The Security Case

The security of this case is a little weak right now... 

This case is a little rough and weak right now. 

 

If you have any comments, suggestions or critiques, just send an email to shaunconnell@gmail.com. :) 

I'd love to hear any feedback. 

We might think of Taiwan, South Korea and NATO as geographically remote from each other. We have far too much in common and at risk to allow our geographical separation to prevent us from working together to achieve for the common good and international security, and the preservation of democracy.

 

On this essential principle of global cooperation to preserve security, my partner and I stand firmly Resolved: that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should be significantly reformed or abolished.

 

Observation 1: Definitions and criterion

 

NATO

Princeton University, 2003 Wordnet 2.0

An international organization created in 1949 by the North Atlantic Treaty for purposes of collective security.

 

A Criterion [or the standard] is going to be the weighing mechanism in today’s round. Either policy that either team presents must line up with this criterion, or standard. We believe that a sound Criterion for NATO policies is that of Security. When looking at international policies, and conflicts above nations, we believe that NATO should continue to uphold its duty to provide security for nations; specifically, the security in regions where we can anticipate future conflicts.

 

The policy presented that better meets this criterion in today’s round has justified a ballot in favor of that policy.

 

Observation 2: The Failure of the Current System to meet our Criterion.

 

Right now, the status quo, or the current system, is failing to meet the criterion of security. We’re going to be discussing this specific failure in two different places in the world: South Korea and Tawiwan. Starting off with:

 

          1. Taiwan Insecure

 

Washington Post, May 24, 2006

 

"On Taiwan, the report said China had deployed about 100 more short-range ballistic missiles to garrisons opposite the island, increasing the total from 650 to 730 last year to between 710 and 790 now. "The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong direction"

 

        2. South Korea’s Security ALSO Threatened

 

a. North Korea is threatening South Korea with troops

 

US Department of State, November 2005

 

"In recent years, North Korea has pursued a mixed policy--seeking to develop economic relations with South Korea while at the same time continuing to denounce the security relationship with the United States and maintaining a threatening conventional force posture on the DMZ and in adjacent waters."

 

b. The longer we delay, the more North Korea can prepare

 

United Press International, April 13, 2006

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/13/1569535.htm

 

“[This is the communists talking…]"It's not a bad thing (for the resumption of talks) to be delayed. During thsi period (North Korea) can build up its deterrance," Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan said at a Tokyo news conference.”

 

c. North Korea is not taking part in dialogue

 

Leeds University, London England, October 2004 [1]

 

"In the longer term that remains true, but in July, Pyongyang reverted to its reprobate ways by boycotting most major formal channels of North-South dialogue and, by late September, had not relented. It acted, as ever, out of anger and irrational corruption."

 

Taiwan and South Korea’s Security is threatened daily. However, under the guidance and protection of a larger security organization, one such as NATO, both Taiwan and South Korea can finally begin to live at peace in a more secure world. Unfortunately, under NATO's current policies, NATO is not readily willing to extend its help and security outside of its, all too small, sphere of influence.

 

This is why we present the following plan:

 

Observation 3 Plan:

 

Mandate: Article five of the North Atlantic Treaty shall apply to South Korea and Taiwan.

 

Article five basically says that any attack of a NATO member will be considered an attack on all NATO nations. Basically, attacking any NATO member means that you are going to have to take on the entire organization itself. The fact that any aggressor would have to fight the United States, the United Kingdom and half of Europe serves as an amazingly great detterence for war.

 

Clarification: Under our plan we will not be moving troops to Taiwan or South Korea, but instead will simply treat them as normal allies. The only troop movements would be if Article Five (basically our second mandate) was invoked.

 

Agency and Enforcement: NATO

 

Funding: Normal NATO means.

 

Examples: Let’s look at a few examples of the NATO-Japan relationship

 

Observation 4: The Justification for Change

 

In today’s round, we will be supporting one common concept that will be furthered by our plan. That concept is international security. We’ll have several points under this in our Justification for Change. The first is that of solvency.

 

By forming an alliance with NATO and Taiwan, security will be better achieved. The philosophy of the affirmative is that of “peace through superior firepower.” Bullies don’t pick on sumo-wrestlers, they pick on the weaker prey. If there were no weak, there would be no bullies. Let’s look to an expert for an additional explanation of this:

 

Jonathan T. Chow [M.A. in Political Science, B.A. in Political Science, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science, Project Director at the Berkeley APEC Study Center], Fall of 2006

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jchow/Nukes_Primer.doc 

‘“If you want peace, prepare for war. If you want war, prepare for peace.”

Perverse as it may sound, more than a few political scientists adopt this very attitude when it comes to nuclear disarmament and proliferation. How does this logic work? The linchpin is the notion that nuclear weapons give states a huge incentive to avoid getting into a situation where the use of nuclear weapons is possible, i.e. major war.” 

By protecting Taiwan and South Korea, the two democracies will no longer be weak, deterring a war/attack/invasion from North Korea and China.

 

Now let’s look at the impacts of greater security for Taiwan and South Korea.

 

Impact A: Greater Peace.

 

With greater security, and greater alliances, the threat of war in the regions our plan affects will be greatly reduced. The threat of war would be greatly reduced.

 

Impact B: Democracy Protected.

 

South Korea and Taiwan are shining beacons of liberty in one of the darkest and tyrannical regions in the World. Their security includes the security of liberty, that object which every government should strive to achieve. Under our plan, liberty shall be better protected.

 

A Security Partnership with the endangered, peace-loving nations of South Korea and Taiwan will give NATO and liberty a foothold in Asia, to establish and preserve security for the region. Simply because these two important nations are in Asia, doesn’t mean we should simply ignore them and their security interests. Geography must not be a condition for security. An affirmative ballot will provide the security that South Korea and Taiwan needs, it will further the purpose of NATO’s Security goal, and it will keep potentially abusive nations at bay. Pass the security plan, and give this stricken region the security, peace, and protected liberty that it so desperately needs.



[1]

The University of Leeds is acclaimed world-wide for the quality of its teaching and research. One of the largest universities in the UK, Leeds is also the most popular among students applying for undergraduate courses. An emphasis on innovative research and investment in high-quality facilities and first-rate infrastructure means that no fewer than 35 departments are rated internationally or nationally 'excellent'. Its size and international reputation enables the University to offer one of the widest ranges of academic courses in the UK. During the current academic year over 32,241 students are attached to 700 different first-degree programmes and 474 postgraduate degree programmes. A further 32,062 men and women are enrolled on short courses with the University. In almost a century of teaching, the University has played a leading part in the development of modern higher education in this country. As well as continually strengthening core academic disciplines (Leeds has more undergraduates studying languages and physical sciences than any other UK institution), the University has also developed distinctive areas of specialist expertise in rarer subjects such as Colour Chemistry and Fire Science.