The USFG should substantially increase its military capability in Southeast Asia

SEA: 1) We didn’t ignore the claim that the SEA is internally stable. Our R3 [2] shows how there is already a rift forming within ASEAN: “China has effectively split ASEAN into two groups – the countries with South China Sea claims that are engaged in disputes with China over the boundaries of territorial waters, and the landlocked countries that share land borders with China and in some cases are fast becoming Chinese client states.” And that U.S. interest lies in preserving ASEAN unity. The U.S. has supported SEA autonomy and growth while China has sought to develop client states. We also provided evidence that SEA countries are ramping up militarization in response to threats. Our entire China balancing argument is an argument that SEA is unstable. 2) Con is incorrect that greater US presence in the means less sovereignty for the nations in the region. First our analysis explained how the buildup could occur in friendly bases where the government and local populace wants the US presence. Secondly, the effect of increased US presence acts as a counter to China which also helps secure the autonomy of SEA nations. There is simply no substance behind this argument, as our R1 showed China is already ramping up its presence in the region and SEA nations trust the US more than they do China. Finally, we have already explained how the Resolution can be accomplished without any new bases. 3) Con misunderstands our argument on trade. The argument wasn't that the US needs to force SEA into free trade pacts with its military muscle, but rather that it needs to maintain the balance of power and regional stability so that both sides can open up peaceful trade. 4) Con is wrong on the piracy impact. In our first round we explicitly made the point that regional powers lack the military muscle to deal with the issue because as soon as they secure one area the pirates move to less secure areas. See our Forbes source from R1 which explicitly states that piracy is shifting away from the Strait of Malacca to the surrounding islands. Our Horn of Africa analysis on how the US is effective at dealing with this. Pro’s evidence also shows that piracy is still a huge issue in SEA and that piracy is still worse today than it was 5 years ago. Pro’s evidence also only accounts for events up until 2012, while our evidence is from Nov. 2013 and notes a surge of pirate attacks in the region. 5) Con argues that SEA has a "long history" of banding together but cites no examples. Prefer our analysis on Typhoon Haiyan. The US has given 23 times the amount of aid China has [1], and the Philippines has asked the US to increase its military presence for "humanitarian and maritime security operations."[2]. 6) Con contends that the US increasing is presence in SEA would be "colonialism". This is a shocking claim considering that all the US would be doing is increasing its presence in countries that actually want the US there, and since our evidence shows the US to be far more trusted than the other major power in the region it's hard to imagine a pan-SEA alliance to fight the United States. Again the status quo disproves Cons argument. 7) Con's only analysis on nuclear proliferation comes from a treaty signed nearly 20 years ago. We provided evidence that Japan is re-militarization NOW because they perceive a lack of US support. This shows how realistic necessity is changing historic idealistic martial opinions. Prefer our analysis that without the US in the equation, the only way for SEA countries to defend themselves from Chinese dominance would be nuclear development. US 1) We are advocating a substantial increase- we are advocating a strategic reorientation that includes increasing troop presence at existing bases and prioritizing new technology deployment. 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. 2) Con argues that the US has been in SEA for many decades but we haven't had to use our military presence. First, the US has used it in disaster relief and combatting non state actors. Second, the whole point of balancing is to prevent the use of force. The fact that US presence has managed to bring stability in a region that was such a hotbed before the US stepped in shows us why the US is needed to counterbalance China's current military buildup. As we've already argued, China is aggressive and lacks the diplomatic clout to maintain regional stability the way that the US does. This also serves to further disconfirm Con's arguments about aggression and colonialism. That the region has so far not seen major conflict proves the value of a strong U.S. presence. Third, the changing conditions we describe require U.S. action to maintain the balance that has so far prevented the need to use existing military force. China Pro argues that China has no history of colonization and therefore poses no threat. In fact, the Chinese have a very strong recent history of using military force to acquire territory not under their control, claiming that they always owned or ruled whatever they seize. The Chinese invaded independent Tibet in 1950 and established colonial rule. [3] The Chinese have behaved as colonial masters ever since, seizing land [4] and forcible populating the region with Chinese. The Economist describes Tibetan resistance as “A colonial uprising.” [5] Inner Mongolia also maintained independence until forcibly re-annexed by the Communists in 1947. China laid no claim to the Senkaku Islands until the potential for oil and gas was discovered in the 1960s. Japan has maintained continuous rule of the islands since legally annexing the unclaimed islands in 1895. The Japanese licensed the mining of fertilizer, maintaining a weather station, built a heliport, and patrolled the coasts. Pro's source says nothing about Japan violating international protocols, and supports the case for China acting provocatively. China has only improved economic relations with Taiwan, [6] which does not mean they have abandoned or even lessened their intent to take over the country. China has conducted a strong military buildup opposite Taiwan, with 30% of the Chinese Army moved to the area. [7] China has not only stepped up its claims to Japanese islands, but to islands in the Philippines, islands in Malaysia, and regions of the Himalayas disputed with India. [6] Again refer to our R3 [2] that shows that U.S. interest is aligned with ASEAN unity while China is splitting ASEAN through its regional influence - China is the true colonial threat. Also, our R2 [16] shows that China is not responsive to regional natural disasters while the US is quick to provide assistance- this is a reason to prefer the US over China. Finally, even if China was a benign regional hegemon they would still pose a threat to regional stability. SEA perceives China as a threat and is already taking action to militarize against them. Our balancing and proliferation analysis is not dependent on China being “bad”- it only depends on regional power relations and how international actors react. We have provided mountains of evidence that show that SEA countries don’t trust China, are ramping up militarily, and want the US to balance. We have also shown that China is rapidly increasing its military capability. None of this is refuted by Con. [1] http://www.nytimes.com...; [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://asianhistory.about.com... [4] http://www.phayul.com... [5] http://www.economist.com... [6] http://www.businessweek.com... [7] http://newsweekly.com.au...