Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07SEOUL1491
2007-05-17 01:47:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Seoul
Cable title:
ROKG: NO LINKAGE FOR SMA FUNDS AND USFK RELOCATION
how-toVZCZCXYZ0004 PP RUEHWEB DE RUEHUL #1491 1370147 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 170147Z MAY 07 FM AMEMBASSY SEOUL TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4589 INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 2543 RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 8445 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 8060 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 2653 RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY RHMFISS/COMUSKOREA J2 SEOUL KOR PRIORITY RHMFISS/COMUSKOREA J3 SEOUL KOR PRIORITY RHMFISS/COMUSKOREA J5 SEOUL KOR PRIORITY RHMFISS/COMUSKOREA SCJS SEOUL KOR PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC//OSD/ISA/EAP// PRIORITY RHEHNSC/NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SEOUL 001491
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/17/2017
TAGS: MARR MCAP PARM PREL KS
SUBJECT: ROKG: NO LINKAGE FOR SMA FUNDS AND USFK RELOCATION
Classified By: Amb. Alexander Vershbow. Reasons 1.4 (b,d).
C O N F I D E N T I A L SEOUL 001491
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/17/2017
TAGS: MARR MCAP PARM PREL KS
SUBJECT: ROKG: NO LINKAGE FOR SMA FUNDS AND USFK RELOCATION
Classified By: Amb. Alexander Vershbow. Reasons 1.4 (b,d).
1. (C) Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Shim Yoon-joe
requested a meeting with the Ambassador to convey the ROKG
response to the issues raised by Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense Richard Lawless with ROK Ambassador Lee Tae-shik on
May 8. Shim said that the ROKG appreciated Lawless's
explanation of General Bell's statement before the April 24
Senate Armed Services Committee and understands that his
comments do not represent a change in the U.S. position
regarding the timetable for relocation of U.S. Forces in
Korea (USFK). However, Shim said that the ROKG believes that
the U.S. linkage of Special Measures Agreement (SMA)
burdensharing funds and USFK relocation is not appropriate
and could cause further misunderstandings of the U.S.
position. Shim also took issue with Lawless's comment about
the possible withdrawal of some United States forces unless
there were an agreement on the use of SMA funds under the
Land Partnership Program (LPP),noting that this was not
helpful for either party. Shim stressed that the ROKG would
expect close, prior consultation on any such decision.
2. (C) Shim emphasized that the ROKG intent was not to
damage the framework of the burdensharing agreement with the
United States, but to enhance transparency of the
burdensharing mechanism, as requested by the National
Assembly. Shim noted that there had been some
misunderstandings about the use of SMA funds for USFK
relocation "from the beginning." (Note: When the LPP
Agreement was signed in 2002, there was an understanding
reached between the U.S. and ROKG that some of the costs
would be paid by the ROK, as specified in Appendix A.
However, the ROKG never made public or explained this
agreement to the NA. End Note.) Regarding the NA's
Supplemental Opinion on the use of SMA funds, Shim said that
the ROKG needs to respect the opinion of the NA, whether
legally binding or not, because of the budgetary power
exercised by the NA. Shim promised that the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade would consult with the Embassy
after discussing the issue further with the Ministry of
National Defense.
3. (C) In response, the Ambassador reiterated that General
Bell's comments reflect U.S. policy. It was not helpful for
the ROK to single him out personally or attempt to drive a
wedge between U.S. military and civilian spokesmen, since
there was no difference of view between them. The Ambassador
noted that the U.S. understanding is that the Land
Partnership Program agreement does not exclude the use of SMA
funds, pointing out that the Appendix to the agreement spells
out ROK responsibilities for specific facilities and
installations associated with the relocation. The Ambassador
stressed that while the United States respects the authority
of the National Assembly, both governments had already
reached a suitable agreement on how costs for USFK and 2ID
relocation would be distributed, and that the U.S.
expectation is that the ROKG will fulfill the provisions of
the agreement.
VERSHBOW
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/17/2017
TAGS: MARR MCAP PARM PREL KS
SUBJECT: ROKG: NO LINKAGE FOR SMA FUNDS AND USFK RELOCATION
Classified By: Amb. Alexander Vershbow. Reasons 1.4 (b,d).
1. (C) Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Shim Yoon-joe
requested a meeting with the Ambassador to convey the ROKG
response to the issues raised by Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense Richard Lawless with ROK Ambassador Lee Tae-shik on
May 8. Shim said that the ROKG appreciated Lawless's
explanation of General Bell's statement before the April 24
Senate Armed Services Committee and understands that his
comments do not represent a change in the U.S. position
regarding the timetable for relocation of U.S. Forces in
Korea (USFK). However, Shim said that the ROKG believes that
the U.S. linkage of Special Measures Agreement (SMA)
burdensharing funds and USFK relocation is not appropriate
and could cause further misunderstandings of the U.S.
position. Shim also took issue with Lawless's comment about
the possible withdrawal of some United States forces unless
there were an agreement on the use of SMA funds under the
Land Partnership Program (LPP),noting that this was not
helpful for either party. Shim stressed that the ROKG would
expect close, prior consultation on any such decision.
2. (C) Shim emphasized that the ROKG intent was not to
damage the framework of the burdensharing agreement with the
United States, but to enhance transparency of the
burdensharing mechanism, as requested by the National
Assembly. Shim noted that there had been some
misunderstandings about the use of SMA funds for USFK
relocation "from the beginning." (Note: When the LPP
Agreement was signed in 2002, there was an understanding
reached between the U.S. and ROKG that some of the costs
would be paid by the ROK, as specified in Appendix A.
However, the ROKG never made public or explained this
agreement to the NA. End Note.) Regarding the NA's
Supplemental Opinion on the use of SMA funds, Shim said that
the ROKG needs to respect the opinion of the NA, whether
legally binding or not, because of the budgetary power
exercised by the NA. Shim promised that the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade would consult with the Embassy
after discussing the issue further with the Ministry of
National Defense.
3. (C) In response, the Ambassador reiterated that General
Bell's comments reflect U.S. policy. It was not helpful for
the ROK to single him out personally or attempt to drive a
wedge between U.S. military and civilian spokesmen, since
there was no difference of view between them. The Ambassador
noted that the U.S. understanding is that the Land
Partnership Program agreement does not exclude the use of SMA
funds, pointing out that the Appendix to the agreement spells
out ROK responsibilities for specific facilities and
installations associated with the relocation. The Ambassador
stressed that while the United States respects the authority
of the National Assembly, both governments had already
reached a suitable agreement on how costs for USFK and 2ID
relocation would be distributed, and that the U.S.
expectation is that the ROKG will fulfill the provisions of
the agreement.
VERSHBOW