Past clouds Japan's confidence in N-deal

The sting, clearly, was in the tail.

'I have told Prime Minister Singh that Japan is yet to formulise its official policy' on the subject of the Indo-US nuclear cooperation deal and the larger question of India's nuclear energy ambitions, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said.

They were the last words he spoke at the brief media interaction this evening in the conference hall at Kantei, his official residence; they gave 'famous last words' a whole new meaning.

By then, the summit meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Abe had concluded; the Joint Statement (at 15 pages and 57 paragraphs, perhaps the largest in recent memory) had been signed and copies distributed to the media.

The two prime ministers had, in their opening statements, precis-ed the Joint Statement, and then called for questions -- one each, from the Japanese and Indian press corps.

On cue, a Japanese television reporter asked: India and the United States have signed a nuclear agreement. Japan is a country that has suffered from a nuclear attack. As such, what is Japan's official position on the India-US deal?

"Prime Minister Singh has explained to me," Abe said, "That as India's economy grows, its energy requirements have also grown. He has told me that India must have nuclear energy to meet its growing energy requirements. Prime Minister Singh has told me that all appropriate IAEA safeguards will be in place.

"I have explained to Prime Minister Singh that Japan is the world's only victim of a nuclear attack. As such, we have our sensitivities, and I have explained those to the Indian prime minister.

"I have said that India should respond to the international concerns about the nuclear deal, and that it should work with the IAEA on safeguards. As regards the Nuclear Suppliers' Group and other international fora, dialogue is going on and Japan will play an integral part in that dialogue."

A pause, and then, "I have told Prime Minister Singh that Japan is yet to formulise its official policy."

Till that point in time, there was every prospect that the Indian delegation would be able to benignly spin those segments of the Joint Statement that touched on the nuclear question; once Abe made that statement, the conclusion was clear: There is to be no unambiguous Japanese support for India's civilian nuclear program. Yet.

It has been clear, these past three days, that the Indian delegation had, while following the economic agenda, in parallel made a push for a positive statement from Japan on the nuclear question.

That was signaled even on the flight out to Tokyo December 13, when National Security Advisor M R Narayanan, responding to a question on the subject, said, "There is plenty that is cooking" and indicated that significant announcements would be forthcoming.

That subtext has been reiterated, on record and occasionally off, these past two days.

1. The Joint Statement, read in isolation, matched that mood. Paragraph 50 says: 'The two leaders share the view that nuclear energy can play an important role as a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of energy in meeting the rising global demands for energy, and that international civil nuclear energy cooperation should be enhanced through constructive approaches under appropriate IAEA safeguards. The two sides will continue to discuss the international civil nuclear cooperation framework with respect to India'.

Officials who had read the draft of the statement indicated, ahead of the media event, that the nuclear part of the joint statement could be 'spun' benignly.

The words of the key paragraph indicate as much; the spin could be that the words indicated Japan's acceptance of India's need for nuclear energy, and a commitment to help India further its ambitions once the negotiations with the IAEA was completed.

Not any more; not after Abe's categorical statement that Japan is yet to formulate policy; a statement that signals that Abe, unlike US President George W Bush in July 2005, cannot make unilateral pronouncements on the nuclear issue without consultations with the Diet, and without the approval of the Japanese public.

In a sense, this marks the antithesis of the July 2005 Singh-Bush summit in Washington DC.

On that occasion, enhanced economic cooperation and pretty words about the Indian American community was expected to be the hallmarks of the joint statement.

When that document was released, the nuclear cooperation agreement jumped out of the pages, and swamped all else, including substantive statements on the economy, on defense cooperation and much else.

Here, the reverse is true: 'nuclear' was expected to be the sexy segment of the Singh-Abe Joint Statement; the lack of anything substantive on the issue threatens to drown out, in media headlines and popular perception, much that is quantitative in the realm of economic cooperation.

The ambiguity on the nuclear front notwithstanding, the Joint Statement had much of substance on other fronts, especially the economic aspect.

The first impression you got at the conclusion of the summit meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe was that the fireworks were inadvertently let off two days before the parade.

