For the sake of bilateral ties

FPJ Bureau, freepressjournal.in

Image from article, with caption: PM Narendra Modi Justin Trudeau speak during a joint press statement.

Even though the eight-day official visit of the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau has been largely dismissed as nothing much to write home about, there is urgent need for course correction as well as understanding the ground realities for mutually beneficial ties.

While it is no secret that the visiting dignitary is seeking to please his Sikh constituency back home, sections of its extremist elements are highly inimical to the unity and integrity of this country.

Consequently, the bilateral relations between New Delhi and Ottawa has remained luke warm and adrift requiring direly needed course correction. It is in this context that Trudeau’s low key reception has been in contrast to the attendant fanfare extended to other international dignitaries.

It is no secret that the red flag had gone up much before Trudeau’s sojourn to this country as strong protests made to Ottawa failed to evoke the desired response. This is particularly so after a resolution was moved in the Ontario provincial legislature categorising the 1984 anti-Sikh violence as “genocide”.

New Delhi had strong reservations about certain ministers accompanying Trudeau having Khalistani leanings. It was apparent that both the sides had concerns and issues which inexplicably remained in limbo adding an unsavoury dimension to the Canadian prime minister’s visit.

Trudeau’s cold shouldering may have been on account of the growing concern in this country that the Liberal government is too soft about the so called Khalistan cause in the sensitive border state of Punjab.

Canadian officials said one of the aspects of this trip was to ease the various Indian concerns. Trudeau had a meeting with Punjab chief minister Capt Amarinder Singh, an outspoken critic of the Canadian government’s indulgence of Sikh separatists. After his discussions last week, Amrinder Singh drew pointed attention to Trudeau’s commitment to the unity of this country.

Host prime minister Narendra Modi and Trudeau called for dismantling the infrastructure support to terrorism “from across the borders of Afghanistan,” an unambiguous reference to Pakistan. The Maldives government was urged to ensure early resumption of the political process. On Myanmar, the two sides sought voluntary, safe and sustainable return of the Rohingya refugees.

Analysts insist there is need for greater sensitivity to India’s concerns and mutual interest can be the driving force between the two countries. The significance of the framework for cooperation between India and Canada on countering terrorism and violent extremism is indicative of efforts to strengthen bilateral ties.

The terrorism framework names groups including Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation thereby signifying that the Trudeau administration is alive to New Delhi’s concerns.

The visit of Trudeau and his family in enhancing the awareness of Canada among Indians has given a boost to public diplomacy. He has hopefully returned home enlightened and aware of this country’s red lines.

What is encouraging is Modi’s resolve to remain engaged and the visitor’s acknowledgement of the dangers posed by Sikh extremism. It is important for New Delhi to develop a strategic partnership with Canada, a leading economic and political player on the international stage.

Firmly affirming India’s sovereignty, Trudeau promised to remove the impediments in enlarging and strengthening bilateral relations. The Canadian side expressed its commitment in neutralising the various terrorist organisations.

New Delhi must encourage Canada’s new found resolve to deal effectively with the menace of terrorism. However, hurdles remain in boosting India-Canada trade.

India’s decision to raise duties on pulses from Canada and the problems on reaching an agreement on a bilateral investment treaty as well as overcoming major hurdles in improving trade has to be resolved.

This country has been the largest market for Canadian pulses, peas and lentils. The bumper crop in this country last year led to reduced imports from that country to protect domestic farmers.

Both sides agreed to intensify efforts in finalising a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and a bilateral Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. It has become necessary for New Delhi to encourage countering Sikh extremism while boosting the partnership between the two countries.

Remarks for the Stabilization Advisory Council Launch

state.gov

Remarks
I. Steven (Steve) Goldstein
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Martin Van Buren Room
Washington, DC
February 27, 2018

As Prepared for Delivery

Good morning. Thank you all for being here today for the launch of the Stabilization Advisory Council. It is truly my honor to welcome you here to the Department of State.

Working on conflict stabilization is not new to any of us. In the 1940s, the United States stabilized European economies after World War II through the Marshall Plan’s economic aid. In advocating for the plan, Secretary Marshall said, “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.”

