Skip to comments.
Uh Oh: US Walks Out On South Korea Talks Over Military Cost-Sharing
Hotair ^
| 11/20/2019
| Ed Morrissey
Posted on 11/20/2019 9:01:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In a region where the subtlest of signals sends shockwaves, this one looks like a tsunami. Talks between the US and South Korea broke down earlier today in a remarkable show of public acrimony, with the Trump administrations negotiator accusing Seoul of acting in bad faith. At issue is the bill that the White House wants South Korea to pay for our military protection, which quintuples Seouls current contribution:
The United States broke off talks with South Korea on Tuesday over how to share the cost of the two nations military alliance, injecting fresh tension into the relationship over Washingtons demands that Seoul pay sharply more.
President Trump has demanded South Korea raise fivefold its contribution to cover the cost of stationing 28,500 U.S. troops in the country, asking for nearly $5 billion, officials on both sides said. But that demand has triggered anger from Korean lawmakers and sparked concerns that Trump may decide to reduce the U.S. troop presence in the Korean Peninsula if talks break down.
The top U.S. negotiator, James DeHart, said the U.S. side decided to cut short the negotiations on Tuesday morning, the second of two days of planned talks. In a rare public show of disunity between the allies, he blamed South Korea for making proposals that were not responsive to our request for fair and equitable burden sharing.
As a result we cut short our participation in the talks today in order to give the Korea side time to reconsider, he said in a statement. We look forward to resuming our negotiations when the Korean side is ready to work on the basis of partnership, on the basis of mutual trust.
Trump has slammed NATO allies over their lack of proper contribution to common defense resources, so this isnt out of the blue. The administration has raised the issue with South Korea before too, but until now managed to keep the issue from looking as though it had become a point of fracture. To do otherwise would be to send a very bad signal to North Korea that they can peel the US away from Seoul and start using their nuclear arms to pressure the South into capitulation a situation that would present dire concerns to Japan.
So why allow this to blow up so spectacularly in public now? Trump might be getting tired of having his funding demands left unmet, part of his usual hardball negotiating tactics. Perhaps it also has something to do with signals out of Pyongyang the day before:
President Trump hinted at a possible meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Sunday, tweeting to the leader he addressed as Mr. Chairman that he would see you soon! But hours later, North Korean state media responded with a curt message: We dont want a meeting if we dont get anything from it.
In a statement to the Korean language website of the official Korean Central News Agency on Monday, Foreign Ministry adviser Kim Kye Gwan said that he had read Trumps Twitter post but that North Korea was not interested in another fruitless meeting.
Despite three meetings between Trump and Kim, there has not been much improvement in relations with the United States, wrote Kim Kye Gwan, a veteran diplomat who previously led the North Korean delegation in six-party denuclearization talks.
We are no longer interested in such talks that bring nothing to us, the statement continued. As we have got nothing in return, we will no longer gift the U.S. president with something he can brag about, but get compensation for the successes that President Trump is proud of as his administrative achievements.
That puts the shoe on the other foot. One of the criticisms of Trumps attempt at personal negotiation with Kim had been that it unnecessarily raised the dictators profile as a legitimate head of state and a credible statesman. The insult intended by reversing that criticism and applying it to Trump cannot possibly have been missed. They are also openly accusing Trump of betrayal by not offering more incentives for bilateral progress.
At the very least, this leaves an apparent vacuum on the Korean peninsula. And guess whos swooping in to fill it? This development didnt get much attention yesterday, but after todays diplomatic rupture, it should:
The defence ministers of South Korea and China have agreed to develop their security ties to ensure stability in north-east Asia, the latest indication that Washingtons long-standing alliances in the region are fraying.
On the sidelines of regional security talks in Bangkok on Sunday, Jeong Kyeong-doo, the South Korean minister of defence, and his Chinese counterpart, Wei Fenghe, agreed to set up more military hotlines and to push ahead with a visit by Mr Jeong to China next year to foster bilateral exchanges and cooperation in defence, South Koreas defence ministry said.
Seouls announcement coincided with growing resentment at the $5 billion (£3.9bn) annual fee that Washington is demanding to keep 28,500 US troops in South Korea.
