Japan for better economic, defence ties with India

[adrenalin]

what history books have you been reasing?

since when did india defeat the british?

the british were in a rush to leave india is the reality.

Looks like you never read (Independent) History. Get a life!
India and also Pakistan got independence because our forefathers fought for it. Britain was in no hurry to leave us.

 

[Gideon]

I usually don't respond to Indians masquerading as Americans, but this statement is so ignorant, it needs correcting.

Where ever you think I am from, is irrelevant and I couldn't care less about the Flag next to my post. However the myth that the British and the colonial powers just took off one fine day because they had an epiphany that it was the "end of colonialism" is just a sad tale that former colonial power peddle to their gullible citizens and anybody who will listen.

The British withdrawal had ZIP to do with Gandhi, India or anyone else. They didn't even bother holding on to the oil rich Middle East. Why on Earth would they want to saddle themselves with a billion destitute people?

Apparently, you grasp of history is as "enlightened" as your ability to "read" people!
When the British left there were about 300 million people in India if I remember correctly and as for the Middle East, in Iraq for example, when the British decided to "leave" they put a Hashmite monarchy in place to act as their "regent". They even held a dog and pony show by holding a plebiscite while they kept all the oil ala Iraqi Petroleum Company! It was only in the late 50s when the Iraqi Generals finally got the stones to do something!

The myth of peaceful resistance is a good PR stunt for both India and Britain, but has little relevance to reality. Even in the US, MLK achieved bupkis until Lyndon Johnson actually enacted civil rights reforms.

Yes, the whole PR stunt was so successful that even Mandela adopted it against the Apartheid regime! Gandhi, MLK and Mandela mush share the same publicist! Shame they couldn't get him in touch with Arafat!

Also, I'd like to see you say MLK achieved "bupkis" where I live and see how long you last on the street!
You could also have told Rosa Parks about the "bupkis" of her efforts or the 300,000 Americans who marched to Washington in 1963 or the millions of African Americans who's PR stunt overturned the entire social fabric of America. I'm sure it was all "bupkis" naturally!
As for LBJ taking all the credit, you do realize that it was Kennedy who actually introduced the Civil rights act dont you ? And that it was actually passed despite stiff opposition to it in both Congress and the Senate and as a "compromise" under the Commerce clause ?
The "relevance to reality" that the Civil right moment PR stunt had was that since Black people also had the right to vote, any party that tried to stifle their movement was looking at an end to their political careers forever- not to mention the growing discontent and unrest within all sections of American society against the policy of segregation bar the South.

I find your attempts to educate me about history and especially American history to be most amusing! Maybe next time you will tell me the color of socks from my post!

 

[Nemesis]

The US didn't "create" Global Warming nor did the developed world! Global warming is caused by every nation that is putting out carbon into the atmosphere. The Industrialized nations just contributed more!

Gee thanks, i didnt really know that.

If you want to get technical, the phenomenon of Global warming - i.e the increase in the earths temperature resulting in erratic weather patterns - has been going on since the beginning. However, in the present situation,this increase is not natural but rather man made. The reason being the emission of green houses gases.T he primary culprit of this is the developed world.

There is a threshold to the amount of carbon emissions our atmosphere can take, the industrialized West in its greed went over this threshold, not realizing its consequences, and now we're all f-cked.

However that is not to say that India and China are not responsible also by their huge populations and their reckless industrial expansion. India is home to the largest cattle population on the Planet, do you realize how much excess Methane that add to the atmosphere ?

Reckless Industrial expansion? Industry and development is a matter of survival for many in the developing world. A matter of life and death. For Europe and the US, it is not. Next time you want to talk about recklessness, you might not want to buy that third SUV for Christmas.

The only thing reckless is the lifestyle choices made by the developed world, especially Americans.

The argument of comparing pollution per capita is just a convenient argument for developing countries but logically it holds no water. Most of India is still agrarian and rural. Most Indians dont have cars. On the other hand, most Americans live urban lives and travel great distances by cars everyday. To compare pollution per capita, you should have a baseline of at least equal GDP/capita between the two countries! Or you can check by pollution/GDP of the two countries to draw a logical conclusion because otherwise it is like comparing a third world farmer with a urban worker which are apples and oranges!

Yawn. The fact remains that India being a primarily agrarian economy, has not contributed to global warming as much as the western world. When we do reach - if we do reach, your per capita emission levels, then perhaps you can blame us.

