The debate over the transfer of wartime operational command of the Combined Forces Command (CFC) from the U.S. to South Korea has delved into the upkeep costs for USFK. The cost issue is actually about what is fair, and whether or not Roh is a hypocrite on that issue.

Earlier this year President Roh Moo-hyun suggested South Korea take over command by 2012. Then in early August, playing to nationalist sentiments, Roh declared that South Korea was capable of taking command “now.” In mid-August U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld upped the ante by sending a letter to ROK Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung suggesting that the transfer of command occur in 2009:

In his letter, Rumsfeld suggested that the U.S. return wartime control of South Korea’s military by 2009, citing the latter’s improved defense capabilities and the timetable for realignment of U.S. bases on the Korean Peninsula, according to military sources.

The same letter also raised the issue of upkeep costs for USFK, suggesting a more “equitable” share of the burden for Seoul, probably not coincidentally since much of the Roh administration’s rhetoric has focused on a more “equal” U.S.-ROK relationship. Currently South Korea pays under 40 percent of the cost. In contrast, Japan pays over 70 percent of the costs associated with U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) (althought that figure has been challenged):

Rumsfeld also proposed that two allies divide the upkeep cost of the USFK at an “equitable” rate, which pundits say means 50:50.

With one letter Rumsfeld made Roh look all the more a fool by calling him on the absurd claim that South Korea is ready for wartime command “now,” as well as an offer to be more “equal” in a way Roh never intended but that is undeniably fair. Roh now must either backpedal, or leave both of his feet firmly planted in his oversized mouth.

However, a few days ago a ‘senior National Defense Ministry’ official stated that South Korea will attempt to reduce its share of USFK associated costs during the Security Consultative Meeting in October:

. . . Korea will try to reduce its share of expenses for keeping U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula in the upcoming negotiations with the United States.

[. . .]

[due] to the reduced size of the U.S. Forces Korea and increased burdens on Korea for financing the relocation of the U.S. Forces Korea headquarters.

Referring to reports that Washington wants to link Seoul’s plan to regain wartime operational control with the defense cost-sharing negotiations, the official said that the Korean government has no intention of doing so. (emphasis added)

Yesterday Roh Hoe-chan, a Democratic Labor Party lawmaker (the minor opposition party) claimed that the U.S. is ignoring much of the ROK’s contribution to USFK costs:

. . . Seoul in 2002 gave the U.S. Forces Korea US$1.19 billion which the U.S. recorded as $843 million. That is a difference of US$349 million. For the year 2000, the gap between the two calculations stood at 388.12 million and for 2001 at 316.57 million. “The Korean government counted the funds provided to maintain the Korean Augmentation To the United States Army (KATUSA) program, but the U.S. didn’t, and there were discrepancies on real estate rental fees as well,” Roh said.

Roh also said the amount Seoul pays for USFK upkeep should decrease if the wartime military control is returned to Korea since the USFK’s role will diminish as well. Ahead of negotiations on the handover of sole wartime operational control, the U.S. is instead asking for an “equitable” divvying up of the upkeep. Roh commented it would be “ridiculous” for Korea to pay more once it has sole control of its troops. (emphasis added)

There are two issues in this; share of costs paid by each, and the overall amount. If Roh meant what he said about a more “equal” relationship, he can’t back away from a U.S. request to evenly split the cost of maintaining USFK, at least without being hypocritical.

This means that the even though overall costs for USFK should go down, the amount Seoul pays – if they truly want to be “equal” – could still increase. I’d like to ask Roh what part of that doesn’t he understand.

It does depends on the veracity of the claim that the U.S. is ignoring a substantial portion of what the ROK contributed, although as GI Korea points out:

First of all KATUSA soldiers are ROK ARMY SOLDIERS, let me repeat, ROK ARMY SOLDIERS not US soldiers. That is why USFK doesn’t count what little the Korean government pays these soldiers, which is about $40 bucks a month, as contributions to the alliance.

It should be noted that not all are as careless as Roh when it comes to national security, and there are many with genuine concerns about the direction Roh is leading the country. The Grand National Party (GNP) (the largest opposition party) has repeatedly objected to an early transfer of command:

[GNP] Chairman Kang warned the Roh administration that a hasty wartime control transfer might cause a serious security vacuum on the peninsula.

“If Roh really wants to realize the nation’s independent defense capabilities, he should say no to the proposal from the United States, which is much sooner than Seoul’s initial deadline for 2012,” Kang said.

“Considering we’ve got only three years to go until 2009, Roh should not gamble on the nation’s security,” he said. (emphasis added)

The GNP has also noted the connection between Roh’s North Korea policy and the breakdown of U.S.-ROK ties:

“President Roh is effectively saying that South Korea really doesn’t need America the way we have all these years, and I can’t blame the Americans for saying, ‘Fine, have it your way,’ ” said Song Young Sun, a legislator with the opposition Grand National Party. “He wants to move South Korea away from the United States and closer to North Korea. And what we are saying is that this is just not a safe or smart thing to do.”

Previously 13 former South Korean Defense Ministers protested Roh’s plans, and more recently a huge contingent of former senior ROK military leadership has followed:

A group of about 60 retired generals plan to issue a statement opposing South Korea’s retrieval of wartime operational control from the United States at a meeting in Seoul tomorrow.

It is the first time for those retired, including four-star generals, to issue a statement on security issues since the establishment of the nation’s armed forces in 1948.

[. . .]

In a related development, conservative groups, such as the Christian Council of Korea and the Korea Veterans Association, will also hold a rally on Saturday in Seoul with participation of around 10,000 people to protest the government’s plan to take over the wartime control. (emphasis added)