버웰 B. 벨 한미연합군사령관 초청 관훈토론회

장소：한국프레스센터 20층 내셔널프레스클럽 

사회 : 김현경  MBC 통일전망대팀장(관훈클럽 편집위원)

대표 토론자 : 김의구 국민일보 국제부장

                    유용원 조선일보 사회부 차장

                    김성걸 한겨레신문 민족국제부문 부장대우

김현경(사회)：지금부터 관훈클럽 토론회를 진행하겠습니다. 비가 참 많이 왔는데 여기 오시느라고 선배님들, 우리 회원님들 수고 많이 하셨습니다. 그리고 특별히 벨 사령관님 대단히 감사합니다.

오늘 토론회가 더욱 뜻 깊은 것은 어제가 주한미군사령부 창설 50주년 되는 날이었습니다. 반세기가 흐르는 동안 주한미군은 북한의 군사적 위협을 효과적으로 억지하고, 또 동북아의 안정과 평화유지에도 크게 기여했습니다. 하지만 이제 한반도를 둘러싼 국제정세를 바탕으로 한미동맹 재조정 등 많은 변화를 예고하고 있습니다. 오늘은 벨 사령관을 모시고 한미관계 등에 대해 들을 이야기가 상당히 많습니다.

진행순서에 대해 잠깐 말씀드리겠습니다. 먼저 간단하게 식사를 하시고, 벨 사령관님의 기조연설을 듣겠습니다. 오늘은 순차통역으로 진행되겠습니다. 순차통역을 포함해서 15~20분 정도 기조연설을 들은 다음 9시 반까지 오늘 행사가 진행되겠습니다. 아침 일찍 나오셨는데요, 맛있게 식사하시면서 잠시 담소를 나누신 후 본행사를 시작하겠습니다. (식사)

그러면 지금부터 버웰 B. 벨 사령관님의 기조연설을 듣겠습니다. 기조연설을 듣기 전에 잠시 벨 사령관에 대해 소개말씀드리겠습니다. 벨 사령관은 1947년에 태어나셨습니다. 테네시주립대 경영학과를 졸업하셨고 남가주대 시스템관리 석사학위를 갖고 계십니다. 여러분께 나눠드린 토론회 초청장에 보면 벨 사령관의 약력에 대해 자세히 나와 있는데요, 이번이 두 번째 한국 근무입니다. 한국에 부임한 것은 2006년 2월입니다. 1년 반 됐는데요, 바로 전에는 유럽 주둔 미6군사령관과 북대서양조약기구 합동지상군사령관으로서 훌륭하게 임무를 수행했습니다.

그러면 벨 사령관님의 기조연설을 듣겠습니다. 여러분 박수로 맞이해주시기 바랍니다. (박수)

벨 사령관：여러분 안녕하십니까？ 훌륭한 패널 여러분과 함께 관훈토론회에 참가할 기회를 주셔서 감사드립니다. 대한민국의 국가안보와 한미동맹에 영향을 끼치는 중요한 사안을 국민에게 알려주시는 언론인 여러분의 노고에 먼저 감사드립니다.

한­미 양국은 57년간 대한민국에 대한 무력공격을 격퇴하고 도발을 억지하며 한반도의 평화와 안전을 도모하기 위해 헌신하며 어깨를 나란히 하고 대한민국을 지켜왔습니다. 이 같은 안보에 대한 공약은 우리 부모와 또 조부모들에 의해 피로써 맺어졌습니다. 이는 여러 해를 거쳐 한­미 양국의 상호존중과 협력, 양 국민의 상호 교류에 의해 제고되었습니다. 미국의 의도와 희망은 대한민국에서 환영받고 대한민국이 원하는 한 굳건한 한미동맹을 유지하는 것입니다.

약 한달 전 미국 행정부와 입법부에서 한미동맹의 중요성과 공고함을 공개적으로 강조한 바 있습니다. 싱가포르에서 개최된 샹그리라 대화에서 로버트 게이츠 미 국방장관은 한반도에서 한미연합군은 하나의 포괄적인 원칙하에 보다 적합하고 보다 탄력적이며 보다 대응적이고 보다 지속될 수 있는 관계를 유지할 것이라고 말했습니다. 그로부터 1주일 후 미 하원에서는 지속적이고 공고한 한미동맹을 인식하고 옹호하는 하원 결의안을 통과시켰습니다. 그러므로 미국 정부는 물론 미국 국민은 미국의 한미동맹에 대한 공약을 지속적이고 항구적인 것으로 여기고 있습니다.

1953년 체결된 한미상호방위조약에 의해 한­미 양국은 안보 파트너 관계의 초석을 문서화했습니다. 조약 제3조에 다음과 같이 기술되어 있습니다. “각 당사국은 타 당사국에 대한 태평양지역에 있어서의 무력공격을 자국의 평화와 안전을 위태롭게 하는 것이라고 인정하고 공통의 위험에 대하여 행동할 것을 선언한다.” 이 조항은 50년 전에 그랬던 것처럼 오늘날도 중요하고 지속적입니다. 저는 한­미 양국의 대다수 국민이 이 같은 공약이 21세기, 그리고 그 후에도 한미관계의 근간으로 남아 있길 바란다고 믿습니다.

한미동맹과 한­미 유대관계는 현재 그 어느 때보다 깊고 넓습니다. 한­미 양국의 경제는 번영하고 있습니다. 양국 국민은 최상의 삶을 누리고 있습니다. 한­미 양국은 주요 교역 상대국입니다. 한­미 양국 국민은 안전하고 안정적인 환경에서 기꺼이 경제적인 투자를 합니다. 우리는 개인의 자유와 자유시장경제를 옹호하는 번영하는 민주주의의 수혜자들입니다. 대한민국은 세계 11대 경제대국입니다. 이는 전쟁의 폐허를 딛고 일어선 결과입니다. 이는 한­미 양국이 서로에 대해 공동 헌신을 한 것에 대한 탁월한 결과가 아닐 수 없습니다.

