U.S.-South Korea Relations

Changes from June 11, 2015 to October 8, 2015

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
.

U.S.-South Korea Relations
Mark E. Manyin, Coordinator
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Emma Chanlett-Avery
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Specialist in Nonproliferation
Ian E. Rinehart
Analyst in Asian Affairs
Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
June 11October 8, 2015

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41481

c11173008

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Summary
Overview
South Korea (known officially as the Republic of Korea, or ROK) is one of the United States’
most important strategic and economic partners in Asia, and since 2009 relations between the two
countries arguably have been at their most robust state in decades. Members of Congress tend to
be interested in South Korea-related issues for a number of reasons. First, the United States and
South Korea have been treaty allies since the early 1950s. The United States is committed to
helping South Korea defend itself, particularly against any aggression from North Korea.
Approximately 28,500 U.S. troops are based in the ROK and South Korea is included under the
U.S. “nuclear umbrella.” Second, Washington and Seoul cooperate in addressing the challenges
posed by North Korea. Third, the two countries’ economies are closely entwined and are joined
by the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). South Korea is the United States’ sixthlargest trading partner and the United States is South Korea’s second-largest trading partner.
South Korea has taken the first steps toward possible entry into the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement negotiations.
Strategic Cooperation and the U.S.-ROK Alliance
Dealing with North Korea is the dominant strategic concern of the U.S.-South Korean
relationship. Under South Korean President Park Geun-hye, Seoul and Washington have
maintained tight coordination over North Korea policy, following a joint approach that contains
elements of pressure and engagement. In response to Pyongyang’s perceived intransigence and
provocative behavior, Washington and Seoul have placed significant emphasis on the harder
elements of their approach. Some critics say that the Obama Administration’s policy applies
insufficient pressure on North Korea to change its behavior, while others argue that it provides
insufficient incentives. The Obama Administration has supported Park’s proposals for confidencebuilding
confidence-building measures with and humanitarian assistance to Pyongyang. She has linked 
larger-scale aid
 to progress in the denuclearization of North Korea, the United States’ top priority. 
Thus far, North
 Korea generally has resisted Park’s outreach.
Since 2009, the United States and South Korea have accelerated steps to reform the U.S.-ROK
alliance. Washington and Seoul have initiated plans to relocate U.S. troops on the Korean
Peninsula and boost ROK defense capabilities. Some Members of Congress have criticized the
cost of the relocation, and Park and her predecessor have slowed defense budget increases.
Provocations from North Korea have propelled more integrated bilateral planning for responding
to possible contingencies, for instance by adopting policies to respond more swiftly and forcefully
to attacks and by discussing improvements to the two countries’ respective missile defense
systems. In a related development, in 2014 the United States and South Korea agreed to delay for
the second time a 2007 agreement to transfer wartime operational control (Opcon) from U.S. to
ROK forces.
On broad strategic matters in East Asia, while South Korean and U.S. perspectives overlap, there
are areas of significant differences. For instance, South Korea often hesitates to take steps that
antagonize China and has shown mistrust of Japan’s efforts to expand its military capabilities.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
In 2013 the Obama and Park governments agreed to a two-year extension of a bilateral civilian
nuclear agreement, which now will expire in March 2016. The House and the Senate
unanimously passed the extension, which is considered a temporary solution to avoid any
disruption to nuclear energy trade and provide more time for negotiations to continue. South
Korea sought expanded permission for fuel cycle activities, but the Obama Administration has
resisted this change, which would pose challenges for U.S. non-proliferation policy. Both sides
have stressed the importance of continuing the close civilian nuclear energy partnership between
the two countries. The two countries have concluded negotiations on the text of a new agreement,
which is expected to be signed in June 2015. This would be followed by its transmittal to
Congress for a required review period before the current agreement expires.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Contents
Developments in the First Half
Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
The United States and South Korea signed a new civilian nuclear cooperation agreement in midJune 2015 to replace the existing agreement, which entered into force in 1974. The agreement,
which provides the legal foundation for nuclear trade between the countries, automatically will go

Congressional Research Service

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

into effect in the fall of 2015 unless Congress disapproves it, a move that would be subject to
presidential veto.

Congressional Research Service

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Contents
Major Developments in the First Nine Months of 2015.................................................................. of 2015........................................................................................... 1
The Overall State of U.S.-South Korea Relations ..................................................................... 1
MERS Outbreak Leads President Park to Postpone SummitPresident Park to Visit Washington in Mid-October .................................................... 2
Cooperation over North Korea Policy .......................... 1
Park Geun-hye’s Political Standing.......................................................................... 2
Inter-Korean Relations ................. 2
Inter-Korean Relations ............................................................................................. 4
South Korea-Japan Relations Stabilize, but Remain Tense ....................................................... 4
South Korea Expresses Interest in TPP .............................. 3
South Korea-China Relations: The Park-Xi Summit ........................................................................ 6
Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement ........................... 4
South Korea-Japan Relations Stabilize, but Remain Tense........................................................ 7
State of the Alliance........ 6
South Korea and the TPP ........................................................................................................... 8
Park Geun-hye’s Political Standing .. 7
South Korea Joins the AIIB ......................................................................................... 9
South Korean Attitudes Toward the United States and the March 2015 Attack Against
the U.S. Ambassador ................................ 7
Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement .......................................................................................... 10 8
Background on U.S.-South Korea Relations ................................................................................. 10.. 8
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 8 10
Historical Background ........................................................................................................ 119
North Korea in U.S.-ROK Relations ....................................................................................... 1210
North Korea Policy Coordination ..................................................................................... 1210
Inter-Korean Relations and Park Geun-Hye’s “Trustpolitik” ............................................ 1311
Deterrence Issues ............................................................................................................... 14 12
Security Relations and the U.S.-ROK Alliance ....................................................................... 1513
Upgrades to the Alliance ................................................................................................... 15
U.S. Alliance and ROK Defense Reform Plans 13
South Korea’s Regional Relations....................................................................... 17
South Korea’s Regional.................... 19
South Korea-Japan Relations ........................................................................................... 23. 20
South Korea-JapanChina Relations ............................................................................................ 23
South Korea-China Relations  22
Economic Relations ....................................................................................................... 25
Economic Relations......... 23
South Korea’s Economic Performance ............................................................................. 26
Currency Issues .................................... 27
South Korea’s Economic Performance.............................................................................. 2928
Nuclear Energy and Non-Proliferation Cooperation ............................................................... 3128
Bilateral Nuclear Energy Cooperation .............................................................................. 3128
South Korean Nonproliferation Policy .............................................................................. 33 31
South Korean Politics .............................................................................................................. 3532
A Powerful Executive Branch ........................................................................................... 3634
Political Parties ................................................................................................................. 34
South Korea’s MERS Outbreak .............................................................................................. 35. 36

Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Korean Peninsula ........................................................................................... 35
Figure 2. USFK Bases After Realignment Plan Is Implemented ................................................... 19 16
Figure 3. South Korea’s Real GDP Growth, 2007-2014. ............................................................... 3027
Figure 4. Party Strength in South Korea’s National Assembly ...................................................... 35

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

. 33

Tables
Table 1. Annual U.S.-South Korea Merchandise Trade, Selected Years ........................................ 28 24

Congressional Research Service

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................... 37

c11173008 36

Congressional Research Service

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

T

his report contains two main parts: a section describing recent events and a longer
background section on key elements of the U.S.-South Korea relationship. The end of the
report provides a list of CRS products on South Korea and North Korea. For a map of the
Korean Peninsula, see Figure 1 below. The report identifies South Korean individuals by using
their last name first.

Developments in the First Half of 2015
South Korea at a Glance
Head of State: President Park Geun-hye (elected
December 2012; limited to one five-year term)
Ruling Party: Saenuri (New Frontier) Party (NFP)
Largest Opposition Party: New Politics Alliance for
Democracy (NPAD)
Size: slightly larger than Indiana
Arable Land: 15.6%
Population: 49 million (North Korea = 24.7 million)
Population Growth Rate: 0.16% (U.S. = 0.77%)

Fertility Rate: 1.24 children born/woman (U.S. =
2.06)
Life Expectancy: 79.8 years (U.S. = 79.6 yrs.; North
Korea = 69.8 yrs.)
Infant Mortality: 3.9 deaths/1,000 live births
(U.S. = 6.2)
GDP (Purchasing Power Parity1): $1.8 trillion
(2014 est.); world’s 14th-largest economy (U.S. =
$17.4 trillion; North Korea = $40 billion)
GDP Per Capita (Purchasing Power Parity):
$35,400 (2014 est.) (U.S. = $54,800; North Korea =
$1,800)

Source: CIA, The World Factbook, May 28, 2015.

 For a brief, two-page summary of U.S.-South Korea relations, see CRS In
Focus IF10165, South Korea: Background and U.S. Relations, by Mark E. Manyin et al.

T

Major Developments in the First Nine Months of
2015
The Overall State of U.S.-South Korea Relations
Since 20082009, relations between the United States and South Korea (known officially as the
Republic of Korea, or ROK) arguably have been at their most robust since the formation of the
U.S.-ROK alliance in 1953. Cooperation on North Korea policy has been particularly close.
President Park Geun-hye and her predecessor, Lee Myung-bak, spoke before joint sessions of
Congress, in May 2013 and October 2011, respectively, and in 2011 Congress approved the South
Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), the United States’ second-largest FTA, after
the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Notwithstanding the overall positive state of the relationship, in the coming months U.S.-South Korea
ties could be  ties have been
tested by developments in areas where the two countries occasionally disagree, most
prominently how best prominently
on how to handle South Korea-Japan relations and how to respond to Japan’s
efforts to expand the role of its military. 2015 marks the 50th anniversary of the 
normalization of
 South Korea-Japan relations and the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II 
and the liberation
 of the Korean Peninsula from its colonization by Imperial Japan, drawing attention to a legacy
1

The purchasing power parity method of calculating GDP accounts for how much people can buy for their money in a
given country. Instead of simply measuring total output, the PPP GDP method attempts to gauge how much a person
would have to pay in the local currency for a set basket of goods. That amount is then converted to the equivalent value
in U.S. dollars, so that analysts can make cross-country standard of living comparisons.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

1

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.


attention to a legacy that continues to bedevil bilateral relations between Seoul and Tokyo. With
North Korea, President Park has
 promoted a number of initiatives with North Korea that may go that could potentially go
against the grain of U.S. policies
that to increase pressure on Pyongyang, thoughbut she has been careful to 
keep these proposals modest
 and to condition larger-scale initiatives on fundamental changes in 
the North Korean
 government’s behavior. Additionally, many South Korean officials have a different strategic view
of China thanan
approach to China different from that of their U.S. counterparts, often leading them to avoidavoiding taking steps or making

making statements that antagonize Beijing.

MERS Outbreak Leads President Park to Postpone Summit
President Park was scheduled to travel to the United States for a summit with President Obama in
mid-June 2015,President Park to Visit Washington in Mid-October
South Korean President Park Geun-hye is scheduled to travel to Washington, DC, in mid-October
2015 to hold a summit with President Obama. It will be her first visit to the United States since May 2013
May 2013, when she addressed a joint meeting of Congress. President Obama last visited
South Korea in April 2014. Less than a week before Park’s scheduled departure, however, she
announced that she was postponing the trip due to an outbreak of Middle East Respiratory
Syndrome (MERS).2 As of June 9 MERS was blamed for nine deaths and over 100 confirmed
cases in South Korea. Park’s government had come under criticism—including from members of
her political party—for an allegedly belated and inadequate initial response to the outbreak,
particularly in reportedly waiting more than two weeks after confirmation of the first MERS case
to disclose the names of hospitals and clinics where confirmed MERS infections had occurred.3
The criticism echoes similar reactions to the Park government’s response to a ferry disaster that
killed hundreds in April 2014. (See the section on “Park Geun-hye’s Political Standing,” below.)
On June 11, the Bank of Korea announced a quarter-point cut in South Korea’s base interest rate
in part because the MERS outbreak was causing a contraction in domestic consumption.4

Cooperation over North Korea Policy5
Dealing with North Korea is the dominant strategic element of the U.S.-South Korean
relationship. Since 2009, U.S.-ROK coordination over North Korea policy has been close, with
the two allies essentially forging a joint approach toward North Korea that contains elements of
pressure against and cooperation with Pyongyang. The U.S. and South Korea have placed
significant emphasis on the harder elements of their approach, including strengthening their
deterrence posture, calling attention to North Korea’s human rights violations, and refusing to
meet North Korean demands on issues such as scaling back U.S.-ROK military exercises. Many
critics have said that the Obama Administration’s approach is too passive, with some observers
charging that it applies insufficient pressure and others arguing that it provides insufficient
incentives for Pyongyang to change its behavior. 6 (See “North Korea in U.S.-ROK Relations”
below.)

2

For more on MERS, see CRS Report R43584, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS): Is It a Health
Emergency?, by Sarah A. Lister.
3
Choe Sang-Hun, “MERS Virus’s Path: One Man, Many South Korean Hospitals,” New York Times, June 8, 2015.
4
The Bank of Korea, “Monetary Policy Decision,” June 11, 2015.
5
For more on North Korea issues, see CRS Report R41259, North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and
Internal Situation, by Emma Chanlett-Avery and Ian E. Rinehart; and CRS Report RL34256, North Korea’s Nuclear
Weapons: Technical Issues, by Mary Beth D. Nikitin.
6
David Sanger, “U.S. Confronts Consequences of Underestimating North Korean Leader,” New York Times, April 24,
2014.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

2

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Figure 1. Map of the Korean Peninsula

Sources: Map produced by CRS using data from ESRI, and the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the
Geographer.
Notes: The “Cheonan Sinking” refers to the March 2010 sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan,
killing over 40 ROK sailors. A multinational investigation led by South Korea determined that the vessel was

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

3

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

sunk by a North Korean submarine. Yeonpyeong Island was attacked in November 2010 by North Korean
artillery, which killed four South Koreans (two Marines and two civilians) and wounded dozens.
* This map reflects geographic place name policies set forth by the United States Board on Geographic Names
pursuant to P.L. 80-242. In applying these policies to the case of the sea separating the Korean Peninsula and the
Japanese Archipelago, the Board has determined that the “Sea of Japan” is the appropriate standard name for use
in U.S. Government publications. The Republic of Korea refers to this body of water as the “East Sea.” It refers
to the “Yellow Sea” as the “West Sea.”

Inter-Korean Relations
In the first half of 2015, Park has continued to unveil details of her “trustpolitik” plan for
reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula and establishing the foundation for re-unification.
Relations between the two Koreas have been especially poor since 2010, when two military
attacks by North Korea on South Korea resulted in Park’s predecessor Lee Myung-bak halting
nearly all regular inter-Korean interchange.7 According to Park’s vision, South Korea will
encourage North Korea to behave more cooperatively by strengthening South Korea’s defense
capabilities, applying pressure on Pyongyang, and providing incentives for the forging of trust
between the two Koreas. As part of the last item, Park has promoted a range of dialogues and
projects with North Korea, generally on a relatively small scale. Thus far, North Korea generally
has resisted Park’s outreach. The Kim Jong-un regime may feel particularly threatened by Park’s
calls for South Korea to prepare for and welcome reunification, which Park appears to assume
 South
Korea in April 2014. Her visit, scheduled to take occur October 13-16, will occur at a time when
neither the House nor the Senate are scheduled to be in session. The summit is expected to focus
primarily on North Korea policy coordination, the strengthening of the U.S. South Korean
alliance, and developments in Northeast Asia, particularly South Korea’s relations with Japan and
China.
President Park’s trip is the rescheduling of a summit that originally was supposed to be held in
June 2015. Less than a week before Park’s scheduled departure, she announced that she was
postponing the trip due to an outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) that began

Congressional Research Service

1

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

in May and caused wide-spread economic and social disruption in South Korea before it was
brought under control in early July. 1 Park’s government came under strong criticism—including
from members of her political party—for an allegedly belated and inadequate initial response to
the outbreak, particularly in reportedly waiting more than two weeks after confirmation of the
first MERS case to disclose the names of hospitals and clinics where confirmed MERS infections
had occurred.2 The criticism echoed similar reactions to the Park government’s response to a ferry
disaster that killed hundreds in April 2014.
South Korea at a Glance
Head of State: President Park Geun-hye (elected
December 2012; limited to one five-year term)
Ruling Party: Saenuri (New Frontier) Party (NFP)
Largest Opposition Party: New Politics Alliance for
Democracy (NPAD)
Size: slightly larger than Indiana
Arable Land: 15.6%
Population: 49 million (North Korea = 24.7 million)
Population Growth Rate: 0.16% (U.S. = 0.77%)

Fertility Rate: 1.24 children born per woman
(U.S. = 2.06)
Life Expectancy: 79.8 years (U.S. = 79.6 yrs.; North
Korea = 69.8 yrs.)
Infant Mortality: 3.9 deaths/1,000 live births
(U.S. = 6.2)
GDP (Purchasing Power Parity)3: $1.8 trillion
(2014 est.); world’s 14th-largest economy (U.S. =
$17.4 trillion; North Korea = $40 billion)
GDP Per Capita (Purchasing Power Parity):
$35,400 (2014 est.) (U.S. = $54,800; North Korea =
$1,800)

Source: CIA, The World Factbook, May 28, 2015.

Park Geun-hye’s Political Standing
Park’s handling of inter-Korean relations in the late summer and early fall of 2015, combined
with her summit with Xi Jinping in September, caused her public approval ratings to rise in
September, to the 50% level according to two leading Korean polling outfits.4 Over the preceding
year and a half, her poll numbers fell, at one point to near 30%, due to a series of personnel and
policy setbacks as well as criticisms of the way her government responded to the MERS outbreak
and the April 2014 sinking of the Sewol ferry off the country’s western coast, killing nearly 300
passengers, mostly high school students. By law, Korean presidents are limited to one term of five
years. Park has passed the half-way mark in her tenure, which will end in February 2018, the
point at which many previous Korean presidents are widely perceived as entering the “lame
duck” phase of their presidency. (For background, see the “South Korean Politics” section,
below.)

1

For more on MERS, see CRS Report R43584, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS): Is It a Health
Emergency?, by Sarah A. Lister.
2
Choe Sang-Hun, “MERS Virus’s Path: One Man, Many South Korean Hospitals,” New York Times, June 8, 2015.
3
The purchasing power parity method of calculating GDP accounts for how much people can buy for their money in a
given country. Instead of simply measuring total output, the PPP GDP method attempts to gauge how much a person
would have to pay in the local currency for a set basket of goods. That amount is then converted to the equivalent value
in U.S. dollars, so that analysts can make cross-country standard of living comparisons.
4
“Park Gets Second Wind at Midpoint,” JoongAng Ilbo, September 7, 2015; Czarelli Tuason, “South Korea’s President
Park Geun Hye’s Approval Rating Increases this Year after Agreeing with North Korea,” Korea Portal, September 6,
2015.

