By Cindy Saine
Washington, VOA
25 February 2009
Senator Patrick Leahy
Influential Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy has proposed that an independent "truth commission" be established to investigate alleged abuses of power under the Bush administration. President Barack Obama has reacted cautiously to the suggestion, saying he is more interested in looking forward than backwards.
Several Democratic lawmakers have joined a number of human-rights organizations in calling for an investigation of the Bush administration's counter-terrorism policies. Controversial policies include certain interrogation techniques used at U.S. detention centers in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the warrant-less wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
Speaking at Georgetown University earlier this month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said there was a "dangerous departure from the rule of law" during the Bush administration, and that Congress needs to make sure America gets back on the right track.
"One path to that goal would be a reconciliation process, a truth commission. We could develop and authorize a person, a group of people universally recognized as fair-minded, without any ax to grind [no personal or political interest]. Their straightforward mission would be to find the truth. People would be told to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts, he said.
Leahy said he envisions the panel modeled after the truth commission in South Africa that investigated the apartheid era, and that immunity from prosecution could be offered to those who cooperate.
"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened. And sometimes the best way to move forward, is to find out the truth, find out what happened, and we do that to make sure it never happens again," he said.
Leahy has also made clear that Democratic lawmakers who supported questionable Bush administration policies must also be investigated, which may help to explain why not many Democratic lawmakers have been clamoring for the commission.
A 2008 file photo of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., on Capitol Hill
One notable exception is House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, who has called for a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, with subpoena power, much like the 9/11 Commission.
Elizabeth Goitien of the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute, agrees that some sort of truth commission could help U.S. credibility.
"Now in order to do that, the commission would have to be set up correctly, I mean it would have to have real teeth and real powers. It would have to have subpoena power, it would have to get cooperation from the government and there would have to be the force of law behind it to make sure that it got cooperation. And it would have to be thorough and unflinching. But I think if a commission were to be set up the right way and to do a good job, then I think "yes", it could demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are very serious about accountability," she said.
Most Republican lawmakers oppose investigating the Bush administration, saying such a probe could compromise counter-terrorism efforts.
Moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter rejected the idea of truth commissions, saying if every administration started to examine what the previous administration did, there would be no end to it.
President Barack Obama addresses a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of the Capitol in Washington, 24 Feb 2009
President Obama has not endorsed the truth commission. At a nationally-televised prime-time news conference earlier this month, he was asked about Leahy's proposal, and said he would review it.
"Nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen. But, that generally speaking, I am more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards," he said.
Mr. Obama may fear an investigation could inflame the kind of partisan divisions he has said he wants to avoid. Also the president will likely need Republican support to deal with the economic crisis and challenges such as health care and foreign policy issues.
But a USA Today/Gallup poll this month found that 62 percent of Americans support either a criminal investigation or an independent panel to look into allegations of torture and other abuses of power during the Bush administration.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Human Rights Report; the US State Department
Below is the Human Rights Report of the US State Department, released on Feb. 25. Amongst dozens of nations, the one of the Republic of Korea is extracted here for your reference. How objectively they were written? I guess that's upto your own judgement. For those, who think they understand Korea, let me hear your voice. (beforethedawn7@gmail.com)
U.S. Department of State
2008 Human Rights Report: Republic of Korea
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
February 25, 2009
The Republic of Korea (Korea or ROK) is a constitutional democracy governed by a president and a unicameral legislature. The country has a population of approximately 48 million. In April the Grand National Party obtained a majority of National Assembly seats in a free and fair election. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas. Women, persons with disabilities, and minorities continued to face societal discrimination. Rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and trafficking in persons remained serious problems.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.
Official figures indicated that hazing was a factor in many of the 321 suicides by military personnel since 2004.
b. Disappearance
There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The law prohibits mistreatment of suspects, and officials generally observed this prohibition in practice.
The government continued to investigate incidents of possible abuse under the country's former military regimes. As of November the Commission for the Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Activists of the Democratization Movement had reviewed 11,241 of the 13,348 cases reported since its creation in 2000 and determined that compensation was due in 8,908 of them.
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Prison and detention center conditions generally met international standards, and the government permitted visits by independent human rights observers.
d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and the government generally observed these prohibitions. However, the National Security Law (NSL) grants the authorities broad powers to detain, arrest, and imprison persons who commit acts the government views as intended to endanger the "security of the state." Critics continued to call for reform or abolishment of the law, contending that its provisions did not define prohibited activity clearly. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) maintained that the courts had established legal precedents for strict interpretation of the law that preclude arbitrary application. The number of NSL investigations and arrests has dropped significantly in recent years.
During the year authorities arrested 16 persons and prosecuted another 27 persons for alleged NSL violations. Of those prosecuted, four were found guilty; the remaining 23 were on trial as of year's end. In August authorities indicted a secondary school teacher on charges of violating the NSL for distributing materials related to the May 1980 Kwangju uprising. At the end of the year he was awaiting trial without physical detention. In another case four members of a nongovernmental organization (NGO) were detained and charged in September with illegal contact with Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) agents and distribution of North Korean press material for the purpose of exalting DPRK leader Kim Jong-il. The NGO claimed the government used falsehoods against the four and filed a defamation claim for damages. At year's end the four were in detention awaiting trial, and the defamation claim had not been settled.
In November 2007 a university professor found guilty of violating the NSL and sentenced in 2006 to two years in prison lost his final appeal.
An Amnesty International (AI) report alleged there were arbitrary arrests of bystanders on at least three occasions during demonstrations against President Lee Myung-bak in Seoul between May and September. Those arrested were detained and released. The Korean National Police Agency (KNPA) stated that police followed the requirements of the law in responding to the demonstrations. The MOJ reported that official investigations had not confirmed any instances of arbitrary arrest as of year's end.
Role of the Police and Security Apparatus
Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the KNPA, and the government has effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption.
AI reported that some riot police dispatched to demonstrations in Seoul between May and September had hidden their name badges or not worn them. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also reported that some riot police had covered their nametags with black tape and recommended that the KNPA ensure that police nametags are easily visible.
Arrest and Detention
The law requires warrants in cases of arrest, detention, seizure, or search, except if a person is apprehended while committing a criminal act or if a judge is not available and the authorities believe that a suspect may destroy evidence or escape capture if not quickly arrested. In such cases a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must prepare an affidavit of emergency arrest immediately upon apprehension of the suspect. Police may not question for more than six hours persons who voluntarily submit to questioning at police stations. Authorities generally must release an arrested suspect within 20 days unless an indictment is issued. An additional 10 days of detention is allowed in exceptional circumstances.
There is a bail system, but human rights lawyers stated that bail generally was not granted for detainees who were charged with committing serious offenses, might attempt to flee or harm a previous victim, or had no fixed address.
The law provides for the right to representation by an attorney, including during police interrogation. There are no restrictions on access to a lawyer, but the authorities can limit a lawyer's participation in an interrogation if the lawyer obstructs the interrogation or divulges information that impedes an investigation. The courts generally observed a defendant's right to a lawyer. During both detention and arrest periods, an indigent detainee may request that the government provide a lawyer.
Access to family members during detention varies according to the level of crime being investigated. There were no reports of access to legal counsel being denied.
Amnesty
In August the government granted a special amnesty to approximately 342,000 persons. Most were government officials due to receive disciplinary action. Approximately 1,900 of the pardons involved Election Act violations and another 10,000 involved commutation of sentences or probation for persons convicted of other crimes.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence in practice.
Trial Procedures
The law provides defendants with a number of rights in criminal trials, including the presumption of innocence, protection against self-incrimination, the right to a speedy trial, the right of appeal, and freedom from retroactive laws and double jeopardy. Trials are open to the public, but judges may restrict attendance if they believe spectators might disrupt the proceedings. There is a public jury system, but the verdict of the jury is not legally binding. Court-appointed lawyers are provided by the government (at government expense) in cases where defendants cannot afford to provide their own legal counsel. When a person is detained, the initial trial must be completed within six months of arrest. Judges generally allowed considerable scope for examination of witnesses by both the prosecution and defense. Defendants have the right to be present and to consult with an attorney, can confront or question witnesses against them, and can present witnesses and evidence on their behalf. Defendants have access to government-held evidence relevant to their cases. The constitution provides for the right to a fair trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.
Political Prisoners and Detainees
It was difficult to estimate the number of political prisoners, because it was sometimes unclear whether persons were arrested for exercising the rights of free speech and association or for committing acts of violence or espionage. The NGO Mingahyup reported that as of December, the government had imprisoned 74 persons for their political beliefs and convicted 399 conscientious objectors who failed to report for military service. However, the MOJ stated that there were no cases of incarceration for political beliefs and that the law does not distinguish conscientious objectors from others who do not report for military service.
Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies
There was an independent and impartial judiciary in civil matters, and there were no problems enforcing domestic court orders. Citizens had access to a court to bring lawsuits seeking damages for, or cessation of, a human rights violation.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
The law prohibits such actions, and the government generally respected these prohibitions in practice. Some human rights groups raised concerns about possible government wiretapping abuse. The law establishes broad conditions under which the government may monitor telephone calls, mail, and other forms of communication for up to two months in criminal investigations and four months in national security cases. According to the National Assembly parliamentary audit, there were 1,149 instances of wiretapping in 2007. The National Intelligence Service conducted 87.9 percent of these. Telecommunications companies provided customer information to investigation agencies on 426,453 occasions in 2007.
The government continued to require some released prisoners to report regularly to police in accordance with the Security Surveillance Act. While the Ministry of Unification (MOU) designated precinct-level officers to handle issues brought forth by resettled DPRK refugees, the ministry claimed that there were no reporting requirements for the resettled citizens.
The NSL forbids citizens from listening to North Korean radio in their homes or reading books published in the DPRK if the government determines that the action endangers national security or the basic order of democracy in the country. However, this prohibition was rarely enforced, and the viewing of DPRK satellite telecasts in private homes is legal.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to ensure freedom of speech and of the press. The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views generally without restriction. However, under the NSL the government may limit the expression of ideas that authorities consider Communist or pro-DPRK.
Internet Freedom
The government blocked violent, sexually explicit, and gambling-oriented Web sites and required site operators to rate their site as harmful or not harmful to youth, based on telecommunications laws that ban Internet service providers from offering information considered harmful to youth. The government also continued to block DPRK Web sites.
The law requires identity verification in order to post messages to Web sites with more than 300,000 visitors per day.
According to 2007 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data, 94.1 percent of households had access to the Internet through broadband connections. In addition to Internet access from home, public Internet rooms were widely available and inexpensive.
Academic Freedom and Cultural Events
There were generally no government restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Freedom of Assembly
The law provides for freedom of assembly, and the government generally respected this right in practice. The law prohibits assemblies that are considered likely to undermine public order and requires police to be notified in advance of demonstrations of all types, including political rallies. The police must notify organizers if they consider an event impermissible under this law; however, police routinely approved demonstrations. The police reportedly banned some protests by groups that had not properly registered or that had been responsible for violent protests in the past.
The KNPA reported that 26 riot police were accused of abuses during the period of the "Candlelight Demonstrations" in Seoul against the administration of President Lee Myung-bak between May and September. An AI report on the demonstrations noted that protesters were mostly peaceful and the police showed "organization and restraint," but it criticized riot police for misusing water cannons and fire extinguishers; exercising excessive and unnecessary force; and kicking and beating protesters, journalists, observers, and medical volunteers with shields and batons. The report also stated that riot police were insufficiently trained in crowd control and dispersion. The NHRC also reported that police occasionally had suppressed demonstrations in an excessive manner, injuring protesters. The KNPA stated that police responded to violent and illegal demonstrations in accordance with the law. Official investigations of allegations of police abuse were ongoing at year's end.
Freedom of Association
The law provides for freedom of association, and the government generally respected this right in practice. Associations operated freely, except those deemed by the government to be seeking to overthrow the government. In December 2007, for example, Jang Min-ho, a foreign citizen and former reporter for the newspaper Joongang Daily, was sentenced to seven years and fined 19 million won (approximately $14,300) for allegedly meeting with DPRK spies. He was serving his sentence as of year's end.
c. Freedom of Religion
The law provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respected this right in practice.
In August tens of thousands of Buddhists protested alleged discrimination by the government. Buddhist leaders denounced a police search of a temple vehicle for fugitive anti-Lee Myung-bak demonstrators and demanded the dismissal of the KNPA commissioner general, who had appeared in a poster promoting a Christian police event. In September President Lee Myung-bak expressed regret that any actions of civil servants had "caused concern within the Buddhist community." The head of the Buddhist Jogye Order accepted an apology from the police commissioner general in November.
Societal Abuses and Discrimination
The small Jewish population consists almost entirely of expatriates. There were no reports of anti-Semitic acts.
For a more detailed discussion, see the 2008 International Religious Freedom Report at www.state.gov/g/drl/irf/rpt.
d. Freedom of Movement, Internally Displaced Persons, Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons
Most citizens could move freely throughout the country; however, government officials restricted the movement of certain DPRK defectors by denying them passports. In January the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of a passport to one defector was "unjust." While foreign travel generally was unrestricted, the government must approve travel to the DPRK. In many cases travelers going to the DPRK must receive a briefing from the Ministry of Unification prior to departure. They must demonstrate also that their trip does not have a political purpose and is not undertaken to praise the DPRK or criticize the government. The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in assisting refugees and asylum seekers.
The law does not include provisions for forced exile of its citizens, and the government did not employ it.
Protection of Refugees
The laws provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol, and the government has established a system for providing protection to refugees. However, the government routinely did not grant refugee status or asylum. In practice the government generally provided protection against the expulsion or return of refugees to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened.
Government guidelines provide for offering temporary refuge in the case of a mass influx of asylum seekers and an alternative form of protection--a renewable, short-term permit--to those who meet a broader definition of "refugee." During the year the government recognized 36 asylum applicants as refugees, many more than in past years. However, a complex procedure and long delays in refugee status decision making continued to be problems. At year's end approximately 1,500 applications were pending decisions. Asylum seekers who were recognized as refugees received basic documentation but frequently encountered problems in exercising their rights. Like other foreigners, refugees frequently were subjected to various forms of informal discrimination.
The government continued its longstanding policy of accepting refugees from the DPRK, who are entitled to ROK citizenship. The government resettled 2,809 North Koreans during the year, resulting in 15,057 North Koreans resettled in the country.
Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government
The law provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully, and citizens exercised this right in practice through periodic, free, and fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage for all citizens 20 years of age or older.
Elections and Political Participation
National Assembly elections held in April were free and fair.
Both the majority and the various minority political parties operated without restriction or outside interference.
In general elections, 50 percent of each party's candidates on the proportional ballot must be women, and 30 percent of each party's geographical candidates are recommended to be women. There were 41 female lawmakers in the 299-seat National Assembly, with three of 18 National Assembly committees chaired by women. Two of 13 Supreme Court justices and two of 15 cabinet ministers were women.
There were no minorities in the National Assembly.
Government Corruption and Transparency
The law provides criminal penalties for official corruption, and the government generally implemented these laws effectively. The Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption stated that the overall "cleanliness level" of the government for 2007 was 8.89 out of 10 points, an improvement from 8.77 in 2006. There were reports of officials receiving bribes and violating election laws. Several National Assembly members were found guilty of taking bribes in exchange for fixing candidate lists for proportional representation seats up for election in April. In November the prosecutor's office announced corruption indictments against 250 officials at state-backed companies, primarily for taking bribes.
By law public servants above a certain rank must register their assets, including how they were accumulated, thereby making their holdings public. Among the anticorruption agencies are the Board of Audit & Inspection and the Public Servants Ethics Committee. In February the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption, Ombudsman of Korea, and Administrative Appeals Commission were integrated to form the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission.
The country has a Freedom of Information Act; in practice the government granted access for citizens and noncitizens alike, including foreign media.
Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights
A wide variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases. Government officials often were cooperative and responsive to their views.
The NHRC is an independent government body established to protect and promote human rights; however, it has no enforcement powers and its decisions are not binding. The NHRC investigates complaints, issues policy recommendations, and conducts education campaigns. The NHRC largely has enjoyed the government's cooperation, received adequate resources, and been considered effective.
Section 5 Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons
The law forbids discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, disability, social status, and race, and the government generally respected these provisions. However, traditional attitudes limited opportunities for women, persons with disabilities, and ethnic minorities. While courts have jurisdiction to decide discrimination claims, many of these cases were instead handled by the NHRC. During the year 1,380 such cases were brought before the NHRC.
Women
Rape remained a serious problem. Although there is no specific statute that defines spousal rape as illegal, the courts have established a precedent by prosecuting spouses in such cases. The MOJ stated that there were 7,532 reports of rape and 3,581 prosecutions during the year. In 2007 there were 15,325 registered cases of sexual violence, including rape, sexual harassment, and other sexual crimes, according to the Ministry of Gender Equality (MOGE). A study by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs and the Korean Institute of Criminology found that annually 17.9 of every 1,000 women were victims of sexual harassment, rape, or other sexual crimes, but the reporting rate for rape was only 7.1 percent. The penalty for rape is at least three years' limited imprisonment; if a weapon is used or two or more persons commit the rape, punishment ranges from a minimum of five years' to life imprisonment.
Violence against women remained a problem. During the year the MOJ registered 11,048 cases of domestic violence and prosecuted 1,747 cases. According to an MOGE survey, approximately 30 percent of all married women were victims of domestic violence. The law defines domestic violence as a serious crime and enables authorities to order offenders to stay away from victims for up to six months. Offenders can be sentenced to a maximum five years' imprisonment or fined up to seven million won ($5,300). Offenders also may be placed on probation or ordered to see court designated counselors. The law also requires police to respond immediately to reports of domestic violence, and the police generally were responsive.
Prostitution is illegal but widespread. In July police began a crackdown on alleged prostitution-related establishments in multiple areas of Seoul, closing 61 businesses in one district and prosecuting approximately 350 persons without physical detention. The government allows for the prosecution of citizens who pay for sex or commit acts of child sexual exploitation in other countries. The Act on the Prevention of the Sex Trade and Protection of Victims Thereof, which entered into effect in September, further stipulates that the MOGE complete a report every three years on the status of domestic prostitution in addition to the involvement of citizens in sex tourism and the sex trade abroad. NGOs continued to express concern that sex tourism to China and Southeast Asia was becoming more prevalent.
The law obligates companies and organizations to take preventive measures against sexual harassment, but it continued to be a problem. The NHRC received 152 cases of sexual harassment during the year. According to the NHRC, remedies included issuance of a recommendation for redress, conciliation, mutual settlement, and resolution during investigation. The NHRC lacks the authority to impose punitive measures, which must be pursued through the court system.
The family law permits a woman to head a household, recognizes a wife's right to a portion of a couple's property, and allows a woman to maintain contact with her children after a divorce. The law also allows remarried women to change their children's family name to their new husband's name. Women enjoy the same legal rights under the constitution as men.
Women continued to experience economic discrimination in pay for substantially similar work. According to the Korea Institute of Finance, a survey of financial services companies revealed that almost 60 percent of newly created jobs in this sector were filled by women. The portion of entry-level civil service positions that women filled increased from 3.2 percent in 1992 to 49 percent in 2007. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported that 67.7 percent of new diplomats were women. The Ministry of Labor (MOL) stated that the employment rate of females between the ages of 15 and 64 had risen approximately 10 percentage points since 1996, from 43.6 percent to 53.1 percent. Nevertheless, relatively few women worked in managerial positions or earned more than a median income, and gender discrimination in the workplace remained a problem. An MOL survey released in April found that 53.9 percent of respondents believed that sexual discrimination within the workplace was a serious problem.
The law penalizes companies found to discriminate against women in hiring and promotions. A company found guilty of practicing sexual discrimination could be fined up to approximately five million won ($3,800) and have its name published in the newspaper. The law also provides for a public fund to support victims in seeking legal redress. Some government agencies' preferential hiring of applicants with military service (nearly always men) reinforced barriers against women, despite a Constitutional Court ruling that such preferential hiring was unconstitutional.
Children
The government demonstrated its commitment to children's rights and welfare through free public education. High quality health care was widely available to children.
From January through June, a total of 2,733 child abuse cases were reported to the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW). The MOGE maintained four centers that provided counseling, treatment, and legal assistance to child victims of sexual violence. In February the government revised the Acts on the Prevention of School Violence and Countermeasures to make sexual violence perpetrated at school subject to criminal prosecution.
The law establishes a maximum sentence of 25 years' imprisonment for the brokerage and sale of the sexual services of persons younger than 19 years of age. It also establishes prison terms for persons convicted of the purchase of sexual services of youth under age 19. The Commission on Youth Protection publicizes the names of those who commit sex offenses against minors. The law provides for prison terms of up to three years or a fine of up to 20 million won ($15,000) for owners of entertainment establishments who hire persons under age 19. The commission's definition of "entertainment establishment" includes facilities such as restaurants and cafes where children are hired illegally as prostitutes.
In July the Constitutional Court overturned a 1987 ban on prenatal gender tests, ruling that a parent's right to know outweighed the risk of male-preference abortion, a practice that the court stated was in decline.
Trafficking in Persons
The law prohibits all forms of trafficking in persons; however, there were reports that persons were trafficked to, from, through, and within the country. Women from Russia, other countries of the former Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, the Philippines, and other Southeast Asian countries were trafficked to the country for sexual exploitation and domestic servitude. They were recruited personally or answered advertisements and were flown to Korea, often with entertainer or tourist visas. In some instances, once these visa recipients arrived in the country, employers illegally held victims' passports. In addition some foreign women recruited for legal and brokered marriages with Korean men ended up in situations of sexual exploitation, debt bondage, and involuntary servitude once married. Korean women were trafficked primarily for sexual exploitation to the United States, sometimes through Canada and Mexico, as well as to other countries, such as Australia and Japan. Relatively small numbers of migrants seeking opportunities in the country were believed to have become victims of trafficking as well, although the MOL Employment Permit System reduced the number of workers trafficked into the country. There were reports that human traffickers exploited ROK passports for the purpose of human trafficking. There was no credible evidence that officials were involved in trafficking.
The law prohibits trafficking for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation, including debt bondage, and prescribes up to 10 years' imprisonment. Trafficking for forced labor is criminalized and carries penalties of up to five years' imprisonment. February revisions to the Passport Act allow for restricted issuance or confiscation of passports of persons engaging in illegal activity overseas, including sex trafficking. However, some NGOs believed the laws against sex trafficking were not being enforced to their fullest potential. During the year authorities conducted 220 trafficking investigations and prosecuted in 31 cases, all for sex trafficking. There were no reported prosecutions or convictions of labor trafficking offenses.
The Marriage Brokerage Management Act, which entered into effect in June, regulates both domestic and international marriage brokers and prescribes penalties for dishonest brokers, including sentences of up to three years' imprisonment or fines. There also are laws to protect "foreign brides" in the country and punish fraudulent marriage brokers, but NGOs claimed the laws needed to be strengthened.
The KNPA and the MOJ were principally responsible for enforcing antitrafficking laws. The government worked with the international community on investigations related to trafficking.
