US asks South Korea more of the cost of keeping US troops in the country

(April 22) US has for months been demanding that South Korea pay a huge percentage of the cost of keeping US troops in the country. However, the issue still remains unresolved.

Trump rejects South Korean offer

Trump reported that South Korea had offered a certain amount of money but he rejected it. Trump did not specify how much South Korea had offered nor did he say how many billions the US was asking for at this point.South Korea was already paying one of the largest percentages in cost-sharing of any country but the US has kept raising its demands with the result that South Korea has so far been unwilling to agree to US terms. It seems to some that the US is going out of its way not to make a deal.

US officials are reported to have said to Reuters earlier this month that South Korea had offered a 13 percent increase from the present arrangements but that the offer was rejected.

Trump said: "We're defending a wonderful nation. We're asking them to pay for a big percentage of what we're doing. It's not fair. ... It's a question of will they contribute toward the defence of their own nation. We're doing a tremendous service. We have a wonderful feeling and a wonderful relationship with each other, but we have to be treated equitably and fairly."

Trump said that Seoul was at present paying about a billion dollars per year towards the cost of keeping between 28,000 and 32,000 US troops in the country.

US may be considering troop cuts in South Korea

South Korean press reports claim that the US is considering various proposals to reduce troop numbers in South Korea. This would be due to the COVID-19 pandemic but also because the US is not going to get the payments they want to keep troops there.

A spokesperson for US Forces Korea told a representative of the Voice of America that they are not aware of any discussions of a US troop drawdown in South Korea.

There are regular rumors of US plans to withdraw troops from Korea. Last year when Trump was asked about withdrawing troops from Korea he said: “No, no, and we haven’t been asked to. Now, I have to tell you, at some point in the future, I would like to save the money. You know, we have 32,000 troops there.”

The US has numerous bases spread throughout the world. Upkeep costs US taxpayers $156 billion per year. As election fever heats up Trump could be considering the merits of saving the US taxpayer some money and forcing countries where the US has troops to pay more of upkeep costs. The US is apparently planning to ask Germany and Japan for more money as well but these plans may be put on hold as US demands are not going over at all well in South Korea.

If the US is too demanding the US may be forced to withdraw troops with the result that countries may demand that they pay even less. The US troop costs will loom large in South Korean elections and it may be that South Koreans will demand that at least some troops be withdrawn so that there is less of a burden on the South Korean taxpayer.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Talks between US and South Korea about cost sharing of troop costs break off after Trump demanded $5 billion a year

(December 19, 2019) After just two days of negotiations between South Korea and the US on cost-sharing of the US military operations in the country the talks have ended in failure. No more talks have been scheduled before the existing deal expires on December 31,

Trump's demands for huge increase may be a big mistake

At the last minute Trump demanded a payment of around $5 billion a year about five times what it pays now about $800 million to $1 billion. South Korea is already paying more than most countries for US troops and had agreed to a more modest increase. South Korea hosts about 28,500 US troops.

As a recent article notes about Trump's views: "As part of his 'America First" policy, US President Donald Trump has demanded that many US allies, including NATO members and Japan, pay more towards defence."

US did a poor job in trying to justify the increase

The main argument of the US was not to show the troop hosting cost $5 billion but that South Korea was rich and could afford the payment. Many South Koreans were angry at the demand. South Korea has been working recently on improved military ties with China and perhaps peace with North Korea is possible. South Koreans may begin to question whether all the US troops in the country are even necessary. If the US demands a higher payment some may be asked to leave to reduce expenditures.

South Korea claims that work on a deal to continue

Even though no date has been set before the present agreement expires the South maintains that work will continue on a fair and reasonable agreement. The talks will likely restart in January. The South Korean Foreign Ministry stated: "The two sides have expanded their understanding of each other through many discussions despite differences in their positions on various issues, and decided to continue close consultations."

The US is giving the impression of being intractable on the matter. As a result opposition to the US demands is growing and this may end up with the South asking that at least some US troops be withdrawn together with a lower demand for the annual payment. A recent article notes that the US position could put the US continuing presence of the US in South Korea in jeopardy: "Some experts, both US and Korean, have warned that if no agreement is reached, it could throw the entire future of the US presence in South Korea into doubt."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump said to be considering withdrawing 4,000 troops from South Korea

(November 21 2019) The South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo quotes an anonymous US diplomatic source as saying that Trump is considering the withdrawal of 4,000 US troops from the South.

The source said that Trump is considering even withdrawing all US troops if South Korea does not agree to the massive increase in cost-sharing payments he is demanding.