China would love nothing more than to squeeze the US off the Korean peninsula and make both regimes reliant on Beijing. It would greatly enhance its prestige, force the US out of a strategic position in Asia, and send a signal to Japan that it should rethink its own partnerships in light of American vacillation and self-interest. Thus far, it looks as though China wont even need to offer trade concessions to the US in that exchange theyll just develop it on their own as the US infuriates Seoul.
This is a disaster in the making of far more importance than anything relating to Ukraine. Perhaps Trump has some master plan in place, but so far it hasnt paid off in anything except North Koreas occasional moratoriums on weapons testing and some photo ops. If Trump loses South Korea to China over $4 billion, its not going to look like greatness to anyone.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Japan; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: china; cost; defense; japan; korea; maga; military; pyongyang; republicofkorea; russia; southkorea; trumpasia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 next last
To: Yo-Yo
[Do you for one second believe that South Korea would willingly go over to China?
Before that ever happened, they would probably enter into a mutual assistance treaty with Japan and possibly with Taiwan, Indonesia, or even Australia and/or New Zealand, forming a new and meaningful SEATO organization.]
Alliances are not an easy thing to form or sustain. US alliances have survived for almost 80 years because the US was always willing to be the lender of last resort, the power willing to assume the lion’s share of the burden. I don’t see any other country in the world that is willing to take on that responsibility. It’s a big ask, and an impossible one in the Orient.
61
posted on
11/20/2019 10:31:42 AM PST
by
Zhang Fei
(My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
To: Zhang Fei
That type of an alliance would require significant naval assets. No one other then the US has that.
62
posted on
11/20/2019 10:33:42 AM PST
by
Reily
To: Zhang Fei
China basically wants their own “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere”
63
posted on
11/20/2019 10:33:47 AM PST
by
dfwgator
(Endut! Hoch Hech!)
To: dhs12345
RE: Wondering if we (Trump) are threatening to withhold aid? That is blackmail, ya know.
Where is Schiff? Someone should tell him.
If Schiff knows better than Trump how to handle foreign policy, let him run for President.
In the meantime, HE IS NOT PRESIDENT, therefore, he has no business doing this impeachment hearing over disagreements with his foreign policy.
64
posted on
11/20/2019 10:40:30 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: katana
I have no experience to confirm your analogy, but it sure appears to be an effective one.
Thanks for the insight into Asian thinking.
65
posted on
11/20/2019 10:41:26 AM PST
by
chrisser
To: Zhang Fei
RE: US was always willing to be the lender of last resort, the power willing to assume the lions share of the burden.
Isn’t China already doing that?
However, if you can’t pay back your debts, there are conditions, like China taking over your ports ( see Sri Lanka ).
66
posted on
11/20/2019 10:42:17 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: SeekAndFind
There are a lot of armchair quarterbacks in the Impeachment hearings. Trump is a champion of the American taxpayer and he is being successful. He is pissing off a lot of bureaucrats, too. But good. It should have happened a long time ago.
We have been taken for granted by our allies and South Korea is a very rich country. Time for them to “invest more” in their national defense.
67
posted on
11/20/2019 10:46:47 AM PST
by
dhs12345
To: DoodleDawg
I think we should keep Japan.
It plays to our military strength (air/sea) and there’s no risk of ground war.
We just need them to pay the whole bill, which they can and will do.
After all, we took it far and square, and at great cost.
68
posted on
11/20/2019 10:48:57 AM PST
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: SeekAndFind
If the South Koreans make themselves vassals of the Chinese over $4 billion, they were already a lost cause.
69
posted on
11/20/2019 10:51:24 AM PST
by
glorgau
To: DoodleDawg
How about bring them home, discharge them, and boost the economy with thousands of qualified employees that corporations keep saying they have a shortage of? That is a good thing too. Crushing the cartels will do more to stop crime in the US, bring prosperity to Mexico, and stop illegal immigratopn
70
posted on
11/20/2019 10:54:28 AM PST
by
FatherofFive
(Islam is EVIL and needs to be eradicated)
To: SeekAndFind
The South Koreans well remember the last time they spoke openly of siding with China against the US and what happened. Japan won’t be Seoul’s only problem, and there is nothing China can offer Koreans today or historically that would endear the Chinese to the Koreans. Being a little sister is as was always.
Trump is doing what Trump does best, getting the best possible deal. If Korean Cars (Kia, Hyundai) and phones (Samsung/LG) along with electronics were to take a dive in US sales (Alone), or simply cost more due to tariffs the Korean economy would be broken rice.
