A series of agreements made at the annual security talks between South Korea and the U.S. on Thursday are expected to bolster deterrence against North Korea, and give Seoul more time to build up its capabilities to ensure a stable transfer of wartime operational control, analysts said Thursday.

But some critics argued that the decision to further delay the OPCON transition could undermine Seoul’s efforts to reduce its excessive reliance on the U.S. and restrain its strategic options regarding its relations with China amid an increasing Sino-U.S. rivalry.

At the Security Consultative Meeting in Washington, D.C., the allies agreed to pursue a “conditions-based” OPCON transfer, and to retain the Combined Forces Command in central Seoul and the U.S. counterfire unit north of Seoul in its current location until around the year 2020.

“It is more reasonable to pursue a conditions-based approach instead of a time-based one as there are many variables at play including the inter-Korean situation and the overall regional security landscape, not to mention South Korea’s self-defense capabilities,” said Kim Yeoul-soo, a political science professor at Sungshin Women’s University.

The decision to retain the CFC and the 210 Fire Brigade, a centerpiece of the U.S. Forces Korea’s artillery forces, in their current locations, albeit not permanently, is expected to send a strong signal to the unpredictable North Korea, analysts said.

The U.S. has been pushing for its plan to relocate its military installations in Seoul and north of Seoul down to Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, but concerns have been rising that the relocation could weaken the alliances’ defense posture and send the wrong signal to the provocative neighbor.

“The retaining of the U.S. unit in the frontline area could serve as a demonstration of the U.S. commitment to counter North Korean threats, and play a role as a ‘trip wire’ to fend off North Korean attacks amid the North’s increased saber-rattling and provocative moves,” said Kwon Tae-young, adviser to the nonprofit Korea Research Institute for Strategy.

“The unceasing allied efforts to strengthen deterrence would help the North recognize that it is futile for it to continue holding on to its nuclear program,” he said, adding that amid increasing public calls for better welfare programs, the most cost-effective way to ensure security for now is strengthening the Korea-U.S. alliance.

Some analysts say that Washington’s agreement to delay the OPCON transfer, previously scheduled for December 2015, appeared intended to highlight that the U.S. would continue to push for its so-called rebalancing policy toward the Asia-Pacific. 

After more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has been pushing for the policy initiative to deepen its diplomatic and military engagement in the Asia-Pacific, with the region rising to become the center of global power. But with the U.S. faltering due to financial challenges and other problems, skepticism about the policy has increased.

“Doubts have lingered so far over the U.S. strategic pivot toward the Asia-Pacific as the U.S. has been struggling with financial issues, the Ukraine crisis, problems in the Middle East and most recently the Ebola epidemic,” said Kim Tae-hyung, a security expert at Soongsil University.

“Thus, the U.S., through the SCM agreements, appear to have sought to reassure the South of its security commitment. The U.S. has also sought to offer such reassurances to Japan as President Obama, earlier this year, directly mentioned the U.S. security support over the chain of disputed islands claimed by Japan and China.”

Although South Korea has succeed in securing more security backing from the U.S., analysts pointed out that the South needs to ensure a sufficient amount of military manpower amid demographic changes triggered by its low birthrate, and should invest more to reduce its security reliance on the U.S.

“Another delay will provide some time for key technologies and military capabilities to be acquired, but at the same time the current MND (Seoul’s Ministry of National Defense) budget levels are not providing Korea with the military capabilities that it needs, either now or over the next 10 years,” said Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analysts at the U.S. think tank RAND Corporation.


By Song Sang-ho
(sshluck@heraldcorp.com)