"Technology is the Totem of Modern Man" 

"No One Has the Right to Label Warfare" 
- Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui in Unrestricted Warfare

"Today oppression is fashionable again; the security state is back, and fundamental freedoms are in retreat in every region of the world." 
- Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein

1. North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Trump have 'special' relationship: KCNA
2. Don't be surprised when South Korea wants nuclear weapons
3. NK to see how 'wisely' Washington acts through year-end deadline: official
4. Kurds and Koreans
5. Wife of ex-justice minister arrested after 2-month probe (South Korea)
6.  Korea, U.S. hold new round of defense cost-sharing talks in Honolulu
7. A solid alliance is key (ROK/US)


1.  North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Trump have 'special' relationship: KCNA
I thought the "special relationship" was between the US and UK. (sarcasm) . It is interesting that Kim Kye Kwan is making statements.

North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Trump have 'special' relationship: KCNA

Reuters · by Joyce Lee2 Min Read · October 23, 2019
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump continue to have close relations and trust, with Kim calling the relationship "special," North Korea's state news agency KCNA said on Thursday.
The statement comes after North Korea earlier this month broke off working-level talks with the United States in Sweden, pushing denuclearization negotiations back into limbo after what had been months of stalemate.
North Korea had cast the blame on the U.S., saying the other side's negotiators would not "give up their old viewpoint and attitude."
Kim Jong Un "said that the relationship between him and President Trump is special" a few days ago, according to the KCNA statement.
"I sincerely hope that a motive force to overcome all the obstacles between the DPRK and the U.S. and to advance the bilateral relations in the better direction will be provided on the basis of the close relationship," the KCNA statement, under the name of Foreign Ministry adviser Kim Kye Gwan, said.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is North Korea's official name.
However, contrary to Trump, "Washington political circles and DPRK policy makers of the U.S. administration are hostile to the DPRK for no reason, preoccupied with the Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice." the statement said.
The statement said North Korea will see "how wisely the U.S. will pass the end of the year."
North Korea's Kim Jong Un had earlier set an end-of-the-year deadline for denuclearization talks with Washington.
Reporting by Joyce Lee; Editing by Sandra Maler and Chris Reese
Reuters · by Joyce Lee2 Min Read · October 23, 2019

2. Don't be surprised when South Korea wants nuclear weapons
A nuclear freeze in north Korea?  That will not protect South Korea.

For my Korean friends who advocate for tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula I ask what is your concept of employment for them in war?  What targets require nuclear weapons - more specifically what targets are there in north Korea than cannot be destroyed by using conventional munitions?  Why would you use nuclear weapons if conventional weapons suffice?

Excerpts:
Even if acquiring them is infeasible for now, support for nuclear weapons is more and more in fashion. South Korean policy elites understand that the country is fundamentally responsible for ensuring its own security in an anarchic world. If the United States and the world want to prevent South Korea from starting a nuclear weapons program, it is essential that Washington work toward a nuclear freeze in North Korea and reaffirm its commitment to the bilateral alliance.

Don't be surprised when South Korea wants nuclear weapons - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

