South Korea eyes further negotiations as US sets new tariff deadline
After the White House's announcement of steep tariff hikes on 14 countries, South Korea looked to Washington for further negotiations, hoping to blunt the impact before the measures take effect in about a month.
Unveiling a new deadline of Aug. 1, which had previously been July 8, the letter signed by US President Donald Trump indicated that most South Korean goods entering the US will be charged a tariff of 25 percent, though that rate would not stack on top of sector-specific tariffs — such as for cars, auto parts and steel products, among others — according to Trump's posts on Truth Social on Monday.
The letter also indicated that the White House would "perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter," adding the tariff rate may be "modified."
Seoul interpreted the letter as conveying Washington's willingness to continue negotiations until the delayed deadline.
Kim Yong-beom, director of national policy for President Lee Jae Myung, said in a contingency meeting he convened that Seoul was able to buy more time for tariff talks, adding Washington's letter did not translate into an immediate tariff hike.
According to the presidential office, Kim also said that the importance of serving the national interest outweighs that of reaching a deal swiftly.
The meeting was attended by Ha Joon-kyung, senior presidential secretary for economic growth, Oh Hyun-joo, third deputy director of national security, and Yoon Sung-hyuk, presidential secretary for industrial policy, as well as vice ministers of the Industry Ministry, Finance Ministry and Foreign Ministry.
Lee's spokesperson Kang Yu-jung's remarks echoed Kim's statement.
"We find it significant to have secured a new negotiation deadline of Aug. 1," she said. "We regret the outcome in some aspects, but considering the time constraints since (Lee) took office, we believe that we have avoided the worst-case scenario of a US tariff hike."
She added that Seoul will continue to push to swiftly address trade tariff uncertainties.
"We hope that we can make better results during the period of negotiations we obtained," she said.
Asked about the chances that a Lee-Trump summit could take place before the Aug. 1 deadline, Kang said the schedule for the summit was being coordinated, without further elaboration.
Earlier Tuesday, the presidential office said that Wi Sung-lac, director of the National Security Office, met with his US counterpart Marco Rubio in Washington on Monday and expressed South Korea's desire to advance negotiations based on the spirit of their alliance. Rubio currently doubles as the US secretary of state and White House national security adviser.
Wi also expressed hopes to Rubio that a summit between Lee and Trump could take place shortly.
The White House broadly expressed agreement with Wi's sentiment, according to the presidential office.
Lee, who convened a Cabinet meeting at his office Tuesday, did not bring up the US tariff notification letter, according to Kang.
Along with the South Korean president, leaders of Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Serbia, South Africa, Thailand and Tunisia also received similar letters.
Lee's office, meanwhile, is reportedly considering dispatching seasoned politician Kim Chong-in and Reps. Lee Un-ju and Kim Woo-young as special envoys to the US.
