Save Jeju Now

No War Base on the Island of Peace

  • Home
  • About
    • History
    • 4 Dances of Gangjeong
    • 100 Bows
    • Appeal
    • Partners
    • Board
  • Blog
    • All Posts
    • Petitions
    • Arrests & Imprisonmentuse for all things related to arrests and imprisonment
    • IUCN WCC 2012
      • Appeals & Statements
      • Gangjeong-Related Schedule
      • International Action Week, Sept. 2-9
      • Motion
      • Special Edition Newsletter for the WCC 2012
  • Gallery
    • #7 (no title)
    • #8 (no title)
    • #6 (no title)
  • Press
  • Support
    • Act
    • Donate
    • Visit
  • Downloads
    • Monthly Newsletter
    • Environmental Assessments
    • Reports
  • Language switcher

Category: English

For Posts in English


  • Summary on the matter of entry denial against internationals, Regarding the issue of the Jeju naval base project: : Report as of Oct. 3, 2012

    Re-post from here

    Toshio
    Photo sent by Toshio Takahashi (For more photos, click here)
    ‘In the afternoon on the 5th of September 2012, I and two of my friends, Mr. Masahiro Tomiyama and Mr. Eiji Tomita, were prohibited entry into Republic of Korea (ROK) at the Incheon International Airport.’ (source)

     

    Update:  April 24, 2013, Wang Yu-Hsuan (Taiwan), 21st subject to be denied entry to Korea, in relation to the Jeju naval base project. Since the inauguration of Park Geun-Hye government, she is the 2nd human rights defender to be deported after Ban Hideyuki, Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, Japan, on April 19, 2013.(see here)

    Update: [Korea Times, Feb. 22] Greenpeace Seoul director denied entry for nearly one year

    Update: Dec. 12, 2012 Greenpeace nuclear activists sue South Korean government on Dec. 10

    Update: [IUCN letter to Dr. Imok Cha, Nov. 13, 2012] IUCN so regrets the decision for The ROK governmentnot not to allow Dr. Imok Cha (Fwd) : CLICK HERE

    Update: A Japanese peace activist has been denied entry at the Gimpo Airport, Seoul, on Oct. 16, 2012 when he was to visit his sick friend. Mr. Koto Shoji has visited Gangjeong last year and has written an article on it in the magazine named “Power of People’.With his forcefully denied entry, the total numbers of people who have been denied entry, related to the Jeju naval base project have become at least 20. 3 of them have been repeatedly denied entries.

     

    ………………………………………………………………

    The below summary is primarily based on the Korean summaries here and here. Please come by later for any fix, revision or update. ( See the original post here)

     

    Summary on the matter of entry denial against internationals,
    Regarding the issue of the Jeju naval base project

    : Report as of Oct. 3, 2012

     

    (1) Preface

    On Sept. 25, 2012, PSPD (People’s Solidarity for Peace and Democracy) issued a press release that the ROK government denied to make public the reasons of entry denial against the targeted internationals. See the Korean document here and summary of it in No. (2).

    The numbers of international activists who were denied entry to Korea, related to the Jeju naval base project have been at least 15 from Aug. 26, 2011 to June 29, 2012. See the Korean document here.

    However, it was not precedent that as many as 9 people were denied entry to Korea and deported during the WCC period (Sept. 6 to 15, 2012), beginning with Dr. Cha Imok on Sept. 3. Therefore the numbers of entry denial related to the Jeju naval base project have become at least 24. See the Korean document here.

    Please see No. (5) for the details of list of the internationals who were denied entry from Aug. 26, 2011 to Sept. 6, 2012.

    Among 24, it is still uncertain whether two Nigerians who were denied entry on Sept. 6 had the will against the naval base. 3 of 9 people had to go through repeated entry denials (Yagi Ryuji, a Japanese peace activist, Tomiyama Masahiro, an Okinawa peace activist and Umisedo Yutaka, an Okinawa musician)

    During the period of the WCC co-sponsored by the IUCN, at least two people were official IUCN nation representative or member and four people carried the invitation letters and identity certification letter from a ROK National Assembly woman.

    Even though excluded of two Nigerians and repeated entry denial numbers, the international personnel who have been denied entry to Korea then deported, related to the Jeju naval base project currently enforced in the Gangjeong village, despite the opposition by the majority of villagers, have become at least 19 from Aug. 26, 2011 to Sept. 6, 2012 (One Korean American, three from the United States and 15 from Japan and Okinawa)

    It should be noted that it is a matter of serious human rights violation internationally committed by the current Lee Myung-Bak government, Republic of Korea, which disrespects the UN human rights chapter and other international agreements, as well as domestic laws and regulations. Above all, it was confirmed that the government has made and is operating a black list against some internationals. The suspicion on the police’s illegal information collection on the foreigners in the Gangjeong village is also being raised. (See (4)-14).

    Further international investigation should be earnestly looked for regarding this matter so that constructive and positive measures should come out.

    This report is merely a summary and we hope any concerned Korean associated groups or international institutes pay attention to this matter and work on it.

    Any corrections and added facts will be updated here.

    Gangjeong village international team

    ……………………………………………………………………………

     

    (2) PSPD Press Release on Sept. 25, 2012

    According to the PSPD press release on Sept. 25, titled, the “Government being consistent not to make public the reasons of entry denial on international activists,” the Ministry of Justice has sent one page reply on Sept. 18 to the 7 page open inquiry letter by the PSPD on the entry denial of international activists on Sept. 6. See here.

    In summary, the PSPD press release reads that: 1.The basis of information collection to prohibit the entry of overseas activists for the reasoning of “past works” is opaque, 2. The ambiguous basis to prohibit the entry of the overseas activists does not fit to the international human rights standard.

    The Ministry of National Justice saying that “the foreigners who have been denied entry to Korea were judged to ‘deem likely to commit any act detrimental to national interests of the Republic of Korea or public safety, in the reflection of their past works,” totally refused replies to the inquires. It said “The entry denial measure to specific foreigners is the nation’s sovereign discretionary act and in case when its detailed contents are to be known, there is concern that there might occur foreign diplomatic matter or trouble in the government institutes’ activities to protect the national interest.”

    The PSPD Press release reads that:

    “To prohibit the entry of overseas activists without clear basis is a violation of the UN Human Rights statement that states that ‘everyone has the right individually or in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels’ ( *article 1 of the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UN) and of the agreement on the civic political rights that prohibits dealing with citizens as potential criminals.

    Claiming that the Lee Myung Bak government is infringing the freedom on the peaceful rally and assembly by the international human rights defenders who take opposing opinion against the government, the PSPD says it will make public opinion on the issue of oppression on the international activists through the examination on the Universal Periodic Review on human rights in coming October.
    ……………………………………………………………………………

     

    (3) Noticeable points of the human rights violation by the South Korean immigration office

     

    1. The Korean Immigration Office’s entry denial of some internationals regarding the Jeju naval base project has been earnestly practiced since August, 2011.

    Case: On Aug. 26, 2011, when an entry-denied Japanese peace activist asked when she has become the subject of entry denial to Korea, a Korean immigration office replied her it was since August, [2011]. See AWC (Asian Wide Campagn)_Japan statement on Aug. 28, here.

    2. Internationals are denied entries merely for the fact that they have visited the Gangjeong village ‘for tour,’ in the past or merely for the Immigration Office’s ‘presumption’ that they might visit the village.

