Is the Government Truly Welcoming Korea Zinc’s Move to the U.S.? [Reporter’s Notebook]

The Government's Underlying Concerns Amid Fears of Strategic Minerals and Industrial Hollowing-Out

The government has issued relatively positive statements regarding Korea Zinc's investment in the United States. It has mentioned cooperation on the Korea-U.S. core mineral supply chain, securing production bases for strategic minerals within the U.S., and the significance from an economic security perspective. Overall, the investment is being evaluated as a "well-made decision."

However, there are hints that the government may have mixed feelings. Amid its controlled public stance, words like "management," "inspection," and "monitoring" have been repeatedly used. Recently, Industry Minister Kim Jeonggwan publicly mentioned "monitoring of overseas corporate investments" during a presidential work briefing, symbolizing this underlying sentiment.

In principle, overseas investment falls under the autonomous domain of companies. The government has also maintained this position so far. Nevertheless, the fact that it has chosen to use the term "monitoring" at this particular time reflects a shift in the nature of investments in the U.S. Unlike simple relocations of production bases in the past, now areas fundamental to industry, such as smelting and materials, are moving abroad.

Korea Zinc's business is even more sensitive. Zinc, lead, and silver, as well as key non-ferrous and strategic minerals like antimony, are no longer just industrial raw materials. Amid the global restructuring of supply chains, these resources are now considered core assets of economic security. With the U.S. elevating this sector as part of its national security strategy, can the Korean government simply welcome a leading domestic smelting company's large-scale investment in the U.S. without reservation?

The controversies surrounding Korea Zinc have heightened such concerns. After the announcement of its plan to invest in a U.S. smelter, worries about the hollowing out of domestic industry and disputes over investment procedures and corporate governance have emerged. The company explains that this is an inevitable choice to strengthen Korea-U.S. supply chain cooperation and enhance global competitiveness, but debates continue, as this involves a large-scale overseas relocation by a leading Korean smelting company handling strategic minerals.

Once smelting capabilities are transferred abroad, it is difficult to reverse, and this affects not only technology and personnel but also related industries in succession. This is likely why the government has chosen the word "management" over "support."

The government's remarks about monitoring overseas investments may also serve as a warning to companies currently planning such investments. The message is, "We respect your autonomy, but we can no longer remain hands-off." This is especially true in strategic industries such as core minerals. It is no coincidence that Korea Zinc was the first to be detected by the government's monitoring radar.

This controversy is not just about a single company. It is a test of what standards Korean industrial policy will set between global expansion and maintaining the domestic industrial base. Korea Zinc is simply the first company to raise that question.