The facts are: A nation like India has a GDP of 3 trillion dollars while the US has a GDP of 14 trillion dollars. Yet, India produces 5% of the worlds greenhouse gasses (ranking 5th globally behind US,China,Japan and Russia) compared to America's and China's 20% respectively. That is India's economy is nearly 1/5th of the US's yet it produces much more than 1/5th the amount of greenhouse gases globally despite being a primarily agrarian economy which is now focused on services industry. Thus even by US standards, GDP wise, India's green house emissions can't be justified.

Listen you idiot, Both India and China account for almost 45% of the worlds population. India alone accounts for 16%, yet it emits 5%of the green house gases. US on the other hand accounts for less than 1/20th of the population, yet emits 25% of the worlds gases.So no, compared to US standard,our emissions can be justified.

What cannot be justified is the refusal of the American administration and its people apparently to take responsibility for its actions. As the primary cause for green house emissions, you have to take the highest emission cuts. You cannot expect the developing world to pay for your mistakes.

 

[Developereo]

However the myth that the British and the colonial powers just took off one fine day because they had an epiphany that it was the "end of colonialism" is just a sad tale that former colonial power peddle to their gullible citizens and anybody who will listen.

No, it is a historical fact that can be ascertained by a review of the decline of colonialism. It coincided for all the European powers, plus or minus a couple of decades. It was not a matter of epiphany, but simple geopolitical and economic realities after two world wars. I recommend a visit to your local library.

When the British left there were about 300 million people in India if I remember correctly and as for the Middle East, in Iraq for example, when the British decided to "leave" they put a Hashmite monarchy in place to act as their "regent".

You are proving my point. It was far more expedient to install puppet regimes in Iraq, Kuwait and (for France) Syria and Lebanon, than to rule directly as a colonial master. Almost all the colonial outposts got their independence just fine without any kind of nonviolent movement. The only reason the British didn't install puppets elsewhere was because they didn't think it was worth it.

Yes, the whole PR stunt was so successful that even Mandela adopted it against the Apartheid regime!

Being a smart man, Mandela was under no illusions either about Gandhi's racism towards blacks, or the importance of media stunts. The only reason South Africa dropped apartheid was because of international pressure, and the only reason for the pressure was Western media focus. If the Western media had ignored Mandela, South Africa would still be ******* under apartheid. Once again, it was not Mandela's actions, but the global media attention which generated results. Actions which are geared to generate media attention are, by definition, stunts.

Gandhi, MLK and Mandela mush share the same publicist! Shame they couldn't get him in touch with Arafat!

Given the almost complete domination of Western media by pro-Israel Zionists, Arafat would have been a fool to try the flower power approach. As much as the Palestinians have suffered under Israel's ethnic cleansing, they would have been even worse off if they hadn't resisted. Their cause would have been completely ignored by the Zionist media and Israel would have built settlements at ten times the current rate.

Also, I'd like to see you say MLK achieved "bupkis" where I live and see how long you last on the street!

Interesting way to decide an issue. And from a proponent of 'non violence' to boot!

You could also have told Rosa Parks about the "bupkis" of her efforts or the 300,000 Americans who marched to Washington in 1963 or the millions of African Americans who's PR stunt overturned the entire social fabric of America. I'm sure it was all "bupkis" naturally!

Indeed, their actions would have amounted to bupkis if the mainstream media had ignored them or portrayed them as a bunch of disgruntled troublemakers. As it is, white America was scared sh_tless of the 'angry black male' stereotype, personified and made popular by the likes of Malcolm X, so a more docile and manageable counterpart was needed. Enter MLK with his nonthreatening approach to the problem. White America embraced him, not because of what he was, but what he wasn't: Malcolm X.

As for LBJ taking all the credit, you do realize that it was Kennedy who actually introduced the Civil rights act dont you ? And that it was actually passed despite stiff opposition to it in both Congress and the Senate and as a "compromise" under the Commerce clause ?

It was LBJ who actually signed it. All Kennedy offered was coulda, woulda, shoulda.

The "relevance to reality" that the Civil right moment PR stunt had was that since Black people also had the right to vote, any party that tried to stifle their movement was looking at an end to their political careers forever- not to mention the growing discontent and unrest within all sections of American society against the policy of segregation bar the South.

The relevance to reality, which you seem to have so much difficulty grasping, is that it is the media which shapes public opinion. MLK could have made speeches til the cows came home. If the media ignored him, nothing would have happened.

I find your attempts to educate me about history and especially American history to be most amusing!

Somebody has to educate you, given your abject ignorance of history and media mechanics.

Maybe next time you will tell me the color of socks

Is that where you keep your brain?

