U.S.-Kuwait relations are fine and resilient
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs 2010 “US Department of State.” Background Note:Kuwait 5/4/10
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35876.htm
U.S.-KUWAITI RELATIONS
The United States opened a consulate in Kuwait in October 1951, which was elevated to embassy status at the time of Kuwait's independence 10 years later. The United States supports Kuwait's sovereignty, security, and independence, as well as its multilateral diplomatic efforts to build greater cooperation among the GCC countries.
Strategic cooperation between the United States and Kuwait increased in 1987 with the implementation of a maritime protection regime that ensured the freedom of navigation through the Gulf for 11 Kuwaiti tankers that were reflagged with U.S. markings. The U.S.-Kuwaiti strategic partnership intensified dramatically again after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The United States spearheaded UN Security Council demands that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait and its authorization of the use of force, if necessary, to remove Iraqi forces from the occupied country. The United States also played a dominant role in the development of the multinational military operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm that liberated Kuwait. The U.S.-Kuwaiti relationship has remained strong in the post-Gulf War period. Kuwait and the United States worked on a daily basis to monitor and to enforce Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, and Kuwait has also provided the main platform for Operation Iraqi Freedom since 2003. Since Kuwait's liberation, the United States has provided military and defense technical assistance to Kuwait from both foreign military sales (FMS) and commercial sources. The U.S. Office of Military Cooperation in Kuwait is attached to the American embassy and manages the FMS program. There are currently 107 open FMS contracts between the U.S. military and the Kuwait Ministry of Defense totaling $8.4 billion. Principal U.S. military systems currently purchased by the Kuwait Defense Forces are Patriot Missile systems, F-18 Hornet fighters, the M1A2 main battle tank, AH-64D Apache helicopter, and a major recapitalization of Kuwait's Navy with U.S. boats. Kuwaiti attitudes toward American products have been favorable since the Gulf War. In 1993, Kuwait publicly announced abandonment of the secondary and tertiary aspects of the Arab boycott of Israel (those aspects affecting U.S. firms). The United States is currently Kuwait's largest supplier of goods and services, and Kuwait is the fifth-largest market in the Middle East. U.S. exports to Kuwait totaled $2.14 billion in 2006. Provided their prices are reasonable, U.S. firms have a competitive advantage in many areas requiring advanced technology, such as oil field equipment and services, electric power generation and distribution equipment, telecommunications gear, consumer goods, and military equipment.
AT: U.S. Mexican Relations
US/Mexico relations are resilient
Clinton 10 US Secretary of State Hillary, “Diplomats speak after U.S.-Mexico high level consultation group meeting,” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Office of the Spokesman, March 23, 2010, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138963.htm
Well, good afternoon. And let me begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary and the Government of Mexico for hosting these very important discussions today. We have had the opportunity to delve into many areas of common concern that lie at the heart of the Merida Initiative and our shared responsibility to combat and defeat organized transnational crime. We're looking forward to continuing this conversation in the weeks and months ahead. We will be seeing President Calderon later today because the United States strongly supports his courageous campaign against violent criminal organizations on behalf of the Mexican people. And we honor the service and sacrifice of Mexico's men and women in uniform in the military and in the police forces. The relationship between our two nations is so comprehensive and complex and deep and broad. It is not bound by borders or bureaucratic divisions. And what we are focused on today is a part of that relationship, but a truly significant part. We are working in our two governments together to solve the problem posed by the criminal cartels that stalk the streets of your cities and ours, that kill and injure innocent people, and spread a reign of terror and intimidation, and use the trafficking of drugs to addict people, the trafficking of persons to degrade them, and who are truly an insult and a rebuke to the common values that our two nations share. It's an honor to be joined here in Mexico by a very significant delegation from the Obama Administration. Defense Secretary Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler, Acting Administrator of the DEA Michele Leonhart, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets in the Treasury Department Adam Szubin, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske, Ambassador Pascual, and a wide range of senior officials, all of whom are committed to this unique partnership that we are exhibiting today. Our broad engagement allows us to come at these problems from many different angles, to devise cross-cutting solutions, to ensure that our two governments are working hand-in-hand, not just at the ministerial level but all the way down our bureaucracies.