thebulletin.org · October 23, 2019
By  Byong-Chul Lee, October 23, 2019
US President Donald Trump meets Kim Jong-un at the Korean Demilitarized Zone, June 30, 2019. Credit: Public Domain.
There are two major variables that factor into South Korea's calculus on starting a nuclear weapons program: the feasibility of North Korea abandoning its nuclear weapons voluntarily, and the guarantee of America's extended deterrence in the event of the nuclear crisis on the peninsula. Both are trending in the wrong direction.
North Korea's intermittent nuclear threats have increasingly weighed on the minds of the broader public in South Korea, and South Koreans have started to suspect that there's no ray of hope left for the complete denuclearization of North Korea. "Denuclearization is the dying wish of Kim Il-sung, the founder of the regime," South Koreans have heard countless North Koreans say. But the North's assertion that the founder's dying wish is still operative is at best disingenuous and at worst an outright lie. In hindsight, denuclearization was dead on arrival.
Unsurprisingly, a growing chorus of voices in South Korea has given up on the rosy fantasy of disarming Kim Jong-un and is instead calling for arming the "Land of the Morning Calm" with destructive nuclear weapons. A September 2017  Gallup poll found 60 percent of South Koreans support nuclear armament, while only 35 percent are opposed. Though the public is anxiously waiting to see if North Korea will strike a deal with the Trump administration, few remain optimistic.
While many decision makers still believe that the best course is to rely on the extended deterrence provided by the United States nuclear umbrella, a growing number are quietly contemplating the alternatives. During a recent  speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, former South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said that "the Republic of Korea taking its own measures to create a nuclear balance on the peninsula" was a "widely touted" option. Such a statement is strong evidence of just how far moderate proponents of nonproliferation have shifted.
The reason for this shift is that today, South Koreans cast a much more doubtful eye toward the United States security guarantee than ever. In particular,  more conservatives, who are traditionally reliably US-friendly, do not hide their uneasiness about President Trump. Many were offended when, at a rally earlier this year, Trump brought up the issue of the burden-sharing arrangement for US personnel in South Korea and  mocked that, "[i]t was easier to get a billion dollars from South Korea than to get $114.13 from a rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn."
More offensive, though, is that Trump has  conspicuously tolerated North Korean missile tests that directly threaten South Korea, which hosts  the third-largest contingent of overseas US troops as well as a US anti-ballistic missile defense system and is one of the world's biggest buyers of US arms. The more Trump brags about the letters from Kim Jong-un, the more he alienates an ally. Even moderate South Koreans see Trump's approach to the alliance as extremely petty and bigoted. In sum, his flagrant disregard for the traditional alliance undermines the credibility of extended deterrence and has made South Koreans pessimistic about their continued dependence upon the United States.
Many Americans, even in the administration, know all of this. In September, US Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun rhetorically asked, "at what point will voices in South Korea or Japan and elsewhere in Asia begin to ask if they need to be considering their own nuclear capabilities?" Unfortunately, though, little is being done to assuage South Korean concerns.
If these trends continue, a nuclear South Korea is a question of "when," not "if."
Of course, the path to a nuclear weapon would not be free of obstacles. South Korea, as the only country in the region that has never attacked any other neighboring countries, is a staunch defender of nonproliferation norms. Many pundits in academic and security policy circles as well as high ranking officials in government still fret about the feasibility of pursuing an independent nuclear deterrent. Few security analysts think it would be possible for any president to successfully pursue a such a politically dangerous path within the span of a five-year term.
There would be international pressure too. Global and bilateral nonproliferation instruments such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and the 2015 US-Republic of Korea Nuclear Cooperation Agreement strictly prevent the Seoul government from going nuclear. In short, South Korea is restrained not only by a powerful nuclear taboo but also by the International Atomic Energy Agency's water-tight monitoring presence.
Even if acquiring them is infeasible for now, support for nuclear weapons is more and more in fashion. South Korean policy elites understand that the country is fundamentally responsible for ensuring its own security in an anarchic world. If the United States and the world want to prevent South Korea from starting a nuclear weapons program, it is essential that Washington work toward a nuclear freeze in North Korea and reaffirm its commitment to the bilateral alliance.
Share:


3. NK to see how 'wisely' Washington acts through year-end deadline: official
More from Kim Kye Kwan including the end of year expiration date for the Trump=Kim bromance.

He also criticized Washington officials for being "hostile" to North Korea and preoccupied with the "Cold War mentality" despite Trump's political judgment and intention.

He said there is still a possibility of moving forward, but it depends on the actions of the US. "There is a will, there is a way. We want to see how wisely the U.S. will pass the end of the year," he added.

NK to see how 'wisely' Washington acts through year-end deadline: official

koreaherald.com · by The Korea Herald · October 24, 2019
A former top North Korean nuclear envoy said Thursday he hopes to see the United States act "wisely" through the end of the year, apparently referring to the deadline Pyongyang set for Washington to come up with a new proposal in their denuclearization negotiations.

In a statement, Kim Kye-gwan, a foreign ministry adviser, also voiced hope that "special" relations between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump will create a "motive force" to remove challenges between the two countries going forward.

