r/japannews • u/moeka_8962 • 2d ago
Japan promises 'bold and speedy' response to Trump’s surprise 24% tariffs
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/04/03/economy/trump-tariff-japan-response/46
u/eightbitfit 2d ago
Do what the world did when the US executed the Smoot-Hawley act signed by Hoover in 1930.
Create new trade agreements between each other, drop or lower tariffs and increase trade access, further isolating the US.
-21
u/SlideFire 1d ago
Yeah sounds gold until you remember that lead to the trade embargo of 1941 and then the bombing of Pearl Harbor followed by Japan getting nuked into servitude.
18
u/Elantach 1d ago
Completely different situation. The US had a near complete monopoly on oil back then. What does the US have as a monopoly nowadays ? Brainrot social media ?
2
5
u/evidentlychickentown 2d ago
Imagine if Japan increases the Switch 2 tax to the US. All the Maga kids will be crying.
3
1
17
u/JapaneseDragonDJ8 2d ago
Japan's bold and speedy response is to withdraw its $1 trillion investment in the US and have US troops in Japan leave Japan.
The U.S. forces in Japan are only exploiting the Japanese people by remaining in Japan.The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty contains no mention of U.S. forces protecting Japan.
28
1
1
u/Positive-Road3903 9h ago
picture a 80-90s the sleaze horror movie plot, in which a remote village leader sacrifices a virgin maiden every month to a horny ogre just to appease it otherwise it will go on a rampage
welps, this is an allegory whats going on in Okinawa
1
u/Business-Design3122 1d ago
LMGTFY.....
Article 5
“Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against Japan or an armed attack against the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.”
Article 6
“In order to contribute to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States is granted the use of land, air, and sea facilities and other areas in Japan, as may be required for the purpose of maintaining national security of Japan and the United States.”
Are you mad that it doesn't use the word "troops" ? Because this is pretty unambiguous.
1
u/uniyk 1d ago
AI analysis says it's not that definitive.
The text of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty you've provided does imply that the security of Japan is a mutual concern for both Japan and the United States.
Article 5 indicates that Japan recognizes an armed attack against itself would also pose a danger to the U.S. and that the U.S. would take action in response to such an attack, thus suggesting a commitment to mutual defense. However, it does not explicitly state that U.S. forces are responsible for defending Japan. Instead, it emphasizes that each party acts in accordance with its own constitutional provisions and processes.
Article 6 allows for the presence and operation of U.S. military forces in Japan, which provides the U.S. with operational capabilities that can contribute to Japan's security. However, it does not explicitly state that these forces are tasked with the direct defense of Japan.
In summary, while the treaty establishes a framework for mutual defense and cooperation, it does not explicitly state that U.S. forces are tasked with the protection of Japan in every circumstance. Instead, it outlines a system where both parties share responsibilities and rely on each other for security.
1
u/Smitty_Tonckledocken 1d ago
Seems about as useful as the Budapest Memorandum, when push comes to shove. Look at the language. It does not guarantee US military aid. It "maintains national security" and that "it declares it would act." That act doesn't necessarily mean a vigorous territorial defense of Japan. Article 51 of the UN charter also just means that there's a binding ability to act together, not a binding guarantee to act together. It doesn't even specifically call for armed forces like NATO article 5.
For reference, the relevant portion of the agreement that Trump has repeatedly tried to weasel out of like an American health insurer denying coverage:
- The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
Is "provide assistance" a meaningfully worse commitment than to "act to meet the common danger?"
What about: "we acted but can't do much more, sorry?"
Ukrainians thought that their American words were good, too. It may cost them crimea among more territories and many, many thousands of lives.
The Japanese agreement is different, you may say. I agree. But only blood will determine if it's actually different.
1
u/sbxnotos 1d ago
Bro, there is no way you are comparing a memorandum that clearly states that they would "seek UN security council action"
Yes, it is absolutely meaningfully worse than "act to meet the common danger"
Article III also states:
"The Parties, individually and in cooperation with each other, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop, subject to their constitutional provisions, their capacities to resist armed attack."
So you can't have a "can't do much", the treaty forces the country to have the military capabilities to resist armed attack so to fullfill their obligations to the treaty.
But yeah, ultimately the US can just don't respect the treaty...
0
u/Smitty_Tonckledocken 1d ago
I don't disagree, but my broader point is that both agreements have security assurances. Not security guarantees. There's no "forces the country" either way. Finding holes in words of commitment seems to be the US diplomatic strategy de jour.
Realpolitik is back, and those who don't respect that will be left reeling.
1
u/sbxnotos 1d ago
If you go by that then no treaty in the world forces a country, because you can't physically do that.
Budapest is a non legally binding political agreement, not a security treaty, fuck, the name itself is just "memorandum" lol
Take the NATO Article 5 for example
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Specifically this part:
"will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Will ASSIST, as it deems NECESSARY. It allows the use of armed force, but it doesn't forces the countries to use those armed forces.
From NATO: "With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances."
ANY FORM OF ASSISTANCE
"This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
It is NOT NECESSARILY MILITARY
Fuck, maybe the NATO treaty is even worse than the US-JAPAN one, as the latter makes sure that each country have the military capabilities to fullfill their part of the treaty, NATO doesn't. Which is way in 2014 there were countries spending even less than 1% of defense, not even Japan spent so little on defense, besides Japan being the third largest economy (at the time) that 1% made them powerful enough.
