[News Analysis] Examining the arguments behind wartime control issue

US aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk leaves a Japanese port on July 5. Kyodo, Yonhap news

Controversy is mounting over South Korea’s taking over wartime control of its military from the U.S. Wartime control is a nation’s sovereign right. No doubt Washington has been worried that the control transfer could weaken its influence on the Korean peninsula. Seoul’s efforts to regain this control have caused concern regarding a rift in bilateral ties between the two countries. But contrary to the widespread concerns, Washington is saying that it will transfer wartime control to Seoul by 2009, with Seoul insisting on taking over it by 2011. This poses a question: Why is the U.S. seeking such an earlier and somewhat hurried move?

If the two sides reach an agreement on the issue at the upcoming Security Consultative Meeting to be held in October, the existing Combined Forces Command (CFC), which was created in 1978 and took over wartime control rights from the United Nations Command (UNC), will be disbanded.

A Seoul government official said that a source on the U.S. side called the period of transition "too long" if the final handover is done in 2011. The U.S. source said that the transition would not run smoothly and under control.

Still, this reason is not enough to explain the U.S.’s hurried stance.

Former defense ministers, opposition party members and other military officials say that the U.S. timetable signals its extreme distrust with South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun administration. In other words, they say the hurried move by Washington is a strong warning against President Roh’s pursuit of strengthening South Korea’s autonomous self defense. They went further to say that the U.S. could withdraw its military forces altogether from the Korean peninsula, risking a decades-old alliance between the two countries.

But their argument seems to have flaws. As a high-ranking U.S. official said, the U.S. has not specified an exact timetable for the transfer, while South Korea has mentioned the year 2011 for the deadline. "No agreement has been reached on when the right should be transferred," the official said on condition of anonymity. Though the remark could be merely diplomatic rhetoric, the official’s comments mean that more discussion on the timeframe is likely to come.

South Korea’s vice foreign minister Yu Myeong-hwan also said in a briefing that the U.S. proposal for the timetable is symbolic, dismissing concerns that there is a heated disagreement between the two countries on the issue.

Behind the U.S. move to transfer the military command lies the ongoing effort to realign its military forces worldwide. President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have insisted on readjusting the U.S. military enough to swiftly respond to new threats. The U.S. military stationed in South Korea is typical of the current Cold War-based military structure, so it should be the first thing to go in the overhaul. As the U.S. has to deal with a war in Iraq, the realignment of troops elsewhere is taking place at a faster pace. The relocation of the 2nd Infantry Division below the Han River and other military overhauls in South Korea were done in line with these international factors.

The U.S. does not seem to see its military here as only a deterrent against the North’s possible invasion. The issue of transferring wartime control, which has been pursued since the late 1980s, is something that the U.S., for its part, has to facilitate. The 2009 timetable can also be interpreted as an effort by Washington to complete the issue before President Bush’s term ends.