Seoul, Washington fail to agree on cost of U.S. troops as deal set to expire

[snoop1130]

Seoul, Washington fail to agree on cost of U.S. troops as deal set to expire

By Josh Smith

 

FILE PHOTO: The South Korean and American flags fly next to each other at Yongin, South Korea, August 23, 2016. Picture taken on August 23, 2016. Courtesy Ken Scar/U.S. Army/Handout via REUTERS

 

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea and the United States failed on Wednesday to reach an agreement over Seoul’s contribution towards hosting some 28,500 U.S. troops, ending two days of talks that were the last before their existing deal expires on Dec. 31.

 

South Korean lawmakers have said Washington is seeking up to $5 billion (3.81 billion pounds) a year, more than five times the amount Seoul agreed to pay this year.

 

As part of his ‘America First” policy, U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded that many U.S. allies, including NATO members and Japan, pay more towards defence.

 

He has frequently accused South Korea of being a rich nation that is profiting off the U.S. military forces, which are stationed in the country as a legacy of the 1950-1953 Korean War and continued threats from North Korea.

 

The lack of a deal in talks led by South Korea’s chief negotiator Jeong Eun-bo and his U.S. counterpart, James DeHart, could result in a repeat of last year when the two countries missed a year-end deadline but reached a retroactive agreement in the new year.

 

Some experts, both U.S. and Korean, have warned that if no agreement is reached, it could throw the entire future of the U.S. presence in South Korea into doubt.

 

The next set of talks will be in the United States in January, with the exact timing still to be determined.

 

South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said their negotiators emphasized the need for “fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable agreements,” that will strengthen the alliance.

 

“The two sides have expanded their understanding of each other through many discussions despite differences in their positions on various issues, and decided to continue close consultations,” it said in a statement.

 

A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Seoul declined to comment.

 

The dispute has been a rare public sign of discord in the “airtight” alliance that has for 70 years formed a buffer against North Korean aggression. The two Koreas remain in a technical state of war under a truce, not a peace treaty, that ended the Korean War.

 

There have been several public protests in South Korea against the U.S. calls for more money.

 

South Koreans overwhelmingly oppose paying more, a survey released on Monday by the Chicago Council of Global Affairs found, with only 4% of respondents saying Seoul should meet Trump’s demands.

 

Still, 74% of those questioned said they support the long-term stationing of American troops in South Korea.

 

If no deal is reached, the most immediate effect may be on thousands of South Korean civilians who work for the U.S. military and who could be placed on unpaid leave.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-18

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

Oh boy what could possibly go wrong I’ll bet little Kim is partying big time waiting for Donald to destroy our alliances in the area

[billd766]

17 minutes ago, Tug said:

Oh boy what could possibly go wrong I’ll bet little Kim is partying big time waiting for Donald to destroy our alliances in the area

The sooner he is impeached, the safer the the world will be.

[Cryingdick]

52 minutes ago, billd766 said:

The sooner he is impeached, the safer the the world will be.

 

He will be impeached in the next few hours and the world won't be any safer for it. Perhaps the Koreans should defend themselves.

[legend49]

10 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

He will be impeached in the next few hours and the world won't be any safer for it. Perhaps the Koreans should defend themselves.

Maybe they want to, has anyone asked them or does MAGA think its their right do what it wants?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

The sooner he is impeached, the safer the the world will be.

You do realise that impeachment is meaningless unless the senate convicts, right? Clinton was impeached, and carried on as president.

 

Re the OP, South Korea should be defending itself now, with a treaty for the US to assist in the event of an invasion by the north.

At most a military base to allow a US force to stage in the event of resumption of hostilities.

It's long past time for the US to leave South Korea for the South Koreans to defend. If they want the US to hold their hand, pay up.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

South Koreans overwhelmingly oppose paying more, a survey released on Monday by the Chicago Council of Global Affairs found, with only 4% of respondents saying Seoul should meet Trump’s demands.

 

Still, 74% of those questioned said they support the long-term stationing of American troops in South Korea.

 

Isn't that called wanting to have cake and eat it too?

Hope Trump stands firm and leaves if they don't pay up.

[Langsuan Man]

Whatever happened to that old mantra used to justify every military adventure the US has been involved in since WWII:

 

If we don't fight them over there, we will have to fight them over here 

[alanrchase]

US$ 175,000 per person stationed there. I see an opportunity for another countries government to put a bid in for the "contract".

[IAMHERE]

Canaries in a coal mine. Those are sacrificial troops guaranteed to get the USA back into Korea if they die. Bring the canon fodder back to American bases. The domino theory doesn't apply anymore and South Korea is just milking the Americans.  

[Langsuan Man]

17 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Canaries in a coal mine. Those are sacrificial troops guaranteed to get the USA back into Korea if they die. Bring the canon fodder back to American bases. The domino theory doesn't apply anymore and South Korea is just milking the Americans.  

In military circles known as The Trip Wire  

[Kinnock]

US Army presence in South Korea is mainly admin people, those nearing retirement and people having a break from combat zones - not been a real fighting force for 30 years.  The bars around the base look like Nana Plaza on pension day.

 

And I think it suits US interests in Asia for them to be there.

 

Any real threat from their crazy relatives in the North would be settled by air power and carriers - and I think that's what S. Korea is really paying for.

 

But the land that base is occupying must be worth a fortune, Korea should charge for rent to off-set their defence agreement costs.

 

 

[bristolboy]

Ordinarily I would agree with Trump on this issue. In fact, I'd go further. South Korea has a very powerful economy and military and is well able to defend itself. In the event of a North Korean threat,US troops there are more like hostage than soldiers. But given the encouragement that Trump has given the North Koreans, and his past history of backing down from conflicts, now is not the time to leave.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

US Army presence in South Korea is mainly admin people, those nearing retirement and people having a break from combat zones - not been a real fighting force for 30 years.  The bars around the base look like Nana Plaza on pension day.

 

And I think it suits US interests in Asia for them to be there.

 

Any real threat from their crazy relatives in the North would be settled by air power and carriers - and I think that's what S. Korea is really paying for.

 

But the land that base is occupying must be worth a fortune, Korea should charge for rent to off-set their defence agreement costs.

 

 

settled by air power and carriers

More likely to be the US nukes they want. Without them, China could probably over run Sth Korea in about a week.

 

But the land that base is occupying must be worth a fortune, Korea should charge for rent to off-set their defence agreement costs.

OK, they can have rent, as long as they agree to compensate the allies for the cost of saving their ass from the commies in 1950. About a million bucks for every allied soldier lost, compensation for the injured, and payment for all the equipment and every single bullet fired to defend them.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Ordinarily I would agree with Trump on this issue. In fact, I'd go further. South Korea has a very powerful economy and military and is well able to defend itself. In the event of a North Korean threat,US troops there are more like hostage than soldiers. But given the encouragement that Trump has given the North Koreans, and his past history of backing down from conflicts, now is not the time to leave.

I've missed your contributions.

 

Exactly which conflicts has he backed down on? He has ended US involvement in Syria which is a good thing- they should not have been there in the first place. US still in Afghanistan. What other conflicts are there that the US is involved in?

Perhaps you are confusing him and Obama- remember lines in the sand and all that?

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Ordinarily I would agree with Trump on this issue. In fact, I'd go further. South Korea has a very powerful economy and military and is well able to defend itself. In the event of a North Korean threat,US troops there are more like hostage than soldiers. But given the encouragement that Trump has given the North Koreans, and his past history of backing down from conflicts, now is not the time to leave.

Yes, Korea should pay for its defense.

 

However, the present bill seems to be over the top; Trump has exacerbated the Korean situation and it is in the USA's (perceived) interest to have a military presence there.

[allen303]

58 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

US Army presence in South Korea is mainly admin people, those nearing retirement and people having a break from combat zones - not been a real fighting force for 30 years.  The bars around the base look like Nana Plaza on pension day.

 

And I think it suits US interests in Asia for them to be there.

 

Any real threat from their crazy relatives in the North would be settled by air power and carriers - and I think that's what S. Korea is really paying for.

 

But the land that base is occupying must be worth a fortune, Korea should charge for rent to off-set their defence agreement costs.

 

 

So, all they have is old senior NCO/Officers there waiting for retirement? Mostly admin people? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or just running your mouth.

[Kinnock]

3 minutes ago, allen303 said:

So, all they have is old senior NCO/Officers there waiting for retirement? Mostly admin people? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or just running your mouth.

 

I've been there.  Have you?

[allen303]

20 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

I've been there.  Have you?

Yes stationed there and visited military friends there the last year. What were you, a tourist ?

Edited December 19, 2019 by allen303

[Kinnock]

26 minutes ago, allen303 said:

Yes stationed there and visited military friends there the last year. What were you, a tourist ?

