|
President Roh Moo-hyun told KBS TV on Thursday it was past governments that set up Korea¡¯s plan to ¡°withdraw¡± wartime control of its troops from the U.S., and they were eyeing 2000 as the deadline. Now the Grand National party, the heir to these governments, opposes the plan, he complained, and some newspapers who now object actually said wartime operational control should be taken back faster at the time. Operational control is the command over military missions including operation orders or operation plans. Currently, it is exercised by the chairman of the Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff in peacetime when ¡°Defense Readiness Condition¡± or DefCon is set at 4, and by Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command when it is set at 3 or above.
It is true that past administrations set a goal of exercising sole wartime operational control by 2000 -- provided it was concluded that the risk of war was virtually eliminated on the Korean Peninsula by then in view of our own capability versus North Korea¡¯s. But they concluded that security on the peninsula deteriorated due to North Korea¡¯s nuclear and missile development, so they suspended the plan. ¡°We didn¡¯t mention the issue of taking back wartime operational control from the U.S. so that nothing unfortunate would befall the Korea-US alliance, which was the bedrock of Kim Dae-jung¡¯s engagement policy with North Korea,¡± said Hwang Won-tak, Kim¡¯s secretary for foreign affairs and security. The Chosun Ilbo, in its editorial on Dec. 1 1994, when the nation took back peacetime operational control of its troops, said, ¡°Our next goal is to take back wartime operational control as quickly as possible. But we should not hurry to do that all at once because of public sentiment on the issue, not to mention our current military capability. What we must do now is to grow our capability so that we can fully exercise sole wartime operational control.¡±
What past governments and the media wanted, then, was to create the right environment so we can exercise sole control as soon as possible. Roh is misleading the public that the GNP and media insisted on pushing ahead with exercising sole wartime operational control by 2000 no matter what happens, but now oppose the same plan. Roh also said the W621 trillion (US$1=W961) defense budget to be spent until 2020 ¡°was supposed to be spent anyway even if we do not take back wartime operational control from the U.S. It has nothing to do with the plan to take back operational control.¡± Reminded that Korea will have only 40 F-15 fighters and no early warning system and no Aegis vessels in the National Assembly last June, Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung answered, ¡°We think that we can make preparations to a certain degree in about five years.¡± The minister said Korea needs 20 additional F-15 fighters (W3 trillion), three Aegis destroyers (W3.6 trillion) and early warning systems (W1.6 trillion) and the money required was part of the W621 trillion defense budget. Roh had spoken: ¡°Taking back wartime operational control is the core of defending our nation on our own,¡± and the Defense Ministry is calling the W621 trillion self-defense budget to reflect that doctrine. This is why it is so irresponsible to say that nothing in the defense budget is especially due to taking back wartime operational control. Sole operational troop control leads to the dismantlement of Combined Forces Command. Roh would be disregarding his responsibility to defend this nation if he did not boost the defense budget when trying to replace the CFC, which has been the bedrock of our national security, with our own independent military capability.
¡°People always say there are many problems with the Korea-U.S. alliance, but every time I meet U.S. President Bush, I find that there is no problem. I met President Bush, completely dispelling worries that I¡¯m eroding the bilateral relationship¡± that was built by many people¡¯s efforts. But it is a fundamental principle of diplomacy that even when a deep rift exists between two allies, they just say, there isn¡¯t a thing wrong with our relations. This is true for working-level meetings, and much more so with summits. Even Prof. Bruce Cumings, who usually offers a leftwing view of history for the administration, said the alliance is at its worst since 1950. The widespread perception in Washington is that president Roh is solely responsible for the deterioration of the alliance.
Roh says the stock market has more than doubled since he took office, while economic indicators such as consumer prices, export and foreign exchange reserves and economic growth rate are doing just fine. Koreans may be forgiven for wondering which country he is talking about. The leading economic indicator has been declining for a sixth consecutive month, and July¡¯s production and consumption fell from June. Finance Minister Kwon Oh-kyu says our economy will grow only in the mid-4 percent range next year. The economy began showing signs of recovery from the second half of last year, but in less than a year it is slowing down again. Koreans are worried that they will have to tighten the belt again, but Roh is saying all is well.
Who briefs him on economic conditions? What do they tell him to prompt such nonsense? Enough with the rising stock market: it is meaningless when the economy is plummeting. It is obvious that exercising sole wartime operational control too early puts our security at risk, but the president says there is nothing to worry about. It is clear that the Korea-U.S. alliance has gotten as bad as it has ever been, but Roh says there is no problem. People are evidently having trouble making ends meet, but the chief executive inform us the economy is doing well. He is blind, that is Korea¡¯s problem.
|
