U.S.-South Korea Relations
Mark E. Manyin, Coordinator
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Emma Chanlett-Avery
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Mary Beth Nikitin
Analyst in Nonproliferation
Mi Ae Taylor
Research Associate in Asian Affairs
November 3, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41481
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Summary
Since late 2008, relations between the United States and South Korea (known officially as the
Republic of Korea, or ROK) have been arguably at their best state in decades. By the middle of
2010, in the view of many in the Obama Administration, South Korea had emerged as the United
States’ closest ally in East Asia.
Of all the issues on the bilateral agenda, Congress has the most direct role to play in the proposed
Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). Congressional approval is necessary for the
agreement to go into effect. Presidents Obama and Lee Myung-bak have announced their desire
to resolve U.S. concerns over market access for autos and beef by the time they meet again in
Seoul during the November 2010 Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. Obama said that he intends “in the
few months” after the November meeting to present Congress with the KORUS FTA’s
implementing legislation. If approved, the agreement would be the second largest FTA market in
which the United States participates, after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The two countries’ coordination over policy towards North Korea has been particularly close. The
Obama and Lee Administrations have adopted a medium-to-longer-term policy of “strategic
patience” that involves three main elements: refusing to return to the Six-Party Talks without an
assurance from North Korea that it would take “irreversible steps” to denuclearize; gradually
attempting to alter China’s strategic assessment of North Korea; and using Pyongyang’s
provocations as opportunities to tighten sanctions against North Korean entities.
Additionally, the Obama Administration has said that an improvement in inter-Korean relations is
a prerequisite for the United States to enter into meaningful negotiations with North Korea. Lee,
in turn, has linked progress in most areas of North-South relations to progress in denuclearizing
North Korea. South Korea halted almost all remaining forms of inter-Korean projects after the
March 2010 sinking of the South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan, an event the United States
and South Korea have blamed on North Korea. Even before the sinking, most inter-Korean
cooperation projects already were shrinking due to rising tensions between the two Koreas. The
sinking further eroded the loose consensus that had prevailed in South Korea against openly
discussing and planning for reunification in the short- or medium-term. While few South Koreans
advocate actively trying to topple the Kim Jong-il regime, the Cheonan sinking has led many in
the Lee government to view North Korea as much more of an immediate danger than previously
thought.
The United States maintains about 28,500 troops in the ROK. Since 2009, the two sides have
accelerated steps to transform the 56-year U.S.-ROK alliance’s primary purpose from one of
defending against a North Korean attack to a regional and even global partnership, in which
Washington and Seoul cooperate on a myriad of issues beyond the Korean Peninsula. The two
sides have announced a “Strategic Alliance 2015” plan to relocate U.S. troops on the Peninsula
and boost ROK defense capabilities. By 2015, the two allies plan to separate wartime operational
control (OPCON) of the countries’ forces on the Peninsula into two national commands.
Much of the current closeness between Seoul and Washington is due to President Lee. It is
unclear how sustainable many of his policies will be, particularly into 2012, when South Koreans
will elect a new president and a new legislature. Bilateral coordination will be particularly tested
if South Korea’s left-of-center groups, which bitterly oppose much of Lee’s agenda, retake the
presidency and/or the National Assembly. This report will be updated periodically.
Congressional Research Service

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Contents
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
Deepening Security Ties........................................................................................................1
Developments in North-South Korean Relations.................................................................... 3
KORUS FTA ........................................................................................................................ 3
South Korea Imposes Sanctions on Iran................................................................................. 4
The November 2010 G-20 Summit........................................................................................ 4
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 5
Historical Background .......................................................................................................... 6
North Korea in U.S.-ROK relations............................................................................................. 7
Policy Coordination .............................................................................................................. 7
Coordination over the Cheonan Sinking .......................................................................... 8
Inter-Korean Relations ................................................................................................................ 8
South Korea’s Regional Relations ............................................................................................... 9
South Korea-Japan Relations............................................................................................... 10
South Korea-China Relations .............................................................................................. 10
Security Relations and the U.S.-ROK Alliance .......................................................................... 11
U.S. Alliance and ROK Defense Reform Plans .................................................................... 12
The Relocation of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) ............................................................... 12
Tour Normalization ....................................................................................................... 13
Cost Sharing ................................................................................................................. 14
Opcon Transfer ............................................................................................................. 14
The “Strategic Flexibility” of USFK.............................................................................. 15
South Korean Defense Industry and Purchases of U.S. Weapons ................................... 15
South Korea’s Deployment to Afghanistan .................................................................... 16
Economic Relations .................................................................................................................. 16
The KORUS FTA ............................................................................................................... 17
South Korea’s Economic Performance ................................................................................ 18
Other Issues .............................................................................................................................. 19
South Korea-Iran Relations ................................................................................................. 19
Bilateral Nuclear Cooperation ............................................................................................. 20
South Korean Nonproliferation Policy................................................................................. 21
South Korea’s “Green Growth” Policies .............................................................................. 22
South Korean Politics................................................................................................................ 23
A Powerful Executive Branch ............................................................................................. 24
Political Parties ................................................................................................................... 24
List of Other CRS Reports on the Koreas .................................................................................. 25
South Korea ........................................................................................................................ 25
North Korea ........................................................................................................................ 26
Archived Reports for Background ....................................................................................... 27

Figures
Figure 1. Korean Peninsula ......................................................................................................... 2
Congressional Research Service

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Figure 2. USFK Bases After Realignment Plan is Implemented ................................................. 13
Figure 3. South Korea’s Real GDP Growth................................................................................ 19
Figure 4. Party Strength in the National Assembly..................................................................... 25

Tables
Table 1. Annual U.S.-South Korea Merchandise Trade, Selected Years .................................... 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Recent Developments
Deepening Security Ties
During the spring and summer of 2010, Washington and Seoul took several steps that showed the
growing closeness of the Obama and Lee Administrations. In a June 2010 meeting with President
Lee, President Obama referred to the U.S.-South Korea alliance as “the lynchpin” for security in
the Pacific region.1 At the summit, the two presidents agreed to delay until 2015 the planned
separation of wartime operational control of the two countries’ forces on the Peninsula into two
national commands, and to push ahead with discussions to resolve outstanding disagreements in
the proposed Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) by the time of the November
2010 Group of 20 (G-20) summit in Seoul.
Several events in the summer and fall have indicated the close cooperation between the two sides.
In late July 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
visited Seoul to meet with their counterparts (Foreign Minister Myung-hwan Yu and Defense
Minister Tae-young Kim) for the first-ever U.S.-South Korean “2 Plus 2” meeting. During the
meeting, the two sides endorsed a new vision for the military alliance, dubbed “Strategic Alliance
2015.” (For more, see the “Security Relations and the U.S.-ROK Alliance” section.)
The two countries are also debating whether to conduct a continuous campaign of military
exercises to maintain pressure on North Korea. During the summer, the two countries conducted
joint naval exercises in the Sea of Japan (called the “East Sea” by South Koreans) as a military
response to North Korea’s alleged attack in March 2010 on the South Korean naval vessel, the
Cheonan, in which 46 South Korean soldiers died. This was followed in September by naval
exercises in the Yellow Sea (the “West Sea”), despite protests by China. On October 14-15, 2010,
South Korea for the first time hosted a Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) maritime interdiction
exercise off the coast of Busan, called Exercise Eastern Endeavor. PSI is a U.S.-led initiative
aimed at coordinating interdiction of weapons of mass destruction and related materials in transit.
Seoul joined PSI following North Korea’s 2009 nuclear test.
In October, Defense Secretary Gates and Defense Minister Kim held a bilateral Security
Consultative Meeting (SCM) that re-affirmed the commitment of both parties to the Strategic
Alliance 2015 plans. They also pledged to coordinate closely on deterring aggression from the
North and develop new operational plans to respond to contingencies on the peninsula. Left-of-
center groups in South Korea, which tend to support the opposition Democratic Party, have been
critical of the moves to expand the alliance’s role beyond the Peninsula, warning that doing so
will be more likely to provoke conflict in Northeast Asia.2

