South
Korea¡¯s Quest for Energy Security in the Persian Gulf
Shirzad
Azad
Abstract
This research studies
whether
Introduction
In December 2009,
In a similar development,
The economic and
technology factor
According
to the logic of economic and technical consideration, the success of
Regarding
to the logic of economic calculations, it has been speculated that the UAE¡¯s
decision of offering the contract to South Korea at the cost of France was
based on strictly commercial terms because after all the Korean bid was some
$16 billion lower than the French group¡¯s bid[4].
But it is possible for counties like South Korea to sacrifice part of their
economic interests for other interests particularly if they are about some long
term strategic and national interests. This might be convincing in the case of
the deal to build a nuclear reactor for Jordan as well when the Koreans agree
to provide more than 50 percent of the costs through a government-sponsored
loan.
It
has also been argued that exporting nuclear energy technology or nuclear fuel
materials to the Middle East is just a business like exporting Hyundai cars or
Samsung computers. The reason behind this argument is that the Korean nuclear
energy technology has achieved significant progress in past decades and now the
nuclear energy-ambitious nations of the Middle East are willing to offer
contracts to the Koreans because they have enough confidence in Korean nuclear
technology and safety[5].
The East Asian country first introduced nuclear energy power in 1978 and now it
has some 20 nuclear reactors in operation. These reactors help the country to
rely on atomic energy for some 40 percent of its electricity needs. However,
because of the Korean government¡¯s sensitivity about the transfer of nuclear
technology and materials from a volatile and problematic Korean Peninsula to
yet another unstable region, it is highly unlikely that Seoul engages in
nuclear energy business for pure economic purposes.
Thinking energy security
in the Persian Gulf
At
the signing ceremony of the Korea-UAE¡¯s nuclear energy contract in Abu Dhabi,
the capital of the United Arab Emirates, on 27th December 2009,
President Lee Myung-bak said that the deal with the Arab country bolsters
energy security for Korea[6].
His counterpart, President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nayan also stated that
the deal marks a new stage of strategic partnership between the United Arab
Emirates and Korea. Such clear policy statements by the top political leaders
of both countries give this impression that the crucial strategic goals behind
the deal are more much important than its pure economic value.
Given
five decades of relationship between South Korea and the Middle East region and
the dominant pattern of business and bilateral interactions, obviously the
issue of energy has long played a leading role and it also continues to be
regarded as the main factor behind any strategic partnership between Seoul and
the energy producing countries of that region. In line with the main argument
of the research, the paramount importance of the energy issue has made the
Korean government to actively pursue a multifaceted diplomacy in the Middle
East countries which supply a significant part of Korea¡¯s energy needs.
Therefore, a recent trend among some of these nations to embark on a nuclear
energy program has provided Seoul a great opportunity to engage them and deepen
its long-term interests in that oil rich region.
In
the following, the research first evaluates the importance of energy for the
Korean economy during its course of fast development within the past five
decades. It then discusses the sensitive issue of energy security for South
Korea and how some challenges in recent years have seriously made the Korean
officials concerned about the prospects of a stable energy supply in long run
pushing them to approach the oil producing nations in the Middle East more than
before.
Energy and the Korean
economy
The
Korean Peninsula is not really endowed with sufficient natural resources and
ironically the north part of the peninsula is far richer in natural resources
than the south part. For this reason, even during the Japanese colonial rule
from 1910 to 1945 the north was turned into the center for mining and industry
while the south, for its warmer climate and a better rate of rainfall, had to
serve as an agricultural center dominated by the production of rice. Contrary
to this odd background, however, the political establishment in Seoul embarked
on an ambitious program of industrialization and economic development in the
early 1960s making it unavoidable to look somewhere out of the peninsula for
necessary raw materials, among them fossil fuels.
As
a country with no considerable energy resources, South Korea had to rely on
imported resources to fuel its fast developing economy. Since the
transformation of the country from an agrarian economy to an industrialized one
had to be based almost entirely on imported energy resources, South Korea¡¯s
energy imports gradually increased from about 10 percent in 1964 to more than
90 percent by 1991[7]. Only
in the period between 1987 and 1995, Korea¡¯s oil demand increased by 20 percent
annually. South Korea became the world¡¯s tenth biggest energy consumer by 2007
and the country became the fifth largest importer of crude oil and the second
biggest importer of both coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG) by last October[8].
