Category: US-ROK Alliance

Here is some more Korean media criticism about the US-ROK cost sharing talks from Oh Young-jin in the Korea Times:

U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) is under attack not by enemy but by its own commander-in-chief, President Donald Trump.

Trump is prioritizing the size of the bill host Korea pays toward upkeep and is indulging himself in an unwarranted bromance with the head of the enemy. 

The risk is bringing confusion to the mission and raison d’etre of the peacekeepers and freedom fighters who have stood ready for decades to throw down their lives to help protect Koreans from North Korean invasions and assert a U.S.-led balance of power in the region where interests of big powers often clash. So a blow to the USFK credibility is feared. 

Already, Trump’s first defense secretary, James Mattis, the soldier of the soldiers, called it quits over Trump’s acts of belittling the allies, calling them freeloaders being piggybacked by the U.S., and his boss’s readiness to sleep with enemies like the North’s young dictator Kim Jong-un and Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Korea Times

Here is the most humorous line from the article:

One commentator wondered aloud whether if Korea pays what the U.S. reportedly demands, it would make GIs mercenaries that work for money with no regard to common cause and purpose. 

First of all hardly any soldier in USFK even knows or cares about the on going US-ROK cost sharing talks. Secondly if and when a new deal is struck it is not like USFK soldiers are getting a cut from whatever the Korean side pays.

Regardless of how much Korea pays it makes absolutely no difference to the average USFK soldier and thus it is total hyperbole to claim that USFK soldiers would begin feeling like mercenaries because the ROK pays more for the upkeep of the alliance.

It is strange times in Korea when the conservative politicians are complaining about President Trump and the Korean left don’t like him either, but they really don’t know why:

Korean conservatives are generally pro-U.S. and advocates of a strong Seoul-Washington alliance. 

Yet their alliance appears to be cracking following U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks on issues crucial for South Korea. The real estate developer-turned-politician has expressed his interest in trading the blood-forged alliance for an increase in national revenue and appears to favor North Korea over the South. 

Last Friday he even made fun of South Korea ― along with Japan and the European Union ― mimicking the Korean accent before his deep-pocketed supporters. 

Their sense of humiliation has seen even pro-U.S. conservative politicians speak out to slam Trump. Some lashed out at the president, calling him “empty-headed” or “too inept to figure out what’s right and wrong.”

“With the ‘money is everything’ mind of a merchant, Trump seems to be confused about what is his ally and foe,” Rep. Cho Kyung-tae of the main opposition Liberty Party of Korea (LPK) said on a radio show Tuesday. 

Korea Times

You can read more at the link.

This only makes sense that the U.S. should start deploying ballistic missiles when the North Koreans, Russians, and Chinese are doing the same thing:

With the new Pentagon chief’s signal that Washington plans to consult with its allies on the placement of intermediate-range missiles in Asia, Seoul is again put in a difficult position, concerned that its relations with Beijing and Pyongyang could be complicated if South Korea is chosen as the deployment site.  

However, the Korean Ministry of National Defense said on Monday that it has not yet held any official discussions with the United States on the placement of intermediate-range missiles in Korea, nor is it considering such deployment at the moment.  

Ahead of a visit to Seoul this week, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper was asked by reporters Saturday if the Pentagon was considering deploying ground-based intermediate-range missiles in Asia, to which he responded, “Yes. I would like to. But let’s be clear, I’m talking about conventional weapons.”  

Washington was previously unable to pursue ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers because of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, an arms control pact with Russia dating back to 1987, which the United States withdrew from last Friday.  

“Right now, we don’t have plans to build nuclear-tipped INF-range weapons,” said Esper. As to the timeline, he said, “I would prefer months … But these things tend to take longer than you expect.”  

The move is expected to prompt protests by Russia, China and North Korea, and analysts fear the start of a new arms race. Experts have pointed out that the first U.S. intermediate missile deployments are likely to counter China, rather than Russia.

Joong Ang Ilbo

You can read more at the link, but I would be surprised if South Korea is chosen as a location unless the peace talks with North Korea collapse and lead to another provocation cycle. Deploying ballistic missiles to South Korea would be a great deterrent option to execute in response to a future provocation cycle.

There will probably be more missiles being fired by North Korea next week as the joint exercise between the ROK and South Korea is scheduled to begin:

South Korea and the United States will stage joint military drills as scheduled despite warnings from North Korea, the South Korean military authority said Sunday.

The joint drills will begin Monday with a computer-simulated command post exercise (CPX) to cope with any emergency on the Korean Peninsula and last for half a month, according to the authority.

After the CPX, the allies will spend the remaining 10 days intensively verifying Seoul’s capabilities for its envisioned retaking of wartime operational control (OPCON) of its troops from Washington.

But many watchers say the joint military drills could prompt further provocation from the North.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link.

Considering that last year the US negotiators had to fight to get the ROK to pay $879 million for this year’s upkeep, I don’t expect them to pay $5 billion next year:

South Korea and the United States have agreed to conduct discussions in a “reasonable and fair” way on how to share the cost for the upkeep of American troops here, a foreign ministry official here said Tuesday.

The two sides talked about the upcoming negotiations over Seoul’s share of the cost for the stationing of the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) for next year, when U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton visited Korea last week, the official said.

The local daily JoongAng Ilbo reported that Washington has tentatively decided to request that Seoul pay US$5 billion under a renewed bilateral cost-sharing arrangement for next year, more than a fivefold increase from the previous year.

“When U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton was visiting Korea on July 23 and 24, South Korea and the U.S. agreed to have consultations over the sharing of the defense cost in a reasonable and fair direction,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link, but it would have been interesting to see the face of Moon administration officials when John Bolton dropped the $5 billion number.

