Here is another likely example of the Moon administration sending their left wing activists groups to advocate against USFK on their behalf:
South Korea is shouldering 73 percent of the cost for stationing U.S. troops here, a civic group claimed Tuesday, citing data from the governments of both nations.
Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (SPARK) said South Korea covered 72.6 percent of the costs for keeping 28,500 U.S. troops here in 2016, after analyzing defense expenditures of both South Korea and the U.S.
According to official announcements by Seoul and Washington, the total costs of the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) presence here add up to around $2 billion (2.17 trillion won), of which South Korea pays 42 percent.
However, the civic group stated taking into account the sites South Korea provides for military bases, the percentage rises above 70 percent.
The group said South Korea paid around 3.39 trillion won in direct and indirect expenses for the USFK last year, according to data from the defense ministry.
Direct costs paid by South Korea for the USFK were 1.81 trillion won. This included 944.1 billion won in costs paid under the Special Measures Agreement (SMA), 666.7 billion won in expenses for relocating personnel to Pyeongtaek and 184.3 billion won for repairing military facilities. Also included in the expenses were managing the Korean Augmentation To the United States Army (KATUSA) and conducting environmental studies on bases.
Indirect costs totaled 1.57 trillion won ― most of which accounted for South Korea providing land for U.S. military use. The civic group said the land value exceeds 1.16 trillion won.
It also looked into expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense to reach the conclusion the cost-bearing ratio is 72.6 to 27.4.
“The U.S. government must stop forcing South Korea to raise its portion of costs, and must immediately return accumulated funds and illegally reaped interest earnings,” the group said.
It also demanded the U.S. stop calling for Korea to cover more costs of deploying U.S. strategic assets and maintaining a THAAD battery here. [Korea Times]
By not including the cost of deploying US strategic assets to the peninsula this totally discredits what this group is claiming. They are more than happy to include indirect costs for Korea in their analysis, but not indirect costs for the US military. Imagine how much their analysis would change if the cost of an aircraft carrier or stealth bombers when they are deployed to the peninsula is included. Better yet what about the cost of all the space based assets that USFK uses to protect South Korea that they get the benefit of and don’t have to pay for?
Someone at the Pentagon involved in the cost sharing talks should run all these numbers to counter what the left wing group SPARK is putting out.
