

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do?" said one German official.
US allies are giving President Donald Trump the cold shoulder after he demanded that they send their militaries to help him reopen and secure the Strait of Hormuz, which has been shut down by the Iranian government in response to US and Israeli attacks.
Reuters chief national security correspondent Phil Stewart collected reactions from several US allies to Trump's demands in a Monday social media post, and they show little appetite for helping the president out of the jam he created when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran more than two weeks ago.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius spoke bluntly about his country's unwillingness to get involved in what has become a regional conflict in the Middle East that has sent global energy prices soaring and is threatening to upend the global economy.
"What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do?" Pistorius asked. "This is not our war, we have not started it."
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated flatly that his nation would not be "drawn into the wider Iran war," and insisted that only a diplomatic solution could ease the crisis.
"We are working with others to come up with a credible plan for the Strait of Hormuz to ensure that we can reopen shipping and passage through the Strait," he said. "Let me be clear, that won't be and it's never been envisioned to be a NATO mission."
Catherine King, a member of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's cabinet, said there were no plans to have the Australian military participate in Trump's efforts to reopen the strait.
"We won't be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz," King said. "We know how incredibly important that is, but that's not something that we've been asked or that we're contributing to."
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi didn't completely rule out sending escort ships to help oil tankers navigate the strait, but she emphasized there are no plans to do so at the moment.
"We have not made any decisions whatsoever about dispatching escort ships," said Takaichi. "We are continuing to examine what Japan can do independently and what can be done within the legal framework."
Trump started publicly calling on US allies to assist in reopening the strait in a Saturday Truth Social post, in which he said "hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated."
Trump repeated his demands to US allies while talking with reporters on Air Force One on Sunday, arguing that getting the strait reopened was in the interest of all nations.
"Really, I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it is their territory," Trump said. "You could make the case that maybe we shouldn't be there at all, because we don't need it. We have a lot of oil."
The record in Mozambique shows that projects backed by public finance can harm communities and the environment unless local voices guide the process.
The ninth Tokyo International Conference on African Development, or TICAD, opened August 20 in Yokohama, organized by the Japanese government with the United Nations, UN Development Program, World Bank, and African Union Commission. Japan, as host, aims to promote “high quality” development in Africa by applying lessons from Asia. Three decades since TICAD’s launch in 1993, interest in Africa remains strong—and so does the need to reflect on what “development” truly means.
Japan’s record in Mozambique offers sobering lessons.
Before we can discuss “development” we must recognize that many of Africa’s deep crises today are rooted in the continued exploitation of its people and resources, shaped by inherited colonial structures. Public funding and transnational corporations play a large role in perpetuating these patterns.
The Mozambique liquefied natural gas (LNG) project illustrates the problem. Led by French energy giant TotalEnergies, it is one of Africa’s largest gas extraction projects, with Japan as its top financier. The publicly funded Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) has committed up to $3.5 billion in loans, while Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI) has agreed to provide $2 billion in insurance.
As leaders gather at TICAD to shape Africa’s future, we urge Japan and all participating governments and businesses to focus on the needs and aspirations of African people themselves.
JBIC justifies this support by citing growing global LNG demand, particularly in developing countries, rising environmental awareness, and Japan’s energy security. Yet revenue flows to a United Arab Emirates-based special purpose entity—enabling gas and mining companies to avoid paying an estimated $717 million to $1.48 billion in taxes to Mozambique. The country is further disadvantaged by the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, which prioritizes loss compensation for investors.
On the ground, grievances remain unresolved. More than eight communities have been affected, and many families still await promised compensation. Others have lost farmland or access to the sea, undermining agriculture and fisheries livelihoods. Local residents report that consultation meetings often involve military presence, stifling open discussion.
Since 2017, the region has suffered violent insurgency, which halted the project in 2021 and brought heavy militarization focused on protecting gas infrastructure. Insurgent activity has surged again in recent weeks, amid signs of project restart. In March 2025, analysts warned that the sense of disenfranchisement created by the project could fuel insurgent recruitment.
Environmental and climate risks are also high. Independent reviews find that the project’s environmental impact assessment understates potential harm, including lacking a rigorous biodiversity baseline study for the deep-sea environment.
This pattern—external actors driving their own agendas rather than responding to locally defined and articulated priorities—is not unique.
A decade earlier, Japan’s own ProSAVANA project in northern Mozambique followed a similar path. Launched in the early 2010s by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) with Mozambican and Brazilian partners, it aimed to convert land to agricultural use, particularly soybean cultivation for export to Japan. Modeled on Brazil’s Cerrado “green revolution” of the 1970s, it was promoted as a way to promote agricultural and economic development in Mozambique.
