Korea and the United States have been talking about the transfer of wartime command of Korea’s military, which currently rests with the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK). Now, U.S. president George W. Bush and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld have taken a stance on the issue. Earlier this month, Bush, meeting with American field commanders, is said to have said to "support Korea with whatever it demands." But around the same time, Rumsfeld sent Korean defense minister Yoon Kwang-ung a letter saying he would like to see the handover take place in 2009; Seoul’s stance has been for handover in 2012.
Together, they are saying that Korea’s demands should be accommodated to the greatest extent possible, and that the wartime command issue needs to be quickly resolved.
Bush and Rumsfeld’s statements show you how opposition by some conservatives to handing over wartime command was nothing more than an attempt to politicize an issue. Well known conservatives and some conservative media have been declaring that being handed wartime command of the country’s forces would lead to the dismantling of the U.S.-Korea alliance. As evidence, they have been saying that president Roh Moo-hyun’s administration has been pursuing the return unilaterally. If you look closely, however, you see that though it was Korea that brought up the issue first, the U.S. has never once expressed any opposition to the idea. It seems the two countries’ interests correspond on the matter. It is time to put an end to the wasteful controversy.
The details, of course, have not been resolved. To begin with, there’s the issue of timing. The U.S. wants to hand over wartime command in 2009, and Korea would like that to happen in 2012. That is not just a matter of what day it should happen, it reflects the different approaches of each country to security strategy and force buildup. Each side should work to narrow their differences instead of just making just taking turns stating their positions. As long as both countries agree on the need to form a new alliance, drawing the blueprints for that should not be too difficult. One way to go about this would be to decide on a year as a goal for transfer, then work on the actual date while reviewing progress along the way.
In his letter, Rumsfeld mentioned defense payments for the United States Forces Korea, a firing range, and treating environmental damage on USFK installations, but those are separate issues. It will only make the situation awkward for both sides and be of no help in resolving the questions at hand if he links those issues and the transfer of wartime command. This is something that should be discussed in good faith in negotiations.
Receiving wartime command means Korea is going to take the lead in planning for its own security and managing its military power. It is a move that would be responding to the changed demands of the post-Cold War era, when there are diverse threat factors instead of a confrontation between blocs. Furthermore, the political situation in Northeast Asia demands that matters be looked at from the perspective of the need to build peace, and not just a militarily achieved one. The handover, therefore, should be handled in conjunction with the work to create peace in the region. We need to get beyond building our military strength through the purchasing of American-made equipment and assume the lead in building a lasting peace.
[Editorial] Finding peace beyond the wartime control issue |
