U.S. estimate falls short by about $300 million: politician
Rep. Roh Hoe-chan of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) on August 30 said that "the Korean government has floated US$1.1 billion annually to maintain the United States Forces Korea (USFK), but the U.S. has failed to recognize about US$300 million of it."
Rep. Roh analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Defense and revealed a difference between the two nations’ estimation of assistance for the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK). According to the data, Seoul says it gave about US$1.18 billion for American troops stationed on the Korean peninsula in 2000, compared to Washington’s estimate of the South Korean contribution, at US$790 million. In 2001 and 2002, the difference between the two countries’ estimates was found to be about US$310 million and US$350 million, respectively.
Rep. Roh noted, "Out of the nations where U.S. soldiers are stationed, such as Germany and Japan, Korea is the only country that supports military facilities and human resources. However, the U.S. does not recognize these contributions as part of Korea’s assistance." In 2000, the U.S. excluded cost of supporting human resources - about US$92 million by the government’s estimation - and appraised the costs related to real-estate about US$310 million lower than the market rate, according to Rep. Roh.
"If the amount of the government’s assistance can be estimated fairly during negotiations [between the two countries] on defense cost, Korea will be able to reduce its budget by US$300 to $US400 million," Rep. Roh said. "The [South Korean] government should share the defense cost because the USFK is a war deterrent." he continued. "But if the USFK has the intention of using "strategic flexibility" to dispatch troops to a third, disputed region, we should receive rent [from the U.S.] for the USKF facilities," Rep. Roh said. In response, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said, "Even if the gap between the two nations’ estimates is eased, the burden on South Korea will not automatically be reduced. The transfer of wartime operational control has nothing to do with negotiations on the sharing of defense cost."
