Latest news with #OPCON
Korea Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- Korea Herald
Strategic pivot, not pullback, if US troops relocate from Korea, says Harris
No US resistance to wartime OPCON transfer to S. Korea; handover depends on meeting conditions -- time, effort, money SEOGWIPO, Jeju Island — Repositioning of US forces on the Korean Peninsula, even if it occurs, would not signify a diminution of America's defense commitment to South Korea, but rather reflect a strategic and holistic recalibration to meet regional challenges across the Indo-Pacific region, former US Ambassador to South Korea Harry Harris said. Harris repudiated 'stovepiped' approaches, underscoring the improbability of conceiving of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula as discrete from a Taiwan crisis or other potential regional flashpoints, in an interview with The Korea Herald on the sidelines of the Jeju Forum at the International Convention Center Jeju. Anxiety over a possible reduction in the roughly 28,500 US troops in South Korea has flared anew, following a Wall Street Journal report in May that the Pentagon is weighing an option to pull out approximately 4,500 troops and move them to other locations in the Indo-Pacific region. Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell publicly stated that the report of a US Forces Korea drawdown is 'not true,' but his denial has done little to assuage Seoul's concerns. 'There's always the possibility that we're going to restructure forces in the Pacific, but it's not a scaling back,' said Harris, a former four-star admiral in the US Navy and former commander of US Pacific Command, when asked about the prospect and feasibility of a USFK reduction. 'That term has a negative connotation. It implies that we're somehow going to reduce our commitment to Korea. I don't think that will ever happen.' Harris pointed to the Pentagon's classified internal 'Interim National Defense Guidance' — which he has not seen but was reported by the Washington Post in late March — as signaling a shift in US military focus to the Indo-Pacific region, with China identified as the central focus. 'That's not a negative reduction of forces. That's so that we are better postured to defend Korea and meet our obligations to our other treaty allies and deal with the possibility of having to confront China over Taiwan,' Harris said. Harris underscored the need for the US military to break down stovepipes to better cope with regional threats, admitting, 'We have been stovepiped in our approach to operational planning, and I was guilty of that when I was the PACOM commander.' 'We have the Taiwan problem, we have the North Korea problem, and we have the China problem, and we tend to look at these as if they're independent problem sets without any spillover of effects. And that's wrong. We have to look at it holistically,' Harris said. 'If we move forces from Korea to somewhere else, it's so that we can better integrate all of the challenges that we face in the Indo-Pacific. It's not a reduction in commitment; it's a refocusing of our ability to meet all of the challenges that confront us.' Asked whether the number of US troops in South Korea, by itself, is what matters most in terms of deterrence and the strength of the alliance, Harris said, 'No, it is not.' 'It is the commitment to defend Korea to the best of our ability in order to meet our treaty obligations,' Harris explained. 'If — this is a big if, this is hypothetical again — if North Korea invaded South Korea again, then it would require far more than the 28,000 troops that are here in South Korea to help South Korea defend itself.' Harris further highlighted that the US has air force wings and marine units stationed in Japan, and that the US 7th Fleet is based in Yokosuka, stating, 'There are forces that will come from all over the region.' In response to Seoul's growing apprehensions regarding the strategic flexibility of US Forces Korea, Harris emphasized that the issue ought to be viewed within the broader framework of addressing regional challenges through a holistic approach. Strategic flexibility means the ability to be rapidly redeployed for expeditionary operations and used for broader regional missions beyond the Korean Peninsula, including a potential Taiwan contingency. 'It would be hard to imagine a North Korean scenario independent of a Taiwan scenario, or some other scenario, if they were to happen. I see the hidden hand of China in a lot of this. And so, we cannot look at these things as independent actions,' Harris said. 'We have to consider them in a holistic way. And so that's why strategic flexibility is important — not only for the United States, but it's important for South Korea as well.' OPCON transfer when conditions are met With regard to the South Korean military's regaining of wartime operational control, or OPCON, Harris said the transfer will take place once the conditions agreed upon by both allies are met. 'There's no resistance from the United States on the idea of OPCON transition,' Harris said. 'I think it's simply a matter of meeting the conditions that were determined, and that's just a matter of time, effort and money.' When asked what ought to be the foremost priority for the South Korean military to further bolster its capabilities, should the US request that it assume a greater share of responsibility in countering North Korean threats, Harris identified command and control as one of the foremost priorities. 'One is command and control, which is not a thing, but a capability, in order to effectively command and control forces — including US forces,' Harris said. 'So, in order to effectively command and control forces — including US forces — if we achieve OPCON transition, the transition of operational control of Korean forces during wartime, then Korea will have to have the ability to command and control American forces as well as, obviously, Korean forces, for which you already have that capability.' Harris denied that any shift had taken place, responding to a question about whether the nature of the Korea-US alliance has changed under President Donald Trump's 'America First' doctrine. 'No, I don't think so. I think it's about focusing on the threats and how we are going to meet our treaty obligations.' At the same time, Harris noted that while burden-sharing negotiations are expected to continue, Washington's strategic focus is now shifting toward China and the broader Indo-Pacific region. As for Seoul, a debate exists over whether it should seek greater autonomy in its alliance amid Washington's more inward-looking 'America First' foreign policy. In response to such calls, Harris was unequivocal: 'Today, the alliance is needed more than ever. But that's my opinion.' 'If the South Korean people, as manifested by the people they elect into office, feel that the alliance has served its course, or if they feel — that's a hard point — that the alliance should somehow change so that Korea can embark on a more independent course, that's up to Korea,' Harris said. 'It's not up to the United States, nor is it up to anyone else. It's an independent decision that has to be made by both countries. We can't want it more than South Korea wants it.' dagyumji@
Korea Herald
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
Top adviser to Lee Jae-myung says Seoul should reclaim full OPCON
Sovereignty doesn't weaken alliance, lawmaker says, calling US ties central to security South Korea should take back wartime operational control of its military forces from the US, according to Rep. Ahn Gyu-back, the chief special adviser for Democratic Party of Korea presidential frontrunner Rep. Lee Jae-myung. Ahn, who is part of Lee's Democratic Party primary campaign, told The Korea Herald on Thursday it was his personal view that ultimately, South Korea should have full control of the country's forces. He said that the conditions-based approach to the transition of wartime OPCON, agreed upon by the two allies in the mid-2010s, could extend the delay infinitely. "No country with the size of South Korea's economy doesn't have total control of its military. So it is only natural, I think, that we would assume the right to take charge of our own defense during war or peace," Ahn said during the interview. Ahn, a five-term lawmaker who served each term on the National Assembly's defense committee, is widely viewed as a likely contender for defense minister if Lee is elected. While Lee has yet to formally secure the Democratic Party's nomination, speculation about his potential Cabinet picks is already mounting, fueled by his commanding lead in the polls over rivals across the political spectrum. Ahn, referring to Ukraine as an example illustrating the importance of strengthening self-defense capabilities, said South Korea and the US could resume discussions for meaningful progress on the transfer. Not having full control of OPCON was turning the country's military into "mommy's boy," he added. Asked whether taking full charge of the country's wartime OPCON, a divisive issue, would have public support, Ahn said that reclaiming sovereignty over defense matters did not mean a weakened alliance with the US. "This is about enhancing our ability to defend ourselves, which would be built on the foundation of the South Korea-US alliance," he said. When Lee ran for president in 2022, one of his key defense pledges was to expedite the transfer of wartime OPCON. Also in 2022, after entering the Assembly as a lawmaker, Lee had argued that South Korea was capable of defending itself without relying on foreign troops. Lee, who is expected to clinch the Democratic Party's presidential nomination Sunday, has yet to clarify his position this time on securing full operational control of the military — a longstanding objective of the liberal camp. Ahn said Lee's foreign and security policy would be rooted in a strong alliance with Washington, calling the South Korea-US partnership 'the bedrock of the country's national security.' During a televised debate Wednesday, Lee described his approach to North Korea as a 'stick-and-carrot' strategy, which Ahn further characterized as a balance of 'both cooperation and tension' in managing inter-Korean relations. Ahn said that while withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was 'not an option' for South Korea, revising its atomic energy agreement with the US was considered necessary. The agreement currently prohibits activities such as uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing. "We can't have nukes, they're not worth having considering the costs of falling out of the NPT. That would mean we would be living in isolation on a lone island like Robinson Crusoe," Ahn said. "But we do have a lot of spent fuel from reactors that is accumulating. So we want to have the rights to peaceful use of nuclear technologies, such as the ability to reprocess." Ahn said he believes support for rebuilding Ukraine, initiated by former President Yoon Suk Yeol's administration, should continue. "If it serves a peaceful purpose, and also serves South Korea's national interests, then we should go do it," he said. Ahn added that for the sake of managing North Korea-related risks, South Korea needed to restore ties with Russia. "Whether it be China or Russia, we have to maintain a friendly relationship if it means we can pursue mutual interests," he said. arin@
Korea Herald
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
Will Trump 2.0 revive push for transfer of wartime operational control to South Korea?
