The National Interest
A Fine Balance: India, Japan and the United States
A triangular relationship that could define the century.
DhruvaJaishankar
January 24, 2014
This weekend, the world will be treated to an unusual sight: Japanese prime ministerShinzo Abe inspecting a military parade which will be showcasing, among other things, nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. This scene will not be taking place in Japan, which has rejected nuclear weapons and whose constitution famously renounces war as a sovereign right, but rather in India's foggy capital, New Delhi, near an iconic British memorial commemorating the Indians killed in World War I and the Third Anglo-Afghan War. The Indian government’s intention in inviting Abe to be chief guest at its Republic Day parade is nothing if not calculated. In fact, it is about as clear a signal that India seeks to facilitate Japan’s emergence as a ‘normal’ military power.
Japan and India may at first glance appear unusual partners. Japan is a nominally pacific, aging and technologically advanced ally of the United States, whereas India is notoriously sceptical of alliances, boasts the world’s second-largest army, has a youthful population, and is still in the process of modernizing its economy. But Abe’s visit marks the next step in a series of overtures between Asia’s two largest democratic economies, beginning with Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori’s 2000 visit to India, and continuing under the stewardships of Junichiro Koizumi, Taro Aso, and Abe. For its part, New Delhi has reciprocated the goodwill under successive governments. In a speech last year in Tokyo, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Japan “a natural and indispensable partner” of India, with which it enjoyed “shared values and shared interests” and “a shared commitment to the ideals of democracy, peace and freedom.”
It is unclear how much attention Washington is paying to this emerging Asian strategic compact, despite its strong security relations with both Tokyo and New Delhi. In fact, scepticism about the United States’ reliability as a defense partner may be contributing to the growing bonhomie between India and Japan. But there are good enough reasons for all three countries to invest further in trilateral security cooperation.
For one thing, China’s rise and behaviour represents a distinct challenge to all three powers. China makes no qualms about its claims to territory currently controlled by both India and Japan, and it is also the most credible peer competitor of the United States. Both the Sino-Indian border dispute and tensions over competing Sino-Japanese claims in the East China Sea have grown in salience over the past year. This competitiveness extends into the economic realm as well, with respect to such matters as India’s trade imbalances, Japanese fears about China suspending rare-earth exports, and American complaints about cyber-espionage.
There are further reasons—beyond China—for the three countries to work more closely together on matters of security. Amid a certain amount of strategic retrenchment on the part of the United States, coordination with Japan and India—particularly in the maritime domain—will be increasingly important for preserving the security architecture in the Indo-Pacific that many have come to take for granted. Additionally, the three countries enjoy complementarities in the defense realm. India’s armed forces are manpower-intensive and battle-experienced, the United States enjoys global reach and military-technological leadership, and Japan has a strategic location and high-tech advantages that manifest themselves primarily in civilian pursuits. These characteristics could contribute to a mutually reinforcing security partnership. While limited by continuing bureaucratic reservations in Japan over India's nuclear status, proliferation represents another area of common concern and potential cooperation.
There is also a broad convergence of values. Japan’s new National Security Strategy makes explicit mention of India as a country with which it shares “universal values and strategic interests.” Despite notable differences, the three countries—which constitute the two largest and two wealthiest democracies—have a shared belief in the desirability of a status-quo-oriented, rules-based international order. These common values could underwrite both mechanisms of consultation and provide a basis for managing disputes in Asia.
However, despite these obvious drivers of closer collaboration, trilateral security ties so far are characterized more by promise than by reality. Political and bureaucratic dialogues have certainly taken important steps forward, particularly between India and Japan. Working off of a 2008 joint declaration on security cooperation, the two countries now have a senior-level Defense Policy Dialogue and a so-called “2+2” dialogue involving the foreign and defense ministries, Japan being the only country with which India has such an arrangement. These dialogues have been complemented by growing military-to-military contacts. In 2012, India and Japan held their first bilateral maritime exercises which were repeated just last month, with a third edition being planned for later this year. Exercises with India are particularly important for affording Japan’s Self Defense Force (SDF) the opportunity to prepare for out-of-area contingencies. And on his visit earlier this month to India, Japan’s Defense Minister Istunori Onodera discussed the possibility of extending bilateral cooperation to the two air forces.
Trilateral defense cooperation also involving the United States is centered on the annual Malabar series, nominally bilateral U.S.-India exercises in which Japan has often been involved. The 2007 Malabar exercises also included Japan, Australia and Singapore—much to the consternation of Beijing—and Japan’s maritime SDF returned to participate after a short hiatus. The nature, intricacy, and level of participation in these exercises could perhaps be the best indicator of trilateral security cooperation going forward. Additionally, India's inclusion in the 2014 RIMPAC exercises is another important step forward for defining its role in multilateral defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.