In the 21st century, achieving political stability requires that diplomacy goes beyond governments and builds partnerships between government and civil society. Today’s conflicts often span borders, fueled by extremist ideology and rhetoric, rarely ending in formal peace agreements or military victory. The Department of State works in partnership with allies, international organizations, NGOs, faith-based institutions, businesses, and civil society to arrive at peaceful solutions.

Government is at its best when it partners with civil society to create the space for new ideas to take root and flourish. You and I both know great ideas often come from civil society – from the private and non-profit sectors, philanthropy, think tanks, and academia. It is these ideas that become the cornerstone of sound policies and programs.

I believe you offer an important and unique perspective on one of the toughest global challenges we all face: conflict stabilization. This is why you were invited today: because you all have a wealth of great ideas to share.

History demonstrates that wars and violence start when systems breakdown that allow citizens to engage one another peacefully. This is particularly true when perceptions of marginalization and inequality exist without a means to address them. It is worth noting that the conventional definition of war – armed hostilities between two nation states – often no longer explains today’s conflicts. Instead, international violence increasingly includes individuals or independent groups that cross state borders and destabilize governments and local communities.

Bullets alone will not end these conflicts. For all who are committed to building peace and reducing conflict, we must dedicate ourselves to promoting and engaging both the grassroots and government levels. We must work together at the local and international levels to win peace for all. This is why we are launching the Stabilization Advisory Council, a new public-private partnership to foster collaboration between the Department of State and leaders from the private sector, civil society, and academia. Each of you are our partners in peace – maybe you didn’t think this when you looked at yourselves in the mirror today, but it is true of each of you.

States alone cannot address these problems. We must emphasize building resilience among the most vulnerable. By resilient communities, we mean communities where local leaders, families, schools, and peers know how to spot and address signs of terrorist radicalization. Where mentors or institutions offer powerful counter-arguments or provide alternative paths. Where citizens, law enforcement, and local officials are bound by trust and cooperation. Where the vulnerable have ways to foster a sense of purpose, community, and dignity. Where local voices take the lead in speaking out against violent ideologies, corruption and propaganda. In these resilient communities, terrorist groups will struggle to find new followers and safe havens.

We are excited to invite you to join the Stabilization Advisory Council as a means of fostering these partnerships and collaborating for solutions. We value what you do as individual organizations, and we are keen to see the greatness we can achieve together.

I ask you to join us at this critical time and to take part in something that will be of great service to both the United States and to the world.

Thank you.

Alumni: ‘We are deeply concerned by the Kennan Institute’s growing pro-Kremlin policies’

Kennan Institute Alumni, kyivpost.com

Image from entry, with caption: Matthew Rojansky is director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.

Editor’s Note: The following is an open letter of the Ukrainian Association of the Kennan Institute Alumni published on Feb. 27.

Feb. 27, 2018

The Honorable Jane Harman, Director and CEO

CC: Kennan Institute Advisory Council

Dear Ms. Harman!

Dear Members of the Kennan Institute Advisory Council!

The Ukrainian Association of Kennan Institute alumni would like to renew to the Wilson Center the assurances of its highest consideration and express its deep concern with the worrisome trends in the overall management and strategy of the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute. After careful consideration, we would like to request that Wilson Center leadership disintegrate the Ukraine program from the Kennan Institute and transfer it under the auspices of the Wilson Center’s Global Europe Program.

This decision will be a logical outcome of Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution of Dignity and its unequivocal desire to break away from the politico-economic influence of Russia. In light of the growing EU-Ukraine partnership, the transfer of our academic program to the Global Europe Program would guarantee the proper academic framework for the analysis of Ukraine’s internal politics, economy and security as part of the European agenda.

Our strong interest in disassociating Ukraine from the Kennan Institute is also based on our disagreement with the management style and strategy of its current leadership. We are deeply concerned by the Kennan Institute’s growing pro-Kremlin policies, lack of democratic procedures and unprofessional communication with Kennan Institute alumni in Ukraine.

Smagliy’s firing ‘unjustified’

On Feb. 16, 2018 we learned that the Kennan Institute dismissed Dr. Kateryna Smagliy, Director of the Kennan Institute Kyiv Office, and simultaneously appointed Dr. Mikhail Minakov as Principle Investigator on Ukraine. The Institute promised to continue its operations in Ukraine, but made no mention of the scope, direction and the form of its involvement. In the follow-up message the Kennan Institute accused Dr. Kateryna Smagliy of “driving a disinformation and incitement campaign” – the statement that we categorically deny as our debate was genuine and grounded on our own observations and professional analysis.

