“A friendship like few others” is how US President Donald Trump described the US-Japan relationship in January, declaring his confidence that “the cherished alliances between our two countries will continue to flourish long into the future.”
Not even half a year later, is the shine already coming off what was heralded as a new “golden age” of ties between the two nations?
Trade talks between the two countries, initially expected to yield a quick agreement, have become a slog with the deadline on Wednesday next week fast approaching. Japan has scrapped a top-level defense meeting it would normally be desperate to attend amid reports of US demands for more defense spending, and distance has opened between Trump and his counterpart, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, on the situation in the Middle East.
Illustration: Mountain People
The biggest obstacle is obviously tariffs. The unilateral imposition of duties was something Japan had hoped its unique relationship with the US would help it avoid. When that failed, the consensus view was that Tokyo would secure an agreement rather quickly. Instead, Japan’s tariff talks envoy Ryosei Akazawa has been traipsing back and forth to the US, most recently last weekend, with the two sides still seemingly far apart — not helped by lack of agreement on the US side over what it even wants.
Surprisingly, Japan has dug its heels in, insisting on a full climbdown on auto tariffs and cautioning it would not take a bad deal just to reach a quick one. Domestic media reports suggested an agreement between the two leaders at the G7 in Canada was near, only for Trump to depart early and Ishiba to return home empty-handed.
Compounding this is a growing gap in views on defense. Japan lobbied hard to keep trade and security as two separate issues, but then it canceled the “two-plus-two” security talks between the defense and diplomatic heads, the Financial Times reported, citing Tokyo’s displeasure with a request from the US to further raise its spending on national security.
How much that figure might be is not clear. Japan has denied that the US is looking for higher spending, but in recent weeks reports have suggested Washington is looking for Tokyo to spend anywhere from 3 percent to 5 percent of GDP, with NATO leaders last week agreeing to the higher figure after pressure from Trump.
However, Japan is already struggling to reach its prior 2 percent commitment, much less finance it, and most problematically, Ishiba has long stated his opposition to any numerical target, saying that it is more important to define what the money is spent on. The prime minister also scrapped plans to attend the NATO meeting in The Hague last week.
Less attention has been devoted to the distance growing between the two on Iran. Ishiba was lucky that few noticed his remarks on the day Israel attacked. “The use of military means by Israel cannot be permitted,” he told reporters. “It’s absolutely unacceptable, and we strongly condemn this action.”
The language is the strongest typically used by Japanese leaders to condemn the actions of other nations, more akin to what a prime minister might use if, say, North Korea conducted a nuclear test or launched a missile over Japan.
In a change of direction, just days later at the G7, Japan signed off on a statement that affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself, and condemned Iran as the “principal source of regional instability and terror,” and when the US itself later bombed Iran’s nuclear sites, Ishiba expressed neither opposition nor strong support. The opposition has accused him of double standards.
Do not read too much into all this — it might just be the hallmarks of a disorganized and weak administration, one that might not be long for this world. Or possibly it stems from the strange ambiguity Ishiba himself likes to project, with pinning down his exact positions akin to nailing jelly to a wall.
It might also be the case that the prime minister is happy to drag some of these issues out as long as it is politically convenient. He was quick to dub the imposition of tariffs a “national crisis” — language previously used by Japanese leaders for events such as the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, or the COVID-19 pandemic — an act that has given him cover from his opponents inside and out of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party as his popularity dwindles.
Even without the Trump factor, there have long been questions about where Ishiba, who wants a more equal relationship with Washington, sees his country’s place in the world. Given that he faces crucial Upper House elections later this month, where a bad showing could spell his demise, it might not be worth pondering the question too deeply.
However, his longevity (in relative terms) has already surprised many who expected his ouster by now, and even if he goes, Trump would still be there for the next three years and counting. Will we look back on it as a high point in ties between the two nations? All that glitters is not gold.
Gearoid Reidy is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Japan and the Koreas. He previously led the breaking news team in North Asia, and was the Tokyo deputy bureau chief. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In a meeting with Haitian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste on Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) vowed to continue providing aid to Haiti. Taiwan supports Haiti with development in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and education through initiatives run by the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF). The nation it has established itself as a responsible, peaceful and innovative actor committed to global cooperation, Jean-Baptiste said. Testimonies such as this give Taiwan a voice in the global community, where it often goes unheard. Taiwan’s reception in Haiti also contrasts with how China has been perceived in countries in the region
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
On April 13, I stood in Nanan (南安), a Bunun village in southern Hualien County’s Jhuosi Township (卓溪), absorbing lessons from elders who spoke of the forest not as backdrop, but as living presence — relational, sacred and full of spirit. I was there with fellow international students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) participating in a field trip that would become one of the most powerful educational experiences of my life. Ten days later, a news report in the Taipei Times shattered the spell: “Formosan black bear shot and euthanized in Hualien” (April 23, page 2). A tagged bear, previously released
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
RSS