This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1NC South Korea FTA Shell
a. Uniqueness – Bush won’t submit the South Korea free trade agreement to Congress now – that’s key to sustain relations.
Donald Kirk is the Seoul correspondent of the International Herald Tribune and The New York Times, “Time running out for Korean FTA” June 4, 2008 Accessed July 11 2008, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/JF04Dg01.html] Indeed, the sense in Washington is that the Congress will either vote against ratifying the agreement or will simply not vote on it at all. Bush has yet to send it to Congress for ratification, and he's getting advice on all sides to drop it, to let it slide into the next administration. The prospects for the FTA suffered a severe blow last month when Barack Obama, the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, wrote to Bush saying the FTA is "badly flawed" and advising him not to ask Congress to vote on it. Obama, reflecting complaints from the US motor vehicle industry, said the deal "would give Korean exports essentially unfettered access to the US market and would eliminate our best opportunity for obtaining genuinely reciprocal market access in one of the world's largest economies". Larry Niksch, Asia specialist at the Congressional Research Service, believes Obama's position means the free-trade agreement has "no chance" in the US Congress while Bush is in office. Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama's opponent for the Democratic nomination, has already voiced her strenuous opposition. For Obama as well as Clinton, opposition to the FTA fits in with their populist strategy for winning votes among workers fearful of losing still more jobs while the economy sinks into a recession characterized by rising prices, mounting bankruptcies and the loss of homes in a mortgage crisis. Niksch noted, however, that Obama "keeps the door open to do something about the agreement but probably in a modified way" if he is elected president. Obama, said Niksch, may want to include rice in a revised FTA, even though rice is such an emotional issue in South Korea that it's not covered at all in the current FTA. Obama may have had rice in mind when he said in his letter to Bush that the FTA as it now stands "would reinforce the sense that our trade policy does not adequately reflect manufacturing and agricultural exports". In other words, like it or not, US and South Korean negotiators may be in for another year of hard wheeling and dealing when the next US administration takes office. John McCain, certain to win the Republican nomination, has endorsed the FTA in its present form, but will have to deal with a Democrat-controlled Congress that is going to demand substantial revisions. Victor Cha, who served for nearly three years as director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council, believes the only way for the FTA to make it through Congress is for Bush to go "on the offensive" when and if the FTA is approved by South Korea's National Assembly. Bush, said Cha, now director of Asian studies at Georgetown University, needs to get across to recalcitrant members of Congress that "this is not just about a trade relationship". Congress has to understand, "If we don't do this, China and the European Union will begin to make FTAs that exclude us." If the FTA "becomes a high-profile issue, then it will work", said Cha. "Everyone agrees this is a shining example of an FTA that benefits both sides." That argument, however, leads advocates of the FTA to believe that the agreement is too important to jeopardize by a premature congressional debate that might kill it off. Thus Donald Gross, adjunct fellow of the Pacific Forum of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes "the best course would be if the current US administration were to hold off" on pressing for passage of the deal. Gross believes that the FTA's "flaming defeat" in Congress would be "very painful for the whole relationship" between the US and South Korea. "My personal hope," he said, "is for it not to be submitted to the US Congress." The fact is, to Americans, the anti-beef protests are a secondary irritant, background noise that hardly makes it into the media. In any case, said Niksch at the Congressional Research Service, it may be too late now for Congress to have time to debate and vote on the FTA. "If Bush doesn't send it to Congress in the next few days, Congress won't have enough time to give it full consideration," he said. "It's important the Koreans understand the situation and not be too optimistic."
ACDB8 Camp Politics
1NC South Korea FTA Shell
b. Links –
1. Alternative Energy Sources are popular
“Saudi minister doubts 'politically popular' alternative fuels”. The Economic Times. July 4, 2008 accessed online July 10, 2008 at
Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Nuaimi on Thursday defended crude against "politically popular" alternative energy sources, saying these are not replacements for carbon-based fuels. "The fact is (that) carbon-based fossil
fuels still are the cheapest, most efficient and most reliable energy sources for our mobile society," he told the World Petroleum Congress industry event. "Nevertheless, it is politically popular these days to extol the virtues of so-called alternative fuels because of their lower carbon emissions. "However, claims of a reduced carbon footprint for some biofuels do not always hold up under closer scrutiny. While we welcome these supplements, they are not replacements for petroleum and they will have drawbacks and challenges." Nuaimi delivered a keynote speech at the end of the four-day WPC in accepting an award "for scientific and technological excellence in the petroleum industry." He said there is "a false impression that jettisoning oil is a requisite for progress in meeting our energy and environmental goals." "It is highly risky at this early stage to assume that unproven technologies could quickly replace petroleum on a larger scale." Record high oil prices have increased interest
in alternative sources of power, such as wind energy, bio-fuels, geothermic energy and solar and wave power.
Popular policies like plan generate political capital for Bush.
Dane Roberts has a BA in political science from the University of New Mexico, September 9, 2004. “Democrats need sharp vision,” Accessed July 11 2008,
http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2004/11/09/Opinion/Columndemocrats.Need.Sharp.Vision798124.shtml] "Political capital" might be described as good will and a willingness to accommodate, if not support, a leader. His previous political capital came from Sept. 11, after which his approval ratings soared, and Congress gave him broad power, not the 2000 election in which he lost the popular vote. What does it mean to "spend" this capital? It means to use your popularity to push otherwise unlikely or unpopular initiatives. Bush certainly spent his little capital in his first term. Among other robust but notquite-popular actions, his war on Iraq and extensions of budget-busting tax cuts resulted in a steady erosion of his approval ratings. This time around, according to the White House, there is broad support for Bush's agenda. The voters gave him a mandate. Why, then, will Bush have to spend his capital? If his policies are the will of the people, getting them done will increase, not decrease, his political capital.
3. If Bush gains political capital, he’ll submit the South Korea free trade agreement to Congress.
Bruce Stokes is an international economics columnist for the National Journal, January 9 2007, “US-South Korean Free-Trade Agreement: The Cost of Failure,” Accessed July 11 2008, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8600] Therein lies the problem. The South Korea negotiations have reached the point where tough political decisions must be made by the White House. But North Korea, not trade, dominated President Bush’s recent discussions with South Korea’s President Roh in November in Hanoi at the APEC Summit. There was no public attempt to link broader security concerns with deeper AmericanKorean economic integration. With his public favorability rating in the low 30 percent range among American voters, President Bush has little political capital to expend on closing this deal. So, faced with this dilemma, the Bush administration will be tempted to let the negotiations slide, deceiving itself that its successor can pick up the talks at America’s convenience. But Seoul’s impending deliberations with Brussels, and eventually with Beijing, should put Washington on notice that the free-trade train is leaving the station, with or without the US. America may have to learn the hard way that the cost of failure in the South Korean free-trade negotiations is greater than anyone ever anticipated when the talks were first launched. Such initiatives should never be started unless the political will exists to complete them. And the US will rue the day it let these talks fail.
ACDB8 Camp Politics
4. Submitting the Free Trade Agreement to Congress Tanks relations Cross-x apply Our kirk in ’08 Uniquness card. Specifically the line that reads “Obama's position means the free-trade agreement has "no chance" in the US Congress while Bush is in office” and the line that reads “the FTA's "flaming defeat" in Congress would be "very painful for the whole relationship" between the US and South Korea.”
c. Impacts – 1. US-South Korean relatons are key to solve regional arms races.
Blair & Hanley ’01 [Dennis Blair is the Former Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Command and John Hanley was his Strategic Advisor, Winter, “From Wheels to Webs: Reconstructing Asia-Pacific Security Arrangements,” 2001. Accessed July 11 2008 via Lexis-Nexis (Washington Quarterly)] The way ahead in Northeast Asia is to reinvigorate U.S. bilateral alliances with Japan and South Korea by clarifying their broader strategic purpose and direction. A decade after the end of the Cold War, U.S. exercises with Japanese self-defense forces need to move beyond scenarios involving the invasion of Japan. They need to address more directly the provisions of the defense guidelines and to develop skills to cooperate on the broader security agenda as Japan accepts a greater role in regional security. U.S. forces in South Korea and Japan do much more than deter North Korean aggression. They reassure these countries of the continuing U.S. commitment to our mutual defense treaties. U.S. forces forward-stationed in these countries anchor U.S. commitments to extended nuclear deterrence. As reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait progresses, U.S. forward-stationed forces in Japan and South Korea will remain an essential part of a security !equilibrium, removing incentives for major strategic realignments or the buildup of independent military capabilities that would raise tensions and spark arms races in the region. These forces will also remain the best positioned U.S. forces to work with armed forces throughout the Asia-Pacific region on shared interests in security and peaceful development.
