Ownership of U.S. Military Bases in Korea Not Possible Under SOFA… No Precedent Among Key Allies
Experts See It as “Trump’s Neo-Expansionism”… Also Interpreted as Pressure for Defense Cost Sharing
[Herald Economy=Reporter Kim Young-cheol] At the U.S.-Korea summit held at the White House on the 25th (local time), U.S. President Donald Trump sparked controversy by mentioning ownership rights over land where the U.S. military is based in Korea. Although President Trump has previously alluded to reducing or relocating U.S. forces in Korea, it is unusual for him to assert that the U.S. military should actually own the stationed site. Due to President Trump’s remarks, there is growing interest in whether there are any precedents where U.S. bases abroad are actually owned by the U.S. military.
Conclusively, it is extremely rare for the U.S. government to own land where overseas U.S. military bases are located.
However, military bases in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa are owned by the U.S. as these regions are U.S. territories, meaning the U.S. does not pay rent for these bases.
In the case of the Panama Canal zone, the U.S. once exercised sovereignty directly. In November 1903, the U.S. signed the “Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty,” securing permanent lease rights over the Panama Canal in exchange for economic support and territorial protection for Panama. A lease right is the right to lend part of a country’s territory to another country for a certain period.
However, due to Panamanian public opposition, which led to violent incidents, the U.S. signed the “Torrijos-Carter Treaties” in September 1977. This agreement transferred the rights related to canal management, improvement, protection, defense, and vessel regulation to the Panamanian government, and guaranteed the neutrality of canal operations. As a result, the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was nullified, and the Panama Canal was officially returned to Panama on December 31, 1999.
Most U.S. bases abroad are stationed through leases. In countries such as Japan, Germany, and Italy, where U.S. military bases are located, the U.S. has usage rights but not ownership. In South Korea, this is also the case, with 100% ownership of U.S. bases held by South Korea while the U.S. only has usage rights of the facilities and areas provided.
According to the Korea-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the U.S. cannot hold permanent ownership of its bases in Korea. Article 4 of the Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty allows the U.S. to station its forces in and around the territory of Korea by mutual agreement. SOFA’s Article 2 clarifies that facilities and areas used by the U.S. should be returned to Korea when they are no longer needed for the agreement’s purpose.
The structure of U.S.’s overseas base operations can generally be categorized into SOFA-based usage rights, long-term leases, special agreements, or occupancies.
Trump’s mention of ownership over the land of U.S. bases in the Korea-U.S. summit is seen as negotiation language aimed at increasing defense cost sharing. Changing or canceling SOFA would be a legally and politically contentious move, making the realization of Trump’s proposal unlikely.
However, there are concerns that South Korea may not be exempt from Trump’s brand of “new expansionism.” The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that experts view Trump’s base ownership remarks as an extension of his expansionist thinking, noting that since his inauguration, Trump has suggested that Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada, and the Gaza Strip should be owned or “controlled” by the U.S.