What Are the International Precedents for Consolidating Military Academies? "A Twin to Japan's National Defense Academy" [Reporter's File]

▲ On May 27, Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-baek visited the Korea Military Academy in Nowon-gu, Seoul, to listen to opinions from cadets regarding the proposed consolidation of military academies.

There is significant public opposition to the Ministry of National Defense's plan to merge the Korea Military Academy, the Naval Academy, and the Air Force Academy into a single institution, tentatively named the Korea Armed Forces Military University. Following the alumni associations of the Korea Military Academy, those of the Naval and Air Force academies have also reportedly solidified their opposition, labeling the move a "hasty consolidation." Meanwhile, a public petition calling for the impeachment of Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-baek is nearing 200,000 signatures. Dissenting currents have also been detected within the Democratic Party.

As the consolidation of military academies is a campaign pledge and a national policy task of President Lee Jae-myung, the government and the ruling party are expected to push forward with the plan. However, it is true that the concerns raised by the alumni associations regarding a "hasty push" carry considerable weight. Among nations with significant scale and security vulnerabilities similar to South Korea, only Japan and Germany utilize integrated military academy systems to train officers. Coincidentally, these are both defeated nations that face severe military constraints both domestically and internationally. It is inevitable that questions will arise as to why South Korea must imitate the officer training methods of defeated nations.

The recommendation put forth by the public-private-military joint special advisory committee, which operated directly under the Defense Minister, suggests integrated education for the first and second years, followed by branch-specific education for the third and fourth years. This is remarkably similar to the academic system of Japan's National Defense Academy, a model that is impossible to follow given the national sentiment. When pushing for a new policy such as the consolidation of military academies, one would expect case studies and preliminary research to have been conducted; there is concern that the advisory committee or the Ministry of National Defense may be proceeding hastily, skipping such essential procedures.

Before the Pacific War, Japan operated separate Army and Navy academies to train officers for each branch. After the war, the U.S.-led Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) promoted the demilitarization of Japan, downgrading the army and navy into a National Police Reserve and a Maritime Safety Force, respectively, before eventually consolidating them into the Self-Defense Forces. In this process, the officer training institution was also downsized into the National Defense Academy (originally named the National Safety Academy) in 1952.

▲ Graduates perform a hat-tossing ceremony at the 2019 graduation ceremony of Japan's National Defense Academy.

The first-year curriculum at the National Defense Academy focuses on general liberal arts. Students take liberal arts courses, foreign languages, physical education, and defense studies unrelated to specific military branches. Upon advancing to the second year, students select their branch—Ground, Maritime, or Air—and their major.

A retired army officer who studied at Japan's National Defense Academy explained, "The National Defense Academy is an educational institution established to support exclusive defense, joint operations under the U.S.-Japan alliance, and crisis management." He noted that it is an educational system designed to guarantee minimal defense capabilities in a situation where security leadership has been ceded to the United States. In other words, it was born under circumstances vastly different from those of South Korea, which faces North Korea and maintains its own security leadership.

Germany also reorganized its officer training system after its defeat in World War II. Before the war, each branch recruited soldiers and produced officers after two to three years of intensive training and education. After the defeat, the system shifted to "military education and training followed by general education." After selecting their branch, officer candidates receive military education and training at their respective branch institutions for over a year to grow into military experts. Subsequently, they earn bachelor's and master's degrees in purely civilian disciplines at the Bundeswehr University.

A retired army general, known as part of the "German-trained group," pointed out, "Germany's officer training system emerged from the country's unique environment after the war, characterized by a decline in public perception of officers and a sharp drop in applicants." He added, "The core of the German system was offering the incentive of the Bundeswehr University, where one could earn a bachelor's or master's degree equivalent to those in the civilian sector, unlike before the war." In terms of providing military education and training followed by civilian degrees, there is no fundamental difference from South Korea's current military academies.

The recommendation from the public-private-military joint special advisory committee proposes a "2+2" network-style integration. This plan involves basic liberal arts and foundational major education without branch distinction at the Korea Armed Forces Military University for the first and second years, followed by advanced major education and military training at individual academies after selecting a branch for the third and fourth years. While not a finalized plan by the Ministry of National Defense, the committee's recommendation serves as a primary benchmark for the consolidation.

No matter how one looks at it, it is similar to Japan's National Defense Academy. The only difference is whether the non-branch-specific education lasts for one year or two. The committee reportedly maintains that they "never referenced Japan's National Defense Academy." If that is the case, it means the committee failed to conduct sufficient preliminary research for policy development. Had they reviewed even a cursory overview of international cases for integrated military academies, they would have naturally avoided a "2+2" network-style integration plan that resembles a fraternal twin to Japan's National Defense Academy.

If the Ministry of National Defense rejects the Japanese-style integration, the alternative is an academic system where branch-specific training and education occur first, followed by integrated education. This, too, is the German model of a defeated nation, making it burdensome to follow. The German incentive of awarding civilian degrees lacks distinctiveness, as it is a system already in place at South Korean military academies. A key official at the Ministry of National Defense lamented, "Whichever direction the integrated military academy takes, it appears to be an imitation of officer training from defeated nations. In particular, the committee's recommendation is very similar to the Japanese model," adding, "It is difficult to find a model for an integrated military academy worth referencing from normal nations that are free from such historical backgrounds and prioritize security."

Attention is focused on what kind of integrated military academy plan the Ministry of National Defense will present. Many observers note that it will be difficult to avoid the academic systems of Japan and Germany in the broader framework. If they choose the German model, they will face criticism for following the path of a defeated nation without tangible benefits; if they choose the Japanese model, they risk not only being seen as following a defeated nation but also inviting controversy over the Ministry's "pro-Japanese" stance. Minister Ahn Gyu-baek faces a heavy burden.

※