2. East Asian arms race will cause extinction.
Ogura & Oh ’97 [Toshimaru Ogura and Ingyu Oh are professors of economics, April, “Nuclear clouds over the Korean peninsula and Japan,” 1997Accessed July 10, 2008 via Lexis-Nexis (Monthly Review)] North Korea, South Korea, and Japan have achieved quasi- or virtual nuclear armament. Although these countries do not produce or possess actual bombs, they possess sufficient technological know-how to possess one or several nuclear arsenals. Thus, virtual armament creates a new nightmare in this region - nuclear annihilation. Given the concentration of economic affluence and military power in this region and its growing importance to the world system, any hot conflict among these countries would threaten to escalate into a global conflagration.
ACDB8 Camp Politics
Political capital is key for Bush to negotiate with Congress over SK FTA.
Hadar ’06 [Leon Hadar is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, Nov 3 2006, “Will US trade policy stall?” Accessed July, 11 2008 via Lexis-Nexis (The Business Times Singapore)] It is doubtful that the Bush Administration, facing enormous pressure to deal with the deteriorating situation in Iraq and with the nuclear crises with Iran and North Korea, will be willing to spend its very limited political capital on negotiating new trade agreements in the next two years. And then there is the growing US trade deficit with China and the continuing pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers to 'punish' the Chinese with tariffs. But the expectation is that US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who is well-regarded among the leading Democrats in Congress, will succeed in containing the pressures. Most experts suggest that the chances of Congress approving a proposed trade accord with South Korea and granting permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam before the TPA expires next year are even, although it is unlikely that the Bush administration will be able to press for a trade accord with Malaysia.
The further the deal goes, the deeper the hole – thwarting a submitted FTA will crush relations.
Chosun ’08 [The English Chosun is a Korean newspaper, May 26 2008, “Obama Speaks Out Against Korea-U.S. FTA,” Accessed July 11, 2008, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200805/200805260010.html] A Korean government official on Sunday, commenting on Obama’s effective "red light" for ratification of the FTA this year, indicated both countries would be disappointed because they had such high expectations about the trade deal. The official described South Korea-U.S. relations by saying, "The higher the mountain is, the deeper the valley" -- hinting at disappointment in Seoul that an early honeymoon when the new conservative government took office here should so soon fade to gray. When the new government was inaugurated, it looked as if Korea-U.S. relations were improving rapidly. President Lee Myung-bak gave top priority to the restoration of the alliance and the U.S. Congress adopted a resolution congratulating him on election. Bilateral ties reached a new high when the two leaders met at Camp David. But a deal to reopen the Korean market to U.S. beef rekindled antiAmerican sentiments in South Korea, and ties are unlikely to recover during Bush’s lame-duck period. Another official said, "Obama's opposition to the FTA seems to have been politically motivated by his conflict with President Bush. If the ratification of the FTA is thwarted, this will inevitably damage Korea-U.S. relations."
ACDB8 Camp Politics
US-South Korean relations are key to peninsula peace.
Hwang ’05 [Balbina Hwang is senior policy analyst for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center at Heritage, Jan 18 2005, “Minding the Gap: Improving U.S.-ROK Relations,” Accessed July 10, 2008, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0505A_Hwang.html] The U.S.-ROK alliance has been a crucial cornerstone of stability and security in Northeast Asia for the past half century and will continue to play this critical role in the future-but only if both countries can narrow the gap between American and South Korean mindsets. Reaffirming this important and successful alliance will be essential to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue and achieving a permanent peace on the Korean peninsula.
Peninsula instability causes extinction.
Fungamwango ’99 [Patt Fungamwango is a staff writer for the Times of Zambia, Oct 25 1999, “Third world war: Watch the Koreas,” Accessed July 10, 2008 via Lexis-Nexis (The Times of Zambia)] If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably reduce earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s, military tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. A foreign visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is always on maximum alert for any eventuality. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the country. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its "running dog" South Korea. The DPRK is one of the most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. Whether this is really so, it is extremely difficult to conclude. In the DPRK, a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the constant danger of an invasion from the north. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. She points out that the north has dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean territorial waters. Early this year, a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission. However, the intension of the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. The US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than anywhere else in the World, apart from America itself. Some of the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the Korean Peninsula. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, surface-to-surface and surface-toair missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both sides. It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or build-up in the north through spy satellites. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of
various weapons. Although the DPRK regards herself as a developing country, she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. Last year, for example, she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan, an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US, Japan and South Korea. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. There have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. Naturally, the world is anxious that military tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth. It is therefore significant that the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea.