Cho Sung-youn

 

Cho Sung-youn, a professor emeritus of Sociology at Jeju National University, was born in Seoul in 1954. Cho received his master’s and doctoral degrees in sociology from Yonsei University and joined the Department of Sociology at Jeju National University in 1985. At the university, he served as the Director of the Tamla Culture Research Institute, the Director of the Institute of Peace Studies, and the head of the Department of Sociology at the Humanities College. His other former titles include a co-representative of the Jeju Participatory Environmental Network and a board member of the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute, the Korean Sociological Association, and the Korean Academy of New Religions. Cho authored Soka Gakkai and Koreans Residing in Japan, The South Sea Islands: Occupation of Pacific Islands and Frustration by Imperial Japan, Koreans in the South Pacific Islands, and 1964: A Story of a Religion; co-authored Structure and Change of the Folk Beliefs in Jeju Island, The Stolen Period and the Stolen Times: A Story of the Jeju People, A Gift of Fatalistic Transition: A Story of the Korean Japanese Who Joined Soka Gakkai; and edited A Study on the Japanese Army on Jeju Island at the End of the Japanese Colonial Era and A Life on a South Pacific Island: A Memoire of a Korean Surnamed Matsumoto. The professor retired from teaching in February 2020 and is currently preparing articles on the memory of war and peace education, with the topics of the memory of the Battle of Okinawa, the South Pacific Islands, and the peace campaigns staged by Japan’s new religions.

The Jeju 4·3 Archive Exhibition: Traces That Became a Document” is being held in the Special Exhibition Room on the 2^nd floor of the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation. The archived show exhibits the documents, photos, books, video images, and news articles collected and held by the foundation, which were produced during Jeju 4∙3 or the process of uncovering the truth of the tragedy. Unfortunately, however, most of the Jeju 4∙3-related materials were destined to fail to exist despite the proud history of the historical event. This is because both the perpetrators of the massacres and the victims and their families had to burn even the last remaining piece of evidence to ash, the former trying to conceal their crime and the latter trying to avoid the false accusation of being communists. Given the scarcity of the documents, the original copy of The Written Decision on March 1 Protest (March 1 Statement) draws more attention. The March 1 Statement was distributed on March 1, 1947, during the ceremony commemorating the Samil (March 1) Independence Movement. The document is valuable in that it represents the starting point of Jeju 4·3 and the important points in history that determined the destinies of Jeju residents. I interviewed Cho Sung-youn, a professor emeritus of Sociology at Jeju National University, who donated the document to the foundation. – Editor –

 

Interview and arrangement by Cho Jung-hee, head of the Research and Investigation Team

Photography by Kim Yeong-mo, member of the Memorial Project Team

 

 

Cho Sung-youn visits Jeju 4·3 Archive Exhibition “Traces that became a document” held by the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation. Cho looks at The Jeju Resistance containing the materials he donated.

 

It is officially known that Jeju 4·3 began with the March 1 Incident of 1947. This seems to make your donation more significant.

I remember it was in 1986. I used to tell my students in my lectures: “You may have old documents in your house, such as your family relations register. As elderly people may not know what they are, don’t hand them over to street vendors or throw them away but keep them as your household documents.” One day, a student who kept it in mind brought to me a package of documents he had found at home. He was a student living in Samyang Village. He said that when he tore the roof off to repair the house, the package fell from the roof rafter! Looking at the package, I found some 4·3-related documents, such as the first draft of the South Korea Labor Party (SKLP) Code of Conduct, the March 1 Statement, and the minutes of preparatory meetings of the March 1 commemorative event. “These are historically important documents. Take them home and make sure you keep them carefully.” After listening to my explanation and suggestion, the student responded, “Prof. Cho, I can’t take the package back home because my father told me to take it away. I would like you to take it and decide what to do.” It was a time when people were not allowed to freely speak of Jeju 4·3, so I ended up just keeping it for several years. Then in 1990, I joined the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute as a board member. And I showed the documents to Hong Man-ki, the institute’s then Secretary-General. “Dr. Cho, will you just keep them for yourself?” To Hong’s question, I answered, “No, let’s open them to everyone.” Soon after we reached an agreement, the Secretary-General copied the text from the hard copy document by typing. Yang Han-kwon, a researcher who wrote papers on Jeju 4·3, took responsibility for annotations, while I reviewed and edited their works. That’s how the written copies were included in The Jeju Resistance, which is a book of Jeju 4·3-related documents published in 1991 by the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute. At the time, I expected that putting them in a book would be beneficial for the study of Jeju 4·3 because there was an influx of new researchers into the field, especially led by the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute. Honestly, it appeared that research on the SKLP would progress quickly. However, 30 years have passed since the release of The Jeju Resistance, and no researcher has studied the SKLP’s organization, other than Yang Jeong-shim, the head of the institute’s Investigation and Research Office, and Park Chan-shik, the institute’s former director. It is frustrating that the topic has not been studied more actively. Therefore, I recently decided to donate the entire original materials to the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation. Since the book has not been broadly used for reference, I wanted to propose another way to researchers. I expect the foundation to publicly post each page of the materials online so that anyone can easily access and view the documents. It is a good idea to have a special exhibition in the Jeju 4·3 Memorial Hall as is now, but another good way would be to open them online so that more people can see and use them, especially given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Cho Jeong-hee, the head of the Commemorative Project Team, interviews Prof. Cho Sung-youn.

 

Could you tell us about the most memorable document related to Jeju 4·3 you studied or collected?

It is the most regrettable that I failed to have Lee Woon-bang’s handwritten manuscript be published. One day in 1995, Kim Chang-hoo, the director of the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute, came to the office with a copy of Lee’s handwritten manuscript. We had a discussion and agreed to have the institute publish it as a book. I was in charge of organizing the manuscript. As I happened to go to the United States for research, I completed the work by typing while staying there. My plan was to publish a book in consultation with the author after my return to Korea. In February the following year, I received a phone call from the institute, asking for the typewritten manuscript because the institute had decided to publish Lee’s book soon. When I said, “We need to seek Lee’s approval first,” the institute’s researchers wanted to solve the issue by themselves. I sent the typewritten manuscript to them as they had requested. However, it turned out that they printed the book without finishing consulting with the author. From what I heard later, Lee had gotten angry because the institute edited his manuscript on its own. He said, “The manuscript is not exactly what I wrote.” Seeing the author express his anger, the institute had no choice but to discard all of the printed copies. Lee’s writing is so old-fashioned that it is very difficult to read. While typewriting his manuscript, I made minor changes to his sentences to make it easier to read. Although his keynote was not altered at all, the author regarded it as nothing better than a revision of his manuscript without his approval. We should have explained first as much as we could and asked for his understanding in advance. It was very disappointing that we had failed to do that. I tried to visit and talk to Lee after returning from the United States, but there was no way to solve the issue because he refused to see me. It was completely our fault. However long it would take, we should have persuaded Lee to publish the book, and further, we should have listened to him tell his life story and arranged his oral statement. Now that he passed away, we can no longer read or listen to any stories describing the situation around Jeju 4·3.

 

Although you are not from Jeju and taught at the university, you have been deeply involved in the so-called 4·3 bloc since the early 1990s. Any particular event that sparked your interest in the issue?

In 1981, when I was studying for a master’s degree, Japan’s Kokushokankokai Inc. (National Book Publishing) donated more than 100 books to the Institute of Korean Studies at Yonsei University. While I was organizing the books at the institute, Kim Bong-hyeon’s Bloody History of Jeju Island stood out. I thought to myself, “Bloody History? Why is the title so dreadful?” At first, it was simply because I was curious about it. I picked it up but it wasn’t easy to read because I wasn’t fluent at Japanese back then. Thinking that I would take time in reading it later, I left it at a copy place in front of my school for a photocopy. When I visited the shop again a few days later, the owner called somewhere. I got caught by an agent of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, who was in charge of Yonsei University. We met in a coffee shop near my school. When asked why I asked the shop to create a photocopy of the book, I honestly replied that the title “Bloody History” sounded so unusual and gruesome. I said that although I was unable to read it soon because of my little knowledge of Japanese, I asked for its photocopy, thinking I would read it someday. I was able to avoid punishment thanks to my statement that I didn’t know what it was about because of my lowest ability to use the Japanese. It was a close call. However, that incident was an opportunity for me to open my eyes on the Jeju 4·3 issues.

After getting my master’s, I decided to study further to get a PhD. Soon after joining the PhD program, I started giving lectures at Gyeongsang National University and Chonbuk national University. I was thinking of studying the Donghak Peasant Revolution for my doctoral dissertation, but I was soon hired as a full-time lecturer by Jeju National University. So, it occurred to me that I could give up my interest in the Donghak Pheasant Revolution and, instead, change my research topic to the one about the history of Jeju Island. For several years from the first semester of 1985, the subject I gave as a final assignment to my students taking Introduction to Sociology was “Social Change on Jeju Island and My Family History”. I instructed my students to listen to their grandparents tell the stories of their family and write the history of their respective families. I used to have about 120 students in the Introduction to Sociology, and two-thirds of them wrote about Jeju 4·3. The students’ grandparents were giving testimonies about Jeju 4·3, as if it had been agreed upon in advance. It came as a complete shock to me. Their testimony of Jeju 4·3 was extended to the stories of stowaways to Japan and those who settled there as Korean Japanese people. I said to myself, “Oh! This is Jeju Island!” That’s how I learned about Jeju 4·3.

