While expressing support of and hope for a
unified Korean Peninsula is common here in South Korea, tackling the glaring
issues presented therein often seems perplexing, if not entirely overwhelming and accordingly avoided. What
should be actively discussed is a solid framework designed to bring justice to
the victims of crimes committed by the North Korean regime and bridge the
social chasm between citizens of both Koreas upon reunification, experts
asserted at a recent seminar in Seoul.
The seminar, hosted by the Database Center
for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB) in conjunction with Konrad Adenauer
Stiftung and the Transitional Justice and Social Integration Research
Institute, featured a panel of the experts and scholars who pointed out that we
need not grapple in the dark for a place to start solving these issues:
Germany’s unification could serve as a useful roadmap to navigate that of
Korea’s.
“Supplemental education for instructors is pivotal,” said
Chung Jai Ho, the director from NKDB’s Resettlement Support Center. “If we look
at the case of Germany, teachers originally from East Germany taught students [in
a unified Germany] a skewed version of history wherein the Socialist Unity
Party of Germany (SED) was far from tyrannical and the Stasi functioned like
any other intelligence collection agency.”
To avoid a similar scenario in a unified
Korea, Chung maintained that devising and implementing proper education
training for former North Korean instructors to transition them into unified
education institutions could ameliorate some of these issues. He did, however,
concede that the case of the Koreas presents more stumbling blocks compared to
Germany considering North Korea’s cult of personality runs far deeper and its
indoctrination unparalleled.
Legal justice is another necessary but
complex issue to contend with in a Korean unification scenario, according to
Dr. Jens Huttmann of Konrad Adenauer Stiftung , who explained that a framework
and guidelines must be arranged far in advance rather than ad hoc measures when
the time arrives. He cited Germany’s case as one to improve upon in this
regard, given that East German, rather than West German or international, laws
were applied to prosecute former East German officials for their past
government crimes.
These legal proceedings gave impunity to
many of these perpetrators: only 40 of the 750 former East German officials
found guilty of “injustice” or other crimes went to prison. Huttmann quoted
Barbel Bohley, an East German opposition figure and artist, to reflect how devastating
this was for those who suffered the oppression firsthand, noting, “What we
wanted was justice but we were thrown laws.”
However, despite the diluted legal
repercussions leveled against these former cadres from East Germany, the
political consequences were far from it; former SED officials were stripped of
their posts and replaced by West German officials.
In turn, this decision fed growing embitterment
and resentment among some former citizens of East Germany, who interpreted the
policy as West Germany treating them as “inferior citizens,” Chung added,
explaining that much thought must be placed on striking a balance between
harmony with and punishment of former government dignitaries.
“To prevent a comparable disharmony from
pervading the Korean Peninsula upon reunification, the South Korean government
needs to push ahead with joint programs and exchanges in both the North and the
South and establish federal centers for political education and justice; these
are just a few examples from a litany of initiatives Germany launched to
build reconciliation between the East and the West,” Chung noted.
