Human Rights and Security in the two
Koreas: the Policy Dilemmas
Bo-hyuk Suh (IPUS, Seoul National University)
This paper was compiled for the IKSU launch conference at the
University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), 15-17 October 2014
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF KOREAN STUDIES (IKSU) – KOREA SECURITY CONFERENCE, 15-17 OCTOBER 2014
Human Rights and Security in the two Koreas: the Policy dilemmas
Bo-hyuk Suh
(IPUS, Seoul National University)
A Paper Prepared for
The International Conference on “the Korea as the nexus of East Asian peace and security”
16 and 17 October 2014, University of Central Lancashire
-Table of ContentsⅠ. Question
Ⅱ. Conflicts in the Perspectives of Human Rights
Ⅲ. The Emergence of Nuclear Division System
Ⅳ. Synergism of Human Rights Politics and Militarism
Ⅴ. The Motive of Transformation
Ⅵ. Concluding Remark
Ⅰ. Question
Why is the Korean conflict proving so intractable and unending?
Conflict in a society has
not only many background elements such as history, culture, politics, economics, but it also
has assumed diverse aspects of ethnic, class, ideology and foreign relations.
Although
‘Korea conflict’ means the general term happened almost every conflict on the divided
Korean Peninsula, it is usually called the confrontation between North and South Korea and
military tensions around the Korean peninsula based on the nation division and armistice
system here.
Korea conflict have many background elements, also it has assumed aspects of
politics, ideology and military.
It is in fact wrong idea that reducing the meaning of the
Korean conflict to the confrontation between North and South Korea is. Because formation
1
elements and reality of the Korean conflict are directly related to international politics by
surrounding super powers.
Although Korean conflict surely has not only different way of
thinking between North and South Korea from too long division but also political and
economic issues in two Koreas, it is not dealt with here in this paper. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to mention that many elements within North and South Korean society are closely
related to the division and armistice system.
To discuss the characteristics of Korean conflict, it is going to explore human rights and
security issues and their created negative synergy effect in main part.
The different
perspectives between North and South Korea in human rights issues reflected the two
opposing parties during the Cold War, also military tension under the armistice system shows
traditional security dilemma.
As shaping human rights politics and militarism, the both
parties form and keep up the Korean conflict.
get together?
possible, how?
Are the human rights and security difficult to
Is Korean conflict hard to overcome those negative synergic effects?
If
After analyzing Korean conflict, I try to answer this question.
Ⅱ. Conflicts in the Perspectives of Human Rights
As an international conventional wisdom, human rights are universal and its specific human
rights are made up by awakening and struggle of oppressed people.
Denied or confirmed by
political perspectives and understanding, human rights have slowly magnified the universality.
During the Cold War, while the liberalist camp put stress on civil and political rights (CPR)
and individual rights, the socialist camp was more concerned with economic, social, and
cultural rights (ESCR) and collective rights. The both were set up in opposition. 1
The
division on the Korean peninsula caused by the Cold War made a difference in human rights
perspectives between North and South Korea.
While dismantlement of the Cold War seems
to show the victory of the liberalistic human rights perspectives, confrontation on human
rights perspectives has not been reduced by raising awareness of North Korean threats on the
1
Micheline R. Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era (Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2008); Lynn Hunt, Inventing Human Rights: A History (New York: W. W. Norton
& Company, 2008).
2
Korean peninsula yet.
Since the democratization of 1987, the Republic of Korea (ROK, or South Korea), which has
made remarkable improvements within the areas of democracy and human rights in a short
period of time, upholds the universal value of human rights as a centerpiece of its foreign
policy goals. As a state party to seven core international human rights conventions, including
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Republic of Korea is earnestly
striving to implement the provisions of the relevant conventions at the national level through
collaborative partnerships with various stakeholders. In particular, with the special attention
to the rights of the vulnerable such as women, children, and the disabled, ROK has achieved
substantial improvements in the equal and effective enjoyment of human rights. Furthermore,
South Korea has proactively participated in the activities of the UN Human Rights Council
and the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, working closely with the international
community for the protection and promotion of human rights around the world. 2
The fact that South Koreans have universal perspectives to human rights shows a series of
polls.
In an annual survey ‘Research on Unification Awareness’ by the Institute for Peace
and Unification Studies (IPUS) at Seoul National University since 2007, the most urgent task
for unification is, ‘North Korean human rights improvement’ with the other response ‘a
lessening of tension on the Korean peninsula’. 3 Grounded on the universality of human
rights, South Korean government sympathizes with the international concerns toward serious
North Korean human rights situation, supports and actively joins the efforts of international
community to improve the situation.
South Korean government has taken a stance against
the North Korean human rights situation, “Human rights are universal value because it has to
be dealt with just human rights issue itself, not with any other issue.” South Korea has been
actively engaged in the international cooperation for the improvement of human rights in the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea). It has been a co-sponsor of
2
Homepage of the Ministry of Foreign and Trade, South Korea, searched on September 3, 2014.
http://www.mofa.go.kr/ENG/policy/humanright/overview/index.jsp?menu=m_20_60_10
3
Myoung-Kyu Park, et al., 2013 Research on Unification Awareness (The Institute for Peace and Unification
Studies at Seoul National University, 2013), pp. 86~87.
3
the UN Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the DRPK at the UN General
Assembly and Human Rights Council since 2008. 4 International community recently has
expressed grave concern over the DPRK’s human rights situation. Last year, the Council
resolved to establish the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Human Rights in the DPRK. South
Korea strongly has been supporting the strengthening of the UN mechanisms to implement
the Commission’s recommendations. The Republic of Korea looks forward to the leading role
of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, who played an
instrumental role in establishing the Commission. Regarding scores of North Koreans are
leaving DPRK in search of survival and freedom, South Korea has been calling on all
countries to uphold the principle of non-refoulement and to grant rightful protection to these
refugees and asylum-seekers so that they can live a life of dignity on their own will. 5 Current
South Korean government has been highly interested in improving North Korean human
rights situation based on their experience of democratization and human rights improvement.
In different to universal human rights perspective of South Korea, the human rights view of
North Korea seems anachronistic.
North Korea has recognized human rights in terms of
classism, collectivism, relativism. 6
Given that DPRK is a member of UN, and they have
joined five International Human Rights Conventions, it is hard to understand that North
Korea has ignored the universalism of human rights, of course.
In spite of that, North Korea
has not lowered political sensitivity in regards to human rights issue.
So to speak, as North
Korea has not denied universalism of human rights, they are afraid of double standard and
politicization of human rights and still take a relativist view.
First of all, DPRK regards national sovereignty and dignity as its lifeline.
places national sovereignty above human rights.
North Korea
Even in human rights issue, taking
collective rights precedence over individual rights also can share many things in common
with the perspective that human rights are subordinated to national sovereignty.
4
Homepage of the Ministry of Foreign and Trade, South Korea, searched on September 3, 2014.
5
Statement by H.E. Yun Byung-se, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, 25th Session of the
UN Human Rights Council, Geneva: March 5, 2014.
6
Bo-hyuk Suh, North Korean Human Rights: Theory, Reality, Policy (Seoul: Hanul Academy, 2007), pp.142148.
4
Secondly, North Korea’s attitude toward international human rights mechanism is also
depending on how outside world recognizes national sovereignty of North Korea.
For
example, a high-level diplomat of the DPRK recently urged that bilateral dialogue and
cooperation between DPRK and the European Union in the area of human rights, which had
started in June 2001 for the first time in their history, was at an excellent stage at that time. A
North Korean diplomat at Geneva said that “there was no reason whatsoever for those
countries to unilaterally and deliberately ignore this ongoing process of human rights
dialogue and cooperation and to resort to hostility and confrontation had they not really been
harboring ulterior motives against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” 7
Thirdly, the commission of inquiry and the Special Rapporteur, according to North Korea’s
assertion, run counter to the current trend against politicization and moving towards genuine
dialogue and cooperation in the area of human rights. Different from Universal Periodic
Review (UPR), which was introduced in 2006 when the Human Rights Council had been
established, country-specific mandates such as commission of inquiry (COI) and special
rapporteur institution are seen from the eye of DPRK as the breeding ground for politicization,
selectivity and double standards. North Korean government strongly denounced that COI is a
product of political confrontation and a plot against them, and has no relevance to human
rights.
North Korea regards current international concerns issues as invasion towards Iraq
and Afghanistan by the United States, civil war in the area of Arab and the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, and related massive crimes against humanity.
In this context, they insist that what
international human rights organization and western countries have oppressed innocent
countries like them by COI, not dealing with above those human rights violation issues,
should be hypocrisy and double standard.
North Korea are opposed to international human rights mechanism which threatens their
national sovereignty and dignity, what’s more, they have raised human rights issue of the
main actors involved.
It is a kind of strategy to fight fire with fire.
On May 2014, North
Korea submitted a document which explains how serious South Korea and the U.S. violated
7
Letter dated 3 February 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the President of the Human Rights Council,
A/HRC/25/G/6, 12 February 2014.
5
North Koreans’ human rights to UN Human Rights Council.
two memorandum attached.

In this document, there were
The titles are as follows.
‘Memorandum on US crimes against human rights’ by the Central Committee of the
Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea, North headquarters of the Nationwide
Special Committee for Probing the Truth behind GI’s massacres Pyongyang, May 5, 2014.

‘White paper on human rights record in south Korea’ released by the DPRK National
Reunification Institute and Measure Council for Human Rights in south Korea on April 29,
2014, Pyongyang, DPRK. 8
North Korea recognizes that South Korea and the United States join Japan and EU to oppress
them by raising human rights issue in the UN. One of countermeasures, North Korea has
tried to criticize human rights situation of South Korea and the U.S. This is exactly the
same as China announced 'Human Rights Record of the United States' toward human rights
attack of the U.S.
The accusation that North Korea announced a paper on 'Accuse South
Korea as the most serious human rights situation in the world', what's more, the U.S.
citizenship is the worst in the world is also same examples. 9
With regards to North Korea human rights, confrontation between North Korea and western
countries reminds of human rights debate of the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and North and
South Korea during past Cold War period.
Even though global Cold War entered a quiet
stage, the Cold War still existed in Northeast Asia, the Korean peninsula has been divided in
the middle of this situation.
Therefore, it is hard to escape the Cold War way of thinking in
not only security issue but also human rights problems on the Korean peninsula.
Confrontation between universal and relative perspectives causes politicization of human
rights issue, not human rights improvement.
8
Letter dated 12 May 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the President of the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/26/G/2,
3 June 2014.
9
Korea Central News Agency, April 29, 2014; April 30, 2014.
6
Ⅲ. The Emergence of Nuclear Division System
Division on the Korean peninsula was forced in the process of forming the Cold War system
in East Asia, not the Koreans’ opinion by the time. 10 And then, North and South Korea and
overseas Koreans have recognized the division as national issue.
The division has split the
nation by ideological confrontation from the beginning. North and South Korea still have had
hostile relations by now.
As the division has lasted for almost seventy years passing by
letting up the global Cold War, North and South Korea have assumed the trend of two
different countries.
The division has assumed the aspects of complex characters. 11 While
reflecting the change of international system, the division system is said to be a kind of ‘the
dynamics of the interface relationship between hostility and dependence’ by two divided
governments. 12 As main criteria of division system, North and South Korea relations have
been widely known as ‘hostile interdependence relations’. 13
It is a huge problem to reduce the division system into North and South Korea relations, get
main actors within just two divided regimes and consider unification as overcoming the
division system, however.
In this limited discussion, dynamics of international politics
which had formed and has been developing the division system are just dealt with external
variables or policy environment because it is possible to ignore the aspects of infiltration and
internalization into the Korean peninsula. 14 Interests in peace issue seem relatively weak in
such existing discussion.
As considering indivisibility of the Korean peninsula and
10
Bruce Cumings, “Creating Korean Insecurity: The US Role,” Hazel Smith, ed., Reconstituting Korean
Security: A Policy Primer (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2007), pp. 21~42.
11
Myoung-Kyu Park, Sociology of Boundary between North and South Korea (Paju: Changbi, 2012), pp. 37~72.
12
Myung-rim Park, “The Structure and Change of Division Order: The dynamics of the interface relationship
between Hostility and Dependence, 1945-1995,” National Strategy, 3:1 (1997). p. 44.
13
Jong-seok Lee, Newly written, Understanding current North Korea (Seoul: Yuksabipyungsa, 2000), pp.
31~32.
14
Seukryule Hong, Hysteria of Division: Seeking to read the relationship between the U.S. and China and the
Korean peninsula through released document (Paju: Changbi, 2012).
7
Northeast Asia, however, unification on the Korean peninsula should be figured out with
regional peace.
Also, North and South Korea relations theory is laid on state power of
North and South Korea because it is easy to deal with the state-society relationship, while
ignoring the role of social forces.
There have been tried to overcome the limitation of division system theory like this.
them is ‘Division Violence’ theory.
One of
Figuring out the violent character of the division system,
Philo Kim clarified 'division violence' as ‘a series of violence of life, exploitation, and mental
oppression in any divided situation or with the name of division.’ Applying the triangular
violence model of Johan Galtung, he tried to clarify that division violence has the aspects of
physical, structural, cultural violence. The three areas where division violence used are in not
only the relations between North and South Korea but also international system nations
surrounding the Korean peninsula and inside the division society.
impressive that he links division violence to 'division peace.'
In his discussion, it is
It is possible to define division
peace as exercising rightful power to keep the division. However, he says that it is not easy to
separate it from division violence.
He accepted that ‘division violence is a concept of
reflection which reveals fiction of division peace’. 15
The second is that the division system is figured out 'the structure against peace in the Korean
Peninsula.' Sugata Dasgupta used the term ‘peacelessness’, described the lives of people
from the third country and explored alternatives.
Generally, war is an opposite concept of
peace, whereas he defined peacelessness as inspiring the situation where peace doesn’t exist
even with no war. 16 Therefore, the peacelessness is a critical and alternative term which is
interested in the structure, cause and alternatives in an absence of war as criticizing the
unilinear recognition as ‘no war is equal to peace’.
In this sense, Sugata Dasgupta’s
peacelessnss is a noticeable conceptualization to Galtung’s structural and cultural violence.
‘Peacelessness’ is a very useful term to understand the violence multi-dimensionally in the
15
Philo Kim, “Peacelessness on the Korean Peninsula and Division Violence,” A paper presented at the
workshop of ‘Division Violence’ organized by the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies (IPUS) of Seoul
National University, Hoam Faculty House, Seoul, August 20, 2014.
16
Sugata Dasgupta, “Peacelessness and Maldevelopment: A New Theme for Peace Research in Developing
Nations,” A paper presented at the International Peace Research Association, Tallberg, Sweden. 17~19 June
1967.
8
Korean peninsula.
The structure against peace in the Korean peninsula is very difficult
multi-dimensional topic to revert to North and South Korea relations.
The Korean peninsula
is not only the place where actors interplay, but also the complicated historical configuration
which actors and their interactions create. 17
Discussions like division violence and structure against peace in the Korean peninsula have a
significance to overcome the existing limitation to discuss only division system such as state
initiative, finite North and South Korea relationship.
discussion of division system away.
However, it does not turn the static
Because division system is at one with the armistice
system, it has kept changing. The division system has not only adjusted to détente in the
beginning of 1970s, but also lasted the lull in the Cold War in the early 1990s.
Surely in the
2000s, it was not stable sometimes, 18 but it does not have an effect on the root of the division
system.
Rather, the division system has assumed the totally different new aspects by the
2010s.
It was an ‘emergence of nuclear division system’. The nuclear division system has
slowly emerged after missing the two chances of denuclearization on the Korean peninsula in
the late 1990s and in the middle 2000s.
The nuclear division system is a result of not
reverting to the continuous mutual distrust between North and South Korea and the U.S.,
synergism of the arms race and the armistice system.
In this context, the third nuclear test
of North Korea, the hereditary succession of three generations in the North, increased
military tension in Northeast Asia explain many political reasons why the division system
should be lasted in new ways.
Meanwhile, North Korean nuclear issue or denuclearization on the Korean peninsula has
been just recognized a security issue, and it was not discussed in a sense of division system.
As doing three nuclear tests, advancing military technology and declaring their nuclear
weapon state, DPRK insists nuclear disarmament talks with the U.S.
North Korea strongly
explains that their nuclear armament is an inevitable defensive action toward ‘the U.S. hostile
policy toward the Republic’, it plays a role as an inhibition and ultimately helps keep peace in
17
Bo-hyuk Suh, “Why Robert Cox Has Been to the Military Demarcation Line?: The Structure Against Peace
and Its Operational Pattern in the Korean Peninsula,” Korea and World Affairs, 28:3 (2012), pp. 34~36.
18
Nak-chung Paik (Author), Kim Myung-hwan, et al. (Trans.), The Division System in Crisis: Essays on
Contemporary Korea (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2011).
9
Northeast Asia. 19 Also, current North Korea’s top leader Kim Jong-Un regime has been
trying to recover the weakened economic situation and develop deterrence capability by
adopting a new strategic line of “parallel economic construction and nuclear arms
development.” Kim Jong Un asserted the primacy of national sovereignty—which he called
“self-reliant defense”—in a speech at the March 2013 plenary meeting of the Central
Committee of the Korea Workers’ Party: “The constant strengthening of our self-reliant
defense capacity, with nuclear force at the core, constitutes a firm guarantee for protecting
our right to sovereignty and national existence as well as achieving national prosperity.” 20
Following the Kim Jong-Un regime, unification discourses have been reduced and his
leadership propaganda and criticism towards South Korea have increased.
North Korea’s
nuclear capability reinforcement, continuous U.S.-South Korea joint military exercise and
intensified hostile relationship between North and South Korea were the main factors here.
South Korea has been under the nuclear umbrella of the U.S. and maintained military
confrontation with North Korea.
By the 2000s, the alliance between the U.S. and South
Korea has expanded into the world, it has slowly been included into the alliance system of
South Korea, the U.S. and Japan with the purpose of containing China.
Not only
information and communication and armament system, but also the troops of South Korean
army are also more subordinately included to the U.S. security system toward Asia-Pacific. 21
With the reason of preparing for North Korean missile attack, South Korea has begun
participating in missile defense system of the U.S. and tried to exchange military information
with Japan using the framework of the triangular military cooperation. As the compensation
with the cooperation, South Korea could has been continuously under the U.S. nuclear
umbrella.
Officials in Seoul and Washington took the deferral of the operational command
19
“We have thousands of rightful reasons to maintain the nuclear deterrence,” Korea Central News Agency,
October 23, 2010; “Self-preserving nuclear deterrence is the best property of our country,” Rodong Sinmun,
March 13, 2013.
20
“Report on the March plenary session of the Central Committee of Korea Workers’ Party,” Rodong Sinmun,
April 2, 2013.
21
South Korea and the U.S. decided to organize a coalition division by 2015, they are known for their missions
such as operating civil affairs and eliminating the weapons of mass destruction in the region of North Korea.
This coalition division means mixed forces that the brigade level troops of Korean army consist of the U.S.
second division. Yonhap News, September 4, 2014.
10
authority of South Korean army for granted, at least.
George W. Bush who set North Korea
as one of 'axis of evils' and was willing to try nuclear preemptive attack said that he can
dance with Kim Jong-Il in his final term.
Following the Obama Administration, however,
their ‘strategic patience’ toward North Korea has been dealing with them by not dealing with
them. As a result, denuclearization on the Korean peninsula has been drifted farther and
farther.
When North Korea has increased the nuclear armament capability with the reason
of the U.S. hostile policy toward them, the U.S. has expanded South Korea, the U.S., Japan
triangle military cooperation with the reason of threatening North Korea or/and China. The
nuclear division system has become the both byproduct and driving force of intractable
security dilemma in Northeast Asia.
Nuclear division system delays the lull in the Cold War structure in Northeast Asia region, it
is likely to promote militarism of denuclearized South Korea and Japan.
Also, nuclear
division system displays firmness of division system on the Korean peninsula, at the same
time it may be a terminal symptom of the division system.
North Korea’s nuclear armament
seems to display firmness of the division system with providing South Korea with the U.S.
nuclear umbrella in a qualitatively different way, however.
Ⅳ. Synergism of Human Rights Politics and Militarism
1. Politicization of Human Rights
The difference in human rights perspectives between North and South Korea itself does not
bring the politicization of human rights issue.
If one raises the opponent’s human rights
issue, it could be a point of dispute depending on how it approaches to the issue.
More
specifically, whether human rights issue between North and South Korea could be a point of
dispute, it depends on the direction of South Korean policy toward North Korea.
Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun governments tried to promote human rights situation
and were highly acclaimed at home and abroad.
Both governments pushed forward with
engagement policy toward North Korea and concentrated on improving the relationship with
North Korea and settling down peace.
Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun governments
11
recognized that North Korean human rights issue is not only an internationally universal
concern, but also it is very serious. So, they thought that South Korea has to participate in
actively promoting North Korean human rights as a member of the international community.
Simply, the both had strategic features toward North Korean human rights issue, considering
the overall target of the policy toward North Korea such as the reduction of tension on the
Korean peninsula and inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation.
Both governments ①
provided humanitarian assistance for North Koreans’ right to survival, ② preserved ‘quiet
diplomacy’ and established a settlement support system for protecting North Korean refugees
and their settlements, ③ tried to approach North Koreans’ civil and political rights indirectly
thorough international organization and non-governmental organization. 22 Also, the both
governments held the reunion of the separated families frequently through continuous
conversations between two authorities, two Koreas agreed on setting up a meeting room for
frequent reunion of them at Mt. Keumgang.
In addition, they let North Korea recognize the
existence of abductees in the North and Korean War POWs detained in North Korea, and
pushed forward within the framework of meeting of the reunion of the separated families.
South Korea was inconsistent with voting for and against North Korean human rights
resolutions and even nonparticipation for it in this period because the direction of the policy
toward North Korea focused on denuclearization on the Korean peninsula.
North Korea did not spark a conflict with South Korean government with regards to human
rights issue during the two governments.
However, there was only an exceptional case.
As Roh government took about four hundreds North Korean refugees who stayed in Vietnam
to South Korea openly on July 2004, North Korean government stopped the dialogues
between North and South Korea for one year.
In this period, the government and the ruling
party also came into conflict with conservative opposition party regarding North Korean
human rights issue.
As enacting North Korean human rights law in the U.S. and Japan, in
2004 and 2006 respectively, the conservative opposition party, Hanara party (now Saenuri
party) and North Korean human rights organizations tried to enact North Korean human
22
Ministry of Unification, 2003 Unification White Paper (Seoul: 2003); Ministry of Unification, 2007
Unification White Paper (Seoul: 2007).
12
rights law.
However, both governments concluded that the law would draw a strong
opposition from North Korea resulting in no actual human rights improvement.
In contrast, the Lee Myung-bak administration’s stance was that “human rights is a universal
value and therefore should be dealt separately from other agendas.” In contrast with the
stances of the two previous administrations, the Lee administration voted in favor of the UN
resolutions on North Korea’s human rights violations. Lee’s policies resonated with the
stance of the international community, but as a result, they led to the deterioration of interKorean relations. Emphasizing the universality of human rights did not lead to any practical
strategies for improving human rights in North Korea. As a consequence, the Lee
administration was criticized for exacerbating the North Korea–South Korea situation without
achieving anything tangible. 23 Current Park Geun-hye government is implementing the same
policy toward North Korean human rights as the former government did.
They have
actively participated in UN resolutions for North Korean human rights, have pursued North
Korean human rights law, and have not provided with direct governmental humanitarian
assistance.
Far from the meaningful cooperation between North and South Korea in the
field of human rights, they have not had mutual dialogues steadily.
While the Park Geun-
hye government created a ‘unification is a great success’ discourse and set up the Unification
Preparatory Committee, they have not implemented policy for North Korean human rights
because of domestic issues such as the Sewol ferry accidents and economic downturn, as well
as mutual distrust between two Koreas.
The biggest and the most serious problem in the
Lee and Park governments is that they recognized North Korean human rights issue as being
equal to universal issue and international cooperation, while giving up the dialogues with
North Korea.
In the meantime, nuclear armed North Korea insists that human rights are
equal to state rights, and responds to external pressure.
As international human rights organizations have stepped up the pressure for North Korea,
South Korean government has gone along with this, North Korea strongly opposed to them,
practical improvement for North Korean human rights look hard to promote in this situation.
The politicization of human rights that political pressure brings about boomerang has turned
23
Bo-hyuk Suh, “Beyond Silence and Blaming: Revisiting South Korea’s Role in North Korean Human Rights,”
Asian Perspective 37 (2013), p. 85.
13
up noticeably in the issue of North Korean human rights.
2. The Development of Militarism
It is hard to explain military tension on the Korean peninsula lasting almost for seventy years
only with security dilemma.
rationality.
The security dilemma may be an unintended result of
Self-defense efforts for national survival have not been coordinated.
There are
the will and the power to form and last the division and the armistice system beyond the
security dilemma on the Korean peninsula.
Here the distinction between the military and
militarism is crucial.
A pioneer of the theory of militarism, Alfred Vagts defined in 1937 that “militarism presents a
vast array of customs, interests, prestige, actions, and thought associated with armies and
wars and yet transcending true military purposes.” Vagts distinguished militarism from ‘the
military’ “marked by a primary concentration of men and materials on winning specific
objectives of power with the utmost efficiency.” He characterized militarism such that it may
permeate all society and become dominant over all industries and arts. 24 High military
expenses, as well as military way of thinking and custom are beyond the military, also
military approach toward all the international politics issues are considered to be features of
militarism. 25
Chalmers Johnson also classified into the military and militarism as follows.
The military means all the activities, qualities, and institutions required by a nation to fight a
war in its defense. A military should be concerned with ensuring national independence, a
sine qua non for the maintenance of personal freedom. But, militarism is the phenomenon by
which a nation’s armed service comes to put their institutional preservation ahead of
achieving national security or even a commitment to the integrity of the governmental
structure of which they are a part.
have brought sadness to them.
