In a report on the 18th, the Kyunghyang Shinmun described Brunson's recent comments as a case in which ‘changed OPCON conditions’ were followed by what looked like a ‘denial of Korean territorial sovereignty.’ Speaking on the 14th (local time) at a seminar hosted by the Gold Institute for International Strategy in Washington, Brunson said that from the UN Command's viewpoint, the Republic of Korea begins at the southern barbed-wire fence.

The fence lies roughly 2 km south of the Military Demarcation Line, and because he used it to mark where Korea starts, critics said the remark sounded as if part of Korean territory were not recognized as sovereign. The Segye Ilbo and Asia Today also reported on how the remark came about.

What he said, in sequence

It was not the first such episode. According to the Kyunghyang Shinmun, Brunson said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conversation on the 13th that time itself could be a condition for OPCON transfer, and he brought up the possible deployment of a Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) to the peninsula while pointing to the distance between Beijing and Seoul.

At the 14th seminar he also said the conditions for transfer had changed. Asia Today quoted him as saying, in effect, that conditions had changed and plans had changed, so a new standard had emerged. Seoul's position is to pursue early transfer once conditions are met; the Segye Ilbo reported that defense ministry spokesperson Jung Bit-na criticized this as ‘moving the goalposts.’

The Kyunghyang Shinmun also noted that a UN Command official said in January that there was no dispute that the area south of the DMZ is sovereign Korean territory, which sits awkwardly with the latest remark. The Segye Ilbo recalled that last year the UN Command did not permit Cardinal Yu Heung-sik and former presidential security official Kim Hyun-jong to enter the DMZ, prompting a ruling-party bill to give the Korean government authority over non-military DMZ visits.

Reactions from the government and politicians

The defense ministry called the remarks the ‘personal view of the UN Command commander,’ stressed that the government's position on territorial sovereignty is firm, and said it would cooperate closely so that Korea's exercise of sovereignty in the DMZ and the UN Command's armistice management can coexist, the Segye Ilbo reported. Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul said at the parliamentary audit on the 15th that Seoul had conveyed a protest to the US side over Brunson's successive public remarks.

Criticism from the ruling camp was sharper. According to the Kyunghyang Shinmun, National Assembly Defense Committee chair Jin Sung-joon of the Democratic Party said on Facebook on the 16th that he was shocked and that the remark conflicted with the Constitution. On the 17th, presidential defense policy aide Kim Byung-joo said the armistice limits UN Command authority to DMZ access permits and civil administration, and demanded a retraction and apology. Specific opposition-party reactions were not confirmed in the reporting reviewed.

On the 18th the UN Command said the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea is ‘beyond question.’ It explained that Brunson was describing military and administrative responsibilities in the DMZ and the Joint Security Area (JSA) under the armistice, which it said are separate from sovereignty, and reaffirmed its commitment to the alliance.

Divided readings and other views

Interpretations of the motive differ. Cho Han-bum, a senior fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification quoted by the Kyunghyang Shinmun, linked it to US efforts to counter China and saw an aim of keeping DMZ oversight while delaying OPCON transfer. Doo Jin-ho, a visiting researcher at Kyungnam University, read it as an attempt to gain leverage over Seoul on issues such as the fulfillment of investment pledges to the US. Some also speculate that once a Korean officer heads the Combined Forces Command after transfer, the USFK commander's rank could drop from four stars to three.

Asia Today, by contrast, judged it hard to conclude from one commander's remarks that the US government opposes transfer or that the bilateral agreement has changed. The UN Command likewise says the remark described jurisdiction under the armistice system, suggesting a gap between the military field perspective and political interpretation. The official positions of the US Defense and State departments, and any reaction from the Chinese or Japanese governments, were not confirmed in this reporting.

A further issue is that the UN Command's armistice-management role remains a separate question even after OPCON transfer. Under the current setup, in which one officer holds the posts of Combined Forces Command, UN Command and USFK commander, a single statement touches the alliance command structure, armistice management and sovereignty at once. How to negotiate the OPCON timetable separately from DMZ jurisdiction is likely to be the key coordination task between Seoul and Washington.