 

[Merilion]

Reckless Industrial expansion? Industry and development is a matter of survival for many in the developing world. A matter of life and death. For Europe and the US, it is not. Next time you want to talk about recklessness, you might not want to buy that third SUV for Christmas.

...............................................................

well said.
industrialization is perhaps the 'only' way to lift a developing nation to be a developed one. pollution however is the by product of industrialization. developed world cannot expect and has no right to demand a developing nation remains developing forever. yes, a farmer in China has the every right to drive a car too but let's forget abt car now, he needs a job to survive first.
For the sake of our home planet, the developed world should not only cut more green house gas but also has the obligation to helping developing world to fight pollution.

 

[Honor]

We had common understanding for the environment issue!

 

[ironman]

India and Japan: Strengthening Defence Co-operation​

Rajaram Panda
December 22, 2009

The forthcoming two-day visit of Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to India on December 28-29, 2009 for a summit with his Indian counterpart is paving the way for the deepening of the bilateral relationship. Hatoyama’s talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will possibly cover topics including an economic partnership agreement between the two countries and measures against global warming and terrorism.

The new Japanese Prime Minister’s India visit is coming on the heels of Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony’s visit to Japan on November 8-10, 2009, thus reinforcing the message that Hatoyama’s foreign policy is Asia-centric. Indeed, even before election to the lower house on August 30, Hatoyama’s op-ed in the New York Times questioned the continuance of US-led globalism, contending that there is an ongoing movement away from a unipolar world led by the United States and towards an era of multipolarity. Evidence that Hatoyama was shaping a foreign policy for Japan that focuses more on Asia and downplays the country’s excessive dependence on the United States came sharply when Hatoyama floated the idea of an East Asian Community while visiting China and South Korea in October 2009.

The importance of Antony’s November visit to Japan should, therefore, be seen in the light of India’s response to Hatoyama’s deepening engagement with Asia. Given growing convergence between India and Japan on security and strategic issues, Antony responded to the invitation of his Japanese counterpart, Toshimi Kitazawa, to visit Japan and in the process became the first Cabinet Minister to visit Japan after the DPJ took power. During their meeting, the defence ministers reviewed the on-going defence related interactions and explored ways to enhance such exchanges for mutual benefit. Antony discussed the issue of conducting joint exercises between the two armed forces and exchange of students in their respective defence training institutions. The possibilities of co-ordination of efforts in anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and other maritime security challenges also dominated the discussion.

India-Japan bilateral security and defence co-operation is guided by the Joint Statement issued by their Defence Ministers in May 2006 and the Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation issued during the visit of Manmohan Singh to Japan in October 2008. In the Joint Statement issued on November 10, 2009, India and Japan resolved to strengthen joint anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. Indeed, the two navies are already involved in co-ordinated anti-piracy operations, sharing the burden of patrolling in the Gulf of Aden. Recognising their mutual interest in the safety of sea lanes, they decided to extend co-operation in the field of maritime security, especially in the area of combating piracy off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden. The two ministers also condemned terrorist activities and expressed their determination to enhance co-operation in the fight against terrorism. The negotiation on a Defence Action Plan (DAP) is already at an advanced stage and is expected to be signed during Hatoyama’s forthcoming visit.

Antony and Kitazawa consented to step up defence co-operation, including joint military exercises, bilateral and regional co-operation in peacekeeping, disaster relief and the ASEAN Regional Forum. With this agreement, the two ministers gave a “facelift to the existing bilateral defence cooperation.” Quoting anonymous authoritative sources, The Hindu said the two countries “were keen on finalizing the (defence) action plan.” The idea of a DAP was first conceived during Manmohan Singh’s visit to Japan in October 2008.

The defence ministers of India and Japan also condemned terrorism, underscoring the need to intensify joint operations in the fight against this global menace. According to Mahindra Singh, a defence analyst in New Delhi, the focus on Indo-Japanese strategic ties is part of India’s efforts to counter China’s growing influence in the region. He also says that Japan’s and India’s overdependence on Arabian Gulf oil and the need to ensure its smooth flow is another driver. The joint statement appropriately outlined these issues by stating their “common interest in the safety of sea lines of communications.” The agreement coincided with Japan’s decision to provide $5 billion in fresh aid to Afghanistan despite plans to recall refuelling ships supporting US-led forces there.

