India Leads New Strategic Vision While Japan Looks Away
Since Shinzo Abe stepped down from office, especially following his assassination, India's interest in Japan appears to have declined. During his tenure, Abe launched the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, among Japan, the United States, Australia, and India. He even introduced the term "Indo-Pacific" to replace "Asia-Pacific" as a new framework for understanding the region.
These moves were a kind of forward-looking investment in India's future. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi greatly valued these gestures and forged a deep personal bond with Abe. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (©Reuters/Kyodo)
Japan-India relations have since neither markedly regressed nor accelerated. One could call the current state stable — or simply dull.
Today, India is turning its gaze westward, where both change and opportunity are rapidly unfolding, rather than looking east to Japan. The Japanese government, which has in turn lost interest in India, seems oblivious to this shift.
In New Delhi, attention has begun to shift from the Quad toward a newer multilateral framework known as "I2U2." This grouping brings together India and Israel, along with the United States and the United Arab Emirates — two nations beginning with "I" and two with "U," hence the name.
Beneath the surface, however, lies a deeper strategic foundation.
On September 15, 2020 (the very day Abe's administration officially ended in Japan), then-President Donald Trump presided over a historic diplomatic event. It was the day diplomatic relations were normalized between Israel, Bahrain, and the UAE, in what became known as the Abraham Accords.
Later, Morocco and Sudan (despite political instability) joined the accords. In May 2025, Trump visited the Middle East and strongly advocated for Saudi Arabia to join. US President Trump shakes hands with Crown Prince Mohammed (right) in Saudi Arabia. May 13 (Photo provided by the Saudi Royal Family / Reuters).
If Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites and self-styled leader of the Arab world, signs on, the accords will carry even greater weight. As the name suggests, "Abraham" refers to the prophet common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
The Abraham Accords became a catalyst for the official launch of I2U2 in July 2022.
The four I2U2 countries agreed to collaborate in six key sectors:
These are all civilian sectors, and all traditional areas of Japanese expertise. I've quietly advocated for Japan to join as a fifth member, forming an "I2JU2" alliance. With its deep capabilities and trusted ties, Japan could serve as a crucial bridge, anchoring the framework and discouraging any wavering in US policy.
Yet the wall of indifference in Kasumigaseki (Japan's bureaucracy) and Nagatacho (its political center) remains dauntingly high.
Meanwhile, with its focus turned westward, India has launched a sweeping new infrastructure vision.
This vision is known as the IMEC — the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor — unveiled at the G20 summit hosted by India in September 2023.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by seven countries and one regional bloc: Saudi Arabia, the European Union, India, the UAE, France, Germany, Italy, and the US.
Under IMEC, cargo from Mumbai will be shipped to Jebel Ali Port in Dubai, then carried by rail across Saudi Arabia to Haifa Port in Israel. From there, it connects to Piraeus Port in Greece, Trieste Port in Italy, and Marseille Port in France, linking to Europe's inland transportation networks.
Designed as a counterweight to China's corridor through Pakistan and Iran, IMEC aims to strengthen ties among US allies across the region. For Israel, it also extends its strategic footprint. The Abraham Accords lay the political groundwork, I2U2 provides the cooperative framework, and IMEC builds upon both to create a bold new infrastructure vision.
If container transfers between sea and land operate smoothly, Mumbai and Marseille could be connected in just five days — an ambitious goal, but one that promises far greater speed and security than the Suez Canal route, with only one-sixth of the transit time and reduced exposure to Iranian-backed militant threats.
I recently attended a related conference in Budapest, co-hosted by Hungarian and Israeli think tanks. The energy surrounding this vision was unmistakable. And once again, I was struck by Japan's absence.
Before World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany proposed the "3B Project," a railway linking Berlin, Byzantium (now Istanbul), and Baghdad. Whether today's Germany feels a similar historical pull is unclear, but Japan's indifference towards the IMEC is all too evident.
When Japanese media mention "IMEC," they often confuse it with Belgium's semiconductor research institute of the same name. Coverage of the actual corridor initiative is virtually nonexistent.
A plan to connect Saudi Arabia and Israel by rail should be thrilling — a bold and historic undertaking. Yet post-Abe Japan wasn't even approached by India to participate. Perhaps that's because both the Japanese government and private sector have grown too passive, too detached from the developments unfolding to India's west.
