Originally appeared at The American Conservative.
The Trump administration’s attempt to strongarm South Korea into a large increase in spending on the basing of U.S. troops has failed:
Trump, they say, already rejected what was probably Seoul’s best offer ahead of its mid-April parliamentary elections – an increase of at least 13% from the previous accord, two of the officials said.
That offer and decision to reject it by the US president, the details of which have not been previously reported, leaves the United States and South Korea at an impasse, even as outbreaks of the coronavirus threaten to undermine U.S.-South Korean military readiness for any potential conflict with North Korea.
The impasse described in the report is the latest example of how the Trump administration’s inflexible maximalism always leads to diplomatic failure. South Korea was willing to offer a significant increase, but because it was not the exorbitant sum of a five-fold increase in spending that the president initially demanded he wouldn’t accept. No government is going to agree to a 500% increase in cost-sharing all at once, and this has always been a non-starter for South Korea. It is also extremely unpopular with the South Korean public.
As usual, the all-or-nothing approach to negotiations leaves the US coming away with nothing. The administration’s shakedown of an ally was ill-advised from the start, but in addition to straining relations with Seoul unnecessarily the administration can’t even point to any gains for the US The president’s made a preposterous demand that the other government would never agree to, and then refused to compromise on that demand no matter what. This hard-line posturing was no more effective with South Korea than it was with Iran or North Korea in the past. Because the president wrongly assumes all relationships are zero-sum, he uses any concession on the US side as proof that an agreement is a bad one, and so he is incapable of successfully concluding any agreements with allies or adversaries.
The practical effect right now is that thousands of Korean workers on US bases have been furloughed for the first time:
One of the most tangible results of the breakdown in the talks has been the roughly 4,000 South Korean workers on US bases furloughed as a result of the failure to reach a deal by an April 1 deadline. The United States says it needs the South Korean cost-sharing contributions to help pay their wages.
Abraham Denmark, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, said this was the first time furloughs had been carried out since the alliance was created in 1953.
The top commander of American forces in South Korea described the furlough as “unthinkable” and “heartbreaking,” but it was much harder to avoid once the US insisted on an unreasonably large sum from South Korea. The fault for the furloughs lies with the excessive demands from Washington. The absurd thing about this impasse is that South Korea is one of the best allies in terms of providing for their own defense and helping to pay for the cost of US troops. There are many examples of allies and clients that genuinely do “free-ride” on US protection and skimp on their own military spending, but South Korea isn’t one of them. It’s not entirely clear what has motivated the administration’s special animus towards South Korea, but it is an ongoing problem that is undermining the alliance and creating considerable ill-will in Seoul towards the US
Nothing could be worse for the cause of burden-sharing than hectoring one of our most responsible allies and letting the worst free-riders get away with doing as little possible.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at The American Conservative, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter. This article is reprinted from The American Conservative with permission.
We need more of these ‘shakedowns’ to get South Korea and NATO allies to kick US out.
Yep, I have to admit I was confused by this author, why are we supposed to assume that “burden sharing” is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better if this framework fell apart? And why am I supposed to care if some worker in SK loses his job?
Way back when Trump was running for election it was my hope, that if he won, that his maximalist approach in regards to making our allies pay more would pay off. I felt it would pay off by damaging this alliance, which is itself the cause of so much suffering. Most of the people living in these countries are already sick of paying what they pay, asking them to pay more is a good way to split up these harmful alliances that only serve to make war easier on each other.
What would be the negative outcome of a split in any of these alliances in regards to the anti-war movement? Can you think of one because I can’t. I hope he damages these alliances, I hope they fall apart and I hope we are wise enough to never get into these type of alliances again.
Bear in mind the article appeared in TAC, and his only being reposted here. My feeling is the author wasn’t saying any of this was a bad or good thing in the grander scheme of things, but rather to note it as an example of how the great deal maker Trump, the great negotiator, just isn’t either of those things. If this were about anything else, like trade or cooperation with respect to PPE or environment, it would be bad news.
As it is, it’s still an embarrasment for the US generally and Trump specifically that his whole MO has been ineffective and counterproductive across a staggering number of issues, but foreign policy in particular, whether economic or military. To accomplish the minor tweaks on NAFTA, he found it necessary to cajole and bully Canada for no particular reason, as though he was meeting with teamsters at some plant he owned. This thing with South Korea could fairly accurately be described as a mob boss saying he wants a bigger take for the protection his organzation provides–protection that would not be needed if he (or his cabinet, whom he selected) had been serious about negotiating with NK rather than trying to bully them, too.
That makes sense considering where it comes from. Personally I don’t care about any of the Trump’s looking tough or not BS. I just want Trump to try and make peace or get out of the way of the people who do want to make peace. The rest of it is a circus.
“As it is, it’s still an embarrasment for the US generally and Trump specifically that his whole MO has been ineffective and counterproductive across a staggering number of issues, but foreign policy in particular, whether economic or military. To accomplish the minor tweaks on NAFTA, he found it necessary to cajole and bully Canada for no particular reason”
I didn’t vote in 2016 but the results, intended or not, are good. ‘Our’ allies have the same goals as ‘we’ – world hegemony. That’s a bad goal and Trump is screwing it up beautifully. I’m not embarrassed at all. I’m fine with failure when it comes to the USG.
I’m confused, I thought hostages paid for their captivity with, well, captivity. The problem here seems to be that Trump naively buys his own countries propaganda about the “partnership” of being a colossal human shield being an actual “partnership.” He probably believes Patty Hearst really did love Cinque and Willy Wolf. How quaint.
“even as outbreaks of the coronavirus threaten to undermine U.S.-South Korean military readiness for any potential conflict with North Korea.”
What utter madness. DPRK wants peace and justice but the US wants to bully them plus “ally” South Korea so as to have conflict 68 years after the supposed end of the Korean War. Give peace a chance§§§