After dismissing the previous deal amid the invitation by the US President Donald Trump for South Korea to pay more, a short-term agreement has been signed between the officials for boosting the contribution of South Korea toward the withdrawal of the US troops on the peninsula. The new deal must be sanctioned by the parliament of South Korea, but it would boost its contribution to 1.03 trillion won from 960 billion won in 2018.

Unlike the past agreements, which remained for five years, this one is programmed to expire in a year, pushing potentially both sides back to the negotiating table within months.

South Korean Foreign Minister, Kyung-Wha told the reporters, “It has been a very long process, but ultimately a very successful process ” before another official from the foreign ministry endorsed the agreement.

While admitting the lingering domestic criticism of the new deal and the requirement for the parliamentary sanction, Kang told response had “been positive so far”.

The senior advisor of the US State Department, Timothy Betts, met the South Korean Foreign Minister before signing the agreement on behalf of the United States and told the reporters the money represented a small but important part of South Korea’s support for the alliance.

He told, “The United States government realizes that South Korea does a lot for our alliance and for peace and stability in this region ”.

Almost 28,500 US troops are approved in South Korea, where the United States has cited a military presence since the 1950-53 Korean War.

Related Articles
Next Story
Going Viral
16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on  Border Wall Issue

16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on Border Wall Issue

by Haimantee Ghosh February 19, 2019
Sixteen United States indicted the US President Donald Trump’s administration over his decision to announce a national emergency to sponsor a wall on the Southern border with Mexico, claiming the move breached the constitution. The litigation, filed in a federal court in California, explained the order by the US President was contradictory to the Presentment Clause which figures out the legal proceedings and the Appropriations Clause, which defines Congress as...