Former ministers of defense and retired generals met Thursday and called for the government to stop pursuing plans to take back wartime operational control of the country's military from the United States, and there are signs there is going to be a new round of debate about discussions with the U.S. about operational control. One can understand their concerns about Korea's independent intelligence gathering ability and having a unified command system with American forces. The government must give ear to those concerns. However, it is thinking from another era to use insecurities about security and invoke worries about weakening the alliance to call for the discussions to stop. An agreement on the transfer of wartime command needs to be reached without further complications.
This has been an issue since the governments of Roh Tae-woo and Kim Young-sam. Under the current government, the discussion began at the third round of the Future ROK-US Alliance Policy Initiative (FOTA) in July 2003. Based on research that was initiated at that time, the issue was discussed further at the 37th Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) in October 2005 and at last month's Security Policy Initiative session. The next SCM, scheduled for October, is supposed to come up with blueprints for transferring command. The discussions have been part of a long process; saying that they should stop now is like saying Korea should turn around and walk back into the past.
There should be no mention of the justification for transferring wartime command. Aside from the need for stronger national identity by restoring military sovereignty, the existing integrated structure of the U.S.-Korean military alliance is unable to meet the security plans and military applications of the new security climate, in particular factors such as the change in the role of U.S. forces, increased military spending in China and Japan, and inter-Korean relations that seek to promote the cause of reunification. The U.S., too, wants to see the alliance reestablished to meet the demands of the 21st century and have Korea be able to command independently, in wartime, its own military. This would be consistent with long-term plans to elevate the quality of the alliance.
What is unfortunate is the discord reported in the negotiation process. Last month, the U.S. said it could return command ahead of 2010, sooner than had been planned. One observation being made is that the U.S. is using the transfer issue as a way to pressure Korea and maneuver into a more advantageous position on other issues. That is sad if it is true. The transfer needs to take place smoothly and with precision planning; using the issue as a tool for other ends is too dangerous. It is dangerous, too, to look at the issue from an ideological perspective.
[Editorial] Wartime military control talks must continue |
