S. Korean Risking Military Ties With the US

Register

By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
August 08, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - In a new sign of strain in the U.S.-South Korean military alliance, the Pentagon has signaled an intention to further reduce the numbers of U.S. troops there and speed up the transition of wartime operational command to the South Koreans.

The development has set off alarm bells among conservative Koreans who accuse their liberal government of damaging the half-century-old relationship and risking the country's security by pushing for the changes.

President Roh Moo-hyun's administration has been pressing for South Korea to assume the lead in wartime operations in five or six years' time, but the U.S. - in a move seen by some as retaliation for Seoul's pestering - now wants to do so by 2009.

Some South Korean experts and military officers have questioned whether the country's armed forces would even be ready to take over the command by 2012, given some operational limitations and its reliance on the U.S. for intelligence about communist North Korea.

One former defense minister, now a legislator, asked questions in parliament about whether South Korea had satellites, early warning systems and the ability to intercept incoming missiles in flight.

American troops have been stationed on the peninsula since the Korea War, which ended in 1953 with a armistice. In the absence of a formal peace agreement, the two Koreas remain officially at war, and the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) are deployed to help defend the ally against aggression from the North.

The USFK currently operates alongside the South Korea's 680,000-member armed forces, and the USFK commander doubles as head of the Combined Forces Command (CFC), an integrated military command.

The South Korean military has operational control during peacetime, but in the event of war, cedes that to the CFC commander, who takes control of both American and South Korean forces.

At a briefing Monday, a senior U.S. defense official speaking on condition of anonymity spelled out some of the envisaged changes.

By 2009, South Korea will have wartime operational control and command, he said.

Following the change, USFK will assume a support role and the CFC will be dismantled.

The changes would also likely mean a further reduction of USFK numbers - beyond an earlier agreed-upon cut that will reduce its strength from around 30,000 today to 25,000 by 2008.

The official said he did not believe a further reduction would be substantial. He also asserted that the changes being considered would not harm the two allies' ability to face any aggression from North Korea.

The changes under discussion between the two militaries are expected to be finalized and released at an annual security meeting between the two countries' defense ministers, scheduled for October.

Roh's request to have the U.S. cede wartime control is seen as part of his push for policies more independent of Washington, policies his critics say have pandered to, and helped to fuel, anti-American sentiment.

A left-wing newspaper, Hankyoreh, said in an editorial that South Korea needed to restore its "military sovereignty" because of "the need for stronger national identity."

"It is thinking from another era to use insecurities about security and invoke worries about weakening the alliance to call for the [bilateral] discussions to stop," it said.

A group of South Korean former defense ministers has come out publicly against Roh government policy, and reportedly are planning to issue a joint statement urging a rethink of the wartime operational command issue.

Some of the 10-strong group have voiced concern about the potential harm to the military alliance, and the possibility of an eventual complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from the peninsula.

The group met earlier with Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung, who sought to allay their concerns, but also said that those who served many years ago were ill-informed about South Korea's current military capabilities.

Some politicians in the conservative opposition Grand National Party (GNP) are calling for Yoon to resign on the grounds of poor policy.

GNP chairman and lawmaker Kang Jae-sup, told a meeting of party leaders the government had turned the issue of recovering wartime control into a political slogan.

"National defense shouldn't be a topic of political games," he said.

A number of conservative organizations and retired military officers are planning a rally in Seoul on Friday to protest the government's handling of the alliance and urge it to stop negotiating with the U.S. over assuming wartime control.

'Bad signals'

During Roh's tenure, relations between Seoul and Washington have been strained over different perceptions of the threat posed by North Korea and how to tackle the belligerent Stalinist regime.

The rift was seen most recently when a senior South Korean government minister said after North Korea test fired seven ballistic missiles last month that American policy towards Pyongyang had "failed."

Roh subsequently defended the minister, asking why he was not entitled to call U.S. policy a failure.

And at a time when Japan was leading efforts to get the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution condemning North Korea for the missile tests and imposing sanctions, South Korea was more critical of Japan for its "hard line" stance than of the North for its provocation.

Differences between the allies also emerged recently over which government should pay for an environmental cleanup at military bases being vacated by the USFK and handed over to South Korea.

There has been a dispute, too, over Seoul's closure last year of a coastal air-to-ground weapons gunnery range after local residents complained, forcing US pilots to go elsewhere in Asia for training.

The Pentagon official at Monday's briefing said the problem needed to be resolved within the next couple of months, or "entire units will have to leave the peninsula on a rotating or recurring basis."

"The worst signal you can send to North Korea is you have to go off the peninsula to train your forces," he said. "It's a very bad signal for the alliance."

In a recent editorial, the conservative daily Chosun Ilbo worried about the alliance splintering.

"An alliance starts with a shared perception of threats. It's not much of an alliance if one partner spots a threat and the other says, 'You're wrong.'

"We South Koreans have prospered in the shade of a tree called the Korea-U.S. alliance which our leaders planted over five decades ago. An administration that comes and goes in a mere five years must not be admitted to uproot that tree for short-term political gain."