[Editorial] Kim Jong-Il's Seoul visit vs National Security Law revision

With the ruling Millennium Democratic Party (MDP)'s decision to introduce a revision of the National Security Law in the special session of the National Assembly this month, inter-party bickering over the controversial law change has flared up again. Noting that the revision of the National Security Law, along with the enactment of the human rights and anti-corruption laws, was in line with President Kim Dae-Jung's governance philosophy, the ruling MDP has resolved to push ahead with the legislation. However, as the opposition Grand National Party and the splinter United Liberal Democrats, coalition partner of the MDP, took a hard-line stance against the MDP legislative drive, actual parliamentary passage still hangs in the balance.

The argument over revising the anti-communist law has persisted for a long time. But drawing our attention is the fact that the ruling party's latest legislation drive coincided with the scheduled visit to Seoul by North Korean Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong-Il. As the opposition party claimed, the government and the ruling MDP appear to be attempting to amend the law before the North Korean leader's Seoul visit. If this is true, it is very undesirable.

Under the existing security law, Kim Jong-Il's Seoul visit is tantamount to welcoming the head of an anti-state organization. Therefore, allowing the visit could be characterized as a criminal act of praising and encouraging an anti-national regime. This is the reason that the ruling camp is seeking to change the law and carve out a legal path for the North Korean leader's Seoul trip. Yet, the question of revising the law, a highly politically charged issue, should not be addressed merely from legal standpoint since the question is deeply connected to national sentiment. Regardless of the fact that some provisions of the law are virtually irrelevant, the law has remained a symbol of efforts to safeguard the nation against the perceived threat from North Korea.

As we pointed out earlier, the security law, a legacy of the Cold-War era, needs to be altered to keep pace with the growth of inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation. Specifically, the stipulations that were exploited to infringe upon the people's human rights under the authoritarian military regimes ought to be amended or abolished, even though the provisions are no longer abused.

The revision of the security law should not be made at North Korea's request. As far as the change in the law is concerned, we should undertake for our own reasons based on the superiority of our political structure. But we have yet to build a political, social and ideological consensus on the need for the revision. Under the circumstances, if the government forces the legislation through the assembly, it could split national opinion and have even serious consequences that would do more harm than good to the people.

Kim Jong-Il's proposed Seoul visit and the revision of the National Security Law should be regarded as separate matters. The ruling camp ought to realize that any coercive attempt to change the law by tying the two events together could trigger an untoward outcome.