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 Endowment for International Peace
- Trump Turns NATO into a Tool of CoercionCommentary
The full list of humiliations Europe has endured since Donald Trump returned to the White House makes for grim reading. But Washington’s adversarial approach to its allies undermines its own power base.
Rym Momtaz
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is InsaneCommentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
- California’s Global Trade Cities: Driving Local and National OutcomesPaper
Cities across the United States facilitate investment in American communities. Yet, because global attention remains focused on U.S. trade policy, their distinctive and bold local approaches to international trade and investment promotion are often underappreciated.
Wyatt Frank, Marissa Jordan
- The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
- Corrupted by Absolute PowerCommentary
In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.
Michael Young
