Korea should not be easy game for the U.S. defense industry

South Korea imported weapons worth 7.8 billion dollars last year, and 90 percent of the weapons came from the U.S. The country became the largest importer of the U.S. armory as it signed contracts to purchase 40 units of the F-35 and four RQ-4 Global Hawks, the high-altitude unmanned reconnaissance scouts. South Korea’s security environment in which the country is compelled to beef up its national defense capacities against the threats from North Korea has made the nation an influential buyer of the global defense market.

The report from the U.S. Congressional Research Service may differ from the actual data as it focused on the amount of arms contract last year alone. However, it remains clear that South Korea is a main player of the international arms market. According to the report from the research institute SIPRI in March 2015, Korea stood as the 9th largest arms importer of the world between 2010 and 2014. The overwhelming source of the imports was the U.S. (89 percent), followed by Germany (5 percent) and Sweden (2 percent).

In a way, it is inevitable for Korea to spend the taxpayers’ money on importing the U.S. armory and military equipment to improve the efficiency of the defense system of the U.S.-Korea alliance. The problem lies in the fact that Korea remains a pushover when it comes to receiving the technologies necessary to defend itself while buying up a large quantity of military weapons from the U.S. One good example would be the recent episode where the U.S. refused to transfer the four core technologies necessary to develop the KFX project while agreeing to transfer 21 other technologies only in a broad frame.

The global weapons market entered into a stagnant phase last year while expanding 2 percent from the previous year at a volume of 7.18 billion dollars. Against this backdrop, many arms exporters are making a desperate effort to expand their market through providing financial and technological assistance as well as the facilities for assembly operation for the importers. Being a primary client accounting for 19% of the U.S. weapons exports (36.2 billon dollars), Korea has yet to enjoy the treatment that it deserves. As for Australia’s submarine project, Germany, France, and Japan are reported to race for winning the order, thereby saving at least 5 billion Australian dollars (4.26 trillion won), which explains why we should consider the diversification in the acquisition of defense equipment in a more proactive manner.

Korea spends over 900 billion Korean won for the shared national defense costs with the U.S. army stationed in the country every year, and still Donald Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, often talks of how Korea is free-riding with the U.S. in maintaining its national security. This attests to the fact that the U.S., which must keep in check China as well as North Korea, is having trouble having an accurate understanding the role of the U.S. forces stationed in Korea in unfolding its strategies for North East Asia. It is certainly normal that Korea is in a position to buy up the U.S. weapons at such high prices without having a say about it. We need to speak out what needs to be heard and induce benefits through negotiations. To that end, it would be vital to put an end to the scandals surrounding the national defense industry and improve the capacity of the DAPA.