Ideological exclusion in Korea

Korea’s recent hosting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in Jeju Island was sadly marred by the government’s decision to quell legitimate debate by barring the entry of four foreign attendees suspected of being opposed to the construction of a controversial naval base at Gangjeong Village.

Those barred included three Japanese environmental activists who had been involved in protests of the U.S. military presence in Okinawa, as well as Dr. Imok Cha, who was sent back to the United States merely for carrying in her luggage an environmental impact statement that is critical of the proposed base.

These exclusions even led the IUCN to register its concern with the Korean government, as the IUCN Charter declares that “all persons entitled to attend the World Congress shall be admitted to that State without discrimination”.

Unfortunately, this distressing episode is not an isolated occurrence. In April of this year, Korea denied an entry visa to three Greenpeace activists who were taking part in an anti-nuclear energy campaign. In March, three U.S. peace activists were denied entry because of their views on the Jeju naval base.

In July 2011, three lawmakers and one professor from Japan were denied entry to Korea, where they had planned to visit Ulleung Island and, presumably, express views about Dokdo that the government did not want to hear.

Earlier, a Japanese professor who chairs a think tank on territorial issues was barred entry to Korea as well, presumably for his views on Dokdo as well. In November 2010, in the run-up to the Seoul G20 summit, six Filipino anti-poverty campaigners were turned away at the airport without explanation.

The civil society response to these decisions has been somewhat muted. There have been weak protests from the left when a progressive activist has been denied entry. Denial of entry to Japanese nationalists has not been controversial. Yet in each case, the government has been guilty of abusing its authority to exclude foreigners in order to control a political debate or quash entirely peaceful protests. Such actions are not necessary or beneficial to a free and healthy democratic society, even when ― especially when – the foreigner’s opinion is an unpopular one.

Of course, Korea is not the only country to deny visas based on political or ideological reasons. Ideological exclusion plays a prominent role in Chinese immigration policy ― as it does in most authoritarian states. The United States also has a long history of the practice; during the Cold War, visas were denied to many suspected of communist or left-wing sympathies, including Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pablo Neruda, Dario Po, and Nelson Mandela (just to name the Nobel Prize winners).

More recently, prominent Islamic scholars such as Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib have been denied entry, because of their alleged support for terrorist organizations. U.S. human rights activists have fought hard for the end of this practice, however, and they have been largely successful; the Obama administration has allowed entry to Ramadan and Habib, and seems to be moving towards ending the practice of ideological exclusion.

Legally, the practice of ideological exclusion in Korea occupies something of a grey area. Article 11 of Korea’s Immigration Control Act allows the Ministry of Justice to prohibit the entry of a foreigner for a number of different reasons, including where they are deemed likely to commit an act detrimental to the interests of the Republic of Korea or public safety, and when they are deemed likely to commit an act detrimental to economic or social order or good morals.

Whether these clauses are really broad enough to cover the denials we have been seeing over the past few years is an open question, unlikely to be addressed by the courts. While the National Human Rights Commission Act prohibits discrimination based on thoughts or political opinion, the list of covered acts has not been interpreted so as to cover the government’s immigration decisions.

From a policy perspective, however, there is no grey area. Ideological exclusion represents an offense to liberty and human rights that has no place in a free democracy such as Korea. The practice will negatively affect Korea’s image, and will make it less likely to be chosen to host major international conferences.

As a foreign resident, such exclusionary tactics are particularly troubling to me. If I criticize the Korean government or take part in a peaceful protest, will that put me in danger of having my visa application refused? At this point, it is hard to be sure. Although there is no denying that Korea, like all sovereign states, has a right to control its borders ― and a duty to prevent the entry of those intent on terrorism ― ideological exclusion is a blunt instrument that can be too easily abused for political purposes, and serves only to restrict freedom of expression.

It should not have a role in Korea’s immigration policy. <The Korea Times/Andrew Woman>

news@theasian.asia