South Korea’s controversial “anti-leaflet” law continues to draw attention from the international community, and many are expressing their concerns regarding the law. The opposition party argues that the country is being humiliated due to its indifference or outright assault on human rights, in particular those related to North Korea. This is ironic given that President Moon Jae-in was once a human rights lawyer.
A bipartisan caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives will hold a public hearing on April 15th, 2021 on ongoing South Korean human rights issues, including the recent ban on sending leaflets into North Korea (DPRK). South Korea’s key leftist figures, including former unification minister Jeong Se-hyun, decried the hearing as “some kind of interference in domestic affairs.” (https://onekoreanetwork.com/2021/04/13/moons-foreign-policy-experts-risk-damaging-u-s-rok-alliance-with-alarming-comments/)
On April 13th, a spokesperson from the U.S. State Department gave the Voice of America (VOA) a statement regarding Jeong’s remarks.
“We respect the fact that the ROK, as a democracy with an independent and strong judiciary, has tools in place to allow for review of the law. We have been in close contact with the (South Korean government) to express our strong views about the importance of the free flow of information into the DPRK and freedom of expression. As a global policy, we advocate for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. With regards to the DPRK, we continue to promote the free flow of information into, out of, and within the DPRK. It is critical for the North Korean people to have access to fact-based information not controlled by the North Korean regime.”
Experts have pointed out that it is very rare for the State Department to make comments on remarks made by a former senior official from an allied country.
Kim Tae-hoon, President of the Seoul-based group Lawyers for the Human Rights and Unification of Korea, linked the latest “anti-leaflet” law, which was passed on December 14 last year and went into effect on March 30 this year, with a new North Korean law introduced on December 4 last year. Kim Tae-hoon was referring to North Korea’s so-called “reactionary sentiment culture denouncement” law. This law will punish North Korean people for accessing information about South Korea. “North Koreans are executed or sent to prison for watching videos made in South Korea,” Kim said in a recent interview with the Monthly Chosun. “[The two laws from North Korea and South Korea] appear to be a set.”
Kim added that this situation was not the first of its kind. “A similar thing happened starting in 2019,” he said. “The South Korean government deported two North Korean fishermen to North Korea on November 7, 2019, and on November 25, the ASEAN-Republic of Korea Summit was held in Busan. President Moon Jae-in repeatedly expressed his interest in inviting Kim Jong-un. I have a suspicion that the South Korean government sent the two fishermen to North Korea as a sacrificial offering.”
On November 2, 2019, two North Korean fishermen were found near the Northern Limit Line (boundary) on the Korean peninsula’s east coast. On November 7, 2019, the Republic of Korea deported these people, who are technically South Korean citizens under the constitution, to North Korea even though they expressed their desire to defect to South Korea.
The South Korean government said they were suspected (according to North Korean authorities) of murdering 16 fellow crew members on the fishing vessel, and thus the Moon administration deported them without providing them with a fair hearing. People criticized the government’s decision for apparently violating the constitution and other international agreements. (https://onekoreanetwork.com/2021/01/05/opinion-on-the-forced-repatriation-of-north-korean-fishermen/)
Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong was National Security Advisor to President Moon Jae-in when this deportation occurred. “The National Security Council probably decided to deport the defecting fishermen to North Korea,” Kim said. “The chair of the council is the (ROK) president. I assume that President Moon explicitly or implicitly approved it, but this decision-making process has not become available to the public.”
Kim Tae-hoon argued that if the president was involved in the decision-making process, “it amounts to an impeachable crime.”
Chung Eui-yong defended the government’s decision to deport the two fishermen as “reasonable” during his confirmation hearing for the post of foreign minister in February this year. He even called the two fishermen “brutal criminals,” even though there was no specific evidence that they murdered other crew members, as North Korea argued.
“How can this kind of person become Minister of Foreign Affairs?” Kim Tae-hoon asked. “Does he know what is in Article 3 of South Korea’s Constitution?” Article 3 states that “the territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands,” meaning that constitutionally, North Korean citizens are citizens of the Republic of Korea. Kim argued that it is a clear violation of the Constitution to forcibly deport the two defecting fishermen, who are South Korean citizens, back to North Korea.
During the confirmation hearing, Tae Yong-ho and Ji Seong-ho, both North Korean defectors elected as South Korean lawmakers of the main opposition People Power Party, brought up the deportation issue and criticized Chung.
Kim Tae-hoon argued that the decision to forcibly repatriate the defected fishermen is in violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Kim asked what the government did to prevent them from being tortured and executed once they returned to North Korea.
Chung, however, said “the government reviewed the convention and related standards and it was unavoidable decision after prioritizing people’s life and safety.” He argued that the two fishermen were “brutal criminals that could threaten the South Korean people’s life and safety,” and that “their will to defect to South Korea didn’t seem to be sincere.”
Kim Tae-hoon argued that “the allegation of murder is based only on the North Korean regime’s statement, and even if they were brutal criminals, their crime had to be confirmed through a thorough investigation and a fair trial.” He added that “there are no legal grounds to deport them to North Korea, even if they were criminals.”
“The government should have followed the principle of the presumption of innocence, and it is an apparent forcible deportation,” said Ji Seong-ho. “What do you think they will go through after returning to North Korea after showing their willingness to defect to an adversary?”
Chung is reported as replying as follows:
“We should differentiate ordinary North Korean defectors and the two who were deported. The government considers various factors, such as the Convention against Torture, when making a decision on deportation to North Korea. These people were brutal criminals. North Korea didn’t ask us to repatriate them. We told them to take them. We cannot determine the cause of the accident that happened in North Korea. That is something North Korea has to do, not us.”
Article 3, Section 1, of the convention states that “no State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” It also states that “for the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.”
