South Korea hopes to regain control of its military operations from the United States within the next two years, but Washington refuses to promise a specific transfer date.
The focus of the dispute between the two parties is the operational command authority during wartime (OPCON). Shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, the United States has always held this command authority.
According to the current arrangements, if war breaks out again, the designated troops from South Korea will be incorporated into the South-Korean-American Joint Command led by United States Army General Xavier Brunson. This is a command structure responsible for joint operations. Specifically which units will be involved is classified information, but it is believed that this includes all frontline combat units of the South Korean Army, as well as most of the forces of the Air Force and Navy.
Since the beginning of this year, the South Korean Ministry of National Defense has been pushing to determine the date for transferring wartime operational command authority. However, the official position in Washington remains that South Korea has not yet met the conditions for the transfer.
Korea Institute of Military Affairs Senior Researcher Kim Ryu-seok told The South China Morning Post that the United States has another 'unpublished motive', which is to maintain its influence over the Korean military in order to deal with challenges from China.
Kyungnam University's Institute for East Asian Studies researcher Du Zhenhao agrees with this view. He said, "Washington hopes to use the South Korea-US alliance not only to deter North Korea but also to contain China."
Therefore, the United States may be concerned that, once it hands over the command of wartime operations, its influence over South Korea and its military will weaken.
He pointed out that Shandong Province in China is only about 300 kilometers away from the Korean Peninsula, and jet fighters can cover this distance in less than 10 minutes.
Du Zhenhao added, "From a strategic perspective, the United States cannot afford to lose Korea."
Brunsen also commands approximately 28,500 U.S. military personnel in South Korea. He previously stated that the South-Korean-American alliance must be adapted to threats beyond the Korean Peninsula, and other U.S. military officers have expressed similar views. He also emphasized that any transfer of command must be based on meeting relevant conditions, and cannot be constrained by political timelines.
South Korean President Yi Seung-hoo said last week that South Korea "must reclaim its wartime command authority as soon as possible," and that it has the capability to do so. He stated that this move is crucial for maintaining national sovereignty, and noted that the related negotiations are "progressing smoothly overall."
Meanwhile, the South Korean Ministry of National Defense stated that if the United States modifies or increases the conditions for the transfer of command, it could constitute an approach of 'constantly changing rules and raising the thresholds'.
In May this year, Blunsen appeared on a podcast hosted by the U.S. Military Academy. When discussing South Korea’s geopolitical strategic value in containing China under U.S. influence and the role of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, he compared South Korea to a “dagger”.
At that time, the Chinese Embassy in South Korea responded by saying that referring to the host country as “aircraft carrier” or “dagger” among other combat weapons reflects your militarism. Or are you trying to use other countries as tools for your own purposes?
On October 14th, Blunsen spoke at a seminar organized by a US think tank in Washington. He stated that from the perspective of the UN military command, South Korea's territorial boundaries begin at the barbed wire fence on the south side of the Demilitarized Zone.
South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Sang-hwan stated on the 27th that he met with the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, Michel Stearling, at the Foreign Ministry office last week. He expressed protest against a series of remarks made by the commander of U.S. troops in South Korea, Brent Sun, regarding South Korean territorial sovereignty, and plans to reiterate this position to the U.S. side.
On Monday, during a parliamentary oversight of the Ministry of National Defense by the South Korean Congress, this issue sparked intense debate. South Korea's Defense Minister Kim Seung-joel had an argument with members of the conservative opposition party, the People Power Party.
National Power Party Member of Parliament Cheng Yi Zhong asserted, "This concerns the life and death of the nation and the safety of the people, and I urge the Minister of National Defense to act with extreme caution when considering the transfer of wartime command authority to the President's hands."
Jiang Xinzhe refuted the statement that handing over command of the war would endanger South Korea's safety, arguing it was an exaggeration. He also cited the American and Israeli-led wars against Iran as examples and added that if the Republic of Korea were to engage in war, they might not be able to rely on U.S. support.
He stated that the transfer of command should be carried out under the condition of ensuring mutual trust between both parties. At that time, a South Korean general should command the South-Korean-American joint forces, with the US military providing support.
Due to Jiang Xinze's remarks being interpreted as questioning the military capabilities of the United States and its willingness to fulfill its commitments, the South Korean Ministry of National Defense subsequently issued a clarification statement. It was stated that it was actually Chaik Jong who first mentioned the difficulties faced by the United States in Iran, and the defense minister merely retorted this claim, emphasizing the importance of mutual trust.
Doo Jin-ho said that comparing the situation on the Korean Peninsula with that of Iran is inappropriate. If conflict breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, it is very likely to escalate. This could not only involve the United States and Japan, but also China and Russia, leading to a confrontation between both sides.
He stated that Jiang Xinchen's remarks 'reflect a concern on the Korean side: whether Washington would be willing to help Korea at the risk of direct harm to Americans if a war breaks out'.
He said that many South Koreans now doubt whether the United States, under President Trump's leadership, will sacrifice the interests of South Korea for its own political gains, and thus 'seek political compromises with enemies that are beneficial to itself'.
Jiang Xinzhe said that South Korea is in close consultation with the United States regarding the target year for transferring wartime command authority. The South Korean Ministry of National Defense may announce the arrangements at the next annual security consultation meeting between South Korean and American defense ministers.
This meeting is usually scheduled for November, but there are reports that this year's meeting may be postponed.
Meanwhile, within the ruling party, the Common Democratic Party in South Korea, there is growing pressure to take a more tough stance on the issue of the transfer of wartime command authority.
Republican Party lawmaker Kim Byung-jo, who serves as the President's Defense Policy Advisor, stated that if Washington continues to hinder the transfer process, South Korea should announce its intention to independently exercise wartime command authority.
He also called for legislation to clarify that the command authority of the President of South Korea as the supreme commander of the armed forces should be fully exercised both in times of peace and war.
However, Jiang XinZhe denied this approach on Monday. He stated, “My principle is that the command authority during wartime must be transferred through close consultations between South Korea and the United States, with the premise of ensuring mutual trust.”
