Korea-US Atomic Energy Agreement

By Jay Kim

Under the 1956 Atomic Energy Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the U.S., Korea is prohibited from enriching and reprocessing nuclear fuels. The prohibition was to prevent nuclear materials from being used for a military purpose (the development and production of nuclear weapons), and to stop the possible leaking of such nuclear technology to terrorist countries ― in particular, to North Korea. This agreement, amended in 1974, will expire in March 2014. But over the last 57 years, the nuclear energy industry has grown rapidly, to the point where North Korea has already developed nuclear weapons and successfully launched intercontinental ballistic missiles several times. Thus, the concern about leaking nuclear technology to North Korea has lost its meaning.

Though the U.S. promised South Korea to provide nuclear deterrence against a possible nuclear threat from North Korea, I think that it is time for South Korea to express its intention to develop nuclear technology. In other words, it is desirable for the country to have rational discussions with the U.S. on its wishes to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel because North Korea cannot be trusted. But it is not desirable to show any emotional expression or give the impression that the prohibition is infringement of sovereignty and excessive U.S. interference.

In this respect, it is a good thing that the two countries just agreed on the two-year extension of the agreement. Some U.S. analysts suggested to extend the agreement for five to 10 years or to establish a facility controlled by multiple nations in South Korea. There were also moderates who claimed that the U.S. should cautiously approach the issue of extension in light of the alliance between the two countries, and that the U.S. should actively take initiatives to allow China to play a central role in solving the North Korean nuclear problem. I believe that the two-year extension is a good thing, and that South Korea should use wise diplomacy with the U.S. on nuclear issues over the next two years.

The International Nuclear Cooperation Report pointed out that South Korea should look at the diplomatic achievements that Japan has shown in its nuclear cooperation with the U.S. during the last 50 years. Japan has been highly rated by the international community and the U.S. for its transparency of nuclear energy development. But Japan was also able to operate its reprocessing facilities after negotiations with the U.S., which has been against nuclear proliferation. We should study how Japan, under the same restrictions as ours, was able to achieve this trust. One major problem we have is that our Atomic Energy Commission primarily consists of the politicians with a prime minister as its chairman. Instead of criticizing the U.S. for not allowing our country to reprocess nuclear waste without its permission, what is needed is nuclear diplomacy, with a nuclear energy commission of experts that can persuade the U.S. and the international community within two years.

Experts predict that Asia will have more than half of the nuclear plants in the world by 2015, due to the rapid growth of the nuclear energy industry in the region. Even though the international community knows that Japan already possesses plutonium in tens of tons, it does not doubt the non-proliferation policy of Japan. Under the circumstances where the whole world, led by the U.S., tries to restrict nuclear proliferation, it is wise to refrain from claiming that the U.S. is violating the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea. It is because nothing will be solved by doing so.

To get what we want in the next two years, we need trust from the international community. Currently, our country has 23 nuclear plants in operation, and they generate more than 30 percent of the total electricity consumed in the country. To get what we want in the next two years, I hope that the Atomic Energy Commission will be reorganized with various experts in nuclear energy, for we all know the importance of nuclear energy, which has been a driving force for our economy. And it is desirable to let the commission lead diplomatic efforts toward the international community. I think that the two-year extension contains a message that the restriction can be removed within two years.

Jay Kim is a former U.S. congressman. He serves as chairman of the Kim Chang Joon US-Korea Foundation. For more information, visit Kim's website at www.jayckim.com.

Site Map E-paper Subscribe Register LogIn
Site Map E-paper Subscribe Register LogIn