US Security Benefits When Japan, south Korea Share Intelligence

/0 Comments/in , /by

South Korea recently announced it would restart negotiations with Japan for a military and intelligence sharing agreement. Washington should encourage this growing security cooperation.

Moon Sang-gyun, spokesman for South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense, said Sept. 27 that North Korea’s “nuclear and missile threats are escalating by the day, so our security situation is becoming more critical.”

My own recent private discussions with government officials in Seoul confirmed South Korea’s intent to move forward on the agreement, formally called a General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA).

The GSOMIA would be the first military pact between Seoul and Tokyo since 1945. Though historic, the agreement is simply a legal framework of required methods to protect classified information that allows for the bilateral exchange of intelligence about North Korea’s nuclear, missile, submarine, and conventional force threats as well as potential military and cyberattacks.

History Impeded Progress

While Washington has strong alliances with both South Korea and Japan, the security relations between Seoul and Tokyo have been extremely limited due to territorial disputes and bitter historical animosities dating to Japan’s brutal, 35-year occupation of the Korean Peninsula between 1910 and 1945.

In June 2012, South Korea and Japan were within an hour of signing a General Security of Military Information Agreement, but Seoul canceled at the last moment. The reasons: fierce domestic criticism and legislative backlash over the secretive nature of the talks and the prospect of signing a pact with Korea’s former colonial oppressor.

The head of the opposition party at the time accused the South Korean government of seeking “to give access without restriction to military facilities and intelligence in seeking to forge a military intelligence treaty with a country that invaded our nation in the past.”

In reality, under the planned agreement Seoul and Tokyo would retain authority for deciding what data are shared.

Despite the collapse of the agreement, Seoul and Tokyo continued to quietly improve bilateral security relations. They exchanged observers during military exercises and engaged in trilateral naval and missile defense training exercises with the United States.

The U.S., South Korea, and Japan signed a limited intelligence sharing agreement in December 2014, but it still required Washington to be the intermediary for information provided by Seoul and Tokyo. While that agreement was an improvement, it still didn’t enable effective, real-time security cooperation during a crisis or attack.

Recent progress was enabled by the December 2015 bilateral agreement on South Korean women forced into sexual slavery—they were known euphemistically as “comfort women”—during the 1910-1945 Japanese occupation.

The landmark agreement was a stunning success achieved through diplomatic perseverance, as well as political courage by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye to push back against nationalist elements in their respective countries.

This past March, the U.S., Japanese, and South Korean leaders pledged to increase military cooperation against the growing North Korean threats.

On Oct. 14, South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo explained that “the need has heightened” for the bilateral agreement because of North Korea’s two nuclear tests and breakthrough successes on several missile systems in 2016.

Seoul is also probably more receptive given China’s heavy-handed threats of economic, diplomatic, and military pressure against the U.S. in deploying the missile defense system known as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, in South Korea.

Critical for Allied Security

A bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreement between America’s critical northeast Asian allies would improve deterrence and defense capabilities against Pyongyang’s escalating nuclear and missile threats. Currently, for example, U.S. military officers must turn off live feeds from South Korean or Japanese sensors when representatives of the other ally enter a command or intelligence center.

Removing the intelligence-sharing constraints would be in South Korea’s national interests, since it would enable access to North Korean threat data from Japan’s high-tech intelligence satellites, AEGIS ships, and early warning and anti-submarine aircraft. South Korea could provide information on the North’s missiles detected by long-range air search radar.

Both South Korea and Japan have extensive, highly capable militaries. Given Pyongyang’s large submarine fleet and successful launch of a submarine-launched ballistic missile this year, coordinated trilateral anti-submarine and counter-mining operations are increasingly important.

The GSOMIA also is necessary for a comprehensive allied missile defense system in Asia. Integrating South Korea, Japanese, and U.S. warning sensors and tracking radars would enhance real-time missile defense security for all three countries. However, to date, South Korea has refused to integrate its Korea Air and Missile Defense system into the more comprehensive and effective allied ballistic missile defense system.

Despite the clear and present danger from North Korean missiles, South Korea insists on maintaining an independent and less capable missile defense system to protect its citizens and U.S. forces in Korea against the North’s nuclear, biological, and chemical missile attacks.