The government maintained a network of shelters and programs to assist victims of abuse, including trafficking victims. Victims were also eligible for medical, legal, vocational, and social support services. NGOS with funding from the government provided many of these services. NGOs reported that there was only one counseling center and two shelters in the country dedicated to foreign victims of sex trafficking. The MOJ continued to educate male clients of prostitution to correct distorted views of prostitution. During the year 17,956 individuals participated in the program.
The State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report can be found at www.state.gov/g/tip.
Persons with Disabilities
In April the Anti-Discrimination Against and Remedies for Persons with Disabilities Act (DDA) took effect. The DDA adopts a definition of discrimination encompassing direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and denial of due conveniences, and it establishes penalties for deliberate discrimination of up to three years in prison and 30 million won ($22,600). The government, through the MOHW, initiated a five-year plan to implement a comprehensive set of policies, took measures to make homes barrier free, provided part-time employment, established a task force to introduce a long-term medical care system, and opened a national rehabilitation research center to increase opportunities and access for persons with disabilities. During the year the NHRC received 635 cases of alleged discrimination in areas such as employment, property ownership, and access to educational facilities.
Firms with more than 100 employees are required by law either to hire persons with disabilities or contribute to funds used to promote the employment of persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, the hiring of persons with disabilities remained significantly below target levels.
National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities
The country is racially homogeneous, with no sizable populations of ethnic minorities. Citizenship is based on parentage, not place of birth, and persons must demonstrate their family genealogy as proof of citizenship. Naturalization is a difficult process requiring detailed applications, a long waiting period, and a series of investigations and examinations. Because of the difficulty of establishing Korean citizenship, those not ethnically Korean remained "foreign." Many foreign workers continued to report difficult working conditions.
Other Societal Abuses and Discrimination
Despite cultural respect for the elderly, there were reports of age discrimination in the workplace. In March the government enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to address age discrimination in hiring and employment.
Some observers claimed that persons with HIV/AIDS suffered from severe societal discrimination and social stigma. The law ensures the confidentiality of persons with HIV/AIDS and protects individuals from discrimination. The government supported rehabilitation programs and shelters run by private groups and subsidized medical expenses from the initial diagnosis. The government operated a Web site with HIV/AIDS information and a telephone counseling service.
The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but societal discrimination persisted. In November a military court asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of rules prohibiting sexual activity between male military personnel. An opinion had not been rendered by year's end.
Section 6 Worker Rights
a. The Right of Association
The law provides workers with the right to associate freely and allows public servants to organize unions. The government continued to postpone the implementation of the 1997 law that authorizes union pluralism.
The ratio of organized labor in the entire population of wage earners in 2007 was approximately 11 percent, or 1.5 million unionists from a total of 14.7 million workers. The country has two national labor federations--the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU)--and an estimated 1,600 labor unions. The KCTU and the FKTU were affiliated with the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). Most of the FKTU's constituent unions maintained affiliations with global union federations.
The government recognized a range of other labor federations, including independent white-collar federations representing hospital workers, journalists, and office workers at construction firms and government research institutes. Labor federations not formally recognized by the MOL generally operated without government interference. AI criticized the MOL for continuing to deny legal recognition to the Seoul-Gyeonggi-Incheon Migrants Trade Union (MTU), even after a high court ruled that the law protecting the right of association applied to migrant laborers. In May the government arrested and deported MTU's President Torna Limbu and Vice President Abdus Sabur for being in "irregular or undocumented status." The ITUC criticized the May arrest and deportation of the two under immigration charges as governmental antiunion repression. Previous MTU leaders also previously were arrested and deported.
By law unions must submit a request for mediation to the Labor Relations Commission before a strike; otherwise, the strike is considered illegal. In most cases the mediation must be completed within 10 days; in the case of essential services, within 15 days. Strikes initiated following this period without majority support from union membership are illegal. Striking is also prohibited in cases in which a dispute has been referred to binding arbitration. Workers employed at major defense corporations subject to the Special Act on the Defense Industry and those working in the areas of electricity generation, water supply, or production of defense products are not allowed to strike. In addition, if striking employees resort to violence, unlawful occupation of premises, or infliction of damage to facilities, their actions are deemed illegal. Strikes not specifically pertaining to labor conditions, including wages, benefits, and working hours, are also illegal. Under the penal code for "obstruction of business," arrest warrants can be issued against union leaders during an illegal strike. Striking workers can be removed by police from the premises and, along with union leaders, prosecuted and sentenced.
On December 5, authorities arrested KCTU President Lee Suk-haeng and charged him with "obstruction of business" in connection with his role organizing a general strike on July 2 to protest plans to resume foreign beef imports. Authorities also charged him with organizing solidarity action in 2007 against a retail company that allegedly subjected its workers to precarious and exploitative employment arrangements. The ITUC criticized his arrest, on warrants issued against him and 10 other KCTU and Korean Metal Workers' Union officials, as violating the government's legal obligations to respect freedom of association.
The law prohibits retribution against workers who conduct a legal strike and allows workers to file complaints of unfair labor practices against employers.
By law unions in enterprises determined to be of "essential public interest"--including railways, utilities, public health, the Bank of Korea, and telecommunications--can be ordered to submit to government-ordered arbitration. Strikes are prohibited for both central and local government officials.
b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
The law provides for the workers' right to collective bargaining and collective action, and workers exercised these rights in practice. The law also empowers workers to file complaints of unfair labor practices against employers who interfere with union organizing or who discriminate against union members. Employers found guilty of unfair practices can be required to reinstate workers fired for union activities. However, forced reinstatement was used infrequently because employers took extra precautions when firing union members. According to the ITUC, employers in some cases levied "obstruction of business" charges against union leaders who were seeking to bargain collectively or engage in regular union activities.
The law permits public servants to organize trade unions and bargain collectively, although it restricts the public service unions from collective bargaining on topics such as policy-making issues and budgetary matters.
The government designated enterprises in the two export processing zones (EPZs) as public interest enterprises. Workers in these enterprises have the rights enjoyed by workers in other sectors, and labor organizations are permitted in the EPZs. However, foreign companies operating in the EPZs are exempt from some labor regulations. For example, foreign-invested enterprises are exempt from provisions that mandate monthly leave, paid holidays, and menstruation leave for women; give preferential treatment to patriots, veterans, and their families; obligate companies with more than 300 persons to recruit persons with disabilities for at least 2 percent of their workforce; encourage companies to reserve 3 percent of their workforce for workers over 55 years of age; and restrict large companies from participating in certain business categories.
c. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor
The law prohibits forced or compulsory labor, including by children, and there were no reports that such practices occurred.
d. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment
The law protects children from exploitation in the workplace and prohibits forced or compulsory labor, and the government effectively enforced these laws through regular inspections. Child labor was not considered a problem.
The labor standards law prohibits the employment of persons under age 15 without a special employment certificate from the MOL. Because education is compulsory through middle school (approximately age 15), few special employment certificates were issued for full-time employment. To obtain employment, children under age 18 must obtain written approval from either parents or guardians. Employers must limit minors' overtime hours and are prohibited from employing minors at night without special permission from the MOL.
e. Acceptable Conditions of Work
The minimum wage is reviewed annually. During the year the minimum wage was 3,770 won (approximately $2.80) per hour. The FKTU and other labor organizations asserted that the existing minimum wage did not meet the basic requirements of urban workers.
Employees of large conglomerates, publicly owned companies, banks, insurance companies with 1,000 or more registered workers, and companies with more than 50 employees work a five-day, 40-hour workweek. Labor laws mandate a 24-hour rest period each week and provide for a flexible hours system, under which employers can require laborers to work up to 48 hours during certain weeks without paying overtime (and 52 with approval from the relevant labor union), so long as average weekly hours for any given two-week period do not exceed 40 hours. If a union agrees to a further loosening of the rules, management may ask employees to work up to 56 regular hours in a given week. Workers may not be required to work more than 12 hours per working day. The labor standards law also provides for a 50 percent higher wage for overtime.
The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) is responsible for implementing industrial accident prevention activities. The government set health and safety standards, but the accident rate was high by international standards. During the year there were 2,422 fatalities related to industrial accidents. According to KOSHA, approximately 60 percent of work-related injuries occurred in workplaces with 50 workers or less. During the year KOSHA provided funds and technical support to improve safety and health facilities at manufacturing workplaces employing fewer than 50 employees, awareness of occupational health problems in the workplace, and safety education for migrant workers. Foreign workers reportedly were more likely to be victims of work-related injuries but were often discouraged from seeking compensation. By law an employer may not dismiss or otherwise disadvantage an employee who interrupts work and takes shelter because of an urgent hazard that could lead to an industrial accident.
Contract and other "nonregular" workers accounted for a substantial portion of the workforce. According to the government, there were approximately 5.4 million nonregular workers, comprising approximately 34 percent of the total workforce. In general nonregular workers performed work similar to regular workers but received approximately 67 percent of the wages of regular workers; 53 percent of nonregular workers were ineligible for national health and unemployment insurance and other benefits, compared with 6 percent of regular workers. In July application of the 2006 Non-Regular Workers Act was expanded to cover businesses with 100 or more employees. The vast majority of contract and other nonregular workers were not foreign workers.
The law on nonregular workers allows companies with more than 300 workers to use temporary worker contracts valid for a maximum of two years. However, labor groups alleged that employers used a loophole in the law to avoid their obligation to hire part-time workers as regular workers after the two-year time limit.
The MOJ reported that the total number of foreigners with legal working status was 494,035 as of year's end. The total number of foreign workers in illegal status was 54,518. The government continued its crackdown on illegal foreign labor.
The government continued to use the Employment Permit System (EPS) to increase protections and controls on foreign workers while easing the labor shortage in the manufacturing, construction, and agricultural sectors. Through the EPS, permit holders may work in certain industries only and have limited job mobility but generally enjoy the same rights and privileges, including the right to organize. Foreign workers were limited in their freedom to change jobs. Before changing jobs the employee's place of work must close down or the worker must have proof of physical abuse at the hand of the employer. Unless MOJ guidelines allow for an extension on humanitarian grounds, workers lose their legal status if they do not find a new employer within two months.
During the year 75,024 foreigners entered Korea under the EPS. They often encountered difficult working conditions. AI and local media reported that foreign laborers often faced physical abuse and exploitation from employers. The NGO Korea Migrant Center received reports of abuse of female entertainment visa holders. The MOJ reported that foreign workers filed 8,074 complaints related to unpaid wages during the year.
Foreign workers employed as language teachers continued to complain that the institutes for which they worked frequently violated employment contracts, but employers reported there were a large number of foreign teachers who did not fully honor their work contracts.
U.S. Department of State
2008 Human Rights Report: Republic of Korea
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
February 25, 2009
The Republic of Korea (Korea or ROK) is a constitutional democracy governed by a president and a unicameral legislature. The country has a population of approximately 48 million. In April the Grand National Party obtained a majority of National Assembly seats in a free and fair election. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas. Women, persons with disabilities, and minorities continued to face societal discrimination. Rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and trafficking in persons remained serious problems.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.
Official figures indicated that hazing was a factor in many of the 321 suicides by military personnel since 2004.
b. Disappearance
There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The law prohibits mistreatment of suspects, and officials generally observed this prohibition in practice.
The government continued to investigate incidents of possible abuse under the country's former military regimes. As of November the Commission for the Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Activists of the Democratization Movement had reviewed 11,241 of the 13,348 cases reported since its creation in 2000 and determined that compensation was due in 8,908 of them.
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Prison and detention center conditions generally met international standards, and the government permitted visits by independent human rights observers.
d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and the government generally observed these prohibitions. However, the National Security Law (NSL) grants the authorities broad powers to detain, arrest, and imprison persons who commit acts the government views as intended to endanger the "security of the state." Critics continued to call for reform or abolishment of the law, contending that its provisions did not define prohibited activity clearly. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) maintained that the courts had established legal precedents for strict interpretation of the law that preclude arbitrary application. The number of NSL investigations and arrests has dropped significantly in recent years.
During the year authorities arrested 16 persons and prosecuted another 27 persons for alleged NSL violations. Of those prosecuted, four were found guilty; the remaining 23 were on trial as of year's end. In August authorities indicted a secondary school teacher on charges of violating the NSL for distributing materials related to the May 1980 Kwangju uprising. At the end of the year he was awaiting trial without physical detention. In another case four members of a nongovernmental organization (NGO) were detained and charged in September with illegal contact with Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) agents and distribution of North Korean press material for the purpose of exalting DPRK leader Kim Jong-il. The NGO claimed the government used falsehoods against the four and filed a defamation claim for damages. At year's end the four were in detention awaiting trial, and the defamation claim had not been settled.
In November 2007 a university professor found guilty of violating the NSL and sentenced in 2006 to two years in prison lost his final appeal.
An Amnesty International (AI) report alleged there were arbitrary arrests of bystanders on at least three occasions during demonstrations against President Lee Myung-bak in Seoul between May and September. Those arrested were detained and released. The Korean National Police Agency (KNPA) stated that police followed the requirements of the law in responding to the demonstrations. The MOJ reported that official investigations had not confirmed any instances of arbitrary arrest as of year's end.
Role of the Police and Security Apparatus
Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the KNPA, and the government has effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption.
AI reported that some riot police dispatched to demonstrations in Seoul between May and September had hidden their name badges or not worn them. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also reported that some riot police had covered their nametags with black tape and recommended that the KNPA ensure that police nametags are easily visible.
Arrest and Detention
The law requires warrants in cases of arrest, detention, seizure, or search, except if a person is apprehended while committing a criminal act or if a judge is not available and the authorities believe that a suspect may destroy evidence or escape capture if not quickly arrested. In such cases a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must prepare an affidavit of emergency arrest immediately upon apprehension of the suspect. Police may not question for more than six hours persons who voluntarily submit to questioning at police stations. Authorities generally must release an arrested suspect within 20 days unless an indictment is issued. An additional 10 days of detention is allowed in exceptional circumstances.
There is a bail system, but human rights lawyers stated that bail generally was not granted for detainees who were charged with committing serious offenses, might attempt to flee or harm a previous victim, or had no fixed address.
The law provides for the right to representation by an attorney, including during police interrogation. There are no restrictions on access to a lawyer, but the authorities can limit a lawyer's participation in an interrogation if the lawyer obstructs the interrogation or divulges information that impedes an investigation. The courts generally observed a defendant's right to a lawyer. During both detention and arrest periods, an indigent detainee may request that the government provide a lawyer.
Access to family members during detention varies according to the level of crime being investigated. There were no reports of access to legal counsel being denied.
Amnesty
In August the government granted a special amnesty to approximately 342,000 persons. Most were government officials due to receive disciplinary action. Approximately 1,900 of the pardons involved Election Act violations and another 10,000 involved commutation of sentences or probation for persons convicted of other crimes.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence in practice.
Trial Procedures
The law provides defendants with a number of rights in criminal trials, including the presumption of innocence, protection against self-incrimination, the right to a speedy trial, the right of appeal, and freedom from retroactive laws and double jeopardy. Trials are open to the public, but judges may restrict attendance if they believe spectators might disrupt the proceedings. There is a public jury system, but the verdict of the jury is not legally binding. Court-appointed lawyers are provided by the government (at government expense) in cases where defendants cannot afford to provide their own legal counsel. When a person is detained, the initial trial must be completed within six months of arrest. Judges generally allowed considerable scope for examination of witnesses by both the prosecution and defense. Defendants have the right to be present and to consult with an attorney, can confront or question witnesses against them, and can present witnesses and evidence on their behalf. Defendants have access to government-held evidence relevant to their cases. The constitution provides for the right to a fair trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.
Political Prisoners and Detainees
It was difficult to estimate the number of political prisoners, because it was sometimes unclear whether persons were arrested for exercising the rights of free speech and association or for committing acts of violence or espionage. The NGO Mingahyup reported that as of December, the government had imprisoned 74 persons for their political beliefs and convicted 399 conscientious objectors who failed to report for military service. However, the MOJ stated that there were no cases of incarceration for political beliefs and that the law does not distinguish conscientious objectors from others who do not report for military service.
Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies
There was an independent and impartial judiciary in civil matters, and there were no problems enforcing domestic court orders. Citizens had access to a court to bring lawsuits seeking damages for, or cessation of, a human rights violation.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
The law prohibits such actions, and the government generally respected these prohibitions in practice. Some human rights groups raised concerns about possible government wiretapping abuse. The law establishes broad conditions under which the government may monitor telephone calls, mail, and other forms of communication for up to two months in criminal investigations and four months in national security cases. According to the National Assembly parliamentary audit, there were 1,149 instances of wiretapping in 2007. The National Intelligence Service conducted 87.9 percent of these. Telecommunications companies provided customer information to investigation agencies on 426,453 occasions in 2007.
The government continued to require some released prisoners to report regularly to police in accordance with the Security Surveillance Act. While the Ministry of Unification (MOU) designated precinct-level officers to handle issues brought forth by resettled DPRK refugees, the ministry claimed that there were no reporting requirements for the resettled citizens.
The NSL forbids citizens from listening to North Korean radio in their homes or reading books published in the DPRK if the government determines that the action endangers national security or the basic order of democracy in the country. However, this prohibition was rarely enforced, and the viewing of DPRK satellite telecasts in private homes is legal.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to ensure freedom of speech and of the press. The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views generally without restriction. However, under the NSL the government may limit the expression of ideas that authorities consider Communist or pro-DPRK.
Internet Freedom
The government blocked violent, sexually explicit, and gambling-oriented Web sites and required site operators to rate their site as harmful or not harmful to youth, based on telecommunications laws that ban Internet service providers from offering information considered harmful to youth. The government also continued to block DPRK Web sites.
The law requires identity verification in order to post messages to Web sites with more than 300,000 visitors per day.
According to 2007 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data, 94.1 percent of households had access to the Internet through broadband connections. In addition to Internet access from home, public Internet rooms were widely available and inexpensive.
Academic Freedom and Cultural Events
There were generally no government restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Freedom of Assembly
The law provides for freedom of assembly, and the government generally respected this right in practice. The law prohibits assemblies that are considered likely to undermine public order and requires police to be notified in advance of demonstrations of all types, including political rallies. The police must notify organizers if they consider an event impermissible under this law; however, police routinely approved demonstrations. The police reportedly banned some protests by groups that had not properly registered or that had been responsible for violent protests in the past.
The KNPA reported that 26 riot police were accused of abuses during the period of the "Candlelight Demonstrations" in Seoul against the administration of President Lee Myung-bak between May and September. An AI report on the demonstrations noted that protesters were mostly peaceful and the police showed "organization and restraint," but it criticized riot police for misusing water cannons and fire extinguishers; exercising excessive and unnecessary force; and kicking and beating protesters, journalists, observers, and medical volunteers with shields and batons. The report also stated that riot police were insufficiently trained in crowd control and dispersion. The NHRC also reported that police occasionally had suppressed demonstrations in an excessive manner, injuring protesters. The KNPA stated that police responded to violent and illegal demonstrations in accordance with the law. Official investigations of allegations of police abuse were ongoing at year's end.
Freedom of Association
The law provides for freedom of association, and the government generally respected this right in practice. Associations operated freely, except those deemed by the government to be seeking to overthrow the government. In December 2007, for example, Jang Min-ho, a foreign citizen and former reporter for the newspaper Joongang Daily, was sentenced to seven years and fined 19 million won (approximately $14,300) for allegedly meeting with DPRK spies. He was serving his sentence as of year's end.
c. Freedom of Religion
The law provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respected this right in practice.
In August tens of thousands of Buddhists protested alleged discrimination by the government. Buddhist leaders denounced a police search of a temple vehicle for fugitive anti-Lee Myung-bak demonstrators and demanded the dismissal of the KNPA commissioner general, who had appeared in a poster promoting a Christian police event. In September President Lee Myung-bak expressed regret that any actions of civil servants had "caused concern within the Buddhist community." The head of the Buddhist Jogye Order accepted an apology from the police commissioner general in November.
Societal Abuses and Discrimination
The small Jewish population consists almost entirely of expatriates. There were no reports of anti-Semitic acts.
For a more detailed discussion, see the 2008 International Religious Freedom Report at www.state.gov/g/drl/irf/rpt.
d. Freedom of Movement, Internally Displaced Persons, Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons
Most citizens could move freely throughout the country; however, government officials restricted the movement of certain DPRK defectors by denying them passports. In January the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of a passport to one defector was "unjust." While foreign travel generally was unrestricted, the government must approve travel to the DPRK. In many cases travelers going to the DPRK must receive a briefing from the Ministry of Unification prior to departure. They must demonstrate also that their trip does not have a political purpose and is not undertaken to praise the DPRK or criticize the government. The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in assisting refugees and asylum seekers.
The law does not include provisions for forced exile of its citizens, and the government did not employ it.
Protection of Refugees
The laws provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol, and the government has established a system for providing protection to refugees. However, the government routinely did not grant refugee status or asylum. In practice the government generally provided protection against the expulsion or return of refugees to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened.
Government guidelines provide for offering temporary refuge in the case of a mass influx of asylum seekers and an alternative form of protection--a renewable, short-term permit--to those who meet a broader definition of "refugee." During the year the government recognized 36 asylum applicants as refugees, many more than in past years. However, a complex procedure and long delays in refugee status decision making continued to be problems. At year's end approximately 1,500 applications were pending decisions. Asylum seekers who were recognized as refugees received basic documentation but frequently encountered problems in exercising their rights. Like other foreigners, refugees frequently were subjected to various forms of informal discrimination.
The government continued its longstanding policy of accepting refugees from the DPRK, who are entitled to ROK citizenship. The government resettled 2,809 North Koreans during the year, resulting in 15,057 North Koreans resettled in the country.
Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government
The law provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully, and citizens exercised this right in practice through periodic, free, and fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage for all citizens 20 years of age or older.
Elections and Political Participation
National Assembly elections held in April were free and fair.
Both the majority and the various minority political parties operated without restriction or outside interference.
In general elections, 50 percent of each party's candidates on the proportional ballot must be women, and 30 percent of each party's geographical candidates are recommended to be women. There were 41 female lawmakers in the 299-seat National Assembly, with three of 18 National Assembly committees chaired by women. Two of 13 Supreme Court justices and two of 15 cabinet ministers were women.
There were no minorities in the National Assembly.
Government Corruption and Transparency
The law provides criminal penalties for official corruption, and the government generally implemented these laws effectively. The Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption stated that the overall "cleanliness level" of the government for 2007 was 8.89 out of 10 points, an improvement from 8.77 in 2006. There were reports of officials receiving bribes and violating election laws. Several National Assembly members were found guilty of taking bribes in exchange for fixing candidate lists for proportional representation seats up for election in April. In November the prosecutor's office announced corruption indictments against 250 officials at state-backed companies, primarily for taking bribes.
By law public servants above a certain rank must register their assets, including how they were accumulated, thereby making their holdings public. Among the anticorruption agencies are the Board of Audit & Inspection and the Public Servants Ethics Committee. In February the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption, Ombudsman of Korea, and Administrative Appeals Commission were integrated to form the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission.
The country has a Freedom of Information Act; in practice the government granted access for citizens and noncitizens alike, including foreign media.
Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights
A wide variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases. Government officials often were cooperative and responsive to their views.
The NHRC is an independent government body established to protect and promote human rights; however, it has no enforcement powers and its decisions are not binding. The NHRC investigates complaints, issues policy recommendations, and conducts education campaigns. The NHRC largely has enjoyed the government's cooperation, received adequate resources, and been considered effective.