Still, it's not too late. The Japanese government should start by paying attention and begin charting a course for meaningful involvement in this ambitious project.
(Read the article in Japanese .)
Author: Tomohiko Taniguchi, Special Advisor to Fujitsu FSC, Former Cabinet Secretariat Advisor
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Forward
an hour ago
- Japan Forward
Comfort Women Revisited: Law, Politics, and Academic Freedom
At a recent seminar hosted by the Heterodox Academy East Asia, the comfort women issue took center stage as scholars from across disciplines engaged in a candid debate. Founded in 2015, Heterodox Academy is an American non-profit organization dedicated to promoting academic freedom and greater political diversity in higher education. Its East Asia Chapter, of which I'm a founding member, was created in late 2021. Since its inception, we have tackled some of the region's most polarizing and sensitive issues. Legal historian Marie Kim opened the discussion by examining the South Korean judiciary's growing role in adjudicating historical grievances. She cited the 2021 ruling in which a South Korean court awarded damages to 12 former comfort women who had sued the Japanese government, despite Tokyo's invocation of state immunity. A comparable ruling followed in 2023, when the Seoul High Court overturned a lower court's dismissal of a similar case. The High Court stated that state immunity did not apply, as the comfort women system constituted "an egregious human rights violation." Kim argued that rulings by domestic courts, which are often not entirely free from political influence, tend to complicate disputes between sovereign states. "Courts are not well-equipped to find out what really happened many, many years ago," she said. "Judicialization of the past is often dangerous because courts tend to favor moralization of history in the name of justice." Further complicating matters, Kim noted, is the inconsistency in how South Korean courts have approached colonial-era cases. In comfort women rulings, for instance, South Korean courts have asserted that the Japanese military violated both international law and penal codes enforced on the Korean Peninsula at the time. Yet in a separate wartime labor dispute, the Supreme Court in 2018 took a markedly different approach. It ruled that Japan's entire colonial legal framework was unlawful on the grounds that the 1910 annexation of Korea was itself "invalid." Attorneys for South Korean plaintiffs responding to reporters' interviews before the first meeting of the public-private council to resolve the wartime labor issue on July 4, 2022, in front of the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs (©Tatsuya Tokiyoshi) Kim, who is also a jurist, suggested that both positions cannot be held simultaneously. Either colonial-era laws were valid and enforceable, or they were invalid and void. "Some scholars argue that colonial law had no force because the people of Korea lived under foreign occupation. This sort of argument is rather kind of embarrassing," Kim said. "It's like saying that people without national sovereignty, like Korea at that time, are not capable of entering into any contractual relationship." Professor Chizuko Allen of the University of Hawaii offered a broader international context. She pointed out that the Korean Council, South Korea's largest comfort women advocacy group, was not formed in response to victim testimony, but rather emerged as part of a wider international feminist movement. Notably, the first comfort woman victim in South Korea stepped forward in August 1991, nine months after the organization was established. Before the Council's formation in November 1990, Allen said, South Korean intellectuals worked closely with North Korea and Japan's Socialist Party, organizing joint women's conferences in Seoul, Pyongyang, and Tokyo. Former Korean Council head Yoon Mee Hyang (center) with comfort women Lee Yong Soo (right) and Moon Phil Gi. Taken in 2002 at Pyongyang's Juche Tower in North Korea. (© Yoon Mee Hyang/ Facebook post) Around that time, North Korea was engaged in diplomatic normalization talks with Japan, starting in January 1991. But after failing to secure economic assistance, Pyongyang publicly alleged that hundreds of thousands of Korean women had been forced into sexual slavery under the guise of the Women's Volunteer Corps during Japanese colonial rule, Allen said. In many ways, the conflation of the Women's Volunteer Corps with the comfort women system reflects a broader lack of historical understanding. The Japanese government established the Corps in 1944 to conscript unmarried women into industrial labor roles amid acute wartime labor shortages. Yet this misunderstanding was not limited to Pyongyang. The Korean Council, too, frequently blurred the distinction, even incorporating the term Volunteer Corps into its original name. In 2018, the organization abruptly rebranded itself to Justice for the Comfort Women. North Korea, of course, is not the only nation exploiting the comfort women issue as a diplomatic tool against Japan. China is also increasingly doing so. Since Xi Jinping's rise to power in 2014, Allen explained, China has moved from indifference to proactive engagement in the comfort women issue. Cities like Shanghai and Nanjing opened museums dedicated to claimed victims, while