[Current Affairs Show] Kim Youngbae: "The Korea-US Nuclear Agreement Should Be Revised to at Least the Level of Japan"

"Former Leader Cho Kuk Should Be Mindful of Public Sentiment"
"Reaffirming Korean Peninsula Denuclearization Is Key for Korea-US Summit"
"Merger with Cho Kuk Innovation Party Before Local Elections Is Difficult"

■ Broadcast: Asia Economy 'So Jongsup's Current Affairs Show (Mon-Fri, 4-5 PM)'

■ Host: So Jongsup, Political Specialist ■ Director: Park Sumin, Producer

■ Guest: Kim Youngbae, Democratic Party Assemblyman (two-term, Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee Secretary)

The time for diplomacy has arrived. President Lee Jaemyung held a Korea-Japan summit with Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru in Japan on the 23rd. A Korea-US summit is scheduled for the 25th. The Chinese special envoy delegation will visit China from the 24th to the 27th. A series of events are unfolding that will shape the diplomatic direction at the beginning of the Lee Jaemyung administration. In particular, the success of the Korea-US summit is closely tied to the smooth sailing of the Lee Jaemyung government. On August 22 at 2 PM, "So Jongsup's Current Affairs Show" met with Democratic Party Assemblyman Kim Youngbae, who serves as the secretary of the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, at the Asia Economy studio to discuss the upcoming Korea-US summit and various issues. Assemblyman Kim is a two-term lawmaker (Seongbuk-gu Gap) who previously served twice as the head of Seongbuk-gu District Office before entering the National Assembly. During the one-hour interview, Assemblyman Kim answered a wide range of current issues with ease.

Foreign Minister Cho Hyun suddenly did not attend the Korea-Japan summit and instead went to the United States. Moreover, he took a connecting flight because there was no direct route. How should we interpret this?

This shows just how significant the Korea-US summit is. It indicates that important negotiations are underway. Previously, when the tariff negotiation team was negotiating, from the perspective of President Trump and the United States, since they were negotiating with multiple countries simultaneously, there may have been a perception that the details were lacking. Since there are no topic restrictions at a summit, complex discussions are likely to take place regarding economic security and various corporate issues between Korea and the US. This suggests that important discussions are indeed in progress.

Kim Youngbae, a Democratic Party lawmaker, is being interviewed on "So Jongsup's Current Affairs Show" on the 22nd.

Are you saying that although you don't know the details, something significant is being discussed behind the scenes?

Looking at the big picture, when Korea and Japan participated in the US tariff negotiations, for items like automobiles, a 15% tariff was agreed upon. In Japan's case, they decided to create a much larger investment fund than Korea. Korea's fund is 350 billion dollars, of which 150 billion dollars is dedicated to the shipbuilding industry, and about 200 billion dollars is to be planned in consultation with the US based on their proposals. Somewhere in this process, the US may have made more detailed demands, or their demands may not align with Korea's reality, or disagreements may have arisen in areas directly tied to our national interests. In any case, the fact that minister-level or working-level discussions are taking place in advance is a good signal.

Why do you think so?

Given President Trump's personality, if he is dissatisfied or feels negotiations are not going well, he may break off talks entirely or, as seen in meetings with President Zelensky or the President of South Africa, he may even rebuke counterparts face-to-face. Therefore, the fact that intense working-level discussions are taking place beforehand is not a bad sign. However, since President Trump prefers concrete results and numbers, we need to monitor the situation carefully.

According to US law, even partial withdrawal of US Forces Korea is impossible

Issues such as 'modernization of the alliance' symbolized by the strategic use of US Forces Korea and the increase in defense spending are somewhat burdensome topics for us, aren't they?

The Korean Peninsula hosts the largest contingent of US troops stationed outside the United States. This means that, from the US perspective, US Forces Korea holds significant strategic value and that South Korea is a critical base. Therefore, US Forces Korea does not exist solely for Korea's benefit; the US also recognizes its importance and thus maintains a large military presence. Since US Forces Korea fundamentally serves US national interests, withdrawal is absolutely out of the question.

Do you believe that even a partial withdrawal of US Forces Korea should not happen?

Recently, the US Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act. It specifies that the number of US Forces Korea is set at 28,500. Furthermore, for the next five years, withdrawal or reduction is explicitly prohibited by law. The issue of operational command transfer is also stipulated not to be discussed within five years. There is no need to worry about this issue at all.

There are concerns about the possibility of US Forces Korea being involved in a Taiwan contingency. Isn't this a sensitive issue?

There are always voices expressing concern about such scenarios. If the US holds such a view, the government must prepare and establish its position. What is clear is that President Trump recently stated that President Xi Jinping personally promised him that China would never invade Taiwan during his term. The fact that President Trump himself emphasized this is highly significant.

In this context, claims that the US and China will engage in military conflict or alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait within a few years are excessive. President Trump has clearly stated that denuclearization of North Korea remains the top US priority. Without the presence of US Forces Korea, how could we counter North Korea's asymmetric nuclear threat?

The defense budget issue seems to be a different matter. There are projections that the US will demand Korea to spend more on defense.

Our current defense budget is just under 2.44% of GDP, amounting to about 61 trillion won per year. There are suggestions that the US will ask us to increase it to 3.8%, which would require an additional 40 trillion won annually. That is an enormous increase.However, with reasonable and sufficient discussion, we can persuade them. One reason is that Korea built and provided the world's largest and most advanced US military base in Pyeongtaek at our own expense and with our own technology. Considering such factors, the US can fully cooperate with us. Still, we may have to accept some unavoidable cost increases.

Lawmaker Kim said, "The global increase in defense spending can become a new opportunity for industrial growth for us."

Increase in defense spending can become a new opportunity for industrial growth

Some suggest linking increased defense spending to the purchase of US weapons or the construction of naval vessels. What is your view?

That's correct. In fact, the US cannot build more than three or four ships a year, excluding warships. In contrast, China builds nearly 100 ships a year. In the shipbuilding sector, there are only a few countries, such as Korea and Japan, that can serve as strategic partners. Among them, Korea possesses the technology to produce the most advanced vessels. There is even a bill that allows allied countries or countries outside the US, such as Korea, to manufacture and supply warships and other strategic vessels. Even if we invest our own resources, our domestic industry can benefit, creating a virtuous cycle and a new opportunity for industrial growth. This is a proposal worth considering deeply.

Furthermore, the defense industry has grown tremendously. The European market alone is opening up to the scale of hundreds of trillions of won. If we respond actively, opportunities can arise for our defense industry and high-tech sectors. We hope to develop even closer economic alliances with Europe.

Is there little chance that the US will propose using US Forces Korea elsewhere at the Korea-US summit?

Rather than making such a concrete proposal, the US may advocate for establishing joint principles within the Korea-US alliance to respond to China's geopolitical risks. Since US Forces Japan is also stationed in Japan, the US may propose strengthening both US Forces Japan and US Forces Korea, presenting a strategy that encompasses Asia and Europe, and request our cooperation. However, reduction or withdrawal of US Forces Korea, or redeployment in case of contingencies, are not issues under discussion at this time, nor are they likely to be.

If the US brings strategic changes to the operation of US Forces Korea, we cannot simply tell them not to do so. However, in areas directly related to our security, we cannot easily concede. Alliances are reciprocal; one side cannot simply dictate to the other. These matters must be resolved through sufficient mutual cooperation and discussion.

"Nuclear reprocessing: The Korea-US nuclear agreement must be revised to at least the level of Japan"

The issue of revising the nuclear agreement seems likely to become a key topic as well.

In reality, we currently have no authority to reprocess nuclear material. There are calls to revise the Korea-US nuclear agreement to allow reprocessing at least to the level of Japan. This is not about producing nuclear weapons. Material enriched to less than 20% cannot be used for plutonium. Simply put, the issue is how to handle nuclear waste generated by operating nuclear power plants, and the technology in question is about making it safe enough for basic disposal. Given the significant technical cooperation and trust between Korea and the US, this is a challenge worth pursuing.

