EMAIL 
LIST 
From a zenith of optimism in 2023–24, Japan fell into a nadir of pessimism by mid-spring 2025. Troubles loomed in multiple directions. The special Japan–US relationship, earlier strengthened by both minilateralism in the Indo-Pacific and joint coordination against three states (China, Russia, and North Korea), was unraveled by Trump’s unilateralism and tariff policies. The Japan–ROK bilateral relationship, tied to trilateralism with the United States, appeared threatened by political change in Seoul. Fear of “Japan-passing” rose despite Ishiba’s early visit with Trump and an upbeat stop by Defense Secretary Hegseth. Through May, the situation had not improved, notably due to Trump’s severe tariffs on Japanese cars.
What hope could be detected centered on leadership of the TPP with expanded membership and joint resolve to defend against protectionism. While China’s entry could not be accepted unless its economic pressure tactics and other deviations were addressed, the EU clearly held the most promise. Scant hope existed for the United States to change its behavior. Also in the forefront is ASEAN, which is moving to boost multilateralism and broaden ties.
ASEAN
A May 30 Yomiuri editorial assessed the impact of Trump’s tariffs on ASEAN, observing that the policy aims to transform the world’s economic spheres. ASEAN opened its first joint conference with China, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern states. The joint statement emphasized the importance of multilateralism and efforts to advance trade and investment linking ASEAN, China, and the GCC.
Previously, ASEAN had worked hard to maintain a balance between the United States and China, fearing entanglement in their confrontation. However, Prime Minister Anwar of the host country, Malaysia, has now invited China into the existing summit framework with the GCC for the first time. The US has shown its intention to impose high tariffs on Cambodia and other nations through which China exports finished goods via Southeast Asia. Calling this policy “one-sided,” Anwar seeks to rally ASEAN as a whole into talks with the US, rather than continuing with separate negotiations by individual countries.
Tied to this, China—ASEAN’s biggest trading partner—aims to forge a new economic sphere with oil-producing states to fill the vacuum anticipated from reduced trade caused by US tariffs. The Xi Jinping administration seeks to strengthen opposition to the US by drawing both ASEAN and the GCC into its own economic orbit. Xi toured three ASEAN states last month, and, in unusual timing, shortly afterward Prime Minister Li Qiang attended the joint summit—an indication that China sees a strong opportunity to deepen ties with ASEAN.
However, China continues its forceful maritime and military advances in the East and South China Seas and threatens economic pressure through trade restrictions. If China wishes to position itself as the protector of multilateralism and free trade, it must change such behavior. If ASEAN’s split with the US deepens and China’s influence grows unchecked, this would not only negatively impact the global economy—it would also bring major changes to the regional security environment.
Japan, too, must respond to efforts to form a new economic structure centered on ASEAN. By using the TPP and other existing frameworks, Japan, China, and South Korea—together with ASEAN and additional states and regions—should work to advance economic cooperation, uphold the free trade system, and strengthen regional stability.
US-Japan Relations
In a Yomiuri editorial on May 4, the defense of free trade was urged through the EU joining the TPP, in response to the high tariffs of the Trump administration that are rattling the world economy and endangering the free trade system that has sustained postwar development. Japan should broaden its defense of free trade by linking up with the EU and others through the TPP, the editorial argues. This is described as a historical turning point for countries and regions that have long taken the US as their main export market and are now being driven to reconsider their trade strategies.
A May 20 Yomiuri editorial called on the US to manage its government debt, warning that failure to do so would badly impact not only the United States but the entire world. Japan holds more than $1.1 trillion in US securities and would be severely affected if trust in those assets were shaken. The US has a responsibility to defend global trust in its national debt and the dollar. Moreover, Trump’s high tariff policy is said to negatively affect financial stability and erode confidence in the US At the same time, Japan’s own national debt—the highest among developed countries—is also becoming a source of concern. Trust in Japan’s fiscal stability is being undermined by talk of reducing the consumption tax as a countermeasure to inflation and US tariffs. The editorial warned against forgetting the risks to corporate finances and the threat of economic confusion.
