The Korean and U.S. officials who have just started talks on sharing defense costs hope to finish their negotiations by Oct. 31. But their wishes might remain as such, given the sharp difference over their shared ratio and, more seriously, growing suspicions here about various aspects of the 22-year-long scheme.
Washington is now pressing to raise Seoul’s share to 50 percent of the cost for stationing U.S. Forces Korea in the next five years, from the present 40 percent. In a report in April, the U.S. Senate Arms Services Committee also backed up the U.S. administration, saying that although the stationing cost continued to grow, Korea’s share
meeting the increased burden.
This defies our understanding. Since the two countries began to share defense costs, Korea’s financial contribution has grown 8.1 times, from 107.3 billion won in 1991 to 869.5 billion won this year, while Korea’s total defense spending grew only 4.6 times. The portion of cost-sharing for U.S. troops out of the nation’s overall defense outlay also nearly redoubled from 1.4 percent to 2.5 percent. If Seoul accepts Washington’s demand, Korea’s contribution will exceed 1 trillion won from next year.
The steady increase of financial burden has been made regardless of the changed
in
defense cooperation, in which the U.S. troops
d from 37,000 to 28,500 and their sphere of activity has expanded from the Korean Peninsula to around the world.
No less questionable is how the USFK has spent Korea’s contribution, which is supposed to help meet labor costs for hiring Korean workers, supporting war supplies and helping to finance military construction.
Various reports show that U.S. forces here are suspected of
ing the money for other purposes, such as relocation of their bases in Korea.
Even the U.S. Congressional committee has recently pointed out that the USFK has spent the Korean contribution like “free money,” citing a couple of specific examples of financial diversion rather than mission critical requirements. The U.S. side has also reportedly kept several hundred billion won in unused contribution at banks, indicating that Korea’s contribution has been more than sufficient. Add to this Korea’s sharing of “indirect” costs, such as free provision of land and extra expenses, and Seoul’s actual contribution will easily top 70 percent of the total.
The time has long past for Seoul to demand details of how the USFK’s spends Korea’s contribution - and some oversights on it - as Tokyo has done.
The military alliance is important and the nation should be ready to shoulder an appropriate share of the burden. But this does not necessarily mean that Seoul should end up becoming a sitting duck - a blind one at that.
7월 5일 (금) The Korea Times 사설
※ 다음에 나오는 문제들은 본 사설에 나오는 중요한 어휘들로 구성된 토익, 토플, 텝스 기출 및 예상 문제입니다.
※ Choose the one word or phrase that best keeps the meaning of the highlighted part.
1. The thief
the old man's attention while he picked his victim's pocket.
① worked against
② turned aside
③ stood apart from
④ disregarded
2. Prof. Wilson
to comment on the presidential election.
① offered
② decided
③ refused
④ agreed
3. The extent of capacity was to be negotiated in the
agreement.
① active
② multilateral
③ concentrated
④ mutual
4. Bad weather is a
we cannot control.
① accident
② routine
③ ceremony
④ fact
※ Choose the best answer for the blank.
5. The book fell _________ of my expectations.
① short
② small
③ little
④ meager
[해설 및 정답]
1. [번역] 그 도둑은 소매치기를 하는 동안 그 노인의 관심을 (딴 곳으로)
.
[어휘]
vert 전환하다, (방향을) 돌리다(turn aside); (주의, 관심 등을) 돌리다(distract, detract, turn aside); 즐겁게 하다(amuse, entertain) ① 반대하다, 나쁘게 작용하다 ④ 무시하다
[정답] ②
2. [번역] Wilson교수는 그 대통령 선거에 관한 논평을 하길
[정답] ③
3. [번역] 수용능력(인원)의 정도는
합의로 협상할 수 있는 것이었다.
[정답] ④
4. [번역] 악천후는 우리가 통제할 수 없는
이다.
5.
~이 부족하다(모자라다), (기대에) 미달(미흡)하다, ~이 바닥나다
[번역] 그 책은 나의 기대에
[정답] ①