A decision by South Korea and the United States to delay the scheduled 2012 transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) between the allies sends a clear message to belligerent North Korea and quells mounting security concerns here, but at a cost for Seoul.
The agreement comes as a surprise, because officials of both sides have said until recently that preparations for the transfer were proceeding smoothly to meet the April 17, 2012 target date.
But concerns have grown in recent years over North Korea's stepped-up saber-rattling and the instability of its secretive regime. The March sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan blamed on North Korea added to the tension.
South Korea and the U.S. had agreed on the OPCON transfer in 2006 as part of their efforts to reshape their decades-old military alliance. The change would give South Korea more responsibility for its national defense, while the U.S. would have a freer hand to adjust its troop presence on the Korean Peninsula depending on its needs.
Currently, 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War.
The security situation on the Korean Peninsula shifted dramatically after North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in October 2006, about seven months after the Seoul-Washington agreement on the OPCON transfer. The North detonated its second nuclear device in 2009.
Many South Koreans, especially conservatives, questioned the wisdom of taking over the OPCON from the U.S. so early.
President Lee Myung-bak, who took office in early 2008, has come under increasing public pressure, especially from conservatives, to delay the scheduled OPCON transfer.
South Korean Foreign minister Yu Myung-hwan said last week that the North's second nuclear test changed "the perception" in Seoul and Washington about the OPCON transfer, prompting them to reconsider it.
Some experts blame the North's increasing belligerence on the instability of its regime which appears to be in the process of transferring power from ailing leader Kim Jong-il to his youngest son, Jong-un. The senior Kim is believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008.
But Jong-un, said to be in his late 20s, lacks experience as a leader, which raises worries in Seoul and Washington that the North's regime may suddenly collapse and throw off the security situation on the Korean Peninsula.
The North's father-to-son power transfer is likely take place in 2012, the target year of the OPCON transfer, according to analysts in Seoul. It is the year when the North pledges to turn itself into a "great, powerful and prosperous nation."
Some South Korean defense officials agree.
"There's so much uncertainty in 2012," said a defense ministry official who asked not to be named. "It is desirable for South Korea and the U.S. to select a timing of wartime command transfer for the sake of stability."
While the North's ill-equipped military cannot match superior South Korean forces, it still has the capability to threaten its richer neighbor with unconventional weapons, including short-range missiles, long-range artillery and commando forces.
In particular, Seoul and its neighboring area, home to about half of the South's 49 million population, lies within range of the North's long-range artillery tubes.
If the OPCON transfer is completed, South Korean and the U.S. forces will be run by two separate commands connected by liaison offices. In the early hours and days of a war against an attacking North Korea, the separation could cause confusion, leading to weakness in South Korean defense, analysts say.
Another key question is whether South Korea's military is strong enough to assume wartime command.
"The bottom line is: Will South Korean troops be ready to assume wartime command by 2012?" said Lee Sang-hyun, a researcher at the Seoul-based security think tank, Sejong Institute. "The Cheonan incident rekindled the question."
Most analysts agree that it's impossible for South Korea to have the capability to defend itself against North Korean missile attacks, which it does not have, and upgrade its air-to-air interdiction capability over the next several years.
For Seoul, the adjustment of the OPCON transfer probably comes at a price. South Korea, which requested the OPCOM delay, may have to make more financial contributions to the cost of keeping U.S. troops on its soil.
Seoul and Washington are also in the middle of protracted negotiations on U.S. military base relocation. South Korea may be asked to share more of the estimated billions of dollars needed for the relocation.
Some analysts argue that the two countries should maintain their current wartime command structure.
"North Korea's policy for almost 60 years has been to terminate the South Korea-U.S. alliance by whatever means possible," Daniel Pinkston, head of the Seoul office of the International Crisis Group think tank, said.
"Why should the U.S. and South Korea do this without a quid pro quo?" he said. "Why should the allies do this when there are no real current prospects for security cooperation from North Korea?"//YONHAP
