Candidates differ over wartime transfer issue

Two soldiers stand guard in front of the South Post of the United States Army base in Yongsan, Seoul. / Yonhap

By Chung Min-uck

The ROK-U.S. alliance has long served as a cornerstone for South Korea’s military capabilities, represented by the Combined Forces Command (CFC) which oversees joint military operations maintaining deterrence against the North. However, by 2015, the CFC will be dismantled and Seoul is slated to take control of wartime operational control (OPCON), which is currently in the hands of the U.S. forces Korea (USFK), under an agreement forged in 2010.

Many express concern about a possible security vacuum and it is the next president’s job to prepare for the post transfer era. Seoul and Washington plan to make a final review in 2014 before the transition.

“The current CFC has one of the most effective command systems in conducting wartime operations,” said a defense ministry official on condition of anonymity. “The key is how to maintain such effectiveness after the transition is made.”

The frontrunner presidential candidates concur on the need for the transition in the light of “strengthening self-defense capability” but differ on how to maintain the structure of the ROK-U.S. joint forces afterwards.

“It would be efficient to have a new body consisting of combined ROK-U.S. assistant chief of staff group rather than a mere coordinating body after the transfer,” former Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo told The Korea Times.

Kim is in charge of formulating defense and security policies for the ruling Saenuri Party’s presidential candidate Park Geun-hye. “But I don’t want to call it a mini-CFC since the concept is not what South Korea and U.S. military officials officially use.”

Following the U.S.-ROK Security Consultative Meeting in October, the so-called mini-CFC became a buzz phrase here as experts raised suspicions that Seoul and Washington seeking to create a new CFC.

Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin and U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in a joint statement announced after the annual meeting, said that they had agreed to “continue to refine the future command structure and maximize its military efficiency” after the transfer and “establish a joint working group” for further discussion on the issue.

There are pros and cons regarding the mini-CFC. Conservatives support its creation saying the absence of a control tower would cause great disruption when conducting joint operations. Critics argue that creating such a body would restrain South Korea’s wartime command authority.

Ahn Cheol-soo, an independent presidential candidate, also shares a similar view with Park. “Seoul will take over the OPCON and there is nothing more than that,” said former Air Force chief Lee Han-ho in charge of Ahn’s defense and security policies. “If there is something like a mini-CFC that enhances South Korea’s military capabilities and deterrence against the North, there is no reason to resist implementing a new alternative body.”

However, the main opposition Democratic United Party’s standard-bearer Moon Jae-in opposes such a move.

“There will be no difference in the capabilities of carrying joint operations after the transition is made,” said Kim Chang-soo, an advisor of Moon’s defense policies.

“An alternative body is not necessary. Implementation of the mini-CFC is also not an official stance of Seoul or Washington. Only a number of people here insist on the need for such an alternative.”

With regard to the U.S.-led missile defense (MD) system, over which some critics raise speculations that Washington wants Seoul to join as it seeks to contain the rise of new regional power China, candidates have divided opinions.

“So far, it is not possible due to the cost,” said Kim Jang-soo. “But if our missile capabilities can enhance the ROK-U.S. alliance, why not join.”

“It is technically not easy and also questionable whether our missile system matches that of the U.S.,” said Kim Chang-soo. “Moon, if elected, will not participate in the U.S.-led MD since it could bring about unnecessary friction with other regional players such as China.”

“We need to upgrade our missile defense system and it doesn’t necessarily mean participating in the U.S.-led MD,” said Ahn’s advisor. “It could also cause unnecessary misunderstanding among South Korean people dividing public opinion into two — supporters and objectors.”

Regarding the further extension of Seoul’s missile ranges, all candidates have shown support as it could enhance self-defense capabilities but added the move should be in line with the international norm of anti-missile proliferation.

Seoul recently managed to extend the range of Seoul’s missiles from 500 to 800 kilometers after revising a bilateral guideline set by Washington.