In reality, the project facilitated land grabs covering 14 million hectares in the Nacala Corridor, displacing small farmers. Civil society groups denounced the opaque consultation process and backed local farmers’ resistance. After years of protest, the Japanese government ended its involvement in July 2020, belatedly acknowledging these concerns.
Both Mozambique LNG and ProSAVANA demonstrate how “development” promoted from the Global North can harm communities and the environment. When public finance is involved, the risks—and the responsibility—are even greater.
Better outcomes require meaningful, transparent consultation with affected communities, robust due diligence, and genuine accountability. Without these, development risks becoming extraction by another name.
As leaders gather at TICAD to shape Africa’s future, we urge Japan and all participating governments and businesses to focus on the needs and aspirations of African people themselves, and to avoid—or even redress—the mistakes of the past.
The question remains as urgent as ever: Who is this development really for?
The hibakusha, or survivors, "deserve to see their work vindicated and to witness the end of these inhumane, indiscriminate weapons of total destruction in their lifetime," said ICAN's leader.
Survivors of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and other nuclear abolitionists renewed calls for ridding the world of nukes on Wednesday, the 80th anniversary of the American attack on the Japanese city.
During the annual Peace Memorial Ceremony in Japan, Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui pointed to Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have contributed to the narrative that nuclear weapons are necessary for national defense and elevated global fears of their use.
"These developments flagrantly disregard the lessons the international community should have learned from the tragedies of history," he said. Russia and the United States—which is arming Ukraine and Israel—have the largest nuclear arsenals. The other nuclear-armed nations are China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom.
"Despite the current turmoil at the nation-state level, we, the people, must never give up," Matsui added. "Instead, we must work even harder to build civil society consensus that nuclear weapons must be abolished for a genuinely peaceful world."
Silent prayers were held in the Japanese city of Hiroshima, marking 80 years since the atomic bombing of the city by the US on August 6, 1945.
[image or embed]
— Al Jazeera English (@aljazeera.com) August 6, 2025 at 6:35 AM
The mayor also urged the Japanese government to respect the wishes of hibakusha, or survivors, and join the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was adopted in 2017 and took effect in 2021.
"The treaty not only bans nuclear weapons and all activities related to their production, deployment, and use, but also mandates that countries that joined the treaty provide support for people harmed by nuclear weapons in the past and for the cleanup of areas that were used for nuclear testing," survivor Terumi Tanaka noted Wednesday in a New York Times opinion piece.
Tanaka was 13 years old at the time of the bombing—an experience he recounted last year, while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of a group he co-chairs: Nihon Hidankyo, also known as the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers.
"Our Nobel Peace Prize sends a message to younger people that they need to be aware that we are facing an emergency—and the need to see a larger movement of young activists working to address the nuclear threat," 93-year-old Tanaka wrote Wednesday. "Even here in Japan, not enough people see this as a pressing issue."
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)—which won the Nobel Peace Prize after playing a significant role in building support for the TPNW in 2017—also used the anniversary to advocate for abolishing nuclear weapons.
ICAN executive Melissa Parke, who joined the ceremony in Japan, said in a statement that "it is not possible to come to Hiroshima and attend these solemn commemorations without being moved as well as convinced of the urgent need for nuclear weapons to be eliminated."
"The hibakusha, who were awarded last year's Nobel Peace Prize for their tenacious campaigning for the elimination of nuclear weapons, deserve to see their work vindicated and to witness the end of these inhumane, indiscriminate weapons of total destruction in their lifetime," Parke argued. "That means the nine nuclear-armed countries, most of which were represented here today, must heed their call to join the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and get rid of their arsenals."
As we mark 80 years since the atomic bombings of Japan, CND Vice-President Caroline Lucas writes from Hiroshima and asks why are nuclear powers ditching disarmament for a new nuclear arms race? Read more: www.independent.co.uk/voices/hiros...
[image or embed]
— Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (@cnduk.bsky.social) August 6, 2025 at 8:03 AM
In a Common Dreams opinion piece about the youth impacted by the 1945 bombings, ICAN treaty coordinator Tim Wright wrote: "The fact that children would suffer the greatest harm of all in the event of a nuclear attack against a city today should have profound implications for policymaking in nuclear-armed states and spur action for disarmament. Yet, all nine such states continue to act contrary to that objective. And the risk of a nuclear weapon being used again appears to be at an all-time high."
Common Dreams also published related opinions from Gerry Condon, a Vietnam-era veteran and former president of Veterans for Peace; Austin Headrick, public education and advocacy coordinator for Asia at American Friends Service Committee; and Ann Wright, a U.S. Army veteran who resigned from the U.S. State Department in opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Speaking at the ongoing 2025 World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, Wright noted that "there are a multitude of organizations in the United States and around the world that are working for the elimination of nuclear weapons."
