South Korea's defence ministry reaffirms push to set OPCON transition timeline by year-end
Seoul, Aug 5
South Korea's defence ministry on Wednesday renewed its push to finalise a target year for retaking wartime operational control from the United States, aiming to advance the process partly through the allies' upcoming combined exercise later this month.
In a policy briefing to South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, the ministry reaffirmed the commitment, as South Korea seeks to regain wartime command before Lee's five-year term ends in 2030 or even before US President Donald Trump leaves office in January 2029, Yonhap News Agency reported.
Under the three-phase OPCON transition plan, the allies are at the second stage of verifying the combined forces' "full operational capability" (FOC).
Seoul wants to complete the FOC certification and announce the target year at the annual Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) between the defence chiefs of the allies this fall.
"We will make every effort to achieve a historic and groundbreaking turning point at the SCM, where the FOC certification and the timing of the (OPCON) transfer will be decided," Vice Defence Minister Lee Doo-hee told reporters in a background briefing Tuesday.
A senior defence ministry official said the upcoming bilateral military exercise with the US will provide a stage to assess the tasks required for the OPCON transition.
"Those evaluations will also take place during the upcoming UFS exercise," he said, referring to the Ulchi Freedom Shield drills.
The UFS, held every August, aims to reinforce the allies' defence posture and deterrence against regional threats, particularly from North Korea. The exercise is also regarded as a testing ground to evaluate key combined capabilities required for the OPCON transition.
The allies agreed to a "conditions-based" OPCON transition plan in October 2014. The three conditions include South Korea's capabilities to lead the future combined Korea-US forces, sufficient strike and air defence capabilities to counter North Korea, and a regional security environment conducive to the handover.
However, Seoul and Washington have shown a growing rift over the timing of the OPCON transition after the commander of the US Forces Korea stressed military readiness over political considerations.
"We are constantly in discussions (with the US) over the OPCON transition through various channels," the ministry official said. "We believe we should be able to decide on the 'X' (target) year at this year's SCM."
The ministry also plans to permanently establish the remaining two of the six component commands under the future Combined Forces Command over the next two years as part of the OPCON transition.
Regarding South Korea's nuclear-powered submarine project, the ministry pledged to fast-track legislation aimed at laying the domestic legal groundwork for building the vessels in cooperation with the US.
"We will establish the legal and institutional foundation to push forward the nuclear-powered submarine project in earnest by 2027 by acquiring nuclear fuel through consultations with the US and establishing a nuclear fuel management framework through consultations with the International Atomic Energy Agency," Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back said during the briefing.
Seoul and Washington agreed in October last year to work together to help South Korea build the vessels, and secure rights to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel for peaceful use.
But little progress has been made since, with bilateral talks to advance these efforts launched in early June.
The ministry has drafted a bill for the Jang Bogo N project aimed at building at least three 8,000-ton conventionally armed nuclear-propelled attack submarines by the mid-2030s, after getting the green light from Washington.
— IANS
Reader Comments
As someone who follows international relations closely, the OPCON transition is a classic sovereignty vs security dilemma. South Korea's desire to control its own military destiny is understandable, but I hope they've fully considered all the risks involved. The nuclear submarine project also raises eyebrows - quite ambitious.
The timing of this move is quite interesting - with Trump's term ending in January 2029, they seem to want to lock in the deal before any potential political shifts. Classic bureaucratic maneuvering! But honestly, in today's volatile region with North Korea testing missiles regularly, is it wise to rush this? India follows a similar debate with its own defense partnerships. Careful planning beats political deadlines any day.
The nuclear submarine project part is particularly noteworthy. South Korea working with the US on nuclear propulsion technology while also navigating IAEA requirements - they're treading a fine line. India's own nuclear submarine program (INS Arihant) shows how challenging yet crucial these capabilities are. Wishing them the best, but they must prioritize safety and non-proliferation norms.
Look, I get the desire for OPCON transition - it's about national pride and sovereignty. But rushing this during a period of heightened North Korean threats seems a bit premature. The USFK commander's concern about military readiness over political considerations is worth heeding. Bet Korea wouldn't want to repeat 1950! Take time, build capabilities thoroughly, then transition.
Interesting to see the allies' dynamic on this. The comment about "conditions-based" transition vs setting a specific target year shows the push-pull between
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.