On recent visits to South Korea, we witnessed firsthand the nadir to which Japan-South Korea relations have plummeted. In our meetings with politicians, senior officials, think tanks, and academics, many were clear-eyed about the need for trilateral cooperation. Some officials, though, labeled the current Japanese government as “ultra-rightist” and all spoke about Japan’s political leadership and foreign policy establishment in unflinchingly harsh terms.

Based on what we heard separately from foreign policy types in Seoul, we came away deeply troubled at the state of Japan-South Korean relations—the lynchpin of the U.S alliance network in Northeast Asia. In Japan too, policy elites have voiced mirror-image concerns over what we witnessed in Seoul.

With both countries due to hold elections soon, there are few domestic political incentives to back down from the precipice. As President Moon’s outreach to North Korea is falling on deaf ears, pivoting to support of domestic Korean electronics manufacturing may be the economic shot-in-the-arm he needs to shore up public support. In a squeeze between the U.S. alliance and the trade relationship with China, criticism of Japan plays well to both the conservative and liberal voting blocs in the electorate. With 56 percent of Japanese citizens deeming the economic retaliation against South Korea “appropriate,” Prime Minister Abe also faces little incentive to change course. One should not expect a golden era in trilateral cooperation any time soon. Indeed, news that Japan has refused to hold further working group meetings with South Korea—even going so far as to say that “the relationship of trust has crumbled”—only further underscores the gravity of the present situation.

In both South Korea and Japan, a fervent brand of zero-sum nationalism in opposition to the other nation has existed for centuries. Indeed, we witnessed firsthand in our recent visit what we believe to be a 70-year low in Japan-South Korea relations, despite the best behind-the-scenes efforts of the United States to broker effective trilateral cooperation.

But despite past rancor over historical and territorial issues, two major interest groups in both nations, the business community, and the respective militaries have long served as the ballast in the relationship between South Korea and Japan. Military-military cooperation, particularly between the two navies, has seen the U.S. leverage its role as senior alliance partner to offer a neutral practice ground for both nations. Business and people-to-people ties have benefited from tourism numbers that continue to rise at a double-digit pace.

The recent skid in Japan-Korea relations is alarming, particularly because it directly impacts these foundational aspects of Japan-Korea ties. Were these key “ballast” areas to vanish, the ship of state would soon founder.

The naval relationship was nearly torpedoed in late January when the two sides traded accusations over what was alternatively a Japanese patrol aircraft buzzing a South Korean destroyer (the Korean side’s perspective) or a South Korean destroyer locking its fire-control radar onto a Japanese patrol aircraft (the Japanese perspective).

The business community has been similarly shaken by fallout from a contentious South Korean court case over the compensation for victims of Japan’s colonial-era practice of forced labor. With Korean courts ordering expropriation of Japanese shares to compensate the victims, Tokyo has retaliated by restricting sales of technology components to South Korean firms. The Japanese government has vacillated between insisting that the restrictions are for legitimate national security purposes or alternatively are retaliatory measures for the forced labor ruling, weakening Japan’s case. The restriction of components for South Korean semiconductor manufacturers, as well as Japanese accusations that South Korea has re-exported sanctioned chemicals to North Korea, threatens to take the relationship to an “emergency level.”

The stakes could not be higher for the United States. With President Trump’s on-again, off-again nuclear diplomacy with North Korea again taking off, and further Chinese moves to demonstrate a claim to hegemony in East Asia, maintaining a united front among allies is critical.

While the United States has played the role of mediator in the past, President Trump’s repeated broadsides against both nations amidst contentious negotiations over trade and burden-sharing issues has reduced Washington’s leverage in both countries. Though leader-level diplomacy is precisely what is required in this alliance “emergency,” Washington’s diminished stock leaves the United States with few options. Our meetings in Seoul further reinforced our conviction that China will be ready and willing to step up as a partner of South Korea if the United States does not right the relationship.

The question then becomes: where and how are U.S. efforts to begin?

Officials at the State Department have taken a public position that U.S. browbeating, cajoling, or other such impositions are likely to fail. This is likely why David Stilwell, the assistant Secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs, insisted on a recent visit to Japan that it was “not [his] job to mediate” between the two nations. The U.S. government has had little to say publicly about the most recent downturn, issuing statements calling for trilateral cooperation from both Stilwell himself and the office of the State Department spokeswoman. It is in this vein of behind-closed-doors diplomacy that the NSC director for Asia, Matthew Pottinger, along with national security adviser John Bolton, visited Japan and Korea last weekend. This is welcome but insufficient.

Further, Stilwell’s trip schedule did not take him directly from Tokyo to Seoul, but rather to Seoul by way of The Philippines and Thailand. This was likely to avoid the perception that the United States is engaged in shuttle diplomacy or is privileging Japan’s concerns to those of South Korea.

This is a mistake. Months of private U.S. diplomacy has thus far yielded very little—in fact just the opposite. Things are now getting worse. News that the Blue House is considering abrogation of GSOMIA is a flashing alarm. The fact that the South Korean government considers GSOMIA abrogation a “lever to use against the U.S.” because of its “necessity” to U.S.-Japan relations only illustrates the speed at which the problem is deepening.

