Nation should redefine 21st-century military spirit
“The Bible,” “Il Principe,” “Ulysses,” “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and “Dr. Zhivago.” What do these classics have in common? They were all once forbidden books but became global best sellers later, showing the censorship of literary works reflects the limitation of a specific society in a specific era.
And this explains why we feel quite bitter with a lower court’s decision Thursday that upheld the military’s 2008 ban on 23 ``rebellious” books as lawful.
The Seoul Central District Court ruled that under the military code of conduct, the defense minister can ban service members from reading and possessing books, pictures and other printed materials if the content is deemed ``seditious.” It then dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that the prohibition infringed on the freedom of expression and basic rights.
We can understand but can never agree with the ruling. Its reasoning seems to have taken into account the nature of the special group named the military as well as the situation facing it ― confrontation with one of the world’s most belligerent forces, North Korea. Even so, it was a badly flawed decision in many ways, not correcting but defending the government’s undemocratic, anachronistic and ineffective move.
Above all, the court didn’t even bother to define what is ``rebellious” or ``seditious,” saying it was not a major point of concern in the case. It was jurisprudence only for the sake of jurisprudence ― more frankly sophistry ― which neglected the simple truth that legal principle should also be based on common sense. How can one justify others’ act without considering their underlying assumption?
The defense ministry termed the 23 books as anti-government, anti-U.S. and anti-capitalist. We can’t understand why anti-government, let alone anti-U.S., should be synonymous to anti-state. Do military leaders think all people who don’t like the current government and America are traitors?
One of the more controversial cases was ``Bad Samaritans,” a best-selling economics book written by Prof. Chang Ha-joon of Cambridge University. Yet the book in question is not against capitalism but against economic neo-liberalism. He criticized the idolatry of the market and called for proper doses of governmental regulation, praising the economic policies of former President Park Chung-hee. Does the military think the builder of the Korean economy and the conservatives’ icon was anti-U.S. and anti-capitalist?
It was ironic, albeit predictable, that other titles on the blacklist, many of which hadn’t have drawn much public attention, became instant best sellers as ``must-read” books among Koreans, including soldiers on furlough.
A conservative daily praised the court’s ruling as preventing the erosion of ``spiritual combat power” by this ``dangerous” literature, which leads one to a series of questions. In this 21st century Korea where a majority of service members are college students or graduates, will their esprit de corps strengthen or weaken by their superiors’ telling them which books to read or not? Why do many young Koreans regard two years of mandatory armed service as a wasteful period that makes them go backward like unthinking robots? Which is more effective in dealing with an authoritarian adversary ― control or freedom?
The defense ministry at least should have presented plausible criteria in selecting the blacklist lest they give the impression of treating soldiers ― equal citizens only in uniform ― as pawns of the government.
By all appearances, the prohibition was a highly politicized move by the military leadership to win the favor of the Lee Myung-bak administration troubled by the anti-government, anti-U.S. and anti-neo-liberalism protest sparked by its decision to import U.S. beef four years ago.
Which is why we think the ban ― and the ruling that forgot the judiciary branch’s foremost duty of protecting citizens’ freedom from the arbitrary government power ― should come to a close with the end of this specific administration.
Some say we Koreans must not ignore the reality facing the nation. But reality is something that people should make and improve, not an excuse they resort to as a means of justifying wrong.
We hope future courts will be more reasonable and less politicized.
