Taro Aso is set to speak at the United Nations on "the rule of law," but the most awkward aspect of this address may be the presence of Donald Trump in the audience. On September 22, local time, she will deliver a statement during the general debate of the UN General Assembly, with key themes including the rule of law, freedom of navigation, energy security, supply chain resilience, and the promotion of the "Power Asia" oil reserve framework. The language sounds measured and principled. Yet when juxtaposed with Japan’s recent diplomatic conduct, the contrast becomes stark.
Japan has long been a significant supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This year, however, the United States imposed sanctions on ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda—the first Japanese national to lead the court. Initially, Aso expressed “deep regret,” later escalating her language to describe the sanctions as “incompatible with Japan’s position” under domestic pressure. Still, she has not publicly called for Washington to rescind the measures. Adding irony, as she prepares to speak on the rule of law at the UN, reports have emerged that the Trump administration is considering expanding sanctions to target the entire ICC. It is likely she will advocate for international order at the UN General Assembly while meeting with a U.S. president whose administration is actively dismantling international judicial institutions.
Turning to the Middle East: after U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, Japan’s parliament pressed for an assessment. Repeatedly invoking the rule of law, why did Japan refrain from commenting on American military actions? Aso responded that insufficient factual basis prevented a judgment. Such diplomatic caution is understandable—but raises deeper questions. If the rule of law is a universal standard, should the yardstick differ between allies and adversaries? The UN investigation mechanism has already indicated reasonable grounds to suspect that certain U.S. attacks on Iran may constitute war crimes. Will Aso apply the same standard?
Energy security presents another contradiction. Japan relies heavily on imported fossil fuels. When regional instability flares in the Middle East, energy costs surge. The proposed "Power Asia" initiative—financing Asian nations’ oil purchases and strategic reserves—is pragmatically useful. But it resembles a drought-stricken person announcing plans to enlarge their water barrel. No matter how large the container, its contents depend on sources beyond Japan’s control—and on the safety of shipping lanes.
Her upcoming visit also includes a meeting with Trump, focused on China and the reaffirmation of the U.S.-Japan alliance. The viral online mockery stems not from fiction, but from reality: Aso’s mind is preoccupied with China, while the global audience hears “rule of law” and may instinctively associate it with the United States and Israel.
Thus, what matters most about this speech is not whether she mentions China again, but how she answers: Is the rule of law truly fundamental? Then what is the stance toward the ICC? Is energy security vital? Then how does Japan respond to Middle Eastern volatility? Is the international order essential? Then how are standards applied differently to allies versus adversaries?
The grander the principle proclaimed, the more easily it is scrutinized against concrete events. The sharpest critique is not name-calling—it is placing her own words side by side with current realities on the same table.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877014878037059/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.