Congressional Research Service

2

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Inter-Korean Relations
In the late summer and early fall of 2015, inter-Korean relations went through a tumultuous
period. In early August, a landmine exploded on the South Korean side of the demilitarized zone
(DMZ) that serves as the de facto land border between the two Koreas. Reportedly, the blast
caused one soldier to lose his legs and another to lose a foot. An investigation by the United
Nations Command, which is commanded by a U.S. officer who concurrently serves as
commander of U.S. forces in Korea, found that the mines had been placed recently by North
Korean infiltrators, in violation of the 1953 Armistice Agreement among the parties to the Korean
War.5 In response, South Korea reinstalled several loudspeakers just south of the DMZ and began
re-broadcasting propaganda into North Korea. South Korea had stopped the broadcasts in 2004
and subsequently had removed the loudspeakers. Tensions between the two Koreas escalated and
included the exchange of artillery fire across the DMZ, prompting the evacuation of nearby South
Korean villages. In an effort to defuse tensions in late August, Cabinet ministers from the two
Koreas met for days of talks, ultimately producing a joint statement in which:





the two sides agreed to hold future meetings to discuss how to improve relations;
North Korea made a rare expression of “regret” over the landmine victims’
injuries;
South Korea agreed to suspend its loudspeaker broadcasts “as long as no
abnormal incident occurs”; and
the two sides agreed to hold in the fall of 2015 a round of reunions for family
members separated since the Korean War era.6

Throughout 2015, Park has continued to unveil details of her “trustpolitik” plan for reducing
tensions on the Korean Peninsula and establishing the foundation for re-unification. Relations
between the two Koreas have been especially poor since 2010, when two military attacks by
North Korea on South Korea resulted in Park’s predecessor Lee halting nearly all regular interKorean interchange.7 According to Park’s vision, South Korea will encourage North Korea to
behave more cooperatively by strengthening South Korea’s defense capabilities, applying
pressure on Pyongyang, and providing incentives for the forging of trust between the two Koreas.
As part of the last item, Park has promoted a range of dialogues and projects with North Korea,
generally on a relatively small scale. Thus far, North Korea for the most part has resisted Park’s
outreach. The Pyongyang regime, led by its young leader Kim Jong-un, may feel particularly
threatened by Park’s calls for South Korea to prepare for and welcome reunification, which Park
appears to assume will occur largely on South Korea’s terms.
The Obama Administration publicly has backed Park’s trustpolitik strategy and appears
comfortable letting Seoul take the lead in trying to encourage more cooperative behavior from
Pyongyang. However, in the future, some of the cooperative elements of Park’s approach toward
North Korea could conflict with U.S. policy due to an inherent tension that exists in the two
countries’ views of Pyongyang. The United States’ predominant concern is North Korea’s
5

United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission Investigates Land Mine Detonation In Demilitarized
Zone,” August 10, 2015.
6
Blue House, “Joint Press Release from the Inter-Korean High-Level Meeting,” August 25, 2015.
7
In March 2010, a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan, sank, killing over 40 ROK sailors. A multinational
investigation led by South Korea determined that the vessel was sunk by a North Korean submarine. In November
2010, North Korea launched an artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island, killing four South Koreans (two Marines and
two civilians) and wounding dozens.

Congressional Research Service

3

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs while South Korea’s top priorities are WMD
issues and promoting unification. H.R. 757, the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act, could
conflict with some of Park’s initiatives, such as her stated desire to “internationalize” the interKorean Kaesong Industrial Complex by attracting multinational investors.8 (For more on
cooperation over North Korea and inter-Korean relations, see “North Korea in U.S.-ROK
Relations,” below.)

South Korea-Japan Relations Stabilize, but Remain Tense
South Korea’s relations with Japan have been strained since 2012. This limits U.S. policy options
in Northeast Asia and periodically causes tensions between Washington and one or both of its two
allies in Northeast Asia. Seoul and Tokyo disagree over how Imperial Japan’s actions in the early
7

In March 2010, a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan, sank, killing over 40 ROK sailors. A multinational
investigation led by South Korea determined that the vessel was sunk by a North Korean submarine. In November
2010, North Korea launched an artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island, killing four South Koreans (two Marines and
two civilians) and wounding dozens.
8
The KIC is located near the North Korean city of Kaesong. It houses over 120 South Korean manufacturers, which
employ over 50,000 North Korean workers.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

4

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

20th century should be handled in contemporary relations. The relationship is also challenged by
conflicting territorial claims and strategic and economic competition. However, relations between
Seoul and Tokyo have improved modestly since the fall of 2014. Bilateral working-level
discussions have increased, and regular high-level bilateral meetings resumed in 2014 and have
built up to the Cabinet level. In another sign of a bilateral thaw, in December 2014 the United
States, South Korea, and Japan signed a modest trilateral information sharing agreement.
Additionally, despite many private statements by South Korean officials expressing concern about
Japanese “remilitarization,” the Park government officially does not appear to have objected in
principle to Japan’s historic moves to expand the scope of its military’s activities.9
Earlier in her term, Park insisted that Japan adopt a “correct understanding of history” as a
prerequisite for nearly all cooperative initiatives.10 However, increasingly since the middle of
2014, her government has relaxed this position and adopted more of a two-track approach,
separating disputes over history from most other aspects of the relationship. South Korea’s
change in behavior appears to have been influenced by shifts in the correlation of powers in
Northeast Asia that made Park’s former stance less tenable: for example, high-level SinoJapanese ties, which had also been frozen for months, reopened in November 2014, and U.S.Japanese ties have deepened in the first half of 2015, as symbolized during Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe’s April 2015 visit to the United States.11 U.S. pressure to improve ties and Abe’s avoidance
of historically sensitive comments or moves also may have contributed to Seoul’s apparent
adjustment in tone.
Despite the thaw, bilateral relations remain generally tense. Park and Abe have yet to hold a
formal summit meeting. Following Abe’s April 2015 speech to a joint meeting of Congress,
Park’s government issued a statement saying that it was “deeply regrettable” that Abe had not
addressed historical grievances between Japan and South Korea.12 As of early June 2015, months
of bilateral negotiations do not appear to have produced a breakthrough in how to resolve
disagreements over whether and how Japan should again acknowledge and address the suffering
of the so-called “comfort women,” who were forced to provide sexual services to Japanese
soldiers during Imperial Japan’s conquest and colonization of several Asian countries in the 1930s
and 1940s, including Korea. The ongoing opportunity costs to the United States have led some
policy analysts to call for the United States to become more directly involved in trying to improve
relations between the two sides.13
Two developments to watch in summer 2015 are how the two countries mark the 50th anniversary
of their June 22, 1965, normalization treaty and the content of Prime Minister Abe’s expected
statement commemorating the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. If past statements by
Abe’s predecessors are any guide, he is likely to issue his statement on or around August 15, the
date of Imperial Japan’s surrender. (For more, see “South Korea’s Regional Relations,” below.)
9

For instance, see South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Briefing by Spokesperson and Deputy Minister for
Public Relations, Noh Kwang-il, May 14, 2015.
10
Alastair Gale, “South Korea’s Park Chides Abe but Seeks Stable Japan Ties,” Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2015.
11
For more, see CRS Report RL33436, Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Emma ChanlettAvery.
12
South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “MOFA Spokesperson’s Statement on the Japanese Prime Minister’s
Address to the US Congress,” April 30, 2015.
13
See, for instance, Brad Glosserman and Scott Snyder, The Japan-South Korea Identity Clash East Asian Security and
the United States (New York: Columbia University Press), May 2015.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

5

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

South Korea Expresses Interest in TPP
In South Korea has continued to express a desire to join the twelve-nation Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement (FTA) talks.14 In fall 2013, after months of speculation,
the South Korean government signaled its “interest” in joining the negotiations. Since that time, it
has taken several of the domestic steps necessary for it to officially announce its intent to apply to
join the TPP negotiations, and it has engaged in multiple rounds of consultations with the twelve
TPP countries, including the United States. The size and strategic importance of the proposed TPP
would expand significantly if South Korea—East Asia’s third-largest economy—enters the
negotiations, although South Korea’s entry may not have a significant impact on U.S.-South
Korea trade flows given the existing bilateral U.S.-South Korea FTA (KORUS). One of Park’s
top policy agendas is reviving the country’s economy. To this end, her government has initiated a
trade strategy of entering into more FTAs, thereby making South Korea a “linchpin” of
accelerated economic integration in the region.15 South Korea is negotiating a number of FTAs,
including a bilateral agreement with China that the two countries signed in June 2015.
The Obama Administration has “welcomed” Korea’s interest in joining the talks, though United
States Trade Representative (USTR) officials also have indicated they will place priority on
concluding an agreement with the existing members before agreeing to the entry of any new
countries. The current TPP countries approach membership based on consensus and therefore
must reach unanimous agreement on South Korea’s entry before Seoul can join. The United
States may require some preliminary commitments from Seoul before it agrees to South Korea’s
participation in the negotiations—so called “confidence building measures” were required prior
to Canada, Japan, and Mexico’s joining the TPP negotiations. U.S. officials have linked support
for South Korea’s possible entry into the proposed TPP with South Korea’s willingness and
ability to resolve ongoing issues with the implementation of the KORUS FTA, although officials
have also noted that many—though not all—of the U.S. complaints regarding KORUS
implementation have been resolved.16 Ultimately, Congress must approve implementing
legislation if a completed TPP agreement—with or without South Korea—is to apply to the
United States. (For more on South Korea-U.S. interaction over the TPP and U.S.-South Korean
economic relations, see “Economic Relations,” below.)
In March 2015, South Korea announced it was applying to join the Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank (AIIB). The AIIB is a new China-led multilateral development bank consisting
of over 50 countries.17 This move was reportedly done over the objections of the Obama
14

The TPP negotiating parties are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. For more on the proposed TPP, see CRS Report R42694, The Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson.
15
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy Press Release 436, “Korea Outlines New Trade Policy Direction,” June 25,
2013.
16China Relations: The Park-Xi Summit
In early September, Park Geun-hye visited Beijing for a summit with Chinese President Xi
Jinping and to attend a parade marking the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Imperial Japan in
World War II, officially titled the “Commemoration of 70th Anniversary of Victory of Chinese
People’s Resistance against Japanese Aggression and World Anti-Fascist War.” Park was the only
leader of a U.S. ally—aside from the Czech Republic’s President—and major democracy to
attend the event, which featured a large parade of Chinese military hardware through Tiananmen
Square. Chinese officials gave Park a prominent seat at the dais overlooking the parade, just two
chairs away from Xi and next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. North Korean leader Kim
Jong-un declined his invitation to attend the event. Park’s appearance at the celebration caused
some observers, particularly in Japan, to express concerns that South Korea and China are
consolidating an anti-Japanese partnership and/or that Seoul is drifting into Beijing’s orbit. Other
observers suggested that this is not necessarily the case, pointing out that that in the context of
unprecedentedly weak ties between Beijing and Pyongyang, Park has sought to consolidate
China’s support for Korean unification and strategic coordination with Seoul and Washington at
the expense of Pyongyang.9
Attending China’s celebration was a continuation of Park’s efforts to establish warm relations
with Beijing. This was her sixth summit meeting with Xi. Following her September summit, the
Blue House (the office of the South Korean Presidency) reported that Park and Xi had objected to
“any kind of action that could escalate tensions” on the Korean Peninsula—a likely reference to
speculation that North Korea may test a nuclear device or long-range missile in October. The
Blue House also reported that the two leaders agreed that Korean re-unification “would contribute
to peace and prosperity across the region.” If accurate, such a discussion could indicate an
increased willingness by China to more openly discuss the reunification of the two Koreas.
According to the Blue House, during Park’s visit China agreed to attend a China-Japan-South
Korea summit in October or November in Seoul. From 2009 to 2012, the three countries held
such meetings annually, but none has been held since 2012.10 (For more, see the “South Korea’s
Regional Relations” section below.)

8

The KIC is located near the North Korean city of Kaesong. It houses over 120 South Korean manufacturers, which
employ over 50,000 North Korean workers.
9
Scott Snyder, “Park’s Decision to Join Xi Jinping’s World War II Commemoration,” Council on Foreign Relations
blog, Asia Unbound, September 2, 2015.
10
The Blue House, “Unification of Korea to Contribute to Peace: Korean, Chinese Leaders,” September 3, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

4

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Figure 1. Map of the Korean Peninsula

Sources: Map produced by CRS using data from ESRI, and the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the
Geographer.
Notes: The “Cheonan Sinking” refers to the March 2010 sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan,
killing over 40 ROK sailors. A multinational investigation led by South Korea determined that the vessel was

Congressional Research Service

5

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

sunk by a North Korean submarine. Yeonpyeong Island was attacked in November 2010 by North Korean
artillery, which killed four South Koreans (two Marines and two civilians) and wounded dozens.
* This map reflects geographic place name policies set forth by the United States Board on Geographic Names
pursuant to P.L. 80-242. In applying these policies to the case of the sea separating the Korean Peninsula and the
Japanese Archipelago, the Board has determined that the “Sea of Japan” is the appropriate standard name for use
in U.S. government publications. The Republic of Korea refers to this body of water as the “East Sea.” It refers
to the “Yellow Sea” as the “West Sea.”

South Korea-Japan Relations Stabilize, but Remain Tense
South Korea’s relations with Japan have been strained since 2012 but have improved modestly
throughout 2015, due in large measure to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s avoidance of
flagrantly inflammatory actions or statements on history issues, the strength of the U.S.-Japan
relationship, and Park’s decision to relax its firm linkage between the Japanese government
treatment of history issues and Seoul’s willingness to participate in most forms of high-level
bilateral activities.11 Park responded to Prime Minister Abe’s August 2015 statement
commemorating the end of World War II by expressing disappointment that Abe “did not quite
live up to our expectations,” but also by speaking somewhat positively about other aspects of his
statement.12 As of early October 2015, months of bilateral negotiations do not appear to have
produced a breakthrough in how to resolve disagreements over whether and how Japan should
again acknowledge and address the suffering of the so-called “comfort women,” women who
were forced to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers during Imperial Japan’s conquest and
colonization of several Asian countries in the 1930s and 1940s, including Korea.
Tensions between South Korea and Japan limit U.S. policy options in Northeast Asia and
periodically cause difficulties between Washington and one or both of its two allies in Northeast
Asia. Seoul and Tokyo disagree over how Imperial Japan’s actions in the early 20th century should
be handled in contemporary relations. The relationship is also challenged by conflicting territorial
claims and strategic and economic competition. The ongoing opportunity costs to the United
States have led some policy analysts to call for the United States to become more directly
involved in trying to improve relations between South Korea and Japan.13
Since the fall of 2014, bilateral working-level discussions have increased, and regular high-level
meetings have built up to the Cabinet level. In June 2015, the two countries held modest, separate
celebrations—attended by Park in Seoul and Abe in Tokyo—of the 50th anniversary of the
normalization of their relationship; until just before the ceremonies were held, it was not clear
whether the two leaders would attend. In another sign of a bilateral thaw, in December 2014 the
United States, South Korea, and Japan signed a modest trilateral information sharing agreement.
Additionally, despite many private statements by South Korean officials expressing concern about
Japanese “remilitarization,” the Park government officially does not appear to have objected in
principle to Japan’s moves to expand the scope of its military’s activities.14

11

Alastair Gale, “South Korea’s Park Chides Abe but Seeks Stable Japan Ties,” Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2015.
The Blue House, “Commemorative Address by President Park Geun-hye on the 70th Anniversary of Liberation,”
August 15, 2015.
13
See, for instance, Brad Glosserman and Scott Snyder, The Japan-South Korea Identity Clash East Asian Security and
the United States (New York: Columbia University Press), May 2015.
14
For instance, see South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Briefing by Spokesperson and Deputy Minister for
Public Relations, Noh Kwang-il, May 14, 2015.
12

Congressional Research Service

6

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Earlier in her term, Park insisted that Japan adopt a “correct understanding of history” as a
prerequisite for nearly all cooperative initiatives.15 However, increasingly since the middle of
2014, her government has relaxed this position and adopted more of a two-track approach,
separating disputes over history from most other aspects of the relationship. South Korea’s
change in behavior appears to have been influenced by shifts in the correlation of powers in
Northeast Asia that made Park’s former stance less tenable: for example, high-level SinoJapanese ties, which had also been frozen for months, reopened in November 2014, and U.S.Japanese ties have deepened in 2015, as symbolized during Abe’s April 2015 visit to the United
States.16 (For more, see the “South Korea’s Regional Relations” section below.)

South Korea and the TPP
On October 5, 2015, trade ministers, including U.S. Ambassador Michael Froman, announced the
conclusion of the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.17 Despite expressing
interest in possibly joining the talks, South Korea will presumably be unable to join the
agreement until it is ratified by the current members. Given its level of interest and existing FTAs
with 9 of the 12 TPP countries, South Korea is a likely candidate for any future membership
expansion of the TPP. The size and potential strategic importance of the proposed TPP would
expand if South Korea—East Asia’s third-largest economy—were to join, although its entry may
not have a significant impact on U.S.-South Korea trade flows given the existing bilateral U.S.South Korea FTA (KORUS). As the details of the agreement are not yet public, the procedures for
a country to potentially accede to a final TPP agreement are not yet known, but there reportedly
are “living agreement” provisions that allow future expansion of members and issues in the
agreement. U.S. officials, who have welcomed South Korea’s interest in joining the TPP, have
linked support for South Korea’s possible entry to Seoul’s willingness and ability to continue to
resolve ongoing issues with the implementation of the KORUS FTA.18 In 2015 U.S. officials said
that progress had been made in a number of these areas. Ultimately, Congress must approve
implementing legislation if a completed TPP agreement—with or without South Korea—is to
apply to the United States. (For more on U.S.-South Korea economic relations, including
interaction over the TPP, see the “Economic Relations” section below.)

South Korea Joins the AIIB
In March 2015, South Korea announced it was applying to join the Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank (AIIB). The AIIB is a new China-led multilateral development bank consisting

15

Alastair Gale, “South Korea’s Park Chides Abe but Seeks Stable Japan Ties,” Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2015.
For more, see CRS Report RL33436, Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Emma ChanlettAvery.
17
The TPP negotiating parties are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. For more on the proposed TPP, see CRS Report R42694, The Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson.
18
The White House, “Remarks by President Obama at Business Roundtable,” press release, April 26, 2014. In his
remarks, President Obama said, “I discussed this [KORUS implementation] with President Park last night. We both
agreed that these are issues we can work through together. And given South Korea’s interest in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, fully implementing KORUS also is the single most important step that South Korea can take now to show
that it’s prepared to eventually meet the high standards of TPP.” See also United States Trade Representative, “KORUS
FTA: Year Three in Deepening Market Integration.” Remarks by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Japan, Korea,
and APEC Affairs Bruce Hirsh at the Fullerton KORUS Event,” March 12, 2015. “Hirsh Hits Positive Note Onon Korea
TPP Candidacy,” Inside U.S. Trade, March 20, 2015.
17
For more on the AIIB, see CRS Report IF10154, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, by Martin A. Weiss.

c1117300816

Congressional Research Service

67

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

of over 50 countries.19 This move was reportedly done over the objections of the Obama
Administration. The AIIB has generated considerable controversy. Many analysts say it will help
Asian  Asian
countries meet their massive infrastructure investment needs. However, many analysts and
policymakers  policymakers
also have raised concerns about the transparency and governance of China-funded
development  development
projects and see the AIIB proposal potentially undermining decades of efforts by the
United  United
States and others to improve governance and environmental and social standards.

Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement
The United States and the Republic of Korea have concluded negotiations on the text of a new
civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, known as a “123 agreement.” Currently, such cooperation
is proceeding under an April 2013 deal that extended the existing agreement, which was due to
expire, for two years.18 Legislation to authorize the two-year extension was passed unanimously
by both the House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama on February 12, 2014
(P.L. 113-81).19
The two governments initialed the text of the agreement in April 2015.20 It is likely they will
formally sign the agreement in June. The U.S. interagency process must also prepare
nonproliferation and national security assessments before submitting it to Congress. The
agreement would need to be transmitted to Congress for review by fall 2015 in order to meet the
required 90 days of continuous session before the two-year extension expires.
For years, talks between South Korea and the United States were not able to resolve disagreement
over how to treat fuel-making technologies in a renewed accord, and therefore the two countries
decided to allow for more negotiating time. The two-year extension was considered a temporary
solution to avoid any disruption to nuclear trade. Since 2013, the two countries have been
negotiating a new agreement, which would be subject to congressional review.
An agreement would not require a positive vote of approval from Congress. Therefore, the
On June 15, 2015, the United States and the Republic of Korea signed a renewal of their civilian
nuclear cooperation agreement, known as a “123 agreement.”20 The agreement provides the legal
foundation for nuclear trade between the countries.21 The new agreement’s duration is 20 years,
after which it automatically will renew for an additional 5-year period unless either or both
parties choose to withdraw. The two governments initialed the text of the agreement in April
2015.22 An agreement would not require an affirmative vote of approval from Congress.
Therefore, the agreement could enter into force after a 30-day consultation period and a review 
period of 60
 days of continuous session21session23 unless Congress enacted a joint resolution of 
disapproval. Congress
 also has the option of adopting either a joint resolution of approval with (or 
without) conditions,
 or stand-alone legislation that could approve or disapprove the agreement. 
Any congressional
efforts to block the agreement would be subject to presidential veto.
One point of disagreement in the renewal process has been whether South Korea will press the
United States to include a provision that would allow for the reprocessing of its spent fuel. The
current U.S.-Korea nuclear cooperation agreement, as with other standard agreements,22 requires
18

“123” refers to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act (as amended). Full text of the agreement is available at
http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/Korea_South_123.pdf.
19
Representative Royce introduced H.R. 2449 (H.Rept. 113-209), which was passed by the House unanimously on
September 17. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker introduced S.
1901, which was passed by the Senate on January 27, 2014.
20
“China, S.Korea Nuclear Pacts Advance,” Arms Control Today, May 5, 2015.
21
Days on which either House is in a recess of more than three days (pursuant to a concurrent resolution authorizing
the recess) do not count toward the total. If Congress adjourns its session sine die, continuity is broken, and the count
starts anew when it reconvenes.
22
CRS Report RS22937, Nuclear Cooperation with Other Countries: A Primer, by Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth D.
Nikitin.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

7

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

U.S. permission before South Korea can reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel, including spent fuel
from South Korea’s U.S.-designed reactors.23 The issue has become a sensitive one for many
South Korean officials and politicians, who see it as a matter of national sovereignty. The United
States has been reluctant to grant such advance permission due to concerns over the impact on
negotiations with North Korea and on the nonproliferation regime overall. Through reprocessing,
spent fuel can be used to make reactor fuel or to acquire plutonium for weapons. For many years,
the United States and South Korea have worked on joint research and development projects to
address spent fuel disposition, including joint research on pyro-processing, a type of spent fuel
reprocessing. In October 2010, the two countries began a 10-year, three-part joint research project
on pyro-processing that includes joint research and development at Idaho National Laboratory,
development of international safeguards for this technology, economic viability studies, and other
advanced nuclear research including alternatives to pyro-processing for spent fuel disposal.24
According to press reports, the two sides resolved this issue by including provisions in the
renewal agreement text to allow for continuation of the joint research and development of this
technology, as well as the creation of a high-level commission which may periodically review
fuel cycle policy efforts to block the agreement would be subject to presidential veto. An
informal CRS estimate shows that the congressional review period may be completed between
October 29 and December 7, depending on expected congressional adjournments and well before
the expiration of the current agreement. (For more on the negotiations and the debate over U.S.-ROK civilian nuclear
 cooperation, see “Nuclear Energy and Non-Proliferation Cooperation,” below.)

State of the Alliance
Since 2009, the United States and South Korea have accelerated steps to transform their alliance,
broadening it from its primary purpose of defending against a North Korean attack to a regional
and even global partnership. South Korea has contributed troops, equipment, and other assistance
to international missions such as anti-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden, the campaign to combat
the spread of Ebola, and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. Joint statements issued from a
series of high-level meetings emphasized the commitment to modernize and expand the alliance
while reaffirming the maintenance of current level of 28,500 U.S. troops on the peninsula and the
U.S. security guarantee to protect South Korea. Spurred by violent attacks from North Korea in
2010, the alliance partners agreed on a “Counter-Provocation Plan” and then sharpened the
agreement by developing a “Tailored Deterrence Strategy against North Korean Nuclear and
Other WMD Threats.” A high-level joint statement in October 2014 reaffirmed existing efforts
and singled out new cooperative initiatives on cyber, space, and nuclear safety.25
Despite these indicators of strength, the alliance faces a host of challenges in the months and
years ahead. The political atmospherics of the alliance have been positive, but the conservative
Park and Lee governments have slowed the defense budget increases planned under the earlier,
progressive Roh Moo-hyun Administration (2003-2008). The two countries also face disputes
related to the realignment of U.S. forces within Korea, a process that Congress has followed
closely because of concerns about the cost. As the alliance becomes more balanced, Seoul is
wrestling with the tension between developing its own indigenous capabilities and relying on
23

Under the 1978 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, consent rights apply to material originating in the U.S. or material that
has been fabricated into fuel or irradiated in a reactor with U.S. technology. The majority of South Korea’s spent fuel
would need U.S. consent before it could be reprocessed.
24
“Discussions on Korea-U.S. Joint Research on Fuel Cycle,” Press Release, Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology, Republic of Korea, April 18, 2011; “S. Korea, U.S. Agree to Start Joint Study on Nuclear Fuel
Reprocessing,” Yonhap, April 17, 2011.
25
State Department, “Joint Statement of the 2014 United States - Republic of Korea Foreign and Defense Ministers’
Meeting,” October 24, 2014.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

8

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

procurement of U.S. weapons systems. Externally, South Korea also faces China’s strong
resistance to U.S.-South Korea alliance upgrades, particularly those that extend beyond the
Korean Peninsula. The debate in South Korea over ballistic missile defense upgrades is closely
tied to these two issues.
The United States and South Korea have twice delayed their 2007 agreement to transfer wartime
operational control (Opcon) from U.S. to ROK forces. These postponements could be interpreted
as a flexible adjustment to changed circumstances on the Korean Peninsula or as emblematic of
problems with following through on difficult alliance decisions. Although scheduled to be
completed in 2015, the two sides announced in October 2014 that the transfer would occur
according to a “conditions-based approach,” likely no sooner than 2020. The planned realignment
of all U.S. forces from bases near the de-militarized zone (DMZ) border with North Korea to
bases farther south is making progress, but concerns over cost-sharing and configuration of
relocated troops remain. (For more on alliance issues, including congressional actions, see
“Security Relations and the U.S.-ROK Alliance,” below.)

Park Geun-hye’s Political Standing
Park’s public approval ratings were in the 60%-70% range for much of 2013, in part due to
positive assessments of her handling of foreign affairs, particularly inter-Korean relations.
However, by early 2015 her popularity had fallen to near 30% according to some polls. They rose
back to the 40%-45% level following her Saenuri Party’s success in several April 2015 byelections before falling following the MERS outbreak in May and June 2015.
Sentiments toward Park’s government first dropped sharply following the April 2014 sinking of
the Sewol ferry in the waters off the country’s the western coast. The deaths of nearly 300
passengers—mostly high school students—for months cast a pall over South Korea and over the
Park government. The tragedy’s political impact has been likened to the political effects of the
2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster in the United States.26 The Park government has been criticized
for rescuers’ allegedly slow response to distress calls, and the sinking has prompted South
Koreans to ask questions about how well government agencies have enforced safety regulations,
which the Sewol was found to have violated, about the relationship between government
regulators and the industries they oversee, as well as whether companies put profits ahead of
safety. Several of the Sewol’s ownership group and its crew have been convicted of gross
negligence, including the captain, who fled the ship without attempting to help the passengers.
Park also has been weakened by perceptions that her government has done little to follow through
on her campaign pledges to overcome South Korea’s economic difficulties and strengthen its
social safety net. Due to personal or political scandals, a series of Park’s appointees—including
three successive appointees to be prime minister—withdrew their names before taking office.27
These developments have raised questions about her government’s (and her) competence and
willingness to reach outside her inner circle. Most recently, in spring 2015, a new scandal arose
for Park’s government when a South Korean businessman, who later committed suicide, stated
that he had provided bribes to several former close aides to Park. The then-sitting prime minister
26

Chico Harlan, “After Ferry Disaster, a Katrina-like Reckoning in South Korea,” Washington Post, April 27, 2014.
In South Korea’s political system, the President appoints the Prime Minister, who serves as head of the President’s
cabinet.
27

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

9

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

was implicated in the bribery scandal, and he subsequently resigned after only two months in
office. Additionally, the government has struggled against criticism that it mishandled the
mounting evidence that the country’s intelligence service tried to influence the 2012 presidential
election in her favor (though no evidence has surfaced that Park knew of the matter). (For
background, see the “South Korean Politics” section, below.)

South Korean Attitudes Toward the United States and the March
2015 Attack Against the U.S. Ambassador
At a March 5, 2015, breakfast meeting in Seoul, a South Korean man attacked U.S. Ambassador
to South Korea Mark Lippert with a knife, sending the Ambassador to the hospital with deep cuts
on his face, fingers, and wrist. Lippert required surgery, including 80 stitches on his face. South
Korean authorities arrested the attacker, Kim Ki-jong, a left-wing civic group’s director who has
expressed support for pro-North Korean causes and has a history of involvement in anti-U.S. and
anti-Japanese protests.
The incident led to an outpouring of support for Lippert and the U.S.-South Korea alliance. This
is in keeping with the results of opinion polling of South Korean attitudes over the past several
years. In a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, over 80% of South Koreans registered a
“favorable” opinion of the United States, compared to less than 50% in 2003.28 That said, some
displays of support for Lippert by government officials and conservative groups were so effusive
that they appear to have made many other South Koreans feel uncomfortable, an indication of the
sensitivities of many South Koreans when they feel their leaders are catering too much to U.S.
interests. Additionally, some South Koreans have accused the Park government and its
conservative base of exploiting the attack to undermine domestic opposition groups and rally
support for the U.S.-South Korea alliance.29

Background on U.S.-South Korea Relations
Overview
While the U.S.-South Korea relationship is highly complex and multifaceted, five factors
arguably drive the scope and state of relations between the two allies:
•

the challenges posed by North Korea, particularly its weapons of mass
destruction programs and perceptions in Washington and Seoul of whether the
Kim Jong-un regime poses a threat, through its belligerence and/or the risk of its
collapse;

•

the growing desire of South Korean leaders to use the country’s middle power
status to play a larger regional and, more recently, global role;

28
Pew Research Center, “Global Indicators Database,” accessed March 3, 2015, and available at
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/. South Korea recorded the 4th highest opinions of the United States.
29
See, for instance, Choe Sang-Hun, “South Koreans Divided on Reactions to Knife Attack on U.S. Ambassador Mark
Lippert,” New York Times, March 9, 2015; and “Undue Politicizing of Violence on Envoy Could Backfire,” Korea
Times, March 8, 2015.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

10

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

•


below.)

Background on U.S.-South Korea Relations
Overview
While the U.S.-South Korea relationship is highly complex and multifaceted, five factors
arguably drive the scope and state of relations between the two allies:


the challenges posed by North Korea, particularly its weapons of mass
destruction programs and perceptions in Washington and Seoul of whether the
Kim Jong-un regime poses a threat, through its belligerence and/or the risk of its
collapse;

19

For more on the AIIB, see CRS In Focus IF10154, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, by Martin A. Weiss.
The agreement may be found at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-114hdoc43/pdf/CDOC-114hdoc43.pdf. “123”
refers to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act (as amended).
21
Currently, such cooperation is proceeding under an April 2013 deal that extended the existing agreement, which was
due to expire, for two years.21 Legislation to authorize the two-year extension was passed unanimously by both the
House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama on February 12, 2014 (P.L. 113-81).
22
“China, S.Korea Nuclear Pacts Advance,” Arms Control Today, May 5, 2015.
23
Days on which either House is in a recess of more than three days (pursuant to a concurrent resolution authorizing
the recess) do not count toward the total. If Congress adjourns its session sine die, continuity is broken, and the count
starts anew when it reconvenes.
20

Congressional Research Service

8

 U.S.-South Korea Relations








the growing desire of South Korean leaders to use the country’s middle power
status to play a larger regional and, more recently, global role;
China’s rising influence in Northeast Asia, which has become an increasingly
integral consideration in many aspects of U.S.-South Korea strategic and
economic policymaking;

•


South Korea’s transformation into one of the world’s leading economies—with a
strong export-oriented industrial base—which has led to an expansion in the
number and types of trade disputes and helped drive the two countries’ decision
to sign a free trade agreement; and

•


South Korea’s continued democratization, which has raised the importance of
public opinion in Seoul’s foreign policy.

Additionally, while people-to-people ties generally do not directly affect matters of “high”
politics in bilateral relations, the presence of over 1.2 million Korean Americans and the hundreds
of thousands of trips taken annually between the two countries has helped cement the two
countries together.
Some Members of Congress tend be interested in South Korea-related issues because of bilateral
cooperation over North Korea, a desire to oversee the management of the U.S.-South Korea
alliance, South Korea’s growing importance on various global issues, deep bilateral economic
ties, and the interests of many Korean Americans.
Large majorities of South Koreans say they value the U.S.-ROK alliance and have positive
opinions of the United States.24 However, many South Koreans are resentful of U.S. influence and
chafe when they feel their leaders offer too many concessions to the United States. South Koreans
also tend to be wary of being drawn into U.S. policies that antagonize China. Although many of
these concerns are widely held in South Korea, they are particularly articulated by Korea’s
progressive groups, who have opposed much of Park’s and Lee’s policy agendas and their
governing styles.

Historical Background
The United States and South Korea have been allies since the United States intervened on the
Korean Peninsula in 1950 and fought to repel a North Korean takeover of South Korea. Over
33,000 U.S. troops were killed and over 100,000 were wounded during the three-year conflict. On
October 1, 1953, a little more than two months after the parties to the conflict signed an armistice
agreement, the United States and South Korea signed a Mutual Defense Treaty, which provides
that if either party is attacked by a third country, the other party will act to meet the common
danger. The United States maintains about 28,500 troops in the ROK to supplement the 650,000strong South Korean armed forces. South Korea deployed troops to support the U.S.-led military
campaign in Vietnam. South Korea subsequently has assisted U.S. deployments in other conflicts,
most recently by deploying over 3,000 troops to play a non-combat role in Iraq and over 300 noncombat troops to Afghanistan.
Beginning in the 1960s, rapid economic growth propelled South Korea into the ranks of the
world’s largest industrialized countries. For nearly two decades, South Korea has been one of the
24

In a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, over 80% of South Koreans registered a “favorable” opinion of the United
States, compared to less than 50% in 2003. Pew Research Center, “Global Indicators Database,” accessed March 3,
2015, and available at http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/. South Korea recorded the 4th highest opinions
of the United States.

Congressional Research Service

9

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

United States’ largest trading partners. Economic growth, coupled with South Korea’s
transformation in the late 1980s from a dictatorship to a democracy, also has helped transform the
ROK into a mid-level regional power that can influence U.S. policy in Northeast Asia,
particularly the United States’ approach toward North Korea.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

11

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

North Korea in U.S.-ROK Relations
North Korea Policy Coordination
Dealing with North Korea is the dominant strategic element of the U.S.-South Korean
relationship. South Korea’s growing economic, diplomatic, and military power has given Seoul a
much more direct and prominent role in Washington’s planning and thinking about how to deal
with Pyongyang. One possible indicator of South Korea’s centrality to diplomacy over North
Korea is that no successful round of the Six-Party nuclear talks has taken place when interKorean relations have been poor. Since 2009, the United States and South Korea in effect have
adopted a joint approach to Pyongyang that has four main components:
•






keeping the door open to Six-Party Talks over North Korea’s nuclear program but
refusing to re-start them without a North Korean assurance that it would take
“irreversible steps” to denuclearize;30

•

25
insisting that Six-Party Talks and/or U.S.-North Korean talks must be preceded
by North-South Korean talks on denuclearization and improvements in NorthSouth Korean relations;

•


gradually attempting to alter China’s strategic assessment of North Korea; and

•


responding to Pyongyang’s provocations by tightening sanctions against North
Korean entities and conducting a series of military exercises.

The two countries’ approach could be described as a passive-aggressive policy that in effect is
focusedappears to focus on containing, rather than rolling back, North 
Korea’s nuclear activities by gradually
 increasing international pressure against North Korea. One 
drawback is that it has allowed
 Pyongyang to control the day-to-day situation, according to some 
experts. While Washington and
 Seoul wait to react to Pyongyang’s moves, the criticism runs, 
North Korea has continued to
 develop its nuclear and missile programs and has embarked on a 
propaganda offensive designed
 to shape the eventual negotiating agenda to its benefit. Many of 
Park’s proposed initiatives with
 North Korea appear designed to rectify these perceived 
shortcomings. To date, however, North
 Korea’s general refusal to accept Park’s overtures has not 
provided her government with an
 opportunity to apply her policies.
The joint U.S.-ROK approach has involved elements of both engagement and pressure.
Washington and Seoul have tended to reach out to North Korea during relatively quiescent
periods. In contrast, they have tended to emphasize pressure tactics during times of increased
tension with North Korea. These periods of tension occurred repeatedly after Lee Myung-bak’s
inauguration in February 2008. Most notably, they included North Korean nuclear tests in May
2009 and February 2013; North Korean long-range rocket launches in April 2009, April 2012, and
December 2012; the March 2010 sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan; and the
November 2010 North Korean artillery attack on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong-do.31
3026
25

The Six-Party talks were held among China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the United States
between 2003 and 2008.
3126
On Yeonpyeong-do, over 150 shells fired by North Korea killed four South Koreans (two Marines and two civilians),
wounded dozens, and destroyed or damaged scores of homes and other buildings. All 46 South Korean sailors on the
Cheonan died. A multinational team that investigated the sinking, led by South Korea, determined that the ship was
sunk by a North Korean submarine. The cause of the Cheonan’s sinking has become highly controversial in South
(continued...)

c11173008

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

1210

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

The latter incident was North Korea’s first direct artillery attack on ROK territory since the 19501953 Korean War and served to harden South Korean attitudes toward North Korea. President
Lee reportedly stated that he wanted to order a retaliatory air strike, but the existing rules of
engagement—which he subsequently relaxed—and the existence of the U.S.-ROK military
alliance restrained him.3227 After North Korea’s attack on Yeonpeyong-do, many conservative
Koreans criticized as insufficient the Lee government’s military response, which primarily
consisted of launching about 80 shells at North Korea and holding large-scale exercises with the
United States. Park Geun-hye has made boosting deterrence against North Korea a tenet of her
presidency, and has vowed to retaliate if North Korea launches another conventional attack.3328

Inter-Korean Relations and Park Geun-Hye’s “Trustpolitik”
Park’s statements on North Korea policy include elements of both conciliation and firmness, and
she has written that her approach would “entail assuming a tough line against North Korea
sometimes and a flexible policy open to negotiations other times.”3429 On the one hand, Park has
called for creating a “new era” on the Korean Peninsula by building trust between North and
South Korea. On the other hand, Park also has long stated that a nuclear North Korea “can never
be accepted” and that building trust with Pyongyang will be impossible if it cannot keep the
agreements made with South Korea and the international community. Park also has said that
South Korea will “no longer tolerate” North Korean military attacks, that they will be met with an
“immediate” South Korean response, and that the need for South Korea to punish North Korean
military aggression “must be enforced more vigorously than in the past.”3530
The first step in Park’s plan has been attempting to deter North Korea’s provocations by
strengthening South Korea’s defense capabilities, while simultaneously promoting a range of
dialogues and projects with North Korea, generally on a relatively small scale. Among short-term
inter-Korean initiatives, she has proposed that the two Koreas resume a regular dialogue process;
hold regular reunions for families separated since the Korean War ended in 1953; jointly mark the
70th anniversary of their August 1945 liberation from Japanese colonial rule; take steps to link
their rail systems and ports, with an eventual goal of connecting the Korean Peninsula to the
Eurasian continent; and launch assistance programs by South Korea to help North Korean
pregnant mothers and young children, as well as North Korea’s agricultural sector.3631
Most of Park’s inter-Korean cooperation initiatives appear to be calibrated to North Korea’s
behavior. For instance, while she generally has de-linked family reunions and some forms of
humanitarian assistance from overall political developments, other steps would apparently require
bigger changes from North Korea. In particular, Park has affirmed that large-scale assistance is
(...continued)
Cheonan died. A multinational team that investigated the sinking, led by South Korea, determined that the ship was
sunk by a North Korean submarine. The cause of the Cheonan’s sinking has become highly controversial in South
Korea. While most conservatives believe that North Korea was responsible for explosion, many who lean to the left
have criticized the investigation team as biased or argue that its methodology was flawed.
3227
“Lee Recalls Getting Tough with N.Korea,” Chosun Ilbo, February 5, 2013.
3328
“Park Vows to Make N. Korea ‘Pay’ If It Attacks S. Korea,” Korea Herald, May 7, 2013.
3429
Park Geun-hye, “A New Kind of Korea: Building Trust Betweenbetween Seoul and Pyongyang,” Foreign Affairs,
September/October 2011.
3530
Ibid.
3631
Joint Press Release by Ministries of Unification, Foreign Affairs, National Defense, and Patriots and Veterans
Affairs, “Let’s End the Era of Division and Open Up the Era of Unification,” January 19, 2015; Ministry of Unification
Press Release, “2015 MOU Work Plan Presented to the President,” January 19, 2015.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

1311

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

dependent on progress on denuclearization and North Korea refraining from military
provocations.
It is not clear how the Park government will resolve the seeming contradiction between policies
of toughness and flexibility, particularly if North Korea continues to be relatively unresponsive to
her attempts at outreach. A key question will be the extent to which her government will continue
to link progress on denuclearization—the United States’ top concern—to other elements of South
Korea’s approach toward North Korea. Likewise, an issue for the Obama Administration and
Members of Congress is to what extent they will support—or, not oppose—any initiatives by
Park to expand inter-Korean relations.