한­미 양국은 공동 가치관에 의해 연결된 번영하는 민주주의 국가입니다. 한­미 양국은 평화 민주주의 자유를 수호하고 안정된 시장경제를 통해 번영을 확대합니다. 오늘날 한미연합군은 어떠한 공동위험도 충분히 격퇴할 준비태세와 능력을 보유하고 있습니다. 든든하고 지속적인 한미상호방위조약이 한미동맹을 지탱하기 때문에 대한민국의 미래안보는 보장됩니다.

주지하는 바와 같이 지난 2월 한­미 양국 정부는 한미연합군사령관인 저로부터 한국군으로 2012년 4월 17일 전시작전통제권을 이양하기로 합의하였습니다. 한­미 양국 정부는 5년간 지속된 세부적이고 진지하며 솔직한 협의를 거쳐 이 같은 결심을 하기에 이르렀습니다. 이 같은 논의는 1994년에 시작되었습니다.

한미상호방위조약에 의하면 한­미 양국은 무력공격을 저지하기 위한 적절한 수단을 지속적으로 강화시키고 적절한 조치를 취하도록 돼 있습니다. 54년이 지난 지금 우리는 이를 계속 준수합니다. 전작권과 관련하여 한­미 양국군은 21세기에도 지속적인 한미동맹을 가장 잘 지원할 수 있는 지휘통제 메커니즘에 대한 신중하고 전문성 있는 협의와 합의를 하였습니다. 우리는 포괄적인 협의를 거쳤습니다. 양국 국가지도자는 정치적 목적뿐만 아니라 군사지휘관들의 전문적인 군사적 판단도 고려하고 검토하였습니다.

우리는 전작권 문제를 가볍게 다루도록 건의하지 않았습니다. 이는 전적으로 정치적인 결심이 아니었습니다. 이는 확고한 군사 결의 및 결단이었습니다. 그리고 이것은 올바른 결단이었습니다. 이는 한국군의 첨단기술 및 능력, 한국 지휘관들의 탁월한 우수성과 전문성, 한국군 장병들의 애국심과 용기 그리고 한국민들의 보다 자주적인 안보에 대한 갈망에 따라 공고하고 지속적인 동맹의 틀에 기초한 결심이었습니다. 미국은 이 같은 접근방식을 전적으로 지원합니다.

한­미 양국의 미래 전작권 지휘통제 관계는 군사적으로 공고합니다. 전쟁과 평화 시에 모두 효과적일 겁니다. 저는 대한민국의 국가안보와 상호 방위동맹은 이 같은 변화를 통해 실제로 더욱 공고해질 것으로 확신합니다. 우리의 동맹은 단순히 군사지휘통제체계에 국한되지 않습니다. 우리의 동맹은 우리가 비준한 동맹에 나타난 바와 같이 서로에 대한 국가적인 공약입니다. 중요한 것은 동맹 협의 결심과정입니다. 이 과정을 통해 정전, 그리고 위기시 필요하면 전시에 한­미 양국 국방장관을 포함한 주요 지도자들은 국가안보와 관련된 국가적인 지침과 방향을 제공합니다. 이 절차는 전작권 전환 이후에도 유효할 것입니다.

한­미 군사위원회와 양국 국방장관 간 실시되는 안보협의회는 전작권 전환 이후 효과적이고 핵심적인 수단으로서 한미동맹을 이끌어나갈 것입니다. 또 양국 사령부 간에 협의할 수 있도록 하고, 또 이에 권한을 부여함으로써 억지력을 제공하며 도발을 격퇴하게 될 것입니다.

1978년 한미연합군사령부 창설, 1994년 한국군에 평시작전권 이양을 비롯 지난 수년간에 걸친 주요 한­미 군사동맹 지휘통제 변경에 따라 많은 협의와 토론이 있었습니다. 돌이켜보면 모두가 이 결정들이 올바른 것이라는 데 동의합니다. 또한 각각의 결심은 성공적이었으며, 위대한 대한민국의 안보를 제고하기 위한 올바른 결심이었다는 데 동의합니다.

오래전 이 같은 충분한 토론회를 거쳐 결심한 결과 오늘날 대한민국 군은 세계최고의 군 중 하나로 발전, 자리매김할 수 있게 되었습니다. 또한 이 같은 결심의 결과 오늘날의 한미동맹 관계, 즉 세계역사상 가장 강력하고 영속적이며 탄력적인 동맹이 탄생한 것입니다.

1953년 한미상호방위조약에 서명한 당사자들은 대한민국이 강력한 세계 일류국가로서 미국의 지속적인 군사지원에 의해 자주국방을 할 수 있게 되기를 희망하고 염원했습니다. 이제 그날이 왔으며, 우리는 걱정이 아닌 축하를 해야 됩니다. 우리의 군사 위주 통제관계는 변화하고 한미관계와 관련하여 계속적인 협의와 토론이 있을지라도 결코 변하지 않는 것은 한미동맹의 근간입니다. 이는 한미상호방위조약을 통한 서로에 대한 국가적인 공약입니다. 한미동맹은 계속 확고할 것이고 한­미 양국의 안보에 대한 필요성을 충족시켜줄 것이며 압도적인 군사능력을 유지하여 필요시 대한민국에 대한 어떤 공격도 신속히 격퇴할 것입니다.