We find Dr. Smagliy’s dismissal unjustified, illogical and disrespectful. Appointed in December 2015 in an open competition, Dr. Smagliy has proven herself an accomplished scholar, devoted professional and resourceful manager. She quickly diversified and magnified the work of the Kennan Institute Kyiv Office and built numerous partnerships with government and research institutions. In 2017 the President of Ukraine praised the Kennan Kyiv Office for promoting Ukraine’s public diplomacy in his annual address to the Verkovna Rada (parliament) of Ukraine. Under Dr. Smagliy’s leadership, the Kennan alumni presented more than 100 public lectures, including 30 at the displaced universities of Donbas; organized three forums of cultural diplomacy with the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine, held five intensive leadership programs for internally displaced students; and edited six volumes of Agora, featuring 122 articles on the wide range of subjects.

Parallel to this arbitrary dismissal, Mr. Matthew Rojansky prevented Dr. Smagliy from participating at the Kennan Advisory Council meeting held on Feb. 16, 2018, despite the fact she was in Washington, D.C., and requested the opportunity to present the Kyiv office accomplishments to the Advisory Council members. The fact that Dr. Smagliy was denied this opportunity testifies to Mr. Rojansky’s increasing tendency to make non-transparent decisions, obstruct democratic dialogue and silence his ideological opponents. Such behavior does not align with the Western tradition of openness and democratic scholarly debate.

Kennan Institute ‘unwitting tool of Russia’s political interference’

The Kennan Institute’s growing pro-Kremlin policies threaten to turn the Wilson Center into an unwitting tool of Russia’s political interference. We noted numerous episodes of the Kennan Institute’s involvement with Kremlin associates, as exemplified by its special awards to a Russian businessman Petr Aven, whose name is on the “Kremlin” sanctions list, and to Susan Carmel Lehrman, previously personally awarded by President Putin with an “Order of Friendship”. We were appalled by the fact that the founder of Russia Today TV channel Mikhail Lesin – the mastermind behind Russia’s major vehicle of disinformation campaign during the 2016 U.S. presidential elections – was on the Kennan Institute’s guest list for the Aven-Lehrman gala.

Today, at the time when the U.S. government tightens its grip on Putin’s associates, the Kennan Institute offers them a rather warm welcome. Mr. Rojansky actively promotes the idea of the U.S.- Russia dialogue at the Dartmouth Conference. This platform, which was long dead after the end of the Cold War, was suddenly revived by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, several months after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its war in Donbas. Mr. Rojansky serves as conference’s executive secretary on the American side, but his Russian vis-à-vis – Yuri Shafranik and Gissa Guchetl – lead the Russian Union of Oil and Gas Producers.

We were particularly disappointed by the Kennan Institute’s logo on the “For Unity!” concert on November 13, 2017, as it featured two Russian artists who supported Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea. In our October 31, 2017 letter to Mr. Rojansky, signed by 36 members of our network, we warned that such an inconsiderate move would strongly damage the Kennan Institute’s reputation and make it no friends among Ukrainians.

We noted that the Kennan Institute’s leadership started sidelining Dr. Smagliy and prohibiting the Kyiv Office from implementing research projects with international partners immediately after our protest against the “For Unity!” concert. The Kennan Institute denied Dr. Smagliy the opportunity to organize the international conference on the legacy of communism and Soviet occupation and attempted to prevent her from participating in the February 14, 2018 presentation of Boris Nemtsov and Russian Politics book in Washington DC. The fact she was dismissed the day after the event testifies that this decision may be politically motivated.

We feel deeply sorry to lose Dr. Smagliy as a leader of the Kennan Institute’s programs in Ukraine, because she had always demonstrated professionalism, enthusiasm, and devotion to her work. The entire Kennan Kyiv office team decided to step down in protest of this unjust decision. At the same time, we are surprised by the appointment of Dr. Mikhail Minakov, who is known for his biased analysis of Ukraine’s post-Euromaidan developments. In our view, he is not in a position to serve as an independent and academically balanced editor of “Focus Ukraine” or Kennan Institute’s Principle Investigator on Ukraine.

We appreciate the long-term support provided by the Kennan Institute to Ukrainian scholars, which allowed us to deepen cooperation and understanding between Ukraine and the United States. However, our deep disappointment and disagreement with the recent policies and decisions taken by the current Kennan Institute leadership prompt us to request you disassociate our program from Mr. Rojansky’s supervision and transfer it under the auspices of the Global Europe Program.

Under the current circumstances, we consider this open letter to be a necessary step to save the reputation of the Kennan Institute and the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Respectfully,

Antonina Kolodii, Chair, Ukrainian Association of Kennan Institute alumni

Olexiy Haran, former member of the Kennan Institute Advisory Council

Natalia Moussienko, former member of the Kennan Institute Advisory Council

Viktor Stepanenko, former member of the Kennan Institute Advisory Council

Serhiy Kvit, Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine (2014-2016)

Pavlo Kirpenko

Oleksandr Potiekhin

Volodymyr Dubovyk

Viktor Susak

Grygoriy Shamborovsky

Mykola Riabchuk

Valentyna Kharkhun

Iryna Bekeshkina

Sergiy Fedynyak

Vitaliy Zhuhay

Oleksii Pozniak

Nazar Kholod

Mykhailo Kirsenko

Ella Lamakh

Yuri Matsievsky

Volodymyr Kulyk

Lyudmyla Pavlyuk

Oleh Lystopad

Roman Kalytchak

Oleh Yarosh

Serhii Rymarenko

Mikhail Alexeev

Iuliia Soroka

Viktor Zablotsky

Yuri Kalyukh

Oleksandr Demyanchuk

The End of Twitter Diplomacy?

Rob Worthington, neweurope.eu

image from

Within the first few days of 2018, Donald Trump had appeared to threaten Kim Jong Un with nuclear war, take credit for 2017 being the safest year in commercial aviation worldwide, and reassured his 46.3 million followers that he was a “very stable genius”. Since beginning his run for President, Trump’s late night social media escapades have made for amusing, concerning, and at times embarrassing reading. With just a few characters, he has insulted political heavyweights, undermined entire countries – allies of the US, and appeared to endorse right-wing extremist sentiment in the US and beyond.

Twitter appears to be the President’s sole communications method, with no overarching strategy in sight. It’s been widely reported that he refuses to engage directly with media, with his last press conference over 320 days ago; the Washington Post is counting. He has shown little respect for fundamental public relations principles, with a shambolic interview given to the Wall Street Journal. Similarly, his appointment of Anthony Scaramucci, an ex-hedge fund manager, as White House spokesperson last year, shows little understanding for how effective PR works.

To ensure longevity however, in 2018 Trump would do well to expand and overhaul his communications strategy. Taking a step back from Twitter is not a bad way to start.

Establishing an echo chamber

Trump’s almost exclusive use of Twitter as a communications tool does make some sense, however. It’s a powerful interactive tool that allows him to share his messages directly with the public, side-stepping media bias. As a seasoned salesman, he also uses Twitter to keep himself in the limelight, control the news agenda, and establish an endless echo chamber that confirms his own preferences. Highlighting this, a graph published by a user on Reddit last year amusingly examines the link between the frequency of Donald Trump’s tweets, and the hours when he’s watching his favourite morning news show, Fox and Friends, widely considered to be a propaganda machine. While watching, Trump fires off his highest number of tweets, often praising the show and commenting on its guests. With these tweets, he sets the tone for the day, and even the news agenda. Aware of his allegiance to the show, Fox and Friends closely monitor Trump’s tweets, allegedly choosing their guests to align with Trump’s own interests, feeding the cycle further.

Breaking the cycle

Social media itself can be used intelligently, even put to good diplomatic and political use. Influential leaders such as Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau, and Emmanuel Macron know this well. Obama – or rather his team of communications experts – was responsible for the most popular tweet of 2017. Macron and Trudeau partnered last May to validate rumours of a budding bromance, shooting a viral video of them meeting in France that was first posted on Macron’s Twitter.

The French President is also a keen Periscoper, broadcasting all his foreign visits and important speeches live online, sometimes to the detriment of traditional TV crews who aren’t given access.

