logo
The emerging divide in US-Japan relations

The emerging divide in US-Japan relations

First Post4 hours ago

The US–Japan alliance is considered the most enduring partnership in the Indo-Pacific. However, recent developments indicate a growing unevenness in this crucial bilateral relationship. Once a predictable and resilient alliance now appears misaligned, particularly in expectations surrounding defence spending, diplomatic access, and international crises.
Japan's anxieties resurfaced with the return of a Donald Trump administration, although initial gestures offered reassurance. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, despite not having a prior personal relationship with Donald Trump, was among the first world leaders invited to the White House. This early outreach mirrored the treatment of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. By contrast, the Australian Prime Minister was kept waiting and, even after re-election, has yet to be hosted in Washington. For Japan, this suggested that they might successfully recalibrate ties with Washington. Growing inconsistencies in US demands and Japan's limited diplomatic access to key American officials are causing unease in Tokyo, particularly given the Ishiba administration's relative inexperience.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
There are three clear signs of emerging strain. First, the US appears to be making broad demands on its allies in Europe and Asia regarding defence spending. The recently concluded NATO Summit in The Hague focused almost exclusively on persuading member states to raise defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. While this was directed at NATO members, similar expectations are now surfacing in US dealings with Indo-Pacific partners like Japan, Korea and Australia.
In fact, Japan's Prime Minister Ishiba declined an invitation to attend the NATO summit, despite a recent tradition of Japanese PMs participating in the post-Ukraine context. This absence was interpreted as a deliberate signal that Tokyo does not wish to be drawn into the same defence-spending framework that NATO members have accepted.
Japanese officials have reportedly encountered mixed messaging from Washington. On one hand, Japan is being informally asked to raise its defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP, a significant increase from its current level of 1.8 per cent, with a planned rise to 2 per cent by 2027. On the other hand, US interlocutors are framing this expectation as a part of trade negotiations, linking it to tariff reductions. This dual messaging is complicating Japan's internal policy environment. Tokyo wants such increases to be seen as sovereign decisions, not concessions made under US pressure, particularly with Upper House elections looming in July. Ishiba is wary of appearing weak or reactive in the face of American demands.
A second sign of strain lies in the way US officials are extending NATO-style expectations to Indo-Pacific allies. During the Shangri-La Dialogue, US defence officials suggested that Australia should aim for 3.5 per cent of GDP in defence spending. The same figure is now increasingly being floated in Washington's dealings with Tokyo.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This recalibration appears to stem from people like Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defence for Policy. Japanese officials reportedly find it difficult to engage with Colby's office, which they view as pushing unrealistic and uncoordinated demands. Complicating matters, is confusion in Tokyo about whether the 5 per cent NATO target applies to Indo-Pacific allies, 3.5 per cent for defence and 1.5 per cent for infrastructure resilience, which Japan may find more manageable than significantly raising direct defence outlays. The NATO-IndoPacific4 communique is unclear on this.
The US justifies these expectations by framing them in the context of preparing for a possible Taiwan crisis, which Washington believes could be triggered by China by 2027. However, the abruptness and unilateral nature of these expectations are generating friction rather than fostering alignment. Japan feels cornered by demands that neither respect its political sensitivities nor offer strategic clarity.
Reflecting this discontent, Tokyo has postponed the US–Japan '2+2' ministerial meeting between their foreign and defence ministers, originally scheduled to coincide with the upcoming Quad Foreign Ministers' Meeting in July beginning. While Japan remains committed to participating in the Quad event, it has declined to hold the bilateral dialogue at this time. Tokyo insists it prefers to wait until after the July 20 Upper House elections, when Ishiba hopes for a stronger domestic mandate. Observers in both countries doubt this will significantly alter Washington's expectations or attitude.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Another manifestation of unevenness lies in Japan's cautious stance on US military actions. Japan has not explicitly supported the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, despite its alliance obligations. Ishiba remarked, 'It is difficult for Japan to make a definitive legal evaluation at this point.' Japan agrees that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons but is reluctant to condone an action lacking United Nations authorisation. For a country that places strong emphasis on international law, Japan fears that overt support for legally questionable military strikes could set dangerous precedents. This is especially relevant given the risk of China or North Korea engaging in similar actions in Japan's neighbourhood.
Japan's current reticence is different from its past behaviour. In 2017, when the US struck Syria in response to chemical weapons use, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed understanding, albeit without giving outright support. In 2019, following attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, the US asked allies to join a naval coalition. Japan delayed participation for months and eventually sent its Self-Defence Forces independently, avoiding association with the US-led effort.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Japan's nuanced diplomacy reflects its effort to balance alliance solidarity with its national legal and economic considerations, particularly its better relations with Iran and its dependence on stable energy imports.
The inconclusive Trump-Ishiba meeting on the sidelines of the G7 taught Japan that doing more on defence is not getting it leeway on trade tariffs.
Strategic Mistrust Growing?
In sum, the emerging unevenness in US–Japan relations stems from several sources: inconsistent and opaque US demands, lack of diplomatic access to key American policymakers, pressure to commit to steep defence increases, and divergent interpretations of international law. These issues are further exacerbated by a sense in Tokyo that Washington's strategic messaging lacks coordination and is poorly timed with Japan's domestic political calendar.
The Ishiba administration appears intent on managing the alliance with caution and asserting Japan's strategic autonomy where possible. Yet the reality remains that alliance management under Trump 2.0 is proving more complicated than anticipated. Japan may be unwilling to say 'no', but it is increasingly finding ways to say 'not yet'.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
As regional instability intensifies and Washington raises the stakes in its strategic competition with China, how the US and Japan recalibrate their expectations of each other may well determine the future balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.
The author is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, ASEAN and the African Union. He tweets @AmbGurjitSingh. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

From Tatkal bookings for trains to ATM fees: Big changes coming in July 2025 - All you need to know
From Tatkal bookings for trains to ATM fees: Big changes coming in July 2025 - All you need to know

Time of India

time16 minutes ago

  • Time of India

From Tatkal bookings for trains to ATM fees: Big changes coming in July 2025 - All you need to know

This is an AI-generated image, used for representational purposes only. The month of July 2025 is set to bring significant financial and service-related changes for Indian consumers, especially affecting train travellers and bank customers. These key shifts, from Aadhaar-based Tatkal ticket booking to new banking fees, could impact your daily transactions and travel plans. Here are the big changes applicable from the month of July: Aadhaar mandatory for online Tatkal bookings Starting July 1, Indian Railways will make Aadhaar authentication compulsory for booking Tatkal tickets online via the IRCTC website and mobile app. Travellers will need to link and verify their Aadhaar with their IRCTC profile to be eligible. A stricter Aadhaar-based OTP verification will come into effect from July 15 for all Tatkal tickets booked online. Additionally, authorised agents will be barred from booking Tatkal tickets during the first 30 minutes of the booking window. Even Tatkal tickets booked at PRS counters and through agents will require OTP verification from mid-July. Axis Bank revises ATM and account charges Axis Bank will implement revised charges across savings, NRI, and Trust accounts starting July 1. Customers exceeding their free transaction limits at Axis and non-Axis ATMs will now be charged Rs 23 per transaction, up from Rs 21. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Adidas Three Shorts With 60% Discount, Limited Stock Available Original Adidas Shop Now Undo This will apply to all financial transactions such as withdrawals and balance inquiries, beyond the free quota. Small Savings changes The government is set to announce the interest rates for small savings schemes, which will take effect during the quarter from July to September, reported ET. ICICI Bank to roll out new service fees ICICI Bank will also enforce a new set of service charges beginning July 1. According to ET, ATM users in metro cities will get three free transactions at non-ICICI ATMs, while non-metro customers will get five. Beyond these, Rs 23 will be charged for financial transactions and Rs 8.50 for non-financial ones. Other revisions include Rs 125 per international ATM withdrawal and updated fees for IMPS transfers. Cash transactions will be limited to three free branch/CRM uses a month, post which Rs 150 will be levied per transaction. With these sweeping changes across sectors, customers are advised to update their Aadhaar details, review their bank's updated charges, and complete necessary activations to avoid disruptions. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now

NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world
NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world

Time of India

time18 minutes ago

  • Time of India

NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world

In an era where geopolitical boundaries are blurred and warfare has morphed from trenches to tech, NATO 's recent commitment to invest 5% of GDP annually in defence by 2035 sends a thunderous signal—not just to adversaries, but to allies questioning the alliance's strategic relevance. The Hague Summit Declaration, adopted by 32 member states, marked a pivotal moment in transatlantic security thinking. The question now is whether this is a forward-looking strategy or a reactionary bulwark clinging to the past paradigms. At the core of the declaration lies an emphatic reaffirmation of Article 5—the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. However, the real headline is the proposed ramp-up in defence and security-related spending: 3.5% of GDP earmarked for traditional defence infrastructure and capabilities, and an additional 1.5% for resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and innovation. This is a fundamental reset of NATO's budgetary posture, reflective of a world no longer anchored to the certainties of post-Cold War peace. The strategic rationale behind this move is evident in the literature. From Russia's protracted war in Ukraine to hybrid warfare tactics deployed through cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns, and economic coercion, the threats facing the Euro-Atlantic region are no longer just physical; they are systemic. However, the implications of NATO's new doctrine stretch far beyond Europe. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo By including Ukraine's security under the umbrella of NATO's own, the alliance is signalling that Kyiv's stability is no longer peripheral—it is central to the European defence architecture. Although the declaration stops short of directly naming Russia as an aggressor, it unequivocally categorises it as a long-term threat. The political calculus here is clear: to maintain unity among diverse member states while advancing a credible deterrent posture. However, pledging 5% of GDP—especially in times of economic uncertainty, rising public debt, and shrinking fiscal room—will not be without domestic blowback. For many European countries, where defence budgets have long played second fiddle to social spending, the pivot will require not only financial reallocation but also political will. The path to 2035 will be fraught with parliamentary debates, economic trade-offs, and inevitable scrutiny from taxpayers questioning the utility of militarisation during peacetime. Live Events That said, NATO's blueprint smartly distinguishes between "hard power" and 'soft shield' spending. By allocating up to 1.5% for cyber defense , critical infrastructure, industrial innovation, and civil preparedness, the alliance acknowledges the multidimensional nature of modern warfare. Drones, AI, satellite technologies, and quantum encryption will define future battles. This is NATO's attempt to future-proof itself. Another compelling aspect of the declaration is its call to dismantle internal defence trade barriers and catalyse transatlantic industrial cooperation. The subtext? Europe's dependence on American defence systems must evolve into a mutual technological collaboration. With U.S. domestic politics becoming increasingly isolationist and polarised, especially in light of looming electoral uncertainties, Europe has no choice but to shoulder more of the strategic burden of NATO. The timing of this declaration cannot be ignored. This occurs at a time when questions are being raised about the longevity of American leadership and the cohesion of Western alliances. Populist politics, migration crises, climate-induced conflicts, and digital disruptions are redrawing the map of security concerns. In this light, NATO's 5% commitment is as much about deterrence as it is about staying relevant. However, for all its ambition, the declaration raises a philosophical question: can militarised investment alone secure peace in a world where most battles are fought in cyberspace, legislatures, and courtrooms? While NATO shores up its arsenal, adversaries weaponize currency systems, manipulate public opinion through AI-generated propaganda, and infiltrate supply chains. In such a scenario, defence must be defined not only by missiles and manpower but also by legal resilience, technological agility, and economic fortitude. In its closing remarks, the summit's declaration looks ahead—to Türkiye in 2026 and Albania thereafter. Symbolically, this eastward shift in NATO meeting venues reflects a changing strategic frontier. The frontlines are no longer confined to the Fulda Gap but extend into the Black Sea, Indo-Pacific, and digital cloud networks connecting us all. Ultimately, NATO's 5% pledge is more than just a budgetary item. It is a test of collective resolve in a fractured global order. If implemented wisely—with strategic clarity, equitable burden-sharing, and an eye on emerging threats—it could become a blueprint for securing liberal democracies in a multipolar, volatile world. But if the focus remains confined to tanks and treaties while ignoring the algorithmic and institutional battlefields of the 21st century, NATO risks building a fortress for yesterday's war The author is Department of Commerce, Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala

5 Features Android borrowed From iPhone!
5 Features Android borrowed From iPhone!

Time of India

time21 minutes ago

  • Time of India

5 Features Android borrowed From iPhone!

Hamas Rains Rocket On Israel From Gaza After Iran War; 'FURIOUS' IDF Warns Palestinians | Watch The Israel Defense Forces issued a warning for Palestinians to evacuate parts of Central Gaza after a rocket was launched from the area at Israel. The IDF said it will destroy all terrorists in the area from where the rocket was fired. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump said a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could be achieved within the next week. 4.1K views | 1 day ago

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store