In addition to signing the agreement, South Korea should integrate its missile defense system into the comprehensive allied system with linked sensors to improve deterrence and defense capabilities for the forces of all three countries.

What Washington Should Do

U.S. interests in Asia—ensuring regional stability, protecting maritime freedom of navigation, and peaceful resolution of disputes—benefit from greater multilateral cooperation.

Washington therefore should continue policies to augment bilateral and trilateral military cooperation efforts with Seoul and Tokyo, particularly in missile defense against the North Korean threat.

Strong trilateral security cooperation also can affirm recently improving South Korea-Japanese relations and form the basis for addressing other regional and global security challenges.

The U.S. will remain the guarantor of regional stability and should:

• Publicly highlight the need for greater South Korean-Japanese military and diplomatic cooperation as a vial component of comprehensive security efforts against North Korea’s growing military threat. While the immediate need is on missile defense and anti-submarine operations, Japan and South Korea should discuss potential joint peacekeeping missions, counterterrorism, counterpiracy, and disaster response operations.

• Step up trilateral military exercises to increase transparency, augment familiarity of operations necessary during a crisis, and improve combined capabilities.

• Continue to affirm unequivocal military support for South Korea and Japan, including the U.S. extended deterrence guarantee of the nuclear umbrella, missile defense, and conventional forces.

• Maintain robust, forward-deployed military forces in South Korea, Japan, and the Western Pacific to deter, defend, and defeat security threats to U.S. national interests and American allies. The U.S. presence also should allay South Korean concerns over Japan’s defense reforms and slowly growing security role.

• Privately counsel both South Korea and Japan to make progress on implementing the December 2015 “comfort women” agreement and refrain from comments and actions that could incite nationalist responses in either country.

• Propose an annual trilateral meeting of the three countries’ foreign and defense ministers (a “2+2+2 meeting”) to develop a joint strategic vision and integrate roles, missions, and capabilities.

A Necessity

U.S. national interests and ability to defend them are enhanced by greater cooperation among our allies. This is particularly true between South Korea and Japan, which recently have overcome strained bilateral relations.

The growing military capabilities of North Korea and China, and their willingness to use them to test international resolve, have increased tensions and the risk of military incidents or clashes.

While the actions by Pyongyang and Beijing are inimical to allied interests, they have crystalized the necessity that South Korea and Japan overcome historic differences to address current and future threats.

Washington should welcome and encourage growing South Korean-Japanese security cooperation. (For more from the author of “US Security Benefits When Japan, South Korea Share Intelligence” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why It’s Wrong That America Refused to Defend Its Embargo on Cuba at the UN

/0 Comments/in , /by

For the first time ever, the United States abstained from voting on a United Nations resolution condemning America’s embargo on Cuba.

This breaks decades of bipartisan support for U.S. law on the international stage. It shows just how far the Obama administration is willing to take its misguided and ill-informed Cuba policy.

For the past quarter century, the Castro regime annually introduced a U.N. General Assembly resolution blaming America’s trade embargo for the island’s chronic economic and social problems and calling for the end of the embargo. Until Wednesday, the U.S. has always voted against the resolution, often standing virtually alone in defense of human rights and democracy for the Cuban people.

President Barack Obama’s administration has refuted this bipartisan position. Ben Rhodes, deputy national security Adviser, stated there was “no reason to defend a failed policy.”

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power celebrated the abstention by declaring the U.S. was closing the door on “50-plus years of pursuing isolation,” in favor of choosing the “path of engagement” in order to be better able to empower the Cuban people.

This is no cause for celebration. The U.S. embargo is not the source of the suffering of ordinary Cubans, but rather the Castro regime and its economically destructive policies. Over 190 countries do not observe the U.S. embargo and engage with Cuba economically and diplomatically, and yet there has been no positive change on the island.

If “engagement” with the rest of the world has not alleviated economic hardship or produced positive political change in Cuba, then the Obama administration and the international community must realize that it has been the policies of the Castro regime itself that have led to the deplorable conditions on the island.

The Obama administration made this exact argument as recently as 2014, when U.S. Ambassador Ronald D. Godard stated in explanation of America’s vote against the Cuba resolution:

The Cuban government uses this annual resolution in an attempt to shift blame for the island’s economic problems away from its own policy failures … the Cuban economy will not thrive until the Cuban government permits a free and fair labor market, fully empowers Cuban independent entrepreneurs, respects intellectual property rights, allows unfettered access to information via the internet, opens its state monopolies to private competition, and adopts the sound macroeconomic policies that have contributed to the success of Cuba’s neighbors in Latin America. …

The United States strongly supports the Cuban people’s desire to determine their own future, through the free flow of information to, from, and within Cuba. The right to receive and impart information and ideas through any media is set forth in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the Cuban government’s policies that continue to prevent enjoyment of this right. …

This resolution only serves to distract from the real problems facing the Cuban people, and therefore my delegation will oppose it … We encourage this world body to support the desires of the Cuban people to choose their own future. By doing so, it would truly advance the principles the United Nations Charter was founded upon, and the purposes for which the United Nations was created.

Abruptly abandoning America’s principled position of championing the Cuban people against the repression of its government is a disgrace.

Repealing the embargo, which is the aim of the U.N. resolution on which the U.S. abstained Wednesday, will do nothing but further empower the brutal Castro regime. It would also serve to diminish the leverage we would bring to any engagement we have with Cuba. The U.S. must recognize that it is the Castro regime that needs to change its policies first, not the other way around.

It is one thing for the Obama administration to pursue its reckless policy toward Cuba domestically, but quite another to fail to defend our nation against a U.N. resolution attacking America’s laws and established policy. It demonstrates a shocking disregard for its responsibility to loyally represent and defend our nation and its policies in international organizations.

Unfortunately, the potential for damage by the Obama administration in the U.N. is not limited to fecklessness on nonbinding Cuba resolutions in the General Assembly.

The Palestinians are reportedly sounding out the Security Council in another attempt to secure full U.N. membership and demand a halt to Israeli settlements. Would anyone be surprised if the Obama administration changed its position on this as well? (For more from the author of “Here’s Why It’s Wrong That America Refused to Defend Its Embargo on Cuba at the UN” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

An Ancient Rabbi Brings an Urgent Warning to Christian Leaders Today

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the year 123 A.D., the Roman government launched a severe crackdown against the Jews, culminating in 134 A.D., when all Jewish practices were forbidden, including circumcision, Torah study, and Sabbath observance.

How did the rabbis respond? One of the noted leaders of that day, Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon, conducted public Torah classes, paying for it with his life.

But this was no emotional, spur of the moment decision. There was a rationale behind his actions, traceable to Rabbi Akiva, the greatest rabbinic sage of that era, also martyred for his allegiance to Torah.

The Talmud relates:

Once the wicked Roman government issued a decree forbidding the Jews to study and practice the Torah. Pappus ben Judah came by and, upon finding Rabbi Akiva publicly holding sessions in which he occupied himself with Torah, Pappus asked him: “Akiva, are you not afraid of the government?”

Rabbi Akiva replied: “You, Pappus, who are said to be wise, are in fact a fool. I can explain what I am doing by means of a parable: A fox was walking on a river bank and, seeing fishes hastening here and there, asked them, ‘From whom are you fleeing?’ They replied, ‘From the nets and traps set for us by men.’ So the fox said to them, ‘How would you like to come up on dry land, so that you and I may live together the way my ancestors lived with yours?’ They replied, ‘You — the one they call the cleverest of animals — are in fact a fool. If we are fearful in the place where we can stay alive, how much more fearful should we be in a place where we are sure to die!’

“So it is with us. If we are fearful when we sit and study Torah, of which it is written, ‘For that is thy life and the length of thy days’ (Deut. 30:20), how much more fearful ought we to be should we cease the study of words of Torah!” (see b. Berakhot 61b with Eyn Yaakov)

There is a lesson here for us today, especially those of us in Christian leadership. I pray that we will take heed!

You see, for years we have made careful calculations, not wanting to rock the boat, not wanting to offend our constituents, not wanting to stir up controversy, not wanting to provoke the ire of our ideological enemies. And outwardly, it appeared that our “tiptoe through the culture wars” strategy was succeeding, as our church buildings were full and our bank accounts overflowing.

But all the while, we were selling our souls, losing our lives to save our lives, denying the calling of the Lord to preserve our reputations. And now we are paying the price, with our religious freedoms being threatened and with some dangerous, uncharted waters ahead should Hillary Clinton be elected.

