Relations impacts and cp’s
Asian Instability causes war
Download 1.27 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- US-Japan relations Bad-China
- US-Japan relations Bad- Re Arm
Asian Instability causes warDibb ‘1 (Papul, Prof. and Head of Strategic and Defense Studies Centre – Research School of the Asia Pacific of Australian National U., Former Defense Sec. for Strategic Policy and Intelligence – Australian DOD, Naval War College Review, “Strategic trends: Asia at a crossroads”, 54:1, Winter, Proquest) The areas of maximum danger and instability in the world today are in Asia, followed by the Middle East and parts of the former Soviet Union. The strategic situation in Asia is more uncertain and potentially threatening than anywhere in Europe. Unlike in Europe, it is possible to envisage war in Asia involving the major powers: remnants of Cold War ideological confrontation still exist across the Taiwan Straits and on the Korean Peninsula; India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and these two countries are more confrontational than at any time since the early 1970s; in Southeast Asia, Indonesia-which is the world's fourth-largest country-faces a highly uncertain future that could lead to its breakup. The Asia-Pacific region spends more on defense (about $150 billion a year) than any other part of the world except the United States and Nato Europe. China and Japan are amongst the top four or five global military spenders. Asia also has more nuclear powers than any other region of the world. Asia's security is at a crossroads: the region could go in the direction of peace and cooperation, or it could slide into confrontation and military conflict. There are positive tendencies, including the resurgence of economic growth and the spread of democracy, which would encourage an optimistic view. But there are a number of negative tendencies that must be of serious concern. There are deep-seated historical, territorial, ideological, and religious differences in Asia. Also, the region has no history of successful multilateral security cooperation or arms control. Such multilateral institutions as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN Regional Forum have shown themselves to be ineffective when confronted with major crises. US-Japan relations Bad-ChinaRelations cause Chinese BacklashCalder 09[Kent E. Calder, Director of the Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. “Pacific Alliance” 2009 pp 155-156]It is axiomatic in alliance relations that neither partner should let a third country outside the alliance dictate the terms of the mutual bilateral ties. Neither Japan nor the United States should thus allow China or any other third country to manipulate it. For China, however, driving a wedge between American opinion and Japan could well be its best strategy for defusing the threatening aspects of the U.S.-Japan military partnership. Convincing Americans to privilege relations with China over the New Alliance could well be easier than most Japanese, or even American, decisionmakers believe, or their rhetoric will allow them to admit. After all, Americans tend to forget or depreciate the political-economic dimension of international affairs. On that chessboard, dominated by trade opportunities and foreign investment, China is arguably much more attractive to American business than is Japan. Beijing's market is growing faster and could well have more potential than Tokyo's, despite the massive scale of the Japanese economy, especially because local competition in China is less formidable.US-Japan relations Bad- Re ArmAlliance Leads to Japanese Re ArmamentArase 10[David Arase, Associate Professor of Political Science at thh Department of Government and Political Science Pomona College, “ The U.S. Japan Allaince” 2010 pp.44-46 ] The US is more than ever going public with its pressure on Japan to enlarge its military mission. This helps give legitimacy to right wing conservatives who are the only ones eager for the task. On a 2004 visit to Japan, Secretary of State Colin Powell said: If Japan is going to play a full role on the world stage and become a full active participating member of the Security Council, and have the kind of obligations that it would pick up as a permanent member of the Security Council, Article 9 would have to be examined in that light.29 A second and updated Armitage Report released in 2006 stated that, "Although ... how Japan chooses to organize itself, resolve Constitutional questions, and expend resources are decisions that Japan must make for itself, the United States ... has a strong interest in how Japan approaches such matters.'"-10 In another reinterpretation of the alliance, the US-Japan Joint Security Consultative Committee (JSC), composed of the foreign and defense ministers of both sides, announced a list of "common strategic objectives" in February 2005.31 The inclusion of "the peaceful resolution of issues concerning the Taiwan Strait" attracted attention because it was the first time Japan made an explicit reference of this kind. What attracted less attention were other goals such as: "promote the reduction and non-proliferation of... WMDs," "prevent and eradicate terrorism," and "maintain and enhance the stability of the global energy supply." The global scope is suggested by the SDF deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have no other mandate but to help its US ally. The response of the Democratic Party of Japan to this development was to yawn and thus, the public hardly noticed.32 This was followed by the "US-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future," that the JSC approved on October 29, 2005.33 Defense Minister Ono Yoshinori described the change in the alliance as follows: The Japan-US alliance to date, if anything, was for the purpose really of defending Japan through the use of Japanese bases and US forces whereas we're now talking about joint activities in various areas between Japan and the United States in order to improve the peace and security around the world. Secretary Slate Condolcczza Rice commented: "a relationship that was once only about the defense of Japan or perhaps about the stability in the region, has truly become a global alliance."34 The new alliance aims for a seamless partnership between SDF and US combat forces from the command level down to the unit level. The agreement states: close and continuous policy and operational coordination at every level of government, from unit tactical level through strategic consultations, is essential to dissuade destabilizing military buildups, to deter aggression, and to respond to diverse security challenges. Development of a common operational picture shared between US forces and the SDF will strengthen operational coordination. The "common operational picture" suggests a combined command of forces. The JSC issued a document on May 1, 2006 entitled, "The United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment implementation." When the realignment of bases is done, the Ground Self Defense Force Central Readiness Command Headquarters will join the US command at Zama.35 Together, the co-located army headquarters will coordinate their respective rapidly deployable forces. Similarly, the US Ajr Force and the Japan Air Self Defense Force will co-locate their air and missile defense commands at Yokota airbase outside Tokyo. Within the new global alliance framework the expansion of SDF capabilities can be accommodated for some time to come. For this reason there is some concern that, looking into the future, Japan could develop beyond what is strictly needed for the alliance or its own local defense,36 and this could generate tensions with neighbors.37 Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.27 Mb. Share with your friends:
|