Seoul pushes back against US signal for OPCON transfer delay

South Korea said Thursday it will retain the mutually agreed conditions for transferring wartime operational control from Washington to Seoul, despite Gen. Xavier Brunson’s warning that changing security threats require new standards. Seoul has expressed concern over the U.S. position and has not decided whether to accept any new conditions. The allies are consulting under the 2015 Conditions-based Operational Control Transition Plan, while Seoul targets 2028 or earlier and Brunson points to the first quarter of 2029.

The allies are assessing South Korea’s capabilities in three stages, and Seoul hopes to complete verification of Full Operational Capability for a South Korean-led combined command this year.

The three main OPCON transfer conditions remain unchanged, although the assessment of whether they have been met could vary.

The annual Security Consultative Meeting in December is expected to address differences over the transfer and capability assessments.

North Korea’s test of two types of submarine-launched strategic cruise missiles was cited as evidence of an evolving security threat.

Published Oct 15, 2026 4:03 pm KST

Updated Oct 15, 2026 6:25 pm KST

USFK commander's remarks raise questions over military readiness, handover timeline

Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, speaks at a seminar hosted by the Gold Institute for International Strategy in Washington, D.C., Wednesday (local time). Yonhap

The South Korean military said Thursday it would stick to an existing agreement on conditions for wartime operational control (OPCON) transfer from Washington to Seoul, despite a warning from the top U.S. commander in Korea that evolving security threats require new standards.

It showed discomfort over U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) Commander Gen. Xavier Brunson’s remarks on the need to change standards and conditions for the transition because “the transfer would never be possible” under the existing standards. The military said it has not decided whether to accept any new conditions proposed by the U.S.

“The principle that OPCON will be transferred once the conditions mutually agreed upon by South Korea and the United States are met remains unchanged,” ministry spokesperson Chung Binna said at a briefing.

Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul said Thursday that Seoul had already conveyed its concerns to the U.S. side over Bronson’s remarks.

“We have already conveyed our position on that matter,” Kang said during a National Assembly audit, responding to a question from Rep. Son Sol of the Jinbo Party on whether Seoul should lodge a strong protest.

“Although he [Brunson] is speaking from a military perspective, we are concerned about the broader implications of his remarks and have made our position clear,” Kang said.

He added that the three main conditions governing the OPCON transfer remain unchanged, although assessment of how those conditions are met could vary.

It said the two countries are closely consulting on the transfer issue according to the Conditions-based Operational Control Transition Plan (COTP), which was agreed upon in 2015.

The allies have been verifying South Korea’s capabilities in three stages under the COTP, and Seoul hopes to complete verification of the second stage, Full Operational Capability (FOC) of a South Korean-led combined command, this year. South Korea aims to retake OPCON by 2028, or even earlier, while Brunson has shown more caution, citing the first quarter of 2029 as the potential target year.

The ministry’s response came after Brunson said on Wednesday (local time) during the Indo-Pacific Summit hosted by the Gold Institute for International Strategy in Washington, D.C., "Because the conditions have changed, because we've changed our plan, we have new standards which we have to uphold."

Pointing to North Korea’s recent missile launches, he added, “A cursory glance of a newspaper would tell you that the conditions have most assuredly changed.”

Brunson said he supports the transfer but warned against letting a timetable override military requirements. “We don’t have the benefit of changing the conditions to time. Time, in and of itself, is a condition,” he said.

The disagreement appears to extend to FOC verification. The U.S. side has reportedly questioned whether some requirements assessed as having been met last year still satisfy current needs, while Seoul favors retaining those earlier assessments.

The ministry acknowledged the remaining differences but did not confirm whether previously satisfied items are being reassessed. Chung said the two sides will resolve differences at the Security Consultative Meeting (SCM), the allies’ annual defense talks to be held in December.

But Seoul implied opposition to changing standards to assess the capabilities. “If the goalpost keeps moving, the OPCON transfer would never be achieved,” Chung said, adding that this was her personal opinion.

USFK, in a written response, reaffirmed the allies’ commitment to a conditions-based transfer.

“For operational security reasons, we do not publicly discuss details of bilateral assessments or certification activities,” it said.

Shin Beom-chul, a former vice defense minister and senior research fellow at the Sejong Institute, said Brunson’s remarks could imply changes to the requirements themselves, rather than simply stricter application of existing criteria.

“The conditions were not fixed in stone. The agreement allows changes in the security environment to be reflected,” Shin told The Korea Times.

He said North Korea’s improved missile and drone capabilities were likely behind Brunson’s warning, and questioned whether South Korea was expanding its surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities quickly enough.

North Korea’s announcement that it tested two types of submarine-launched strategic cruise missiles Wednesday highlighted the evolving threat.

“Launching two types of missiles with different ranges, speeds and approach directions at staggered intervals would force air defenses to deal with targets arriving from different directions and at different times,” said Hong Min, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification.

As for Seoul's hope for a 2028 transfer, Shin said Seoul was trying to accelerate the handover without matching that ambition with faster improvements in its military capabilities.

“The disagreement arose because Seoul is trying to bring forward the date while building up its capabilities at the same pace as before,” he said.

