Hegemony da ddi 2010 1 Hegemony Generic

Download 1.23 Mb.
Size1.23 Mb.
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   31

South Korea Link
US Troops in South korea are key to US hegemony and deterring North Korea

Donald Macintyre et al, Pantech Fellow at Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford, Daniel Sneider is the associate director for research at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Gi-Wook Shin is the director of Shorenstein APARC, August 2009, "First Drafts of Korea: The U.S. Media and Perceptions of the Last Cold War Frontier", http://aparc.stanford.edu/publications/first_drafts_of_korea_the_us_media_and_perceptions_of_the_last_cold_war_frontier/)

Few regions rival the Korean Peninsula in strategic importance to U.S. foreign policy. For half a century, America has stationed tens of thousands of troops in South Korea to defend its ally from the threat of North Korean aggression. South Korea, in turn, is critical to the defense of Japan, another ally and the linchpin of American interests in East Asia. The rise of a nuclear-armed North has upped the ante. Yet despite the stakes, the two Koreas have registered only episodically on the radar of the United States. The troubling gap between American perceptions of the peninsula and its strategic importance remained an unexplored phenomenon until now. First Drafts of Korea breaks new ground in examining how the American mass media shape U.S. perceptions of both Koreas and, as a result, influence U.S. foreign policy.

South Korea Link

U.S. withdrawal from South Korea would undermine the credibility of U.S. leadership and make North Korean/South Korean conflict inevitable

Center Movement, by Patrick Flood ( 7/12/10 “ Korea, China and the US — An Alternative View” http://www.centermovement.org/topics-issues/foreign-policy/korea-china-and-the-us-an-alternative-view/

The Broad Context: “Cold War anachronism” is probably not the most accurate way to describe the US presence in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter South Korea). While the main front of the Cold War ended in August 1991 with the defeat of the hard-line Communist coup in the Soviet Union, Communist totalitarianism continues to rule in China, North Korea, Laos, and to a considerable extent in Vietnam. Human rights and political and religious freedoms are as repressed in these countries as they were twenty years ago (though Vietnam has significantly relaxed its anti-religious policies). The Chinese Party-military-police regime welcomes foreign capital and the opportunity to increase its cash reserves by selling massive quantities of low-cost products abroad, but this greater economic openness has had minimal impact on how it treats its people or on its determination to maintain a system as repressive as the one in North Korea. Even apart from the nuclear issue, much is at stake in the ongoing Korean crisis: for South Korea, its independence and the rights and freedoms of its people; for the other countries of East Asia, a climate of peace with sufficient regional stability to permit normal economic, social and political development; and for the US, all of the foregoing plus continued confidence in the reliability of US commitments to our allies and friends in the Pacific Basin, and the contribution this in turn makes to US and global security. The Role of US Troops: Our military presence in South Korea is the main reason war has not broken out during the fifty-seven years since the armistice, in very much the way that our long presence, together with the UK and France, protected West Berlin. In both cases the vastly outnumbered defenders successfully deterred an attack, despite severe pressures and periodic threats of annihilation. Does anyone really think that the two million West Berliners would have remained free for a week if the Allies had removed their few brigades to West Germany? If North Korea has long had in place sufficient forces to seize Seoul and send the South Korean government fleeing, a la 1950, the physical presence of the US “tripwire” is the only credible explanation for why it has refrained from doing so. Withdrawing our forces offshore and offering instead assurances of future help would be a clear statement that our security commitment to South Korea is no longer what it was, despite our alliance. One cannot effectively defend an ally against a massive land invasion solely with ships and remote airbases. And we tried partial withdrawal a few years ago: in an effort to defuse tensions and after consultation with South Korea, we reduced troop strength by 25% and repositioned our forces within the country. This move has obviously not helped to moderate the North’s policies. And, as noted above, by staying in Korea we reassure not only South Korea but also our other allies in Asia that we will keep our commitments. Nuclear Matters: North Korea’s nuclear-weapons programs further impede the process of working toward a stable modus vivendi between the two Koreas. They add a new tension-heightening factor, lending support to those in the US who advocate air and ground military strikes to destroy the North Korean facilities. This is not the optimal solution for South Korea or for us, and it increases the incentive to explore as wide a range as possible of other pathways to the goal of a non-nuclear North Korea. In the off-and-on Six-Party Talks, we have on occasion persuaded the North Korean regime to slow down or temporarily suspend parts of its nuclear program. But it has not sustained these positive steps, ditched the program, or restored IAEA controls.

