Unrealistic US demand

Mutual understanding needed for alliance issues

There are increasing signs that the United States wants South Korea to play an expanded role in its overseas conflicts.

The U.S. reportedly has shared this long-term vision for the alliance in the ongoing negotiations with South Korea over how much the latter should pay for the U.S. troop presence here, and the envisioned transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) of South Korean troops

According to the Hankook Ilbo, a sister paper of The Korea Times, Tuesday, Washington has proposed expanding the scope of combined operations from not only contingencies on the Korean Peninsula and surrounding areas to “U.S. contingencies,” after Seoul takes over wartime troop control.

If the U.S. demand is realized, the U.S. will be able to ask South Korea to send troops to any areas of conflict where the U.S. is involved, the report said, citing anonymous sources involved in the negotiations. The problem is that South Korea can be drawn into battles in countries not only in the Pacific region, but also in the Middle East and in Europe. South Korea has reportedly voiced opposition to the idea, which is only natural.

It is quite shocking to see how the U.S. is planning to redefine the alliance after the OPCON transfer. Presumably, it may not only be South Korea that is facing such a U.S. demand. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said the U.S. is “paying tremendously” to maintain an “expensive” alliance with countries that need American defense to survive.

Last year, South Korea agreed to increase the amount it pays

Washington for the deployment of American troops from $830 million to $924 million. The U.S. is reportedly demanding a five-fold increase in this year’s negotiations.

It is true that the Trump administration’s unilateral moves have raised questions about the meaning of the alliance. His recent surprise decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria leaving their Kurdish allies at risk prompted South Koreans to think he could withdraw troops from the peninsula as well.

Of course, the ongoing defense cost and OPCON transfer talks will be affected by the changing U.S. alliance policy. Under the mutual defense treaty, signed Oct. 1, 1953, two months after the truce of the 1950-53 Korean War, South Korea and the U.S. are committed to provide mutual aid if either faces external armed attack. This allowed the U.S. to station its troops in South Korea, and enable the U.S. to engage in conflict on the peninsula.

The ongoing negotiations should proceed in a way that is beneficial and agreeable to both sides. Seeing what is happening between the two allies, however, they may have different thoughts about the alliance. One other example is their discord over the future role of the U.S.-led United Nations Command (UNC) after the OPCON transfer. The U.S. seems to want to maintain its military’s dominant position in the South by beefing up the UNC’s role, especially in the case of war.

There are many challenges that will test the alliance. Mutual understanding and patience are needed more than ever in dealing with the troubling issues.