The author, 67, is former ambassador to Korea and France, and currently a special visiting professor at Aoyama Gakuin University and a committee member of the Asahi Shimbun Asia Network.

The emergence of China and India is now the focus of international attention, with two symbolic events involving those two countries having recently taken place.

The first involves the leading U.S. corporation Google. In providing Internet search services in the Chinese market, Google is reported to have promised, at the behest of the Chinese government, to control the distribution of information critical of the regime. Google is known to have professed itself to be an advocate of the free distribution of information and to have shown disapproval of the U.S. government's intervention in the distribution even of information relating to criminal investigations and terrorist activities. Its latest move has accordingly become the subject of international controversy, arousing suspicion that Google might in relation to China have buckled under pressure.

If Google is in fact exercising restraint, the company should be regarded as acting against the freedom of distribution of information and as having modified its political beliefs or principles for the sake of commercial benefit in securing greater access to China's gigantic market. This also means that a leading global business corporation has acknowledged China as a major economic power and applied (or could apply) a "double standard," in which Google will not necessarily demand that China observe international rules or moral principles which any western country would follow as a matter of course. In other words, China is being given freedom of action as a big power for the very reason that it is a big power (or because it has been so recognized).

On the other hand, India reached agreement with the United States on the provision of nuclear power technology during President George W. Bush's visit to India in March 2006. Under the agreement, the United States will supply India with nuclear technology for civilian use despite the fact that India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In this case, India has been recognized as a major nuclear power and, at the same time, been given the freedom to act as a big power (that is, the freedom to disregard the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). What this involves is "dual recognition," namely recognizing India's status as a big power and its freedom of action because of that status.

What should be questioned in the cases of China and India is the third or real condition for a big power, namely how these countries accept their responsibilities as big powers.

What responsibility is China fulfilling in the world economy while gaining enormous profits from the global trade and economic systems? It has not given up its status as a "developing country" and continues to receive official development assistance (ODA). Furthermore, in relation to measures to deal with global warming, the country, as a developing nation, is permitted to take relatively loose regulatory measures. China's share of United Nations' expenses also remains small.

What political contribution is India making to the international community? It has been conducting nuclear tests, while its conflict with Pakistan is far from being settled. As a slogan, India proudly proclaims itself to be "the largest democracy in the world." However, apart from the system itself, it can hardly be a model for other developing countries when we see the real state of the country.

One might say that China and India will of course make distinguished international contributions in the future, and that they are now in a process of transition. Accordingly, it is essential for us to keep watching them warmly and to share a spirit of partnership as future partners, with no heed being paid to minor contradictions and hypocrisy in their conduct. That way of thinking might be acceptable for the United States and Western Europe but does that logic stack up for Japan?

Japan is not a West European country and it has historically made virtually no use of any economic privileges as a developing country. It has rather been struggling against discrimination and prejudice towards a newcomer in the international community. Moreover, Japan has maintained as a national policy the three non-nuclear principles, in addition to which it keeps calling on the world to prohibit nuclear tests and urging the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

From the point of view of Japan with that background, such nuclear powers as China and India are still being treated as developing countries and can hardly be regarded as fulfilling their international responsibilities. I therefore wonder if it is acceptable to let such a state continue indefinitely. If we are to accept such a situation, to what extent and in which areas should we accept it? The criteria we use to establish the position should, however, not be created by a somewhat arbitrary decision of the United States alone but with the consent of the whole international community. Moreover, it should be Japan's tacit mission to shoulder part of the burden of efforts for that purpose.