Skfta da 1nc 1nc skfta da
Download 0.85 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- HYUG-BAEG 8.
- MEARSHEIMER 5
- Straits Times -2K
Impact: China AggressionThe US backing out from Skfta will hurt its perception in East Asia and could be seen as pursuing an Isolationist policy Manyin et. Al. 10- Coordinator Specialist in Asian Affairs, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Analyst in Nonproliferation ,Research Associate in Asian Affairs , Congressional Research Service (Mark E. Manyin, Emma Chanlett-Avery, Mary Beth Nikitin, Mi Ae Taylor 12/8/2010 "U.S.-South Korea Relations" https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41481.pdf )PHS The KORUS FTA35 The Bush and Roh Administrations initiated the proposed KORUS FTA negotiations in 2006 and signed an agreement in June 2007. The text of the proposed free trade agreement covers a wide range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have wide economic implications for both the United States and South Korea. A congressionally mandated study by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) concluded that investment and trade between the United States and South Korea would increase modestly as a result of the KORUS FTA. This result is in line with other similar studies. In general and in the short-to-medium term, the KORUS FTA’s largest commercial effects are expected to be microeconomic in nature. The U.S. services and agriculture industries, for instance, are expected to reap significant benefits if the agreement is implemented. In contrast, U.S. textile, wearing apparel, and electronic equipment manufacturers would be expected to experience declines in employment from increased South Korean imports, though some U.S. electronics companies may see competitive benefits, as it could be less expensive for them to source components from South Korea. While a broad swath of the U.S. business community supports the agreement, the original KORUS FTA was opposed by some groups, including some auto and steel manufacturers and labor unions. Following the December 3, 2010 modifications to the FTA, several automotive interests – including Ford and the United Auto Workers – announced that the new auto provisions, The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications, coordinated by William H. Cooper. U.S.-South Korea Relations Congressional Research Service 19 had convinced them to support the agreement. In South Korea, while public opinion polls generally show broad support for the KORUS FTA, the largest opposition party as well as many farmers and trade unionists have vocally and actively opposed the agreement. Many observers have argued that, in addition to its economic implications, the KORUS FTA would have diplomatic and security implications. Indeed, in many respects, the KORUS FTA’s fate may go beyond strengthening U.S.-Korea ties and have profound implications for U.S. trade policy and East Asia policy. For instance, some have suggested that a KORUS FTA would help to solidify the U.S. presence in East Asia to counterbalance the increasing influence of China. Some counter this by positing that the KORUS FTA need not be seen as a necessary, let alone sufficient, condition for enhancing the U.S.-ROK alliance. However, many South Koreans would likely see a failure to complete or a defeat of the agreement in part as a U.S. psychological rejection of South Korea. Additionally, many East Asian leaders would see such a move as a sign that the United States is disengaging from East Asia, where most countries are pursuing a variety of free trade agreements. South Korea has perhaps been the most aggressive in this FTA push. Since 2002, it has completed seven other agreements (including one with the European Union, awaiting ratification) and has begun negotiating seven others. And, STRONG ALLIANCE IS KEY TO CHECK CHINESE REGIONAL HEGEMONY HYUG-BAEG 8. [Im, professor at the department of political science and diplomacy at Korea University, “How Korea Could Become a Regional Power in Northeast Asia: Building a Northeast Asian Triad,” U.S.-Korea Institute Working Paper Series-- October -- http://uskoreainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/USKI-WP4.pdf] There are many conditions present to indicate the need for a renewal of, as well as a redefinition of the U.S.-ROK alliance. For starters, the power paradigm in East Asia is gradually shifting away from the old “hub and spokes” system of the Cold War era, to a new, more flexible and agile system of bilateral alliance-building between the U.S. and individual East Asian countries. Within this new system, the nature of U.S. relations with South Korea is directly related to and affected by the nature of U.S. relations with China and Japan. For instance, in a scenario where the U.S. were to perceive a rising threat from China that would effectively challenge U.S. hegemony, it is likely that the U.S. would respond by strengthening its bilateral ties to East Asian littoral states, such as Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea, in order to counter and contain that threat. (Lampton, 2004) In such a case, where the national interest of China and the U.S. conflict with each other, South Korea’s best option would be to strengthen its ties to the U.S. and limit the expansion of Chinese influence over the Korean peninsula. Beyond its traditional role of deterring North Korean aggression, a strong, redefined U.S.-ROK alliance could give South Korea important leverage against China’s rising global economic and political influence.5 Chinese aggression ensures us-sino war. MEARSHEIMER 5. [John, “Better to be Godzilla than Bambi” Foreign Policy -- Jan 1 -- lexis] China cannot rise peacefully, and if it continues its dramatic economic growth over the next few decades, the United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. Most of China's neighbors, including India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, and Vietnam, will likely join with the United States to contain China's power. To predict the future in Asia, one needs a theory that explains how rising powers are likely to act and how other states will react to them. My theory of international politics says that the mightiest states attempt to establish hegemony in their own region while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region. The ultimate goal of every great power is to maximize its share of world power and eventually dominate the system. The international system has several defining characteristics. Themain actors are states that operate in anarchy--which simply means that there is no higher authority above them. All great powers have some offensive military capability, which means that they can hurt eachother. Finally, no state can know the future intentions of other states with certainty. The best way to survive in such a system is to beas powerful as possible, relative to potential rivals. The mightier a state is, the less likely it is that another state will attack it. The great powers do not merely strive to be the strongest great power, although that is a welcome outcome. Their ultimate aim is to be the hegemon--the only great power in the system. But it is almost impossible for any state to achieve global hegemony in the modern world,because it is too hard to project and sustain power around the globe. Even the United States is a regional but not a global hegemon. The best outcome that a state can hope for is to dominate its own backyard. States that gain regional hegemony have a further aim: to prevent other geographical areas from being dominated by other great powers. Regional hegemons, in other words, do not want peer competitors. Instead, they want to keep other regions divided among several great powers so that these states will compete with each other. In 1991, shortly after the Cold War ended, the first Bush administration boldly stated that the United States was now the most powerful state in the world and planned to remain so. That same message appeared in the famous National Security Strategy issued by the second Bush administration in September 2002. This document's stance on preemptive war generated harsh criticism, but hardly a word of protest greeted the assertion that the United States should check rising powers and maintain its commanding position in the global balance of power. China is likely to try to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. Specifically, China will strive to maximize the power gap between itself and its neighbors, especially Japan and Russia, and to ensure that no state in Asia can threaten it.It is unlikely that China will go on a rampage and conquer other Asian countries. Instead, China will want to dictate the boundaries of acceptable behavior to neighboring countries, much the way the United States does in the Americas. An increasingly powerful China is also likely to try to push the United States out of Asia, much the way the United States pushed the European great powers out of the Western Hemisphere. Not incidentally, gaining regional hegemony is probably the only way that China will get back Taiwan. Extinction. Straits Times -2K (Straits Times, June, 25, 2000, No one gains in war over Taiwan] (PDNSS2115) THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO -THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibilityof a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase: Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilization. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Annaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. 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 0.85 Mb. Share with your friends:
|