Report on the Second KIMS-CNA Conference: “The PLA Navy's Build

Report on the Second KIMS-CNA Conference: “The PLA Navy’s Build-up and ROK-USN Cooperation” Held in Seoul, Korea on 20 November 2008 Michael A. McDevitt CRM D0019742.A1/Final February 2009 Strategic Studies is a division of CNA. This directorate conducts analyses of security policy, regional analyses, studies of political-military issues, and strategy and force assessments. CNA Strategic Studies is part of the global community of strategic studies institutes and in fact collaborates with many of them. On the ground experience is a hallmark of our regional work. Our specialists combine in-country experience, language skills, and the use of local primary-source data to produce empirically based work. All of our analysts have advanced degrees, and virtually all have lived and worked abroad. Similarly, our strategists and military/naval operations experts have either active duty experience or have served as field analysts with operating Navy and Marine Corps commands. They are skilled at anticipating the “problem after next” as well as determining measures of effectiveness to assess ongoing initiatives. A particular strength is bringing empirical methods to the evaluation of peace-time engagement and shaping activities. The Strategic Studies Division’s charter is global. In particular, our analysts have proven expertise in the following areas: • The full range of Asian security issues • The full range of Middle East related security issues, especially Iran and the Arabian Gulf • Maritime strategy • Insurgency and stabilization • Future national security environment and forces • European security issues, especially the Mediterranean littoral • West Africa, especially the Gulf of Guinea • Latin America • The world’s most important navies. The Strategic Studies Division is led by Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, USN (Ret.), who is available at 703-824-2614 or [email protected]. The executive assistant to the director is Ms. Kathy Lewis, at 703-824-2519. Approved for distribution: February 2009 Michael A. McDevitt Rear Admiral, USN (Ret.) Vice President Strategic Studies This document represents the best opinion of the authors. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy or CNA. Distribution unlimited. Specific authority: N00014-05-D-0500. For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123. Copyright © 2009 CNA Report on the KIMS-CNA Conference “The PLA Navy’s Build-up and ROK-USN Cooperation” Seoul, Korea 20 November 2008 Background The second CNA-Korean Institute of Maritime Strategy (KIMS) workshop on ROK Navy and US Navy cooperation was held in Seoul, Korea, on 20 November 2008. The primary objective of this institutional collaboration is to assist in improving the working relationship between the US Navy and the Republic of Korea Navy. The concept is to provide a Track II venue where retired and serving officers from both navies, along with civilian experts, can meet in an unofficial atmosphere that permits a candid exchange of views on strategic outlooks and shared interests associated with the maritime domain. This conference is a specific deliverable associated with the CNA project entitled “KIMS-CNA Track II Conference Series,” sponsored by Commander Pacific Fleet. The intent is to use this conference series as one approach toward assisting the ROK Navy in its transition from a coastal defense orientation to more of a regional blue-water focus. The Track II venue permits the two naval establishments to engage in a maritime strategic dialogue that will become increasingly important as the scheduled 2012 transfer of wartime OPCON of forces in Korea, and concomitant disestablishment of Combined Forces Command, approaches. This transfer will affect naval command relationships that have been in place for 20 years. Maintaining an effective strategic dialogue is particularly important at this time as the ROK Navy emerges as a bona-fide blue-water force with impressive capabilities. The Conference The conference was a great success on two counts: first, because over 300 people attended, it provided a highly visible demonstration within South Korea that ROKN-USN cooperation is ongoing, viable and focused on issues beyond the defense of the ROK; and second, it illustrated the high degree of interest that Seoul has in the topic of the PLA Navy. Admiral An, the retired ROKN CNO who heads KIMS, was delighted with the large turnout, which was by far the largest crowd that KIMS has ever assembled for a conference. The choice of the topic was KIMS to make, since they were the hosts for this 1 iteration of the series. It is worth noting that following the first meeting in Honolulu in the summer of 2007 the tentative topic was “The 1000 ship navy/global fleet partnership.” However, after to returning to Korea, the KIMS team asked to change its focus to the PLA