韩国周四表示，尽管美国陆军上将泽维尔·布伦森警告称，不断变化的安全威胁需要新的标准，但韩国仍将维持此前双方商定的战时作战指挥权从华盛顿移交至首尔的条件。首尔对美国的立场表示关切，尚未决定是否接受任何新的条件。目前，美韩双方正根据2015年《基于条件的作战指挥权移交计划》进行磋商。首尔的目标是在2028年或更早完成移交，而布伦森则认为移交时间应在2029年第一季度。

盟军正在分三个阶段评估韩国的能力，首尔希望今年完成对韩国领导的联合司令部全面作战能力的验证。

三个主要的 OPCON 移交条件保持不变，但对这些条件是否得到满足的评估可能会有所不同。

预计 12 月举行的年度安全磋商会议将解决在转让和能力评估方面的分歧。

朝鲜试射两种潜射战略巡航导弹被认为是安全威胁不断演变的证据。

发布于2026年10月15日下午4:03（韩国标准时间）

更新于2026年10月15日韩国时间下午6:25

驻韩美军司令的言论引发了人们对军事战备和移交时间表的质疑

驻韩美军司令泽维尔·布伦森将军周三（当地时间）在华盛顿特区出席由戈尔德国际战略研究所主办的研讨会并发表讲话。（韩联社）

尽管驻韩美军最高指挥官警告称，不断变化的安全威胁需要新的标准，但韩国军方周四表示，将坚持现有的关于战时作战指挥权（OPCON）从华盛顿移交给首尔的条件的协议。

军方对驻韩美军司令泽维尔·布伦森将军关于需要改变过渡标准和条件的言论表示不满，因为在现有标准下“移交根本不可能”。军方表示尚未决定是否接受美方提出的任何新条件。

“一旦韩国和美国双方同意的条件得到满足，作战指挥权移交的原则仍然不变，”国防部发言人郑彬那在新闻发布会上表示。

韩国国防部长姜信哲周四表示，首尔方面已就布朗森的言论向美方表达了关切。

康在国会接受审计时回答真保党议员孙雪关于首尔是否应该提出强烈抗议的问题时说：“我们已经就此事表明了我们的立场。”

康表示：“虽然他（布伦森）是从军事角度发表的言论，但我们担心他的言论会产生更广泛的影响，并已明确表明了我们的立场。”

他还补充说，虽然对这些条件的满足情况的评估可能会有所不同，但控制运营控制权移交的三项主要条件仍然保持不变。

声明称，两国正根据2015年达成的基于条件的运营控制过渡计划（COTP）就移交问题进行密切磋商。

根据联合作战能力评估协议（COTP），盟军一直在分三个阶段验证韩国的能力。首尔方面希望今年完成第二阶段的验证，即韩国主导的联合司令部全面作战能力（FOC）的验证。韩国的目标是在2028年甚至更早的时候重新夺回作战控制权，而布伦森则更为谨慎，认为2029年第一季度可能是目标年份。

此前，布伦森周三（当地时间）在华盛顿特区由戈尔德国际战略研究所主办的印太峰会上表示：“由于情况发生了变化，由于我们改变了计划，我们有了新的标准，我们必须坚持这些标准。”

他指出朝鲜最近进行了导弹发射，并补充说：“随便翻翻报纸你就会发现，情况肯定已经发生了变化。”

布伦森表示他支持此次调动，但警告说不要让时间表凌驾于军事需求之上。“我们无法改变时间条件。时间本身就是一种条件，”他说。

双方分歧似乎也延伸到了最终交付能力（FOC）的核查环节。据报道，美方质疑去年评估认为已满足的一些要求是否仍然符合当前需求，而首尔方面则倾向于保留之前的评估结果。

国防部承认双方仍存在分歧，但并未确认此前已达成一致的事项是否正在重新评估。钟南山表示，双方将在12月举行的安全磋商会议上解决分歧。安全磋商会议是美俄一年一度的防务会谈。

但首尔方面暗示反对更改能力评估标准。“如果标准不断变化，作战指挥权的移交就永远无法实现，”郑女士说道，并补充说这只是她个人的看法。

驻韩美军在一份书面答复中重申了盟军对有条件移交的承诺。

声明称：“出于行动安全考虑，我们不会公开讨论双边评估或认证活动的细节。”

前国防部副部长、世宗研究所高级研究员申范哲表示，布伦森的言论可能意味着要求本身会发生改变，而不仅仅是更严格地应用现有标准。

“这些条件并非一成不变。该协议允许根据安全环境的变化进行调整，”申告诉《韩国时报》。

他表示，朝鲜导弹和无人机能力的提升可能是布伦森发出警告的原因，并质疑韩国是否正在足够快地扩大其监视和侦察能力。

朝鲜周三宣布试射了两种潜射战略巡航导弹，凸显了不断变化的威胁。

“以交错的时间间隔发射两种射程、速度和进场方向不同的导弹，将迫使防空系统应对来自不同方向和不同时间的目标，”韩国统一研究院高级研究员洪敏说。

至于首尔希望在 2028 年完成移交，申表示，首尔试图加快移交进程，但并没有在军事能力方面取得与此目标相匹配的更快进步。

他说：“分歧的产生是因为首尔方面试图在保持与之前相同速度提升自身能力的同时，提前完成建设日期。”