    Case 1: Nakamura Sugae who was denied entry along with her college student daughter on March 26, 2012, says, “Regarding my visit to the Gangjeong village, Jeju, I have dropped by a village and talked with villagers for a short time on my way of group tour last August, which was guided by my daughter who was an exchange student in a Korean traditional medical college in Daeku then. That was all. I haven’t joined protest but wanted to learn one another there. [The entry denial] is totally nonsense. [..] Further the visit this time was to drop by the Daejeon-Choongchung nam-do province, nothing to do with the Jeju.” She has applied the visa to the Korean Consulate in Japan again on July 31 to visit the Independence Museum, Cheonan in Choongchung nam-do on Aug. 22. However, despite her appeal to cancel the entry prohibition measure against her, she saying that she ‘would never visit the Jeju Island, she did not receive any reply from the Consulate even after 9 days. It was found later that she had been labeled as the ‘[Korea]-entry-prohibited,’ by the Lee Myung-Bak government.

    Case 2: On June 15, Arime Yuuri (25), an Okinawa peace activist, was denied entry. She had visited Gnagjeong with an Okinawa Broadcasting Co. for a short time. But it is told that she had not planned to include the visit to Gangjeong this time. She just wanted to watch the Korean baseball game and to meet her friends in Korea. (See here)

    3. The Korean Immigration Office openly expresses that it denies their entry for the reason that they have visited the Gangjeong village in the past. The reasoning is nothing to do with their visit purpose at their entry-denied time.

    Case: Nakamura Sugae stated on March 29, 2012, through her phone interview with the Ohmynews, a Korean independent media, that “an immigration officer in the entry-checking desk of the Busan International Terminal said that I, [Nakamura], cannot enter Korea since I had visited the village last August therefore violated the Korean law.” It should be noted that there is no legal basis that visiting the village is the violation of Korean laws. Further Nakamura had no purpose to visit the village in the Jeju Island but to visit the Choongchung South Province for tour and forum purpose on March 27, 2012 when she was denied entry to Korea, along with her college student daughter. (Please see here.)

    4. Some of the entry denied internationals were labeled from the outset as the ‘entry-prohibited,’ by the Korean government.

    Case 1: On its July 2, 2012 statement, AWC_Japan stated that as many as 7 of its members and their family members seem to have been labeled as the ‘entry-prohibited’ to Korea by the Korean government. See here.

    Case 2: On Sept. 5, Toshio Takahashi got the words from the Korean Immigration Officer that “you are applicable to the entry-prohibition. I don’t know the reason. The Ministry of Justice has just contacted us so you should exit out of the country, when he was denied entry in the Incheon airport on the day.’ (Toshio Takahashi’s letter to the Hankyoreh, Sept. 9, 2012) See here.

    5. The entry-denial is being suspected to be practiced under the international mutual cooperation by the individual government institutes.

    Case 1: The AWC_Japan statement on July 2 reads that the Japanese and South Korea police have exchanged information on the targeted subjects for the entry-denial before an international conference. See here.

    Case 2: When Tarak Kauff, Eliott Adams, and Mike Hastie were met by South Korean authorities when they landed on Jeju Island [or in the departure airplane to it], the ‘South Korean authorities had a photo of each of them in their hands and told them they would not be allowed to enter Jeju Island.’ See here.

    6. Sometimes the visa procedures are intentionally delayed to the obstruction of entry.

    Case: On Jan. 28, a representative of BAYAN, Philippine was frustrated to enter Korea since the Korean Immigration Office had prolonged the issuing of visa for him and had not eventually issued the visa until the planned day. See AWC_Japan’s Jan. 30 statement, here.

    7. There is neither a reasonable explanation, nor a letter-form notice but irresponsible answer that the entry-denied internationals should hear the reasons in the overseas Korean Embassy or Consulates.

    Case 1: On Jan. 27, 2012, an immigration officer said to Ikeda Takane, Secretary of AWC_Japan, that “you have become the subject of entry-prohibition since you oppose the Korean government policy.” (See here)

    Case 2: On March 31, 2012, a colleague of Yagi Ryuji, a Japanese peace activist inquired to the Immigration office why Yagi was denied entry on the day. The only reply he got was that “You know well.” (See here)

    8. Lie is used for the reasoning of entry denial.

    Case: The Korean immigration office denied entry of Dr. Cha Imok on Sept. 3, 2012. One of the main reasons that the Office took was that Dr. Cha had joined rally in the Washington D. C. However, it was confirmed that Dr. Cha has never joined it. Her home is in California, far from the Washington D. C. ( See the Commentary by the National Organizing Committee for Opposing the Jeju Naval Base Project, on Sept. 7 (here) and Ohmynews interview with Dr. Cha on Sept. 12 (here)

    9. The Korean Immigration Office denies the subject of the chance to file for a different opinion. Further it lies to the subject that there is no such chance.

    Case: The AWC_Japan statement on Aug. 28, 2011 reads: ‘When two members of AWC-Japan, who were denied entry on Aug. 26, 2011 asked the ROK Immigration workers, “Please let us informed of the way since we want to file a different opinion to the ROK Minister of Justice,” the workers replied to them that, “there is no such way. You cannot but return back to your country,” and “ask to the ROK embassy or Consulate in Japan after your return.” However it was a big lie. During the talk with them, one of the two members had a chance to talk with a lawyer of the KCTU (Korean Confederation of Trade Unions) who said the two can report on different opinion. It means the ROK, Republic of Korea, the democratic country, robs of even a chance for opposing opinion, hides and even lies on it. Isn’t it an infringement on human rights done by the workers of the Japanese Immigration Office as well?”

    10. The Korean Immigration Office demanded signs to the entry-denied internationals that they should return back to their countries with their own money according to the immigration law.

    Case: On Aug. 26, 2012, the Korean Immigration Office demanded Sakoda Hideumi(46), his son(6) and Yamaguchi Yukiko(56, woman), coordinator of west regional branch of AWC, that they should do such signs. The two AWC-Japan members refused to sign it. (See here)

    11. The Korean Immigration Office brought in a private airplane company worker as a translator.

    Case: The AWC_Japan and Korea, Jeju Regional branch of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and Pan-Island Committee for the Stop of Military Base and for Realization of Peace Island say in its Aug. 28 statement regarding the entry denial of two AWC_Japan members on Aug. 26 that “the conversation between the two members and Immigration Office workers were processed through a Korean translator. The Immigration Office employed K, an Asiana airplane co. worker as a Japanese translator, since there was no person who could speak Japanese among the Immigration Office workers. K did not precisely deliver but summarized the two members’ words. Sometimes K mixed one’s own subjective viewpoint or opinion in doing that. It was a clear example of how the Korean government considers the human rights of international people.’ (See here)

    12. The Korean Immigration Office dared to commit detention and forceful repatriation.

    Case1: According to a report by Heo Young-Ku, representative of the AWC_Korea, Ikeda Takae, Secretary of International dept., AWC_Japan who was denied entry on Jan. 27 , 2012, stated as the below:
    When I was in the waiting room (around 5:50pm), two men who self-claimed ‘Korean Airline workers,’ came to me. One spoke Japanese well. Even though they used polite words in the beginning, saying, ‘you might return back to Japan by a 7pm airplane,’ their words gradually became oppressive. That is why I became to know they are NOT the Korean airline workers. They looked like the airport police. When I said to them, “I will not return back to Japan, allow me to enter Korea,” they and Immigration Office workers tried to cheat me, saying, “There is a room where you can sleep in the upper floor so let’s move to there.” When I rejected them, Immigration Office worker(s) were trying to drag me. It was very forcing. I resisted hanging to chair. Later, so called a ‘Korean Airline worker’ who speak Japanese threatened me saying, ‘You should return back to Japan. If you persist, we should call the police.” It repeated many times then around 6:30pm, four more workers joined the ‘Korean Airline worker,’ therefore total six people grabbing my two arms, two legs and two armpits, forcibly dragged me from the office. Even though I protested in loud voice, very strongly resisting, they rook me toward a bus to an airplane, with my body being lifted in the air (except for the elevator time). Finally they forcefully boarded me in an airplane KE 721 around 7pm then took me a forced deportation. (See here)

    Case 2: It is told that Yamaguchi Yukiko has been under detention in the Jeju airport when she made a sit-in in protest for 3 days since she was denied entry on Aug. 26, 2011. She was forcefully deported on Aug. 28. She was also demanded to pay her own meals during the sit-in (See here)

    Case 3: It is told that Mike Hastie, a member of the Veterans for Peace, United States, was forcefully dragged out from a plane to Jeju in 10 minutes he boarded in and detained in the room of the Korean Immigration Office.

