Caution needed on wartime operational control transition

South Korean National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac, left, shakes hands with U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio in Washington on July 7. [PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE]
South Korean National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac, left, shakes hands with U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio in Washington on July 7.

Wi Sung-lac, South Korean National Security Adviser, said on Sunday that the Lee Jae Myung administration has not reopened discussions on the transfer of wartime operational control (Opcon) from the United States to Korea. “There is no new agenda regarding Opcon under the current government,” he stated, adding that the issue “is not a bargaining chip” in ongoing tariff or security negotiations with Washington.

Wi’s remarks came after speculation that Seoul and Washington had resumed negotiations on the Opcon transition. Some media outlets reported that talks were already underway, while Rep. Kim Woo-young of the Democratic Party, a member of a special envoy delegation to the United States, publicly argued that the issue should be raised during Korea-U.S. summits.

By emphasizing that such speculations could harm bilateral talks, Wi moved to prevent the issue from escalating. But questions surrounding Opcon remain politically sensitive. Members of the so-called “self-reliance” faction continue to advocate for full Korean control of wartime operations. The government must be fully prepared to handle the issue if it resurfaces.

Wartime operational control was transferred to U.S. forces by President Syngman Rhee shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. South Korea regained peacetime control under President Roh Tae-woo, but in wartime, command still shifts to the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command once Defcon 3 is declared. This arrangement provides a framework for automatic U.S. military involvement in the event of a conflict.

Still, critics argue that it is unacceptable for a sovereign state not to hold full operational authority over its armed forces. The Roh Moo-hyun administration had set Dec. 1, 2015 as the transition date, but increasing threats from North Korea caused both governments to delay the process. They agreed instead on a “conditions-based” transfer requiring the South Korean military to meet specific readiness benchmarks.

Retired U.S. Lt. Gen. John Daniel Caine, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifies before a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, on April 1. [REUTERS/YONHAP]
Retired U.S. Lt. Gen. John Daniel Caine, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifies before a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, on April 1.

In April, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, reaffirmed that the transition must follow a thorough security assessment. “Korea must be ready to assume command of the Combined Forces Command under appropriate security conditions,” he said.

North Korea continues to expand its nuclear and missile capabilities and is modernizing conventional forces. Its growing military cooperation with Russia, including reported deployments to Ukraine, has given it combat experience. These developments have raised concerns that North Korea’s threat is evolving faster than South Korea’s readiness.

The eventual transfer of Opcon remains a long-term goal. But it must be guided by sober evaluation and strategic caution, not political calculation or ideological debate. National security demands realism above all else.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.