AT: U.S. North Korea War
1. North Korea isn’t a threat
Bennett 2008 (Bruce, research leader for strategy, force planning, and counterproliferation within RAND's International Security and Defense Policy Center, N.K. threats
require deterrence, reconciliation, The Korea Herald, March 12, Lurie-Spicer)
For almost six decades, the North Korean threat to invade and conquer the South has driven South Korean military planning and requirements. Throughout this period, Seoul has depended on its alliance with the United States to help deter or defeat this threat. In recent years, South Korea has been pursuing self-reliant military capabilities, hoping to someday fully assume the defense responsibility. Today, many postulate that the North Korean invasion threat has substantially atrophied. South Korean and U.S. conventional forces have made substantial qualitative improvements in recent years. Though the North Korean military capabilities are uncertain, its conventional forces have made few improvements while aging significantly. Deterred from an invasion decades ago, many argue that North Korea should therefore be even more deterred and less of a threat today.
2. Small Scale Conflict at Worst – North Korea lacks Air Force
Air & Space Power Journal 05 [“The future of US airpower on the Korean Peninsula,” Fall 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXL/is_3_19/ai_n27869320]
In order to address why US airpower has become such an important deterrent to the North Korean military threat, one must first note how that threat has changed. During the 1990s, North Korea--a nation of 22 million people--boasted the world's fifth largest military (fig. 1). Its army fields 3,700 tanks, 3,500 armored personnel carriers, over 4,000 self-propelled artillery pieces, and nearly 800 aircraft. (2) Since subsidies from a collapsed Soviet Union ceased at the end of the Cold War, North Korea has faced the absolute impossibility of maintaining the readiness and capabilities of a military (with a large, mechanized army as its core) poised to attack South Korea with the goal of achieving unification under the communist regime in Pyongyang. (3) Maintaining a sizable military dominated by mechanized forces and self-propelled artillery in a high state of readiness requires a substantial amount of fuel for the field training of these forces. Feeding them also stands as a daunting task, especially since food (as well as fuel) has remained in drastically short supply in North Korea since the early 1990s. (4) Furthermore, in any invasion scenario, North Korea's military would have to flow south through two key narrow invasion corridors--the Kaesong-Munsan and the Chorwon Valley (the east-coast approach would support only a small-scale flow of forces) (fig. 2). (5) A full-scale invasion through north-south approaches in narrow corridors by mechanized and self-propelled artillery forces would need support from a modern air force capable of keeping modern US and South Korean aircraft from destroying ground forces as they attempted to navigate roads into the south. Unfortunately for Pyongyang, its air force has received almost no upgrades since the late 1980s, and minor purchases such as the acquisition of 40 MiG-21s from Kazakhstan in 1999 have not led to any real advances in the capabilities of North Korean airpower. (6) Additionally, North Korean pilots are lucky to get 20 hours a year of flight time (probably because of the same lack of fuel that bedevils mechanized, armored, and self-propelled artillery forces), a situation that further diminishes the readiness of their less-than-modern air force. (7) A report on commercial satellite photos released by the Japanese press in 2005 revealed that "90 percent of North Korean military aircraft are Korean War vintage [and that the] newest fighters were those supplied in 1984 and 1988 by the Soviet Union." (8) Although perhaps exaggerated, the press report does point to a challenge faced by the North Korean military: it would have grave problems providing air cover for any invasion force into South Korea.
No escalation - china won’t get involved
Bajoria 6-18/08 Staff writer for the Council on Foreign Relations [Jayshree Bajoria, Staff Writer, Council on Foreign Relations, “The China-North Korea Relationship,” http://www.cfr.org/publication/11097/why_beijing_sustains_kim_jongil.html?breadcrumb=%2F#6]
China has been one of the authoritarian regime's few allies. But this long-standing relationship suffered a strain when Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006 and China agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 1718, which imposed sanctions on Pyongyang. By signing off on this resolution—as well as earlier UN sanctions that followed the DPRK's July 2006 missile tests—Beijing departed from its traditional relationship with North Korea, changing from a tone of diplomacy to one of punishment. Jonathan D. Pollack, an East Asia expert at the Naval War College, describes the DPRK's tests as "jarring" to China's diplomatic effort to compel North Korea to the Six-Party Talks. He says Kim Jong-Il was effectively telling Beijing, "You can not tell us what to do and we can not be taken for granted.'" Despite their long alliance, experts say Beijing does not control Pyongyang. "In general, Americans tend to overestimate the influence China has over North Korea," says Daniel Pinkston, a Northeast Asia expert at the International Crisis Group. >
Share with your friends: |