SEOUL - South Korea may have serious
problems with the tough US stance toward North
Korean nuclear and missile antics, but it balks at
any reduction of US troops stationed in the
country or dilution of the 50-year military
relationship with the United States.
An
announcement last week by a US defense official -
that as part of an overhaul of military ties Seoul
will be handed back wartime-operations command
over its troops by 2009 - has triggered a round of
harsh criticism of President Roh Moo-hyun's
nationalist policies.
Since 1994, Seoul
has assumed peacetime command of its 650,000
troops, but US-led United Nations forces retain
overall
command of wartime operations
as part of defense arrangements dating back to the
1950-53 Korean War.
Currently, the United
States maintains 30,000 troops in South Korea, but
this is due to be whittled down to fewer than
25,000 by the end of 2008. This move has dismayed
military experts. But Roh has repeatedly said it
is a matter of national integrity to retain
wartime control of its troops.
"We are the
world's 11th economic power and the world's
sixth-largest military power in military units,"
he said. "Therefore, retaining operational control
is a key to keeping our independence, and this is
something that we must have at any cost."
But Koo Sang-chan, lawmaker and vice
spokesman for the opposition Hanara party, asked
on his homepage, "My dear Mr President, does it
mean that you think that we have handed over our
national football team to the Dutch people when we
recruited the former Dutch football coach Mr
[Guus] Hiddink to train our football players?"
Yu Myung-hwan, the country's vice foreign
minister, has sought to allay suggestions in
newspapers that the changes in command structure
and troop reduction would lead a pullout of US
troops, leaving the country vulnerable to an
attack from North Korea.
"It is far from
the truth to claim that the return of
wartime-operations command will lead to a pullout
of US forces," the minister said.
In an
editorial last Wednesday, the influential Chosun
Ilbo demanded an explanation from the government
over what the changes mean and accused it of
trying to "topple one of the pillars of national
security".
Taking direct control would
only make the South Korean military ineffective
and slow, some military experts and former defense
ministers insist.
"It is common to place
all of your forces under one single authority, in
order to make a prompt decision and ensure
effective operation," said one military expert.
"This has been proved in the case of the command
structure of NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization]. This holds true, in particular,
when North Korea's 1.2 million-strong military
power is only 40 kilometers away from Seoul,
capital city of South Korea."
Roh said:
"Our country has grown up strong enough to deserve
to retain its own operational control over our own
military forces. Likewise, our military forces
have also grown up strong enough to be able to
control its operation. Having our own operational
control won't affect our alliance with the US."
But even Roh had suggested 2012 as a start
to retain wartime-operational control over its
forces.
Last Wednesday, when the South
Korean media were in full of debate on the command
restructuring, North Korea broke the silence it
had maintained after its early-July missile tests,
resuming contact with Seoul to ask for food for
its flood-hit people. Many supported Roh's
position and asserted that the South Korean
military was strong enough to take on North Korea.
"South Korea is, in particular, ahead of
its ability to collect information," an editorial
in the country's liberal online media portal
OhmyNews said. "North Korea is almost at the deaf
level when it comes to its intelligence. If there
is something South Korea's military power is
lacking, it is not its hardware capabilities, but
its soft areas such as self-confidence or
motivation to defend itself."
What truly
shocked analysts here was the US willingness to
hand over to South Korea primary responsibility
for defense in the event of war.
"As the
adjustment takes place, there will be a reduction
in the number of US forces located in the Republic
of Korea beyond the level of 25,000 we've
currently agreed to," the defense official said.
Such readiness is interpreted by experts as a
sign of a weakness in the alliance and a result of
differences over how to deal with North Korea.
"Under the US-South Korea alliance, the US
would discuss with our government key regional
issues such as how to deter North Korea or how to
curtail Japan's move to rearm itself," said Song
Dae-sung, a senior researcher at Sejong Research
Institute.
"However, if the alliance
fails, the US would bypass us and talk to Japan or
China. If this happens, our diplomacy level will
be dangerously downgraded."
Roh's
supporters do not agree.
"Washington has
no reason to relax its alliance with South Korea,
because of the new command arrangement - that is
something it is also happy with and that fits its
strategic need," said the OhmyNews editorial.
Handing over operational control to South Korea is
a part of Washington's strategic scheme to reduce
its heavy burden of defending South Korea as a
deterrence to the North, and instead it wants to
"take a new wing of the strategic flexibility that
stretches into a broader regional coverage".
Paik Hak-soon, a researcher at the Sejong
Research Institute, said: "It seems that
Washington believes it has nothing to lose even if
it returns operational control to South Korea
earlier than South Korea asks - as long as it
intends it will keep its troops in South Korea
even after the two Koreas are reunited, and as
long as there are American forces in South Korea,
they have enough mobility and agility to confront
China."
South Korea's opposition parties
worry that the North's provocative actions have
had the effect of bringing Japan closer to the US
and Washington has distanced itself from Seoul
because it is less inclined to discipline
Pyongyang.
Roh's opponents believe that by
taking an overtly nationalistic stance he has made
a serious diplomatic blunder, which may cede the
country's strategic position to Japan.
South Korean military experts point to the
US-Japan alliance's reshuffle plan, which involves
a combined operational headquarters for the US 3rd
Army Corps in the Kanakawa-hyun prefecture with a
four-star US general in charge. In contrast, as
South Korea gets operational control, the US will
replace the current four-star general in Seoul
with a three-star.