"As we commemorate the lives lost and damaged by nuclear weapons 80 years ago," she said, "we commit ourselves to work harder for the elimination of these weapons, taking on our governments and the industries that make money from the construction and testing of these weapons of mass destruction."
ICAN in June released a report showing that the world's nine nuclear-armed nations spent more than $100 billion on their arsenals last year, up 11% from 2023. A few days later, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's annual yearbook warned that "a dangerous new nuclear arms race is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are severely weakened."
Those reports followed similar warnings from the experts behind the Doomsday Clock, who in January set the symbol of how close the world is to apocalypse at "89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to catastrophe."
Fueling fears of such a catastrophe, U.S. President Donald Trump said last Friday that he "ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions" in response to "highly provocative statements" by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council.
During Trump's first term, he withdrew the United States from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia—after which the Kremlin declared a self-imposed moratorium on the deployment of those missiles. The Russian Foreign Ministry announced Monday that it will no longer abide by its rules, citing recent moves by the U.S. and its allies.
The fact that children would suffer the greatest harm of all in the event of a nuclear attack against a city today should have profound implications for policy-making in nuclear-armed states and spur action for disarmament. And yet the world's nuclear-armed states continue to withhold their support for abolition.
Before dawn on August 6, 1945, Tsuyako Kubota gave birth to her second daughter at her home in Hiroshima’s Nishikanon neighborhood. A few hours later, in a blinding flash, much of the city was reduced to smoldering ruins by a single atomic bomb.
The young mother, her newborn baby and her two-year-old daughter, Sumie, became trapped in the wreckage of their home. The girls’ father, Minoru, a Japanese-American from Hawaii, tried desperately to free them.
“Sumie was crying,” he recalled. “She said to me, ‘Daddy, it’s hot! The fire is coming! My hands are burning!’ There was a final scream, and then I couldn’t hear her voice anymore.”
Sumie and her hours-old sister—who was never given a name—were among the estimated 23,000 children killed in the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima 80 years ago this week. A further 15,000 perished in the attack on Nagasaki three days later.
“She said to me, ‘Daddy, it’s hot! The fire is coming! My hands are burning!’ There was a final scream, and then I couldn’t hear her voice anymore.”
Their deaths, and those of tens of thousands of other civilians, challenge official narratives in the West that the use of nuclear weapons against the two Japanese cities in the final days of World War II was morally justified.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that U.S. public support for the attacks is declining. In 1945, it was as high as 85 percent. Today, only around 35 percent of Americans believe their government’s actions were justified, with 31 percent believing they weren’t. The other third are unsure.
…
With few exceptions, those who survived the atomic bombings and are still alive were children at the time. Through their young eyes, they witnessed unimaginable horror. Known in Japanese as hibakusha, many have devoted their lives to the cause of nuclear disarmament, sharing their first-hand testimonies time and again in the hope of avoiding a recurrence of such tragedies. Their warning is stark: humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.
Last December, their efforts were recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Nihon Hidankyo, or the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations.
Their warning is stark: humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.
Many of the survivors lost their parents, siblings, and friends. They have suffered lifelong physical and psychological trauma. Some have endured multiple surgeries to treat painful keloid scars, extract glass fragments embedded deep in their bodies, or remove cancers caused by their exposure to the bombs’ radiation.

In a nuclear attack, children are especially vulnerable, as their skin is more delicate and their bodies frailer, and they have more cells that are growing and dividing rapidly and thus more susceptible to radiation effects. They are significantly more likely than adults to die from burns, blast injuries, and acute radiation sickness.
As the late paediatric endocrinologist Michael S. Kappy explained in a 1984 paper, “Children and adults do not share equally the dreadful short-term effects of ‘the bomb’, and it is clear from all available data that children are also most susceptible to the long-term effects that appear after varying latency periods.”
The disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons on infants and children was underscored in a declaration adopted this March by the 73 countries that have so far ratified or acceded to the landmark 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
In a nuclear attack, children are especially vulnerable, as their skin is more delicate and their bodies frailer, and they have more cells that are growing and dividing rapidly and thus more susceptible to radiation effects.
The fact that children would suffer the greatest harm of all in the event of a nuclear attack against a city today should have profound implications for policy-making in nuclear-armed states and spur action for disarmament. Yet, all nine such states continue to act contrary to that objective. And the risk of a nuclear weapon being used again appears to be at an all-time high.
…
In Hiroshima, thousands of school students were outdoors creating firebreaks on the morning of the atomic bombing. Completely unshielded from the bomb’s effects, they stood little chance of survival. The mortality rate for those within one kilometre of the hypocentre was around 94 percent. Approximately 6,300 of them died.
Many parents spent days or weeks searching for their missing children in the aftermath. For some, not knowing their children’s fate became unbearable. One mother in Hiroshima, refusing to accept her daughter’s death, kept a door or window open for the rest of her life in case she one day returned home.

