Japan PM vows to stay on after bruising election defeat
The embattled prime minister told a news conference he would remain in office to oversee tariff talks with the United States and other pressing matters, such as rising consumer prices that are straining the world's fourth-largest economy.
"I will stay in office and do everything in my power to chart a path toward resolving these challenges," Ishiba said, adding that he intended to speak directly with U.S. President Donald Trump as soon as possible and deliver tangible results.
Analysts say his days may be numbered, however, having also lost control of the more powerful lower house in elections last year and shedding votes on Sunday to opposition parties pledging to cut taxes and tighten immigration policies.
"The political situation has become fluid and could lead to a leadership change or the reshuffling of the coalition in coming months," said Oxford Economics' lead Japan economist Norihiro Yamaguchi.
Investors fear Ishiba's administration will now be more beholden to opposition parties advocating for tax cuts and welfare spending that the world's most indebted country can ill afford.
The 68-year-old leader said he had no plans to expand his coalition but would work with opposition parties to address voter concerns about inflation. He cautioned, though, that tax changes would not deliver the immediate help households need.
Markets in Japan
Markets in Japan were closed for a holiday on Monday, although the yen JPY=EBS strengthened and Nikkei futures NKc1 rose slightly, as the election results appeared to be priced in.
Yields on Japanese government bonds sold off sharply ahead of the ballot as polls showed the ruling coalition - which had been calling for fiscal restraint - was likely to lose its majority in the upper house.
Adding to the economic anxiety, Ishiba's lack of progress in averting tariffs set to be imposed by its biggest trading partner, the United States, on August 1 appears to have frustrated some voters.
"Had the ruling party resolved even one of these issues, it (its approval rate) would have gone up, but we didn't feel anything and it seems like the U.S. would continue to push us around," Hideaki Matsuda, a 60-year-old company manager, said outside Tokyo's bustling Shinjuku station on Monday morning.
Japan's chief tariff negotiator Ryosei Akazawa departed for trade talks in Washington on Monday morning, his eighth visit in three months.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Academics fear Columbia University's deal with Trump has wider ramifications
The US government intends to fine several universities it accuses of failing to stop antisemitism on campus in exchange for federal funding freezes to be lifted, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. The strategy would see Harvard, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown universities targeted, according to a White House official, with Harvard being the main focus. All of the universities are currently in talks with President Donald Trump's administration over accusations by a federal task force committee that they have allowed antisemitism to fester on their campuses. The move comes after the administration successfully extracted $200m from Columbia to settle allegations that it violated Title VI by failing to address harassment of Jewish students, in exchange for restoring its federal grants. Now, the administration is looking to widen the net to other institutions and reportedly hopes to garner much more money from Harvard, which has an endowment of $53.2bn. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Critics believe the agreement with Columbia sets a dangerous precedent, and that these tactics can be used to change the academic landscape. Former Columbia University law professor Katherine Franke said that Columbia bent over backwards to appease the government by implementing the agreement in advance for months. This included adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism, circumventing its senate to change the University Judicial Board rules/composition, and creating a new provostial position to monitor certain departments. Columbia University to pay $220m, undertake major reforms in bid to restore federal funding Read More » "It's an unusual tactic in normal times, to implement the terms of a settlement voluntarily before the full agreement is reached," she said. "But these are not normal times, and Columbia has shown itself more than willing to bend a knee to the Trump administration in the hopes that doing so will make things less bad." Harvard University has put up more of a fight and is currently suing the Trump administration in federal court, with one lawsuit claiming that the administration's freezing of more than $2bn in federal research money is illegal. Harvard is also being penalised by being cut off from future grants. Franke warned that the agreement was a slippery slope and that the government would weaponise the spectre of antisemitism to dismantle the institution. "This agreement is not the end of the story… it is merely the start of the next phase of the administration's campaign to use Columbia as an example for other universities. They won't let up, and the 'agreement' gives them all the power to keep weaponising the specter of antisemitism to dismantle a world-class university." Undermining the fightback Columbia's agreement with the Trump administration is also being seen as a move that undermines the fightback from Harvard and students and activists on campuses. A student, who wished to be anonymous and is a member of the pro-Palestine group Students for Justice in Palestine at Wesleyan College in Georgia, said: "What Harvard has done, at least legally, to combat the Trump administration is now being undercut by Colombia's capitulation. I think that it bodes very poorly for the climate of student activism in the coming year." 'The bottom line is ultimately more important than the purported mandate or principle of learning, freedom of thought and expression' - Kourouss Esmaili, scholar at Tufts Kouross Esmaeli, a visiting scholar at Tufts University in the Department of Studies in Race, Colonialism and Diaspora, said that plans to control universities expose the corporate nature of universities. "The bottom line is ultimately more important than the purported mandate or principle of learning, freedom of thought and expression," Esmaeli said. In an email he sent to Middle East Eye, he wrote: "The administration's use of federal funds to intimidate and transform higher education into an acquiescence factory is a serious compromise of our basic values and rights. "The people in charge of the corporate universities will continue to bend the knee to their sovereign in the name of saving their institution. But hopefully this is exposing the universities' complicity not only in the genocide in Palestine, but the larger American capitalist interests." Esmaeli says that the events demonstrate why universities have been so resistant to divest from Israel, a key demand from pro-Palestine protesters, and the US military-industrial complex.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Obama ‘treason' claims video won't distract Americans from Epstein files