Johnson said that imperialism and militarism of the U.S.
The sadness is specifically in the state of permanent war, the
24
Alfred Vagts, A History of Militarism: Civilian and Military, Revised Edition (New York: Free Press, 1959), p.
13.
25
Ernie Regehr, “What is Militarism,” in AsbjØrn Eide and Marek Thee, eds., Problems of Contemporary
Militarism (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1980), pp. 131~136.
14
loss of democracy, the spread of war and demagogy system, and economic collapse. 26
However, the inertia to maintain the authority and reputation of the U.S. as an empire causes
or lasts the conflicts all around the world.
The Korean peninsula and Middle East are the
representative examples.
Despite difference of degree, both Koreas are thoroughly militarized societies. Enshrined in
statutory form in its constitution, North Korea’s Songun Sasang (military first ideology; 先軍
思想) is central to the militaristic development of North Korean society. The unstable
economic situation in DPRK notwithstanding, its military expenses represent roughly 20
percent of its national budget—a huge percentage of its overall expenditures. That North
Korea’s constitution stipulates the unity of the military and the citizens according to
collectivist principles bespeaks the degree to which military culture is sanctioned. Yet the
enshrinement of militarism as a national prerogative is not exclusive to South Korea. Despite
its legacy of having overthrown military dictatorships and albeit globally extolled as a vibrant
democracy, South Korea is in point of fact a society thoroughly penetrated by militarism.
Thirty-two times the size of North Korea’s national defense budget, South Korea’s military
budget vastly dwarfs that of most countries in the world. From 2007 to 2011, South Korea
rose to become the second largest national importer of weapons. Critics have pointed to the
way South Korea’s arms escalation serves the neo–cold war U.S. strategy of containing China.
Under the alarmist cover of national security, the South Korean government not only has
spent astronomical sums on importing arms but also has allowed its military policy to remain
virtually unchecked by civilian control and good governance. Besides, as a country that
outspends all other nations combined when it comes to the world arms budget, that leads the
charge in most contemporary international conflicts, and that has the greatest stakes in the
military-industrial complex, the United States cannot be omitted from discussions of “Korean”
militarism. From the division of the Korean peninsula, which precipitated the Korean War as
a civil war of national reunification, to the present, the United States has been continuously
invested in the maintenance of an ongoing state of hostilities on the Korean peninsula. In this
context, the one-sided U.S. critique of North Korean human rights fundamentally obscures
26
Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York:
Metropolitan Books, 2004), pp. 23~24, 284~285.
15
basic U.S. responsibility for human rights problems, both past and present, on the Korean
peninsula. Militarism on the Korean peninsula implicates not only South and North Korea
and their hostile interactions toward each other but also the United States, whose long-term
involvement and intervention have destabilized both Koreas and the larger region. 27
Although national security-based conventional security discourse have much prevalence and
influence, it obscures on the context of Korean Peninsula complex underlying intra-regional
security dynamics by focusing on North Korea as the source of most of the region’s troubles.
Such an approach reduces knowledge about complex security problems to a “one cause fits
all” diagnosis. 28 As approaching to North and South Korea relations in a security theory, ①
the main interest target is not only the ruling territory of both countries but also guard of the
ruling ideology, ② the matter of utmost concern is about defense of the territory and social
order protection, ③ main actors are the states at most, the rest of them are assistants, ④ the
means are military power, alliance and negotiation, if required.
It is inevitable that North
and South Korea relations management or policy toward opposite nation based on national
security theory in a situation of division considering the hostility and confrontation between
North and South Korea.
In a case of approaching to North and South Korean relations
depending on national security theory, however, absolutely necessary values to improve the
quality of people's life such as human rights, sustainable development, welfares are damaged.
With the name of the national security theory in actuality, both divided powers have
oppressed the quality of people's life.
Fundamentally, not only North and South Korea
relations by national security theory, but also survival and peace of the public have been
unstable.
There are some reasons to bail out of militarism for sustainable security on the
Korean peninsula here.
A rapid changes in or out of the Korean peninsula such as
democratization, a lull in the Cold War, globalization also gave us a chance to deal with
North and South Korean relations with the different point of view. 29
27
Bo-hyuk Suh, “The Militarization of Korean human Rights: A Peninsula Perspective,” Critical Asian Studies
46:1 (2014), pp. 7~8.
28
Hazel Smith, “Reconstituting Korean Security Dilemmas,” Hazel Smith, ed., Reconstituting Korean Security,
pp. 3~5.
29
Bo-hyuk Suh, “Human Security and State’s Role,” in Bo-Hyuk Suh, ed., Human Security and Two Koreas’
16
If advances in inter-Korean relations can impact the human rights situations of the two
Koreas for the better, militarism is a variable that unquestionably transforms human rights
situation for the worse. Uniquely bound in hostile interdependence, South Korea and North
Korea require a comprehensive human rights approach that does not isolate one or the other
for censure. Such a comprehensive human rights approach would necessitate a reckoning
with the obstacle that militarism poses to the simultaneous and integrated progress of human
rights on the peninsula as a whole. 30
Although the aspects and the degrees are different, the accelerating forces of militarism have
continued on the entire Korean peninsula under the division system.
Confrontation of
human rights perspectives and politicization of human rights, nuclear division system and
militarism as an extreme types of security dilemma, these explain that human rights and
security have taken wrong places on the Korean peninsula and made a synergy effect in a
negative way from the beginning.
