dailies-editorials (3)

Presidential adviser's Opcon proposal crosses a line

Kim Min-seok, left, chairman of the Democratic Party, speaks with fellow party lawmaker Kim Byung-joo during the National Assembly Defense Committee's comprehensive audit of the Defense Ministry and other agencies at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Oct. 26. NEWS1

Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Byung-joo sparked controversy Monday during a parliamentary defense audit by suggesting that Korea unilaterally declare its exercise of wartime operational control (Opcon) if Washington refuses to agree on a transfer date at the bilateral Security Consultative Meeting.

Until recently, the government and ruling party sought a transfer by 2030, within President Lee Jae Myung's term. They then pushed for 2028, before U.S. President Donald Trump's term ends. Now they suggest acting alone if Washington refuses. Kim's remarks carry particular weight because the former deputy commander of the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command was recently appointed presidential special adviser on defense policy.

A unilateral declaration would threaten not only the framework for Opcon transfer pursued since the Roh Moo-hyun administration but also the foundations of the Korea-U.S. alliance. Under the agreed arrangement, a future Combined Forces Command led by a Korean four-star general would receive American military support during wartime.

If Seoul declares independent control, can it assume U.S. forces would faithfully fulfill their supporting role under existing agreements? Such a rupture could also prompt Americans to question extended deterrence commitments and the continued presence of U.S. troops in Korea. In the worst case, the bilateral Mutual Defense Treaty itself could lose practical force.

Yet Rep. Song Young-gil, the president's special adviser on foreign affairs and security, asks whether recovering Opcon would somehow end military cooperation with Washington. His argument overlooks the practical consequences of a unilateral move.

Opcon transfer is not simply about timing or national autonomy. North Korea, armed with nuclear weapons and missiles, has designated South Korea its primary hostile state. With a concentration of global military power around the peninsula, the essential questions concern deterrence and the ability to wage war effectively.

Recognizing those stakes should lead Seoul to negotiate and persuade its ally when disagreements arise, not threaten to overturn the existing arrangement. Even ordinary negotiators understand that such tactics undermine mutual trust and risk producing the worst possible outcome.

Nevertheless, the presidential office at the Blue House has remained silent about its adviser's proposal. That silence is especially troubling given Kim's official advisory position and the potential implications for alliance coordination. The government owes the public a clear explanation of whether his remarks reflect administration policy or merely his personal view.

As uncertainty over the alliance grows, so does public anxiety about national security. The administration should resolve disagreements through consultations rather than allow provocative proposals to cast doubt on Korea's most important defense partnership.

(END)

[Copyright ⓒ K-VIBE. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.]