In South Korea, history and free speech collide in a battle to define democracy
When North Korean defector Lee Ju-seong published a book questioning the official history of the Gwangju Uprising, a seminal moment in South Korea's struggle for democracy, its controversial claims provoked an outcry.
In The Purple Lake, he alleged that mass protests which erupted on May 18, 1980 before a bloody crackdown by the military dictator Chun Doo-hwan had been infiltrated by North Korean agents in a communist plot to subvert the US-allied South. Not only that, the book claimed, the scheme was the result of a conspiracy between the North and a leading light of South Korean democracy, the late Kim Dae-jung, a once-exiled opposition leader who would go on to become the country's first liberal president.
After weathering a storm of controversy and popular outrage, Lee has now also found himself facing trouble with the law. On Wednesday, a South Korean court ruled Lee had defamed the former president, who died in 2009, by spreading "false facts" and handed him a six-month prison sentence, suspended for three years.
Handing down his verdict, Seoul Western District Court Judge Jin Jae-kyeong said Lee, who fled the authoritarian North in 2006, had not only caused the former president's family hurt and distress, but "inflicted a significant wound on the Korean people".
A ceremony to mark the 40th anniversary of the Gwangju Uprising last month. Photo: DPA alt=A ceremony to mark the 40th anniversary of the Gwangju Uprising last month. Photo: DPA
The May 18 Memorial Foundation, which took Lee to court on behalf of Kim's late widow, hailed the ruling as an example that those "who hurt the bereaved families, the victims, and the people who aspire to democracy through distortion and denunciation of the May 18 Democratic Uprising would be judged legally," said Park Jin-woo, the foundation's director of research.
Lee, who based his book on his own personal recollections and interviews with unidentified defectors who claimed to have infiltrated the protests, decried the ruling and those who "wanted to use the law to punish those who stood up to power and recalled history". Lee may appeal the verdict to a higher court.
The case has shone a light on both the bitter struggles to define history that continue to rage in South Korea and the limits of free speech in a young democracy where challenging popular memories of the past can risk legal sanctions including jail.
"Unlike Europe, colonial legacies have not been fully settled in Korea," said Park Kyung-sin, a law professor and former member of the country's broadcast and internet regulatory agency. "Symbolism, speeches, small words and gestures still affect the minds of and cause pain to many surviving victims and families a great deal."
Protesters pictured in May 1980 gathering at a pro-democracy uprising in the southern city of Gwangju. Photo: Handout / 5.18 Memorial Foundation / AFP alt=Protesters pictured in May 1980 gathering at a pro-democracy uprising in the southern city of Gwangju. Photo: Handout / 5.18 Memorial Foundation / AFP
The Gwangju Uprising, also known as the May 18 Democratisation Movement, is widely celebrated in the South as a pivotal moment on the country's arduous path to free elections in 1987, following decades of US-backed dictatorship and, before that, Japanese colonisation. Although the exact death toll remains unknown, around 160 people were killed when troops opened fire on protesters demonstrating against martial law in the southwestern city of Gwangju, according to official estimates. Activists estimate the actual toll was several times higher.
At an event to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the uprising last month, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said the "call of the dead" had spurred the country toward democracy.
In recent years, May 18 has become increasingly politicised and subject to partisan acrimony. Some conservative politicians, scholars and activists have aired claims of North Korean involvement " echoing justifications for the crackdown by the military government at the time and an explosive charge in a country where praising its autocratic neighbour remains officially a crime. Moon, who aligns himself with the democratic tradition of former president Kim, has ordered a reinvestigation of the military's actions and has pushed for the uprising's inclusion in the country's constitution, while members of his Democratic Party have proposed legislation to criminalise the "distortion" of its history.
A Truth Commission established in 2007 during the administration of Roh Moo-hyun, Moon's left-leaning mentor, found no evidence of North Korean involvement, while declassified CIA documents show US officials at the time did not detect any unusual signs within the reclusive country.
A man holds the only remaining photo of his father Jung Ki-young, who disappeared during the Gwangju Uprising. Photo: AFP alt=A man holds the only remaining photo of his father Jung Ki-young, who disappeared during the Gwangju Uprising. Photo: AFP
Although claims of North Korean involvement in the uprising are widely seen as unsubstantiated, Lee's conviction has sparked concerns for free speech and academic freedom in a country where the historical record is often litigated through the courts.
Chun, the former military strongman, is currently on trial for calling a late priest who testified to helicopters firing on civilians a "shameless liar". And in 2017, university professor Park Yu-ha was fined 10 million won (US$8,200) over her book Comfort Women, which a court found had inflicted "mental stress" on women forced to work at brothels for Japanese soldiers during the second world war by arguing there was no evidence of Tokyo's direct involvement.
It is difficult to separate such battles from the newness of South Korea's democracy and the circumstances under which it was achieved, said Michael Breen, an author of several books on the country's history and politics who covered the Gwangju Uprising as a foreign correspondent.
"It happened because of people power and because the country's leaders needed American approval," Breen said. "It did not happen because of a long debate about the nature of freedom and rights. As a result the system of justice was never injected with a new philosophy of freedom and democracy. It was tinkered with."
South Korean President Moon Jae-in delivers a speech at a ceremony to mark the 40th anniversary of the May 18 Democratisation Movement in Gwangju last month. Photo: Kyodo alt=South Korean President Moon Jae-in delivers a speech at a ceremony to mark the 40th anniversary of the May 18 Democratisation Movement in Gwangju last month. Photo: Kyodo
He said there was irony in the fact that censorship now comes from the political left, who "are supposed to be champions of liberal democracy".
Although South Korea's constitution guarantees freedom of expression, strict criminal defamation laws carry the threat of up to seven years in prison and apply to even truthful statements in some cases. The country's criminal code unusually also allows family members to seek punishment for defaming the dead, an acknowledgement of the heavy emphasis in Korean culture placed on family ties and honour.
In a statement before Lee's verdict, the North Korea Freedom Coalition, an organisation of dozens of human rights and North Korean defector groups, said it was "increasingly concerned about threats to freedom of the press in the Republic of Korea and especially the impact on North Korean defectors," referring to the South by its official name.
Sohn Sang-yoon, editor of conservative news and opinion site Newstown, which has aired Lee's allegations and other far-right claims, said people should be free to discuss an issue that was still the source of "conflicting opinions".
"This ruling against Lee is a complete travesty that you shouldn't see in a liberal democracy," Sohn said. "It is the sort of ruling that is possible in a communist dictatorship that suppresses basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution like free speech, freedom of the press and academic and scholarly freedom."
Park Kyung-sin, the law professor who has advocated against censorship in South Korea, said court cases related to the history of Gwangju should be seen as comparable to laws in some countries against Holocaut denial, but acknowledged that political polarisation in the country had muddied perspectives on freedom of expression.
"Partisan divisions do influence which criminal prosecutions people choose to support or oppose," but more concerning was the continuing presence of criminal defamation on the statute books, Park said.
Shin Kwang-yeong, a sociology professor at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, denied the most recent case was an issue of free speech, saying that "atrocious fake stories that Kim was a communist are fabricated and spread by some groups to justify military dictatorship and downplay the democratisation movement."
While for those working to keep the spirit of the Gwangju movement alive, such as the May 18 Memorial Foundation's Park Jin-woo, there is little question about the acceptable limits of challenging history.
"Freedom should not cause pain to victims who have suffered from a historical event," Park said. "The words should not come with a gun, with a knife that cuts through the flesh."
This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (SCMP).
Copyright (c) 2020. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
