Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul spoke before the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee on February 26, 2025, amid reports the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is considering designat... as potentially "sensitive country." Cho expressed uncertainty over the designation, stating it appears the U.S. has not yet made final decisions on such matters.
The discussions aroused significant concern as lawmakers probed the U.S.'s potential move to label South Korea as posing national security risks. Cho remarked, "We’ve raised the issue [...] through unofficial channels, and we’re at the stage where officials with the U.S. Department of Energy are looking again at the situation.” Stressing the ambiguity surrounding the designation, Cho pointed out there’s currently no direct communication with U.S. officials to understand the rationale behind this decision.
On March 11, 2025, the atmosphere was tense during the plenary session as Democratic Party lawmaker Hong Kee-won raised questions based on unofficial sources about the designation. Cho noted, "We... don’t have access to any American officials right now who can explain the background or rationale. My understandi..." Adding to the uncertainty, the Korean Embassy to the U.S. reportedly had not received definite answers on the sensitive country matter, claiming officials were away on official business.
A list of sensitive countries, reportedly set to take effect on April 15, 2025, was sent to some of the 17 government-funded research institutes administered by the DOE earlier this month. This ominous list allegedly includes South Korea, hanging as a delicate consideration over the country's diplomatic relations. Cho noted, if Korea is unable to secure its removal from the list through diplomatic negotiations, it will contend with major restrictions to cooperate with the U.S. across fields like nuclear energy, AI, and quantum computing.
Emergency alarms have rung loudly across South Korea, as the potential step would impede access to U.S. government programs and disrupt cooperation across key technological domains. South Korea and the U.S. have long been collaborative partners, particularly between AI and quantum computing advancements, both pivotal to technological futures. The designation would impose strict procedural hurdles, stifling such partnerships and deterrent to progress.
Striking fears of diminished military ties, the potential designation carries serious risks, especially with North Korea's threats still looming. Close military cooperation has underpinned regional stability, and as questioned by Wi Sung-lac, "What procedures are involved in finalizing [this designation]?" Cho responded, "We need to establish facts before we can discuss procedures." He acknowledged domestic calls for South Korea's nuclear armament might have influenced this concern, adding to the complexity of the issue. "There’s something to... it involves assumptions, but we’ll have to wait and see if that's the sole reason."
Notably, South Korea has been one of the U.S.'s top foreign investors, investing approximately $80 billion over the past few years, demonstrating the close interconnections linking these nations both economically and diplomatically. Yet, the potential designation of South Korea as a sensitive country raises flags about perceived failing compliance with international nonproliferation standards, which could erode decades of trust built within the alliance.
Recent developments illuminate the troubling scenario, as media reports highlighted officials' lack of awareness surrounding the U.S.'s possible moves against South Korea. The DOE’s sensitive country list, historically reserved for identified adversaries like China and North Korea, if it includes South Korea, signifies shifting alliances, generating fears of anti-American sentiment and regional destabilization.
Addressing the situation is imperative for both governments to preclude the adverse consequences surrounding this designation. South Korean officials must reassess direct engagements with their American counterparts and convey clarity on these developments moving forward. The U.S. must critically evaluate this decision, prioritizing cooperation and dialogue to avert future conflicts and maintain stability on the broader Northeast Asian stage.
This designation must not come to fruition. If it does, it threatens to undermine trust, harm collaborative initiatives, and could escalate tensions across Northeast Asia. Strategic cooperation is required, above all, now as both nations navigate complex challenges against North Korea’s aspirations.