Most Popular
-
1
Dongduk Women’s University halts coeducation talks
-
2
Defense ministry denies special treatment for BTS’ V amid phone use allegations
-
3
Russia sent 'anti-air' missiles to Pyongyang, Yoon's aide says
-
4
OpenAI in talks with Samsung to power AI features, report says
-
5
Two jailed for forcing disabled teens into prostitution
-
6
Trump picks ex-N. Korea policy official as his principal deputy national security adviser
-
7
South Korean military plans to launch new division for future warfare
-
8
Gold bars and cash bundles; authorities confiscate millions from tax dodgers
-
9
Kia EV9 GT marks world debut at LA Motor Show
-
10
Teen smoking, drinking decline, while mental health, dietary habits worsen
북한의 도발이 계속되는 상황에서의 전작권 전환 재연기는 양국의 안보 안정성이라는 상호 전략적 이득을 가져다 줄 수도 있다고 전문가들은 분석했다.
우리 정부는 국가 안보 상황을 고려해 2015년 12월로 예정된 전작권 전환 시기를 다시 검토해달라고 미국 정부에게 최근 요청했다.
인수 준비 상황 면에서 우리 군은 2015년 말까지 충분히 준비되지 않을 수 있다는 우려가 나왔다.
예정대로 전작권을 환수했을 때, 미국의 한반도 안보에 대한 영향력이 줄어들 수 있는 반면 북한의 도발을 더 대담해질 수 있다는 것이 가장 큰 고심이다.
우리 정부의 고위 관계자들은 미국의 전작권 전환 재연기를 긍정적으로 검토해줄 것이라고 믿고 있다.
미국 정부로서는, 전작권 전환 연기를 미군 주둔 관련 국방비를 줄이는 정치적 레버리지로 활용할 수 있다.
한편, 전작권을 계속 유지하는 것도 현재 미국의 전략인 ‘아시아로의 회귀’ 정책과 맞아떨어지기도 한다.
전문가들은 계속 강해지는 평양의 도발이 미국의 더 적극적인 관여를 요구하게 한다고 지적한다.
북한은 지금까지 총 3번의 핵실험을 강행했으며 미국 본토까지 닿을 수 있는 약 10,000km 거리의 미사일도 개발중인 것으로 드러났다.
미국이 전작권을 유지한다는 것은 북한에서 긴급 상황이 벌어졌을 때 대량 살상무기 제거를 포함하는 작전을 지휘할 수 있다는 의미이다.
한국 정부의 전작권 전환의 두 번째 연기 요청은 미군 주둔 비용과 관련된 협상이 진행되는 상황에서 미국에게 유리한 상황을 만들어 줄 수도 있다는 분석도 있다. 현재 한국에는 28,500명의 미군이 주둔하고 있다.
양국은 현재 올해 말에 만료되는 방위비 분담 특별 협정을 대비해 새로운 분담금을 두고 협상하고 있다.
몇몇 전문가들은 미국이 전작권 전환을 연기시켜주는 대신 한국에게 미사일 방어 체제 (MD) 참여를 요구할 수 있다며 우려를 표하고 있다.
미국은 계속해서 한국이 MD 체제에 가입할 것을 원해왔으나 우리 정부는 북한과 중국 등 주변국을 고려해 독자적인 MD 시스템을 개발할 것을 생각하고 있다.
전작권 전환을 위한 구체적인 로드맵은 오는 10월에 서울에서 예정된 양국의 연례안보협의회에서 정해질 것이라는 관측이 있다.
전작권 전환은 노무현 정부가 2007년, 자주국방과 동맹국과의 균형을 맞춘다는 목표로 2012년 4월에 하기로 합의한 바 있다. 그러나 천안함 폭침과 함께 북한의 도발이 계속되면서 양국이 전작권 전환 시점을 2015년으로 미루기로 2010년에 합의했다.
<관련 영문 기사>
Another delay in OPCON transfer may serve allies’ interests
Washington could use delay as leverage in negotiations over burden-sharing cost
By Song Sang-ho
Another delay in South Korea’s retaking of wartime operational control from the U.S. may serve mutual strategic interests to maintain stability amid North Korea’s increasing nuclear threats, observers said Thursday.
Seoul has recently asked Washington to reassess the timing of the OPCON transfer, slated for December 2015, as security conditions on the peninsula have deteriorated in recent years with Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile development.
Concerns have grown that Seoul might not be able to have a full range of capabilities to lead wartime operations by the end of 2015 in terms of military equipment, strategy and operational experience.
It particularly lacks intelligence-gathering assets such as military satellites and high-altitude surveillance aircraft -- key components of a low-tier missile shield and a preemptive strike system that it plans to build to counter the North’s missile threats.
The biggest concern for Seoul is the OPCON transfer could lead to a weakening of U.S. security commitment to peninsular defense and embolden an increasingly provocative Pyongyang.
Seoul officials believe Washington would positively consider its proposal for the delay.
“The U.S. official would not have talked about the proposal first (to the media) had it not been positively considering it,” Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin was quoted as saying during a meeting with ruling Saenuri Party officials.
He was referring to the official quoted in a local news report Wednesday.
For Washington, the delay could provide political leverage to help secure a bigger defense budget to help protect its key Asian ally.