저는 지난 목요일 피터 페이스 미 합참의장을 대신하여 김관진 합참의장과 한미연합군사령부에서 대한민국 합동참모본부로의 전시작전권 전환 이행에 대한 전략적 전환계획에 서명하였습니다. 이는 아주 잘 발전된 중요한 문서이며, 전략적 수준의 이행과업을 정의하고 한­미 양국군에 의해 전환절차가 정확하고 정연하게 이루어질 수 있도록 보장하기 위해 책임을 부여하고 있습니다. 이를 통해 전투준비태세나 능력에 있어 전혀 차질이 없을 것입니다.

저는 한­미 양국의 군사관계가 성숙되고 변혁된 것에 자긍심을 가지고 있습니다. 또 한미동맹이 21세기와 그후에도 확고할 것으로 확신합니다. 아울러 한­미 양국이 1953년 상호방위조약의 각 조항에 대해 계속적으로 공약을 준수한다면 대한민국의 안보가 보장될 것이라고 믿습니다.

이제 북한에 대해 간략하게 말씀드리겠습니다. 최근 발표에 의하면 방코델타아시아(BDA) 문제는 해결되었고 북한은 6자회담의 비핵화 절차에 복귀하기로 합의하였습니다. 이것은 환영할 만한 소식입니다. 우리는 북한이 그들이 합의한 바를 실천하기를 희망합니다. 그 첫단계는 경수로와 영변에 있는 우라늄 재처리 시설을 영구적으로 폐쇄하고 IAEA로 하여금 완전한 사찰을 할 수 있도록 허락하는 것입니다. 그들은 이를 시행할 것을 약속했습니다. 이것이 잘 진행된다면 북한이 모든 핵무기 프로그램에 대한 불능화 및 종식을 하도록 할 것입니다.

우리는 북한이 그들이 합의한 것을 이행하는 것에 대해 대단히 희망적으로 봅니다. 오늘날 북한에게는 세계의 평화로운 국가들에 합류할 수 있는 역사적인 기회가 주어졌습니다. 이를 통해 북한은 대한민국 국민이 누리고 있는 삶의 수준을 북한주민들로부터 빼앗는 선군정치에서 벗어나 북한주민들에게 희망과 번영을 가져다줄 수 있을 겁니다. 그리고 우리는 이에 대해 희망적입니다.

한편 우리는 계속 북한의 군사능력에 대해 이해해야 합니다. 그리고 우리 자신이 적합한 군사준비태세를 갖추고 있어야 합니다. 우리는 북한의 선군정치가 120만 현역군의 전투준비태세를 강조하고 나머지 북한주민을 배제하고 궁핍하게 만들고 있다는 사실에 주목해야 합니다.

북한의 재래식 장비는 한­미 양국군에 의해 운용되는 첨단장비의 능력과 비교되지 않습니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 북한은 250문 이상의 장사정포를 배치하고 있으며, 아무런 통고 없이 서울 도심 한복판에 위치한 바로 이 건물을 가격할 수 있도록 배치하고 있습니다. 북한은 장사정포를 고의로 DMZ에 인접배치함으로써 서울시민을 위협하고 있습니다. 북한은 서울 수도권과 약 2300만 시민에게 엄청난 파괴를 가져올 수 있는 능력을 보유하고 있습니다. 이는 실질적인 위협이며, 간과해서는 안 됩니다.

또한 북한은 세계 최대규모의 특수작전부대를 보유하고 있습니다. 북한의 특수작전부대는 대한민국 국민이 사용하는 도로, 철도, 식수, 전기, 연료 체계를 파괴하고 평범한 대한민국 국민의 목숨을 앗아가도록 편성되어 있습니다. 북한의 의도를 판단하거나 추측하는 것은 제 역할이 아닙니다. 그러나 우리는 북한의 알려진 능력을 억지하고 격퇴할 준비를 갖추고 있어야 합니다.

북한의 미사일과 핵 프로그램들은 그들의 재래식 군사력을 뒷받침합니다. 북한이 계속 현대적인 단거리­중거리­장거리미사일을 개발 및 실험하는 것은 대한민국 영내는 물론 세계에 대한 위협입니다. 지난주에 IAEA 대표단이 방북하여 북한의 비핵화 합의 수준에 대한 검증을 제기하는 동안 북한은 첨단 단거리미사일 실험을 단행하였습니다. 이는 특히 대한민국과 군, 그리고 국민을 공격하기 위해 개발된 것입니다.

앞서 말씀드린 바와 같이 북한의 핵무기 프로그램은 대한민국 국민뿐만 아니라 세계 자유를 사랑하는 국민에게 극도로 도발적이고 위협적이며 위험합니다. 김정일은 이 능력과 위협을 이용하여 영내와 국제사회를 위협하려고 합니다. 평화와 안정에 대한 가장 큰 위협은 잠재성 있는 북한의 미사일 기술과 과시된 핵능력의 결합입니다. 이 위협은 실제적이며 한반도 및 세계에 영향을 미칩니다. 우리는 이를 간과할 수 없고, 간과해서도 안 됩니다.

그러나 북한이 지난 2월 6자회담에서 합의한 이행계획을 이행할 것이라는 희망적인 조짐이 있습니다. 저 역시 그들이 그러기를 진심으로 바랍니다. 우리는 모든 기회를 이용하여 북한으로 하여금 위협적인 태세를 자제하고 국제법과 합의를 준수하며, 평화적이며 번영하는 세계국가들과 합류하여 마침내 한반도에서 평화조약을 체결하도록 해야 합니다. 이로써 우리는 살아생전 평화롭고 협력적인 통일을 볼 수 있을 겁니다. 그러는 동안 한미상호방위조약은 양국으로 하여금 그 어떠한 공동위협도 방어할 임무를 부여합니다.