Part of this huge energy dependency stems from the fact that the Korean economy
is significantly more energy intensive than any other country in the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As the South
Korean economy concentrated on rapid growth, its energy-intensive industries
such as shipbuilding, petrochemicals, cement and auto consume a bulk of the
energy the country imports. For instance, South Korea requires almost twice as
much as energy as Japan for every $1 million of manufacturing output[9].
One crucial characteristic of Korea¡¯s energy import is that the country has
long relied on the petroleum exported from the Middle East. The country¡¯s
dependence on crude oil imports from the region was as high as 99 percent in
1980 and despite serious steps to diversify its sources of supply the amount of
such dependency was still as about 74 percent in 1992[10]
and nearly 75 percent in 2009. Last year, the top three oil exporters to South
Korea were Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait supplying 27 percent,
14 percent and 13 percent of the country¡¯s oil imports, respectively.
Compared to petroleum, Korea¡¯s pattern of gas
import is more dramatic as the country stands right behind Japan as the second
biggest importer of LNG in the world. Domestic gas production in South Korean
accounts for something less than two percent of total consumption and the East
Asian country imports more than 98 percent of its natural gas needs which has
almost doubled over the past decade from about 600 billion cubic feet in 1999
to more than 1,200 billion cubic feet in 2009. Here the Middle East also plays
an important role because it provides a big part of Korea¡¯s natural gas imports
with Qatar and Oman supplying 32 percent and 17 percent of its natural gas
consumption, respectively[11].
Just
like its low share of gas resources, South Korea has some 150 million short
tons (MMst) of recoverable coal reserves and there for it stands as the second
biggest importer of coal in the world after Japan, but the majority of its
imported coal is supplied by Australia and Indonesian. However, South Korea has
come a long way to hold the world¡¯s sixth-highest nuclear generation capacity
since its first nuclear plant was completed in 1978 and the country is now
aiming to produce nearly half of its power supply from nuclear sources by 2020.
The emerging status of South Korea for being a global leader in the field of
nuclear technology has encouraged the officials in Seoul to use their technical
knowhow as an effective instrument for achieving energy security particularly
in the region where a bulk of the country¡¯s energy needs is imported from.
Korea¡¯s recent nuclear energy deal with the United Arab Emirates could not get
anywhere without such considerations.
The challenge of energy
security
In
a country with poor energy resources, the issue of energy security has long
been a primary concern for the Korean government. More importantly, the
country¡¯s over dependency on a single region (the Middle East) for crude oil
imports made Korean policy makers more much concerned forcing them to explore
alternatives to reduce such dependency. Diversification of import sources was
one of the early solutions and Seoul sought to increase imports from Southeast
Asia, Africa and Latin America. However, such step only provided a small
portion of Korea¡¯s total energy consumption and the country still had to import
more than two-third of its crude imports from the Middle East[12].
Furthermore, building up its own strategic oil reserve and struggling to obtain
equity stakes in foreign energy exploration and production were among other
measures Seoul took to overcome its sense of energy insecurity. In addition to
importing more natural gas at the cost of petroleum, enhancing the country¡¯s
capabilities to produce energy from nuclear technology became a pillar of Korean
efforts to achieve energy security. But all these measures were short of giving
enough assurance for energy security in long run particularly because there
were some important matters influencing Korea¡¯s energy security to a great deal
that the country had actually no control upon them.
Basically,
oil and gas are not merely economic products to be governed only by the market
principle of supply and demand. Instead, they are among few strategic
commodities which involve political and security issues in addition to economic
considerations. That is why in the decades following the Second World War,
global competition for energy resources in different regions has often led to
very important international events including military conflicts.
However,
most of these external events did little to harm an enough supply of energy to
South Korea and even the two oil shocks of 1973 and 1980 had a short term
impact on the performance of the Korean economy. Generally, from the end of the
World War II until the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990 the world oil
market was more or less favorable to the Korean economy in one way to another.
