# Japan Ready To Become Formal Member of Five Eye's.



## RackMaster (Dec 24, 2020)

This is interesting, especially given China's proximity.

RESOLVED: Japan Is Ready to Become a Formal Member of Five Eyes


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 24, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> This is interesting, especially given China's proximity.
> 
> RESOLVED: Japan Is Ready to Become a Formal Member of Five Eyes


Dislike from the security standpoint.


----------



## Arf (Dec 24, 2020)

Thank you for sharing. This was definitely read worthy. I can see the arguments on both sides.


----------



## Kaldak (Dec 24, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Dislike from the security standpoint.



Doesn't the collective history of hatred between the two mean no leaks/breeches/issues?

That being China and Japan.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 24, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> Doesn't the collective history of hatred between the two mean no leaks/breeches/issues?
> 
> That being China and Japan.


^ Though nothing is ever foolproof, this.

What a great and timely development with the global power shift towards China.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 24, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Dislike from the security standpoint.



So you think the Japanese are a high risk to share certain intelligence gathering methods with? Or what specific issues with regards to security do you have?


----------



## AWP (Dec 25, 2020)

Some...unpopular observations.
- Is China our greatest threat or not? What's Japan's? "Enemy of my enemy" and all that.
- What vetting has taken place IRT to Japan as a whole? That's clearly not open source, but a topic to consider.
- With that said, what does our CI posture look like WRT Japan?
- Our security is trash at the moment, China has penetrated us in ways porn can never rival. Adding Japan harms us how?

I don't know if Japan is ready for FVEY, but maybe it is time to consider a new security group that encompasses nations who have more to lose than to gain by partnering w/ China.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 25, 2020)

I was under the impression that they would be a junior partner of sorts which would make sense until reliability can be proven (or not). Other countries have been mooted too but I don't know if that's actual work going on or just talk. India was one raised but I would be wary about dealing with India.


----------



## AWP (Dec 25, 2020)

SpitfireV said:


> I was under the impression that they would be a junior partner of sorts which would make sense until reliability can be proven (or not). Other countries have been mooted too but I don't know if that's actual work going on or just talk. India was one raised but I would be wary about dealing with India.



Totally agree on India. At the same time, India is our best regional option to blunt the Chinese/ PK/ AFG relationship militarily and economically.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 25, 2020)

If they're either up to or for it.


----------



## Brill (Dec 25, 2020)

AWP said:


> I don't know if Japan is ready for FVEY, but maybe it is time to consider a new security group that encompasses nations who have more to lose than to gain by partnering w/ China.



I think the entire idea has an interesting ANGLE to it.

Edit: major fail on my part.

I was referring to this part of the original link:



> Sixth, Japan has plenty to offer to the Five Eyes. *It is skilled in specialized intelligence gathering and sharing, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT)* obtained from radio stations and data shared electronically. Japan also has one of the world’s most vast intelligence-gathering frameworks, built in the post-war period to stay alert, keeping in view of its insignificant military presence. Its historical focus on China and North Korea—which have been further enhanced in recent times with the recognition of China and North Korea as Tokyo’s biggest security threats—only makes Japan’s bid stronger.


 
In comparison to Pakistan & India, they are way far behind in that regard.


----------



## AWP (Dec 25, 2020)

lindy said:


> I think the entire idea has an interesting slant to it.



Please tell me you didn't think through your choice of words, especially in light of things that have gone on elsewhere on this forum...


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 25, 2020)

Interesting...well, at least Japan aren't cooperating with China and having joint military training with them.....I'm looking at you Canada.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 25, 2020)

Huh, I’m gonna come out right now and say I’ve never heard of “five eyes”. I guess I have some reading to do.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 25, 2020)

FVEYs

The *Five Eyes* (*FVEY*) is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.[1] These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.[2][3][4]

Five Eyes - Wikipedia


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 25, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh, I’m gonna come out right now and say I’ve never heard of “five eyes”. I guess I have some reading to do.



In the intell world it’s pretty common. It’s a classification caveat and an intel sharing agreement that also serves political interests.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 25, 2020)

Japan would be an awesome partner for an advanced intel sharing agreement.  However I don’t think that they would be ready to accept all of the facility construction and system development that entails. I’d like to see what kind of diplomatic facilities they have throughout China, as those could provide plenty of opportunities.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 25, 2020)

Another article from August.  The proposed expansion includes Japan, Germany, France and South Korea.  Very interesting strategic choices. 

Is Seoul Prepared to Join a Five Eyes Plus Framework? | 38 North: Informed Analysis of North Korea


----------



## Brill (Dec 25, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Another article from August.  The proposed expansion includes Japan, Germany, France and South Korea.  Very interesting strategic choices.
> 
> Is Seoul Prepared to Join a Five Eyes Plus Framework? | 38 North: Informed Analysis of North Korea



FRANCE?????


----------



## pilot538 (Dec 25, 2020)

Would be interesting... Not sure how I feel about Japan being in FVEY, but I do agree with AWP about making an alliance of countries focused on counter-China efforts, explicitly for the reason of sharing intelligence. 

I'm not sure what Japan brings in the FVEY world when it comes to SIGINT. With Misawa and the MSOC there, it seems the US can serve its interests well. Unless Japan has incredible abilities to pull data from mainland China or other denied access regions, value there is low in my eyes.


----------



## Intel Nerd (Dec 26, 2020)

AWP said:


> Some...unpopular observations.
> - Is China our greatest threat or not? What's Japan's? "Enemy of my enemy" and all that.
> - What vetting has taken place IRT to Japan as a whole? That's clearly not open source, but a topic to consider.
> - With that said, what does our CI posture look like WRT Japan?
> ...



1) China is the greatest nation state threat. Russia is a close second, Iran is at third. North Korea has potential to be higher, but I wouldn't peg them above 4th.
2) Won't discuss here.
3) Won't discuss here, except that I feel comfortable with them in ways I'm not when it comes to our other allies like France (personal experience/anecdote)
4) China has some good capabilities for sure, but I've seen that mostly against NIPR and non-TS or SCI networks, discounting encryption. Japan has the technical capacity to be secure from China, and I think with discipline (hardly lost on their culture) they can effectively safeguard things we share with them as well as current FVEY members.



AWP said:


> Totally agree on India. At the same time, India is our best regional option to blunt the Chinese/ PK/ AFG relationship militarily and economically.



I like India- a lot. I also trust them as much as the French on topics they aren't interested in (so not much).



RackMaster said:


> Another article from August.  The proposed expansion includes Japan, Germany, France and South Korea.  Very interesting strategic choices.
> 
> Is Seoul Prepared to Join a Five Eyes Plus Framework? | 38 North: Informed Analysis of North Korea



Why the f*** would we bring Germany and France into FVEY? Truth be told, they would be great in a framework that provides limited (VERY LIMITED) access, but French and German CI threats are far too significant to provide the necessary connections and access to reveal current FVEY capabilities. That's not classified- just fact. France invests in espionage instead of R&D, and the Germans have made it clear how they feel about US/FVEY SIGINT usage in their country.

Not to say we don't have trusted partners in each country- we do, but it would be a significant increase in risk to loss of control of information to deeply broaden access to that information.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 27, 2020)

Intel Nerd said:


> Why the f*** would we bring Germany and France into FVEY? Truth be told, they would be great in a framework that provides limited (VERY LIMITED) access, but French and German CI threats are far too significant to provide the necessary connections and access to reveal current FVEY capabilities. That's not classified- just fact. France invests in espionage instead of R&D, and the Germans have made it clear how they feel about US/FVEY SIGINT usage in their country.


Exactly.  FVEY infers a level of trust that neither France nor Germany seem adequately disincentivized from breaking, and any current information-sharing agreements that may already persist between them and the US seem to be risk enough.



Intel Nerd said:


> Not to say we don't have trusted partners in each country- we do, but it would be a significant increase in risk to loss of control of information to deeply broaden access to that information.


First thing that came to mind here was the very particular language and protocols needed to close up any technical loopholes in the new agreements that could open up either country to accidental or deliberate intelligence disclosures to the other 20+ EU member states (or non-EU nations) and any hostile FIS elements embedded in them.

Not that none of that couldn't (or wouldn't) eventually end up happening anyway.


----------



## AWP (Dec 27, 2020)

Ugh...how do we get a Shadowspear.smil.mil server set up?


----------



## Brill (Dec 27, 2020)

AWP said:


> Ugh...how do we get a Shadowspear.smil.mil server set up?


VPN to clintonemail.com domain. Nailed it!


----------



## Gunz (Dec 27, 2020)

The Japanese--for historical and legal reasons--have always been a bit reluctant to embrace anything that smacks of militarism or that might, in the public's view, compromise civil liberties; but they've been easing into a harder stance on defense and security over the past 20 years.

I think the pros outweigh the cons in this regard. I would like to see their collective ingenuity and resourcefulness harnessed as another bulwark against the PRC, particularly as it concerns cyberwarfare and especially the PRC's advancement in the development of quantum computerization...the most significant threat IMV.

In other words, the more minds the better.


_"President Xi funded a multi-billion-dollar quantum computing mega-project with the expectation of achieving significant quantum breakthroughs by 2030. He also committed billions to establish a Chinese National Laboratory for Quantum Information Sciences..."_

Quantum USA Vs. Quantum China: The World's Most Important Technology Race


----------



## AWP (Dec 27, 2020)

lindy said:


> VPN to clintonemail.com domain. Nailed it!



The cross domain solution we deserve, not the CDS we need.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 27, 2020)

I see no issues with creating a new "group" to combat China and Russia....FVEY was created for a unique reason, I see no issues with creating newer Intel sharing groups with certain boundaries.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 28, 2020)

Very interesting discussion.

To me, as someone who no longer does intel work and is not involved in the slightest with these types of issues, my first reaction was "no."  Five Eyes / FVEY represents, to me, a very special relationship between the US and countries with whom we have had a sustained and meaningful relationship with after WWII.  The wider we expand the network, the more likely leaks are to occur, and the "less-special" the relationship becomes.  Additionally, the more people are involved in something, the less likely it is that those in the in-group will want to share, because they either 1) fear leaks or 2) their national interests are fundamentally in conflict with another partner's.  This is why it is unlikely you'll see a FVEY-like relationship between say Pakistan and India.

However, having studied China, its political system, and its goals for the future, at length in my previous assignment I tend to feel that anything that makes things harder for China makes things better for the US.

Additionally, when it comes to sharing classified information, the absence of "NOFORN" (i.e. "no foreign nationals") does not mean "YESFORN." By that, I mean just because something is not classified "NOFORN" doesn't mean it gets automatically disseminated to foreign nationals in most cases. So if we let Japan into FVEY, perhaps we limit what goes out over FVEY.

But then again, the reason we have FVEY in the first place (and I remain unconvinced about New Zealand being part of the group) is to utilize the "speed of trust" to more quickly get information where it needs to go. Anything that slows that process down, IMO, isn't worth the squeeze.

Before this becomes TL;DR:  I think it's worth it to have some type of special political/intelligence structure focused in the Pacific, that includes the FVEY nations as well as countries like Thailand, Japan, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea, but that isn't "Five Eyes."  That sends a message to China, helps build 'the speed of trust,' protects everyone's national interests, and gives us something we can dangle when we want people to partner with us instead of China.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 28, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> To me, as someone who no longer does intel work and is not involved in the slightest with these types of issues, my first reaction was "no."  Five Eyes / FVEY represents, to me, a very special relationship between the US and countries with whom we have had a sustained and meaningful relationship with after WWII.  The wider we expand the network, the more likely leaks are to occur, and the "less-special" the relationship becomes.  Additionally, the more people are involved in something, the less likely it is that those in the in-group will want to share, because they either 1) fear leaks or 2) their national interests are fundamentally in conflict with another partner's.  This is why it is unlikely you'll see a FVEY-like relationship between say Pakistan and India.
> 
> ...


This is one of those posts I’ll read a couple of times in a row, just because I figure I’ll learn something new each time I read it.


----------



## frostyred (Dec 28, 2020)

AWP said:


> Ugh...how do we get a Shadowspear.smil.mil server set up?


Start cuddling with Nakasone.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 28, 2020)

@Marauder06 you probably expected this question. What are your concerns with New Zealand?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 28, 2020)

SpitfireV said:


> @Marauder06 you probably expected this question. What are your concerns with New Zealand?



Sure thing. But before I start, I want to make it clear that while I see little value in NZ being in the FIVE EYES program, I appreciate the US's relationship with NZ and I respect both the Kiwis I served with overseas, and our NZ members of this site.


For me, there are two issues: political unreliability and limited ability to contribute.

First, New Zealand was actually kicked out of the Five Eyes program in the mid-1980s and was only re-integrated in ~2009.  The reason they got dropped was over a political dispute over nuclear weapons.  They were out of the program for something like two decades and we all seemed to get along just fine without them.  And these days, New Zealand is more in bed with China than we would like. While that  last bit is strictly my opinion, I am not the only one to have it:


> “I think that at some level the Five Eyes or the Four Eyes need to have a discussion about whether or not New Zealand can remain, given this problem with the political core.” source



another link related to the above

I am not throwing stones at NZ for the above actions; countries should always act in their own interests.  But we also work closely with France, who we also don't trust and who isn't in FVEY.  So there's plenty of room for us to continue to cooperate with NZ politically and with intel, but outside of the FVEY framework.


Shifting gears now, the next issue is one of capacity. NZ's military is full of fighters who are good partners for the US. But they are very, very small and their capabilities are very, very limited. For purposes of comparison, the US's intel budget is something on the order of $86 billion. NZ spends something like $145 million . Good intel is expensive, and NZ isn't even close to our level. 

So: limited capabilities + history of unreliability + cozying up to countries we don't like =


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 28, 2020)

I don't totally agree as you would expect but I can see and respect where you're coming from.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 28, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> To me, as someone who no longer does intel work and is not involved in the slightest with these types of issues, my first reaction was "no."  Five Eyes / FVEY represents, to me, a very special relationship between the US and countries with whom we have had a sustained and meaningful relationship with after WWII.  The wider we expand the network, the more likely leaks are to occur, and the "less-special" the relationship becomes.  Additionally, the more people are involved in something, the less likely it is that those in the in-group will want to share, because they either 1) fear leaks or 2) their national interests are fundamentally in conflict with another partner's.  This is why it is unlikely you'll see a FVEY-like relationship between say Pakistan and India.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I agree completely. Haven't we had a special relationship with Japan since VJ Day? We wrote their constitution and have had military bases on their soil for 75 years, not to mention an enormous impact on their culture. One could say they’ve essentially been an American protectorate since 1945; and I think because of their long and close history with China they have a unique understanding of the region and its nuances. And it goes without saying they are technologically sophisticated. That’s just my gut...but your argument brings up important points that I need to think about.


----------



## AWP (Dec 28, 2020)

The CENTCOM-related distro groups diagram (FVEY, MESF, NATO, etc.) is pretty nuts. I'm pretty sure we have something similar for PACOM, but I have no idea what that would even look like.


----------



## frostyred (Dec 28, 2020)

AWP said:


> The CENTCOM-related distro groups diagram (FVEY, MESF, NATO, etc.) is pretty nuts. I'm pretty sure we have something similar for PACOM, but I have no idea what that would even look like.



Considering how everyone still fights over authorities and being over-protective of their own sandbox (at least in my experience), probably just as bad.


----------



## Brill (Dec 28, 2020)

AWP said:


> I'm pretty sure we have something similar for PACOM, but I have no idea what that would even look like.



Knowing anything from HI...


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 28, 2020)

AWP said:


> The CENTCOM-related distro groups diagram (FVEY, MESF, NATO, etc.) is pretty nuts. I'm pretty sure we have something similar for PACOM, but I have no idea what that would even look like.



What I'd like to see is more of a NATO-like security arrangement for the INDOPACIFIC, more than an intel-sharing one.  Any thoughts on that?


----------



## Florida173 (Dec 29, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> What I'd like to see is more of a NATO-like security arrangement for the INDOPACIFIC, more than an intel-sharing one.  Any thoughts on that?



There is. Japan isn't yet a member. There are also other "eyes" with various levels of sharing agreements.


----------



## Florida173 (Dec 29, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Shifting gears now, the next issue is one of capacity. NZ's military is full of fighters who are good partners for the US. But they are very, very small and their capabilities are very, very limited. For purposes of comparison, the US's intel budget is something on the order of $86 billion. NZ spends something like $145 million . Good intel is expensive, and NZ isn't even close to our level.



I don't disagree with you on the concerns about their government, but are you comparing a country with less than 5 million people's budget to ours?

I've had some great deployments with the kiwis. Enjoyed every bit of it.  Have a couple of coins and hat with a kiwi on it from them too from some stuff i did.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 29, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> What I'd like to see is more of a NATO-like security arrangement for the INDOPACIFIC, more than an intel-sharing one.  Any thoughts on that?


Are you thinking in terms of implementing a new security arrangement and alliance, rather than building from existing systems?


----------



## AWP (Dec 29, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> What I'd like to see is more of a NATO-like security arrangement for the INDOPACIFIC, more than an intel-sharing one.  Any thoughts on that?



We've had some over the years, but those were IIRC geared towards the USSR. 

A NATO-like group would be very good, but China doesn't have the same "urgency" as the USSR did in the 40's-50's. Few nations see China as a world-dominating threat and even if they did, global trade will ensure some nations will stay away from such a security group.

In 1960, had the USSR shuttered 50% of its factories the US and its allies wouldn't even notice. If China did that today the entire world would notice because their economies would be crippled.

The world will not see China as a threat until it is too late. As a result, a NATO-like "anti-China"* group will not have the cohesion and stability to perform its core function of countering Chinese territorial and military expansion.

* - Any Pacific-oriented group will be anti-Chinese in the same way NATO was anti-Russian (USSR). If a group forms and your gov't tries to tell you it is not to counter China...they are lying.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 29, 2020)

Locksteady said:


> Are you thinking in terms of implementing a new security arrangement and alliance, rather than building from existing systems?