A Christian leader might protest and say, “You have it all wrong. If things get really rough, then we’ll take a stand. When we’re truly threatened with the loss of our freedoms, then we’ll be courageous.”

That, my friend, is a self-deceived mindset, like a morbidly obese man who says, “It’s true that I can’t get up the stairs without losing my breath, but if I need to run up those stairs, I’ll be ready.”

Not a chance.

As the Lord said to Jeremiah the prophet when he was complaining about the tough times he was experiencing in his hometown of Anathoth, “If you race with the foot-runners and they exhaust you, how then can you compete with horses? If you are secure only in a tranquil land, how will you fare in the jungle of the Jordan?” (Jer. 12:5, New Jewish Publication Society Version)

To apply this to us in America now, if we’re afraid to speak up today because someone will unfriend us on Facebook, what will we do tomorrow when someone puts a gun to our heads? (That gun could be metaphorical or real.)

If we won’t take a stand today for fear of losing some wealthy congregants, what will we do tomorrow when obedience to God will cost us our tax exemption?

If, in our Christian schools today, we won’t address cultural controversies for fear of offending some board members (or drawing the attention of the local accrediting association), what will we do tomorrow when refusing to compromise could mean the complete shutting down of our schools, along with a possible prison sentence?

People of God, it’s time for us to wake up. Do you sense the Lord stirring your heart?

If Donald Trump is our next president, he might well stand up for our religious liberties, helping to push back against the anti-Christian spirit rising in our land. But if we don’t seize the moment and come out of our self-imposed closets, speaking the truth with boldness and love, a far worse fate will come upon us.

And if Hillary Clinton is our next president, you can be sure that you will be in her crosshairs.

What will we do then?

Will we cave in and capitulate, claiming in our pseudo-spiritual language that, “The culture wars are over and God just wants to love others”? Or will we demonstrate real love for God and our neighbor by declaring with Paul, “I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death”? (See Phil. 1:20, NIV) Note that he wrote this from prison, facing potential martyrdom.

Now is the time to read the stories of men and women of God from past generations (and to this day) who refused to bow down to the gods of this age, laying down their lives rather than denying their Lord.

Now is the time for us to take a determined, uncompromising stand — while it is still light and while the door is still open — before we hang our heads in shame when our kids and grandkids ask us, “What were you afraid of? Why were you so silent? Why did you let this happen to us?”

I’m not counseling anyone to do anything foolish — to provoke some kind of religious conflict or to engage in self-righteous, obnoxious behavior or to respond in a fleshly, emotional way. Instead, I’m urging each of us (in particular those of us in leadership), to do what is right today, to stand for what is true regardless of cost or consequences, walking in the footsteps of Jesus our Lord.

As He warned us repeatedly, “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (see, for example, Mark 8:35, ESV). It’s time we find out exactly what He meant, before the spirit of the world entices us out of our element (like that fox enticing the fish), thereby leading us to our spiritual graves.

In short, to compromise is to shrivel up and die; to obey the Lord at any cost is to flourish and thrive. What will we do? Let us heed the wisdom of an ancient rabbi, and let us shout our message from the rooftops, without shame and without fear. And let us remember again the words of Jesus, who said, “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38, ESV)

It’s time that the whole world know that we are not ashamed. (For more from the author of “An Ancient Rabbi Brings an Urgent Warning to Christian Leaders Today” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Death With Dignity? European Countries Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill

/0 Comments/in , /by

In his weekend editorial, Chris Lane of The Washington Post outlined how the once truly unthinkable has now become reality: The mentally ill are now being regularly euthanized in the developed countries of Belgium and the Netherlands in Europe.

Writes Lane, on a recent report from Belgium’s Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia:

In the 2014-2015 period, the report says, 124 of the 3,950 euthanasia cases in Belgium involved persons diagnosed with a “mental and behavioral disorder,” four more than in the previous two years. Tiny Belgium’s population is 11.4 million; 124 euthanasias over two years there is the equivalent of about 3,500 in the United States.

The figure represents 3.1 percent of all 2014-2015 euthanasia cases — and a remarkable 20.8 percent of the (also remarkable) 594 non-terminal patients to whom Belgian doctors administered lethal injections in that period.

Belgium, of course, became the first country in the world to do away with age restrictions for euthanasia and passed the so-called “right to die” for patients suffering “unbearably” from “untreatable” conditions, regardless of whether or not the condition is terminal. In 2014, there were a reported 1,800 cases of euthanasia in Belgium.

This includes mental conditions like autism, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, and even depression. Meanwhile, The Netherlands (the first country to legalize euthanasia) are trying to further relax its euthanasia policies.

Of course, similar trends are already starting in the United States, upending the popular narrative of assisted suicide that Brittany Maynard tried to craft in 2014, when she became the new face of America’s “right to die” and “death with dignity” movement.

In 2008, Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old cancer patient in Oregon, was denied coverage of her lung cancer medication by her insurance company. Rather, Oregon Health Plan (the state’s Medicaid program) offered to pay for the $50 drugs necessary in a doctor-prescribed death.

More recently, Stephanie Packer, a 33-year-old terminally-ill mother of four in California received similar news. Rather than cover the inconvenient expenses of chemotherapy treatment, her insurance company determined that she was more cost-effective to them dead. So, instead, they offered to provide drugs that would end her life, as the End of Life Option Act made it a legal option in the Golden State in June .

The effect on support groups has been particularly notable. “[P]eople constantly are talking about, ‘We should be doing this [dying],’” Packer stated, via the New York Post.

It was only after threatening to go public with the story that Packer — a devout Roman Catholic who “wanted no part of” physician-assisted suicide — had her treatment approved.

And while many in the culture of death like to dismiss protests to the contrary, dismissing all “slippery slope” warnings as wholly irrational and unfound fears, the trajectory of history’s “necessary evils” show that they often become positive goods with far worse unintended consequences.

We in America are more familiar with this kind of slippery slope at the beginning of life, rather than the end. It’s the kind of slope that transforms the taking of unborn life from an illegal, hushed affair to a necessary evil, to something that public figures can now openly joke about applying post-birth as well.

Over the weekend, Newsbusters’ Jack Coleman reported that at Vanity Fair’s third annual “New Establishment Summit,” the publication’s contributing editor Fran Lebowitz brazenly called for “retroactive abortions” against pro-life advocates like Mike Pence, referring to the VP nominee and other pro-lifers as “perfect advertisements” for having a child murdered.

Lebowitz may very well be joking about having her political enemies murdered in utero, such a joke could only exist in a truly despairing social climate. Despite the fact that the percentage of pro-choice Americans is on the rise, the arguments of many in the pro-abortion crowd have long since left the realm of “necessary evil” in their efforts to make the grisly mundane. After all, in the era of “shouting your abortion,” abortion parties, and celebrating the procedure with tacos and beer, the appearance of a joke like Lebowitz’s in a national outlet is just par for the course.

The problem with permitting “necessary evils” in a society on utilitarian grounds is that they rarely seem to stay that way. Such was the case with slavery in our early republic, and such is proving to be the case with utilitarian euthanasia in Europe and some jurisdictions in the U.S.

We currently have before us the whole pattern of events from across the Atlantic, and what is now occurring in our very own courthouses and hospitals. They show us that when the “right to die” becomes a duty to die (it always does), the implications fall hardest on the most vulnerable — the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and yes, the mentally ill.

The fact that this is even occurring ought to give voters in both the District of Columbia and the State of Colorado (both of which are currently considering assisted suicide bills) pause regarding the frightening euphemisms/promises of “death with dignity.”

Perhaps describing these trends as “slippery slopes” is insufficient to their nature, as they more closely resemble a grim and merciless riptide. (For more from the author of “Death With Dignity? European Countries Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yazidi Children Screamed and Cried Outside the Door While ISIS Fighters Raped Their Mothers

/0 Comments/in , /by

As the Islamic State continues its genocide of Yazidis and Christians in Syria and Iraq, a detailed report by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council reveals that Yazidi mothers and their children are brutally persecuted – mothers sold and re-sold as sex slaves, children murdered, and children traumatized from being forced to listen behind locked doors as their mothers are raped and beaten.