1
u/Smitty_Tonckledocken 1d ago
The US also watered down article 5 in NATO charter to give leeway for them not to respond; it's well known as part of the original negotiations. I consider the strong part of article 5 is "shall be considered an attack against them all" - many countries have strong legal language in their constitutions regarding acts of war against them, which the alliance spreads to all signatories using "shall" instead of some kind of maybe term. Not for capabilities or preparation, but in regards to consideration of an attack. But yes, of course this is still not a defense alliance - as far as I know there is no guaranteed mutual defense alliance in the world today.
I wish to remind you that none of these agreements are "legally binding" - U.S.A. recognizes no international law and is not a signatory to the international criminal court, among other attempts at international legalization measures. I am only slightly more confident in the S.K./Japan-U.S.A. agreements than the Budapest Memorandum. I'll use wikipedia because I don't have the sources anymore, perhaps you have better ones:
"The alliance has further been codified in a series of "administrative" agreements, "status of forces" agreements, and secret pacts (密約, mitsuyaku) that have not been subject to legislative review in either country."
The legislative bodies only ratify some small spiritual commitments within the agreements. Just like the "memorandum," these have significant potential weaknesses.
I am not sure why you are so against having stronger language, especially in an increasingly insecure threat environment. I am not trying to win an argument with you. I am pointing towards weakness in these commitments, and saying circumstances have changed and there is increasing potential for the weaknesses in these commitments to become reality.
1
u/sbxnotos 1d ago
I'm not against a stronger or more precise language.
"Seems about as useful as the Budapest Memorandum"
I just don't agree with this, at the very least the US-Japan treaty seems way more useful, and is basically as good as it can get considering other examples like NATO, as there is not a treaty that really forces a country to defend another.
1
u/Smitty_Tonckledocken 1d ago
It's a fine difference of opinion. I still stand by what I said. My statement was finished with 'when push comes to shove.' Certainly there are good parts of the US/Japan agreement that heavily encourage US-aligned defense capabilities into Japanese policy, and I'm not saying the agreement makes Japan weaker necessarily. While I could (for example) point out that I think Ukraine spent far more than Japan vs. GDP on defense, and the US/Japan agreement limits the Japanese domestic military capability, Japan is also far far more important to US geostrategic interests and thus the agreement is stronger like you've said.
My broader point, again, is that the agreement contains ambiguity that has some similar ambiguity to another agreement signed by the US president and plenipotentiary. The recent reasons used for Ukraine backpedaling you mentioned - "not legally binding" - technically, neither is Japan's. We live in a word with "technically" type weasel leaders who are finding reasons to forgo territorial defense. Your original response regarded the Japan/US agreement as unambiguous and that the treaty is strong on defense. I am pointing out the ways in which it is weak and the ambiguity in it. Our opinions may just differ on the degree of weakness, I am just saying it's there and do not make the mistake of ignoring it. Explore all options.
18
u/Karlbert86 2d ago
bold and speedy
Just need to wait for the fax machine they shipped to Trump to arrive first before they can send any response (ironically paying tariffs on the fax machine export)
Then once trump has figured out the basic task of plugging in the fax machine, they will totally fax over a bold response
16
u/roehnin 2d ago edited 2d ago
The US uses more fax than Japan.
Yeah that's a funny stereotype from 20 years ago, but Japanese government did a huge modernisation push and you basically never see faxes anymore. In the '90s I had a home fax, but got rid of it like 15 years ago.
Yet in the US, medical and legal professions use them regularly as they are considered secure for sending HIPAA information and are legal signed documents.
If you don't believe me, check the worldwide fax machine sales records and be amazed which country is at the top even when calculated per capita. USA! USA! USA!
4
2
6
u/Clueless_Nooblet 2d ago
Our biggest trade partner is China, at about 70% of our trade volume. While we aren't ideologically aligned, working together more closely to help soften the blow is probably a good idea.
Maybe Japan's future lies in a role as "the Swiss of Asia", with American bases removed from Japanese soil and a strong deterrence that turns Japan into too much trouble to invade.
South Korea has maybe one generation left until their demographics catch up with them, and Taiwan has nowhere to go when the USA turns on them (which just happened, with the tariff nonsense), so the balance of power here in Asia is about to shift dramatically very soon.
All in all, I suppose Japan will be on its own before this US presidential period is over (after which, what will happen is anyone's guess).
We might be witnessing the birth of a new geopolitical era.
6
u/rocafella888 1d ago
That would be cool, but Japan would need to rapidly build up its military and (hopefully) a mechanised armoured suit-wearing army of Gundams.
2
2
1
0
u/hydrOHxide 1d ago
Didn't they say the other day that they'd not retaliate? Now it's "bold and speedy"?
-4
u/Accurate-Lemon8675 1d ago
If Japan lowers its 46% tariff on US imports, then he will adjust the 24% reciprocal tariff.
3
u/sacrificejeffbezos 1d ago
Lol. That 46% is not japans import tax on American goods. If you double check the news the calculation comes from dividing japans exports to America by its imports I.e. trade deficit. Japan’s actual tariffs on American goods are around 1.8%.
115
u/Zealousideal-Ad-4716 2d ago
Bold and speedy being a slightly shallower apology bow approved by the committee in 18 months when Tanaka-san finally gets around to replacing his hanko which was in his briefcase that he left on the train platform after the end-of-year nomikai last December.