    # On the same day, Benjamin Monnet (32), a French citizen who had been falsely charged for his activities opposing the naval base project was forcefully relocated to the detention center for foreigners in Hwaseong, Gyunggi province (He was forcefully and inhumanly deported soon under the injunction order) and Angie Zelter(61), a UK citizen and a Nobel Peace laureate has also gotten order of exit from the Korean Immigration Office for her activities to stop the base project.

    Case 4: Toshio Takahashi who was denied entry along with two others on Sept. 5, 2012: ‘Officials from the immigration and Asiana Airlines ordered me and my friends to get on the Asiana OZ-136 plane departing at 5.20pm for Fukuoka. We were forcefully dragged out of the immigration office by six or seven male officials. Our passports were returned once they confirmed our identifications on board.’ (See here)

    13. A series of infringement on human rights violation and inhuman deeds have been done. One of them is finger print, taking photos of faces etc.

    Case 1: On the 5th of September, three of us left the Naha International Airport by Asiana Airline OZ-171 at 12.40pm, and arrived at the Incheon International Airport around 2.45pm. We showed our passports for a visa approval in front of immigration window. However, the immigration official turned his head, looked at the computer screen, and then asked us to go to the immigration office while handing us back passports. Two female officials were at the immigration office, and one of them asked again for passports from each of us, collected finger-prints from hands, and took photo of faces. (See here )

    Case 2: For Dr. Cha Imok, it has not even been allowed to meet her elderly parents(90 and 88 years old)
    See the note on Sept. 3 here.

    Case 3: Japanese peace activists who entered the Incheon airport at 2:40 pm, Sept. 5, were carrying the invitation letter and identity certification issued by Jang Hana, member of the Democratic United Party. They demanded the related authority to explain them persuasive reasons for their entry denial and expressed their opinions that they would stay in the airport until the next day morning since Jang’s Office was looking for the solution. However, they were forcefully deported via an airplane to Japan at 5:20pm.
    (Commentary by the National Organizing Committee, Sept. 7. See here.)

    One of them was Toshio Takahashi from Okinawa who said he cannot accept that the Korean Immigration Office would send him to a site apart from Okinawa and demanded that he want to hear the entry-denial reason from the ROK Ministry of Justice. He says, “I insisted that being deported back to cities far from my original departure is not acceptable. Also, I added that the Ministry of Justice should inform us in a letter explaining the reason of forbidding our entry into the country and demanded for Japanese interpreter. But the employee from Asiana Airlines simply dismissed my requests and said this is the “Korean system”, which was by no means convincing answer.’ (See here.)

    Jang Hana, the National Assembly woman complained later. ‘I contacted an Immigration Officer in the airport to see one of those denied entries, saying that ‘I invited them and I want to apologize them.’ But [the Immigration Office] intentionally moved up his air plane schedule at 6:05pm while it was possible that he could return back by 7:30pm airplane. (Jang’s interview on Sept. 10)

    14: It was confirmed that the government black list exists. Suspicion is also raised that there is an illegal investigation against the foreigners.

    Case 1: The fact of visiting Gangjeong village is merely a personal activity and it does not even remain in the official record. Still the thing that the Korean authority denies entry against the foreigners for the reason of “visiting to the Gangjeong village,’ is a certain proof that illegal investigation on the foreigners by government institute is being done. (Jang Hana’s commentary on Sept. 6)

    Case 2: Jang Hana, a member of the Democratic United Party said that persons who have never visited the village are included among the entry-denied international activists. It means that not only routine investigation on the international activists by the Lee Myung Bak government is being done but also a black list exists.[..] It is an example of infringement on human rights that the government ignored the recommendation of the nation human rights committee that says it to positively protect the human rights of the foreigners who were denied entries. (Commentary by the National Organizing committee on Sept. 7)

    Case 3: A person of the Ministry of Justice stated that it ‘is making and operating a list of foreigners who violates national interest or are threat to safety.” But he/she did not tell at all on the specific standards on the prohibition of entry denial. (Hankyoreh article, Sept. 10, that introduced a letter by Toshio Takahashi)

    Case 4: ‘There is a common point of people who were denied entries. They are the people who have made solidarity with the Gangjeong village, with personal or group purpose. A suspicion is raised that illegal information collection by the police has even been applied to the foreigners in the Gangjeong village, given that personnel who came personally are in the government list for entry control.’ ( Kim Mi-Hwa’s interview with Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, on Sept. 10)

    Case 5: ‘The immigration office workers openly say that “we know that you have worked in the Gangjeong village. We know what you have done entering Korea. And you are in the black list.” Here, the official name of black list is ‘the name list on the entry-controlled people,’ managed by the Ministry of Justice. However, the list is originally on the terrorists, people who have committed crimes in Korea, or people who have joined an international crimes such as smuggling. The government should make an official explanation on why the NGO activists are being dealt with like criminals for the reason that they have done peace activities and should make apology to them.’ (Kim Mi-Hwa’s interview with Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, on Sept. 10.See here.)

    15. Suspicion on domestic email hacking is being raised.

    Case: ‘Given that four speakers for the symposium [ on the environmental matter due to the US bases in the East Asia] have been denied entries and the symposium-hosting Korean groups are of the anti-war/ peace movement, we even think that emails exchanged by people might have been hacked.’ (Kim Mi-Hwa’s interview with Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, on Sept. 10. See here.)

    16. The victims of the denied entry do not have protection measures from their own governments. Not only domestic pressure but international measure on the infringement of such human rights is urgent.

    Case: ‘I called the Japanese embassy in Seoul (the respondent was named Mr. Shinsaka) around 15:14pm. I told him that my entry was being prevented, I was not noticed with reasons, and I was carrying an invitation letter and identity certificate. But he hanged off my phone, saying, “If you are in the stage before receiving the notice on the entry denial, please call again once you receive the notice.”

    Since it was clear that the ROK Ministry of Justice was clearly denying my entry, I called him again around 16:05pm and told him process, asking him whether he working in the embassy can take any measures since it was an infringement on human rights that I was to be forcefully deported without a proper document from the ROK Ministry of Justice and explanation of reason for denial. However, Mr. Shinsaka replied me that the entry denial is by the judgment and authority of the ROK government, there was nothing the Japanese government can do.” ( A letter by Toshio Takahashi, Sept. 6, 2012)

    15. Even the request by a National Assembly member for the resource material to the Ministry of Justice is being shunned.

