Follow us on social

2020-09-07t000000z_1778112489_mt1afl143688132_rtrmadp_3_sport-scaled

Japan's Izumi makes first international appearance, draws firm contrast with hawks

The leader of the country's largest opposition party shared his views on Russia, Ukraine, and the threat of nuclear war.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific

In his first international speaking engagement since becoming the head of the largest opposition party of Japan, Kenta Izumi of the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) shared his views on a wide range of issues, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to nuclear weapons.

Speaking during a Center for American Progress event, Izumi’s views on several critical issues differed starkly from the positions held by the foreign policy establishments in both Washington and Tokyo. Views held by liberal politicians in Japan are often ignored or downplayed by mainstream Japanese and U.S. politicians and media, or incorrectly labeled as “anti-U.S.” In reality, Izumi’s views represent large numbers of Japanese who want to uphold the U.S.-Japan alliance while avoiding being dragged into a worsening Sino-U.S. rivalry.

Kenta Izumi leads the CDP of Japan — a position he has held since November 2021. The 47-year-old leader has been tasked with winning more seats in the upcoming election in the House of Councillors, or the upper house in the National Diet of Japan. CDP currently holds 44 of 248 seats in the upper house and 96 of 265 seats in the lower house. 

On Ukraine and the threat of escalation to the threat of nuclear conflict, Izumi largely echoed the views of most in Washington and Tokyo by condemning Vladimir Putin for threatening to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. As the only country to suffer from nuclear weapons, Japan abhors the “immoral and inhumane practice of indiscriminate genocide without regard for human dignity” caused by nuclear weapons, Izumi noted. “Nuclear weapons must never be used again. Threat of use should not be allowed either.”

Where Izumi differed was on the issue of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). “Nuclear deterrence should be acknowledged to a certain extent, but the Japanese government should pave the way toward nuclear abolition,” he stated. Without such a goal, “arrogance of major powers” can lead us to World War III, Izumi warned. Some members of Congress have called for the United States to accede to the TPNW, as have civil society organizations like International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, but the foreign policy community is against it for fear that it will undermine U.S. security relationships with allies.  

On the issue of China and Japan’s defense posture, Izumi expressed concerns for the people in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan and highlighted the importance of standing up for universally-held values. At the same time, Izumi stressed that it’s important to retain communication and dialogue with China. “We have long historical, cultural ties. We are neighbors,” Izumi said. Similarly, on the news that the U.S. and Japan are considering deploying American intermediate-range missiles to Japan, Izumi warned that such a move would put Japan in the center of U.S.-China competition and urged Japan to deploy its diplomatic skills to reduce tensions in the region.

Izumi also noted ongoing discussions in Tokyo regarding Japan’s defensive capabilities and the possibility of raising its defense budget from over 1 to 2 percent of its GDP. However, he said that such a change could “adversely affect stability and lead to other countries distrusting Japan, which will worsen Japan’s security dilemma.”

According to Tokyo Shimbun, Japan's ratio of defense spending to GDP in 2021 according to NATO standards is already 1.24 percent when including Self-Defense Forces pensions, Coast Guard expenditures, and peacekeeping operations-related spending, and is higher than 1.09 percent (6.17 trillion yen) reported by most news outlets. Raising it even further without a consultative process could trigger blowback from pacifist elements of Japanese society — a point rarely emphasized in discussions in Washington and Tokyo about Japan’s defense spending.

Izumi described U.S.-Japan relations as a “cornerstone” of Japan’s foreign policy — an oft-used language to describe the alliance. At the same time, Izumi voiced concerns about the situation in Okinawa Prefecture, where U.S. military bases in Japan are concentrated. Accidents involving U.S. forces in the region continue to disrupt lives; for example, drinking water contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are believed to endanger local residents of Okinawa. This incident and the broader issue of tensions in Okinawa are not well-understood in Washington. 

Izumi closed his remarks by noting that he has always been inspired by American civil society. “America is a country of diversity. Its strength lies in the depth of its civil society.” Izumi thanked the United States and American society for their contributions to foreign policy. Indeed, more frequent exchanges between American and Japanese officials of all parties and affiliations would help broaden understanding between the two countries and ensure that all diverse perspectives are considered. 


September 7, 2020, Tokyo, Japan - Japan's opposition Democratic party for the People policy speaker Kenta Izumi (L) speaks as he and Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan leader Yukio Edano (R) hold a press conference in Tokyo on Monday, September 7, 2020. Japan's opposition parties will form the new coalition party while Edano and Izumi will run for the leadership election. (Photo by Yoshio Tsunoda/AFLO) No Use China. No Use Taiwan. No Use Korea. No Use Japan.
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.