Some parents managed to identify the charred, swollen bodies of their children among scores of corpses only by the name tags on their clothes. Others found their children alive and nursed them for days, weeks or months until they took their final breaths. More than a few expressed guilt at the inadequacy of their care amid extreme shortages of medicines and food.
In Nagasaki, one mother watched as four of her children succumbed to acute radiation poisoning one after another. “I kept thinking that human beings shouldn’t die so easily,” she reflected.
Another Nagasaki mother’s face was so badly burnt and disfigured in the attack that her grievously injured two-year-old son couldn’t recognize her as she cared for him in his dying moments.
Some children appeared unharmed at first, having sustained no burns or other visible injuries, but developed fatal diseases years later, as ionizing radiation had entered their bodies and altered their cells.

One such child was Sadako Sasaki, a toddler at the time of the Hiroshima bombing. She died a decade later from acute malignant lymph gland leukemia. During her hospitalization, she folded over a thousand paper cranes with her weak and skinny arms in the hope it would bring her good health.
“Until her very last moment, she held onto her wish and made a great effort to survive,” her father remembered. “I loved her so much that I couldn’t come to terms with her death for a long time.”
Sadako’s tragic story continues to inspire children in Japan and throughout the world to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons—an increasingly urgent task given deteriorating relations among nuclear-armed states and the enhancement and expansion of their arsenals.
It is estimated there are more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, most of them vastly more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped eight decades ago. In the words of the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, “They offer no security—just carnage and chaos. Their elimination would be the greatest gift we could bestow on future generations.”
“American workers are once again being left behind,” said the United Auto Workers.
President Donald Trump this week announced that he had cut a deal with Japan that would lower tariffs on Japanese cars to 15%, which was a cut from the 25% tariffs that he'd originally placed on them.
However, many of the parties whom Trump claimed he was trying to help are not happy with the deal, including major automakers and unions representing hundreds of thousands of workers.
Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council that represents America's "Big Three" automakers, told The Associated Press this week that the deal Trump struck with Japan leaves U.S. automakers "at a disadvantage" compared to their Japanese competitors given that "this is a deal that will charge lower tariffs on Japanese autos with no U.S. content."
The United Autoworkers (UAW) similarly blasted the deal, saying it makes clear that "American workers are once again being left behind."
"This deal hands a win to transnational automakers that rely on low-road labor practices: Substandard wages, excessive temps, and union-busting," said UAW in a press statement. "Now, those same companies stand to benefit from lower tariffs, while unionized automakers—who could quickly create tens of thousands of good jobs using existing capacity—are left with fewer incentives to do so. Once again, American workers are being forced to suffer the consequences."
As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained on his Substack page on Friday, these stakeholders have good reason to feel burned by what he calls Trump's "art of the stupid deal."
In the first place, the current arrangement leaves in place 25% tariffs on car components produced in Canada and Mexico, both of which are vital parts of the American manufacturing chain. Trump has also left in place 50% tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, which will further drive up U.S. automakers' input costs and leave them at a disadvantage with Japanese competitors who can still access foreign steel and aluminum at much cheaper prices.
"Overall, the interaction between this Japan deal and Trump's other tariffs probably tilts the playing field between U.S. and Japanese producers of cars, and perhaps other products, in Japan's favor," Krugman explained. "If this sounds incredibly stupid, that's because it is."
Krugman then speculated that "Trump's negotiators probably had no idea what they were doing, and didn't realize that in their frantic rush to conclude a deal they were agreeing to tariffs that would be highly unfavorable to U.S. manufacturing." He added that negotiators were under so much pressure due to the ridicule he's faced for "having made big promises about his ability to negotiate trade deals, then coming up empty month after month."
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers appeared on MSNBC earlier this week and outlined why Trump's Japan deal was still a net loss for American consumers even though Trump was lowering the earlier tariffs he had set on Japanese cars.
"If you began by saying that [the] tariff on Japan has gone from 25% to 15%, it would feel like he'd negotiated a great deal," Wolfers said. "That's not what happened here."
He then explained that tariffs on Japanese goods before Trump took office were just 2%, which means that "the biggest thing Trump has done is he's raised taxes on Americans who import goods from Japan from 2% to 15%."
"We don't want an emperor, we are sovereign countries," said Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Campaigners are urging the international community to stand firm against U.S. President Donald Trump as he ramps up trade tensions across the globe, both with traditional American geopolitical rivals and allies.
"Short-term, governments need to stand together to challenge this aggression," said Nick Dearden, director of the U.K.-based advocacy group Global Justice Now. "Long-term, they need to start working towards a fairer trade model, which stops prioritizing the interests of big corporations, and starts putting ordinary people, here and across the world, first."
