Ishiba's pproach to Trump is effective diplomacy or political submission?

[WORLD] In early February 2025, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba traveled to Washington for a highly anticipated summit with US President Donald Trump. The meeting quickly captured attention both in Japan and internationally, sparking a debate over whether Ishiba was simply flattering Trump, as some critics suggested, or whether his approach was a savvy and effective negotiation strategy. In this article, we will delve into the key moments of the summit, examine the varying opinions surrounding Ishiba’s performance, and analyze whether he achieved his diplomatic objectives.

The summit between Shigeru Ishiba and Donald Trump was set against a backdrop of rising tensions and strategic competition between the United States and China. As Japan’s prime minister, Ishiba faced a delicate task: balancing Japan’s longstanding alliance with the US while safeguarding its own national interests, especially in the face of a more assertive China. Trump's America First policy had previously raised concerns among allies, particularly over issues like trade imbalances, military commitments, and multilateral agreements.

Ishiba’s approach to the summit came after years of watching Trump’s unpredictable style in international relations, and many in Japan wondered whether he would be able to maintain a strong, independent voice in his discussions with the US president or if he would be seen as too conciliatory.

Criticism of Ishiba’s Approach

Upon returning from Washington, Ishiba’s meeting with Trump was met with mixed reactions in Japan. Critics pointed out that Ishiba’s demeanor appeared excessively deferential, particularly in how he responded to Trump’s often brash and unilateral style. In a TV interview shortly after the summit, Ishiba revealed some of his negotiation tactics, including his decision to avoid direct confrontation with the president.

“I learned that if I said ‘no’ to him, then everything would be disrupted,” Ishiba explained. “It is said that he hates being disagreed with, so I didn’t,” he continued. These comments were met with skepticism from some observers, who accused Ishiba of being too accommodating and not standing firm on Japan’s position. In particular, there was concern that his reluctance to challenge Trump’s views on key issues, such as trade imbalances or Japan’s defense obligations, might have compromised Japan's autonomy in the relationship.

Some also criticized the way Ishiba avoided mentioning the “rule of law” in discussions with Trump, a subject that is often central to Japan’s diplomatic agenda. “I didn’t want to lecture him,” Ishiba admitted, implying that any direct reference to legal norms would have been counterproductive with Trump’s confrontational attitude. For those who prioritize Japan’s values and long-standing commitment to international law, Ishiba’s tactics seemed like an abandonment of the principles that had traditionally underpinned Japan's foreign policy.

Defenders of Ishiba’s Diplomacy

On the other side of the debate, there were many who defended Ishiba’s actions, arguing that his diplomatic approach was necessary to preserve a strong relationship with the US. Japan and the US have long been close allies, and Ishiba’s strategy of avoiding direct confrontation with Trump might have been precisely what was needed to ensure that bilateral relations remained stable.

Ishiba’s focus on maintaining good relations with the US, rather than challenging Trump head-on, was seen as a pragmatic choice, given the volatile nature of Trump’s presidency. As Ishiba noted, “If I said ‘no,’ everything would be disrupted.” His emphasis on compromise over confrontation allowed him to manage the delicate political dynamics between the two leaders. Supporters of Ishiba’s approach pointed to the positive outcomes of the summit, including reaffirmations of Japan’s military cooperation with the US, progress on trade negotiations, and agreements to strengthen economic ties.

Moreover, Ishiba’s careful handling of the situation was seen as a reflection of Japan’s broader diplomatic priorities. By avoiding public disagreements and emphasizing cooperation, Ishiba ensured that Japan could continue to count on the US as an essential partner, particularly in the context of rising geopolitical challenges in Asia. Critics of the “cozying up” narrative also pointed out that, despite his conciliatory tone, Ishiba did not make significant concessions that would have undermined Japan’s sovereignty or national interests.

Effective Diplomacy or Political Submission?

At the heart of the debate over Ishiba’s summit performance lies the question of whether his approach was one of effective diplomacy or political submission. It is important to remember that diplomacy often involves a balancing act—ensuring that one’s national interests are protected while maintaining productive relationships with key partners. Ishiba’s tactics, while seen by some as excessively deferential, may have been rooted in a broader understanding of the political landscape.

Japan, as a small but economically powerful nation, faces numerous challenges in dealing with larger powers like the United States and China. The reality of international diplomacy is that not every negotiation can be won on one’s own terms, and in certain contexts, compromise is necessary to avoid larger risks. In this light, Ishiba’s comments about avoiding conflict with Trump—particularly in areas where disagreements might have derailed the summit—can be seen as an intelligent and effective form of diplomacy.

However, it is also true that some compromises can be seen as political submissions. By avoiding any form of dissent in his discussions with Trump, Ishiba risked appearing weak and lacking in leadership. For some, the absence of a strong, assertive stance on issues like trade imbalances or Japan’s military contributions left the impression that Ishiba was not fully representing Japan’s interests at the summit.

The Success of the Summit

Despite the criticisms, many observers have concluded that the summit was ultimately a success for both sides. As Ishiba himself pointed out, his approach ensured that the talks did not collapse into chaos, a real possibility given Trump’s unpredictable style. The summit reaffirmed Japan’s importance as a strategic ally of the US, and there was progress on several key issues, including trade and defense cooperation.

Moreover, Ishiba’s ability to avoid direct confrontation with Trump did not necessarily mean he was an ineffective negotiator. Instead, his approach might have been a strategic choice aimed at securing long-term cooperation rather than winning short-term victories in contentious debates. The summit did not produce any major breakthroughs, but it did preserve the alliance between the two countries and set the stage for continued collaboration on critical issues such as security and trade.

In the end, whether Shigeru Ishiba’s approach at the summit was seen as “cozying up” to Trump or as a demonstration of effective negotiation depends largely on one’s perspective on diplomacy. While some might view his avoidance of direct confrontation as a failure to stand up for Japan’s interests, others see it as a smart, pragmatic move designed to keep the US-Japan alliance strong in a turbulent political environment.

The Japanese prime minister's decision to adopt a conciliatory tone in the face of Trump’s well-documented disdain for opposition reflects a complex understanding of the nature of international negotiations. By maintaining a delicate balance between respect for the US president and Japan’s own priorities, Ishiba demonstrated that successful diplomacy often requires flexibility and adaptability, even if that means avoiding difficult conversations in the short term.

As Japan moves forward in its relationship with the United States and other global powers, the legacy of Ishiba’s summit with Trump will likely be debated for years to come. However, it is clear that the summit, in spite of its critics, was far from a failure. It was a testament to the nuanced art of diplomacy—a balancing act between cooperation, compromise, and the protection of national interests.