Lawmaker Urges U.S., S. Korea to Begin Talks on OPCON Transfer Delay
Journalist: Hwang Doo-hyong
Original Post: Lawmaker urges U.S., S. Korea to begin talks on OPCON transfer delay
Type: News Article
March 25, 2010 — A senior South Korean lawmaker Thursday called on South Korea and the United States to start talks on delaying Seoul's retaking of wartime command control of its troops amid growing nuclear and missile threats from North Korea.
"I recommend that at the earliest possible time the ROK and the United States should establish a Joint Study Group to review the OPCON transfer issue," Rep. Hwang Jin-ha of the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) told a forum here sponsored by the Asia Foundation's Center for U.S.-Korea Policy.
A two-term lawmaker, Hwang called for a halt in the process for the OPCON transfer, scheduled to take place in April 2012, unless conditions are met, such as a "complete resolution of North Korea's nuclear problem, removing uncertainty about potential for a sudden change in North Korea and the establishment of a peace treaty based on confidence-building between the two Koreas."
Hwang's remarks echo GNP Chairman Chung Mong-joon, who recently called for a delay in the operational control (OPCON) transition, which he described as "an irresponsible decision made by the Roh (Moo-hyun) government without an objective assessment of security conditions."
South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae-young last month decried the OPCON transition in 2012 as "bad timing" and the "worst scenario," with presidential elections in South Korea and the U.S., and North Korea's campaign to establish itself as a "prosperous, great nation," all in that year.
The wartime OPCON transition agreement was made in 2007 under former liberal President Roh, who sought a greater role for South Korea in maintaining its own defense. Peacetime control of South Korean forces was returned in 1994.
The U.S. currently maintains 28,500 troops in South Korea, a legacy of the Korean War in which the U.S. fought alongside South Korea against invading North Korean troops aided by China.
Conservatives from both Seoul and Washington, however, have called for a delay in the wartime OPCON transfer, fearing a possible gap in the joint defense of South Korea after North Korea detonated its second nuclear device and continued testing medium- and long-range missiles last year.
"The ROK military is capable of countering a conventional invasion by North Korea, but it is still questionable how well it can respond to North Korea's diverse and unconventional military capabilities, including weapons of mass destruction," said Rep. Hwang, a former three-star general.
John Tilelli, former commander of U.S. Forces Korea, agreed.
"If North Korea weaponizes deliverable nuclear weapons ... That will change the strategic atmosphere in all of northeast Asia," he said.
Park Sun-won, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, however, countered that North Korea's nuclear capability is not an issue that should be linked with the OPCON transfer, adding that conservative forces in South Korea have raised the issue for purely political reasons.
Park, who served as Roh's presidential secretary for national security, said dealing with the North's nuclear weapons has to do with military options that both Seoul and Washington are capable of exercising, not OPCON.
Other participants voiced their support for the delay, including Bruce Bechtol of the U.S. Marine Command and Staff College, Patrick Cronin of the Center for New American Security, and Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.
Bechtol and Cronin expected the Lee Myung-bak government to raise the issue with Washington sometime this year, perhaps during the strategic security dialogue with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates scheduled for June.
Kim Sung-han of Korea University proposed that the transition be delayed until 2014 or 2015 when U.S. troops in Korea complete relocation out of Seoul and from near the Demilitarized Zone facing North Korean soldiers.
Hwang said that the Roh government approached the issue from the perspective of "restoring national sovereignty and national pride," and Washington agreed to the transition out of fear of anti-Americanism in South Korea, where massive rallies were held for months after two schoolgirls were killed by a U.S. military vehicle in 2002.
Bechtol dismissed the sovereignty issue, noting no European government raised it with U.S. commanders when they took control of NATO forces, just as they did with the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC).
"The sovereignty issue is being pushed by the so-called progressives," Bechtol said, who are unwilling to support any of President Lee's policies. He explained that the CFC's one mission is using troops only in wartime against North Korean operations. "And this is really no sovereignty issue."
Earlier in the day, Walter Sharp, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, reiterated that the OPCON transfer will take place in April 2012 as scheduled.
"Militarily, we will be prepared to transition wartime operational control to the ROK Joint Chiefs Staff on 17 April, 2012," he said. ROK stands for South Korea's official name, the Republic of Korea.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, however, said recently that the U.S. will seriously consider South Korea's concerns over the timing of the OPCON transfer and is ready to discuss the issue.
A senior Pentagon official, requesting anonymity, also said late last year, "Within the agreement, there are very clear directions for continued evaluation of political conditions and an explicit decision before the OPCON transfer decision is made. So we will continue to make progress on the things we need to do to transfer the operational control. But the decision will be made based on how things look in 2012."
Related:Topic(s): Regional Security Challenges, Development and Diplomacy, U.S. Military Forces & Operations, U.S. National Security and Defense Policy
Project(s): Asia-Pacific Security
People: Dr. Patrick Cronin