1 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks By President Obama and President Lee Myung-Bak of the
Republic of Korea After Bilateral Meeting,” June 26, 2010.
2 See, for instance, “An Alliance Feeding Regional Conflict,” Hankyoreh Shinmun, October 11, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
1













U.S.-South Korea Relations

Figure 1. Korean Peninsula

Source: Prepared by CRS based on ESRI Data and Maps 9.3.1; IHS World Data.
Congressional Research Service
2

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Developments in North-South Korean Relations
The early fall of 2010 saw a slight uptick in cooperation between South and North Korea, which
had, after the Cheonan’s sinking, been reduced to little more than the North-South industrial
complex in the North Korean city of Kaesong. For instance, in late October 2010, the two sides
held a round of family reunions, their first since 2009. In agreeing to the step, South Korea
dropped its previous insistence that ad hoc reunions not be held unless North Korea agreed to
regularize them.
Virtually all of the tentative and thus far largely symbolic cooperative steps the two Koreas have
taken in the fall of 2010 have come at North Korea’s initiative. It is unclear what is motivating
Pyongyang’s change in tone. One factor may be to relieve international pressure while Kim Jong-
il’s son and presumptive political heir, Kim Jong-un, attempts to consolidate a power base.
Another possibility may be to obtain more assistance from South Korea to help North Korea, in
particular to deal with a reportedly worsening food situation. During North-South meetings in
October, North Korean officials reportedly requested increased humanitarian assistance. For most
of the 2000s, South Korea provided hundreds of thousands of tons of food and fertilizer annually.
Such large assistance packages came to an end under President Lee, who insisted that North
Korea should formally request the aid and that better monitoring systems needed to be put in
place.
North Korea’s moves also coincided with an apparent softening of South Korea’s posture toward
the North. Perhaps most importantly, officials in the Lee government reportedly have begun to
back away from their earlier insistence that the Six-Party Talks3 (the multinational negotiations
addressing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program that include China, South Korea, North
Korea, Japan, Russia, and the United States) not resume unless North Korea expressed some
contrition for the Cheonan’s sinking.4 Lee has come under pressure within South Korea to soften
his policy toward the North, so as to preserve South Korean influence over events on the
Peninsula.
KORUS FTA5
At a meeting in late June 2010, Presidents Obama and Lee announced that their administrations
would seek to resolve outstanding issues on the proposed Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement by
the time the two Presidents meet again in Seoul for the November 2010 G-20 meeting. Obama
said that he intends “in the few months” after the November meeting to present Congress with the
implementing legislation for the agreement. Obama Administration officials have said that the
discussions would focus on South Korean measures related to market access for U.S. autos and
beef, the two most controversial issues in the U.S. Congress. President Lee responded that he and
President Obama would talk about “the specific ways to move this [FTA] forward.” South Korean
politics, however, likely will make it difficult for Lee to appear to accede to new U.S. demands
without receiving concessions in return. This is particularly due to memories of events in 2008,

3 For more, see CRS Report R41259, North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation, by
Emma Chanlett-Avery and Mi Ae Taylor.
4 Chan-ho Kang, “ROKG Hints at Separation of Six-Party Talks and Cheonan Incident,” JoongAng Ilbo, October 21,
2010.
5 For more, see CRS Report RL34330, The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA):
Provisions and Implications
, coordinated by William H. Cooper.
Congressional Research Service
3

U.S.-South Korea Relations

when Lee reached an agreement with the United States to lift South Korea’s partial ban on U.S.
beef imports, triggering massive anti-government protests in South Korea that forced the two
governments to renegotiate the beef agreement.
The United States and South Korea signed the KORUS FTA in 2007. If approved, it would be the
second largest FTA by market size in which the United States participates (after the North
American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA). The KORUS FTA would be the second largest FTA
that South Korea has signed to date, after the agreement with the European Union (EU) that is
expected to be ratified in the fall of 2010.
South Korea Imposes Sanctions on Iran
On September 8, 2010, after weeks of pressure from the United States, South Korea announced a
package of wide-ranging sanctions against Iran and Iranian entities that appears to put nearly all
financial transactions with Iran under government scrutiny and severs future South Korean
involvement in projects in Iran’s energy sector. (For more details, see “Other Issues” section
below.) Secretary of State Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued a joint
statement “welcoming” Seoul’s actions, which go beyond the requirements of United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1929 that was passed in June 2010.6 Prior to adopting these
measures, South Korea was one of Iran’s top five trading partners.
Iran regularly has been among South Korea’s top suppliers of oil. A number of South Korean
conglomerates (called chaebol) have received significant contracts to build or service large
infrastructure projects in Iran, including in Iran’s energy sector. Additionally, Iran appears to be a
significant regional hub for a number of smaller South Korean manufacturers, which ship
intermediate goods to Iran that are then assembled into larger units and/or re-exported to other
Middle Eastern countries.
The November 2010 G-20 Summit7
South Korea is preparing to host a Group of 20 (G-20) summit in November 2010. This will be
the fourth summit of the G-20, which since the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008 has
emerged as the world’s premier forum for international economic coordination. The November
meeting’s agenda is expected to focus on following up on the group’s previous economic
agreements—particularly coordinating the global macroeconomic framework, reforming
international financial institutions, and coordinating new financial sector regulations—rather than
breaking new ground. In addition to these items, South Korean officials have said they will
pursue boosting global financial safety nets, refocusing the G-20 on development (e.g., poverty
reduction), and emphasizing ways to spur private sector-based development.

6 State Department, “Secretary of State Joint Statement With Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner,” September 8,
2010. UNSCR 1929 found at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/396/79/PDF/N1039679.pdf?
OpenElement.
7 For more, see CRS Report R40977, The G-20 and International Economic Cooperation: Background and
Implications for Congress
, by Rebecca M. Nelson. The members of the G-20 include Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South
Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.
Congressional Research Service
4

U.S.-South Korea Relations

The Lee government has spent considerable time and energy on preparing for what it hopes to be
a successful G-20; many Korean officials see the gathering as a symbol for the country’s arrival
on the global stage. South Korea’s position in the middle of the G-20 pack in terms of per capita
GDP may facilitate Seoul’s traditional efforts to serve as a bridge between the developed and
developing world. Some analysts worry that North Korea may stage some sort of attack or foment
anti-globalization protests to disrupt the event or embarrass the Lee government.
South Korea has been eager to avoid disputes over currency valuations—particularly whether
China should allow its currency, the yuan, to further appreciate—from dominating the meeting’s
agenda. One motivation may be to avoid a discussion of South Korea’s currency policies;
Japanese leaders have alleged that South Korean monetary authorities have intervened to keep the
Korean won weak relative to the Japanese yen, a charge South Korean officials deny. At an
October 2010 meeting of G-20 finance ministers, Seoul and Washington proposed setting a
numerical target (4% of GDP) for countries’ trade surpluses and deficits. In theory, this would
help to encourage countries exceeding the cap to adopt policies that would affect the value of
their currencies. The idea was modified after several countries objected.
Overview
While the U.S.-South Korea relationship is highly complex and multifaceted, five factors
arguably drive the scope and state of U.S.-South Korea relations:
• North Korea, particularly its weapons of mass destruction programs and perceptions in
Washington and Seoul of whether the Kim 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;
• increasingly, China’s rising influence in Northeast Asia, which has become an integral
consideration in many aspects of U.S.-South Korea strategic and (to a lesser extent)
economic policymaking;
• South Korea’s transformation into one of the world’s leading economies—with a very
strong export-oriented industrial base—which has led to an expansion 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.8

8 For an estimate of the number of ethnic Koreans in the United States, see U.S. Census Bureau, “The Asian
Population: 2000,” Census Brief C2KBR/01-16, February 2002, Table 4.
Congressional Research Service
5

