Editorial 1: Tightrope walk: on the India and Japan relationship and challenges from geopolitical issues
Introduction:
- Since 2006, the Prime Ministers of India and Japan have exchanged visits for their “annual summit” called India-Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership- (IJSSGP) a meeting that has steered the course of this bilateral relationship. India- Japan relations have only grown in strength over decades.
Recent developments:
- However, it was not the IJSSGP that was at the heart of the Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s visit” to Delhi this week. His focus was on two areas:
- coordinating the G-7 and G-20 agendas on food and energy security issues arising mainly from the Ukraine conflict
- Unveiling Japan’s $75 billion plan for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), to work with countries in the region on avoiding debt traps, building infrastructure, and enhancing maritime and air security.
- Mr. Kishida appeared to be emphasising the need for a global consensus, especially including India, in tackling the challenges from Russia and China, where Japan is aligned with western powers. Chinese actions in its neighbourhood have left Japan concerned, and his FOIP plan includes India as an “indispensable partner”.
(China- Japan territorial dispute regions)
India- Japan bilateral relations:
Strategic and diplomatic ties:
- For New Delhi, that has close ties with Tokyo, as bilateral and multilateral cooperation (the Quad), Mr. Kishida was a welcome guest.
- The two countries have many collaborations that include the Japanese loan for the much-delayed “Bullet train” project, and plans to work on infrastructure projects to link Bangladesh and India’s northeast.
- As presidents of the G-7 and G-20, both nations have much to gain from synchronising priorities and ensuring that the Global South gets its fair share of the outcomes of both summits.
- An end to the Ukraine war and a pushback against China’s aggression in its neighbourhood are also common goals. However, it would be wrong to assume that they share similar positions on them. Unlike India, Japan is part of the U.S.’s alliance. Japan has also joined sanctions against Russia, while India has refused to do so.
- India has been vocal about its concerns over China’s actions at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) but reticent in directly criticising China’s actions in the South China Sea, Taiwan Straits, etc.
Defence Ties:
- India-Japan Defence and Security partnership has evolved over the years from bilateral and multilateral exercises including Dharma Guardian and Malabar respectively.
- Tri-Service Exchanges between Japan and India have been institutionalized completing the triad. Coast Guards have had regular annual exchanges since 2006. Including, Japan and India Vision 2025 Special Strategic and Global Partnership - working together for peace and prosperity of the indo-pacific region and the world.
Economic Ties:
- The volume of trade between the two countries has increased. Japan was the 12th largest trading partner for India in 2020. Also, direct investment from Japan to India has increased.
- India has been the largest recipient of the Japanese Official Development Assistance(ODA) Loan for the past decades. Delhi Metro is one of the most successful examples of Japanese cooperation through the utilization of ODA.
- India’s Western Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) project is funded by a soft loan provided by Japan International Cooperation Agency under Special terms for economic partnership (STEP).
- Besides, Japan and India had committed to build a High-Speed Railways in India by introducing Japan’s Shinkansen System.
- India Japan Nuclear Deal 2016 will help India build the six nuclear reactors in southern India, increasing nuclear energy capacity ten-fold by 2032.
Conclusion:
- With Mr. Modi set to visit Hiroshima as a G-7 special invitee in May, and later host Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin at the Summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, any shift in New Delhi’s tightrope balancing act on geopolitical issues would seem a stretch, even at the behest of a dear partner like Japan.
Editorial 2: A grave mistake in Great Nicobar
Context:
- unprecedented haste, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has cleared the decks for a mega project at the cost of about ₹70,000 crore at the southern tip of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
‘Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island’ project
- NITI Aayog is piloting the project and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO) is the project proponent.
- It aims to develop:
- An international transhipment port of 14.2 mTEU cargo capacity at Galathea Bay along the island’s south-eastern coast
- An international airport to support 4,000 passengers during peak hours
- A 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant
- An ecotourism and residential township of about 160 sq km.
- The government hopes to establish the offices of multinational corporations by clearing about a million trees in the tropical rain forest and destroying large parts of coral reefs.
Issues with the project:
- The quick approvals, clearances, exemptions and de-notifications show that the Union government is keen to implement this project. The Great Nicobar Island has a population of about 8,000. Once completed, the project is expected to attract more than 3 lakh people, which is equal to the current population of the entire 1,000-km-long island chain.
- The ecological and environmental cost of this urbanisation project in an area known for its marine and terrestrial biodiversity appears to have been set aside without any serious consideration. Thus, it would be a misnomer to call this project as ‘holistic.’
- The island, which is spread over 900 sq km, was declared a biosphere reserve in 1989 and included in the UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme in 2013. More than three-fourth of it is designated as a tribal reserve under The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Amendment Regulation.
- The agenda to convert this pristine island into a commercial hub to compete with the international port in Singapore is nothing but ‘ecocide’. This project will also run counter to the rights of particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs), such as the Nicobarese and Shompen, who have been living in these areas for thousands of years and who depend on the forests for survival.
- To recommend afforestation as a compensation for the loss of forest in the Great Nicobar Island is farcical. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) report says compensatory afforestation will be carried out in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. Far-field afforestation, that too in areas that have no ecological comparison, makes no sense. The project will end up destroying vast stretches of coral reefs. The report recommends ‘translocation’ of these organisms which are facing an existential threat due to climate change-induced ocean warming. Transplanted corals do not have a high survival rate and are susceptible to bleaching, according to various studies.
Tectonic instability
- Further, the Great Nicobar Island is located close to the epicentre of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake which displaced the sea floor by 10-20m vertically as well as trillions of tonnes of undersea rock. The EIA report itself admits that “Great Nicobar lies in close proximity to the Ring of Fire and the Tsunami of 26 December 2004 is a clear demonstration of how prone it is to severe natural disasters…”
- The report, however, fails to mention scientific studies during and prior to the 2004 earthquake. The coastline of the Great Nicobar Islands, which was raised earlier, sank several meters during the earthquake. Post-earthquake satellite measurements show that the island topography is slowly regaining its original height relative to the sea level.
- Massive earthquakes like this are inevitable in this region. The repeated up and down movement of land in response to such earthquakes makes the Great Nicobar Island unsuitable to be developed as an urban port city, but the EIA report hardly considers the tectonic instability around Great Nicobar.
Conclusion:
- Unsustainable developmental projects such as the one being formulated for Great Nicobar dilute environmental laws to ease execution. Growth in terms of GDP makes no sense if it ends up in the irretrievable loss of natural capital. It is high time that the Prime Minister’s expressed vision of ‘green developmental model’ becomes the guiding principle for future economic activities.