Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy worrying Seoul
Repeated statements by the U.S. on its Indo-Pacific strategy are raising concerns in South Korea as officials in Washington have begun reiterating that Seoul has gone from being a net security recipient to a net security provider.
The assessments don’t necessarily mean South Korea should spend substantially more on defense costs; but should “definitely” pay more in defense cost-sharing for the United States Forces Korea (USFK), political analysts said Wednesday.
The U.S. Department of State recently released a new report on the country’s Indo-Pacific policy titled “A Free and Open Indo-Pacific: Advancing a Shared Vision.” High-level U.S. officials are voicing the importance of the Indo-Pacific policy, while relating it to “equitable” sharing of defense costs with allies in the region.
Washington has been pushing the strategy to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative. A new largescale game scenario has emerged with an expanded Chinese footprint in Southeast Asia because of the American rollback policy. Given the U.S. decision to pull U.S. forces out of northern Syria, some said there is a distinct possibility that it might also reduce the number of USFK troops.
“The two seemingly contradictory demands originate from two separate grounds, one political and the other strategic. Prior to Trump, preceding U.S. administrations always subsumed domestic political needs under global strategic objectives. But not anymore,” said Go Myong-hyun, a research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies.
Roland Wilson, co-director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Center Asia, and program coordinator and assistant professor at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution on George Mason University’s Korea Campus, says both sides need to understand each other’s position.
For the U.S., Wilson said it “has continued to invest heavily in the defense of South Korea and the region, including for the forward deployed forces stationed in and near the Korean Peninsula.”
“Many of the costs associated with this defense are not reflected in the current cost-sharing agreements, including national intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets,” Wilson said.
“Just as importantly though, the U.S. must equally understand that the burden shared by South Korea is not totally reflected in the cost-sharing amount given to the U.S. for the support of U.S. forces stationed in South Korea: For example, the cost Korea bears to buy land and move bases, the cost of cleaning up those bases, the impact on surrounding businesses when bases move, police and security support and benefits extended to U.S. personnel in Korea.”
On concerns about a possible USFK withdrawal, experts said it was unlikely as it would damage U.S. policy in the region.
“Two competing impulses are going to influence the decision over whether to continue stationing or withdrawing U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula. One is the desire for downscaling the U.S. troop presence around the world, which is popular with some segments of the American public that support President Trump. The other is the need to ramp up U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region to counter China’s rise,” Go said.
“The former, if carried out, is likely to irretrievably damage the latter. A compromise between these two mutually exclusive aims is by forcing the U.S. allies to pay more for their defense — so the request for higher cost-sharing reflects U.S. interest in remaining on the Korean Peninsula.”
Wilson said although there are some who may want a withdrawal citing the reconciliation process with North Korea, there will be a “continued need for a strong U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance” including the stationing of the USFK as it will help maintain South Korean and regional security and stability, and free navigation of the seas needed for economic prosperity.
James DeHart of the U.S. State Department, the top negotiator in the defense cost-sharing talks, arrived in Seoul, Tuesday, for meetings with officials during a fourday stay. The allies are negotiating the cost of stationing 28,500 USFK troops here ahead of a year-end deadline in the 11th round of the Special Measures Agreement (SMA). Diplomatic sources said the United States is asking South Korea to pay for the deployment of “all strategic assets,” including B-52 bombers as part of an annual military exercise, in addition to “fixed” costs.
South Korea has been one of the top 20 countries purchasing U.S. military hardware for more than 20 years, spending over $19 billion in the last decade. Seoul approved an 8.2 percent increase in its defense budget last year, allowing for further advancements in defense modernization and preparing for wartime operational control (OPCON) being transitioned to its forces, according to officials.
Washington is continuing to encourage South Korea to make further investments, particularly in the ability to better counter North Korea’s missile threats. U.S. defense officials also say that the strengthening of regional alliances will help deter any bad behavior and maintain peace in Northeast Asia.
That could mean South Korea could be asked to send troops to other disputed regions depending on the situation, in a move to expand its role in contributing to the U.S.led Indo-Pacific strategy. But Washington’s request is facing a backlash from the South Korean public.
“Washington and Seoul understand the long-term risks of a rising China, and both understand the importance of standing up for international norms on intellectual property, on prevention of cyber theft, and on the concerns that we have about China aggressively and opaquely modernizing their military,” John Rood, U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, said in a recent forum.