Anti-leaflet law highlights differences between Seoul, Washington on North Korea's human rights

By Do Je-hae

The Dec. 14 passage of a revision bill by the South Korean National Assembly to criminalize the sending of balloons and broadcasts with messages against the North Korean regime through the inter-Korean border is triggering concerns it will cause a rift in Korea-U.S. relations.

The issue has shown how Seoul and Washington are viewing the issue differently, calling for the need for the two nations to narrow ideological differences.

The ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), which pushed ahead with the passage of the so-called anti-leaflet law despite protests from the opposition and the international community, denounced the U.S. for excessively meddling in Korea's internal affairs.

The DPK strongly criticized a possible move by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, a bipartisan commission of the U.S. House of Representatives, to hold a hearing in January to discuss the new ban on anti-North Korea leaflets being flown northward.

“The meddling in Korea's domestic affairs is too much,” Huh Young, a DPK spokesperson, said in a statement, Sunday. “It is highly inappropriate that a hearing is being discussed in the U.S. on a law revised through a democratic process at the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea.”

The DPK has stressed that the law is aimed primarily at protecting the safety of South Korean citizens who live close to the border, but some members of the U.S. Congress and human rights organizations have criticized Seoul for the legislation, which they say infringes on basic rights such as freedom of expression and also shows the current liberal administration's lack of interest in the issue of North Korean human rights abuses.

Concerns are rising, however, that Seoul will face more pressure from the U.S regarding the anti-leaflet law, particularly the upcoming Joe Biden administration which is more likely to prioritize democratic values and civil liberties than the Trump administration has. Therefore, proper discussions need to take place between the two sides on the North Korea issue as part of a broader consultation on maintaining the alliance in the Biden era, according to some experts.

“The current South Korean government tends to think of engaging North Korea and promoting North Korean human rights as oppositional. However, this position is contested in domestic politics and becoming increasingly isolated in the international arena as the deadlock in inter-Korean dialogue, nuclear development and human rights violations continue,” a North Korean studies professor told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity.

“Under these circumstances, the issue of North Korean human rights will be subject to a sharp bilateral contention between Seoul and Washington after President-elect Joe Biden takes office. The two allies must try to close the gap in the management of the North Korean human rights issue as part of their broader consultation on maintaining a solid bilateral alliance.”

Some experts are more cautious about the prospects of the different stances influencing the alliance in general, given that Washington has yet to make an official comment on it.

“The ruling party and civic action groups are responding to comments made by members of the U.S. Congress. Those comments are not the official view of the U.S. government. It's not likely that the next secretary of state, Antony Blinken, or others in the incoming Biden administration will want to make a huge issue over leaflets,” Donald Kirk, a columnist who writes on Korean Peninsula issues, told The Korea Times.

“They know the position of the South Korean government, as expressed by Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha and the unification ministry. They will proceed carefully on this issue while focusing on other matters, ranging from ways to coordinate on getting into talks with North Korea to resolution of differences over how much South Korea should contribute to the costs of U.S. bases and forces in the country.”

The South Korean government has explained that the criticisms from the outside stem from misunderstandings about the law and that there is no evidence of correlations between the leaflets and the promotion of human rights in North Korean.

“There exists no evidence that scattering leaflets improve North Korean human rights,” Suh Ho, vice minister of South Korea's Ministry of Unification, wrote in a recent op-ed. “On the contrary, it endangers defector families in the North by strengthening the government's control and brings adverse effects to North Korean human rights.”

He cited testimony from defectors in South Korea that malicious insults against the North Korean regime do not contribute to improving human rights there.

“Leaflets can be restricted based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution, as it infringes on the right to life and safety of 1.12 million people in the border regions. Leaflets also inflict harm on national security by building up tensions between the two Koreas and beget conflict between border region residents and organizations,” Suh added.

But Seoul continues to be hit by negative comments on the motivation and content of the law. “South Korea shouldn't come off as making excuses for the North and be seen as curtailing its own citizens' rights of free expression,” Sean King, senior vice president at Park Strategies, told The Korea Times.

Some experts advise Seoul to listen more carefully to what is being said in the international community about the law rather than brushing it off as interference.

“The U.S. and South Korea are among the closest of allies in the entire history of nations. When a friend offers criticism, it is wise to listen, assess the situation and take a good look in the mirror,” Leif-Eric Easley, associate professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, told The Korea Times. “Groups accusing the U.S. of interference over the anti-leafleting legislation are generating fake controversy and distraction. The issue is not about responding to criticism from Washington but about Seoul more carefully considering human rights in North Korea and civil liberties in South Korea according to the Constitution, rule of law and national values.”