Q1. It seems that the mission of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Korea is quite different than previous transitional justice efforts (such as the Presidential Truth Committee on Suspicious Deaths), due in large part to the emphasis on reconciliation.
A1. The correct title for the commission mentioned in the bracket above is “the Presidential Truth Commission on Suspicious Deaths in the Military), and thus having clear distinction in its scope of investigation, compared to the TRCK. It only deals with cases in the military, while our commission deals with overall human rights abuses during Korea’s democratization process. Other commissions in Korea in relation to truth-finding work more or less have also distinctive orbits covering either different time period or different sectors of the society. We believe truth-finding work is an initiative step to reach the possible reconciliation and without it, it would be practically impossible to achieve the reconciliation. Since, all of the above-mentioned commissions are dedicated to find truth from past wrongdoings, in a sense that they all share common ground of having been qualified to take cases to the status of reconciliation, which is the fundamental goal of all truth-finding works.
Q2. To what extent is reconciliation a goal of the TRCK?
A2. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Korea does not have any authority to persecute or provide economic compensation to petitioners, but it has a right to investigate filed cases, submit investigated reports to the President and the Parliament twice a year, and tell its findings to anybody interested afterwards. As commented above, we believe truth-finding is the first step toward reconciliation. Although the commission doesn’t have direct authority to persecute, petitioners are still empowered with taking commission’s findings to the court and use them for judicial settlements; often resulting in some kind of compensations.
Q3. How is reconciliation pursued (Truth-telling? Apologies from perpetrators? Reparations from the courts?)?
A3. You understood correctly. Measures below are used to seek reconciliation between perpetrators and victims. 1. Truth-telling through commission’s investigative reports, 2. Recommendations to public authorities to give formal apologies to victims, 3. Judicial settlements from the courts, 4. Restoring honors of the victims by establishing memorial monuments or holding memorial services, etc.
Q4. I have read the TRCK's 2008 brochure, which does a good job at laying out the framework of reconciliation. I would just like to have some additional information to better understand the activities of the TRC, government, and civil society in terms of reconciliation efforts. I am trying to pin down if the TRCK is a turning point in transitional justice in Korea in regard to reconciliation. Could you direct me to previous efforts at reconciliation in South Korea (in the post-military regime period)?
A4. The investigative scope of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Korea covers largely three different areas. Overseas independence movement during Japanese occupation, mass civilian sacrifices around the Korean War, and human rights abuses during Korea’s democratization.
Yes, there were previous efforts attempting to seek truth and settle the past. In 1948, a special law to persecute collaborators to Japanese during its colonial regimes was passed, yet annulled in 1951; this law is largely acknowledged unsuccessful and a large number of those accused of collaborating with the Japanese occupational government survived successfully, and even prosper in the U.S. occupational government, military dictatorships, and until today. Although, during a lengthy period of military dictatorships in Korea, there weren’t much attention given to the truth-finding work in the governmental arena, there were constant movements among civil groups and the public. Gwangju Democratic Movement in 1980, Student Demonstration at Konkuk Uni. In 1987, etc. show good examples how people and civil groups were still requesting truth even under severe repression of the authoritarian rules. Then, in 1995, two of the former authoritarian rulers of Korea, Chun Doo-hwan and Noh Tae-woo were persecuted and sentenced; leaving valuable lesson of even succeeded coups can be punished. Then the systematically implemented truth-finding work in the governmental level only began when the former president Noh Moo-hyun took the office.
Q5. What is the level of truth that the TRCK is trying to achieve? Would you say it is more of a narrative-truth or legal truth (beyond a reasonable doubt)?
A5. Could you define “narrative-truth” and “legal truth”?
Q6.I saw on the website that an MOU was recently signed with Chile in the area of transitional justice. Congratulations! What other nations has the TRCK worked with or looked to for guidance? Are there any other nations that the TRCK or Korean government has formal agreements with in the realm of transitional justice?
A6. Many other countries also share similar stories that Korea has, and thus leaving responsibilities of settling the past to all. Not to mention the countries involved in the I and II World Wars, there still are plenty of countries out there to look for exemplary stories in regard to truth-finding works. Among those, we can easily look to cases from South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Rwanda, Cambodia, Indonesia, Spain, even Canada and the U.S. Our commission tries to build an international alliance in relations to make truth-finding process soother for respective nation. Currently, we’re working with Argentineans.