    Case: ‘Regarding [Sept. 6] incident, we (* Office of Jang Hana, a member of Environment and Labor committee, National Assembly) made a request for resource material to the Ministry of Justice. But the Ministry was not cooperative. Instead it said that we should request it after we get the stamp by Park Young-Sun, Democratic United Party, and a Chairwoman of the Legal Affairs committee, National Assembly, which was totally nonsense. It seems the Ministry must very strongly hide something. I hope that the members of the legal affairs committee clearly make public on that matter. (Kim Mi-Hwa’s interview with Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, on Sept. 10)

    16. The ROK government’s serious infringement on human rights of the internationals is considered as its fear for the international exposure of the oppression on human rights being placed in the Gangjeong village (See here)

    Case : ‘[ToshioTakahashi] said, “ It was for the first time for me. I have visited Korea more than 10 times by now.” He was suspecting whether his visit this February when the opposition activities against the Jeju naval base was at the peak caused him to be denied entry. He said, “It is an oppression being done by the ROK government since it feels burden that infringement on human rights being placed in the Gangjeong village is to be internationally exposed.” (Toshio Takahashi’s letter to the Hankyoreh, Sept. 9. See here. )

    17. It was not only in cases related to the Gangjeong village. There have been about 463 people who were denied for unknown reasons, according to an article (May 28, 2012). Even the high ranking members of Green peace, and a Japanese activist who was invited by the Seoul Metropolitan government were denied entries.

    Case1: [On April 2, 2012] Three of [four high-ranking members of Greenpeace] – its Korean manager and East Asia leaders – were denied entry and ordered to return to Hong Kong. Only Greenpeace International executive director Kumi Naidoo was admitted to the country. They were not told why they were banned. They guessed the reason may be the group’s anti-nuclear campaign, running counter the Korean government’s plan to expand atomic power generation. “But Greenpeace has not conducted a single activity yet except for a campaign (against nuclear power). Korea is the only country that has banned Greenpeacers though no activity has been launched,” Rashid Kang, manager for Greenpeace Seoul, said.

    Case 2: The Ministry of Justice has denied a total of 8,203 people entry to Korea from October to April 2. The lion’s share of cases involved false-name passports, uncertain purpose of stay or those without places to stay.What observers find problematic are the 463 people who were denied for reasons unknown. They claim that the authorities are abusing the law to screen out civic or labor activists from holding campaigns against the government.

    Case 3: In 2011, the authorities banned entrance of Japanese civic activist, Matsumoto Hajime, who was invited by the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Hajime shot to the fame for starting several nonviolent protests against the government. But since he was invited by a city government, many called the decision bizarre. “We have asked the ministry to figure out why Hajime could not get into the event but we were told nothing,” said a member of Haja center, a youth job training facility operated by Seoul City. “We are concerned that there is no clear guideline to the regulation. Simply opposing government policies does not constitute denial or prohibition,” an official of the Center for Freedom of Information and Transparent Society said. None were clearly informed of the reason why they were denied entry into Korea.

    (See the article at http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20120528-348805.html )

    18. Victims as well as their colleagues who have accompanied them appeal for mental shock after their colleagues being denied entries.

    Case1: [On March 14, 2012], two US veterans, both members of Veterans For feace, were asked to come by the people [in Gangjeong village]. Elliott Adams and Tarak Kauff responded to the request by traveling for 2 days from New York to Shanghai to Jeju, including 19 hours in the air. But when they got off the plane they were rudely told by the Korean government (not the Jeju government) that they must leave. Tarak Kauff says, “they were waiting for us, they had our photos as we arrived on the plane.” The veterans were left with little money, just tickets home that would not be good for a week. “This is gratitude. I served in Korea with the 2nd Infantry Division defending the people from North Korea, I come back to again defend the people and I am pushed off into no-man’s-land,” said Elliott Adams . (See here)-

    Case 2: Nakamura Sugae who was denied entry along with her college student daughter on March 27, 2012, later appealed to the Omynews. “Further it was a visit to Daejeon and Choongnam province, nothing to do with Jeju. “I cannot understand the ROK government measure of entry denial, and I can hardly forgive it because I am so infuriated. I was shocked because I couldn’t imagine it. If I could, I want to appeal not only to Korea but also to the whole world.” (See Ohmynews, March 29, here)

    Case 3: Nakamura Sugae’s colleague, Hasegawa, who was left alone for the entry denial of two could not but visit Daejeon alone in the afternoon of March 29. Hasegawa said, “All the programs have been prepared for by Nakamura who was denied entry. I got tremendous shock since I became to be left alone.” Hasegawa even had tears, saying that “It was for the first time for me to land on Korea. I could not read Koreans and could not figure out directions.” (See Ohmynews, March 29, here)

    19. In conclusion, it is a clear infringement on human rights.

    Case: The AWC_Japan has stated in its statement on Jan. 30, 2012

    1.The ROK Korean Immigration Office does not make public entry denial reason(s) 2. It does not acknowledge the entry-denied people’s right to file on different opinion. 3. It repeats threat to the victims, saying lots of lies for forceful deportation of those. 4. Finally, it boards the subject(s) on planes with violent methods and forcefully deports. Those are clearly infringement on human rights.’ (See here)

    20. The ROK Ministry of Justice is consistent in its arrogant and arbitrary position.

    Case 1: The Ministry of Justice admitted that the rules can be ambiguous. “We cannot specify all the details about who cannot come and who can. We are capable of discerning detrimental figures,” a ministry official said. “We don’t need to disclose our criteria either, even to the person him or herself. There is no rule forcing us to. We are abiding by the rules. Besides, they all know why Korea does not want them anyway.” (See here.)

    Case 2: The Korean Immigration Office having a call with the Bupyung Shinmoon on April 20 said that “The decision on the entry denial is registered not only by us but also by the Minister of the Ministry of Justice who decides that [the subject(s)] are detrimental to the national interest of ROK,” and “[The subjects] could be denied entry not only by us but if prosecutor, police and taxation office request. If their activities are not exact, it is possible to deny their entries. The entry-denial is established according to the demand(s) by the related department(s), if something is seen against the national interest of ROK.” (See here)

     

    (4) Measures Taken

     

    1. The AWC_Japan has driven the Korea-Japan joint statement, along with the AWC_Korea, to demand the withdrawal of entry-prohibition measure in August, 2011.

    2. On Jan. 18, 2012, the both above filed a suit to the National Human Rights Commission of ROK, adding the signs by 394 civic activists from the both countries of ROK and Japan who demanded the withdrawal of unjust entry-prohibition measure (See AWC_Japan statement on Jan. 30, 2012, here)

    3. The Center for Freedom of Information ( http://www.opengirok.or.kr/ ) has requested the Ministry of Justice, detailed contents including the nationality and entry denial reason of the targeted foreigners from Oct. 2011 to April 2, 2012. However, the Ministry of Justice has not made public those, reasoning that it would impede the diplomatic relationships. (See here.)

    4. The village stated in its March 15 statement that denounces the ROK government’s entry denial of three members of Veterans for U.S., as well as its’ injunction of Benjamin Monnet, France and deportation of Angie Zelter, UK, saying that: “The oppression on the international activists is a mean and barbarous oppression to break down the chains of struggle against the Jeju naval base project against which international solidarity has been vital. In its statement on March 15, as well as on April 2 when a Japanese peace activist was denied entry on March 31, it claimed that the ROK government should make clear on what legal basis, it has taken measures on the prohibition of entry denial and on injunction order against them. It also claimed that the ROK government should make apology to the related groups and overseas civic societies, not to mention the victimized international peace activists, while taking measure for compensation and prevention on repetition. (See here)

    5. On July 2, 2012, the AWC_Japan has demanded the both governments of ROK and Japan to make public all the lists of unjust entry prohibition and strongly demanded making public of all the information and officially withdrawing of the lists. It also demanded to stop construction, saying the scheme of the Jeju naval base project is to destroy environment, community, as well as to heighten the military tension in the North East Asia. The AWC_Japan has been carrying out regular protest in front of the Korean Consulate in Osaka.

    6. As mentioned in (2), PSPD issues a press release on Sept. 25, titled, the “Government being consistent not to make public the reasons of entry denial of international activists,” the Ministry of Justice has sent one page reply on Sept. 18 to the 7 page open inquiry letter by the PSPD on the entry denial of international activists on Sept. 6. See here.