South Korea Link
U.S. Air power in South Korea is the vital internal link to deterring North Korea

Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. (BS, Excelsior College; MA, Catholic University; MMS, Marine Corps Command and Staff College; PhD, Union Institute) 9/1/05 “The Future of US Airpower on the Korean Peninsula” http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/fal05/bechtol.html#bechtol

Clearly, US and South Korean airpower serves as a strong deterrent against the traditional aggression that North Korea wanted to initiate prior to the economic collapse that put its formidable armored and mechanized forces into a state of decline. But airpower also would play a major role (perhaps an even more important one) in stopping aggression from North Korea’s asymmetric capability that built up during the 1990s. As discussed previously, North Korea has now moved a large number of long-range artillery systems close enough to the DMZ to threaten virtually all of Seoul and many areas of Kyongi Province (the northernmost province in South Korea; it contains the largest concentration of that country’s ground forces) with little warning time to US and ROK forces. Currently, the ground-based mission of providing counterfire to this long-range artillery falls to the 2d US Infantry Division, which operates 30 multiple-rocket-launcher systems and 30 M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers. During April 2005, as part of the ongoing shift of defense responsibilities on the Korean Peninsula between South Korean and US forces, leadership announced that the South Korean army would assume responsibility for this mission. Integration of South Korean units into the combined ROK-US command, control, communication, computers, and intelligence (C4I) system on the peninsula will be key to the success of this new mission.17 Regarding the current state of readiness of South Korean forces on the peninsula, however, the United States has concerns about the unwillingness of Seoul to spend money to upgrade its own C4I infrastructureor to help with the costs of the current structure.18 Integrating these newly assigned units into a modern C4I system is vital because of the importance of quick reaction time in pinpointing North Korean artillery units with radar and destroying them before they fire or shortly thereafter.19 Even if all of these systems could operate at peak efficiency and immediately integrate effectively into current or future C4I infrastructures, they would still need heavy augmentation by effective airpower in both their offensive and defensive postures. North Korea simply has more long-range artillery systems deployed along the DMZ than ground-based systems could destroy all at once—particularly in a first-strike scenario. Of course, this is exacerbated by the concerns about C4I, which will probably remain an issue in ROK-US alliance talks for the foreseeable future. Thus, in terms of the first element of North Korea’s asymmetric triad (long-range artillery), airpower will continue to play an essential role in deterring and destroying that threat. Because of the unique and unmatched capability of US fighter and attack aircraft to suppress this type of target, American airpower has become extremely important to countering this growing threat—and will likely remain so for many years as Seoul continues to upgrade its C4I and airborne-strike capabilities. Regarding the second element of the triad (missiles), US airpower is an absolutely vital deterrent, now and in the future, against a first strike by the North Koreans, who have a large number of dispersed missile facilities (as well as mobile launchers, which they have not only deployed but also proliferated to other nations, such as Syria).20 In case of war, ROK-US forces would need to take out Scud missile sites and launchers as well as longer-range missiles because North Korea might use the latter to launch a retaliatory strike at Japan (perhaps at US bases located at Okinawa or elsewhere) (fig. 4). To do so, the US Air Force would use its assets on the Korean Peninsula (Seventh Air Force), in Japan (Fifth Air Force), on Guam (bombers), and elsewhere in Pacific Air Forces, where US airpower possesses unique and vital capabilities for the defense of the Korean Peninsula.21
South Korea Link – China
Withdrawal from South Korea strengthens China’s rise
Emile Hokayem, Political Editor of the National, a newspaper, "The Gulf and South Korea face threats of a similar kind", 6/7/10, The National http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100608/OPINION/706079914/1080/commentary?template=opinion

Besides prolonging the crisis on the Korean peninsula, the episode has implications for global security. The perception that North Korea can get away with bad behaviour at such small cost erodes the very deterrence that is key to stability. The US extends its defence umbrella over its Asian allies, and by doing so, prevents a conventional and nuclear arms race. If the US umbrella is seen as not credible or sustainable, countries like Japan or South Korea may decide either to take their fate into their own hands, creating more tensions with China and North Korea, or bow to Chinese hegemony. Many fantasise of a world without the US, but none of that emerged from talks with Asian interlocutors, all of whom considered a strong America critical to Asian stability and a counterweight to China.

North Korea deterred now

North Korean Deterrence is working now

Business Week By Patrick Harrington 5/28/10 “ U.S., South Korea Ready to Repel North as Raptors, Ships Deploy” http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-28/u-s-south-korea-ready-to-repel-north-as-raptors-ships-deploy.html

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. and South Korean forces said they are ready to repel any threat posed by North Korea as 24 stealth fighter jets deploy to the region and a report said the military alert level has been raised. Naval vessels plan anti-submarine exercises close to the disputed maritime border between North and South Korea where one of the South’s warships sank on March 26, killing 46 sailors. An international team of experts last week concluded that a North Korean torpedo blew apart the Cheonan, prompting Kim Jong Il’s regime to cut all ties with the South and threaten “all-out war” over any punitive action. “U.S. and ROK forces are well prepared to deter aggression against the Republic of Korea and meet any threat posed by North Korean Forces,” said Lieutenant Colonel Angela Billings, a spokeswoman for U.S. forces in Korea, in a written response to questions. She declined to give any details on operational strategy, ship movements or contingency plans should the North make good on a threat to open fire on vessels invading disputed waters, citing security policy.

