This article was originally posted on VOA and translated by OKN Correspondent.
A North Korean defector group in South Korea resumed sending leaflets to North Korea, and the incoming Yoon Suk-yeol administration’s nominees for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Unification Minister expressed that they are against the so-called “anti-leaflet” law. Many North Korean watchers in Washington also agreed with the idea of abolishing the law. They argued that the law runs counter to democratic values such as freedom of expression and hinders important flows of information into North Korea. Reporter Cho Eun-jung heard the opinions of 33 experts on the Korean Peninsula, including former U.S. officials.
Of the 33 U.S. experts on the Korean Peninsula who participated in VOA’s study, 23 people, or 70 percent, said that the anti-leaflet law should be abolished.
Three, or 9 percent of the respondents, said that the anti-leaflet law should be maintained, and seven, or 21 percent did not express their views, saying it was up to the South Korean government.
VOA sent out questionnaires to 52 experts on the Korean Peninsula on May 2, and 33 people, or 63 percent, responded.
At the center of the opinion that the anti-North Korea leaflet law should be abolished is the perception that a country with high status in the international community like South Korea should maintain a high level of democracy.
Alexander Bushbow, who was U.S. Ambassador to South Korea from 2005 to 2008, said “this law should be abolished,” and that “it is contrary to democratic values and has failed to elicit any improved behavior by Pyongyang.”
Patrick Cronin, the Asia-Pacific Security Chair at the Hudson Institute, also is against the law. “Punishing South Koreans for free speech perverts the reality that South Koreans enjoy democracy and North Koreans toil under autocracy,” he said. “If there are certain activities involving sending physical items into well-armed North Korea, then there may be a national security need to regulate such activity. But the basic principles should be free speech for South Koreans, more information for North Koreans, and no punishment for South Koreans practicing those first two principles.”
Jean Lee, a senior fellow at the Wilson Center and Associated Press’s former Pyongyang bureau chief, explained that the South Korean government, as a democratic country, should focus on guaranteeing freedom of expression.
“The issue of balancing national security and free speech is a challenging one for any nation,” she said. “But as a democratic nation with growing influence, South Korea must strive to be a country that protects and nurtures free speech.”
Jieun Baek, a fellow with the Korea Project and the Applied History Project at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center, explained that South Korea would benefit from repealing the controversial law. “By repealing this law, South Korea would benefit from signaling to its allies, its population, and its neighbors, including North Koreans, that it is committed to becoming a stronger liberal democracy and ally of the United States.”
Soo Kim, a policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, said that “not only does the law place into question South Korea’s status as a democracy; it also makes some of us question whether Seoul has a complete understanding of what it means to be a democratic society – the responsibilities and obligations that come with being a democracy.”
Many experts pointed out the fact that the anti-leaflet law violates key values of democracy, particularly freedom of speech.
Ambassador Joseph DeTrani, who worked as the primary U.S. negotiator for the six-party nuclear talks with North Korea, said the law “should not remain in place.”
“Freedom of speech is one of the core elements of any liberal democracy,” Ambassador DeTrani said. “Providing information [not disinformation] – the truth – to the citizens of North Korea should not be an offense; rather, we should seek additional avenues for providing accurate, truthful information to the people of North Korea.”
Evans Revere, former Acting Assistant Secretary of State and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, explained that the law should be repealed, not out of consideration for U.S.-Korea relations, but as a way of reaffirming Seoul’s commitment to freedom of expression and to demonstrate the South’s determination to use all available means to communicate with the North Korean people.
Stephen Noerper, the inaugural president of Asia Dialogue, argued that South Korea, which has a relatively short democratic history, should work on guaranteeing freedom of speech for its people.
“During the Cold War, information flows helped empower publics to seek democracy and end tyranny,” he said. “That message is all the more important in a day when Russia’s totalitarian leader wages war on democratic Ukraine, and as the people of South Korea yearn for freedom for the people of the North, providing information, opening minds, and empowering action for liberty speak to a brighter future for the North and for the entire Peninsula.”
Joshua Stanton, a lawyer and sanctions expert, told the VOA that the anti-leaflet law partially retracts the democratic reforms that South Korea fought hard for and erodes the constitutional right to freedom of speech. He added that the anti-leaflet law subordinates constitutional rights in favor of the inter-Korean joint statement.
Some experts pointed out that the anti-leaflet law is just a law to appease North Korea and that there was no benefit or returns from the law.
South Korean conservative party argued that the anti-leaflet law was enacted after Kim Yo-jong, vice minister of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, threatened to scrap agreements on easing military tensions and other exchanges if the South Korean government did not block leaflets from being sent to the North.
Professor Bruce Bechtol at Angelo State University said, “It appeared to me at the time that that law was nothing more than appeasement to the North Koreans from the Moon Jae-in administration and those in the National Assembly who agreed with them.”
Some experts, on the other hand, argued that the law should be maintained since it was enacted through a democratic process in the National Assembly of South Korea.
Frank Aum, a senior expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace, said that the law should remain in place until repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court since it was passed by a democratically-elected National Assembly.
“It is also important to note that, at least in the case of the United States, the Supreme Court has noted that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are instances when this right can be limited, such as for national security reasons,” Aum said.
Jessica Lee, a senior research fellow in the East Asia Program at the Quincy Institute, also said that South Korea is a vigorous democracy and the country’s laws should be free from foreign interference.
“Discussions about the Development of Inter-Korean Relations Act must be based on facts, one that balances the legitimate concerns of residents in the border area, constitutionally protected rights of the South Korean people, and North Korea policy,” She said. “My understanding is that the law as it is written strikes that balance.”
Ken Gause, director of the Adversary Analytics Program at the Center for a New American Security, also suggested that the law could ward off North Korea from doing something that potentially could lead to tensions on the peninsula.
Some experts emphasized keeping the law should be a matter to be decided by the South Korean government.
Ambassador Robert King, who served as United States special envoy for North Korean Human Rights issues, said, “It’s more a South Korean domestic political issue than it is a serious substantive issue for North Korea.”
He explained that current President Moon Jae-in called for applying a prohibition on sending balloons and leaflets to the North, while the new President-elect Yoon Suk-yeol said he favors changing that. “It is going to be a political issue as to whether the National Assembly will agree to repeal it if he requests that.”
Susan Thornton, former acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, also agreed that it is the South Korean government’s job to decide which law to keep. She also added that in the United States, freedom of speech or expression can be limited if it can lead to physical danger.