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Since late 2008, relations between the United States and South Korea have been arguably at their
best state in nearly a decade. Coordination over North Korea policy has been particularly close,
with one high-level official describing the two countries as being “not just on the same page, but
on the same paragraph.”9 At a summit in June 2009, the two parties signed a “Joint Vision”
statement that foresees the transformation of the alliance’s purpose from one of primarily
defending against a North Korean attack to a regional and even global alliance, in which
Washington and Seoul cooperate on a myriad of issues, including climate change, energy security,
terrorism, economic development, and human rights promotion, as well as peacekeeping and the
stabilization of post-conflict situations. Reflecting this evolution, in a June 2010 meeting with
President Lee, President Obama referred to the alliance as “the lynchpin” for security in the
Pacific region. This statement stirred some degree of anxiety in Tokyo; Japan has traditionally
considered itself to be the most significant U.S. partner in the region.
Much of this closeness is due to the policies of President Lee, including his determination after
assuming office to improve Seoul’s relations with Washington. However, although Lee’s public
approval ratings have hovered in the relatively high (for South Korea) 40%-50% range for much
of 2010, it is unclear how much domestic support exists for some of President Lee’s policies. On
North Korea, for instance, the United States and South Korea often have different priorities, with
many if not most South Koreans generally putting more emphasis on regional stability than on
deterring nuclear proliferation, the top U.S. priority. Currently, these differences have been
masked by North Korea’s general belligerence since early 2009 and to a large extent negated by
President Lee’s consistent stance that progress on the nuclear issue is a prerequisite for
improvements in many areas of North-South relations. Also, President Lee’s enthusiastic support
for expanding the role of the U.S.-ROK alliance beyond the Korean Peninsula has come under
domestic criticism.
Moreover, while large majorities of South Koreans say they value the U.S.-ROK alliance, many
South Koreans are resentful of U.S. influence and chafe when they feel their leaders offer too
many concessions to the United States. This is particularly the case among Korea’s left-of-center,
or “progressive” groups, who bitterly oppose much of President Lee’s policy agenda and his
governing style.
Thus, it is unclear how sustainable the current bilateral intimacy is likely to be, particularly
beyond 2011. South Korea’s legislative and presidential elections in 2012 could erode some of the
momentum established under Lee. (Under South Korean law, presidents can only serve one five-
year term, so Lee will not be able to continue in office.) Bilateral coordination will be particularly
tested if South Korea’s progressives retake the presidential office (called the Blue House) and/or
the National Assembly.
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. In
1954, a year 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

9 December 2009 interview.
Congressional Research Service
6

U.S.-South Korea Relations

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 650,000-strong 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 non-combat troops to Afghanistan.
Beginning in the 1960s, rapid economic growth propelled South Korea into the ranks of the
world’s largest industrialized countries. For over a decade, South Korea has been one of the
United States’ largest trading partners. Economic growth 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.
North Korea in U.S.-ROK relations
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 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 inter-Korean relations
have been poor.
For much of the 2000s, policy coordination between the United States and South Korea was
difficult, sometimes extremely so, because the countries’ policies toward Pyongyang were often
out-of-synch, and at times and in many ways contradictory. Presidents Kim Dae-jung (1998-
2003) and Roh Moo-hyun (2003-2008) pursued a “sunshine policy” of largely unconditional
engagement with North Korea that clashed with the harder policy line pursued by the Bush
Administration until late 2006. President Roh, who 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, also alarmed U.S. policymakers by speaking of a desire that South Korea
should play a “balancing” role among China, the United States, and Japan in Northeast Asia.
Despite this, under Roh’s tenure, South Korea deployed over 3,000 non-combat troops to Iraq—
the third-largest contingent in the international coalition—and the two sides initiated and signed
the KORUS FTA. Although relations between the two capitals improved dramatically after
President Lee Myung-bak’s 2008 inauguration, his tougher stance toward North Korea was not
always aligned with the late Bush Administration’s push for a nuclear deal with North Korea.
Since breakdown of the Six-Party Talks in late 2008 and North Korea’s second nuclear test in
May 2009, coordination over North Korea policy has been remarkably close. Consultation and
trust have only deepened in the aftermath of the Cheonan’s sinking. Both the Obama and Lee
Administrations have adopted a medium-to-longer-term policy of “strategic patience” that
involves three main elements: refusing to return to the Six-Party Talks without a North Korean
assurance that it would take “irreversible steps” to denuclearize; gradually attempting to alter
China’s strategic assessment of North Korea; and using Pyongyang’s provocations as
opportunities to tighten sanctions against North Korean entities. Additionally, the Obama
Administration explicitly has said that an improvement in inter-Korean relations is a prerequisite
for the United States to enter into meaningful negotiations with North Korea. In response to North
Congressional Research Service
7

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Korean (and occasionally, Chinese) efforts to shift the focus of the talks to the United States and
North Korea, Administration officials say they will not move forward on diplomacy with North
Korea without the Lee government’s consent.
Coordination over the Cheonan Sinking
The two Administrations’ closeness has been both confirmed and cemented by their coordinated
reaction to the March 2010 sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan. Forty-six South
Korean sailors died in the incident. A multinational investigation team led by South Korea
determined that the ship was sunk by a North Korean submarine.10 In the wake of the sinking,
U.S.-South Korean cooperation was underscored by a series of military exercises in the waters
surrounding the peninsula, as well as symbolic gestures such as the joint visit of Secretary of
State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). During the visit,
a new set of unilateral U.S. sanctions targeting North Korea were announced.11
Inter-Korean Relations
Relations between the two Koreas have deteriorated markedly since Lee’s February 2008
inauguration. After ten years of Seoul’s “sunshine” policy of largely unconditioned reconciliation
with North Korea, the Lee government entered office insisting on more reciprocity from and
conditionality toward Pyongyang. Most importantly, the Lee government announced that it would
review the initiation of new large-scale inter-Korean projects agreed to before Lee took office,
and that implementation would be linked to progress in denuclearizing North Korea. In another
reversal of his predecessors’ policies, Lee’s government has been openly critical of human rights
conditions in North Korea. His administration also offered to continue humanitarian assistance—
provided North Korea first requests such aid—and indicated that existing inter-Korean projects
would be continued.
North Korea reacted to Lee’s overall approach by unleashing a wave of invective against Lee and
adopting a more hostile stance toward official inter-Korean activities. Inter-Korean relations have
steadily worsened since then, to the point that by September 2010, nearly all of the inter-Korean
meetings, hotlines, tours, exchanges, and other programs that had been established during the
“sunshine” period have been suspended or severely curtailed.12 Whether it is a coincidence or a

10 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 and/or argued that its methodology was flawed. Alternative theories for the sinking have been swirling on the
Korean blogosphere. Additionally, polls indicate many if not most Koreans believe the Lee government attempted to
exploit the incident during local elections held across the nation in early June. Though Lee’s conservative Grand
National Party suffered notable losses, polls indicate that local issues, rather than North Korea policy, were more
significant factors determining voting behavior.
11 For more information, see CRS Report R41438, North Korea: Legislative Basis for U.S. Economic Sanctions, by
Dianne E. Rennack.
12 Some figures quantify the downturn in relations from 2007 to 2008: official bilateral dialogues were down from 55 in
2007 to 6 in 2008; South Korea’s governmental humanitarian assistance declined from 3.5 million won ($215 million)
to 0.4 million won ($25 million); and government-run reunions of family members fell from over 3,600 to zero. After
years of double-digit growth, inter-Korean trade registered a mere 1.2% increase from 2007 to 2008. Figures are from
Ministry of Unification, “Inter-Korean Relations in 2008,” February 2009. North-South Korean trade was just over
$1.8 billion in 2008.
Congressional Research Service
8