The US is successfully deterring North Korean aggression now—troops deployments in South Korea are key

Associated Press, 5/24/10, MSNBC, "U.S. backs South Korea in punishing North", http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37309788/

The Obama administration endorsed Lee's demand that "North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior." Seoul can continue to count on the full backing of the United States, it said. "U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal, and the president has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," the White House said. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman did not give a date for the exercises but said they will be in the "near future." The U.S. has 28,500 troops in South Korea — a major sore point for the North — as well as 47,000 troops in Japan. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Beijing conferring with China on a coordinated response. She would not say whether that might include new international sanctions against the North. "We are working hard to avoid an escalation of belligerence and provocation," Clinton said. "This is a highly precarious situation that the North Koreans have caused in the region."

South Korean and US efforts are deterring North Korea now
Jeff Mason, writer for Reuters, 5/24/10, Reuters, ("Obama tells military: prepare for North Korea aggression", http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N0ZT20100524)

The United States gave strong backing to plans by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to punish North Korea for sinking one of its naval ships, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement. The White House urged North Korea to apologize and change its behavior, he said. "We endorse President Lee's demand that North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior," Gibbs said. "U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal, and the president has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," he said. Obama and Lee have agreed to meet at the G20 summit in Canada next month, he said. Late last week, a team of international investigators accused North Korea of torpedoing the Cheonan corvette in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the deadliest clashes between the two since the 1950-53 Korean War. Lee said on Monday South Korea would bring the issue before the U.N., whose past sanctions have damaged the already ruined North Korean economy. The United States still has about 28,000 troops in South Korea to provide military support. The two Koreas, still technically at war, have more than 1 million troops near their border. "We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue," Gibbs said. Gibbs said the United States supported Lee's plans to bring the issue to the United Nations Security Council and would work with allies to "reduce the threat that North Korea poses to regional stability."

North Korea deterred now
US troops and joint exercises will deter North Korea now
Dan De Luce, Writer for Agence France Presse, an international newspaper, 7/21/10, "US-S.Korea war games to send 'clear message' to N.Korea", http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jey5cJhsUwZDXyXwdQ7E70ICE08g

SEOUL — The United States and South Korea will launch a major military exercise on Sunday in the Sea of Japan as a warning to North Korea over the sinking of a South Korean ship, the two countries' defence chiefs said. The drill is the first in a series designed "to send a clear message to North Korea that its aggressive behaviour must stop", US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the South's Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young said in a joint statement on Tuesday after talks. South Korea, the United States and other nations, citing findings of a multinational investigation, accuse the North of sending a submarine to torpedo the Cheonan warship near the tense Yellow Sea border in March. The North denies involvement in the sinking, which claimed 46 lives, and says any retaliation could spark war. The US-led United Nations Command said the drill from July 25-28 would involve about 20 ships including the 97,000-ton aircraft carrier USS George Washington and some 200 fixed-wing aircraft. Although the two countries had staged large-scale military exercises in the past, this was the first in "many years" to be carried out in the aftermath of a "provocation" by North Korea, said Admiral Robert Willard, head of US Pacific Command. Four F-22 Raptor fighter jets will also take part in this month's drill, flying training missions around Korea for the first time, Willard told a news conference. "Our goal is to deter North Korea from future provocations," Willard said, adding it remained unclear if the drills would have the desired effect. About 8,000 army, air force, navy and marine personnel from the two allies will take part, with drills covering anti-submarine warfare, mid-air refueling and cyber defence, officers said. "We stand fully prepared to respond militarily to any further North Korean provocation," said General Han Min-Koo, chairman of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the UN Command statement. Seoul's defence ministry said earlier the drill had been relocated from the sensitive Yellow Sea (West Sea) to the Sea of Japan (East Sea) in deference to Chinese protests. But Gates and Kim said future drills would be held in both seas. North Korea denounced the drill as "very dangerous sabre-rattling". It is "aimed at further straining the already deadlocked inter-Korean relations and igniting a nuclear war against the DPRK (North), while watching for a chance," cabinet newspaper Minju Joson said in a commentary. US officials see China, the North's sole major ally and its economic lifeline, as playing a crucial role in reducing tensions on the peninsula but have been frustrated with Beijing's cautious stance. Willard said the US administration wanted to see China use its leverage with North Korea. "They clearly have a very strong relationship with North Korea, and we would very much like to see them exert the influence to see that a Cheonan never happens again," he said. The United States stations 28,500 troops in the South. Gates and Kim said they reaffirmed a commitment to an enduring US military presence and the current US troop level. Earlier Tuesday, Gates visited US forces at Camp Casey, 20 km (12 miles) from the North Korean border. He said the naval exercises would send "a strong signal" of deterrence to North Korea but he said the communist state would pose a continuing challenge in coming years. Gates also announced that he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would Wednesday visit the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas. He described the North's missile and nuclear proliferation as a serious problem that would require persistent international pressure. "This is an ongoing challenge that has to be managed over a period of years," he said.