In its May 26 editorial, Yomiuri focused on Japan–US trade talks, stressing the need for a comprehensive agreement, including reconsideration of the high tariffs on cars. Akazawa visited the US, where he met Commerce Secretary Lutnick three times, though Treasury Secretary Bessent was absent. After the talks, Akazawa told reporters that the discussions were more frank than before and expressed hope for some kind of agreement at the June G7 summit, suggesting ongoing negotiations. Key sticking points include cars, steel, and aluminum products, all subject to 25% tariffs, as well as the blanket 10% tariff the US imposes. The automobile industry—broadly defined—supports roughly 5.5 million Japanese jobs and accounts for about 30% of exports to the US
In early April, Bessent had pointed to Japan as a model for trade talks with other countries, but in May the US reached its first agreement with Great Britain and then greatly reduced tariffs in an agreement with China. Trump is seen to be in a rush, driven by rising inflation and domestic dissatisfaction. In early July, Trump’s 90-day window for trade talks will expire, after a planned meeting with Ishiba at the G7 summit. Japan is preparing to propose expanded purchases of agricultural products, as joint production ramps up in the name of economic security. The emphasis here is not on faulting the US, but rather—somewhat desperately—on assuming that goodwill on both sides will lead to a positive outcome.
Sino-US Relations
In a May 14 Mainichi editorial, sharp criticism was directed at a great power imposing high tariffs, which have only caused chaos in the world economy. The US and China have now agreed to lower tariffs on each other after having effectively blocked trade with 145% US and 125% Chinese tariffs. As trade volumes rapidly declined, there was growing fear of a sharp blow to Japan and other countries due to economic sagging by the world’s first- and second-largest economies, along with another round of financial market disruptions.
Trump’s one-sided actions, prompted by trade deficits with China, set off this spiral. A high possibility emerged that vast volumes of US imports—especially daily necessities—would vanish, causing dissatisfaction in economic circles. Trump was thus left with no choice but to adjust his approach. China’s concern over avoiding deeper economic troubles amid a struggling housing market also motivated compromise.
The editorial emphasized that the world economy depends on an international division of labor supported by globalization, and the US relies on cheap goods produced in China. Disrupting this system clearly has adverse economic effects. If Sino–US trade talks end poorly, the US may reinstate part of the tariffs, sparking renewed retaliation. While the US continues to criticize Chinese firms for benefiting from state subsidies, overproducing low-cost goods, and launching export offensives, China too must reform its unfair trade practices. Affected countries should join the US in this effort, but unilateral nationalism and coercion only deepen confrontation. As great powers, the US and China bear responsibility for global economic stability and must reflect on their positions and advance negotiations.
A Yomiuri editorial, also on May 14, called for the US and China to pursue policies to improve bilateral ties after taking a positive step in Geneva. In early April, Trump had imposed high tariffs, which China countered, sparking fears of severe repercussions not only for both countries but also for Japan and the global economy. Treasury Secretary Bessent remarked after the agreement that both sides shared the view that decoupling should be avoided.
The narrative that the US suffered more—due to Trump’s initial tariffs, shrinking exports, and worsening domestic conditions—is, according to the editorial, a miscalculation. Inflation is bound to accelerate given US dependence on imports of daily-use items from China, and with falling support for the administration, Trump acted to prevent rising dissatisfaction. However, a 90-day window may not be enough to resolve major issues such as unfair fees, overcapacity, and market closures in China.
The editorial urged a multilateral approach involving Japan and Europe to exert pressure on China. In contrast, Japan–US tariff talks show little cause for optimism. Following the US–China deal, Trump intends to maintain supplemental tariffs on autos and other sectors, continuing a hardline stance toward Japan. Japan must negotiate on the premise that high tariffs on a key industry must be lifted.
A Sankei editorial on May 14 also responded to the US–China agreement to roll back high tariffs, with continued negotiations expected and Trump planning a phone call with Xi Jinping. The goal: to rectify persistent trade imbalances. If high tariffs push decoupling to extremes, not only will the deeply interlinked US and Chinese economies suffer, but the global economy will also be seriously impacted. The new agreement helps mitigate such concerns, but it is premature to view it as a sign of reduced tensions. Tariffs remain steep, and if no deal is reached in 90 days, they could rise again.
The editorial noted that criticism should not fall solely on Trump’s unreasonable tariffs, which even target allies. China also bears responsibility, given its unfair trade practices and economic coercion. Its claims to champion free trade ring hollow. Both powers must act responsibly and work toward compromise to avoid self-inflicted harm. In the US, fears are growing over inflation due to a shortage of cheap Chinese goods. Tariffs could trigger a “triple whammy” of declines in stocks, currency, and bond markets, eroding public support. In China, an economic downturn tied to trade war pressures and a real estate slump could threaten regime stability. Ending extreme tariffs is therefore a logical step.
The editorial emphasized that while the US had earlier prioritized talks with Japan, it now appears most focused on negotiations with China. This shift may give Japan an opening to pursue its national interests. As US–China talks move forward, Japan must reassess its US policy. When Ishiba visited Vietnam, they agreed to strengthen the multilateral free trade system, recognizing a shared challenge. The EU’s search for positive linkages is also noteworthy.
Japan has historically played a leading role in the TPP. Although the EU may struggle to meet the TPP’s high level of tariff elimination, stronger ties could elevate awareness of the TPP’s importance. The agreement expanded to 12 countries with the U.K.’s entry last year. If the EU were to join, the TPP would encompass over 1 billion people and one-third of global GDP, forming a massive economic sphere and a core defender of free trade.
With US protectionism likely to persist, Japan and Europe share the challenge of planning economic strategies less dependent on the US Deeper TPP–EU cooperation could enhance leverage in dealing with US tariff policies. TPP member states are also preparing reforms to the pact, originally enacted in 2018, incorporating new standards such as stronger intellectual property protections. The focus now includes supply chain resilience—especially for rare earth elements vital to industrial production—amid concerns over export controls, such as those imposed by China.
Countries including China, Taiwan, Costa Rica, and Indonesia have applied to join the TPP. A key precondition for membership is the ability to withstand economic pressure from outside states. This condition must be strictly enforced if China seeks entry.
On May 13, Yomiuri expressed concern about being sidelined in US–China trade talks following the interim agreement. Scheduled Japan–US negotiations in May, aiming for a June agreement, risk being marginalized as the Trump administration prioritizes China. At the same time, there was some relief that Japanese companies exporting to the US from China might benefit, and the broader global economy might be spared the worst effects of the US–China trade war.
What does the US–China interim agreement mean for Japan? The editorial posed this question. On one hand, US officials insist the deal sets no precedent. A Japanese official emphasized that “China, which has been fighting with the US by raising tariffs, and Japan, which is aiming for a win-win agreement, are in different positions.” Still, even if China is the primary target, the official warned that as talks with China progress, Japan’s priority status may be downgraded, delaying resolution of its own tariff disputes. While the editorial argued Japan need not rush to show its cards—given that the agreement marked a US shift and that more clarity is needed on Washington’s stance—uncertainty clearly prevailed.
Sino-Japanese Relations
A May 13 Yomiuri article reported on the sale of Japanese cars in China, as the big three car makers just provided figures for April. Behind in new EVs, apart from Toyota, Honda and Nissan saw big losses: 41% and 16%, respectively. Toyota, which accounts for most of the Japanese output, saw a 21% rise to 143,000 vehicles. Nissan expects to have ten new EVs for the China market in 2027. Given Trump’s tariffs, it is urgent to boost the China market.