 

To my knowledge, you used to lead peace education at the university, especially with a focus on Jeju 4·3. Now that you are retired, what are your thoughts and feelings about teaching students about Jeju 4·3?

Shortly after the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute was established in 1989, the institute’s inaugural member named Ko Chang-hoon asked me to join its Board of Directors. The inaugural members needed other researchers to join them, but most of all, he said they needed additional members who would pay a monthly membership fee of 30,000 won and help with the management of the institute. That’s how I became a board member. However, I had the idea that the director, representing the institute, must be a researcher from Jeju Island. Since the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute was not only a research group but also a group committed to social movements, it was necessary to actually meet the victims’ bereaved families in person. Rather than focusing on the activities of the institute, I spent more time engaging in civic groups and peace education with the topic of Jeju 4·3 at universities. This year marks the 73^rd anniversary of Jeju 4·3. Elementary, middle, and high schools seem to show significant changes, while I don’t feel any big difference in colleges. With the 70^th anniversary as an opportunity, a growing number of teachers have shown particular interest in 4·3 and worked hard to teach it to young students. But colleges, especially Jeju National University, are so behind the latest move that a professor who specializes in studying the Jeju 4·3 issues was only recently appointed. Of course, it is fortunate that lectures on Jeju 4·3 have been offered to a certain degree in the undergraduate and graduate schools. But I think more changes have to be made in the near future. What would be the reason for the slow move towards change in the education sphere, despite our hard work to resolve the Jeju 4·3 issues? This is because the Jeju 4·3 bloc has not shown much interest in teaching the kids about Jeju 4·3 and has not seriously considered how to systematically educate them. We have indeed concentrated our attention on enacting and revising the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, developing a state-published report on the investigation of the truth of Jeju 4·3, establishing the Jeju 4·3 Peace Park, and holding various commemorative events. “How could we properly teach the coming generations about Jeju 4·3 and pass the lessons to be learned from Jeju 4·3 on to them?” The time has come to systematically plan the educational system concerning Jeju 4·3.

 

What should we do to properly teach students about Jeju 4·3?

It’s very difficult to answer, but I think the investigation and research of Jeju 4·3 should be the priority. For this, it is most urgently needed to accurately provide data on Jeju 4·3 to researchers. It is important to investigate and collect the Jeju 4·3-related documents, such as the data held by the United States National Archives and Records Administration and the newspaper articles released during Jeju 4·3, as has been conducted by the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation. It needs to be done more systematically and continuously. The second is that we have collected the testimonials spoken by thousands of people who had experienced Jeju 4·3 in various institutions, organizations, and media. Are these testimonies being used properly for research purposes now? We need to have a system that can utilize the Jeju 4·3-related oral testimonials for research. The results of these two tasks should be archived and made available online. Based on this, both research and education will advance. From then on, the role of researchers becomes important. Different types of literature and testimonials related to Jeju 4·3 should be analyzed to derive various research findings. Furthermore, books and contents in diverse formats and types should be provided so that students and the public can easily understand them. And there, education on Jeju 4·3 takes place. We need to draw a comprehensive picture of investigation, research, and education.

 

Frankly, investigating and collecting data on Jeju 4·3 seems to be plausible to some extent if it is accompanied by a systematic plan and budget. However, isn’t it true that there have been voices for a long time that there is a shortage of 4·3 researchers?

What I really wanted to do when I was teaching in college was the Jeju 4·3 Researcher Incubation Project. I have had the question of how to foster graduate students, that is, master’s and doctoral students, as Jeju 4·3 researchers. So, I planned a three-year project that selects three students from among domestic and foreign graduate students each year to join the Jeju 4·3 Scholarship program. The students would receive a scholarship of 1 million won every month and would be required to write one article about Jeju 4·3 every semester. And their articles would be collected and published as a report on their research findings. Not only Jeju students, but also those students on the Korean mainland and in Japan, America, and Europe, would be invited to study together. Let’s say you have selected 30 students who will research Jeju 4·3 during their master’s or doctoral courses. Honestly, if only 10 of them grew to be Jeju 4·3 researchers, wouldn’t it be successful? If the project has been run for about 10 years and more researchers have joined the field of studying Jeju 4·3, wouldn’t it be possible to accumulate various research findings? And wouldn’t it naturally make it possible to realize the recognition of Jeju 4·3 on national and global scales? I used to have such expectations, although it ended as a plan in the end. Fortunately, however, the revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act allows the ensuing investigation into the Jeju 4·3 issues. If an investigation team is set up to conduct intensive investigations and research on Jeju 4·3 for several years, wouldn’t it be possible to naturally nurture new researchers in the process?

