ROKG: NO LINKAGE FOR SMA FUNDS AND USFK RELOCATION

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