Dearden's call came after The Independent reported on Tuesday that China is reacting angrily to Trump's threats to level additional tariffs against nations that align with the "BRICS" bloc of nations consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
The Chinese government, through its People's Daily state-run newspaper, accused Trump of "bullying" and threatened retaliation against nations that entered into agreements with the U.S. at China's expense. China also insisted that "dialogue and cooperation are the only correct path" to resolving trade disputes.
On the other side of the ledger, Politico reports that U.S. allies Japan and South Korea feel deep frustration at Trump's latest tariff threats despite the fact that they have been engaging in what they say are good-faith efforts to secure new trade deals.
"To give adjectives to the reaction or response, it would be, number one, shock," a former Japanese official told Politico. "Number two, frustration. And number three, anger."
Another official of a foreign government that has been targeted by Trump similarly expressed exasperation with the president and told Politico, "We have no idea what the hell he's sending, who he's sending it to, or how he's sending it."
However, Trump's latest tariff maneuvers have also produced a sense of defiance both among some political leaders and among fair trade advocacy groups. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva this week made the case that Trump's erratic and capricious trade demands are a good reason for other nations to develop trade partnerships independent of the United States.
"We don't want an emperor, we are sovereign countries," Lula said this week during a BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, as reported by NPR. "It's not right for a president of a country the size of the United States to threaten the world online."
Consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen issued a statement this week that made similar points to those made by Lula and cautioned nations against making concessions to Trump in trade talks, especially since many of his demands align with the interests of corporate America.
"During his April 2 'reciprocal tariffs' announcement, Trump waved around the annual National Trade Estimates report, which details the hit list of other countries' policies that large U.S. corporations don’t like," argued Public Citizen. "The Trump team has made clear that this is a blueprint for the 'non-tariff barriers' they seek to eliminate, even though many are public interest laws. The Trump team will continue to bully countries, like he did with Canada on its digital services tax. As the deadline approaches, additional countries may feel pressured to cave to these demands for corporate tax cuts, deregulation of Big Tech, and expanded monopolies for Big Pharma—either explicitly or in under-the-table agreements."
Public Citizen further warned that Trump has shown himself open to pure corruption in his dealings with other nations.
"Trump may continue to punt the deadlines for some countries, claiming progress toward deals—allowing him to continue to extract sweetheart deals for himself and his cronies," the organization wrote. "Potentially endless extensions give Trump more time to push his corporate deregulatory agenda, as well as to accept personal 'gifts' from countries looking to avoid tariffs, like luxury jets, rubber-stamped development projects, and purchases of his meme coin."
Global Justice Now's Dearden also warned nations against letting themselves getting taken advantage of by Trump.
"It's another week of bullying and bluster from Donald Trump, with the U.S. president threatening further economic warfare against a wide range of governments," he said. "Countries such as Bangladesh and Cambodia would be devastated by these tariffs. We simply don't know whether these newly-threatened tariffs will come to pass, but we do know that they are being used to bully governments into handing even more of their sovereignty to some of the biggest corporations in the world."
With America’s 750 or so overseas military bases in around 80 countries, it’s high time to close these bases, pocket the saving, and return to diplomacy. Our bases across Asia are a good place to start.
President Donald Trump is again loudly complaining that the U.S. military bases in Asia are too costly for the U.S. to bear. As part of the new round of tariff negotiations with Japan and Korea, Trump is calling on Japan and Korea to pay for stationing the US troops. Here’s a much better idea: close the bases and bring the U.S. servicemen home.
Trump implies that the U.S. is providing a great service to Japan and Korea by stationing 50,000 troops in Japan and nearly 30,000 in Korea. Yet these countries do not need the U.S. to defend themselves. They are wealthy and can certainly provide their own defense. Far more importantly, diplomacy can ensure the peace in northeast Asia far more effectively and far less expensively than U.S. troops.
The U.S. acts as if Japan needs to be defended against China. Let’s have a look. During the past 1,000 years, during which time China was the region’s dominant power for all but the last 150 years, how many times did China attempt to invade Japan? If you answered zero, you are correct. China did not attempt to invade Japan on a single occasion.
You might quibble. What about the two attempts in 1274 and 1281, roughly 750 years ago? It’s true that when the Mongols temporarily ruled China between 1271 and 1368, the Mongols twice sent expeditionary fleets to invade Japan, and both times were defeated by a combination of typhoons (known in Japanese lore as the Kamikaze winds) and by Japanese coastal defenses.
Japan, on the other hand, made several attempts to attack or conquer China. In 1592, the arrogant and erratic Japanese military leader Toyotomi Hideyoshi launched an invasion of Korea with the goal of conquering Ming China. He did not get far, dying in 1598 without even having subdued Korea. In 1894-5, Japan invaded and defeated China in the Sino-Japanese war, taking Taiwan as a Japanese colony. In 1931, Japan invaded northeast China (Manchuria) and created the Japanese colony of Manchukuo. In 1937, Japan invaded China, starting World War II in the Pacific region.
