Commentary
Duyeon Kim, Andrei Lankov, Leon V. Sigal
{
"authors": [
"Duyeon Kim"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy",
"Korean Peninsula"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"South Korea"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Decoding the U.S.-South Korea Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
The successor agreement to the U.S.-South Korean 1974 civil nuclear cooperation accord reflects the interdependence of the American and South Korean nuclear industries as an equal partnership.
By Duyeon Kim
Published on Sep 30, 2015
Source: CSIS
On June 15, the United States and South Korea signed a successor agreement to their 1974 civil nuclear cooperation accord. Updating the existing agreement took over four years of challenging negotiations complicated by Seoul’s demands for the right to enrich uranium and reprocess (or pyroprocess) spent nuclear fuel to which Washington objected. What began as nearly irreconcilable political differences resulted in win-win compromises that strike a balance between maintaining the U.S.' core nonproliferation policy and reflecting South Korea’s industrial maturity and desire to advance its civil nuclear program while establishing pathways for an unprecedented level of cooperation between the two allies. The new agreement reflects the interdependence of the American and South Korean nuclear industries as an equal partnership—from a unilateral obligation to reciprocal consent rights and obligations—as well as mature, strong bilateral relationship...This report was originally published by CSIS
Read the full text
About the Author
Duyeon Kim
Former Associate, Nuclear Policy Program, Asia Program
Kim is an expert on nuclear nonproliferation, diplomacy, and Northeast Asia.
- Three Dimensions: Can North Korea be Contained?
- Getting Japan–South Korea Relations Back on TrackArticle
James L. Schoff, Duyeon Kim
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie China
- China Sells Stability Amid American VolatilityCommentary
U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.
Chong Ja Ian
- China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of EverythingCommentary
Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.
Damien Ma
- When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly NonpartisanCommentary
For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.
Elina Noor
- Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the SameCommentary
Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.
Alvin Camba
- How to Predict China’s Economic Performance for 2025: A Sectoral ApproachCommentary
GDP growth means something fundamentally different in China than in most countries.
Michael Pettis
