[EDITORIAL] Changes to alliance

At a time when close cooperation is most needed in the efforts to denuclearize North Korea through the six-party talks, South Korea and the United States are entering a sensitive phase of important changes to their six-decade-old military alliance. First of all, the U.S. emphasis on "strategic flexibility" applied to Korea prompts an uncomfortable look into an unpredictable future, with the WMD-armed North Korea falling into an economic catastrophe.

The U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review released last week indicated that the Obama administration would develop a more adaptive and flexible U.S. and combined forces posture on the Korean Peninsula to strengthen the alliance`s deterrent and defense capabilities.

"Doing so includes continuing to advance the Republic of Korea`s lead role in the combined defense of its territory together with the transition of wartime operational control to the ROK military in 2012," the QDR said.



The quadrennial report made clear the concept of deploying part of the U.S. Forces in Korea to overseas locations "helping to expand the pool of available forces for global contingencies." The U.S. troop redeployment from Korea is suggested as the USFK is changing its status from the present "forward-deployed" to "forward-stationed" forces with a standard three-year family-accompanied tour of duty in Korea.

By the time the shift of status has been made - within three to four years as the Korean Defense Ministry estimates or sometime in the latter part of the 2010s as U.S. officials say - the fixed size of the USFK will have little meaning. And by that time, the wartime operational control of the allied Korean and U.S. forces will have been transferred to the Korean military - on the already set date of April 17, 2012 - and the present Combined Forces Command will have been dismantled.

On another issue of defense cooperation, the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Review, released together with the QDR, classified South Korea as a nation "interested" in joining in the establishment of the ballistic missile defense system. Seoul`s Defense Ministry instantly denied any Korean role in the current BMD program. The conflicting claims revealed the complexity of the issue.

South Korea needs to develop its own capabilities to cope with the North`s short- and medium-range missiles aimed at Seoul and industrial centers. The Korean military is working on building the basic Air and Missile Defense Cell radars and a command system but the Seoul government is reluctant to participate in the U.S.-led ballistic missile defense system, being wary of negative reactions from China and Russia.

Seoul`s conservative government has conveyed to Washington its request for a review of the timeline for the takeover of the wartime operational control, which was fixed during the previous liberal rule. This issue has been on the table at some high-level consultations but the United States has not given a commitment to any possible delay. Pundits here are speculating that Washington may be seeking to link a review of the OPCON transfer schedule to Korea`s joining the BMD.

After 60 years, a change to a military alliance that had begun with a major war may be in order to meet the changes in global defense requirements. Yet, on the Korean Peninsula, seismic changes are taking place in the alliance at a time when the adversary is bolstering its WMD capabilities and causing great unpredictability with its catastrophic economic failure, which undoubtedly leads to internal instability. Flexibility is much emphasized in the Quadrennial Defense Review and strategists at the Pentagon need to exercise flexibility in their own thoughts, correctly seeing the reality on the Korean Peninsula.