Nobody thinks that Japan is going to invade China today, and there is no rhyme, reason, or historical precedent to believe that China is going to invade Japan. Japan has no need for the US military bases to protect itself from China.
The same is true of China and Korea. During the past 1,000 years, China never invaded Korea, except on one occasion: when the U.S. threatened China. China entered the war in late 1950 on the side of North Korea to fight the U.S. troops advancing northward towards the Chinese border. At the time, U.S. General Douglas MacArthur recklessly recommended attacking China with atomic bombs. MacArthur also proposed to support Chinese nationalist forces, then based in Taiwan, to invade the Chinese mainland. President Harry Truman, thank God, rejected MacArthur’s recommendations.
South Korea needs deterrence against North Korea, to be sure, but that would be achieved far more effectively and credibly through a regional security system including China, Japan, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, than through the presence of the U.S., which has repeatedly stoked North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and military build-up, not diminished it.
In fact, the U.S. military bases in East Asia are really for the U.S. projection of power, not for the defense of Japan or Korea. This is even more reason why they should be removed. Though the U.S. claims that its bases in East Asia are defensive, they are understandably viewed by China and North Korea as a direct threat – for example, by creating the possibility of a decapitation strike, and by dangerously lowering the response times for China and North Korea to a U.S. provocation or some kind of misunderstanding. Russia vociferously opposed NATO in Ukraine for the same justifiable reasons. NATO has frequently intervened in U.S.-backed regime-change operations and has placed missile systems dangerously close to Russia. Indeed, just as Russia feared, NATO has actively participated in the Ukraine War, providing armaments, strategy, intelligence, and even programming and tracking for missile strikes deep inside of Russia.
Note that Trump is currently obsessed with two small port facilities in Panama owned by a Hong Kong company, claiming that China is threatening U.S. security (!), and wants the facilities sold to an American buyer. The U.S. on the other hand surrounds China not with two tiny port facilities but with major U.S. military bases in Japan, South Korea, Guam, the Philippines, and the Indian Ocean near to China’s international sea lanes.
The best strategy for the superpowers is to stay out of each other’s lanes. China and Russia should not open military bases in the Western Hemisphere, to put it mildly. The last time that was tried, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962, the world nearly ended in nuclear annihilation. (See Martin Sherwin’s remarkable book, Gambling with Armageddon for the shocking details on how close the world came to nuclear Armageddon). Neither China nor Russia shows the slightest inclination to do so today, despite all of the provocations of facing US bases in their own neighborhoods.
Trump is looking for ways to save money – an excellent idea given that the U.S. federal budget is hemorrhaging $2 trillion dollars a year, more than 6% of U.S. GDP. Closing the U.S. overseas military bases would be an excellent place to start.
Trump even seemed to point that way at the start of his second term, but the Congressional Republicans have called for increases, not decreases, in military spending. Yet with America’s 750 or so overseas military bases in around 80 countries, it’s high time to close these bases, pocket the saving, and return to diplomacy. Getting the host countries to pay for something that doesn’t help them or the U.S. is a huge drain of time, diplomacy, and resources, both for the U.S. and the host countries.
The U.S. should make a basic deal with China, Russia, and other powers. “You keep your military bases out of our neighborhood, and we’ll keep our military bases out of yours.” Basic reciprocity among the major powers would save trillions of dollars of military outlays over the coming decade and, more importantly, would push the Doomsday Clock back from 89 seconds to nuclear Armageddon.
Simultaneously we face two interconnected existential threats. We must abolish nuclear weapons so that we can move forward and properly address our climate crisis.
Last week witnessed the Third Meeting of States Parties at the United Nations in New York to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force on January 22, 2021. This historic intergenerational meeting occurred 80 years into the nuclear age with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The weeklong meeting was attended by survivors of the atomic bombings, Hibakusha, whose average age is currently 85. Additionally in attendance were their descendants and other victims of the nuclear legacy from testing to extraction and mining. Others engaged at the 3MSP included faith leaders, and Mayors of cities all around the globe, including Hanover in Germany, Chicago in Illinois, Rochester in New York and Easthampton in Massachusetts. Scientists, artists, scholars and many other diverse members of civil society were there led by ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, with representatives of its 650 partner organizations.
The focus of the meeting was to further universalize the Treaty and stigmatize nuclear weapons and the nation states that continue to possess them. Currently half the world’s population has endorsed the Treaty with ratification by 73 nation states and 94 signatory nation states.
Ultimately, we will see the end of these weapons, either by the verifiable elimination supported by the efforts this week, or by their use whether intentional or by miscalculation, accident or AI algorithm.
