[Editorial] Roh’s Security Policy

In establishing and administering national policies including diplomacy, opinions of the masses must be reflected. That is in accordance with national sovereignty and the spirit of the national constitutions, let alone the security policies people’s lives and property depend on.

Even intellectuals are actively opposed to the rapid takeover of operational control. It is safe to say that the security policies of the Roh administration go against patriotism, let alone reflecting what the nationals want.

The National Congress for Advanced Nations led a joint declaration opposing the takeover of operational control which was also signed by about 720 intellectuals in humanities and social sciences. They said in the declaration, “It is truly worrisome that the major agenda related to national security supposed to be carefully addressed based on the public consensus and discussions is being handled so hurriedly due to political causes.” They pointed out how the government’s pursuit in taking over operational control is not based on “public consensus.” The government supposed to lead the efforts in national integration is disintegrating the public opinions with policies with no public consensus, and surely the declaration is a warning towards it. It is extremely unprecedented and significant that intellectuals came forward en masse to announce a joint declaration after the 1980s democratization movement.

The intellectuals particularly took strict caution that President Roh was trying to link the takeover of operational control to the issue of sovereignty. They said, “The government focuses on political viewpoints for sovereignty and autonomy and not security efficiency in addressing the issue of operational control. It tries to politicize the issue,” criticizing, “Efforts to exercise the operational control unilaterally disguising anti-Americanism and anti-alliance with sovereignty are a departure from the true sense of self-reliant defense.”

Their declaration came after series of opposing statements and protests from previous defense ministers and military seniors, four-star generals in the reserve, and reservist organizations like the alumni groups of Military, Naval and Air Academies, Korean Veterans Association and the Christian Council of Korea. This shows how rampant the opposing opinions against the takeover of operational control are throughout Korea. On September 11, previous police chiefs are expected to express their thoughts and on September 8, the National Action Campaign for Freedom and Democracy in Korea, a conservative group will hold a large-scale rally in front of the City Hall in Seoul.

Even the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, a national policy research institute, pointed out the unrealistic feature of the current administration’s security policies, including the early takeover of operational control in a document requested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade last December. The report said, “The national security strategies of the participatory government are not realistic blueprints but nothing more than a series of abstract and idealistic concepts,” criticizing, “Concepts suggested in the same aspect, including ‘cooperative self-defense,’ and ‘the theory with Korea potentially serving as a “balancer” in Northeast Asia’ intensify and expand the causes of internal conflicts, instead of integrating the public opinions.”

The participatory government’s first Defense Minister Cho Young-gil wrote this in Dong-A Ilbo two days ago: “What can South Korea do as a third nation if it took over command when North Korea, an independent nation according to the international law, attacks the U.S. and a war breaks out?” I wonder what those in the administration would answer to this. I wonder if they ever know pro-North sovereignty could rather make the North suffer.”

The Korean peninsula is surrounded by tumultuous situations with some predicting that the North is even preparing for a nuclear experiment after the missile test. Despite eight and half years’ efforts to change the North with the sunshine policy since the Kim Dae-jung administration, the North has never changed its attitude and only the South’s cautiousness toward the North and sense of security have been weakened. Against this backdrop, President Roh should not try to address the issue in a hasty manner no matter what.

The ROK-U.S. summit talks to be held in Washington on September 14 ought to be a turning point to change the direction of the discussions on operational control rights. The U.S. has no intention to mention it first, but is said to be willing to do so if President Roh brings it up first. President Roh has to suggest delaying the takeover plans.

The takeover of operational command needs to be handed down to the next administration so that the matter could be decided based on the security situations of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia and the military scales of the South Korean military. If the government supposed to be responsible to preserve Korea’s structure and beliefs makes a wrong choice, misguided by “sovereignty,” it would be committing a sin, damaging the next administration and onward.