[Noh Dong-il Column] After APEC: The Devil Is in the Details

Ahead of the 2025 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Gyeongju, the Korean media identified two key issues: the conclusion of tariff negotiations with the United States and the revision of the South Korea-U.S. Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Both were matters to be resolved at the South Korea–United States summit. The fluctuating news about the schedule of U.S. President Donald John Trump was a source of daily anxiety for this reason. Regardless of the circumstances, the settlement of the tariff negotiations is a positive development. While it is regrettable that the $350 billion investment framework remains unchanged, setting an annual cash investment cap at $20 billion and introducing the standard of 'commercial reasonableness' represent progress. Some critics remain, but considering Korea lacks countermeasures like China’s rare earths or the diplomatic distance of India or Brazil from the U.S., it is difficult to ignore our current reality.
Although the pronunciation may have sounded awkward, Donald John Trump’s comment about Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jung-kwan being 'a very tough negotiator' was likely more than mere lip service. Kim Yong-beom, Chief Presidential Policy Officer, and Yeo Han-koo, Trade Minister, should also be recognized for their contributions. While uncertainty has been temporarily dispelled, as differing statements from both countries show, the devil remains in the details. This is why vigilance must be maintained until the final exchange of documents.
The second issue, revising the South Korea-U.S. Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, seems to have entered even murkier waters. Achieving an agreement 'on par with Japan' has been Korea’s longstanding goal and the main objective of this South Korea–United States summit. Japan secured the right to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and enrich uranium through the 1988 Japan-U.S. Nuclear Agreement. President Lee Jae Myung stated during the summit, 'It would be greatly appreciated if you could make a decision to allow us to receive fuel for nuclear-powered submarines. Diesel submarines have limited underwater endurance, making it difficult to track submarines from North Korea or China.'
It was surprising to hear the intention to possess nuclear-powered submarines stated so openly. While Korea’s pursuit of building such submarines is an open secret, it is a different matter for the head of state to declare it explicitly in a public forum. President Lee Jae Myung appears to want Korea to build the submarines while the United States supplies only the nuclear fuel. He added, 'If you allow us to receive fuel, we can build several submarines equipped with conventional weapons using our own technology. By defending the waters of the East and West Seas, we could significantly reduce the burden on U.S. forces.'
As Donald John Trump responded, 'We approve Korea’s nuclear-powered submarines, but they must be built at Philly Shipyard in the United States,' it is clear that public statements are difficult to revise later. As widely reported, Philly Shipyard, now acquired by Hanwha Ocean, is not currently equipped to build nuclear-powered submarines. If Korea modernizes all the facilities, transfers submarine construction technology, and receives fuel from the United States, there are concerns that Korea may gain little practical benefit. Even with Trump’s approval, submarine construction will not proceed smoothly. Overcoming the web of 'non-proliferation advocates' in the United States Department of State (State Department), Parliament, and other institutions will be an even more daunting challenge. The plan to build nuclear-powered submarines was derailed during the Moon Jae-in government for this very reason.
It is also difficult to understand the direct mention of China. With a South Korea-China summit scheduled, a backlash from China is inevitable. Experts believe that, even if all obstacles are overcome, it will take at least ten years. It is premature to assume that this '30-year aspiration' will be realized immediately. Some speculate that, in exchange for actively modernizing the ROK-US Alliance through submarine construction, Korea may seek U.S. approval for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and uranium enrichment, but this remains uncertain. President Lee Jae Myung’s remark, 'If you could instruct for real progress on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel or uranium enrichment, the issue could be resolved more quickly,' is noteworthy.
Some argue that the Korean government has advanced national interests through balanced diplomacy between the U.S. and China. However, The New York Times (NYT) offers a completely different perspective, analyzing that 'approval for nuclear-powered submarine construction' is a step toward deeper integration of Korea into the U.S. security system and a 'new source of regional conflict.' With tariff and trade issues still unresolved, Korea now faces even more difficult challenges. This is the geopolitical fate that allows no rest or complacency. Just as the government managed to resolve the tariff negotiations in nearly 100 days, both public and private sector officials must become tough negotiators to tackle the new challenges ahead.
dinoh7869@fnnews.com Reporter