Concerning this matter, Woo Sang-ho, senior presidential secretary for political affairs, said Monday that a US special envoy "is not designed to touch on specific agenda of the parties' countries," but added it could be more desirable to capitalize on "both formal and informal relations, rather than moving through a single channel, for US tariff negotiations."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
4 hours ago
- Korea Herald
How Seoul's call to hold Japan to account was silenced at UNESCO
21-member UNESCO committee backed Japan over Korea, 7 to 3 South Korea lost its bid to spotlight Japan's longstanding failure to fulfill its promise to address its historical enslavement of Koreans at locations now listed as World Heritage sites, after losing a UNESCO vote Monday. The result was a stinging setback that exposed Seoul's limited sway at UNESCO, as well as UNESCO's lukewarm attitude to Seoul's pursuit of historical justice. For the first time, South Korea and Japan confronted each other in a formal vote at Monday's session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in Paris, over a historical dispute stemming from Japan's colonial rule of Korea from 1910 to 1945. Seoul's position was simple: Japan's failure to fulfill the commitments it made a decade ago in 2015 — when 23 sites from Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution were added to UNESCO's World Heritage List — should be addressed within the UNESCO platform. During the session, the South Korean government delegation pointed out that the Industrial Heritage Information Center in Tokyo, which opened in March 2020, focused solely on glorifying Japan's industrial achievements during the Meiji era (1868–1912), while neglecting the colonial-era history of forced labor involving Koreans. 'The materials on display still failed to reflect the experiences of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions in the 1940s. This is not a minor omission — it silences the lived realities that official narratives too often exclude,' Ha Wie-young, the representative of the South Korean government delegation, said in English during the session. 'We also believe this discussion serves the World Heritage system. Interpretation shapes how heritage is understood, and thoughtful, historically grounded approaches are vital to upholding the Convention's credibility and relevance.' Seven of 23 sites, including coal mines on Hashima Island, also known as Battleship Island, are locations where numerous Koreans were forcibly mobilized and subjected to harsh conditins during Japan's colonial rule over Korea from 1910 to 1945. Seoul's last-ditch efforts During the session, the Korean government delegation made last-ditch efforts to persuade other members of the WHC, taking the floor six additional times ahead of the vote to underscore the legitimacy of revisiting Japan's unfulfilled pledge at UNESCO. In contrast, the Japanese delegation remained silent throughout the debate, speaking only once during its opening statement. Takehiro Kano, a representative from the Japanese delegation, argued that Japan's unfulfilled commitments had 'nothing to do with Outstanding Universal Value,' and maintained that bilateral dialogue between Korea and Japan — outside UNESCO — was the most appropriate way forward. 'Unlike in previous decisions, the World Heritage Committee did not request Japan to submit a State of Conservation report for examination by the World Heritage Committee, thus concluding the discussion," Japanese Ambassador to UNESCO Kano said during the session. Ha, from the Foreign Ministry in Seoul, immediately responded, 'My distinguished colleague from Japan just mentioned that we are trying to reopen this case. However, to the best of my knowledge, this case has never been closed.' Expected but bitter defeat South Korea initially proposed discussing the issue during the session of the World Heritage Committee that kicked off Monday. Japan later submitted an amendment to exclude the issue from discussion, which was eventually put to a vote. However, of the 21 World Heritage Committee members, only three supported South Korea's position, while seven backed Japan's amendment. Eight countries submitted blank ballots, and three were deemed invalid. With just six votes required for adoption under majority rule, Japan's proposal passed, effectively blocking further discussion of its unfulfilled commitments. South Korea's defeat at UNESCO was not entirely unexpected, especially given the structural imbalance of power between Seoul and Tokyo within UNESCO. South Korea ranks 14th in overall financial contributions to UNESCO. Japan ranks third — behind only the United States and China — with around $91.7 million pledged for the 2024–2025 period as of the first quarter this year, compared to South Korea's $31.9 million. This funding gap highlights the limits of Seoul's leverage in key decision-making processes within the institution. The latest session laid bare that disparity. The South Korean government delegation had to ask the same question multiple times — whether the matter of Japan's unfulfilled commitments had been formally concluded — as UNESCO officials initially avoided giving a clear answer. "I haven't heard anything about my first question, so again: has this case ever been closed? My delegation would like to know what we are trying to do here,' Ha said. "It's a simple question.' Korea's voice unheard Lazare Eloundou Assomo, director of the World Heritage Center, offered a procedural explanation that effectively echoed Japan's claim that Tokyo's failure to fulfill its historical pledge did not warrant further review at the current committee session. The director explained that the issue is not a threat to a World Heritage site and not a threat to its Outstanding Universal Value and integrity and authenticity of the sites under UNESCO mechanisms. 'The conclusion of the review did not conclude to take the site back to its status of conservation ... for examination by the World Heritage Committee, and this is what both the Secretariat and ICOMOS have concluded and communicated officially,' he said. 'So, I hope this time I have been clear.' In a somewhat cynical tone, Ernesto Ottone Ramirez, assistant director-general for Culture at UNESCO, responded, "Just to add: We are not a tribunal — there is no case. We don't discuss cases; we discuss inscriptions and state of conservation." Ottone Ramirez went on to say that 'it would take eight months to have this meeting' if the Committee were to review all 1,223 properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. 'That's the answer. So it's not a yes or no — and you know that very well.'