As a Reuters article notes: "The report came two days after the United States broke off defense cost talks after demanding that South Korea raise its annual contribution for maintaining the U.S. contingent to $5 billion, a South Korean official said, more than five times what it pays now, in rare discord in the alliance." The break off is discussed in a recent Digital Journal article.

Some South Korean officials see the reports about US withdrawal as a bluff used as a negotiating tactic by the US.

Pentagon denies it is considering any troop withdrawal

A Pentagon spokesperson, Jonathan Hoffman, said: “There is absolutely no truth to the Chosun Ilbo report that the U.S. Department of Defense is currently considering removing any troops from the Korean Peninsula."

The US Defense Secretary Mark Esper also said earlier that he was not away of any plans to withdraw troops from the South if c cost-sharing talks fail. Stephen Biegun the US special representative to North Korea also said that he wants US troops to stay in the South but that no one gets a free ride.

US may still push for $4.7 billion annual payment

The US looks to be still staying with the $4.7 billion demand at least as a starting point for negotiations. However, the South Koreans may not be willing to settle for anything near that amount. The present payment is already a considerable increase on what they paid before which in turn was already a substantial amount.

South Korea and China sign defense deal

As a recent article notes China and South Korea just recently signed a defense pact: "The defence ministers of South Korea and China have agreed to develop their security ties to ensure stability in north-east Asia, the latest indication that Washington’s long-standing alliances in the region are fraying...Seoul’s announcement coincided with growing resentment at the $5 billion (£3.9bn) annual fee that Washington is demanding to keep 28,500 US troops in South Korea."

Trump often uses brinkmanship and threats in negotiations. The result in this case may be disastrous for US interests but could encourage the South to improve relationships with the North in order to avoid the exorbitant costs of relying on the US to defend it from any incursion from the North.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US wants South Korea to pay $4.7 billion yearly to pay for US troops

(November 15 2019)South Korea has already been paying an unusually large percentage of the cost of keeping US troops in the country. Last year under pressure from President Trump South Korea agree to pay the US $924 million each year.

The earlier agreement is described in an article at the time: "South Korea's agreement with the U.S. follows months of negotiations over the proposal following criticism from President Trump over the amount of South Korea's monetary contributions to U.S. troops.“The reason I do not want military drills with South Korea is to save hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. for which we are not reimbursed," Trump tweeted last year."

Trump indicated he wanted even more

Even after that increase Trump has suggested more than once that he wanted even more arguing that South Korea could easily afford it.

Trump's shocker

Trump's new demand is that South Korea pay the US $4.7 billion annually, more than five times what it pays at present, shocking everyone on both sides.

The paper Chosun Ilbo announced the new figure: "The paper provides a translation of U.S. comments, saying that James DeHart, a senior State Department official in charge of the financial negotiations, made an unplanned visit to South Korea yesterday, where he informed South Korea that the new figure was going to be much higher than anyone had expected, more than $5 billion, but that the United States would be willing to take only a portion of the cost and accept $4.7 billion per year as the cost of keeping troops stationed in South Korea."

New amount causes consternation in South Korea and the US

The huge increase is raising questions in the South about the viability of keeping the US around. US officials are also concerned about how they can possibly justify the new figure that appears to have come from nowhere. South Korea had just recently agreed to pay more to support the US troops as a recent article noted: "Last year, the South Korean government paid the United States roughly $830 Million to cover its share of the costs of housing American troops. This was deemed by the Trump administration to be too small a contribution, and they negotiated in February to increase the amount to $924 Million."

What the US may argue

While it may take a great deal of creative accounting to show that the US demand will just cover the costs of the US troops in South Korea, officials may simply argue that the relative prosperity of the South is due to the US presence. The US deserves to share in this prosperity and hence the huge payment each year.

US officials worry that Trump is going to issue similar inflated demands to countries such as Japan and Germany. Trump has indicated before he thinks they should pay more to support US troops deployed in those countries.

Although Trump may think that South Korea and other countries have no choice but to pay up this may be a delusion. South Korea may feel it should reduce the number of US troops present and cut down on joint military drills to lessen the cost. The move may encourage the South to seek better relations with the North by reducing its dependency on the US forces.

A recent article claims that the larger payments may help Trump finance expensive domestic programs but suggests there could also be negative results: "It also alienates international allies, further demonstrates that under Trump the United States is an unreliable military partner, and provides direct material aid to nations which have sworn to harm or even destroy the United States. (It is readily apparent that even the direct threat of US troop departure aids both North Korea and China, regionally, and Russia which has been extending its influence in Southeast Asia). "

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump opposes joint US South Korean military exercises

(August 10) Commenting to reporters on Friday, US President Donald Trump said he agrees with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un in opposing joint US South Korean war games. He said he has never been a fan because he do not like paying for them.

