Don’t get us wrong. Hankyoreh 21 has consistently emphasized the injustice of the U.S.’s coercive policies toward the North, as well as the necessity for direct dialogue. We have also stressed that the root of the North Korean nuclear crisis lies in President Bush’s hard-line policies towards the "axis of evil" state. In the wake of the North Korean nuclear test, the U.S.’s exclusive pursuance of sanctions towards the North has only served to enlarge the crisis at hand. Strengthening of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) could easily lead to an armed conflict with the North, and thus we believe that even as the situation worsens, policies of reconciliation and cooperation with the North must be pursued without vacillation. No matter what the situation, we must not hesitate in providing humanitarian aid to our Northern brethren to help them weather the damage of this summer’s devastating floods.
We know this, too: that the partition of Korea has provided a breeding ground for anti-communist and anti-North ideologies. We know that the Korean peninsula is the last place on earth gripped by antagonism stemming from the Cold War, and that the oppressive National Security Law remains in force, searching relentlessly for its next victim. The old anti-communist rhetoric plays on like a broken record, and we are dumbfounded at the conservative line’s willingness to consider war. We are also sympathetic with the concern that criticism of the North has been a reliable weapon in the arsenal to successfully take aim at progressives. That being said, please lend us your ears.
The Korean Democratic Labor Party (DLP) released an 11-line statement at 10:35 AM on October 9, some five hours after North Korea’s nuclear test. Most conspicuous was the use of the word "regretful." In other words, they felt dissatisfaction that events did not turn out as they had hoped. The sentence containing this word read as follows. "The DLP expresses regret and strong shock toward the North Korea’s nuclear test, despite the concerns that had been presented by many people." As for a group quite representative of Korean civil society that carries a similar perspective with the DLP on other issues, the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy stated, "We firmly oppose and condemn North Korea’s military adventurism to be a ’nuclear power,’ and to take advantage of this position as a negotiation card by holding the Koreans’ safety as hostage. The nuclear test is unacceptable. North Korea must immediately give up its nuclear weapons." [Extracted verbatim from their English language Web site.]
Though fancying itself the party of progressives, the DLP’s standpoint differs greatly from that of the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, which maintains a progressive line while staying true to the thoughts of the common citizen. On some issues, it may be unreasonable to compare the stances of political parties with civic groups. However, through this particular comparison, we can see that the DLP’s perception of the North Korean nuclear issue is very different from that held by the general citizen on the street. The DLP simply cannot bring itself to express opposition to the North’s nuclear weapons program. The anti-nuclear principal central to progressives thus faltered in the face of North Korea’s latest move.
North Korea sent a clear message to South Korean society by means of the nuclear test. Gu Gab-u, professor at the University of North Korean Studies, stated, "in its choice for nuclear armament as seen through its willful test, North Korea clearly showed that it does not trust the South Korean government, much less South Korean civil society." In other words, the North concluded that it could not rely on the forces for peace in South Korea to serve as a sufficient means of deterrence to protect their regime. Though constantly stressing the "spirit of our race" [as a means to solve problems], it would seem that the North has forsaken its own principles.
The statement released by the North's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland on October 25 stated, "If the South Korean authorities continue to unreasonably and mulishly support the scheming U.S. in their application of lethal force and anti-republic [anti-North Korea] sanctions, then we will regard such actions as being a total rejection of the June 15 Joint Statement, as well as a declaration of confrontation against their compatriots, and we will take appropriate measures." Judged in the light of the North’s actions, this statement is nothing less than ridiculous. After all, it was the North - not the South - that produced a "total rejection of the June 15 Joint Statement" by "unreasonably" conducting a nuclear test. What is more, the North is once more forcing a terrible choice upon the South. They are forcing us to choose between seeking shelter beneath a North Korean nuclear umbrella or a U.S. one. Yet, nuclear weapons bear no nationality, symbols of death and destruction as they are. Why, then, does the DLP, which knows this fact better than anyone else, not remain faithful to its principals?
