The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)is a joint administrative agreement between each government of Korea and the United States to help manage the presence of US forces in Korea and preserve the security of Korea. As many problems caused by the US forces have aroused hot debate, voices calling for the reform of SOFA have increased in volume.

A Strategic Report on East Asia in 1995 said that the reason why US forces were stationed in Korea was for maintaining a comprehensive relationship rather than to protect Korea from danger. In other words, Korea and the United States should be on equal footing in many fields in the 21st century such as economics, diplomacy, military affairs, and so on. Yet, the main clauses of SOFA remain unchanged since 1966. SOFA needs to address the spirit of the 21st century, post-Cold War era. The Korean SOFA agreement is particularly unreasonable compared with foreign countries such as Germany, Japan, and so on.

The Revision of SOFA in 1996 was similar to the one recognized in the US-Japan Status of Forces Agreement and the one signed between the United States and Germany. The Korean SOFA, however, bears no similarity to those agreements.

The mother law of SOFA, Korea-US Mutual Defense Treaty (KUMDT) is unfair and is not related to mutual benefit, containing as many fundamental flaws as it does. In fact, there is no time limit on the duration of its effect on Korea. In the case of Japan and Germany, there is a restriction on the affective period, making reform and revision of KUMDT possible as well as that of SOFA according to the situation at the time. No clear limitation has been established concerning what available resources the United States Forces in Korea (USFK) is entitled to. In fact, Korea permits this foreign force access to all resources including the territory, waters and air of Korea. When foreign countries such as Japan and the Philippines engaged in negotiations on SOFA, not only was a time limit of 10 or 25 years established, but limitations were imposed on the US forces access to available national resources.

The cost of stationing USFK forces here were the responsibility of the US, however, in the case of Korea the burden was shifted to Korea by establishing the attached agreements related to military costs when negotiations for the revision of SOFA were held in 1991. These sensitive clauses still remain as it were, which only adds to the unjustness of SOFA.

There are distinct differences concerning the host country's rights as stipulated by SOFA in Korea and those of other countries like Japan and Germany.

Of special concern is the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over offenses involving expeditionary troops, which attracted particular attention during the first round negotiations. At present, when US soldiers commit crimes like murder and theft, Korean criminal investigators are not permitted to take the criminals into custody. Taking the criminals into Korean custody is possible only 40 days after the indictment, even if the facts constituting an offense are obvious. In Japan, investigators are permitted to turn over culprits even before the indictment.

Surprisingly, the Korea-US SOFA agreement doesn't even contain a clause on the environment, whereas US forces in Germany were compelled to observe the environmental law of Germany in its entirety before drafting a treaty. The US army can dismiss the Korean laborers for military purposes in accordance with the 17th provision. The governments of Japan and Germany ensure stable jobs for laborers at US bases, having established a system of indirect employment.

Following the 8th round of negotiations in Korea, the revised proposal forwarded by the US appears to be even more unfair than the existing treaty in terms of legal jurisdiction. It also completely ignores environmental issues and labor conditions for Korean laborers working for the US forces in Korea.

The 9th round of negotiations on the revision of SOFA is scheduled to be held in Washington soon. There are no more opportunities to reform the unjust clauses as mentioned above. To achieve satisfactory results requires a nationwide protest to display firm will through public opinion unrelentingly. This is the key to resolving SOFA problem.

By Song Hye-min(Associate Editor of News Section)