However, these leaders are not popular because of their social media presence alone. They have carefully and painstakingly cultivated public images through clever and comprehensive communications strategies. Importantly, they recognise that Twitter is not the be all and end all of external communications, but one of many tools used to fine-tune their political image. The use of traditional communications tactics cannot therefore be underestimated. Social media, for all its immediacy and people power, still does not have the same gravitas as traditional engagement with journalists. While this has started to change among younger generations, there is still some way to go.

Macron may carry out headline-grabbing PR moments, but he also supplements them with the solemn staging of occasions that he knows will help him build his statesmanship, without attracting significant criticism. This was perhaps most evident during the recent funerals of two of the most loved French cultural figureheads: the writer Jean d’Ormesson, and the rockstar Johnny Hallyday. Both times, Macron was one of the first to react, expressing his sadness on Twitter in the middle of the night. But he did not stop there, and asked that national ceremonies be organised, where he spoke at length, as all French TV stations were broadcasting live… He struck the right tone to lead the French people’s tribute; and it was a masterclass in political communications.

Another case in point: at the recent climate summit in France, the French created a big Twitter splash, with #MakeOurPlanetGreatAgain trending globally. But this was only one aspect of the President’s communications plan. He spoke passionately to national and international news journalists about France’s – and his position – in the debate, showing the public and his political counterparts how serious he is about climate change. The story was covered by publications all over the world.

2018 promises to be just as, if not more, challenging for Europe and the European project more than ever. Brexit will test the European Union’s reputation.

Angela Merkel, still striving to pull together a government is no longer in the strong position she once was, able to protect the European project as she did. The pressure from immigration continues, again putting the Union’s reputation to the test.

More than ever, creative and diverse communications solutions are needed to overcome public scepticism and counter the frivolity of Twitter diplomacy.

After all, diplomacy cannot be made with a click, but it takes just one to crush a reputation, end a relationship, or destroy a nearly done deal.

A general overstepping

Suhas Palshikar, The Indian Express

Bipin Rawat image from article

Excerpt:

An army chief making headlines for the wrong reasons is a painful sight. Some months ago, it was about the incident of the human shield and the general’s views on fighting the dirty war. This time, General Bipin Rawat has connected his theory of dirty war to domestic politics. With his latest remarks on matters as wide ranging as the sociology of migration, electoral surge of parties and, parenthetically, the security ideology of our armed forces, the current army chief has not merely betrayed the breadth of his expertise but also the weaknesses of prudence, politics and principle that he suffers from. ...

The army chief can be faulted on at least three crucial grounds for his recent remarks about influx into the North-east. First, it is simply a question of prudence. Suppose, for a moment, that all he said is true and accurate, these are matters which are best left to ministries of external affairs or home affairs to articulate and intimate appropriate audiences. The armed forces need not take on the tasks of diplomacy — much less so, the task of public diplomacy — beyond a very limited space. And, suppose a political party does get support from “neighbours”, the armed forces should ideally leave it to the civilian authorities. Prudence demands that an office-holder as high as the army chief should desist from making statements on delicate matters of diplomacy or domestic policy. Just as his earlier remarks on the “possibility” of a different kind of surgical strike in the future was unnecessarily playing to the gallery and in the process transgressing the limits of prudence, the latest statement, too, transgresses the limits of prudence.

But it is not merely lack of judgment that is at stake here. The general also chose to go into political analysis. In naming two political parties and comparing their rise and growth, General Rawat has clearly overstepped into the political arena. This violation of the code that the army should keep clear of politics is worrying, particularly in times when politics is more acrimonious than democracy can afford. With parties not unwilling to politicise even the armed forces, succumbing to the temptation of talking politics — or is it doing politics? — can send wrong signals all round.

There is another problematic nugget of political wisdom in the general’s statement. In saying that “you have a party called AIUDF” whose rise has been “faster” than that of the BJP, the army chief was probably comparing a party that allegedly gets support from Muslims with a party that allegedly gets support from Hindus. And, in saying that the former grows faster than the latter, was he insinuating that one community has greater proclivity to unite politically than the other?

