The Instigator
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
debater32
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Impeding a Rising China

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,950 times Debate No: 25839
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

CiRrK

Pro

The actual resolution (too long for topic box):

The United States should enhance its policy of 'hedging' in East Asia as a means to impede Chinese soft and hard power projection.



Definitions

Enhance: add to the policies already implemented in the status quo, or strengthen existing policies.

Hedging: diplomatic and military maneuvers to foster bilateral, trilateral and multilateral relations in order to isolate competing nation states for influence.

Impede: reduce the ability of

Soft power: diplomatic and economic influence

Hard power: threat or use of military force as a means for influence or control


Rules

No semantics

Forfeits are auto-losses

Drops are concessions, individual pieces of evidence

No new arguments in the last round, including new evidence



*Rd. 1 is for acceptance. Rd. 2 will begin argumentation


Good luck to my future opponent!





debater32

Con

I accept this debate and all terms, conditions and rules.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrK

Pro

U.S. Interest Analysis:

Cambell; Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, writes:

“It is clear that America’s success in the 21st century is tied to the success of the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. As Secretary Clinton has noted, much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia. There is no question that the region’s influence is growing and holds the key to our shared future. Asian nations are vital to the life-blood of the global economy. Their opinions and decisions have profound influence from Latin American to the Middle East and Africa on addressing complex and emerging transnational challenges, like climate change.

Despite the Asia-Pacific region’s tremendous growth, the region still faces some of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. North Korea and Burma remain outliers to the region’s prosperity and continue to be sources for insecurity and instability. Many of today’s most critical issues -- military competition, nuclear proliferation, violent extremism, financial crises, poverty, weak and ineffective governments, unresolved territorial disputes, growing competition over energy and natural resources, climate change, and disease -- transcend national borders and pose a common risk in the region.” [1]

This point is probably the least contended point in the strategic debate over East Asia, but it is important to note these interests to contextualize the vital nature of a successful strategy. Through globalization economies has become much more interdependent and interwoven meaning every other nation’s actions directly affect the U.S. Transnational security threats and an increasing amount of proliferation also direct affect the security of the U.S. homeland, the current alliance regime and general global stability.


C1: China has been acting more aggressively as its military and economic prowess grows [3]

Webb writes,

Over the past two years Japan and China have openly clashed in the Senkaku Islands, east of Taiwan and west of Okinawa, whose administration is internationally recognized to be under Japanese control. Russia and South Korea have reasserted sovereignty claims against Japan in northern waters. China and Vietnam both claim sovereignty over the Paracel Islands. China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia all claim sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, the site of continuing confrontations between China and the Philippines…The potential conflicts stemming from the creation of this new Chinese prefecture extend well beyond the Paracels. Over the last six weeks the Chinese have further proclaimed that the jurisdiction of Sansha includes not just the Paracel Islands but virtually the entire South China Sea…[2]

NBR writes,

“The end of the Cold War and China’s rapid economic growth enabled the PRC to move from focusing almost exclusively on homeland defense to developing a second layer of advanced capabilities for the “near seas” or “three seas” (the Yellow, East China, and South China seas).” [3]

C2: Hedging Advantages [4] [5]

First, the Philippines: Air power deters Chinese land grabs.

As the PAF (Philippine Air Force) has reduced its capabilities the Chinese have aggressively claimed sovereign Philippines islands as Chinese territory. This lack of PAF capability prevents the Philippines from establishing clear sovereign borders. Moreover, China has been increasingly harassing economic and industrial sectors of the Philippines in these areas. (Refer to source)Thus, an economic hedging tool is to promote U.S.-Philippine air force cooperation.

Lohman writes,

In November 2011, President Aquino expressed an interest in the acquisition by the PAF of two squadrons of second-hand F-16C/Ds through the U.S. Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program. The interest is linked directly to China’s growing naval presence in the South China Sea near the Malampaya natural gas project, located at the westernmost province of Palawan facing the Spratly Islands.”

Second, South Korea/Japanese Military Alliance.

Due to historical grievances South Korea and Japan have yet to create a military alliance. The disadvantage of this is that China has been expanding its naval power (as mentioned above*) into the South China Sea with little deterrent opposition. The U.S. moreover has failed to facilitate cooperation between these two countries. Thus, my hedge proposal is to form a trilateral defense alliance, under the pretense of containing North Korea. My name for this is the “kill two birds with one stone” strategy. By containing North Korean adventurism exacerbated by China, this trilateral alliance will form a defense umbrella around the South China Sea.

Klinger writes,

“A senior South Korean official commented that the need for South Korea and Japan to share military intelligence “became clear each time North Korea tested a nuclear weapon or launched a long-range missile, but the lack of an accord made that impossible. We decided to rush things [after the April 2012 missile launch].” Tokyo saw benefits to exchanging information with South Korea after it failed to detect the North Korean missile launch, which would have flown over Okinawa if the missile had not blown up shortly after…”

“By linking U.S., South Korean, and Japanese sensors, the allies could “defeat any future North Korean missile attack, protect vital U.S. military capabilities based in Japan or Guam, minimize the risk that an intentional North Korea provocation could lead to an all-out war, and help prevent Japan from taking an independent response,” according to South Korean Vice Admiral Jung Ho-sub. However, implementing a regional missile defense network would require Seoul and Tokyo to share security information. Thus, the collapse of the GSOMIA prevents progress on implementing a regional missile defense network that includes South Korea.”

“Japan has strong ASW and mine-sweeping capabilities. The GSOMIA would enable Seoul and Tokyo to share intelligence on the North Korean submarine threat, enhancing joint exercises and cooperation. The South Korean and Japanese navies are “uniquely suited for multilateral cooperation because of their intrinsic unobtrusive nature as over-the-horizon security forces, out of public view.”

C3: Hedging prevents a nuclear arms race in East Asia, thereby minimizing the potential for Chinese preemptivism [5]

Cheng writes,

“In terms of human capital and technological sophistication, and increasingly financial wherewithal, many Asian states, such as Japan and South Korea, have the potential ability to develop their own nuclear deterrent. That they have not done so may be attributed, in part, to the American extended deterrence guarantee. Although often perceived as only a nuclear guarantee, the U.S. commitment to provide extended deterrence includes “the full range of military capabilities, to include the U.S. nuclear umbrella, conventional strike, and missile defense capabilities.” It is striking how, as American military resources are in decline, the Republic of Korea (ROK) has openly raised the possibility of asking for American tactical nuclear weapons to be reintroduced to the peninsula.”

[1] http://www.state.gov...

[2] http://online.wsj.com...

[3] http://nbr.org...

[4] http://www.heritage.org...

debater32

Con

U.S. Interest Analysis
Asia has often been the flashpoint and the center of the world's problems and attentions for many years. The Pacific War in World War II and the Cold War are just two examples. A form of hedging was attempted in Korea and Vietnam to prevent Soviet communist expansion; this met with minimal success. Korea- nothing really changed at the end and Vietnam resulted in a Communist victory. In the 21st century, Asia will continue to be a center for world politics as per the norm.

C1: China has been acting more aggressively as its military and economic prowess grows [3]

While China has indeed made several attempts to calim landoutside of its border in key strategic positions, these have not gone anywhere and while China could have seized these lands and hold them with extreme ease given the manpower they command, they have not for one obvious reason. US naval power far exceeds China’s. The US have over 700 ships ready for war, while then Chinese have no more than 300. They do not have the technology to fight successfully, and while they are progressing, the US still builds ships faster than China.

C2: Hedging Advantages

I ran a simulation to see in a potential fight, who would win between a wing of 4 F-16Cs and Su-27s (of which China has a variant of). The F-16s were destroyed ,albeit taking out 75% of the enemy force.

I then ran a sim to see if the F-15C could do better. The opposite occurred. This shows that in the event of an invasion, the Philippines would do better with F-15s and would be hindered with F-16s. Furthermore, could two F-16 squadrons really withstand a 700 strong airforce long enough for help to arrive?
Military Alliances

A military alliance does not always mean that sides will come to each other's aid in times of need. In Vietnam, many NATO countries refused to send aid or men to the US.

C3: preventing a nuclear arms race.

“... the Republic of Korea (ROK) has openly raised the possibility of asking for American tactical nuclear weapons to be reintroduced to the peninsula.”

-While hedging would prevent a nuclear arms race, it would also drag the US and China into supplying nuclear devics into the Pacific, meaning they could lose control of said arms if a country decides to launch without the supplier's approval.

Sources: Pro
Wikipedia

Debate Round No. 2
CiRrK

Pro

U.S. Interest Analysis

My opponent concedes that there are grave issues within the Asian region meaning it is a vital area of the world for U.S. interests. However, he argues that hedging was attempted against the U.S.S.R. and it had minimal effects.

The first problem with this argument is that my opponent conflates hedging with containment. These are two strategies which always get conflated within the realm of international relations. It is possible to have containment within a hedging strategy, but that is simply one aspect. Containment is a much more rigid and inflexible strategy used to destroy the target nation by restricting outside life forces and to prevent the spread of an ideology. Hedging doesn’t seek to destroy the target nation, but rather prevent an increase in power. [1]

The second problem with this argument is that Containment was used against the U.S.S.R. when its dominance was more or less equal to the power of the U.S. The world in which containment was utilized in was a bipolar world, which meant the U.S.S.R. could act militarily through proxy agents to block U.S. containment. As evident by my opponent’s argument under C1: China is far behind the U.S. in terms of military capability making an outright military block to hedging unlikely.