Beijing actively pushed to include their testimonies in UNESCO's World Heritage registry. In 2024, families of 18 former Chinese comfort women filed a lawsuit seeking compensation from Japan. Chinese President Xi Jinping (©Kyodo) "[China would do] anything to isolate Japan internationally….and to weaken the US-Japan-South Korea security partnership," Allen said. Beyond geopolitics, the professor also noted a mental dimension. "It's kind of like psychological warfare," Allen said. "They want to attack Japanese self-esteem, especially among the young people, so that they will lower their guard." Wrapping up the seminar, Harvard Law professor J Mark Ramseyer provided a critical perspective on the origins of the comfort women narrative. "This [Comfort women issue] isn't something where the answer is sort of a little of this and a little bit of that," he said. "This whole thing is a fraud." According to Ramseyer, the modern controversy originated with Seiji Yoshida, a former Imperial Japanese soldier who published fabricated memoirs in the 1980s claiming he had been involved in "hunting down" Korean women for sexual slavery. Yoshida later admitted that his account was falsified. "If you go back and look at Korean and Japanese newspapers from 1945 to 1983, there's virtually nothing about comfort women," Ramseyer argued. The turning point, he said, was the dissemination of Yoshida's memoir in Japan in 1983 and its Korean translation in 1989. Alongside this, The Asahi Shimbun amplified the claims through its nationwide readership. Ramseyer also addressed his academic work that ignited controversy. In 2021, he published a brief paper arguing that the comfort women system operated under contractual terms, with women receiving upfront payments and the possibility of shortened service periods based on performance incentives. The backlash was immediate and intense. Faculty and students at Harvard and beyond launched petitions calling for the journal to retract his paper and demanding an apology. "The notion that in 2021, people would attack me for talking about the contract structure just had me completely blown away," Ramseyer said. Professor J Mark Ramseyer of Harvard University gives a keynote speech at a trilateral symposium on the comfort women issue in Nagatacho, Tokyo, on July 10. (©Sankei by Takao Harakawa) When asked by Joseph Yi, the moderator, whether he was politicizing his scholarship by engaging with right-leaning groups and political parties in Japan, Ramseyer responded: "If Hillary Clinton wanted to talk to me, I'd be happy to talk to her too. I'm not picky." "I've never heard of any colleague of mine being criticized for speaking to a left-wing group," he added. While our chapter has extended invitations to academics from the other side of the aisle, very few have been willing to participate in the seminar and openly challenge opposing views. Author: Kenji Yoshida
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Okinawa marks 80 years since end of one of harshest WWII battles with pledge to share tragic history
TOKYO (AP) — Okinawa marked the 80th anniversary of the end of one of the harshest battles of World War II fought on the southern island. With global tensions escalating, its governor said on Monday it is the Okinawan 'mission' to keep telling the tragic history and its impact today. The Battle of Okinawa killed a quarter of the island's population, leading to a 27-year U.S. occupation and a heavy American troop presence to date. Monday's memorial comes one day after U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, adding to a sense of uncertainty on the island about the heavy American military presence and in its remote islands, already worried about getting embroiled in a potential conflict in Taiwan. Gov. Denny Tamaki, noting the escalating global conflicts and nuclear threats, made a resolve to contribute to global peace studies, disarmament and the preservation of war remains. 'It is our mission, as those living in the present, to preserve and pass on the reality and lessons to future generations.' Fierce battle and civilian deaths U.S. troops landed on the main Okinawa island on April 1, 1945, beginning a battle in their push toward mainland Japan. The Battle of Okinawa lasted nearly three months, killing some 200,000 people — about 12,000 Americans and more than 188,000 Japanese, half of them Okinawan civilians including students and victims forced into mass suicides by Japan's military. Okinawa was sacrificed by Japan's Imperial Army to defend the mainland, historians say. The island group remained under U.S. occupation until its reversion in 1972, two decades longer than most of Japan. Monday's memorial was held at the Mabuni Hill in Itoman City, where the remains of most of the war dead reside. Remembering the tragedy Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was in a hot seat when he attended Monday's ceremony. Weeks earlier, one of his ruling party lawmakers Shoji Nishida, known for whitewashing Japan's wartime atrocities, denounced an inscription on a famous cenotaph dedicated to students as 'rewriting history' by portraying the Japanese army as having caused their deaths, while Americans liberated Okinawa. Nishida also called Okinawa's history education 'a mess.' His remark triggered an uproar in Okinawa, forcing Ishiba days later to apologize to the island's