Section 5 Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons
The law forbids discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, disability, social status, and race, and the government generally respected these provisions. However, traditional attitudes limited opportunities for women, persons with disabilities, and ethnic minorities. While courts have jurisdiction to decide discrimination claims, many of these cases were instead handled by the NHRC. During the year 1,380 such cases were brought before the NHRC.
Women
Rape remained a serious problem. Although there is no specific statute that defines spousal rape as illegal, the courts have established a precedent by prosecuting spouses in such cases. The MOJ stated that there were 7,532 reports of rape and 3,581 prosecutions during the year. In 2007 there were 15,325 registered cases of sexual violence, including rape, sexual harassment, and other sexual crimes, according to the Ministry of Gender Equality (MOGE). A study by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs and the Korean Institute of Criminology found that annually 17.9 of every 1,000 women were victims of sexual harassment, rape, or other sexual crimes, but the reporting rate for rape was only 7.1 percent. The penalty for rape is at least three years' limited imprisonment; if a weapon is used or two or more persons commit the rape, punishment ranges from a minimum of five years' to life imprisonment.
Violence against women remained a problem. During the year the MOJ registered 11,048 cases of domestic violence and prosecuted 1,747 cases. According to an MOGE survey, approximately 30 percent of all married women were victims of domestic violence. The law defines domestic violence as a serious crime and enables authorities to order offenders to stay away from victims for up to six months. Offenders can be sentenced to a maximum five years' imprisonment or fined up to seven million won ($5,300). Offenders also may be placed on probation or ordered to see court designated counselors. The law also requires police to respond immediately to reports of domestic violence, and the police generally were responsive.
Prostitution is illegal but widespread. In July police began a crackdown on alleged prostitution-related establishments in multiple areas of Seoul, closing 61 businesses in one district and prosecuting approximately 350 persons without physical detention. The government allows for the prosecution of citizens who pay for sex or commit acts of child sexual exploitation in other countries. The Act on the Prevention of the Sex Trade and Protection of Victims Thereof, which entered into effect in September, further stipulates that the MOGE complete a report every three years on the status of domestic prostitution in addition to the involvement of citizens in sex tourism and the sex trade abroad. NGOs continued to express concern that sex tourism to China and Southeast Asia was becoming more prevalent.
The law obligates companies and organizations to take preventive measures against sexual harassment, but it continued to be a problem. The NHRC received 152 cases of sexual harassment during the year. According to the NHRC, remedies included issuance of a recommendation for redress, conciliation, mutual settlement, and resolution during investigation. The NHRC lacks the authority to impose punitive measures, which must be pursued through the court system.
The family law permits a woman to head a household, recognizes a wife's right to a portion of a couple's property, and allows a woman to maintain contact with her children after a divorce. The law also allows remarried women to change their children's family name to their new husband's name. Women enjoy the same legal rights under the constitution as men.
Women continued to experience economic discrimination in pay for substantially similar work. According to the Korea Institute of Finance, a survey of financial services companies revealed that almost 60 percent of newly created jobs in this sector were filled by women. The portion of entry-level civil service positions that women filled increased from 3.2 percent in 1992 to 49 percent in 2007. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported that 67.7 percent of new diplomats were women. The Ministry of Labor (MOL) stated that the employment rate of females between the ages of 15 and 64 had risen approximately 10 percentage points since 1996, from 43.6 percent to 53.1 percent. Nevertheless, relatively few women worked in managerial positions or earned more than a median income, and gender discrimination in the workplace remained a problem. An MOL survey released in April found that 53.9 percent of respondents believed that sexual discrimination within the workplace was a serious problem.
The law penalizes companies found to discriminate against women in hiring and promotions. A company found guilty of practicing sexual discrimination could be fined up to approximately five million won ($3,800) and have its name published in the newspaper. The law also provides for a public fund to support victims in seeking legal redress. Some government agencies' preferential hiring of applicants with military service (nearly always men) reinforced barriers against women, despite a Constitutional Court ruling that such preferential hiring was unconstitutional.
Children
The government demonstrated its commitment to children's rights and welfare through free public education. High quality health care was widely available to children.
From January through June, a total of 2,733 child abuse cases were reported to the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW). The MOGE maintained four centers that provided counseling, treatment, and legal assistance to child victims of sexual violence. In February the government revised the Acts on the Prevention of School Violence and Countermeasures to make sexual violence perpetrated at school subject to criminal prosecution.
The law establishes a maximum sentence of 25 years' imprisonment for the brokerage and sale of the sexual services of persons younger than 19 years of age. It also establishes prison terms for persons convicted of the purchase of sexual services of youth under age 19. The Commission on Youth Protection publicizes the names of those who commit sex offenses against minors. The law provides for prison terms of up to three years or a fine of up to 20 million won ($15,000) for owners of entertainment establishments who hire persons under age 19. The commission's definition of "entertainment establishment" includes facilities such as restaurants and cafes where children are hired illegally as prostitutes.
In July the Constitutional Court overturned a 1987 ban on prenatal gender tests, ruling that a parent's right to know outweighed the risk of male-preference abortion, a practice that the court stated was in decline.
Trafficking in Persons
The law prohibits all forms of trafficking in persons; however, there were reports that persons were trafficked to, from, through, and within the country. Women from Russia, other countries of the former Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, the Philippines, and other Southeast Asian countries were trafficked to the country for sexual exploitation and domestic servitude. They were recruited personally or answered advertisements and were flown to Korea, often with entertainer or tourist visas. In some instances, once these visa recipients arrived in the country, employers illegally held victims' passports. In addition some foreign women recruited for legal and brokered marriages with Korean men ended up in situations of sexual exploitation, debt bondage, and involuntary servitude once married. Korean women were trafficked primarily for sexual exploitation to the United States, sometimes through Canada and Mexico, as well as to other countries, such as Australia and Japan. Relatively small numbers of migrants seeking opportunities in the country were believed to have become victims of trafficking as well, although the MOL Employment Permit System reduced the number of workers trafficked into the country. There were reports that human traffickers exploited ROK passports for the purpose of human trafficking. There was no credible evidence that officials were involved in trafficking.
The law prohibits trafficking for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation, including debt bondage, and prescribes up to 10 years' imprisonment. Trafficking for forced labor is criminalized and carries penalties of up to five years' imprisonment. February revisions to the Passport Act allow for restricted issuance or confiscation of passports of persons engaging in illegal activity overseas, including sex trafficking. However, some NGOs believed the laws against sex trafficking were not being enforced to their fullest potential. During the year authorities conducted 220 trafficking investigations and prosecuted in 31 cases, all for sex trafficking. There were no reported prosecutions or convictions of labor trafficking offenses.
The Marriage Brokerage Management Act, which entered into effect in June, regulates both domestic and international marriage brokers and prescribes penalties for dishonest brokers, including sentences of up to three years' imprisonment or fines. There also are laws to protect "foreign brides" in the country and punish fraudulent marriage brokers, but NGOs claimed the laws needed to be strengthened.
The KNPA and the MOJ were principally responsible for enforcing antitrafficking laws. The government worked with the international community on investigations related to trafficking.
The government maintained a network of shelters and programs to assist victims of abuse, including trafficking victims. Victims were also eligible for medical, legal, vocational, and social support services. NGOS with funding from the government provided many of these services. NGOs reported that there was only one counseling center and two shelters in the country dedicated to foreign victims of sex trafficking. The MOJ continued to educate male clients of prostitution to correct distorted views of prostitution. During the year 17,956 individuals participated in the program.
The State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report can be found at www.state.gov/g/tip.
Persons with Disabilities
In April the Anti-Discrimination Against and Remedies for Persons with Disabilities Act (DDA) took effect. The DDA adopts a definition of discrimination encompassing direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and denial of due conveniences, and it establishes penalties for deliberate discrimination of up to three years in prison and 30 million won ($22,600). The government, through the MOHW, initiated a five-year plan to implement a comprehensive set of policies, took measures to make homes barrier free, provided part-time employment, established a task force to introduce a long-term medical care system, and opened a national rehabilitation research center to increase opportunities and access for persons with disabilities. During the year the NHRC received 635 cases of alleged discrimination in areas such as employment, property ownership, and access to educational facilities.
Firms with more than 100 employees are required by law either to hire persons with disabilities or contribute to funds used to promote the employment of persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, the hiring of persons with disabilities remained significantly below target levels.
National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities
The country is racially homogeneous, with no sizable populations of ethnic minorities. Citizenship is based on parentage, not place of birth, and persons must demonstrate their family genealogy as proof of citizenship. Naturalization is a difficult process requiring detailed applications, a long waiting period, and a series of investigations and examinations. Because of the difficulty of establishing Korean citizenship, those not ethnically Korean remained "foreign." Many foreign workers continued to report difficult working conditions.
Other Societal Abuses and Discrimination
Despite cultural respect for the elderly, there were reports of age discrimination in the workplace. In March the government enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to address age discrimination in hiring and employment.
Some observers claimed that persons with HIV/AIDS suffered from severe societal discrimination and social stigma. The law ensures the confidentiality of persons with HIV/AIDS and protects individuals from discrimination. The government supported rehabilitation programs and shelters run by private groups and subsidized medical expenses from the initial diagnosis. The government operated a Web site with HIV/AIDS information and a telephone counseling service.
The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but societal discrimination persisted. In November a military court asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of rules prohibiting sexual activity between male military personnel. An opinion had not been rendered by year's end.
Section 6 Worker Rights
a. The Right of Association
The law provides workers with the right to associate freely and allows public servants to organize unions. The government continued to postpone the implementation of the 1997 law that authorizes union pluralism.
The ratio of organized labor in the entire population of wage earners in 2007 was approximately 11 percent, or 1.5 million unionists from a total of 14.7 million workers. The country has two national labor federations--the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU)--and an estimated 1,600 labor unions. The KCTU and the FKTU were affiliated with the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). Most of the FKTU's constituent unions maintained affiliations with global union federations.
The government recognized a range of other labor federations, including independent white-collar federations representing hospital workers, journalists, and office workers at construction firms and government research institutes. Labor federations not formally recognized by the MOL generally operated without government interference. AI criticized the MOL for continuing to deny legal recognition to the Seoul-Gyeonggi-Incheon Migrants Trade Union (MTU), even after a high court ruled that the law protecting the right of association applied to migrant laborers. In May the government arrested and deported MTU's President Torna Limbu and Vice President Abdus Sabur for being in "irregular or undocumented status." The ITUC criticized the May arrest and deportation of the two under immigration charges as governmental antiunion repression. Previous MTU leaders also previously were arrested and deported.
By law unions must submit a request for mediation to the Labor Relations Commission before a strike; otherwise, the strike is considered illegal. In most cases the mediation must be completed within 10 days; in the case of essential services, within 15 days. Strikes initiated following this period without majority support from union membership are illegal. Striking is also prohibited in cases in which a dispute has been referred to binding arbitration. Workers employed at major defense corporations subject to the Special Act on the Defense Industry and those working in the areas of electricity generation, water supply, or production of defense products are not allowed to strike. In addition, if striking employees resort to violence, unlawful occupation of premises, or infliction of damage to facilities, their actions are deemed illegal. Strikes not specifically pertaining to labor conditions, including wages, benefits, and working hours, are also illegal. Under the penal code for "obstruction of business," arrest warrants can be issued against union leaders during an illegal strike. Striking workers can be removed by police from the premises and, along with union leaders, prosecuted and sentenced.
On December 5, authorities arrested KCTU President Lee Suk-haeng and charged him with "obstruction of business" in connection with his role organizing a general strike on July 2 to protest plans to resume foreign beef imports. Authorities also charged him with organizing solidarity action in 2007 against a retail company that allegedly subjected its workers to precarious and exploitative employment arrangements. The ITUC criticized his arrest, on warrants issued against him and 10 other KCTU and Korean Metal Workers' Union officials, as violating the government's legal obligations to respect freedom of association.
The law prohibits retribution against workers who conduct a legal strike and allows workers to file complaints of unfair labor practices against employers.
By law unions in enterprises determined to be of "essential public interest"--including railways, utilities, public health, the Bank of Korea, and telecommunications--can be ordered to submit to government-ordered arbitration. Strikes are prohibited for both central and local government officials.
b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
The law provides for the workers' right to collective bargaining and collective action, and workers exercised these rights in practice. The law also empowers workers to file complaints of unfair labor practices against employers who interfere with union organizing or who discriminate against union members. Employers found guilty of unfair practices can be required to reinstate workers fired for union activities. However, forced reinstatement was used infrequently because employers took extra precautions when firing union members. According to the ITUC, employers in some cases levied "obstruction of business" charges against union leaders who were seeking to bargain collectively or engage in regular union activities.
The law permits public servants to organize trade unions and bargain collectively, although it restricts the public service unions from collective bargaining on topics such as policy-making issues and budgetary matters.
The government designated enterprises in the two export processing zones (EPZs) as public interest enterprises. Workers in these enterprises have the rights enjoyed by workers in other sectors, and labor organizations are permitted in the EPZs. However, foreign companies operating in the EPZs are exempt from some labor regulations. For example, foreign-invested enterprises are exempt from provisions that mandate monthly leave, paid holidays, and menstruation leave for women; give preferential treatment to patriots, veterans, and their families; obligate companies with more than 300 persons to recruit persons with disabilities for at least 2 percent of their workforce; encourage companies to reserve 3 percent of their workforce for workers over 55 years of age; and restrict large companies from participating in certain business categories.
c. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor
The law prohibits forced or compulsory labor, including by children, and there were no reports that such practices occurred.
d. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment
The law protects children from exploitation in the workplace and prohibits forced or compulsory labor, and the government effectively enforced these laws through regular inspections. Child labor was not considered a problem.
The labor standards law prohibits the employment of persons under age 15 without a special employment certificate from the MOL. Because education is compulsory through middle school (approximately age 15), few special employment certificates were issued for full-time employment. To obtain employment, children under age 18 must obtain written approval from either parents or guardians. Employers must limit minors' overtime hours and are prohibited from employing minors at night without special permission from the MOL.
e. Acceptable Conditions of Work
The minimum wage is reviewed annually. During the year the minimum wage was 3,770 won (approximately $2.80) per hour. The FKTU and other labor organizations asserted that the existing minimum wage did not meet the basic requirements of urban workers.
Employees of large conglomerates, publicly owned companies, banks, insurance companies with 1,000 or more registered workers, and companies with more than 50 employees work a five-day, 40-hour workweek. Labor laws mandate a 24-hour rest period each week and provide for a flexible hours system, under which employers can require laborers to work up to 48 hours during certain weeks without paying overtime (and 52 with approval from the relevant labor union), so long as average weekly hours for any given two-week period do not exceed 40 hours. If a union agrees to a further loosening of the rules, management may ask employees to work up to 56 regular hours in a given week. Workers may not be required to work more than 12 hours per working day. The labor standards law also provides for a 50 percent higher wage for overtime.
The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) is responsible for implementing industrial accident prevention activities. The government set health and safety standards, but the accident rate was high by international standards. During the year there were 2,422 fatalities related to industrial accidents. According to KOSHA, approximately 60 percent of work-related injuries occurred in workplaces with 50 workers or less. During the year KOSHA provided funds and technical support to improve safety and health facilities at manufacturing workplaces employing fewer than 50 employees, awareness of occupational health problems in the workplace, and safety education for migrant workers. Foreign workers reportedly were more likely to be victims of work-related injuries but were often discouraged from seeking compensation. By law an employer may not dismiss or otherwise disadvantage an employee who interrupts work and takes shelter because of an urgent hazard that could lead to an industrial accident.
Contract and other "nonregular" workers accounted for a substantial portion of the workforce. According to the government, there were approximately 5.4 million nonregular workers, comprising approximately 34 percent of the total workforce. In general nonregular workers performed work similar to regular workers but received approximately 67 percent of the wages of regular workers; 53 percent of nonregular workers were ineligible for national health and unemployment insurance and other benefits, compared with 6 percent of regular workers. In July application of the 2006 Non-Regular Workers Act was expanded to cover businesses with 100 or more employees. The vast majority of contract and other nonregular workers were not foreign workers.
The law on nonregular workers allows companies with more than 300 workers to use temporary worker contracts valid for a maximum of two years. However, labor groups alleged that employers used a loophole in the law to avoid their obligation to hire part-time workers as regular workers after the two-year time limit.
The MOJ reported that the total number of foreigners with legal working status was 494,035 as of year's end. The total number of foreign workers in illegal status was 54,518. The government continued its crackdown on illegal foreign labor.
The government continued to use the Employment Permit System (EPS) to increase protections and controls on foreign workers while easing the labor shortage in the manufacturing, construction, and agricultural sectors. Through the EPS, permit holders may work in certain industries only and have limited job mobility but generally enjoy the same rights and privileges, including the right to organize. Foreign workers were limited in their freedom to change jobs. Before changing jobs the employee's place of work must close down or the worker must have proof of physical abuse at the hand of the employer. Unless MOJ guidelines allow for an extension on humanitarian grounds, workers lose their legal status if they do not find a new employer within two months.
During the year 75,024 foreigners entered Korea under the EPS. They often encountered difficult working conditions. AI and local media reported that foreign laborers often faced physical abuse and exploitation from employers. The NGO Korea Migrant Center received reports of abuse of female entertainment visa holders. The MOJ reported that foreign workers filed 8,074 complaints related to unpaid wages during the year.
Foreign workers employed as language teachers continued to complain that the institutes for which they worked frequently violated employment contracts, but employers reported there were a large number of foreign teachers who did not fully honor their work contracts.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Will Obama Administration Launch a Truth Commission?
February 22, 2009
To Investigate or Not: Four Ways to Look Back at Bush
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — Two days after his re-election in 1864, with Union victory in the Civil War assured, Abraham Lincoln stood at a White House window to address a boisterous crowd of supporters. He spoke of the lessons of the nation’s calamitous recent history.
“In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and as good,” Lincoln said. “Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.”
Today there are new calls for such study, not universal but certainly loud enough, directed this time at the Bush administration’s campaign against terrorism. Interrogation techniques that the United States had long condemned as torture, secret prisons beyond the reach of American law and eavesdropping on American soil without court warrants are at the top of a lot of lists.
But as Lincoln knew, one man’s wisdom is another’s vengeance. Repeatedly in American history, and in “truth commissions” in some two dozen countries from Argentina to Zimbabwe since the 1980s, it has turned out to be a tricky business to turn the ferocious politics of recent events into the dispassionate stuff of justice and the rule of law.
A USA Today/Gallup poll this month found that 62 percent of Americans favor either a criminal investigation or an independent panel to look into allegations of torture. Still, many people, primarily Republicans, insist the Bush policies were vital to protect the country, and the Obama administration is treading gingerly. When Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, proposed a commission to investigate torture and eavesdropping, President Obama didn’t embrace the idea.
Already grappling with two wars and an economic meltdown, Mr. Obama said he was “more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.” But the door was ajar; he also declared that “nobody is above the law.”
Mr. Leahy is undeterred. In an interview, he laughed and described the president’s remarks as “an enthusiastic endorsement.” He said he would work to build support for the idea in Congress.
As a senator under seven presidents, Mr. Leahy said, he has learned that the temptation to abuse powers in a crisis is bipartisan, and the commission’s review should include the role of Democrats in Congress in approving the Bush policies. The work should be done in one year, he added, to avert accusations that it was being dragged out for political gain.
Mr. Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters remain passionate about “looking backwards,” arguing that the Bush policies darkened the United States’ reputation, to Al Qaeda’s benefit. They include Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the House Judiciary chairman, who has sponsored a bill to set up an investigative panel.
Many Republicans, however, say the lofty appeals to justice and history mask an unseemly and dangerous drive to pillory the Bush administration and hamstring the intelligence agencies.
That was precisely the view of an aide in Gerald Ford’s White House named Dick Cheney when a Senate committee led by Frank Church of Idaho looked into intelligence abuses in the mid-1970s. A quarter-century later, as vice president, Mr. Cheney would effectively wreak vengeance on that committee’s legacy, encouraging the National Security Agency to bypass the warrant requirement the committee had proposed and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency he felt the committee had shackled.
If advocates of looking back have their way, what are the options? Some past inquiries offer models, each with different potential winners and losers.
A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (IRAN-CONTRA)
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said at his confirmation hearing that he, like Mr. Obama, did not want to “criminalize policy differences” by punishing officials for acts they believed were legal. The same language was used in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush when he pardoned six officials charged in the Iran-contra investigation. Mr. Bush called the charges “a profoundly troubling development in the history of our country: the criminalization of policy differences.”
The Iran-contra case illustrates the obstacles to any prosecution that unfolds in a polarized political atmosphere. An independent prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, worked for six years to untangle shady arms deals, defiance of Congress and a cover-up. But because of the pardons and court rulings, the key figures escaped all punishment except large legal fees and damaged reputations.
The sharpest critics of the Bush programs insist that only prosecution can restore the law to its proper place. They note that some 100 terrorism suspects have died in American custody and say a prosecution for conspiracy to torture could target both the high-level officials who approved the likes of waterboarding and lawyers who justified it.
But many legal experts believe that the Justice Department would be hard pressed to prosecute as torture methods that the department itself declared in 2002 not to be torture. And if an important goal is to determine who devised the policies, a push to prosecute might only persuade past officials to lawyer up and clam up.
A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION (CHURCH)
If there is a close precedent for the investigation now being debated, it is the inquiry led by Senator Church in 1975-76, which recorded in stunning detail some of the darkest chapters in American history. Its reports chronicled the C.I.A.’s bumbling attempts to assassinate foreign leaders; the N.S.A.’s watchlisting of civil rights and antiwar activists; and the F.B.I.’s campaign to drive the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to suicide.
The reports led directly to a series of reforms, including President Ford’s ban on assassinations, the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve national-security eavesdropping and the establishment of Congressional oversight of the intelligence agencies.
But some Republicans saw Mr. Church as a showboat and his committee as overreaching. To Mr. Cheney, the Church legacy was a regrettable pruning of the president’s powers to protect the country — powers he and Bush administration lawyers reasserted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
A BLUE-RIBBON PANEL (9/11 COMMISSION)
Though Mr. Leahy praised the Church Committee, his own proposal would take the investigation away from Congress in favor of “a group of people universally recommended as fair minded.” He also suggested subpoena power and, perhaps most important, a South Africa-style trade-off: immunity for officials who testify truthfully.
Investigative commissions date at least to 1794, when George Washington used one to negotiate a settlement of the Whiskey Rebellion. The 9/11 commission, a recent example, largely overcame partisanship and drew generally positive reviews.
A commission would free Congress to focus on current problems, including the economic crisis. And promises of immunity might answer concerns expressed last month by the departing C.I.A. director, Michael V. Hayden — that any investigation would discourage intelligence officers from acting boldly for fear of later second-guessing.
DOING NOTHING
Or more accurately, finishing up and rolling out the inquiries already under way. Even if the push for a broad investigation loses momentum, the Bush programs will not soon be forgotten. Among major inquiries expected to conclude soon: a report from the Justice Department’s ethics office on legal opinions justifying harsh interrogations; the criminal investigation of the C.I.A.’s destruction of interrogation videotapes; and a report by the Justice Department inspector general on the N.S.A.’s warrantless eavesdropping.