One Yazidi woman who was sold seven times to ISIS fighters said, “When he would force me into a room with him, I could hear my children screaming and crying outside the door. Once he became very angry. He beat and threatened to kill them. He forced two of them to stand outside barefoot in the snow until he finished with me.”

An ISIS fighter killed the children of a Yazidi woman who was sold three times as a sex slave. When she asked him, “What did you do to them?” he beat her and said, “They are kuffar [non-Muslim] children. It is good they are dead. Why are you crying for them?”

The U.N. report from June, They Came to Destroy: ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis, explains the Islamic State’s attacks on Yazidi villages in Sinjar in August 2014 and the subsequent (and ongoing) genocidal actions taken by ISIS to destroy the Yazidi people.

The report is based on 45 interviews with survivors, religious leaders, doctors and journalists. An estimated 5,000 Yazidis have been killed, so far, by the Islamic State. “ISIS has sought to destroy the Yazidis through killings, sexual slavery, enslavement, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and forcible transfer causing serious bodily and mental harm,” states the report. (Read more from “Yazidi Children Screamed and Cried Outside the Door While ISIS Fighters Raped Their Mothers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Socialist, Refugee Advocate to Run UN for Next 5 Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

While it’s hardly the election to get the most attention this year, the United Nations General Assembly has confirmed a nominee with a background in socialist politics and refugee matters to be the organization’s new secretary-general.

The 193-member United Nations General Assembly approved Antonio Guterres, a socialist whom President Barack Obama called a man of “character, vision, and skills” in a statement five days before speaking with him on the phone.

Guterres replaces U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who served two five-year terms and is stepping down from the position on Dec. 31.

Obama said in his statement that the new secretary-general would be instrumental in dealing with “unprecedented challenges” facing the world, including the surge of millions of displaced people and climate change.

In the midst of the Syrian civil war, the refugee crisis has become front and center for most Western countries, including the United States. Guterres, 67, was prime minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002, as head of the country’s Socialist Party. He also was the head of the U.N. High Commission for Refugees from 2005 through 2015. Both roles involved some controversy.

When addressing the U.N. General Assembly after his victory, Guterres talked about bringing relief to refugees and promoting gender equality as key priorities, but also said he would take a limited approach to his new office.

“I believe this process means that the true winner today is the credibility of the U.N. And it also made very clear to me that, as secretary-general, having been chosen by all member states, I must be at the service of them all equally and with no agenda but the one enshrined in the U.N. Charter,” Guterres said.

The bigger question might be whether the role matters, said Fred Fleitz, a former U.N. analyst for the CIA and the chief of staff for former U.N. ambassador John Bolton.

“The U.N. is more and more a nonentity,” Fleitz told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “It’s used to justify actions, but because of the vetoes on the Security Council, there is no way to act on Syria or North Korea. I don’t know if this election matters.”

Still, Fleitz said he believes the socialist background of the new secretary-general is relevant.

“It should be concerning to have someone with that perspective for thinking along the lines of one-world government at a time when the world is moving away from that, if you look at the European Union,” Fleitz said.

In addition to leading the Socialist Party in Portugal, Guterres presided over Socialist International, a global group of 153 socialists, social democratic, and labor party leaders, from 1999 to 2005.

Guterres weathered controversy in both of his past positions, said Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow in international and regulatory affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

Guterres resigned as prime minister of Portugal when the Socialist Party took heavy losses in the 2001 local elections following an economic downturn. At the U.N., a 2010 independent Board of Auditors cited the United Nation’s refugee agency for weak financial management and oversight.

Still, Guterres was clearly the best out of a crowded field of candidates for the job, Schaefer said. Schaefer said he thinks the new U.N. chief’s socialist affiliations say something about him.

“It provides some insight into his political leanings and shows that he advocates an economy where the state is more interventionist in markets and over the lives of individuals,” Schaefer told The Daily Signal.

Schaefer anticipates that Guterres will be a strong spokesman on the refugee front, possibly using his platform to call for more Western countries to increase the number of refugees they take in.

“I’m sure he will advocate for the part of the U.N. system he knows the best, given the significant rise in refugees we’ve seen in recent years, he will do what he can to address that problem,” Schaefer said.

Ultimately, Guterres’ ability to push an agenda will be limited, since the U.N. Security Council has the ultimate authority to make major decisions, Schaefer said. That’s why Schaefer contends it would be better to focus on weeding out waste and corruption in the organization.

