Text: The government of South Korea should revise its Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S.

, mandating that . The counterplan solves the case-presence required mutual consent. Travis Sharp, The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, September 28, 2007,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/next_korea_cost_us_presence_iraq/ President George W. Bush and other senior administration officials have cited Korea as a model for how the United States should shape its long-term presence in Iraq. White House spokesman Tony Snow referenced the "Korean model" in a press conference on May 30, explaining: You have the United States [in Iraq] in what has been described as an over-the-horizon support role so that if you need the ability to react quickly to major challenges or crises, you can be there, but the Iraqis are conducting the lion's share of the business - as we have in South Korea, where for many years there have been American forces stationed there as a way of maintaining stability and assurance on the part of the South Korean people against a North Korean neighbor that is a menace. Defense Secretary Robert Gates echoed the comparison, stating that the Korean model would be ultimately preferable to what happened in Vietnam, "where we just left lock, stock, and barrel." Gates added that the Korean analogy "is more a model of a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence but under the consent of both parties and under certain conditions." On September 26, Gates further outlined his vision for a long-term military presence in Iraq, suggesting that a force roughly one-fourth the size of the current U.S. deployment of 170,000 - around 40,000 soldiers might be in Iraq for years to come.

Kick-Out CP

South Korean action against the U.S. is key to South Korean soft power-solves AIDS and peacekeeping. Robertson 08 (Jeffrey, Trade Research Specialist with the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Group Australian Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Middle Power: A New Strategy for Korea?, Korea Herald, 3-28, Lexis)

Essentially, good international citizenship is a recognition of the interdependence between states and the need to address global problems in collaboration. Middle-powers also serve their own self-interest in promoting good international citizenship. By making commitments

to peace-keeping, humanitarian operations, leading forums on tackling AIDS or combating environmental degradation, middle-powers gain credibility. Middle-powers need to be viewed as credible and independent actors in international affairs in order to strengthen their capacity to build coalitions and wage successful diplomatic campaigns. Middle-power challenges in Korea There are notable challenges to the pursuit of a middle-power foreign policy in South Korea. Firstly, reflecting its historical background, South Korea often falls victim to an internal policy debate between "independence" and "reliance" that can constrain its foreign policy choices. Since its emergence as a modern state, Korean foreign policy debate has centered on the question of independence versus reliance. A long time before the terms "sadaejuui" (reliance on a greater power) and "juche" (self-reliance) were corrupted by communist propaganda, these and
other analogous terms framed the nationalist debate on how Korea should develop and modernize, and what role it should play in the region. Indeed, the debate between independence and reliance continues in contemporary South Korean politics, as can be seen in the clash of foreign policy aims between former President Roh Moo-hyun and current President Lee-Myung-bak. However, the question of independence versus reliance constrains South Korean foreign policy. In South Korea, as a result of the security situation on the peninsula, independence versus reliance is often framed as a debate between extremes and is further muddied by ideological overtones. This constrains South Korea's capacity to use reliance and independence as a means to achieve diplomatic aims.

AIDS risks extinction. Muchiri, Kenyan Ministry of Education, 3-6-2K (Michael Kibaara, Will Annan Finally Put Out Africas Fires, Jakarta Post)

There is no doubt that AIDS is the most serious threat to humankind, more serious than hurricanes, earthquakes, economic crises, capital crashes or floods. It has no cure yet. We are watching a whole continent degenerate into ghostly skeletons that finally succumb to a most excruciating, dehumanizing death. Gore said that his new initiative, if approved by the U.S. Congress, would bring U.S. contributions to fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases to $ 325 million. Does this mean that the UN Security Council and the U.S. in particular have at last decided to remember Africa? Suddenly, AIDS was seen as threat to world peace, and Gore would ask the congress to set up millions of dollars on this case. The hope is that Gore does not intend to make political capital out of this by painting the usually disagreeable Republican-controlled Congress as the bad guy and hope the buck stops on the whole of current and future U.S. governments' conscience. Maybe there is nothing left to salvage in Africa after all and this talk is about the African-American vote in November's U.S. presidential vote. Although the UN and the Security Council cannot solve all African problems, the AIDS challenge is a fundamental one in that it threatens to wipe out man. The challenge is not one of a single continent alone because Africa cannot be quarantined. The trouble is that AIDS

has no cure -- and thus even the West has stakes in the AIDS challenge. Once sub-Saharan

Africa is wiped out, it shall not be long before another continent is on the brink of extinction. Sure as death, Africa's time has run out, signaling the beginning of the end of the black race and maybe the human race.
Peacekeeping solves great power conflict-risks extinction. Jonathan Dean, Adviser on International Security Issues, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Former Ambassador, East-West Arms Control Negotiations, May 1995 (A Stronger UN Strengthens America The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1995/ma95/ma95.dean.html Experts throughout the world expect growing population pressures and increasing environmental stress to develop over the coming decades into intense, far-reaching social unrest and regional conflict.
Economic development is the solution, however slow and uncertain it may be in coming. But the world also needs effective regional conflict-prevention procedures. Left on its own, regional violence can lead to confrontation and even war

between the great powers, including the United States, as might occur, for example, in the event of conflict between Ukraine and Russia or between China and its neighbors. In the final analysis, unchecked regional violence and the fear of further violence will lead more states to develop nuclear weapons. In past decades, this process occurred in Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Iraq, and presumably, in North Korea. A world with 20 or 30 nuclear weapon states would not only make a more effective global security system impossible, it would lead the present nuclear weapon states to modernize and increase their weapons-and it would markedly increase the vulnerability of the United States to direct attack. Instead of shrugging at human fallibility, accepting war as inevitable, and reacting after it happens, U.S. policy should aim at establishing an international peacekeeping system that can head off an increasing number of conflicts.

The counter plan causes the removal of all the troops the plan removes-Sharp indicates that South Korea 1. Extend Robertson-South Korean diplomacy solves AIDS and peacekeeping by middle power diplomacy-South Koreas economic and political status makes it uniquely key. 2. AIDS outweighsA. Muchiri indicates it has no cure and AIDS will eventually move from South Africa to infect the world risking extinction. Even if they win their defense, we still access hundreds of thousands of systemic deaths. B. High probability of mutation. Daswani 96 [Kavita, Interviewing an Israeli doctor, Leading the way to a cure for AIDS, South
China Morning Post, January 4, LN//uwyo-ajl]

2NC

The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of
Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed,

disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said. C. We win morality-rejecting AIDS is a d-rule. Garret 2005 [laurie, senior fellow for global health, Council on Foreign Relations, July 18 2005, "HIV and national security: where are the links?"
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8256/..._security.html]

In a June 12 2003 speech, then-US secretary of state Colin Powell placed the pandemic in a national security context by likening the virus to a terrorist: "The HIV virus, like terrorism, kills

indiscriminately and without mercy," Powell asserted. "As cruel as any tyrant, the virus will crush the human spirit. It is an insidious and relentless foe, more destructive than any army, any conflict, and any weapon of mass destruction. It shatters families, tears the fabric of societies, and undermines government, undermines the very basis of democracy. It can destroy countries and, as we have seen, it can destabilize entire regions." 3. Peacekeeping OutweighsA. We access extinction-lack of peacekeeping ensures escalation of conflicts to the point of great power wars. B. Dean indicates nuclear weapons and alliance systems ensure escalation of regional conflicts to global ones with high probability of escalation.