[Editorial] National Defense Law Repeal Should Not Be Pushed

The ruling Uri Party set its party policy to push for the repeal of the National Defense Law, and suggested three plans to supplement the criminal law and one plan for an alternative legislation. However, if these measures are no different from a virtual repeal of the defense law, there is danger of a security vacuum. In consideration of public opinion, which regards it as significant to maintain the law, and security concerns, a cautious approach is necessary in the contents and form of an amendment.

The ruling party asserts, “Four plans were suggested to make a flawless safety net for national security while eliminating factors violating human rights.” If that is the aim, the party policy should have been to “retain,” not “repeal” the law with amendments. It seems the ruling party is leaning towards the defense law being absorbed and integrated into the criminal law, but North Korea is not a foreign nation to us. If it is also considered inappropriate to view the North as an unjustified anti-government insurgent group, then a separate legislation to address North Korea’s harmful acts undermining national security would be best.

North Korea is collectively a partner of dialogue and exchange and a hostile force threatening our security. The nation is suspected of developing nuclear weapons and is threatening our capital, Seoul, with its long-distance artillery. The contradictory inter-Korean relations of hostility and exchange should not be viewed only as a relationship of exchange. In this aspect, the four propositions provided by the ruling party seem to be a “loose net” with too many clauses removed.

The past dictatorial regimes that violated human rights by taking advantage of the National Defense Law have crumbled. A legislative move, bordering on legal disarmament, should not take place on the grounds of concerns regarding human rights infringements committed in the past. The ruling party says it is considering naming the alternative legislation the Special Law for National Security, but this is little more than switching some words of the previous name. The Uri Party should consider if it is not too possessed by the notion that the law must be repealed.

As the opposition parties have stated their willingness to amend problematic clauses, a measure that can put the public’s security concerns to rest should be drawn up. It would be desirable for the ruling and opposition parties to reach a consensus on specific clauses and gain public support in amending the National Defense Law. The repeal of the law should not be pushed forward.