"When I met the chairman of the State Affairs Commission (Kim Jong-un) and reported to him the pending problems arising in external affairs including the issue of the relations between the DPRK and the US a few days ago, he said that the relationship between him and President Trump is special," he said in the statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency in English.

"I sincerely hope that a motive force to overcome all the obstacles between the DPRK and the US and to advance the bilateral relations in the better direction will be provided on the basis of the close relationship," he added.

DPRK stands for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.


(AP-Yonhap)
He also criticized Washington officials for being "hostile" to North Korea and preoccupied with the "Cold War mentality" despite Trump's political judgment and intention.

He said there is still a possibility of moving forward, but it depends on the actions of the US. "There is a will, there is a way. We want to see how wisely the U.S. will pass the end of the year," he added.

His remarks appear to be aimed at urging Washington to take a more flexible approach in nuclear talks, while signaling Pyongyang's intention to resume talks that remain stalled.

The two countries held the meeting on Oct. 5 in Stockholm for the first time since the collapse of the second summit in February between North Korean leader Kim and Trump over how to match Pyongyang's denuclearization steps and Washington's sanctions relief.

The meeting, however, broke down again as they failed to narrow differences. Declaring its breakdown, the North blamed the US for coming to the negotiation table "empty-handed." Washington claimed it proposed "creative" ideas and had good discussions.

Pyongyang rejected Washington's desire to hold another meeting within a couple of weeks. In April, North Korean leader Kim said he will wait for the US' "courageous" decision until the end of this year, suggesting he could make a major shift in the country's nuclear policy if Washington doesn't make a marked change in its approach to negotiations.

Earlier this week, Trump touted his engagement with North Korea, raising the prospects for talks.

"There's some very interesting information on North Korea," he told a cabinet meeting Monday. "A lot of things are going on. And that's going to be a major rebuild at a certain point." (Yonhap)


4. Kurds and Koreans
Kurds and Koreans are like apples and oranges but I certainly understand the concern Koreans have with the US commitment to the alliance especially because of the President's words both as candidate and as POTUS.  But we must carefully consider how the alliance supports our interests.  One of the most important interests the US has in Northeast Asia is the prevention of conflict.  I think viewing the ROK/US alliance as a Cold War anachronism is wrong.  

On the other hand our federal democratic republic is a messy form of government.  But the democratic processes make it self correcting (from the perspective of those who do not agree with the policies of the current administration) which is both a strength and a perceived weakness.  Just as the current president is undoing many (most?) of the policies of the previous administration a future president may undo the policies of the current one.  And the same is true in South Korea as well.  

Excerpts:
The quotation about countries having "no permanent friends, only permanent interests," has been attributed to Henry Kissinger, Lord Palmerston, and Charles de Gaulle, among others. Maybe they all said it. The reason it appears so often is that it introduces a dose of realism when politicians get too carried away in romanticizing relations between countries. There is not much point to an alliance that doesn't serve the allies' long-term interests. The key phrase, however, is "long-term." The United States has benefited enormously for over seventy years from having long-term allies, even when their relationship has gone through inconvenient or aggravating periods. Russia and China envy the global U.S. alliance system and are attempting to emulate it-whether through Russian permanent bases abroad or through the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative-even as they watch the U.S. weakening its ties to allies.
An alliance is valuable almost only in so far as it is reliable. The United States has every right to expect allies to proportionately bear the burden and expense of their alliance. Allies in turn have a right to expect the United States to act reliably. The U.S. withdraw of troops from Syria, on top of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, intermediate nuclear forces (INF) agreement with Russia, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and other commitments-you can make your own list-puts U.S. reliability in question. That is tough on alliances, even one so apparently firmly established the one between the United States and South Korea.

Kurds and Koreans - The Peninsula

blog.keia.org · October 23, 2019
Posted on 23 October 2019.