Guterres, a practicing Catholic, is a trained engineer and was a professor before going into politics in 1974. Guterres will take his post in January, just weeks before the inauguration of a new U.S. president. (For more from the author of “Socialist, Refugee Advocate to Run UN for Next 5 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What the US Needs to Do About Russia’s Cyberattacks

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. finally is ramping up its response to Russian cyberattacks. Good.

The bad news is our response shows how ill thought-out both our strategy toward Russia and our policies for retaliating against malicious cyber operations are.

Russia has been linked to many cyber incidents, most notably the hack of the Democratic National Committee and subsequent email leak that led to the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., as party chairman.

Vice President Joe Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and other parts of the U.S. intelligence community now publicly blame Russia for these breaches.

Russia’s cyber aggression recently has been aimed at the U.S. presidential election, making many Americans concerned about Russian interference in our political system. Indeed, that’s the point: Russia long has used information and psychological warfare to attack and undermine those who oppose it.

In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd recorded Oct. 13, Biden said an upcoming retaliatory strike “will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.”

The vice president said he hoped it would go unnoticed by the American public. Openly hinting that a covert action soon may be underway probably wasn’t the best decision, though.

The United States has indicted hackers from China and Iran in the recent past.

In 2014, the Justice Department filed charges against five Chinese military hackers for computer hacking and economic espionage. It was the first time in American history that the government charged a state actor for that type of hacking.

In March 2016, the government charged seven Iranian hackers for conducting a coordinated campaign of cyberattacks against the U.S. financial sector.

But while indicting hackers is a step in the right direction, these limited responses from the U.S. are not effectively deterring countries such as Russia.

So it’s good to see the Obama administration seriously contemplating how to retaliate for Russian aggression in cyberspace. However, it already should have had a strategy in place for how it would respond. The U.S. has faced ever-increasing cyberespionage, breaches, and attacks over the past decade, but does not yet know what it will do.

The response from the U.S. should have been as swift as possible, using one of many tools at our disposal: cyber action of our own, legal action, sanctions, increased support to nations threatened by Russia, and so on. But better late than never.

And this should not be a one-time deal. The U.S. should make this type of retaliation a more regular occurrence.

While retaliation and providing evidence to justify it must be balanced with keeping intelligence secrets, the U.S. has done little to publicly push back against bad actors. More must be done.

Nor should the U.S. be alone in this effort. The U.S. should coordinate with allies and other partners affected by malicious cyber operations in pushing back against the nations behind that aggression. More effective responses will help deter these nations from acting so aggressively in the first place.

When foreign governments compromise our nation’s cybersecurity, the United States cannot rely on words or speeches as deterrence. A firm response sends a clear message and conveys American resolve. (For more from the author of “What the US Needs to Do About Russia’s Cyberattacks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Duterte Aligns Philippines With China, Says U.S. Has Lost

/0 Comments/in , /by

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced his “separation” from the United States on Thursday, declaring he had realigned with China as the two agreed to resolve their South China Sea dispute through talks.

Duterte made his comments in Beijing, where he is visiting with at least 200 business people to pave the way for what he calls a new commercial alliance as relations with longtime ally Washington deteriorate.

“In this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States,” Duterte told Chinese and Philippine business people, to applause, at a forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli.

“Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost.”

Duterte’s efforts to engage China, months after a tribunal in the Hague ruled that Beijing did not have historic rights to the South China Sea in a case brought by the previous administration in Manila, marks a reversal in foreign policy since the 71-year-old former mayor took office on June 30. (Read more from “Duterte Aligns Philippines With China, Says U.S. Has Lost” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Missionaries in Aleppo Crucified and Beheaded

/0 Comments/in , /by

“At several steps on their path to death by beheading and crucifixion last month, 11 indigenous Christian workers near Aleppo, Syria had the option to leave the area and live. The 12-year-old son of a ministry team leader also could have spared his life by denying Christ…” . . .

We’re not hearing much about Aleppo’s Christians: the mainstream media don’t care very much what happens to them:

..The Syrian ministry workers in those villages chose to stay in order to provide aid in the name of Christ to survivors.