It is often said that there are two taboo subjects within the DLP. One is the improprieties of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, a labor group that serves as its key support bloc. The second is North Korea. Amidst the various aftershocks of the nuclear test, this party taboo has been a particular source of controversy.
On October 15, a debate erupted within the 6th assembly of the Central Committee. The "Special Resolution of the DLP for the Realization of Peace on the Korean Peninsula," formed that day by the party’s Supreme Council, hardly differed from their first statement, issued six days earlier. Two amendments were thus proposed. The first was to change the expression of "regret" to one of "opposition," and the second was to call on North Korea not to conduct a follow-up nuclear test. Both revisions were rejected. With the bill’s contents thus set, one faction of the DLP moved for the passage of the statement as it stood. But at this point the other faction of the DLP chose to leave their seats, and the proposal fizzled for lack of a quorum.
The meeting gave the opportunity for the majority of DLP members to throw their weight behind the North Korean position that the development of a nuclear weapon was made necessary as a means of self-defense in confrontation with U.S. imperialism.
This incident provided a clear window into the philosophy and party line of the DLP. While the so-called "NL" faction of the party put emphasis on the argument that the North Korean nuclear program is a means of self-defense, the "PD" faction raised its voice in opposition to nuclear weapons altogether.
According to one source, "Progressivism indeed has its boundaries, but within those lines lies a chasm over relations with North Korea as wide as the gap separating the GNP and Uri Party." And this divide stems from a split in perception that pervades not only the DLP, but all progressive circles in South Korea.
The roots of this rift are deep. Park Yong-jin, DLP party spokesman, said, "To us, North Korea is at once a base of social democracy and a corrupted socialist state, our companion on the path toward unification as well as a potential adversary. The question of what North Korea means to us is a fundamental one, and respective attitudes toward the North trace back before the formation of our party."
We will not focus on the history of the debate. We do not mean to widen the chasm of discussion any further. We will instead take note of the effects of this factional conflict within Korea’s progressive political party.
North Korean human rights is another hot-button issue that falls within this debate. In July of last year, the DLP traveled to such European countries as Sweden, German, England, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal at the invitation of those countries’ respective left-wing groups. At every stop, there was one common question waiting for them: "how do you see the North Korean human rights issue?" Though the DLP lacks even a clear position on this in the domestic sphere, the left wing European groups without exception took critical stances of the North.
It is not only the DLP that is having a hard time offering a clear stance on the North Korean human rights issue. DLP assemblyman Kwon YoungGhil’s staff had decided to publish a report on North Korean human rights in 2006, using a budget of 10 million won (US$10,500). However, the DLP could not find a writer within progressive circles willing to pen the report, and so they had to give up. Aide Lee Yong-seung said that "most were unprepared to write on North Korean human rights. I could hardly find anyone in the progressive camp that held a clear stance on the matter." While liberals vacillated on the topic, conservatives adopted a firm stance against North Korean human rights abuses, and they are now the dominant voices in the establishment on the matter. Whether or not their position has lead to the actual improvement of North Korean human rights is another issue, of course.
The reason that progressives hesitate in offering a clear perspective on the North Korean human rights issue is related to the disappearance of the anti-nuclear movement. To parody the title of a popular Korean book, "Human Rights Stop at the School Gates," perhaps one might say that progressivism stops at the Demilitarized Zone. Though the South Korean human rights movement has indeed worried about North Korean human rights issues, it has been difficult for them to raise their voice on the matter, the reason being the fear that right-wing forces could misuse such criticism of the North for their own political gains. The left thus remained silent.
However, the North’s nuclear test was an action that crossed into human rights issues.
