Korea to Increase Defense Spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, U.S. Defense Secretary Praises South Korea's Efforts to Transfer Combat Command Authority
According to a report by Yonhap News Agency, it has been reported that South Korea and the United States have agreed that South Korea will increase its defense budget to 3.5% of its gross domestic product (GDP) by as late as 2035. According to several government sources, before the South Korea-U.S. summit held in Gyeongju on Wednesday, South Korea proposed increasing the proportion of its defense budget to GDP from 2.32% this year to 3.5% by as late as 2035, and the U.S. accepted this proposal.
This content is expected to be included in a "fact brief" to be released later, which will summarize the agreements reached at the South Korea-U.S. summit on trade and security. The report mentions that assuming a nominal GDP growth rate of 3.4% for South Korea next year, with an annual defense spending increase of 7.7%, by 2035, defense spending will reach 128.4 trillion won, accounting for 3.5% of GDP.
The South Korean Ministry of Defense plans to increase defense spending by about 8% annually to achieve the target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035 as requested by the U.S. The South Korean Ministry of Defense plans to focus the increased defense budget on building a "Korean-style three-axis system" to counter North Korea's nuclear and missile threats and ensure advanced capabilities including manned and unmanned complex systems. It is reported that South Korea also expressed a willingness to purchase a large number of U.S. weapon systems.
Kim Sung-ho, Director of the National Security Office, said during a press conference after the summit: "There was not much discussion about purchasing weapons (from the U.S.) during lunch today." He added, "This issue had already been agreed upon earlier. Purchasing weapons is essential for us to build a smart army."
Additionally, U.S. Secretary of War Hegseth gave a positive evaluation of South Korea's efforts to regain wartime combat command authority from the United States, calling it a "great" move and emphasizing his opposition to a security relationship that only requires the U.S. to take the lead in emergencies.
It is reported that Hegseth made these remarks during an interview with the media while flying to Malaysia. He was answering a question from Yonhap News Agency regarding the Lee Jae-myung government's efforts to regain wartime combat command authority within its five-year term - ending in 2030. Hegseth is currently on an Asian tour, which includes Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and South Korea.
Hegseth said, "I think it's good. The stronger the military power of allies, the better. For decades, we have always been solid allies, and this has never changed." Hegseth mentioned, "South Korea's willingness to increase defense spending is also crucial. They are adjacent to a real-time and ongoing threat, but they also understand the overall situation of their environment."
Hegseth described South Korea as a "credible operational" partner and pointed out that U.S. allies need to take on greater security responsibilities.
Hegseth said, "I think South Korea is a good example, showing credible operational capability, firm stance, and always warmly welcoming our troops. South Korea hopes and should increasingly be willing to take on leadership responsibilities. This is what we demand from our European partners."
Hegseth added, "This does not mean we are stepping back or not supporting. Frankly speaking, this is common sense. Why maintain a relationship where only the U.S. takes the lead in emergencies when there is a wealthy, strong, and proactive country capable of taking on leadership responsibilities?"
The report states that the issue of transferring combat command authority is expected to be a major topic at the bilateral annual security consultation meeting between South Korea's Defense Minister An Kwi-bong and Hegseth scheduled for next Tuesday in Seoul.
South Korea and the U.S. have been discussing the transfer of wartime combat command authority based on conditions. South Korea transferred wartime combat command authority during the Korean War from 1950 to 1953. In 1994, South Korea regained peacetime combat command authority, but wartime combat command authority remains under U.S. control.
Hegseth also refuted a recent news report that claimed the new U.S. Department of Defense Strategy might outline a U.S. defensive line that could include Japan, but may exclude South Korea and Taiwan.
Hegseth stated, "I am not aware of this... I do not know about this," and emphasized, "I believe this report is inaccurate." He also clarified that the Trump administration does not seek to establish a multilateral alliance system similar to NATO in the Indo-Pacific region.
Hegseth said, "We are working through bilateral and trilateral relationships, whether involving two countries or multiple countries with shared interests. However, we do not seek to establish formal broad alliances. We simply recognize that there are shared interests and these interests overlap, so we cooperate, and I think this is meaningful."
Hegseth also refuted reports that the draft of the new U.S. Department of Defense Strategy would focus on defending the U.S. mainland and the Western Hemisphere, thus shifting or reducing the response to the Chinese threat, calling it a "misrepresentation."
Hegseth said, "Saying 'pivot' is wrong. I don't want to comment before the release of the national security strategy, as it hasn't been officially released yet. But even if we recognize the need to focus on our own hemisphere, this doesn't mean we ignore the threat and the actual meaning of deterring competitors." Hegseth continued, "Controlling the U.S. border and the Western Hemisphere means that many resources that were previously spread around the world can be closer to home. But this won't change how we assess the threat and its importance. Therefore, I look forward to the release of the new Defense Strategy to correct some misrepresentations."
Sources: rfi
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1847340239236108/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.