S. Korea conveys concerns to US over USFK commander's DMZ remarks
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Kim Kyu-ha, right, speaks with U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. Xavier Brunson during the inauguration ceremony for Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul at the Ministry of National Defense in Yongsan, Seoul, Sept. 22. Yonhap
UNC reaffirms S. Korean sovereignty as criticism intensifies
Seoul expressed concerns to Washington over remarks made by U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) Commander Gen. Xavier Brunson that Seoul sees as ignoring South Korea’s territorial sovereignty, a government source said Monday.
The concerns over Brunson's remarks on South Korea's territorial border and other issues were recently conveyed to the U.S. side, which, in return, said they understand and share South Korea’s pushback, according to the source.
The controversy centered on the comments made by Brunson, who also serves as the commander of the United Nations Command (UNC), at a seminar in Washington on Wednesday (local time), when he said that from the perspective of the UNC, South Korea begins at the southern fence of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
He was discussing the UNC’s responsibilities in the DMZ under the armistice agreement that halted the 1950-53 Korean War. The UNC has authority over access and activities in the DMZ under the armistice, but that responsibility does not determine sovereignty over the land.
His wording drew objections because South Korean territory extends north of the fence to the Military Demarcation Line (MDL), which divides the two Koreas within the DMZ. Daeseong-dong, a village in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, lies inside the southern half of the DMZ and is home to South Korean citizens.
In response to the controversy, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Kim Kyu-ha also said Monday he disagreed with the USFK commander's remarks.
“The position of the defense ministry and our Army on territorial sovereignty is firm,” Kim said during a National Assembly Defense Committee audit at the Army headquarters in Gyeryong, South Chungcheong Province.
Asked whether Brunson’s wording had been inappropriate, he agreed.
As the criticism intensifies, the UNC issued a statement on Sunday. “The Republic of Korea’s sovereignty is not in question," the statement said. It explained that Brunson’s remarks referred to the military and administrative responsibilities assigned to the UNC commander under the armistice agreement, including military and civilian administration in the portion of the DMZ south of the MDL.
“Those responsibilities are military and administrative; they do not alter, and were not intended to address, the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea,” the command said.
A defense ministry official also said the ministry regards Brunson’s remarks as his personal views.
The official added that Seoul would continue working closely with the UNC to ensure that South Korea’s exercise of sovereignty within the DMZ remains compatible with the UNC’s administration of the armistice agreement.
Besides the territory issue, Brunson made other remarks at the seminar that also raised concerns here.
He signaled the need to take more time for the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) from Washington to Seoul, while South Korea wants to complete the transition by 2028.
"Because the conditions have changed, because we've changed our plan, we have new standards which we have to uphold," he said, citing North Korea's upgraded missile capabilities.
Brunson said he supports the transfer but warned against letting a timetable override military requirements.
His comments on the OPCON transfer triggered unease from South Korea, with a defense ministry official saying “the transfer would never be possible” if the conditions and standards keep changing.
Despite the row, Kim said Brunson’s comments needed to be considered in their broader context, citing close ties between South Korean and U.S. service members dating back to the Korean War.
“When I met Gen. Brunson personally, I could see his deep commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea,” Kim said. “Looking at this from the standpoint of the alliance and military-to-military relations, I believe we need to be careful and measured in how we assess him.”