Consider the key points that emerged out of the summit, in the form of a Joint Statement:

Japan and India are natural partners. Underlining this, Abe in his opening remarks at the media briefing said, "I consider this the bilateral relationship with the greatest potential."

It was a reiteration, with some dilution, of his words the previous evening when, at the launch of the Festival of India in Japan, Abe said he saw the Indo-Japan relationship as the one with the greatest potential 'in the world'.

'The two leaders decide to establish a Strategic and Global Partnership between Japan and India', says the Joint Statement.

Again, this was foreshadowed in the media interaction by Indian official on the flight to Tokyo, and repeatedly iterated over the last two days.

'...the two leaders confirm their intention to hold annual Summit-level meetings in respective capitals' -- again, that particular cat was let out of the bag as early as yesterday, in both official and unofficial briefings.

'...reiterate their commitment to enhance defense cooperation' -- that bit in the Joint Statement merely follows on from the May 2006 talks between then Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his Japanese counterpart, which meeting the Joint Statement in fact references.

'...the two prime ministers have decided to launch immediate negotiations for the conclusion of a bilateral Economic Partnership Agreement/Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement' – yet again, foreshadowed several times over the first day of the state visit.

'...Further cooperation in realizing the Dedicated Multi-Modal High Axle Load Freight Corridors with computerized control on Mumbai-Delhi and Delhi-Howrah routes' -- a fact that, coupled with Japan's request that India add to that an industrial corridor along the Delhi-Mumbai route, was confirmed by Commerce Minister Kamal Nath a day earlier...'

We could go on, but you get the drift -- everything of real substance that has been spelt out in the Joint Statement has been discussed over the last couple of days. Ergo, the Joint Statement almost in its entirety reads like yesterday's headlines, recycled at length today.

Perhaps that explains the sense of puzzlement pervading the media room at the New Otani Hotel here, with mediapersons struggling to fashion a 'sizzling' lead out of what was perceived as the climactic event of Prime Minister Singh's three day state visit.

Yet, there are interesting economic flags scattered throughout the Joint Statement. One such relates to the intent of the two nations to 'cooperate in the establishment of a multi-product Special Economic Zone in India to locate investments from Japan' -- which, businessmen who have come in delegation to Japan to coincide with the prime minister's visit say indicates the will to create, within India, an area geared to provide Japan the sort of facilities in terms of infrastructure and other support systems that Japan is looking for as essential to significantly scaling up its operations in India.

There is, too, the mention of Japanese companies participating in the power sector.

India has, the Joint Statement says, proposed for Japanese consideration a 4000 MW Coastal Ultra Mega Power Project at Chayyur in Tamil Nadu, and a 3000 MW Lohit Hydroelectric Project in Arunachal Pradesh.

Japanese circles have repeatedly said -- and Indian officials have as often acknowledged -- that the absence of suitable infrastructure is a roadblock in the way of stepped up Japanese investment.

Thus, Japan is being given an opportunity to tailor things to its own satisfaction -- the creation of a special zone, the opportunity to help provide the power India lacks and, as the statement points out, through Japan's increased participation in India's capital markets, banking and related sectors.

And power -- the Joint Statement recognizes 'the critical importance of securing the energy needs of both countries' and announces the setting up of a Japan-India Energy Dialogue to promote cooperation in this sector.

All of this ties in, too, with the announced creation of a Business Leaders' Forum comprising ten business leaders from each country – an initiative that parallels the creation, at the July 2005 Summit in Washington DC, of the Indo-US CEO's Forum.

The Business Leaders' Forum will, the statement says, be mandated to develop the roadmap for enhanced partnership at the business level.

The Joint Statement, in tandem with the opening statement by Shinzo Abe in which he said 'Japan must ensure the economic development of India at the highest level',  puts the emphasis firmly on the economic side of the agenda.

There is, thus, much that of substance emerging out of the two-day interaction between the two leaders -- even if all of it relates to the economic front.

As NSA MR Narayanan said before the delegation landed in Tokyo, close economic cooperation is perhaps the most strategic part of bilateral relationships in today's world.

Too bad, then, that the various cats were let out of the bags ahead of the main event, taking the fizz entirely out of what was scheduled as the marquee moment of the summit.