Seoul needs a grand strategy for energy and resources

Home > Opinion > Columns

Seoul needs a grand strategy for energy and resources

Published: 31 Mar. 2025, 00:04

Korea JoongAng Daily

Seoul needs a grand strategy for energy and resources

5 min

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Jung Tae-yong

The author is a professor at Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies and a member of the committee on unification under the JoongAng Ilbo's Reset Korea campaign.

The return of U.S. President Donald Trump to the White House, the intensifying rivalry between Washington and Beijing, the protracted war between Russia and Ukraine and growing instability in the Middle East are all converging to pose significant challenges to the Korean economy. Each of these global developments has direct implications for Korea’s ability to secure energy and natural resources. As of 2023, Korea imports more than 90 percent of its energy needs, most of it in the form of fossil fuels. Roughly 60 percent of all imported crude oil comes from the Middle East, while about 40 percent of natural gas imports originate from Qatar and the United States.

Korea boasts internationally competitive technology in producing secondary batteries — the core component of its strong electric vehicle sector. However, the critical minerals required for battery production, such as nickel, lithium and cobalt, are dominated by China in the global supply chain. Korea must import all of these minerals from abroad and rely on refining processes to make them usable. It possesses no so-called critical mineral reserves of its own. At the same time, the international community is accelerating efforts to achieve carbon neutrality and transition to low-carbon energy in response to the climate crisis.

Energy storage systems for grids in California [LG ENERGY SOLUTION]

Korea is no exception. As the digital era rapidly unfolds — with artificial intelligence, big data and other emerging technologies driving new modes of innovation — energy is increasingly becoming electrified. Ensuring a stable supply of electricity has become synonymous with national competitiveness. Korea now faces a threefold challenge: securing stable access to energy and natural resources, transitioning to low-carbon energy and ensuring a reliable power supply.

The Trump administration's “America First” energy security strategy projects a powerful signal. On March 20, the president issued an executive order designating mineral security a core component of national security, expanding domestic mineral production and broadening the list of critical minerals to include copper, uranium, gold and potash. The order underscored the strategic value of these resources for the U.S. economy, energy systems and defense capabilities. It aims to streamline permitting processes on federal lands and mobilize resources from federal agencies and the Small Business Administration to encourage private-sector participation in mineral production.

Moreover, it delegated Defense Production Act authority to the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, traditionally limited to assisting developing nations, thereby enabling domestic investment in critical minerals. The Trump administration's approach represents a layered, institutional strategy that goes beyond resource acquisition to encompass national security, industrial policy, energy infrastructure and global development finance.

Recently, the United States has called for Korea, Japan and Taiwan to participate in an Alaskan liquefied natural gas development project — likely a move to share the risks of a high-cost, long-term investment with key gas-importing countries. In another striking example, Trump reportedly proposed a cease-fire deal in the Ukraine war that would give the United States control over 50 percent of Ukraine’s mineral resources, or even ownership of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant located in Ukraine. These episodes underscore how deeply intertwined security, energy and critical mineral access have become in U.S. strategic thinking.

So why does Korea hesitate to make decisive moves at such a critical juncture? Every change in government reignites partisan battles over energy policy — whether it be overseas resource development or nuclear phaseout. Korea was an energy-poor nation during the oil crisis of the 1970s, and it remains so today. It is therefore only natural that matters such as resource security and national energy policy fall within the purview of national politics. But instead of fostering productive discourse, political factions have allowed short-term interests to derail policy coherence and undermine the technical integrity of energy decision-making.

An LNG carrier arrives at a dock in Incheon. [KOGAS]

The issue of national security — and securing energy and critical minerals — is not a matter for political squabbling. It is a question of survival. Around the world, countries are waging what could be called resource wars, where competition for energy and minerals is seen as essential to national endurance. Korea, too, must urgently formulate a national strategy and policy framework to secure energy and resource supplies. Only then can the country build a system capable of transitioning to low-carbon energy and delivering a stable electricity supply. A dedicated ministry for energy should be established to meet these new challenges head-on. Time is running out.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.