 |
Recently, in response to a written inquiry by Voice of America (VOA) asking about the U.S. government's position on resolving the issue of the six South Korean citizens detained in North Korea, the U.S. State Department spokesperson's office said, "We continue to ask the DPRK [North Korean] government to release all political prisoners and to investigate the disappearance of Japanese abductees and of the six South Koreans detained in the DPRK."
This position also matches the declaration at the recent South Korea-U.S.-Japan summit meeting held in Cambodia, showing a joint response to the issue of detainees and abductees from the South and Japan in the present situation where the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea's official name) is developing nuclear weapons and continuing to develop missiles, posing an increasing security threat to neighboring countries.
The first major point of contention is that the DPRK must acknowledge the detention of South Korean citizens in the DPRK, since if they do not even acknowledge the detention, even attempting to discuss with the DPRK through a trusted intermediary will yield no results. Since it was announced internally by the Korean Central News Agency, the DPRK's main news network, that the DPRK sentenced some of the six South Koreans to hard labor, to that extent it can be seen that the DPRK acknowledges the detention of these South Korean citizens.
Confirmation that the detainees are alive and delivery of letters through a third country is possible only when a country that has a relationship of trust with both the South and North Korean authorities is designated as an intermediary country.
For example, Mongolia, which has a tradition of friendly relations with the DPRK, or Singapore or Vietnam, which hosted the DPRK-U.S. summits in 2018 and 2019, is worth considering. The United States is not a good candidate as a mediator because there are no diplomatic ties between the DPRK and the U.S.
Bilateral strategies for repatriation of the South Korean detainees and abductees to the South could include a prisoner exchange, returning non-converted long-term prisoners in the South to the DPRK, or copying the Freikauf example, a deal between East and West Germany for the release of political prisoners, in which the West German government provided goods to East Germany through the church in exchange for the release of political prisoners from East Germany and their repatriation to West Germany.
The problem with the Freikauf approach would be that payment of cash or goods to repatriate detainees and abductees conflicts with the sanctions against the DPRK and with some provisions of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act and the National Security Act. In addition, it is debatable whether paying money for the repatriation of detainees and abductees fits the purpose of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Fund as specified in the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund Act.
However, since this is an act of governance, it could be seen as not subject to judicial review since an act of governance is not a simple law enforcement action but is an act with a high degree of political character that demonstrates the basic direction of state affairs or relates directly to national interests.
Therefore, repatriation of non-converted long-term prisoners to the DPRK seems possible based on governance theory, on Article 9 of the Act on Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation (the "Permission to Visit North Korea" clause) and the precedents of the repatriation of Lee In-mo in 1993 and the repatriation of 63 non-converted long-term prisoners in 2000.
However, since the issue of repatriating non-converted long-term prisoners to the North is, strictly speaking, a matter of "permission to move" rather than "permission to visit North Korea," in the longer term it will be necessary to prepare a legal basis for "permission to move" by revising the Act on Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation.
With regard to multilateral strategies for repatriating South Korean detainees and abductees to the South, Seoul needs to understand the DPRK's "hostage diplomacy" and prioritize the detainee issue. In the past, the DPRK conducted so-called "hostage diplomacy," such as when they detained American journalists and then allowed former U.S. President Bill Clinton to visit the DPRK, or when U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited the DPRK when a Korean-American was detained.
Since the U.S. government actively and urgently seeks to protect its citizens, the DPRK has been able to use this fact in order to engage in hostage diplomacy. Likewise, the government needs to demonstrate its willingness to recover its citizens from the DPRK. If a strong request is made to actively resolve the issue of detainees and repatriate them, the DPRK can take on the role of a negotiating partner.
Even if inter-Korean relations change, we must show consistent policies and attitudes on the issue of detainees. In the case of Japan, the issue of abductees was important in its domestic politics and so Japan prepared various topics for dialogue with the DPRK via the Mongolian government in order to resolve the abductees issue, such as the Pyongyang Declaration, a review of the normalization of diplomatic relations, and economic cooperation.
The DPRK then acknowledged the existence of Japanese abductees and some of them were repatriated. Likewise, the ROK government should continue to raise the issue of South Korean abductees and detainees in order to resolve it. Ultimately, we need to confirm the detainees' situation, transmit letters and make representations on their behalf, either through an intermediary if inter-Korean dialogue is not possible, or through the inter-Korean dialogue channel if the two Koreas can achieve a degree of reconciliation and cooperation.
Ultimately, South Korea should prioritize the issue of detainees and abductees, given the Yoon Suk-Yeol government's stance of respecting the human rights of each and every citizen. In addition, it is necessary to reorganize relevant laws and policies to address these humanitarian issues and promote them consistently. Only then can we gain trust from the international community and move forward to resolve related issues together with the international community. Now is the time to show the spirit and determination of the Yoon administration to fulfill the country's basic duty of protecting its citizens.
Jeon Su-mi (sumijeon@ssu.ac.kr), an attorney, is an invited professor at the Soongsil Institute for Peace and Unification. She was a member of the Presidential Committee on Northern Economic Cooperation. Her areas of specialty includes South Korean politics and foreign policy, North Korea politics and human rights.