Our company are civilian contractors maintaining equipment on US bases - and Seoul is utterly different to what pur team in Middle East experienced.  No judgement intended, but Seoul is primarily adminstrative, intelligence, management and support and not a combat ready base.  

 

I know what US plays a primary role in defence of S Korea, but not from the base in Seoul, and if you'd been there, you know this.

[Eric Loh]

This will just pushed South Korea closer to China. Trump is breaking up aged long alliance to the benefit of Russia, China and NK. 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/18/china-signs-defence-agreement-south-korea-us-angers-seoul-demand/

[Bundooman]

16 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

He will be impeached in the next few hours and the world won't be any safer for it. Perhaps the Koreans should defend themselves.

But who will defend the USA against Chinese, N.Korean and Russian aggression?

It seems that Trump is deliberately destroying all the USA's historic alliances and putting the US in great danger!

 

Where is that bed-pi**ing video when the world most desperately needs it?

[jvs]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

it is in the USA's (perceived) interest to have a military presence there.

There you said it,spot on!!!

[jany123]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

OK, they can have rent, as long as they agree to compensate the allies for the cost of saving their ass from the commies in 1950. About a million bucks for every allied soldier lost, compensation for the injured, and payment for all the equipment and every single bullet fired to defend them.

 

Let’s see.... those divisive states and Russia partitioned Korea after world war 2, to suit their own agenda.

 

the southern half was given US support in this decision, which was mandated by external forces, to suit external agendas

 

in 1950 the northern part of the Divided area, took up arms in objection to the decision others took in dividing its homeland, for their own agenda, and as the stronger part of the now divided state, it set out to reunite its country, despite the agenda of other sovereign nations

 

then, at the divisive states request, the United Nations agreed to support a state that was created to suit their agenda.

 

and now, after 70 years of enforcing a division of territory... (territory that should arguably have become a united Korea, led by the North Koreans, as victors, if not for external interference)... you suggest that the South Koreans should pay for those externally made decisions.

 

And... to suit the agenda of those divisive states, the divisive states is determining the future of the two states by mismanaging the peace (a 70 year old conflict left unresolved is gross mismanagement!)

 

yall caused it to suit yourselves... y’all should pay the ongoing cost for orchestrating this conflict, which was a direct result of external forces interfering in domestic politics of another nation, which in turn led to a civil conflict in that nation.

 

This is the cost of engineering a proxy war in another nation... a cost that should be born by Russia (in small part, as their part was small) and the decisive states... China was arguably acting to defend its own borders when it sent its troops into North Korea after MacArthur decided to push past the 38th, so bear little blame for this mess.

 

uurrgh... those divisive states monetizing it’s military and turning the nation into a mercenary enterprise... way to MAGA!.... cause a war and profit by selling arms and supplying mercenaries.

 

the arrogance appalls 

Edited December 19, 2019 by jany123

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've missed your contributions.

 

Exactly which conflicts has he backed down on? He has ended US involvement in Syria which is a good thing- they should not have been there in the first place. US still in Afghanistan. What other conflicts are there that the US is involved in?

Perhaps you are confusing him and Obama- remember lines in the sand and all that?

Whether or not the USA should have been in Syria is one issue. Whether or not he definitely backed down when Erdogan said he was going into Syria is quite another. He backed down and withdrew troops.

 

He also backed down after Iran shot down a US drone. Despite having sent a major naval force to the Persian Gulf, he actually thanked Iran for shooting down a drone instead of a plane with US troops aboard it. Whether that was a good thing or not is, once again, another issue.

 

He also did nothing when missiles damaged a Saudi refinery. A missile attack that the US blamed on Iran. The Saudis are now talking to the Iranians about reducing tensions. Once again, it may have been wise of Trump to do nothing, but it does send a message.

 

And of course there are his repeated excuses for and acceptance Kim's provocative behavior subsequent to the Singapore summit conference. Including when North Korea recently launched a missile from a submarine. 

 

There are also his comments suggesting the US wouldn't necessarily defend Nato members if Russia encroached on their territory.

 

So I would say those instances taken together send a pretty clear message to potential adversaries. 

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Let’s see.... those divisive states and Russia partitioned Korea after world war 2, to suit their own agenda.

 

the southern half was given US support in this decision, which was mandated by external forces, to suit external agendas

 

in 1950 the northern part of the Divided area, took up arms in objection to the decision others took in dividing its homeland, for their own agenda, and as the stronger part of the now divided state, it set out to reunite its country, despite the agenda of other sovereign nations

 

then, at the divisive states request, the United Nations agreed to support a state that was created to suit their agenda.