By Mark Tokola
The Trump Administration's precipitous decision to remove American troops from Northeast Syria, where they had been allied with Kurdish forces in opposing ISIS, and had been deterring Turkish forces from attacking the Kurds, raises questions regarding the wisdom of relying on the United States. Of course, the U.S. commitment to have forces in the region had not been open-ended. They would have had to leave at some point. The shock came from the withdrawal coming without warning and apparently without a plan regarding what would happen next. The move seems to have taken everyone by surprise: the Kurds, U.S. allies, and even the U.S. government outside of President Trump's innermost circle-if he had told anyone at all ahead of his announcement.
The role and mission of U.S. troops deployed abroad is always open to discussion and policies can change. Even surprise is not necessarily a bad thing. Tactically, there are advantages to surprising adversaries. It is hard to ever imagine a circumstance, however, when one should surprise an ally, particularly in the battlefield. And if the surprise consists of suddenly leaving an ally to face an enemy alone, it will be hard to justify for any reason.
South Korea is among the countries most dependent on the United States for its security. It faces an overtly hostile North Korea and a China that often applies pressure on South Korea, for example in its opposition to South Korea deploying a defensive anti-missile system, THAAD. South Korea has integrated its armed forces with those of the U.S. in a Combined Forces Command (CFC) and has forgone developing its own long-range missiles, and perhaps even a nuclear weapons program, because of its trust in U.S. extended deterrence and U.S. commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea. How will South Korea view the U.S. abandonment of the Kurds?
First, the plight of the Kurds is not an abstract and distant concept for South Koreans. During the Iraq War, South Korean provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) operated in the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq. I visited a South Korean PRT is Irbil, Iraq in 2007 and saw first-hand the warm relationship between the South Korean teams and Kurds they were helping train in practical, civilian skills. The South Koreans also saw firsthand the personal relationships between the Americans operating in the area and the Kurds. I have to wonder what they are thinking today.
There are differences between what had been considered the U.S. commitment to protect the Kurds in Northeast Syria and the wartime and treaty alliance with South Korea. The former was a mutually expedient alliance, put together to serve specific and temporary purposes in the complicated and unpredictable context of the Middle East. It was not an alliance between countries. It was not a mutual defense pact. Perhaps this should be enough to reassure South Korea that its case is different and it need not worry about its reliance on the U.S. for its security.
And yet, South Koreans are concerned about U.S. reliability. They have found themselves on unsteady ground with the United States, whether going from the U.S.-Korean Free Trade Agreement being called a "gold standard" to "the worst agreement ever" in the course of a year, to burden sharing demands from the United States that have quintupled from a level which the U.S. had found satisfactory, to a unilateral suspension of joint military exercises that South Korea had agreed were essential to force readiness as the result of the first Trump-Kim summit in Singapore. Any of these might have been the result of an adjustment in U.S. foreign policy. Taken together, they look less like "America First," and more like, "Unreliable America."
The quotation about countries having "no permanent friends, only permanent interests," has been attributed to Henry Kissinger, Lord Palmerston, and Charles de Gaulle, among others. Maybe they all said it. The reason it appears so often is that it introduces a dose of realism when politicians get too carried away in romanticizing relations between countries. There is not much point to an alliance that doesn't serve the allies' long-term interests. The key phrase, however, is "long-term." The United States has benefited enormously for over seventy years from having long-term allies, even when their relationship has gone through inconvenient or aggravating periods. Russia and China envy the global U.S. alliance system and are attempting to emulate it-whether through Russian permanent bases abroad or through the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative-even as they watch the U.S. weakening its ties to allies.
An alliance is valuable almost only in so far as it is reliable. The United States has every right to expect allies to proportionately bear the burden and expense of their alliance. Allies in turn have a right to expect the United States to act reliably. The U.S. withdraw of troops from Syria, on top of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, intermediate nuclear forces (INF) agreement with Russia, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and other commitments-you can make your own list-puts U.S. reliability in question. That is tough on alliances, even one so apparently firmly established the one between the United States and South Korea.
Mark Tokola is the Vice President of the Korea Economic Institute of America. The views expressed here are his own.
Photo from Morning Calm Weekly Newspaper Installation Management Command, U.S. Army's photo stream on flickr Creative Commons.

