ED Steady, prudent OPCON transfer

Transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) from the United States to South Korea is a long-standing issue. Korea launched its pursuit of this goal, which symbolizes full military sovereignty, back in 2006, after reclaiming peacetime military command in 1994.

This has emerged as a hot-button issue, especially as the Aug. 1 deadline for tariff negotiations approaches, with a series of remarks from both politicians and President Lee Jae Myung's national security adviser. “OPCON transfer is a long-term issue we’ve pursued for years, across administrations,” Wi Sung-lac, the national security adviser, said after returning from Washington. “I don’t know whether it will come up in the security dialogue, but we’re not there yet.”

Both the Democratic Party of Korea and the president have made the transfer of OPCON a central pledge, and comments from both nations, along with OPCON transfer being on the agenda of the State Affairs Planning Committee — a transitory government-forming body — suggest an effort to strike a "package deal," which could address multiple issues like tariffs, increased defense spending from Seoul and OPCON transfer in the same negotiations. The committee has said that the administration is working on the issue. A U.S. Pentagon official was quoted by Yonhap News Agency saying that the two nations "continue to work together to make progress toward OPCON transition."

U.S. President Donald Trump has pressed NATO member nations to increase defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product, followed by a pointed statement that South Korea is "making a lot of money and they are very good" and should pay more for its defense, including the cost of hosting 28,500 U.S. soldiers here. Complicating the calculation is the U.S.-China rivalry and North Korea's closer military cooperation with Russia in its war against Ukraine.

As speculation surrounding the issue gained steam, the presidential office quickly refuted it. Wi said that no "new discussions" on OPCON transfer were underway and that it is not part of any tariff deal. Chung Dong-young, nominee for unification minister, said at his confirmation hearing that while OPCON transfer is the right direction, he does not believe it should be part of a trade deal for now. Defense Minister-nominee Ahn Gyu-back however gave a time frame, saying he expects the transfer to be finalized within the Lee administration, which the presidential office later dubbed a personal opinion.

The complex tariff negotiations, with repercussions for the Korean economy, are consuming much government energy now, but the administration must keep cool as it makes space to assess whether South Korea has met the conditions that the two nations agreed upon in 2015 for OPCON transfer to occur. Starting from the timeline-based OPCON transfer agreement reached in 2006 under Roh Moo-hyun, the two nations shifted the criteria on conditions that must be met as North Korea built up its missile and nuclear capabilities, heightening tension steadily on the Korean Peninsula.

The main conditions were that South Korea should have the capability to lead the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, adequate capability in strike and defense and a regional security environment conducive to the transfer. Only six weeks since taking office, the Lee administration has not had sufficient time to consider the current conditions, but the reality dictates a prompt and swift review of Korea's state of defense in regard to OPCON transfer.

Seoul should assess and draw up a feasibility plan as to whether it has the resources and defense readiness to expedite the OPCON transfer. It should resist the temptation to swiftly assume an independent defense posture against the nuclear threat from North Korea as it accrues war capabilities through ties with Russia, while the U.S., its traditional military ally, pushes aggressively for Korea to cover more defense costs.

A national security issue that directly relates to survival and safety must be assessed thoroughly, and preferably with internal cohesion from the administration driving the policy.