 

As you mentioned, with the amendment bill effective, the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation is to conduct additional investigations of the truth of Jeju 4·3. Any suggestions for us?

In 1993, the Jeju Provincial Council formed the 4·3 Special Committee and received damage claims caused due to Jeju 4·3. At the time, I was an advisor to the 4·3 Special Committee. An advisory committee meeting was held to collect claims for damage and develop a report, and that was the first time I was shocked. Some of the claims were made for the damage that the perpetrators of massacres had suffered, but most of the advisors wanted to delete those claims before releasing the report. Only two advisors including me raised the question, “Why are you taking out the perpetrators’ damage?” The rest of the advisory members said, “If you put it in now, it will cause a lot of trouble.” In the end, the report came out, with the claims concerning the damage on the perpetrators’ side completely. I lamented, “Oh! It is still difficult to resolve the Jeju 4·3 issues!” However, even when the Jeju 4·3 Special Act was first enacted in 2000, the focus remained only on the victims. Again, I deplored, “Oh! It has not changed at all!” And then, another 20 years have passed. Now, we have to draw the full image of Jeju 4·3, be it the damage caused to the victims or the damage the victimizers had suffered. Just because it is inconvenient to talk about it, we cannot just emphasize the one-sided damage, without identifying the perpetrators on both sides or investigating the activities of the armed guerilla forces. Only then will the legitimate name and historical evaluation of Jeju 4·3 be achieved.

Heo Ho-joon

Senior correspondent with The Hankyoreh

 

Greater role of Jeju 4·3 Working Committee and Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation expected as revision’s tangible impact yet to be felt by survivors and victims’ families

A rally for Jeju residents was held at Gwandeokjeong Square on March 5, 2021, welcoming the passing of the motion on the general amendment of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act.

 

Altered family registers need to be corrected Victims’ families still suffer despite the amendment

As of December 2019, the Committee on Discovering the Truth of Jeju 4·3 and Restoration of Honor to the Victims (hereinafter called “the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee”) recognized 14,442 people as Jeju 4·3 victims (14,533 victims recognized as of August 2021). Of the victims, those aged 10 or under and those over the age of 60 accounted for 24.9%. 53% of all villages on Jeju Island were destroyed by fire, and the number of those so-called “lost villages” that disappeared due to the scorched earth operations have been confirmed to reach 134 (Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation, “Jeju 4·3 Follow-up Investigations Report I”, 2019). The roots of life that had been passed down from generation to generation vanished, leaving tens of thousands of people displaced. The tragedy of Jeju 4·3 did not end with human and material damage.

The historical turmoil that swept over Jeju Island even shook and altered family relationships between the survivors and the deceased. Many orphaned children whose parents had been exterminated or had gone missing during Jeju 4·3 became sons and daughters of their father’s brothers and even their grandfathers. This resulted in cases where the relationships of fathers and their children were changed to those of siblings in the family relations register.

In another case, children who had been born without their parents’ marriage having been registered experienced the loss or missing status of either or both of their parents due to Jeju 4·3 and were re-registered as children of their surviving relatives. There is also a case of a survivor who is registered in her family relations register as being dead due to Jeju 4·3 instead of her younger sister, and lives under her dead sister’s name. These cases demonstrate how the bereaved families of Jeju 4·3 victims have lived for more than 70 years.

Correcting the twisted family relationships remains another “han” (pent-up anger and sorrow) of the victims’ families. In February 2021, the National Assembly passed the motion on the general amendment of the Special Act on Discovering the Truth of Jeju 4·3 and Restoring Honor to the Victims (hereinafter called “the Jeju 4·3 Special Act”). Expectedly, the bipartisan plenary decision would relieve the bereaved families’ pent-up anger and sorrow. The 73^rd Memorial Ceremony for the Victims of Jeju 4·3 was also held under the slogan of “The camellia flowers are now in full bloom.” (The fallen camellia flowers symbolize the Jeju 4·3 victims.) However, has the revision of the Jeju 4·3 Special Act blossomed the “camellia flowers” into full bloom as implied by the slogan? Has the pent-up anger and sorrow of the victims’ families been resolved?

 

On March 16, the Jeju District Court held the final retrial process concerning Jeju 4·3 convicts, who had to serve jail terms under false accusations due to unlawful courts-martial. The Association of the Bereaved Families of the Jeju 4·3 Victims, including the Jeju 4·3 convicts who had applied for their retrial, are gathered in front of the district court to chant hurrahs after the court’s judgement on the acquittal of the victims’ false charges was announced.

 

Province and diplomatic missions accepting applications for family relations register renewal but ‘bereaved families’ not eligible to make applications

The revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act and the resulting revised Enforcement Decree went into effect on June 24, 2021. With the revision now effective, the roles of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Working Committee on Discovering the Truth of Jeju 4·3 and Restoration of Honor to the Victims (hereinafter called “The Jeju 4·3 Working Committee”) have also increased. On July 26, the provincial government began to accept applications for preparing or correcting the family relations registers of Jeju 4·3 victims and for the recognition of missing people as victims. The application desk will be open year-round. The preparation or correction of victims’ family relations registers is available under Article 12 of the revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act (“Preparation of Family Relations Registers”). The article stipulates that where a person’s family relations register has not been prepared due to the misplacement of his or her family register during Jeju 4·3, or his or her family relations are incorrectly entered in the victim’s family relations register, the competent authorities may prepare the person’s family relations register or correct matters in the record thereof, according to the determination of the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee. Under the revised law, either the victims or their families may apply for the preparation or correction. However, the provision limited the eligibility of the preparation or correction to those who have been recognized as “Jeju 4·3 victims” by the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee. Victims’ bereaved family members remain ineligible. The provincial government stated that it is allowed to create a death record in the family relations registers of those deceased victims without such a record. It is also allowed to correct the date or place of a victim’s death whose death is recorded in his or her family relations register. The applicants should complete the Application Form for the Decision on Preparing/Correcting Victims’ Family Relations Registers, and submit the form along with other necessary documents, such as a copy of the victims’ Certificate of Removed Entries, by visit or post to the provincial or administrative city office or the competent eup, myeon, or dong-level Community Service Center. The applications are also accepted by the Association of Jeju Residents Overseas or the Republic of Korea’s diplomatic missions overseas.

The Jeju 4·3 Working Committee checks the facts concerning the applications and develops written opinions for each victim to request the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee for the deliberation and decision. After a supplementary investigation and a preliminary review by the related subcommittee, the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee makes a final deliberation and resolution at the plenary meeting. The results are then sent to the Jeju 4·3 Working Committee, which will inform the applicant of the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee’s decision. The applicant would submit the results and other relevant documents, along with the Application Form for the Preparation/Correction of Victims’ Family Relations Registers, at the competent city office or eup/myeon-level Community Service Center for final processing. This implies that the Jeju provincial government and the Jeju 4·3 Working Committee are to play a greater role under the revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act.

The problem would remain concerning the “bereaved families”. Those victims’ families who wish to correct their family relations registers have no means to realize their wishes. This is because the revised act limits the eligibility to the victims. The National Court Administration allegedly experiences difficulties handing the issue as no similar case exists in other laws on unresolved historical issues. A victim’s family member was born after the victim died during Jeju 4·3 and had her name entered in her father’s elder brother’s register. The bereaved daughter’s son said, “My mother is a victim’s family member but is not subject to the correction of her family relations register despite the latest amendment.” The passing of the revised bill “appeared to allow the correction of the incorrect family relations registers but only applies to victims with the Certificate of Removed Entries,” he complained. Another victim’s family member criticized that many people are disappointed with the amendment since it only allows the correction of the date or place of the victim’s death.

Likewise, the provincial government expresses frustration. A local government official said, “They have lived with pain already for 73 years and the issue needs to be settled.” The official explained that the local government plans to collect similar cases and appeal to the National Court Administration once again. “We are looking for ways to reflect the position of the victims’ families when supplementing the legislation,” he added.

 

Clause on ex officio retrials created but difficulties expected with enforcement

The latest amendment also enables retrials of the collective cases of those wrongfully convicted during the unlawful courts-martial, which used to have to be applied for individually by the “surviving Jeju 4·3 convicts” or families of deceased ones. A “special retrials” clause was newly added to the revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act, allowing the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee to recommend that the Ministry of Justice apply for the relevant ex officio retrials and allowed the ministry to make such an application following the recommendation. Approximately 2,530 people are recorded as convicted victims of unlawful courts-martial between December 1948 and July 1949, according to the relevant Court Martial Orders. The clause specifies that the Jeju provincial government and the Jeju 4·3 Working Committee will take responsibility for preparing and reviewing the documents needed for applications to ex officio retrials. The application requires the victims’ basic certificates such as the Certificate of Removed Entries, the Family Relations Register, etc. as well as data provided by the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee and data on prison sentences held by the National Archives of Korea. Field investigation on the facts is also necessary to confirm whether the subject and the victim are the same person. When the provincial government and the Jeju 4·3 Working Committee prepare and submit the documents, the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee will recommend the Ministry of Justice to request for an ex officio retrial. Then, the competent office of the Ministry of Justice (i.e. Jeju District Prosecutor’s Office) will develop guidelines and take measures accordingly.