The conference emphasized the humanitarian threats posed by any use of nuclear weapons and the ongoing threat posed by their very existence, even in the absence of use. Throughout the week long conference there were sidebar meetings on wide ranging topics including the myth of deterrence and its role as the principal driver in the arms race, the economics and morality of nuclear weapons, and how to bring old and young alike from where they are to an awareness of this existential threat through various media and expression.
It was clear throughout the week that the leaders of this next generation are indeed concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons to their future and are ready to act. Young high school students from Georgia to Detroit and students from Northwestern University to Morehouse College get it. It’s never been a case of them not being concerned, but rather an “awareness gap”. Once informed they are motivated and ready to share that knowledge and act for their future.
In the United States, a growing movement called “Back from the Brink” is bringing communities together to abolish nuclear weapons. Currently this movement is endorsed by 494 organizations, 77 municipalities and cities, 8 state legislative bodies, 429 municipal and state officials, and 44 members of Congress.
It calls on the United States to:
1.Take a leadership role and bring together the nuclear nations of the world in support of a verifiable, time bound agreement to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
2. Renounce the use of nuclear weapons first.
3. End sole authority for this president or any president to unilaterally launch a nuclear weapon.
4. End hair trigger alert.
5. Cancel enhanced nuclear weapon development replacing all of our current nuclear arsenal.
At this point in history, we are closer to nuclear war than at any point since the outset of the nuclear age. It’s “89 seconds to midnight,” according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
Simultaneously we face two interconnected existential threats. We must abolish nuclear weapons so that we can move forward and properly address our climate crisis. What is necessary is to build the political will among our elected officials for a world free of nuclear weapons.
Ultimately, we will see the end of these weapons, either by the verifiable elimination supported by the efforts this week, or by their use whether intentional or by miscalculation, accident or AI algorithm. The choice is ours. Let’s land on the right side of history.
Trump threatens other nations with tariffs, and offers to make them go away if they buy some fracked gas. It’s akin to a protection racket. Pay up, or your windows get broken.
In the last few days, Taiwan, India and Japan made clear they will be buying exported American LNG in the months and years ahead. Why? Entirely in an effort to hold off tariffs from the Trump administration. As the Japanese prime minister put it,
“We will cooperate to strengthen energy security between the two countries including increasing exports of United States liquefied natural gas to Japan in a mutually beneficial manner.”
Here’s how Bloomberg described the Indian decision-making:
Indian importers are under pressure from the government to reach deals that could smooth relations with Trump, the people said, but they will be looking for the best possible terms before signing any agreements.
Meanwhile, as Sing Yee Ong reports from Taipei
Taiwan is preparing to buy more liquefied natural gas from the US to reduce its trade surplus and potentially avoid higher tariffs.
Oh, and more to come
South Korea, Vietnam and the European Union are among energy buyers trying to appease President Donald Trump — and reduce the threat of tariffs — by looking to increase purchases from the biggest exporter of the super-chilled fuel and largest producer of crude.
I want to highlight these shakedowns, which have mostly been lost amidst the thousand other terrible things the Trump administration has loosed upon the world, because I know that before long Big Oil will be holding them up as evidence that the world needs and wants more fossil fuel. In fact, the world wants to move in entirely the opposite direction: 85% of new electric generation in 2023 came from renewables, and the numbers for 2024 will almost certainly be higher. That, of course, terrifies the fossil fuel industry—which is why they spent record amounts on November’s election. As fracking baron Harold Hamm explained, “We’ve got to do this because it’s the most important election in our lifetime.”
And now they’re getting the payoff: Trump threatens tariffs, and offers to make them go away if they buy some LNG. It’s akin to a protection racket. Pay up, or your windows get broken. It’s not criminal—it’s all entirely legal. It’s just wrong.
This particular protection racket makes no sense for America at large. Forget, for a moment, that LNG is a huge driver of the climate change driving fire and flood (by the time you’ve shipped it overseas it’s far worse even than coal); exporting it in huge quantities also obviously drives up the price for Americans still reliant on fracked gas for heating and cooking. The Energy Information Administration just predicted that natural gas prices will rise 21 percent in the year ahead. Politico did the math
Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America trade association, said U.S. LNG exports are pushing natural gas and electricity prices higher.
Every “dollar increase in natural gas costs consumers $34 billion plus about $20 billion in higher electricity cost,” Cicio said in a statement Tuesday. It's “only going to get worse from here as LNG exports increase.”t of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America trade association, said U.S. LNG exports are pushing natural gas and electricity prices higher.
As the Sierra Club points out, Trump’s strategy “makes no sense.” And they’re right—as long as we’re talking about the future of the planet or the cost to American consumers. But that’s not who Trump is thinking about. He’s got one constituency and one only: the Big Oil execs who bankrolled his campaign. For them, this is sweet payback, a 100-1 return on their investment.