The third problem is that my opponent’s comparison to Korea and Vietnam are false comparisons. The geopolitical makeup of the region is completely different from the East under the U.S.S.R. China has only one true proxy agent in the region, and that is North Korea. Hedging in the comprehensive sense of the word is to create various agreements and alliances around China without directly confronting China unless necessary, e.g. attack on Taiwan. Even Vietnam is helping the U.S. hedge against China – Jordan writes,

“The effort by Hanoi to define the basis for expanded defense and security cooperation with the U.S. can partly be explained as part of a Vietnamese attempt to hedge bets in a contest with a vigorously assertive and aggressively inclined China, and encouraging economic relationships that will contribute to modernization. Hanoi sees the acceptance of the formality of a defense relationship with Washington as one way of coping with China’s strategic intentions of increasing its influence in East Asia. Beijing’s efforts to prevent what it portrays as Washington’s “containment” of China have actually compelled Vietnam to enter into a closer relationship with the U.S., especially in the realm of defense and security.” [2]

In other words, the inflammatory Chinese remarks of containment and breaking out of U.S. influence has create a backlash of Asian nations against China and to revert to U.S.-strategic alliances. Vietnam is on the lower end of these agreements but considering Vietnam is an ideological brother of China demonstrates the fear Asian nations have of Chinese adventurism.

C1: China has been acting more aggressively as its military and economic prowess grows

My opponent’s argument about Chinese development is true within the context of the status quo, but hedging is a proactive and preventive strategy. Whereas China cannot truly compete with the U.S. now, it is important that the U.S. prevents Chinese blocks to U.S. access and influence. As evident by my argument in the first round, China is building defense layers around the strategic seas, such as the South China Sea. The reason for this is to block access of the U.S. Thus, hedging is a method of preventing the time when China can actually push U.S. influence out of the region.

C2: Hedging Advantages

Again my opponent falls into the mistake of misapplying my argument to points of direct conflict. Hedging is to deter Chinese aggression in the region – as long as the U.S. can assist its allies in creating a military force which makes it disadvantageous for China to act coercively then hedging has achieved part of its goals. That being said, my proposals help to contextualize the specifics of hedging. If the U.S. should sell F-16s or F-15s the principle holds true that the U.S. should assist in some capacity to deter China from acting against its neighbors.

The argument you make against trilateralism mistakes the intention of the proposal. This trilateral agreement deals with intelligence and defensive security, such as protecting the freedom of navigation. Moreover, as clear by the evidence from round 1, it is in the clear interests of both countries to form a trilateral agreement to protect themselves from the acts of North Korea and aggressive acts by China. Whereas other countries in NATO may not have had direct interests in Vietnam, both countries have dire interests when it comes to their neighbors in the region – one of which is viewed as an irrational nation and the other who seeks regional dominance.

C3: preventing a nuclear arms race.

My opponent has only responded to one small aspect of the argument. On balance, U.S. conventional forces, missile deployments and naval and airpower reinforce U.S. prowess in the region which reassures our allies. If the U.S. is kicked from the region due to an expanding Chinese presence, it only makes sense that other countries counter-balance the North Korean and Chinese nuclear threat. Even if the U.S. deploys a nuclear umbrella in the region, China would be put into a situation of MAD. Thus, China would be balanced. This is preferable to an arms race between multiple competing countries, because it would simply be between two major powers and one minor power.

[1] http://www.lowyinterpreter.org...

[2] http://www.heritage.org...

My opponent has conceded the source points to me.

debater32

Con

debater32 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
CiRrK

Pro

Well he forfeited....so as per rules the debate is over.

Good debate :)
debater32

Con

debater32 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I thought rape was illegal in the United States.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
I'd gladly debate you in the future, Cunmin.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 4 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
I like con's 'Sources: Pro'. :P

There are some things I'd like to say about Pro's arguments, but I don't want to be accused of siding with con (though I'm not a voter).
Posted by Chunryeong 4 years ago
Chunryeong
Fun to watching this debate as I'm Korean.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
lol I can play that game too: Just because you say they are doesn't mean they are. At that point t becomes disputed which then should be settled through diplomatic means, not military standoffs. Kthxbye.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 4 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Oh, but they are. Just because you say they aren't doesn't mean they aren't.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
arent*
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
I think I made the point that those lands rent sovereign Chinese territories....did I not?
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 4 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
'China has been acting more aggressively as its military and economic prowess grows'? Why is every move that China takes to defend its own lands an act of aggression?
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Sigh, suddenly I don't like you anymore CiRrK. JK :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
CiRrKdebater32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: As Wallstreetatheist once said, quote "I thought Rape was Illegal in the United States"
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
CiRrKdebater32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
CiRrKdebater32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: