Ko Kyungmin (International Peace Foundation)
1. Introduction
Jeju 4∙3 is a representative historical issue in contemporary Korean history, which features ideological rifts, political exclusion, and social confrontations and conflicts that are condensed not just within the Jeju society but also within the Korean society. The legislation of the 2000 Special Act on Discovering the Truth of Jeju 4·3 and Restoring Honor to the Victims (“Jeju 4·3 Special Act”) is considered a touchstone for evaluating whether we can overcome the trauma of ideological division, massacre, and victimization, moving toward reconciliation, mutual prosperity, inclusion, and integration.
On Feb. 26, 2021, two months ahead of the 73rd anniversary of Jeju 4∙3, the motion on the general amendment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act was passed at the National Assembly’s plenary session, which supplemented the act with clauses concerning reparation for the victims and ex officio retrials for those wrongfully convicted. The general revision of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act is another achievement that was made 21 years after the legislation of the act. With the passage of the revised act, many Jeju 4∙3-related organizations and the media reported, as if on cue, that a “turning point” or a “starting point” has been arranged for the “complete resolution” of the historical event.
However, the meaning of the “complete resolution” has yet to be discussed more intensely. It is also observed that resolving the past historical issues was achieved in only few cases around the world. In this sense, taking the opportunity of the general revision of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act, this article aims to review the meaning of the “complete resolution” of Jeju 4∙3 and the challenges for that “complete resolution,” and to cast prospects on the future.
2. Legislation of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act
Jeju 4∙3 was sparked by the March 1st police firing on a crowd which took place in 1948 around Gwandeokjeong, a pavilion in front of the provincial office building located in the northern region of Jeju City. In the subsequent course of contemporary Korean history, where state power and ideology collided, tens of thousands of innocent Jeju residents lost their lives or suffered injuries, and even the painful memory of the survivors had to be hidden for decades. During Jeju 4∙3, the people of Jeju society experienced great pain as those who knew nothing about the situation were killed by government authorities, and their families and local communities were destroyed. Having little knowledge of the truth, the survivors and the families of the victims lived with the hidden pain for over seven decades, unwillingly split into the victims and the perpetrators.
Since the 1987 ‘democratic opening’ of Korean society, strenuous efforts have been made to uncover the truth about Jeju 4∙3. Nonetheless, it was not easy to draw a corresponding attention from the national political circles and the government, despite the fact that Jeju 4∙3 was one of the most tragic events in contemporary Korean history that resulted the second largest loss of human life following the Korean War. It was the democratization of Korean society and the introduction of the local autonomy system that created momentum for the movement to bring attention of the National Assembly and the government to the issue. Impetus was also gained from the democratization of Korean society for the legislation of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act, which was prosed as a past liquidation process of discovering the truth of Jeju 4∙3 and restoring honor to the victims.
An explicit outcome of the movement to resolve Jeju 4∙3 was achieved with the enactment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act. The Jeju 4∙3 Incident Investigation Report, which was developed after the investigation of the case based on the act, is another important achievement in discovering the truth of the tragic event. This report contains the first formal government position that acknowledges the involvement of state power in the massacre of civilians before and after national liberation and the outbreak of the Korean War. Therefore, the movement to reveal the truth of Jeju 4∙3 can be highly appraised for producing tangible results by realizing the enactment of the special law and the investigation of the truth.
Understandably, however, it is not easy to resolve a historical issue to a satisfactory level. Even after the special act was legislated, various tasks continued to be presented for the resolution of Jeju 4∙3. As the statutory provisions failed to fully address certain matters, issues continued to be raised over the limitations to the special act, concerning the absence of clauses detailing the compensational support for those suffering residual disability and the selection of those entitled to receive the support; the financial support for the creation of the Jeju 4∙3 Peace Park; and the designation of April 3 as a national memorial day. The special act was also criticized due to the insufficient outcomes of revealing the truth due to limited access to relevant materials; the incomplete identification and punishment of those responsible for the case; the discriminate treatment of victims; and the reservation of determination on the proper name of the historical event. As such, Jeju 4∙3 was considered a case that had yet to be fully resolved, even after the enactment of the special act which provided legal grounds for various projects and measures.
3. General Amendment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act: A Turning Point for the ‘Complete Resolution’
The bill on the general amendment of the Jeju 4∙3 Special Act was passed on Feb. 26, 2021, during the plenary meeting of the 21st National Assembly. Prior to the passage of the bill, five other bills were proposed to revise the special act, and based on the Enforcement Decree of the special act, reports of the victims and their families were received six times. However, the statutory preparations were insufficient to heal the suffering of the victims and the bereaved families, which in turn aroused the efforts for the general revision of the special act that aimed to arrange special support measures for the victims and the related criteria — which would encompass the special clauses for the retrials of the wrongfully convicted, the exoneration of the victims, and the provision of consolation money.
As shown in <Table 1>, the latest amendment includes new clauses on the exoneration of those wrongfully convicted, the reparation for the victims’ damage, the launch of ensuing investigation of the truth, and the correction of victims’ family relationship registers. The revised act also features the special case clauses for claims demanding the declaration of disappearance and claims demanding affiliation. Additionally, the new clauses address the projects for the healing of Jeju 4·3-related trauma, the expansion of Jeju 4·3-related commemorative projects, interim measures regarding previous decisions, and the term of existence of the committee, etc.
<Table 1> 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.