|
A high-ranking government official has said the reason the U.S. proposed an unfeasibly early date to hand over wartime operational control of Korean forces to Seoul may have been ¡°a counterattack motivated by anger because the U.S. feels Korea is seeking the 2012 withdrawal for political reasons.¡± The official said ever since the issue first came up three years ago, the U.S. asked Korea not to use the ominous term ¡°withdrawal¡± of wartime control, but Cheong Wa Dae, at the urging of the National Security Council, insisted. That insistence on ¡°withdrawal¡± poses a fundamental threat to the alliance.
Currently, operational control is exercised by Korea¡¯s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in peacetime and by the commander of Combined Forces Command -- namely the U.S. Forces Korea commander -- in wartime. But in reality, the CFC chief cannot just exercise wartime control as he sees fit, and his course of action is determined by strategic guidelines from the National Command and Military Authority (NCMA), which consists of the two countries¡¯ presidents and defense ministers and the Korea-U.S. Military Committee including the heads of both Joint Chiefs. In short, wartime operational control is jointly exercised by the two allies, which is why we should be saying ¡°sole control of our troops" instead of ¡°withdrawal.¡±
Yet President Roh Moo-hyun, on a visit to the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions right after his inauguration, complained that the president of Korea ¡°cannot exercise control of its troops when a war breaks out,¡± which is stretching the truth, and now insists that we are ¡°withdrawing¡± control from the U.S. It is a transparent bid to make it look as if wartime operational control is something we must seize from the grip of the occupation forces -- The U.S. Forces Korea -- to achieve full independence. It is a distortion of the truth for political gain, no more.
The government has never explained to the public in detail what wartime operational control means and how it is exercised, even as it is trying to topple one of the pillars of national security. It has never told us why we need to get sole control of our troops back now. Even the Defense Ministry, which until last year said the expression ¡°sole control¡± is indeed more suitable, has now fallen in line and is using ¡°withdrawal.¡±
On Monday, a high-ranking official in the U.S. Defense Department again stressed that operational control is exercised by the CFC commander only in wartime on terms agreed between Washington and Seoul, adding it makes no sense to suggest that the U.S. took it away from Korea. The U.S. is on to the Roh Moo-hyun administration and its schemes. As allies, we should try to resolve any differences quietly behind the scenes. Who stands to gain when one ally uses security issues vital to the alliance for a short-term political advantage?
|
