By Kim Joon-hyung
Controversy seems to be growing over the amendment to the Development of Inter-Korean Relations Act aimed at imposing a ban on floating anti-North Korea leaflets across the border since its unilateral passage by the National Assembly last December.
Valid criticism and constructive debate for the resolution of issues are always welcome in the Republic of Korea, a democratic country. However, distortions disguised as such and entrapping them in a malicious frame should be firmly rejected.
The argument that the amended act limits freedom of expression, a basic principle of democracy, and is advantageous to North Korea is an example of malicious framing. Such groundless distortions abound in both South Korea and the United States.
In particular, I must refute the typically distorted view, criticizing the South Korean government and the ruling party for supporting the amendment and claiming that it is misleading to say the act is aimed at protecting people living near inter-Korean border areas.
This view states that although North Korea's Kim Yo-jong denounced the anti-North Korea leaflets in June, residents in the border area were safe because North Korea did not threaten them.
But this is not true ― North Korea's military fired anti-aircraft guns to shoot down balloons carrying anti-North Korea leaflets in 2014, and the South Korean military fired back, shaking up the residents in the area.
Before the amendment was enacted, there were no means of protection for the residents in cities near the border such as Paju, Ganghwa Island and Cheorwon, and so they acted to stop the leaflet distribution themselves. This is an existential threat.
Moreover, the Seoul government's stance is that the leaflets should be prohibited because they constitute a violation of an inter-Korean agreement, and are also a psychological warfare campaign against the North Korean regime.
The act should be called psychological warfare, not a human rights activity. Above all, it is a clearly distorted view that the amended Development of Inter-Korean Relations Act undermines freedom of expression.
South Korea is a country that believes in democracy, and the current government was born through a manifestation of the popular will, namely the "Candlelight Revolution." The South Korean government, along with its people, is proud of the country's democracy and will enforce the amended law in a way that does not go against both the intention of the law and freedom of expression.
It is ultimately not wrong for those in South Korea to say that it constitutes intervention in the internal affairs of Korea, in response to criticism by some sectors of the U.S. Nevertheless, it is not the essence of the issue, and it could entrap itself in the frame. The argument has led to a wrongful deeper frame ― a conflict between freedom of expression and interference in internal affairs.
Former U.S. Special Envoy to North Korea Robert Gallucci, who played a significant role in drawing up the Geneva Agreed Framework between the U.S. and North Korea, pointed this out accurately: "This (ban) is really not a matter of a free expression. Nobody's saying that South Koreans can't publish what they want to publish. It's a question of whether sending leaflets across the border is the right thing to do and that has to do with relations with North Korea, and war and peace."
It has been possible to criticize Kim Jong-un and set his portraits ablaze in South Korean territory, and this has indeed been done. South Korea does not stop anyone from criticizing President Moon Jae-in, be it in Gwanghwamun or Seocho-dong. This amended act has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
Now, the argument boils down to whether or not it is right to conduct psychological warfare against North Korea, and with it inevitably comes the matter of the safety of the residents in the border areas who have to live with the threat of possible retaliatory attacks.
If you seek a peaceful coexistence in a hostile relationship, explicitly criticizing the North Korean regime and obscenely editing photos of Ri Sol-ju would, of course, be a problem. There is even a rumor that people contaminate the leaflets with the coronavirus before sending them to North Korea and the North Korean authorities know that there is U.S. money behind anti-North Korea leaflet campaigns.
The two Koreas agreed to a ban on sending the leaflets in the July 4, 1972, South-North Joint Communique, the Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-Aggression, and Exchanges and Cooperation Between South and North Korea (Basic Agreement) of 1992, and the 2018 Panmunjeom Declaration on Peace, Prosperity, and Reunification of the Korean Peninsula.
Also, in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that this could pose an urgent and serious risk to the lives and safety of residents in border areas and thus could be restricted.
Several conservative hard liners' remarks in the U.S. that the anti-leaflet law is nothing but a specious excuse, without consideration of the threat to and safety of the residents in the border areas, remind me of Sen. Lindsey Graham's interview amid the threat of war in 2017.
He said that Trump had told him that "if there's going to be a war to stop them, it will be over there. If thousands die, they're going to die over there (Korea), they're not going to die here (U.S.)." You would say this is an extreme comparison, but there is no difference in the basic perception that disregards the safety of residents whose lives are at stake, based on an arbitrary judgment.
It's better to be honest. Just say that the South Korean government should not continue with inter-Korean talks and should instead heighten tension and use psychological warfare that would pressure and lead the North Korean regime to collapse.
It is either ignorance or hypocrisy to unreasonably substitute this issue with democratic values such as human rights or freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is applicable over our territory, but it cannot be further extended to North Korea, a country that is labeled as an enemy at this point.
Credibility between South and North Korea is necessary in the process toward peace, and for this end, prohibiting mutual slander and recognizing each country's regime are starting points. These can be used as psychological warfare for the collapse of North Korea, if we want to risk tension and military collision.
These are all actions that need to be banned from both South and North Korea to solve this problem in a peaceful manner. Legally speaking, the use of psychological warfare during an armistice or ceasefire situation could be construed as an act of war. However, it is believed to be better for Korea's national interest to build peace through negotiation, and Korea strives for such success.
Concern raised by Koreans in line with some U.S. views that this problem may be dangerous for the ROK-U.S. alliance is not constructive criticism. It is nothing but the resurrection of the old form of arrogance to force South Korea to bow to U.S. demands through threats.
I congratulate U.S. citizens for having a more reasonable and predictable administration. However, we should be on the look-out for the resurrection of irrationalism and fundamentalism based on American exceptionalism, a chronic problem of U.S. foreign policy.
Kim Joon-hyung (joon6895@gmail.com) is chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy (KNDA).
 |
Valid criticism and constructive debate for the resolution of issues are always welcome in the Republic of Korea, a democratic country. However, distortions disguised as such and entrapping them in a malicious frame should be firmly rejected.
The argument that the amended act limits freedom of expression, a basic principle of democracy, and is advantageous to North Korea is an example of malicious framing. Such groundless distortions abound in both South Korea and the United States.
In particular, I must refute the typically distorted view, criticizing the South Korean government and the ruling party for supporting the amendment and claiming that it is misleading to say the act is aimed at protecting people living near inter-Korean border areas.
This view states that although North Korea's Kim Yo-jong denounced the anti-North Korea leaflets in June, residents in the border area were safe because North Korea did not threaten them.
But this is not true ― North Korea's military fired anti-aircraft guns to shoot down balloons carrying anti-North Korea leaflets in 2014, and the South Korean military fired back, shaking up the residents in the area.
Before the amendment was enacted, there were no means of protection for the residents in cities near the border such as Paju, Ganghwa Island and Cheorwon, and so they acted to stop the leaflet distribution themselves. This is an existential threat.
Moreover, the Seoul government's stance is that the leaflets should be prohibited because they constitute a violation of an inter-Korean agreement, and are also a psychological warfare campaign against the North Korean regime.
The act should be called psychological warfare, not a human rights activity. Above all, it is a clearly distorted view that the amended Development of Inter-Korean Relations Act undermines freedom of expression.
South Korea is a country that believes in democracy, and the current government was born through a manifestation of the popular will, namely the "Candlelight Revolution." The South Korean government, along with its people, is proud of the country's democracy and will enforce the amended law in a way that does not go against both the intention of the law and freedom of expression.
It is ultimately not wrong for those in South Korea to say that it constitutes intervention in the internal affairs of Korea, in response to criticism by some sectors of the U.S. Nevertheless, it is not the essence of the issue, and it could entrap itself in the frame. The argument has led to a wrongful deeper frame ― a conflict between freedom of expression and interference in internal affairs.
Former U.S. Special Envoy to North Korea Robert Gallucci, who played a significant role in drawing up the Geneva Agreed Framework between the U.S. and North Korea, pointed this out accurately: "This (ban) is really not a matter of a free expression. Nobody's saying that South Koreans can't publish what they want to publish. It's a question of whether sending leaflets across the border is the right thing to do and that has to do with relations with North Korea, and war and peace."
It has been possible to criticize Kim Jong-un and set his portraits ablaze in South Korean territory, and this has indeed been done. South Korea does not stop anyone from criticizing President Moon Jae-in, be it in Gwanghwamun or Seocho-dong. This amended act has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
Now, the argument boils down to whether or not it is right to conduct psychological warfare against North Korea, and with it inevitably comes the matter of the safety of the residents in the border areas who have to live with the threat of possible retaliatory attacks.
If you seek a peaceful coexistence in a hostile relationship, explicitly criticizing the North Korean regime and obscenely editing photos of Ri Sol-ju would, of course, be a problem. There is even a rumor that people contaminate the leaflets with the coronavirus before sending them to North Korea and the North Korean authorities know that there is U.S. money behind anti-North Korea leaflet campaigns.
The two Koreas agreed to a ban on sending the leaflets in the July 4, 1972, South-North Joint Communique, the Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-Aggression, and Exchanges and Cooperation Between South and North Korea (Basic Agreement) of 1992, and the 2018 Panmunjeom Declaration on Peace, Prosperity, and Reunification of the Korean Peninsula.
Also, in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that this could pose an urgent and serious risk to the lives and safety of residents in border areas and thus could be restricted.
Several conservative hard liners' remarks in the U.S. that the anti-leaflet law is nothing but a specious excuse, without consideration of the threat to and safety of the residents in the border areas, remind me of Sen. Lindsey Graham's interview amid the threat of war in 2017.
He said that Trump had told him that "if there's going to be a war to stop them, it will be over there. If thousands die, they're going to die over there (Korea), they're not going to die here (U.S.)." You would say this is an extreme comparison, but there is no difference in the basic perception that disregards the safety of residents whose lives are at stake, based on an arbitrary judgment.
It's better to be honest. Just say that the South Korean government should not continue with inter-Korean talks and should instead heighten tension and use psychological warfare that would pressure and lead the North Korean regime to collapse.
It is either ignorance or hypocrisy to unreasonably substitute this issue with democratic values such as human rights or freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is applicable over our territory, but it cannot be further extended to North Korea, a country that is labeled as an enemy at this point.
Credibility between South and North Korea is necessary in the process toward peace, and for this end, prohibiting mutual slander and recognizing each country's regime are starting points. These can be used as psychological warfare for the collapse of North Korea, if we want to risk tension and military collision.
These are all actions that need to be banned from both South and North Korea to solve this problem in a peaceful manner. Legally speaking, the use of psychological warfare during an armistice or ceasefire situation could be construed as an act of war. However, it is believed to be better for Korea's national interest to build peace through negotiation, and Korea strives for such success.
Concern raised by Koreans in line with some U.S. views that this problem may be dangerous for the ROK-U.S. alliance is not constructive criticism. It is nothing but the resurrection of the old form of arrogance to force South Korea to bow to U.S. demands through threats.
I congratulate U.S. citizens for having a more reasonable and predictable administration. However, we should be on the look-out for the resurrection of irrationalism and fundamentalism based on American exceptionalism, a chronic problem of U.S. foreign policy.
Kim Joon-hyung (joon6895@gmail.com) is chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy (KNDA).