     

    (5) Detailed records of the international activists who have been denied entries by the Korean government

     

    1. From Aug. 26, 2011 to June 29, 2012 (See http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/5htg/51)

     

    [1] Aug. 26, 2011: 3 (Asia Wide Campaign (AWC)_Japan, Jeju airport)

    Sakoda Hideumi(46), his son(6) and Yamaguchi Yukiko(56, woman), coordinator of west regional branch of AWC.

    -Sakoda and Yamaguchi were two translators among the 15 people group

     

    [2] Jan. 27, 2012: 2 (Asia Wide Campaign (AWC)_Japan)

    Ikeda Takane (40), International office secretary, AWC, and co-representative of AWC_Japan

     

    [3] March 14, 2012: 3 (US veterans for Peace, in the Jeju airport and in the airplane leaving for Jeju)

    Eliot Adams. Ex-President of the US Veterans for Peace, Tarak Kauff (New York), Mike Hastie (Oregon)

     

    [4] March 27, 2012: 2 ( A teacher of an Elementary school and her daughter, Busan international terminal)

    Nakamura Sgae and her daughter (22)

     

    [5] March 31: 1 (Japanese peace activist, Jeju airport)

    Ryuji Yagi (45)

     

    [6] April 2, 2012: 1 (Okinawa musician, Jeju airport)

    Umisedo Yutaka

     

    [7] April 6, 2012: 1 (Okinawa peace activist, Incheon airport)

    Tomiyama Masahiro

     

    [8] June 5, 2012: 1 (Okinawa peace activist, Incheon airport)

    Yuuri Arime

     

    [9] June 29, 2012: 1 (Asia Wide Action_Japan, Jeju airport)

    Ouchi Teruo

     

    2. During the WCC period (Sept. 6 to 15) (See http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/5htg/66)

    [1]Sept. 3, 2012: 

     

    -Dr. Cha Imok, Korean American, Incheon Airport

    Dr. member of the Emergency Action to Save Jeju Island. A consultant to the Center for Human and Nature, IUCN member group, a speaker for a Knowledge Cafe program, Sept. 7, WCC participant

    Update: [IUCN letter to Dr. Imok Cha, Nov. 13] IUCN so regrets the decision for The ROK governmentnot not to allow Dr. Imok Cha (Fwd) : Click HERE

     

    [2] Sept. 5, 2012

    _Yagi Ryuji, a Japanese peace activist, Jeju airport, arriving Incheon airport at 2:40pm.

    A speaker for the international symposium on the environment matters by the US bases in the East Asia, Incheon airport. He was carrying invitation letters and identification certification issued by Jang Hana, a National Assembly woman

    _Tomita Eiiji, Takahashi Toshio, Tomiyama Masahiro, three Okinawa peace activists, arriving Incheon airport at 2:40pm.

    Three speakers for the international symposium on the environment matters by the US bases in the East Asia, Incheon Airport. They were carrying invitation letters and identification certification issued by Jang Hana, a National Assembly woman

     

    [3] Sept. 6, 2012: 4

    -Umisedo Yutaka, Okinawa, Japanese representative of the IUCN

    Okinawa musician, a member of Hallasan Association and Save Dugong Campaign, a member group of the IUCN

    – Matsushima Yuske, Japan, a member of the Save Dugong Campaign, a member group of the IUCN group

    – Unidentified two Nigerians, WCC participants
    – It is still uncertain whether they had the will to oppose the Jeju naval base project.

    ……………………………………………….

    Reference

    A Summary of United Nations Agreements on Human Rights

    http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html

    Korean Immigration Control Act

    In Korean (국문)
    http://ko.wikisource.org/wiki/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD_%EC%B6%9C%EC%9E%85%EA%B5%AD%EA%B4%80%EB%A6%AC%EB%B2%95

    http://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawTotalSearch.do

    ……………………………………………….

    English articles (Selected)

     

    Heavy-handed immigration law irks foreigners

    http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20120528-348805.html
    The Ministry of Justice admitted that the rules can be ambiguous 2012년 5월 28일

     

    Bruce Gagnon, March 14, 2012
    http://space4peace.blogspot.kr/2012/03/three-vfp-leaders-denied-entry-into.html

    Veterans for Peace Korean statement, March 15, 2012

     

    South Korea democracy crumbles to outside pressure and US Veterans are Denied Access to Return to Korea
    http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pressroom/news/2012/03/15/south-korean-democracy-crumbles-to-outside-pressure-and-us-veterans-are-denied-access-to-return-to-korea

     

    Veterans Peace Team is too dangerous for South Korea’s Jeju Island
    http://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/03/veterans-peace-team-is-too-dangerous-for-south-koreas-jeju-island/
    by Frida Berrigan,
    March 16, 2012

    [Oppression on internationals] An international Catholic Priest Threatened to be Deported
    http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/I51g/370
    June 25, 2012

    http://space4peace.blogspot.kr/2012/09/another-supported-denied-entry-to-south.html
    Another Jeju Supporter Denied Entry Into South Korea
    Tuesday, Sept 04, 2012-09-24

    http://space4peace.blogspot.kr/2012/09/three-more-denied-entry-to-jeju.html
    Four More Denied Entry to Jeju
    Wed. Sept 05, 2012

    http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/I51g/628
    [Toshio Takahashi] A report on the South Korean govt’s refusal to allow entry of 3 Okinawa Peace Activists (delegates to the IUCN WCC)
    Thurs. Sept. 6, 2012

    http://www.fpif.org/articles/environmentalists_stifled_in_jeju
    Environmentalists Stifled in Jeju
    By Christine Ahn, September 7, 2012

    http://savejejunow.org/reports-human-rights-environmental-destruction-naval-base/
    Reports on the Human Rights Violations and Environmental Destruction of the Jeju Naval Base Published
    (Reports originally from the National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to the Naval Base in Jeju Island )

    [Press Release] Issue Reports on Human Rights Violation and Environmental Destruction on Jeju Naval Base are Published

    http://space4peace.blogspot.kr/2012/09/push-turns-to-shove.html
    Sept. 14, 2012
    PUSH TURNS TO SHOVE
    World’s largest environmental organization in ethical quandary:
    Should it answer to conference sponsors Samsung and Korean government, or it to its historical mission to protect environment and social justice?

    http://www.peoplepower21.org/English/954311
    [Statement] Missing Democracy, Human Rights and Environment at the World Conservation Conference
    Sept. 17, 2012

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2012/09/137_120846.html
    Ideological exclusion in Korea
    Sept. 25, 2012

    http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/I51g/753
    [IUCN letter to Dr. Imok Cha, Nov. 13] IUCN so regrets the decision for The ROK governmentnot not to allow Dr. Imok Cha (Fwd)

    http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/I51g/967
    Korea Times, Feb. 22, 2013
    Greenpeace Seoul director denied entry for nearly one year

    http://www.frontlinedefenders.com/node/22480
    South Korea: Imminent deportation of human rights defender Ms Wang Yu Hsuan
    April 25, 2013

     

    ……………………………………………….

    Korean articles (Selected)

     

    참세상, 2012년 1월 18일
    http://www.newscham.net/news/view.php?board=news&nid=64711

     

    중앙일보 2011년 8월 26일
    http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=6061797&ctg=1000

     

    폴리뉴스 2011년 8월 29일, 일본 평화활동가에 대한 부당한 입국거부 규탄과 입국허용 촉구 기자 회견문
    http://www.polinews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=9543

     

    AWC 제국주의 침략에 반대하는 아시아 공동 행동 ‘0130 AWC 성명서’ 전문
    ( http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/49kU/1333?docid=1EeiE49kU133320120131102157 )

     

    한겨레 뉴스, 2012년 3월 15일

    http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/area/523674.html

     

    헤드라인 제주 , 3월 15일
    http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articlePhotoView.html?idxno=144903
    “해군기지 반대 외국인 강제추방, 외교적 지탄받을 것”

    강정마을회, 외국인 활동가 국외추방 중단 촉구

     

    헤드라인 제주 , 3월 15일
    http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=144907
    “해외활동가 추방, 해군기지 부당성 알리는 셈”

    전국대책회의, 외국인 활동가 추방 규탄

     

    오마이 뉴스 2012년 3월 27일
    http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001714336

     

    오마이뉴스 2012년 3월 29일
    http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001714990

     

    오마이 뉴스, 8월 9일
    http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/49kU/1919

     

    제주소리, 3월 31일
    http://www.jejusori.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=113391

     

    제주도민일보, 4월 2일

     

    부평신문, 2012년 6월 21일
    http://www.bpnews.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=21523

     

    부평 신문, 7월 5일
    http://m.bpnews.kr/articleView.html?idxno=21651&menu=2

    아시아공동행동(AWC)일본연락회의는 2012 년 7월 2일 성명 발표(http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/49kU/1850)

     

    http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=9235384&ctg=1213
    제주해군기지 반대 국제인사 입국 거부당해

    입력 2012.09.04 18:06 / 수정 2012.09.04 18:09

     

    http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201209052254455&code=940701
    정부, 해외 환경 운동가 5명 잇따라 입국 거부
    2012년 9월 5일

     

    http://blog.daum.net/peoplepower21/15863865
    [보도자료] 「해외활동가 입국금지에 대한 공개질의서」법무부에 발송
    2012.09.05 15:46

     

    http://www.pressian.com/article/article.asp?article_num=10120905224635
    해외 활동가들 잇따른 입국 불허, 이유는?: 정부가 인권 침해국 불명예 자임”

    2012-09-06 오전 8:16:51

     

    http://www.jnuri.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=8021
    IUCN 일본 대표단 강정마을 방문 이유로 입국 거부
    장하나 의원, “블랙 리스트 존재– 내가방 까지 뒤졌다”
    2012년 9월 7일

     

    http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/550905.html
    “한국정부 입국거부는 강정마을 인권유린의 해외노출 의식한 탄압”
    2012.09.09 21:05

     

    http://www.nocutnews.co.kr/Show.asp?IDX=2252510
    입국거부 “당신이 강정에서 한 일을 알고 있다?”
    2012-09-10 18:02 | [CBS 김미화의 여러분: 징하나 의원 인터뷰]

     

    http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001777723
    “해군기지 반대 집회 참석? 법무부가 지어낸 얘기”

    [인터뷰] WCC 세계자연보전총회 참석차 입국했다가 거부당한 차임옥 박사
    2012년 9월 12일

     


    http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/584639.html

    외국 환경운동가 입국 거부 잇따라

    대한민국서 평화·생명 외치면 안돼?

    2013.04.25 20:21

    http://www.gobalnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=2435

    법무부, ‘강정 알리미’ 대만 여성평화활동가 입국 금지 ‘

    에밀리 왕”이런 일 처음”…강정 활동에 경찰력 800명 투입

    2013.04.25 21:46

     

    http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001859234

    한국이 입국거부한 대만여성, 얼마나 위험하기에…

    [取중眞담] 강정마을을 사랑한 에밀리의 자진 출국

    2013, 04, 26 18:01

     

    October 3, 2012

  • Dr. Song Kang-Ho, “Brother Song”, released from Prison after 181 days!

    A big smile from Dr. Song on his release from prison. Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri

    On September 28, in the late morning it was suddenly and unexpected announced that after 181 days of imprisonment, Dr. Song Kang-Ho would be released from Jeju Prison on bail. Dr. Song was originally very violently arrested on April 1st, his birthday and held ever since then in Jeju Prison, about an hour from Gangjeong village. Dr. Song had been refusing bail in protest of his unjust imprisonment and show trial and was only two weeks away from the legal prison limit without being convicted of a crime (Oct. 13 was his expected release date).

    Father Moon and Dr. Song embrace. Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri

    Despite this, to everyone’s surprise, he was suddenly released in the late afternoon. Although many people were not in Gangjeong village because of the Chuseok Harvest Holiday, a small group of friends and supporters from Gangjeong gathered in front of the prison to greet him and celebrate his release. Upon his release he was embraced by Father Moon Jung Hyeon and then ate tofu, as is customary, and then greeted those that had eagerly gathered to celebrate.

    Brother Song is free at last! Hurray!

    Dancing while waiting for Dr. Song’s release. Image: Jang Hyun-Woo
    Mayor Kang helps Dr. Song eat the customary Tofu. Image: Jang Hyun-Woo
    Dr. Song embraces supporters and friends outside the prison. Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri
    September 28, 2012

  • 在遭監禁181日後,宋博士(Brother Song)獲保釋出獄!

    宋博士從監獄中走出,迎上歡迎人群那一刻的燦爛笑容Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri
    宋博士從監獄中走出,迎上歡迎人群那一刻的燦爛笑容
    Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri

    在遭監禁181日後,宋博士於2012年9月28日午後突然間獲保釋出獄。宋博士於2012年4月1日時遭到警方以不必要的暴力方式逮捕,4月1日同時也是宋博士的生日。宋博士一直以來拒絕申請保釋,以表達對其不公正拘捕行為的抗議。在未被定罪的情況下,最長的拘禁期限為六個月(自移監日期起起算,非自逮捕日期起起算),而宋博士的最長拘禁期限將於兩個禮拜後屆滿(預期釋放日期為10月13日),在此前夕突然傳出獲保出獄的消息。因為正值韓國的感恩節假期前夕(台灣的中秋佳節),許多活動家已返鄉過節,但仍有許多江汀村村民和許多留在江汀村過節的和平活動家前往濟洲監獄迎接宋博士出獄。

    宋博士擁抱在濟州監獄外歡迎其釋放的Moon神父 Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri
    宋博士擁抱在濟州監獄外歡迎其釋放的Moon神父
    Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri
    宋博士擁抱在監獄外歡迎他的支持者朋友 Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri
    宋博士擁抱在監獄外歡迎他的支持者朋友
    Image: Jung Da-Woo-Ri
    在監獄外跳舞歡迎宋博士出獄的和平活動家 Image: Jang Hyun-Woo
    在監獄外跳舞歡迎宋博士出獄的和平活動家
    Image: Jang Hyun-Woo

     

    更多照片請見:http://savejejunow.org/portfolio/dr-song-released-from-prison-after-181-days/

    September 28, 2012

  • Benefit Concert Held for Imprisoned Dr. Song Kang-Ho

    On September 22nd, a benefit concert was held for Dr. Song Kang-Ho, who was violently arrested on his birthday, April 1. September 22nd was the 175th day of his imprisonment. The concert title was ‘A Song for Gangjeong and Hope.’

    Dr. Song sent a lengthy letter from Jeju Prison where he is being held, to be read at the concert, briefly excerpted here:

    The hope of Gangjeong is the hope for justice and peace. The people have sung a song of hope for more than six years. Your concert is to spread the song of hope. I think your concert is beautiful. It is because the most beautiful song is the song of peace.

    […]

    The prison that confines me is what jails our church and nation. You are jailed with me, too. Please sing a song for freedom. Please call for justice. And please sing a song for peace. Please sing the most beautiful song in the world, which defeats the evil spirits of violence and war that bind us.

