South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said on Mar. 17 that the U.S. Department of Energy’s decision to designate S. Korea as a “sensitive country” was not a diplomatic issue but rather a security-related matter concerning the department’s affiliated research facilities.
In a statement distributed to reporters, the ministry said Washington had assured Seoul that being added to the list would not significantly impact joint research and technological cooperation between the two countries.
However, following the official confirmation of the designation a day earlier, confusion arose within the S. Korean government over how the designation came about, leading to disputes among ministries over responsibility.
During a policy meeting on external economic affairs at the government complex in Seoul on Monday morning, Acting President Choi Sang-mok reportedly instructed all attendees except the ministers to leave before criticizing them over the issue. He was quoted as saying that waiting until Industry Minister Ahn Duk-geun meets his U.S. counterpart later this week would be too late and urged other ministries to act swiftly.
The S. Korean government was unaware that the country had been added to the sensitive country list when the designation was made in January. Even after media reports surfaced earlier this month, officials remained uncertain, saying they were still verifying the situation.
Some critics have attributed the lack of coordination to a government leadership vacuum following the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, arguing that ministries have been more focused on avoiding blame than formulating a response.
Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul has yet to issue a statement, even two days after the designation was publicly confirmed. The ministry has repeatedly stated only that it is in close consultation with U.S. authorities and is working to ensure that the designation does not negatively affect bilateral cooperation.
Until the ministry issued its explanation on Sunday night that the decision was related to security at U.S. Energy Department research facilities, speculation had been mounting, with some questioning whether it was a warning against S. Korea’s nuclear ambitions or an indication that Seoul was being excluded as a partner in next-generation nuclear power projects.
According to government sources, in the early stages of the controversy, Cho told Choi that the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy was the lead agency responsible for dealings with the U.S. Department of Energy, which some officials interpreted as an attempt to shift blame.
However, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy has pushed back, saying it primarily handles nuclear energy cooperation and exports with the Energy Department, while issues related to nuclear nonproliferation and regional security fall under the Foreign Ministry’s jurisdiction.
A Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy official noted that the Foreign Ministry oversees the embassy in Washington and argued that since the Energy Department has a division dedicated to nuclear security, such matters are typically handled by embassy staff or the Foreign Ministry’s International Organizations Bureau, not the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.
In November, the head of the Foreign Ministry’s International Organizations Division held a working-level meeting with the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration to discuss nuclear security. Despite such engagements, the government failed to detect the issue early, and the ongoing finger-pointing between ministries has only intensified criticism that officials are now scrambling to respond.
With the revised U.S. list set to take effect on Apr. 15, the S. Korean government is now working to get S. Korea removed before then.
Ahn, the industry minister, had already traveled to the United States from Feb. 26 to 28 for discussions on trade policy with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Now, just three weeks later, he is seeking to arrange a meeting with the U.S. energy secretary to discuss the issue.
