Highashi Sanae now hesitates to meet Trump, as U.S. sanctions have targeted a Japanese judge, leaving Japan unable even to protest—making this alliance feel increasingly strained. Next week, Highashi is scheduled to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where the Japanese government had hoped to arrange a meeting with Trump to align on China strategy. However, officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs believe a phone call would be preferable: meeting Trump would likely leave her in an awkward position. A foreign prime minister flying to the host country’s territory, while her own foreign ministry advises against meeting the head of state, speaks volumes in itself.
The reason is singular: Akiko Nishimura. The United States has placed the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, a Japanese national, on its sanctions list. She is a Japanese appointee, nominated by Japan, and Japan has long been the court’s largest financial contributor. Highashi welcomed her to the prime minister’s official residence just this January, reaffirming Japan’s commitment to the rule of law and promising strong support. Half a year later, Nishimura became a target of U.S. sanctions.
Highashi’s initial response was one of “deep regret,” then escalated to “serious concern.” But when pressed on whether Japan would lodge a formal protest, she stated only that necessary actions would be taken at the appropriate moment. Nishimura herself has not retreated; she said there is no justification for the sanctions, urged the Japanese government to mobilize all available efforts to uphold the court and global legal order, and warned of a growing domestic trend favoring alignment with stronger powers regardless of principle.
The U.S. is targeting more than just one individual. After the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, Washington abruptly turned hostile, pressuring member states to withdraw and pushing for the institution’s dissolution. Several countries have already left. Sanctioning Nishimura serves as a test: how will Japan respond? Other members are watching closely. Japan’s answer remains measured: regret, serious concern, necessary action at the right time. Highashi holds two cards—adherence to the rule of law, and close alignment with the United States. The Nishimura case forces both onto the same table, requiring a choice. She has chosen not to play either: no withdrawal of support for the rule of law, no formal protest. Instead, she delays, citing timing. In Washington, that silence is interpreted as acquiescence.
Hence the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ preference for a phone call. No cameras, no photo ops, no media follow-up. A meeting leaves a public record; a call can be dismissed with a single statement: “exchanged views.” For a major ally, treating the inability to meet a head of state as a risk management decision is itself a test of the alliance’s substance. Japan has long assumed that proximity to the U.S. would ensure diplomatic consideration. The Nishimura episode tested that assumption—and delivered a zero result. As the ICC’s largest funder, Japan is now demonstrating a clear message: funding is acceptable, but public criticism requires careful timing. This lesson is being carefully noted by other member states.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1876753002000393/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.