U.S.-South Korea Relations

cause, since Lee’s inauguration North Korea has behaved more provocatively, with each
provocation leading South Korea to take a harder line, which in turn has led North Korea to
respond.13
The most dramatic playing out of this dynamic occurred in the spring of 2010. In response to the
sinking of the Cheonan, South Korea curtailed nearly all forms of North-South interaction,
including all business transactions except for those associated with the inter-Korean industrial
park in the North Korean city of Kaesong. Despite periodic restrictions, the Kaesong Complex
continues to operate and has expanded slightly under Lee.14
In August 2010 Lee publicly floated the idea of creating a “reunification tax” that would help
prepare South Korea for a future reuniting of the two Koreas. Previously, a loose consensus had
prevailed in South Korea against openly discussing and planning for reunification in the short or
medium term, because of fears of provoking Pyongyang and of the fiscal costs of absorbing the
impoverished North. While few South Koreans advocate for actively trying to topple the Kim
regime, the reunification tax proposal indicates how the Cheonan sinking has led many in the Lee
government to view North Korea as more much more of an immediate danger than previously
thought.
Polls of South Korean attitudes show widespread and increasing anger toward and concern about
North Korea, but also continued ambivalence toward Lee’s approach and a desire among many, if
not most, South Koreans for their government to show more flexibility toward Pyongyang.
In July 2009, South Korea began circulating to other governments and key private sector groups a
“Grand Bargain” proposal for a $40 billion multilateral aid fund and development strategy that
would help North Korea if Pyongyang denuclearized. According to the details provided by
various media outlets, the proposal appears to be a continuation of Lee’s “3,000 Policy” pledge
during the 2007 presidential campaign to help raise North Korea’s per capita income to $3,000
over the next ten years.15 The proposal also appears to complement the “comprehensive” package
the Obama Administration has indicated could be forthcoming if North Korea took positive steps
on the nuclear front.
South Korea’s Regional Relations
Looking at their surrounding neighborhood, South Koreans sometimes refer to themselves as a
“shrimp among whales.” South Korea’s relations with China and Japan, especially the latter, are
fraught with ambivalence, combining interdependence and rivalry. Despite these difficulties,
trilateral cooperation among the three capitals has increased over the past decade, particularly in
the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. Since 2008, leaders of the three countries have

13 Four actions by North Korea have had a particularly dramatic impact on South Korea’s policy toward the North: the
refusal to allow an independent South Korean investigation into the July 2008 fatal shooting of a South Korean tourist
by a North Korean soldier at the Mt. Kumgang resort in North Korea, a nuclear test in May 2009, periodically placing
greater restrictions on the inter-Korean industrial complex at Kaesong, and the sinking of the Cheonan.
14 For more, see CRS Report RL34093, The Kaesong North-South Korean Industrial Complex, by Dick K. Nanto and
Mark E. Manyin.
15 Christian Oliver, “Seoul Plans $40bn Aid Fund for N Korea,” Financial Times, July 20, 2009. North Korea’s 2009
per capita income was $1,900, according to the CIA World Factbook.
Congressional Research Service
9

U.S.-South Korea Relations

met annually in standalone summits and in 2010 agreed to undertake an official study of a
trilateral FTA and to establish a secretariat in Seoul.16
South Korea-Japan Relations
A cooperative relationship between South Korea and Japan, both U.S. treaty allies, is in U.S.
interests because it arguably enhances regional stability, helps coordination over North Korea
policy, and boosts the clout of each country in its dealings with the strategic challenges posed by
China’s rise. However, mutual mistrust on historical issues continues to linger despite increased
cooperation, closeness, and interdependence between the two governments, peoples, and
businesses over the past decade. South Korea and Japan have competing claims to the small
Dokdo/Takeshima islets in the Sea of Japan (called the East Sea by Koreans), and South Korean
complaints that Japan has not adequately acknowledged its history of aggression against Korea
remain. For more than three generations beginning in the late 19th century, Japan intervened
directly in Korean affairs, culminating in the annexation of the Korean peninsula in 1910. Over
the next 35 years, Imperial Japan all but attempted to wipe out Korean culture.17
President Lee came into office seeking to improve official Korea-Japan relations, which had
deteriorated markedly during President Roh’s term. Under Lee, and throughout a succession of
Japanese leaders, Cabinet and head-of-state meetings, including reciprocal visits, have become
more routine. 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 has been particularly
close since the beginning of 2009 and has become even tighter since the sinking of the Cheonan.
Ties between the South Korean and Japanese militaries also have grown closer, in part due to
rising concerns in both capitals about China’s increased assertiveness. Lee has given less public
emphasis to flare-ups over history and the Dokdo/Takeshima territorial dispute. He also
welcomed the most recent Japanese apology for its history of aggression, from Prime Minister
Naoto Kan, that recognized the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation. However, South
Koreans’ continued suspicions of Japan place political limitations on how far and how fast
Korean leaders can improve relations. One indicator to watch over the coming months is whether
the two countries can restart and complete free trade agreement negotiations that have been
stalled since 2004.
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, are drifting into China’s orbit. For those on the political left in South Korea, this has

16 From 1999-2007, trilateral summits were only held on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’
“Plus Three” summit (which included the ten ASEAN countries plus China, Japan, and South Korea).
17 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.
Congressional Research Service
10

U.S.-South Korea Relations

been 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. On the other hand, China’s
continued support for North Korea, particularly its month-long delay in expressing public regret
over the Cheonan’s sinking, has angered many South Koreans, particularly conservatives. Many
South Korean conservatives also express concern that their Chinese counterparts have been
unwilling to discuss plans for dealing with various contingencies involving instability in North
Korea. Furthermore, South Koreans’ concerns about China’s rise have been heightened by
China’s increased assertiveness around East Asia in recent years, particularly its vocal opposition
in 2010 to U.S.-South Korean naval exercises in the Yellow Sea.
Since China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization, it has emerged as South Korea’s
most important economic partner. Over 20% of South Korea’s total trade is with China, and for
years China has been the number one location for South Korean firms’ foreign direct
investment.18 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 has been an important motivator for South Korea’s push to negotiate a series of free
trade agreements around the globe.
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 peninsula since
the conclusion of the Korean War and are committed to help South Korea defend itself,
particularly against any aggression from the North. South Korea is included under the U.S.
“nuclear umbrella,” also known as “extended deterrence” that applies to other non-nuclear U.S.
allies as well.
The U.S.-ROK alliance has enjoyed a significant boost in recent years after a period of strain
under the George W. Bush and Roh Moo-hyun Administrations. Even before the Cheonan
sinking, South Korea’s willingness to send troops to Afghanistan and increasing defense
expenditures reinforced the sense that the alliance is flourishing. Emblematic of the close ties, the
South Korean and U.S. foreign and defense ministers held their first ever “2+2” meeting in July
2010, which featured a visit to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) by Secretary of State Clinton and
Secretary of Defense Gates. The historic meeting both commemorated the 60th anniversary of the
Korean War and demonstrated the enduring strength of the alliance. The massive joint military
exercises held immediately after the meeting, featuring a U.S. aircraft carrier and F-22 aircraft,
signaled to North Korea and others that the American commitment to Korea remains strong. The
alliance remains popular among South Koreans. According to one opinion poll conducted in the
summer of 2009, over three-quarters of South Koreans view the U.S.-ROK alliance as
“important” to South Korea’s security, and over two-thirds have a favorable opinion of the United
States. 19
Despite these promising developments, the alliance faces a host of significant challenges in the
months and years ahead. Delays and increasing price tags have slowed the implementation of

18 Much of South Korea’s exports to China are intermediate goods that ultimately are used in products exported to the
United States and Europe.
19 State Department Office of Opinion Research, “South Koreans Reassured on Alliance,” August 17, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
11

