399 Gt Korea Updates

Tournament updates ? DDI ’08 GT

No war in Asia Close ties prove that no conflict will occur between the US and Asia -- lose circles prove no escalation. Kim Ji-soo [Staff Reporter “Relationship Between US, Northeast Asia” Korea times arts and living section http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/art/2008/07/142_27830.html] 07-18-2008 The Beijing Olympics is several weeks away. The dispute between Seoul and Tokyo over rocky islets has flared once again. Candlelights had been burning for months on the streets of Seoul. The Northeast Asian region is a compelling picture of change and new development these days. A book that carries a collection of works dealing with the region is out to give the readers some views to consider. ``The United States and Northeast Asia: Debates, Issues, and New Order'' (eds. G. John Ikenberry and Chung-in Moon, Lanham, Md and Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008) provides a broad view of the dynamics of change in Northeast Asia. The book starts with a brief summary on the big tenets in Northeast Asian politics since the mid-19th century. The Sinocentric order evolved from a confrontational order to a reactionary one in which Japan actively pursued the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" campaign by pitting the "Asian spirit" against "Western imperialists." Since World War II, the United States has played a crucial role in shaping the geo-political and geo-economic destiny of East Asia. The old international order was anchored in America's postwar hegemonic presence in the region, tied to bilateral security partnerships with Japan and South Korea. For half a century, that hegemonic order provided a stable structure of open markets and security as Japan, South Korea and other Asian countries developed, democratized and joined the wider modernized world. The end of the Cold War, Sept. 11, and major strategic alignments have unveiled new indications of a shift in East Asia. America's stabilizing role is largely unchanged. And from this standpoint, the book maps how power relations are shifting in the region, marked by divergent developmental passages, and intensifying interdependence among the major players. The book is divided into three parts comprising 12 chapters. In the first part, the book carries six articles by leading specialist that reviews the Northeast Asian region as anchored in American's bilateral alliances and liberal hegemonic leadership. John Ikenberry writes about the political foundation of American engagement with Northeast Asia, seeing it as a combination of hard bilateral security ties and soft multilateral economic relations. In the following chapter, Avery Goldstein looks at rising China. Takashi Inoguchi and Bacon write on Japan; William C. Wohlforth on Russia's missing Asian revisionism; Kim Woo-sang on South Korea; and Kim Yong-ho's piece on North Korea's new status and behavior. The issues dealt with in Part II of the book have more relevancy to the lay watchers of current affairs of the region. Three specialists including Chung In-moon and Suh Seong-won touch upon increasingly vocal nationalism spreading throughout the Northeast as well as on the clash of national identity and politics of nationalism in China, Japan and South Korea, and the North Korean nuclear quagmire. Finally, articles in Part III are devoted to recasting old order and designing new regional order: an American hegemonic order in the post-September 11 era (Michael Mastanduno), a liberal and institutional path to communitybuilding in the region (Vinod K. Aggarwal and Koo Min-gyo), and the role of the U.S. in shaping regional order (Kim Ki-jung and Kim Myong-sob). All in all, the volume under review presents a comprehensive analysis of regional dynamics in Northeast Asia, although it may not be an easy read for the lay readers. However, the book shows that pessimistic outlook should be countered by more positive factors shaping the region. Interests, norms, and shared identity could foster cooperation among regional actors ― transcending security dilemmas, prestige contests, and territorial disputes. Deepening economic interdependence, expanding social and cultural exchanges, and more importantly, informal networks formed through production, investment and education would prevent conflict escalation in the region. While offering no easy answers to the dilemmas confronting the region, a close examination of these pressing debates and issues will provide readers with the knowledge necessary to understanding the changes underway.

1

Tournament updates ? DDI ’08 GT

No war with Iran No war with Iran – sanctions and lack of weapons prove. AFP Jul 9, 2008 [http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYf1mz42k7PQIT3_5p2bTHM5QkjQ] WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States has played down any prospects of war with Iran or any immediate dangers from its nuclear drive but warned that the world was ready to confront its "provocative" policies. Iran's test firing of a medium range missile that it said could reach Israel drew anger in Washington but US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States and Iran were not close to war. Asked if the two countries were closer to a military confrontation in light of the escalating rhetoric, Gates said, "No I don't think so." "The reality is there is a lot of signalling going on, but everybody recognizes what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be," he said. "And I would tell you that this government is working hard to make sure the diplomatic and economic approach to dealing with Iran and trying to get the Iranian government to change its policy is the strategy and is the approach that continues to dominate," said the defense chief. Iran's missile launch Wednesday came a day after an aide to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Tehran would "set fire" to Israel and the US navy in the Gulf in response to any American attack over its nuclear program. The missile launch is "very disturbing, provocative and reckless," said William Burns, the top official handling Iranian issues at the US State Department. But Under Secretary of State Williams played down any imminent dangers from Iran's uranium enrichment despite fears among world powers fear the sensitive nuclear program could be used to make a nuclear weapon. "While Iran seeks to create the perception of advancement of its nuclear program, real progress has been more modest," he told Congressional hearings on the "strategic challenge posed by Iran." Iran has not yet mastered uranium enrichment, thanks to three rounds of sanctions imposed on Tehran by the UN Security Council for not suspending the nuclear program, he said. "It is apparent that Iran has not yet perfected enrichment, and as a direct result of UN sanctions, Iran's ability to procure technology or items of significance to its missile programs, even dual use items, is being impaired," Burns said. In addition to limiting Iran's access to proliferation sensitive technologies and products, Burns said key officials involved in Iran's procurement activities had been "cut off" from the international financial system and restricted from travel. Iran's banks were also being pushed out of their normal spheres of operation, he said. Burns also told Iran to seriously reconsider its "provocative" and "threatening" policies and move towards a "cooperative and constructive" path. "Until that time, however, the US and the international community remain committed to meeting the challenges posed by Iran," he said.

2

Tournament updates ? DDI ’08 GT

Korea us relations high Even in face of tension US Korea alliance stands. The Chosun Ilbo [Korean news paper, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200808/200808050026.html] Aug.5,2008 South Koreans were able to see the power and influence of the U.S. once again in the recent incident involving the description of Dokdo by the U.S. federal Board on Geographic Names. Pragmatic diplomacy, stressing only the short-term national interest, cannot help us make America’s power work for us. We must consider our national interest by looking at least 20 to 30 years down the road. Anti-U.S. beef protesters plan to hold another major rally today when President Bush arrives in Seoul. Leftwing forces here have persistently tried to associate anti-American sentiment with each conflict arising from short-term issues involving South Korea and the U.S. The most egregious cases are the mad cow scare and the accidental killings of two schoolgirls by a U.S. armored vehicle. These incidents ended up escalating to a scale tens or even hundreds of times larger than their original size, shaking the entire country. A major task is to overcome the goals of these factions. From that perspective, the U.S. must exercise deep consideration in dealing with bilateral issues. The alliance is just as beneficial to Washington as it is to Seoul. In order to protect it, the U.S. must not forfeit its real national interest by becoming focused only on its short-term concerns. The speedy restoration of the Dokdo description on the BGN database is part of that type of effort. What could have triggered massive anti-U.S. sentiment in South Korea was calmed in an instant. This could be seen as a demonstration of the strength of the 55-year-old of alliance between the two countries. The Lee Myung-bak administration is in the process of establishing a diplomatic policy line that will guide Korea through the next four years and seven months, and pretty soon, a new administration will lead the U.S. Both countries face a time of diplomatic adjustment. Both must frame the period of adjustment by focusing on a broader vision, rather than on short-term national interests. It is our hope that both countries will be able to find the strength to do that during this summit.

3

Tournament updates ? DDI ’08 GT

US key to stop Korean escalation US influence is key to stop escalation of Korean peninsula conflict. The Chosun Ilbo [Korean news paper, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200808/200808050026.html] Aug.5,2008 U.S. President George W. Bush visits Seoul today to hold thes last summit of his tenure with President Lee Myung-bak on Wednesday. The United States elects a new president in November, and Bush is already preparing to retire. A summit in such circumstances can normally have only symbolic significance, but relations between Korea and the U.S. and the diplomatic situation in Northeast Asia make the talks more than symbolic. Important issues are pending between the two countries: the ratification of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement in both countries, talks over the division of costs to maintain U.S. troops in South Korea, the changing role of U.S. forces here, the extended deployment of South Korea’s Zaytun Unit in Iraq and the redeployment of Korean forces in Afghanistan. There is a possibility that the subjects of U.S. beef imports and the Dokdo islets will also be brought up during the summit. These are all sensitive issues. But the two countries must go beyond negotiating and adjusting these issues and look at bilateral ties and relations with neighboring countries from a broader and long-term perspective. Lee advocates pragmatic diplomacy, which puts more weight on national interests than ideology. Lee has said that countries can become allies if they share mutual interests and that there can be no alliance in today’s world if national interests are compromised. It is common in relations between two countries that an issue that could appear to be harmful to a nation’s interests in the short term could end up becoming beneficial from a mid-to-long-term perspective. Korea is in a position where it virtually borders three superpowers -- China, Japan and Russia -- while it is in a standoff with a heavily armed North Korea. There is no telling what may happen beyond those three borders or how rapidly the situation may change in North Korea. In these circumstances, we have no choice but to utilize the influence of the U.S. to protect ourselves and achieve unification. If West Germany had not received the wholehearted support of the U.S. during unification with East Germany, the process would have been several times more difficult and could have ended up with different results. There is no better example than the German unification that South Koreans should use to reflect on themselves.

4