강력하고 상호 존중하는 준비된 한­미 동맹관계는 21세기에도 지속될 것이며, 위대한 대한민국 국민이 번영하고 평화로운 환경에서 자녀를 양육할 수 있도록 할 것입니다. 대단히 감사합니다. 질문이 있으면 답변드리겠습니다.

Kwan Hoon Press Club Including Q&A's

Presenter: General B. B. Bell
Commander, UNC/CFC/USFK

July 2, 2007, National Press Center Building, Seoul

Good Morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and participate in a dialogue with this distinguished panel. I appreciate what you all do for the citizenry to inform them of important issues impacting the security of the Republic of Korea, and the Alliance with the United States.
For 57 years the Republic of Korea and the United States have stood side-by-side with a mutual commitment to defeat an armed attack on this nation, deter further aggression and promote peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. This security commitment was forged in blood by our fathers and mothers, and indeed our grandfathers and grandmothers. It has been enhanced over the years through the mutual respect and cooperation of both nations, and by our citizenry interacting and engaging with one another. It is the intent and indeed the desire of the United States to maintain this strong partnership with the Republic of Korea as long as we are welcome and wanted in your great land.
In fact, just within this past month, both the executive and legislative branches of the United States Government emphasized publicly the importance and strength of the ROK-US Alliance. At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, reaffirmed that our combined military transformation efforts on the peninsula are, quote  ....guided by one overarching principle: to make our relationship more relevant, more resilient, more responsive and more enduring.  And a week later, the US House of Representatives passed a House resolution that recognized and championed the enduring strength of our alliance.
So, the United States Government and indeed the citizens of the United States see our alliance with and commitment to the Republic of Korea as enduring and steadfast. Indeed, in the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953, our two nations put in writing the foundation for our security partnership. Article III of the Treaty states that, "Each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the parties . would be dangerous to its own peace and safety, and declares that it would act to meet the common danger."
These words are just as important and enduring today as they were fifty four years ago. I am convinced that the vast majority of the American and Korean people desire this commitment to remain the bedrock of our relationship throughout the 21st century and beyond. The ties binding our Alliance and our two nations are deeper and broader today than ever before. Our two economies are performing well. Our citizens enjoy a superb quality of life. We are major trading partners.
Our peoples willingly invest in business opportunities in both countries in an environment of security and stability. We are both the benefactors of vibrant democracies which champion individual freedoms and free market opportunities. The Republic of Korea is the eleventh largest economy on the face of the globe -- and this from the ashes of war. What a magnificent outcome of a shared commitment by two nations to one another.
We are two democratic, prosperous nations linked by our shared values. Both of our nations are committed to upholding peace, democracy and freedom, and expanding prosperity through stable market economies.
Today, our combined military forces are ready and capable of meeting, and rapidly and decisively defeating any common danger. With a strong Alliance underpinned by a continuing ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty, the future security of the Republic of Korea is assured.
Now, as I know you are all well aware, last February our governments agreed to transfer operational control -- OPCON -- of ROK military forces in wartime from the Commander of Combined Forces Command -- that s me -- to the ROK military on April 17, 2012. Our governments reached this decision after serious, earnest consultations and deliberations that lasted for over five years. Indeed, our discussions on this started in 1994. Our Mutual Defense Treaty charges our two nations to, and I quote, "..... maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and .... take suitable measures in consultation and agreement." Fifty four years later, we continue to do just that.
Regarding OPCON, our two militaries have carefully and professionally consulted and agreed on military command and control mechanisms that will best support an enduring alliance throughout the 21st Century. Our discussions have been comprehensive. Our national leaders weighed and considered not only the long-term political aims of our two countries, but also the expert military judgments of our most senior military officials. We did not recommend or make this OPCON decision lightly. It was not purely a political decision. It was a decision made on the basis of sound military doctrine and judgment. It was the right decision. It is a decision that recognizes the strength of the ROK military and its advanced technologies and capabilities, the enormous competency and professionalism of its military leaders, the patriotism and courage of ROK military Servicemembers, and the desire of the Korean people to establish a more self-reliant security stance -- in the framework of a strong and enduring Alliance. The US fully supports this approach.
The future OPCON command and control relationship between our forces is militarily sound, it will work well in peace or war, and I am convinced that the security of the Republic of Korea and our mutual defense alliance will actually be strengthened through this change. Our Alliance is not singularly about military command and control mechanisms, it is more about our national commitments to each other, formalized in our ratified treaty. And importantly, the Alliance consultative decision making processes -- where our senior leaders, including the ROK Minister of Defense and the US Secretary of Defense, provide national
guidance and direction for security and defense matters during Armistice, crisis, or, as necessary during war -- will remain in place following OPCON transfer. These consultative processes, including the ROK-US Military Committee and the formal Security Consultative Meetings between the ROK Minister of Defense and the US Secretary of Defense, will guide the Alliance after OPCON transfer as key and effective means to consult and empower our national military commands to deter and defeat aggression.
