hankyoreh

Jeong Eun-bo, South Korea’s chief negotiator in its defense cost-sharing talks with the US, answers questions during a press briefing at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Seoul on Dec. 19. (Kim Gyoung-ho, staff photographer)

South Korea’s chief negotiator in its defense cost-sharing talks with the US said on Dec. 19 that Seoul cannot pay for American troops based in other countries. Jeong Eun-bo also reiterated the need to maintain the current framework of the Special Measures Agreement (SMA), which limits South Korea’s financial contribution to stationing US troops within Korea.

“We hold strongly to the principle that the SMA’s 28-year-old framework must be maintained,” the negotiator said during a press conference at the office of the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) on Thursday.

Jeong was expressly rejecting demands made by James DeHart, head of the American negotiating team, during a press conference held after the fifth round of negotiations concluded in Seoul the day before. Arguing that the SMA framework should be altered to include the total American cost spent on defending South Korea, DeHart said that South Korea should cover costs related to the rotational deployment of American troops to the Korean Peninsula, overseas training, equipment, and transportation.

Jeong’s explicit rebuttal of the case made by DeHart in his press conference the day before shows that the two sides are carrying on an unusual, tense battle for public opinion on the sidelines of the negotiations. With the US set on changing the rules of the game and South Korea just as determined to keep them in place, there’s clearly trouble in store for the negotiations. South Korea is focusing on the agreement’s basic principle of splitting the cost of stationing American troops in the country, while the US is demanding an extreme cost increase under the new framework of “alliance contributions.”

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of US Forces Korea (USFK) states that South Korea must provide land and facilities to the US but leaves the US responsible for all costs pertaining to USFK. Since 1991, the SMA has carved out an exception to that, requiring South Korea to pay for Korean employees of USFK, construction, and logistics support.

Since US President Donald Trump became president, the US has pushed a narrative about allies around the world getting a “free ride” and has pressured them to greatly increase their contribution to defense. “All costs [such as rotational deployment] are directly associated with defense of the ROK [South Korea],” DeHart contended. “It’s reasonable to share in some of those costs even if some of those expenses technically take place off the peninsula.”

“The current SMA framework was based on SOFA and has followed that standard for the past 28 years. We don’t agree with [the US’] claims,” Jeong said, adding that “We’re assessing the feasibility and the appropriateness of each and every point.”

“We’re explaining South Korea’s current contribution to the alliance and asking for a fair and objective assessment of that,” Jeong went on to say. The negotiators are reportedly citing South Korea’s acquisition of American-made weaponry as an example of its contribution to the alliance.

By openly asking South Korea to cover the cost of rotational deployment and overseas training, many think, the US has not only ventured beyond the SMA framework but also made a dubious request, in light of actual circumstances.

“Rotational deployment, overseas training, and deployment of strategic weapons by the US are closely linked to the US’ own security interests. Asking South Korea to pay for such costs is too broad, and indeed unreasonable,” said Lee Soo-hyung, head of academic cooperation at the Institute for National Security Strategy (INSS).

While ostensibly aimed at North Korea, US movement of troops, aircraft carriers, and jet fighters to the area around the Korean Peninsula often has more to do with the Indo-Pacific Strategy or the US’ alliance with Japan, Lee pointed out.

When asked about remarks by DeHart the previous day suggesting that the US has lowered its target figure below the original US$5 billion, Jeong said he wasn’t able to comment publicly about the exact figure. “At the present moment, and generally speaking, it would be accurate to say that positions haven’t changed,” said one source who’s familiar with the status of the negotiations, suggesting that the US hasn’t adjusted its demands much.

By Park Min-hee and Kim So-youn, staff reporters

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]