Meanwhile, thousands of documents relating to secrets of the Bush years are being sought by journalists and advocates. Mr. Obama has directed agencies to lean strongly toward disclosure.
Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., who served as chief counsel for the Church Committee and has called for a new commission, said there is no telling what a thorough investigation may turn up. He recalled his shock as he sat in a secure room at the C.I.A. in 1975 and read that the agency had recruited the Mafia in a scheme to kill Fidel Castro.
“It may seem that we already know a lot,” Mr. Schwarz said. “But based on my experience, I’m certain there’s a lot that went on the last eight years that we still don’t know.”
Monday, February 23, 2009
Putting peace first
Christine Ahn and Paul Liem at Berkeley argue it is essential to put peace first in dealing with the North Korea by pointing out it was recessive to have a "you do it first, then we would move" policy during the Bush administration compared to "let's do it together" stance of Clinton administration. However, the authors express their concerns on what shown by Hilary Clinton during her current visit to Asian nations rather resembles to the Bush's.
Obama government's stance on the Korean peninsula attracts very much attention within/outside the nation, and many experts are pouring out perspectives based on their own agendas and experiences. Whatever that may be, what we shouldn't forget is, as Ahm and Liem argued, to put peace first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Christine Ahn and Paul Liem
Thursday, February 19, 2009
'If North Korea is genuinely prepared to completely and verifiably eliminate their nuclear weapons program," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said before she departed for Asia, "the Obama administration will be willing to normalize bilateral relations, replace the peninsula's longstanding armistice agreements with a permanent peace treaty, and assist in meeting the energy and other economic needs of the North Korean people."
Clinton's acknowledgment of the need to replace the armistice with a permanent peace treaty is a warm welcome to millions of Korean-Americans and Koreans hoping for a peaceful resolution to heightening tensions on the peninsula.
During her stop in Japan, however, she appeared to adopt the Bush administration's position that North Korea disarm as a precondition for normalization. Warning that a North Korean missile test would be "unhelpful" in moving relations with the U.S. forward, Clinton also stated, "If North Korea abides by the obligations it has already entered into and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear program, then there will be a reciprocal response certainly from the United States."
In the West, the conventional wisdom is that North Korea engages in "provocative" activity like missile testing in order to blackmail the United States into negotiations. What is forgotten, however, is that in the absence of an ongoing peace dialogue, the status quo between the United States and North Korea is that of two countries at war, held at bay only by a fragile truce.
For this reason, North Korea, as well as the United States and South Korea, routinely engage in war exercises and pursue modernization of their military technologies. In fact, the United States has committed to spending $10 billion on base construction in South Korea, and South Korea has begun to increase its military budget annually by 10 percent under its $665 billion Defense Reform 2020 Initiative.
For nearly eight years, the Bush administration threatened North Korea with dire consequences for not acquiescing to demands that it disarm its nuclear weapons program before receiving the benefits of U.S. friendship. As a result, not only did the North continue testing its missiles - it also tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. Today, whether the international community likes it or not, North Korea is a nuclear power.
But there is an alternative. A decade ago, North Korea agreed to a moratorium on its missile testing, and continued to mothball its plutonium reactor under an earlier agreed framework, as a result of a peace initiative launched during the Clinton administration. In this instance both countries agreed to take the first step toward peace together, not one before the other.
The Obama administration has a plateful of domestic and international crises before it. Fortunately, in the case of North Korea, there is a wealth of experience and lessons. The foremost of these is that while the "you disarm first" approach of the Bush administration proved to be disastrous, the "let's do this together" approach of the Clinton administration achieved positive results.
Failure to heed this hard-learned lesson, by an administration that pledged to pursue diplomacy over bluster and war, would be tragic.
Denuclearization of North Korea is still possible. But in the absence of a common commitment to peace secured by a permanent peace treaty, it is unlikely to occur.
James Laney, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, recently advised: "A peace treaty would provide a baseline for relationships, eliminating the question of the other's legitimacy and its right to exist. Absent such a peace treaty, every dispute presents afresh the question of the other side's legitimacy."
Let's dare to put peace first, for a change.
Christine Ahn is a fellow and Paul Liem is Chairman of the Korea Policy Institute.
Obama government's stance on the Korean peninsula attracts very much attention within/outside the nation, and many experts are pouring out perspectives based on their own agendas and experiences. Whatever that may be, what we shouldn't forget is, as Ahm and Liem argued, to put peace first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Christine Ahn and Paul Liem
Thursday, February 19, 2009
'If North Korea is genuinely prepared to completely and verifiably eliminate their nuclear weapons program," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said before she departed for Asia, "the Obama administration will be willing to normalize bilateral relations, replace the peninsula's longstanding armistice agreements with a permanent peace treaty, and assist in meeting the energy and other economic needs of the North Korean people."
Clinton's acknowledgment of the need to replace the armistice with a permanent peace treaty is a warm welcome to millions of Korean-Americans and Koreans hoping for a peaceful resolution to heightening tensions on the peninsula.
During her stop in Japan, however, she appeared to adopt the Bush administration's position that North Korea disarm as a precondition for normalization. Warning that a North Korean missile test would be "unhelpful" in moving relations with the U.S. forward, Clinton also stated, "If North Korea abides by the obligations it has already entered into and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear program, then there will be a reciprocal response certainly from the United States."
In the West, the conventional wisdom is that North Korea engages in "provocative" activity like missile testing in order to blackmail the United States into negotiations. What is forgotten, however, is that in the absence of an ongoing peace dialogue, the status quo between the United States and North Korea is that of two countries at war, held at bay only by a fragile truce.
For this reason, North Korea, as well as the United States and South Korea, routinely engage in war exercises and pursue modernization of their military technologies. In fact, the United States has committed to spending $10 billion on base construction in South Korea, and South Korea has begun to increase its military budget annually by 10 percent under its $665 billion Defense Reform 2020 Initiative.
For nearly eight years, the Bush administration threatened North Korea with dire consequences for not acquiescing to demands that it disarm its nuclear weapons program before receiving the benefits of U.S. friendship. As a result, not only did the North continue testing its missiles - it also tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. Today, whether the international community likes it or not, North Korea is a nuclear power.
But there is an alternative. A decade ago, North Korea agreed to a moratorium on its missile testing, and continued to mothball its plutonium reactor under an earlier agreed framework, as a result of a peace initiative launched during the Clinton administration. In this instance both countries agreed to take the first step toward peace together, not one before the other.
The Obama administration has a plateful of domestic and international crises before it. Fortunately, in the case of North Korea, there is a wealth of experience and lessons. The foremost of these is that while the "you disarm first" approach of the Bush administration proved to be disastrous, the "let's do this together" approach of the Clinton administration achieved positive results.
Failure to heed this hard-learned lesson, by an administration that pledged to pursue diplomacy over bluster and war, would be tragic.
Denuclearization of North Korea is still possible. But in the absence of a common commitment to peace secured by a permanent peace treaty, it is unlikely to occur.
James Laney, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, recently advised: "A peace treaty would provide a baseline for relationships, eliminating the question of the other's legitimacy and its right to exist. Absent such a peace treaty, every dispute presents afresh the question of the other side's legitimacy."
Let's dare to put peace first, for a change.
Christine Ahn is a fellow and Paul Liem is Chairman of the Korea Policy Institute.
Monday, February 16, 2009
김수환 추기경 선종; Cardinal Stephen Kim, 86, South Korea democracy advocate, dies
Reuters
Monday, February 16, 2009
SEOUL: The first South Korean Roman Catholic cardinal, Stephen Kim, who used his pulpit as a platform to help bring down the country's authoritarian leaders and instill democracy, died Monday at the age of 86, a church official said.
The cardinal, also known as Kim Sou Hwan, was a staunch advocate of human rights and one of the key figures in bringing democracy to a country where military strongmen ruled for decades.
Kim became a cardinal in 1968 and expanded the Catholic Church in South Korea by appealing to students, workers and the educated.
"He expressed his deep interest and grave concern for the repressed and the underprivileged and did not hesitate to speak out on the oppressive political situation," according to his biography on his personal Web site.
Kim became an international figure in 1986 and 1987, when tens of thousands of South Koreans took to the streets in rallies calling for the end of military rule and the start of free elections.
His red brick cathedral in central Seoul became a rallying point for protests. Kim, who gave refuge to protesters sought by the police, called on the president at the time, Chun Doo Hwan, to allow for the country's first open presidential elections.
"He awakened the values of human rights and social justice in the South Korean society, guiding the nation towards democratization," said Ro Kil Myung, an expert on religion and a sociology professor at Korea University.
For many in South Korea, Kim was the moral conscience of the struggle.
"He was not politically motivated in spearheading the democracy movement," Ro said. "His actions were rather based on the spirit of Catholicism."
Kim delivered stinging sermons from his pulpit calling for democracy while the opposition leaders Kim Dae Jung and Kim Young Sam, who would both later become president, sat in front rows.
After the democracy struggles that resulted in South Korea's first open presidential election in 1987, Kim fought for better human rights protections for migrant foreign workers and for Japan to take greater responsibility for the damage it caused during its 1910-1945 colonial rule over Korea.
The number of Catholics in South Korea increased more than sixfold while Kim was cardinal, reaching 5.1 million in 2005 among a population of about 49 million, according to government figures.
Correction:
Notes:
Copyright © 2009 The International Herald Tribune www.iht.com
var iht_dcsid = "dcs7ca2og10000woszoz47ro5_2r5u";
(2보)(서울=연합뉴스) 정천기 기자 = 한국 가톨릭계를 대표하는 인물이자 정신적 지주 역할을 해온 김수환 추기경이 16일 오후 6시12분께 강남성모병원에서 선종(善終ㆍ서거를 뜻하는 천주교 용어)했다. 향년 87세. 1922년 5월 대구에서 출생한 고인은 1951년 사제품을 받았고 1966년 초대 마산교구장을 거쳐 1968년 대주교로 승품한 뒤 서울대교구장에 올랐다. 1969년 교황 바오로 6세에 의해 한국인 최초 추기경으로 서임된 고인은 천주교 주교회의 의장, 아시아 천주교 주교회의 구성 준비위원장 등을 역임한 뒤 1998년 정년(75세)을 넘기면서 서울대교구장에서 은퇴했다.
Monday, February 16, 2009
SEOUL: The first South Korean Roman Catholic cardinal, Stephen Kim, who used his pulpit as a platform to help bring down the country's authoritarian leaders and instill democracy, died Monday at the age of 86, a church official said.
The cardinal, also known as Kim Sou Hwan, was a staunch advocate of human rights and one of the key figures in bringing democracy to a country where military strongmen ruled for decades.
Kim became a cardinal in 1968 and expanded the Catholic Church in South Korea by appealing to students, workers and the educated.
"He expressed his deep interest and grave concern for the repressed and the underprivileged and did not hesitate to speak out on the oppressive political situation," according to his biography on his personal Web site.
Kim became an international figure in 1986 and 1987, when tens of thousands of South Koreans took to the streets in rallies calling for the end of military rule and the start of free elections.
His red brick cathedral in central Seoul became a rallying point for protests. Kim, who gave refuge to protesters sought by the police, called on the president at the time, Chun Doo Hwan, to allow for the country's first open presidential elections.
"He awakened the values of human rights and social justice in the South Korean society, guiding the nation towards democratization," said Ro Kil Myung, an expert on religion and a sociology professor at Korea University.
For many in South Korea, Kim was the moral conscience of the struggle.
"He was not politically motivated in spearheading the democracy movement," Ro said. "His actions were rather based on the spirit of Catholicism."
Kim delivered stinging sermons from his pulpit calling for democracy while the opposition leaders Kim Dae Jung and Kim Young Sam, who would both later become president, sat in front rows.
After the democracy struggles that resulted in South Korea's first open presidential election in 1987, Kim fought for better human rights protections for migrant foreign workers and for Japan to take greater responsibility for the damage it caused during its 1910-1945 colonial rule over Korea.
The number of Catholics in South Korea increased more than sixfold while Kim was cardinal, reaching 5.1 million in 2005 among a population of about 49 million, according to government figures.
Correction:
Notes:
Copyright © 2009 The International Herald Tribune www.iht.com
var iht_dcsid = "dcs7ca2og10000woszoz47ro5_2r5u";
(2보)(서울=연합뉴스) 정천기 기자 = 한국 가톨릭계를 대표하는 인물이자 정신적 지주 역할을 해온 김수환 추기경이 16일 오후 6시12분께 강남성모병원에서 선종(善終ㆍ서거를 뜻하는 천주교 용어)했다. 향년 87세. 1922년 5월 대구에서 출생한 고인은 1951년 사제품을 받았고 1966년 초대 마산교구장을 거쳐 1968년 대주교로 승품한 뒤 서울대교구장에 올랐다. 1969년 교황 바오로 6세에 의해 한국인 최초 추기경으로 서임된 고인은 천주교 주교회의 의장, 아시아 천주교 주교회의 구성 준비위원장 등을 역임한 뒤 1998년 정년(75세)을 넘기면서 서울대교구장에서 은퇴했다.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Statement by Historians in South Korea and Overseas Signatories to the Statement (November 10, 2008) South Korea
전국 및 해외 역사학자 선언
방기중(연세대 사학과 교수) 강길중(경상대 사학과 교수) 강대민(경성대 사학과 교수) 강명길(서울시립대 대학원) 강문석(한국역사연구회 고대사분과) 강미자(경성대 한국학연구소 연구원) 강민철(가톨릭대 국사학과 석사과정) 강병식(역사실학회 회장) 강봉룡(목포대 교수) 강봉원(경주대 문화재학부) 강성길(광양제철고 교사) 강성봉(성균관대 박사과정) 강성호(순천대 인문학부 교수) 강영경(숙명여대) 강일휴(수원대 사학과 교수) 강재광(경기대 사학과 강사) 강정숙(성균관대 박사과정) 강정원(부산대 사학과) 강판권(계명대 사학과 교수) 강혜경(숙명여대 교수) 강혜라(가톨릭대 국사학과) 강호선(서울대 국사학과 대학원) 강효숙(진실화해위원회) 고동환(한국과학기술원 인문사회과학부 교수) 고영진(광주대 교수) 고원(경희대) 고정휴(포항공대 인문사회학부 교수) 고지훈(역사문제연구소 연구원) 고현아(가톨릭대) 곽차섭(부산대 사학과 교수) 구덕회(고척고 교사) 구도영(한국역사연구회 중세사2분과) 구만옥(경희대 사학과 교수) 구산우(창원대 사학과 교수) 구완회(세명대 교수) 권기철(부산외대 경제학과 교수) 권내현(고려대 역사교육과 교수) 권덕영(부산외대 교수) 권연웅(경북대 사학과 교수) 권영국(숭실대 사학과 교수) 권영배(계성중 교사) 권영오(대저중학교) 권오영(한신대 교수) 권오중(영남대 사학과) 권은주(경북대 사학과) 권인혁(제주대 사학과 교수) 권태억(서울대 국사학과 교수) 기경량(서울대 대학원) 기광서(조선대 교수) 김건태(성균관대 동아시아학술원 교수) 김경남(학습원대학 연구원) 김경란(성균관대 대동문화연구원 연구교수) 김경래(서울대 국사학과) 김경옥(목포대 연구교수) 김경일(한국학중앙연구원 교수) 김광철(동아대 사학과 교수) 김기봉(경기대 사학과 교수) 김기섭(부산대 사학과 교수) 김기승(순천향대 교수) 김기주(호남사학회 교수) 김남석(충남호서고) 김남섭(서울산업대 교수) 김남윤(역사학연구소) 김대래(신라대 경제학과 교수) 김도형(연세대 사학과 교수) 김도훈(국민대) 김돈(서울산업대 교수) 김동수(전남대 사학과 교수) 김동전(제주대 사학과 교수) 김동진(한국교원대 역사교육과 강사) 김동철(부산대 사학과 교수) 김두현(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 김락기(인하대 사학과 강사) 김명진(경북대 강사) 김무진(계명대 교수) 김문기(부경대 사학과) 김문식(단국대 사학과 교수) 김미엽(성신여대 인문과학연구소 연구원) 김미현(성균관대 박사과정) 김민석(한양대 대학원 박사과정) 김민철(민족문제연구소) 김배철(청주교대 교수) 김백철(서울대규장각) 김병우(대구한의대) 김보영(한양대 강사) 김봉렬(경남대 인문학부 교수) 김선경(역사학연구소) 김선미(부산대 사학과) 김선호(한국학중앙연구원 박사과정) 김성보(연세대 사학과 부교수) 김성우(대구한의대 교수) 김성준(서울대 대학원) 김세봉(단국대 동양학연구소) 김소남(한국역사연구회 현대사분과) 김수현(한양대 사학과 박사과정) 김순덕(서울대규장각 선임연구원) 김순자(한신대 학술연구교수) 김승(부산대 사학과 강사) 김승태(민족문제연구소 연구위원) 김시황(경북대 한문학과 명예교수) 김연희(서울시립대 대학원) 김영미(국민대일본학연구소) 김영미(이화여대 사학전공 교수) 김영범(대구대 교수) 김영진(성균관대 사학과 박사과정) 김영희(연세대 국학연구원) 김용선(한림대 사학과 교수) 김용흠(연세대 국학연구원 연구교수) 김우택(서울대 국사학과 박사과정) 김웅호(서울시립대 서울학연구소 수석연구원) 김윤경(서울대 서양사학과 강사) 김은경(숙명여대) 김은숙(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 김의환(충북대) 김익한(명지대 기록정보과학전문대학원 교수) 김인걸(서울대 국사학과 교수) 김인호(광운대 교양학부 교수) 김인호(한양사이버대 교수) 김재웅(고려대 대학원 박사과정) 김정숙(영남대 국사학과 교수) 김정인(춘천교대 교수) 김종은(숙명여대 대학원 박사과정) 김종준(서울대규장각 선임연구원) 김주란(경북대 사학과) 김주영(독립기념관 한국독립운동사연구소 연구원) 김주완(한국제노사이드연구회) 김준혁(중앙대 강사) 김준형(경상대 역사교육과 교수) 김지수(전남대 법학과 부교수) 김지연(국립중앙박물관) 김지영(숙명여대 한국사학과 박사과정) 김지희(숙명여대 한국사학과 박사과정) 김진영(민족문제연구소 연구원) 김진한(한국학중앙연구원 박사과정) 김창록(경북대 법과대학 교수) 김충현(충남대 사학과) 김태영(경희대 사학과 명예교수) 김태우(서울대 강사) 김태웅(서울대 역사교육과 교수) 김한종(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 김항기(동국대 사학과 석사과정) 김현숙(동북아역사재단 연구위원) 김형국(포항해양과학고) 김형수(한국국학진흥원) 김호범(부산대 경제학과 교수) 김훈식(인제대 역사고고학과 교수) 김희곤(안동대 사학과 교수) 김희교(광운대 교수) 김희선(서울시립대 국사학과 강사) 나애자(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 나희라(진주산업대 교양학부 교수) 남기현(성균관대 사학과 박사과정) 남동신(덕성여대 사학과 교수) 남무희(국민대) 남미전(동아대 사학과) 남재우(창원대 사학과 교수) 남종국(동국대 사학과 교수) 남지대(서원대 역사교육과 교수) 남철호(대구사학회) 노명환(한국외대 사학과 교수) 노영기(조선대) 노중국(계명대 사학과 교수) 도면회(대전대 역사문화학과 교수) 도현철(연세대 교수) 라정숙(숙명여대 대학원 박사과정) 류승렬(강원대 교수) 류영철(영남대 강사) 류은하(영산대 시간강사) 류준범(역사문제연구소 연구원) 류한수(상명대 교수) 류현희(한국역사연구회 고대사분과) 문수현(경희대 인문학연구원 연구교수) 문영주(역사문제연구소 연구원) 문용식(고려대 강사) 문용호(양산제일고) 문중양(서울대 국사학과 교수) 문창로(국민대 사학과 교수) 민덕기(청주대 역사문화 교수) 민유기(광운대 교양학부 조교수) 박건주(전남대 사학과 강사) 박걸순(충북대 사학과 교수) 박경수(강릉대 일본학과 교수) 박광명(동국대 사학과 석사과정) 박광연(한국역사연구회 중세사1분과) 박대재(고려대 한국사학과 교수) 박만규(전남대 역사교육과 교수) 박맹수(원광대 사학과 교수) 박상철(전남대 사학과 교수) 박선애(동명대 교수) 박성준(서울대규장각) 박수현(민족문제연구소) 박순준(동의대 사학과 교수) 박우룡(서강대 연구교수) 박원용(부경대 사학과 교수) 박원홍(고려대 한국사학과) 박유미(상명대 대학원 박사과정) 박윤선(상해복단대 한국연구중심) 박윤재(연세대 연구교수) 박은경(동아대 고고미술사학과 교수) 박은경(동아대 고고미술사학과 교수) 박은숙(서울시사편찬위원회) 박정애(숙명여대 사학과) 박종기(국민대 국사학과 교수) 박종린(성균관대 동아시아학술원 연구교수) 박종진(숙명여대 한국사학과 교수) 박준성(역사학연구소) 박준형(한국역사연구회 고대사분과) 박지영(동아대 사학과 석사) 박진빈(경희대 사학과 교수) 박진우(숙명여대 일본학과 교수) 박진태(대진대 사학과 교수)박진훈(명지대 사학과 조교수) 박진희(한국역사연구회 현대사분과) 박찬규(단국대 동양학연구소) 박찬문(제주대 사학과 교수) 박찬승(한양대 사학과 교수) 박찬흥(고려대 연구교수) 박천수(경북대 교수) 박철하(숭실대 강사) 박태균(서울대 교수) 박평식(청주교대 사회과교육과 교수) 박현순(서울대규장각) 박호성(서강대 교수) 박화진(부경대 사학과 교수) 박환(수원대 사학과 교수) 박흥식(서울대 서양사학과 교수) 반병률(한국외대 사학과 교수) 방지원(신라대 교수) 배병욱(동아대 사학과 강사) 배석만(부산대 한국민족문화연구소 연구원) 배영순(영남대 국사학과 교수) 배은아(이화여대) 백길남(연세대 사학과 석사졸업) 백승옥(부산경남사학회) 백승철(연세대 국학연구원 교수) 백영미 백영서(연세대 사학과 교수) 변광석(부산대 강사) 변동명(전남대 이순신해양문화연구소 부교수) 변정심(대구가톨릭대 역사교육과 외래강사) 서명일(고려대 박물관) 서영건(부산대 사학과) 서인원(한성대 강사) 서정복(충남대 명예교수) 서정훈(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 서종태(호남교회사연구소 연구실장) 서중석(성균관대 사학과 교수) 성백용(한남대 사학과 교수) 소현숙(한양대) 손동유(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 손병규(성균관대 동아시아학술원 HK교수) 손승회(영남대 사학과 교수) 손정미(대가야박물관) 손철배(성균관대 동아시아학술원) 송규범(서원대 역사교육과 교수) 송용덕(서울대 국사학과) 송웅섭(서울대규장각 연구원) 송찬섭(방송대 문화교양학과 교수) 송호상(계명대 사학과 강사) 송호정(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 신경철(부산대 고고학과) 신동하(동덕여대 국사학과 전공) 신민철(서울대 과학사및과학철학 박사과정) 신세라(모스크바국립대 역사학부 박사과정) 신순철(원광대 사학과 교수) 신안식(숙명여대 다문화통합연구소 연구교수) 신영희(부산대 사학과) 신은제(동아대 사학과 강사) 신주백(서울대규장각) 신태갑(동아대 사학과 교수) 심재석(방송대 강사) 심재우(한국학중앙연구원 교수) 심재훈(단국대 사학과 교수) 심철기(연세대 대학원 박사과정) 안병우(한신대 국사학과 교수) 안환(부산경남사학회) 양명수(이화여대) 양미숙(동아대 강사) 양상진(삼괴중) 양상현(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 양정심(성균관대) 양정현(부산대 교수) 양흥숙(부산대 한국민족문화연구소) 여호규(한국외대 사학과 부교수) 연갑수(서울역사박물관) 염복규(역사문제연구소 연구원) 염운옥(고려대) 염정섭(전북대 HK교수) 예대열(고려대 한국사학과 박사과정) 오보경(충남대 대학원 석사과정) 오부윤(인덕대 교수) 오수창(한림대 사학과 교수) 오영교(연세대 역사문화학과 교수) 오인택(부산교대 사회교육과 교수) 오정우(광주여대 교수) 오제연(서울대 국사학과 대학원) 오종록(성신여대 사학과 부교수) 오항녕(충북대) 오흥식(성균관대 사학과 시간강사) 왕현종(연세대 역사문화학과 교수) 우인수(경북대 교수) 원영미(울산대 역사문화학과 강사) 위은숙(영남대 민족문화연구소) 유경순(역사학연구소 연구원) 유승원(가톨릭대 교수) 유승희(서울시립대 HK교수) 유영옥(부산대 인문한국 HK연구교수) 유장근(경남대 교수) 유재건(부산대 사학과 교수) 유현(동아대 사학과) 유현경(고령군 대가야박물관) 유현재(서울대규장각) 윤경로(한성대 총장) 윤경진(경상대 사학과 교수) 윤대원(서울대규장각 책임연구원) 윤덕영(역사문제연구소 연구원) 윤시원(성균관대 사학과 석사과정) 윤용출(부산대 역사교육과 교수) 윤용혁(공주대 교수) 윤원영(경희대 사학과) 윤재석(경북대 사학과 교수) 윤지현(울산대 역사문화학과) 은정태(대림대 강사) 이강래(전남대 사학과 교수) 이강한(인하대 BK21사업단) 이개석(경북대사학과 교수) 이경구(전북대 사학과 교수) 이경구(한림대 한림과학원 HK연구교수) 이경미(한국외대 사학과 박사과정) 이광수(부산외대 러시아인도통상학부 교수) 이광욱(동아대 사학과 강사) 이규철(가톨릭대 국사학과) 이기영(동아대 사학과 교수) 이기훈(목포대 역사문화학부 교수) 이동인(임원경제연구소) 이동헌(한양대 강사) 이명선(숙명여대 석사과정) 이명숙(경희대) 이문기(경북대 역사교육과 교수) 이민아(서울대 국사학과 대학원) 이병례(성균관대) 이병휴(경북대 역사교육과 명예교수) 이병희(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 이상길(경남대 교수) 이상의(연세대 국학연구원) 이상찬(서울대 교수) 이석규(한양대 사학과 교수) 이선아(성균관대 사학과 박사과정) 이성임(서울대규장각 연구원) 이성주(강릉대 사학과 부교수) 이성환(계명대 일본학과 교수) 이세영(한신대 국사학과 교수) 이송순(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 이송희(신라대 사학과 교수) 이수원(민주화운동기념사업회) 이수환(영남대 국사학과 교수) 이승렬(연세대 사학과) 이승민(가톨릭대 대학원생) 이승민(동국대 강사) 이신철(성균관대 연구교수) 이애숙(연세대 대학원 박사과정) 이영석(광주대 외국어학부 교수) 이영애(경기도 박물관) 이영학(한국외대 교수) 이영호(인하대 사학과 교수) 이용기(성균관대 동아시아학술원) 이용재(전북대 사학과 교수) 이용창(민족문제연구소 책임연구원) 이우석(한국역사연구회 중세사1분과) 이욱(한국국학진흥원) 이원배(고려대 한국사학과 고대사전공) 이윤갑(계명대 사학과 교수) 이윤상(창원대 사학과 교수) 이임하(성균관대) 이정민(서울대 국사학과 강사) 이정빈(경희대 사학과) 이정선(서울대 대학원) 이정숙(부산가톨릭대) 이정신(한남대 사학과 교수) 이정은(역사문제연구소) 이정호(고려대 BK21한국사학교육연구단) 이정훈(한국역사연구회 중세사1분과) 이종범(조선대 교수) 이종봉(부산대 사학과 교수) 이종서(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 이주현(한남대 사학과 교수) 이주환(한국역사연구회 현대사분과) 이준구(대구한의대 교수) 이진모(한남대 사학과 교수) 이진옥(부산대 사학과 강사) 이진한(고려대 교수) 이태훈(연세대 강사) 이필은(나사렛대) 이학수(부산경남사학회) 이한상(대전대 교수) 이항준(서울여대 사학과) 이해준(공주대 사학과 교수) 이현숙(이화여대 한국문화연구원) 이현진(서울대규장각) 이형우(영남대 교수) 이혜민(연세대 사학과 강사) 이혜옥(한국외대) 이호룡(한국역사연구회 현대사분과) 이환병(등촌고 교사) 이효형(부산대 한국민족문화연구소 연구원) 임경석(성균관대 사학과 교수) 임민혁(역사실학회 총무이사) 임병훈(경북대 사학과 교수) 임선화(전남대 박사과정) 임세권(안동대 사학과 교수) 임송자(성균관대 연구교수) 임학성(인하대 한국학연구소 교수) 임헌영(역사문제연구소 운영위원) 임혜련(숙명여대 강사) 장동표(부산대 역사교육과 교수) 장미애(가톨릭대) 장병인(충남대 국사학과 교수) 장선화(동아대 사학과) 장성준(한신대 국사학과 석사과정) 장세룡(부산대 한국민족문화연구소 HK교수) 장신(역사문제연구소 연구원) 장연옥(계명대학교 한국학연구원 방문교수) 장영민(상지대 교수) 장영숙(상명대) 장준철(원광대 사학과 교수) 전경숙(숙명여대 박사) 전국역사교사모임() 전덕재(경주대 교양과정부 교수) 전명혁(한국외대) 전영섭(부산대 역사교육과 강사) 전영욱(서울시립대 대학원생) 전영준(중앙대 연구교수) 전우용(서울대병원 병원역사문화센터 교수) 전제현(국민대 박사과정) 전진성(부산교대 사회교육과 교수) 전현수(경북대 사학과 교수) 전형택(전남대 역사교육과 교수) 전호태(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 정동락(대가야박물관) 정동준(성균관대BK21사업단 박사후연구원) 정동훈(서울대 대학원) 정미성(서울대 국사학과 강사) 정병삼(숙명여대 한국사학과 교수) 정병욱(역사문제연구소 연구원) 정성일(광주여대 교수) 정숭교(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 정연태(가톨릭대 국사학과 교수) 정요근(숙명여대 다문화통합연구소 연구원) 정용욱(서울대 국사학과 교수) 정재훈(경상대 사학과) 정재훈(서울대 HK연구원) 정진상(경상대 사회학과 교수) 정진아(성균관대 동아시아학술원 연구교수) 정진영(안동대 사학과 교수) 정창렬(한양대 명예교수) 정창현(국민대 교양과정부 겸임교수) 정태헌(고려대 한국사학과 교수) 정학수(숙명여대 다문화통합연구소 연구원) 정해은(군사편찬연구소) 정현백(성균관대 교수) 정호훈(연세대 국학연구원) 조경철(연세대 사학과 강사) 조광(고려대 한국사학과 교수) 조규태(한국민족운동사학회 연구이사) 조낙영(서울대 강사) 조명근(역사문제연구소 연구원) 조미은(성균관대 박사과정) 조병로(경기대 사학과 교수) 조성운(교토대학 인문과학연구소) 조세열(민족문제연구소) 조세현(부경대 사학과 교수) 조승래(청주대 교수) 조영광(경북대 사학과 강사) 조원래(순천대 사학전공 교수) 조원옥(부산대 사학과 강사) 조윤선(청주대 교수) 조재곤(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 조준희(대종교) 주경미(부경대 인문사회과학연구소 연구교수) 주명철(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 주웅영(대구교육대 사회과 교수) 진상원(동아대 사학과) 차미희(이화여대 사회생활과 교수) 차선혜(경희대) 차인배(동국대 강사) 차철욱(부산대 한국민족문화연구소) 채상식(부산대 사학과 교수) 채웅석(가톨릭대 국사학과 교수) 최갑수(서울대 서양사학과 교수) 최경선(연세대 사학과 석사졸업) 최덕경(부산대 사학과 교수) 최보영(동국대 대학원 사학과) 최연식(목포대 역사문화학과 교수) 최연주(동의대 사학과 교수) 최영심(김해외국어고) 최영태(전남대 사학과 교수) 최원규(부산대 교수) 최윤오(연세대 사학과 교수) 최은진(한양대 석사과정) 최인기(한국역사연구회 중세사2분과) 최진규(조선대 사학과 교수) 최해룡(대구청소년대안교육원) 최현미(경북대 사학과 강사) 최혜주(한양대 연구교수) 최홍조(경북대 강사) 하세봉(한국해양대 동아시아학과 교수) 하유식(부산대) 하일식(연세대 사학과 교수) 하종문(한신대 일본지역학과 교수) 하지영(동아대 사학과) 한명근(숭실대 박물관) 한명기(명지대 사학과 교수) 한모니까(가톨릭대) 한문종(전북대 교수) 한봉석(성균관대 사학과 박사과정) 한상권(덕성여대 사학과 교수) 한성민(동국대 사학과 강사) 한성욱(한국문화유산연구원) 한승훈(고려대 한국사학과 박사수료) 한시준(단국대 역사학과 교수) 한운석(고려대 교수) 한정숙(서울대 서양사학과 교수) 한정훈(부산대 사학과) 한창균(한남대 역사교육과 교수) 한철호(동국대 역사교육과 교수) 한홍구(성공회대 교수) 한희숙(숙명여대 한국사학과 교수) 함순섭(국립대구박물관) 허수(동덕여대 연구교수) 허신혜(홍익대 강사) 허영란(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 허원(서원대 역사교육과 교수) 허원영(한국학중앙연구원 장서각 연구원) 허은(고려대 한국사학과 교수) 허종(충남대 국사학과 교수) 허태용(고려대 강사) 현재열(부산대 사학과) 현종철(경희대 박사과정) 홍문기(서울대 국사학과) 홍석률(성신여대 조교수) 홍순권(동아대 사학과 교수) 홍순민(명지대 교수) 홍영기(순천대 인문학부 교수) 홍영의(숙명여대 연구교수) 홍정완(역사문제연구소 연구원) 황병주(역사문제연구소 연구원) 황보영조(경북대 사학과 교수) 황인정(이화여대 사학과)
Overseas
Charles Armstrong, Professor, Columbia University
Donald Baker, Professor, University of British Columbia
Edward J. Baker, Professor, Hanyang University
Remco E. Breuker, Researcher, Leiden University
Mark Caprio, Professor, Rikkyo University
Edward Chang, Professor, University of California at Riverside
Kornel Chang, Professor, University of Connecticut
Hyaeweol Choi, Professor, Arizona State University
Jennifer Jihye Chun, Professor, University of British Columbia
Hye Seung Chung, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Michael Chwe, Professor, UCLA
Donald N. Clark, Professor, Trinity University
Nicole Cohen, Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University
Bruce Cumings, Professor, University of Chicago
Lisa Kim Davis, Professor, UCLA
Brett de Bary, Professor, Cornell University
Koen De Ceuster, Professor, Leiden University
John DiMoia, Professor, National University of Singapore
Jamie Doucette, Lecturer, University of British Columbia
Alexis Dudden, Professor, University of Connecticut
John Duncan, Professor, UCLA
Thomas Duvernay, Professor, Handong Global University
Carter J. Eckert, Professor, Harvard University
Marion Eggert, Professor, Ruhr University
Henry Em, Professor, Korea University
Stephen Epstein, Professor, Victoria University of Wellington
John Feffer, Editor, Foreign Policy in Focus
Norma Field, Professor, University of Chicago
Takashi Fujitani, Professor, University of California, San Diego
Mel Gurtov, Professor, University of Oregon
Dennis Hart, Professor, University of Pittsburgh
Martin Hart-Landsberg, Professor, Lewis and Clark College
Laura Hein, Professor, Northwestern University
Todd A. Henry, Professor, Colorado State University
Christine Hong, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, Berkeley
Theodore Hughes, Professor, Columbia University
Kyung Moon Hwang, Professor, University of Southern California
Sheila Miyoshi Jager, Professor, Oberlin College
Roger L. Janelli, Professor, Indiana University
Kelly Jeong, Professor, University of California, Riverside
Jennifer Jung-Kim, Editor, UCLA
George Kallander, Professor, Syracuse University
Namsoon Kang, Professor, Texas Christian University
Ken Kawashima, Professor, University of Toronto
Daniel Y. Kim, Professor, Brown University
Elaine Kim, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Hyung-A Kim, Professor, Australian National University
Jina Kim, Professor, Smith College
Joy Kim, Professor, Princeton University
Jungwon Kim, Professor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Kyung Hyun Kim, Professor, University of California, Irvine
Sang-Hyun Kim, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard University
Sun-Chul Kim, Professor, Barnard College/Columbia University
Sun Joo Kim, Professor, Harvard University
Suzy Kim, Professor, Boston College
Taik Kyun Kim, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Thomas P. Kim, Professor, Scripps College
Youngnan Kim-Paik, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Ross King, Professor, University of British Columbia
Lev R. Kontsevich, Researcher, Russian Academy of Sciences
Hagen Koo, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
J. Victor Koschmann, Professor, Cornell University
Tae Yang Kwak, Professor, Ramapo College of New Jersey
Nayoung Aimee Kwon, Professor, Duke University
Gari Ledyard, Professor, Columbia University
Eun-Jeung Lee, Professor, Free University Berlin
James Kyung-Jin Lee, Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Namhee Lee, Professor, UCLA
Timothy S. Lee, Professor, Texas Christian University
Walter K. Lew, Professor, University of Miami
John Lie, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Ramsay Liem, Professor, Boston College
Richard D. McBride, Professor, Brigham Young University
Gavan McCormack, Professor, Australian National University
Yong Soon Min, Professor, University of California, Irvine
Seungsook Moon, Professor, Vassar College
Jane Myong, Professor, Sinclair Community College
Sung-Deuk Oak, Professor, UCLA
Robert Oppenheim, Professor, University of Texas, Austin
Hyung Il Pai, Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Gary Pak, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Albert L. Park, Professor, Claremont McKenna College
Andrew Sung Park, Professor, United Theological Seminary
Chan Park, Professor, Ohio State University
Eugene Y. Park, Professor, University of California, Irvine
Jin Young Park, Professor, American University
Pori Park, Professor, Arizona State University
Samuel Perry, Professor, Brown University
Michael J. Pettid, Professor, State University of New York at Binghamton
Leslie Pincus, Professor, University of Michigan
Janet Poole, Professor, University of Toronto
Jorge Rafael Di Masi, Professor, National University of La Plata
Michael E. Robinson, Professor, Indiana University
Lawrence Rogers, Professor, University of Hawaii at Hilo
Alfredo Romero Castilla, Professor, National University of Mexico
Youngju Ryu, Professor, University of Michigan
Naoki Sakai, Professor, Cornell University
Wesley Sasaki-Uemura, Professor, University of Utah
Werner Sasse, Professor, University of Hamburg
Andre Schmid, Professor, University of Toronto
Mark Selden, Professor, State University of New York at Binghamton
Jungmin Seo, Professor, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Gi-Wook Shin, Professor, Stanford University
Edward J. Shultz, Professor, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Tatiana Simbirtseva, Lecturer, Russian State University for the Humanities
Eric Sirotkin, Chair, National Lawyers Guild Korean Peace Project
Min Suh Son, Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Jesook Song, Professor, University of Toronto
Min Hyoung Song, Professor, Boston College
Jae-Jung Suh, Professor, SAIS-Johns Hopkins University
Serk Bae Suh, Professor, University of California, Irvine
Seung Hye Suh, Professor, Scripps College
Vladimir Tikhonov (Pak Noja), Professor, Oslo University
Jun Uchida, Professor, Stanford University
So Jung Um, Graduate Student, University of Michigan
Luc Walhain, Professor, St. Thomas University
Boudewijn Walraven, Professor, Leiden University
Kenneth Wells, Professor, Australian National University
Rob Wilson, Professor, University of California, Santa Cruz
Hyangsoon Yi, Professor, University of Georgia
Theodore Jun Yoo, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Kyoim Yun, Professor, University of Kansas
----------------------BEGIN-----------------
Sent by: Do Myoun-Hoi [To Myon-hoe], Chairperson, Organization of Korean Historians (Han’guk yoksa yon’guhoe)
Translated and forwarded by the Steering Committee, Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea (ASCK)
Statement by Historians in South Korea and OverseasWe [the undersigned] demand that the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology stop the revision of [high school] history textbooks, undermining the principle of political neutrality in education.
On October 8th, twenty one academic associations related to the field of history held a press conference, criticizing the government’s plan to revise modern Korean history textbooks [used in high schools].The following day, the Joint Committee for the Resolution of the History Textbook Issue, composed of 39 groups – including the National Association of History Teachers, National University Workers’ Union, and Asia Peace and History Education Network – also held a press conference in front of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology.They did so because, instead of safeguarding political neutrality in education and respecting historical expertise, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology has brought about a crisis in historical research and education. But the Ministry has refused to acknowledge such criticism/opposition, and continues to stick to its plans for revision.On October 15th, the Ministry announced that it would “pursue a balanced revision of textbooks by the end of November reflecting the academic and educational perspectives in a comprehensive manner” by utilizing the report submitted by the National Institute ofKorean History entitled “Review of modern Korean history textbooks and Proposed Guidelines for Narration” and the participation of the Association of Experts in History Education made up of teachers, educational professionals and professors.The textbooks that the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology plans to revise had already been reviewed in 2004, 2005 and 2006, and [in those reviews] were not judged to be “left-leaning.” If the revisions are carried out [only] because the new President, Lee Myung-bak, proposed such changes as part of his so-called policy of “normalization of textbooks,” will future administrations also revise textbooks whenever there is a change in government? If that were to happen, political neutrality in education will be undermined, and there will be a proliferation of research on modern Korean history that caters solely to the government in power.Moreover, the way the Ministry has pursued the revision of history textbooks does not conform to the Regulations concerning Textbooks. According to these regulations, the Ministry may order the authors or the publishers to revise the contents, and if such orders go unheeded, the Ministry may revoke its official approval or suspend publication and circulation of the textbooks within one year. But even in such cases, the regulations have no provisions for the direct revision of textbooks by the government [as the government threatens to do].The report submitted by the National Institute of Korean History did make note of 49 different revisions to be made in the textbooks to enhance validity and fairness, avoiding bias in historical interpretation, but did not provide detailed guidelines for the 257 different expressions deemed problematic by the Ministry.It is of grave concern that the current attempt to revise history textbooks appears to be driven by a specific political agenda to homogenize history textbooks, as demanded by the "New Right" and parts of the governing group.First, the Ministry’s revision of history textbooks, by allowing only one historical interpretation, prevents diverse interpretations, based on accumulated historical research,from being reflected in the textbooks. This suppression of diversity leads to the repression of academic freedom in research and publication.Second, the Ministry’s revisions will further narrow the range of historical interpretations that had been guaranteed to some extent under the textbook authorization system. This distortion of the textbook authorization system will result in the publication of authorized textbooks that are no different from the government authored textbooks that were published under the Yushin System. This will result in the infringement of history teachers’ right to teach, and students’ right to learn.Third, the homogenization of history education will undermine students’ creative and spontaneous learning and furthermore hamper the cultivation of open-ended and pluralistic thought necessary in the age of globalization.Because the Ministry’s attempt to revise history textbooks will inevitably lead to the erosion of academic freedom and political neutrality in education, we, the undersigned scholars of history, hereby launch a nation-wide signature campaign and make the following demands:1. The Ministry must respect the research findings of historians and guarantee political neutrality in education.1. The Ministry must listen to the voices of historians and drop its plan to revise history textbooks for political purposes.1. The Ministry must stop exerting unjust external pressure on the publishers and the writers of history textbooks.
전국 역사학자 선언교육과학기술부는 교육의 정치적 중립성을 훼손하는 교과서 수정 작업을 중단하라!지난 10월 8일 전국의 21개 역사학 관련 학회는 정부의 한국 근현대사 교과서 수정 시도에 대해 그 부당함을 지적하는 기자회견을 한 바 있다. 이튿날에는 전국역사교사모임 등 교사 단체와 전국대학노동조합, 아시아평화와역사교육연대 등 39개 단체로 구성된 ‘교과서문제 해결을 위한 공동대책위원회’가 교육과학기술부 앞에 모여 역사 교과서 수정 시도를 중단하라는 기자회견을 하였다. 역사학의 전문성을 존중하고 교육의 정치적 중립성을 보장해야 할 교육과학기술부가 오히려 역사 연구와 교육의 위기를 초래하고 있다고 판단했기 때문이다.그럼에도 불구하고 교과부는 이러한 움직임에 대해서는 모르쇠로 일관하고 제 갈 길만 가고 있다. 10월 15일 국사편찬위원회로부터 제출받은 ｢한국근현대사 교과서 검토 및 서술방향 제언｣이란 보고서와 교원․교육전문직․교수 등으로 구성한 역사교육전문가협의회란 조직을 활용하여 11월 말까지 ‘학술적․교육적 측면을 종합적으로 반영한 균형잡힌 교과서 수정․보완을 추진’하겠다고 하였다.그런데 교과부가 수정․보완하겠다는 현행 교과서는 이미 2004년, 2005년, 2006년 세 차례에 걸쳐 ‘좌편향’이 아니라고 확인해 주었던 바로 그 교과서이다. 정권이 바뀌고 이명박 대통령이 ‘교과서 정상화’라는 미명 하에 역사교과서 수정 의지를 밝혔다고 하여 이전에 내렸던 결론을 번복한다면, 향후 정권이 다시 바뀔 경우에도 그 정권의 요구대로 교과서를 수정할 것인가? 그렇게 될 경우 대한민국에서 교육의 정치적 중립성은 보장될 수 없을 것이며 한국 근현대사 연구 또한 정권의 입맛에 맞는 연구만 무성해질 것이다.게다가 현재 교과부가 추진하고 있는 교과서 수정 방식은 ｢교과용도서에관한규정｣에도 없는 불법적 행태이다. 동 법령에는 교과부가 저작자 또는 발행자에게 수정을 명하고 이에 불복할 경우 검정 합격을 취소하거나 1년 이내 발행을 정지시키는 등의 조치를 취할 수 있을 뿐, 직권 수정이란 조항은 어디에도 없다.교과부에 제출된 국사편찬위원회의 보고서에도 역사 해석의 편향성을 피하면서 교과서 내용의 타당성과 공정성을 높이는 것이 필요하다고 하여 49개 항의 교과서 서술 방향을 제시하였을 뿐, 교과부가 요청한 257개 표현에 대한 구체적인 수정 지침이 없다.결국 교과부의 수정 시도에는 뉴라이트라는 특정 정파와 집권 세력 일각에서 요구하는 대로 교과서의 내용을 획일적으로 바꾸겠다는 정치적 의도가 깔려 있다고 보지 않을 수 없으며, 이는 다음 몇 가지 점에서 심히 우려된다.첫째, 교과부의 교과서 수정 작업은 오직 한 가지 역사 해석만 서술하게 함으로써 그동안 축적된 다양한 역사 연구 성과가 교과서에 반영될 수 없게 만들 것이다. 이는 곧 학문 연구와 출판의 자유를 억압하는 결과를 초래할 것이다.둘째, 불완전하나마 검인정 교과서 제도에서 보장되었던 다양한 역사 해석의 폭이 줄어들고 검정제도를 왜곡시켜, 유신체제하의 국정 교과서와 다름없는 검인정 교과서를 양산하게 될 것이며, 이는 역사 교사의 교권과 학생들의 학습권을 침해하는 결과를 낳을 것이다.셋째, 획일적인 역사 교육은 학생들의 창의적이고 주도적인 학습을 저해하고 나아가서 국제화 시대에 필요한 개방적이고 다원적인 사고 능력 양성에 치명적인 독소 작용을 할 것이다.요컨대, 교과부의 교과서 수정 시도는 학문의 자유와 교육의 정치적 중립성을 훼손할 것이 틀림없기에 우리 역사학자들은 다시금 교과부에 다음과 같은 요구를 제출하며, 우리의 정당한 의사를 관철하기 위하여 전국적인 서명 운동에 돌입하는 바이다.1. 교육과학기술부는 역사학계의 연구 성과를 존중하고 교육의 정치적 중립성을 보장하라!1. 교육과학기술부는 역사학계의 목소리를 겸허히 수용하여 현재 정치적인 목적 하에 진행하고 있는 교과서 수정 작업을 중단하라!1. 교육과학기술부는 교과서 출판사와 집필자에 대한 부당한 외압을 중단하라!
방기중(연세대 사학과 교수) 강길중(경상대 사학과 교수) 강대민(경성대 사학과 교수) 강명길(서울시립대 대학원) 강문석(한국역사연구회 고대사분과) 강미자(경성대 한국학연구소 연구원) 강민철(가톨릭대 국사학과 석사과정) 강병식(역사실학회 회장) 강봉룡(목포대 교수) 강봉원(경주대 문화재학부) 강성길(광양제철고 교사) 강성봉(성균관대 박사과정) 강성호(순천대 인문학부 교수) 강영경(숙명여대) 강일휴(수원대 사학과 교수) 강재광(경기대 사학과 강사) 강정숙(성균관대 박사과정) 강정원(부산대 사학과) 강판권(계명대 사학과 교수) 강혜경(숙명여대 교수) 강혜라(가톨릭대 국사학과) 강호선(서울대 국사학과 대학원) 강효숙(진실화해위원회) 고동환(한국과학기술원 인문사회과학부 교수) 고영진(광주대 교수) 고원(경희대) 고정휴(포항공대 인문사회학부 교수) 고지훈(역사문제연구소 연구원) 고현아(가톨릭대) 곽차섭(부산대 사학과 교수) 구덕회(고척고 교사) 구도영(한국역사연구회 중세사2분과) 구만옥(경희대 사학과 교수) 구산우(창원대 사학과 교수) 구완회(세명대 교수) 권기철(부산외대 경제학과 교수) 권내현(고려대 역사교육과 교수) 권덕영(부산외대 교수) 권연웅(경북대 사학과 교수) 권영국(숭실대 사학과 교수) 권영배(계성중 교사) 권영오(대저중학교) 권오영(한신대 교수) 권오중(영남대 사학과) 권은주(경북대 사학과) 권인혁(제주대 사학과 교수) 권태억(서울대 국사학과 교수) 기경량(서울대 대학원) 기광서(조선대 교수) 김건태(성균관대 동아시아학술원 교수) 김경남(학습원대학 연구원) 김경란(성균관대 대동문화연구원 연구교수) 김경래(서울대 국사학과) 김경옥(목포대 연구교수) 김경일(한국학중앙연구원 교수) 김광철(동아대 사학과 교수) 김기봉(경기대 사학과 교수) 김기섭(부산대 사학과 교수) 김기승(순천향대 교수) 김기주(호남사학회 교수) 김남석(충남호서고) 김남섭(서울산업대 교수) 김남윤(역사학연구소) 김대래(신라대 경제학과 교수) 김도형(연세대 사학과 교수) 김도훈(국민대) 김돈(서울산업대 교수) 김동수(전남대 사학과 교수) 김동전(제주대 사학과 교수) 김동진(한국교원대 역사교육과 강사) 김동철(부산대 사학과 교수) 김두현(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 김락기(인하대 사학과 강사) 김명진(경북대 강사) 김무진(계명대 교수) 김문기(부경대 사학과) 김문식(단국대 사학과 교수) 김미엽(성신여대 인문과학연구소 연구원) 김미현(성균관대 박사과정) 김민석(한양대 대학원 박사과정) 김민철(민족문제연구소) 김배철(청주교대 교수) 김백철(서울대규장각) 김병우(대구한의대) 김보영(한양대 강사) 김봉렬(경남대 인문학부 교수) 김선경(역사학연구소) 김선미(부산대 사학과) 김선호(한국학중앙연구원 박사과정) 김성보(연세대 사학과 부교수) 김성우(대구한의대 교수) 김성준(서울대 대학원) 김세봉(단국대 동양학연구소) 김소남(한국역사연구회 현대사분과) 김수현(한양대 사학과 박사과정) 김순덕(서울대규장각 선임연구원) 김순자(한신대 학술연구교수) 김승(부산대 사학과 강사) 김승태(민족문제연구소 연구위원) 김시황(경북대 한문학과 명예교수) 김연희(서울시립대 대학원) 김영미(국민대일본학연구소) 김영미(이화여대 사학전공 교수) 김영범(대구대 교수) 김영진(성균관대 사학과 박사과정) 김영희(연세대 국학연구원) 김용선(한림대 사학과 교수) 김용흠(연세대 국학연구원 연구교수) 김우택(서울대 국사학과 박사과정) 김웅호(서울시립대 서울학연구소 수석연구원) 김윤경(서울대 서양사학과 강사) 김은경(숙명여대) 김은숙(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 김의환(충북대) 김익한(명지대 기록정보과학전문대학원 교수) 김인걸(서울대 국사학과 교수) 김인호(광운대 교양학부 교수) 김인호(한양사이버대 교수) 김재웅(고려대 대학원 박사과정) 김정숙(영남대 국사학과 교수) 김정인(춘천교대 교수) 김종은(숙명여대 대학원 박사과정) 김종준(서울대규장각 선임연구원) 김주란(경북대 사학과) 김주영(독립기념관 한국독립운동사연구소 연구원) 김주완(한국제노사이드연구회) 김준혁(중앙대 강사) 김준형(경상대 역사교육과 교수) 김지수(전남대 법학과 부교수) 김지연(국립중앙박물관) 김지영(숙명여대 한국사학과 박사과정) 김지희(숙명여대 한국사학과 박사과정) 김진영(민족문제연구소 연구원) 김진한(한국학중앙연구원 박사과정) 김창록(경북대 법과대학 교수) 김충현(충남대 사학과) 김태영(경희대 사학과 명예교수) 김태우(서울대 강사) 김태웅(서울대 역사교육과 교수) 김한종(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 김항기(동국대 사학과 석사과정) 김현숙(동북아역사재단 연구위원) 김형국(포항해양과학고) 김형수(한국국학진흥원) 김호범(부산대 경제학과 교수) 김훈식(인제대 역사고고학과 교수) 김희곤(안동대 사학과 교수) 김희교(광운대 교수) 김희선(서울시립대 국사학과 강사) 나애자(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 나희라(진주산업대 교양학부 교수) 남기현(성균관대 사학과 박사과정) 남동신(덕성여대 사학과 교수) 남무희(국민대) 남미전(동아대 사학과) 남재우(창원대 사학과 교수) 남종국(동국대 사학과 교수) 남지대(서원대 역사교육과 교수) 남철호(대구사학회) 노명환(한국외대 사학과 교수) 노영기(조선대) 노중국(계명대 사학과 교수) 도면회(대전대 역사문화학과 교수) 도현철(연세대 교수) 라정숙(숙명여대 대학원 박사과정) 류승렬(강원대 교수) 류영철(영남대 강사) 류은하(영산대 시간강사) 류준범(역사문제연구소 연구원) 류한수(상명대 교수) 류현희(한국역사연구회 고대사분과) 문수현(경희대 인문학연구원 연구교수) 문영주(역사문제연구소 연구원) 문용식(고려대 강사) 문용호(양산제일고) 문중양(서울대 국사학과 교수) 문창로(국민대 사학과 교수) 민덕기(청주대 역사문화 교수) 민유기(광운대 교양학부 조교수) 박건주(전남대 사학과 강사) 박걸순(충북대 사학과 교수) 박경수(강릉대 일본학과 교수) 박광명(동국대 사학과 석사과정) 박광연(한국역사연구회 중세사1분과) 박대재(고려대 한국사학과 교수) 박만규(전남대 역사교육과 교수) 박맹수(원광대 사학과 교수) 박상철(전남대 사학과 교수) 박선애(동명대 교수) 박성준(서울대규장각) 박수현(민족문제연구소) 박순준(동의대 사학과 교수) 박우룡(서강대 연구교수) 박원용(부경대 사학과 교수) 박원홍(고려대 한국사학과) 박유미(상명대 대학원 박사과정) 박윤선(상해복단대 한국연구중심) 박윤재(연세대 연구교수) 박은경(동아대 고고미술사학과 교수) 박은경(동아대 고고미술사학과 교수) 박은숙(서울시사편찬위원회) 박정애(숙명여대 사학과) 박종기(국민대 국사학과 교수) 박종린(성균관대 동아시아학술원 연구교수) 박종진(숙명여대 한국사학과 교수) 박준성(역사학연구소) 박준형(한국역사연구회 고대사분과) 박지영(동아대 사학과 석사) 박진빈(경희대 사학과 교수) 박진우(숙명여대 일본학과 교수) 박진태(대진대 사학과 교수)박진훈(명지대 사학과 조교수) 박진희(한국역사연구회 현대사분과) 박찬규(단국대 동양학연구소) 박찬문(제주대 사학과 교수) 박찬승(한양대 사학과 교수) 박찬흥(고려대 연구교수) 박천수(경북대 교수) 박철하(숭실대 강사) 박태균(서울대 교수) 박평식(청주교대 사회과교육과 교수) 박현순(서울대규장각) 박호성(서강대 교수) 박화진(부경대 사학과 교수) 박환(수원대 사학과 교수) 박흥식(서울대 서양사학과 교수) 반병률(한국외대 사학과 교수) 방지원(신라대 교수) 배병욱(동아대 사학과 강사) 배석만(부산대 한국민족문화연구소 연구원) 배영순(영남대 국사학과 교수) 배은아(이화여대) 백길남(연세대 사학과 석사졸업) 백승옥(부산경남사학회) 백승철(연세대 국학연구원 교수) 백영미 백영서(연세대 사학과 교수) 변광석(부산대 강사) 변동명(전남대 이순신해양문화연구소 부교수) 변정심(대구가톨릭대 역사교육과 외래강사) 서명일(고려대 박물관) 서영건(부산대 사학과) 서인원(한성대 강사) 서정복(충남대 명예교수) 서정훈(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 서종태(호남교회사연구소 연구실장) 서중석(성균관대 사학과 교수) 성백용(한남대 사학과 교수) 소현숙(한양대) 손동유(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 손병규(성균관대 동아시아학술원 HK교수) 손승회(영남대 사학과 교수) 손정미(대가야박물관) 손철배(성균관대 동아시아학술원) 송규범(서원대 역사교육과 교수) 송용덕(서울대 국사학과) 송웅섭(서울대규장각 연구원) 송찬섭(방송대 문화교양학과 교수) 송호상(계명대 사학과 강사) 송호정(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 신경철(부산대 고고학과) 신동하(동덕여대 국사학과 전공) 신민철(서울대 과학사및과학철학 박사과정) 신세라(모스크바국립대 역사학부 박사과정) 신순철(원광대 사학과 교수) 신안식(숙명여대 다문화통합연구소 연구교수) 신영희(부산대 사학과) 신은제(동아대 사학과 강사) 신주백(서울대규장각) 신태갑(동아대 사학과 교수) 심재석(방송대 강사) 심재우(한국학중앙연구원 교수) 심재훈(단국대 사학과 교수) 심철기(연세대 대학원 박사과정) 안병우(한신대 국사학과 교수) 안환(부산경남사학회) 양명수(이화여대) 양미숙(동아대 강사) 양상진(삼괴중) 양상현(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 양정심(성균관대) 양정현(부산대 교수) 양흥숙(부산대 한국민족문화연구소) 여호규(한국외대 사학과 부교수) 연갑수(서울역사박물관) 염복규(역사문제연구소 연구원) 염운옥(고려대) 염정섭(전북대 HK교수) 예대열(고려대 한국사학과 박사과정) 오보경(충남대 대학원 석사과정) 오부윤(인덕대 교수) 오수창(한림대 사학과 교수) 오영교(연세대 역사문화학과 교수) 오인택(부산교대 사회교육과 교수) 오정우(광주여대 교수) 오제연(서울대 국사학과 대학원) 오종록(성신여대 사학과 부교수) 오항녕(충북대) 오흥식(성균관대 사학과 시간강사) 왕현종(연세대 역사문화학과 교수) 우인수(경북대 교수) 원영미(울산대 역사문화학과 강사) 위은숙(영남대 민족문화연구소) 유경순(역사학연구소 연구원) 유승원(가톨릭대 교수) 유승희(서울시립대 HK교수) 유영옥(부산대 인문한국 HK연구교수) 유장근(경남대 교수) 유재건(부산대 사학과 교수) 유현(동아대 사학과) 유현경(고령군 대가야박물관) 유현재(서울대규장각) 윤경로(한성대 총장) 윤경진(경상대 사학과 교수) 윤대원(서울대규장각 책임연구원) 윤덕영(역사문제연구소 연구원) 윤시원(성균관대 사학과 석사과정) 윤용출(부산대 역사교육과 교수) 윤용혁(공주대 교수) 윤원영(경희대 사학과) 윤재석(경북대 사학과 교수) 윤지현(울산대 역사문화학과) 은정태(대림대 강사) 이강래(전남대 사학과 교수) 이강한(인하대 BK21사업단) 이개석(경북대사학과 교수) 이경구(전북대 사학과 교수) 이경구(한림대 한림과학원 HK연구교수) 이경미(한국외대 사학과 박사과정) 이광수(부산외대 러시아인도통상학부 교수) 이광욱(동아대 사학과 강사) 이규철(가톨릭대 국사학과) 이기영(동아대 사학과 교수) 이기훈(목포대 역사문화학부 교수) 이동인(임원경제연구소) 이동헌(한양대 강사) 이명선(숙명여대 석사과정) 이명숙(경희대) 이문기(경북대 역사교육과 교수) 이민아(서울대 국사학과 대학원) 이병례(성균관대) 이병휴(경북대 역사교육과 명예교수) 이병희(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 이상길(경남대 교수) 이상의(연세대 국학연구원) 이상찬(서울대 교수) 이석규(한양대 사학과 교수) 이선아(성균관대 사학과 박사과정) 이성임(서울대규장각 연구원) 이성주(강릉대 사학과 부교수) 이성환(계명대 일본학과 교수) 이세영(한신대 국사학과 교수) 이송순(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 이송희(신라대 사학과 교수) 이수원(민주화운동기념사업회) 이수환(영남대 국사학과 교수) 이승렬(연세대 사학과) 이승민(가톨릭대 대학원생) 이승민(동국대 강사) 이신철(성균관대 연구교수) 이애숙(연세대 대학원 박사과정) 이영석(광주대 외국어학부 교수) 이영애(경기도 박물관) 이영학(한국외대 교수) 이영호(인하대 사학과 교수) 이용기(성균관대 동아시아학술원) 이용재(전북대 사학과 교수) 이용창(민족문제연구소 책임연구원) 이우석(한국역사연구회 중세사1분과) 이욱(한국국학진흥원) 이원배(고려대 한국사학과 고대사전공) 이윤갑(계명대 사학과 교수) 이윤상(창원대 사학과 교수) 이임하(성균관대) 이정민(서울대 국사학과 강사) 이정빈(경희대 사학과) 이정선(서울대 대학원) 이정숙(부산가톨릭대) 이정신(한남대 사학과 교수) 이정은(역사문제연구소) 이정호(고려대 BK21한국사학교육연구단) 이정훈(한국역사연구회 중세사1분과) 이종범(조선대 교수) 이종봉(부산대 사학과 교수) 이종서(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 이주현(한남대 사학과 교수) 이주환(한국역사연구회 현대사분과) 이준구(대구한의대 교수) 이진모(한남대 사학과 교수) 이진옥(부산대 사학과 강사) 이진한(고려대 교수) 이태훈(연세대 강사) 이필은(나사렛대) 이학수(부산경남사학회) 이한상(대전대 교수) 이항준(서울여대 사학과) 이해준(공주대 사학과 교수) 이현숙(이화여대 한국문화연구원) 이현진(서울대규장각) 이형우(영남대 교수) 이혜민(연세대 사학과 강사) 이혜옥(한국외대) 이호룡(한국역사연구회 현대사분과) 이환병(등촌고 교사) 이효형(부산대 한국민족문화연구소 연구원) 임경석(성균관대 사학과 교수) 임민혁(역사실학회 총무이사) 임병훈(경북대 사학과 교수) 임선화(전남대 박사과정) 임세권(안동대 사학과 교수) 임송자(성균관대 연구교수) 임학성(인하대 한국학연구소 교수) 임헌영(역사문제연구소 운영위원) 임혜련(숙명여대 강사) 장동표(부산대 역사교육과 교수) 장미애(가톨릭대) 장병인(충남대 국사학과 교수) 장선화(동아대 사학과) 장성준(한신대 국사학과 석사과정) 장세룡(부산대 한국민족문화연구소 HK교수) 장신(역사문제연구소 연구원) 장연옥(계명대학교 한국학연구원 방문교수) 장영민(상지대 교수) 장영숙(상명대) 장준철(원광대 사학과 교수) 전경숙(숙명여대 박사) 전국역사교사모임() 전덕재(경주대 교양과정부 교수) 전명혁(한국외대) 전영섭(부산대 역사교육과 강사) 전영욱(서울시립대 대학원생) 전영준(중앙대 연구교수) 전우용(서울대병원 병원역사문화센터 교수) 전제현(국민대 박사과정) 전진성(부산교대 사회교육과 교수) 전현수(경북대 사학과 교수) 전형택(전남대 역사교육과 교수) 전호태(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 정동락(대가야박물관) 정동준(성균관대BK21사업단 박사후연구원) 정동훈(서울대 대학원) 정미성(서울대 국사학과 강사) 정병삼(숙명여대 한국사학과 교수) 정병욱(역사문제연구소 연구원) 정성일(광주여대 교수) 정숭교(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 정연태(가톨릭대 국사학과 교수) 정요근(숙명여대 다문화통합연구소 연구원) 정용욱(서울대 국사학과 교수) 정재훈(경상대 사학과) 정재훈(서울대 HK연구원) 정진상(경상대 사회학과 교수) 정진아(성균관대 동아시아학술원 연구교수) 정진영(안동대 사학과 교수) 정창렬(한양대 명예교수) 정창현(국민대 교양과정부 겸임교수) 정태헌(고려대 한국사학과 교수) 정학수(숙명여대 다문화통합연구소 연구원) 정해은(군사편찬연구소) 정현백(성균관대 교수) 정호훈(연세대 국학연구원) 조경철(연세대 사학과 강사) 조광(고려대 한국사학과 교수) 조규태(한국민족운동사학회 연구이사) 조낙영(서울대 강사) 조명근(역사문제연구소 연구원) 조미은(성균관대 박사과정) 조병로(경기대 사학과 교수) 조성운(교토대학 인문과학연구소) 조세열(민족문제연구소) 조세현(부경대 사학과 교수) 조승래(청주대 교수) 조영광(경북대 사학과 강사) 조원래(순천대 사학전공 교수) 조원옥(부산대 사학과 강사) 조윤선(청주대 교수) 조재곤(한국역사연구회 근대사분과) 조준희(대종교) 주경미(부경대 인문사회과학연구소 연구교수) 주명철(한국교원대 역사교육과 교수) 주웅영(대구교육대 사회과 교수) 진상원(동아대 사학과) 차미희(이화여대 사회생활과 교수) 차선혜(경희대) 차인배(동국대 강사) 차철욱(부산대 한국민족문화연구소) 채상식(부산대 사학과 교수) 채웅석(가톨릭대 국사학과 교수) 최갑수(서울대 서양사학과 교수) 최경선(연세대 사학과 석사졸업) 최덕경(부산대 사학과 교수) 최보영(동국대 대학원 사학과) 최연식(목포대 역사문화학과 교수) 최연주(동의대 사학과 교수) 최영심(김해외국어고) 최영태(전남대 사학과 교수) 최원규(부산대 교수) 최윤오(연세대 사학과 교수) 최은진(한양대 석사과정) 최인기(한국역사연구회 중세사2분과) 최진규(조선대 사학과 교수) 최해룡(대구청소년대안교육원) 최현미(경북대 사학과 강사) 최혜주(한양대 연구교수) 최홍조(경북대 강사) 하세봉(한국해양대 동아시아학과 교수) 하유식(부산대) 하일식(연세대 사학과 교수) 하종문(한신대 일본지역학과 교수) 하지영(동아대 사학과) 한명근(숭실대 박물관) 한명기(명지대 사학과 교수) 한모니까(가톨릭대) 한문종(전북대 교수) 한봉석(성균관대 사학과 박사과정) 한상권(덕성여대 사학과 교수) 한성민(동국대 사학과 강사) 한성욱(한국문화유산연구원) 한승훈(고려대 한국사학과 박사수료) 한시준(단국대 역사학과 교수) 한운석(고려대 교수) 한정숙(서울대 서양사학과 교수) 한정훈(부산대 사학과) 한창균(한남대 역사교육과 교수) 한철호(동국대 역사교육과 교수) 한홍구(성공회대 교수) 한희숙(숙명여대 한국사학과 교수) 함순섭(국립대구박물관) 허수(동덕여대 연구교수) 허신혜(홍익대 강사) 허영란(울산대 역사문화학과 교수) 허원(서원대 역사교육과 교수) 허원영(한국학중앙연구원 장서각 연구원) 허은(고려대 한국사학과 교수) 허종(충남대 국사학과 교수) 허태용(고려대 강사) 현재열(부산대 사학과) 현종철(경희대 박사과정) 홍문기(서울대 국사학과) 홍석률(성신여대 조교수) 홍순권(동아대 사학과 교수) 홍순민(명지대 교수) 홍영기(순천대 인문학부 교수) 홍영의(숙명여대 연구교수) 홍정완(역사문제연구소 연구원) 황병주(역사문제연구소 연구원) 황보영조(경북대 사학과 교수) 황인정(이화여대 사학과)
Overseas
Charles Armstrong, Professor, Columbia University
Donald Baker, Professor, University of British Columbia
Edward J. Baker, Professor, Hanyang University
Remco E. Breuker, Researcher, Leiden University
Mark Caprio, Professor, Rikkyo University
Edward Chang, Professor, University of California at Riverside
Kornel Chang, Professor, University of Connecticut
Hyaeweol Choi, Professor, Arizona State University
Jennifer Jihye Chun, Professor, University of British Columbia
Hye Seung Chung, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Michael Chwe, Professor, UCLA
Donald N. Clark, Professor, Trinity University
Nicole Cohen, Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University
Bruce Cumings, Professor, University of Chicago
Lisa Kim Davis, Professor, UCLA
Brett de Bary, Professor, Cornell University
Koen De Ceuster, Professor, Leiden University
John DiMoia, Professor, National University of Singapore
Jamie Doucette, Lecturer, University of British Columbia
Alexis Dudden, Professor, University of Connecticut
John Duncan, Professor, UCLA
Thomas Duvernay, Professor, Handong Global University
Carter J. Eckert, Professor, Harvard University
Marion Eggert, Professor, Ruhr University
Henry Em, Professor, Korea University
Stephen Epstein, Professor, Victoria University of Wellington
John Feffer, Editor, Foreign Policy in Focus
Norma Field, Professor, University of Chicago
Takashi Fujitani, Professor, University of California, San Diego
Mel Gurtov, Professor, University of Oregon
Dennis Hart, Professor, University of Pittsburgh
Martin Hart-Landsberg, Professor, Lewis and Clark College
Laura Hein, Professor, Northwestern University
Todd A. Henry, Professor, Colorado State University
Christine Hong, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, Berkeley
Theodore Hughes, Professor, Columbia University
Kyung Moon Hwang, Professor, University of Southern California
Sheila Miyoshi Jager, Professor, Oberlin College
Roger L. Janelli, Professor, Indiana University
Kelly Jeong, Professor, University of California, Riverside
Jennifer Jung-Kim, Editor, UCLA
George Kallander, Professor, Syracuse University
Namsoon Kang, Professor, Texas Christian University
Ken Kawashima, Professor, University of Toronto
Daniel Y. Kim, Professor, Brown University
Elaine Kim, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Hyung-A Kim, Professor, Australian National University
Jina Kim, Professor, Smith College
Joy Kim, Professor, Princeton University
Jungwon Kim, Professor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Kyung Hyun Kim, Professor, University of California, Irvine
Sang-Hyun Kim, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard University
Sun-Chul Kim, Professor, Barnard College/Columbia University
Sun Joo Kim, Professor, Harvard University
Suzy Kim, Professor, Boston College
Taik Kyun Kim, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Thomas P. Kim, Professor, Scripps College
Youngnan Kim-Paik, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Ross King, Professor, University of British Columbia
Lev R. Kontsevich, Researcher, Russian Academy of Sciences
Hagen Koo, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
J. Victor Koschmann, Professor, Cornell University
Tae Yang Kwak, Professor, Ramapo College of New Jersey
Nayoung Aimee Kwon, Professor, Duke University
Gari Ledyard, Professor, Columbia University
Eun-Jeung Lee, Professor, Free University Berlin
James Kyung-Jin Lee, Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Namhee Lee, Professor, UCLA
Timothy S. Lee, Professor, Texas Christian University
Walter K. Lew, Professor, University of Miami
John Lie, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Ramsay Liem, Professor, Boston College
Richard D. McBride, Professor, Brigham Young University
Gavan McCormack, Professor, Australian National University
Yong Soon Min, Professor, University of California, Irvine
Seungsook Moon, Professor, Vassar College
Jane Myong, Professor, Sinclair Community College
Sung-Deuk Oak, Professor, UCLA
Robert Oppenheim, Professor, University of Texas, Austin
Hyung Il Pai, Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Gary Pak, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Albert L. Park, Professor, Claremont McKenna College
Andrew Sung Park, Professor, United Theological Seminary
Chan Park, Professor, Ohio State University
Eugene Y. Park, Professor, University of California, Irvine
Jin Young Park, Professor, American University
Pori Park, Professor, Arizona State University
Samuel Perry, Professor, Brown University
Michael J. Pettid, Professor, State University of New York at Binghamton
Leslie Pincus, Professor, University of Michigan
Janet Poole, Professor, University of Toronto
Jorge Rafael Di Masi, Professor, National University of La Plata
Michael E. Robinson, Professor, Indiana University
Lawrence Rogers, Professor, University of Hawaii at Hilo
Alfredo Romero Castilla, Professor, National University of Mexico
Youngju Ryu, Professor, University of Michigan
Naoki Sakai, Professor, Cornell University
Wesley Sasaki-Uemura, Professor, University of Utah
Werner Sasse, Professor, University of Hamburg
Andre Schmid, Professor, University of Toronto
Mark Selden, Professor, State University of New York at Binghamton
Jungmin Seo, Professor, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Gi-Wook Shin, Professor, Stanford University
Edward J. Shultz, Professor, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Tatiana Simbirtseva, Lecturer, Russian State University for the Humanities
Eric Sirotkin, Chair, National Lawyers Guild Korean Peace Project
Min Suh Son, Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Jesook Song, Professor, University of Toronto
Min Hyoung Song, Professor, Boston College
Jae-Jung Suh, Professor, SAIS-Johns Hopkins University
Serk Bae Suh, Professor, University of California, Irvine
Seung Hye Suh, Professor, Scripps College
Vladimir Tikhonov (Pak Noja), Professor, Oslo University
Jun Uchida, Professor, Stanford University
So Jung Um, Graduate Student, University of Michigan
Luc Walhain, Professor, St. Thomas University
Boudewijn Walraven, Professor, Leiden University
Kenneth Wells, Professor, Australian National University
Rob Wilson, Professor, University of California, Santa Cruz
Hyangsoon Yi, Professor, University of Georgia
Theodore Jun Yoo, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Kyoim Yun, Professor, University of Kansas
----------------------BEGIN-----------------
Sent by: Do Myoun-Hoi [To Myon-hoe], Chairperson, Organization of Korean Historians (Han’guk yoksa yon’guhoe)
Translated and forwarded by the Steering Committee, Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea (ASCK)
Statement by Historians in South Korea and OverseasWe [the undersigned] demand that the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology stop the revision of [high school] history textbooks, undermining the principle of political neutrality in education.