The United States must take a firm stand publicly and vocally—at the highest levels—about the criticality of these relationships to core U.S interests. When the Japan-South Korea leader-to-leader relationship has become so thoroughly toxic, U.S. mediation is in order.

To put it bluntly, President Moon is viewed poorly in Japan—his government’s withdrawal from the 2015 “comfort women” agreement and refusal to accept third-party arbitration for the forced labor dispute is seen by the Abe administration as evidence that the Korean government “cannot safeguard country-to-country promises.” Abe is similarly viewed in South Korea; Thirty-eight percent of Koreans view Japan as a “military threat.” Climbing out of the valley of Japan-Korea relations will look less like a full-blown reconciliation and more like a temporary truce. A tie break is needed, and only Washington has the heft to do that—the benefit and curse of being the senior alliance partner.

Beyond the public mediation effort, more private, behind-the-scenes work must be done to insulate the relationship from politics. Just as the navies of all three countries can cooperate well on the high seas, away from the prying eyes of politicians or the media, the United States should create private, neutral spaces for working-level officials from Japan and South Korea to continue cooperating on areas of mutual interest. We encourage the U.S. government to consider trilateral cooperation on creating a united front before the next phase of U.S.-North Korea diplomacy; increasing exchanges between navies; and discussing the implementation of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy. To begin healing the wounds caused by the budding political and trade war, we also recommend that the U.S. secretary of commerce host a business roundtable for Korean and Japanese firms. By generating consensus among the business community, the United States can make it clear to Korean and Japanese policymakers that more restrictions will be deeply damaging to regional and global supply chains.

The key will be to avoid public discussions on sensitive issues that could become fodder for politicians eager to prove to voters back home that they are ready to do combat on historical matters. Maintaining the dialogue at the assistant secretary or senior official level would help to advance meaningful dialogue while avoiding prying eyes.

To make up for the lost opportunity of a leadership summit at the G-20 summit, we finally recommend that the United States strongly encourage a leader-to-leader meeting on the margins of the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting in New York. The opportunity to issue a joint communique and shake hands would be a welcome reset button and a display of statesmanship from both sides.

The resolution of the “emergency” in Japan-Korea relations will hinge on more than simply U.S. involvement, however. For as much as the United States is capable of convening officials from the two nations, fundamental resolution of the historical issues will depend upon South Korea and Japan engaging in the politics of compromise—based on their shared interest and shared democratic and liberal values.

South Korea must accept that any final agreement it reaches will be fundamentally imperfect and incomplete by design, while Japan will have to understand that “apology fatigue” cannot get in the way of a meaningful deal that has a real chance of bettering relations. Both countries will have to sign compromises and stick to them, no matter how political leadership might change.

It is no exaggeration to say that Japan-South Korea relations have entered their ugliest phase in decades. It remains unclear to some observers that further movement is even salvageable. Based on what we witnessed in our recent visits, it will take more than a gentle push for cooperation for Washington to play the role it needs to play as the senior ally of both nations. It will take a shove.

Patrick G. Buchan is the director of the U.S. Alliances Project and fellow of Indo-Pacific Security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Benjamin Rimland is a research associate with the CSIS U.S. Alliances Project.

Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

Source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/only-united-states-can-pull-japan-and-korea-back-brink

The post Only the United States Can Pull Japan and Korea Back from the Brink first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

WASHINGTON – A concerted Russian hacking and online disinformation campaign in 2016 sought to tip the U.S. presidential election toward Donald Trump. Two weeks ahead of midterm congressional elections, Moscow’s operatives are at it again.

The shutdown of thousands of Russian-controlled accounts by Twitter and Facebook — plus the indictments of 14 people from Russia’s notorious troll farm the Internet Research Agency — have blunted but by no means halted their efforts to influence U.S. politics.

#MAGA — Trump’s rallying call to “Make America Great Again” — remains the top hashtag among 18,000 tweets pumped out daily by hundreds of Russia-backed and allied Twitter accounts monitored by Hamilton 68, a tracking operation of the Alliance for Securing Democracy in Washington.

The leading linked website this week? A Republican voter registration page.

“After the election in 2016, there was a lot of talk about whether the Russians will be back in 2018,” said Suzanne Spaulding, senior adviser on the Homeland Security Program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We now know: they never left.”

On Friday, the U.S. Justice Department announced criminal conspiracy charges against the Internet Research Agency clerk who manages the tens of millions of dollars the outfit spends on information operations in the United States and Europe.

The charges documented typical social media postings on IRA accounts that purported to be American and were mainly aimed at fanning the flames of political anger.

“Just a friendly reminder to get involved in the 2018 Midterms,” said a tweet posted earlier this year by @johncopper16, which prosecutors say was an identity created by the IRA.

“They hate you. They hate your morals…. They hate the Police. They hate the Military. They hate YOUR President.”

Such divisive messages could influence the November 6 vote. While the presidency is not up for grabs, control of Congress is, making voter turnout in specific individual races important.

That is not what has U.S. experts worried the most, however.

