Domestic Policies of South Korea

Rep. Thomas Foglietta’s column (“Korea Uses Reunification to Hide Its Own Repression,” Commentary, July 27) concerning the domestic and foreign policies of the Republic of Korea was an unconscionable mix of half-truths, lies and unwarranted conclusions. I not only take issue with the conclusions he draws, but would like to point out a number of inaccuracies.

1) He specifically suggests that the government’s efforts to ease tensions with North Korea are aimed at diverting attention from domestic problems. The fact that the Administration of the Sixth Republic has consistently pursued reunification with vigor is proof that this is not the case.

Soon after assuming office in February, 1988, President Roh Tae Woo decided that, given the trend toward improving East-West relations, it was time to take bold measures. In July, 1988, he unveiled a policy which called for the South and North to end the hostile standoff and enter into negotiations over basic measures to ease tension such as the exchange of citizens and the opening of trade.

The South and the North have agreed to a meeting between our respective prime ministers in early September. If this is realized, it will be the highest level contact ever between Seoul and Pyongyang.

2) Any discussion of the national security law must not forget that we have lived in a virtual state of war for many years. However in response to the changing situation, there is a consensus developing that it is time for a change in the law and two bills are now pending in the National Assembly. Specifically, the bill supported by the Democratic Liberal Party greatly narrows the scope of application of the law to ensure that it will not infringe on human rights. Moreover a bill supporting exchanges with the North recently passed the Assembly and suspends many provisions of the national security law.

3) The great majority of those who the congressman has, for his own political purposes, labeled as “political prisoners” have been charged or tried and found guilty of such crimes as arson, the takeover of public buildings, destruction of property and other forms of violence. They have their day in court.

4) The 26 laws which the article claimed were “railroaded” through the legislature had actually been deliberated in detail. When the time came for a vote, the opposition parties, which hold only 76 of the 299 seats, attempted to physically block other members from voting. The bills were then passed quickly to avoid escalating the confrontation.

5) The recently passed military reform bill does not, as the congressman suggests, leave the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) unaccountable to civilian officials. Quite the contrary, the reforms are patterned after the American system, and the JCS head will be accountable to the defense minister and the president.

6) The reference to a supposed “popular belief” that 2,000 people were killed in Kwangju in 1980 is irresponsible. No one denies that the events in Kwangju were a tragedy. The Assembly has passed a compensation bill. There has been no evidence to support the inflated figure.

7) The question of whether Korea should have a cabinet or presidential system of government--both of which are democratic forms of government--must be decided by Koreans alone. Foglietta’s suggestions that those who are advocating a cabinet system somehow have an ulterior motive or that America should get directly involved are completely out of line. His assertion that a parliamentary form of government means a “return to dictatorship” is slanderous.

TAE-SUP LEE

Member, National Assembly

Republic of Korea