hankyoreh

The Joint Security Area at Panmunjom on the inter-Korean border. (Lee Je-hun/Hankyoreh)

By Ko Seung-woo, director of the Conference of Journalists of the May 1980 Democratic Struggle

The decision by the United Nations Command (UNC) to issue a public statement on Wednesday opposing legislation on the peaceful use of the DMZ currently being spearheaded by South Korea’s Democratic Party, saying that it violates the 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement, goes against established norms governing alliances. 

It’s difficult to find any precedent anywhere in the world of a command post for foreign troops issuing a political statement that makes a determination on whether a policy or legislation pursued by the administration of the host state is “legal” or not. 

The issue is even more serious when one considers the UNC’s status as a military organization under the command and control of the US government. 

The UN Secretariat has formally stated several times that the UNC is not a subordinate organization of the UN, and it is not commanded or controlled by the UN. The UNC is instead a military unit under the jurisdiction of the US president, the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces. 

Korea can no longer sit back and allow the UNC to directly rebuke decisions by the Korean government. 

This bizarre conduct has prompted criticisms of the UNC being a foreign “occupying force” exercising its military authority over a sovereign nation. 

While an occupying force can intervene in a broad spectrum of governance — including executive, legislative and public-security matters — during wartime, South Korea is clearly a sovereign nation; it is also an ally of the United States.

The UNC has publicly labeled legislation pursued by the Korean government a “violation” of the armistice agreement, opening itself up to criticism of crossing a line in standard military cooperation between allies. 

International customs dictate that foreign military commands aren’t in a position to make political judgments about the legitimacy of legislation or policies pursued by the government of their host nation. Instead, their role is to implement those policies, manage on-site security, and prevent clashes. As a rule, political responsibility for determining whether to approve or disapprove a policy and for interpreting international law falls to the president as commander-in-chief, and the military’s top brass. 

For a military organization like the UNC to go rogue and loudly declare a policy to be illegal should be seen as no less serious than an attempt to destroy the alliance. 

Similarly, the armistice agreement empowers the commander of the UNC to prevent armed clashes, manage safety, and act as a facilitator and communicator. It does not give the UNC any clear authority to make political determinations about South Korean policies or legislation or to challenge the validity of such legislation. 

However, the UNC has habitually exercised its authority to determine whether or not something violates the armistice based on the fact that the two Koreas are technically still at war. Considering the world we find ourselves in and the growing status of South Korea, this practice should no longer be tolerated.  

The UNC is not an official UN organization and is commanded by a general appointed by the US president. That organization is now acting as if it has the authority to grant or deny policies and legislation pursued by the South Korean government — behavior that flies in the face of international norms. 

Such behavior gives the impression that the relationship between South Korea and the US is not one between equal sovereign nations, but that the former is under the wartime occupation or the protectorate governance of the latter, and carries such grave diplomatic and legal issues that it ought to be condemned and ridiculed by the international community. 

The US president should act immediately to rectify this situation.  

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]