    Song Saem, Dr. Song’s daughter plays cello at the concert. (Image: Lee Daegwi)

     

    A book by Dr. Song, titled, “Peace, walking on hope from far-off: Song Kang-Ho’s Stories of Peace from Rwanda to Gangjeong” will be published by the Intervarsity Press Korea on Oct. 8, 2012.

    (Information and pictures provided by Choi Hye-Young, Lim Ho-Young, and Abigail Yoo)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    September 22, 2012

  • Missing Democracy, Human Rights and Environment at the World Conservation Congress

    By Gayoon Baek

    (17 September 2012, Gangjeong) The issue of Jeju naval base construction was one of the most important agendas during the World Conservation Congress (WCC). Only 7 km away from the WCC venue, environment has been seriously destroyed by the naval base construction. Unfortunately, the Motion 181: Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village was not passed at the WCC Assembly despite full support from many Korean and foreign NGOs. We are deeply concerned by unjustifiable interruption of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the IUCN Korean National Committee during the whole process of discussing and voting the Motion 181.

    Open New Stage of International Solidarity Movement of No Jeju Naval Base Campaign!

    During the WCC, a number of new information was revealed on the Jeju naval base construction. We found that the change of sea route turning angle to 30° interrupts four preservation zones including the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and the Natural Memorial Site. The National Assembly disclosed that the standard for designing Jeju naval base was based on the U.S. Naval Forces’ request on the entry of aircraft carrier. Independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which was conducted together with the Greenpeace East Asia proved that soft coral beds which need to be preserved are existing around the naval base construction site.

    Also, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression‍ (Frank La Rue), Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of associations (Maina Kia), and Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders (Margaret Sekaggya) sent an allegation letter to the South Korean government on alleged acts of harassment, intimidation and ill-treatment of peaceful protesters against naval base construction in Gangjeong village. However, the South Korean government has not yet sent their response or explanation to the Special Rapporteurs for more than 100 days while the Government is requested to submit their response within 60 days.

    Since these facts were widely covered by national and international media, we raised awareness of the problems of Jeju naval base construction nationally and internationally.

    Unjustifiable Intervention by the South Korean Government and the IUCN Secretariat

    First, exhibition booth applied by Gangjeong Village Association to the WCC was rejected without any reasonable grounds. Local people’s right to environment is one of IUCN’s focus issues. Moreover, Gangjeong village, where the Jeju naval base is now constructed, is a buffer zone of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and major habitats of the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins which is on the IUCN Red List. In this regards, we are appalled by the fact that the exhibition booth application by Gangjeong Village Association was rejected while we have serious concerns on the environmental destruction by the Jeju naval base construction

    Moreover, South Korean government denied entry of foreign human rights defenders and environmental activists who have been critical towards Jeju naval base construction without any reasonable explanation. Even though these people who were denied entry were registered WCC participants, the IUCN Secretariat did not take any firm stand against the Government but only explaining the Government’s formal response on their website.

    In this regards, we have sent an open letter to Mme. Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN Director-General, request for a meeting to discuss rejection of exhibition booth application, environmental destruction caused by the naval base construction and denial entry of foreign WCC participants. However, the IUCN notified us that she cannot have a meeting with us due to her busy schedule. Instead of having a constructive dialogue with villagers, the IUCN Secretariat disturbed passage of the Motion 181 by making comments that are supportive to Korean government during major meetings. The IUCN was criticized by participants and members of the IUCN due to their biased position towards the Motion 181 which called for ending Jeju naval base construction and conducting independent environmental impact assessment.

    Also, the IUCN Secretariat did not even notify the Center for Humans and Nature (CHN), a main sponsor of the Motion 181, and changed time and scope of the contact group meeting. On 14 September 2012, on the day and time that 2nd contact group was scheduled, the Korean National Committee urgently brought an agenda to the Assembly to drop the motion, rather than sincerely focusing on the contact group. Since the IUCN members voted against the Korean National Committee’s suggestion to drop the motion, the 3rd contact group was scheduled on the last day morning. However, both sides could not reach an agreement and the IUCN introduced the motion that was revised by the Motion Working Group, whose urging point was different from the original draft. We were surprised that the IUCN posted only a revised version of the Motion Working Group on their website. As a result, the original draft of the motion and suggested revisions during the contact group did not even have a chance to be presented during the Assembly.

    The IUCN Secretariat was also biased while moderating the session. While giving two chances to speak to the Korean government, the Chair only gave one chance to sponsor groups and did not even give a chance to speak to Gangjeong Village Association President. The President of the IUCN, Mr. Ashok Khosla, made comments on the Motion 181 sponsor groups, implying the motion cannot be justified since most sponsor groups were not Korean. In response to this, Gangjeong Village Association, Jeju Pan-Island Committee for Stop of Military Base and for Realization of Peace Island (26 Jeju based NGOs), Korea Environment NGO Network (36 environmental NGOs), National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to the Naval Base in Jeju Island (125 Korean civil society organizations) sent an open letter supporting the Motion 181 which was drafted by CHN.

    Result of the WCC Motion 181: Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village

    Despite unjustifiable intervention and pressure by the Korean government and the IUCN Secretariat, the Motion 181 gained a lot of support from IUCN members. NGO members voted For 269(52%)/Against 120(23%)/Abstain 128(25%) while Government members voted For 20(13.5%)/Against 68(46%)/Abstain 60(40.5%).

    At the WCC Assembly, it is required to get more than 51% of votes from both NGO and Government members to pass the resolution. According to this rule, the Motion did not pass because it did not get enough votes from Government members. However, almost 40% of Government members abstained the Motion which is similar number to those who were against the motion. In total, combining both NGO and Government members’ vote, members who voted For are 289 while Against are 188 only.

    Meanwhile, the IUCN Secretariat’s biased and undemocratic decision making process and its dependency on hosting country and sponsor companies were heavily criticized during the WCC. The IUCN member organizations strongly criticised the Secretariat as it did not actively deal with Jeju naval base construction issue and limited speaking opportunities during the WCC. This is a serious violation of principles and values of the WCC and the IUCN. This behaviour will continue to bring internal and external controversies on the standing principle of the IUCN.

    The South Korean government expected to use the WCC as a platform to unilaterally publish government’s ‘green growth’ policy. Instead, their anti-environmental policy was published as they used undemocratic, anti-human rights, and oppressive methods to suppress voices against Jeju naval base construction. During the contact group where both sides suppose to discuss environmental and scientific impact of Jeju naval base construction, the Government addressed issues of ‘national security’ and prevented rational discussion. It created doubts on their Environmental Impact Assessment which they proudly show off as an independent and scientific assessment.

    Future Steps

    We will consolidate our solidarity and cooperation by using international networks that we established from this WCC.

    We will continue to raise our concerns on newly discovered negative environmental impact of Jeju naval base construction and the Government’s anti-environmental and anti-human rights strategies at the WCC during the Parliamentary Inspection of the Administration, deliberation on the 2013 budget and the Presidential Election period.

    We sincerely appreciate to 35 sponsor groups of the Motion, especially Center for Humans and Nature, around 150 civil society organizations in Korea, members of environmental groups and 111 organisations around the world who endorsed our statements, and peace keepers in Gangjeong village.

    For further questions or media inquiries, please contact:
    Ms. Gayoon Baek , Coordinator, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, +82 (0)2 723-4250 or peace@pspd.org

    September 17, 2012

  • Open Letter to IUCN President Ashok Khosla #2: Sou​th Korean NGOs Endorse Gangjeong Motion #181

    To:
    Ashok Khosla
    President
    International Union for Conservation of Nature
    Rue Mauverney 28
    1196 Gland
    Switzerland

    RE: South Korean Non-Governmental Organizations Endorse the Motion #181. Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village

    Dear Dr. Ashok Khosla,

    We, South Korean non-governmental organizations, are writing to you today to show our full support and endorsement to the Motion #181 “Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village”. The naval base construction in Gangjeong has endangered rare marine and land species, destroyed local peoples’ lives and cultures while human rights violations are frequently occurring on environmental defenders.