“I asked them to leave, but I gave them the freedom to choose,” said the ministry director, his voice tremulous as he recalled their horrific deaths. “As their leader, I should have insisted that they leave.”

They stayed because they believed they were called to share Christ with those caught in the crossfire, he said.

(Read more from “Christian Missionaries in Aleppo Crucified and Beheaded” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cuban Dictatorship Governed More Severely During 2 Years of US Engagement

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the waning months of his presidency, President Barack Obama issued a directive he called “irreversible,” expanding transactions related to Cuban pharmaceuticals, increasing transportation, and greater commercial opportunities between the United States and the communist dictatorship.

Part of the expanded cooperation will include doing business with state-owned enterprises on property confiscated from Americans during the revolution, said Jason I. Problete, an attorney representing American families who saw their homes and businesses taken by the Cuban government.

“Access to U.S. markets is a privilege, not a right,” Problete told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “The U.S. will be authorizing engaging with businesses stolen from Americans.”

Obama’s directive marks an expansion on his December 2014 move to normalize relations with Cuba. Notably, the directive will lift rules to make it easier to import Cuban cigars and rum by removing the monetary value restrictions on what people can bring to the U.S. when returning from Cuba.

Americans have made 5,913 certified claims against the Cuban government regarding confiscated property from the 5-decade-old revolution. Of those, about 5,000 are from families, while the rest are corporations that operated in Cuba, Problete said.

Taking steps to return property is one condition the United States placed on Cuba in order to lift the embargo. Other requirements include taking steps toward democracy and a free press. Critics complain that the Cuban government not only made no concessions, but has tightened its power grip since the Obama administration normalized relations.

“Almost two years after a policy should be enough to know what the behavior of the regime is going to be,” Cuban dissident leader Antonio Rodiles, who met with Obama in the Cuban capital of Havana this year, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “The Obama administration is moving ahead even though the regime has become more aggressive.”

On Friday, Obama touted his directive as building on the success.

“This directive takes a comprehensive and whole-of-government approach to promote engagement with the Cuban government and people, and make our opening to Cuba irreversible,” Obama said in a statement Friday. “These changes are representative of the progress I saw firsthand when I visited Havana to personally extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people.”

It was during Obama’s visit in March to Cuba that the communist government made 498 politically motivated arrests, according to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights.

In the time since Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro agreed to normalize relations, the Cuban government made 8,616 politically motivated arrests in 2015, and 7,418 in the first six months of 2016, according to the human rights group. The Cuban government increased its violations of religious freedom “tenfold” according to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, with 2,300 violations in 2015, up from 220 in 2014.

“There is no such thing as dictator-down economics,” said Ana Quintana, policy analyst for Latin America and the Western Hemisphere at The Heritage Foundation.

“There is no evidence this will help the Cuban people. It will help the Cuban government and Communist Party elite.”

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew insisted the directive would be a benefit for bringing prosperity to Cubans.

“The Treasury Department has worked to break down economic barriers in areas such as travel, trade and commerce, banking, and telecommunications,” Lew said in a statement. “Today’s action builds on this progress by enabling more scientific collaboration, grants and scholarships, people-to-people contact, and private sector growth.”

Lew’s comments illustrate another problem in the upbeat scenario framed by the Obama administration, Quintana said.

“There is no such thing as a private sector in Cuba,” Quintana said. “If it isn’t state-owned, what you have is the black market. The Cuban government owns and operates the rum and the cigar manufacturing.”

Under the new directive, the Treasury Department will allow Americans and Cubans to engage in joint medical research. Certain Cuban-made pharmaceuticals will be imported into the United States.

The Treasury is also authorizing American companies to award grants and scholarships to Cuban nationals, while also allowing U.S. entities to spend money on Cuban infrastructure. New Commerce Department rules also lift numerous trade restrictions even though the Cuban embargo is still in place.

It would take an act of Congress to lift the Cuban embargo.

Rodiles said even if the 50-year-old embargo wasn’t deemed effective, the current policy is not a sufficient substitute.

“If the previous policy was not working, don’t just change the policy to something that is not gaining the results you are seeking,” Rodiles said. “There were no commitments made by the regime. They can still do whatever they want to do.” (For more from the author of “Cuban Dictatorship Governed More Severely During 2 Years of US Engagement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.