Is the US rethinking its command role in South Korea?

The thorny issue of the US ceding operational control (OPCON) of the Korean Peninsula to the South Korean military in times of war returned to the spotlight when a nominee for a top US defense post recently alluded to South Korea taking on more strategic responsibility for its own defense.

Elbridge Colby, the nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, said in written responses to policy questions on OPCON from the Senate Armed Services Committee, that he would "need to review this delicate issue carefully."

"On the whole, however, I believe that [US] President [Donald] 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 wrote last week.

Since the Korean War, US forces have had command and control over South Korea's military in a wartime scenario. In a long-running debate, many in South Korea agree that it is about time that Seoul took charge in directing the military response to any attack from North Korea.

OPCON transfer a long-running debate

The debate over OPCON ranges from questions of sovereignty to whether the South's military is ready to assume full control of the defense of the nation.

In 2007, then-President Roh Moo-hyun requested that the US transfer wartime OPCON so South Korea could regain its national "sovereignty and pride" by "overcoming the nation's psychological dependence on the United States."

The debate was overshadowed by continued North Korean belligerence towards the South and its US allies, and more dramatically, interrupted in May 2009 by North Korea carrying out its second underground nuclear test.

The discussion has not entirely gone away, however, and Washington and Seoul initially agreed to transfer wartime OPCOM in April 2012, although that was put off until 2015.

In May last year, Colby, speaking to South Korea's Yonhap news agency as a former Pentagon official, said he supported the swift transfer of OPCON, adding Seoul should take on "overwhelming" responsibility for its own defense.

US more interested in China?

Colby's remarks have also been interpreted as suggesting that an isolationist Trump administration is merely looking for a way to get out of another international security commitment.   

"This vision is dangerous because these are people who want to withdraw from the rest of the world, backing away from long-standing alliances and effectively throwing friendly nations under the bus," Dan Pinkston, a professor of international relations at the Seoul campus of Troy University, told DW.

"When it comes to whether the South is ready and able to defend itself, then my answer would be that it could never be as ready as it would want to be, but it is going to have to deal with the situation it finds itself in," Pinkston added.

The Trump administration is showing a greater focus on the threats posed by China, Pinkston said, and this could lead Washington to push South Korea to deal on its own with the challenge of a nuclear-armed and deeply unpredictable regime in Pyongyang.

In last year's Yonhap interview, Colby, known as a "China hawk," said that it would be "imprudent" to assume that the US is going to "break its spear" fighting North Korea.

"To the extent that we are currently planning on sending massive amounts of forces to Korea that would decrement from our ability to deal with the Chinese, I think we need to revise that," he said.

At the same time, Colby said in last week's statements, that he believed the US-South Korea alliance was "critical."

"Together, we face a severe threat from North Korea. We must ensure the strategic posture deterring and defending on our behalf and South Korea's is credible and stout."

Pinkston said it "does not matter what Colby thinks about what this means for the future of the alliance; it matters how North Korea and China interpret a move like this."

He added North Korea and China are watching very closely how the Trump administration is destabilizing the NATO alliance in Europe.

"Of course, North Korea and China are going to look at this and say that if the US does that to NATO, then there is no way they are going to fight for South Korea."

Is South Korea ready to take over?

Those who support South Korea taking over OPCON say the three conditions that were required for transfer have now been met and that there should no longer be a delay.

The first condition is South Korea's acquisition of essential military capabilities to lead joint defense operations. The second is the alliance's ability to effectively respond to nuclear and missile threats from North Korea. Third would be a security environment on the Korean Peninsula and in the wider region that would be conducive to the transfer going ahead.

"We have made progress in the past, but always stopped at step two," said Moon Chung-in, a professor of politics and international relations at Yonsei University in Seoul and a former special adviser to President Moon Jae-in on national security and foreign affairs.

"There are many conservatives in South Korea who strongly oppose the transfer of OPCON, but also a large number who believe this is the natural progression and that South Korea can provide the main fighting force and the US will provide offshore support and a security guarantee," Moon told DW.

"Personally, I do not see the problem in the transfer as long as the US continues to provide us with extended deterrence," he said.

"If there is any fighting to be done in South Korea, it should be done by South Korean forces, although I accept that implementation is subject to politics in Washington."

In his statement, Colby also said he supported expanding strategic cooperation with South Korea.

"I believe we should do so presently, given that both China and North Korea are dramatically increasing their nuclear arsenals."

Edited by: Wesley Rahn