[ad_1]
Enter 2021.01.03 10:13
2021.01.03 10:15 review
Even after the law is passed, the controversy still remains with the US reaction … North Korea’s reaction attention
The controversy surrounding the North Korean war is hot. This is the sequel to the revised draft law on the Development of Inter-Korean Relations (the Prohibition of War Against North Korea Act). As of March 30, 2021, the spraying of flyers on the military demarcation line may be subject to a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine of up to 30 million won. Consequently, North Korean human rights organizations and others have confronted them by submitting a constitutional petition.
The surface is the conflict surrounding the shear. But the meaning is not simple. Constitutional values, political interests, and relations with the United States are intertwined. With the war against North Korea, there is also a pattern of expansion into a confrontational political framework between conservatives and progressives. Although the law was made in a jiffy, there are many mountains to overcome until it is enforced.
‘Right to life’ versus ‘freedom of expression’
It was on December 14, 2020 that the National Assembly approved the prohibition of the war against North Korea. The power of the people tried to prevent the approval of the bill with an obstructionism (unlimited discussion). In addition, the Democratic Party won three-fifths of the registered lawmakers (180 votes), which is a requirement to end filibuster, and passed the bill. The law passed by the government was enacted on December 29, 2020.
The legitimacy of the legislation that the Democratic Party defends is the “right to life” of the people in the border region. Residents of Gimpo and Paju, Gyeonggi Province, are said to be exposed to North Korean retaliatory attacks caused by the spread of the scissors. Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the North Korean Graduate School, said: “There is a feeling that the revision of the law is overdue. It is natural to protect the right to life of 1.12 million people in the area. border “. Paju Mayor Choi Jong-hwan also said: “The spread of the war to North Korea is a serious crime that violates the right to live of residents in the border region.”
On the other hand, the conservative camps, including the power of the people, insist on the violation of “freedom of expression.” Kim Tae-hoon, president of the Korean Peninsula (Han Byeon) Reunification and Human Rights Lawyers Association, said: “You are violating both the freedom of the people to express their opinions and the right to know of the North Korean people.” said. Some argue that the war ban on North Korea is a matter of “methodology” rather than “freedom of speech.” Han Sang-hee, professor at Konkuk University School of Law, said: “The flyer problem is a matter of moving goods from South Korea to North Korea.” He added: “No one has a problem with what they say to North Korea or Kim Jong-un through the media.”
‘Kim Yeo-jeong Ha Myung-beop’ vs. ‘National Ha Myung-beop’
The differences in the perception of the law to prohibit the war against North Korea, which were not reduced, turned the issue into a means of political conflict. It is a confrontation between the so-called ‘Kim Yeo-jung Ha Myung Beop’ and the ‘National Ha Myung Beop’.
The two Koreas decided to stop all hostile activities, including the dissemination of leaflets, along the military demarcation line through the Panmunjom Declaration of April 27, 2018. However, on May 31, 2020, organizations like the ‘Federation of North Korea Free Movement’ they sprinkled the North Korean war in Seongdong-ri, Wolgot-myeon, Gimpo-si, Gyeonggi-do. On June 4, Kim Yeo-jeong, the first vice chairman of the North Korean Workers’ Party, said, “If you just make some excuses and keep it up, the South Korean authorities will pay the price severely.” The Blue House responded by saying, “We will continue to abide by all agreements between the two Koreas.” Six months later, a ban on the war against North Korea was enacted.
The legislative basis is an agreement between the two Koreas, but the opposition party criticizes that “Kim Yeo-jeong made a law in a word.” In this regard, Professor Seung-wook Lee from the KAIST Department of Humanities and Social Sciences said: “The war of political frameworks has come to an end.”
The fact that the issue of the war against North Korea is related to political interests can be confirmed through the values emphasized by each regime. Professor Lee, who studied the problem of the spread of the war to North Korea in Paju, said: “The conservative regime that emphasized security threats and suppressed ‘freedom of speech’ protected ‘freedom of speech’ against the spread of the war against North Korea. The progressive regime, which has emphasized ‘freedom of speech’, is silent on the rights violated by the prohibition of the war against North Korea. The values emphasized by conservatives and progress as needed were also ignored.
The reaction of the United States is another variable in the political struggle against the North Korean war. The US State Department stated that “the free flow of information to North Korea must continue” on the law against North Korea. The ‘Tom Lantos Human Rights Committee’ of the United States Congress announced the holding of a hearing on the law of war against North Korea. Democratic party lawmakers refuted this as “lack of awareness or misunderstanding,” “misunderstanding of inter-Korean relations” and “invasion of sovereignty.”
In response, Lee Hee-hoon, a professor at the Sunmoon University Legal Police Department, said: “It is undesirable to respond to concerns about human rights and freedom of expression abroad by violating sovereignty.” . On the other hand, Professor Yang said: “The alliance must be an alliance of value based on mutual respect” and “It is not an alliance to follow the United States on the issue of the Korean peninsula, but subordination.” He added: “The United States also restricted freedom of expression and human rights after the 9/11 incident.”
There is also the interpretation that the US reaction is the result of vested interests. In fact, the law of war against North Korea has a side in conflict with the North Korean Human Rights Law of the United States. The United States supports North Korean human rights organizations in South Korea to bring information into North Korea. Professor Lee of KAIST said: “There are political and economic interests behind the values of freedom, human rights and the right to know.”
On the other hand, there are not only extreme clashes over the law of war against North Korea. Some point out that it can be supplemented. Professor Han said, “We just have to regulate the North Korean war distribution method, but there is a side that seems to regulate the content,” said Prof Han. “I think technically he had no experience in the legislative process.” , said.
Professor Lee from Sunmoon University said: “According to our constitution, North Korea cannot deny the nature of an illegal organization. If we block the possibility of sending a brochure to North Korea in such a situation, it could lead to problems such as preliminary censorship. “. He said: “We have to report and approve the propagation of the North Korean war to the Unification Minister,” he said. “If the plaintiff does not agree, he can leave it to the judgment of the court.”
As controversy over the law grew, Unification Minister Lee In-young said: “Before the law takes effect, we will promulgate the ‘Guidelines for the Interpretation of Rules for Spreading Shears.’ Government officials are also explaining the purpose of the bill to diplomatic groups in Korea and foreign media. The government’s will to obey the law is firm. That is why North Korea’s reaction to this is getting more attention.
