
US cars struggle in Japan, account for under 8% of imports
Just 7.8 percent of imported cars sold in Japan from January to June were from U.S.-branded automakers, industry data showed Friday, demonstrating the weak domestic demand for American-designed vehicles.
Only 9,517 U.S.-branded vehicles were sold in Japan in the period, undercutting U.S. President Donald Trump's claim that more Japanese should be buying American imports to address his nation's trade deficit.
Of the 121,243 units sold in the six-month period, Jeep -- owned by Netherlands-based multinational Stellantis NV -- was the best-selling U.S.-brand at 4,333 units, followed by General Motors Co's Chevrolet and Cadillac at 283 and 185, respectively, the Japan Automobile Importers Association said.
In contrast, German brand Mercedes-Benz alone sold 25,015 vehicles in the period, with 90.4 percent of the cars imported to Japan coming from European manufacturers.
Tesla Inc of the United States does not disclose sales by country, but takes up almost all of the 'others' category at 4,589 units, an association official said. The EV maker's imports were included in the U.S. figure.
Despite their dire position, demand for American brands is growing, rising 17.2 percent from a year earlier, reflecting the popularity of new Cadillac and Jeep EVs, the association official said.
Japan's imports of U.S. cars have been a focus in the ongoing negotiations over Trump's tariffs, with the president expressing dissatisfaction that so few U.S. cars are seen on Japanese roads.
He has blamed Japanese nontariff barriers, such as differences in safety tests, for the situation.
Japan, which does not impose tariffs on imported cars, says its rules and standards are in line with United Nations regulations, and that it does not implement particularly strict rules on such vehicles.
Auto analysts say Japanese buyers are not attracted to the types of vehicle typically offered by American automakers, such as large pick-up trucks, with domestic consumers preferring smaller vehicles due to Japan's narrow roads.
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba also said in parliament earlier this year that foreign automakers need to be mindful of Japanese consumers' preference for right-hand drive, fuel-efficient vehicles.
'Foreign automakers have to produce cars that suit Japanese consumers and that is up to American companies,' Ishiba said, adding that limited dealer networks are also a crucial factor contributing to aversion to U.S. brands.
Foreign carmaker officials in Japan agree with Ishiba's assessment, with some stressing the key to expansion is to study and respond to domestic preferences and also to engage continuously with buyers through dealerships.
'Our strength is accessibility with a network of 200 stores nationwide, allowing people in Japan to casually visit and experience (our cars) hands-on,' said Takeshi Sawamura, senior manager at Volkswagen Group Japan K.K.'Japan's regulations are sometimes noted as nontariff barriers but the rules are moving toward' the global standard, Sawamura said. 'What matters is whether we can produce cars that suit the Japanese market.'
Jin Narita, head of Stellantis Japan Ltd -- which owns Italian, French and U.S. brands including Jeep, Alfa Romeo, Peugeot and Citroensaid the company prioritizes having a wide range of products that are attractive to many Japanese drivers.
'Stellantis cars are positioned between domestic makers' models and premium models. We offer unique models, such as Jeep that appeal' to consumers' adventurous side, Narita said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Ukraine's sovereignty was violated long before Trump
On June 16, the Ukrainian government started the process for opening bids for foreign companies to mine lithium deposits in the country. Among the interested investors is a consortium linked to Ronald S Lauder, who is believed to be close to United States President Donald Trump. The bid is part of a minerals deal signed in April that is supposed to give the US access to Ukraine's mineral wealth. The agreement was negotiated over months and was touted by Trump as 'payback' for US military support for the Ukrainian military. The final text, which the Ukrainian side has celebrated as 'more favourable' compared with previous iterations, paves the way for US investment in the mining and energy sectors in Ukraine. Investment decisions will be made jointly by US and Ukrainian officials, profits will not be taxed and US companies will get preferential treatment in tenders and auctions. Trump's demand for access to Ukrainian mineral wealth was slammed by many as infringing on Ukrainian sovereignty and being exploitative at a time when the country is fighting a war and is highly dependent on US arms supplies. But that is hardly an aberration in the record of relations between Ukraine and the West. For more than a decade now, Kyiv has faced Western pressure to make decisions that are not necessarily in the interests of its people. Interference in domestic affairs Perhaps the most well-known accusations of Western influence peddling have to do with the son of former US President Joe Biden – Hunter Biden. He became a board member of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma in May 2014, three months after Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president of Ukraine, fled to Russia during nationwide protests. At that time, Joe Biden was not only vice president in President Barack Obama's administration but also its pointman on US-Ukrainian relations. Over five years, Hunter Biden earned up to $50,000 a month as a board member. The apparent conflict of interest in this case bothered even Ukraine's European allies. But Joe Biden's interference went much further than that. As vice president, he openly threatened then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko with blocking $1bn in US aid if he did not dismiss the Ukrainian prosecutor general, whom Washington opposed. When Biden became president, his administration – along with the European Union – put pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give foreign 'experts' a key role in the election of judges for Ukraine's courts. As a result, three of the six members on the Ethics Council of the High Council of Justice, which vets judges, are now members of international organisations. There was fierce opposition to this reform, even from within Zelenskyy's own political party. Nevertheless, he felt compelled to proceed. The Ukrainian government also adopted other unpopular laws under Western pressure. In 2020, the parliament passed a bill introduced by Zelenskyy that removed a ban on the sale of private farmland. Although polls consistently showed the majority of Ukrainians to be against such a move, pressure from the West forced the Ukrainian president's hand. Widespread protests against the move were muffled by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Subsequently, Ukraine's agricultural sector became even more dominated by large, export-oriented multinational companies with deleterious consequences for the country's food security. Attempts to challenge these unpopular laws were undermined by attacks on courts. For example, the Kyiv District Administrative Court ruled that the judicial reform law violated Ukraine's sovereignty and constitution, but this decision was invalidated when Zelenskyy dissolved the court after the US imposed sanctions on its head judge, Pavlo Vovk, over accusations of corruption. The Constitutional Court, where there were also attempts to challenge some of these laws, also faced pressure. In 2020, Zelenskyy tried to fire all the court's judges and annul their rulings but failed. Then in 2021, Oleksandr Tupytskyi, the chairman of the court, was sanctioned by the US, again over corruption accusations. This facilitated his removal shortly thereafter. With Western interference in Ukrainian internal affairs made so apparent, public confidence in the sovereignty of the state was undermined. A 2021 poll showed that nearly 40 percent of Ukrainians did not believe their country was fully independent. Economic sovereignty In step with interference in Ukraine's governance, its economy has also faced foreign pressures. In 2016, US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt urged the country to become an 'agricultural superpower'. And it appears that the country indeed has gone down that path, continuing the process of deindustrialisation. From 2010 to 2019, industry's share of Ukraine's gross domestic product fell by 3.7 percentage points while that of agriculture rose by 3.4 percentage points. This didn't benefit Ukrainians. UNICEF found that nearly 20 percent of Ukrainians suffered from 'moderate to severe food insecurity' from 2018 to 2020, a figure that rose to 28 percent by 2022. This is more than twice as high as the same figure for the EU. This is because the expansion of agriculture has favoured export-oriented monocrops like sunflowers, corn and soya beans. Although Ukraine became the world's biggest exporter of sunflower oil in 2019, a 2021 study found that the domination of agriculture by intensively farmed monoculture has put 40 percent of the country's soil at risk of depletion. The 2016 free trade agreement with the EU also encouraged low-cost exports. Due to the restrictive provisions of the agreement, Ukrainian business complained that domestic products were often unable to reach European markets while European producers flooded Ukraine. Ukraine had a 4-billion-euro ($4.7bn) trade deficit with the EU in 2021, exporting raw materials and importing processed goods and machinery. Meanwhile, Ukraine's industrial output collapsed under the blows of closed export markets, Western competition and neoliberal economic policies at home. According to the Ministry of Economy, by 2019, automobile production had shrunk to 31 percent of its 2012 level, train wagon production to 29.7 percent, machine tool production to 68.2 percent, metallurgical production to 70.8 percent and agricultural machinery production to 68.4 percent. In 2020, the government under the newly elected Zelenskyy tried to intervene. It proposed new legislation to protect Ukrainian industry, Bill 3739, which aimed to limit the amount of foreign goods purchased by Ukrainian state contracts. Member of parliament Dmytro Kiselevsky pointed to the fact that while only 5 to 8 percent of state contracts in the US and EU are fulfilled with imports, the same figures stood at 40 to 50 percent in Ukraine. But Bill 3739 was immediately criticised by the EU, the US and pro-Western NGOs in Ukraine. This was despite the fact that Western countries have a range of methods to protect their markets and state purchases from foreigners. Ultimately, Bill 3739 was passed with significant amendments that provided exceptions for companies from the US and the EU. The recent renewal of EU tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural exports, which had been lifted in 2022, is yet another confirmation that the West protects its own markets but wants unrestricted access to Ukraine's, to the detriment of the Ukrainian economy. Ukrainian officials worry that this move would cut economic growth this year from the projected 2.7 percent to 0.9 percent and cost the country $3.5bn in lost revenues. In light of all this, Trump's mineral deal reflects continuity in Western policy on Ukraine rather than a rupture. What the US president did differently was show to the public how Western leaders bully the Ukrainian government to get what they want – something that usually happens behind closed doors. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


Al Jazeera
14 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Brazil hosts BRICS summit; Russia's Putin, China's Xi skip Rio trip
