Every nation, despite the position of what their government says, will always have an interventionist policy by championing their national interest. In theory, the United States is also a non-interventionist state, and claims that its involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya, as well as Nicaragua, etc were to maintain international geopolitical interest.
My friend, nation states do not operate in a black and white modality, but rather through multipraxis processes. In the form of national loans, people to people development, and even NGOs, which can be used to influence, perhaps not militarily, but domestic support or the contrary. The point i'm trying to make is that in theory, many nations may claim to be "non-interventionist" but may actually do the antithesis. For example, i should bring up the issue of EEZ and maritime extraterritoriality as basis.
In regards to Japan; we have no partiality in South Asia. As you may well know, we have poured billions of dollars in the development of infrastructure, health, and government (local government units) to our partners in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal. Our sizeable interest is not only limited to India (tho she is home to some 1,000+ Japanese businesses), but also to companies in Bangladesh and Pakista etc. As you may well know, the Indian Navy is a force to be reckoned with , and as the navies of both Pakistan and Bangladesh develop, I'm sure our relations and interaction will also grow. For us, Japan desires a peaceful, growing, and stable South Asia.
South Asia is home to: India (1.2 billion), Pakistan (180 million), Bangladesh (155 million), Sri Lanka (20 million), Nepal (27 million).
A total of around 1.5 - 1.6 Billion people.
When I say South Asia, what I mean is South Asian nations that are India's neighbors.
The US is no longer non-interventionist not even in theory, specially so after end of WW II, so it is the perfect example of an Interventionist state today.
I am well aware of how nation states operate, but there is a huge difference between trying to increase influence through soft power, NGO and financial means and overt actions of infiltration and taking over a nation trying to exercise full control of that state as a vassal entity. What India does not realize is that because of its nervousness which prompts it to take such course, eventually it will backfire on its own face, a classic blow-back so to speak. So in its effort to advance its own national interest it is actually doing long term harm to its national interest. No country and people like intervention, specially hostile ones that involves killing people and repression.
Japan has a history of helping all South Asian nations without partiality and I acknowledge my personal gratefulness for Japan's past and future help to our nation in particular.
But geopolitics is currently going through a major shift in Asia, mainly because of rise of formerly underdeveloped nations which are getting more developed, some faster than others, but all are rising at different paces.
While it is in China's national interest to persuade India to tone down on its policy of intervention, we hope Japan will consider the same approach, as I believe it is also in the interest of India's long term interest. China has no plans of military alliance or ties with India, as far as I can tell. If Japan has future plans in that regard, then this will further increase the urgency for Japan to persuade India, once it becomes a formal military ally/partner (supplying weapons systems), to become a more responsible player, as a closer ally and well wisher of India.
As mentioned before, I consider Japan to be an asset for all Asians, an innovative and high achieving nation, despite its past problems. I look forward to a time, when China, Japan and South Korea will become the new Asian core, whereas other Asian nations will become semi-peripheral and peripheral nations around this Asian core:
World-systems theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This in my opinion will happen in 20-30 years time frame when China's economy and military prowess far exceeds that of the US or even the combined power of NATO. In about 15-20 years when China reaches peer status with the US, I think there will be a new expanded SCO based military alliance led by China and Russia among willing Asian nations. If an anonymous poster of Bangladeshi origin can see this much in the future, I am sure strategists in Japan are aware of much more. So I am confident that Japan will not burn its bridges with nations that are going to be its future allies. India for obvious reasons will remain out of this military alliance. It will have extensive trade and commercial relations with rest of Asian nations, but militarily it will remain closer to the West, due to weapons system sourcing needs. Although officially I think India will strive to retain its non-aligned status of not taking any sides, so it can reap as much benefit as possible from all sides and develop and become a core country by itself like China-Japan-Korea combination.
If India continues with its current interventionist policy and gets away with pursuing this policy with impunity in its immediate neighborhood, what I believe will happen in the future is that, once its economy has grown and becomes closer to China, it will start targeting other nations in the global arena and no one will be immune from its tentacles including your own, just like no one is immune from US intervention, except for soon to be peer power like China. So I feel as India's immediate neighbor, who have gotten the taste of India's Interventionist policies, we have a responsibility to inform the illegal and criminal behavior of this nation state to the world so it can be persuaded to pursue a more sane and reasonable foreign policy over time.
