Spring 1996

Mr. Chun set the stage for the massacre on May 17, 1980, when he responded to pro-democracy protests by imposing martial law across all of South Korea. The next day, demonstrations erupted in Kwangju, and a bloody crackdown led to a public uprising against the military government. Protesters armed themselves with weapons taken from armories and briefly ruled the city. Ten days after the initial protests, the army invaded Kwangju with tanks and machine guns. Dissidents claimed that the death toll was higher than the government report of 200. They argue that the number ranges from at least 600 to 2,000 dead.^l

Mr. Chun was once a powerful leader who ruled over a police state in which dissidents were tortured and occasionally killed. He responded to prodemocracy demonstrations with armed forces and just fled the Kwangju massacre by saying that he was putting down a rebellion. Since he left power in 1988, he sought penance by leaving his luxurious home in Seoul to spend more than a year living an ascetic life in a Buddhist monastery in a remote mountain region. That seemed to resolve the questions about Mr. Chun's brutal and corrupt administration, but the issue was reopened in the fall of 1995 after a huge outcry erupted over a $650 million slush fund controlled by Mr. Roh. This led to calls for punishment of the former presidents. If convicted, Mr. Chun could face the death penalty, although the speculation in Korea is that even if such a sentence were imposed, it would promptly be commuted since he is a former president.²

In a live broadcast televised nationwide, Mr. Chun bitterly attacked current President Kim Young Sam, accusing him of political opportunism in switching positions to favor prosecution for the Kwangju massacre. "If I am a criminal who brought confusion to society, why does President Kim not take responsibility for having come together with such insurrectionists?" asked Mr. Chun. He was evidently referring to Mr. Kim's decision in 1990 to abandon his career as a dissident and join the governing party. Mr. Chun also called the present government "leftist," an extreme term in this fiercely anti-Communist country.³

A Nation Torn

Like other nations that have evolved from dictatorship to democracy, South Korea is deeply torn about how to view its past and how to deal with those who engaged in past brutality. In most countries facing similar situations, the tendency has been to forget what happened. Sometimes the opportunities to resolve past wrongs have been limited because the leaders are already dead or nearly so.

The indictment itself will most likely not resolve the regional antagonism that has divided the nation between the Cholla area, which includes Kwangju, and the Kyongsang area, which has produced most of the presidents. To the people of Cholla, this might be a moment to savor. Yet, some people in Kyongsang may feel aggrieved or betrayed if Mr. Chun and Mr. Roh, viewed as hometown heroes, are severely punished. Also, the issue of the U.S. complicity in and after the massacre will be considered (some people argue that the U. S. government just stood by and kept silent about the massacre, even though the government had known about it beforehand). This argument could be a catalyst for an outburst of anti-American sentiment in the country, which would worsen the already deteriorating relationship between the two countries resulting from open trade disputes.

In addition, many Koreans suspect that President Kim is using the prosecution of the former presidents to bolster his own political standing, diverting attention from the slush fund scandal that has enmeshed him, in this crucial election year of 1996. Even though he has admitted wrongdoing in connection with political support he received before he became president, he denies accepting bribes. He did not address the issue of whether he dipped into a $654 million slush fund that his predecessor, Mr. Roh, has confessed to amassing while in office.

Boom and Brutality

From an international perspective, the indictment of Mr. Chun and Mr. Roh has a special resonance. It raises the sensitive question of how to judge leaders who violate human rights but who also preside over a booming economy which has led to an enormous rise in living standards. While only a relatively small number of South Koreans were tortured to death under Mr. Chun and Mr. Roh, the majority of people gained immensely in economic terms during their rule. Current leaders of China and Indonesia, among other countries, have also ruled during a period of similar boom and brutality, hoping that the public will overlook the repression if incomes are rising. It has worked in some countries, and it had seemed to work in Korea. In fact, it is so successful that, when a third world country designs a model of economic development, Korea has frequently been considered the model example, and many African countries have asked the Korean government for advice on the implementation of their socioeconomic policies. Yet, the punishment of Mr. Chun and Mr. Roh is likely to remind people throughout the world, especially those now in power in places like Beijing and Jakarta, that this gamble does not always pay off. It might mean that political reform must to go hand in hand with the economy for true progress, or just the opposite: that preoccupation with past wrongs only results in chaos and a consequent economic downturn. Careful political maneuvering on the part of their governments becomes critical. Certainly, dealing with this is difficult for all the newly developing countries with a short history of democracy.

Notes: 1. Shi-Sa Journal, December 1995, p. 57. 2. Cho-Sun Times, December 12, 1995. 3. Han-Kuk Times, December 10, 1995.

Mr. Kim, JE'99, is a student at Yale College.