“The biggest concern is really about undermining public confidence in the credibility of the outcome of the election,” said Spaulding. “It is really a broader campaign to undermine democracy.”

In 2016, according to U.S. intelligence, Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw a concerted effort to disrupt the election and turn voters away from Hillary Clinton in order to help Trump’s campaign.

This included hackers of the GRU military intelligence body breaking into the computers and communications of Clinton’s campaign to steal documents that were later leaked to embarrass her.

Separately, the IRA ran a huge, innovative disinformation campaign on social media that stoked anger, confusion and divisions, and was also aimed at boosting Trump.

On Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere, they created online identities and groups, gathered followings, endorsing, cross-posting and sharing fake news stories and angry messages, to great effect.

That continued after the election, until a year ago when Twitter shut down hundreds of accounts that it identified as part of Russia’s political meddling.

New accounts sprung up, many of them automated bots. Rather than creating content, they amplified the huge amount of divisive material already out there, said Bret Schafer, who oversees the Hamilton 68 website.

“Now the people sitting at the IRA in St. Petersburg, they don’t even have to create this stuff. It’s created for them.”

One example, said Ben Nimmo, who runs the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, was the intense, two-week online battle over Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in September.

The massive amount of false reports and virulent personal attacks across social media came largely from American accounts, he said.

The Russians needed only stir the pot by retweeting and reposting them, which can be done with bots.

“There is a huge amount of angry Americans on both sides. They are more than capable of generating massive traffic on their own,” he said.

After Twitter launched a second sweep of fake accounts several weeks ago, the volume of Russian activity has fallen sharply, noted Nimmo.

The platform closed thousands of accounts that were Russian-run and had been responsible for some 9 million tweets, including those mentioned in Friday’s criminal complaint.

Since then, Nimmo said, “they have definitely been trying harder to hide their tracks.”

It’s not clear, however, whether they are making a concerted “third wave” effort at the moment.

Two weeks before the election, the Hamilton 68 site shows Moscow has not given up, even if the intensity of its activity has waned.

This week, the top 10 themes and linked articles in the accounts it monitors were strongly pro-Trump, pro-Republican: They highlighted Trump’s most recent rally, the alleged threat of a migrant caravan in Mexico and a hashtag newly favored by Trump, #jobsnotmobs.

James Lewis, a Russia and cyber expert at CSIS, thinks the Russians are honing their skills for the next presidential race, rather than attempting to impact the current election cycle.

“They may be saving their best tricks for 2020,” he said.

Source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/10/24/world/politics-diplomacy-world/russians-stir-anger-ahead-u-s-midterms/#.W9AH_ehKiUk

The post Russians out to stir anger ahead of U.S. midterms first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

State sponsor of terrorism Iran has reportedly erected another permanent base in Syria capable of bombing Israel, considered Tehran’s public enemy number one, according to Fox News, citing Western intelligence sources and satellite images.

Last December, Israel reportedly destroyed a similar base, warning Tehran against building any military installations. Israel and Syria share a border.

Fox News reports:

Iran has built another permanent military base outside Syria’s capital city complete with hangers used to store missiles capable of hitting all of Israel, according to Western intelligence sources.

Exclusive satellite images from ImageSat International obtained by Fox News show what is believed to be the new Iranian base, eight miles northwest of Damascus, operated by the Quds Force—the special operations arm of Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).  The photos show two new white hangars, each roughly 30 yards by 20 yards, used to store short- and medium-range missiles.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has sanctioned the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

During an event sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urged the Trump administration to “push back” against Iran-allied Shiite fighters destabilizing Iraq and Syria, namely the IRGC.

The congressman, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has introduced bipartisan legislation to impose sanctions on Iranian-backed Shiite militias in the Middle East.

Iran has deployed thousands of Shiite fighters, including members of the terrorist group Hezbollah, to fight on behalf of the Russian-backed dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Although U.S. Gen. Joseph Votel, the top American commander in the Middle East and Afghanistan, told lawmakers this week that Tehran “remains the major threat” to regional stability, he also said, “Countering Iran is not one of the coalition’s missions in Syria.”

The primary focus of the estimated 2,000 American troops in Syria remains the destruction of ISIS.

During the FDD event on Wednesday, Melissa Dalton of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) who recently traveled to Syria with Gen. Votel, said there are still “some hardened cells” associated with ISIS in Syria.

Gen. Votel told lawmakers the group has lost “more than 98 percent” of its so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria.

He noted that Iran is “increasing” the number and “quality” of the ballistic missiles it is deploying to Syria.

The nuclear agreement reached in July 2015 has allowed Iran to “enhance” funding to proxy forces in the Middle East, pointed out the top American general.

Support from Iran and Russia have allowed Assad to remain in power and continue waging war.

The United States military and its Kurdish allies have recently been forced to repel an attack from troops loyal to the Iranian and Russian-backed Assad regime.

According to the Pentagon, U.S. troops will not hesitate to respond to an attack from Iran-allied militias in Syria.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/03/01/report-iran-builds-another-permanent-base-syria/

The post Report: Iran Builds Another Permanent Base in Syria first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.