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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Simmering U.S.-Iran Conflict Is Moscow’s Ideal OutcomeCommentary
Ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East allows Moscow to both increase its influence in Tehran and continue to enjoy the financial windfall of higher oil prices.
Nikita Smagin
- As Trump Threatens to Quit NATO, the Baltic States Are Playing for TimeCommentary
Governments in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania want to ensure that a U.S. military withdrawal would not leave them dangerously exposed to a Russian attack.
Sergejs Potapkins
- Could the Iran War Push Japan to Restore Russian Oil Imports?Commentary
Tokyo would have to surmount a lot of obstacles—not least Western sanctions—if it wanted to return Russian oil imports to even modest pre-2022 volumes.
Vladislav Pashchenko
- What Does Nuclear Proliferation in East Asia Mean for Russia?Commentary
Troubled by the growing salience of nuclear debates in East Asia, Moscow has responded in its usual way: with condemnation and threats. But by exacerbating insecurity, Russia is forcing South Korea and Japan to consider radical security options.
James D.J. Brown
- Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle EastCommentary
The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.
Nikita Smagin
