Matters addressed in the revised Jeju 4∙3 Special Act
The Solidarity for Collective Actions to Achieve the Revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act (Jeju Solidarity for Collective Actions), consists of 124 institutions and organizations based on Jeju, such as the provincial government, the provincial council, the association of victims’ families, and the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation. Concerning the latest revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, the Solidarity for Collective Actions emphasized that “the passage of the bill is a product of concerted efforts made in various sectors.” Specifically, the announcement pointed out that the outcome was achieved by gathering forces and wisdom from both the public and civilian sectors, which include but not limited to Jeju 4·3-related organizations (e.g., the association of the victims’ bereaved families), groups established across the country for the movement of resolving past historical issues, general civil society organizations, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Council, and the Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education. Jeju 4·3-related organizations also announced that the passing of the bill will be considered a case that embodies the spirit pursued in the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, which contains the conception of reconciliation and peace, thereby setting a “marked example of justly resolving the past issues.”
In time with the news of the passage of the amendment bill, the media outlets mentioned the “complete resolution” issue. For instance, local news articles were released with such headlines as “Stepping stone for ‘complete solution’ now prepared” (The New Jeju Ilbo), “Journey for ‘complete resolution now begins” (The Headline Jeju), and “Foundation for ‘complete resolution’ prepared” (The Jeju Shinmun). The central news agencies also released articles, titled “One stop forward to achieve ‘complete solution’” (The Yonhap News), “Let’s move toward ‘complete resolution’” (The Maeil Economic Daily), “After 73 years of pain, ‘complete resolution’ now around the corner” (The Hankyoreh), “One step closer to ‘complete resolution’” (The Korea Economic Daily), and “Hopefully leading to ‘complete solution’” (The Hankook Ilbo). This clearly signifies that the remaining tasks in resolving Jeju 4·3 and the related issues after the revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act should be focused on the “complete resolution” of the case.
4. Meaning of the ‘Complete Resolution’ and the Need to Set Goals
The general revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act was the outcome of the recognition of the justification and necessity of resolving Jeju 4·3, which was shared between the President, the government, and Jeju society. President Moon Jae-in, who attended the commemorative ceremony for the 70th anniversary of Jeju 4·3 in 2018, made a pledge in his memorial speech that he will “move forward unwaveringly toward the complete resolution of Jeju 4·3.” At the commemorative ceremony for the 71st anniversary of the event, Prime Minister Lee Nak-yeon read the presidential speech on his behalf, which stated that “complete resolution regarding Jeju 4·3 is a step on the path toward overcoming ideology and uniting the country.” Jeju Governor Won Hee-ryong also called for joined forces in passing the revised bill. These statements demonstrate that the general revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act reflects the long-desired wish of the victims and their families and Jeju society as a whole for the “complete resolution” of the Jeju 4·3, which had long been discussed on Jeju for 21 years after the act was legislated.
However, doubts and regrets may remain as to whether the contents sufficient to be called the “complete solution” were satisfactorily reflected in the revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act. As a direct example, the term “consolation money” has been stipulated in relation to the issue of reparation by the state authorities, but without explicitly mentioning “indemnification” which indicates the responsibility of the state for its wrongful act. The task of properly naming the historical case also remains unresolved, thereby failing once again to have the name inscribed on “Baek Bi,” a memorial monument left without an epitaph in the Jeju 4·3 Memorial Hall. Moreover, additional discussions and incessant efforts will be required in the development of the relevant Enforcement Decree in order to prepare detailed plans for the new clauses that address a diversity of matters, such as the provision of consolation money, the ex officio retrial of collective cases of those wrongfully convicted, and the promotion of ensuing investigations of the truth of Jeju 4·3. Undoubtedly, however, the latest revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act can be understood as crossing the “threshold” of the “complete solution” of the case and will thereby serve as a “new beginning” of the movement.
In the future, it is necessary to begin the discussions for a more concrete meaning and goal of the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3. With reference to the provisions contained in the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, a method will be deemed useful where the issues regarding Jeju 4·3 are classified into several sections, while the goals will be set according to these individual sections. The clauses of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act can largely be sectioned as ▴discovering the truth, ▴exonerating the victims, ▴recovering damage to the victims, and ▴holding state authorities accountable for the case.
Based on the sections, the following measures can be suggested: ① the “complete clarification of the truth” by expanding the administrative and financial support for the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation to allow for active ensuing investigations, identifying the role of the United States Army Military Government in Korea in Jeju 4·3, and properly naming the case; ② the “complete exoneration of the victims”, which includes not only ex officio retrials of victims of courts martial, but also the recognition of the rights of victims and their families, the protection of various rights and interests, and the punishment for malicious defamation; ③ the “complete restoration of damage to the victims” through payment of consolation money for the indemnification and compensation to victims, the expansion and reinforcement of trauma healing projects for the recovery of physical and mental damage to victims and their families, the expansion and reinforcement of Jeju 4·3 -related memorial and commemorative projects, and the restoration of local communities; and finally, ④ the “complete performance of the state authorities,” which is aimed not only at “complete clarification of the truth,” “complete exoneration of the victims,” and “complete recovery of damage to the victims,” but also at the integration of Jeju society and the entire Korean society. Then, the specific goals and tasks of the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 can be determined in accordance with the given sections. However, the above idea is solely based on the revised bill of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act. More specific discussions and alternative options will have to seek a social consensus that reflects the opinions of the victims and their families, as well as other Jeju residents.
5. Forming a Social Discourse of the ‘Complete Resolution’
For a prolonged period of time, many media outlets, politicians, and Jeju 4·3-related organizations have called for the resolution of Jeju 4·3, whereas little has been discussed as to the definition or the state of the “complete solution” and the methods to achieve the state with. There have been few discussions with a focus on the value, vision, goals, and promotional measures of the “complete resolution”. By achieving the latest revision, however, it has become relatively clear that the “complete resolution” issue has emerged as an essential topic in the discussions of Jeju 4·3 in Jeju society. Given this new atmosphere, a process of creating a social discourse is required to establish the value and vision of the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 and to prepare specific goals and strategic methodologies.
In Jeju society, the issue of Jeju 4·3 does not belong to a specific group or class. Realizing the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 requires the determination of goals and tasks that reflect the collective will of the victims and their families, as well as other Jeju residents. In this respect, the goals and tasks should not be absolutized or dogmatized by the state, bureaucrats, or politicians, but be established through the recognition and assertion of members of society and through dialogues and discussions. Theoretically speaking, the goals and tasks for the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 should be determined from the perspective of “regional governance” based on social constructivism.
It is also necessary to take one step further to approach Jeju 4·3 by addressing it as a matter of value. In the process of overcoming Jeju 4·3, the most commonly discussed universal values that symbolize the case would be “reconciliation and mutual prosperity” and “peace and human rights.” Reflecting on the process from the campaign for trust revelation to the enactment and revision of the special law, there will be no room for argument that the resolution of Jeju 4·3 pursued the values of “peace and human rights.” Furthermore, there will be on doubt that “reconciliation and mutual prosperity,” which have been pursued based on a social consensus during the liquidation of the past, are also considered as essential values related to the resolution process of Jeju 4·3. As pointed out in the Declaration on the Designation of Jeju as an Island of World Peace, which states that “the designation will help sublimate the tragedy of Jeju 4·3 into reconciliation and coexistence,” the case can be a unique Jeju model of overcoming the wrongful past and resolving unresolved historical issues, which encompass reconciliation and coexistence as well as human rights and peace through mutual forgiveness and tolerance.
If so, the path toward the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 would include a state where the case does not become the seed of conflict and dispute, confrontation and antagonism. To put it differently, the path forward would involve efforts to resolve the political, ideological, and socio-cultural conflicts rooted in Jeju 4·3, and not to reduce the political, ideological, and socio-cultural conflicts to the Jeju 4·3 issues. This means to inherit the historical scars of Jeju 4·3 through reconciliation and mutual prosperity. Ultimately, the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4·3 would be re-incorporating the case — the source of political, ideological, and socio-cultural conflicts — into history as an objective fact. The resolution of Jeju 4·3 will also have to be considered as a historical mirror for trust and inclusion and a lesson for future development through harmonization, of which the perception goes beyond the process of relieving the pent-up anger and sorrows of the victims and their bereaved families.
6. Conclusion: Toward the Jeju Model of Peace and Human Rights
Jeju 4·3 is not a case limited to the past that will be forgotten; it is an issue to be remembered and commemorated through the “complete resolution” process, and to be popularized on a national and global scale. Marking the 70th anniversary of Jeju 4·3 in 2018, Jeju residents staged a campaign with the slogan of “Jeju 4·3 is now our history.” The case of Jeju 4·3 has evolved from “communist armed riots” to “human rights violations by public authorities.” It is an evolution in public perception which has come to recognize that the pursuit of ideology through the means of violence deserves to be suppressed by state power, but the massacre of civilians must not be tolerated.
The latest general revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act can create momentum for a shift in the public perception of Jeju 4·3, where the case will be recognized as a part of ‘Korean history’, deviating from the previous public conception of the historical event as belonging only to Jeju, an island in Korea’s peripheral area. Thus, ‘nationally publicizing’ Jeju 4·3 would be one of the core tasks to be continued; and further on, additional efforts should be made to ‘globally publicizing’ the issue. It is legitimate to share the case of Jeju 4·3 in Korea and the world beyond as it reawakened the awareness of the value of reconciliation, coexistence, peace, and human rights. The process of resolving Jeju 4·3 demonstrates the best possible model in almost all aspects, which broadly involved the revelation of the truth, the exoneration of the victims, the building of a legislative consensus, the relief of damage by judicial means, the state-level apology and pledge to prevent the recurrence of a similar case, the pursuit of restorative justice, the restoration and healing of local communities, the practice of forgiveness and reconciliation, the efforts for mutual prosperity and coexistence of the confrontational sides, and the memorial and educational projects. Importantly, the process of surmounting the case and healing the suffering of the people should also be globally publicized in that the historical case was a result of the Cold War and the ideological confrontation based on the east-west conflict.
4/3 covers almost every aspect, such as truth finding, restoration of honor, legislative agreement, judicial remedy, state apology and promise to prevent recurrence, restorative justice, community restoration and healing, forgiveness and reconciliation, mutual prosperity and coexistence, remembrance and education, etc. This is because 4·3 in Fig. 3 shows the best solution. In particular, since 4/3 originated from the Cold War between East and West and an ideological confrontation, the process of overcoming and healing should also be spread around the world.
The general amendment of the special act created impetus for Jeju 4·3 to pioneer the resolution of the problems in the past based on justice, reconciliation, and restoration. In the future, the movement to resolve Jeju 4·3 need to go through a process of inviting the survivors, the bereaved families of the victims, and other Jeju residents to participate in forming a social discourse of determining new goals and related tasks for the “complete resolution” of the case. You will need to establish a vision to go out. Furthermore, the vision of realizing the Jeju model that pursues reconciliation, mutual prosperity, peace, and human rights need to be established.
- 파일첨부
-
|
홈