ed Wartime control

Does Seoul have any will to retake military sovereignty?

Korean and U.S. military officials are again discussing when and how Seoul will take over wartime operational control from Washington. However, this time around, the focus will not be on when but on how ― defining the terms and conditions for the command transfer to occur, according to officials.

In other words, the Korean military will likely retake wartime control only when it can cope with North Korean provocations, including nuclear threats, wholly on its own. The military has imposed 22 conditions specified in 100 manuals on it to be met before the transfer.

That in turn means actual handover of wartime control may likely be put off indefinitely, although the two sides could agree on the target date of early 2020 in their annual security consultative meeting next month.

It is perplexing to see that Seoul, not Washington, is behind such feet-dragging.

In 2007, the United States agreed to cede the wartime operational authority to South Korea by 2012. But the former President Lee Myung-bak scrapped this accord upon his election in 2008, and delayed it to 2015 when inter-Korean tension rose by naval clashes in the West Sea. The Park Geun-hye administration has also pushed for its further delay, citing the undiminished security threats from North Korea.

Like numerous policies of President Park, the delay is self-contradictory.

Park has been vigorously, at least on the surface, pushing for reunification with North Korea under her ``unification-is-jackpot” slogan. However, will the North regard the South that does not command its own military in times of war as a serious partner for discussing unification? And will China endorse Koreas’ reunification if and when the southern half of this peninsula will have been turned into a U.S. military outpost to contain the emerging superpower?

The cost of military dependence is enormous, too ― and politically dangerous ― as shown by the ongoing U.S. pressure to buy a billion-dollar missile system, which will also push Beijing away from Seoul.

Yes, wartime operational control is less an issue of national pride or money than that of security, or survival itself. But it is preposterous for South Korea to cite North Korean nuclear programs as the reason for reliance on the U.S., while making no efforts to dismantle it and blindly following Washington’s pressurizing policy. Conservatives also say the retake of wartime control would weaken the bilateral alliance, but they must know that Britain and Japan who are more important allies for America, are not ceding their military control to the latter.

It is a shame that some U.S. officials compare Seoul to a college student who will not graduate or to a learner driver who permanently sticks to the passenger seat rather than getting behind the wheel. The military demonstrating its prowess on Armed Forces Day of Oct. 1 will remain a tin god until it regains wartime control.

If the reluctance is because of the poor discipline among officers and outdated military culture among soldiers, however, the Korean military is certainly not ready for taking over wartime command. In a way, the pitiable situation could be the result of prolonged reliance on its big ally.