Over the years with each major Alliance military command and control change -- including the establishment of Combined Forces Command in 1978, and the assumption of peacetime operational control of ROK forces by the ROK military in 1994 -- there was much consultation and debate. Yet, in hindsight, everyone agrees that each decision was a success, and that each was the right thing to do to enhance the security of this great country. These thoroughly debated decisions, long ago, resulted in the ROK military developing into what it is today one of the great militaries of the world. These decisions also resulted in the ROK-US Alliance becoming what it is today one of the strongest, most enduring and resilient alliances in the history of the world.
It was the hope and dream of those who signed the Mutual Defense Treaty in 1953 to see the Republic of Korea emerge as a powerful, first-world nation able to defend itself with enduring military support from the United States. That day has indeed come and it is time for celebration, not concern.
While our military command and control relationships will change, and while we will continue to consult and discuss issues involving our relationship, what will not -- not -- change is the foundation of our Alliance   our national commitment to each other through the Mutual Defense Treaty. Our Alliance will continue to remain strong, meet the security needs of both partners, and maintain overwhelming military capability to effectively deter and if necessary rapidly and decisively defeat any attack on the Republic of Korea.
This past Thursday, the ROK Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Kim, Kwan Jin, and I (on behalf of US Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Peter Pace) signed a Strategic Transition Plan for the Implementation of Wartime Operational Control Transfer from Combined Forces Command to the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff. This well crafted and important document defines strategic level implementation tasks and assigns responsibilities to ensure the transition process will be done orderly and correctly between our two militaries, with no possible lapse in readiness or capability. I am proud of the progress we have made in maturing and transforming our military partnership. I am certain our Alliance will remain strong throughout this century and beyond. I am equally sure that the security of the Republic of Korea will remain assured, as long as the Republic of Korea and the United States remain committed to the principles and indeed the provisions of the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953.
Let me briefly turn to north Korea. The recent announcement that the Banko Delta Asia issue has been resolved, and that the north Koreans have agreed to return the Six Party Talk process of denuclearization, is welcome news. We are all hopeful north Korea will finally do what they agreed to do. The first step is to permanently shut down their reactor and uranium reprocessing facility at Yongbyon, and permit full inspections by the IAEA. They have promised to do this. This is intended to lead next to their full declaration of all their nuclear weapons programs, and the disablement and termination of each one.
We are all very hopeful that the north Koreans will now live up to the agreements they have made. Today, there is an historical opportunity for the north Koreans to join the peaceful nations of the world. By doing so they can bring hope and even prosperity to their citizens, while stepping away from their military first policies which deprive their citizens of the standard of living enjoyed by the citizens of the Republic of Korea. Again, we are hopeful.
Meanwhile, we must continue to understand the north's military capabilities, and ready ourselves appropriately. We must pay attention to the fact that North Korea s  Military First  policy emphasizes the readiness of their 1.2 million man active military force, to the exclusion and detriment of the rest of the people in north Korea. And while their conventional equipment does not compare to the modern advanced capability employed by ROK and US forces, north Korea, nonetheless, has over 250 Long Range Artillery systems postured so that they can fire on this very building in the heart of Seoul -- with no notice.
North Korea purposely placed these long range weapons systems close to the DMZ so as to threaten the citizens of Seoul. The north has the capability to bring enormous destruction on the Greater Seoul Metropolitan Area, and the nearly 23 million Korean citizens who live here. This is a very real threat which cannot be ignored. North Korea also has the world s largest Special Operations Force. In addition to its military tasks during war, this north Korean capability is designed to destroy your nation's civilian sophisticated road, rail, water, electrical, and fuel delivery systems, and thus bring death and destruction to the lives of average Korean citizens. Again, it s not my role to judge or guess north Korea s intent, but we must deter and be ready to defeat their known capabilities.
North Korea s missile and nuclear programs bolster their conventional military capability. The north's continued development and testing of a full range of modern short, medium, and long range missiles threaten the Republic of Korea, the region, and indeed the world. Just last week while the IAEA was in north Korea seeking to reinitiate verification of compliance with the north's agreement to denuclearize, the north conducted testing of advanced short range missiles -- missiles specifically designed to attack the Republic of Korea, its armed forces, and its citizens. As noted earlier, their nuclear weapons program is extremely provocative, threatening, and dangerous to the citizens of South Korea, as well as to free men and women worldwide. Kim Jong Il also uses these capabilities -- the threat of them -- in an attempt to coerce regional and international communities. One of the biggest threats to peace and stability is the potential capability for north Korea to couple its missile technology with its demonstrated nuclear ability. This threat is real, it has peninsular, regional and global implications, and we cannot and must not ignore it.
Again, there are hopeful signs that north Korea is willing to return to the action plan they agreed to during the Six Party Talks this past February. I sincerely hope they do so. We should take every opportunity to encourage north Korea to stand down its threatening posture, abide by international law and agreements, join the world's peaceful and prosperous nations, and conclude a peace treaty on the Korean peninsula. With this, the goal of peaceful and cooperative reunification during our lifetime can be achieved. Meanwhile, our treaty commits our two nations to defend against any common threat. A strong, mutually respectful and ready Alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States will endure throughout the 21st Century and allow the good citizens of this nation to prosper, raise their children, and live in peace.
I will now be happy to respond to your questions.