Related


5. Wife of ex-justice minister arrested after 2-month probe (South Korea)
Excerpt:
The court's decision is expected to accelerate the prosecution's probe into Cho's family, which has continued despite criticism that the extent of investigation is excessive.
There is a high possibility that the prosecution will call in Cho for a probe into suspicions that the former justice minister may be aware of charges applied to Chung or might have been involved.

(3rd LD) Wife of ex-justice minister arrested after 2-month probe | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 김수연 · October 24, 2019
(ATTN: RECASTS headline, lead; ADDS more info throughout)
SEOUL, Oct. 24 (Yonhap) -- The wife of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk was arrested Thursday in a court decision that is expected to add traction to the prosecution's probe into charges over her daughter's college admission and a financial investment.
Following a hearing on Wednesday, a Seoul court approved an arrest warrant for Chung Kyung-sim, a professor, saying that the charges are justified and there is the possibility of her attempting to destroy evidence, among other reasons.
For about two months, the prosecution has been looking into Cho's family over allegations regarding the forgery of a college presidential citation, a dubious investment in a private equity fund (PEF) and academic favors.
The court's decision is expected to accelerate the prosecution's probe into Cho's family, which has continued despite criticism that the extent of investigation is excessive.
There is a high possibility that the prosecution will call in Cho for a probe into suspicions that the former justice minister may be aware of charges applied to Chung or might have been involved.
The prosecution sought an arrest warrant on Monday for Chung, a Dongyang University professor, over 11 charges that include obstruction of business, embezzlement and involvement in the destruction of evidence.
The 57-year-old is alleged to have been involved in fabricating a college presidential citation in relation to her daughter's academic admission.
She also faces allegations of embezzlement and capital market law violation for a 1 billion won (US$851,281) PEF investment by herself and her two children.
Chung has denied all allegations.
Chung's health problems did not appear to affect the court's decision.
Citing MRI test results, her legal representatives said she was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor and a cerebral blood blockage. But the court apparently judged that her health conditions show she can endure the probe while under detention.
The latest developments come a week after Cho abruptly resigned amid controversy about whether he was suitable for the Cabinet post.
A key architect for President Moon Jae-in's drive to reform the prosecution, Cho was appointed on Sept. 9 despite objections from opposition parties.
After his appointment, protesters staged street rallies for and against his appointment and prosecution reform measures.
Supporters of Cho called for thorough reform of the elite investigative agency and branded the prosecution's probe into his family as politically charged.
The court's decision sparked mixed responses from those for and against Cho's family.
Supporters of the former minister condemned the decision and pledged their plan to keep holding candlelight vigils to prevent the judiciary sector from handing down what they call a false ruling.
But those against Cho's family welcomed the decision, claiming that Cho should be also arrested.
sooyeon@yna.co.kr
mlee@yna.co.kr
(END)

6. Korea, U.S. hold new round of defense cost-sharing talks in Honolulu
Excerpt:
South Korea's top negotiator, Jeong Eun-bo, and his U.S. counterpart, James DeHart, met face to face for the first time. The first session of the negotiations in Seoul was attended by Jeong's predecessor, Chang Won-sam, as Jeong had not been officially appointed.
The allies have been under pressure to reach the 11th Special Measures Agreement (SMA), a bilateral cost-sharing deal, as the 10th SMA, struck in February, is set to expire on Dec. 31.
Before his departure for Hawaii, Jeong vowed to ensure that Seoul would shoulder a share that is "possible within the framework of the South Korea-U.S. alliance and from the economic standpoint" in a "reasonable and equitable" way.

