SOUTH KOREA LECTURE

Speaker: Nate Cohn

• History
o DPRK – North; PRK – South
o Gov after the war, but not legit
o US formed constitution
o South Korea and Japan did not have good relations
o Korean War forced an alliance between s. korea and japan
o US permanent presence established after the Korean war
 3rd largest military deployment (germany, japan)
 Not much unrest met due to lack of free speech
 Cold war questioned the alliance
 South korea was not alarmed over a North attack and grew resentful of US presence
 Civilian casualties due to military mistakes
 Bush Doctrine provoked North Korea
 Trade, mad cow beef issue, KFTA – angered civilians
 Korean gov increasingly hostile towards US
 US decided to reduce troops post cold war – limit garrisons
 Joint Forces Agreement
• South Korean forces controlled by US
• During combat, forces return to Korean control
• Shift in bases away from Seoul
• Purpose: create a mature, secured military alliance
 An affirmative that removes troops from Seoul
• US implementing removal of troops by 2015
• Lee in favor of keeping alliance, protection
 2008 – President Lee
• Pro US alliance
• Rely on America’s security protection
• North Korea not viewed as a large threat to South Korea
• Increased military spending,
 2009 – PRK in favor of US presence
 2010 – Chonan ship incident
• DPRK blamed for torpedoing and sinking PRK ship
• Tensions increasing
• Calls to defend South Korea
 Current
• 28k troops
• Combined forces command responsible for tactical operations
• PRK alliance seen as strategic
o Deter attack by DPRK
o Frontline base in wake of attack
o Alliance against China
• Aff ground
o Not good literature post- 2008
 President Lee PRK in favor of US protection
 PRK against withdrawal
o Events prove in favor of the neg
o Aff says nuke war is coming
 US presence prevents this
 o Offshore balancing
 US maintains forward deployed troops in world
 Multipolar approach
 China check – US can intervene to check China, Japan and PRK form own forces
• Escalatory potential of Korean war
• Withdrawal keeps korean war isolated
• Rearmament good
o Allies need to share burden, learn self-defense
o US Defense budget adv.
o Competitiveness
 PRK spend very little on defense now
 Can use saved money for other things
 Could become a new rival in east asia
o Resentment
 Need to restructure the alliance to prevent inevitable collapse
o North Korean Prolif
 American security absence = stronger North Korea; checks China
o Containment
 DPRK inevitably hostile, possible aggressive
 Debate over Chinese hostility
 US presence signifies US acknowledgement of Chinese aggression
• Cold war with China
• Neg ground
o K ground
 Ontological security of DPRK
 Orientalism

o Security not prime concern of DPRK
o AT Resentment
 Post 2008 election yields support for US presence
o AT Rearment
 Adverse arguments – hostile PRK relations with Japan, China, etc.
 Bidirectional debate
o AT Entanglement
 US has formal agreement to protect PRK
 As long as the alliance lasts, US will be drawn into conflict
 Aff cannot topically end the alliance

o Better DA ground
 Country supports US military presence
 Have to be able to get rid of all – or a lot – to access adv. ground
 Important for relations, plan leads to decrease in heg
 Undermining US strategy bad
 Heg
• Allied rearment
• US withdrawl from PRK viewed as ignorant, bad
o Showing weakness empowers DPRK
• Appeasement
o Chonan incident
• Troop shift DA
o Redeployment to Japan, etc.
o Small Affs
  Operational Command Change
 Joint exercises
• Provoke DPRK
 Seoul withdrawal – expedited
 Extended deterrence aff
o Status of Forces agreement
 Requires PRK check prior to troop removal