Despite Threat
from North, South Korea Must Take 'Wartime Operational Control' Back from U.S.
(The Hankyoreh, South Korea)
"Wartime
operational control is the authority to control the armed forces in time of
emergency. It is symbolic of a nation's sovereignty. ... And if the U.S. refuses
to return this exercise of sovereignty to us, we should demand it. It is
humiliating to watch as we refuse to accept something - even when the Americans
are offering it."
U.S. and South Korea Navy ships sail in formation during Foal Eagle 2013 military drills west of the Korean peninsula, Mar. 13. Would it be better for the U.S. to retain 'wartime operational control' of the South Korean military, or should the transfer scheduled for December go ahead?
There are growing attempts to use North Korea's third
nuclear test as a pretext for postponing the transfer of wartime operational
control from the U.S. to South Korea, scheduled to occur in Dec. 2015. The
context and arguments are nearly identical as those after the second nuclear
test in 2009. Back then, calls for a delay led to a decision at a bilateral
summit the following year to delay the transfer from April 2012 until Dec. 2015.
Now, on the eve of President Park Geun-hye's first
visit to the U.S. next month, it is happening again.
What is noteworthy this time around is that former Combined
Forces Commander Burwell Bell, who pushed strongly for restoring wartime
operational control to South Korea, has put his weight this time behind calls
from the military and politicians for a postponement. Their argument is that it
would be better for the U.S. to continue holding the reins to more effectively deter
the North's nuclear ambitions.
Obviously, one cannot overemphasize the need for a strong
deterrent against the North's nuclear threat. We must strengthen the alliance
and organize means of detering recklessness on the
part of North Korea. But the argument that restoring wartime operational
control to South Korea would somehow weaken deterrence is a feeble one. This
shows the shortsightedness of people who only think of what can be gained from
a postponement - and not of what is lost.
Wartime operational control is the authority to control the
armed forces in time of emergency. It is symbolic of a nation's sovereignty.
When Japan invaded Korea in the late 16th century, China's Ming Dynasty
army took over Korea's military on the pretext of helping it fight off the threat.
The abuses Korea then suffered provide historical evidence of how important it
is for a country to run its own military. Not only that, but the U.S. seeks to
return operational control in a way that suits its need for a sophisticated overseas
force. And if the U.S. refuses to return this exercise of sovereignty to us, we
should demand it. It is humiliating to watch as we refuse to accept something -
even when the Americans are offering it.
We should also pay heed to those who advise that the
transfer will actually increase deterrence against North Korea. With the U.S. now
holding control, we have limited means of independently responding in the event
of another incident like the 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong
Island. All operations depend on the say-so of U.S. forces - not ours.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The government shouldn't be swayed by calls to postpone the
transfer. It is a matter of our very military sovereignty, and has a
considerable impact on our deterrent against North Korea. Following the reasoning
of those in favor of a delay, as long as North Korea has nuclear capabilities, we
would never be able to regain operational control - and that is unacceptable.
People must realize that no matter how strong an alliance with our country may
be, it cannot intimidate an adversary when we aren't prepared to command our
own military.