(LEAD) Korea, U.S. hold new round of defense cost-sharing talks in Honolulu | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 송상호 · October 24, 2019
(ATTN: CHANGES photo)
SEOUL, Oct. 24 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and the United States held a fresh round of negotiations in Hawaii this week on the sharing of the cost for the upkeep of American troops on the peninsula, Seoul's foreign ministry said Thursday.
The two-day talks began in Honolulu on Wednesday (local time) with both sides bracing for yet another grueling tug of war over how much South Korea should pay next year and beyond for the stationing of the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).
Seoul has suggested a "reasonable and equitable" share in response to Washington's call for a hefty rise in its contributions.
South Korea's top negotiator, Jeong Eun-bo, and his U.S. counterpart, James DeHart, met face to face for the first time. The first session of the negotiations in Seoul was attended by Jeong's predecessor, Chang Won-sam, as Jeong had not been officially appointed.
The allies have been under pressure to reach the 11th Special Measures Agreement (SMA), a bilateral cost-sharing deal, as the 10th SMA, struck in February, is set to expire on Dec. 31.
Before his departure for Hawaii, Jeong vowed to ensure that Seoul would shoulder a share that is "possible within the framework of the South Korea-U.S. alliance and from the economic standpoint" in a "reasonable and equitable" way.
In this week's talks, Seoul and Washington may face off over a series of contentious issues, including the amount of Seoul's payments, the duration of the new SMA and other specific items that will be covered by the cost-sharing arrangement.
This year's SMA requires South Korea to pay 1.04 trillion won (US$886 million), an increase of 8.2 percent from the previous year.
Since 1991, Seoul has shouldered partial costs under the SMA -- for Korean civilians hired by the USFK, the construction of military facilities to maintain the allies' readiness and other forms of support.
sshluck@yna.co.kr
(END)
7. A solid alliance is key (ROK/US)
A powerful statement from the Joongang Ilbo editorial board.  

The key to restraining Russia's ambitions lies with consolidating our alliance with Uncle Sam and expanding it to a tripartite security cooperation including Japan. And yet, a group of anti-U.S. and pro-North Korea college students broke into the U.S. ambassador's residence in Seoul. Such a mishap should not be repeated. 

My belief is there can be no successful outcome for US and ROK interests in Northeast Asia without a strong "rock solid" ROK/US alliance.

A solid alliance is key-INSIDE Korea JoongAng Daily

koreajoongangdaily.joins.com

중앙데일리

A solid alliance is key

Oct 24,2019
Six Russian military aircraft flew over the Korea Air Defense Identification Zone (Kadiz) on Tuesday without any prior notification. After 10 of our fighter jets took off in response, they avoided our airspace. Russia has violated the Kadiz 20 times this year. The Russian planes included not only an airplane equipped with the Airborne Warning and Control System (Awacs), but also bombers and fighter jets, which suggests the possibility of a routine, not accidental, maneuver. We cannot but regard the incursion as an intentional provocation given the fact it took place shortly before a scheduled military meeting between Seoul and Moscow to discuss Russia's frequent violations of the Kadiz. 

Even though air defense identification zones (ADIZ) are not globally accepted, they should be respected because of the need to prevent unwanted military clashes. Russia's flights over the Kadiz constitute a brazen denial of our airspace. 

Russia's repeated infiltrations result from a need to show off its military power amid a slackened alliance between South Korea and the United States. Deepening tensions between Russia and the United States on the international stage also play a part, particularly after U.S. President Donald Trump broke the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia. Moscow and Beijing must have been irked by the possibility of the United States deploying short-range missiles with its allies in Asia as a result of the nullification of the INF treaty. Russia's violation of the Kadiz is likely aimed at restraining the United States from deploying intermediate-range missiles in the region. 

Russia's provocative flights can also be an attempt to shake security cooperation among South Korea, the United States and Japan by fueling ongoing conflict between Seoul and Tokyo. That can explain why Russian military aircraft fly over the Dokdo islets - a sensitive airspace where the Kadiz and Japan's ADIZ overlap. Russia could reignite a territorial dispute between Seoul and Tokyo over the islets in the East Sea. 

Russia has made nonstop efforts to obtain an ice-free port in the Pacific since the 19th century. The country has never abandoned that dream. 

The key to restraining Russia's ambitions lies with consolidating our alliance with Uncle Sam and expanding it to a tripartite security cooperation including Japan. And yet, a group of anti-U.S. and pro-North Korea college students broke into the U.S. ambassador's residence in Seoul. Such a mishap should not be repeated. JoongAng Ilbo, Oct. 24, Page 34 



De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Personal Email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
Phone: 202-573-8647
Web Site:  www.fdd.org
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Subscribe to FDD's new podcastForeign Podicy
 
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.


If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."