South Korea
A May 14 Asahi editorial reported on the start of South Korea’s presidential election, to be held on June 3, after Yoon Suk-yeol’s tenure had been shortened by more than two years. Economics are in the forefront, along with use of AI, employment of young people, reform of the pension system, and policies to counter a low birthrate. Economic growth has stalled along with rapid aging and difficulty in finding jobs for young people, as inequality widened, population concentrated in the capital region, and gender inequality had to be faced. These are difficult issues that cannot be resolved quickly. The president, who wields the most power, needs to build a consensus of the ruling and opposition parties, plus dialogue with the public, taking a long-term perspective. As a neighbor, Japan is greatly influenced by the arrival of a new leader, the editorial argued. The importance of facing shared problems connects Japan and South Korea—from North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles to the US under the Trump administration to China’s expanding influence.
In a book published in late 2024, Suzuki Takabumi, former Nikkei Seoul reporter, warned of South Korea’s demise due to low birth rates, plus the highest suicide rates of a developed country. Saying that South Korean media used to laugh at Japan’s concern about demographic decline, he adds that vaunted Korean freedom of expression has not produced the same outcome as diversity of opinion on Taiwan, which democratized at the same time and where there is agreement on maintaining the status quo. Rather, in South Korea, presidents have met a dire fate. After media bragged of overtaking Japan in democracy, Korea has fallen back in building a spirit of compromise, also found in its foreign policy, for which the populace is unable to find agreement in the face of the new cold war between China and the United States. Even while allying with Washington, it is extremely unsettled in wavering between the two great powers. As basic foreign policy shifts with change in the administration, neighboring countries cannot be trusting. This is similar to the late Yi dynasty’s inability to read rapid changes under way, despite the economic growth that leaves South Korea 14th in GDP, although population decline has begun to see it drop. It is also the world’s foremost producer of memory chips and in the top ranks in semiconductors and automobile production. Population decline may lead to large-scale migration from China and again becoming part of the Chinese empire, warns the book, adding it is 24 years behind Japan’s path but in much worse shape.
Sino-Russian Relations
In a May 10 editorial, Yomiuri explained how Russia and China have more clearly expressed their plans to destroy the international order which the US, Europe, and Japan had built over the 80 postwar years. Russia is making clear that it will be necessary to remove the fundamental reasons for its invasion of Ukraine, which reflects insistence that Ukraine give up its sovereignty. China’s words and actions are equal to supporting Russia’s barbaric action aiming to overturn the regime in another country and at territorial expansion through force. Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity are principles of the UN Charter. To actually accept Russia’s invasion would contradict Xi Jinping’s words arguing for United Nations centrism. This cannot win the trust or understanding of international society. In their historical consciousness, they engage in one-sided criticism of Japan, demanding in their joint statement caution in words and actions concerning the Yasukuni Shrine and historical events, as well as complete rejection of militarism. Are their historical interpretations not trying to legitimate Russia’s illegal occupation of the Northern Territories and China’s military pressure on the Senkaku Islands in Okinawa Prefecture? The Xi-Putin summit came against the backdrop of Trump’s diplomacy toward a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, as Trump shows willingness to mostly recognize a peace plan that Russia demands, as if that would distance Russia from China, the biggest competitor. Trump seeks to realize “America First” through great power deals dividing up spheres of influence. Yet China and Russia have something else in mind, agreeing on reducing the influence of the US superpower to boost their own influence. Trump should reassess this reality.
Russia
Hakamada Shigeki, in Asteion 102, looked at the Russia–Ukraine war in historical context. The current world situation reminds him of the first half of the century, and specifically of the pact between Hitler and Stalin in 1939, carving up Europe coupled with an ill-fated non-aggression treaty. National sovereignty was recognized in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia and became universalized with the United Nations, despite the veto power granted to the five permanent members of the Security Council. Not only Putin, but Trump too is challenging this foundational principle of the international order. One driving force is historical memory of territories under national control, refusing to recognize their sovereignty—emblematic of which is Russian memory of Odesa. Demanding that Ukraine become a neutral country with no NATO role is paralleled by Russian and Chinese demands that Japan be obliged to forego its alliance with the United States and become a neutral state, also disregarding the sovereignty of a country. The lesson for Japan from the Ukraine war and Trump’s conduct is that it must be self-reliant on security, even as it regards Japan–US relations as most critical.
SHARE