[Nodongil Column] 'Bregret' and Korea's OPCON Transfer

Boris Johnson. From July 2019 to September 2022, he was one of the politicians who exerted strong influence on Brexit, the UK's withdrawal from the European Union (EU). In the June 23, 2016 referendum, 51.9% of the British public supported leaving the EU. The main justification for leaving the EU was to restore the UK's sovereignty, to escape the EU's interference and regulations. Reducing EU contributions and controlling immigration also moved the hearts of the British. Much of it was exaggerated or baseless agitation. Prime Minister Johnson won a landslide victory in the December 2019 general election with the slogan 'Get Brexit Done'. The success of Brexit in January 2020 was largely due to the role of Prime Minister Johnson and other hardliners.

The time of awakening when cheers for 'sovereignty restoration' turned into disillusionment was quick. Since Brexit, 439 global financial companies have relocated assets worth about 1 trillion pounds (approximately 1,650 trillion won) to regions outside the UK. This is because the 'passporting' benefit, which allowed a company to operate across other EU countries with just one authorization, disappeared. As of 2023, the national productivity loss since Brexit amounts to 29 billion pounds (about 45 trillion won), or 1,000 pounds (about 155,000 won) per household. The neologism 'Bregret' (Brexit+regret) was also coined. The hardline politicians who agitated for Brexit remain silent. There are only rumors that government officials are secretly negotiating with the EU side. Only the deep regret of the people who decided the fate of the nation, swayed by irresponsible agitation and emotion, envelops the UK.

The Lee Jae-myung government seems to be formalizing the transition of the wartime operational control (OPCON). There are reports that they are considering the retrieval of OPCON as a card on our side in trade negotiations with the United States. On the 15th, Ahn Kyu-baek, the Minister of National Defense nominee, said at a confirmation hearing, "I understand that the goal is to transition OPCON during the Lee Jae-myung government's term." Wi Seong-rak, the National Security Office Director, dismissed the report as 'for negotiation', and the Presidential Office drew a line, saying it was Ahn's "personal opinion". There was also an explanation from Ahn that it was a statement of intent to push forward. It is unclear if it's smoke without fire, but the 'will' to transition OPCON seems clear.

President Lee Jae-myung, as a member of the National Assembly, once said, "Where in the world is there an independent country that entrusts or shares military sovereignty with another country, except us?" This shows that he views the OPCON issue as a matter of military 'sovereignty'. However, due to the nature of the (Korea-US) Combined Forces, it is only to efficiently conduct wartime operations under the command of the Korea-US Combined Forces Command, and it is unrelated to sovereignty. The command of the armed forces still belongs to the President of the Republic of Korea, and the Korea-US Combined Forces Command only executes decisions made by the agreement of the presidents of both countries. The primary purpose of the Korea-US Combined Forces Command, which holds OPCON, is deterrence of war. This is because the structure makes US military involvement inevitable in the event of war. There is a reason to worry about the possibility of OPCON transition leading to the dissolution of the Combined Forces Command and the withdrawal of US troops. Thanks to the capabilities provided by the US military, we have been able to focus on the economy. Ahn said the increase in military spending due to OPCON transition is "about 21 trillion won". On the other hand, some argue that even 200 trillion won is insufficient. It is said that astronomical costs are required to stockpile weapons and ammunition and to acquire surveillance and reconnaissance assets provided by the US military.

The current OPCON system cannot remain unchanged. It can be adjusted as long as the conditions are right. However, it must be done with utmost caution. In a situation where the international order is fundamentally changing, emotional or ideological responses are forbidden. Brexit is a matter of livelihood. Even if it goes wrong, it can end in regret. It is possible to reset or rejoin the relationship between the UK and the EU. Security issues such as OPCON are matters of life and death. It is a decision that determines the fate of the nation. Decisions based on emotion or public opinion should not be made. It should be practically judged whether to spend astronomical military expenses or to invest in the economy instead. If there is 'will', the first step should be to seek the consent of the public with an accurate explanation based on facts.


dinoh7869@fnnews.com