U.S.-South Korea Relations

agreements to reduce and relocate the U.S. troop presence in South Korea. Differences over
burden sharing remain, although these issues tend to be prevalent in all alliance relationships. The
June 2010 decision to delay the transfer of operational wartime control (“Opcon”) from an
American commander to South Korean command defused one area of tension temporarily, but
concerns remain over South Korea’s readiness and willingness to take the lead in a military
conflict. Although the political atmospherics of the alliance have been outstanding, defense
analysts note that the Lee Administration has slowed significantly the defense budget increases
planned under the earlier Roh Administration.
U.S. Alliance and ROK Defense Reform Plans
Current security developments are taking place in the context of several concurrent defense
schemes. The June 2009 Obama-Lee summit produced the broadly conceived “Joint Vision for
the Alliance
,” which promised to enhance and globalize future defense cooperation. After the
decision to delay the Opcon transfer, the operational “Strategic Alliance 2015” roadmap
(announced in September 2010) outlines the new transition, including ROK capabilities and U.S.
troop relocation and tour normalization. Meanwhile, South Korea’s Defense Reform 2020 bill
passed by the National Assembly in 2006 remains officially in effect. The plan lays out a 15-year,
621 trillion won (about $550 million) investment that aims to reduce the number of ROK troops
while developing a high-tech force and strengthening the Joint Chief of Staff system. Defense
Reform 2020 calls for defense budget increases of 9.9% each year, but the Lee Administration
reduced the increase to 3.6% for FY2010, citing economic pressures.20 The U.S. military is also
undergoing a broad transformation of its forces in the region; the 8th Army is moving toward
becoming a warfighting headquarters that can deploy to other areas of the world while still
serving as a deterrent to any possible aggression from North Korea.21
The Relocation of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK)
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 Gates halted the withdrawals at the level of 28,500.
The U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) relocation plan has two elements. The first envisages the transfer
of a large percentage of the 9,000 U.S. military personnel at the U.S. Yongsan base in Seoul 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 withdrawal of about 10,000 troops of the
Second Infantry Division from the demilitarized zone and their relocation to areas south of the
Han River (which runs through Seoul). The end result will be that USFK’s sites will decline from
the 104 it maintained in 2002, to 48. 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”

20 “South Korea Approves FY10 Defence Budget,” Jane’s Defence Industry. January 4, 2010.
21 “U.S. Army in South Korea Begins Transformation of Forces,” Stars and Stripes. August 25, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
12


U.S.-South Korea Relations

(Osan Air Base, USAG Humphreys, US AG Daegu, Chinhae Naval Base, and Kunsan Air Base).
A new joint warrior training center, north of Seoul, will be opened. 22
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 Pyongtaek and
South Korean protests of financial difficulties in paying the ROK share of the relocation costs.
The original cost estimate was over $10 billion; South Korea was to contribute $4 billion of this.
Estimates in 2010 placed the costs 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 the South Koreans were paying more than the original $4 billion.23 U.S.-ROK
discussions in 2009 reportedly indicated that the relocations to Pyeongtaek will not take place
until 2015 or 2016. Some individuals involved and familiar with the move speculate that it will
not be completed until 2020.
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. Prior to this change, most U.S. troops in
South Korea served one-year unaccompanied assignments. The goal is to phase out one-year
unaccompanied tours in South Korea, replacing them with 36-month accompanied or 24-month
unaccompanied tours. Eventually, the “normalization” of tours is estimated to increase the size of
the U.S. military community at Osan/Humphries near Pyongtaek to over 50,000.

22 “US-South Korea: a New Security Relationship,” Jane’s Intelligence Weekly, January 18, 2010.
23 “Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Security Situation on the Korean Peninsula,” CQ
Congressional Transcripts
. Sept. 16, 2010.


Congressional Research Service
13

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Cost Sharing
Under a Special Measures Agreement reached in 2009, South Korea’s direct financial
contribution for U.S. troops in South Korea in 2010 will be 760 billion won (about $571 million).
This is about 42% of the total cost of maintaining U.S. forces in South Korea. In recent U.S.-
R.O.K. military negotiations, Pentagon officials called for South Korea to increase its share to at
least 50%. Under the 2009 agreement, South Korea’s share of the cost is to increase until 2013 in
accord with the rate of inflation but no more than 4% annually.
Opcon Transfer
The United States has agreed with Seoul to turn over the wartime command of Korean troops
later this decade. Under the current arrangement, which is a legacy of U.S. involvement in the
1950-1953 Korean War, South Korea’s soldiers would be under the command of U.S. forces if
there were a war on the peninsula. In 2007, Secretary Rumsfeld accepted a proposal by then-
South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun to set up separate South Korean and U.S. military
commands by April 2012. A U.S.-R.O.K. operational control (Opcon) agreement will dismantle
the U.S.-R.O.K. Combined Forces Command (CFC), which has been headed by the U.S.
commander in Korea. Separate U.S. and R.O.K. military commands will be established. In accord
with the plan a new U.S. Korea Command (KORCOM) will be established. Under the Opcon
agreement, a Military Cooperation Center will be responsible for planning military operations,
joint military exercises, logistics support, and intelligence exchanges, and assisting in the
operation of the communication, command, control, and computer systems.
At their June 2010 summit, Presidents Obama and Lee announced their decision to delay the
transfer of Opcon by three years, until 2015. Although the decision was couched as sending a
strong signal to North Korea following the sinking of the Cheonan, the agreement followed
months of debate in Seoul and Washington about the timing of the transfer. Many South Korean
and U.S. experts questioned whether the South Korean military possesses the capabilities—such
as a joint command and control system, sufficient transport planes, and amphibious sea lift
vessels—to operate effectively as its own command by the original transfer date of 2012. U.S.
officials stress, however, that the transfer was militarily on track before the political decision to
postpone. Opposition to the transfer in some quarters in Seoul may reflect a traditional fear of
abandonment by the U.S. military.
With the decision made, U.S. commanders are arguing that the three-year delay will allow the
alliance to synchronize more thoroughly all the moving parts of the arrangement, including the
relocation of U.S. troops.24 The Strategic Alliance 2015 plan envisages measures such as
upgrading South Korean defense capabilities (such as ground operations command), improving
and recalibrating USFK and South Korean command and control systems, and better aligning
military exercises to meet the new asymmetrical challenges posed by North Korea.

24 “Sharp: Korea Plan Synchronizes Capabilities,” PACOM Headlines, American Forces Press Service. September 21,
2010.
Congressional Research Service
14

U.S.-South Korea Relations

The “Strategic Flexibility” of USFK
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
681,000 troops, with nearly 550,000 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.
Since the early 2000s, U.S. military officials have expressed a desire to deploy some U.S. forces
in South Korea to areas of international conflicts under a doctrine of “strategic flexibility.” The
South Korean government of Roh Moo-hyun resisted this idea, largely for fear it might entangle
South Korea in a possible conflict between the United States and China. In the mid-2000s, the
two governments reached an agreement in which South Korea recognized the United States’
intention to be able to deploy its forces off the Peninsula, while the United States in turn
recognized that the troops’ return to South Korea would be subject to discussion. Among other
elements, the compromise seems to imply that in an off-Peninsula contingency, U.S. forces might
deploy but not operate from South Korea.
South Korean Defense Industry and Purchases of U.S. Weapons
South Korea is a major purchaser of U.S. weapons, buying $939 million worth of U.S. arms in
FY2010. The country is regularly among the top five customers for Foreign Military Sales
(FMS).25 Although South Korea generally buys the majority of its weapons from the United
States, European defense companies also compete for contracts; Korea is an attractive market
because of its rising defense expenditures. Recently, Boeing won the first two phases of South
Korea’s fighter modernization program and Seoul has also indicated interest in Lockheed
Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.26 South Korea’s defense ministry has said that it will prioritize
its defense systems against North Korea’s missile and nuclear threats, including Aegis combat
destroyers, missile interceptors, and early warning radars.27
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).28
South Korea competes internationally in the armored vehicle, shipbuilding, and aerospace
industries. Of particular note is the T-50 Golden Eagle, a trainer and light fighter aircraft
developed in conjunction with Lockheed Martin.29
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 changed
the classification to NATO Plus Four. 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,

25 Joint United States Military Affairs Group – Korea Mission Brief. August 18, 2010.
26 “South Korea to Buy More U.S. Weapons to Counter North,” Reuters. September 21, 2010.
27 “South Korea Pulls Back from Original Defense Spending Plan Amid Economic Woes,” Yonhap News. September
27, 2009.
28 “South Korea Defense Budget,” Jane’s Defence Budgets. December 14, 2009.
29 “Korea’s T-50 Spreads Its Wings,” Defense Industry Insider. September 13, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
15

U.S.-South Korea Relations

from $14 million to $25 million. Congress has 15 days to consider the sale, and may take
legislative steps to block the sale compared to 50 days for Major Non-NATO Allies.
South Korea’s Deployment to Afghanistan
After withdrawing its initial deployment of military personnel to Afghanistan in 2007, South
Korea sent a second deployment, consisting of troops and civilian workers who are staffing a
Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Parwan Province, located north of Kabul.30 In February
2010, the National Assembly approved and funded the deployment of over 320 Army personnel
and 40 police officers to protect 100 Korean civilian reconstruction workers for a two-year
mission. The first soldiers arrived in June 2010.
Economic Relations
South Korea and the United States are major economic partners. In 2009, two-way trade between
the two countries totaled over $65 billion (see Table 1), making South Korea the United States’
seventh largest 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 2009, the United States was South Korea’s
third-largest trading partner, second-largest export market, and the third-largest source of imports.
It was among South Korea’s largest suppliers of foreign direct investment (FDI).
As both economies have become more integrated with the world economy, economic
interdependence has become more complex and attenuated, particularly as the United States’
economic importance to South Korea has 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. In the mid-2000s, Japan and then the 27-member European Union also
overtook the United States.

30 In 2007, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun withdrew South Korea’s initial deployment of 200 non-combat
military personnel from Afghanistan after the Taliban kidnapped South Korean missionaries. The South Korean
government reportedly paid a sizeable ransom to the Taliban to secure the release of kidnapped South Korean Christian
missionaries, reported by one Taliban official to be $20 million.
Congressional Research Service
16

U.S.-South Korea Relations

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 26.3
39.8
-13.5
66.1
2005 26.2
43.2
-17.0
69.4
2008 33.1
46.7
-13.6
79.8
2009 27.0
38.7
-11.7
65.7
Major U.S. Export
Industrial machinery; specialized instruments; chemicals; civilian aircraft;
Items
transistors; semiconductor circuits; corn & wheat; semiconductor
circuits; iron & steel scrap.
Major U.S. Import
Motor vehicles & parts; Cel phones; semiconductor circuits & printed
Items
circuit boards; machinery; iron & steel.
Sources: 1990 and 1995 data from Global Trade Information Services. 2000-2009 data from U.S. International Trade
Commission. The 2000-2009 U.S. export data are for U.S. domestic exports and the data for U.S. imports are for
imports on a consumption basis.

The KORUS FTA31
The Bush and Roh Administrations initiated the proposed KORUS FTA negotiations in 2006 and
signed an agreement in June 2007. The text of the proposed free trade agreement covers a wide
range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have wide economic implications for
both the United States and South Korea. A congressionally mandated study by the United States
International Trade Commission (USITC) concluded that investment and trade between the
United States and South Korea would increase modestly as a result of the KORUS FTA. This
result is in line with other similar studies. In general and in the short-to-medium term, the
KORUS FTA’s largest commercial effects are expected to be microeconomic in nature. The U.S.
services and agriculture industries, for instance, are expected to reap significant benefits if the
agreement is implemented. In contrast, U.S. textile, wearing apparel, and electronic equipment
manufacturers would be expected to experience declines in employment from increased South
Korean imports, though some U.S. electronics companies may see competitive benefits, as it
could be less expensive for them to source components from South Korea.
While a broad swath of the U.S. business community supports the agreement, the KORUS FTA
faces opposition from some groups, including some auto and steel manufacturers and labor
unions. In South Korea, while public opinion polls generally show broad support for the KORUS
FTA, many farmers and trade unionists have vocally and actively opposed the agreement.
Many observers have argued that, in addition to its economic implications, the KORUS FTA
would have diplomatic and security implications. Indeed, in many respects, the KORUS FTA’s

31 For more information, please see CRS Report RL34330, The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement
(KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications
, coordinated by William H. Cooper.
Congressional Research Service
17

U.S.-South Korea Relations

fate may go beyond strengthening U.S.-Korea ties and have profound implications for U.S. trade
policy and East Asia policy. For instance, some have suggested that a KORUS FTA would help to
solidify the U.S. presence in East Asia to counterbalance the increasing influence of China. Some
counter this by positing that the KORUS FTA need not be seen as a necessary, let alone sufficient,
condition for enhancing the U.S.-ROK alliance. However, many South Koreans would likely see
a failure to complete or a defeat of the agreement in part as a U.S. psychological rejection of
South Korea. Additionally, many East Asian leaders would see such a move as a sign that the
United States is disengaging from East Asia, where most countries are pursuing a variety of free
trade agreements. South Korea has perhaps been the most aggressive in this FTA push. Since
2002, it has completed seven other agreements (including one with the European Union, awaiting
ratification) and has begun negotiating seven others.
South Korea’s Economic Performance
South Korea has recorded strong economic growth since the global financial crisis began in late
2008. After GDP real growth declined to 0.2% in 2009, the South Korean economy has roared
back and is projected to grow by nearly 6% in 2010. Initially, the crisis hit the South Korean
economy hard because of its heavy reliance on international trade and its banks’ heavy borrowing
from abroad. The Lee government took strong countermeasures to blunt the crisis’ 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 a
record low 2% 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.32 The South Korean won,
after depreciating to around 1,500 won/dollar—a fall of nearly one-third from early 2008 to early
2009—has gradually strengthened against the dollar, to the 1,000-1,100 won/dollar range. The
won’s depreciation helped to stimulate South Korea’s economic recovery by making its exports
cheaper relative to many other currencies, particularly the Japanese yen.

32 The October 2008 swap agreement with the U.S. Federal Reserve gave Bank of Korea access to up to USD 30 billion
in US dollar funds in exchange for won.
Congressional Research Service
18

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Figure 3. South Korea’s Real GDP Growth
9
8.1
7.8
8
7.1
7
r
a
6
e
Y

5.1
5.1
ious
v
5
4.7
re
P
m
o
fr
4
ge
n
a
h

3
% C
2.3
2
1
1
0.5
0.2
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
1st Q 2010
2nd Q 2010

Other Issues
South Korea-Iran Relations
Historically, South Korea’s relations with Iran have been dominated by economic interests,
particularly South Korean oil imports from Iran and South Korean construction conglomerates’
large-scale contracts in Iran. South Korean policymakers have only recently seen Iran through a
foreign policy lens.33 Indeed, the United Nations’ call for member states to sanction Iran for its
nuclear pursuits appears to have triggered a debate between South Korea’s economy-oriented
ministries, which wanted to limit South Korea’s response to Iranian actions, and its foreign policy
oriented organs, which wanted to go further. The Lee government was forced to try to strike a
balance between protecting its economic interests while doing enough to satisfy the demands of
the United States and fulfill its self-proclaimed goal of creating a “global Korea” that assumes
international responsibilities.
Details of South Korea’s Sanctions against Iran
Among other items, the South Korean measures, which exceed the requirements of United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1929,34 take the following steps:

33 Alon Levkowitz, “The Republic of Korea and the Middle East: Economics, Diplomacy, and Security,” Korea
Economic Institute Academic Paper Series
, August 6, 2010, Volume 5, Number 6.
34 UNSCR 1929 at http://daccess-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/396/79/PDF/N1039679.pdf?OpenElement.
Congressional Research Service
19

U.S.-South Korea Relations

• prohibit South Korean firms from starting new ventures (including investments,
technical services, and construction contracts) in Iran’s energy sector, and call on
companies with existing contracts to “exercise restraint;”
• designate over 20 Iranian individuals and over 100 Iranian entities, including
Bank Mellat, Iran’s second-largest bank and a designee under UNSC 1929, for
allegedly providing banking services to Iran’s nuclear sector. South Koreans will
need prior authorization from the Bank of Korea before conducting foreign
exchange transactions with the designees;
• require South Korean companies to report all transactions with Iran over 10,000
euros (approximately $13,000) and to obtain prior authorization for all
transactions over 40,000 euros (approximately $52,000). Authorization will be
denied for any transactions that are subject to sanctions under the U.S.
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (P.L.
111-195);
• prohibit South Korean banks from opening accounts and offices in Iran, and vice
versa;
• ban the creation of new, and gradually terminate existing, correspondent banking
relationships between South Korean and Iranian financial institutions;
• suspend nearly all the operations of the Seoul office of Bank Mellat for two
months, which South Korean officials say is the maximum penalty allowed under
existing law. Beyond the two month period, South Korean officials reportedly say
they intend to make it “effectively impossible” for the bank engage in “normal
operations;”35 and
• open a won-denominated account for the Central Bank of Iran, which it is hoped
will be used to provide the legitimate financing services formerly provided by
Bank Mellat.
Bilateral Nuclear Cooperation36
The United States and South Korea have cooperated in the peaceful use of nuclear energy for
over fifty years.37 The current U.S.-ROK bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement (or “123”
agreement) was concluded in 1972, and expires in 2014. In late October 2010, the United States
and South Korea began official talks in Washington on renewing elements of the agreement.38

35 Bank Mellat operates one of its four overseas branches in Seoul, with assets reportedly worth over 3 trillion won
(approximately $2.5 billion at an exchange rate of 1,165.10 won/dollar). Hyung-eun Kim, “Pressure Builds on Mellat,”
JoongAng Daily Online, August 9, 2010.
36 Written by Mary Beth Nikitin, Analyst in Nonproliferation.
37 See also CRS Report R41032, U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy Market: Major
Policy Considerations
, by Mark Holt.
38“Discussions on the New U.S.-R.O.K. Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement State Department Press Release,
October 26, 2010, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/10/150026.htm
Congressional Research Service
20

U.S.-South Korea Relations

The current U.S.-Korea nuclear cooperation agreement, as with other standard agreements,39
requires U.S. permission before South Korea can reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel, including spent
fuel from South Korea’s U.S.-designed reactors.40 Some South Korean officials have called for
lifting such restrictions, in the course of the renewal negotiations, to allow for South Korean
reprocessing of spent fuel.41 The issue has become a sensitive one for many South Korean
officials and politicians, who see it as a matter of national sovereignty. The Korean Atomic
Energy Research Institute (KAERI) is conducting a laboratory-scale research program on
reprocessing spent fuel with an advanced pyro-processing technique.42 U.S.-South Korean
bilateral research on pyro-processing was halted by the United States in 2008. In an attempt to
find common ground in March 2010, the United States and South Korea began a joint study on
the economics, technical feasibility and nonproliferation implications of pyro-processing.43 This
study is expected to last six to twelve months, and its results are to feed into, but are separate
from, the 123 renewal negotiations. The United States and South Korea continue to conduct joint
research projects on international nuclear safeguards and on innovative nuclear technology
development.
South Korean Nonproliferation Policy
South Korea has been a consistent and vocal supporter of strengthening the global
nonproliferation regime. It is a member of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group and adheres to all
nonproliferation treaties and export control regimes. An International Atomic Energy Agency
Additional Protocol for South Korea entered into force as of February 2004. South Korea also
participates in the G-8 Global Partnership, and 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 will host the next Nuclear Security Summit in 2012.44 At the 2010 Summit, South
Korea announced it would host the next Plenary session for the Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism in 2011 as part of its contribution to improving international nuclear security
coordination.

39 CRS Report RS22937, Nuclear Cooperation with Other Countries: A Primer, by Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth
Nikitin.
40 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.
41 Fred McGoldrick, “New U.S.-ROK Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: A Precedent for a New Global
Nuclear Architecture ,” Asia Foundation, November 2009, http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/
McGoldrickUSROKCUSKP091130.pdf
42 Pyro-processing technology would partially separate plutonium and uranium from spent fuel.
43 http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2010/03/17/201003170029.asp
44See also, CRS Report R41169, Securing Nuclear Materials: The 2010 Summit and Issues for Congress, by Mary Beth
Nikitin.
Congressional Research Service
21

U.S.-South Korea Relations

South Korea’s “Green Growth” Policies45
President Lee has championed a policy of economic growth that limits environmental impacts,
known as “green growth.” This forms a significant part of the administration’s effort to promote
South Korea as “Global Korea” and to advance its economic development.46 South Korea’s
program represents an instructive example, particularly in the area of private/public cooperation
for green growth and the development of a cap-and-trade carbon system. The program envisions
reducing fuel consumption and fostering the development and use of new and renewable forms of
energy from 2% to 11% of South Korea’s total energy consumption by 2030, and to 30% by
2050.47 Two percent of annual GDP would go to supporting research and development of “green
technologies and enterprises,” while raising the efficiency of existing firms.48 The South Korean
government plans to make direct investments in green technology to boost energy efficiency and
provide tax incentives for private capital and firms to fund such investments—with a goal of
funneling 2% of annual GDP into the sector. 49 In July 2010, the South Korean government
announced that 30 South Korean industrial firms would invest $18 billion for green R&D.50 The
government also plans to encourage a transition from manufacturing to service industries to
reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) further, as well as moving to adopt a carbon cap-and-trade
system.
In April 2010, South Korea’s National Assembly passed the Framework Act on Low Carbon and
Green Growth and the Enforcement Decree. It offers tax incentives to firms to adopt goods and
services fostering lower GHG emissions. It includes a basis for cap and trade and requires the
government to implement a five-year plan for green growth and GHG reductions to 30% from the
“business-as-usual” projection for 2020.51 The legislation provides for a green certification
program.52 The Ministry of Environment has the lead in the management of an integrated GHG
information system and in setting automobile energy consumption standards and allowable GHG
emissions. In July 2010, the government announced that South Korea’s total public and private
investment in carbon capture and sequestration would reach an estimated 2.3 trillion won ($1.92
billion) in 2019; total public sector investment would account for 1.2 trillion won.53
Several local, province-wide and international green initiatives are underway. Some cities are
pursuing low carbon programs, from adopting low carbon vehicles for mass transportation to

45 Written by MiAe Taylor, Research Associate in Asian Affairs.
46 Text of President Lee’s Address on Liberation, Founding Anniversaries. Yonhap News. August 16, 2008.
47 Republic of Korea Presidential Commission on Green Growth. Road to Our Future: Green Growth, October 9, 2009.
http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/econtrade/environmentenergy/issues/index.jsp.
48 Presentation by Hyunghwan Joo, Director General, International Economic Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Strategy and
Finance, the Korea Economic Institute of America’s Policy Seminar on Korea’s Low Carbon, Green Growth Vision,
June 24, 2010.
49 Presentation by Hyunghwan Joo, Director General, International Economic Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Strategy and
Finance, the Korea Economic Institute of America’s Policy Seminar on Korea’s Low Carbon, Green Growth Vision,
June 24, 2010.
50 “Boost for South Korea’s Green Sector.” UPI. July 13, 2010.
51 Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth. http://www.moleg.go.kr/FileDownload.mo?flSeq=30582
52 ROK Ministry of Environment Press release. “Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth Went into Effect,”
http://www.korea.net/detail.do?guid=46155.
53 “S. Korea to invest $2 bln in carbon capture to 2019.” Reuters. July 12, 2010. http://in.reuters.com/article/
idINTOE66B06520100712.
Congressional Research Service
22

U.S.-South Korea Relations

developing new green cities.54 In addition, South Korea is sponsoring green policies abroad,
employing green overseas development assistance (ODA).55 Responding to the recession in 2009,
the Lee administration also proposed a “new green deal” under which South Korea would expand
nuclear energy use to 32% of total energy use by 2020 and sponsor solar and wind power
projects. The government would extend seed money for green ventures and create financial
products to sponsor them. Officials anticipate average annual increases of 36.3-41.2 trillion won
($37 million to $57 million dollars) with over one million new jobs anticipated for 2009-2013.56
The “green new deal” also includes an estimated $20 billion project to stave off flooding and
water shortages by redirecting the circulation of four rivers, including the Han. Called the Four
Major Rivers Restoration project, it will construct 16 dams, dredge hundreds of millions of cubic
meters of earth to lower riverbeds, renovate two estuarine barrages, and construct trails, athletic
fields, and parks along the waterways.57 The project, part of a $38.1 billion stimulus package, of
which 80% of the funds must go to green projects, broke ground in 2009. Academics, activists,
farmers and residents, religious leaders, and opposition party members object to the project as
undermining regional wetlands, likely to promote flooding; some economists and engineers
contend that the project will cost twice the estimated figure.58 As of October 2010, the major
parties had not reached a compromise on the project’s budget.59
South Korean Politics60
For most of the first four decades after the country was founded in 1948, South Korea was ruled
by authoritarian governments. 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, long-time dissident and
opposition politician Kim Dae-jung (commonly referred to as “DJ”) 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.
Lee’s victory in the December 2007 election restored conservatives to the presidency. A striking
feature of the election was how poorly the left-of-center candidates performed, after a decade in