Retaining the OPCON would also be in line with Washington’s rebalancing policy under which it has been deepening its strategic engagement in the Asia-Pacific emerging as a center of global power and wealth.
Pyongyang’s escalating nuclear adventurism also calls for a deeper U.S. engagement on peninsular security, experts pointed out.
The North has so far conducted three atomic tests including the latest in February and has been developing a missile with a range of around 10,000 km, far enough to reach the U.S. mainland.
While keeping wartime operational control, the U.S. can lead operations including the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in case of a contingency in the North, which could occur due to its deepening international isolation, poverty and public grievances toward the dictatorial leadership.
Washington has long been concerned about possible proliferation of nuclear materials to terrorists by a failed regime in the North, which could threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies.
Seoul’s apparent request for the second delay could also give Washington some leverage in ongoing negotiations over South Korea’s share of the cost for the upkeep of the 28,500 U.S. troops on the peninsula.
The allies are now in consultations over the so-called burden-sharing cost defined under the Special Measures Agreement that expires at the end of this year.
Some analysts also raise concerns that the U.S. could demand the South’s participation in its global missile defense program in return for the delay.
Washington has long sought to link South Korea to its global multi-layered MD program to better deal with missiles from potential adversaries such as Russia and China. But Seoul plans to develop an independent MD system, apparently not to provoke neighboring states including China and the North.
The allies are expected to make a more concrete roadmap for the transfer when their defense ministers and top military officers meet in October in Seoul for the Security Consultative Meeting and Military Committee Meeting, respectively.
Initially scheduled for April 2012, the transfer was first delayed to the end of 2015 in June 2010 amid Pyongyang’s continuing provocations, including the torpedoing of the South Korean corvette Cheonan that killed 46 sailors.
The allies agreed in 2007 to transfer wartime operational control in April 2012 as the Roh Moo-hyun administration had sought to enhance Korea’s military self-reliance and “balance” the alliance with the U.S.
(sshluck@heraldcorp.com)
Another delay in OPCON transfer may serve allies’ interests
Washington could use delay as leverage in negotiations over burden-sharing cost
By Song Sang-ho
Another delay in South Korea’s retaking of wartime operational control from the U.S. may serve mutual strategic interests to maintain stability amid North Korea’s increasing nuclear threats, observers said Thursday.
Seoul has recently asked Washington to reassess the timing of the OPCON transfer, slated for December 2015, as security conditions on the peninsula have deteriorated in recent years with Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile development.
Concerns have grown that Seoul might not be able to have a full range of capabilities to lead wartime operations by the end of 2015 in terms of military equipment, strategy and operational experience.
It particularly lacks intelligence-gathering assets such as military satellites and high-altitude surveillance aircraft -- key components of a low-tier missile shield and a preemptive strike system that it plans to build to counter the North’s missile threats.
The biggest concern for Seoul is the OPCON transfer could lead to a weakening of U.S. security commitment to peninsular defense and embolden an increasingly provocative Pyongyang.
Seoul officials believe Washington would positively consider its proposal for the delay.
“The U.S. official would not have talked about the proposal first (to the media) had it not been positively considering it,” Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin was quoted as saying during a meeting with ruling Saenuri Party officials.
He was referring to the official quoted in a local news report Wednesday.
For Washington, the delay could provide political leverage to help secure a bigger defense budget to help protect its key Asian ally.
Retaining the OPCON would also be in line with Washington’s rebalancing policy under which it has been deepening its strategic engagement in the Asia-Pacific emerging as a center of global power and wealth.
Pyongyang’s escalating nuclear adventurism also calls for a deeper U.S. engagement on peninsular security, experts pointed out.
The North has so far conducted three atomic tests including the latest in February and has been developing a missile with a range of around 10,000 km, far enough to reach the U.S. mainland.
While keeping wartime operational control, the U.S. can lead operations including the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in case of a contingency in the North, which could occur due to its deepening international isolation, poverty and public grievances toward the dictatorial leadership.
Washington has long been concerned about possible proliferation of nuclear materials to terrorists by a failed regime in the North, which could threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies.
Seoul’s apparent request for the second delay could also give Washington some leverage in ongoing negotiations over South Korea’s share of the cost for the upkeep of the 28,500 U.S. troops on the peninsula.
The allies are now in consultations over the so-called burden-sharing cost defined under the Special Measures Agreement that expires at the end of this year.
Some analysts also raise concerns that the U.S. could demand the South’s participation in its global missile defense program in return for the delay.
Washington has long sought to link South Korea to its global multi-layered MD program to better deal with missiles from potential adversaries such as Russia and China. But Seoul plans to develop an independent MD system, apparently not to provoke neighboring states including China and the North.
The allies are expected to make a more concrete roadmap for the transfer when their defense ministers and top military officers meet in October in Seoul for the Security Consultative Meeting and Military Committee Meeting, respectively.
Initially scheduled for April 2012, the transfer was first delayed to the end of 2015 in June 2010 amid Pyongyang’s continuing provocations, including the torpedoing of the South Korean corvette Cheonan that killed 46 sailors.
The allies agreed in 2007 to transfer wartime operational control in April 2012 as the Roh Moo-hyun administration had sought to enhance Korea’s military self-reliance and “balance” the alliance with the U.S.
(sshluck@heraldcorp.com)
