularly the nuclear cooperation under negotiation, does not portend well for Asia. P K Sundaram, a strong advocate of better relations between the people of India and Japan, tells us why.
Strong ties between India and Japan can be seen as a pre-requisite for the emergence of Asia and could, in the context of a broader Asian regionalism, provide a way out of the morass created by a 20th century dominated by the West: militarism and wars, ecological crises and growth-obssessed economies. However, the current architecture of the bilateral relationship is centered on increased joint military initiatives and negotiations of civil nuclear cooperation and partnership for corporate-centric economic growth in India that is unleashing horror on its rural poor and ruining its fragile ecosystems. In particular, absent a change in course, it will fuel an anachronistic drive for nuclear energy in India, which is being imposed by the government through brutal repression amid massive peaceful protests by its farmers, fishermen and citizens.
Contours of the partnership
The Indian PM's visit to Tokyo last in late May 2013 was part of a decade-long “strategic and global partnership” between India and Japan. Excepting 2012, the Prime Ministers of the two countries have met every year since 2006 and Japan is the only partner with whom India has a consistent 2+2 dialogue between the Foreign and Defence Secretaries. The US-India-Japan trilateral track-2 strategic dialogue shortly preceded the Indian PM's visit. The current framework of India-Japan relations has four major impications:
1) Regional balance and stability in Asia: the current phase of close India-Japan relations is animated by a shared strategic agenda of encircling and countering China. The recent visit became more significant following heightened tensions with China over the latter's alleged incursion in Ladakh. Before the current border tensions, India and Japan had last year launched joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean. Joint exercises between the Coast Guards of India and Japan were also held in Chennai in January 2012, and in Tokyo Bay in November 2012. Enhanced naval and maritime cooperation figures prominently in the joint statement issued last week. The strategic partnership between India and Japan spans a wide range of issues – from war in Afghanistan to the extended ASEAN security dialogues. While the two partners maintain that the maritime cooperation is for tackling piracy and ensuring safe commerce on the seas, China has considered it a threat to its interests in the Indian Ocean and part of the larger US strategy to encircle China.
|
Singh and Abe May 2013 |
Finalizing a civil nuclear commerce agreement with Japan, together with the purchase of US-2 Japanese military aircraft, are among the key points in the negotiations. While in his last visit to Japan in 2010 the Indian PM said that he “will not force” Japan to export nuclear technology to India, this time, prior to Singh’s visit, the Abe government announced that it is committed to a nuclear partnership with India.
The agreement has been in the pipeline for several years and has faced strong opposition from the pro-disarmament constituency in Japan, animated by post-war peace sentiments. However the India-Japan nuclear deal and the current framework for strategic ties between the two countries deserves a wider critique as it has very serious implications on multiple levels.
2) Final blow to a nuclear non-proliferation regime guaranteeing nuclear profits: One of the key components of the multi-layered bilateral dialogue is negotiating a civil nuclear agreement with India. Besides allowing access to Japanese technology for its civilian nuclear facilities, the nuclear agreement is also crucial for US and French nuclear corporations. Their projects, worth billions of dollars, are stuck because certain crucial components for those reactors have to be supplied by Japanese companies – which cannot happen without a bilateral nuclear agreement between India and Japan. Such a bilateral agreement is important for the US since its major nuclear corporations, Westinghouse and General Electric (GE), are now owned by the Japanese companies Toshiba and Hitachi. Hence, both the US and France have been pushing Japan to enter into a nuclear agreement with India.However, Japan's decision to reward a country that has conducted nuclear tests and is continuously advancing its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems would be a fatal blow to the nonproliferation regime and would further reduce prospects for global disarmament. At a time when there are intense international pressures to prevent Iran from acquiring advanced civil nuclear capabilities as a serious threat to the proliferation regime, this would extend an India-US nuclear deal under which the US steered selective exemption for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) rules in 2008 (these prohibit the supply of nuclear technology to non-signatories of the NPT). In fact, the NSG evolved out of the international response after India conducted its first nuclear tests in 1974 with the material and expertise it acquired from Canada, US, France and other countries under the rubric of the “peaceful” use of nuclear energy.