54 Choe Sang-hun. “In Seoul, Green Transit Is Mayor’s Pet Project. The New York Times, March 26, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/business/energy-environment/27greencar.html. Joohee Cho. “Building a Green,
Hi-Tech City of the Future.” ABC News, September 15, 2009.
55 Presentation by Chan-Woo Kim, Director General, International Cooperation Office, Ministry of Environment
delivered at the Korea Economic Institute of America’s Policy Seminar on Korea’s Low Carbon, Green Growth Vision,
June 24, 2010.
56 Presentation by Hyunghwan Joo, Korea Economic Institute of America’s Policy Seminar on Korea’s Low Carbon,
Green Growth Vision, June 24, 2010.
57 Dennis Normile. “Environmental Restoration: Restoration or Devastation?” Science. March 26, 2010. p. 1570.
58 Cho Ji-hyun. “4-rivers project will cause water shortages.” The Korea Herald, October 7, 2009.
59 “Analysis: S. Korean Political Parties brace for heated elections.” Asia Pulse, May 3, 2010.
60 For more, see CRS Report R40851, South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook, by Mark E.
Manyin and Weston Konishi.
Congressional Research Service
23

U.S.-South Korea Relations

power, receiving only around 30% of the vote. Shortly after Lee’s inauguration, his Grand
National Party retained control of the National Assembly in national parliamentary elections.
Lee had a rocky first two years of his presidency. Until late 2009, his public approval ratings
generally were in the 20%-30% range. It took over a year for him to recover from the massive
anti-government protests that followed an April 2008 deal with the United States to lift South
Korea’s partial ban on imports of U.S. beef. The ban had been in place since 2003, when a cow in
the United States was found to be infected with mad cow disease, or BSE (bovine spongiform
encephalopathy). By the early to mid-spring of 2010, his ratings had risen to the 40%-50% range,
a development many attribute to South Korea’s strong recovery from the 2008-2009 global
financial crisis.
South Korea’s next National Assembly and presidential elections are scheduled for April and
December 2012, respectively. By law, Lee cannot run again; South Korean presidents serve one
five-year term.
A Powerful Executive Branch
Nominally, power in South Korea is shared by the president and the 299-member unicameral
National Assembly. Of these, 245 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 state 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 three major political parties in South Korea: President Lee’s conservative
Grand National Party (GNP); the opposition center-left Democratic Party (DP); and the hard right
Liberty Forward Party (LFP), which is primarily a platform for former GNP heavyweight Lee
Hoi-chang.61 U.S. ties have historically been much stronger with the conservative parties.
Because Korean politics tend to be hyper-partisan, this phenomenon could make U.S.-South
Korea relations more difficult to manage if the progressives regain power.
The GNP’s numerical strength masks significant intra-party divisions. Lee’s most significant rival
is GNP stalwart Park Geun-hye, the popular daughter of Korea’s former military ruler Park
Chung-hee, whom Lee only narrowly defeated in the GNP’s presidential primary in 2007.
Initially, Lee had tried to marginalize Park’s influence, an effort he later abandoned when the
GNP absorbed some of Park’s supporters who had formed a new party. This move, however, has
failed to resolve the tensions between the two camps. There is little cooperation between the GNP
and the Democratic Party, so keeping the GNP unified on controversial issues is critical to Lee’s
ability to govern.

61 Lee was the runner-up in both the 1997 and 2002 elections, losing both by less than three percentage points of the
vote.
Congressional Research Service
24







U.S.-South Korea Relations

Lee’s relationship with the Liberty Forward Party also has been contentious, as its leader ran a
bitter campaign against Lee in the presidential election. The Park camp and the LFP generally are
more conservative than Lee, so he has been under pressure from his conservative flank.
Since the 2007 election, South Korea’s largest opposition party, the Democratic Party, has
generally been even more divided than the GNP. The Democrats’ lack of unity, their minority
status in the National Assembly, and the absence of national elections until 2012 have deprived
them of most tools of power and influence within the South Korean polity. In a sign that the
progressive camp may be regrouping, however, the DP scored significant victories in important
local elections in June 2010. DP members and their supporters often are more critical of U.S.
policies and are much more likely to support engagement policies toward North Korea than their
conservative counterparts.
Figure 4. Party Strength in the National Assembly
As of October 23, 2010

Source: The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, “Members by Negotiating Group.”
Notes: Last election held in April 2008; next election to be held in April 2012.

List of Other CRS Reports on the Koreas
South Korea
CRS Report RL34093, The Kaesong North-South Korean Industrial Complex, by Dick K. Nanto
and Mark E. Manyin
CRS Report R40851, South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook, by Mark E.
Manyin
CRS Report RL34330, The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA):
Provisions and Implications
, coordinated by William H. Cooper
CRS Report RL34528, U.S.-South Korea Beef Dispute: Issues and Status, by Remy Jurenas and
Mark E. Manyin
Congressional Research Service
25

U.S.-South Korea Relations

CRS Report R41389, Pending U.S. and EU Free Trade Agreements with South Korea: Possible
Implications for Automobile and Other Manufacturing Industries
, by Michaela D. Platzer
CRS Report R41032, U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy Market:
Major Policy Considerations
, by Mark Holt
CRS Report R41462, Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Programs in Japan and South Korea:
Background for Congress
, by Bill Canis et al.
CRS Report R40622, Agriculture in Pending U.S. Free Trade Agreements with Colombia,
Panama, and South Korea
, by Remy Jurenas
North Korea
CRS Report R41259, North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation,
by Emma Chanlett-Avery and Mi Ae Taylor
CRS Report R40095, Foreign Assistance to North Korea, by Mark E. Manyin and Mary Beth
Nikitin
CRS Report R41438, North Korea: Legislative Basis for U.S. Economic Sanctions, by Dianne E.
Rennack
CRS Report R40684, North Korea’s Second Nuclear Test: Implications of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1874
, coordinated by Mary Beth Nikitin and Mark E. Manyin
CRS Report RL30613, North Korea: Back on the Terrorism List?, by Mark E. Manyin
CRS Report RL34256, North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons: Technical Issues, by Mary Beth Nikitin
CRS Report R41160, North Korea’s 2009 Nuclear Test: Containment, Monitoring, Implications,
by Jonathan Medalia
CRS Report RL32493, North Korea: Economic Leverage and Policy Analysis, by Dick K. Nanto
and Emma Chanlett-Avery
CRS Report RS22973, Congress and U.S. Policy on North Korean Human Rights and Refugees:
Recent Legislation and Implementation
, by Emma Chanlett-Avery
CRS Report RL33324, North Korean Counterfeiting of U.S. Currency, by Dick K. Nanto
CRS Report R41043, China-North Korea Relations, by Dick K. Nanto and Mark E. Manyin
CRS Report RS21473, North Korean Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, by Steven A.
Hildreth
Congressional Research Service
26

U.S.-South Korea Relations

Archived Reports for Background
CRS Report RL33567, Korea-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress, by Larry A. Niksch
CRS Report RL33590, North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Development and Diplomacy, by Larry
A. Niksch
CRS Report RL31696, North Korea: Economic Sanctions Prior to Removal from Terrorism
Designation
, by Dianne E. Rennack


Author Contact Information

Mark E. Manyin, Coordinator
Mary Beth Nikitin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Analyst in Nonproliferation
mmanyin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7653
mnikitin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7745
Emma Chanlett-Avery
Mi Ae Taylor
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Research Associate in Asian Affairs
echanlettavery@crs.loc.gov, 7-7748
mtaylor@crs.loc.gov, 7-0451


Congressional Research Service
27