US demands 50% increase in S. Korea's defense contribution

[soryang]

US demands 50% increase in S. Korea’s defense contribution
Posted on : May.8,2020 18:22 KST Modified on : May.8,2020 18:22 KST
Hankyoreh By Hwang Joon-bum, Washington correspondent, and Noh Ji-won, staff reporter

The Trump administration in the US has asked South Korea to increase its yearly financial contribution to stationing US troops to US$1.3 billion (about 1.59 trillion won), the Hankyoreh has confirmed. That would be about 50% more than South Korea paid last year as part of its Special Measures Agreement (SMA) with the US. Since the US’ latest offer is still a considerable distance from the 13% increase proposed by Seoul, the chances of the two sides striking a deal on the 11th SMA remain low.

A senior official in the US government responded to a query by the South Korean press on May 7 by explaining that the US had asked Seoul to provide about US$1.3 billion in yearly funding. That’s about 50% more than the 1.04 trillion won (US$853.3 million) to which the two sides agreed in their 10th SMA last year.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/944206.html

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Korea and Japan Marc Knapper has to submit to Trump's absurd negotiating tactics. South Korea doesn't, and Moon Jae-in's much improved negotiating position is strong enough to outlast Trump.

[brokephibroke]

1. We should eliminate the quota on S.Korean steel too.

[Iliyah]

2. I cannot stand this administration . . .

[soryang]

3. Esper, Pompeo, Stilwell and Harris all support this too

they are trying to shoehorn the costs of the Indo-Pacific Command's anti-Chinese operations into the SMA negotiations, and South Korea isn't going to accept that.

[empedocles]

4. Edit: 'trump demands ridiculous 50% . . . '

[Jake Stern]

5. Besides the fact that it's proposed by Trump

what exactly is wrong with having a rich, capitalist nation pay the lion's share of the costs of our troop presence that they requested?

[soryang]

6. The US method of calculating the S.Korean contribution is misleading and self serving

Even conservative military experts have criticized the Trump approach to the negotiations.

South Koreans point out the US demands do not include financial burdens South Korea maintains unilaterally to support US Forces Korea. Among those are the provision of bases cost free, and the construction of the largest US base outside the US at Pyongtaek, Camp Humphreys, at a cost of $9.8 billion US to South Korea.

Additionally, South Korea provides troops trained in US language and customs to assist and facilitate US military missions in South Korea. (KATUSA: Korea augmentees to the US Army.) The US calculations also ignore the substantial purchases by South Korea of advanced weaponry from the US every year, and the substantial amount of its own GDP that South Korea commits to national defense each year, the highest among US allies. South Korea has purchased 14 billion in US weapons systems in recent years.

The exorbitant US demands are an disingenuous attempt to force South Korea to undertake additional costs of the so-called Indo-Pacific alliance aimed against China of which it is not a part. The Trump administration hopes to set a precedent with South Korea by forcing them to absorb a massively increased "share" of alliance costs which will then serve as an example to extract additional increased contributions from Japan and NATO allies.

[Jake Stern]

7. Thank you for the detailed reply

Far more informative than “Cause Trump sucks!”

[soryang]

8. Understood

Appreciate your interest in the subject matter.

[Jake Stern]

9. It's always deeper than a few lines

My Father in Law was stationed at the JSA in the late 60s but hardly talks about it and the press doesn’t mention those numbers.

Sincere thanks.