When US trade restrictions on India imposed in the aftermath of India's second nuclear tests in 1998 started hurting the US more than India, the US gradually shifted course and began calling India a “responsible” nuclear power. The United States mainstreamed India's nuclear status under a deal between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush; India understood the US compulsion of keeping India aligned with the American global war of terror. In practical terms, India outmaneuvered the decades old international consensus on nuclear commerce by using the attraction of its emerging market and middle class consumer base, the importance of its strategic support to the West, and by offering lucrative reactor deals in return – 10,000 MW each to the US and French, openly doled out on the eve of the NSG negotiations.
The Japanese government at that time highlighted the irony of the India-US nuclear entente but finally gave in to US pressure and supported India's exemption in the NSG. Japanese civil society, particularly peace organizations and associations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims, expressed strong reservations. Hibakusha groups condemned the Japanese government for buckling under pressure:
“Despite the history of the atomic bombing, the government of Japan accepted the US-India Nuclear Agreement, which affords exceptional treatment for India, without even making an effort to minimize the blow to the NPT system. In doing so, it ignored statements issued by groups representing hibakusha (A-bomb sufferers) living in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the Mayors of both these cities, by the Governors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Prefectures, by local councils and prefectural assemblies, as well as the united calls of Hibakusha groups, nuclear disarmament groups and other peace groups throughout Japan which for years have been striving for nuclear disarmament. The government also ignored recent cross-party expressions of opposition by members of the Japanese Diet. As citizens of the country that was attacked by nuclear weapons, we are overwhelmed with shame that we have such a government.”
However, the Japanese government has been maneuvering to finalize a nuclear agreement with India. Beside the pressures from the US and France mentioned above, the commercial interests of its own nuclear companies are another essential factor, particularly after their huge financial losses due to the Fukushima accident and the idling of most of Japan's reactors.
As in response to the Indo-US nuclear deal, Japanese hibakusha and peace groups have opposed a Japan-India nuclear agreement. The 2010 Nagasaki Peace Declaration notedA Japan-India nuclear deal will strengthen the race to militarization and heighten the risk of nuclear war in Asoa.: “a nation that has suffered atomic bombings itself is now severely weakening the NPT, which is beyond intolerable.”
India, which cut a deal with the US and nuclear agreements from France, Russia and other countries without signing the CTBT, is reluctant to do so with Japan. Reportedly, India even denied inclusion of a test ban clause in the bilateral nuclear agreement, which would fall short of an internationally binding CTBT. All that India is offering is a voluntary declaration of a moratorium on nuclear tests (and lucrative contracts to Japanese firms). In the recent joint statement, while Abe Shinzo stressed the importance of CTBT, Manmohan Singh reiterated his insistence on the voluntary moratorium. Mainstream Japanese newspapers have discussed the irony of Japan choosing between the progress of its economy and nonproliferation and held that both are equally important, however, the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun has unequivocally supported the nuclear agreement and called it a 'key to boosting bilateral ties.” Differing views on CTBT has been pointed out in the media as the reason for the failure to conclude a nuclear agreement during Singh’s visit. Despite the positive cacophony before the Japan trip, the complete absence of the word “nuclear” from the Indian PM's speech in Tokyo on 27th May signalled his realization of the difficulties faced by the LDP.
However, there is widespread speculation that the Japanese government will abandon its insistence on honoring the CTBT and finalize the agreement with India once the Liberal Democratic Party returns to power with a stronger mandate after the upcoming July elections.
In this 15th year since India's 1998 nuclear tests, the legitimization of nuclear weapons by Japan would set a bad precedent for other countries and would boost the nuclear and conventional arms race in South Asia. Contrary to initial claims that nuclear weapons would bring strategic stability to South Asia, India’s defence budget has gone up from Rs. 35,277 crore in 1998 to a whopping 2,03,671.1 crore in 2013 accelerating a regional arms race. According to a SIPRI report published in March, India this year became the world's largest importer of arms. The modernization of nuclear arsenals and the diversification of delivery systems is also proceeding unabated in the region. A Japan-India nuclear deal will strengthen the race to militarization and heighten the risk of nuclear war in Asia.
3) Fuelling India's nuclear energy expansion
The bargain legitimizing India's nuclear weapons in return for its purchase of reactors from the US, Russia, France and now Japan has translated into horror for the common people of India. While the India-US nuclear deal was touted as a convergence of the world’s oldest and biggest democracies, the Government of India is repressing large, grassroots anti-nuclear movements and ignoring the voices of village-level democratically elected bodies. India has plans to build at least 20 more reactors in the next 20-30 years, and has announced ambitious plans to produce 25% of its total electricity by nuclear power – a 100 fold expansion compared to its present nuclear capacity. This expansion has threated people with displacement and the loss of livelihood, radiation and threats to health and safety, and the forcible acquisition of agricultural land and irreversible damage to fragile ecosystems in several parts of the country.
Popular protests on the issue of nuclear power in India have stemmed from three concerns: livelihood issues for the Indian poor, the inherent dangers of nuclear reactors and fears of an accident after Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the complete lack of transparency, accountability and efficiency of the Indian nuclear establishment.
Movements in every part of the country have risen in protest. Koodankulam on the southernmost tip, Mithivirdi on the West Coast, Kovvada on the East, Chutka in the middle of the country, Gorakhpur close to the capital, and Domiasiat in the far Northeast (which is being eyed by the nuclear establishment for uranium mining). Protests in all of these places have been intense yet remarkably peaceful. People at the grassroots, including large numbers of women and children, have deployed non-violent forms of resistance over several years.
|
Villagers marching in protest at reactors at Koodankulum |
|
Fishermen protest peacefully near the reactor in boats with black flags |
|
Police enter Idinthikar and beat peaceful demonstrators |
The Supreme Court of India has recently given a go ahead to the Koodankulam reactors, overlooking the blatant violations of the regulator's own norms. The Court’s verdict rests on three hugely contested premises: the judges’ belief in the necessity of nuclear energy for India’s progress, their faith in the country’s nuclear establishment to responsibly perform its role, and the judges’ notion of the larger public interest amidst the apprehensions of small sections of people who they believe should make way for the country’s progress. Not only have the judges given judicial sanctity to these contestable propositions, they have also completely overlooked the Koodankulam-specific violations of safety norms raised by the petitioners. This is perhaps the world's only reactor being commissioned without an independent assessment of its environmental impact, without a natural source of fresh water, with thousands of people living a mere 700 metres from the reactor, and without accommodating the post-Fukushima lessons about the risk of housing the spent fuel pool in the main reactor building.
Proposed reactor projects in other places are being punished for violating such norms. The French EPR-design being implemented in Jaitapur is untested and has run into 100% cost over-runs in Finland, the only place where these new reactors are being built. It's cost in India is expected to triple. The Finnish regulator has taken Areva to court for safety violations and for undermining the terms of agreement. The four reactors being built in Gorakhpur near New Delhi have almost no water source. The small canal intended to provide water to cool these reactors ran completely dry earlier this year.
There are serious problems in the functioning of the Indian nuclear industry. India has a history of missing its nuclear power production targets miserably. Not only has it been inefficient, it has been marked with dangerous accidents, cover-ups and gross violations of best practice standards. This includes the hiring of casual workers for radiation-related work, employing them without adequate safety gear, training or health insurance, and getting away with impunity in cases of accident. Its nuclear regulator, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, is a toothless body that is dependent on the same Department of Atomic Energy for funds and expertise that it is designed to regulate.
Japan’s attempt to compensate for financial losses incurred from the Fukushima accident and to spur its own troubled nuclear power industry by selling technology to other countries is very unfortunate. Japan is seeking to enter new nuclear markets in Turkey, Vietnam, Jordan, India, Bangladesh, UAE, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. Japanese corporations like Mitsubishi, Hitachi and Toshiba are slated to gain huge profits through these deals. However these countries lack a nuclear safety culture and trained human resources, nor do they have significant experience in running nuclear facilities safely and accountably. Japan is also considering setting up a nuclear waste repository in Mongolia that has been fiercely opposed by local people. Japan's policy to rehabilitate its nuclear corporations by promoting nuclear exports has been criticized domestically. In a recent editorial the Japan Times wrote:
“Mr. Abe is trying to promote the export of nuclear technology at a time when the nuclear crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant remains ongoing and many Fukushima residents still live in fear of exposure to radioactive substances released by the plant. Some 150,000 of them still cannot return to their homes and communities due to radioactive contamination. In addition, important questions concerning the cause of the Fukushima nuclear crisis have yet to be resolved despite the studies by investigation committees set up by the government and the Diet.”