Navy. Given the interest in this topic generated, this was a good call on their part. It was also a revealing one—revealing in the sense that it highlights the uncertainty that many in the ROK security establishment have about China’s military modernization. The conference agenda is attached to this report, as are the six papers (three ROK, three US). The audience was a mix of retired ROK officers from all services, active duty ROKN officers, and Korean academics from other think tanks as well as universities. Understandably, US presence was modest. Aside from the CNA delegation, RDML Tom Rowden, COMNAVFORK, and members of his staff attended, as did Commander Jerry Boster from the US Pacific Fleet staff (N5). Rather than attempting to summarize presentations and the discussion areas seriatim, the balance of this report is organized around issues raised in the ROK papers, the questions raised during the proceedings, and the side-bar conversations held during the course of the event. Issues Strategic Flexibility of US forces in Korea In 2004, DoD (OSD-P) tabled a Future of the Alliance Initiative that included the idea that U.S. forces in the ROK would be repostured, trained, and equipped so they could be employed in missions that were regional, or even global, in nature rather than simply being focused on defense of the Korean peninsula. Expanding the potential role of U.S. forces stationed in Korea beyond defending the ROK became a major issue in Korea because it raised the possibility that those forces could become involved in conflicts that were counter to the interests of the ROK—especially a Taiwan crisis with China. From Washington’s perspective, this issue was resolved in 2006 during the first strategic dialogue meeting between the U.S. and ROK governments when Washington officially acknowledged its sensitivity to Seoul’s concerns about unwilling or involuntary involvement in U.S. crises or military activity beyond the Korean peninsula. While Americans may consider the problem solved, the conference highlighted that it remains a sensitive issue in Seoul because of ongoing concerns about Chinese perceptions regarding the apparent expansion of the U.S.-ROK Alliance beyond the defense of South Korea. Two of the papers made clear that the Chinese have voiced concerns to ROK interlocutors that “strategic flexibility” is simply a euphemism that cloaked either direct involvement of USFK in the containment of China or in a Taiwan crisis. As a result, the ROK feels it “needs to ease concerns” in China over the expansion of the U.S.-ROK Alliance beyond the immediate defense of South Korea. 2 The main policy implication is that the ROK and ROKN are acutely sensitive to Chinese reactions to anything that might be construed as being counter to the security interests of China. As a result, USN interlocutors need to remain sensitive to the fact that any initiatives the United States advances will be analyzed by its ROK counterparts from this perspective. OPCON Shift We encountered two different perspectives on the scheduled wartime OPCON shift of ROK forces from U.S. to ROK command that is to take place on April 17, 2012. The Koreans refer to this as the “Koreanization of Korean Defense.” Those in ROK retired community remain opposed to this because they see the shift from “one command, two nations” to “two commands, two nations” as dangerous. They think that it violates the principle of unity of command, and that it is the first step in the U.S. backing away from a defense commitment. In other words, they have a fear of abandonment. Because they can speak more freely, the retirees are hoping that somehow this decision will be revisited—or at least put on hold. The January 2009 saber rattling by North Korea toward the South will also reinforce the second of the retiree’s concerns— i.e., that the North Korean threat has not gone away and that until it has South Korea and the United States would be foolish to disestablish CFC. The other perspective is from the ROKN active duty community, which has to make this work and is focusing on planning and process issues. But even active duty officers worry that the shift in OPCON from CFC to the ROK military will inevitably mean a shift from “institutional cooperation” toward “selective cooperation,” in which political factors become more predominant. Their concern is that it weakens alliance cooperation at the strategic level at a time when it should be strengthened because of the rise of China. The ROK’s Strategic Dilemma ROK strategic thinking, at least as manifested at this conference, recognizes that the ROK must pursue a “balanced strategy” which does not neglect relations with China. For reasons of geography, history, culture and growing economic connections our ROKN panelists argued that the most important strategic challenge in ROK security strategy would be achieving “harmony between the ROK-U.S.

Load more