Meanwhile, defense commerce—although promising—is still very much in its infancy, with joint production and R&D representing more remote but nonetheless enticing possibilities. India has now been a recipient of more than twenty foreign military sales from the United States, including major contracts for C-17, P-8 and C-130 aircraft. In dollar terms, defence commerce has gone from zero to $6 billion in a decade. Japan is gradually getting in on the act, with talks on for the sale of ShinMaywa’s US-2 amphibious aircraft to the Indian navy.
Despite the compelling logic for deeper collaboration and clearly improving military ties, why has trilateral security cooperation not yet lived up to expectations? For one thing, the shared threat perception is nebulous, episodic, and not always deemed urgent. This is not our grandfathers’ Cold War (commentators have termed these countries’ competitions with China as everything from the “Cool War” to the “Cold Peace”). The fact is that the United States, Japan, and India rely to varying degrees on their economic partnerships with China, and would far prefer Beijing’s military modernization to be more transparent, its economic policies more fair, and its intentions more in line with the territorial status quo than for China’s rise to be entirely unsuccessful. Nor are alliance structures quite the same as before: it is impossible, for example, to imagine Japanese forces supporting their Indian counterparts in the remote reaches of the Tibetan plateau just as India's navy is not about to confront China’s over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. And, it is also important to keep in mind that the United States, Japan, and India all operate under resource constraints of different kinds and degrees.
There are also plenty of political reservations about trilateral cooperation in all three capitals, which, to use a turn of phrase that might be employed in China, could be thought of as the “three reticences” holding back trilateral security cooperation. For one thing, Japan is reticent about its own military normalization. While it has certainly shed some of its reluctance about assuming the burdens of security under Abe, its leadership and public opinion remain of two minds about Japan’s remilitarization. For its part, India remains reticent about the wisdom of multilateral cooperation with the United States. Many Indian political leaders still appear to believe that there is mileage to be gained from anti-American posturing. And finally, the United States remains reticent about Japan’s emergence as a military power, in large part a legacy of history. Washington’s position may, in fact, be the hardest to reverse and will almost certainly have ripple effects: if Washington chooses to adopt an even-handed approach to a dispute between its closest Asian ally and its chief Asian competitor, it becomes harder to make the case for closer U.S.-India relations in New Delhi.
The catalysts, realities, and limitations of security ties between Japan, India, and the United States will be important to keep in mind as Abe visits New Delhi this week. But so should the immense opportunities afforded by the broad political consensus in India about better relations with Japan. Abe may have ruffled feathers in Beijing, Seoul, and Washington for visiting the controversial Yasukuni Shrine that honors Japan’s war dead, an act which led to Japanese militarism being compared by Chinese officials to “He Who Must Not Be Named”. But with all the pomp and protocol that comes with being chief guest at a Republic Day parade, India, at least, is welcoming him a lot more like they would “The Boy Who Lived.”
DhruvaJaishankar is a fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) in Washington DC. This article is adapted from a presentation made at the American Enterprise Institute.
NYT
India Ink
Notes on the World's Largest Democracy
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
A Wider View of India’s Foreign Policy Reveals Clear Strategy
By DHRUVA JAISHANKAR
June 14, 2013 2:57 pmJune 14, 2013 2:57 pm
Photo
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, left, with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the latter’s official residence in Tokyo, Japan, on May 29.Credit Toshifumi Kitamura/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Shinzo Abe has ruffled quite a few feathers since his return as Japan’s prime minister in December. His cabinet ministers’ visit in April to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japan’s war dead, was condemned by China and South Korea, and in no time, Japan became the target of North Korean saber-rattling and American finger-wagging. So it ought to have elicited more surprise when Abe’s soft-spoken Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh, plainly declared his comfort with his host’s worldview on a recent visit to Tokyo.
“India and Japan have a shared vision of a rising Asia,” Mr. Singh said in a prepared speech. “Our relations draw their strength from our spiritual, cultural and civilizational affinities and a shared commitment to the ideals of democracy, peace and freedom,” he said, adding, “Prime Minister Abe and I will work together to strengthen our strategic partnership.” The declaration, which was accompanied by a rare private dinner between the two prime ministers, was seen in many quarters as an unambiguous signal to China.
The last year has been a tough one for India under Mr. Singh’s embattled leadership. His government has come to be perceived as ineffective – even absent, when it comes to responding to popular concerns such as the tragic gang rape of a student in Delhi — and venal, linked to one massive corruption scam after another, including a scandal over coal allocations that threatened to taint the prime minister personally. The once-booming Indian economy has slowed drastically, with growth recently forecast to have dropped under 5 percent. A brazen attack by Maoists in the central state of Chhattisgarh last month and an incursion by Chinese troops in northern Ladakh have drawn global attention to the government’s inadequate handling of internal and external security challenges.