On October 8th, twenty one academic associations related to the field of history held a press conference, criticizing the government’s plan to revise modern Korean history textbooks [used in high schools].The following day, the Joint Committee for the Resolution of the History Textbook Issue, composed of 39 groups – including the National Association of History Teachers, National University Workers’ Union, and Asia Peace and History Education Network – also held a press conference in front of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology.They did so because, instead of safeguarding political neutrality in education and respecting historical expertise, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology has brought about a crisis in historical research and education. But the Ministry has refused to acknowledge such criticism/opposition, and continues to stick to its plans for revision.On October 15th, the Ministry announced that it would “pursue a balanced revision of textbooks by the end of November reflecting the academic and educational perspectives in a comprehensive manner” by utilizing the report submitted by the National Institute ofKorean History entitled “Review of modern Korean history textbooks and Proposed Guidelines for Narration” and the participation of the Association of Experts in History Education made up of teachers, educational professionals and professors.The textbooks that the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology plans to revise had already been reviewed in 2004, 2005 and 2006, and [in those reviews] were not judged to be “left-leaning.” If the revisions are carried out [only] because the new President, Lee Myung-bak, proposed such changes as part of his so-called policy of “normalization of textbooks,” will future administrations also revise textbooks whenever there is a change in government? If that were to happen, political neutrality in education will be undermined, and there will be a proliferation of research on modern Korean history that caters solely to the government in power.Moreover, the way the Ministry has pursued the revision of history textbooks does not conform to the Regulations concerning Textbooks. According to these regulations, the Ministry may order the authors or the publishers to revise the contents, and if such orders go unheeded, the Ministry may revoke its official approval or suspend publication and circulation of the textbooks within one year. But even in such cases, the regulations have no provisions for the direct revision of textbooks by the government [as the government threatens to do].The report submitted by the National Institute of Korean History did make note of 49 different revisions to be made in the textbooks to enhance validity and fairness, avoiding bias in historical interpretation, but did not provide detailed guidelines for the 257 different expressions deemed problematic by the Ministry.It is of grave concern that the current attempt to revise history textbooks appears to be driven by a specific political agenda to homogenize history textbooks, as demanded by the "New Right" and parts of the governing group.First, the Ministry’s revision of history textbooks, by allowing only one historical interpretation, prevents diverse interpretations, based on accumulated historical research,from being reflected in the textbooks. This suppression of diversity leads to the repression of academic freedom in research and publication.Second, the Ministry’s revisions will further narrow the range of historical interpretations that had been guaranteed to some extent under the textbook authorization system. This distortion of the textbook authorization system will result in the publication of authorized textbooks that are no different from the government authored textbooks that were published under the Yushin System. This will result in the infringement of history teachers’ right to teach, and students’ right to learn.Third, the homogenization of history education will undermine students’ creative and spontaneous learning and furthermore hamper the cultivation of open-ended and pluralistic thought necessary in the age of globalization.Because the Ministry’s attempt to revise history textbooks will inevitably lead to the erosion of academic freedom and political neutrality in education, we, the undersigned scholars of history, hereby launch a nation-wide signature campaign and make the following demands:1. The Ministry must respect the research findings of historians and guarantee political neutrality in education.1. The Ministry must listen to the voices of historians and drop its plan to revise history textbooks for political purposes.1. The Ministry must stop exerting unjust external pressure on the publishers and the writers of history textbooks.
전국 역사학자 선언교육과학기술부는 교육의 정치적 중립성을 훼손하는 교과서 수정 작업을 중단하라!지난 10월 8일 전국의 21개 역사학 관련 학회는 정부의 한국 근현대사 교과서 수정 시도에 대해 그 부당함을 지적하는 기자회견을 한 바 있다. 이튿날에는 전국역사교사모임 등 교사 단체와 전국대학노동조합, 아시아평화와역사교육연대 등 39개 단체로 구성된 ‘교과서문제 해결을 위한 공동대책위원회’가 교육과학기술부 앞에 모여 역사 교과서 수정 시도를 중단하라는 기자회견을 하였다. 역사학의 전문성을 존중하고 교육의 정치적 중립성을 보장해야 할 교육과학기술부가 오히려 역사 연구와 교육의 위기를 초래하고 있다고 판단했기 때문이다.그럼에도 불구하고 교과부는 이러한 움직임에 대해서는 모르쇠로 일관하고 제 갈 길만 가고 있다. 10월 15일 국사편찬위원회로부터 제출받은 ｢한국근현대사 교과서 검토 및 서술방향 제언｣이란 보고서와 교원․교육전문직․교수 등으로 구성한 역사교육전문가협의회란 조직을 활용하여 11월 말까지 ‘학술적․교육적 측면을 종합적으로 반영한 균형잡힌 교과서 수정․보완을 추진’하겠다고 하였다.그런데 교과부가 수정․보완하겠다는 현행 교과서는 이미 2004년, 2005년, 2006년 세 차례에 걸쳐 ‘좌편향’이 아니라고 확인해 주었던 바로 그 교과서이다. 정권이 바뀌고 이명박 대통령이 ‘교과서 정상화’라는 미명 하에 역사교과서 수정 의지를 밝혔다고 하여 이전에 내렸던 결론을 번복한다면, 향후 정권이 다시 바뀔 경우에도 그 정권의 요구대로 교과서를 수정할 것인가? 그렇게 될 경우 대한민국에서 교육의 정치적 중립성은 보장될 수 없을 것이며 한국 근현대사 연구 또한 정권의 입맛에 맞는 연구만 무성해질 것이다.게다가 현재 교과부가 추진하고 있는 교과서 수정 방식은 ｢교과용도서에관한규정｣에도 없는 불법적 행태이다. 동 법령에는 교과부가 저작자 또는 발행자에게 수정을 명하고 이에 불복할 경우 검정 합격을 취소하거나 1년 이내 발행을 정지시키는 등의 조치를 취할 수 있을 뿐, 직권 수정이란 조항은 어디에도 없다.교과부에 제출된 국사편찬위원회의 보고서에도 역사 해석의 편향성을 피하면서 교과서 내용의 타당성과 공정성을 높이는 것이 필요하다고 하여 49개 항의 교과서 서술 방향을 제시하였을 뿐, 교과부가 요청한 257개 표현에 대한 구체적인 수정 지침이 없다.결국 교과부의 수정 시도에는 뉴라이트라는 특정 정파와 집권 세력 일각에서 요구하는 대로 교과서의 내용을 획일적으로 바꾸겠다는 정치적 의도가 깔려 있다고 보지 않을 수 없으며, 이는 다음 몇 가지 점에서 심히 우려된다.첫째, 교과부의 교과서 수정 작업은 오직 한 가지 역사 해석만 서술하게 함으로써 그동안 축적된 다양한 역사 연구 성과가 교과서에 반영될 수 없게 만들 것이다. 이는 곧 학문 연구와 출판의 자유를 억압하는 결과를 초래할 것이다.둘째, 불완전하나마 검인정 교과서 제도에서 보장되었던 다양한 역사 해석의 폭이 줄어들고 검정제도를 왜곡시켜, 유신체제하의 국정 교과서와 다름없는 검인정 교과서를 양산하게 될 것이며, 이는 역사 교사의 교권과 학생들의 학습권을 침해하는 결과를 낳을 것이다.셋째, 획일적인 역사 교육은 학생들의 창의적이고 주도적인 학습을 저해하고 나아가서 국제화 시대에 필요한 개방적이고 다원적인 사고 능력 양성에 치명적인 독소 작용을 할 것이다.요컨대, 교과부의 교과서 수정 시도는 학문의 자유와 교육의 정치적 중립성을 훼손할 것이 틀림없기에 우리 역사학자들은 다시금 교과부에 다음과 같은 요구를 제출하며, 우리의 정당한 의사를 관철하기 위하여 전국적인 서명 운동에 돌입하는 바이다.1. 교육과학기술부는 역사학계의 연구 성과를 존중하고 교육의 정치적 중립성을 보장하라!1. 교육과학기술부는 역사학계의 목소리를 겸허히 수용하여 현재 정치적인 목적 하에 진행하고 있는 교과서 수정 작업을 중단하라!1. 교육과학기술부는 교과서 출판사와 집필자에 대한 부당한 외압을 중단하라!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
First Compensation Package from the ROK government over the Bereaved Families of Ulsan Bodo League Victims
The Bodo League, a.k.a., the National Guidance Alliance [국민보도연맹 in Korean], was a government subsidized organization to have those with the leftist leaning tendency registered and aim to convert them into the prevailing ideology of the time in the ROK. Later (shortly before the war and the beginning stage of the Korean War), those registered in the League were regarded as direct threats to the state, became subjects to a large number of massacres and summary executions. The South Korea's Central District Court ruled today, the government is responsible for the victims of Ulsan Bodo League Massacres, and thus providing compensation for their losses. Regardless of the scale of the compensation package, the ruling is significant since it is the first of the same kind.
법원 "울산보도연맹 유족에 200억 배상"보도연맹 사건 관련 국가 배상 첫 인정(서울=연합뉴스) 이세원 기자 = 보도연맹 사건 희생자 유족에게 국가가 200억 원대의 배상금을 지급해야 한다는 법원의 첫 판결이 내려졌다. 서울중앙지법 민사합의19부(지영철 부장판사)는 10일 울산 국민보도연맹 사건으로 숨진 장모씨의 아들 등 유족 508명이 국가를 상대로 제기한 손해배상 청구 소송에서 "국가는 유족에게 합계 51억4천600여만 원을 지급하라"고 판결했다.
법원이 지급을 명한 금액은 1950년을 기준으로 한 액수이고 선고 당일까지 매년 5％의 지연 이자를 지급해야 하는 점을 고려하면 실제 배상액은 200억여 원에 달한다. 정부가 좌익관련자를 전향시키고 이들을 통제하기 위해 1949∼1950년 조직한 국민보도연맹은 대외적으로는 전향자로 구성된 좌익전향자 단체임을 표방했지만 실제로는 관변단체의 성격을 띠었다. 6ㆍ25 전쟁이 터지자 당시 장석윤 내무부 치안국장은 전국의 보도연맹원 등을 즉시 구속하라고 지시했고 울산경찰서와 국군 정보국은 울산 보도연맹원을 소집ㆍ구금했다가 경남 울산군 대운산 골짜기와 반정 고개 일대에서 집단 총살했다. 유족은 희생자의 사망 여부나 사명 경위 등에 대해 전혀 알지 못하다 4ㆍ19 혁명 이후 유족회를 결성해 진상 규명과 책임자 처벌을 요구했고 이에 따라 희생자 유골을 발굴, 합동 묘를 세웠지만 이후 5ㆍ16쿠데타로 묘가 철거되고 진상 규명도 중단됐다. 이후 진실ㆍ화해를 위한 과거사정리위원회(이하 위원회)는 2006년 10월 이 사건에 대한 진상조사를 개시, 다음해 11월 말께 울산지역 국민보도연맹 사건과 관련된 희생자 명단 407명을 확정했다. 이에 유족은 희생자가 헌법에 보장된 신체의 자유, 생명권, 적법절차의 원칙, 재판을 받을 권리 등을 침해당했고 이 때문에 유족이 입은 정신적 피해를 배상하라고 소송을 냈고 국가는 손해배상 청구권이 소멸됐다고 주장했으나 법원은 공권력 남용으로 인한 책임을 인정했다. 재판부는 "1960년에 유해가 발굴됐지만, 유족이 희생자의 구체적인 사망경위 등에 대해서는 여전히 알지 못하는 등 진상이 규명되지 않았고 2007년 위원회의 희생자 명단 발표로 비로소 진실을 알게 됐다"며 "손해배상 청구권이 시효로 인해 소멸했다고 볼 수 없다"고 판시했다. 또 "유족은 보도연맹 사건 이후 희생자의 생사에 관한 어떤 통지도 받지 못했고 경찰이 진실 규명 요구에 응하지 않는 등 위원회의 발표 전까지 국가의 위법에 대한 의심만으로 소송을 제기하기는 어려운 사정이 있었다는 점도 인정된다"고 덧붙였다. 이에 따라 법원은 희생자에게 2천만 원, 배우자에게 1천만 원, 부모와 자녀에게 200만 원, 형제ㆍ자매에게는 100만 원을 각각 위자료로 지급하라고 주문했다. sewonlee@yna.co.kr
법원 "울산보도연맹 유족에 200억 배상"보도연맹 사건 관련 국가 배상 첫 인정(서울=연합뉴스) 이세원 기자 = 보도연맹 사건 희생자 유족에게 국가가 200억 원대의 배상금을 지급해야 한다는 법원의 첫 판결이 내려졌다. 서울중앙지법 민사합의19부(지영철 부장판사)는 10일 울산 국민보도연맹 사건으로 숨진 장모씨의 아들 등 유족 508명이 국가를 상대로 제기한 손해배상 청구 소송에서 "국가는 유족에게 합계 51억4천600여만 원을 지급하라"고 판결했다.
법원이 지급을 명한 금액은 1950년을 기준으로 한 액수이고 선고 당일까지 매년 5％의 지연 이자를 지급해야 하는 점을 고려하면 실제 배상액은 200억여 원에 달한다. 정부가 좌익관련자를 전향시키고 이들을 통제하기 위해 1949∼1950년 조직한 국민보도연맹은 대외적으로는 전향자로 구성된 좌익전향자 단체임을 표방했지만 실제로는 관변단체의 성격을 띠었다. 6ㆍ25 전쟁이 터지자 당시 장석윤 내무부 치안국장은 전국의 보도연맹원 등을 즉시 구속하라고 지시했고 울산경찰서와 국군 정보국은 울산 보도연맹원을 소집ㆍ구금했다가 경남 울산군 대운산 골짜기와 반정 고개 일대에서 집단 총살했다. 유족은 희생자의 사망 여부나 사명 경위 등에 대해 전혀 알지 못하다 4ㆍ19 혁명 이후 유족회를 결성해 진상 규명과 책임자 처벌을 요구했고 이에 따라 희생자 유골을 발굴, 합동 묘를 세웠지만 이후 5ㆍ16쿠데타로 묘가 철거되고 진상 규명도 중단됐다. 이후 진실ㆍ화해를 위한 과거사정리위원회(이하 위원회)는 2006년 10월 이 사건에 대한 진상조사를 개시, 다음해 11월 말께 울산지역 국민보도연맹 사건과 관련된 희생자 명단 407명을 확정했다. 이에 유족은 희생자가 헌법에 보장된 신체의 자유, 생명권, 적법절차의 원칙, 재판을 받을 권리 등을 침해당했고 이 때문에 유족이 입은 정신적 피해를 배상하라고 소송을 냈고 국가는 손해배상 청구권이 소멸됐다고 주장했으나 법원은 공권력 남용으로 인한 책임을 인정했다. 재판부는 "1960년에 유해가 발굴됐지만, 유족이 희생자의 구체적인 사망경위 등에 대해서는 여전히 알지 못하는 등 진상이 규명되지 않았고 2007년 위원회의 희생자 명단 발표로 비로소 진실을 알게 됐다"며 "손해배상 청구권이 시효로 인해 소멸했다고 볼 수 없다"고 판시했다. 또 "유족은 보도연맹 사건 이후 희생자의 생사에 관한 어떤 통지도 받지 못했고 경찰이 진실 규명 요구에 응하지 않는 등 위원회의 발표 전까지 국가의 위법에 대한 의심만으로 소송을 제기하기는 어려운 사정이 있었다는 점도 인정된다"고 덧붙였다. 이에 따라 법원은 희생자에게 2천만 원, 배우자에게 1천만 원, 부모와 자녀에게 200만 원, 형제ㆍ자매에게는 100만 원을 각각 위자료로 지급하라고 주문했다. sewonlee@yna.co.kr
Friday, February 06, 2009
"일본이 '독도는 일본땅' 판결해도 따를 건가?"
오마이뉴스 2009-02-05
지난 3일 부산고등법원 제5민사부(재판장 이승영 부장판사)는 일제 강점기 미쓰비시중공업에 끌려가 원폭 피해를 본 징용피해자들이 미쓰비시를 상대로 한국 법원에 제소한 손해배상 청구소송 항소심 재판에서 '일본에서 확정 판결된 사안을 받아들이지 않을 근거가 없다'는 이유로 기각했다.
이번 재판은 일제 '전범'기업을 상대로 피해국 한국 법원에 제기된 최초의 재판으로, 향후 대일 과거사 소송의 시금석이 된다는 점에서 재판 결과의 파장은 적지 않을 것으로 보인다.
이에 원고 측 변호를 맡은 최봉태 변호사를 만나 이 판결에 담긴 의미와 재판 결과에 대한 원고 측 견해를 들어보았다.