Representative Kim said, "The US-Korea nuclear agreement must be revised to allow reprocessing at least to the level of Japan."

Is it certain that agricultural market opening is off the table?

According to inside sources, USTR Secretary Jamison Greer repeatedly raised the issue of agricultural products. However, when we responded, "Korea is the world's largest importer of US beef, and our market openness is at 99%," President Trump said, "99%? Then let's move on," and dropped the issue. Still, US agricultural and livestock groups are likely to continue their pressure. Just because it wasn't discussed last time doesn't mean it won't come up this time. Given President Trump's style, we cannot be complacent. However, from the US perspective, there is dissatisfaction that, under the FTA, Korea has imposed excessively strict quarantine standards on agricultural products and fruits.

The US has also raised concerns about the online platform sector.They argue that the laws Korea is trying to enact would only apply to US companies, not Chinese ones, and that this is unfair. This is a difficult issue to resolve and will require careful monitoring going forward.

Ahead of the Korea-US summit, North Korean Vice Department Director Kim Yeo-jung harshly criticized it using terms like "absurd pipe dream."

Although North Korea seems to be making harsh statements, it has refrained from provocative actions. What does this mean? It indicates that North Korea is closely watching the Korea-US summit. They want to assert their presence and urge that the North Korean issue be seriously addressed at the summit, and that President Trump take concrete action.

There were also many harsh exchanges early in the Moon Jae-in administration.However, at the end of that year, during the PyeongChang Olympics, Korea and North Korea achieved a dramatic turnaround. The later it gets, the closer the dawn. Compared to the statements issued by North Korea at the beginning of the Moon Jae-in and Yoon Suk-yeol administrations, Kim Yeo-jung and North Korea's current statements are fewer and much milder.

Reaffirming the principle of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is a key point of the summit

President Lee Jaemyung has announced a three-stage North Korea nuclear roadmap of freeze-reduction-dismantlement. Some argue that this amounts to recognizing North Korea's nuclear status.

If we were recognizing it, we would not be talking about dismantlement. Strategically, as stated in the Liberation Day address, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the principle. This is a promise to both the world and the people of Korea. Everything must be based on the Korea-US alliance and coordinated with the US. If the two leaders agree at this summit to reaffirm the principle of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and discuss the three-stage roadmap for North Korea's nuclear program, it will be a crucial milestone for the peninsula's stability. One of the most important points of this Korea-US summit is for both leaders to reaffirm the principle of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

※ Click the video to watch the full content

Let's talk about politics as well.What is your assessment of former leader Cho Kuk's actions since his pardon and reinstatement?

It is natural for every action of a politician to be interpreted politically. However, given the controversies surrounding former leader Cho, he should be more attentive to public sentiment. He has reportedly taken on the role of head of the Policy Innovation Institute, which suggests he intends to spend time preparing policy initiatives. In that sense, I believe he is taking recent internal and external concerns into account.Competition is inevitable. Naturally, there will be a diversity of voices within the Democratic Party.

Assemblyman Park Jiwon argues that the Cho Kuk Innovation Party and the Democratic Party should merge before the local elections. What is your view?

This is open to discussion, but realistically, a merger is difficult. There are so many people who want to run in the local elections-can that be coordinated? At this point, the rebellion has not been completely suppressed. Therefore, the principle and direction must be clear: the entire democratic camp must decisively suppress the rebellion in the local elections and achieve results that will support the successful start of the new Lee Jaemyung administration.

The controversy over the stock capital gains tax standard has continued for more than two weeks. Why hasn't a standard been set yet?

Previously, there was the debate over the financial investment income tax, followed by the abolition of the stock transaction tax. The capital gains tax issue is linked to these three matters. During the early Moon Jae-in administration, these were discussed as a package to stabilize the financial markets. Since the principle was tax revenue neutrality, there was never any intention to increase taxes in a specific sector, as the president himself stated. The financial and policy authorities should have handled it more skillfully. Because many issues were addressed at the start of the administration, announcements were made before sufficient discussions between the party and the government, leading to confusion. A conclusion between the party and the government must be reached as soon as possible.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.