With the Asian financial crisis not only Seoul¡¯s demand for energy imports
decreases, at least temporarily, more attentions are diverted to the rise of
new global powerhouses with huge energy demands. In short, in the post Asian
financial crisis period the subject of energy security for Korean officials is
mainly obsessed with three key issues including the emergence of new giant energy
consumers, Sino-Japanese duopoly in the Middle East and its impact on the fate
of energy tankers exported from that region, and the energy cost of an eminent
unified Korea. These issues are discussed further in the subsequent sections.
The emergence of new
energy consumers
Over
the past decade, the world has witnessed the rise of particularly three fast
developing countries including China, India and Brazil which their combined
populations account for more than one third of the world¡¯s citizens. A serious
commitment to industrialization and economic development in these countries has
raised this question for many small to middle sized energy-dependent powers
like South Korea on how to cope with the outcome of these giants¡¯ ever
increasing thirst for the world¡¯s energy resources. Because of the geographical
proximity, the size of population and territory and the pattern of energy
imports, the rise of China and India and its implications on the world¡¯s energy
equations have made the matter of energy security more critical for the
officials in Seoul.
According
to the calculations made by the Asian Development Bank, the income elasticity
of oil consumption has historically been about 0.5, so that each one percent
economic growth translates into 0.5 percent growth in oil consumption[13].
It is estimated that under the current trends of economic growth, China and
India combined will account for more than one-third of world GDP and about one
quarter of the globe¡¯s total energy consumption by 2020[14].
Moreover, since the increasing demand for oil is mainly stemming from the
expansion of the transportation sector, the popularity of car ownership and the
rise of motor vehicles on the road in both China and India, as it has been the
case over the past decade, will dramatically complicate the picture of oil
demands in coming years.
In
the period between 1992 and 2005, China went from oil self-sufficiency to
dependence on petroleum imports for more than one-third of its consumption.
China also surpassed Japan in 2004 as the world¡¯s number two oil importer and
it is now the second largest energy consumer in the globe as well[15].
The same as China, India has limited reserves and relatively flat domestic
production and therefore it has to rely on foreign imports for roughly 70 percent
of its total oil consumption. Although India¡¯s dependence on petroleum imports
will grow in a slower pace compared to China, New Delhi like China will still
grow more dependent on foreign oil in coming years.
The
Middle East remains the top provider of China¡¯s crude oil imports. For
instance, China imported some 4 million bpd of crude oil in 2009, of which
approximately 50 percent supplied from the Middle East region. China also
imported the first shipment of LNG in 2006 and Beijing has quickly ramped up
its gas imports since then. In the case of India, the country imports nearly 70
percent of its crude oil from the Middle East, primarily from Saudi Arabia
followed by Iran, and the government in New Delhi expects that this
geographical oil dependency to rise because of limited prospects for domestic
production. In 2009, India was the sixth largest net importer of oil in the
world, importing nearly 2.1 million bpd or about 70 percent of its oil
consumption. It is predicted that India¡¯s demand for natural gas will go up in
coming years too.
Sino-Japanese
duopoly in the Persian Gulf
The
nature and scope of both Japan and China¡¯s relationship with the Middle East
has truly been transformed in recent years. Although trade in energy resources
has been the backbone of Sino-Japanese relations with the Mideast, over the
past decade their presence in the region has increasingly become multi-faceted
involving crucial diplomatic initiatives, significant economic ties and even
certain military contacts. Today, Japanese and Chinese
companies are engaged in a web of economic activities in the Middle East
ranging from trade to real estate and from finance to tourism.
On
one side, governments in both Tokyo and Beijing have seriously sponsored and
supported key projects and lucrative commercial deals in the Middle East and
they have also encouraged the private sector of their countries to actively
participate in such economic activities there. On the other side, governments
in the Middle East particularly the oil producing countries of the Persian Gulf
awash with cash have vowed in recent years to diversify their petroleum-based
economies and invest abundant oil incomes in infrastructure, IT, finance and
education. Such new directions in the economies of these countries have further
created opportunities for Chinese and Japanese companies to increase their
presence and activities in that region.