With regard to the issue, the consultation with the Ministry of Justice has yet to reach an agreement because the ministry demands that the Jeju provincial government and the Jeju 4·3 Working Committee prepare and submit all of the required materials. Initially, the clauses on special retrials and ex officio retrials were included in the revised bill, following the suggestions by the Ministry of Justice. A local government official explained: “It is the provincial government’s position that according to the purpose of the legislation, the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee recommends a special retrial of all victims of the unlawful courts-martial. If the Ministry of Justice requests a fact-finding investigation or additional documents in applying for ex officio retrials, the provincial government will actively cooperate with it. We are still consulting with the Ministry of Justice, but it would not be easy to settle the issue.”

 

Finalizing court decision on missing victims to take 12-18 months

3,631 victims remain missing as of June 2021

Under Article 20 of the revised Jeju 4·3 Special Act (“Special Cases for Claims for Declaration of Disappearance), it is now possible to file a claim with the court for the declaration of disappearance on those who have been confirmed to be recognized as missing victims by the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee. If a superior court upholds the court’s declaration of disappearance, the claimant(s) may apply for the declaration of disappearance in accordance with the relevant laws. Those eligible for the declaration include those recognized as missing victims by the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee. As of late June, 3,631 people, or 25% of the total 14,533 victims, were confirmed as missing victims. Applications for the claims should be filed by the victims’ families. The applicants need to submit the Claim for the Declaration of Disappearance along with other necessary documents at the provincial or administrative city office or the competent eup, myeon, or dong-level Community Service Center. The Jeju 4·3 Working Committee checks the facts concerning the applications and develops written opinions for each victim to request the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee for the deliberation and the decision. After a supplementary investigation and a preliminary review by the related subcommittee, the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee makes a final deliberation and resolution at the plenary meeting. The Central Jeju 4·3 Committee then files with the competent court for the declaration of disappearance. The competent Family Court conducts fact-checking investigations and proceeds with public summons before finalizing the declaration of disappearance. The entire process is expected to take 12 to 18 months. After the confirmation, the Central Jeju 4·3 Committee will receive the results from the court and complete the report on the declaration of disappearance for each victim. The report will be submitted by the Jeju 4·3 Working Committee at the relevant eup, myeon, or dong-level Community Service Office for final processing.

 

On the rainy day of the 73^rd Memorial Ceremony for the Victims of Jeju 4·3, a victim’s family member visits the Headstone Monument Engraved with the Names of the Victims in the Jeju 4·3 Peace Park to pray for rest of the victims.

 

Lawsuits demanding affiliation to be filed individually; ensuing investigations scheduled for next year

Research contract signed on payment of consolation money for victims

As in the case mentioned above, a child who was born without his or her parents’ report of marriage or of whom either or both parents died due to Jeju 4·3 can file a claim demanding affiliation. Anyone whose parent(s) died during the turmoil of Jeju 4·3 is now eligible to file such a claim within two years from June 24 when the revised act goes into effect. In a case where the deceased parent has been declared missing, his or her child can start the lawsuit within two years from the application for the declaration of disappearance. However, the lawsuits demanding affiliation can only be filed individually by the child concerned.

Additionally, the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation is taking steps to undertake the ensuing investigations, which will be conducted from January 2022 to December 2024.

The current law and enforcement decree are insufficient to provide the “consolidation money” to the victims, which is the money paid for compensation and indemnification. There remain many issues to be settled, including the amount of the consolidation money, the recipients, and the procedures and methods of payment such as lump sum or installment payments. The Ministry of Public Administration and Security has signed a contract with an external institute for research on the payment of the consolidation money, which started in February 2021 and will continue for six months until Aug. 21 the same year. After the research, supplementary legislation is expected to follow, detailing the amount of the consolidation money, the decision-maker on the payment, the procedures concerning the payment, and the relationship of the clause with inheritance-related clauses under the Civil Act.

