National security adviser says Opcon issue off the table in U.S. negotiations

South Korea’s presidential office dismissed speculation that wartime operational control is being discussed in ongoing trade and security talks with the United States ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s Aug. 1 tariff deadline.

National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac speaks during a briefing at the presidential office in central Seoul on July 9. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

South Korea’s presidential office dismissed speculation that wartime operational control (Opcon) is being discussed in ongoing trade and security talks with the United States, as political tensions flare over a potential “package deal” ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s Aug. 1 tariff deadline.

With fewer than 20 days remaining until the Trump-imposed tariff timeline, the Lee Jae Myung administration moved to shut down political controversy surrounding the transfer of Opcon.

Opcon refers to the authority to command combined U.S. and South Korean forces in wartime. Under the current system, a U.S. general heading the Combined Forces Command leads both militaries in the event of a major conflict with North Korea.

Once Opcon transfers, a South Korean general would command the future Combined Forces Command.

National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac told the JoongAng Ilbo on Sunday that the Lee Jae Myung administration “has not initiated new discussions on Opcon and the Opcon issue is not a card in our trade or security negotiations with the United States."

Wi already drew a line under the issue during a press briefing on Wednesday after returning from Washington, saying, “an Opcon transfer remains an ongoing long-term matter,” and “has not yet come up in security talks.”

The remarks came after media reports claimed working-level discussions on Opcon had resumed, prompting the presidential office to issue a rebuttal.

The administration’s response follows a series of politically charged statements.

“Most issues should be brought to the surface,” Democratic Party (DP) Rep. Kim Woo-young said in a radio interview when asked whether Opcon was on the negotiation table.

Moon Jin-seog, another DP lawmaker, added that “if an Opcon transfer is in the national interest, we could amend the law to make it happen.”

Former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon pushed back on Saturday, warning that pushing for an Opcon transfer could result in the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea and argued that “the Lee administration must seek public consent.”

Government officials expressed growing frustration over the direction of the debate.

“There’s no substance to this issue, but high-profile opposition lawmakers are stirring up confusion,” a senior presidential official said.

Another DP source said that it "was not even a real issue, but it is being dragged into the spotlight out of nowhere."

The presidential office voiced concern that politicizing Opcon could undermine the ongoing tariff and security talks with Washington.

President Lee Jae Myung, right, speaks with National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac during a full session of the National Security Council at the presidential office in central Seoul on July 10. [NEWS1]

"The situation is escalating in an unhelpful direction,” said another presidential office official. “Those negotiations are critically important, and that’s why National Security Adviser Wi is managing them personally. Naturally, there are no new negotiation talks involving Opcon.”

Seoul and Washington agreed to complete the Opcon transfer by April 2012 during the Roh Moo-hyun administration in 2007. But following the 2010 sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, the timeline was revised.

The Ministry of National Defense said on July 11 that Korea, the United States and Japan conducted a joint aerial exercise over international waters south of Jeju Island. [NEWS1]

The allies adopted a conditions-based transfer plan known as COTP, which requires progress in three areas: South Korea’s military capabilities, its ability to respond to North Korean threats and regional security conditions that support the transition.

“There are hundreds of conditions to meet, and fulfilling them all is extremely difficult,” a South Korean defense official said.

Subsequent administrations — Park Geun-hye, Moon Jae-in and Yoon Suk Yeol — all upheld the COTP framework.

A joint statement from the annual Security Consultative Meeting in October of last year reaffirmed that an Opcon transfer would strengthen the alliance’s combined defense posture and readiness.

Despite the lack of formal negotiations, the issue has resurfaced as Trump, who previously called for rebalancing the U.S. military footprint abroad, increases pressure over defense cost-sharing and tariff reform.

Analysts say it is possible that Washington could bring up Opcon as leverage during talks. Critics argue that President Lee invited the controversy by using the phrase “reclaiming Opcon” during his presidential campaign.

But a DP official said the pledge meant "the administration would continue the existing Opcon transition framework with the United States and there is no fundamental change in our position.”

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff. BY OH HYUN-SEOK [paik.jihwan@joongang.co.kr]