By Kang Seung-woo
The government’s low-key approach on sharing the cost of stationing the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) here is coming under scrutiny as the new U.S. government is likely to demand more money.
Korea and the United States hold negotiations on cost-sharing for the upkeep of 28,000 American troops every five years under the Special Measures Agreement (SMA). Seoul pays about half the cost — 944.1 billion won ($782 million) and 932 billion won in 2016 and 2015, respectively. The last SMA was made in 2014 and the next negotiations for 2019 through 2023 are likely to begin later this year, according to the foreign ministry.
However, Seongnam Mayor Lee Jae-myung, a liberal presidential hopeful, claimed Tuesday that South Korea is actually paying more than Japan and Germany, both of which have a U.S. forces presence.
According to him, Germany and Japan pay 18 percent and 50 percent of the total costs, respectively, while South Korea share stands at 77 percent.
His calculation includes indirect costs such as providing land for bases and firing ranges for free along with an exemption from taxation and benefits such as cheaper electricity and telephone charges — things not included in the SMA negotiations.
In addition, civic groups also insist that the SMA should include the nation’s support such as providing police to guard bases and troops under the Korean Augmentation to the United State Army (KATUSA) program.
His claim came as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is highly expected to demand full payment of the stationing costs after taking office Jan. 20 as he frequently hinted at on the campaign trail.
In response to Lee’s argument, Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck said Wednesday that it is not appropriate to simply compare each country’s spending for the U.S. military presence as there are different conditions.
Diplomatic analysts said Seoul should seek to provide the U.S. military with funds on a case-by-case basis rather than paying a lump sum in an effort to enhance transparency on where taxpayers’ money is used.“Like Japan (and Germany), the defense-cost sharing contributions need to be determined on a case-by-case basis,” said Choi Jong-kun, a professor of political science at Yonsei University.
“The method will improve transparency in defense funding use that comes from the taxpayer.”
In October 2013, the government was under fire for being idle in its monitoring of funding after Rep. Park Joo-sun found that the U.S. military was sitting on more than 1 trillion won of unspent defense funds provided by Seoul.
According to Choi, the government tried to adopt the case-by-case method in the last SMA negotiations, but the U.S. side rejected it. The foreign ministry declined to comment on the issue.
“We are well aware of the two methods’ advantages and disadvantages. Keeping them in mind, we are bracing for the upcoming SMA negotiations,” said a foreign ministry official without further elaborating.
Kim Yeoul-Soo, an international politics professor at Sungshin Women’s University, also said, “The government is required to include the indirect support such as real estate and taxes, and public utility charges reductions in the upcoming negotiations.”
However, it will not be easy to persuade Washington to consider the indirect support, according to Park Won-gon, an international relations professor at Handong Global University.
“When it comes to defense costs, the U.S. Congress wants the South Korean government to pay more, as well as Trump,” he said.
“So, to keep its burden at the current level, Seoul needs to demand something like revising the ROK-U.S. missile agreement to extend the South’s ballistic missile range, or building a nuclear-powered submarine, in return for the cost-sharing.”