As a former Republic of Korea Army serviceman who served in the ROK-US CFC Republic Of Korea–United States Combined Forces Command as a translator/interpreter, I assert that the transfer of wartime-OPCON (Operational Control) be delayed until the ROK military is ready.
Instead of ROK’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, ROK-US CFC, is led by an American four-star general as a commander with a Korean four-star general as a deputy commander. Combined they control wartime-OPCON for the Korean peninsula. The ROK gave its OPCON to the U.S.-led United Nations Command after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. However, the ROK regained peacetime OPCON in 1994. This means that if North Korea invades ROK once again, the United States Forces Korea automatically enters the war alongside ROK forces. This ingeniously designed defensive system perfectly deters North Korea from commencing military strikes and ending the cease fire of the Korean War.
However, there have been numerous debates regarding the OPCON since the 2006, when pro-North Korean and anti-U.S. Roh Moo-hyun assumed the office of president of the Republic of Korea. He framed the OPCON, that is in the hand of an American general, as directly against the ROK’s national sovereignty and demanded the transfer of OPCON from the ROK-US CFC to the Korean military. The Pentagon responded by declaring the transfer operational control to the ROK as soon as 2009.
However, the transfer has been delayed to 2015 due to the recent military aggression of North Korea. The North Korean navy sank ROK’s warship Cheonan, causing many conservatives in the ROK to strengthen their opposition toward the transfer of operational control.
Yes, it is possible to view the ROK lacking its sovereignty because they do not have full autonomy over their military. However, given the circumstances of North Korea’s continuous aggressive acts that involved many deaths of ROK’s servicemen, nuclear threats, and shelling of islands off the coast of the ROK give no option but to maintain the CFC and have the strength of the American military presence in their capital.
Most of the United States’ military elites and experts openly advocated for the delay of the transfer. In 2012, a Pentagon commissioned study suggested that the U.S. military had covered up perceived shortcomings in the ROK’s ability to defend itself and that the scheduled 2014 OPCON transfer be delayed until ROK’s military is clearly ready.
At the security forum hosted by the Center for Strategic & International Studies in January this year, three former commanders of the ROK-US Combined Forces voiced opinions about the transfer of OPCON. Retired General John Tilelli advocated for the delay by saying that “the U.S. government should accept the ROK’s request for a further delay in the OPCON transfer, now set for December 2015.” Although retired General James D. Thurman, who left the CFC in 2013, did not advocate the transfer during the forum, he showed his concern toward North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, missile program and other “asymmetric” threats and mentioned that the alliance should be better prepared to deal with these threats. On the other hand, retired General Walter Sharp argued that ROK is now ready to defend itself without the presence of American military support.
When retired General B.B. Bell was a commander in the CFC in 2008, he advocated the transfer saying the ROK’s military is ready to defend itself from the threats of North Korea. However, as the new threat of a nuclear bomb developed by the North Koreans in 2013, he changed his position and said, “The OPCON transfer should be halted in light of the North’s recent nuclear threats, and the U.S. must offer Seoul the opportunity to permanently postpone it.”
In July 2013, newly elected President Park Geun-hye requested the U.S. further postpone the transfer and in response to this, a joint US-ROK task force is reviewing conditions and assessing the difficulties regarding the delay of the OPCON. Despite representatives from both countries having had a security council meeting this past October in Washington, D.C., in order to plan for a new delayed date for the OPCON transfer. It is unlikely that a date for the transfer will be agreed upon this year due to differences between both governments. Nonetheless, the fact that US-ROK alliance is trying to delay the OPCON transfer is very fortunate for both the ROK and the United States.
The reason I specifically picked the year of 2020 is because that is the year that the ROK military anticipates having the “Kill Chain” technology fully operationalized. According to Global Security Newswire, Kill Chain is ‘a defense system that aims to preemptively neutralize a North Korean ballistic missile attack.” Once an imminent North Korean missile launch is detected via a network of remotely-piloted aircraft and surveillance satellites, ROK missiles and fighter planes could be launched immediately to neutralize the threat.
Kill Chain is the solution to the ROK‘s current military defense system inadequacies. Despite there being a multitude of knowledge and procedures that the ROK can learn from the U.S. military, especially with cohesion and efficacy of command, the ROK will soon be able to defend itself. Kill Chain will be able to fulfill the portions of the current defense capability that the U.S. military is providing.
Does the United States military have an obligation to continue to support the South Korean military or are they simply infringing on the Republic of Korea’s national sovereignty? Is the ROK’s military able to fend for itself currently? When should control be transfered? Tell us how you feel and please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