Question 1:
General Bell. Reference to the base returns, the U.S. side makes reference to recovery and the environment including bio-slurping and such Members of the National Assembly visited and said it was an  Oil Field . It was brought out that the Korean people will now have to pay for the expenses related to contaminated bases returned by U.S. forces. Do you think U.S. forces did their best to take care of the environment, or do think something was lacking in your efforts?

A1. General Bell:
Thank you very much for your question. First, I need to put the question in context, because it's necessary to put it in context. At the conclusion of the Korean War, when the armistice was signed, as you know all the nation's, the Republic of Korea and United States in the lead, spent billions of dollars defending this nation and suffered enormous casualties. The United States alone having at least 33,000 of our sons and daughters killed in combat. After the war, and during the armistice to this day, the U.S. has lost nearly 800 service members defending this nation both in limited combat operations and accidents over these 54 years.
At the conclusion of the war, the United States willingly and respectfully placed our combat forces along the high-speed avenues of approach, from the DMZ to Seoul. It was in this method that we placed American troops between north Korean troops and the citizens of this capital. It was our desire and willingness to continue to place our troops in harm's way in order to protect and defend this nation. It is those base camps that were granted us at the end of the Korean War, where we lost the additional 800 soldiers, nearly 800, and where we have been operating from these 54 years. Along those high-speed avenues of approach, they re the most dangerous approaches to the capital city. I believe we and your own military have been very successful in fending off a military aggression by the North Koreans and deterring an additional war on this peninsula in those 54 years.
Preparation for war is a dangerous and dirty business, brilliantly performed by members of the military forces on behalf of their citizens. These base camps from which Americans have lived and prepared to fight from over the last 54 years are not residential areas. There are specifically meant to prepare military equipment and hardware and tough soldiers to fight and die for this land.
We take this business very seriously. As late as 2004 our two nations agreed to the provisions under which, if a base was no longer needed, base camps and those lands would be returned to the Korean people for their use as seen fit and desired by the Government of Korea, and local citizens in accordance with the Land Partnership Plan and the Yongsan Relocation Plan. Many of these base camps are now becoming available to the people of Korea for their use, while U.S. forces maintain our commitment to fight and die in this land to deter aggression and ensure peace and stability as we consolidate to base camp south of Seoul.
The land in these base camps is very valuable and the United States taxpayers, through appropriated funds by our Congress, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years improving these base camps, including modern new buildings in some cases, water treatment plants, waste water treatment plants, roads, electrical grid lines and many other improvements to the land.
It in accordance with our agreements both nations approved responsibilities for base camp returns and both nations accepted those packages, and I would just cover them quickly, because I think you need to hear this. In spite of the commitment by the United States, and the billions of dollars spent over last 54 years, and the loss of life over the last 54 years, and the investment that we've made in the hundreds of millions of dollars in these base camps since the end of the war, the United States agrees, in our Status of Forces Agreement, to return all of the land and the property and the new facilities free to the Republic of Korea for the Republic of Korea to use as it desires. As it does, all the capital improvements appropriated and provided by the United States Congress over the years is being also given to the Republic of Korea. So, these include water treatment plants and water purification facilities, and I could show you some new buildings that are magnificent structures that will have a long and enduring role in the future of the Republic of Korea. This is a very advantageous agreement for the Republic of Korea.
For our part the United States and the Republic of Korea agreed that the United States would remediate all known, imminent and substantial endangerments to human life. We have done that, and then some. We have spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two years remediating hazards that go far beyond the known, imminent and substantial endangerment. In the end, the base camp return process is advantageous to both nations and both nations have responsibilities. And, in the end, the people of Republic of Korea are the winners and as is always our desire, so is this Alliance. We want the people of Korea to be the benefactors of the commitment of both nations, and we will continue do that, thank you.

Question 2:
General Bell this is meant as a follow-on to the first question. I understand that your statement is intended to address U.S. steps to remedy the contaminated environment at U.S. bases. However, environmental non-governmental organizations and the Ministry of Environment have joined forces. General Bell are you willing to accept and respect the regulations related to the environment from the Korean government, and do you think that you did your best, your additional best to recover any environmental contaminations under the agreement with the ROK and U.S. governments.

A2. General Bell:
Sir, I believe I've answered this question already. I can go back through an answer it again, but the United States has fully met our obligations. We are good stewards of the land. We are good neighbors to Republic of Korea. We believe the Alliance is enduring. We respect the people of the Republic of Korea, and we have committed to the defense and to deterrence in this land. All I can tell you at this point, is that these are matters between our two governments and our two governments have negotiated and conducted their business respectfully, in accordance with our Status of Forces Agreement. I believe that when the entire story is told of this issue, that everyone will agree that the United States is a good neighbor, that our forces are good stewards of the land, and that the American forces here in the Republic of Korea are honored to be prepared to give their lives in defense of this nation against an enduring threat.

Question 3:
General Bell. I've two questions related to the North Korean missile launching. And you mentioned this in your keynote speech. As I m sure you are aware the North Koreans launched three short-range missiles and the Korean people think that this is too frequent and also they are very concerned about the intent of the North Koreans. They also wonder if this was a successful missile to launch or not. General Bell I would like ask for your estimation or your assessment related to the North Koreans missile launches. My second question is for the example of the 19th of June, there were reports that North Korea launched missiles however, foreign press said that there were no missile launches. Is there any problem related to information and intelligence sharing between ROK and U.S.? The Korean people are very concerned about this.

A3. General Bell:
Thank you. First, the issue of the most recent short-range missile launches. What I find very disturbing is that the North continues to test these advanced short-range missiles. These missiles are designed to be used on this peninsula. These are not missiles to be fired intercontinentally. These missiles are basically designed to replace old versions of it was called a Free Rocket Over Ground, or FROG. These are modern, solid-fueled, which means they're easy to handle, and rapidly capable of being fired. If and when they are employed operationally by the North Koreans, in other words, ready to be put into use, they, along with other long range systems, will continue to substantially threaten Seoul and, because of their extended range, cities south of Seoul. The reason that the North Koreans continue to test these missiles is unknown to me. They had an opportunity to join the peaceful community of nations. Even while the IAEA is in town, they are testing these missiles. So, what does that mean for us? From a military perspective, it means readiness. I can t gauge Kim Jong Il s intent, and I don't want to try to. I want to ensure that Korean and American forces, in deterring and defending are ready to deal with this full range of threats, no matter what they are. And, I will tell you that today we ready and we are capable and that we will stay ready and capable.
Regarding intelligence sharing. We have a very cooperative and very engaging relationship between United States intelligence agencies and the Republic of Korea intelligence agencies. Personally, I meet with the leaders of these intelligence agencies from time-to-time, and we discuss the full range of intelligence sharing approaches. Beyond that it would be inappropriate for me to discuss in this forum any of the methods or techniques that we use to share information, or the adequacy or accuracy of press reports concerning any kind of North Korean military operations. When we have information to share with people of Republic of Korea, we ll do it through official channels -- Ministry of National Defense here and Department of Defense in Washington. And, as the press speculates we will read those speculations with interest just like you.

