Japan Snubs United States

Summit No-Show Raises Eyebrows

Japan’s abrupt withdrawal from this week’s NATO summit has sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles, marking a rare and pointed signal of dissatisfaction with its closest security partner, the United States.

After confirming attendance just days earlier, Tokyo announced that the prime minister would no longer travel to The Hague, where the summit is being held. The reversal comes amid reports that no bilateral meeting with the U.S. president was on the agenda and that a planned Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) session—bringing together Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand—had been shelved. Though Japan will still be represented by its foreign minister, the move is being read as a clear diplomatic recalibration.

Security Talks Scrapped Over Defence Demands

The summit withdrawal follows Tokyo’s cancellation of a high-level security dialogue with the U.S., known as the “2+2” talks, which were scheduled for early July. The decision reportedly came after Washington increased its demand for Japanese defence spending—from a previous request of 3% of GDP to an unexpected 3.5%. The sudden shift, conveyed through Pentagon channels, sparked frustration within Japan’s leadership, who view the pressure as heavy-handed and politically unpalatable at home. 

The annual talks, typically attended by top foreign and defence officials from both countries, are a cornerstone of bilateral security cooperation. Their cancellation has raised further concerns about the stability and direction of the alliance. One defence official familiar with the discussions noted, “There’s growing unease about Washington’s approach—not just what it asks, but how it asks.”

G7 Fallout: A Memorial Marred by Boycott

Adding to the strain was the diplomatic fallout from the recent G7 boycott of Japan’s annual Nagasaki peace memorial. Several member nations abstained from attending after Japan chose not to invite a particular Middle Eastern country, triggering international criticism. The absence of G7 leaders at an event symbolizing Japan’s pacifist identity left Tokyo visibly isolated on the world stage. While the memorial has historically been a moment of global unity and reflection, this year it became a flashpoint for international discontent—compounding Japan’s frustration with its Western partners.

Insensitive Hiroshima Comparison Sparks Outrage

Tensions escalated further after U.S. President Trump, speaking in The Hague, compared recent American strikes on Iran to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Framing the operation as decisive in ending the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, he stated: “I don't want to use the example of Hiroshima, I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki, but it is essentially the same thing – that thing ended that war, this thing ended this war.” The remarks, viewed in Tokyo as profoundly insensitive, prompted a formal diplomatic protest. Analysts suggest the comments may have been a pointed response to Japan’s absence from the NATO summit—another instance of provocation wrapped in rhetoric.

In a familiar pattern, similar language was previously used by Trump in reference to India’s military actions against Pakistan, where he controversially described having allegedly brokered “a ceasefire” with a trade blackmail, drawing criticism from New Delhi for downplaying India's successful strikes.

A Fractured Order Takes Shape

From closely coordinating with Pakistan on strikes against Iran, to fraying ties with key European allies—especially France—and a stalled trade deal with India, the U.S.’s evolving posture reflects a broader geopolitical shift. But this time, it isn’t the unchallenged superpower of the 1990s—it’s a more contested, less predictable America, navigating a world no longer willing to follow unquestioningly.