Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba to skip Nato summit, source says
Ishiba was cancelling the trip because a planned meeting between Nato and the group of four Indo-Pacific nations (IP4) would likely not take place, and because a meeting with US President Donald Trump was also unlikely, Fuji Television reported.
South Korea and Australia, which along with Japan and New Zealand, make up the IP4, have also said their leaders would not attend the Nato summit meeting. Trump had wanted to hold a summit meeting with the IP4, a second source told Reuters.
The sources declined to be identified because they were not authorised to speak to media.
Foreign minister Takeshi Iwaya will represent Japan, one source said.
Japan's leader has attended every Nato summit since 2022, when the country was first invited to participate after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The foreign ministry had announced Ishiba's attendance three days ago, saying he was set to 'reaffirm with Nato allies and others the recognition that the security of Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific is inseparable'.
Ishiba had also planned to hold bilateral meetings on the sidelines.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Amid heaps of political chaos, Heads of State delivers humour and heart in unexpected ways
There is much to enjoy in this comedy that has its stereotypes, but manages to avoid the pitfalls that would make it feel outdated. On paper, Heads of State seems like the usual half-baked action comedy that relies on low-brow humour and big explosions to keep its audience interested. But even though this Amazon Prime Video release does contain moments like that, it's much smarter, better made and more entertaining than most 'straight-to-streaming' action movies. The far-fetched but fun premise sees US President Will Derringer (John Cena) and British Prime Minister Sam Clarke (Idris Elba) forced to work together to survive when Air Force One is shot down over Belarus and they're the only survivors. They've been targeted by Russian arms dealer Viktor Gradov (Paddy Considine), who's also responsible for wiping out a CIA-MI6 task force led by British agent Noelle Bisset (Priyanka Chopra Jonas) sent to capture him in the film's opening sequence. In the absence of Derringer and Clarke, US Vice-President Elizabeth Kirk (Carla Gugino) must keep Nato from disintegrating during a summit in Trieste, Italy, after a leak of classified documents revealing that the allies were spying on each other. The least implausible part of this set-up is that Derringer used to be an action movie star whose bravado irritates the buttoned-down Clarke, who worked his way up from a housing estate. This forms the basis for a classic mismatched buddy action comedy in which antagonism between the leads turns into grudging respect and eventually friendship. The two main characters could have been nothing more than broad stereotypes of Americans and Brits, but screenwriters Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec (Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol) give the characters some depth and nuance, providing Cena and Elba a lot to work with. Despite the impression his big-lug appearance and professional wrestling past creates, Cena is surprisingly good at playing characters who lack self-awareness. Derringer might be brash, but he's also naively optimistic and genuinely wants to make the world a better place. This grates on veteran politician Clarke, the typically more cynical Brit grumbling about the clueless American. But underneath it all, Clarke has the same ideals, and it's highly enjoyable watching his tough exterior slowly start to warm to the golden retriever persona by his side. Elba's charisma is on full display and he and Cena make a likeable double act. It's refreshing to watch a film that shies away from gratuitous violence or the nasty, cruel tone that permeates many modern action movies. There's a sense of fun and lots of wit in the action sequences and fights, which contain many clever, tongue-in-cheek moments, as Clarke with his army background ribs Derringer, who's only been in movie stunt fights. It's no spoiler to reveal that Bisset survives the opening sequence and catches up with the two politicians, whom she tries to keep alive while they're being pursued by Gradov's assassins. Chopra Jonas' no-nonsense, ultra-competent spy is a welcome element to the central dynamic as she has a past with Clarke and also frequently shows up the men in the fight scenes (it's emphasised that Derringer is happily married, so there's no love rivalry between him and Clarke). Unexpected shots and humorous sequences Though the film does feel a bit long at the halfway mark, director Ilya Naishuller (Nobody) has a firm grip on balancing the comedy and thrills, while using some unexpected shots and humorous sequences (such as a fast-paced flashback capturing Bisset's search for Derringer and Clarke) to add some originality. South African viewers will spot Sharlto Copley in a cameo role, a possible nod to his working with Naishuller on the director's first film, Hardcore Henry (2015). Jack Quaid (The Boys) also enlivens an action scene as a young CIA agent whose excitement at meeting Derringer belies his ingenuity as a spy. It all culminates in a hugely enjoyable final act in which Clarke must drive the US presidential car in reverse through the narrow streets of Trieste while Bisset and Derringer try to fend off a seemingly endless number of assassins with an infinite amount of weapons. Given that the film was mostly shot in 2023, it's also unexpectedly timely and even daring in the current political climate as it earnestly defends Nato and the merit in working together to protect democracy. But this movie isn't focused on messaging — it's focused on entertaining its audience, and viewers looking for a film that can be enjoyed by the whole family should definitely give this throwback to the buddy action movies of the '80s and '90s a chance. DM
eNCA
4 days ago
- eNCA
ICJ begins handing down landmark climate opinion