▲ 최봉태 변호사가 부산 고법 판결 직후 가진 기자회견에서 취재진들에게 민사소송법 조문을 짚어가며 판결 결과에 대해 강력하게 이의를 제기하고 있다.
- 실망이 큰 것 같다. 우선 이번 재판에 대해 어떻게 생각하나?
"이번 재판은 일제 피해에 대해 피해국인 우리나라 법원에 최초로 제기된 재판이었고, 피해국가에서 나온 최초의 고법 판결이다. 일본, 미국, 중국에서도 재판이 벌어지고 있지만 피해국의 고법 판결로는 최초로 나온 역사적 판결이다. 그런데 도저히 피해국에서는 나올 수 없는 결과가 나오고 말았다. 설마 전범국 일본의 판단을 받아들일 것이라고는 꿈에도 생각 못했다. 참 당혹스럽다."
- 재판부의 논리는 일본에서 나온 미쓰비시 관련 확정 판결 결과를 우리 법원에서도 받아들여야 한다는 것, 또 하나는 시효문제를 언급한 것 같은데?
"그렇지 않아도 그게 말이 되지 않는다고 수차 준비서면을 통해 주장해 왔다. 재판부로서 일본 사법부의 결정에 일종의 동료의식이 있을 수는 있겠지만, 일본 판결이 그동안 일제 피해자들의 권리를 봉쇄해 온 것인데, 그것을 받아들이겠다는 점에서 이번 판결은 가장 반 헌법적 판결이라 할 수 있다."
"2월 3일, 사법 치욕이자 대일 굴욕의 날로 기록될 것"
- 무슨 말인가. 좀 더 설명해 달라.
"우리 민사소송법 제217조 3호에는 제3국의 판결이라도 할지라도 '그것이 대한민국의 선량한 풍속이나 그밖에 사회질서에 어긋나지 않을 때에만' 효력이 인정되는 것으로 하고 있다.
예로 지금까지 일본에서 이뤄진 판결은 한일병합을 당연한 것으로 여기고 일제 강제동원 역시 법에 의해 합법적으로 집행된 것이라는 것을 전제로 깔고 있다. 그런데 이것을 우리 사법부가 받아줘야 한다는 것이 아니고 무엇이냐?
이번 고법 재판부의 논리대로라고 하면 우리는 아직도 모두 일본 국민이나 마찬가지다. 왜냐하면, 일제시대엔 모두 아버지, 할아버지가 창씨개명 하고 일본국민으로 돼 있었는데, 그러면 언제 우리가 일본 국적법에 따라 합법적으로 일본국적에서 탈퇴하는 절차를 거친 적 있었는가? 한마디로 이번 고법 판결은 우리 국민이 다 일본 사람이라는 논리나 마찬가지다.
3·1운동으로 성립한 임시정부의 법통을 계승한 대한민국이, 한일병합을 합법적이라고 보아 우리 임시 정부를 '반국가단체'로 보는 일본 판결을 그대로 따르는 것은 너무나 치욕적이고 굴욕적이다. 나중에 역사가가 기록할 때 2월 3일 판결은 과거 인혁당 사건보다도 더한 사법 치욕이자, 대일 굴욕의 날로 기록될 것임이 분명하다."
"일본 독도 판결 나면 한국에서도 받아들여야 한다는 것인가?”
- 원고들 표정을 보니 역시 충격이 큰 것 같다. 전혀 예상치 못한 결과인가?
"그렇다. 이 판결은 쉽게 말하면 일본에서 독도가 일본의 땅이라고 확정판결이 났으면 그대로 한국에서도 받아들여도 문제가 없다는 것이나 마찬가지다. 이게 말이 되느냐?
통상적인 거래관계의 판결이라면 한·일간의 판결을 서로 승인하는 것은 문명국간 있을 수 있는 일이지만, 일본의 전쟁 책임을 묻는 판결을 그 본질도 고려하지 않고 피해국 한국의 법원이 가해국의 판결을 받아들인다고 하는 것은 타당하지 않을 뿐만 아니라 우리 헌법에도 반하는 것이다.
우리 헌법 전문에는 3·1운동으로 성립한 임시정부 법통을 계승한다고 명시되어 있다. 아울러 우리 헌법은 침략전쟁을 부인하고 있는데, 이는 침략전쟁으로 발생한 법익 침해를 방치해서는 안 되며, 그 손해를 정당하게 회복해야 한다는 뜻이다. 이번 판결은 이러한 헌법적 의미를 무시하는 반헌법적인 것으로 볼 수밖에 없다. 일본법과 한국법의 가장 큰 차이점은 바로 헌법 정신에 있다. 대표적으로 '천황(일왕)'을 인정하지 않는 민주공화국이 우리 헌법 제1조 1항이다."
- 판결이 이렇게까지 나올 수밖에 없었던 이유에 대해서는 어떻게 생각하나?
"앞서 여운택씨 등 일제 피해자들이 신일본제철을 상대로 제기한 손해배상 소송에서 2008년 4월 3일 서울중앙지법은 일본 법원의 확정 판결을 승인할 수 있다고 해 기각한 바 있는데, 이번 재판 역시 그때 판결을 따라간 것이다.
당시 서울중앙지법의 판결에 대해 헌법적 검토가 제대로 있었다면 이번 판결은 결코 나오지 않았을 것이다. 이 점에서 신일본제철의 담당변호인단과 공조를 충분히 하지 못한 잘못은 우리 변호인단에도 있었다고 생각한다. 이 점은 반성한다."
문서 수령도 거부하며 시간 끌던 미쓰비시, '아리랑 3호' 수주
- 이번 판결은 오히려 1심 판결보다 후퇴한 결과로 보이는데.
"그렇다. 그중 하나를 지적하자면 1심에서는 태평양전쟁 전의 미쓰비시와 전후 미쓰비시에 대해 사실상 같은 회사로 봐야 한다고 판단했는데, 이번 판결에서는 이것마저도 번복이 된 것으로 보인다.
그런데 이것이 웃기는 게, 그동안 피해자들이 미쓰비시 한국법인을 찾아가 한번 만나려고 해도 전쟁 전 회사와 다르다며 만나주지도 않던 미쓰비시가, 아리랑 3호 위성과 관련해서는 한국항공우주연구원과 모든 관련문서 수령을 다 해왔던 사실이다. 문서를 통해 확인된 내용이다.
이번 항소심의 항소장 역시 회사가 다르다고 수령을 거부해 지금까지 국제송달까지 했었는데, 이런 잔꾀를 한국 법원이 받아들여야 한다는 것인가? 특히 재판을 9년째 끌어 온 가장 큰 이유는 개인청구권에 관한 소멸여부를 확인하는 것이었다. 그동안 일본 판결은 한일협정 및 일본의 국내법에 의해 개인 청구권이 소멸됐다고 주장해왔다.
그에 반해 우리 정부는 2005년에 40여 년 만에 한일협정 문서를 공개할 당시, 반인도적 범죄와 관련해서는 한일협정과 무관하다며 일본에 법적 책임이 있다는 법적 견해를 명백히 밝힌 바 있다.
당시 민관공동위원회의 민간인 위원장이 현재 이용훈 대법원장인데, 이번 판결은 이런 민관공동위원회의 권위 있는 공식적인 법적 견해조차 무시하고 일본 판결을 따라가겠다는 것이나 마찬가지다."
10년 '시효' 적용하면 64년 지난 일제 과거 청산은 불가능
- 10년이라는 시효도 언급했는데?
"얼마 전 '독도가 일본 땅이 아니다'라는 일본법령을 최초로 발견한 재일동포 3세 이양수씨와 함께 '일한회담 전면공개를 요구하는 회' 고다케 히로코 사무국장이 한국을 방문한 바 있는데, 시효문제로 1심에서 기각된 사실을 알고는 깜짝 놀라더라.
아니 심지어 일본에서조차 판례가 계속 발전해 와 본건과 같은 전후보상 재판에서는 최소한 시효문제로는 기각하는 판결이 어려워져 한일청구권 협정을 핑계로 정치적 판단을 하고 있는 마당에, 가해국도 아닌 피해국가의 법원에서 시효문제를 따진다는 게 말이 되느냐는 것이다.
그 말을 듣고 고다케 히로코 사무국장이 즉시 이번 담당 판사한테 직접 편지까지 써서 보낸 일이 있는데 담당 판사가 그 편지나 제대로 읽어 봤는지 모르겠다.
재판부의 논리대로 하자면 원고들이 피해를 본 시기인 1944년~1945년으로부터 10년이 지났다는 주장이어서 소를 제기할 수 없다는 입장인데, 과연 일제 피해자들이 그동안 '권리 위에 잠잔 자들인가' 하는 것이다. 해방과 한국전쟁의 혼란기, 한일청구권협정에 의해 권리회복의 기회마저 철저히 차단당해 온 상태, 우리 임시정부의 법통을 계승하는 우리 헌법정신을 생각하면 도저히 이해할 수 없는 판결이다.
가해국도 아닌 우리 사법부가 '10년'이라는 시효가 지났기 때문에 안 된다고 한다니, 참 어이가 없다. 이렇게 되면 이미 10년이 아니라 해방 64년이 더 지났는데 더 이상 대한민국 땅에서는 일제 과거청산은 불가능하다는 것 아닌가?
인혁당 사건이나 광주 5.18항쟁, 최종길 서울대 교수 사건 등 과거 정권하에서 이뤄진 수많은 사건들도 과거청산 차원에서 새로 판결하고 있는데, 대일 과거 청산에 10년이라는 시효를 잣대를 들이밀지는 정말 몰랐다."
- 잠시 다른 질문인데, 어떻게 부산에서 재판을 시작하게 됐나?
"2000년 당시 미쓰비시 연락사무소가 부산에 있어 부산지방법원에 제기하게 됐다. 그런데 그 뒤로 미쓰비시가 연락사무소를 폐쇄하고 한국 미쓰비시라고 하는 회사를 설립해 문서수령마저 거부하고 말았다. 그러는 통에 일일이 번역해 본사에 국제송달을 하느라 6개월 동안 허송세월해야 했다. 미쓰비시의 행태를 보면 재판을 지연시켜 피해자들이 한 분이라도 돌아가시도록 만들겠다는 심보처럼 느껴진다."
"마치 한국법원 아니라 일본법원 같다"
- 상고 여부는 어떻게 되나?
"피해자들이 대한민국 사법부를 믿지 못하겠다고 하면서도 이번 판결만큼은 도저히 받아들이지 못하겠다는 태도인 만큼 피해자들의 의사에 따를 생각이다. 솔직히 오늘 판결만 보면 마치 한국법원이 아니라 일본법원 같다."
- 9년을 끌어온 사건인데 결국 패소하고 말았다. 이번 재판에 대해 일본에서도 관심있게 지켜보고 있었을텐데, 어떤 심정인가?
"어젯밤에 하도 억울해 잠이 잘 오지 않았다. 이 사건을 맡을 때 일본 변호사들이 도저히 일본에서는 양심적인 판결이 나오지 않아 한국의 사법부를 믿고 재판을 해 보자고 해서 제판을 시작했는데 이 재판 결과를 어떻게 전달할지 걱정이다. 일본에서는 번번이 패소해 피해국인 한국에서 열리는 재판은 다를 것이라고 생각했을 텐데, 솔직히 일본 변호사 보기가 부끄럽다."
이국언 기자
지난 3일 부산고등법원 제5민사부(재판장 이승영 부장판사)는 일제 강점기 미쓰비시중공업에 끌려가 원폭 피해를 본 징용피해자들이 미쓰비시를 상대로 한국 법원에 제소한 손해배상 청구소송 항소심 재판에서 '일본에서 확정 판결된 사안을 받아들이지 않을 근거가 없다'는 이유로 기각했다.
이번 재판은 일제 '전범'기업을 상대로 피해국 한국 법원에 제기된 최초의 재판으로, 향후 대일 과거사 소송의 시금석이 된다는 점에서 재판 결과의 파장은 적지 않을 것으로 보인다.
이에 원고 측 변호를 맡은 최봉태 변호사를 만나 이 판결에 담긴 의미와 재판 결과에 대한 원고 측 견해를 들어보았다.
▲ 최봉태 변호사가 부산 고법 판결 직후 가진 기자회견에서 취재진들에게 민사소송법 조문을 짚어가며 판결 결과에 대해 강력하게 이의를 제기하고 있다.
- 실망이 큰 것 같다. 우선 이번 재판에 대해 어떻게 생각하나?
"이번 재판은 일제 피해에 대해 피해국인 우리나라 법원에 최초로 제기된 재판이었고, 피해국가에서 나온 최초의 고법 판결이다. 일본, 미국, 중국에서도 재판이 벌어지고 있지만 피해국의 고법 판결로는 최초로 나온 역사적 판결이다. 그런데 도저히 피해국에서는 나올 수 없는 결과가 나오고 말았다. 설마 전범국 일본의 판단을 받아들일 것이라고는 꿈에도 생각 못했다. 참 당혹스럽다."
- 재판부의 논리는 일본에서 나온 미쓰비시 관련 확정 판결 결과를 우리 법원에서도 받아들여야 한다는 것, 또 하나는 시효문제를 언급한 것 같은데?
"그렇지 않아도 그게 말이 되지 않는다고 수차 준비서면을 통해 주장해 왔다. 재판부로서 일본 사법부의 결정에 일종의 동료의식이 있을 수는 있겠지만, 일본 판결이 그동안 일제 피해자들의 권리를 봉쇄해 온 것인데, 그것을 받아들이겠다는 점에서 이번 판결은 가장 반 헌법적 판결이라 할 수 있다."
"2월 3일, 사법 치욕이자 대일 굴욕의 날로 기록될 것"
- 무슨 말인가. 좀 더 설명해 달라.
"우리 민사소송법 제217조 3호에는 제3국의 판결이라도 할지라도 '그것이 대한민국의 선량한 풍속이나 그밖에 사회질서에 어긋나지 않을 때에만' 효력이 인정되는 것으로 하고 있다.
예로 지금까지 일본에서 이뤄진 판결은 한일병합을 당연한 것으로 여기고 일제 강제동원 역시 법에 의해 합법적으로 집행된 것이라는 것을 전제로 깔고 있다. 그런데 이것을 우리 사법부가 받아줘야 한다는 것이 아니고 무엇이냐?
이번 고법 재판부의 논리대로라고 하면 우리는 아직도 모두 일본 국민이나 마찬가지다. 왜냐하면, 일제시대엔 모두 아버지, 할아버지가 창씨개명 하고 일본국민으로 돼 있었는데, 그러면 언제 우리가 일본 국적법에 따라 합법적으로 일본국적에서 탈퇴하는 절차를 거친 적 있었는가? 한마디로 이번 고법 판결은 우리 국민이 다 일본 사람이라는 논리나 마찬가지다.
3·1운동으로 성립한 임시정부의 법통을 계승한 대한민국이, 한일병합을 합법적이라고 보아 우리 임시 정부를 '반국가단체'로 보는 일본 판결을 그대로 따르는 것은 너무나 치욕적이고 굴욕적이다. 나중에 역사가가 기록할 때 2월 3일 판결은 과거 인혁당 사건보다도 더한 사법 치욕이자, 대일 굴욕의 날로 기록될 것임이 분명하다."
"일본 독도 판결 나면 한국에서도 받아들여야 한다는 것인가?”
- 원고들 표정을 보니 역시 충격이 큰 것 같다. 전혀 예상치 못한 결과인가?
"그렇다. 이 판결은 쉽게 말하면 일본에서 독도가 일본의 땅이라고 확정판결이 났으면 그대로 한국에서도 받아들여도 문제가 없다는 것이나 마찬가지다. 이게 말이 되느냐?
통상적인 거래관계의 판결이라면 한·일간의 판결을 서로 승인하는 것은 문명국간 있을 수 있는 일이지만, 일본의 전쟁 책임을 묻는 판결을 그 본질도 고려하지 않고 피해국 한국의 법원이 가해국의 판결을 받아들인다고 하는 것은 타당하지 않을 뿐만 아니라 우리 헌법에도 반하는 것이다.
우리 헌법 전문에는 3·1운동으로 성립한 임시정부 법통을 계승한다고 명시되어 있다. 아울러 우리 헌법은 침략전쟁을 부인하고 있는데, 이는 침략전쟁으로 발생한 법익 침해를 방치해서는 안 되며, 그 손해를 정당하게 회복해야 한다는 뜻이다. 이번 판결은 이러한 헌법적 의미를 무시하는 반헌법적인 것으로 볼 수밖에 없다. 일본법과 한국법의 가장 큰 차이점은 바로 헌법 정신에 있다. 대표적으로 '천황(일왕)'을 인정하지 않는 민주공화국이 우리 헌법 제1조 1항이다."
- 판결이 이렇게까지 나올 수밖에 없었던 이유에 대해서는 어떻게 생각하나?
"앞서 여운택씨 등 일제 피해자들이 신일본제철을 상대로 제기한 손해배상 소송에서 2008년 4월 3일 서울중앙지법은 일본 법원의 확정 판결을 승인할 수 있다고 해 기각한 바 있는데, 이번 재판 역시 그때 판결을 따라간 것이다.
당시 서울중앙지법의 판결에 대해 헌법적 검토가 제대로 있었다면 이번 판결은 결코 나오지 않았을 것이다. 이 점에서 신일본제철의 담당변호인단과 공조를 충분히 하지 못한 잘못은 우리 변호인단에도 있었다고 생각한다. 이 점은 반성한다."
문서 수령도 거부하며 시간 끌던 미쓰비시, '아리랑 3호' 수주
- 이번 판결은 오히려 1심 판결보다 후퇴한 결과로 보이는데.
"그렇다. 그중 하나를 지적하자면 1심에서는 태평양전쟁 전의 미쓰비시와 전후 미쓰비시에 대해 사실상 같은 회사로 봐야 한다고 판단했는데, 이번 판결에서는 이것마저도 번복이 된 것으로 보인다.
그런데 이것이 웃기는 게, 그동안 피해자들이 미쓰비시 한국법인을 찾아가 한번 만나려고 해도 전쟁 전 회사와 다르다며 만나주지도 않던 미쓰비시가, 아리랑 3호 위성과 관련해서는 한국항공우주연구원과 모든 관련문서 수령을 다 해왔던 사실이다. 문서를 통해 확인된 내용이다.
이번 항소심의 항소장 역시 회사가 다르다고 수령을 거부해 지금까지 국제송달까지 했었는데, 이런 잔꾀를 한국 법원이 받아들여야 한다는 것인가? 특히 재판을 9년째 끌어 온 가장 큰 이유는 개인청구권에 관한 소멸여부를 확인하는 것이었다. 그동안 일본 판결은 한일협정 및 일본의 국내법에 의해 개인 청구권이 소멸됐다고 주장해왔다.
그에 반해 우리 정부는 2005년에 40여 년 만에 한일협정 문서를 공개할 당시, 반인도적 범죄와 관련해서는 한일협정과 무관하다며 일본에 법적 책임이 있다는 법적 견해를 명백히 밝힌 바 있다.
당시 민관공동위원회의 민간인 위원장이 현재 이용훈 대법원장인데, 이번 판결은 이런 민관공동위원회의 권위 있는 공식적인 법적 견해조차 무시하고 일본 판결을 따라가겠다는 것이나 마찬가지다."
10년 '시효' 적용하면 64년 지난 일제 과거 청산은 불가능
- 10년이라는 시효도 언급했는데?
"얼마 전 '독도가 일본 땅이 아니다'라는 일본법령을 최초로 발견한 재일동포 3세 이양수씨와 함께 '일한회담 전면공개를 요구하는 회' 고다케 히로코 사무국장이 한국을 방문한 바 있는데, 시효문제로 1심에서 기각된 사실을 알고는 깜짝 놀라더라.
아니 심지어 일본에서조차 판례가 계속 발전해 와 본건과 같은 전후보상 재판에서는 최소한 시효문제로는 기각하는 판결이 어려워져 한일청구권 협정을 핑계로 정치적 판단을 하고 있는 마당에, 가해국도 아닌 피해국가의 법원에서 시효문제를 따진다는 게 말이 되느냐는 것이다.
그 말을 듣고 고다케 히로코 사무국장이 즉시 이번 담당 판사한테 직접 편지까지 써서 보낸 일이 있는데 담당 판사가 그 편지나 제대로 읽어 봤는지 모르겠다.
재판부의 논리대로 하자면 원고들이 피해를 본 시기인 1944년~1945년으로부터 10년이 지났다는 주장이어서 소를 제기할 수 없다는 입장인데, 과연 일제 피해자들이 그동안 '권리 위에 잠잔 자들인가' 하는 것이다. 해방과 한국전쟁의 혼란기, 한일청구권협정에 의해 권리회복의 기회마저 철저히 차단당해 온 상태, 우리 임시정부의 법통을 계승하는 우리 헌법정신을 생각하면 도저히 이해할 수 없는 판결이다.
가해국도 아닌 우리 사법부가 '10년'이라는 시효가 지났기 때문에 안 된다고 한다니, 참 어이가 없다. 이렇게 되면 이미 10년이 아니라 해방 64년이 더 지났는데 더 이상 대한민국 땅에서는 일제 과거청산은 불가능하다는 것 아닌가?
인혁당 사건이나 광주 5.18항쟁, 최종길 서울대 교수 사건 등 과거 정권하에서 이뤄진 수많은 사건들도 과거청산 차원에서 새로 판결하고 있는데, 대일 과거 청산에 10년이라는 시효를 잣대를 들이밀지는 정말 몰랐다."
- 잠시 다른 질문인데, 어떻게 부산에서 재판을 시작하게 됐나?
"2000년 당시 미쓰비시 연락사무소가 부산에 있어 부산지방법원에 제기하게 됐다. 그런데 그 뒤로 미쓰비시가 연락사무소를 폐쇄하고 한국 미쓰비시라고 하는 회사를 설립해 문서수령마저 거부하고 말았다. 그러는 통에 일일이 번역해 본사에 국제송달을 하느라 6개월 동안 허송세월해야 했다. 미쓰비시의 행태를 보면 재판을 지연시켜 피해자들이 한 분이라도 돌아가시도록 만들겠다는 심보처럼 느껴진다."
"마치 한국법원 아니라 일본법원 같다"
- 상고 여부는 어떻게 되나?
"피해자들이 대한민국 사법부를 믿지 못하겠다고 하면서도 이번 판결만큼은 도저히 받아들이지 못하겠다는 태도인 만큼 피해자들의 의사에 따를 생각이다. 솔직히 오늘 판결만 보면 마치 한국법원이 아니라 일본법원 같다."
- 9년을 끌어온 사건인데 결국 패소하고 말았다. 이번 재판에 대해 일본에서도 관심있게 지켜보고 있었을텐데, 어떤 심정인가?
"어젯밤에 하도 억울해 잠이 잘 오지 않았다. 이 사건을 맡을 때 일본 변호사들이 도저히 일본에서는 양심적인 판결이 나오지 않아 한국의 사법부를 믿고 재판을 해 보자고 해서 제판을 시작했는데 이 재판 결과를 어떻게 전달할지 걱정이다. 일본에서는 번번이 패소해 피해국인 한국에서 열리는 재판은 다를 것이라고 생각했을 텐데, 솔직히 일본 변호사 보기가 부끄럽다."
이국언 기자
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)