The issue of South Korea reclaiming wartime operational control of its military forces from the US may gain momentum under the current US administration, which has hinted that its allies should shore up their responsibility for regional security challenges, experts said Monday. The transfer of military OPCON from Washington to Seoul has existed as a major issue between the allies for decades, but concerns surrounding it have been exacerbated with US President Donald Trump's unpredictable approach to foreign policy. Nodding towards a recent series of reports tied to the Trump administration's foreign policy actions, Yang Uk, a research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said that the issue of the transfer is likely to resurface from time to time throughout Trump's presidency. "The US will continue its traditional role of preventing wars, but now it is up to Washington's allies to take on the responsibility of conventional deterrence — a military strategy that uses conventional weapons to prevent an aggressor from initiating conflict," said the military strategy expert in a phone interview. 'For the US, it is better for them if South Korea reclaims OPCON, so the related issues are likely to resurface from time to time from now on,' he added. Last month, Elbridge Colby, Trump's nominee for Undersecretary of Defense for policy at the Pentagon, said in his written statement for a US Senate confirmation hearing that he 'supports efforts to bolster South Korea's role in the alliance' when asked about OPCON transfer. Many believe his remark implies a growing possibility of the Trump administration shifting towards the direction of handing OPCON back to Seoul. Colby added that 'Trump's vision of foreign policy involves empowering capable and willing allies like South Korea.' This aligns with the sentiment of the recently leaked 'Interim National Defense Strategy Guidance' signed by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and distributed throughout the Pentagon last month, according to The Washington Post. The secret memo said that the US military will prioritize deterring China's possible seizure of Taiwan and bolstering homeland defense. The US would also pressure allies in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia to increase their role in deterring risks tied to Russia, North Korea and Iran, the report added. Another expert highlighted the importance of Seoul reclaiming OPCON under the looming threat of Trump pulling out the 28,500 US troops stationed here. 'If the Democratic Party of Korea wins in the upcoming presidential election, the OPCON transfer must be immediately pursued,' Hong Hyun-ik, an emeritus senior fellow at Sejong Institute, said during a debate hosted by the liberal main opposition at the National Assembly last week. 'The leaked Interim National Defense Strategy Guide means that the US is planning to let South Korea deal with all threats (in the region) except for deterring China. The South Korean military has failed to foster its own ability to plan wartime operations and command them,' he said. If the US decides to pull out its troops without transferring OPCON to Seoul, the South would be stuck in a state of paralysis against threats from the North, Hong explained. But the issue of transferring military OPCON is more complicated than it appears on the surface, and Seoul needs to be wary of the Trump administration's goal of deterring threats from China, according to a military expert at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. 'The key is to think about the US' grand strategy on deterring China and whether handing back military OPCON to Seoul will contribute to Washington's long-term goal,' Yu Ji-hoon, director of external cooperation at KIDA, told The Korea Herald. 'There are doubts over whether South Korea is actually ready to reclaim OPCON and I believe Washington will focus more on what Seoul can contribute as an ally to its policy goals rather than merely handing OPCON back.' A US commander has been in control of South Korean forces since South Korean President Syngman Rhee "assigned all command authority" to US Gen. Douglas McArthur in 1950, at the beginning of the 1950-53 Korean War. South Korea retook peacetime OPCON or control of its armed forces from the US in 1994. Though Seoul and Washington held talks about transferring wartime OPCON from time to time, the transition has been postponed multiple times due to North Korean provocations. The commander of US Forces Korea — who also serves as the commander of the Combined Forces Command — currently retains wartime OPCON.
