82% of S. Koreans feel U.S. military relocation plan needs reworking

Protesters are holding a rally calling for repeal of US forces relocation in Pyongtaek on May 14. Pyongtaek/Yonhap News

Poll reveals only 11% aware of regional troop deployment agreement

Hankyoreh21, together with the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, polled 1,004 individuals over the age of 19 on May 15-16. "The National Poll on U.S. Forces in Korea" covered the changing role of USFK, including the negotiation of U.S. military base relocation, cost sharing for the move between the two governments, the attitudes of the government and the National Assembly during the negotiation process, as well as pending issues related to USFK in general, including the Pyeongtaek clash between the military and those protesting relocation. The poll was overseen by Hangil Research & Consulting.

The survey revealed that only 11.2% South Koreans were aware of the relevant facts of the Strategic Flexibility agreement, which was signed between the U.S. and South Korea in January at the Strategic Consultation for Allied Partnership meeting in Washington. The deal would allow U.S. troops in South Korea to be deployed in other regions of the world; for example, to the Taiwan Strait, when there is tension between mainland China and Taiwan. 55.8% of respondents said they knew the agreement existed but did not know what it entailed. Another 33% said they had no knowledge of the agreement.

As for the South Korean government's agreeing to the Strategic Flexibility plan, 50% supported the South Korean government's decision; agreement was as high as 73.1% among those over the age of 50. On the other hand, 42.7% of overall South Koreans opposed the government's decision.

However, the same poll also showed that 70.9% of South Koreans believe that Washington should seek Seoul's agreement before carrying out any troop redeployment.

Majority favors an equal sharing of relocation cost

Another thorny issue surrounding the U.S. military base relocation is the cost-sharing formula. On April 6, the Defense Ministry announced that the total relocation plan would cost 7 to 9 billion USD and South Korea would bear 5.5 billion of that cost.

43% of South Koreans said the cost should be shared equally between Seoul and Washington because both nations have a common strategic interest. 27.2% believe that Washington should pick up more financial responsibility because the military alliance in the Korean peninsula is part of the U.S. global strategy. Only 2% said that South Korea should foot the entire bill because the alliance is to protect South Korea.

Within the total cost figure, the amount required to repair environmental damage to the old military base sites is another area of contention. 41.4% South Koreans believe the U.S. should shoulder the entire bill. Another 32.6% want the U.S. to take up most of the cost. Another 22% said it should be shared equally.

A full 83.6% thought that a National Assembly hearing should be held to confirm the exact cost.

As for the dispute with homeowners relocated for the project, 66.8% of respondents said the government should engage the residents through dialogue, even though this might delay the project. 15.7% said the government project should proceed as planned even though there is some resistance.

Regarding the decision by the government to send in military troops to evict those who refused to be relocated as well as quell protestors on the scene, 39.9% supported the government, while 55.5% did not. 45% of the respondents said the government should be mainly responsible for the violent clash which ensued, while the protesters should also be held partly responsible. 25.1% said the government overreacted, while 20.1% place the blame entirely on the government.

Overall, 82.2% South Koreans either agree or strongly agree on having a renegotiation of the relocation project, while 13.8% do not think it necessary.

47.6% feel the need for independent mediation

As the government's repeated efforts to resolve the dispute through dialogue seem to have failed, organizations such as the local township committee and the Pan-Korean Committee Against US Base Extension to Pyeongtaek argued for the need for the establishment of an impartial dispute arbitration system. 47.6% support this type of system, pointing out the deep mistrust between the government and the local residents. 38.1% believe that the issue should still be resolved through direct dialogue between the government and the local occupants. On the other hand, 12.2% said the relocation project is a lawful state project already ratified by the National Assembly and thus would not need any intercession.

Only 9.7% of the respondents said they are satisfied with the government's explanation of their efforts in the negotiations of the plan, which lasted for 3 years, to the public; while the majority of 67.1% felt the government’s explanations were lacking.