Deterrence Issues
One factor that may influence U.S.-ROK cooperation on North Korea is Pyongyang’s apparent
progress in its missile and nuclear programs. North Korea’s February 2013 nuclear test, for
instance, triggered calls in South Korea for the United States to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons
in the ROK and for South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons deterrent. To reassure South
Korea and Japan after North Korea’s test, President Obama personally reaffirmed the U.S.
security guarantee of both countries, including extended deterrence under the United States’ socalled “nuclear umbrella.” In early March 2013, Park stated that “provocations by the North will
be met by stronger counter-responses,” and the chief operations officer at South Korea’s Office of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff was widely quoted as saying that if South Korea is attacked, it will
“forcefully and decisively strike not only the origin of provocation and its supporting forces but
also its command leadership.”37 32 (South Korean defense officials later clarified that “command
leadership” referred to mid-level military commanders who direct violent attacks and not North
Korean political leaders such as Kim Jong-un.) According to reports, in 2015 the U.S. and ROK
militaries finished preparing and began to exercise new war plans to strike North Korean WMD
facilities in an emergency situation.33
Since North Korea’s 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, South Korean leaders have shown a
greater willingness to countenance the use of force against North Korea. The Lee government
pushed the alliance to develop a new “proactive deterrence” approach that calls for a more
flexible posture to respond to future attacks, as opposed to the “total war” scenario that drove
much of USFK defense planning in the past. For instance, Lee pushed the United States to relax
restrictions on South Korean ballistic missiles and relaxed the rules of engagement to allow
frontline commanders greater freedom to respond to a North Korean attack without first asking
permission from the military chain of command.3834 Such changes have made some analysts and
plannersofficials more concerned about the possibility that a small-scale North Korean provocation could
escalate. The limited exchange of artillery fire by North Korean and South Korean forces in
August 2015 provides one example of how such provocations may play out in the future. U.S.
U.S. defense officials insist that the exceedingly close day-to-day coordination in the
 alliance ensures 
that U.S.-ROK communication would be strong in the event of a new
 contingency. The 2013 
“Counter-Provocation Plan” was developed to adapt both to the new
 threats envisioned from 
North Korea and to the South Korean government’s new attitudes about
 retaliation.

3732

Blue House, “Park Geun-hye 2013 March 1st Speech,” March 1, 2013; Choe Sang-Hun, “South Korea Pushes Back
on North’s Threats,” NYTimes.com, March 6, 2013.
3833
“S. Korea, US Put in Place Preemptive-Strike Plan on N. Korean WMD,” KBS World News, August 27, 2015.
34
“Lee Recalls Getting Tough with N.Korea,” Chosun Ilbo, February 5, 2013.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

1412

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Security Relations and the U.S.-ROK Alliance
The United States and South Korea are allies under the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty. Under the
agreement, U.S. military personnel have maintained a continuous presence on the Korean
Peninsula and are committed to help South Korea defend itself, particularly against any
aggression from the North. The United States maintains about 28,500 troops in the ROK. In 2007
and 2008, U.S. commanders in South Korea stated that the future U.S. role in the defense of
South Korea would be mainly an air force and naval role. The ROK armed forces today total
around 650,000 troops, with about 520,000 of them in the Army and around 65,000 each in the
Air Force and Navy. Since 2004, the U.S. Air Force has increased its strength in South Korea
through the regular rotation into South Korea of advanced strike aircraft. These rotations are not a
permanent presence, but the aircraft often remain in South Korea for weeks and sometimes
months for training.
South Korea is included under the U.S. “nuclear umbrella,” also known as “extended deterrence,”
which applies to other non-nuclear U.S. allies as well. .”
A bilateral understanding between
 Washington and Seoul gives U.S. forces the “strategic 
flexibility” to respond to contingencies
 outside the peninsula, but under the condition that South 
Korea would have to consent to their
 deployment in an East Asian conflict. In the past, issues 
surrounding U.S. troop deployments have
 been a flashpoint for public disapproval of the military 
alliance, led by progressive political
 groups. But in recent years public support for the alliance 
has become broader and more resilient
 in responding to incidents involving U.S. bases and 
soldiers in South Korea.
Despite the strengths of the alliance, tensions periodically arise in the partnership. Some of these
involve typical alliance conflicts over burden sharing and cost overruns of ongoing realignment
initiatives. Others reflect sensitive sovereignty issues involving Seoul’s control over its own
military forces and desire to develop its own defense industry without dependence on American
equipment. And although the United States and South Korea share a common interest in repelling
any North Korea attack, views on the overall security landscape in Northeast Asia differ. Seoul
resists adopting positions that threaten or offend China, and often expresses misgivings about
Japan’s efforts to expand its military capabilities.

Upgrades to the Alliance
As mentioned above, sinceSince 2009, the two sides have accelerated steps to transform the U.S.-ROK
 alliance, broadening 
it from its primary purpose of defending against a North Korean attack to a
 regional and even 
global partnership. At the same time, deadly provocations from North Korea
 have propelled more 
integrated bilateral planning for responding to possible contingencies. In
 2011, the allies adopted 
a “proactive deterrence” policy to respond swiftly and forcefully to
 further provocations. 
Increasingly advanced joint military exercises have reinforced the enhanced
 defense partnership. 
In March 2013, U.S. officials disclosed that U.S. B-52 and B-2 bombers
 participated in exercises 
held in South Korea, following a period of unusually hostile rhetoric
 from Pyongyang.3935 The 
number and pace of high-level meetings have also increased. Since
 holding their first ever so-calledsocalled “2+2” meeting between the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense
 and their South Korean 
counterparts in 2010, the two sides have held two more 2+2s with an
39 ever-expanding agenda of
cooperative initiatives that includes issues far beyond shared interests on the Korean Peninsula.
These areas include cybersecurity, space, missile defense, nuclear safety, climate change, Ebola,
35

Jay Solomon, Julian Barnes, and Alastair Gale, “North Korea Warned—U.S. Flies Stealth Bombers over Peninsula in
Show of Might,” Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2013.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

15

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

ever-expanding agenda of cooperative initiatives that includes issues far beyond shared interests
on the Korean Peninsula. These areas include cyber security, space, missile defense, nuclear
safety, climate change, Ebola, 13

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

and multiple issues in the Middle East. Since 2011, the Korea-U.S.
 Integrated Defense Dialogue 
(KIDD) has held biannual meetings at the Deputy Minister level to
 serve as the umbrella 
framework for multiple U.S.-ROK bilateral initiatives.

Ballistic Missile Defense and Potential THAAD Deployment
As the threat of North Korean ballistic missiles has appeared to intensify in recent years, the
United States and South Korea have examined how to improve their BMD capabilities to defend
South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there. The United States has urged South Korea to develop
advanced BMD capabilities and to integrate them with U.S. and allied BMD systems in the
region. The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that a regional missile defense
system would be more effective against North Korean missile launches and would share the
burden of defense among allies.4036 However, Washington and Seoul have settled on a policy of
interoperability rather than integration, at least for the short- term. Seoul has been resistant to the
concept of ana regional integrated BMD system for several reasons: the desire, especially strong among

among progressive Koreans, for more strategic autonomy; a reluctance to irritate China, which has

has consistently voiced opposition to U.S. BMD deployments; and a disinclination to cooperate with

with Japan due to poor relations based on disputes over historical and territorial issues.
South Korea is developing its own system, called Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD), which
could be compared to the U.S.-produced PAC-2—a second-generation Patriot air defense system.
KAMD will be interoperable with alliance systems and aims to gradually incorporate more
advanced BMD equipment as those elements are procured. The ROK Navy has three destroyers
with Aegis tracking software but no missile interceptors, and the ROK Army fields PAC-2
interceptors. The South Korean military will reportedly purchase U.S. equipment, such as PAC-3
interceptors, SM-2 surface-to-air missiles, and the more advanced SM-6 air defenses starting in
2016. South Korea has also placed a heavy emphasis on indigenous development of hightechnology defense systems and may seek to produce its own BMD equipment.
The potential deployment of one particular BMD system called the Theater High-Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) system has been controversial in South Korea. Reportedly, the U.S. military is
considering a deployment of a THAAD battery to South Korea to help defend against North
Korean ballistic missiles.4137 China has complained that the radar capabilities of the THAAD
system could be configured to allow the United States to monitor airspace deep into Chinese
territory, and in February 2015 the Chinese Minister of Defense lodged a protest with his
counterpart in Seoul.4238 Nevertheless, the South Korean Minister of National Defense has praised a
potential U.S. deployment of THAAD, saying it “will be helpful in ... strengthening the security
posture on the peninsula.”4339 In one sense, the proposed THAAD deployment has become a litmus
test for Seoul’s straddling the gap betweenrelations with Beijing and Washington. Yet, South Korea has other
concerns  concerns
surrounding this issue, such as the affordability of buying its own THAAD system from
40potential costs of deploying the THAAD system from the
United States, the effectiveness of THAAD against North Korean missiles, and the timeframe
when a THAAD system could become available for South Korea.40
36

Paul McLeary, “Burden Sharing is the Future of Asian Missile Defense, Pentagon Official Says,” Defense News,
May 28, 2014.
4137
Daniel Pinkston, “No Such Thing as a Free Ride? ROK Missile Defence, Regional Missile Defence and OPCON
Transfer,” International Crisis Group, In Pursuit of Peace blog, July 29, 2014.
4238
Ser Myo-ja, “China’s Defense Chief Raises THAAD,” Korea JoongAng Daily, February 5, 2015.
43
Sarah Kim, “Korea Coming Around to THAAD Idea,” Korea JoongAng Daily, July 22, 2014.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

16

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

the United States, the effectiveness of THAAD against North Korean missiles, and the timeframe
when a THAAD system could become available for South Korea.44

U.S. Alliance and ROK Defense Reform Plans
Current security developments are taking place in the context of several concurrent defense plans.
The June 2009 Obama-Lee summit produced the “Joint Vision for the Alliance,” which promised
to enhance and globalize future defense cooperation. After the first decision to delay the transfer
of wartime operational control (Opcon) from U.S. to ROK forces, the operational “Strategic
Alliance 2015” roadmap (announced in September 2010) outlined the new Opcon transition
(since delayed until an unspecified date), including a path forward for improvements in ROK
capabilities and changes to U.S. troop relocation. The U.S. military is also undergoing a broad
transformation of its forces in the region; the 8th Army is moving toward becoming a war fighting
headquarters that can deploy to other areas of the world while still serving as a deterrent to any
possible aggression from North Korea.45
Meanwhile, South Korea’s Defense Reform 2020 bill passed by the National Assembly in 2006
laid out a 15-year, 621 trillion won (about $550 million) investment that aimed to reduce the
number of ROK troops while developing a high-tech force and strengthening the Joint Chiefs of
Staff system. The defense reforms announced by the Park Administration in March 2014 aim to
restructure the ground operations command, which will allow the South Korean military to
conduct nimbler operations in response to low-intensity provocations.46 The reforms also plan to
raise the pay of Korean military personnel while reducing the size of the force from the current
655,000 servicemembers to 522,000 by 2022. Despite these changes, the conservative Lee and
Park Administrations have slowed significantly the defense budget increases planned under the
earlier, progressive Roh Moo-hyun Administration (2003-2008).

The Relocation of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK)
The planned realignment of all U.S. forces from bases near the de-militarized zone (DMZ) border
with North Korea to bases farther south is progressing after initial delays, but challenges with
USFK force posture remain. In 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized a
realignment program to reduce and relocate U.S. forces in South Korea. Under the Rumsfeld
program, the Pentagon withdrew a 3,600-person combat brigade from the Second Division and
sent it to Iraq. The Rumsfeld plan called for the U.S. troop level in South Korea to fall from
37,000 to 25,000 by September 2008. However, in 2008, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates halted
the withdrawals at the level of 28,500. The realignment plan reflects the shift toward a supporting
role for USFK and a desire to resolve the issues arising from the location of the large U.S.
39
Sarah Kim, “Korea Coming Around to THAAD Idea,” Korea JoongAng Daily, July 22, 2014.
40
Rob York, “Why Seoul Shrugs at U.S.-Led Missile Defense,” NK News, August 29, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

14

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

The Relocation of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK)
The planned realignment of all U.S. forces from bases near the de-militarized zone (DMZ) border
with North Korea to bases farther south is progressing after initial delays, but challenges with
USFK force posture remain. Troop levels remain at about 28,500. The realignment plan reflects
the shift toward a supporting role for USFK and a desire to resolve the issues arising from the
location of the large U.S. Yongsan base in downtown Seoul.
The USFK base relocation plan has two elements. The first involves the transfer of a large
percentage of the 9,000 U.S. military personnel at the Yongsan base to U.S. Army Garrison
(USAG) Humphreys, which is located near the city of Pyeongtaek some 40 miles south of Seoul.
The second element involves the relocation of about 10,000 troops of the Second Infantry
44

Rob York, “Why Seoul Shrugs at U.S.-Led Missile Defense,” NK News, August 29, 2014.
“U.S. Army in South Korea Begins Transformation of Forces,” Stars and Stripes. August 25, 2010.
46
Song Sang-ho, “Frontline Corps to Get Greater Command Role,” Korea Herald, March 6, 2014.
45

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

17

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Division from the demilitarized zone to areas south of the Han River (which runs through Seoul).
The end result would be that USFK sites will decline to 48, from 104 in 2002. The bulk of U.S.
forces will be clustered in the two primary “hubs” of Osan Air Base/USAG Humphreys and
USAG Daegu that contain five “enduring sites” (Osan Air Base, USAG Humphreys, USAG
Daegu, Chinhae Naval Base, and Kunsan Air Base). U.S. counter-fires (counter-artillery) forces
stationed near the DMZ are the exception to this overall relocation. The United States and South
Korea agreed that those U.S. units would not relocate to USAG Humphreys until the South
Korean counter-fires reinforcement plan is completed around the year 2020.4741 The city of
Dongducheon, where those soldiers are based, has protested this decision and withdrawn some
cooperation with the U.S. Army.4842
The relocations to Pyeongtaek originally were scheduled for completion in 2008, but have been
postponed several times because of the slow construction of new facilities at Pyeongtaek and
South Korean protests of financial difficulties in paying the ROK share of the relocation costs.
The commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assessed that the entire troop realignment
was 42% complete as of May 2014 and was on track to finish in 2017.4943 The original cost
estimate was over $10 billion; South Korea was to contribute $4 billion of this. Estimates in 2010
placed the overall costs at over $13 billion. In congressional testimony in September 2010, U.S.
officials demurred from providing a final figure on the cost of the move, but confirmed that South
Korea would pay more than the original $4 billion.5044 U.S. Ambassador Mark Lippert testified to
Congress in June 2014 that the Humphreys Housing Opportunity Program (privately developed
housing for servicemembersservice members and their families inside the base) was a “challenging issue” and that

that the Defense Department was re-examining housing plans at USAG Humphreys.5145 In summer
2013, USFK broke ground for the new headquarters of the U.S.-Korea Command (KORCOM)
and United Nations Command (UNC) in Pyeongtaek. The facility is to become the command
center for U.S. forces after the planned transfer of wartime operational control.

47
41

“Joint Communique of the 46th ROK-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting,” U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, DC, October 23, 2014.
4842
Jun Ji-hye, “City Protests US Troop Presence,” Korea Times, January 13, 2015.
4943
Lee Chi-dong, “USFK Base Relocation Project on Track, but Some Details Still Being Discussed: Commander,”
Yonhap News Agency, May 23, 2014.
5044
“Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Security Situation on the Korean Peninsula,” CQ
Congressional Transcripts. September 16, 2010.
5145
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Confirmation
Hearing on Various Ambassadorial and U.S. Agency for International Development Nominations, 113th Cong., 2nd
sess., June 17, 2014.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

1815

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Figure 2. USFK Bases After Realignment Plan Is Implemented

Source: Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment—China and Northeast Asia, date posted April 15, 2010.

