ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on April 17th, 2013 at 6:06 am

Reports Says US Paying More for Overseas Bases While Allies Pay Less

» by in: USFK

I guess it took a budget crisis to finally get the people in Congress to look at making sure cost sharing for US bases overseas is evenly shared:

WASHINGTON — The United States is footing more of the bill for overseas bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea even as the military reduces the number of American troops in Europe and strategically repositions forces in Asia, a congressional report says.

The exhaustive, yearlong investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee focused on costs and burden-sharing as the United States spends more than $10 billion a year to back up the U.S. military presence overseas, with 70 percent of the amount expended in the three nations. The figure does not include military personnel costs.

The panel’s report, obtained by The Associated Press in advance of its Wednesday release, found the financial contributions by those host countries lagging behind costs or increases in U.S. spending. The report identified inherent problems and missteps in the compensation system as the U.S. returns a growing number of its upgraded facilities on foreign land to the host countries. [Stars & Stripes]

Here is what the report had to say about South Korea:

In South Korea, where there are 28,500 troops, the U.S. plans to move its forces from the Yongsan Garrison in Seoul to Camp Humphreys, about 40 miles south of the capital. The U.S. must provide most of the military family housing and cover the cost, estimated at $7 billion.

In return, South Korea gets prime real estate in downtown Seoul. During the transition, the U.S. will be responsible for maintaining both sites at a considerable cost. The project also calls for a $10 million museum at the newer base.

In January 2009, the two countries signed an agreement on South Korean contributions. The report found that “while the agreement increased South Korean contributions in subsequent years to keep up with inflation, South Korea’s contributions have not kept pace with U.S. costs.”

The United States’ non-personnel costs in South Korea were $1.1 billion last year. U.S. spending in the country was expected to exceed South Korea’s contributions by $330 million.

I criticized the USFK cost sharing agreement back then because of the good deal that the Koreans received. During the negotiations the Koreans agreed to increase their cost sharing from 41% to 43.5% when the US wanted them to split it 50/50.

However the 2.5% increase is deceptive because the Koreans agreed to pay the increase with goods instead of cash. For the Koreans providing goods is cheaper than cash because they can for example bulk buy Hyundai cars for USFK at a cheaper cost while claiming the car is worth full price. Not only do they save money this way, but also the money is going back into the Korean economy since they are buying Korean goods. It also important to remember that the remainder of the burden sharing for South Korea goes to pay Korean workers’ wages and upkeep facilities which is also money going back into the Korean economy.

Considering the favorable burden sharing deal and the money saved from not having to buy the latest military technology that the US military provides Korea, the ROK government has had significant cost savings for many years. Korea is no longer a poor country and should be able to fund a 50/50 split of USFK upkeep costs. With new President Park Geun-hye taking office the US has already begun negotiating for a 50/50 split and hopefully this time the US negotiators are able to get this equal split.

Tags: , ,
- 921 views
7
  • tbonetylr
    8:09 am on April 17th, 2013 1

    “The U.S. has begun negotiating” :lol:

    Taken(or should I say reamed inside & out more times than you can count?) by the counting Koreans :!:

    S. Korea: Please, please, please will you help protect us we are a poor country?
    USA: Well maybe, can you pay us in cars and smart phones?
    S. Korea: Ohhh SUUUUUUUUURE, we are poor country.
    USA: Okay but you have to promise to pay up.
    S. Korea: Ohhh SUUUUUUUUURE you can trust us, we will, we promise.
    USA: Okay, it’s a deal and we will clean up after ourselves, you don’t even have to ask.
    S. Korea: Of course,(whispers under breath) those idiot Americans hehehehehehehehehehehe :evil:

  • John in LA
    9:06 am on April 17th, 2013 2

    #1,
    haha, But S Korea is poor compared to US. S Korea just can’t print more $$$ bills to buy oil from abroad.

    I’m pretty sure the building cost of Camp Humphreys was split evenly between S Korea and US?

    Lastly, think ‘In return, South Korea gets prime real estate in downtown Seoul’ is from a misunderstanding. S Korea never gave/sold the prime real estate to USFK. It was leaded to USFK free of charge.

  • tbonetylr
    10:04 am on April 17th, 2013 3

    #2,
    You’re right, they just need to follow behind Americans, especially in Iraq.

    “Camp Humphreys”

    Who cares, look at the total figures which I’d estimate 70/30 at best for the stupid American negotiators. USA tax payers pay for at least 70% of South Korea’s defense while Koreans go around the corner each day for you know what. Thank You America :shock: Gotta get my pervy on while my cousins up north provide me with cheap labor which I can sell to China, who cares if America don’t like it or refuses to buy.

  • Anon
    4:17 pm on April 17th, 2013 4

    just pull out, if they want us there, they should cover as much of the cost as Japan Covers for there protection

  • Denny
    10:21 pm on April 17th, 2013 5

    US will never pull out for self interests.

  • Denny
    10:27 pm on April 17th, 2013 6

    #3 Why would South Korea join an illegal war in Iraq that bankrupted American taxpayers? Let American taxpayers pay the $6 trillion in Iraq.

  • jim
    10:47 pm on April 17th, 2013 7

    the 700 billion won agreed to in cost sharing documents signed by ambassador stephens in 2009 is a base cost. korea has almost exclusively paid for the yongsan relocation program, to include land purchases (theft from property owners). moreover, they pay 71 cents on the dollar for local national workers. that’s a 71% cost savings over hiring americans. (however, you have to hire more of them to do the same job, so the cost savings is a bit lower.)

    overseas operations is what keeps the army in business, since the costs are so heavily subsidized.

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 29840 access attempts in the last 7 days.