The controversy surrounding Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power’s (KHNP) agreement with U.S.-based Westinghouse signed in January to pursue a Czech nuclear project, has become a political flashpoint.

The ruling Democratic Party has labeled it a “surrender of nuclear sovereignty.” Such rhetoric, however, is both exaggerated and potentially damaging.

With the Korea-U.S. summit set for August 25, where nuclear cooperation will be a central agenda item, reckless debate could jeopardize a historic opportunity: entry into the 3,000 trillion won ($2.1 trillion) U.S. nuclear power market. Losing this chance to partisan strife would be a national loss.

It is true that the deal is not without flaws. But dismissing it outright as a mistake oversimplifies the situation.

Korea’s nuclear industry has long depended on Westinghouse’s original technology, which requires U.S. approval for every export. The contract’s commitments—paying $175 million per reactor in technology fees and purchasing $650 million worth of equipment—reflect this reality.

Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan has already described the deal as a “legitimate contract.” While some criticize granting Westinghouse priority in U.S. and European markets, outcomes depend on cooperation strategies and business models, not on the agreement alone.

The context also matters.

Since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the U.S. nuclear ecosystem has effectively collapsed, and Westinghouse’s construction capacity has weakened.

KHNP, with its proven strength in reactor construction and operation, is therefore a critical partner.

Reports suggest the two firms are considering a joint venture to build new reactors in the U.S., where the government plans 300 new plants over the next 25 years. For Korea, this represents not just survival of its nuclear sector but a chance for transformative growth.

This is why the issue demands careful handling.

Political actors should refrain from inflaming sentiment and instead approach nuclear cooperation as a matter of national strategy.

The details of the agreement were already published in Maeil Business Newspaper in April, and reviving the controversy four months later risks being perceived as politically motivated.

At stake is not partisan gain but Korea’s long-term future in a global energy market. What is needed now is sober, mature judgment, not short-sighted political theater.

[ⓒ 매일경제 & mk.co.kr, 무단 전재, 재배포 및 AI학습 이용 금지]