Rift risks S. Korean jobs on U.S. bases

Washington and Seoul deadlocked on proper division of defense costs

The U.S. is warning it will send furlough notices to almost 9,000 South Korean workers at U.S. bases within weeks if the two countries don’t reach agreement on President Donald Trump’s demand for Seoul to increase dramatically what it pays for American troops.

Trump’s push for South Korea to contribute much more has put the alliance under strain at a time when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s regime has said it would no longer be bound by its promise to halt testing of nuclear weapons and longrange ballistic missiles.

The two sides remained deadlocked, though U.S. officials have indicated they’ve backed off Trump’s initial demand that President Moon Jae-in’s administration pay about $5 billion a year for U.S. forces stationed there, more than five times the $900 million in a stopgap one-year agreement that expired Dec. 31.

The Special Measures Agreement pays for about 28,000 American troops stationed in South Korea — and also for the South Korean civilians who work at the bases. U.S. officials say they are required to give those workers 60 days notice that their pay might be cut off, because the funds under the previous deal are running out.

“Cost-sharing negotiations with allies are tough, whether it’s Korea, Japan or others,” said Rexon Ryu, a partner at the Asia Group and a former White House official and Pentagon chief of staff. “But a penny-pinching approach that is informed by a transactional strategy risks weakening fundamental strength of the alliance.”

Trump has repeatedly insisted that the U.S. gets a raw deal from partners that host American troops around the world. In August, he tweeted that South Korea “is a very wealthy nation that now feels an obligation to contribute to the military defense provided by the United States of America.”

People familiar with the discussions say American negotiators have shifted their position as they seek to offer a justification for a far bigger price tag. After initially suggesting South Korea could make more purchases of U.S. defense equipment, the Trump administration is now focused on other elements, such as asking the country to pay more for temporary troop rotations. Another demand is for South Korea to spend more on capabilities that would allow it to take full operational control of joint forces in wartime.

Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal calling on Seoul to pay more.

The U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Harry Harris, told reporters last week that U.S. law would soon require the furlough notifications. About 6,000 workers would be immediately affected, with furloughs extended later to additional “core personnel,” according to Son Gi-o, a representative of the U.S. Forces Korea Korean Employees Union.

“If we do go into furlough, the bases will be completely paralyzed,” Son said, adding that a total of 8,700 employees could be affected.

In October, the chief of staff for U.S. Forces Korea, Maj. Gen. Stephen Williams, told the union in a letter that furloughs were possible starting April 1 if a deal was not reached, adding that the first notices to affected employees would be issued by Jan. 31.

The negotiations in South Korea could affect other U.S. allies hosting troops, such as Japan, with Esper saying the Trump administration wants them to pay more too. Japan talks are set to begin later this year for a U.S-Japan cost-sharing deal.

Moon is facing parliamentary elections in April and is wary of the political fallout if he agrees to a hefty increase, which has little support in his camp and among the general public.

One of the challenges, according to those familiar with the discussions, is that South Korean officials refused to engage on the initial demand for $5 billion, which they considered too much to ask and an exaggeration of the cost of stationing U.S. troops there.

“The president came up with it and U.S. officials have no idea how, and now they’re scrambling to come up with justifications,” said Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow for Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. “It’s seen as insulting. It transforms alliances based on shared values and objectives into a transactional relationship, it degrades the alliance into a business relationship.”

In an interview with South Korean media Dec. 18, James DeHart, the top American negotiator, said his government wants an agreement that lasts longer than one year.

“We have listened in these negotiations probably more than we have spoken, we have adjusted and we have compromised,” DeHart said.