|
The National Human Rights Commission on Monday recommended that the government recognize conscientious objectors to military service on the grounds of religious conviction and work out a system whereby objectors complete an alternative form of service. For now, anyone refusing to enlist or to carry weapons for reasons of religion or conscience is punishable with up to six months in prison or a fine of up to W2 million (US$2,000) under the Military Service Law, just like ordinary draft dodgers.
Looked at solely from the point of view of the estimated 3,000 conscientious objectors¡¯ human rights, the commission¡¯s conclusion is the right one. But the commission is a state agency spending W20 billion (US$20 million) in taxpayers¡¯ money a year. If it cannot demonstrate a sense of balance between optimum human rights and the realities in which the country finds itself, it loses its raison d'etre.
To start with, the recommendation is at odds with judgments by the constitutional and supreme courts. The Constitutional Court in August last year ruled the Military Service Law that punishes conscientious objectors constitutional, because "a recognition of conscientious objection harms the common benefit of national security, a prerequisite to the state's survival and all freedoms." The Supreme Court in July last year ruled, "Given the division of the country, the duty of national defense, being the most basic guarantee of the state¡¯s existence, takes precedence over the freedom of conscience."
The commission notes that other countries have accommodated conscientious objection. But do these countries also face 2 million troops across an armistice line? Already because of the low birth rate, the number of eligible conscripts is predicted to fall to 232,500 or so by 2010, over 100,000 fewer than today, and to a little over 164,300 by 2050, or half as many as there are now.
What does the HRC propose to do if, once conscientious objection becomes legal, everyone simply refuses to serve in the military citing their conscience? The least the commission should do is draw up criteria to distinguish genuine conscientious objectors from draft dodgers in disguise.
What matters most of all is public consent. Yet in a poll of 1,000 people by the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in September, 72.3 percent of respondents opposed legalizing conscientious objection. The commission is positively inviting the charge that it out of touch with the people.
|