Question 4:
This is a follow-on question General Bell, regarding the recently launched North Korean missile. You said this was solid fuel then do you mean that this missile did not exist in the past, and could you explain in detail the accuracy of this missile.

A4. General Bell:
Last year, two times ago when I testified before my Congress, I testified in open session about these solid-fueled short-range missiles. This is not a secret about their modern capabilities. All I can tell you about these at this point is they are modern, compared to the older versions of Free Rocket Over Ground and they are technologically threatening to this nation. Certainly they re a big proliferation issue as well. Missiles of this nature could be used by any foreign nation to prosecute a tactical war. So, we re very concerned about it. As I stated in my testimony before the U.S. Congress, these missiles generally appear to be performing as they are designed. I will not go into any more detail on accuracy or other parameters, but it is our judgment that they are performing as designed. These were not failed missile tests; they were successful tests.

Question 5:
General Bell. Recently the Pacific Command Commander Admiral Timothy Keating stated that under the cooperation of the IAEA, U.S. forces will attempt to verify the shutting down of the north Korean nuclear facilities. It is very significant that a U.S. military official would make this kind of statement. Does that mean the U.S. Forces Korea under guidance of PACOM will conduct this mission and what is the need to conduct a separate verification process by the U.S. military? Is this necessary? What kind of methods are you going to use? And, how are you going to fine tune (working with) IAEA.

A5. General Bell:
Thank you. USFK is the United States element within Combined Forces Command. There's no separate USFK headquarters; it doesn't exist. So when you say USFK you re speaking of the American element inside Combined Forces Command. Now, Combined Forces Command in which USFK resides, has a purely deterrence and defense mission on behalf of the Republic of Korea. And so if there was any U.S. engagement with North Korea militarily for compliance or whatever, it would come not come out of Combined Forces Command nor the U.S. element within Combined Forces. So that s why it s proper for Admiral Keating to be discussing this issue and not me. So to be honest with you, I can't comment on anything that is his purview, or the purview of the two nations in consultation. I can say that anything the United States might consider doing with north Korea would be done in full consultation and in full dialogue with our great ally, the Republic of Korea. The United States will not act alone in negotiations with north Korea and will only talk to north Korea in full agreement and consultations with our ally.

Question 6:
On the subject of operational control and transfer. Now the ROK and U.S. will transform into a supporting and supported relationship and some are very skeptical because since the end of World War II, U.S. forces have never engaged without operational control. What will be the ROK and U.S. military relationship after operational control transfer and of course after the operational control transfer you will have to change your OPLAN. And, in this case will this affect the number of operational forces deployed on the Korean peninsula? We are planning to have 690,000 U.S. forces on the peninsula. Please explain, in detail the reduction rate in Army, Navy and Air Force.

A6. General Bell:
Thank you. That's a half-hour answer, but I ll try to keep it short. That's not fair, you know, to give me such a question, now she s [moderator] going to get mad at me. It is not true, not true, that the United States has never been in a supporting relationship in our world-wide commitments. That s simply false. This is a normal military command and control relationship. It is very normal. We have done this in Bosnia. We did it in Afghanistan for quite a while. We are more than willing to support other militaries. What we never do, and the Republic of Korea never does, or any other nation, is surrender command of our forces to another nation. So, we would never give a force away and go home and say  when you re through with them, let us know.  That s why we keep a headquarters here; maintaining our national command lines, while putting our forces under control of Korean military leaders. This is a normal doctrinal approach to operations and not unusual at all. And, we re willing to do that because the Republic of Korea has such accomplished senior leaders, and excellent military formations.
Today, when the United States, let's say a Corps, arrives for training or for war, we give that Corps, totally, to one of your Republic of Korea Armies. I don't control that Corps; your Army controls that Corps. It fights the battle where your Army commander wants it to fight. Its outcome on the battlefield is today under the control of Korean senior generals. Yes, I am in that chain of command as the CFC commander but my national authorities today are not as CFC commander but in that headquarters called USFK. In the future we ll still have a USFK; it will not be combined with the Korean senior leadership. So we will allow our ally to control our military forces. And, formally we will support your headquarters in consultation with the normal alliance consultative processes. You will make decisions. If we agree with those decisions, and I m sure we will, we will fully support them. If we have a question about those decisions, we will consult, as good friends do and will arrange for a resolution of that issue, then we ll continue to go forward. I see this as a healthy thing where we trust our ally, the Republic of Korea, to employ our forces. You have command of the Zaytun Division in Iraq today. You have not ceded command to either the Iraqi military or the U.S. military. And, while that Zaytun is controlled by the US. Headquarters in Iraq, the national command goes right back to your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If your people wanted to withdraw those forces tomorrow, and your President agreed, they could do that. And, so this is just kind of the reverse of that. If you want me to talk about plans, I ll do that in a moment, but I wanted to make sure we clarify that.
I ll talk of the question of planning. First there will be new OPLANs. There has to be. This will be an OPLAN written principally by the Republic of Korea with the U.S. developing in a supporting one. That process is just now beginning because we couldn t begin the new planning process until the Strategic Transition Plan was signed. And, it was signed last week. It ll take us a couple of years to develop new plans. Second, you stated a number of U.S. military personnel that are committed to supporting the current OPLAN. We never divulge those numbers, so I don't know where you're getting your information from. Those plans are secret and close hold. But I will tell you this: Our most readily available capable forces today, and in the future, are our air power at our naval power. It s here. It s lethal. It is extremely modern. It is very capable and is fully empowered with precision munitions delivered undersea or on the surface of the sea or from the air by aerial platforms. So you would expect any supporting OPLAN first and foremost to bring air and naval power to bear, while the ground forces of the Republic of Korea absorb initial attack from North Korea. You can t get ground forces here in a day. And, so the OPLANs will eventually be air and naval centric, just like they are today. So the numbers of U.S. ground troops that will be committed will be based on analysis that we do of the requirements for ground forces, ROK and U.S. And, that s going to take us a couple of years to do that, war gaming to figure out what makes sense over time, because it takes a long time to get large numbers of U.S. ground forces here. In many respects our initial capability that we have here will be very much like it is today, only we keep getting better and better. So we ll just have to see how the planning process goes over the next several years.