While the original Jeju 4·3 Special Act legislated in January 2000 focused on the “revelation of the truth of Jeju 4·3” and “communal compensation”, the latest revision puts more weight on “individual compensation” and “substantive restoration of honor to the victims”. However, it remains to be seen whether or not the amendment will become “a milestone for a just resolution of the unresolved historical issues”.

Book Review for “Jeju 4·3 Questioning the United States”

Jeju 4·3, Questioning the United States Once Again

 

By publishing the book “Jeju 4·3, Questioning the United States,” author Huh Ho-joon successfully reconstructed and analyzed the causality of the affluent primary data. His elaborate exploration and argumentation on the proving data revealed the facts and traces of the U.S. intervention in Jeju 4·3. The book is the outcome of harmonizing his reportorial expertise as a fact-pursuing journalist and his academic aptitude as a scholar with a Ph.D. in political science.

Park Chan-shik
Historian, Former Advisor for Jeju 4·3 Incident Investigation Report

 

 

Work elaborated through his journey of life

“Jeju 4·3, Questioning the United States,” written by Huh Ho-joon, a senior staff writer with The Hankyoreh, is the first book to comprehensively analyze the relationship between Jeju 4·3 and the United States, and was published to mark the 73^rd anniversary of the tragic event. The author focused on verifying the correlation between the U.S. intervention and the massacres of Jeju residents in the progression of Jeju 4·3, starting from the May 10 General Election to establish the South-side government in Korea. The book systematically arranged by each phase of Jeju 4·3 to address how the United States perceived and responded to Jeju 4·3 in the Cold War context, what efforts the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) put forth for the success of the May 10 General Election on Jeju Island, and what was the level of response by the USAMGIK after the election failed on the island as well as by the Korean Military Advisory Group (KMAG) and the American Mission in Korea (AMIK) after the establishment of the Republic of Korean government.

The author has covered Jeju 4·3 in numerous articles through his long career as a journalist and has also organized a special report on Jeju 4·3 issues. His experience related to Jeju 4·3 goes beyond the media world, in an even more diverse fashion. While working for the Jeju 4·3 Research Institute, the nation’s only private-sector research group on Jeju 4·3, the author in 2000 and 2001 undertook translating and publishing collections of U.S. documents related to Jeju 4·3. After starting his postgraduate program, he focused on revealing the correlation between Jeju 4·3 and the United States through his master’s thesis in political science. His doctoral dissertation broadened the horizon of research topics on Jeju 4·3 to the globe through a comparative study of Jeju 4·3 and the Greek Civil War. Moreover, he fully utilized his linguistic ability for the study, incessantly searching for data on the Internet and exchanging emails with those in the United States who are believed to have been involved in the Jeju 4·3 issues. In 2001, he finally went to the United States to meet and interview those who served as KMAG officials for the 9^th Regiment of South Korea’s National Defense Guard on Jeju Island (NDG Jeju 9^th Regiment) during Jeju 4·3. He also secured valuable research documents, such as operation logs and photographs. Needless to say, the book was born from extensive work by the author who devoted much of his life’s journey to exploring Jeju 4·3.

 

Col. Rothwell H. Brown (left) shakes hands with Lt. Gen. John Hodge, commander of the US Forces in Korea.

Written with a perspective of journalist and scholar

By publishing the book, Huh successfully reconstructs and analyzes the causality of the affluent primary data. His elaborate exploration and argumentation on the proving data revealed the facts and traces of the U.S. intervention in Jeju 4·3. The book is the outcome of harmonizing his reportorial expertise as a fact-pursuing journalist and his academic aptitude as a scholar with a Ph.D. in political science.

The author discovered countless new documents while writing this book. One of the documents states that during a meeting of the USAMGIK leadership held on May 5, 1948, on Jeju Island, Maj. Gen. William F. Dean, USAMGIK military governor, and Jo Byeong-ok, commissioner of South Korea’s National Police Agency, issued an “indiscriminate killing order.” He also discovered a document that proves U.S. President Harry Truman and U.S. congressional leaders were aware of the killing of countless Jeju residents. Other proving documents include the memoir that Song Yo-chan, commander of the NDG Jeju 9^th Regiment, wrote about the anti-guerrilla warfare, various media articles from the United States and other foreign news outlets, and a considerable amount of digital materials obtained through Internet searches. This data was not cited when developing the Jeju 4·3 Incident Investigation Report in 2003, and they are highly valuable for revealing the United States’ intervention and responsibility regarding Jeju 4·3. Additionally, the author introduced in the book photographs, the NDG Jeju 9^th Regiment operational logs, and oral testimonies from former KMAG members whom the author met in person in the United States in 2001 and contacted via email in 2007.

