As early as the beginning of this January, the US Biden administration made a decision to include South Korea in the "sensitive country list" before leaving office, which officially took effect on April 15. However, the South Korean government did not receive formal notification from the US until recently, when an American research institution asked South Korean counterparts about whether this would affect bilateral cooperation.
In recent years, the US-South Korea alliance has deepened significantly. The conservative South Korean government has actively followed Washington's lead on major issues and adopted an increasingly tough stance toward China. This sudden blow from an ally has left various sectors in South Korea feeling deeply aggrieved. The details of this incident and the signals it sends deserve attention.
The only official US ally listed in the "sensitive country list."
The US Department of Energy's Sensitive Countries List refers to countries and regions that require special management by the Department of Energy when reviewing and approving foreign citizens' access to and cooperation project applications based on national security, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, regional instability, economic security threats, or support for terrorism policies. This list is jointly managed by the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and the National Nuclear Security Administration under the Department of Energy, with participation from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense.
The list is divided into three levels of severity, from high to low: "state sponsors of terrorism," "dangerous countries," and "other designated countries." As of the end of last year, the list included 25 countries and regions. This time, South Korea was listed as an "other designated country." What particularly angered South Korea was that it is the only country on the list that has an official alliance relationship with the United States. Israel, also on the "other designated countries" list, has an actual alliance relationship with the US but does not have a formal treaty.
Citizens of countries listed as "sensitive countries" are prohibited from accessing advanced technologies (such as nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence) from the US Department of Energy, cannot cooperate on research or share technology with the US, and any collaboration, facility utilization, or information sharing with the headquarters and subordinate laboratories of the Department of Energy must be specially approved and subject to internal review. South Korea is most concerned about how this will impact its science and technology cooperation with the US and its own technological development.
American intervention in the "nuclear possession" theory regarding South Korea
To date, the US Department of Energy has not officially disclosed the reasons for including South Korea in the "sensitive countries" list. On March 18, Joseph Yun, the acting US ambassador to South Korea, came forward to reassure allies, stating that in 2022, more than 2,000 South Korean students, researchers, and government officials visited US laboratories, during which incidents occurred where Koreans mishandled sensitive information. "South Korea is listed as a sensitive country solely due to a security issue at a Department of Energy-affiliated institute," he said, adding, "There is no need to attribute excessive political and policy significance to this."
Domestic opinions in South Korea are divided on this matter. Some critics argue that the South Korean government and public's fervent advocacy of nuclear possession is the main reason. Others believe that this outcome is due to former President Yoon Suk-yeol's rash declaration of a "state of emergency," which caused domestic political unrest. Choi Chang-sung, a researcher at the Sejong Institute, one of the main advocates of the pro-nuclear stance, believes that the US listing South Korea as a sensitive country is unrelated to the rise of the pro-nuclear movement in South Korea this year, and is more likely due to the potential "regional instability" caused by recent political turmoil in South Korea.
Clearly, both the US and South Korea are making efforts to downplay the matter to avoid impacting their bilateral alliance. However, looking at the background leading up to this event, the US listing South Korea as a "sensitive country" is not as trivial as the two sides describe. It reflects the fact that South Korea's nuclear proliferation risks have reached a very high level, even prompting the US to feel the need to impose some constraints. Especially given that this action was taken by the Biden administration, which places great emphasis on alliances.
In fact, this is the second time South Korea has been listed as a "sensitive country," and the reason was also related to "nuclear" issues. After Chun Doo-hwan came to power through a coup in 1979, talk of nuclear development emerged domestically in South Korea, causing concern for the US. Consequently, South Korea was listed in the "sensitive countries" list in 1981. It wasn't until President Kim Young-sam's administration in 1994 that US-South Korean relations improved, allowing South Korea to be removed from the list.
Since President Yoon Suk-yeol's administration took office, it has openly advocated strongly for nuclear possession, mobilizing domestically and building momentum internationally, advancing towards a nuclear scenario in terms of strategic mechanisms, technical preparation, and military organization. In a world where nuclear non-proliferation remains a widely recognized international norm, South Korea has become one of the few countries where the official government and mainstream public opinion openly advocate for nuclear possession. Although the 2023 US-South Korea summit signed the Washington Declaration, in which the South Korean government stated its commitment to adhering to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the domestic pro-nuclear sentiment has not diminished. Particularly ironically, while South Korea emphasizes the illegitimacy and harmfulness of North Korea's nuclear possession and advocates for continued sanctions against North Korea, it simultaneously publicly advocates for the necessity and legitimacy of South Korea's own nuclear possession in international forums — claiming that it is beneficial for peace on the Korean Peninsula and in the region.
