Ex-US diplomat: OPCON transfer won't end Seoul-Washington alliance
By Song Sang-ho
WASHINGTON, June 4 (Yonhap) -- A former U.S. diplomat said Thursday the envisioned transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) to South Korea from the United States does not mean "the end" of the bilateral alliance, amid lingering concerns that the transition could weaken the security partnership.
Kathleen Stephens, who was ambassador to South Korea from 2008-2011, made the remarks during a forum, noting that the time may be "ripe" for the OPCON handover, and voicing confidence that Seoul and Washington can "manage" the transition.
The allies have been discussing a series of issues, including the OPCON transfer and greater operational flexibility for the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), as they push to "modernize" their decades-old alliance to better adapt to the shifting security landscape.
"It's not the end of the alliance if we have a change in the operational control," she said during the forum hosted by the Korea Economic Institute of America.
"It depends on how that change is managed, but I think it can be managed, and perhaps this is the moment when sort of the stars align, if you like, and we come out with something that doesn't necessarily drive us apart," she added.
The allies have been working on the conditions-based OPCON transition since they agreed on it in 2014. After the transfer, a South Korean general is to lead combined forces with a U.S. general serving as a deputy -- a change that some critics say could weaken America's security commitment to the Asian ally.
Stephens also struck a positive tone, saying that Seoul and Washington will find a way to address a range of key alliance issues, such as the U.S.' pursuit of USFK's greater "strategic flexibility" to counter broader regional threats.
"We can address these things, but underlying is ... do we come out of it with a greater sense of confidence and trust about the commitment," she said.
During the forum, Philip Goldberg, who served as U.S. ambassador to Seoul from 2022-2025, expressed concerns that a set of alliance modernization issues, including USFK's strategic flexibility and South Korea's efforts to undertake greater security responsibilities, could move the allies apart "to some extent."
"(It) means moving apart in certain fundamental ways, where we are looking to use our troop presence more for regional issues (beyond the Korean Peninsula) ... I think that this suits many aspects of the current Korean administration's outlook, which is to try to bring more responsibility for Korea's defense to itself,"
"So there is a congruence of view on that, but it also means moving apart to some extent," he said.
But Goldberg pointed out opportunities for the two allies to deepen cooperation in the defense industrial sector.
Asked about a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece that accused South Korean President Lee Jae Myung's administration of taking "a hard left turn against America," Goldberg showed his view against it.
"I don't know where that comes from. I've met him, and he didn't strike me as such," Goldberg said of Lee.
"He's a very good politician, as was shown again in the elections yesterday, and he understands the value of the alliance with the U.S., especially the nuclear umbrella," he added.
Pointing out bipartisan backing and growing public support for the alliance in South Korea, Stephens said that the talk of "anti-Americanism" in Korea sounds "very anachronistic."
"There is a distinction between anti-Americanism ... when you talk about Korean politics, and not liking a particular policy or another," she said. "But a sort of ideologically anti-American .... to me, this is all rather anachronistic now."
