Should Hanchongryon Be Designated a Terrorist Organization?
“Let us eliminate anti-unification pro-war forces which intend to cast fire clouds of a nuclear war on the heads of Koreans.
— Hanchongryon Statement before visiting Pyongyang
If I’d had any idea that things were this bad on South Korean university campuses, I’d have been paying much closer attention:
Seven Korea University students face disciplinary punishment after illegally detaining nine professors for 16 hours. The Yonsei University president is working elsewhere after being driven out of his office some 40 days ago by radical students who are occupying the university administrative building. Some 50 pro-North Korea students of Joong-Ang University also occupied the president’s office and painted walls and floor with slogans.
Amazing. Like “1984” meets “Lord of the Flies.” This is the infamous North Korean fifth column known as Hanchongryon, with a long history of violence and almost always featured in our force protection warnings about violent demonstrations. More on that later. But this story ends well:
In response, other students put up banners which read “No More Violence” on campus and met to denounce the occupation.
Now, local student council organizations at Dongguk and Seoul National Universities are pulling out of Hanchongryon, causing them a significant loss of funding, and more universities may follow. Others, notably Ewha, left years ago. What’s more, there’s a backlash against Hanchongryon’s most reprehensible ideas:
[The head of the SNU students’ assocation] stated, “Because of such organizations’ anti-American and anti-capitalistic monopoly demonstrations, various opinions from students have been ignored. I acknowledge that student movements have contributed to the democratization of Korean society, but there have been a number of side effects since Korea realized democratization.
In the statement, the student council said, “Student council dues that should be spent for the welfare of students have been used for the political organizations. Students have been demoted to the objects of such organizations.
I certainly hope that the red guards’ excesses will be enough to provoke a remedy in the electoral process, but with this kind of prosecutorial incomptence, you have to wonder if the legal system is up to the task (don’t blame the courts, however, for dismissing charges based on flimsy evidence).
Even today, there is fresh evidence of North Korean infuence over Hanchongryon, and of the government’s fear of reigning them in. That said, I continue to oppose using the military to enforce domestic laws against civilians. There is nothing here that can’t be done by competent and determined law enforcement and prosecution. Nor would I necessarily deny them permission to visit the North, though I’d want them searched on the way home and watched carefully thereafter. My main concern is not their words or deeds, but their actions.
Korea will have to protect the rule of law in its own society, but what if we have evidence that these punks hurt one of our soldiers? Here is how U.S. law defines terrorism, as found here, in Title 18 of the United States Code:
Section 2331. Definitions
As used in this chapter –
(1) the term ”international terrorism” means activities that
–
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended –
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
I can certainly make the argument that Hanchongryon’s activities meet that definition, and I’d lay even money that Hanchongryon was responsible for some of these incidents. The Korean authorities have seldom fully investigated or prosecuted acts of violence against U.S. soldiers. If the Koreans don’t act, why can’t we?
Consider the power of Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act to designate Hanchongryon as an entity of special money laundering concern (virtually any possession, handling, or movement of terrorist funds is money laundering under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1960). Best of all, Section 311 has extraterritorial application, as our sanctions against Banco Delta illustrate. It can reach the assets of terrorist organizations anywhere.
This could bankrupt Hanchongryon overnight. It’s a legal, nonviolent way to protect our troops from the violent citizens of an “ally” that won’t protect them.
—–
12 Responses
-
Pingback: The Korea Liberator » LiNK Press Release
On the other hand, invoking the USA PATRIOT ACT in the matter would be seen as “continued US colonialism/imperialism” and transgression of ROK sovereignty.
I am afraid the best hope here is that the excesses by the crazies would eventually be seen by the rest as what they are — crazies.
Then again…
The latter condition does not obtain, so…
I’m currently an exchange student at Yonsei, and over the past year I really haven’t seen too much overt leftism. In fact, I know that the student government elections here were won by students who ran on platforms opposing how leftist student groups hijacked the university and used it as a forum to get the media’s attention as they egest their pro-North Korea bile.
In fact, given Yonsei’s reputation, I’m been somewhat surprised how ambivalent the students in general seem about politics. There are of course occaisional incidents of conspicuous cretinism, but within the group of students I’ve met (mostly those who volunteer to work with exchange students or those whom I teach English to) I don’t see much passion for politics at all. Yonsei’s a large school, and this is anecdotal, but I do think it’s part of a sign of the times.
For students who are the top 1% of their HS classes and study unbelievable amounts of time, its amazing how little many of them have actually bothered to analyze Korean history beyond the superficial, timeline-style knowledge you need for examinations. While they don’t generally like the idea of US influence and are full of empathy for North Koreans, its a point of view that is extremely malleable when confronted. The only real ardent North Korean apologists that are in my classes are usually a minority of the gyopo, for whatever its worth.
By the way, since this is my first post, I’d like take the opportunity to thank the contributors to this site for providing such an invaluable tool for those like myself who are studying modern Korean history and politics. Your site has become a daily addiction and I recommend it to all my students who are interested in American perspectives on Korea.
Given that ROK is now a new member on the vastly improved UN Human Rights board, I suspect they will be guarding NORK public relations interests and defend all the civic groups. Who knows if the US goes after one of their own, who’s to say the ROK won’t endorse a UN Human Rights investigation/denunciations of the US?
I’d be amazed if Korea went that far in breaking with the US, since I think the backlash has begun. But I frankly don’t much care about the deliberations of a human rights body that has Cuba and Saudi Arabia at the table.
Vastly improved is pure sarcasm. I was alittle surprised when I saw ROK on the panel. They don’t take human rights to heart even of their own citizens, yet here they are on the UN human rights panel. Got me thinking it was to protect the NORKS from future investigations. Now that the US is finally admitting refugees from the North, someone might begin to compile dossiers with names, places and times when atrocities where committed in the North. Someday a case might go to any panel that will listen, like the UN.
I wonder how many people know what your analogy of the “fifth column” really means? Kind of an interesting history to it.
Anyway I would normally agree with your thoughts about the military not enforcing civilian laws but in the ROK I think an exception has to made because the police have no authority and judges keep letting these rioters go free without any punishment which just encourages them to continue to attack policemen and soldiers. Throwing some of these people in ROK Army jail may reduce the amount of violence these young Korean draftees are forced to deal with.
I agree that someone has to restore order and put the public discourse back in the hands of reasonable and peaceful people, but think of the big picture. Korea had decades of law and order under military rule, and eventually, that became the way the government would crush dissent. But did that create a political culture in which Koreans would engage in reasoned discourse? I would argue that it had the opposite effect, but suppressing discourse and leaving violence as the only way to disagree with the government.
Now, this government has clearly dabbled in the idea of suppressing views that you and I happen to agree with, as they concern North Korea in particular. Licensing Roh to use courts martial and the military to crush dissent certainly doesn’t portend well for limiting the power of government. And of course, you can see that the KCTU and Hanchongryong are having wet dreams about another Kwangju, which is a lot more likely to happen with scared troops who are faced with violent mobs (as as Kwangju) and without the proper training or equipment to even defend themselves (as at Kwangju). The radical left wants to provoke a slaughter, and this makes it much more likely they’ll get one.