Should South Korea pay half of USFK's costs?

mike · #1 08-31-2006, 06:26 PM

I am always amused how people try to define a single word. The definition of "equitable" is under close scrutiny.

Quote:

A linguistic quibble over the word “equitable” has South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense, local military experts and local media arguing about what Donald Rumsfeld expects in next year’s cost-sharing formula.

In an Aug. 17 letter to South Korean Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung, the U.S. defense secretary called for an “equitable” formula to share the cost of hosting the U.S. military in South Korea, according to the Korean defense ministry.

But as news of the letter leaked over the weekend, some military experts and media translated the word equitable as an equal split, with South Korea paying half of U.S. Forces Korea’s costs.

If true, that would mark a significant increase in South Korea’s current payment, which is about 38 percent of USFK’s overall costs.

On Monday, the Korean defense ministry issued a written statement saying they believe “equitable” to mean fair or just, and that Rumsfeld’s choice of words doesn’t suggest a specific 50-50 ratio.

Why does Korea continue to cut their share of the cost? Japan pays roughly 75% of the USFJ costs. Korea continues to cut their share of payment.

Quote:

Currently, both countries agreed that South Korea would pay 680 billion won for 2005 and 2006, which at today’s exchange rate would be $707 million. According to USFK, that formula accounted for about 40 percent of the American military cost in 2005 and is expected to cover about 38 percent of this year’s costs.

Honestly, this is silly. The U.S. stands to loose a lot of lives if North Korea invades. We have already lost tens of thousands of soldiers defending South Korea in the Korean War. Shouldn't they at least pay half?

This is just another example of why U.S. and Japanese relations are stronger than U.S./Korean. South Korea needs to wise up or they will loose a significant ally.

Turk · #2 09-01-2006, 02:24 PM

This is the same kind of rhetoric we were hearing in the public arena before we left the PI for good. Of course, Mt. Pinatubo helped expidite our exit from there but there was a lot of constant chatter in the public arena about what the US should pay for its presence in the PI for a good year before the end. Perhaps these publicly forecasted thoughts about equity in cost of maintaining our presence on the peninsula is paving the road for our further downsizing there.

Bob · #3 09-11-2006, 02:01 PM

kinda ironic that if you look at it a certain way, it makes it seem as if our military is for hire. we could very well be the world's largest mercenary force :P

mike · #4 09-11-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

it makes it seem as if our military is for hire.

I never thought of it like that, but your correct.

Also, notice the poll results? 12 to 1 members think South Korea should pay more!

usinkorea · #5 02-27-2007, 06:45 PM

They should pay more than half just as Japan and others do.

Forums	Arcade	Gallery	Links	Register	FAQ	Members List	Calendar
Classifieds	Articles	Quizzes	Search	Today's Posts	Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Should South Korea pay half of USFK's costs?
Yes	14	93.33%
No	1	6.67%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode