The USFG should substantially increase its military capability in Southeast Asia

This debate is about a substantial increase of US military capability in Southeast Asia. Pro argues for an augmentation in "friendly bases" and that there need not be any new military bases. This means that the substantial increase will occur outside SEA because currently there are no US military bases in SEA. There is a only a supply post in Singapore.Pro said that "US Navy can be stationed at friendly naval bases e.g. in the Philippines". But of course there is not currently a US navy base in the Philippines. There used to be, but in 1991 the Philippines ordered the US to leave because their presence was seen as "a vestige of colonialism and an affront to Philippine sovereignty." [1]In the surrounding region, there are US military bases in Japan, Korea, Guam and Australia. None of these countries are in SouthEast Asia.Therefore, when Pro talks about a substantial increase, it's not clear what they mean.The Asian PivotPro argues that the "numbers typically used in the literature are shifting from 50-50% current allocation of naval resources between Pacific and Atlantic to a 60-40 allocation. That is a 20% increase in Pacific naval power."No, because these are proportional numbers, not absolute. A decrease in military resources in the Middle East, for example, means that proportionally the US has more military in the Asia-Pacific region, even if there is no change in numbers there. Some analysts say that this talk of an Asia Pivot is just a way to put a positive spin on pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. [2]The resolution is concerned with a substantial, absolute increase in military capability in SouthEast Asia. We accept that a reduction in military presence in other areas may mean that the current US forces in the Pacific region represent a greater proportion of the entire US military. But this is irrelevant to the resolution.There is no reason for a military increaseThere is no reason for the US to increase their military capabilities in SEA. Pro has talked wildly of nuclear proliferation and argued that SEA is a "hotbed" without a US presence. However, they have not provided a shred of evidence for these claims. piracyPro argues that the US should intervene in SEA to stop piracy, especially in the Malacca Strait, even though the area is effectively patrolled by the MSP, a cooperative arrangement between four countries in SEA. [3]Pro's report mentions two incidents, where cargo was stolen but nobody was hurt. This is in the context of a general decrease in piracy [4]. For the the US to impose an unwelcome military presence on other, sovereign nations because of two incidents of theft that did not involve the US in any way (the robbed vessels were from Panama and Thailand) is just incredible. In a similar vein, Pro cited a article that described how piracy in the Malacca Strait has decreased, but that incidents in nearby Indonesia have increased. Indonesia is an island nation. Any incidents of theft on vessels in Indonesia are an internal matter for the Indonesian police.disaster reliefPro argues there should be a US military presence in SEA in case there are any natural disasters, and the military can help. What do aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, 16-inch shells, and fighter aircraft have to do with disaster relief? At best, a disaster will prompt only a TEMPORARY military response, especially from foreign forces. It most certainly does not justify a permanent deployment of any sort. ChinaIn Round 3, Con gave several recent examples of China's determination to settle disputes peacefully, and their refusal to escalate conflict when provoked. Pro did not respond to this, and so we can take it as established.Pro claims that China is a threat to SEA, but has not provided any evidence of this whatsoever. The Chinese takeover of Tibet happened more than 60 years ago, under a different administration. In any case, the involvement of the Chinese in Tibet was very different from the current situation in SEA.In Round 3, Con showed that ASEAN countries have been committed by treaty to a nuclear-free-zone for over twenty years. Pro ignores this evidence and argues that SEA will need to develop nuclear weapons "to defend themselves from Chinese dominance". This is absurd. Pro hasn't provided even the slightest evidence for this claim, and it doesn't make sense anyway. China and ASEAN have a strong and peaceful relationshipHow would a US military presence in SEA "balance" China and increase peace? Pro doesn't really explain. They say they provided evidence that the US is far more trusted than China in SEA, but this is untrue. In Round 2 they said "Pew Polls show that the major SEA countries overwhelmingly trust the U.S. more than they trust China." but their reference only compared China and Japan. Japan is not in SouthEast Asia.When I searched the Pew Polls, I found a global survey comparing opinions about China and the US. Only three SEA nations were included: Malaysia, Indonesia and The Philippines. Two of the three countries - Indonesia and Malaysia - rated China more favorably than they did the US. [5]Another Pew Poll showed that Indonesians have favorable opinions about China's growing economic power (62% positive), and 47% of Indonesians said it would be a good thing if China grew to have as much military power as the US (only 31% said it would be a bad thing). [6]ASEAN has a free trade agreement with China, but not with the US [7]. China is the biggest external provider to ASEAN of tourist arrivals (more than seven million a year, compared with less than three million from the US) and trade (more than $US 300 trillion dollars worth of trade a year. Trade with the US is less than two thirds of that) [8].China and SEA already have a peaceful relationship where trade is flourishing. There have been border disagreements, but these have been handled without military intervention, as has been described in previous rounds. military spending has been constantPro claims that not only China, but SEA is "ramping up militarization". But as the following charts show, expenditure as a proportion of GDP has been consistent for years, and at all times much lower than US military expenditure.https://www.debate.org...https://www.debate.org...The only thing that has changed in recent years is that the economies of China and ASEAN have been growing rapidly. This is a wonderful thing. Millions of people are being lifted out of poverty.Chinese aid to SEAPro quotes a US opinion article that several countries in SEA are "fast becoming Chinese client states". This is just name calling. It's true that China provides substantial aid to Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Myanmar, but there is no evidence that this aid involves intervention in internal affairs. In fact, the Chinese Eight Principles explicitly state that aid must be given without strings attached. [9]In the same round, Pro criticized China for not providing enough aid to the Philippines. Pro's position on aid is totally contradictory.SummaryAn increased US military presence in SEA would be unwelcome and without benefit for either SEA or the US.[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://www.chinausfocus.com...[3] http://oceansbeyondpiracy.org...[4] http://www.icc-ccs.org...[5] http://www.pewglobal.org...[6] http://www.pewglobal.org...[7] http://www.asean.org...[8] http://www.asean.org...[9] http://www.ide.go.jp...