Considering
Sino-Middle East partnership, it is worth to note that until the early 1990s
China did not actually seek any serious involvement in the region¡¯s political
or economic affairs. It started to craft an aggressive Middle East policy when
became a net oil importer in 1993, and since then its expanding
multidimensional engagement in the region has been remarkable indeed. Chin is
now the largest exporter to the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
and it has also made securing a free trade agreement (FTA) with the GCC a high
priority as Beijing¡¯s demand for energy and row material imports is growing
quickly. The volume of trade between China and the GCC has been increased more
than 10-fold to about $60 billion in the past decade and their bilateral trade
is expected to more than triple to at least $350 billion over the next decade[16].
Where it comes to Iran, the engagement of more than 100 Chinese companies has
touched almost every single aspect of the country¡¯s economy from infrastructure
projects such as constructing airport, dam and subway to trade and tourism.
Chinese companies have aggressively grabbed any
single opportunity to expand their market presence and investment opportunities
throughout the Middle East, particularly the Persian Gulf region. Chinese firms
have been able to win the bids for several mega projects in oil and gas
development in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. China¡¯s significant investments in
some of these projects have been guided by some geopolitical motivations and
strategic calculations. It has also enjoyed from been considered a favored
destination for strategic investments by petroleum exporting countries in the
Middle East either as a safe place to invest their sovereign wealth funds in
Chinese banks or just to build refineries on Chinese soil[17].
Contrary
to China¡¯s late engagement in the Middle East affairs, Japan made some attempts
to develop its Middle East foreign policy after the first oil shock of 1973.
However, Japan still kept a low profile presence in the region for another two
more decades, though the characteristic and extent of its interactions with the
Middle East was no longer the same as the pre 1973 oil shock period. But the
post-Cold War political developments in the Persian Gulf and more importantly
the rising Chinese stakes in the region made the Japanese policy makers to
seriously worry about a stable supply of energy from the region in the long run
and they were consequently forced to seriously review Tokyo¡¯s Middle East
policy.
Over the past decade, the level of Japanese
involvement in the Middle East affairs including economic relations, active
political involvement and cultural exchanges has been unprecedented. To deepen
its engagement with the region, Tokyo has also held several rounds of
negotiations with GCC countries over a FTA since 2006. Currently, GCC is
Japan¡¯s fourth largest trading partner by region. Japan not only has encouraged
the flowing of a significant portion of the Arabs¡¯ oil money into Tokyo, it has
even gone far to offer them to freely use the far eastern country¡¯s oil reserve
bases to store their oil either to cut the cost of shipping petroleum to Asia
or simply to have enough oil in time of emergency[18].
In
short, the growing interests of both China and Japan in the Middle East over
the past two decades has in fact flamed serious rivalry among them in that
region. Such rivalry was quite obvious when they sought to outbid each other to
secure the outstanding contract to develop the Azadegan oil field in Iran. In
fact, the Chinese political-military power and the Japanese
financial-technological muscle left other new comers to the Middle East like
South Korea very vulnerable to guard against their vested interests in the
region. However, Korea¡¯s nuclear energy contract with the UAE last year could
be considered as a crack in the Sino-Japanese duopoly in the Mideast. Moreover,
new some directions of the oil producing countries in the Persian Gulf region
towards India and members of ASEAN particularly Malaysia and Indonesia is
expected to further widen the crack in coming years.
The energy
cost of a unified Korea
The
International Energy Agency (IEA) has predicted that Korea¡¯s total primary
energy supply requirement is expected to increase by some 37 percent during the
period between 2006 and 2020. However, an imminent Korean unification scenario
would further complicate Korea¡¯s quest for necessary energy needs because the
peninsula¡¯s energy demand will increase dramatically then[19].
Therefore, predicting the approximate energy needs and drafting the related
plans to assure a stable supply of enough energy remains one of Korea¡¯s most
important strategic calculations for a unified peninsula in the future.
