The US Congress is considering changes to the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US, but expanding it would be worse than a mistake.
US Representative Ruben Gallego, the chairman of the US House Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee, added language to the fiscal 2022 US National Defense Authorization Act, calling for the inclusion of Germany, Japan, India and South Korea to the alliance.
Gallego called Five Eyes “outdated,” adding that its scope should be expanded and “shouldn’t just be an Anglophile view of [intelligence] sharing.” The revised provision asserts that “the threat landscape has vastly changed since the inception of the Five Eyes arrangement, with primary threats now emanating from China and Russia.” Accordingly, the alliance should “expand the circle of trust to other like-minded democracies.”
There are two good reasons not to make Five Eyes into “Nine Eyes.”
First, expanding the alliance would not help counter threats from China and Russia. Rather, it could potentially exacerbate them. Journalist Michael Weiss, who has written extensively on intelligence matters, told me that “the unwritten provision of the agreement is that we do not spy on another or recruit another’s citizens.” Yet, as Weiss points out, Germany and India have had members of their political and financial elite penetrated by hostile foreign intelligence services, as have Japan and South Korea. National security analyst Tom Rogan said that Seoul also “shares the French DGSE’s [Directorate-General for External Security’s] predilection of spying on US economic targets.”
Germany in particular has long been a playground for foreign intelligence services — including that of the US. High-profile German politicians, such as former chancellor Gerhard Schroder, have gone to work for companies with close ties to Russian intelligence services.
Perhaps more importantly, the terms and spirit that underpin Five Eyes would not lend themselves to an expansion to the countries in question. Promising to cease intelligence operations in India, Germany and the rest would be a promise that the Five Eyes allies could not — and should not — keep. It would hinder intelligence gathering and warp intelligence analysis.
Additionally, Weiss said that “we can be allied with these countries without being willfully blind fools about what goes on in them.” Yet, if the principles that underlie the intelligence pact are extended to the proposed countries, this would be exactly what would happen — and it would be unnecessary. Indeed, all of the current signatories to the arrangement maintain close intelligence relations to the countries being considered.
The US and the UK, for example, have a long history of working closely with the German Federal Intelligence Service. The Japanese Public Security Intelligence Agency was created with heavy involvement from US occupation authorities, and is, to some extent, modeled after Britain’s legendary MI5. As the Council on Foreign Relations has documented, the CIA also “assisted in the creation of” the Indian Research and Analysis Wing.
Indeed, in the past three years, the US has agreed to share military communications and bases with India. Such capabilities have long existed in Germany, Japan and South Korea. Although there have been some bumps on the road — notably India was long suspicious of the close relationships of the US and the UK with its rival Pakistan — all countries have maintained close ties with those already in Five Eyes.
Additional layers of bureaucracy can hinder intelligence gathering and analysis. Put simply: Expanding Five Eyes would be an unnecessary risk.
Sean Durns is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS