[ANALYSIS] US may ask S. Korea to pay more for strategic assets

A TV screen at Seoul Station shows a news program reporting about South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol speaking during a Cabinet meeting, Dec. 27, 2022. AP-Yonhap

No signs yet of updates to military cost-sharing agreement

By Kim Yoo-chul

With the United States preferring to position its military strategic assets in or near South Korea to match North Korea's provocations, experts and defense officials who have been involved in Seoul's past defense cost-sharing talks with Washington have said the Biden administration could ask the Yoon government to contribute more for the holding of tabletop drills.

Despite Pyongyang's repeated military provocations, top Washington officials aren't ready to drastically scale up some aspects of its military readiness with Seoul including holding joint nuclear exercises, as doing this is still viewed as unnecessary and could even lead to misunderstandings with not just North Korea but also other countries in Northeast Asia.

"What is absent from inter-Korean dialogue is an immediate and overarching need on either side to rely on dialogue to achieve essential national security objectives. As a result, dialogue may not be forthcoming until both sides have a felt need and sense of urgency around the necessity to engage in diplomacy with each other," Scott Snyder, a senior fellow for Korea studies and director of the program on U.S.-Korea policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), told The Korea Times recently.

U.S. President Joe Biden simply responded "No" when he was asked whether he was discussing joint nuclear drills with South Korea. Later, U.S. officials elaborated that both Washington and Seoul are involved in the process of strengthening extended deterrence, including eventually through tabletop exercises that would explore the countries' joint response to a range of various scenarios.

Because Washington officials aren't supportive of the idea of Seoul having its own nuclear weapons, given the strong wishes by the United States and China to keep the current status quo and the instability that may follow unexpected changes, the conservative Yoon administration has few viable options to deter the North's threats.

Experts urged the administration to focus on the timely deployment of strategic U.S. military assets closer to the peninsula.

"The Yoon administration is hoping for a NATO-style military arrangement, in which authorized South Korean military personnel will be trained to handle strategic U.S. military assets depending on circumstances, as a message to his political supporters that the administration could manage the North Korean nuclear issue effectively, based on the U.S.' extended deterrence guarantees rather than having South Korea's own nuclear weapons," a senior defense official said by telephone.

A recent poll by Hankook Research showed about 67 percent of South Koreans supported the idea of the country having its own nuclear arsenal, broken down to 70 percent of conservatives and 54 percent of liberals. As North Korea becomes more belligerent, more South Koreans fear that if Pyongyang can actually attack a city on U.S. soil, Washington would be reluctant to respond to any North Korean attack on Seoul, though security experts said the North's repeated provocations are aimed at pursuing a "position of strengths" for better concessions from the United States before the restarting of nuclear talks.

Since the early 1990s, when the United States had pulled various tactical nuclear weapons from the peninsula after agreeing to a nuclear disarmament deal with the Soviet Union, Washington hasn't stationed any nuclear weapons here. Instead, the United States offers its nuclear umbrella to South Korea, which means that Washington can use all its nuclear assets to defend Seoul but only if highly necessary.

No free ride

While the South Korean government is boasting about its readiness to possibly counter North Korea's provocations by responding with shows of force, this strategy could increase the costs for national defense, according to security experts.

A TV screen shows footage of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during a news program at Seoul Station Jan. 1. AP-Yonhap

"Seoul's security dependence exists with North Korean provocations. South Korea's tit-for-tat reactions will cost a lot given Seoul's high level of interest to conduct various types of joint military exercises with U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups, bombers and F-35 stealth jets on waters off the peninsula," an aide to former President Moon, who had been involved in previous Special Measures Agreement (SMA) negotiations with Washington years ago, said in a separate call.

"There is a high possibility for Washington to ask Seoul to pay more toward the cost of positioning U.S. strategic assets closer to the peninsula." The SMA addresses South Korea's contribution to the costs of hosting the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) here.

When it comes to holding Washington-Seoul joint military drills, each party is responsible to cover their relevant costs. But depending on the number of South Korea's requests for the positioning of U.S. strategic military assets near the peninsula, the United States could impose very real financial costs on the South Korean side, said security experts and defense officials.

The estimated one-day cost for the positioning of one U.S. air carrier strike group including two or three destroyers, submarines, logistics ships and a supply ship for long-range military exercises is at least $6.5 million. Plus, flying B-series U.S. bombers, ranges from $40,000 to $130,000 per hour, which doesn't even take into account the cost to operate air refueling fleets, according to sources.

During SMA negotiations in 2018, the Donald Trump administration demanded Seoul pay full financial coverage of the deployment of U.S. strategic military assets on the peninsula, but South Korea didn't accept the request.

U.S. President Joe Biden meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G-20 leaders' summit in Bali, Indonesia, Nov. 14, 2022. Reuters-Yonhap

"If the United States deploys its strategic assets as per South Korea's request to do so, Seoul should be held accountable and take increased responsibility for such live temporary performances. There is no free ride at all," the aide said.

SMA valid until at least 2025

Because North Korea is widely expected to demonstrate its ability to miniaturize a warhead for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) before actually conducting another nuclear test, expectations are for more rounds of U.S. strategic military deployments to South Korea or closer to the peninsula.

This also means that discussions over how best to respond and what possible role South Korea should play will lead to increased financial contributions. Under the latest SMA, which the U.S. and South Korea signed in 2021, Seoul will financially cover the USFK costs in three categories ― labor, logistics and construction.

The agreement, which failed to include the costs for deploying U.S. strategic assets near the peninsula, will be valid until 2025, while some sources said it is a six-year agreement. The foreign ministry in Seoul didn't give specifics about the agreement. Seoul will spend some 1.2 trillion won to station U.S. troops here this year. The U.S. has some 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea as well as a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system.

"There are possibilities that the U.S. may ask South Korea to pay the costs for the positioning of U.S. strategic assets closer to the peninsula, but this isn't an issue that is currently being developed or discussed for the time being," said a senior defense official, adding that Washington has yet to ask Seoul to update the SMA.

However, Sohn Dae-kwon, a professor at Sogang University's Graduate School of International Studies, said it's not a well-thought-out idea for Seoul to sharply increase its financial contributions for the deployment of Washington's strategic military assets on a case-by-case basis.

"The key prerequisite for South Korea in terms of ridding the country of nuclear weapons entirely is strictly based on Washington's security guarantees including a provision of extended deterrence. In 1978, the U.S. clarified its plans to extend its nuclear umbrella to South Korea in return for Seoul's decision to scrap its nuclear programs," Sohn said.