Japan PM's last-minute no-show at NATO summit questioned at home
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is facing criticism from within his own party over his last-minute decision to skip a NATO summit in the Netherlands, at a time when fostering ties with the military alliance is seen as vital to counter China's rise in the Indo-Pacific.
Ishiba's absence also gave rise to the view that he sought to avoid a situation in which Japan, a non-NATO member but close U.S. ally, would be pressed by U.S. President Donald Trump to spend more on its defense, as NATO leaders at the two-day meeting that ended Wednesday discussed substantially increasing defense spending.
Ishiba had planned to make a three-day trip from Tuesday to attend the summit. But the Japanese government canceled the trip only a day before he was due to leave for The Hague, citing "various circumstances."
It came after the United States notified other governments that Trump would not be attending a meeting between NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners known as the IP4 -- Japan, along with Australia, South Korea and New Zealand.
Ishiba's attendance would have made it the fourth straight year since 2022 that a sitting Japanese prime minister attended a NATO summit, underscoring the importance the country attaches to its deepening ties with the group, especially in the wake of Russia's war on Ukraine.
"I don't understand why he had to cancel the trip despite all the preparations that went into it," said a lawmaker of the Liberal Democratic Party, which Ishiba heads.
In his place, Japan sent Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya to the gathering, which South Korea's new President Lee Jae Myung and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese likewise opted to skip.
Ishiba has repeatedly said the security of the Euro-Atlantic and that of the Indo-Pacific are inseparable as he stressed the need for more cooperation between Japan and NATO.
The military alliance, which has traditionally sought to respond to threats from Russia, has been expanding its outreach, acknowledging the challenges posed by China's growing military power in the Indo-Pacific.
In response to "profound" security challenges, NATO leaders agreed Wednesday to commit to investing 5 percent of gross domestic product annually for defense and security-related spending by 2035.
The agreement came when Japan is wary of further pressure from the Trump administration to increase defense outlays, despite already on course to boost related spending to 2 percent of GDP by fiscal 2027 in the face of an assertive China and North Korea's nuclear and missile development.
Japan's current military buildup plan marks a drastic change given its war-renouncing Constitution and its commitment to using force only for self-defense that has limited any substantial increases in spending for decades.
A Japan-U.S. diplomatic source had said earlier that the Trump administration presented a plan to the Japanese government to raise its defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP. The request is believed to have prompted Tokyo to call off a planned high-level meeting of diplomats and defense officials in Washington, ahead of a national election.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
ICC President Tomoko Akane criticizes U.S. sanctions
International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane has criticized U.S. President Donald Trump's sanctions against The Hague-based court, saying they risk destroying the system that supports it. "The sanctions have had impacts on third countries, and they violate international law," she told Japanese media outlets online Friday. "The ICC system based on the rule of war, which the international community has developed over the years, could collapse" if the sanctions continue, she added. The ICC had launched an official investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. service members in Afghanistan. The court also issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The court's actions angered the United States, which is not an ICC member. On June 5, the State Department announced economic sanctions against four judges involved in the investigation and issuing the warrants, based on an executive order enabling U.S. sanctions against ICC personnel signed by Trump in February. "ICC, which punishes individuals who lead wars, is the last bastion of international law," Akane said from The Hague. She also stressed the importance of maintaining the court's presence. Akane called on ICC member states including Japan to take a stand against the U.S. actions, urging Washington to change its decision.
3 hours ago
ICC Pres. Akane Criticizes U.S. Sanctions
News from Japan World Jun 28, 2025 18:40 (JST) Tokyo, June 28 (Jiji Press)--International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane has criticized U.S. President Donald Trump's sanctions against the Hague-based court. "The sanctions have had impacts on third countries, and they violate international law," she told Japanese media outlets online Friday. "The ICC system based on the rule of war, which the international community has developed over the years, could collapse" if the sanctions continue, she added. The ICC had launched an official investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. service members in Afghanistan. The court also issued arrest warrants, including for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These actions angered the United States, which is not an ICC member. [Copyright The Jiji Press, Ltd.] Jiji Press
Japan Times
3 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of U.S. courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' "Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a news conference in the White House Friday that the administration will "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and "stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total "retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths "It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. "But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a U.S. law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. "This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. "It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would "assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. "The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said.