THE HAGUE - The world's top court on Wednesday began delivering a much-anticipated ruling laying out what legal obligations countries have to prevent climate change and whether polluters should pay up for the consequences. It is the biggest case ever heard at the International Court of Justice and experts say the judges' opinion could reshape climate justice, with major impacts on laws around the world. In opening remarks, ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said the consequences of climate change "are severe and far-reaching: they affect both natural ecosystems and human populations". "These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change," he said. The push for a court opinion was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations. Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate change minister, said the ICJ ruling could be a "game-changer" in the fight against global warming. "We've been going through this for 30 years... It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have," Regenvanu told AFP. The United Nations has tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ, a UN court that adjudicates disputes between nations, to answer two fundamental questions. First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions "for present and future generations"? Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states? ICJ advisory opinions are not binding upon states and critics say that top polluters will simply ignore what comes out of the court. But others note the moral and legal clout enjoyed by the world's highest court and hope the opinion will make a tangible difference to national climate change policies and ongoing legal battles. Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said the ICJ should "clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis." "And that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes, and public debates," he told AFP. To help answer the two questions, ICJ judges have pored over tens of thousands of pages of submissions from countries and organisations around the world. Analysts say Wednesday's ruling is the most consequential of a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law as courts become a battleground for climate action. Outside the court in the Hague, about a hundred demonstrators waved flags and posters bearing slogans like "No more delay, climate justice today". Those bringing the cases are often from climate-vulnerable communities and countries, alarmed by the pace of progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement, struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating. 'Disappear beneath the waves' ANP/AFP | Lina Selg In December, the iconic Peace Palace in the Hague hosted the court's biggest-ever hearings, with more than 100 nations and groups giving oral statements. In what was billed a "David Vs Goliath" battle, the debate pitted major wealthy economies against the smaller, less developed states most at the mercy of a warming planet. Major polluters, including the US and India, warned the ICJ not to deliver a fresh legal blueprint for climate change, arguing the existing UNFCCC sufficed. The US, which has since withdrawn from the Paris accord, said the UNFCCC contained legal provisions on climate change and urged the court to uphold this regime. But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects and that the ICJ's opinion should be broader. These states also urged the ICJ to impose reparations on historic polluters. "The cardinal principle is crystal clear. Responsible states are required to make full reparation for the injury they have caused," said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh representing Vanuatu. These states demanded a commitment and timeline to phasing out fossil fuels, monetary compensation when appropriate, and an acknowledgement of past wrongs. Representatives from island states, many wearing traditional dress as they addressed the court for the first time in their country's history, made passionate pleas to the robed judges. "Despite producing less than 0.01 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, on the current trajectory of GHG emissions, Tuvalu will disappear completely beneath the waves that have been lapping our shores for millennia," said Eselealofa Apinelu from Tuvalu. Vishal Prasad, director of a campaign by Pacific Island students that pushed the issue before the court, said climate change will become "catastrophic as the years go by, if we do not course-correct." "The urgency of the matter, the seriousness of why we're here, and how important this is, is not lost upon all Pacific Islanders, all small island countries," he told AFP "That's why we're looking to the ICJ."
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Russia and Ukraine to hold first peace talks in seven weeks
By Dmitry Antonov and Mark Trevelyan Russia played down expectations of any breakthrough at the meeting, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said this week should focus in part on preparing a summit between himself and President Vladimir Putin. 'Naturally, no one expects an easy road. Naturally, this will be a very difficult conversation. The projects (of the two sides) are diametrically opposed,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. Previous talks in Istanbul on May 16 and June 2 led to the exchange of thousands of prisoners of war and the remains of dead soldiers. But those meetings lasted less than three hours in total and made no breakthrough towards a ceasefire or a settlement to end almost three and a half years of war. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened heavy new sanctions on Russia and countries that buy its exports unless a peace deal was reached within 50 days. But three sources close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin, unfazed by Trump's ultimatum, would keep on fighting in Ukraine until the West engaged on his terms for peace, and that his territorial demands may widen as Russian forces advance. On Wednesday, Russia said its forces had captured the settlement of Varachyne in Ukraine's Sumy region, where Putin has ordered his troops to create a buffer zone after Ukraine mounted a shock incursion into Russia last year and held onto a chunk of its territory for months. Reuters could not independently confirm the battlefield report. In recent weeks, Russian forces have launched some of their heaviest air attacks of the war, focusing especially on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. Ukraine has hit back with attacks of its own, and last month inflicted serious damage on Russia's nuclear-capable strategic bomber fleet by smuggling drones close to air bases deep inside the country. CONFLICTING DEMANDS Zelenskiy said earlier this week that the agenda for talks was clear: the return of prisoners of war and of children abducted by Russia, and the preparation of a meeting between himself and Putin. Putin turned down a previous challenge from Zelenskiy to meet him in person and has said he does not see him as a legitimate leader because Ukraine, which is under martial law, did not hold new elections when Zelenskiy's five-year mandate expired last year. Russia also denies abducting children. The Kremlin said this week it was unrealistic to expect 'miracles' from the talks. At the last meeting on June 2, Russia handed Ukraine a memorandum setting out its key demands, including: full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from four regions of the country that Russia has claimed as its own; limits on the size of Ukraine's military; enhanced rights for Russian-speakers in Ukraine; and acceptance by Kyiv of neutral status, outside NATO or any other alliance. Ukraine sees those terms as tantamount to surrender, and Zelenskiy described the Russian stance as an ultimatum.
