"Military Service Veto Right Should Be Much More Publicized"
By Shin Yoon, D.W. syuk@hani.co.kr
Hankyoreh 21Worldwide Peace Organizations and Conscientious Objection Movement Activists Gathered in Korea to 'Dare to Discuss the Conscription System.'
"I am so moved that we can gather together." At 2:30 p.m. on March 17, people carrying knapsacks gathered in a training institute in Paju. Among the fifty participants peace organizations, organizations of the handicapped, feminism movement activists, Taiwanese lawmakers, a conscientious objection movement activist from Columbia, South America, members of the 'National Association of the Bereaved of Victims from Army Violence' in black were represented. This event, sponsored by American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), was the first workshop ever in Korea for 'the realities and alternatives of the conscription system and military duties.' Participants gave this workshop a subtitle of 'We Dare to Discuss the Conscription System.' Questions, buried in the heart for half a century, were finally poured out in words during the two days it lasted.
Jesus in a Cockpit of a Bomber?
This workshop began with a keynote address entitled 'What is the Problem of the Current Conscription System and Military Duties?' by Mr. Kim, Changsu, a section chief of the National Independent and Peaceful Unification Council. Kim pointed out one after another some problems of the conscription system such as a crisis of equilibrium, enhanced awareness of human rights, and value confliction inside the army. Making an arms reduction proposal of one hundred and sixty thousand career soldiers and one hundred and forty volunteers, Kim concluded his address with an emphasis on human security where regime security surrender to national security and military security to enhancing the quality of human life. In a following panel discussion, Lawmaker Chien, Shichie from Taiwan explained the alternative service system in action in Taiwan and Ricardo Pinzon from Columbia the conscientious objection movement in Central and South America. Participants were very much interested in Taiwan's adoption of alternative services. Covering problems of the conscription system far and wide including human rights inside the army, military culture etc. this discussion dealt extensively with 'conscientious objection'. In the afternoon session of March 18, the following day, Mr. Lee, Daehun (majored in Peace Studies, University of Bradford) claimed propriety of conscientious objection in view of international laws. He began his address with a personal experience of a peace movement activist."Recently I dined with a nephew of mine who was just released from the air force. He asked me, 'I don't know why pacifists should get more attention. Aren't we all Christians? Everyone has his own way.' I replied to him saying, 'Hey, can you imagine this? Jesus Christ, whom we believe in, sitting in a cockpit of a F-104 bomber flying toward a city.'" (re-quoted from the address of Al Jones and Lee, Daehun titled 'Conscientious Objection Rights as Human Rights and Additional Accounts')
According to Mr. Lee, conscientious objection rights are part of a fundamental human right called 'the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.' This fundamental right, elucidated in Article 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 18 of the International Agreement on Civil Political Rights, is clearly valid. He pointed out that "It is still difficult for us to discuss conscientious objection rights. It means that the domain of personal freedom that should not be infringed on by the state is still in unrest under state power and sociocultural violence."
Initiated by the menonites, a Christian sect in the 16th century, the conscientious objection right was propagated to other denominations like the Quakers throughout the two World Wars and then again expanded to include even 'secular' reasons throughout the cold war era and the Vietnam War. Lee presented Denmark as the pioneer case of accepting conscientious objection rights and Germany as a model case of stipulating in its constitution the right to reject taking up arms. In Germany, admitting even political and social reasons of objection, not to mention religious, one hundred and fifty thousand men applied for alternatives in 1991. This matches the number of conscripts. "Even in Europe, it was not easy to secure conscientious objection rights." said Mr. Lee emphasizing that "It was obtained through the sacrifice of many during the cold war era." In harmony with such a worldwide trend, in 1991, the International Amnesty expanded the meaning of a conscientious objector as "a person who is a conscript rejecting military service and other direct and/or indirect act of war or violence according to a deep-rooted conviction derived from conscientious reasons and/or religious, ethnic, moral, humanitarian, political, and other similar motives." According to this definition, the International Amnesty regards all imprisoned conscientious objectors as conscientious prisoners.
"Let's Make a Conscientious Objection Network"
Not only the International Amnesty but also the U.N. regards conscientious objection as 'a right' and recommends that its member nations prepare an alternative service system. The U.N. Human Rights Commission stipulated conscientious objection as the 'reasonable exercise of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion' for the first time in the 46th resolution in 1987. The 88th resolution of the U.N. human rights commission in 1998 is still the most comprehensive one. In this resolution, the U.N. urges each government Δ to take necessary measures so that conscientious objectors may not be imprisoned and may not suffer repeated punishment, Δ to establish an institution that independently examines reasonableness of conscientious objection without prejudice Δ to provide alternative services that are in harmony with the purpose of such systems Δ to recognize and allow in-service objection is allowable and Δ to promote the protection of conscientious objectors as refugees. Korea, who signed this resolution as a member state, is also under obligation to follow these resolutions. To keep watch over member states observing these, the U.N. Human Rights Commission asks each government to present a report. In a recent report, Korea is said to have informed the U.N. briefly that there is no law that guarantees conscientious objection rights. After all, the Korean government does not follow U.N. recommendations.
The concept of conscientious objection is recently being proliferated to the reservists objecting to military training and to labor union members objecting to production of non-humanitarian weapons. Selective objection, for example, to specific types of arms like biochemical arms and/or specific types of wars like invading third world countries are also included. "We also have an old tradition in terms of objection such as the Korean soldiers who objected to participate in the Korean War, Islamic American soldiers who regarded this war as an attack against a colored race and objected to participate." said Mr. Lee, Dae-hun concluding that "we need to think over such cases." A participant, who made a conscientious declaration in the 1990s, said that "Though I objected to military service according to my conscience, I didn't even know then that it was a conscientious objection."
Following these addresses were proposals put under discussion over utilizing the U.N. Human Rights proceedings to secure conscientious objection rights. Mr. Lee, Dae-hun suggested that "First of all, we could notify the U.N. that Korea does not follow the international human rights standards and then exert pressure upon the government by putting this case on an international trial. It was especially regarded as a powerful measure to report poor human rights condition in Korea to the Special Reporting Officer on Religious Intolerance so that he can visit Korea and investigate the realities.
At 3:00 p.m. on the 18th, upon completing discussions over separate subjects, a comprehensive talk ensued on practical plans. Regarding human rights in the military, the production and the distribution of a Human Rights Charter for Privates was proposed. Plans for conscientious objection also poured out. Organization of a network was suggested for those pondering conscientious objection. Worries were raised that "such a network may be misunderstood for encouraging desertion." Replying to this, a participant explained that "persons with conscientious objection under consideration are anxious for information. It is only to open an information site that would let them be informed of the significance of conscientious objection and some relief measures as well." "Despite its importance, the conscription issue has been neglected." said a feminism movement activist concluding that "It is a matter of immediate necessity to enhance the level of understanding of social movement activists." In a two hour long discussion, participants agreed to make and publicize a booklet about conscientious objection. They left the institution with a promise to hold a monthly discussion. On the way back, a placard was fluttering in a street that read "Conscription Period for Eunpyong-Gu." That was the reality that the moment activists will confront.
Back to Seoul Quakers Home Page More on Korean and Other Conscientious Objection