4) Japan's partnership with the Indian elite's anti-people and eco-destructive model of growthThe Indian government is obsessed with achieving a 9-10% annual growth rate in coming years. However the surge in the growth rate over the last few years has been entirely jobless. In fact a recent study concluded that India has had negative job growth. The major reason is that while growth is negative in the manufacturing sector, agriculture is facing its worst crisis in India's recorded history and is experiencing a sharp decline. Indian farmers' suicides is the only thing growing in its agriculture sector: the government’s own data acknowledges that at least 270,940 Indian farmers have taken their lives since 1995 – after the neoliberal economic reforms picked up pace. 46 farmers daily committing suicide in India is a cruel joke in the face of its elite's claims of the country's rise. The income gap in India is likely to become even worse in the coming years. This model of progress brings devastation and misery to the Indian poor, particularly to rural and tribal populations, from all directions – massive displacement and loss of livelihood threatens especially the millions of agrarian workers who do not own land and who work on others' fields and, hence, do not receive any compensation when the villages are acquired for “development” projects.
The current 2+2 architecture of India-Japan relations prioritizes defense ties and a completely misleading and irrational model of economic “growth” over all else.
In her letter to the Japanese and Indian Prime Ministers on the eve of the agreement, Lalita Ramdas, an eminent Indian anti-nuclear and women's rights activist, wrote:
“we want you to use this opportunity to welcome the assistance and collaboration with our Japanese friends in finding practical solutions and making the investments so necessary in renewable energy – especially solar and wind. Recent press reports speak of the Green Phoenix rising from the Ashes. Their aim is to be totally self sufficient from renewable sources alone in Fukushima Prefecture by 2040. Imagine that India, China and Japan could together transform the global energy scenario into a safer, cleaner and certainly greener future. This could be a wonderful moment for Asia and one on which there is need for powerful, independent and collective leadership!”
The current economic partnership between India and Japan would spur such a callous and nakedly lopsided “progress” in India. One such collaborative project that found prominent mention in the joint statement is an instructive case. The Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) project is a highly eco-destructive project to develop a high-speed road of 1700 kms from Delhi to Mumbai and build mega cities along this road. Thousands of villages would be displaced, land owners would make huge profits, and the agriculture in 6 states would be ruined. The DMIC would require about 10,000 hectares for the road and 20,000 hectares for the industrial zone, tearing through densely populated states and farmland. This is the biggest urbanization plan in India's history and would also mean its largest displacement of people – far more even than the bloody transfer of population during the India-Pakistan partition. To complete and sustain this project newer power plants and new mines would be required that would mean more displacement and the further erosion of India's rapidly depleting green cover. These 6 states in North India produce most of its food grain and the farmers are largely dependent on river and groundwater. Even beyond the project area, farmers would face acute water crises since this project would suck dry their ground water and irrigation canals. A massive movement of farmers is already emerging against this project.
Conclusion:
Japan pursued nuclear energy vigorously in the last half of the 20th century despite being the victim of nuclear weapons, and it embraced the neoliberal model of capitalism. Both the Fukushima accident and the Japanese economy's decline over the last two decades should make it re-think the twin goals of neoliberal growth and the ongoing development of nuclear energy. India, as a developing country, is standing at a crucial threshold where it can learn from Japan and cooperate with it in the realization of a more humane economy. The two countries should cooperate in exploring a nuclear-free energy future by pooling talents, resources and technologies. India and Japan can become harbingers of comprehensive disarmament by jointly launching global initiatives rather than diluting the NPT and becoming the pawns of other's militarist interests in Asia.
|
People of Koodankulam praying for victims of Hiroshima |
P K Sundaram is Research Consultant with the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, India. He can be contacted at pksundaram@gmail.com
Reccommended citation: P K Sundaram, "The Emerging Japan-India Relationship: Nuclear Anachronism, Militarism and Growth Fetish," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 11, Issue 22, No. 1, June 2, 2013.
- See more at: http://www.japanfocus.org/-P_K-Sundaram/3949#sthash.pHjDqmvr.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment