None
EN
Comment on Seoul’s dangerous gamble with wartime command by Hongkonger
['Hanjin Lew', 'Jio Lew', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Avatar', 'Where Img', 'Height Auto Max-Width', 'Vertical-Align Bottom .Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow .Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Avatar']
Comments for Asia Times
Lee and his supporters frame OPCON transfer as if Seoul were a vassal state of the US.
The myth of lost sovereigntyUnder existing arrangements, South Korea retains peacetime control of its military, while in wartime the Combined Forces Command (CFC) assumes operational control over both South Korean and US forces.
To push for command transfer under such conditions is nationalist theater, not responsible statecraft.
History’s warningIn January 1950, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson outlined America’s Asian defense perimeter, pointedly excluding South Korea.
In a region defined by nuclear threats, revisionist powers, and asymmetric coercion, South Korea cannot afford to gamble on symbolic gestures.