Tour Normalization
Another complicating factor in the development of the Yongsan Relocation Plan is the
announcement by the Pentagon in 2008 that U.S. military families, for the first time, would be
allowed to join U.S. military personnel in South Korea. Most U.S. troops in South Korea serve
one-year unaccompanied assignments. The goal was to phase out one-year unaccompanied tours
in South Korea, replacing them with 36-month accompanied or 24-month unaccompanied tours.
Supporters of the plan argued that accompanied tours create a more stable force because of
longer, more comfortable tours. If implemented, the “normalization” of tours would increase the
size of the U.S. military community at Osan/Humphries near Pyeongtaek to over 50,000.
In 2011, someSome Members of Congress have raised strong concerns about existing plans to relocate U.S.
bases in South Korea and normalize the tours of U.S. troops there. In May 2011, Senators Carl
Levin, John McCain, and James Webb issued a statement that urged a reconsideration of the
existing plans for U.S. military presence in the Asia Pacific, including the current agreements in
South Korea. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in May 2011 concluded
that the Department of Defense had neither demonstrated a “business case” to justify the tour
normalization initiative, nor considered alternatives.52 In June 2011, the Senate June 2011, the Senate
Armed Services
 Committee passed amendments to the FY2012 National Defense Authorization 
Act that prevents
 the obligation of any funds for tour normalization until further reviews of the 
plan are considered
 and a complete plan is provided to Congress. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal
 Year 2013 (H.R. 4310/P.L. 112-239) includes a provision (Section 
2107) that continues to
prohibit funds for tour normalization. Proponents of the existing plans say that such changes
could restrict U.S. military capabilities and readiness as well as jeopardize hard-fought
agreements designed to make the U.S. military presence more politically sustainable in South
Korea.53
52

Report found at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-316.
Bruce Klingner, “Proposed Re-Realignment for Northeast Asia Ignores Strategic Realities,” Heritage Foundation
(continued...)
53

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

19

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

 prohibit funds for tour normalization. For the time being, at least, the 
Department of Defense (DOD) has “stopped pursuing Tour
 Normalization as an initiative for 
Korea.”5446 In January 2013, USFK released a statement saying,
 “while improvements to readiness 
remain the command’s first priority, tour normalization is not
 affordable at this time.”5547 An April 
2013 Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) report
 criticized the policy change as expensive 
and questioned the legality of how DOD calculated the
 housing allowance.5648
46

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Advance Questions for Lieutenant General Curtis Scaparrotti,
USA, Nominee to be Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces Korea,
113th Cong., 1st sess., July 30, 2013.
47
Ashley Rowland, “USFK: Program to Move Families to Korea ‘Not Affordable at This Time,’” Stars and Stripes,
January 8, 2013.
48
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Inquiry into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support
the U.S. Military Presence Overseas, 113th Cong., April 15, 2013, S.Rept. 113-12 (Washington: GPO, 2013).

Congressional Research Service

16

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Cost Sharing
Since 1991, South Korea has provided financial support through a series of Special Measures
Agreements (SMAs) to offset the cost of stationing U.S. forces in Korea. In January 2014, Seoul
and Washington agreed to terms for the next five-year SMA, covering 2014-2018. Under the new
agreement, Seoul will raise its contribution by 6% to 920 billion Korean won ($867 million) in
2014 and then increase its annual payments at the rate of inflation. The new SMA also makes
U.S. use of South Korean funds more transparent than in the past, in response to South Korean
criticism. The ROK Ministry of Defense must approve every contract for which SMA funds are
obligated, and USFK is to submit an annual report on the SMA funds to the National Assembly.
Even with these changes, Korean opposition lawmakers complained that the agreement is
“humiliating” and that USFK might use SMA funds to finance portions of the relocation plan (see
above) in violation of the 2004 agreement.
According to the aforementioneda 2013 SASC report, U.S. military non-personnel costs in South Korea
 totaled about 
$1.1 billion in 2012, and Korean SMA payments totaled 836 billion won ($765
 million). In 
combination with that sum, other compensation outside the SMA (such as the South
Korea  Korea
contribution to base relocation) provides for about 40%-45% of the total non-personnel
stationing  stationing
costs for the U.S. troop presence.5749 South Korean SMA payments have not kept pace
 with rising 
U.S. costs. The 2013 SASC report says that between 2008 and 2012 South Korea’s
contributions  contributions
grew by about $42 million (in line with the pace of inflation), while U.S. nonpersonnel costs non-personnel costs
increased by more than $500 million.

Opcon Transfer
The United States has agreed to turn over the wartime command of Korean troops to South
Korea, but the two sides have postponed this transfer for several years. Under the current
command arrangement, which is a legacy of U.S. leadership of the U.N. coalition in the 19501953 Korean War, South Korean soldiers would be under the command of U.S. forces if there
were a war on the peninsula. The plan to transfer wartime operational control recognizes South
(...continued)
WebMemo #3262, May 18, 2011.
54
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Advance Questions for Lieutenant General Curtis Scaparrotti,
USA, Nominee to be Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces Korea,
113th Cong., 1st sess., July 30, 2013.
55
Ashley Rowland, “USFK: Program to Move Families to Korea ‘Not Affordable at This Time,’” Stars and Stripes,
January 8, 2013.
56
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Inquiry into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support
the U.S. Military Presence Overseas, 113th Cong., April 15, 2013, S.Rept. 113-12 (Washington: GPO, 2013).
57
Figures provided by officials in Special Measures Agreement program at U.S. Forces Korea through e-mail
correspondence with CRS.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

20

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Korea’s advances in economic and military strength since the Korean War and is seen by many
Koreans as important for South Korean sovereignty. Under a 2007 agreement, the U.S.-ROK
Combined Forces Command (CFC), which has been headed by the U.S. commander in Korea, is
to be replaced with separate U.S. and ROK military commands; the provisional name of the new
U.S. command is Korea Command (KORCOM). When the U.S. and ROK militaries operate as a
combined force under the new command structure, U.S. forces may be under the operational
command of a Korean general officer, but U.S. general officers are to be in charge of U.S.
subcomponents.5850 A bilateral Military Cooperation Center would be responsible for planning
military operations, military exercises, logistics support, and intelligence exchanges, and assisting
in the operation of the communication, command, control, and computer systems. It is unclear
what role the U.N. Command, which the USFK Commander also holds, will have in the future
arrangement.
In 2010, the Opcon transfer was postponed to 2015 after a series of provocations from North
Korea and amid concerns about whether South Korean forces were adequately prepared to
assume responsibility. As the new deadline of 2015 grew closer, concerns again emerged about
the timing. Reportedly, South Korean officials worried that their military was not fully prepared
49

Figures provided by officials in Special Measures Agreement program at U.S. Forces Korea through e-mail
correspondence with CRS.
50
General Curtis Scaparrotti U.S. Department of Defense Press Briefing, Washington, DC, October 24, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

17

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

to cope with North Korean threats and that Pyongyang might interpret the Opcon transfer as a
weakening of the alliance’s deterrence.5951 Some military experts expressed concern that turning
over control would lead to the United States reducing its overall commitment to South Korean
security.6052 In October 2014, the United States and South Korea announced in a joint statement
that the allies would take a “conditions-based approach” to the Opcon transfer and determine the
appropriate timing based on South Korean military capabilities and the security environment on
the Korean Peninsula.6153 The decisions to delay the Opcon transfer could be interpreted as a
flexible adjustment to changed circumstances on the Korean Peninsula or as emblematic of
problems with following through on difficult alliance decisions.
In testimony to Congress in April 2015, USFK Commander General Curtis Scaparrotti explained
the three general conditions for Opcon transfer: 62
•54




South Korea must develop the command and control capacity to lead a combined
and multinational force in high-intensity conflict,

•


South Korea must improve its capabilities to respond to the growing nuclear and
missile threat in North Korea, and

•


The Opcon transition should take place at a time that is conducive to a transition.

Scaparrotti stated that main areas of attention for improving South Korea’s capabilities will be C4
(command, control, computers, and communication systems), BMD, munitions, and ISR

58

General Curtis Scaparrotti U.S. Department of Defense Press Briefing, Washington, DC, October 24, 2014.
Song Sang-ho, “Allies Rack Brains over OPCON Transfer,” Korea Herald, May 6, 2014.
60
Lee Chi-dong and Roh Hyo-dong, “OPCON Transfer May Usher in Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Korea: ExGeneral,” Yonhap News Agency, November 18, 2013.
61
“Joint Communique of the 46th ROK-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting,” U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, DC, October 23, 2014.
62
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on the Risk of Losing Military Technology
Superiority and its Implications for U.S. Policy, Strategy, and Posture in the Asia-Pacific, 114th Cong., 1st sess., April
15, 2015.
59

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

21

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.


(intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) assets. Reportedly, the Opcon transfer may not
occur until 2020 or later.6355

South Korean Defense Industry and Purchases of U.S. Weapon Systems
South Korea is a major purchaser of U.S. weapon systems and is regularly among the top
customers for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Although South Korea generally buys the majority
of its weapons from the United States, European and Israeli defense companies also compete for
contracts; Korea is an attractive market because of its rising defense expenditures. According to
Foreign Policy, however, U.S. officials are concerned that South Korea is exploiting U.S. defense
technology in its indigenously produced equipment, some of which is exported to other
countries.6456
South Korea will purchase the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to be its next main
fighter aircraft, after the Ministry of DefenseNational Defense (MND) in September 2013 threw out the yearlong

yearlong acquisition process that selected the Boeing F-15SE fighter.6557 The cost of the F-35 had been too
high for the original bid, according to reports, but Korean defense officials determined that only
the F-35 met their requirements for advanced stealth capability. South Korea will purchase 40 F35 fighters at a total cost of $7.83 billion, with the first delivery of aircraft scheduled for 2018.66
South Korea will also purchase four RQ-4 “Global Hawk” unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) at a
price of $657 million in total.67
51

Song Sang-ho, “Allies Rack Brains over OPCON Transfer,” Korea Herald, May 6, 2014.
Lee Chi-dong and Roh Hyo-dong, “OPCON Transfer May Usher in Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Korea: ExGeneral,” Yonhap News Agency, November 18, 2013.
53
“Joint Communique of the 46th ROK-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting,” U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, DC, October 23, 2014.
54
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on the Risk of Losing Military Technology
Superiority and its Implications for U.S. Policy, Strategy, and Posture in the Asia-Pacific, 114th Cong., 1st sess., April
15, 2015.
55
Park Byong-su, “OPCON Transfer Delayed Again, This Time to Early-2020s Target Date,” Hankyoreh, September
17, 2014.
56
Gordon Lubold, “Is South Korea Stealing U.S. Military Secrets?” Foreign Policy, October 23, 2013,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/28/is_south_korea_stealing_us_military_secrets.
57
Ser Myo-ja, “Military Selects Lockheed Martin Fighter,” Korea JoongAng Daily, November 23, 2013.
52

Congressional Research Service

18

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

been too high for the original bid, according to reports, but Korean defense officials determined
that only the F-35 met their requirements for advanced stealth capability. South Korea will
purchase 40 F-35 fighters at a total cost of $7.83 billion, with the first delivery of aircraft
scheduled for 2018.58 The transfer of advanced defense technologies to South Korea was a key
incentive in the contract with Lockheed Martin, according to reports, but the U.S. government
denied the transfer of several technologies that the MND had been expecting to use in its own
fighter development program.59
South Korea will also purchase four RQ-4 “Global Hawk” unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) at a
price of $657 million in total.60 Given concerns that the sale could violate the Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR) and non-proliferation norms, observers have called on the Obama
Administration to ensure that the Global Hawks are used strictly for reconnaissance and are not
armed.6861 Currently, the South Korean military only operates reconnaissance UAVs, but the
Ministry of National Defense  MND
budgeted $447 million to indigenously develop a combat UAV by
 2021.6962
Korea’s Defense Reform 2020 legislation emphasizes the development of indigenous capabilities
by increasing the percentage of funds allocated to defense research and development (R&D).7063
South Korea aims to improve the competitiveness of its defense industry, but problems with the
reliability of certain systems pose a challenge; South Korean firms compete internationally in the
armored vehicle, shipbuilding, and aerospace industries.7164 Of particular note is the T-50 Golden
Eagle, a trainer and light fighter aircraft developed jointly by Lockheed Martin and Korea
Aerospace Industries.
63

Park Byong-su, “OPCON Transfer Delayed Again, This Time to Early-2020s Target Date,” Hankyoreh, September
17, 2014.
64
Gordon Lubold, “Is South Korea Stealing U.S. Military Secrets?” Foreign Policy, October 23, 2013,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/28/is_south_korea_stealing_us_military_secrets.
65
Ser Myo-ja, “Military Selects Lockheed Martin Fighter,” Korea JoongAng Daily, November 23, 2013.
66
“Military Selects Lockheed Martin Fighter,” JoongAng Ilbo, November 25, 2013.
67
Seth Robson, “US Approves Sale of Global Hawks to South Korea,” Stars and Stripes, December 17, 2014.
68
“Drones for South Korea,” New York Times, Editorial. December 29, 2012.
69
Song Sang-ho, “U.S. Agrees to Extend Seoul’s Ballistic Missile Range: Reports,” Korea Herald, September 23,
2012.
70
“South Korea Defense Budget,” Jane’s Defence Budgets. December 14, 2009.
71
Simon Mundy, “South Korea Aims to Become Defence Powerhouse,” Financial Times, November 6, 2013.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

22

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

The 110th Congress passed legislation that upgraded South Korea’s status as an arms purchaser
from a Major Non-NATO Ally to the NATO Plus Three category (P.L. 110-429), which has
become NATO Plus Five. This upgrade establishes a higher dollar threshold for the requirement
that the U.S. executive branch notify Congress of pending arms sales to South Korea, from $14
million to $25 million. Congress has 15 days to consider the sale and take legislative steps to
block the sale compared to 30 days for Major Non-NATO Allies.

South Korea’s Regional Relations
Looking at their surrounding neighborhood, South Koreans sometimes refer to their country as a
“shrimp among whales.” South Korea’s relations with China and Japan, especially the latter,
combine interdependence and rivalry. Until 2013, trilateral cooperation among the three capitals
generally had been increasing, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis.
Between 2009 and 2012, leaders of the three countries met annually in standalone summits,
established a trilateral secretariat in Seoul, signed an investment agreement, and laid the
groundwork for trilateral FTA negotiations to begin.72 In 2013, however, tensions between South
65 In 2013, however, tensions between South
58

“Military Selects Lockheed Martin Fighter,” JoongAng Ilbo, November 25, 2013.
“Why Can U.S. Arms Dealers Pull Korea Around by the Nose?” Chosun Ilbo, editorial, September 23, 2015.
60
Seth Robson, “US Approves Sale of Global Hawks to South Korea,” Stars and Stripes, December 17, 2014.
61
“Drones for South Korea,” New York Times, Editorial. December 29, 2012.
62
Song Sang-ho, “U.S. Agrees to Extend Seoul’s Ballistic Missile Range: Reports,” Korea Herald, September 23,
2012.
63
“South Korea Defense Budget,” Jane’s Defence Budgets. December 14, 2009.
64
Simon Mundy, “South Korea Aims to Become Defence Powerhouse,” Financial Times, November 6, 2013.
65
From 1999 to 2007, trilateral summits were only held on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’
“Plus Three” summit (which included the 10 ASEAN countries plus China, Japan, and South Korea).
59

Congressional Research Service

19

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Korea and Japan, and between China and Japan, froze much of this burgeoning trilateral
cooperation. One exception was the trilateral FTA negotiations, which were launched in
November 2012 and have continued through mid-2015. The three countries’ foreign ministers met

met in March 2015 for the first time in nearly three years, but as of early July 2015 the. The three countries
 have yet to hold a 
trilateral leaders’ meeting, though they plan to do so in late October or early November 2015.
Park Geun-hye often speaks of a Northeast Asian “paradox,” in which there is a “disconnect
between growing economic interdependence on the one hand and backward political-security
cooperation on the other.” To resolve this situation, Park has proposed a “Northeast Asian Peace
and Cooperation Initiative” to build trust among Northeast Asian countries and alleviate security
problems through cooperation on non-traditional security issues, such as nuclear safety and the
environment. Critics contend that NAPCI has yet to produce concrete results or define its
objectives clearly.

South Korea-Japan Relations
U.S. policy makerspolicymakers have long encouraged enhanced South Korea-Japan relations. A cooperative
relationship between the two countries, both U.S. treaty allies, and among the three is in U.S.
interests because it arguably enhances regional stability, helps coordination over North Korea
policy, and boosts each country’s ability to deal with the strategic challenges posed by China’s
rise. However, despite increased cooperation, closeness, and interdependence between the South
Korean and Japanese governments, people, and businesses over the past decade, mistrust on
historical and territorial issues continues to linger. South Korea and Japan have competing claims
to the small Dokdo/Takeshima islands in the Sea of Japan (called the East Sea by Koreans), and
most South Koreans complain that Japan has not adequately acknowledged its history of
aggression against Korea.7366 For more than three generations beginning in the late 19th century,
Japan intervened directly in Korean affairs, culminating in the annexation of the Korean
72

From 1999 to 2007, trilateral summits were only held on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’
“Plus Three” summit (which included the 10 ASEAN countries plus China, Japan, and South Korea).
73
Since the early 1950s, South Korea has administered Dokdo/Takeshima, which the U.S. government officially calls
the “Liancourt Rocks.”

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

23

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

peninsula in 1910. Over the next 35 years, Imperial Japan all but attempted to wipe out Korean
culture.7467 Among the victims were tens of thousands75thousands68 of South Korean “comfort women” who
during the 1930s and 1940s were recruited, many if not most by coercive measures, into
providing sexual services for Japanese soldiers. Whenever South Koreans perceive that Japanese
officials are downplaying or denying this history, it becomes difficult for South Korean leaders to
backsupport initiatives to institutionalize improvements in bilateral ties.
“Comfort Women”-Related Legislation
The U.S. House of Representatives has taken an interest in the comfort women issue. In the 109th 
Congress, H.Res.
 759 was passed by the House International Relations Committee on September 
13, 2006, but was not voted on by
 the full House. In the 110th Congress, H.Res. 121, with 167 co-sponsorscosponsors, was passed in the House on July 30, 2007, by
 voice vote. This resolution expresses the 
sense of the House that Japan should “formally acknowledge, apologize, and
 accept historical 
responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner” for its abuses of the comfort women. The text of


66

Since the early 1950s, South Korea has administered Dokdo/Takeshima, which the U.S. government officially calls
the “Liancourt Rocks.”
67
Many Koreans believe that the United States was complicit in this history, by reportedly informally agreeing in a
1905 meeting between U.S. Secretary of War William Taft and Japanese Prime Minister Taro Katsura that the United
States would recognize Japan’s sphere of influence over Korea in return for Japan doing the same for the United States
in the Philippines.
68
According to some Japanese sources, the number of South Korean comfort women was much lower.

Congressional Research Service

20

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

of the resolution calls the system “unprecedented in its cruelty” and “one of the largest cases of 
human trafficking in the
 20th century,” asserts that some Japanese textbooks attempt to downplay 
this and other war crimes, and states that
 some Japanese officials have tried to dilute the Kono 
Statement. In the 113th Congress, the 2014 Consolidated
 Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76, H.R. 
3547) indirectly referred to this resolution. P.L. 113-76’s conference committee
 issued a Joint 
Explanatory Statement that called on Federal Agencies to implement directives contained in the July

July 2013 H.Rept. 113-185, which in turn “urge[d] the Secretary of State to encourage the 
Government of Japan to
 address the issues raised” in H.Res. 121.