The Blue House needs to have this exercise happen because it is part of the glide path for the ROK to take back operational control (OPCON) from the U.S. Taking back OPCON has long been a left wing goal that the Moon administration is trying to make happen:

The presidential office Cheong Wa Dae said Friday that South Korea and the United States will proceed with their planned joint military drills as scheduled, despite North Korea’s warning.

North Korea’s state media said earlier in the day that the two short-range ballistic missiles the country fired Thursday were a “solemn warning” against South Korea, calling for the suspension of Seoul’s planned military exercises and its purchase of what it called offensive weapons.

Cheong Wa Dae said it will not issue an official statement regarding reports by the North’s media as it only responds to a country’s official stance.

When asked about the possibility to review the allies’ military drills, “It is known that nothing has changed,” a presidential official told reporters, asking not to be named.

Seoul and Washington plan to conduct the summertime exercise, named 19-2 Dong Maeng, to verify Seoul’s capabilities for its envisioned retaking of wartime operational control (OPCON) of its troops from Washington.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link.

Here is another claim that has come out of the allegation that USFK tried to add Japan as part of the United Nations Command (UNC); they also wanted Germany to join as well:

 Early this year, the UNC finalized a legal review to lowering the bar for which countries can serve as sending states, according to sources, which could include nations like Japan or Germany.

It was also revealed by South Korea’s Defense Ministry on Thursday that the United States tried to have Germany dispatch military officers to the UNC, but the plan fizzled out due to opposition from Seoul. 

Joong Ang Ilbo

USFK for their part has denied the allegation they tried to have Japan become part of the UNC.

Here is USFK’s response to South Korean media reports that the U.S. was trying to add Japan as a member of the UNC:

United Nations Command continues to work closely with members of the Republic of Korea government on all aspects of the UNC organizational structure.

News reports alleging Japan being considered as a potential Sending State are flagrantly false. UNC has not offered, nor has Japan requested Sending State designation.

UNC is focused on maintaining peace and security on the peninsula as it has successfully done for more than 69 years to the great benefit of the region. Furthermore, as a top priority, UNC endeavors to support diplomatic efforts to find a lasting peace.

“UNC strives to work transparently and effectively with our participating member states and the Republic of Korea.,” said Gen. Robert B. “Abe” Abrams, UNC commander.

UNC is the home for international commitments which provides a ready-made coalition of longstanding friends and support, including in times of crisis.  UNC is committed to a stable transition to a new combined defense system following the transfer of wartime operational control to a ROK four-star led Combined Forces Command. There is no plan to make UNC an operational command.  Any suggestions otherwise are patently false. 

USFK.mil

Yonhap is reporting that this issue may have been caused by a mistranslation:

Japan is already home to a number of UNC rear bases that would be mobilized in the event of a crisis in Korea.

Speaking of the U.S.’ references to Japan’s role within the UNC in a recently issued annual publication, the Seoul ministry also said there seems to have been a “mistranslation” of the English text into Korean.

In the English version of the 2019 Strategic Digest, the U.S. said the UNC “continues to ensure the support and force flow through Japan that would be necessary in times of crisis.” But the Korean version says it continues to ensure the support and force flow “with” Japan.

Yonhap

I don’t buy the mistranslation causing such a huge false report like this to be published. I think this is probably domestic politics with the Moon administration trying to lift its approval ratings by appearing to stand up to the Americans to stop the Japanese from joining the UNC.

This would seem to be in line with President Trump’s call for Japan to do more militarily in support of the US. However, this is not going to go over well in South Korea:

The defense ministry on Thursday voiced strong opposition to an alleged push by the U.S.-led United Nations Command (UNC) to include Japan as an official member, saying that, according to U.N. Security Council resolutions, Tokyo is not entitled to such status.

According to sources, the UNC is seeking to include Japan as one of the UNC’s “sending states,” a move likely to inflame public sentiment in South Korea amid renewed historical tensions with Tokyo.

Should Japan obtain the membership, it would pave the way for its military involvement in the event of an armed conflict on the peninsula — a scenario unthinkable for many Koreans who harbor grievances stemming from Japan’s 1910-45 colonial rule.

Except for South Korea and the United States, the UNC currently has 16 sending states that are to provide combat troops, equipment and other forms of support in case of a contingency on the peninsula.

The sending states include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy and New Zealand. They have posted contingents at the UNC to support its operations centering on the observance and enforcement of the armistice that halted the 1950-53 Korean War.

“Japan did not participate in the Korean War, so it cannot serve a role as a sending state,” Col. Roh Jae-cheon, the deputy ministry spokesman told a regular briefing, citing U.N. Resolutions 83 and 84.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link.

This is a good point, I wonder how infiltrated South Korea’s military is by compromised Huawei hardware?:

Washington may refrain from sharing sensitive intelligence with South Korea unless it stops using telecom equipment from the Chinese communications giant Huawei, according to the U.S. State Department on Thursday. 

The statement came in response to the JoongAng Ilbo’s question to the State Department on comments made by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on a radio show on Wednesday. Pompeo told conservative pundit Mark Levin on the show that the level of alertness shown by Washington’s allies in Asia to the national security risk presented by China “varies.”

When the JoongAng Ilbo asked whether Pompeo’s remarks reflected the U.S. government’s official stance that it wants Seoul to stop buying communications equipment from Huawei, a State Department spokesperson answered through a written response that the United States would have to review whether to share sensitive information with an allied country if that country’s communications network included equipment obtained from an untrusted vendor.

Joong Ang Ilbo

You can read more at the link.