US should reconsider listing South Korea
Korea has failed to stay informed of a significant change in its status as a U.S. partner in sensitive technology areas. This was revealed when the foreign ministry failed to confirm the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) inclusion of Korea in the Sensitive and Other Designated Countries List (SCL). Countries on this list face obstacles in their cooperation with the U.S. in science and technology.
The DOE's sensitive state list caused a stir when media outlets, citing sources, reported on March 10 that Korea appeared to be included. The following day, Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul told lawmakers at the National Assembly that the ministry was verifying whether the media reports were accurate. However, days later, it was the DOE — not Korea’s foreign ministry — that confirmed Korea had been added to the list in January, shortly before then-President Joe Biden’s departure.
How could such critical information about the country's changed status go unnoticed for two months? This raises serious concerns about the functioning of the foreign ministry. It’s clear that something went fundamentally wrong within the ministry. Although the foreign ministry is not the U.S. DOE’s counterpart for Korea, it remains responsible for such information lapses, particularly as it operates an embassy in Washington, D.C., which oversees Korea’s overall relations with the U.S.
The leadership vacuum following martial law cannot justify the foreign ministry’s failure to stay informed about such a crucial update. Nor can a change in U.S. government administrations excuse the ministry’s inability to obtain essential information it should have known.
The DOE placed Korea in the lowest category of the SCL, labeled “other designated countries.” The specific reasons for Korea’s inclusion remain unclear. According to the DOE, countries are added to the list for national security, nuclear nonproliferation, regional instability, threats to national economic security or terrorism support. Other countries on the list include China, Taiwan, Israel, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Being on the list poses challenges for South Korea’s cooperation with the U.S. in sensitive fields such as nuclear energy, artificial intelligence and quantum computing — three priority areas in which Korea is eager to collaborate with the U.S. Korean scientists and researchers may also face restrictions on potential partnerships with U.S. national laboratories and academic institutions.
In a written response to Reuters, the DOE clarified that Korea faces no new restrictions on bilateral science and technology cooperation. Despite this clarification, Korea’s inclusion on the list is inherently detrimental.
Seoul must initiate active diplomacy to have the country delisted. While the chances of success appear slim, given that the inclusion is set to take effect on April 15, Korea should continue making every effort to persuade the DOE to reconsider its decision.
The ongoing debate over Korea’s potential nuclear armament is speculated to be one of the key factors that led the DOE to designate the country as a sensitive nation.
On Jan. 11, 2023, President Yoon Suk Yeol remarked that if security threats from North Korea were to escalate, South Korea should consider asking the U.S. to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons or even pursue nuclear armament. His statement sparked a controversy, prompting the presidential office to clarify the following day that his intention was to emphasize Seoul’s determination to address North Korea’s growing security threat. Therefore, the office stressed that his comment should not be interpreted as a suggestion that South Korea planned to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Public support for nuclear armament in Korea may have also influenced the DOE’s decision to include the country on the list. A JoongAng Ilbo survey conducted in October 2024 found that 71.4 percent of South Koreans supported nuclear armament if North Korea did not abandon its nuclear program.
If the DOE’s decision to place South Korea on the list was based on Yoon’s comments or the results of public opinion polls or both, it should reconsider. South Koreans live in the shadow of North Korea, one of the world’s most dangerous nuclear-armed nations. For them, discussions of nuclear armament are not theoretical — they are tied directly to their safety and security. While such rhetoric might seem provocative to nations without immediate security threats from neighboring countries, for South Korea, facing off against a nuclear-armed adversary, the threat is real and immediate.
Yoon’s comments should be viewed as rhetoric, rather than an indication of his or Korea’s intention to go nuclear. Seoul has long adhered to its nonproliferation commitments. The public's support for nuclear armament stems from their ongoing concern about the security threat posed by an unpredictable neighbor, not from a desire for Korea to develop its own nuclear arsenal.
Most importantly, Koreans are acutely aware of the consequences if the country were to violate the NPT. They understand that the potential benefits of nuclear armament do not outweigh the immense costs. Washington should work with Seoul to ensure Korea is delisted before the SCL takes effect.
English (United States) ·