Controversy Rages on the Government’s Restrictions on Access to Classified Information

As the government decided on October 7 against submitting national security-sensitive classified document to the National Assembly, the feud between the government and the opposition party has entered a new stage.

As the government more frequently refused to respond to inquires for sensitive documents in National Assembly inspections, the conflict over how to define “classified documents” has escalated.

Repercussions –

Clause 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Testimony at the National Assembly codifies that government organizations should not refuse testimony or submission of documents due to executive confidentiality. However, if the disclosure of government secrets of military, diplomacy, and relations with North Korea affects national security, the government can refuse to offer the information after submitting a motion within five days after the inquiry.

While the government’s decision against the disclosure is legally grounded, it is impossible for the government to refuse to disclose information only for executive confidentiality. Also, it is not easy to articulate criteria for what affects national security.

“The law is limited to classified documents related to the military and North Korean relations,” said Rep. Na Kyeong-won of the Grand National Party. “It cannot be interpreted comprehensively. Rather, the law merely enumerates concrete restrictions.”

Rep. Park Jin and Rep. Chung Moon-hyun, the two GNP lawmakers who are at the center of the current controversy, said, “Choongmoo Plans and Operational Plan 5026 have been disclosed by the press or are available on the Internet.” While the Uri Party said, “The documents revealed by the two lawmakers are Category 2 state secrets.”

The problem is that clearance of secrets can be assigned to individuals according to the category, which leaves room for the government’s arbitrariness. Since classification is defined by such abstract wording as the possibility of endangering national security (Category 1), of severely undermining (Category 2), and damaging (Category 3), interpretation can be subjective.

Similar Cases in Other Countries –

“The Fair Trade Commission has refused to disclose some documents, citing its own security evaluations,” said Rep. Kwon Young-se of the GNP. “The FTC will not comply with requests for documents henceforth since Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan’s comments on the disclosure of secret documents the day before.”

In the U.S., lawmakers can review almost all government documents including those from the CIA. Once they review them, they are held accountable for the confidentiality of the documents. On October 9, 2001, about a month after 9/11, President Bush sent a memo to the GOP and Democratic Party leaders and the chair of the Intelligence Committee, requesting for restrictions on National Assembly access to classified information. He said irresponsible leaks of information by some lawmakers have put the U.S. soldiers’ lives in harm’s way.

However, there are few cases to completely shut down access to classified information as a state secret. “The ruling and opposition parties alike should need a sense of mission to defend what they are supposed to defend for the country,” said Prof. Kang Won-taek of Soongsil University. “It is not appropriate for the prime minister to refuse to disclose information as a way of targeting the opposition party.”

Young-Chan Yoon Seung-Heon Lee yyc11@donga.com ddr@donga.com