 |
| Activists fly balloons bearing the message, "Kim Jong-un is the enemy of the people," in Paju near the inter-Korean border, in this June 4, 2020, file photo. South Korea's anti-leaflet law that bans sending anti-regime leaflets across the inter-Korean border is a clear violation of a United Nations treaty and it must be revoked, according to an international human rights advocate. Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk |
Yoon urged to learn from Moon's policy that served to 'just embolden' North Korea
By Jung Min-ho
 |
| Phil Robertson |
South Korea's anti-leaflet law that bans sending anti-regime leaflets across the inter-Korean border is a clear violation of a United Nations treaty and it must be revoked, according to an international human rights advocate.
Under the law, enacted in 2020 during the previous Moon Jae-in administration after North Korea threatened retaliation over the sending of such leaflets into its territory, violators could face up to three years in prison. Park Sang-hak, the head of a group known for launching balloons with human rights and pro-democracy messages into the North, was the first person to be indicted on charges of violating the law. The case is currently under review at the Constitutional Court.
Phil Robertson, deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, an international human rights group headquartered in New York City, told The Korea Times that ― apart from whether the law is constitutional in South Korea ― it violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which requires that all ratifying states have their national laws comply with the provisions of the treaty.
"The anti-leaflet law violates article 19 of the ICCPR, which provides that everyone has 'the right to freedom of expression,' which includes the 'freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice' … Meaning that sending leaflets or other communications across the border to the DPRK (as it states, 'regardless of frontiers') is clearly covered by the ICCPR," Robertson said.
DPRK refers to North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
"A group of U.N. human rights special rapporteurs communicated this view that the law violates the ICCPR to Moon's government, but their argument was unfairly rejected by Seoul without adequate explanation or rationales," he said.
Many human rights experts at U.N. agencies and international NGOs were "quite shocked" when the then-ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) ― in an obvious bid to back up Moon's North Korea policy ― moved to pass the bill despite serious objections they made on human rights grounds, Robertson noted.
"The North engaged in a campaign of intimidation and bluffing, and Moon foolishly fell for it and passed a law that violates South Korean people's rights. It was truly a shameful episode, and one of the lowest points on human rights we saw during his term in office," he said.
When lawmakers were drafting the bill, the DPK brought up "national security" ― which is the same argument used by past authoritarian South Korean administrations as an excuse to suppress individual freedoms, in those days in the name of anti-communism ― to justify the necessity of such a law. Critics, including Robertson, say the argument is insufficient for an outright ban.
"The DPK's argument that national security is at stake can be made under the ICCPR, but restrictions on those grounds can only be made 'as necessary,' meaning that there must be a proportional response, not a blanket ban," Robertson said. "The aspects of 'national security' that the government claimed were damaged were never adequately or transparently explained. Most people believe that efforts to release anti-DPRK leaflets into North Korea via balloons and other delivery methods are ineffectual at best, and a nuisance at worst. So why then is South Korea excessively claiming that such actions constitute some massive national security threat? The argument simply doesn't make sense."
President Yoon Suk-yeol said in an interview with the Voice of America, a state-owned international radio broadcaster of the U.S., that making the law was "a wrong decision" and it is "not appropriate" for the government to restrict voluntary campaigns by citizens promoting human rights in North Korea.
Yet, with DPK representatives being the majority at the National Assembly, a repeal of the leaflet ban law is unlikely. For now, the ruling People Power Party is pinning its hope on the Constitutional Court.
 |
| An activist prepares to send packages containing human rights and pro-democracy messages across the inter-Korean border in Paju, in this June 4, 2020, file photo. Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk |
South Korea should 'always raise human rights issues in the North'
South Korean politics have been essentially polarized for decades over how to secure lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula. While most conservatives try to achieve it through strength, liberals tend to focus more on improving relations with the North Korean elite, whom they seek to make deals with; so liberals are extremely cautious about offending them by, for example, taking issue with human rights violations in the North.
If the past five years proved anything ― with North Korea becoming even more aggressive in recent months ― it was that, over time, keeping silent about issues uncomfortable to the regime may make matters worse in the long run, Robertson said.
"The progressive parties should understand that the failure to raise human rights issues and other difficult topics with North Korea's leaders just emboldens Pyongyang to think it can push South Korea around," he said. "The South must be clear that it will raise all issues with the North, ranging from nuclear disarmament, to food and other aid, to the human rights issues of North Koreans and unresolved issues like abducted South Koreans held by the North."
Given North Korea's terrible record of human rights violations, he believes human rights issues should always be one of the key points on the agenda for inter-Korean talks.
"There needs to be an established policy that South Korea will always raise human rights issues in the North … and that human rights will not be pushed off the discussion table just because Pyongyang starts complaining," Robertson said. "All issues need to be addressed in North-South talks, and South Korea needs to stop dancing to Pyongyang's tune when it comes to setting the agenda for such talks. South Korea also needs to reverse Moon's short-sighted policy of withdrawing from international efforts to raise concerns about North Korea's human rights record."
He added, "The National Human Rights Commission of Korea in Seoul has a mandate to work on human rights issues in both the South and the North. So it is reasonable to think that the South Korean government has a similar duty to protect the rights of all Koreans, "regardless of where they live on the Korean Peninsula."
Robertson also urged Yoon to implement fully the North Korean Human Rights Act, which became a law in 2016, only to remain in name only. It requires the government to work with other nations to improve human rights in the North, including through a special committee dedicated to the issue and inter-Korean talks for the agenda.
"It is astonishing that fully six years after that law passed there has been so little progress in actually operationalizing the law," he said. "If South Korea prides itself on being a nation of laws, then it is time to stop messing around and implement it."