71
posted on
11/20/2019 10:59:51 AM PST
by
Jumper
To: Reily
[That type of an alliance would require significant naval assets. No one other then the US has that.]
South Korea and Japan could each build a major navy. Japan built one when it’s economy was 1/10 of the US. War-related monuments all over the Far East bear silent testimony to that fact. But that would require serious defense spending, and national sacrifice. I doubt they’re up to the challenge.
There’s a vast, brain-dead contingent among the populations of our allies that believes our military bases abroad hold them in a kind of serfdom, and are responsible for our First World incomes. Never mind that the US achieved the highest per capita income in the West at some point in the 19th century, thereby attracting hordes of European immigrants like Trump’s grandfather. Never mind the US’s vast natural resource output. Never mind the broad and deep ranks of American corporate behemoths that include Apple, Pfizer, Boeing, Microsoft, et al. In the minds of these foreign cranks, it’s the ubiquity of expensive overseas American military bases lording it over the natives that gives the US economy its vigor.
And it’s this contingent that will keep defense spending low, right up to the point that a massive Chinese invasion force crosses their border. They can’t say we didn’t warn them.
72
posted on
11/20/2019 11:04:40 AM PST
by
Zhang Fei
(My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
To: Zhang Fei
Never mind that the US achieved the highest per capita income in the West at some point in the 19th century, thereby attracting hordes of European immigrants like Trumps grandfather. We were once allies with Japan after WWI, do you know what triggered them turning into an enemy? When the US cut back quotas on immigrants from Asia, the Japs considered it an insult, and it helped give rise to the militarists.
73
posted on
11/20/2019 11:07:35 AM PST
by
dfwgator
(Endut! Hoch Hech!)
To: Mariner
I think we should keep Japan. What if they refuse to pay more too?
It plays to our military strength (air/sea) and theres no risk of ground war
If Korea won't pay and Japan doesn't pay then what do we need our military strength there for?
To: FatherofFive
Crushing the cartels will do more to stop crime in the US, bring prosperity to Mexico, and stop illegal immigratopn Haven't we had enough endless wars?
To: SeekAndFind
[RE: US was always willing to be the lender of last resort, the power willing to assume the lions share of the burden.
Isnt China already doing that?]
It’s a metaphor. When Saddam stood poised to take all of the Gulf region’s oil resources, it was Uncle Sam that landed the 101st and 82nd as a tripwire force. Without the US as the “lender” of last resort, Saddam would probably rule the Middle East and North Africa today.
76
posted on
11/20/2019 11:13:53 AM PST
by
Zhang Fei
(My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
To: The people have spoken
It does seem like a lot. $5B/28,500 = $175,000 per soldier.
Back-payments are a Bitch
To: Zhang Fei
RE: Without the US as the lender of last resort, Saddam would probably rule the Middle East and North Africa today.
Not if Iran, Israel or Turkey can help it.
78
posted on
11/20/2019 11:15:45 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: DoodleDawg
Haven't we had enough endless wars? Not endless wars. We could crush the cartels in less than a year.
The middle east wars will never end. The prophesy to Hagar that Ishmael would live in hostility toward all his brothers (Genesis 16:11-12) affirms that reality.
Imagine a prosperous Mexico, with no drug cartels and no human trafficking.
79
posted on
11/20/2019 11:29:37 AM PST
by
FatherofFive
(Islam is EVIL and needs to be eradicated)
To: dfwgator
[We were once allies with Japan after WWI, do you know what triggered them turning into an enemy? When the US cut back quotas on immigrants from Asia, the Japs considered it an insult, and it helped give rise to the militarists. ]
That was just another excuse floated by the Japanese and adopted wholesale by American academics. Should China attack countries that fail to take in Chinese immigrants? The Japanese were WWI allies because they had their eye on German territory in the Pacific. They had been expanding against the Chinese empire, and American attempts to hold that expansion back prompted Japanese hostility. In Japanese minds, it was merely doing on the Asian mainland what various Chinese rulers had done for thousands of years. Foreign opposition to that expansion was just an obstacle to be surmounted, and one excuse was just as good as another. Deeds are a better indicator of intent than words.
80
posted on
11/20/2019 11:29:47 AM PST
by
Zhang Fei
(My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson