 |
||||||||
|
The handover of wartime operational control must be a stepping stone for peace and disarmament
On February 24th, the two heads of the US and South Korean defense have agreed on the handover of the wartime operational control (OP CON hereafter) be completed by April 17th 2012. The handover will mean the recovery of military sovereignty for South Korea. It will also “normalize” the current abnormal relations created since and by the Korean War.
However, the significance of the handover does not end here. Independent wartime OP CON will mean that the people of the peninsula will be able to take the initiative in exercising right to peace and self determination.
Therefore, the handover of wartime OP CON should be a stepping stone for disarmament and sustainable peace. The ‘aggressive’ US-ROK Operation Plan should be reviewed, and South Korea must examine carefully how we should respond to ‘strategic flexibility’ and realignment process of the US forces in South Korea. Also the handover must not be used as a justification for military buildup but rather, it must initiate our active participation in denuclearization and peace building in the Korean Peninsula.
Looking in this perspective, we are more anxious than happy about the agreement on handover of wartime OP CON.
Firstly, the first strategic consultation held in January 2006 between then Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice led to agreement on the notion of ‘strategic flexibility’ for US force in South Korea. The handover of wartime OP CON is aiding and is a part of that ‘strategic flexibility’ initiative.
Under ‘strategic flexibility’, the US troops, arms and equipments will freely be able move in and out of the peninsula even though South Korea possesses the wartime OP CON. This means South Korea, against its will, could be in danger of being entangled in conflicts and wars that US takes part in.
Secondly, the handover, which aims for independent South Korean defense capability, will lead to increase the risk of entrapment and will cause financial and human burdens. In post-Cold War era United States has demanded its allies to contribute to the cost necessary to sustain its hegemonic status. Strategic flexibility and reorganization of US forces both are initiatives to reduce US’s share in the cost and increasing its allies’ shares.
The astronomical cost expected in the expansion and realignment of US forces at Pyung Taek and the diversion of defense budget into construction of bases for US forces are a tip of iceberg. The ROK military will initiate further purchases of numerous high-tech American weaponries in the name of modernizing its force. The cost of such purchases will be a considerable amount and the burden will fall on ordinary citizens of South Korea.
Thirdly, there is a worry that the handover will cause a new arms race and military buildup. As aforementioned, South Korean ministry of defense and the military have come up with extravagant plans for increasing military capacity.
Furthermore, in order to compensate for the downsizing of its forces, the US is planning to increase military spending by 11 billion dollars by the year 2008. Strengthening of nuclear and high-tech conventional arms is under the progress for forward-deployed US troops in West-Pacific area. For these reasons, handover of wartime OP CON in the context of reorganization of US forces could cause a new arms race in the region.
Lastly, Korean government and ministry of defense must clear doubts and speculations surrounding the handover agreement.
The 1994 handover of peacetime OP CON included a provision called Combined Delegated Authority (CODA), which delegated operational plan formation, combined information control, and combined contingency control and six other major areas to ROK-US Combined Forces Command. There are doubts that there may have been such ‘reserved provisions’ in the current agreement. Also in the process of delaying the handover date to appease the conservative sentiments, our government is under the suspicion of dealing behind closed doors with the US on issues such as costs in moving bases, ROK share in defense costs, importation of arms and others.
It is a shame that suspicions are being raised over an issue that has been a long-cherished desire of many Koreans. In order for the government to persuade the people the notion ‘restoration of military sovereignty’, clarification on the process of agreement on handover is desired.
The handover of wartime OP CON is both practical and moral imperative. The year 2012 does not sound early by any standards. Some conservatives are voicing their opposition on the handover per se for reasons such as lack of ROK military competency, weakening of ROK-US alliance, and the DPRK nuclear crisis. These claims are unfounded and are politically aimed.
The government’s diplomatic and defense policies such as ROK-US FTA, agreement on strategic flexibility and agreeing relocation of US bases in the peninsula have all been wrong moves. In order to avoid adding ‘agreement on handover of wartime OP CON’ to this list of government’s diplomatic miscalculations, the handover must be used and shaped as a stepping stone for reduction of arms in the peninsula and building of lasting peace.