Criticism of all sorts has mounted. The Economist ran a cover story in March whichargued that the country’s lack of strategic culture promises to constrain its rise. The influential magazine Foreign Affairs published an article by the Boston University professor ManjariChatterjee Miller whichdeclared that New Delhi lacked strategic ambition. However, as Mr. Singh’s speech in Tokyo hinted, such assertions about India’s emergence may be more than a little misleading.
India’s enigmatic foreign policy
There are many reasons why India’s foreign policy remains something of an enigma to analysts, scholars, and reporters — both in India and abroad. The Indian government is averse to publishing strategic documents of the kind regularly released by the United States, most European states and even China. A careerist bureaucracy and hypercompetitive national politics encourage secrecy in decision-making. Policymakers have traditionally been distrustful of researchers and journalists, both Indian and foreign. And the views of disgruntled critics outside of government resonate far more loudly than bland official pronouncements do. But it is nonetheless clear that India’s objectives since the end of the Cold War have remained remarkably consistent, and its performance surprisingly effective.
In essence, New Delhi’s goals have been characterized by three features. The first is internal balancing: basically, attempts at increasing the country’s resources and capabilities. This has involved the establishment and enhancement of economic and trade links with various countries in India’s neighborhood and beyond. Almost 20 years after announcing a “Look East” policy, India agreed to lower tariffs with Japan, South Korea, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, while enjoying steadily deeper commercial relations with the United States, China and the European Union. Such efforts appear to have borne dividends: since 1997, India’s total trade has grown more than sevenfold, about 60 percent faster than its economy.
Economic growth also requires stability, and Indian leaders have spoken repeatedly of their objective of maintaining a conducive regional environment for growth. This has been largely responsible for New Delhi’s attempts at normalizing its relations with Pakistan and not intervening as aggressively in places like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. India has also made conscious attempts to enhance its technological capabilities. The centerpiece of New Delhi’s new strategic relationship with Washington was a civil nuclear agreement, an attempt at gaining access to embargoed nuclear know-how.
Photo
A light combat aircraft of India performing at the opening ceremony of Aero India 2011 in Yelahanka, Karnataka, on Feb. 9.Credit AijazRahi/Associated Press
The second facet that has marked India’s external relations is deterrence, the dissuasion of others from using or threatening force.India withstood widespread international opprobrium after conducting five nuclear tests in 1998, a decision that enjoyed support across the country despite being portrayed as a nationalistic endeavor. In time, India’s nuclear capability has helped stabilize relations with both Pakistan and China, countries with which it had fought wars in the past. In recent years, the Indian armed forces have also sought to diversify and gradually modernize their conventional weaponry, including combat aircraft, submarines and artillery. All of this has had positive effects. India’s relations with China now exhibit many of the characteristics of normalcy. Manmohan Singh has also followed his predecessor AtalBihari Vajpayee in managing relations with Pakistan, including through a back-channel dialogue that seems to have come close to a grand bargain.
The third aspect of Indian foreign policy is autonomy, ensuring that the country is not unduly dependent on any one ally or partner. Thus, India has sought to diversify its sources of energy and other natural resources beyond a handful of suppliers in the Middle East to exporters in Africa and Latin America, among other places. Similarly, it sources much of its military equipment from Russia, Israel, Europe, and – increasingly – the United States. Diplomatic engagement with other major powers has also been active, as attested to by the regularity of two-way bilateral visits. In just one two-month period in late 2010, India received President Barack Obama of the United States, then-President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, then-Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China and then-President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia.
Consistency in pursuing India’s primary objectives has generally risen above individual leaders and governments. A Congress-led government under P.V. NarasimhaRaooversaw preparations for a nuclear test in December 1995, even though tests were eventually carried out under the BharatiyaJanata Party. Similarly, AtalBihari Vajpayee’s B.J.P. government sought a nuclear agreement akin to the deal secured by Manmohan Singh. Both Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Singh also made concerted attempts at normalizing ties with Pakistan and China. While never overtly declared as doctrine, India’s quest for growth, security, and balanced relationships is intuitive to many members of its strategic community and its patterns of behavior largely consistent.
India’s successes have by no means been categorical. Implementation has often been found wanting, as with its difficulty in concluding trade and security agreements. India’s policymakers are also conscious of the country’s severe limitations, making them reluctant to commit to ambitious endeavors. And India, not unlike other rising powers, is often content to “free ride” on others, making it all the more eager to downplay its own capabilities.