I'm open to anything that:

1) makes things better for the US, and/or

2) makes things worse for China.  I know the idea of a Pacific NATO has been tossed around for years, but for various reasons--some of them very good--there's not a lot of momentum for it.

What would you suggest?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 29, 2020)

Florida173 said:


> I don't disagree with you on the concerns about their government, but are you comparing a country with less than 5 million people's budget to ours?
> 
> I've had some great deployments with the kiwis. Enjoyed every bit of it.  Have a couple of coins and hat with a kiwi on it from them too from some stuff i did.


Yes, I am.  It's not their fault they're small.  But facts are facts.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 29, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm open to anything that:
> 
> 1) makes things better for the US, and/or
> 
> ...


I like the idea behind it and think the whats and hows of it seem very interesting to explore.

I don’t think forming a NATO-style WESTPAC security alliance is feasible or advisable right now for addressing emerging security threats from East Asia. This is mainly due to the current geopolitical climate; the US’s strongest allies in the region all have more reasons to avoid joining that kind of a treaty than most of Western Europe did after WWII.

Currently, every single one of the major American allies in the Pacific has some crucial trading relationship with China, which in turn contributes to why few are either positioned or willing to join a Pacific analog to NATO – much less one with an Article V element. This is even before factoring in persisting tensions between some of these partners themselves over territorial claims (China Sea) and historical bad blood (S. Korea and Japan) that would preclude their cooperation in a joint security pact.

Most of these countries also don’t have the same urgent compulsion to form or join a collective security alliance against China because they’re not anticipating a Soviet-style armed invasion anytime soon a la post-WWII - even while they know China is making power moves.

At this point it would take a lot of diplomatic elbow grease and some important concessions to unify the majority of these major American allies in a security pact against a nation with that much economic leverage over all of them.

So, I think the way to make things better for the US and make things worse for China is to focus less on forming a multilateral security alliance and more on the areas of development that China has prioritized to successfully dissuade American allies from forming a Pacific NATO in the first place: economic and technological strength. China is a global competitor to the US in those spheres and is on the fast track to dominating them both, making US allies in the region further dependent on trade with and technology from China and even less incentivized to work on initiatives opposed by it.

I think Investing in trade relations with America’s Pacific allies is key to preventing further expansion of China’s control and influence over them. China’s new trade partnership has begun filling the economic power vacuum left by the TPP (which was itself initiated to check that same partnership in the first place) after the US backed out of it. I think investing in the current reworked TPP plan, along with expanding trade with regional countries that aren’t in in China’s trade partnership (not many), is a good first step to reestablishing American presence in the area and (hopefully) curbing economic dependency on China by its allies by providing them with better trade and technology options. The latter should be furnished by simultaneously ramping up investments in tech R&D.

Security-wise, I think the US can make some headway by using the structures they already have in place to make stronger security relationships with its Pacific allies. By these I mean everything from the Quad Dialogue (security forum between US Oz India & Japan), RIMPAC (Pacific war games), and even NATO itself through the extended partners (I forget the name) program to pull Pacific neighbors into more security discussions and collaborations.

To sum up, it needs to be multi-pronged and address the things preventing that sort of alliance from forming before bringing that discussion to the table.

*ETA:* I clicked the hyperlink in your post (was it there the whole time?) and noticed the author's analysis dovetailed with mine in some key areas. Apologies for the redundancy on some of those points!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 16, 2021)

Looking for something to watch tonight and happened upon the one Bond movie I’ve somehow missed, Spectre.
Reading the synopsis it discusses someone taking over Nine Eyes.  Is that a play on Five Eyes?

I’m about to give it a watch.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 16, 2021)

Watched this tonight, it was ok entertainment.  All of you drone pilot fans, will enjoy it.


----------



## Locksteady (Jan 17, 2021)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Looking for something to watch tonight and happened upon the one Bond movie I’ve somehow missed, Spectre.
> Reading the synopsis it discusses someone taking over Nine Eyes.  Is that a play on Five Eyes?
> 
> I’m about to give it a watch.


Great movie, and yep it is a reference to that - or, perhaps more specifically, to an extended agreement known by the same name between FVEY and a few more European countries.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 17, 2021)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Looking for something to watch tonight and happened upon the one Bond movie I’ve somehow missed, Spectre.
> Reading the synopsis it discusses someone taking over Nine Eyes.  Is that a play on Five Eyes?
> 
> I’m about to give it a watch.


Five Eyes - Wikipedia

Nine Eyes[edit]​


A map of the Nine Eyes countries
The Nine Eyes is a different arrangement that consists of the same members of Five Eyes working with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Norway.[78][79]


----------

