Should the U.S. Continue to Guarantee the Security of Wealthy States?

Michelle Newby

Security,

A big question. 

The Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable. Among the issues addressed was: Should the United States continue to guarantee the security of wealthy states like Japan and South Korea?

The United States has been providing security for Japan since the U.S. occupation began at the end of World War II. At the time, Washington intended to transform the country into a parliamentary democracy and thwart Soviet influence in the Pacific. Similarly, the United States has been providing security for South Korea since the 1950s, when the Korean War ended with an armistice rather than a peace treaty. The United States viewed protecting South Korea—then a poor and underdeveloped state—as necessary to preventing the spread of communism.

However, decades after the Cold War’s end, is it still necessary for the United States to protect two friendly democracies that have grown economically prosperous and militarily capable?

In this portion of the Center for the National Interest and Charles Koch Institute foreign policy round table, Richard K. Betts and a panel of foreign policy experts debate this question. Their discussion emphasizes the potential rise of China, the realities of potential buck-passing, the spread of nuclear weapons, and the United States’ role in Asia.

Betts suggests that the United States should maintain its security guarantees because they ensure a “comparatively cheap way of preventing instabilities and miscalculations that are potentially more problematic and dangerous than they are elsewhere.”

Before answering, though, Betts explains that his opinion probably differs from the rest of the panel. Taken aback by the disclaimer, Andrew Bacevich asks, “Who disagrees with that?” Just about half the panel answers affirmatively.