From 2008 to 2011, former President Lee Myung-bak sought to separate historical issues from the
larger relationship. In this, he was aided by Japanese leaders from the then-ruling Democratic
Party of Japan (DPJ) who often tended to be more willing to acknowledge Imperial Japan’s
actions against Korea and who placed a priority on improving relations with Seoul. Cemented for
the first time in years by a common strategic outlook on North Korea, trilateral South Korea-U.S.Japan coordination over North Korea policy was particularly close. People-to-people ties
blossomed, with tens of thousands of Japanese and Koreans traveling to the other country every
day. The South Korean and Japanese militaries also stepped up their cooperation, including
holding trilateral exercises with the United States.
However, South Koreans’ interest in forming significant new institutional arrangements with
Japan is dampened by three domestic factors in South Korea. First, continued suspicions of Japan
among the South Korean population place political limitations on how far and how fast Korean
leaders can improve relations. Second, continued disagreements over Dokdo/Takeshima’s
sovereignty continue to weigh down the relationship. Third, unlike Japan, South Korea generally
does not view China as an existential challenge and territorial threat. South Korea also needs
Chinese cooperation on North Korea. Accordingly, South Korean leaders tend to be much more
wary of taking steps that will alarm China. A factor that could change this calculation is if China
is seen as enabling North Korean aggression. Indeed, North Korean acts of provocation are often
followed by breakthroughs in ROK-Japan relations, as well as in ROK-U.S.-Japan cooperation.
All three of these factors contributed to a dramatic downturn in South Korea-Japan relations in
2012. In May and again in June, the two sides were on the verge of signing a completed
intelligence-sharing agreement long sought by the United States as a way to ease trilateral
74
Many Koreans believe that the United States was complicit in this history, by reportedly informally agreeing in a
1905 meeting between U.S. Secretary of War William Taft and Japanese Prime Minister Taro Katsura that the United
States would recognize Japan’s sphere of influence over Korea in return for Japan doing the same for the United States
in the Philippines.
75
According to some Japanese sources, the number of South Korean comfort women was much lower.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

24

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

cooperation and dialogue. However, a firestorm of criticism against the pact in South Korea led
the Lee government to cancel the signing minutes before it was to take place. Negotiations over a
related deal on exchanging military supplies also broke down. Later that summer, President Lee
made the first-ever visit by a South Korean president to Dokdo/Takeshima. Lee said his visit was
in large measure a response to what he claimed was Japan’s failure to adequately acknowledge
and address the suffering of the World War II comfort women.
Relations worsened after the elections of Park Geun-hye and Abe Shinzo. South Korean leaders
have objected to a series of statements and actions by Abe and his Cabinet officials that many
have  have
interpreted as denying or even glorifying Imperial Japan’s aggression in the early 20th
century. Seoul has maintained that it would have difficulty holding a summit unless Japan adopts
a “correct understanding” of history. century.
Park insisted that Japan adopt a “correct understanding of history” as a prerequisite for nearly all
cooperative initiatives.69 Japanese officials counter that their South Korean
 counterparts rarely 
acknowledge the efforts Japan has made to apologize for and address Imperial
 Japan’s actions. 
South Korean attitudes toward Abe degraded after his December 2013 visit to the
Yasukuni  Yasukuni
69

Alastair Gale, “South Korea’s Park Chides Abe but Seeks Stable Japan Ties,” Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

21

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Shrine, a Shinto shrine established to “enshrine” the “souls” of Japanese soldiers who
 died during 
war, but that also includes 14 individuals who were convicted as Class A war
 criminals after World War II.
Relations deteriorated further in 2014 when the Abe government released a study that examined
the “Kono Statement,” a 1993 apology by then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono that
acknowledged the Japanese military’s role in coercing women into the brothel system. The panel
that conducted the study, carried out in response to a request by a Diet member of a far-right
opposition party, concluded that the statement had been crafted in consultation with Seoul,
implying that the document was not based solely on historical evidence. The Abe government has
pledged that it stands by the Kono Statement, but critics claim that the study discredits the
apology and gives further proof of Tokyo’s (and specifically Abe’s) revisionist aims. South
Korea’s Foreign Ministry called the study “meaningless and unnecessary.”
Neither Park nor Abe appears willing to be seen as compromising with the other. Moreover, the
approaches of both leaders to historical issues appear to contradict one another and are locked in a
vicious circle: Park seeks to bring Japan to a more full-throated acknowledgement and apology
for its pre-WWII actions, and until 2015 appeared to link other aspects of South Korea-Japan
relations to the history issue. Meanwhile, Abe aims to restore Japanese pride in its history by
erasing many signs of what many Japanese nationalists have regarded as self-flagellation, such as
the portrayal of the early 20th century in history textbooks. Given the array of domestic forces
opposed to raising South Korea-Japan relations to a new level, even if the two leaders hold a
formal summit, it is unclear whether the two governments will have the interest or capacity to do
more than maintain ad hoc cooperation, such as in response to aggressive North Korean actions.

South Korea-China Relations
China’s rise influences virtually all aspects of South Korean foreign and economic policy. North
Korea’s growing economic and diplomatic dependence on China since the early 2000s has meant
that South Korea must increasingly factor Beijing’s actions and intentions into its North Korea
policy. China’s influence over North Korea has tended to manifest itself in two ways in Seoul. On
the one hand, most South Korean officials worry that North Korea, particularly its northern
provinces, is drifting into China’s orbit. For those on the political left in South Korea, this was an
argument against Lee’s harder line stance toward inter-Korean relations, which they say has
eroded much of South Korea’s influence over North Korea.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

25

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.


World War II.
Increasingly since the middle of 2014, Park’s government has adopted more of a two-track
approach toward Japan, separating disputes over history from most other aspects of the
relationship. Bilateral working-level discussions have increased, and regular high-level bilateral
meetings resumed in 2014 and have built up to the Cabinet level. In another sign of a bilateral
thaw, in December 2014 the United States, South Korea, and Japan signed a modest trilateral
information sharing agreement. Additionally, despite many private statements by South Korean
officials expressing concern about Japanese “remilitarization,” the Park government officially
does not appear to have objected in principle to Japan’s historic moves to expand the scope of its
military’s activities.70 South Korea’s change in behavior appears to have been influenced by shifts
in the correlation of powers in Northeast Asia that made Park’s former stance less tenable: for
example, high-level Sino-Japanese ties, which had also been frozen for months, reopened in
November 2014, and U.S.-Japanese ties have deepened in the first half of 2015, as symbolized
during Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s April 2015 visit to the United States.71 U.S. pressure to
improve ties and Abe’s avoidance of historically sensitive comments or moves also may have
contributed to Seoul’s apparent adjustment in tone.
Despite these improvements, the South Korea-Japan relationship remains tense and vulnerable to
a sudden deterioration. The approaches of both leaders to historical issues appear to contradict
one another and are locked in a vicious circle: Park seeks to bring Japan to a more full-throated
acknowledgement and apology for its pre-WWII actions, and is likely to countenance major new
initiatives unless there is progress on history issues. Meanwhile, Abe aims to restore Japanese
pride in its history by erasing many signs of what many Japanese nationalists have regarded as
self-flagellation, such as the portrayal of the early 20th century in history textbooks. Given the
array of domestic forces opposed to raising South Korea-Japan relations to a new level, even if
the two leaders hold a formal summit, it is unclear whether the two governments will have the
interest or capacity to do more than maintain ad hoc cooperation, such as in response to
aggressive North Korean actions.

South Korea-China Relations
China’s rise influences virtually all aspects of South Korean foreign and economic policy. North
Korea’s growing dependence on China since the early 2000s has meant that South Korea must
increasingly factor Beijing’s actions and intentions into its North Korea policy. China’s influence
over North Korea has tended to manifest itself in a number of ways in Seoul. For instance,
Chinese support or opposition could be decisive in shaping the outcome of South Korea’s
approaches to North Korea, both in the short term (such as handling sudden crises) and the long
term (such as contemplating how to bring about re-unification). For this reason, a key objective of
the joint Park/Obama policy toward North Korea is trying to alter China’s calculation of its own
strategic interests so that they might be more closely aligned with Seoul and Washington rather
than with Pyongyang. Additionally, many South Koreans worry that China’s economy is pulling
North Korea, particularly its northern provinces, into China’s orbit.
70

For instance, see South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Briefing by Spokesperson and Deputy Minister for
Public Relations, Noh Kwang-il, May 14, 2015.
71
For more, see CRS Report RL33436, Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Emma ChanlettAvery.

Congressional Research Service

22

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

On the other hand, China’s continued support for North Korea, particularly its perceived backing
of Pyongyang after the Yeonpyeong Island shelling in 2010, has angered many South Koreans,
particularly conservatives. China’s treatment of North Korean refugees, many of whom are
forcibly repatriated to North Korea, has also become a bilateral irritant. Many South Korean
conservatives also express concern that the Chinese have been unwilling to discuss plans for
dealing with various contingencies involving instability in North Korea, though beginning in
2013 there were signs that Beijing had become more willing to engage in these discussions. Park
Geun-hye has called for establishing a trilateral strategic dialogue among Korea, the United
States, and China that presumably could discuss various situations involving North Korea.7672
Since China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization, China has emerged as South Korea’s
most important economic partner. Over 20% of South Korea’s total trade is with China, twice the
level for South Korea-U.S. and South Korea-Japan trade.7773 For years, China has been the number
one location for South Korean firms’ foreign direct investment, and South Korea is negotiatingthe two countries signed a
bilateral FTA with Chinain 2015. Yet, even as China is an important source of South Korean economic
growth, it also looms large as an economic competitor. Indeed, fears of increased competition
with Chinese enterprises have been an important motivator for South Korea’s push to negotiate a
series of FTAs with other major trading partners around the globe.
Park Geun-hye has placed a priority on improving South Korea’s relations with China, which
generally are thought to have been cool during Lee Myung-bak’s tenure. In June 2013, Park
traveled to China for what was generally regarded as a successful visit that included meetings
with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Since then, theThe two sides have 
expanded a number of highlevelhigh-level arrangements designed to boost strategic communication and 
dialogue. As President, Park
 has held five meetingssix summits with Chinese President Xi Jinping, including a summit in Seoul in July
2014. Notably, . Notably,
Xi’s first visit to the Korean Peninsula as President was to South Korea, not to
China’s ally, North Korea. For China, the summit was an opportunity to reinforce mutual distrust
of Japan, deepen bilateral trade ties, and put pressure on North Korea, whose nuclear weapons
program and other provocations China sees as providing unwelcome justification for the U.S.
military presence in Asia. For South Korea, trade was a key interest, but a more significant aspect
may be the goal of aligning China’s strategic interests with South Korea rather than North Korea.
 China’s ally, North
Korea. Although Xi and Park have described bilateral ties as having reached an “unprecedented 
level of
 strategic understanding,” most analysts do not expect that South Korea will prioritize relations

relations with China at the expense of the U.S. alliance. Many South Koreans point to fundamental

fundamental differences between Seoul’s and Beijing’s interests in North Korea, and increasing rivalry

rivalry between Chinese and South Korean firms in recent years has accentuated the economic
competition between the two countries.78

76

Park Geun-hye, “Trustpolitik and the Making of a New Korea,” November 15, 2012.
Much of South Korea’s exports to China are intermediate goods that ultimately are used in products exported to the
United States and Europe.
78
Kim Jiyoon, Karl Friedhoff, Lee Euicheol, and Kang Chungku, “One Bed, Two Dreams: Assessing Xi Jinping’s
Visit to Seoul,” Asan Institute Issue Brief, July 16, 2014, http://en.asaninst.org/one-bed-two-dreams-assessing-xijinpings-visit-to-seoul.
77

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

26

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.74

Economic Relations
South Korea and the United States are major economic partners. In 2014, two-way trade between
the two countries totaled $114 billion (see Table 1), making South Korea the United States’ sixthlargest trading partner. For some western states and U.S. sectors, the South Korean market is even
more important. South Korea is far more dependent economically on the United States than the
United States is on South Korea. In 2014, the United States was South Korea’s second-largest
trading partner, second-largest export market, and the third-largest source of imports. In 2013, it
was among South Korea’s largest suppliers of foreign direct investment (FDI).
As South Korea has emerged as a major industrialized economy, and as both countries have
become more integrated with the world economy, economic interdependence has become more
complex and attenuated. In particular, the United States’ economic importance to South Korea has
72

Park Geun-hye, “Trustpolitik and the Making of a New Korea,” November 15, 2012.
Much of South Korea’s exports to China are intermediate goods that ultimately are used in products exported to the
United States and Europe.
74
Kim Jiyoon, Karl Friedhoff, Lee Euicheol, and Kang Chungku, “One Bed, Two Dreams: Assessing Xi Jinping’s
Visit to Seoul,” Asan Institute Issue Brief, July 16, 2014, http://en.asaninst.org/one-bed-two-dreams-assessing-xijinpings-visit-to-seoul.
73

Congressional Research Service

23

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

declined relative to other major powers. In 2003, China for the first time displaced the United
States from its perennial place as South Korea’s number one trading partner. Japan and the 28member European Union each also rival and have at times surpassed the United States as South
Korea’s second-largest trading partner.
South Korea’s export-driven economy and subsequent competition with domestic U.S. producers
in certain products has also led to some trade frictions with the United States. For example,
imports of certain South Korean products—mostly steel or stainless steel items as well as
polyester, chemicals, and washing machines—have been the subject of U.S. antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations. As of May 18September 29, 2015, for instance, antidumping duties were

were being collected on 14 South Korean imports and countervailing duties were being assessed 
on 3
 South Korean products.7975
The George W. Bush and Roh Moo-hyun Administrations initiated the KORUS FTA negotiations
in 2006 and signed an agreement in June 2007.8076 In October 2011, the House and Senate passed
H.R. 3080, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, which was
subsequently signed by President Obama.8177 In March 2012, the U.S.-South Korea FTA entered
into force.
Upon the date of implementation of the KORUS FTA, 82% of U.S. tariff lines and 80% of South
Korean tariff lines were tariff free in U.S.-South Korean trade, whereas prior to the KORUS FTA,
38% of U.S. tariff lines and 13% of South Korean tariff lines were duty free. By the 10th year of
the agreement, the figures will rise to an estimated 99% and 98%, respectively, with tariff
elimination occurring in stages and the most sensitive products having the longest phase-out
periods. Non-tariff barriers in goods trade and barriers in services trade and foreign investment
are to be reduced or eliminated under the KORUS FTA.
At the time of this writing, the KORUS FTA had been in force for just over three years; therefore
and a half years;
therefore it is still early to ascertain its overall impact on U.S.-South Korean bilateral trade with some

some provisions of the agreement yet to take effect and tariffs on certain products continuing to phase

phase out. Nevertheless, Table 1 below presents U.S.-South Korea merchandise trade data for selected
79

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls.
For more on the KORUS FTA, see CRS Report RL34330, The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS
FTA): Provisions and Implementation, coordinated by Brock R. Williams.
81
The House vote was 278-151. In the Senate, the vote was 83-15.
80

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

27

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.


selected years; total bilateral goods trade grew by nearly 10% in 2014 compared to 2013. U.S. 
exports to
 South Korea increased by 6.7% in value, while U.S. imports from South Korea 
increased by
 around 11.5%. The goods trade deficit increased by 21.3%.
Table 1. Annual U.S.-South Korea Merchandise Trade,
Selected Years
(billions of U.S. dollars)
Year

U.S. Exports

U.S. Imports

Trade Balance

Total Trade

1990

14.4

18.5

-4.1

32.9

1995

25.4

24.2

1.2

49.6

2000

27.9

40.3

-12.4

68.2

2005

27.5

43.8

-16.3

71.3

75

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls.
For more on the KORUS FTA, see CRS Report RL34330, The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS
FTA): Provisions and Implementation, coordinated by Brock R. Williams.
77
The House vote was 278-151. In the Senate, the vote was 83-15.
76

Congressional Research Service

24

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Year

U.S. Exports

U.S. Imports

Trade Balance

Total Trade

2010

38.8

48.9

-10.1

87.7

2011

43.5

56.7

-13.2

100.1

2012a2010

38.8

48.9

-10.1

87.7

2011

43.4

56.7

-13.3

100.1

2012*

42.3

58.9

-16.6

101.2

2013

41.7

62.4

-20.7

104.1

2014

44.5

69.65

-25.10

114.20

Major U.S. Export
Items

Semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment; medical equipment; civilian
aircraft; chemical products; motor vehicles and parts; plastics; corn and wheat; and beef and
pork.

Major U.S. Import
Items

Motor vehicles and parts; cell phones; computers, tablets, and their components; iron and steel
and products; jet fuel and motor oil; plastics; and tires.

Source: Global Trade Atlas, accessed February 12September 29, 2015.
Notes: Exports based on total exports and imports based on general imports. (*)
a. The KORUS FTA went into effect
 on March 15, 2012.

South Korea-U.S. Interaction over the Proposed TPP
As mentioned earlier, TPP
South Korea in fall 2013 signaled its “interest” in joining the TPP negotiations, a move that the
 Obama Administration 
welcomed. The next formal step for South Korea to enter the TPP would be for the South
 Korean government to formally announce that it is seeking to participate. The timing of that announcement could
alter what procedures follow. To date, joining the TPP negotiations has required reaching agreement with the existing
negotiating parties over terms of entry, followed by a formal invitation to the negotiations from those members.
Under U.S. trade promotion authority (TPA)—currently expired but still adhered to by the Administration—this
invitation initiates U.S. domestic notification procedures, including notification to Congress of the Administration’s
intent to enter FTA negotiations after a period of 90 days. If South Korea waits until after the TPP agreement is
concluded to announce its intent to join, it would presumably
formally announce that it is seeking to participate. Negotiations among the current 12 TPP countries concluded on
October 5, 2015, so presumably South Korea will not be able to join the TPP until after the agreement is ratified and
will follow the accession procedures that may be set forth
in aprovided in the final agreement. It is not yet clear what those 
procedures will be, but the accession process used for the World
 Trade Organization (WTO)—countries agree to 
the established rules of the agreement and then negotiate market
 access commitments (tariffs and quotas)—may serve as a template.
As part of these procedures the United States may require some preliminary commitments from Seoul before it

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

28

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

agrees to South Korea’s participation in the negotiations.
serve as a template.
The Obama Administration “welcomed” South Korea’s interest in joining. However, U.S. government officials,
including the President, have suggested that South Korea’s willingness and ability to resolve ongoing
 issues with the 
implementation of the KORUS FTA are among such measures.82may impact its potential participation in the TPP, although officials note progress
has been made.78 For example, some U.S. stakeholders
 are concerned that proposed auto emissions regulations based 
on average emissions across a company’s fleet may
 unfairly discriminate against U.S. exports, as U.S. auto makers are 
most competitive in sales of larger vehicles in the
 Korean market. Additional concerns have been raised over the 
Korean government’s implementation of KORUS FTA
commitments on data flows and pharmaceutical intellectual property protection. Both governments are reportedly
working to resolve these issues. commitments on data flows, although recent actions by the
government on this issue have been praised by the U.S. business community.79 U.S. officials reportedly also have been 
discussing with South Korea issues that would
beare included in the TPP but are not part of the KORUS FTA, such as state-ownedstateowned enterprises and regulatory
 coherence, to seegauge if South Korea would be prepared to make commitments in these areas.
Ultimately, Congress must approve implementing legislation if a completed TPP agreement—with or without South
Korea—is to apply to the United States. Additionally, during the TPP negotiating process, Congress has a formal and
informal role in influencing U.S. negotiating positions, including through setting U.S. trade negotiating objectives and
ongoing consultation mechanisms that have been part of TPA. TPA, which expired in 2007, is the authority that
Congress gives to the President to negotiate trade agreements that would receive expedited legislative
consideration.83 In the 113th Congress, legislation to renew TPA was introduced in the House (H.R. 3830) and Senate
(S. 1900), but was never considered. High on the legislative agenda for some Members of Congress and the
Administration, TPA legislation has been introduced in the 114th Congress (H.R. 1890/S. 995), passed by the Senate,
and is expected to be considered in the House in June 2015.