Following the uproar over the US administration's refusal to release the Department of Justice files related to the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, the crisis between US President Donald Trump and his base has proved to be uncontainable. Information continues to be made public that verifies a friendship between Epstein and Mr Trump and has fuelled speculation that this refusal is based on an effort to suppress information. Strongly buttressing those concerns, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department informed the President it discovered his name is mentioned throughout the Epstein files. Mr Trump sued the Journal and its owners including Rupert Murdoch for at least $10 billion on Friday. The paper is noted for meticulous reporting and successfully standing by its stories. Apparently as a means of distraction, Mr Trump made an allegation on his bespoke Truth Social media platform. He posted an AI-generated video depicting former president Barack Obama being arrested and imprisoned by FBI agents. It contained no disclaimers that it was fictional or generated by AI. The fictitious arrest video is prompted by new claims by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that, led by Mr Obama, the Democratic Party attempted to 'steal' the 2016 election that Mr Trump won. The DNI report is unconvincing, based on well-known information, tangential facts, random claims and unverified assertions. But it seems to be the latest effort by the Trump inner circle to push back against the long-standing and well-verified fact that the Russian government intervened in the 2016 election, a finding that he was eventually forced, however briefly, to officially accept. The extensive report compiled by special counsel Robert S Mueller III issued in April 2019 demonstrated conclusively that Russia had engaged in 'sweeping and systematic' intervention efforts to try to ensure the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the victory of Mr Trump. Moreover, it found that one-time Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort constituted 'a grave counterintelligence threat' and had shared intelligence including private Trump campaign polling and other data with Russian intelligence agents. Mr Manafort was convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to 73 months in prison, but was pardoned by Mr Trump in 2020. Mr Mueller was unable to establish any definitive collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and said that Justice Department rules prevented him from recommending any criminal charges against the President. The scandal has haunted Mr Trump ever since. The attempt by Ms Gabbard to flip the script on Mr Obama and the Democrats through her new report and Mr Trump's effort to use this to try to change the subject from Epstein indicate desperation. So does the new initiative by Speaker Mike Johnson to suddenly adjourn the House of Representatives to avoid any vote – which would probably pass with a few Republicans joining Democrats in demanding release of the files – under current circumstances. Among the most embarrassing new revelations was another report in the Wall Street Journal about a 50th birthday book of tributes to Epstein from his close friends that includes, allegedly, a risque drawing and intriguing note from Mr Trump. The two men were reportedly close until a 2004 real estate dispute. But this apparent effort to shift the topic may fail, both because few believe that the FBI has arrested Mr Obama, and only the most gullible will prefer the new Gabbard report over the existing Mueller one. Moreover, by linking, once again, the Russia intervention scandal, which was all-too real, to speculation about the Epstein files, the administration may end up fuelling the idea that it has something to be concerned about. The Justice Department says it is planning to meet Epstein's main accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a lengthy sentence for sex trafficking. There is a potential win-win scenario in the offing. If Mr Trump were to pardon Maxwell, and she were then to confirm that he had little or nothing to do with Epstein, problem – presumably – solved. It's far-fetched at this stage, but not much more than a President posting a video of his predecessor being thrown in a dungeon. As for the idea of Mr Obama being arrested, it's admittedly a provocation. Until it isn't. There is no reason to think that the FBI is contemplating arresting the former president, and there are certainly no grounds to do that. But there are also grounds to be alarmed that Mr Trump is trying to acculturate the American public to the idea that his political enemies might be rounded up and tossed in prison. There were many possible distractions available to the President. Depicting him organising the arrest and imprisonment of his rival and predecessor is a disturbing choice indeed.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Strong dollar sounds good but a weak one is better for US economy, Trump says
President Donald Trump on Friday said a strong US dollar "sounds good", but touted reasons why a weaker greenback is better for the American economy. The dollar index, which measures the greenback's strength against six major currencies, steadied on Friday after hitting two-week lows earlier in the week. It is still down roughly 10 per cent over the six months Mr Trump has been in office. 'So when we have a strong dollar, one thing happens: It sounds good. But you don't do any tourism. You can't sell tractors, you can't sell trucks, you can't sell anything,' Mr Trump said at the White House before leaving on a trip to Scotland. 'You make a hell of a lot more money' with a weaker dollar. Mr Trump has often complained that dollar strength blunts US export competitiveness and hurts US manufacturing and jobs. Mr Trump said manufacturers would be the first to benefit from a falling dollar, citing construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar, whose shares have risen 16 per cent over the last month. Japan and China fought for weaker currencies for decades and were able to dominate markets over the years, Mr Trump said.
