[Editorial] SOFA revisions for mutual benefit

In the wake of the USFK`s dumping of formaldehyde and methanol into the Han river and the Maehyang-ri bombing exercises, the Korea-US negotiations on the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which start today for two days, draw our heightened interest. The SOFA, which went into effect in 1966, has been in serious dispute from the beginning over its fairness. It was revised only once in 1991. As such, it fails to reflect the necessary adjustments to meet the changing times.

Its revision is thus inevitable. Seoul`s two key points of contention in the negotiations relate to the criminal jurisdiction regarding the time to hand over American criminal suspects to the Korean authorities and the insertion of new clauses on the obligation of environmental protection. The SOFA regulations stipulate that American criminal suspects can only be handed over to the Korean prosecution only after the court`s final verdict. This is a big contrast to the criminal suspects of American military personnel stationed in Japan. They are handed over to the Japanese prosecution even before the start of court proceedings for their trial. We find no reason why there has to be such a difference between the SOFA and the US-Japan status of forces agreement.

Washington is known to have asked Seoul to waive its right of jurisdiction to indict on minor offences in lieu of Seoul`s detainment of suspected felons, like those who commit homicide and manslaughter, before court trial proceedings. But the criticisms raised against the US draft is that this is virtually asking extraterritorial immunity over all those criminals perpetrating larceny, assault and traffic violations, which represent nearly half of the crimes committed by the American military personnel in Korea.

In view of the dumping of toxic substances, oils, waste materials and sewage water as well as damage and injuries from noises and shell fragments from bombing exercises, the insertion of clauses for the Americans to enforce environmental protection is urgent in rewriting the SOFA. The United States must bear in mind that the SOFA must meet the same level of the environmental protection regulations that govern the American forces stationed in Germany in view of Korea`s small territorial land mass. Improvements in working conditions and human rights of the Koreans employed by the USFK and Korea`s right to quarantine the USFK`s imports of farm products must also be discussed in the negotiations. The wide range of duty free articles imported by the USFK personnel and its civilian employees should also be readjusted to prevent smuggling goods into the country by abusing the extraordinary privilege of duty exemption. The SOFA is a device to adjust and resolve problems that arise due to the two countries` conflicting sovereign jurisdictions. The United States has agreements with the 85 countries in which its forces are stationed. We understand that each agreement needs different features pertaining to each state`s cultural uniqueness and the reasons for the U.S. forces¡¯ presence. But, it is wrong if they think they can have `equal` status agreements with big countries while having an unequal status of forces agreement with a smaller nation.

The United States must come to grip with the fact that the Korean National Assembly, which represents the will of our people, passed a resolution to urgently revise the SOFA to be an equal and fair agreement. The SOFA, which contains many unfair, prejudicial contents, must be rewritten in such a way as to not harm Korea-US relations but to make it mutually beneficial for the two allies.