 

and now, after 70 years of enforcing a division of territory... (territory that should arguably have become a united Korea, led by the North Koreans, as victors, if not for external interference)... you suggest that the South Koreans should pay for those externally made decisions.

 

And... to suit the agenda of those divisive states, the divisive states is determining the future of the two states by mismanaging the peace (a 70 year old conflict left unresolved is gross mismanagement!)

 

yall caused it to suit yourselves... y’all should pay the ongoing cost for orchestrating this conflict, which was a direct result of external forces interfering in domestic politics of another nation, which in turn led to a civil conflict in that nation.

 

This is the cost of engineering a proxy war in another nation... a cost that should be born by Russia (in small part, as their part was small) and the decisive states... China was arguably acting to defend its own borders when it sent its troops into North Korea after MacArthur decided to push past the 38th, so bear little blame for this mess.

 

uurrgh... those divisive states monetizing it’s military and turning the nation into a mercenary enterprise... way to MAGA!.... cause a war and profit by selling arms and supplying mercenaries.

 

the arrogance appalls 

I think this is a bit a one-sided view, but 100% agree with "those divisive states monetizing it’s military and turning the nation into a mercenary enterprise... way to MAGA!.... cause a war and profit by selling arms and supplying mercenaries".

 

I am still wondering though how MacArthur managed to get so much influence after WWII, since IMO his policies, both military and politically, during and before WWII were simply bad. And he continued on the same foot.

[jany123]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I think this is a bit a one-sided view, but 100% agree with "those divisive states monetizing it’s military and turning the nation into a mercenary enterprise... way to MAGA!.... cause a war and profit by selling arms and supplying mercenaries".

 

I am still wondering though how MacArthur managed to get so much influence after WWII, since IMO his policies, both military and politically, during and before WWII were simply bad. And he continued on the same foot.

Lol... yes it was one sided. That was intentional as the poster I was responding too (amongst others) held an opposing one sided and repugnant bias.

 

and funnily enough, I’ve always wondered about MacArthur as well. It was MacArthurs decision to cross the 38th that led to his downfall in 1951, as he was attempting to draw China into an international conflict (documented) against US policy. He should have faced treason charges or some such high crime or misdemeanor, but he was very popular domestically (sound familiar ?????)... that popularity apparently led to Truman’s downfall, when he fired MacArthur.

 

Strange... but perhaps a result of glamorizing a leader/ soldier in times of war to lift public moral. Hero’s on tour in America was a common way of shoring up public support and money for ongoing conflicts. 

[Redline]

20 hours ago, Tug said:

Oh boy what could possibly go wrong I’ll bet little Kim is partying big time waiting for Donald to destroy our alliances in the area

He’s doing a fine job destroying every alliance except with dictators and authoritarian regimes-he said he loves Kim and Xi is a good friend, but he can’t make money off of them, so they are temporary foils 

[billd766]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

settled by air power and carriers

More likely to be the US nukes they want. Without them, China could probably over run Sth Korea in about a week.

 

But the land that base is occupying must be worth a fortune, Korea should charge for rent to off-set their defence agreement costs.

OK, they can have rent, as long as they agree to compensate the allies for the cost of saving their ass from the commies in 1950. About a million bucks for every allied soldier lost, compensation for the injured, and payment for all the equipment and every single bullet fired to defend them.

 

BTW the S Koreans were also involved and had very large losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Casualties

 

Would that include all the British and Commonwealth troops, see the list below for the allied side.

 

South Korea
 United Nations[a]

 United States
 United Kingdom
 Canada
 Turkey
 Australia
 Philippines
 New Zealand
 Thailand
 Ethiopia
 Greece
 France
 Colombia
 Belgium
 South Africa
 Netherlands
 Luxembourg
Medical support[show]
Other support[show]
 North Korea
 China
 Soviet Union
Medical support[show]
Other support

[PhonThong]

On 12/18/2019 at 6:46 PM, snoop1130 said:

South Koreans overwhelmingly oppose paying more, a survey released on Monday by the Chicago Council of Global Affairs found, with only 4% of respondents saying Seoul should meet Trump’s demands.

 

Still, 74% of those questioned said they support the long-term stationing of American troops in South Korea.

Can't have it both ways.  I say, remove the U.S. forces and send the U.N. troops back in. Then the countries that are members of the U.N. can pick up the bill if they want forces stationed in S. Korea.