This is, of course, not the first time General Rawat has shown his disdain for ordinary procedures and norms. In the infamous instance of the human shield, he snubbed the routine procedure by announcing a medal to the officer against whom an inquiry was still going on. So, things fall into a pattern whereby the office-holder oversteps his brief and seems keen on taking political positions.

Finally, the army chief’s statement is deeply problematic on grounds of principle. He has raised a controversy over the issue of linkages between demographic composition and security. Going much beyond the issue of “influx”, the controversial statement attempts to connect many dots — planned influx by neighbours, changing demographic composition of some districts, growth of a party — and all this in the context of security concerns. The unstated message is clear: Changing demographic composition of some districts is a problem and, by implication, the security of the country hinges on a certain demographic balance, so it is obviously much more than mere influx. All this when elections are taking place in the “sensitive” region in three states. It is unlikely that an officer of such a high rank would be unaware of the arguments that are made in the political arena about demographic balance as a security strategy, nor would he be unaware of the controversy surrounding the alleged allegiance or otherwise of some communities.

At least so far, the foundation of the Indian nation-state is firmly based on the belief that irrespective of communities and creeds, citizens of the country sustain the spirit of national sovereignty. By his remarks on demographic composition, the army chief has gone far beyond the issue of planned influx and ventured into the territory or arguments that seek to undo this foundation of the Indian nation-state.

If he has transgressed prudence, he is setting a bad precedent. If he is indulging in political statements, the army chief is sowing the seeds of politicising the armed forces. But by the unstated implications of his unwarranted statement, General Rawat has actually hit at the foundation of India’s nationalism. So, more than for reasons of prudence or politics, his statement becomes a warning signal for reasons of principle — a principle that is most delicate and crucial to us as a nation.

State Department Welcomes Gold Medal-Winning US Olympic Women's Ice Hockey Team

IVN, Imperial Valley News

Image from, with caption: GANGNEUNG, SOUTH KOREA - FEBRUARY 22: Players of Team USA celebrate winning the gold medal after penalty-shot shootout following the Women's Ice Hockey Gold Medal game final between USA and Canada on day thirteen of the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympic Games at Gangneung Hockey Centre on February 22, 2018 in Gangneung, South Korea.

Washington, DC - Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan and Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs I. Steven Goldstein will welcome the gold medal-winning 2018 U.S. Olympic Women’s Ice Hockey Team to the State Department on March 2, 2018.

The team, fresh off their Olympic victories in PyeongChang, will be recognized for their efforts to empower women and girls around the world through sports. The event will highlight how sports are advancing people-to-people relations around the world, especially through the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Sports Diplomacy initiatives.

Also delivering remarks will be Senior Vice President of the National Hockey League (NHL) Susan Cohig and Olga Dolinina, a 2014 Ukrainian alumna of the U.S. Department of State and espnW Global Sports Mentoring Program (GSMP). Cohig is a longstanding mentor for GSMP, which pairs emerging global leaders in sports with American female executives to create opportunities for a new generation of girls through sports. Also in attendance will be Hilary Knight, one of Team USA’s forwards, who was a 2014 State Department Sports Envoy to Belarus.

While in the area, as part of Hockey Weekend Across America, the team will also be celebrated at the NHL Stadium Series game between the Washington Capitals and Toronto Maple Leafs on March 3 at the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium in Annapolis, Maryland.

Putting Japan–Korea Relations into Perspective: Lessons from the Pyeongchang Olympics

Asaba Yūki, nippon.com

uncaptioned image from article

As the North Korean delegation returns triumphant from its “charm offensive” in Pyeongchang, Tokyo and Seoul should be thinking about stepping up their own public-diplomacy game with the goal of uniting to counter the growing North Korean threat.

Prime Minister Abe Shinzō’s attendance at the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang was a testimony to the enduring importance of South Korea to Japan’s security. It had been rumored that Abe would snub Seoul’s invitation after the government of President Moon Jae-in appeared to renege on a 2015 bilateral agreement declaring the “comfort women” issue “finally and irreversibly” resolved. But cooler heads prevailed. Now as in the past, “The Republic of Korea is Japan’s most important neighbor that shares strategic interests with Japan.”

