JAPAN
The Miffed Samurai
From Pokhran to Kargil, Japan continues its
coolness to India
"Pakistan handled its
diplomacy much
better," say the
Japanese. "Premier
[japan.gif (10299 bytes)] Keizo Obuchi got a
letter from Sharif
before the G-8?as did
all other G-8
nations."
If it wasn't enough to be fighting a de facto war
on the northern front, India is now trying to
sidestep swipes on the diplomatic front as well.
When Japan announced that it did not have "enough
evidence" of intrusion in the Kargil area, and
could not comment on who was responsible for the
situation, India felt the cold, hard blade of the
samurai's sword.
Officials in the Ministry of External Affairs (mea)
promptly expressed "deep disappointment" and a
strong sense of puzzlement about the remark. They
were only partially mollified when Japan, much
later, as part of the G-8 countries, signed a
communique in Cologne asking for full respect for
the Line of Control in the future.
"We feel Japan has been highly insensitive in
making such a remark when we have evidence in the
form of bodybags coming back every day," said an
official. Japan "should know how it feels to have
intruders in its territory...just one month ago its
navy had to push out North Korean gunboats from its
own territorial waters," the official added for
good measure.
But Yoshifumi Okamura, political counsellor at the
embassy of Japan, does not see it in quite the same
light. "We don't have any independent satellite to
verify the intrusion," says Okamura, in defence.
"We are going by circumstantial evidence." But
critics argue that Japan gets its information from
US satellites in any case and therefore has no need
of its own satellite.
"When North Korea tested its ballistic missile
which overflew Japan, it was the United States that
gave them the information," points out an mea
official. K.V. Kesavan, Japan analyst at the
Jawaharlal Nehru University, believes the reaction
to Kargil is a cumulative result of the rancour
following the nuclear tests. He too is sceptical of
the need for eindependent verification' that
Japan is trumpeting. "All this is very disppointing
because we know that Japan supported nato in the
Kosovo crisis and they had no independent satellite
there either."
Okamura believes New Delhi hasn't been serious
about providing hard evidence to many sections of
the diplomatic community?barring the P5. "When the
Kargil conflict began, I tried getting the map with
the LoC demarcation and a meeting with Vivek Katju
(joint secretary for Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan). I
tried to contact him thrice on the phone, but he
did not respond." Okamura also waited for the joint
secretary for East Asia to get in touch with him,
but T.C.A. Rangachari did not call even once. "It
was not until June 15 that Foreign Secretary K.
Raghunath met the Japanese ambassador, Hiroshi
Hirabayashi, and showed him a copy of the
demarcations. "He was the first senior official who
attempted to explain the Indian position," says
Okamura.
But mea officials don't agree. "All the
ambassadors had been called when the Kargil
conflict began and the charge d'affaires of Japan
had met with Katju very early on as well." Further,
the Indian ambassador in Tokyo had explained the
situation to the Japanese ministry of foreign
affairs. But this was obviously not enough. Kesavan
sees merit in the Japanese argument that India
should have sent a senior emissary to Japan when
the conflict began. "Japan feels slighted that
after giving so much aid to India, they (the
Indians) don't even listen to advice (regarding
nuclear testing), so why would they ever let
themselves be manipulated in this manner?"
Officials within the mea believe Japan has had a
one-point agenda with regard to India since the
nuclear tests? to get India to give up its nuclear
option and sign the ctbt. Everything, including the
not-so-small matter of cutting off one billion
dollars of aid since the nuclear tests, let alone
Kargil, is seen through that prism. But Okamura
emphatically denies that the perceived lukewarm
response to India's views on Kargil is an
extension of the frosty foreign policy since
Pokhran. "There has been a lack of eagerness on the
part of India to explain the situation to us at the
top level, so why are we expected to support India
so eagerly ourselves?"
Japan's pique peaked further at the G-8 summit in
Cologne when only a select few countries were
approached by India to get them to make a statement
in favour of New Delhi's position. However, says
Okamura, "Pakistan has handled its diplomacy much
better?Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi got a letter
from Nawaz Sharif before the G-8 and I understand
Sharif gave one to all G-8 countries." It's
another matter that the G-8 (including Japan)
appears to favour India in its communique without
naming either of the countries. However, Okamura
says "Japan would like to express its condolence
for the loss of so many Indian lives, but
unfortunately India is making it hard for itself,
by not bothering to take us into confidence,"
So while India tends to its own wounds on the
diplomatic front, perhaps it would do well to apply
some balm as well to senior officialdom in Tokyo.
Janaki B. Kremmer
All rights reserved. Copyright 1999 Outlook