Civil Network for A Peaceful Korea (CNPK)
Translated by Park, Jun-Oh
On February 24th, the two heads of the US and South Korean defense have agreed on the handover of the wartime operational control (OP CON hereafter) be completed by April 17th 2012. The handover will mean the recovery of military sovereignty for South Korea. It will also “normalize” the current abnormal relations created since and by the Korean War.
However, the significance of the handover does not end here. Independent wartime OP CON will mean that the people of the peninsula will be able to take the initiative in exercising right to peace and self determination.
Therefore, the handover of wartime OP CON should be a stepping stone for disarmament and sustainable peace. The ‘aggressive’ US-ROK Operation Plan should be reviewed, and South Korea must examine carefully how we should respond to ‘strategic flexibility’ and realignment process of the US forces in South Korea. Also the handover must not be used as a justification for military buildup but rather, it must initiate our active participation in denuclearization and peace building in the Korean Peninsula.
Looking in this perspective, we are more anxious than happy about the agreement on handover of wartime OP CON.
Firstly, the first strategic consultation held in January 2006 between then Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice led to agreement on the notion of ‘strategic flexibility’ for US force in South Korea. The handover of wartime OP CON is aiding and is a part of that ‘strategic flexibility’ initiative.
Under ‘strategic flexibility’, the US troops, arms and equipments will freely be able move in and out of the peninsula even though South Korea possesses the wartime OP CON. This means South Korea, against its will, could be in danger of being entangled in conflicts and wars that US takes part in.
Secondly, the handover, which aims for independent South Korean defense capability, will lead to increase the risk of entrapment and will cause financial and human burdens. In post-Cold War era United States has demanded its allies to contribute to the cost necessary to sustain its hegemonic status. Strategic flexibility and reorganization of US forces both are initiatives to reduce US’s share in the cost and increasing its allies’ shares.
The astronomical cost expected in the expansion and realignment of US forces at Pyung Taek and the diversion of defense budget into construction of bases for US forces are a tip of iceberg. The ROK military will initiate further purchases of numerous high-tech American weaponries in the name of modernizing its force. The cost of such purchases will be a considerable amount and the burden will fall on ordinary citizens of South Korea.
Thirdly, there is a worry that the handover will cause a new arms race and military buildup. As aforementioned, South Korean ministry of defense and the military have come up with extravagant plans for increasing military capacity.
Furthermore, in order to compensate for the downsizing of its forces, the US is planning to increase military spending by 11 billion dollars by the year 2008. Strengthening of nuclear and high-tech conventional arms is under the progress for forward-deployed US troops in West-Pacific area. For these reasons, handover of wartime OP CON in the context of reorganization of US forces could cause a new arms race in the region.
Lastly, Korean government and ministry of defense must clear doubts and speculations surrounding the handover agreement.
The 1994 handover of peacetime OP CON included a provision called Combined Delegated Authority (CODA), which delegated operational plan formation, combined information control, and combined contingency control and six other major areas to ROK-US Combined Forces Command. There are doubts that there may have been such ‘reserved provisions’ in the current agreement. Also in the process of delaying the handover date to appease the conservative sentiments, our government is under the suspicion of dealing behind closed doors with the US on issues such as costs in moving bases, ROK share in defense costs, importation of arms and others.
It is a shame that suspicions are being raised over an issue that has been a long-cherished desire of many Koreans. In order for the government to persuade the people the notion ‘restoration of military sovereignty’, clarification on the process of agreement on handover is desired.
The handover of wartime OP CON is both practical and moral imperative. The year 2012 does not sound early by any standards. Some conservatives are voicing their opposition on the handover per se for reasons such as lack of ROK military competency, weakening of ROK-US alliance, and the DPRK nuclear crisis. These claims are unfounded and are politically aimed.
The government’s diplomatic and defense policies such as ROK-US FTA, agreement on strategic flexibility and agreeing relocation of US bases in the peninsula have all been wrong moves. In order to avoid adding ‘agreement on handover of wartime OP CON’ to this list of government’s diplomatic miscalculations, the handover must be used and shaped as a stepping stone for reduction of arms in the peninsula and building of lasting peace.
Civil Network for A Peaceful Korea (CNPK)
Translated by Park, Jun-Oh
