By Mathias Specht
The problem of how to deal with conscientious objectors in Korea comes up on a somewhat regular basis, either triggered by the release of an unfavorable report by a human rights organization or, as in the most recent case, a law suit.
Since so far the outcome of these suits has been consistently opposing the right to object and it is hardly a surprise that seven out of nine judges of the Constitutional Court ruled against any form of alternative service at the end of August.
As a result, four young men have been sentenced to 18 months in prison as picking up arms conflicted with their beliefs. The fact that they were members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is insofar irrelevant as there are of course other conscience-based reasons to object to serving in an armed force, for instance pacifism.
As already hinted, Korea has been much criticized for its hard-line approach, most prominently by Amnesty International and the U.N. Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), both recognizing conscientious objection as a basic human right. Their criticism is well-grounded since Korea has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which while not explicitly mentioning the problem of conscientious objection has repeatedly been clarified by the UNHRC to secure this right in its article 18.
But beyond this, the fundamental question remains whether a democratic government should have the power to force citizens to perform actions that conflict with their own conscience. The Constitutional Court seems convinced that this is the case as it stated in its latest ruling that securing military manpower, sharing military duty equally and keeping national security are public interests that override individual freedom.
While there arguably are issues where freedom of choice ought to be limited and the government mandating citizens to pay road tax, recycle trash, or send their children to school, is understandable even for dyed in the wool libertarians, I would challenge that military service is one of them.
However, I base my opinion less on the magnitude of common interest as the Constitutional Court does but rather on the gravity of consequences of an individual’s decision to potentially engage in armed combat.
In fact, this is a prime example of a situation in which one’s conscience ought to be used to discern what is right and what is wrong. A simple government order is not sufficient to relieve a person of this responsibility. This view is also in line with the Nuremberg Principles, which have been used to define war crimes, stating that as long as moral choices are possible, individuals are accountable for their own actions, ordered or not.
These principles of course take their name after the trials that took place at the end of the Second World War in Germany, which itself later allowed alternative services in its reformed Bundeswehr until mandatory conscription was abolished in 2011.
Despite giving this option, it should be noted that Germany did not suffer from a shortage of manpower in the armed forced and with regards to social equality, I would personally argue that it benefited society as well. Namely, in the sense of reducing social tension revolving around the issue of serving in the army ― a tension that is very noticeable in Korea, where people seem to feel very strongly about spending time in the military.
While Germany was arguably not facing as acute a military threat as South Korea is, I believe the decision to accommodate for conscientious objectors still remains a matter of principle, marking a decisive commitment to modern democratic values and the upholding of human rights.
Over the recent past Korea has made important steps in that same direction, for instance in the improved protection of the rights of migrant workers or the sheltering of children from physical harm inflicted on them in local schools.
I believe that Korea should continue on this modern and worthy path and that conscientious objection should be considered a basic right with meaningful alternatives in place that benefit society.
This is necessary not only to fulfill Korea’s international obligations, but also to honor those that made sacrifices or even gave their lives fighting for democracy not too long ago in this country.
The writer is an MBA graduate of Yonsei University and founder of the Korean company Stelence International. He is currently writing a book about Korea and can be reached at mathias@stelence.com.