Leaders of the growing BRICS group are gathering in Brazil for a summit overshadowed by United States President Donald Trump's new tariff policies while presenting the bloc as a defender of multilateralism. The leaders, mainly from the developing world, will be discussing ways to increase cooperation amid what they say are serious concerns over Western dominance at their two-day summit that begins in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday. The BRICS acronym is derived from the initial letters of the founding member countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The bloc, which held its first summit in 2009, later added Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as full members. It also has 10 strategic partner countries, a category created last year, that includes Belarus, Cuba and Vietnam. But for the first time since taking power in 2012, Chinese President Xi Jinping will not be attending in person, instead sending Prime Minister Li Qiang. Russian President Vladimir Putin will also miss in-person attendance as he is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Brazil, as a signatory to the Rome Statute, would be required to enforce the arrest warrant. The notable absences are raising questions over the group's cohesion and global clout. Now chaired by Brazil, leaders at the BRICS summit are expected to decry the Trump administration's 'indiscriminate' trade tariffs, saying they are illegal and risk hurting the global economy. Global health policies, artificial intelligence and climate change will also be on the agenda. The BRICS countries say they represent almost half of the world's population, 36 percent of global land area, and a quarter of the global economic output. The bloc sees itself as a forum for cooperation between countries of the Global South and a counterweight to the Group of Seven (G7), comprised of leading Western economic powers. However, behind the scenes, divisions are evident. According to a source quoted by The Associated Press news agency, some member states are calling for a firmer stance on Israel's war in Gaza and its recent strikes on Iran. The source requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Egypt's Abdel Fattah el-Sisi will be attending the Rio summit. However, Al Jazeera's Lucia Newman, reporting from Rio, said the group's aim remains clear. 'The BRICS goal is to exert pressure for a multipolar world with inclusive global governance to give a meaningful voice to the Global South, especially in the trading system,' she said. 'It's not super organised, nor does it have a radical global impact,' Newman added. 'The real question is, can an expanded BRICS whose members have very different political systems and priorities form a sufficiently unified bloc to have any significant impact?'


Al Jazeera
17 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Elon Musk launches the America Party as feud with Trump escalates
Billionaire Elon Musk has followed through on his pledge to create a new political party in the United States after President Donald Trump signed his controversial budget legislation, the so-called 'One Big, Beautiful Bill', into law. Musk in a post on X on Saturday declared the formation of the 'America Party', to 'give back' the people of the US their freedom and challenge what he called the nation's 'one-party system'. He cited a poll, uploaded on Friday – the US's Independence Day – in which he asked whether respondents 'want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system' that has dominated US politics for some two centuries. The yes-or-no survey earned more than 1.2 million responses. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk wrote on Saturday. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,' he declared. The move comes amid a worsening of the feud between the world's richest man and Trump over the new budget law, which the Tesla and SpaceX CEO said would bankrupt the US. Musk was Trump's main campaign financier during the 2024 election, and led the Department of Government Efficiency from the start of the president's second term, aimed at slashing government spending. The two have since fallen out spectacularly over disagreements about the 'Big, Beautiful Bill'. Musk said previously that he would start a new political party and spend money to unseat lawmakers who supported the bill, which experts say will pile an extra $3.4 trillion over a decade onto the US deficit. 'They will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,' Musk had said. There was no immediate comment from Trump or the White House on Musk's announcement. Trump earlier this week threatened to cut off the billions of dollars in subsidies that Musk's companies receive from the federal government, and to deport the South African-born tycoon. 'We'll have to take a look,' the president told reporters when asked if he would consider deporting Musk, who has held US citizenship since 2002. It is not clear how much impact the new party will have on the 2026 mid-term elections, or on the presidential vote two years after that. On Friday, after posting the poll, Musk laid out a possible political battle plan to pick off vulnerable House of Representatives and Senate seats, and for the party to become 'the deciding vote' on key legislation. 'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,' Musk posted on X. All 435 US House seats are up for grabs every two years, while about one-third of the Senate's 100 members, who serve six-year terms, are elected every two years. Despite Musk's deep pockets, breaking the Republican-Democratic duopoly is a tall order, given that it has dominated US political life for more than 160 years, while Trump's approval ratings in polls in his second term have generally held firm above 40 percent, despite the president's often divisive policies.