And it’s a stark reminder that we have to fight back on the only turf we have: the fact that the sun and wind can deliver the same product as LNG, only more cheaply and much more cleanly. We can’t threaten tariffs to get our way; we can only make the case in such persuasive terms that we start to change the zeitgeist. That’s the point of SunDay project I described last week and that you are going to hear a lot more about. Many thanks to those who went to sunday.earth to help us draw some suns as we prepare for the official launch of this big effort. So many of you took part already. Here’s a beautiful example from the effervescent Ayana Johnson (whose book What If We Get It Right is a document for this tough moment):
And here’s one from Billy Parish, whose Solar Mosaic has financed something like ten percent of the rooftop solar in America
It may seem like a mug’s game to take on Trump’s thuggish power with economics, physics, music, art, and justice. But perhaps they still hold some force in this world—we shall see.
As we meet with Japanese financial institutions and policymakers, we carry a clear message: The human cost of Japan's LNG investments can no longer be ignored.
The United States is at a political crossroads, with President Donald Trump and his allies promising to accelerate fossil fuel expansion. We write with urgency about the devastating impact of Japanese-funded methane gas exports on our communities.
As I, Manning Rollerson, stepped off a plane in Tokyo this week, I carry with me the stories of five generations of family who have watched our Texas Gulf South community transform into what can only be described as a "sacrifice zone." I am a Black community rights activist and founder of Freeport Haven Project for Environmental Justice. I have watched my historically Black community bear the brunt of industrial pollution for far too long. With 27 grandchildren, this fight is deeply personal. When our children are born with cancer and breathing issues, there should be accountability. That's why I'm here in Japan—to say enough is enough.
We are part of a delegation of frontline residents from the U.S. Gulf South traveling to Japan to confront the financial institutions bankrolling liquefied natural gas (LNG) expansion in their communities. Our mission comes at a critical moment, as Japanese banks line up to expand terminals like Cameron LNG in Louisiana.
Japanese leaders need to see our faces. They need to understand that when they sign LNG financing agreements, they're signing away our children's health, our neighborhoods' safety, and our planet's future.
The evidence we bring is compelling and direct. I, Sharon Wilson, spent 12 years in the oil industry before becoming an environmental investigator for Oilfield Witness. Using specialized optical gas imaging cameras, I've documented methane releases from Japanese-financed gas and LNG facilities. "If only people could see what's here, smell the air, drink the water, visualize the emissions, this wouldn't be happening," I can say with certainty. "The public would not stand for it."
Others, like Roishetta Ozane, founder of Louisiana's Vessel Project and a Black mother living in Sulphur, could not be with us in person but are with us in spirit: The journey to Japan is deeply personal. "My children face severe health conditions caused by pollution the oil and gas industry unleashes into our air and water," she says. "We cannot allow our communities to bear the burden of fossil fuel racism any longer."
Japanese institutions have emerged as the leading financiers of U.S. LNG export infrastructure. Private banks like MUFG are backing new projects like Rio Grande LNG near Port Isabel, Texas, while companies like Mitsui continue acquiring Texas gas fields—even as research shows exported LNG has a 33% greater climate impact than coal.
The Japanese government is the largest public financier of U.S. LNG. Japanese private banks MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC are the top three private financiers of U.S. LNG, providing over $35 billion. Japanese institutions, such as the Nippon Export and Investment Insurance, are considering providing financing for the expansion of the Cameron LNG export terminal, while Japanese companies JERA and INPEX have signed offtake contracts for the Calcasieu Pass 2 project.
For us, this trip represents more than just advocacy—it's about bringing the reality of our communities directly to those making decisions half a world away. Japanese leaders need to see our faces. They need to understand that when they sign LNG financing agreements, they're signing away our children's health, our neighborhoods' safety, and our planet's future.
Our timing is strategic, coming just after Trump advisers signed an executive order to restart LNG export approvals—even as Japan positions itself as a clean energy leader in Asia while simultaneously pushing for expanded methane gas infrastructure across the region. There's no such thing as clean gas. Methane is intentionally released and blasted into our atmosphere from the moment a hole is drilled into the ground. This isn't about leaks—it's about a fundamentally dirty industry that cannot operate without massive pollution. And now, with Trump's team plotting to restart permits, our communities face even greater threats.
As we meet with Japanese financial institutions and policymakers, we carry a clear message: The human cost of Japan's LNG investments can no longer be ignored. Despite the threat of a fossil fuel-friendly administration, we have proven our resilience. We stopped LNG projects before, and we will do it again. This time, we're taking our fight directly to the source of the money. Human rights abuses are being committed in our Gulf South communities in the United States—and Japanese money is making it possible. We will not stop fighting until our communities are safe from harm.