governor, who had criticized the remark as outrageous and distorting history. The Himeyuri Cenotaph commemorates student nurses who were abandoned near the end of the battle and killed, some in group suicides with teachers. Japan's wartime military told the people never to surrender to the enemy, or die. Nishida's remarks add to concerns about the whitewashing of Japan's embarrassing wartime past as memories of the tragedy fade and ignorance about the suffering grows. Ishiba, at Monday's memorial, said Japan's peace and prosperity is built on the sacrifices of Okinawa's history of hardship and that it is the government's responsibility to 'devote ourselves to achieve a peaceful and prosperous Okinawa.' Postwar years and growing fear Okinawa remained under U.S. occupation from 1945 until the 1972 reversion to Japan. The U.S. military maintains a heavy presence there due to Okinawa's strategic importance for security in the Pacific. Their presence serves not only to help defend Japan but also for missions elsewhere, including in the South China Sea and the Middle East. Private properties were confiscated to build U.S. bases, and the base-dependent economy has hampered the growth of local industry. Fear of a Taiwan conflict rekindles bitter memories of the Battle of Okinawa. Historians and many residents say Okinawa was used as a pawn to save mainland Japan. There are also ancient tensions between Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, which annexed the islands, formerly the independent kingdom of the Ryukus, in 1879. Burden of history Okinawa remains home to the majority of about 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan under a bilateral security pact. The island, which accounts for only 0.6% of Japanese land, hosts 70% of U.S. military facilities. Even 53 years after its reversion to Japan, Okinawa is burdened with the heavy U.S. presence and faces noise, pollution, aircraft accidents and crime related to American troops, the governor said. Nearly 2,000 tons of unexploded U.S. bombs remain in Okinawa, with some regularly dug up. A recent explosion at a storage site at a U.S. military base caused minor injuries to four Japanese soldiers. Remains of hundreds of war dead are still unrecovered on Okinawa, as the government's search and identification effort is slow to make progress.
Ottawa Citizen
2 hours ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Today's letters: AI could radically alter bilingualism training in the public service
Article content So, some seven country leaders plus the EC leader met in a nice place in Alberta, a tough job for Mark Carney. He wisely invited a few more leaders to try to get a bit more balance in this group where five of the eight guests come from western Europe, an area that has lagged economically for more than a decade and does not have a common foreign policy. Article content At present, their economies are barely equivalent to that of China who is not invited. Article content It is no wonder that Donald Trump does not pay much attention to that group since he does not care too much about western Europe. In fact, nobody really does except the media and some traditional protesters. This group now is mostly a pleasant outing for some European leaders, with Japan tagging along Article content And what did they do? They could not deal with the major conflicts in Sudan, Ukraine, Israel-Iran and Israel-Palestinians, because the leaders involved in these conflicts were not there (apart from Volodymyr Zelenskyy who usually come to beg for more money and arms). So, the European leaders could only demonstrate their weaknesses by once again using 'strong language' and offering 'unwavering support.' Article content Article content The group did not achieve results in the trade war between the U.S. and the rest of the world either, because most of the rest of the world was not there and these trade issues are complex. Article content In contrast to his predecessor, Carney handled this social event smoothly and managed to get along with Trump, no mean task. This was the best that could be expected from a group clearly past its prime. Article content People who criticize inviting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the G7 fail to understand the purpose of diplomacy. Article content Canada does not need diplomatic relations to deal with friendly countries. The prime ministers of Canada and the United Kingdom, for example, can phone or visit each other any time, discuss how to advance shared interests and any problems, then hand the issues over to their public servants. Article content Article content Diplomacy was developed so that the governments of countries that have real differences, that may be at war or drifting towards war, can communicate with each other frequently and safely. Then they can listen to each other, get a good understanding of the others' views instead of relying on rumours and the views of those who want confrontation, appreciate the dangers and seek solutions. Article content 'Punishing' a foreign government by refusing to talk to its leaders or expelling its ambassadors may satisfy some citizens, but our government was right to invite Modi to the G7, to have discussions with him, to keep most of them secret, and to restore high-level diplomatic relations. All it took was common sense, courage, and a phone call.
