WASHINGTON - The United States’ demand for a significant increase in South Korea’s share of defense costs for keeping U.S. troops stationed in the east Asian nation could potentially backfire on its defense planning by reducing Seoul’s capabilities to purchase American-made weapons, according to a defense expert.
Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the U.S.-based Rand Corp. research center, said if Seoul agrees to pay a much bigger portion of the burden cost, it would have to come primarily out of South Korea’s Research and Development and Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in its Defense Ministry.
This means Seoul’s Defense Ministry would have a reduced budget to purchase military weapons from major U.S. defense contractors, according to Bennett.
“So fundamentally, what the U.S. is asking South Korea to do is to reduce the South Korean purchases of American weapons systems so that companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and Boeing will actually lose purchases that have been planned if there’s a significant increase in the burden-sharing, which means Americans are going to lose jobs,” Bennett said.
“I don’t think that’s what the administration realizes is going to happen,” he continued. “But that’s really the only alternative that’s available in (South) Korea, as far as I understand.”
U.S. and South Korean negotiators , according to the State Department, for keeping about 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. The talks for the Special Measures Agreement that are slated to last until Thursday will likely center around how much South Korea will agree to pay.
Before departing for Hawaii, where he was to meet with his American counterpart James DeHart, South Korean negotiator Jeong Eun-bo said Seoul will shoulder a share that is
President Donald Trump tweeted in August that to the United States in order to defend itself from North Korea.” South Korea paid $924 million this year, an increase from $850 million paid in 2018. This year’s agreement is set to expire in December.
The built by Lockheed Martin through the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales program in 2014 for $6.8 billion. The are expected to be completed by 2021.
At the same time, an increased cost-sharing for South Korea could mean weakened capabilities to defend against a potential North Korean threat, as it would have a reduced budget to buy advanced weapons from the United States, according to Bennett.
“At this point in time with the North Korean nuclear weapons threat, that is really not a good idea,” Bennett said. “Any significant increase (in Seoul’s cost-sharing) hurts American employees of defense contractors and reduces the capabilities planned for the defense of South Korea. Both of those are bad outcomes.”
North Korea tested multiple missiles over the summer, including a submarine-launched ballistic missile and improved multiple rocket launchers, demonstrating it has continued the development of advanced weapons while maintaining diplomacy with the U.S.
David Maxwell, a former U.S. Special Forces colonel, said U.S. troop presence in South Korea is essential for the alliance to defend against a potential provocation by North Korea.
“It is critically important that U.S. troops remain in (South) Korea for both (South Korea) and the U.S., as U.S. troops are key to deterrence” of North Korean threats, said Maxwell, a current fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
However, Trump’s order of the earlier this month has struck fear among some South Koreans that Trump’s aversion for alliances and repeated statements expressing it is expensive to keep U.S. troops in South Korea could lead to a possible U.S. pullout from South Korea.
The U.S. withdrew its forces from Syria, leaving the Kurds who fought alongside the U.S. against Islamic State vulnerable to attacks by Turkey, which considers the Kurds terrorists.
“If the U.S. were to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea, that would effectively be an abandoning of the alliance,” Bennett said. “If the alliance is abandoned, it would probably mean our nuclear umbrella (over the Korean Peninsula) would also go away.”
Bennett said a couple of ripple effects could occur as a result, including South Korea’s decision to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. He added that this could lead to a nuclear arms race in East Asia and the end of the U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy in the region, because Japan would emulate the South Koreans and China would seek to develop more nuclear weapons than both Japan and South Korea combined.