A Deepening Chill

Pyeongchang notwithstanding, a certain listlessness has pervaded the Abe administration’s South Korea diplomacy of late. In his annual policy speech to the Diet in January, the prime minister made only a terse and vague reference to Japan–South Korea relations, promising to “build on the international agreements between our two nations and on our mutual trust,” from “a future-oriented perspective.” He made no mention of Japan’s shared strategic interests with South Korea, as in the two previous years. Abe seems far more enthusiastic about “stepping up high-level visits between Tokyo and Beijing” and rebuilding the Japan-China “strategic partnership.”

For decades, strategic concerns have bound Japan and South Korea in a cooperative relationship despite historically rooted tensions and animosities. But those ties have frayed as the awareness of shared strategic interests (not to mention basic values) has dissipated. Unless our governments move quickly to reinforce those bonds, the consequences could be dire.

It is strange to recall the fanfare and lofty sentiments that prevailed 20 years ago, when Prime Minister Obuchi Keizō and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung declared the dawn of a new “partnership towards the twenty-first century,” built on “such universal principles as freedom, democracy, and the market economy.” Today we find ourselves mired in mutual suspicion, each questioning whether the other can be trusted as a partner. In Japan, popular attitudes toward South Korea have shifted dramatically in recent years, causing the government to steer a narrow diplomatic course for fear of provoking a nationalist backlash at home. Of course, each country must pursue its own strategic interests, and there will always be points of divergence. But a sound foreign policy calls not merely for wise conflict management but also for active efforts to expand the scope of cooperation on the basis of shared interests and values.

When it comes to security, Japan and South Korea continue to be of critical importance to each another. A conflict on the Korean Peninsula could pose an existential threat to Japan. At the same time, the Japan-US Security Treaty and American F-35 stealth fighter jets deployed on the Iwakuni base in Yamaguchi Prefecture are vital to the defense of South Korea. Under the circumstances, our leaders must summon the political will to redefine Japan–South Korea relations in a security context—specifically, the Japan-US-Korea security triangle. They must take active steps to mold opinion at home and abroad and convince the public of the importance of the Japan–South Korea relationship at a time when its significance is no longer self-evident to all.

Moon’s Impulsive Overtures

Desperate for a peaceful backdrop to the Pyeongchang Olympics, Seoul has shown itself overly eager to engage with Pyongyang, and the North has taken full advantage of Moon’s weakness with its “charm offensive.” The coup de grace was Pyongyang’s proposal, conveyed by special envoy Kim Yo-jong (sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un) for an inter-Korean summit meeting, to which President Moon quickly agreed in principle (later clarifying that it would hinge on the reopening of talks between Pyongyang and Washington). Even in South Korea, many fretted that Moon was losing sight of the important issues. Criticism mounted when it was learned that Moon never once raised the nuclear issue despite sitting with North Korean officials for hours over the course of three days.

Of course, Moon acknowledges that the two Koreas are past the point of “dialogue for its own sake.” He has said that the ultimate purpose of talks with the North is denuclearization. But talks do not have the same weight as negotiations. Washington’s position is that it will enter into full-fledged negotiations with Pyongyang only if the North takes measurable steps toward dismantling its nuclear arsenal. Under the circumstances, the South needs to be wary of weakening Washington’s bargaining position. Before setting off for Pyongyang, he should be sending special envoys to the United States (and to Japan) for close consultations to keep the three security partners on the same page and make it clear that no options—including the threat of military action—are off the table. If the “trump card” is removed from play at the outset, the game is up, and any chance of changing North Korea’s strategic calculation and behavior once and for all could vanish.

For the same reason, it is vital to maintain “maximum pressure” on all sides through consistent implementation of tough sanctions against the North. Unfortunately, just when those sanctions were finally beginning to bite, South Korea decided to make exceptions in order to facilitate the North’s participation in the Olympics. This makes it difficult for the UN Security Council and like-minded countries to call out China or Russia to enforce the existing sanctions, and to take further actions for preventing the circumvention of sanctions through ship-to-ship transfers and other loopholes.

Dialogue is pointless without continuous pressure backed by hard power. Will the United States and South Korea promptly hold the joint exercises they postponed for the duration of the Olympics? Or will Pyongyang induce Seoul to delay them further as a condition for an inter-Korean summit? President Moon is approaching the moment of truth, when he will be forced to decide which comes first—the obligations of allies or the bonds of ethnicity.