South Korea-US nuclear talks gain momentum for submarine fuel, enrichment rights

SEOUL (Yonhap) -- Talks between South Korea and the United States are gaining momentum to secure authority over fuel for nuclear-powered submarines and rights for uranium enrichment and reprocessing needed for civilian nuclear power plants.

With the U.S. also agreeing on the need for "prompt achievement of substantial results," follow-up consultations, which had been delayed since the two leaders agreed on them in October last year, appear to be getting on track. However, the U.S.'s domestic political situation and ongoing trade issues are cited as variables that could affect future negotiations.

South Korean and U.S. delegations met at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building from the 2nd to the 3rd to discuss the implementation of security cooperation issues agreed upon by the leaders of the two countries in October last year, including South Korea's construction of nuclear-powered submarines and its acquisition of rights for uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.

In a press release following the consultations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, "Both sides agreed to cooperate to achieve substantial results as soon as possible, and decided to establish a system to review results throughout the year and accelerate future consultations."

According to an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the two sides discussed a "timeline that includes a general direction" during this consultation, and a second meeting is planned for as early as next month in Washington D.C.

Regarding the direction, it is believed that the amendment of the existing South Korea-U.S. Atomic Energy Cooperation Agreement was a key topic of discussion in this consultation to grant South Korea enrichment and reprocessing rights.

Under the existing agreement, South Korea can only enrich and reprocess with the U.S.'s written consent, and uranium enrichment is limited to less than 20%. While it requires written consent, it essentially needs U.S. permission, and the government has been striving to secure broader authority.

Japan, often cited as a comparison, only requires written consent from the U.S. for enrichment above 20%, and no consent is needed for enrichment below 20%.

However, if the government sets its target too high, there is a burden that negotiations could take a long time. The amendment negotiations for the existing agreement, which began in 2010, were only concluded in 2015.

Accordingly, the government has been reportedly considering faster 추진 directions, such as partial amendments or securing authority through agreements, by weighing the time required for negotiations against realistically achievable outcomes.

Furthermore, the government has been persuading the U.S. by approaching it with the argument that recognizing South Korea's enrichment and reprocessing rights and establishing a pan-Pacific nuclear fuel supply chain would also benefit the U.S., given the rapidly increasing importance of energy security.

For nuclear submarines, key cooperation matters related to nuclear fuel supply and demand were reportedly discussed during this meeting.

The government plans to develop the reactor and nuclear propulsion system domestically and only receive low-enriched uranium fuel from the U.S.

However, the existing Atomic Energy Agreement only applies to civilian use, such as operating nuclear power plants, and the government's judgment is that a separate agreement must be concluded to receive nuclear fuel for military use, such as for nuclear submarines.

In this regard, Foreign Minister Cho Hyun stated in an interview with Yonhap News Agency on the 28th of last month, "Since there is a precedent, it is not that difficult, and I do not think there will be any major problems."

So far, only the United Kingdom and Australia have been provided with nuclear submarine fuel by the U.S.

Under the U.S.-UK Mutual Defense Agreement signed in 1958, the U.S. provided the UK with reactors, fuel, technology, and information necessary for nuclear submarines.

However, experts assess that the AUKUS agreement, signed by Australia, the U.S., and the UK in 2024, is a more appropriate case for South Korea to reference, as the UK already possessed nuclear weapons at the time of the agreement's signing, unlike Australia, which is not a nuclear-weapon state.

Unlike Australia, South Korea plans to develop its own reactors and propulsion systems and use low-enriched uranium below 20% as fuel, so the government believes that consultations will not take as long as the AUKUS agreement.

The reason the government is placing great importance on speed is the urgency to advance the nuclear submarine and nuclear agreement to an irreversible level while President Trump maintains his grip on power.

As this agreement was made by the personal decision of President Trump, who does not adhere to the traditional non-proliferation stance of the U.S. establishment, there are many analyses that its implementation cannot be guaranteed if President Trump leaves office, as it could lose momentum.

The government's push for a second meeting as early as next month is interpreted as an intention to achieve maximum progress before political uncertainty increases, given the possibility that the ruling Republican Party could lose congressional power in the midterm elections in November.

Another factor that could disrupt the South Korea-U.S. consultations is the concern within the U.S. that South Korea might develop nuclear weapons.

Looking at the AUKUS case, the U.S. was wary of the possibility of nuclear technology being diverted or leaked for nuclear weapons development and demanded measures such as nuclear material control and information security from the other party to prevent this. Related discussions are expected to have taken place in this consultation as well.

The implementation of trade agreements, which are effectively linked to security agreements, also remains a variable.

Initially, the government expected security consultations to take place early this year, but they were held this month as the U.S. raised issues regarding the speed of South Korea's investments in the U.S. and its response to the Coupang personal information leak incident.

According to officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while the government has been closely consulting with the U.S. on investment issues and consistently explaining its position on the Coupang incident, these two issues are not negatively affecting the security consultations as they did before.

However, concerns persist that trade disputes could again hinder security cooperation, as the U.S.'s dissatisfaction with trade issues has not been fully resolved, and the U.S. effectively considers the implementation of trade agreements, including investments in the U.S., as a prerequisite for the implementation of security agreements.