Minister of Defense’s Demand to Increase budget on National Defense Makes No Sense

Today(28 August), the Minister of Defense(Lee Sang-hee)’s letter to President Lee Myung-bak of the Republic of Korea was disclosed. Lee Sang-hee demanded to increase 2010 budget on national defense in the context that the Blue House(similar to White House in US) decided to increase it by 3.8% due to economic recession while the Ministry of Defense requested 7.9% increase. There are many flaws in Lee Sang-hee’s argument for increasing the defense budget.

Before pointing out the flaws, it is necessary to identify the direction of the military reform which the Ministry of Defense lately remedied. Predictably, the Minister of Defense’s policy rationale was to emphasize “the ever present threat from the North Korea” and to emphasize the need to augment and strengthen the ground forces. It could be found from development of next-generation armored vehicle production, early introduction of X-SPA (Self-propelled artillery), X-MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System), X-APC (Armored Personnel Carriers) as well as introducing AWV (Armored Wheeled Vehicle) and mines in preparation of a North Korean Crisis. Moreover, the Ministry of Defense imported second-hand Apache helicopters with disadvantageous terms. For all of these to strengthen the ground forces, a grand total is 60 trillion won(approximately 600 billion dollars).

Lee Sang-hee also planed to depend on the ROK-US military alliance for crucial information and operation capacity, even after ‘wartime control power’ of ROK, which has been possessed by US, shifts to ROK. First of all, there is wonder that US would continue to provide such information and operation capacity. And it became to be disclosed that such plan was to justify the strengthening ground forces.

Lee Sang-hee used the remarks made by US Secretaries of Defense for demanding sharp increase of 2010 military budget. This not only sounds absurd, but could also be viewed as distortion of facts.

First off, Lee Sang-hee pointed out the low investment put into the defense budget, and referred to that US Secretary of Defense Gates complained that ROK was getting a “free-ride” under the ROK-US military alliance. However, whether Gates was pointing out the amount of the military budget or was complaining about the Defense authority of ROK’s continued heavy reliance under the ROK-US alliance has to be clarified.

Maybe the answer lies in the fact that previous Korean governments last decade actually increased the military budget and promoted the concept of “military self-reliance” on the one hand. On the other hand, some Korean conservatives still insisted the continued use the USFK as “tripwire” and opposed to the transfer of wartime operational control of ROK. Moreover, they insisted to build up conventional military capacity while still relying on US military support for crucial strategies. Is this not what Gates meant when he said that ROK gets a “free-ride” under the ROK-US alliance. Further inquiry is needed to clarify whether Gates complained about the size of Korea’s military budget.

In addition, Lee Sang-hee referred the complaint of former US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld about that 2.7% of GDP of the ROK is not enough compared to that of the US. However, the US’s military budget accounts for almost half of the world’s military spending, and it is hard to find a country allocating 4% of GDP for military budget. Spending 2.7% of GDP for defense like Korea is not low at all. The more military spending does not mean the safer to the people.

Furthermore, it is hard to understand Lee Sang-hee’s claim that if downsizing in military spending is required, living condition for soldiers is the area for downsizing. However, downsizing required areas should be numbers of troops and military officers, not monthly payment or living condition for ordinary soldiers. It is shocking that Minister of Defense unashamedly revealed his idea that it is ok to sacrifice a soldier’s life and human rights for the next few years. We regards that the reasons for various suicide cases and frequent accidents while doing military service and poor living conditions of military camps are originated from such anti-human rights thinking of the military leadership. We argue that Lee’s argument that neglecting still premodern living condition for soldiers whilst introducing latest new weapons is against human rights.

Above all, we disagree with the Lee’s claim that ‘even in the economic recession, the defense budget must deserve an increase and anything less than that cannot be reasoned with’. Yet people experience constant threats in other areas like housing, health, education, energy and life. Besides to foreign military threat, those threats that people daily face exist. Reality is people face constant threats from all aspects of life. The main role of the government is to provide safety net for the well-being and survival of its people. The claim that the defense budget must increase more than average increase of national budget regardless of the circumstances and that national defense must take priority in allocating national budget are ridiculous.

Such claim of Lee Sang-hee is the legacy of Japanese militarism which the national defense reformation occurred through a direct transaction with the president, who decides everything. the Japanese military did not require the approval from the cabinet but negotiated with the emperor in the past. Lee Sang-hee may not be able to deny that he wrote the letter based on this sort of legacy that military is uniquely untouchable area. We believe that national defense cannot be separated from the people and it should not be; therfore, it is right to allocate defense budget according to legal process for national budget.

As Minister Lee Sang-hee is concerned about circumstances, security around the Korean Peninsula is not stable because it is surrounded by the world’s largest military spenders and producers, buyers and sellers of weapons. Korea is no exception. Diplomatic capacity and diplomatic talks with North Korea and other neighboring states is as important as the military. However, diplomacy-security authorities of ROK rather agitate military confrontation and conflict, and they put more emphasis on military readiness but with immature diplomatic capacity.

Under this circumstance, there should be a lot of discussion on what the size of the defense budget should be as well as what the “minimum defense capabilities”, which Lee Sang-hee mentioned, are. In addition, PSPD hopes to discuss whether tolerating ever-rising military spending and vicious arms racing with military and economic powers are sustainable surviving way for the ROK.