In different to this, is it possible to build a
complementary relationship taking human rights and security in a positive direction?
Ⅴ. The Motive of Transformation
There are two ways for human rights and security to build a complementary relationship in
both aspects of theory and reality.
human rights in security.
One includes peace in human rights, another embraces
Expanding the category of human rights to peace rejects the
confrontation of human rights perspectives surrounding the first and second generations and
helps recognize human rights and peace equally.
What the main agents and target of
security turn national security into human security helps security issue set civil control and
reconcile both security and human rights.
Right to human security is a part of the right to
peace, with the right to live in a safe and healthy environment, right to development and to a
sustainable environment, right to disobedience and to conscientious objection, right to resist
Cooperation (Seoul: Acanet, 2013), pp. 98~99.
30
Suh, “The Militarization of Korean Human Rights,” p. 10.
17
and oppose oppression, and right to disarmament. 31 Right to peace and human security are
alternative discourses to create positive synergy effects beyond the distortion of human rights
and security each. What change is possible to apply both right to peace and human security
to the Korean peninsula?
1. Right to Peace
Right to peace can be defined as the right of peoples to engage in peaceful life without
violence in negative dimension, and denying the structural and cultural violence to undermine
peace and sustainable life against in violence and war in positive dimension.
The negative
way of right to peace on the Korean peninsula indicates the right to peace and security
through the opposition of war and the threat of war, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
The negative way of right to peace in reality, is possible when there’s coexistence of peace
between North and South, transition to a peace regime from the existing armistice system and
denuclearization on the peninsula.
Here, it is important for the core rights bearers who are
the key point in the argument of right to peace to promote and discuss the mutual roles
clearly and also enhance interaction.
It is necessary to vitalize cooperation through the six
party talks and bilateral talks among concerned parties each.
For the duty bearers and rights
bearers to urge the parties to live under right to peace is needed. However, education on peace
should be preceded, given the situation on the Korean Peninsula does not recognize the right
to peace.
There’s no superiority between negative peace and positive peace.
Rather paradoxically
tells the need to pursue two real peaces on the Korean peninsula at the same time.
Surely,
there may be a doubt on the feasibility on active right to peace, as peace in the situation of
division on the peninsula recognize more of ‘the negative peace = security.’ The proposition,
the division cannot reserve human rights and democracy, which has been justified since
democratization in 1987, however.
The necessity of views on the peaceful reunification and
realization of the need to visualize the problem of the universal values of human rights in the
31
“Santiago Declaration on the Human Rights to Peace,” Adopted at the International Congress on the Human
Right to Peace, 9~10 December 2010, Santiago, Spain.
18
Korean peninsula have been increased. 32 Active right to peace has a significant meaning
which contains the exclusion of armaments possession, the exclusion of obstructive behaviors
to peace by nations (ex. Arms export), right to nonparticipation in military activity by the
freedom of conscience and religion, the prohibition of the limit on the basic rights of military
purpose (ex. Attachment of property, a limit on the freedom of expression), right to live out of
the shadow of war in this context.
Here, military security policy through transparence and
the right to participation of citizens belong to the positive side of the right to peace.
This
provides with an opportunity to reevaluate US armed forces in Korea and its camp operation,
arms introduction project, the redeployment and construction of military bases, policy toward
North Korea, policy for dispatch troops.
In Korea, the right to peace has a feature which is
not only a domestic level but also relationship between North and South Korea and on the
Korean peninsula. 33
To check the validity of right to peace on the Korean peninsula, it is necessary to approach to
right to peace with above both levels at the same time, reflecting their stances and
understandings of individuals and groups as a right bearer.
At an early stage, what local
governments, experts and civil organizations in current Korea have begun being interested in
right to peace is encouraging.
Discussions on rights to peace by not only UNESCO but also
a number of specialist groups all around the world, a local assembly, civil organizations will
be helpful. 34
What the most important undertone of development of right to peace discourse
given to Korea is what peace is the human rights, and what right to peace pursues at a Korean
peninsula level itself. Of course, in front of these hopeful discussions, there is a saying of Si
vis pacem, para bellum, i.e. peace by forces, among surrounding countries such as North and
South Korea and the U.S. It is possible to overcome when setting up the democratic system
32
Bo-hyuk Suh, “A Search for a Universal Discourse of Unification and Human Rights-Democracy Friendly
Relations between the Two Koreas,” Korean Journal of Area Studies 32:1 (2014), pp. 7~32.
33
Kyoung-Joo Lee, Understanding Rights to Peace: Concept, History, Analysis, and Application (Seoul:
Sapyoung Academy, 2014); Bo-hyuk Suh, “The Trend of the Discussion of International Human Right to Peace
and Its Implication,” The 21st Century Political Science Review 22:1 (2012), pp. 82~83.
34
UN Human Rights Council, “Progress Report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the
Right of Peoples to Peace,” A/HRC/17/39, Distr.: General, 28 March 2011; UN General Assembly, “Declaration
and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace,” A/53/243, Distr. 6 October 1999; Douglas Roche, The Human
Right to Peace (Ottawa: Saint Paul University, 2003).
19
and establishing security perspective focused on human beings at last.
2. Human Security
If you look at the inter-Korean relations depending on the needs of the human security, what
is the difference with the national security theory?
If you explore the North and South
Korea relations by human security theory, ① The concerns are the necessity of the public
such as development and human rights, ② discussion range from seven areas, such as food,
health, environmental, economic, personal, community and political security, ③ main actors
are (inter-)governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, local communities,
and ④ means are human development, human rights, political development, and public
participation etc.
Looking to the future inter-Korean relations based on this, you can see a
qualitative change in inter-Korean relations. As Inter-Korean relations reconfiguration by
human security theory should be reconstructed from the state-centric to the public centric, the
state has to form partnerships with non-state actors in such a transition. 35
As far as the division exists, of course, it fundamentally causes a question if human security
is really possible on the Korean peninsula.
The human security theory is an alternative
security process between ideal romance and fundamental doubts.
Human security needs to
set up such stages as inter-Korea relation, early reunification, conflict situation, reunification
complete with an appropriate realistic approach each.
Observing North and South Korea
relations through the perspective of human security gives prominence to coexistence,
cooperation and co-prosperity between North and South Korea beyond confrontation.
Surely, inter-Korean personal security and political security areas are hard to be applied with
other areas at the same time, because of the discomforts of different systems. Especially,
national security and human security are closely related 36 because it is required for two
35
This human security section below is revised by Suh, “Human Security and State’s Role,” pp. 99~100,
103~104
36
Hazel Smith, Hungry for Peace: International Security, Humanitarian Assistance, and Social Change in
North Korea (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2005).
20
Koreas to approach to them more carefully.
The efforts to improve human security between
two Koreas give opportunity to explore policy toward North Korea newly in terms of
promoting the quality of people's lives more effectively, rather than the approach of national
security paradigm. Also, developing North and South Korea relation and co-evolving, it is
possible to pursue political security.
First of all, for human security approach to initiate across the 38th line on the peninsula, both
North and South Korea can have to expect any benefits through cooperation.
North Korea
has a limitation to manage their state because of chronic economic downturn and isolation
from the international community.
In this situation, North Korea has implemented ‘military
first policy’ as they clearly have a limitation in the aspect of reformation.
In this point,
favorable diplomatic environment and international relation are crucial for their normal
national development.
Japan and South Korea.
The main countries for diplomatic relations with are China, the U.S.,
To be out of a weaker relation between North and South Korea, as
North Korea has tried to make a good relationship and cooperate with China and Russia, they
also have to strive to make better relations with Japan and the U.S.
However, it is
impossible to make better relations with them without improving relations with South Korea.
What the most important thing to North Korea is whether South Korea pursues absorbing
unification.
As a non-political approach North and South Koreas cooperation through
human security theory looks interesting to North Korea.
It is impossible to talk human security from the beginning.
In this situation, as the United
Nations and other relevant international organizations hold a meeting so-called ‘Promoting
Human Security on the Korean Peninsula: Vision and Strategy’, they can play a role as a
facilitator.
Humanitarian assistance and development cooperation will contribute to
improving human security itself and making a better cooperative relationship with North
Korea.
By doing this, international community can lead to the cooperative direction of
developing universal values such as peace, human rights, sustainable development and
humanitarianism on the peninsula.
Reconfigured North-South relations through human security are very meaningful in the
context of such as ① establishing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, ②
21
increasing inter-Korean economic cooperation and cultural exchanges, ③ international
support zoom, ④ the foundation of gradual unification huge.
Besides these,
reconfiguration of two Koreas' relationship through human security helps make improvement
of civic control, policy toward North Korea on the priority of the public life, and private
participation.
When reconfiguring the North and South Korea relations, the most preferred
issue is the civil participation and guarantee of their interests.
The private sectors are very
diverse such as business, dispersed family, religion, art, sport and academia.
In terms of the
attribute of human security, the private actors participate in the relationship between North
and South Korea as main agents, not assistant of government.
If it is not possible, it is
impossible to build a better relationship between North and South Korea in terms of human
security.
Ⅵ. Concluding Remark
Why is the Korean conflict proving so intractable?
Because in Korean conflict there are
contradictions flocculated from which humans suffered through world modern history.
Also,
because political parties, in other words advocates keeping the division and pursuing their
unjust interests have maintained their vested rights. Therefore, it may distort the nature of the
Korean conflict, if you ease to understand the conflict only between North and South. The
prolonged division on Korean peninsula shows that there’s groups still remains to support
division of peninsula by reproducing distrust and a sense of animosity. The confrontation and
conflicts on the issues of human rights between two Korea is the remnants of the Cold War,
and the continuation of the division system together with the armistice has been developed
further to nuclear division in the international political system. This is the cause of national
security, and the politicization of human rights is only a reflection of the long-term division
of the peninsula. This is why the role of the international community is also important and
needed for the peace on the Korean peninsula.
If division and war are the work of humanity, it is possible to achieve human settlement and
peace by the work of humanity again. You can search the motives to change the politicization
of human rights and rising militarism by bringing the active role between two Koreas and
22
leading the international support. The right to peace and human security may be good
alternative solutions.
Given the segmented system, it will be hard to realize straight the
vision of human security and the right to peace in the Northeast Asian political reality. The
change in understanding of human rights and security is imperative first. The creative
practice comes from the freedom of imagination. Communication, assistance, and exchange
would bring great meaning today in realizing the positive synergic effect of human rights and
security on the Korean peninsula.
23