On October 20th, such groups as the Sarangbang Group for Human Rights, the People’s Solidarity for Social Progress, and the Power of Working Class gathered to discuss how to respond to the North Korean nuclear test. On this day, even Sarangbang, which had worried about the right’s misuse of criticism over North Korean human rights, offered its own condemning words regarding the nuclear test. Park Seok-jin, activist for Sarangbang, said, "Regardless of the situation or the intention, the North’s nuclear test cannot be justified. The anti-nuclear movement is a fundamental prerequisite for peace and human rights." He added, "no matter how weak [the North’s] position is, the nuclear test cannot be forgiven as a legitimate act of protest." Of course, Sarangbang did not neglect to mention as the basic cause of the crisis the U.S.’s coercive tactics toward the North, and that humanitarian aid must continue to be delivered. Park continued on to say the following:
"South Korea’s right wing is trying to make the nuclear test into an opportunity to pursue antagonistic policies. Their sole concern is in serving their own interests by stoking fears of war...Those who strain to interpret the nuclear test as a self-defensive or perhaps political measure are just as worrisome. For beneath the statement of holding a nuclear weapon for defense lies the nationalistic assumption that there will eventually be a military clash."
Some claim that South Korea’s human rights movement has not always been neglectful of the North Korean human rights problem. In the late 1990s, the movement joined in the "Help our North Korean Brethren" call, and worked to try to resolve the human rights issues facing North Korean refugees. O chang-ik of the Citizens’ Solidarity for Human Rights stated that "extreme voices from both ends, both supporting and condemning North Korea, drown out reasonable voices regarding the North Korean human rights issue. Furthermore, as human rights groups have emphasized the principal of acting "here and now" on the problem, North Korea’s number has been pushed back on the docket by most progressive groups.
Even so, the majority of human rights activists are reserved in linking the nuclear test to problems with the North Korean regime itself. One activist repeated the familiar refrain that "if one regards the nuclear test as a problem arising from the North Korean regime, there is reason to fear it will foster the atmosphere of crisis in dealing with the North." They are wary over criticism of the North Korean human rights problem for the same reason. In questioning why the North Korean human rights situation had not been made an issue, he argued "the lack of a proposal on our part is hindering the human rights movement." As opposed to the conservative forces that raise the issue in hopes of toppling the regime, the human rights debate must be reformatted from a different standpoint, but the appropriate methodology to do so is still lacking. The issue of "reformatting" the debate has been the subject of much deliberation by the human rights community over the course of several years.
A professor of the Far East Research Center at Kyungnam University stated that "progressivism must change along with North Korea." He emphasized that "just as the Northern regime cannot be an alternative to the South Korean government, neither can the current Southern regime be an alternative for the government of a unified Korean peninsula." One must recognize the reality that both North and South are sovereign states, he said, and "find a way to overcome our differences, aside from trying to restore homogeneity [between the two nations]." Within this process, the role of the South is in finding an alternative regime for a unified Korean peninsula, and serving as a force to pull both North and South along together in the same direction.
In this light, the movements of environmental groups that have been faithful to the principals of the anti-nuclear movement even after the nuclear test deserve our attention. Previously, environmental groups did not present a clear position in regards to the North’s request for nuclear power plants in exchange for the dismantling of their nuclear program. They felt suffocated amid the clash between their desire for peace on the Korean peninsula and their anti-nuclear principles. Yet the North Korean nuclear test served as an opportunity for them to reaffirm their anti-nuclear position. On October 11, the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement [sic] adopted a resolution stating that the North Korean nuclear test was a "provocative military action, threatening peace in Northeast Asia and on the Korean peninsula." One official of the group said that "sanctions toward North Korea are finely interwoven in the issue, and we worry that criticism of the North could be rebroadcast widely by the conservative media, but as anti-nuclear principals are a fundamental plank in our group’s platform, we have chosen to raise our voices in criticism of the nuclear test."
This article was written by Jeong In-hwan, Sin-yun Dong-uk, and Ryu I-geun, and translated by Daniel Rakove.
[englishhani@hani.co.kr]
