S. Korea National Assembly holds hearing to ratify defense cost-sharing agreement with US 

Park Jeong-eun, secretary-general of People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, testifies during a hearing on the motion to ratify the South Korea-US defense cost-sharing agreement at the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee on Apr. 4. (Yonhap News)

SEOUL, Apr 6, 2019, Hankyoreh. On Apr. 4, a number of objections were raised in the National Assembly to South Korea and the US’ defense cost-sharing agreement, which is scheduled to be brought to the floor of the National Assembly for a ratification vote on Apr. 5. These objections include the absence of grounds for increasing South Korea’s share by 78.7 billion won (US$69.27 million), or 8.2% from the previous year; the likelihood that the implementation agreement will end up being used for operational support; and the lack of a system for calculating a reasonable amount for Korea’s contribution, reported the Hankyoreh.

One of the experts who testified during a hearing on the motion to ratify the 10th Special Measures Agreement, as the cost-sharing agreement is called, that was held at the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee on Thursday morning, was Park Jeong-eun, secretary-general of People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy. Park argued that the agreement shouldn’t be ratified in its current state because Korea’s financial contribution was raised even though US Forces Korea (USFK) still hasn’t utilized a substantial amount of the money provided by the South.

Park also called for the deletion of several provisions in the agreement, including funding for temporarily relocating US troops to the peninsula who are normally stationed overseas. Park did observe that the latest version of the agreement doesn’t create grounds for funding operations such as the deployment of strategic assets to the Korean Peninsula. The report submitted for the National Assembly’s review also confirmed that South Korea gave USFK a total of 5.4 trillion won (US$4.75 billion) in direct and indirect support in 2015 and that, so far, USFK hadn’t disbursed 1.33 trillion won (US$1.17 billion) of that money.

Other issues that were raised included the implementation agreement (Article 5, Clause 2), which enables the funding of the temporary stationing of troops, and funding for repairing offshore military equipment.

“According to the implementation agreement, USFK could use South Korea’s cost-sharing funds to build Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities,” Park said, referring to facilities that are reportedly used for wiretapping. “These funds could also be used to cover the cost of dealing with trash and waste after the arrival of an [American] nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.”

Chun Jeong-bae, a lawmaker with the Party for Democracy and Peace, argued that 95.42 billion won (US$84 million) of the money provided by South Korea had gone to repair US military equipment on Guam and in Japan and that such expenditure was at odds with the purpose of South Korea’s contribution. Funding repairs for offshore equipment was also dealt with during the negotiations for the 10th agreement, and reports indicate that the two countries are currently discussing this issue.

In the context of the undisbursed funds piling up at USFK, Woo Jeong-yeop, director of the Center for American Studies at the Sejong Institute, spoke of the importance of transitioning from the current total amount model to a needs-based model that would explore the cost in each category. Such a transition, Woo said, was important for guaranteeing the transparency of budget execution.

By Kim Ji-eun, staff reporter

Share it


Exclusive: Beyond the Covid-19 world's coverage