Trump agreed to halt exercises during earlier peace talks

When the peace talks began earlier, Trump agreed to halt the exercises. However, after the failed Hanoi summit it was decided to resume the exercises. The Hanoi summit was in February this year: 'The 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit, commonly known as the Hanoi Summit, was a two-day summit meeting between North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump,[1] held at the Metropole Hotel in Hanoi, Vietnam, on February 27–28, 2019. This was the second meeting between the leaders of the DPRK and the United States, following the first meeting in June 2018 in Singapore. On February 28, 2019, the White House announced that the summit was cut short and that no agreement was reached. Trump later elaborated that it was because North Korea wanted an end to all sanctions.[2] North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho asserted that the country only sought a partial lifting of five United Nations sanctions placed on North Korea between 2016 and 2017.[3][4]"

However, there is no indication as yet that new talks are to take place.

Kim no doubt requested suspension of exercises before new talks

Apparently, part of the letter to Trump that he praised objected to the exercises. North Korea sees the exercises as simulated invasions. Even though acknowledging Kim's position, Trump has not announced any change in US policy.

It is not clear why the decision was made to resume exercises

Some Pentagon officials have pushed for the exercises to be resumed, claiming the pause had weakened US combat readiness in South Korea. No doubt many of the hawks in the Trump administration also favor the resumption. It has never been made clear exactly why the exercises resume even though Trump opposes them. Trump often seems to be over-ruled by hawks in his government.

North tests missiles to protest against US North Korea games

A recent article notes: "North Korea conducted the latest in a series of missile launches Saturday to protest US-South Korean war games, just hours after US President Donald Trump expressed his own frustration with the exercises."

The White House so far has had no comment on the new rocket tests. A senior administration official said: "We are consulting closely with our Japanese and South Korean allies."

Trump said the missile tests were not important: "I'll say it again. There have been no nuclear tests. The missile tests have all been short-range. No ballistic missile tests, no long-range missiles."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump demands that South Korea pay more for defense from the North

(August 8) In comments yesterday, US President Donald Trump demanded that South Korea pay substantially more to the US for defending them against North Korea. Trump has continually made that demand since he was elected.

South Korea agreed last year to a significant increase

Trump pointed out that last year the South agreed to a substantial increase in payment to the US when the payment was increased to $990 million per year. After crediting himself for obtaining that raise, he is asking even more. Trump believes that the US pays too much of the defense costs of its ally.

A recent article reports: "Trump also said in the tweet that talks have already begun with South Korea on increasing the $990 million it now pays the U.S. for defense. The president said South Korea should pay "substantially more money to the United States" for the country's help defending it from North Korea. 'South Korea is a very wealthy nation that now feels an obligation to contribute to the military defense provided by the United States of America,' Trump wrote."

A larger payment may be a hard sell in South Korea

Not only did South Korea agree to a large increase last year, but it has had to start negotiations again as Trump has become involved and is demanding more. Furthermore, these agreements are meant to be multi-year. Last year happened to be a year the agreement was up for negotiation. Now it looks as if the US is going to try to raise payments annually rather than keeping the present agreement for several years.

South Korea did not immediately respond to Trump's remarks. The issue of payments for South Korean defense will likely be discussed when US Defense Secretary Mike Esper visits South Korea this Wednesday.

Trump's tweet on Wednesday comes just after a missile launch the day before that the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un claimed was a warning about the planned joint military exercises planned between the US and South Korean forces. There is no sign that the launch will cause any change in plans for the exercises.

Previously published in the Digital  Journal

South Korea agrees to pay more to support US troops

(March 10) On Friday, Harry Harris US Ambassador to South Korea and the South Korean Foreign Minister signed a new cost-sharing agreement for US troops deployed in the country at a formal ceremony.

South Korea's share of costs increases significantly

The substantial increase in costs fits in with Trump's desire to have countries where US troops are deployed pay a much higher percentage of the costs. The agreement still has to be ratified by the South Korean parliament by a vote. While this is expected soon it has not been determined when as yet. Even before South Korea paid a larger portion of the costs of US troops deployed than most countries.