Question 7:
General Bell. You expressed in public about your regret or your compliant about funding of the forces. This year in January you stated that to satisfy the shortfall in SMA and to secure your financial issues you might have to make some changes, and in April you stated perhaps you will reconsider the relocation of bases. My question is what actions are you taking to address the estimated shortfall in SMA funds?

A7. General Bell:
Thank you for the question. Here's my dilemma: I have a Congress. You have a National Assembly. Every nickel I get, every bit of money I get to run American operations here is appropriated from my Congress or provided to us by the SMA burden sharing agreement, between the United States and the Republic of Korea. My Congress has an expectation of what is referred to as equitable burden sharing, and so my Congress gives me money with the expectation that the ROK will pay about 50% of what we call our non-personnel stationing costs. In other words, no one would expect Republic of Korea to pay my salary, but the other costs, my Congress expects the Republic of Korea to pay about half of those non-personnel stationing costs. When that number is less than 50%, then I have what we call a delta or difference that I have to find a way to live with, so there's a disagreement between my Congress and your National Assembly and the implementation of burden sharing. That affects my troops. It can affect their quality of life, their housing; there are a lot of things. And, so I have no choice but to reconcile this. I don t have another source of income. It either comes from my Congress or your National Assembly. And, when there s a shortage somebody's got to give me some more money, or I have to make cuts. I don't want to cut my readiness. We have a solemn commitment to Republic of Korea. I don't want to cut civilian Republic of Korea employees. It's not fair to them. They have a reasonable expectation of employment by the American government, and their salaries are paid for by SMA funds. I don t want to do that. I don't want to cut my logistics, that's part of my readiness. So if I have to cut, what's left? There's all this stuff about transformation and relocation. It is within that paradigm where the two nations have to agree on where were going to go. This involves both my State Department and your MOFAT, MND and my Secretary of Defense s office. These are high level decisions and frankly no one can go it alone, so we will need to consult. Any decisions about stationing will be a function of the annual consultative meetings: the Military Committee Meetings and the annual Security Consultative Meeting between the United States and the Republic of Korea. And, that will be held this October. So I think we ll just have to keep working on this problem until our senior military leaders meet here Seoul this October.
Just one more quick comment. These negotiations are done by your Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in my case the Secretary of State or State Department. I do believe that they are discussing these issues in good faith with mutual respect and understanding. I am optimistic it will have a fruitful way ahead, and I'm not predicting some dire outcome. We have a very good relationship between those two entities and they are more than able to work these matters out for good effect. And, I will remain very optimistic about how this is going to turn out.

Question 8:
General Bell. Next year we are scheduled to reach a reduction of 12,500 USFK troops. There are reports that there will be additional reductions to USFK troops. What is your position on this? Also, my second question is currently and so far USFK has managed to deter North Korean aggression; however, because of the national strategic concerns is there a high probability that USFK will serve as a maneuverable and mobile force that serves in northeast Asia and can deploy to conflicts in Asia.

A8. General Bell:
The focus of a U.S. force stationed here will be principally, primarily and clearly, through the mutual agreement of the two nations, here to assist the Republic of Korea to deter aggression and defeat an attack should an attack occur. That is the principal role. I know of no other discussion, plans or talk about any other role for this force at this point. So I'm very confident that the senior U.S.
military headquarters, here in your land, will remain throughout this century and beyond as long as we are welcome and wanted. And, that headquarters and its forces will be focused on solely the Republic of Korea and defending against armed attack. Let there be no doubt about that. Second, you talked about 12,500. That s true. Both nations agreed to draw down U.S. forces by 12,500. That s a formal agreement and is in the pubic domain. That s not secret. We re not to that 12,500 yet. So there are going to be additional reductions, but they re not new. These are a continuing evolution to the agreement to reduce by 12,500, concluding that in 2008. So there will be additional forces leaving the Republic of Korea, but this is not news. Approximately 25,000 American forces that will remain here, and that is the number we ve put out many, many times, at the highest levels of both governments, that will remain here steadfast and fully prepared to meet our charge and defense obligations. So there is no new plan for withdraw of U.S. forces. I m certainly not planning any withdrawal of U.S. forces and I ve got no instructions from anybody to plan new withdrawals of forces. We are just going to complete what the two nations agreed to.
Thank you.