A unified Korea¡¯s dramatic energy rise could be
attributed mainly to two factors. First, reunification means the implementation
of a serious economic development in the north part of the peninsula through
pouring considerable financial and technological resources. In fact, any
committed development and reconstruction plan extending to every aspect of the
economy from carrying out infrastructure projects to producing manufacturing
goods will not get anywhere quickly without consuming significant amount of
energy resources. According to some views, unification and the following
economic reconstruction program will certainly ramp up the peninsula¡¯s energy
demand to level similar to those the south experienced during the 1980s[20].
In this line of argument, the very optimistic prediction of a unified Korea as
the world¡¯s second largest economy in 2050 right behind China will not be
realized without an expensive energy bill[21].
Second,
though North Korea possesses some natural resources, mines in particular, it
doesn¡¯t have any oil or considerable gas fields. The country has experienced a
severe energy crisis since the early 1990s forcing the country¡¯s factories to
work much below their average capacity. During the past two decades, a bulk of
North Korea¡¯s energy needs including crude oil has been supplied by China but
it will no longer be the case under a unified Korea, making the provision of
basic energy requirements for the northern part of the peninsula an additional
burden to Seoul when it will start to transform the economic situation and life
style there.
Nuclear energy diplomacy
for energy security
Korea¡¯s recent energy security policy has been
based on this assumption that old notions of energy security and conventional
methods to achieve them may no longer apply in today¡¯s growing global
competition for energy. Although securing a stable and steady access to and
supply of necessary row materials particularly oil has long been a pillar of
the country¡¯s foreign policy, the present Korean administration has made energy
security a primary national agenda in recent years and it has also drafted new
action plans under the guise of energy diplomacy. The seriousness of this
energy diplomacy was tested when the government used political persuasion to
lock the nuclear energy deal with the United Arab Emirates. During the tough
negotiation process, the Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, personally supervised
the project and he even travelled all the way to Abu Dhabi to finally attend
the signing ceremony of the deal he later called the ¡°heaven-sent national
fortune¡±[22].
In line with the county¡¯s new energy policy, the
Korean government has tried in recent years to cultivate a multilayered presence
in the Middle East, a region with plenty of petroleum and gas resources. It has
persuaded a policy of changing the nature of some bilateral ties in the region
from a short-term economic relationship to a sort of long-term strategic
partnership. For instance, in the following months after signing the nuclear
deal with the UAE, the Korean government decided to dispatch a contingent of
some 150 combat troops to the Arab country for a period of two years insisting
that the mission will promote national interests and expand military and
economic ties with the third largest oil exporter in the world. However, many
observers, among them the main opposition party in the Korean parliament,
connect the mission to the country¡¯s nuclear deal with the UAE[23].
Signing
nuclear energy contracts with the Middle East countries could have significant
implications for South Korea¡¯s foreign policy towards the region and separate
bilateral ties. Engaging in such a sensitive business changes the nature of the
East Asian nation¡¯s interactions with the region from a pure importer of
hydrocarbon energies to an exporter of nuclear energy and the related
technologies. Unlike many of Korea¡¯s previous construction projects in the
Mideast, nuclear energy projects are relatively a long-term contract. In the
case of UAE¡¯s nuclear deal, the joint cooperation to operate and maintain the
reactors will last for 60 years and such a time may provide enough
opportunities to cement the foundation of a multifaceted relationship with a
top oil exporter.
Finally,
going nuclear for the oil rich countries in the Middle East is obviously about
strategic energy positioning as its application for electricity and other
peaceful purposes will free more petroleum and gas to export particularly in a
time when the demand for energy keeps soaring and the price even more. Helping
nuclear energy projects in the Middle East by energy dependent countries such
as South Korea is actually a wise long-term investment to assure the supply of
enough energy resources from the region.
