You are on page 1of 4

Tournament updates ?

DDI ’08

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] 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 community-
building 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.


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. is being" he said. the US and the international community remain committed to meeting the challenges posed by Iran." he told Congressional hearings on the "strategic challenge posed by Iran. even dual use items. Burns also told Iran to seriously reconsider its "provocative" and "threatening" policies and move towards a "cooperative and constructive" path. real progress has been more modest. Iran's banks were also being pushed out of their normal spheres of operation. Iran's ability to procure technology or items of significance to its missile programs." "The reality is there is a lot of signalling going on. In addition to limiting Iran's access to proliferation sensitive technologies and products. "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. the top official handling Iranian issues at the US State Department. he said. provocative and reckless. Gates said. 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." said the defense chief. AFP Jul 9. "Until that time. Burns said key officials involved in Iran's procurement activities had been "cut off" from the international financial system and restricted from travel. "No I don't think so. he said. "While Iran seeks to create the perception of advancement of its nuclear program." Burns said." Iran has not yet mastered uranium] 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." he said." said William Burns. and as a direct result of UN sanctions.Tournament updates ? DDI ’08 GT No war with Iran No war with Iran – sanctions and lack of weapons prove. 2008 [http://afp. thanks to three rounds of sanctions imposed on Tehran by the UN Security Council for not suspending the nuclear program. 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. however. "It is apparent that Iran has not yet perfected enrichment. The missile launch is "very disturbing. 2 . but everybody recognizes what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be.

This could be seen as a demonstration of the strength of the 55-year-old of alliance between the two countries. the U. We must consider our national interest by looking at least 20 to 30 years down the road. once again in the recent incident involving the description of Dokdo by the U.5.chosun. beef protesters plan to hold another major rally today when President Bush arrives in Seoul. The most egregious cases are the mad cow scare and the accidental killings of two schoolgirls by a U. What could have triggered massive anti-U. The Chosun Ilbo [Korean news paper.S.S. It is our hope that both countries will be able to find the strength to do that during this summit. armored vehicle. Pragmatic diplomacy.html] Aug. A major task is to overcome the goals of these These incidents ended up escalating to a scale tens or even hundreds of times larger than their original size. From that perspective.S. The alliance is just as beneficial to Washington as it is to Seoul. rather than on short-term national interests. http://english. cannot help us make America’s power work for us. the U. must not forfeit its real national interest by becoming focused only on its short-term concerns. Both countries face a time of diplomatic adjustment. Both must frame the period of adjustment by focusing on a broader vision. a new administration will lead the U. 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. 3 . federal Board on Geographic Names.S. The speedy restoration of the Dokdo description on the BGN database is part of that type of effort.S.Tournament updates ? DDI ’08 GT Korea us relations high Even in face of tension US Korea alliance stands. shaking the entire country. sentiment in South Korea was calmed in an instant.2008 South Koreans were able to see the power and influence of the U. 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. In order to protect it.S. Anti-U. must exercise deep consideration in dealing with bilateral issues. and pretty soon. stressing only the short-term national interest.S.

4 . the changing role of U.2008 U. These are all sensitive issues. Bush visits Seoul today to hold thes last summit of his tenure with President Lee Myung-bak on Wednesday. we have no choice but to utilize the influence of the U. talks over the division of costs to maintain U. There is no better example than the German unification that South Koreans should use to reflect on themselves. http://english. President George W.S.S. 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. which puts more weight on national interests than ideology. to protect ourselves and achieve unification.while it is in a standoff with a heavily armed North Korea.5. Korea is in a position where it virtually borders three superpowers -. but relations between Korea and the U.S. If West Germany had not received the wholehearted support of the U.S. free trade agreement in both countries.S.S. In these circumstances. The United States elects a new president in November. 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. A summit in such circumstances can normally have only symbolic significance. Important issues are pending between the two countries: the ratification of the Korea-U. 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. and the diplomatic situation in Northeast Asia make the talks more than symbolic.China. The Chosun Ilbo [Korean news paper. Lee advocates pragmatic diplomacy.Tournament updates ? DDI ’08 GT US key to stop Korean escalation US influence is key to stop escalation of Korean peninsula conflict. and Bush is already preparing to] Aug. Japan and Russia -. beef imports and the Dokdo islets will also be brought up during the summit. the process would have been several times more difficult and could have ended up with different results. the extended deployment of South Korea’s Zaytun Unit in Iraq and the redeployment of Korean forces in Afghanistan. There is no telling what may happen beyond those three borders or how rapidly the situation may change in North Korea. There is a possibility that the subjects of U.S. forces here. troops in South Korea.chosun.S. during unification with East Germany.