Korea Herald
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
Pentagon nominee voices support for bolstering S. Korea's role in alliance over OPCON transfer question
US President Donald Trump's nominee for a top Pentagon post threw his support Tuesday behind efforts to bolster South Korea's role in the alliance with the United States as he addressed a question over the ongoing efforts for the transfer of wartime operational control to Seoul. In his written statement for a Senate confirmation hearing, Elbridge Colby, the nominee to be under secretary of defense for policy, made the remarks, stressing the "critical" Seoul-Washington alliance should continue to be updated to "reflect the broader geopolitical and military circumstances" facing the two nations. "If confirmed, I would need to review this delicate issue carefully," Colby said in his response to a question about what conditions he would recommend as the threshold for the OPCON transfer from the US to South Korea. "On the whole, however, I believe that President Trump's vision of foreign policy involves empowering capable and willing allies like South Korea, and thus I support efforts to bolster South Korea's role in the alliance," he added. Seoul and Washington have been working on meeting a wide range of conditions needed for the OPCON transition. Conditions include South Korea's capabilities to lead combined forces, its strike and air defense capabilities, and a regional security environment conducive to such a handover. South Korea handed over operational control of its troops to the US-led UN Command during the 1950-53 Korean War. It was then transferred to the two allies' Combined Forces Command when the command was launched in 1978. Wartime operational control still remains in the US hands, while South Korea retook peacetime OPCON in 1994. During an interview with Yonhap News Agency in May last year, Colby expressed his backing for the swift OPCON transition, saying the Asian ally should undertake "overwhelming" responsibility for its own defense. In his written statement, Colby portrayed the alliance with South Korea as "critical for US interests and a foundation stone of the US geopolitical position in Asia." Commenting on America's extended deterrence commitment to the Asian ally, he said the US must ensure the strategic deterrence and defense posture is "credible and stout." "Consistent with the President and Secretary's approach around the world, I believe we need to be clear-eyed, frank, and realistic with our allies about the nature of the threats we face and the allocation of responsibilities among ourselves, in the service of ensuring our alliances are best defended and strategically sustainable," he said. The nominee cast North Korea as a "severe direct military threat to South Korea on multiple levels." "It also poses a direct nuclear, missile, and unconventional threat to the United States, Japan, and other allies," he said. He pointed out that improving US homeland missile defense systems is "vital to countering growing rogue state threats from countries like North Korea." During the hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Colby said he does not want North Korea to take over South Korea but asserted the need for wealthy allies to "do more" for their security. He also voiced skepticism over the prospects of a multilateral alliance in the Indo-Pacific akin to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as he pointed to South Korea's recent political dynamics. "I don't want to abandon the Middle East. I don't want a nuclear Iran. I don't want Russia to run roughshod over Europe. I don't want North Korea to take over South Korea," he said. "But if we know as a factual, empirical matter that we can't do all those things in even remotely concurrent timelines, don't we need to have a credible plan for how to do so, and I think part of that is greater resources ... and I think that reconciliation hopefully ... will be part of that," he added. He went on to say that the "secret sauce" in efforts to deal with multiple challenges is the role of allies. "They can do more and they have done more. Japan is an incredibly wealthy economy. Taiwan ... Look at the investments that the president got for TSMC yesterday," he said, referring to the announcement that the Taiwanese tech titan will invest US$100 billion to build advanced chip manufacturing facilities in the United States. "These are incredibly wealthy societies. Why are they not spending at levels commensurate with the threat? I don't understand." Expressing his discomfort over Taiwan's recent defense budget cut, Colby cited what he called former Defense Secretary James Mattis' remark: "We can't care more about your defense than you can." "I have been trying, in my communication and my recommendations for policy vis-a-vis Taiwan, to induce them in whatever way possible to become, say, more like South Korea," he said. "It's a very plausible model with a much more serious military, because I don't think it's fair to Americans to ask Americans and our servicemen and women to suffer if our allies are not pulling their weight." Asked to share his thoughts about a NATO-like alliance in the Indo-Pacific, Colby pointed out the "encouraging" trilateral partnership among South Korea, the US and Japan but raised questions over the durability of such a multilateral partnership. "If we look at South Korean political dynamics over the last six to eight months, it's not clear that that's going to be enduring," he said, apparently referring to a period of political uncertainty caused by President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment over his martial law attempt in December. "I think there is a lot of spadework and political capital that's put into a multilateral organization, whereas I think something may be building up to have more multilateralization in the region but not the huge ambition of an Asia NATO." (Yonhap)