A recent article notes: "Instead of just demanding that nations pay more of the cost of the US military’s presence in their country, Trump is now insisting on 'cost plus 50.' To be specific, the administration wants 100 percent of the cost of US troop hosting to be covered by the other nation, and another 50 percent given to the US on top of that for the privilege of US troops being there. While South Korea had one of the more generous deals for the US, paying around half of the cost for the large number of troops there, the US pushed for, and got, a substantial increase to 80%. That was presented as a big win for Trump in negotiations, but can he really repeat this with everyone else?"

The new agreement with South Korea took months to negotiate

South Korean Foreign Minister Kang said the agreement was the result of hard and sometimes difficult work. He also said that the agreement was something the two countries could build upon to make their alliance stronger. The agreement follows upon criticism by Trump about the amount that South Korea pays toward US troop maintenance in the country.

Trump had said last year: “The reason I do not want military drills with South Korea is to save hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. for which we are not reimbursed."

He said the same thing after his failed meeting with Kim Jong UN of North Korea last week: “I was telling the generals — I said, 'Look, you know, exercising is fun and it's nice,' and they play the war games. And I'm not saying it's not necessary, because at some levels it is, but at other levels, it's not. But it's a very, very expensive thing. And you know, we do have to think about that too.”

Previously published in Digital Journal

US deployment of missile system in South Korea angers China and Russia

While the sped-up deployment of the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to South Korea increased tension with North Korea, it also led to angry responses from Russia and China particularly China.

Early reports indicated that THAAD missiles would have a relatively short range that would reach throughout North Korea. The system will actually have a much longer range able to penetrate deep into Chinese and Russian territory:

According to China’s Xinhua news outlet, South Korea earlier had claimed that the THAAD would be deployed with a detection range of some 600 kilometers, sufficient to cover its North Korean foe. Now though it appears that the US Pentagon is upgrading the radar working range of the system to reach 2,000 kms. With that much greater additional scope, the American missile system on the Korean Peninsula will be able to penetrate deep into Chinese and Russian territory. Beijing and Vladivostok are less that 1,000 kms from South Korea’s capital Seoul.

There have been protests from China and Russia about the deployment. There are even protests in South Korea where residents of areas where THAAD will be deployed worry that they will become targets. The reaction in China has been particularly heated with threats to take retaliatory action. One article suggests that Chinese should not travel to South Korea as tourists and should not buy goods from the country: "Chinese consumers should become the main force in teaching Seoul a lesson, punishing the nation through the power of the market."

Both China and Russia claim that the deployment would upset the balance of power in the region. While the US and South Korea claim that the move is simply defensive it also allows the US to have the power of first strike not just against North Korea but also against Russia or China since THAAD can respond to any attempt to respond to the strike.

The speed-up in deployment was apparently a response to four ballistic missiles test-fired by North Korea recently. Components of the system arrived in South Korea aboard a giant C-17 military transport plane based in Texas. However, the North Korean action was itself as response to what it considers US South Korean provocations:The communist government of Kim Jung-un had warned that the latest ballistic test firing would go ahead in response to the current US war maneuvers being conducted with its South Korean ally. The Foal-Eagle US war exercises are carried out every year and last for two months, involving up to 300,000 troops, aircraft carriers and aerial bombers. The annual «war games» have been going on for decades since the end of the Korean War in 1953, which North Korea has repeatedly denounced as a drill for the eventual invasion of its territory.

Both Russia and China are worried that the real target for the missile systems are them rather than North Korea. North Korea is used as an excuse for deployment. For Russia the situation appears similar to the US missile deployments in Romania and Poland supposedly meant to defend Europe against Iranian ballistic missiles. Moscow considers that the real target is Russia. As with the THAAD system in Korea, the eastern European system protects the EU against any first strike response by Russia to an attack by NATO or others.

The US also has increased tensions with China by deploying the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson to the disputed waters of the South China Sea claiming this is just part of maritime "routine operations". Accompanying the aircraft carrier is the guided-missile destroyer USS Wayne Meyer. The Vinson has more than 60 aircraft. Trump appears to be taking a more confrontational approach towards China, although Obama was also trying to increase US power in the region with his Pivot to Asia.. The US defends its actions by claiming that it is defending the freedom of navigation in disputed territories. However it also sends a message that the US is still the hegemon in the region. The THAAD deployment also pleases and feeds the US military industrial complex:The THAAD system is being designed, built, and integrated by Lockheed Martin Space Systems acting as prime contractor. Key subcontractors include Raytheon, Boeing, Aerojet, Rocketdyne, Honeywell, BAE Systems, Oshkosh Defense, MiltonCAT and the Oliver Capital Consortium.[6]