This book is a masterpiece with in-depth analysis and logical causality, centering on important data. The correlation between Jeju 4·3 and the United States was revealed clearly in this book through cross-analysis of previously cited documents as well as newly discovered ones. The essence of the book would be the revelation of the intervention by Lt. Gen. John Hodge, commander of the U.S. Forces in Korea (USFK), in particular his deployment of Col. Rothwell H. Brown to Jeju Island with orders to command hardline counterinsurgency operations. Brown’s dispatch occurred immediately after the May 10 General Election but discussion of sending him to Jeju began from the Peace Negotiations late in April and progressed to the USAMGIK leadership meeting on May 5. The book reconstructed the overall plot of Jeju 4·3 by conceiving the United States as a central axis, thus sufficiently revealing the U.S. intervention and responsibility.

The chapter titled “Jeju 4·3 and the US: A Daily Log” allowed for a better understanding of the United States intervention in Jeju over time. The chapter sufficiently heightens the academic value and credibility of the book by additionally presenting high-resolution original photo copies of ordered indexes and detailed endnotes, and the records of interviews with former KMAG officials. However, the first part of the book could provide an overview and commentary that outline the types of Jeju 4·3-related U.S. materials, characteristics of those authorities who produced them, and the system, locations, and holders of the documents.

 

The photo “U.S. Naval Base Headquarters Question Contact Persons with Mountain People” was released in the Aug. 7, 1948, edition of Kookje Shinmun. U.S. officers talk with people dispatched from the armed guerilla forces during peace negotiations between NDG Jeju 9^th Regiment Commander Kim Ik-ryeol and armed guerilla forces Commander Kim Dal-sam.

Jeju 4·3, questioning the United States once again

The author himself acknowledged the limits of the book that the truth has yet to be revealed. He commented that the undiscovered documents and photographs include: the inspection report of the March 1 police shooting written by the USAMGIK Special Inspection Office, the documents of the USAMGIK written in response to the peace negotiations between the NDG Jeju 9^th Regiment and the armed guerilla forces, the meeting minutes of the Jeju provincial leadership dated May 5, 1948, and the documents concerning the martial order and/or the scorched earth operations issued by the U.S. Department of State or the USAMGIK. Particularly, the author confessed that the book lacks the accounts of U.S. responsibility due to the decisive materials showing the U.S. intervention in the period of scorched earth operations still missing.

The author also wrote in the header, “I failed to show a deeper insight into the relationship between Jeju 4·3 and the United States beyond revealing the historical data, and it is because of my own limits.” Understandably, describing Jeju 4·3 with a focus on the surface of the U.S. materials will likely miss out on the hidden facts that could be found in the original meaning or connection with other historical materials. The book would be even more persuasive if historical methods were more carefully employed concerning the criticism of historical materials, causality, and perspectivism, as emphasized by historians.

A more challenging and bold analysis and description is required concerning hardline policies before and after the failed May 10 General Election, the 15,000 victims of the scorched earth operations, the USFK report on the plan for massacres using the NDG Jeju 9^th Regiment (“Program of mass slaughter among civilians”). He could also address the claims such as the “invisible hand” theory, the “scarecrow” theory, and even the statements by report developers that mismatched their writings. It is also necessary to actively interpret individual data based on the clear premise that all operational responsibilities of the South Korean constabulary forces, which were structured by the USAMGIK and the KMAG, must ultimately belong to the United States. Noticeably, the book cited materials that consistently used the term “15,000 victims,” although written at different times. The author should not bear the legal and academic burden concerning the approaches to uncover confidential data and determine the responsibility of the United States. The Jeju 4·3 Committee fact-finding team visited the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) of the United States in 2001 but failed to obtain 4·3-related confidential documents that they had checked on the list of documents and records held by NARA. In 2019 when the investigation team of the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation visited again, it turned out the materials remained undisclosed for more than 70 years and the documents were still refused to be declassified. This proves that there are still realistic and practical limitations in identifying the extent of the United States intervention in Jeju 4·3. It is difficult to expect that the U.S. materials, which were not revealed even in public investigations by the South Korean government or the Jeju 4·3 Peace Foundation, will be discovered through individual efforts. Hopefully, such public efforts will be resumed in line with the ensuing legal investigation concerning the Jeju 4·3 Special Act, which was completely revised this year.

A more active discovery of confidential data and a bold interpretation that more clearly defines the responsibility of the United States will be the mission given not just to the author but also to public institutions and private Jeju 4·3 researchers. Therefore, I dare to expect the author and other researchers to question the United States, just as in the book “Jeju 4·3, Questioning the United States.”