South Korea’s Economic Performance
South Korea was hit hard by the global financial crisis that began in late 2008, because of its
heavy reliance on international trade and its banks’ heavy borrowing from abroad. Real GDP
growth declined to 0.7% in 2009. However, the South Korean economy roared back and grew by
6.5% in 2010. The government took strong countermeasures to blunt the crisis’s impact, engaging
in a series of fiscal stimulus actions worth about 6% of the country’s 2008 GDP, by some
measures the largest such package in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) group of industrialized countries. The Bank of Korea (BOK) also acted
aggressively, lowering interest rates from over 5% to 2%—at that time, a record low for South
Korea—and engaging in a range of other operations, estimated by the OECD to be worth over
2.5% of GDP, designed to infuse liquidity in the Korean economy. The BOK negotiated currency
swap agreements with the United States, Japan, and China.84
The South Korean won, after depreciating to around 1,500 won/dollar—a fall of nearly one-third
from early 2008 to early 2009—gradually strengthened against the dollar, oscillating between the
1,000-1,200 won/dollar range since late 2010. The won’s depreciation in 2008 and 2009 helped to
stimulate South Korea’s economic recovery by making its exports cheaper relative to many other
currencies, particularly the Japanese yen. In contrast, since 2013, the yen has depreciated
considerably, falling by a third against the dollar, coinciding with Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s
election in Japan and his focus on stimulating the Japanese economy with a combination of
monetary, fiscal, and structural reform policies known as “Abenomics.” The yen’s fall has given a
82
The White House, “Remarks by President Obama at Business Roundtable,” press release, April 26, 2014. In his
remarks, President Obama said, “I discussed this [KORUS implementation] with President Park last night. We both
agreed that these are issues we can work through together. And given South Korea’s interest in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, fully implementing KORUS also is the single most important step that South Korea can take now to show
that it’s prepared to eventually meet the high standards of TPP.”
83
For more on TPA, see CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade
Policy, by Ian F. Fergusson.
84
The October 2008 swap agreement with the U.S. Federal Reserve gave Bank of Korea access to up to $30 billion in
US dollar funds in exchange for won.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

29

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

boost to Japanese exporters and proven politically unpopular with trade partners including the
United States and South Korea. President Park criticized the yen’s fall at the November 2014
summit of G-20 leaders.85
Since 2010, South Korean real GDP growth has slowed, in part due to a slowdown in its foreign
trade and the won’s appreciation. South Korea’s economy is highly dependent upon capital
inflows and exports, the latter of which are equal to around half of the country’s annual GDP.
Thus, South Korea remains vulnerable to a slowdown in its major export markets: China, the
United States, the European Union, and Japan. GDP growth in 2011 was 3.7%, 2.3% in 2012,
2.9% in 2013, and 3.3% in 2014. To stimulate growth, the Park government in July 2014
announced a $40 billion stimulus package, equivalent to roughly 3% the size of the South Korean
economy. In March 2015, the Bank of Korea cut South Korea’s base interest rate to a record-low
1.75%. Three months later, the Bank cut the rate again, to 1.5%, citing declining exports and the
contractionary effects of the MERS outbreak on South Korea’s domestic consumption.86
Figure 3. South Korea’s Real GDP Growth, 2007-2014

Source: Bank of Korea, reprinted in the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Although South Korea’s economic performance may look favorable to many around the world,
complaints in South Korea have risen in recent years that only rich individuals and large
conglomerates (called chaebol)—which dominate the economy—have benefitted from the
country’s growth since the 2008-2009 slowdown. The 2012 presidential election was largely
fought over the issues of governance (in the wake of a number of corruption scandals), social
welfare, and rising income inequality. Leading figures in both parties, including President Park,
have proposed ways to expand South Korea’s social safety net. As mentioned in the politics
section below, lower-than-expected growth in 2013 and 2014 contributed to Park’s scaling back
her plans. South Korea has one of the lowest rates of social welfare spending in the industrialized
world, a problem exacerbated by the already high levels of indebtedness of the average South
85
86

c11173008

Kim Seon-gul, “Park Criticizes Weakening Yen,” mk Business News, November 18, 2014.
The Bank of Korea, “Monetary Policy Decision,” June 11, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

30

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

Korean household. The rapid aging of the South Korean population is expected to create
additional financial pressures on government expenditures in the future.

Nuclear Energy and Non-Proliferation Cooperation
Bilateral Nuclear Energy Cooperation
The United States and South Korea have cooperated in the peaceful use of nuclear energy for
over 50 years.87 This cooperation includes commercial projects as well as R&D work on safety,
safeguards, advanced nuclear reactors, and fuel cycle technologies. As mentioned in the
introductory section of this report, in March 2014, the two countries extended for two years their
bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, often referred to as a “123 agreement” under
section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) as amended.88 An extension of the agreement until
March 2016 was approved by Congress (S. 1901) in January 2014 and passed into law (P.L. 11381).
Renewing the agreement is necessary because the existing agreement was concluded before the
current requirements under Section 123a of the AEA were enacted, and the existing agreement
does not meet all of the AEA’s requirements. The agreement is expected to be transmitted to
Congress for review by fall 2015 in order to meet the required 90 days of congressional
consideration. The renewal agreement text was initialed by the two countries in April 2015, and is
expected to be signed in June 2015 to allow for the required review periods. U.S. interagency
officials must review the agreement and prepare required nonproliferation and national security
assessments before submitting it to Congress for the required review period. The agreement
would likely meet all the terms of the Atomic Energy Act89 and not require any exemptions from
the law’s requirements. Therefore, the agreement could enter into force after a 30-day
consultation period and a review period of 60 days of continuous session90 unless Congress
enacted a joint resolution of disapproval. Congress also has the option of adopting either a joint
resolution of approval with (or without) conditions, or stand-alone legislation that could approve
or disapprove the agreement. Any congressional efforts to block the agreement would be subject
to presidential veto.
One of the reasons Seoul and Washington decided on a two-year extension was to give more time
to negotiators to work out a sticking point in the talks—how to treat fuel cycle issues. South
Korea reportedly had requested that the new agreement include a provision that would give
permission in advance for U.S.-obligated spent nuclear fuel to be reprocessed to make new fuel

87
The original agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation was concluded in 1956, and amendments were made in 1958,
1965, 1972, and 1974. See also CRS Report R41032, U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy
Market: Major Policy Considerations, by Mark Holt.
88
See also CRS Report RS22937, Nuclear Cooperation with Other Countries: A Primer, by Paul K. Kerr and Mary
Beth D. Nikitin. Full text of the agreement is available at http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/
Korea_South_123.pdf.
89
Under section 123.a, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2153(a)), Atomic Energy Act of 1946, ch. 724, 60 Stat. 755 (1946), as
amended.
90
Days on which either chamber is in a recess of more than three days (pursuant to a concurrent resolution authorizing
the recess) do not count toward the total. If Congress adjourns its session sine die, continuity is broken, and the count
starts anew when it reconvenes.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

31

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

using a type of reprocessing called pyroprocessing.91 The United States and South Korea are
jointly researching pyroprocessing, but the technology is at the research and development stage.92
The Obama Administration would prefer to conclude the U.S.-ROK joint study on this
technology before making any decision to approve such activities. Reprocessing of U.S.-obligated
spent fuel requires approval by the United States, typically on a case-by-case basis (referred to as
“programmatic consent”). While details are not yet known, press reports indicate that the two
sides have come to an agreement about the extent of research and development of the technology
allowed in South Korea under the new accord. It is expected that the renewed agreement may
contain some additional allowances for R&D in South Korea on pyroprocessing but would not
allow for advanced work without further permission.93 It also provides for a new High Level
Commission where the two sides would review cooperation under the agreement and possibly
resolve fuel cycle issues in the future.
For several decades, the United States has pursued a policy of limiting the spread of enrichment
and reprocessing technology to new states as part of its nonproliferation policies.94
these areas.
Ultimately, Congress must approve implementing legislation if a completed TPP agreement is to apply to the United
States, although it is not yet clear what role Congress will play in the accession process of new TPP members.

78

The White House, “Remarks by President Obama at Business Roundtable,” press release, April 26, 2014. In his
remarks, President Obama said, “I discussed this [KORUS implementation] with President Park last night. We both
agreed that these are issues we can work through together. And given South Korea’s interest in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, fully implementing KORUS also is the single most important step that South Korea can take now to show
that it’s prepared to eventually meet the high standards of TPP.” See also United States Trade Representative, “KORUS
FTA: Year Three in Deepening Market Integration.” Remarks by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Japan, Korea,
and APEC Affairs Bruce Hirsh at the Fullerton KORUS Event,” March 12, 2015. “Hirsh Hits Positive Note on Korea
TPP Candidacy,” Inside U.S. Trade, March 20, 2015.
79
“Industry Sees Korean Move to Loosen Data Rules as Aligning with FTA,” Inside U.S. Trade, June 25, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

25

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Congress also has a formal and informal role in influencing U.S. negotiating positions, including through setting U.S.
trade negotiating objectives and ongoing consultation mechanisms as part of trade promotion authority (TPA), which
Congress passed in June (P.L. 114-26). Through TPA Congress grants expedited legislative consideration to trade
agreements negotiated by the President that advance U.S. trade negotiating objectives and meet specific notification
and consultation requirements.80
Entry into TPP would align with President Park’s policies to revive the Korean economy—a top priority for her
government. It would continue the country’s strategy of entering into FTAs in order to make South Korea a
“linchpin” of accelerated economic integration in the region.81 The Park government is negotiating a number of FTAs,
including a bilateral agreement with China that the two countries signed in June 2015.

South Korea’s Economic Performance
International trade (counting both imports and exports) amounts to more than 100% of South
Korea’s GDP, making the country particularly susceptible to fluctuations in the global economy.
This was evident during the global financial crisis that began in late 2008. South Korea’s real
GDP growth declined to 0.7% in 2009 as the world economy dipped into deep recession. Growth
recovered to 6.5% in 2010, following the government’s large fiscal stimulus and record-low
interest rates, and has hovered around 3% since (Figure 3). However, South Korea remains
vulnerable to a slowdown in its major export markets: China, the United States, the European
Union, and Japan. China’s slowing economic growth this year has been of particular concern.82
To stimulate growth, the Park government in July 2014 announced a $40 billion stimulus
package, equivalent to roughly 3% the size of the South Korean economy. In March 2015, the
Bank of Korea cut South Korea’s base interest rate to a record-low 1.75%. Three months later, the
Bank cut the rate again, to 1.5%, citing declining exports and the contractionary effects of the
MERS outbreak on South Korea’s domestic consumption.83

80

For more on TPA, see CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade
Policy, by Ian F. Fergusson.
81
Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy Press Release 436, “Korea Outlines New Trade Policy Direction,” June 25,
2013.
82
“South Korea Exports Plunge 14.7%,” Financial Times, August 31, 2015.
83
The Bank of Korea, “Monetary Policy Decision,” June 11, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

26

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Figure 3. South Korea’s Real GDP Growth, 2007-2014

Source: Bank of Korea, reprinted in the Economist Intelligence Unit.

South Korea’s post-2008 crisis average growth of around 3% is 2 percentage points lower than its
5% average during the decade leading up to the crisis. This lower growth has become a major
policy concern for South Korea, especially given the country’s rapid economic success over the
past several decades. Many economists argue that the South Korean economy would benefit from
a number of structural reforms, such as attempts to spur the productivity of the services sector,
which lags behind the manufacturing dynamos in the Korean economy. 84 Another item on the
potential reform agenda is the removal of labor market rigidities, which have created an incentive
for South Korean companies to hire easily-fired temporary workers rather than highly-protected
full-time employees with benefits packages.85 The Park government has attempted to address
some of these issues through its reform initiatives to varying effect.
In addition, complaints in South Korea have risen in recent years that only rich individuals and
large conglomerates (called chaebol)—which continue to dominate the economy—have
benefitted disproportionately from the country’s growth since the 2008-2009 slowdown. Such
concerns also relate to unemployment, particularly among South Korea’s youth, as the chaebol
employ a small share of South Korea’s population despite producing an outsized share of the
country’s GDP.86 The 2012 presidential election was largely fought over the issues of governance
(in the wake of a number of corruption scandals), social welfare, and rising income inequality.
Leading figures in both parties, including President Park, have proposed ways to expand South
Korea’s social safety net. As mentioned in the politics section below, lower-than-expected growth
in 2013 and 2014 contributed to Park’s scaling back her plans. South Korea has one of the lowest
rates of social welfare spending in the industrialized world, a problem exacerbated by the already
high levels of indebtedness of the average South Korean household. The rapid aging of the South

84

Lee Jong-Wha, “Starting South Korea’s New Growth Engines,” Project Syndicate, January 26, 2015.
Song Jung-a, “South Korea Contract Workers at Heart of Labour Reform Challenge,” Financial Times, April 20,
2015.
86
“South Korea’s Chaebol Problem,” The Globe and Mail, April 24, 2015.
85

Congressional Research Service

27

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Korean population is expected to create additional financial pressures on government
expenditures in the future.

Currency Issues
Given its dependence on international trade, fluctuations in currency valuations can have
significant impacts on the South Korean economy. The won’s depreciation from early 2008 to
2009, falling by nearly a third to around 1,500 won per dollar, helped to stimulate South Korea’s
economic recovery by making its exports cheaper relative to many other currencies, particularly
the Japanese yen. Following the crisis, the won gradually strengthened against the dollar, and has
oscillated within the 1,000-1,200 won/dollar range since late 2010. Since mid-2012 the Japanese
yen has depreciated against the dollar by almost 50%, due in part to expansionary monetary
policies in Japan, as part of Prime Minister Abe’s focus on stimulating the Japanese economy. The
yen’s fall has given a boost to Japanese exporters and proven politically unpopular with trade
partners including the United States and South Korea. President Park criticized the yen’s fall at
the November 2014 summit of G-20 leaders.87 Both South Korea and Japan have been the subject
of U.S. consternation over exchange rate policies in the past.88 The April 2015 U.S. Treasury
report on exchange rate policies suggests South Korea may have intervened in foreign exchange
markets to limit the appreciation of the won in early 2015.89

Nuclear Energy and Non-Proliferation Cooperation
Bilateral Nuclear Energy Cooperation
The United States and South Korea have cooperated in the peaceful use of nuclear energy for
over 50 years.90 This cooperation includes commercial projects as well as research and
development work on safety, safeguards, advanced nuclear reactors, and fuel cycle technologies.
As mentioned in the introductory section of this report, Congress is currently reviewing a
proposed replacement bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. This agreement is key to
the continuation of nuclear trade between the countries since it is the legal foundation for export
licensing. The current agreement expires in March 2016. This agreement is often referred to as a
“123 agreement” under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) as amended. A short-term
extension of the agreement until March 2016 was approved by Congress (S. 1901) in January
2014 and passed into law (P.L. 113-81) to allow negotiators to the agreement text.
A new agreement text was necessary because the existing agreement was concluded before the
current requirements under Section 123a of the AEA were enacted, and therefore does not meet
all of the AEA’s requirements. The agreement was sent to Congress for review in June 2015 for
the required 90 days of congressional consideration. The agreement meets all the terms of the

87

Kim Seon-gul, “Park Criticizes Weakening Yen,” mk Business News, November 18, 2014.
For more information, see CRS Report R43242, Current Debates over Exchange Rates: Overview and Issues for
Congress, by Rebecca M. Nelson
89
U.S. Department of Treasury, Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, April 9,
2015.
90
The original agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation was concluded in 1956, and amendments were made in 1958,
1965, 1972, and 1974. Full text of the 1974 agreement is available at http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/
inlinefiles/Korea_South_123.pdf. See also CRS Report R41032, U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World
Nuclear Energy Market: Major Policy Considerations, by Mark Holt.
88

Congressional Research Service

28

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Atomic Energy Act91 and therefore does not require any exemptions from the law’s requirements.
The agreement could enter into force after a 30-day consultation period and a review period of 60
days of continuous session92 unless Congress enacted a joint resolution of disapproval. Congress
also has the option of adopting either a joint resolution of approval with (or without) conditions,
or stand-alone legislation that could approve or disapprove the agreement. Any congressional
efforts to block the agreement would be subject to presidential veto.
One of the reasons Seoul and Washington decided on a two-year extension was to give more time
to negotiators to work out a sticking point in the talks—how to treat fuel cycle issues. South
Korea reportedly had requested that the new agreement include a provision that would give
permission in advance for U.S.-obligated spent nuclear fuel to be reprocessed to make new fuel
using a type of reprocessing called pyroprocessing.93 The United States and South Korea are
jointly researching pyroprocessing, but the technology is at the research and development stage.94
Reprocessing of U.S.-obligated spent fuel requires approval by the United States, typically on a
case-by-case basis (referred to as “programmatic consent”). In the new agreement, South Korea
would be allowed to operate its Advanced Spent Fuel Conditioning Process Facility, the first
stage of pyroprocessing, in which spent fuel would be converted from oxide to metal form but no
fissile plutonium could be separated. The Obama Administration has preferred to conclude the
U.S.-ROK joint study on this technology before making any decision to approve such activities.
On other issues, the South Korean government under President Park Geun-hye has placed priority
during the negotiations on a stable fuel supply, management of nuclear waste, and future nuclear
exports. According to a State Department Fact Sheet, the agreement requires “express reciprocal
consent rights over any retransfers or subsequent reprocessing or enrichment of material subject
to the agreement.” However, the agreement does give South Korea advance permission to ship
U.S.-obligated spent fuel overseas for reprocessing into mixed-oxide fuel. There are no current
plans to do so, but South Korea may consider this option in developing a strategy for managing
its growing spent fuel stocks. The agreement also provides for a new bilateral high-level
commission where the two sides would review cooperation under the agreement and possibly
resolve future fuel cycle issues. The agreement allows for enrichment up to 20% of fissile
uranium-235 in South Korea, after consultation through the bilateral commission and further
written agreement by the United States. This provision was not part of the previous agreement.
South Korea does not have an enrichment capability, but was seeking language in the new
agreement that would open the door to that possibility. Uranium enriched at levels below 20% can
be used for nuclear fuel. The agreement also includes U.S. fuel supply assurances.

91

Under Section 123a, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2153(a)), Atomic Energy Act of 1946, ch. 724, 60 Stat. 755 (1946), as
amended.
92
Days on which either chamber is in a recess of more than three days (pursuant to a concurrent resolution authorizing
the recess) do not count toward the total. If Congress adjourns its session sine die, continuity is broken, and the count
starts anew when it reconvenes.
93
Daniel Horner, “South Korea, U.S. at Odds over Nuclear Pact,” Arms Control Today, September 2012,
http://armscontrol.org/act/2012_09/Sout-Korea-US-at-Odds-Over-Nuclear-Pact. Under the 1978 Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act, consent rights apply to material originating in the United States or material that has been
fabricated into fuel or irradiated in a reactor with U.S. technology. The majority of South Korea’s spent fuel would
need U.S. consent before it could be reprocessed.
94
Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel can be used to make new reactor fuel or to separate out plutonium in the spent
fuel for weapons use. Pyroprocessing, or electro-refining, is a non-aqueous method of recycling spent fuel into new fuel
for fast reactors. It only partially separates plutonium and uranium from spent fuel. There is debate over the
proliferation implications of this technology.

Congressional Research Service

29

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Both countries have called the agreement a success. South Korean Foreign Minister Yun ByungSe said that the agreement was “future-oriented” and would facilitate “modern and mutually
beneficial cooperation.” He called the agreement one of the central pillars of the alliance after the
Mutual Defense Treaty and the Free Trade Agreement. U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz
said that the agreement would solidify the alliance and would “enable expanded cooperation
between our respective nuclear industries, and reaffirm our two governments’ shared commitment
to nonproliferation.” Others may question whether the agreement’s flexibility on fuel cycle issues
would delay rather than resolve this controversy.
For several decades, the United States has pursued a policy of limiting the spread of enrichment
and reprocessing technology to new states as part of its nonproliferation policies.95 This is
because enrichment and reprocessing can create new fuel or material for nuclear weapons.
Advance permission to reprocess rarely has been included in U.S. nuclear cooperation
agreements, and to date has only been granted to countries that already had the technology (such
as to India, Japan, and Western Europe). However, the issue has become a sensitive one in the
U.S.-ROK relationship. Many South Korean officials and politicians see the United States’ rules
as limiting South Korea’s national sovereignty by requiring U.S. permission for civilian nuclear
activities. This creates a dilemma for U.S. policy as the Obama Administration has been a strong
advocate of limiting the spread of fuel cycle facilities to new states, and would prefer multilateral
solutions to spent fuel disposal.
Spent fuel disposal is a key policy issue for South Korean officials, and some see pyroprocessing
as a potential solution. While South Korean reactor-site spent fuel pools are filling up, the
construction of new spent fuel storage facilities is highly unpopular with the public. Some
officials argue that in order to secure public approval for an interim storage site, the government
needs to provide a long-term plan for the spent fuel. However, some experts point out that byproducts of spent fuel reprocessing would still require long-term storage and disposal options.
Other proponents of pyroprocessing see it as a way to advance energy independence for South
Korea.
For decades, the United States and South Korea have worked on joint research and development
projects to address spent fuel. In the 1990s, the two countries worked intensely on research and
development on a different fuel recycling technology (the “DUPIC” process), but this technology
91

Daniel Horner, “South Korea, U.S. at Odds over Nuclear Pact,” Arms Control Today, September 2012,
http://armscontrol.org/act/2012_09/Sout-Korea-US-at-Odds-Over-Nuclear-Pact. Under the 1978 Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act, consent rights apply to material originating in the U.S. or material that has been fabricated into
fuel or irradiated in a reactor with U.S. technology. The majority of South Korea’s spent fuel would need U.S. consent
before it could be reprocessed.
92
Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel can be used to make new reactor fuel or to separate out plutonium in the spent
fuel for weapons use. Pyroprocessing, or electro-refining, is a non-aqueous method of recycling spent fuel into new fuel
for fast reactors. It only partially separates plutonium and uranium from spent fuel. There is debate over the
proliferation implications of this technology.
93
“New S. Korea-U.S. Nuke Deal to be ‘Win-Win’ for Both: Einhorn,” Yonhap News, March 19, 2015.
94
For more, see CRS Report RS22937, Nuclear Cooperation with Other Countries: A Primer, by Paul K. Kerr and
Mary Beth D. Nikitin.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

32

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

ultimately was not commercialized. In the past 10 years, joint research has centered on
pyroprocessing. The Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) is conducting a
laboratory-scale research program on reprocessing spent fuel with an advanced pyroprocessing
technique. U.S.-South Korean bilateral research on pyroprocessing began in 2002 under the
Department of Energy’s International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I-NERI). R&D work
on pyroprocessing was temporarily halted by the United States in 2008, due to the proliferation
sensitivity of the technology. In an attempt to find common ground and continue bilateral
research, in October 2010 the United States and South Korea began a 10-year Joint Fuel Cycle
Study on the economics, technical feasibility, and nonproliferation implications of spent fuel
disposition, including pyroprocessing. In July 2013, a new agreement on R&D technology
transfer for joint pyroprocessing work in the United States took effect as part of the Joint Fuel
Cycle Study.95
96

95

For more, see CRS Report RS22937, Nuclear Cooperation with Other Countries: A Primer, by Paul K. Kerr and
Mary Beth D. Nikitin.
96
Federal Register, Vol. 708, No. 105, May 31, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

30

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

While some in the Korean nuclear research community have argued for development of
pyroprocessing technology, the level of consensus over the pyroprocessing option among Korean
government agencies, private sector/electric utilities, and the public remains uncertain. Generally,
there appears to be support in South Korea for research and development, but some analysts are
concerned about the economic and technical viability of commercializing the technology. While
the R&D phase would be paid for by the government, the private sector would bear the costs of
commercialization. At a political level, pyroprocessing may have more popularity as a symbol of
South Korean technical advancement and the possibility of energy independence. However, other
public voices are concerned about safety issues related to nuclear energy as a whole. Others see
fuel cycle capabilities as part of a long-term nuclear reactor export strategy, envisioning that
South Korea could have the independent ability to provide fuel and take back waste from new
nuclear power countries in order to increase its competitive edge when seeking power plant
export contracts.
Some analysts critical of the development of pyroprocessing in South Korea point to the 1992
Joint Declaration, in which North and South Korea agreed they would not “possess nuclear
reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities” and are concerned about the impact of South
Korea’s pyroprocessing on negotiations with the North. Others emphasize that granting
permission for pyroprocessing in South Korea would contradict U.S. nonproliferation policy to
halt the spread of sensitive technologies to new states. Some observers, particularly in South
Korea, point out that the United States has given India and Japan consent to reprocess, and argue
that they should be allowed to develop this technology under safeguards.
Since the technology has not been commercialized anywhere in the world, the United States and
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are working with the South Korean government
to develop appropriate IAEA safeguards should the technology be developed further. Whether
pyroprocessing technology can be sufficiently monitored to detect diversion to a weapons
program is a key aspect of the Joint Study, which is expected to be concluded in 2020.

South Korean Nonproliferation Policy
South Korea has been a consistent and vocal supporter of strengthening the global
nonproliferation regime, which is a set of treaties, voluntary export control arrangements, and
other policy coordination mechanisms that work to prevent the spread of nuclear, biological, and
95

c11173008

Federal Register, Vol. 708, No. 105, May 31, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

33

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

chemical weapons and their delivery systems. South Korea destroyed all of its chemical weapons
stocks by 2008, under the Chemical Weapons Convention.9697 South Korea is a member of the
Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), which controls sensitive nuclear technology trade, and adheres
to all international nonproliferation treaties and export control regimes. South Korea also
participates in the G-8 Global Partnership, and other U.S.-led initiatives—the Proliferation
Security Initiative, the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (formerly
GNEP), and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. South Korea has contributed
funds to the United States’ nuclear smuggling prevention effort, run by the Department of Energy,
and contributed to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Trust
Fund to support the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons.
South Korea is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which requires countries to
conclude a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). An
97

South Korea has not recognized this stockpile publicly, and chose to destroy the weapons under the CWC
confidentiality provisions. “South Korea Profile,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/southkorea/.

Congressional Research Service

31

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Additional Protocol (AP) to South Korea’s safeguards agreement entered into force as of
February 2004. The AP gives the IAEA increased monitoring authority over the peaceful use of
nuclear technology. In the process of preparing a more complete declaration of nuclear activities
in the country, the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) disclosed previously
undeclared experiments in its research laboratories on uranium enrichment in 2000, and on
plutonium extraction in 1982. The IAEA Director General reported on these undeclared activities
to the Board of Governors in September 2004, but the Board did not report them to the U.N.
Security Council. In response, the Korean government reconfirmed its cooperation with the IAEA
and commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and reorganized the oversight of activities
at KAERI. The experiments reminded the international community of South Korea’s plans for a
plutonium-based nuclear weapons program in the early 1970s under President Park Chung-hee,
the father of the current President Park. At that time, deals to acquire reprocessing and other
facilities were canceled under intense U.S. pressure, and Park Chung-hee eventually abandoned
weapons plans in exchange for U.S. security assurances. The original motivations for obtaining
fuel cycle facilities as well as the undeclared experiments continue to cast a shadow over South
Korea’s long-held pursuit of the full fuel cycle. As a result, since 2004, South Korea has aimed to
improve transparency of its nuclear programs and participate fully in the global nonproliferation
regime. In addition, the 1992 Joint Declaration between North and South Korea says that the
countries “shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities.” Since North
Korea has openly pursued both of these technologies, an intense debate is underway over whether
South Korea should still be bound by those commitments. Some analysts are concerned that a
denuclearization agreement with North Korea could be jeopardized if South Korea does not
uphold the 1992 agreement.
South Korea hosted the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit, a forum initiated by President Obama
shortly after his inauguration. The South Korean government agreed to host the summit because it
fit into the “Global Korea” concept of international leadership and summitry; it was a chance for
the South Korean nuclear industry to showcase its accomplishments; and the South Korean
government was able to emphasize South Korea’s role as a responsible actor in the nuclear field,
in stark contrast with North Korea. It was also seen as an important symbol of trust between the
U.S. and South Korean Presidents.

96
South Korea has not recognized this stockpile publicly, and chose to destroy the weapons under the CWC
confidentiality provisions. “South Korea Profile,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/southkorea/

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

34

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

 South Korea will continue its leadership in the nuclear
security field by chairing the International Atomic Energy Agency’s International Conference on
Nuclear Security in Vienna in December 2016. South Korea is also cooperating with regional
partners to establish a Center for Excellence in Nuclear Security.

South Korean Politics
South Korean politics continue to be dominated by Park Geun-hye (born in 1952) and her
conservative Saenuri (“New Frontier”) Party (NFP), which controls the legislature. Ms. Park was
elected in December 2012, becoming not only South Korea’s first woman president, but also the
first presidential candidate to receive more than half of the vote (she captured 51.6%) since South
Korea ended nearly three decades of authoritarian rule in 1988. She is to serve until February
2018. By law, South Korean presidents serve a single five-year term. Park is the daughter of the
late Park Chung-hee, who ruled South Korea from the time he seized power in a 1961 military
coup until his assassination in 1979.
According to the Asan Institute’s daily polling service, Park’s public approval ratings were in the
60%-70% range for much of 2013, in part due to positive assessments of her handling of foreign
affairs, particularly inter-Korean relations. However, her poll numbers declined to the 50% range
by the end of the year, due to a number of factors, including a perception that her government had
done little to follow through on her campaign pledges to overcome South Korea’s economic
difficulties and strengthen its social safety net; the mounting evidence that the country’s
intelligence service had tried to influence the 2012 presidential election in her favor (though no
evidence has surfaced that Park knew of the matter); and her government’s handling of a railway
strike. In particular, Park’s favorability ratings have fallen among voters under 40, a development
that many expected; in the 2012 election under-40 voters chose Park’s opponent, the Democratic
United Party’s Moon Jae-In, by a wide margin. Likewise, those over 50 overwhelmingly voted
for Park and continue to be her strongest base of supportsentiments toward Park’s government
dropped sharply following the April 2014 sinking of the Sewol ferry in the waters off the
country’s western coast. The deaths of nearly 300 passengers—mostly high school students—for

Congressional Research Service

32

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

months cast a pall over South Korea and over the Park government. The tragedy’s political impact
has been likened to the political effects of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster in the United
States.98 The Park government has been criticized for rescuers’ allegedly slow response to distress
calls, and the sinking has prompted South Koreans to ask questions about how well government
agencies have enforced safety regulations, which the Sewol was found to have violated, about the
relationship between government regulators and the industries they oversee, as well as whether
companies put profits ahead of safety. Several of the Sewol’s ownership group and its crew have
been convicted of gross negligence, including the captain, who fled the ship without attempting to
help the passengers.
Park also has been weakened by perceptions that her government has done little to follow through
on her campaign pledges to overcome South Korea’s economic difficulties and strengthen its
social safety net. Due to personal or political scandals, a series of Park’s appointees—including
three successive appointees to be prime minister—withdrew their names before taking office.99
These developments have raised questions about her government’s (and her) competence and
willingness to reach outside her inner circle. Most recently, in spring 2015, a new scandal arose
for Park’s government when a South Korean businessman, who later committed suicide, stated
that he had provided bribes to several former close aides to Park. The then-sitting prime minister
was implicated in the bribery scandal, and he subsequently resigned after only two months in
office. Additionally, the government has struggled against criticism that it mishandled the
mounting evidence that the country’s intelligence service tried to influence the 2012 presidential
election in her favor (though no evidence has surfaced that Park knew of the matter).
Figure 4. Party Strength in South Korea’s National Assembly
As of May 2015

Source: South Korean National Assembly.
Notes: President Park Geun-hye is from the Saenuri (New Frontier) Party. The last nationwide legislative
elections for all 300 National Assembly seats were held in April 2012. The next nationwide legislative elections
are scheduled for April 2016. South Korea’s next presidential election is scheduled for December 2017. By law,
South Korean presidents are limited to one five-year term.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

35

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.

98

Chico Harlan, “After Ferry Disaster, a Katrina-like Reckoning in South Korea,” Washington Post, April 27, 2014.
In South Korea’s political system, the President appoints the Prime Minister, who serves as head of the President’s
cabinet.
99

Congressional Research Service

33

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

A Powerful Executive Branch
Nominally, power in South Korea is shared by the president and the 300-member unicameral
National Assembly. Of these, 246 members represent single-member constituencies. The
remaining 54 are selected on the basis of proportional voting. National Assembly members are
elected to four-year terms. The president and the central bureaucracy continue to be the dominant
forces in South Korean policymaking, as formal and informal limitations prevent the National
Assembly from initiating major pieces of legislation.

Political Parties
Presently, there are two major political parties in South Korea: President Park’s conservative
Saenuri Party (which has been translated as “New Frontier Party” or NFP) and the opposition,
center-left New Politics Alliance for Democracy (NPAD).97100 The NFP has controlled the Blue
House (the residence and office of South Korea’s president) and the National Assembly since
2008. (See Figure 4.) U.S. ties have historically been much stronger with South Korea’s
conservative parties.
South Korea’s progressive political parties—now largely consolidated in the NPAD—controlled
the Blue House for 10 years, from 1998 to 2008. For a four-year period, from 2004 to 2008, a
progressive party was the largest political group in in the National Assembly and held a majority
for part of that period. After failing to retake the Blue House or National Assembly in 2012
elections, the progressive camp faced several more years without significant tools of power and
influence within the South Korean polity. In the past, the NPAD’s predecessor parties have
advocated positions that, if adopted, could pose challenges for the Obama Administration’s Korea
policy, including calling for the renegotiation of some provisions of the KORUS FTA, and
adopting a more conciliatory approach to North Korea.
A Short History of South Korean Presidential Changes
For most of the first four decades after the country was founded in 1948, South Korea was ruled by authoritarian
governments. The most important of these was led by President Park’s father, Park Chung-hee, a general who seized
power in a military coup in 1961 and ruled until he was murdered by his intelligence chief in 1979. The elder Park’s
legacy is a controversial one. On the one hand, he orchestrated the industrialization of South Korea that transformed
the country from one of the world’s poorest. On the other hand, he ruled with an iron hand and brutally dealt with
real and perceived opponents, be they opposition politicians, labor activists, or civil society leaders. For instance, in
the early 1970s South Korean government agents twice tried to kill then-opposition leader Kim Dae-jung, who in the
second attempt was saved only by U.S. intervention. The divisions that opened under Park continue to be felt today.
Conservative South Koreans tend to emphasize his economic achievements, while progressives focus on his human
rights abuses.
Ever since the mid-1980s, when widespread anti-government protests forced the country’s military rulers to enact
sweeping democratic reforms, democratic institutions and traditions have deepened in South Korea. In 1997, longtime dissident Kim Dae-jung was elected to the presidency, the first time an opposition party had prevailed in a South
Korean presidential election. In December 2002, Kim was succeeded by a member of his left-of-center party: Roh
Moo-hyun, a self-educated former human rights lawyer who emerged from relative obscurity to defeat establishment
candidates in both the primary and general elections. Roh campaigned on a platform of reform—reform of Korean
politics, economic policymaking, and U.S.-ROK relations. He was elected in part because of his embrace of massive
anti-American protests that ensued after a U.S. military vehicle killed two Korean schoolgirls in 2002. Like Kim Daejung, Roh pursued a “sunshine policy” of largely unconditional engagement with North Korea that clashed with the

97

The Saenuri Party formerly was known as the Grand National Party (GNP). The New Politics Alliance for
Democracy formerly was known as the Democratic Party.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

36

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

.


harder policy line pursued by the Bush Administration until late 2006. Roh also alarmed U.S. policy makers by
speaking policymakers by speaking
of a desire that South Korea should play a “balancing” role among China, the United States, and Japan in
Northeast  Northeast

100

The Saenuri Party formerly was known as the Grand National Party (GNP). The New Politics Alliance for
Democracy formerly was known as the Democratic Party.

Congressional Research Service

34

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Asia. Despite this, under Roh’s tenure, South Korea deployed over 3,000 non-combat troops to Iraq—the
third-largest thirdlargest contingent in the international coalition—and the two sides initiated and signed the KORUS FTA.
In the December 2007 election, former Seoul mayor Lee Myung-bak’s victory restored conservatives to the
presidency. Among other items, Lee was known for ushering in an unprecedented level of cooperation with the
United States over North Korea and for steering South Korea through the worst of the 2008-2009 global financial
crisis. Under the slogan “Global Korea,” he also pursued a policy of expanding South Korea’s participation in and
leadership of various global issues. During the final two years of his presidency, however, Lee’s public approval ratings
fell to the 25%-35% level, driven down by—among other factors—a series of scandals surrounding some of his
associates and family members, and by an increasing concern among more Koreans about widening income disparities
between the wealthy and the rest of society.

South Korea’s MERS Outbreak
In May 2015, South Korea began experiencing an outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome
(MERS), which is believed to have been brought into the country by a South Korean man
returning from a trip to the Middle East. According to South Korea’s Ministry of Health and
Welfare, as of late September, there were 186 confirmed cases of MERS during the outbreak,
causing 36 deaths and the quarantining of nearly 17,000 people.101 Although the disease’s spread
was primarily linked to exposure in hospitals, public alarm during the first weeks of the
outbreak—particularly the avoidance of public spaces—led to the closing of thousands of
schools, a decline in private consumption, and an estimated 40% drop in tourism.102 On June 11,
the Bank of Korea announced a quarter-point cut in South Korea’s base interest rate in part to
offset MERS’ economic impact.103
The World Health Organization (WHO) identified several factors that contributed to the virus’
initial spread to so many people so quickly: Korean physicians’ unfamiliarity with MERS; suboptimal infection control and prevention methods in hospitals; “extremely crowded” emergency
rooms; and the common Korean practice of “doctor shopping”—seeking care at a number of
medical facilities—with many family members. The WHO also credited Korean authorities’
eventual disease control methods—tracking contacts, quarantining and isolating all contacts and
suspected cases, and infection prevention and control—with bringing the outbreak under control
by the middle-to-end of June, about a month after signs of the virus first began appearing in South
Korea.104

101

South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Central MERS-CoV Control Office, “MERS Statistics. Table 1,
Current status of MERS cases in the Republic of Korea,” September 25, 2015.
102
Simon Mundy, “South Korea Growth Falls to 2-Year Low,” Financial Times, July 23, 2015.
103
The Bank of Korea, “Monetary Policy Decision,” June 11, 2015.
104
World Health Organization (WHO), “Intensified Public Health Measures Help Control MERS-Cov Outbreak in The
Republic Of Korea,” July 28, 2015; WHO, “WHO Recommends Continuation of Strong Disease Control Measures to
Bring MERS-Cov Outbreak in Republic of Korea to an End,” June 13, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

35

 U.S.-South Korea Relations

Author Contact Information
Mark E. Manyin, Coordinator
Specialist in Asian Affairs
mmanyin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7653

Ian E. Rinehart
Analyst in Asian Affairs
irinehart@crs.loc.gov, 7-0345

Emma Chanlett-Avery
Specialist in Asian Affairs
echanlettavery@crs.loc.gov, 7-7748

Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
bwilliams@crs.loc.gov, 7-1157

Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Specialist in Nonproliferation
mnikitin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7745

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

3736

 