Turkey Link - TNWs

The effectiveness of the deterrent isn’t relevant – other nations still perceive Turkish TNWs as a symbol of leadership.

Sariibrahimoglu 2009 [Lale, head Eurasian analyst for the Jamestown foundation, “Turkey to face pressure over US nukes on its soil”, http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=174286]

Neither NATO nor the US will publicly admit to the existence of nuclear weapons deployed during the Cold War years in five NATO countries, including Turkey. NATO and the US Department of Defense do not publicly release information on the deployment of those weapons, either. Belgium and Germany, which also hosts US nuclear weapons on its soil, debated in their parliaments almost two weeks ago the withdrawal of those weapons from their territory. Those debates have now raised questions over what Turkey's policy will be on the fate of those weapons believed to be deployed at the İncirlik base in southern Turkey. According to the US-based Arms Control Association, under NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements, an estimated 480 tactical nuclear weapons remain deployed in five NATO non-nuclear-weapon states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey) and in the United Kingdom, which also possesses an independent nuclear arsenal. Canada and Greece ended their participation in nuclear sharing. At this stage Turkish diplomatic sources decline to comment on what Ankara's policy will be if NATO presses and finally agrees on a unanimous decision to withdraw the weapons from Turkish soil, too. But Mustafa Kibaroğlu, an associate professor at Ankara's Bilkent University and an expert on arms control issues, told Today's Zaman that Turkish decision makers, i.e., both the political and the military leadership, are for maintaining those weapons on Turkish soil to continue their deterrence capabilities in the region, which includes the Balkans, the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Second, Turkey sees the US as the backbone of deterrence in the region and does not favor the idea of scrapping the nukes from its soil. Kibaroğlu, in an article he had published by the Routledge publishing house in December 2005 under the headline "Isn't it Time to Say Farewell to Nukes in Turkey?," gives an in-depth analysis of the rationale behind the Turkish reluctance over the idea to scrap US nukes on its territory. Kibaroğlu states in his article that the attitude of Turkish officials toward US nuclear weapons deployed in Turkey for over four decades has been static. Officials have understandable arguments, based on their threat analysis, as to why these weapons should be retained in Turkey. "However, since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the international security environment has undergone radical changes. The classical deterrent value of nuclear weapons no longer applies with these emerging threats. At the same time, there is an increased probability of unauthorized use of crude radiological devices or nuclear weapons by terrorist organizations. In addition to increased security at storage sites, bolder steps must be taken by concerned countries to get rid of nuclear weapons. Such steps should begin with reducing the number of US nuclear weapons deployed in allied countries, including Turkey," he asserts. Turkey's possible reluctance to agree on the withdrawal of nukes from its soil sets another example of the Turkish state's inability to adjust itself to the new realities of the world following the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, recalled a Turkish security analyst. Neighboring Iran's possible attempts to acquire nuclear weapons may also harden the Turkish policy of agreeing to the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from its soil, asserted the same analyst. In a major speech delivered in Prague on April 5, US President Barack Obama outlined his vision for strengthening the global effort to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, moving forward on long-overdue disarmament measures and preventing nuclear terrorism. He stated "clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." Obama's major call on curbing nuclear weapons in the world also hints at a divergence of opinion emerging between the two close NATO allies -- Turkey and the US -- since the latter has reportedly not opposed the withdrawal of its nuclear weapons from five NATO states, including Turkey. Despite speculated Turkish opposition to withdrawing the nukes on its soil, fresh debates in the parliaments of NATO countries, such as Germany, signal that Ankara is to face increased pressure from the alliance over their removal. According to the Arms Control Association, the US has withdrawn more than 90 percent of the 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons it had deployed in Europe at the end of the Cold War. It mainly did so to implement the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) announced in 1991 by then-presidents George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev. The nuclear weapons remain in US custody during peacetime, but an estimated 180 such weapons can be released to US allies for delivery in times of war, it added. Experts estimate that Russia still holds at least 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons, although many of these may not be in usable condition, said the Arms Control Association. The United States says that Russia has been implementing its obligations under the PNIs "for the most part" but still has questions, particularly with regard to Moscow's land-based tactical nuclear arsenal, the Arms Control Association said.
Turkey Link – TNWs

Share with your friends:
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   31

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page