Conclusion
This
paper has attempted to study the relationship between
The
research also highlights the increasing importance of nuclear energy in both
developed and developing countries. Many advanced countries have already
applied nuclear technology partially as an alternative and cost-effective
energy to fossil fuels and consequently have decreased their imported energy
bill and reduced damages to the environment. The successful application of
nuclear energy technology in developed countries has also tempted some
developing countries, even the oil rich countries of the
The research also shows that the nuclear
technology in developed countries may serve them both as a short-term fuel for
domestic needs and an effective export item to assure energy security in the
long run. This is obviously the main goal of
[1]. The Chosunilbo,
28 December 2009, ¡°KEPCO Clinches Mega Nuclear Plant Deal with UAE,¡± [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/12/28/2009122800238.html]
[2]. Economist
Intelligence Unit, 2010, The GCC in 2020: Resources for the future,
[http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/eb/GCC_in_2020_Resources_WEB.pdf]
[3]. Kim,
Hyun-cheol, 30 March 2010, ¡°South Koreato Export Nuke Research Reactor to
Jordan,¡± The Korea Times, [http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2010/04/123_63267.html]
[4]. Bakr,
Amena and Mee-young, Cho, 27 December 2009, ¡°South South Korea wins landmark
Gulf nuclear power deal,¡± Reuters, [http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BQ05O20091227]
[5]. Luck,
Taylor, 31 March 2010, ¡°Kingdom, S. South Korea sign deal on nuclear research
reactor,¡± The Jordan Times, [http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=25329]
[6].
Coker, Margaret, 28 December 2010, ¡°Korean Team to Build U.A.E Nuclear Plants,¡±
The Wall Street Journal, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704905704574621653002992302.html]
[7].
International Energy Agency (IEA), 1992, Energy Policies of the Republic of
Korea: 1992 Survey, Paris: OECD/IEA, pp.16-17.
[8].
Energy Information Administration, October 2010, South Korea Energy Data,
Statistics and Analysis: Oil, Gas, Electricity, Coal,
[http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/South_Korea/pdf.pdf]
[9].
Manning, Robert A. 2000, The Asian Energy Factor: Myths and Dilemmas of Energy,
Security and the Pacific Future, New York: Palgrave, p.145.
[10].
Energy Policies of the Republic of Korea: 1992 Survey, ibid, p.23.
[11]. South
Korea Energy Data, Statistics and Analysis: Oil, Gas, Electricity, Coal, Ibid.
[12].
Manning, ibid, p. 163.
[13]. Asian
Development Bank, 2008, Asian Development Bank Outlook 2008 Update,
[http://www.adb.org/documents/books/ado/2008/Update/ado2008-update.pdf]
[14]. Li,
Minqi, 2007, ¡°Peak Oil, the Rise of China and India, and the Global Energy
Crisis¡±, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 37, No. 4 (November), pp. 449-471.
[15].
Ziegler, Charles E, 2006, ¡°The Energy Factor in China¡¯s Foreign Policy,¡±
Journal of Chinese Political Science,¡± Vol. 11, No. 2 (Spring), pp.1-23.
[16].
Arnold, Tom, 1 June 2010, ¡°China makes top priority of free-trade deal with
Gulf,¡± The National, [http://www.thenational.ae/business/china-makes-top-priority-of-free-trade-deal-with-gulf]
[17]. For
instance, transferring oil deposits by the Iranian government from European
banks to banks in China or building a $5 billion refinery by Kuwaiti investors
in Guangdong Province.
[18]. The
Japan Times, 8 May 2007, ¡°Grand strategy for the Middle East.¡± [http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20070508a1.html]
[19]. Kwon,
O. Yul, 24 November 2010, ¡°South
Korea¡¯s approach to energy and resource security,¡± Australian Strategic Policy Institute, [http://www.aspi.org.au/research/spf_article.aspx?aid=84]
[20].
Manning, ibid, p. 167.
[21].
Global Times, 24 June 2010, ¡°Unification: Benefits Outweigh Price¡±, [http://special.globaltimes.cn/2010-06/545245.html]
[22]. Woo,
Jaeyeon, 29 December 2009, ¡°U.A.E. Deal Caps Big Sales Push,¡± The Wall Street Journal, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704134104574623934045786504.html]
[23]. Song, Sang-ho, 9 November 2010, ¡°Cabinet approves UAE troop dispatch,¡± The Korea Herald, [http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20101109000786]