It is worth noting that during the first-ever visit to Japan by an Indian Defence Minister, that of George Fernandes in January 2000, he had clearly emphasized on the importance of developing defence co-operation between the two countries. After Hatoyama assumed power, the same Fernandes who is a Rajya Sabha member now, pleaded with the Manmohan Singh government to build meaningful relations with Hatoyama. Writing in OtherSide, Fernandes observed: “India can develop a truly meaningful relationship with Prime Minister Hatoyama although I also learned that his Foreign Minister is considerably pro-China. Perhaps we can turn this into an opportunity of a good China-Japan-India relationship which I had discussed with many friends during my many visits to Japan. Eastern Civilization and culture have much to offer the world if we forget for a short time the ugly part of geo-politics and power games.”

Besides expressing a desire to hold annual meetings, the two ministers agreed to work towards the realization of the visit of Japan’s Minister of Defence to India at the earliest mutually convenient time. It was also agreed to hold the second Defence Policy Dialogue in New Delhi some time in 2010. As regards comprehensive security dialogue (CSD) and military-to-military talks, it was agreed to hold the next CSD and Military-to-Military talks sometime in 2010 in Tokyo (the 6th CSD meeting was held in February 2009 in India). The very fact that India’s Chief of the Naval Staff visited Japan in August 2008 and the Chief of Army Staff visited Japan to participate in the Pacific Army Chiefs Conference (PACC) in August 2009 demonstrates the evolving defence co-operation between the two countries.

Consensus exists in both countries for co-operation in the securing of sea lanes of communication as well as in working towards disaster relief operations. The recent bilateral and multilateral exercises such as “Malabar 07-02” held in the Bay of Bengal in September 2007, and “Malabar 09” held in the eastern sea of Okinawa in April 2009 demonstrate their mutual commitment to take defence co-operation to a higher plane. The holding of the 2nd Navy-to-Navy Staff Talks between the Maritime SDF (MSDF) and the Indian Navy in October 2009 in Japan was a logical extension of such co-operation in the defence field.

Exchanges of students and researchers between the two respective defence institutions is another dimension of defence co-operation between any two countries and it is but appropriate that the importance of this aspect has been realized by the leaders of India and Japan. As a result, plans are afoot for sending students and researchers from Japan Ministry of Defence/SDF to the Indian National Defence College, Defence Services Staff College and other defence institutions in India, and from India to the Regular Courses of the National Institute for Defence Studies and other defence institutions in Japan in the spirit of reciprocity. It will be of advantage to both if this idea is soon institutionalized.

The Japan-India Maritime Security Dialogue was inaugurated in October 2009 and held in India. The main objective of this dialogue is to co-ordinate efforts to ensure safety of navigation in the relevant areas. As regards peace-keeping/peace-building and disaster relief, both India and Japan worked closely in the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights and want to strengthen such practical co-operation.

Besides, both countries have realised the importance of conducting mutual exchanges between their respective Peacekeeping operations organisations, such as Japan’s Central Readiness Force and the Centre for United Nations Peacekeeping (CUNPK) in India. Indeed, India accepts participation of Japanese officers at the training course of the CUNPK in February 2009.

These developments suggest that there is a growth trajectory in defence co-operation between the two countries, complemented by the burgeoning economic relationship providing robustness to the partnership. Hatoyama is no stranger to India, having visited India as the leader of opposition in the Lower House of the Japanese Diet, when Atal Behari Vajpayee was Prime Minister. At that time, the terrorist attacks on the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly building and on the Indian Parliament had disturbed peace in the subcontinent. When Hatoyama’s visit to India was being planned in such an atmosphere, India decided to convince him not to visit Pakistan, as is the usual practice of anyone visiting South Asia. Even as some of his men had begun talking about a visit to Pakistan, Hatoyama graciously agreed to India’s suggestion and avoided that trip. Hatoyama’s forthcoming visit to India as the Prime Minister of Japan will usher the year 2010 with a new chapter for India-Japan relations to blossom in their comprehensiveness.

 

[faithfulguy]

Exactly. If Japs want, they can build nuclear capable missiles in months. Such is their technical superiority.

No name callings, please. Also, they are a generation behind that of the US except in robotics and automotive. The are just good at copying.

 

[Hulk]

If I admire any country, it is Japan. China and India are nothing in comparison of Japan. We are just filling number of utilizing a large population for cheap labor, Japan on other hand is leader in electronics and it admired for innovation.

India should learn from Japan.

 

[faithfulguy]

If I admire any country, it is Japan. China and India are nothing in comparison of Japan. We are just filling number of utilizing a large population for cheap labor, Japan on other hand is leader in electronics and it admired for innovation.

India should learn from Japan.

Japan had mismanaged its economy and is on its way down. It had hit the plateau.