Korea Herald
4 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Hanwha Ocean wins US Navy ship maintenance deal
Hanwha Ocean Co., a major South Korean shipbuilder, has secured a contract to provide maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services for the US Navy ship Charles Drew, industry sources said Tuesday. The company won the US Navy's regular MRO project for the Charles Drew, a dry cargo and ammunition ship assigned to the Navy's 7th Fleet, the sources said. The non-combat vessel is expected to arrive at Hanwha Ocean's Geoje shipyard, about 330 kilometers southeast of Seoul, later this month and be delivered back to the US Navy by the end of the year. This marks the third time Hanwha has won an MRO project for a US Navy vessel. In August last year, it became the first South Korean shipbuilder to secure such a contract, for the Navy's logistics support ship Wally Schirra. In November, it also won an MRO deal for the replenishment oiler Yukon. (Yonhap)
Korea Herald
8 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Samsung heirs sell Seoul villa for W22.8b to help pay record inheritance tax bill
The heirs of the late Samsung Group chairman Lee Kun-hee have sold a luxury property in central Seoul for 22.8 billion won, or about $16.7 million, in what appears to be part of a broader effort to pay South Korea's largest-ever inheritance tax bill. According to data from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's official property transaction database, the sale was finalized on June 13. Court registry records confirm that the villa, located in the Itaewon neighborhood of Yongsan district, was jointly owned by Lee's widow Hong Ra-hee, honorary director of the Leeum Museum of Art, and their three children: Lee Jae-yong, executive chairman of Samsung Electronics, Lee Boo-jin, president of Hotel Shilla, and Lee Seo-hyun, president of Samsung C&T's fashion division. The buyer is believed to be a private-sector entrepreneur. As of now, the property title has not been formally transferred. The residence sits on 1,073 square meters of land and spans about 497 square meters in total floor area across three levels. The late Lee purchased the home in 2010 for approximately 8.28 billion won. The recent sale price marks a 175 percent increase, averaging roughly 70 million won per pyeong, a traditional Korean land measure equivalent to 3.3 square meters. It is located near a cluster of high-end homes informally known as the 'Samsung family town.' Following Lee Kun-hee's death in October 2020, the property was divided among the four family members in May 2021. The widow Hong received a one-third stake, while each of the three children received two-ninths. Although the home was not publicly listed, reports suggest the family began exploring a sale earlier this year. The timing aligns with a larger financial strategy the Samsung heirs have pursued since inheriting an estimated 26 trillion won in assets from Lee's estate. Under South Korean tax law, roughly 12 trillion won in inheritance taxes is owed, an unprecedented amount. The family is paying it over six years through a government-approved installment plan. Since 2021, the heirs have taken various steps to meet their tax obligations. These include selling shares in Samsung affiliates and securing loans using stock as collateral. The recent property sale is one of the more tangible examples of asset liquidation tied to this effort. This is not the first Itaewon villa the family has sold. In 2023, they finalized the sale of another nearby property also inherited from Lee. That home had been quietly listed in 2021 for 21 billion won. It changed hands the following year, though the final sale price was not disclosed. Like the latest sale, the property had been originally purchased by Lee in 2010. South Korea's inheritance tax, among the highest in the OECD, has a top rate of 50 percent, which increases to 60 percent when company shares are transferred with management control rights. It's a structure that disproportionately impacts family-run conglomerates like Samsung. The tax was first introduced under President Park Chung Hee in the 1960s as part of broader efforts to institutionalize state control over wealth and curb excessive accumulation during the country's rapid industrialization.
