Good morning twitter. A quick update on PM Suga’s comments on the ‘Taiwan passages’ in last week joint statement with President Biden. The article below somewhat suggested that Suga paddle back from the position expressed last week, raising two additional points. A thread: https://twitter.com/alessionaval/status/1384994890736623616

First off, my thanks to @JDMayger and @tongfi_kim for the kind follow up and original Jiji press article that contains the quote from PM Suga: '軍事的関与などを予断するものでは全くない’ https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2021042000731&g=pol

1. Did he actually paddled back from the Joint Statement? No. Certainly, the sentence and the context around it doesn’t suggest that. Rather, it suggests Japan is politically committed to favour a peaceful solution - so the statement stands, and so does its political importance.

2. Is he therefore excluding Japan’s military involvement? Again, nothing in the statement speaks to that. Circumstances and context will be crucial to understand what this political commitment equals to in a crisis/escalation scenario. But we are many steps away from that.

3. Are there scenarios in which Japan would be militarily involved? Yes. from rear support, to use of bases, to military involvement -1995 Guidelines set a geographic scope that in principle doesn’t exclude Taiwan. 2015 version pointed towards a shift in subhreshold focus.

The article makes to additional points. 4. Does the constitution allow for military support? Depending on the circumstances yes, more than just rear support.
5. Is the Japanese public debate abreast of the situation? Not as it should. And that’s where things get problematic.

But make no mistake. The US and JPN military arrangements are such that I doubt that at the tactical and operational levels options are not explored and tested. The question is whether such paths will be in fact taken, or indeed needed. PM Suga doesn’t want it to come to that.