Some details revealed in the "sensitive list" incident indicate that South Korea's pro-nuclear stance is no longer confined to mere words but has begun taking shape technologically. In the first half of 2024, a semiannual report submitted by the Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Energy to Congress showed that an outsourced employee of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) was caught carrying nuclear reactor design software information, classified as export-controlled, aboard a plane bound for South Korea and was subsequently fired. Moreover, this employee had private communications with a certain government. Many outside observers believe that the "certain government" refers to South Korea, and South Korea has not denied it.
The nuclear non-proliferation system is an important component of maintaining US hegemony and also a key means for the US to maintain its presence in Northeast Asia. If South Korea's rationale for possessing nuclear weapons holds true, then the blockade system against North Korea, which has been pushed by the US, South Korea, Japan, and others over the past thirty years under the pretext of the North Korean nuclear issue, would immediately collapse. The North Korean nuclear issue would cease to be an issue, and the UN Security Council's sanctions resolutions and unilateral sanctions imposed by many countries, including South Korea, would lose so-called "legitimacy." All non-nuclear countries surrounding nuclear-armed nations such as Japan, Poland, and Ukraine might demand nuclear armament, and the nuclear non-proliferation order built by the US would be difficult to sustain. Having observed that South Korea's nuclear actions are increasingly crossing boundaries and challenging the bottom line of the international nuclear non-proliferation system, the US has taken these carefully designed, appropriately calibrated management measures.
On the one hand, the US handled the matter by using the Department of Energy instead of the State Department, through news exposure, and without formally disclosing the reasons for South Korea's inclusion, to deescalate the situation and show consideration for the face of the ally, avoiding harm to the alliance. On the other hand, the US was among the first in the international community to send a signal to stop South Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, preventing the pro-nuclear faction within South Korea from taking advantage of the situation and harboring illusions, demonstrating its rich experience in managing nuclear non-proliferation and "handling" allies.
Mainstream US experts, such as Bruce Bennett of the RAND Corporation, Troy Stangarone of the Wilson Center, Patrick Cronin of the Hudson Institute's Asia-Pacific Security Research Center, and Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association, largely agree that this move is mainly aimed at dispelling South Korea's growing nuclear ambitions, preventing South Korea from deviating on nuclear issues, and recognizing the timeliness of this action. Meanwhile, given that Trump made comments during his presidential campaign suggesting that Japan and South Korea could possess nuclear weapons for self-defense, the Biden administration's move may also be intended to prevent the Trump administration from loosening restrictions on South Korea's nuclear weapons development.
Trump may not loosen restrictions on South Korea
Both US and South Korean officials claim that this matter does not affect bilateral scientific and technological exchanges and cooperation. On March 24, South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Ted-leul stated at a plenary session of the National Assembly's Foreign and Unification Committee that even if South Korea is not removed from the list, there will be no new restrictions on South Korean-US joint research and other scientific and technological cooperation. Departments such as the US Department of Energy, the State Department, and the White House National Security Council (NSC) have clearly stated that South Korean-US cooperation and partnership remain unchanged.
At the same time, South Korea is actively mediating to lift the restrictions. On March 21, South Korean Minister of Industry, Trade, and Resources An Deok-gun held talks with US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, announcing that they would cooperate and swiftly resolve the issue through the process. According to The Chosun Ilbo, relevant departments in the US and South Korea have reached a consensus, and the US intends to remove South Korea from the sensitive country list through a series of domestic procedures. Some conservative forces are also pressuring the US, hyping that this move will disappoint South Korean pro-American factions and benefit progressive forces.
However, many policymakers in the US and South Korea believe that it is unlikely for the US to rescind South Korea's designation as a "sensitive country" before it becomes effective. After Trump took office, he did not, as South Korea had hoped, ease restrictions on South Korea's nuclear issue, especially given that the US still requires North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons in its dealings with North Korea.
US-South Korean technological cooperation will inevitably be affected to some extent. Joint research, technology sharing, personnel exchanges, project participation, and equipment sharing between South Korea and the US Department of Energy and its subordinate national laboratories have already begun to face restrictions, including frontier technology fields such as nuclear power, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, semiconductors, AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology. Research institutions under the US Department of Energy have received notice that South Korean visits must be approved six weeks in advance. For example, the US may strengthen restrictions on South Korea in emerging nuclear power plant technologies and spent fuel reprocessing, causing existing US-South Korean nuclear power project collaborations to stall, thereby affecting South Korea's ambitious nuclear power export projects in recent years. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, believes that listing South Korea as a nuclear proliferation-sensitive country should exclude the possibility of South Korea requesting enriched uranium and reprocessing spent fuel from the US to produce nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the US measures against South Korea will also set a precedent for other nuclear-armed states. Europe and other nuclear-armed states may pay closer attention to and guard against South Korea's nuclear issues, increasing scrutiny and restrictions in scientific and industrial cooperation with South Korea, thus signaling the international community's stance on South Korea's nuclear armament.
Source: The Paper Editorial: Ren Huafei
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7493688817346560547/
Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "upvote/downvote" buttons below.