Trump invokes New Demand for Extracting Billions of Dollars
Mar 9, 2019 18:52:46 GMT -7
pieter likes this
Post by karl on Mar 9, 2019 18:52:46 GMT -7
Another new Trump manner of raising cash. For in short past, Mr. Trump attempted in Grand Standing a sales attempt in selling contracts to Germany for over priced earth gas to fore go the new construction of an undersea pipe line from Russia. The only bite he got was from Poland.
We do not need the Americans on our land, nor of their non-existent nuclear weapons stored on our land. The war has been over for many years with no reason for a foreign military to watch over us.
Now, this new tactic of push and shove. Where on this very earth were the Americans to find such a live wire as him and then try to make him behave as The Commander in Chief?
www.unionleader.com/news/politics/national/trump-invokes-new-demand-for-extracting-billions-of-dollars-from/article_41a8601b-f01b-5651-bb29-272e2712cc07.html
Trump invokes new demand for extracting billions of dollars from US allies
WASHINGTON — In private discussions with his aides, President Donald Trump has devised an eye-popping formula to address one of his long-standing complaints: that allies hosting U.S. forces don’t pay Washington enough money.
Under the formula, countries would pay the full cost of stationing American troops on their territory, plus 50 percent more, said U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the idea, which could have allies contributing five times what they provide.
Trump calls the formula “cost plus 50,” and it has struck fear in the hearts of U.S. allies who view it as extortionate.
Rumors that the formula could become a global standard have especially rattled Germany, Japan and South Korea, which host thousands of forces, and U.S. officials have mentioned the demand to at least one country in a formal negotiation setting, said people familiar with the matter.
National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said the Trump administration “is committed to getting the best deal for the American people” but would not comment “on any ongoing deliberations regarding specific ideas.”
Trump has long complained that U.S. and NATO allies freeload on U.S. military protection, but the cost-plus-50 formula has only gained traction in recent months, said current and former U.S. officials, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.
It is not a formal proposal or policy but serves as a kind of “maximum billing” option designed in part to draw attention to an issue that speaks to Trump’s demand that allies shoulder more of the burden of their own defense, a senior administration official said.
One of the first U.S. allies to confront the Trump administration’s hardball tactics was South Korea, which last month agreed to pay $925 million for hosting 28,500 American troops. That was an 8.2 percent increase from the previous year’s payment and about half the total costs. South Korean officials preferred a five-year agreement, but the deal covers only one, meaning they could face pressure to meet Trump’s cost-plus-50 demand next year.
A U.S. military official said U.S. Forces Korea had been “sweating” the signing of a new agreement for months.
There are numerous burden-sharing ideas floating around, and Trump has not settled on any one, officials said.
Questions about ‘cost’
Although it may be a red herring, the phrase “cost plus 50” has appeared on informal lists of options, one official said. But it is not clear what Trump advisers mean by “cost,” whether it’s the entire budget to run a base and pay U.S. armed forces or some part of that.
U.S. allies hosting permanent American military installations pay for a portion of costs in various ways. Japan and South Korea make cash contributions, while Germany supports the U.S. troop presence through in-kind contributions such as land, infrastructure and construction, in addition to foregone customs duties and taxes.
Trump has called that “in-kind” contribution insufficient, a senior U.S. diplomat said.
For decades, leading foreign policy figures in both parties have urged U.S. allies to take on greater responsibility for their security, but even staunch advocates of burden-sharing have questioned Trump’s approach.
“Trump is correct in wanting U.S. allies to bear more responsibility for collective defense, but demanding protection money from them is the wrong way to do it,” said Stephen Walt, a scholar of international relations at Harvard University. “Our armed forces are not mercenaries, and we shouldn’t send U.S. troops into harm’s way just because another country is paying us.”
The cost-plus-50 idea would probably not be presented as a blanket demand to all allies, even if Trump ended up signing off on it, several people familiar with elements of the discussion said. Many of his top aides oppose the formula and have succeeded in the past in bringing him down from the maximalist approach, the people said.
Critics of U.S. bases around the world say the bases are costly, stoke tensions with adversaries and have unintended consequences. The Pentagon counters that its 54,000 troops in Japan and presence in South Korea allow it to project power and deter North Korea and China.
In Germany, where the Pentagon has more than 33,000 troops, the U.S. Army announced last year that it could add 1,500 more by 2020 in “a display of our continued commitment to NATO and our collective resolve to support European security.”
Presenter
Karl
We do not need the Americans on our land, nor of their non-existent nuclear weapons stored on our land. The war has been over for many years with no reason for a foreign military to watch over us.
Now, this new tactic of push and shove. Where on this very earth were the Americans to find such a live wire as him and then try to make him behave as The Commander in Chief?
www.unionleader.com/news/politics/national/trump-invokes-new-demand-for-extracting-billions-of-dollars-from/article_41a8601b-f01b-5651-bb29-272e2712cc07.html
Trump invokes new demand for extracting billions of dollars from US allies
WASHINGTON — In private discussions with his aides, President Donald Trump has devised an eye-popping formula to address one of his long-standing complaints: that allies hosting U.S. forces don’t pay Washington enough money.
Under the formula, countries would pay the full cost of stationing American troops on their territory, plus 50 percent more, said U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the idea, which could have allies contributing five times what they provide.
Trump calls the formula “cost plus 50,” and it has struck fear in the hearts of U.S. allies who view it as extortionate.
Rumors that the formula could become a global standard have especially rattled Germany, Japan and South Korea, which host thousands of forces, and U.S. officials have mentioned the demand to at least one country in a formal negotiation setting, said people familiar with the matter.
National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said the Trump administration “is committed to getting the best deal for the American people” but would not comment “on any ongoing deliberations regarding specific ideas.”
Trump has long complained that U.S. and NATO allies freeload on U.S. military protection, but the cost-plus-50 formula has only gained traction in recent months, said current and former U.S. officials, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.
It is not a formal proposal or policy but serves as a kind of “maximum billing” option designed in part to draw attention to an issue that speaks to Trump’s demand that allies shoulder more of the burden of their own defense, a senior administration official said.
One of the first U.S. allies to confront the Trump administration’s hardball tactics was South Korea, which last month agreed to pay $925 million for hosting 28,500 American troops. That was an 8.2 percent increase from the previous year’s payment and about half the total costs. South Korean officials preferred a five-year agreement, but the deal covers only one, meaning they could face pressure to meet Trump’s cost-plus-50 demand next year.
A U.S. military official said U.S. Forces Korea had been “sweating” the signing of a new agreement for months.
There are numerous burden-sharing ideas floating around, and Trump has not settled on any one, officials said.
Questions about ‘cost’
Although it may be a red herring, the phrase “cost plus 50” has appeared on informal lists of options, one official said. But it is not clear what Trump advisers mean by “cost,” whether it’s the entire budget to run a base and pay U.S. armed forces or some part of that.
U.S. allies hosting permanent American military installations pay for a portion of costs in various ways. Japan and South Korea make cash contributions, while Germany supports the U.S. troop presence through in-kind contributions such as land, infrastructure and construction, in addition to foregone customs duties and taxes.
Trump has called that “in-kind” contribution insufficient, a senior U.S. diplomat said.
For decades, leading foreign policy figures in both parties have urged U.S. allies to take on greater responsibility for their security, but even staunch advocates of burden-sharing have questioned Trump’s approach.
“Trump is correct in wanting U.S. allies to bear more responsibility for collective defense, but demanding protection money from them is the wrong way to do it,” said Stephen Walt, a scholar of international relations at Harvard University. “Our armed forces are not mercenaries, and we shouldn’t send U.S. troops into harm’s way just because another country is paying us.”
The cost-plus-50 idea would probably not be presented as a blanket demand to all allies, even if Trump ended up signing off on it, several people familiar with elements of the discussion said. Many of his top aides oppose the formula and have succeeded in the past in bringing him down from the maximalist approach, the people said.
Critics of U.S. bases around the world say the bases are costly, stoke tensions with adversaries and have unintended consequences. The Pentagon counters that its 54,000 troops in Japan and presence in South Korea allow it to project power and deter North Korea and China.
In Germany, where the Pentagon has more than 33,000 troops, the U.S. Army announced last year that it could add 1,500 more by 2020 in “a display of our continued commitment to NATO and our collective resolve to support European security.”
Presenter
Karl
