The Chosun Ilbo on USFK-ROK command issues, the Joongang Ilbo, Korea Herald, and Korea Times on North Korea security related issues, and the Hankyoreh on alleged environmental violations by USFK with returned facilities. The last is followed by excerpts from a recent USFK press release on the same issue, and a link to SOFA documents.

Chosun Ilbo: USFK Chief’s Questions Need Answers

If North Korea invades the South, Bell is asking, will Seoul’s objective be defending the armistice line or destroying the North Korean regime? It is a natural question, borne of a sense that Seoul and Washington should share the same goal if they are to fight together. It is especially natural given how allergic this administration is to Combined Forces Command’s efforts to craft an operational plan that would seem to threaten the North Korean regime.

If Seoul is indeed ready to safeguard its security under its own steam, Bell is asking, how much U.S. help will it need? The question goes to whether military intelligence support alone, for instance, will be sufficient, or whether air and naval support will be needed, and so forth. In short, it questions whether South Korea can go it alone. In that sense, it is the same as the question from an ex-defense minister and ruling-party lawmaker a while ago: “Are we ready to take back the wartime operational command in five to six years? Do we have satellites? Do we have an early-warning system in place? Do we have a missile defense system?”

Lastly, Bell asks, given that UN Command remains in name only once Combined Forces Command is dissolved, how will we be able to maintain the armistice arrangements? Under the armistice, the southern side is represented by the UNC and the northern side by North Korea and China. Even minor trespasses in the truce village of Panmunjom require UNC instructions to resolve. In the end, we will need something like a peace treaty to replace the armistice. Have inter-Korean relations progressed to that stage?

[…]

The government must answer these questions. They are not Bell’s alone but those of the people. We don’t need to hear the naive hypothesis that no North Korean nuclear weapons or missiles target the South. We need clear evidence that we are capable of coping with the North’s military strength, which may include nuclear weapons and certainly includes hundreds of missiles, in addition to any chemical and biological warfare technology, and whatever its intentions for them may be. (emphasis added)

Joongang Ilbo: Serves them right

Ever since signing the “DPRK-China Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance” in 1961, which allows the unconditional intervention of Chinese forces in case of an emergency, China and North Korea have maintained a intimate alliance that did not change even after China established diplomatic relations with South Korea in 1992.
That is why the recent decision can be interpreted as a a strong response from China to North Korea’s refusal to accept China’s requests to suspend the missile tests. Of course there is no obvious way of telling how much the relations between the two countries will worsen.
By firing the missiles, North Korea single-handedly turned down China’s repeated attempts to persuade the North Korea to postpone the launches.
We are worried that this could be a sign that North Korea might dare to care little for the stability of the Korean Peninsula, a pivotal national interest that China cannot afford to give up.

[…]

The Roh administration has been looked confused too often during the recent crisis. But now we must avoid miscommunications with the UN and especially with the United States and Japan. Of course the excessive response like the pre-emptive strike must be appropriately handled. (emphasis added)

Korea Herald: Revising external ties

The worsening security environment on and around the peninsula demands a reality check. Seoul will have to review its external relations, in particular with North Korea, the United States and Japan, and set a new course, if necessary, in the pursuit of peace.

[…]

Before leaving for Pyongyang, North Korea’s delegation issued a statement, which said in part: “The South will have the consequences for pulling apart the 19th ministerial talks and for creating an unpredictable and catastrophic outcome.”

This thinly veiled North Korean threat cannot be taken lightly. Still, it is difficult to imagine the North will renew hostilities toward the South and thus forgo aid because it cannot properly feed, clothe and shelter its people on its own.

South Korea will have to observe North Korea’s reactions keenly before determining whether or not it will continue to maintain the “sunshine policy” of taming the oft-hostile North Koreans by accommodating their call for help, a policy initiated by former President Kim Dae-jung and taken over by his successor, Roh Moo-hyun.

[…]

Seoul and Washington will have a good opportunity to coordinate their North Korea policies when Roh meets U.S. President George W. bush in September as scheduled. The two leaders will have to address other issues of vital importance, such as the strengthening of alliance, the rise of anti-Americanism in South Korea and cooperation in the fight against terrorism. (emphasis added)

Korea Times: UN Sanctions on North Korea

Noteworthy is the fact that China and Russia, traditional arch allies of North Korea, joined forces in imposing the U.N. sanctions on the North for its missile tests. It is quite surprising for both to have agreed to punish the reclusive nation. Both are apparently opposed to Pyongyang’s missile launch.

[…]

It is regrettable Seoul remained passive in adopting the resolution while even the North’s staunch supporters were active for it. While our government kept silent, not viewing the test as a security threat, all U.N. member nations including Russia and China moved briskly for the resolution seeing the missile tests as a threat to world peace. Our government should no longer be equivocal in condemning them. Our failure to stand resolute against the North will leave it open to misunderstanding by both the international community and Pyongyang.

Our government should be in step with U.N. member nations to solve the missile crisis on the basis of the resolution. The government is also asked to make efforts to recover its estranged relationship with the United States and Japan. Seoul has to join with them in coping with the North’s missile threats. (emphasis added)

Hankyoreh: U.S. violating its base move agreement

The United States Forces Korea (USFK) unilaterally informed the Korean government that on July 15 it is going to return Camp Nimble, Camp Kyle, and Camp Sears, all of which closed on July 10, without first performing an environmental cleanup. For the following reasons, that is in violation of the Land Partnership Program (LPP), signed in 2004, and the agreement between the Korean and American governments on moving the USFK facility in Yongsan.

Both agreements stipulate that in the course of dealing with contaminated areas, needs that arise which go beyond the LPP will be decided in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and SOFA-related agreements.

[…]

This one-sided attitude and behavior on the part of the U.S. puts a damper on the Korean government’s patient efforts to resolve the problem in accordance with the spirit and procedures provided by the SOFA. Since the USFK has openly violated the base move agreement, the Korean government is in a position to take issue with that violation and refuse to accept the land in its current form, thus putting a halt to the base relocation process. (emphasis added)

Stars and Stripes: Command issues statement to clarify return process

According to a USFK news release, command officials want to explain the camp return process following a week that saw “many inaccurate and misleading articles and editorials in various Internet and print media sources.”

[…]

The issue with the delays is the environmental cleanup of the bases before return.

Under the status of forces agreement, the United States is “not obliged … to restore the facilities and areas to the condition they were at the time they became available to the U.S. armed forces, or to compensate the government of the ROK in lieu of such restoration,” according to the Friday news release.

[…]

There is an attempt by “some to negate the SOFA agreement as it relates to camp returns” and to introduce new environmental standards, according to the release.

The release states that U.S. policy requires USFK to remedy “known, imminent, and substantial endangerments” to human health and safety.

But USFK has agreed to go above those standards by pulling out selected underground fuel storage tanks, removing heavy metal contamination from firing ranges and hiring a South Korean company to run a high-vacuum pump system that targets groundwater fuel contamination at five camps, according to the release. (emphasis added)

Related information: US-ROK SOFA and Related Documents
—–