    We support recommendations to the Republic of Korea in the motion suggested by the Center for Humans and Nature, IUCN member organization. The construction of the naval base must be stopped immediately. A recommendation in the version that was modified by the Resolution Working Group reads, “Take appropriate measures to prevent adverse environmental and socio-cultural consequences associated with the construction of the Civilian-Military Complex Port Project”. It already implies and acknowledges the environmental and socio-cultural destruction by the enforced naval base project in Gangjeong, despite the opposition by the majority of villagers. We, as South Korean civil society organizations, do not agree with this recommendation because construction of naval base contradicts a core value of the UN World Charter for Nature and the Earth Charter.

    On 30 May 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Human Rights Defenders, and Peaceful Assembly and Association sent a joint allegation letter to South Korean government on ongoing human rights violations in Gangjeong towards environmental defenders who peacefully protested. Unfortunately, even though the letter kindly requests a response within sixty days, the Government has not responded yet. We would like to kindly remind you that IUCN Res. 2.37 is on Support for Environmental Defenders indicating “UNDERSTANDING that the participation of non- governmental organizations and individual advocates is essential to the fundamentals of civil society to assure the accountability of governments and multinational corporations; and AWARE that a nation’s environment is only truly protected when concerned citizens are involved in the process;”

    In this vein, we, as South Korean non-governmental organizations, firmly stand in solidarity with the Motion #181 “Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village” as originally suggested by the Center for Humans and Nature. If you have any questions or need a clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us at peace@pspd.org or +82-2-723-4250.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Mr. Dong-kyun
    Kang Village Mayor
    Gangjeong Village Association

    Mr. Gi-ryong Hong
    Co-convenor
    Jeju Pan-Island Committee for Stop of Military Base and for Realization of Peace Island
    (26 Jeju based NGOs: 곶자왈사람들, 노래패청춘, 서귀포시민연대, 서귀포여성회,양용찬열사추모사업회, 전국공무원노조 제주지역본부, 전국교직원노동조합 제주 지부, 전국농민회총연맹 제주도연맹, 전국민주노동조합총연맹 제주본부, 전국여성 농민회총연합 제주도연합, 제주 4.3 도민연대, 제주 4.3 연구소, 제주민족예술인 총연합, 제주여민회, 제주여성인권연대, 제주주민자치연대, 제주참여환경연대, 제 주통일청년회, 제주평화인권센터, 제주환경운동연합, 참교육을 위한 전국학부모회 제주지부, 천주교 제주교구 평화의섬 실현을 위한 특별위원회, 탐라자치연대, 평 화를 위한 그리스도인 모임, 한국기독교장로회 제주노회 정의평화위원회, 한국장 애인연맹 제주 DPI)

    Ms. Hee-young Kang
    Co-representative
    Korea Environment NGO Network
    (36 Korean environmental NGOs: 공주녹색연합, 광주전남녹색연합, 국립공원을지키는시민의모임, 기독교환경운동연대, 녹색교통운동, 녹색미래, 녹색연합, 대구경북녹색연합, 대전충남녹색연합, 부산녹색연합, 분당환경시민의모임, 불교환경연 대, 생명의 숲, 생태보전시민모임, 사)생태지평연구소, 수원환경운동센터, 에너지 나눔과평화, 에코붓다, 여성환경연대, 우이령보존회, 원불교천지보은회, 원주녹색 연합, 인드라망생명공동체, 인천녹색연합, 전국귀농운동본부, 제주참여환경연대, 풀꽃세상을 위한모임, 한국YMCA전국연맹, 한국YWCA연합회, 한국자원순환재활 용연합회, 환경과공해연구회, 환경과생명을지키는전국교사모임, 환경사목위원회, 환경운동연합, 환경정의)

    Mr. Taeho Lee
    Co-convenor
    National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to the Naval Base in Jeju Island
    (125 Korean civil society organizations: 21세기한국대학생연합, 21세기코리아연구소, 4.9인혁열사계승사업회, 4.9통일평화재단, 615공동선언실천청년학생연대, AWC한국위원회, IVF사회부, KYC한국청년연합, 강정마을회, 강정을사랑하는육지 사는제주사름, 개척자들, 경계를넘어, 공의정치실천연대, 교회개혁실천연대, 기독 교사회선교연대회의, 기독교환경운동연대, 기독청년아카데미, 나눔문화, 남북평화 연구소, 남북평화재단통일을준비하는사람들, 노동사회과학연구소, 노동인권회관, 노동전선, 노점노동연대, 녹색연합, 농민약국, 다함께, 동북아평화교육훈련원 (NARPI), 무기제로팀, 문화연대, 민가협양심수후원회, 민족문제연구소, 민족민주 열사희생자추모단체연대회의, 민족자주평화통일중앙회의, 민족화합운동연합(사), 민주노동자전국회의, 민주민생평화통일주권연대, 민주사회를위한변호사모임, 민주 언론시민연합, 민주화를위한전국교수협의회, 민주화실천가족운동협의회, 반전평화 연대(준), 불교인권위원회, 불교평화연대, 불안정노동철폐연대, 비폭력평화물결, 빈곤사회연대, 빈민해방실천연대, 사월혁명회, 사회진보연대, 새벽이슬, 생명평화 결사, 생명평화기독연대, 생명평화마당, 생명평화연대, 생태지평, 시민평화포럼, 실천불교전국승가회, 언론소비자주권 국민캠페인, 얼굴있는거래, 예수살기, 외국 인이주노동운동협의회, 원불교사회개벽교무단, 인권실천시민행동, 인권재단 사람, 전국교직원노동조합, 전국노동자회, 전국농민회총연맹, 전국목회자정의평화협의회, 전국민족민주유가족협의회, 전국민주노동조합총연맹, 전국민주화운동유가족협의 회(사), 전국빈민연합, 전국여성농민회총연합, 전국여성연대, 전국장애인차별철폐 연대, 전국학생행진, 전쟁없는세상, 전태일노동대학, 전태일재단, 제주군사기지저 지와평화의섬실현을위한범도민대책위원회, 제주사회문제협의회, 제주해군기지반 대강정주민대책위원회, 조국통일범민족연합 남측본부, 주한미군범죄근절운동본부,진보사랑, 진실을알리는시민, 참여연대, 천주교인권위원회, 천주교정의구현전국연 합, 통일광장, 통일문제연구소, 평화군축박람회준비위원회, 평화네트워크, 평화누 리, 평화를 만드는 여성회, 평화바닥, 평화바람, 평화박물관, 평화와통일을여는사 람들, 평화재향군인회, 평화통일시민연대, 평화통일연구소, 하나누리, 한국가톨릭 농민회(사), 한국교회인권센터, 한국기독교교회협의회(NCCK) 정의평화위원회, 한 국기독교사회문제연구원, 한국기독교장로회 교회사회위원회, 한국기독교장로회 생명선교연대, 한국기독청년학생연합회, 한국비정규센터, 한국아나뱁티스트센터 (KAC), 한국여성단체연합, 한국정신대문제대책협의회, 한국진보연대, 한국청년연 대, 한국YMCA전국연맹, 한민족생활문화연구회(사), 한빛누리, 함께하는 시민행동, 현장실천연대, 환경운동연합, 환경정의, 희년함께)

     


     

    Click to Download Original Letter

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    September 13, 2012

  • UN Special Rapporteurs send joint allegation letter to South Korean government on human rights violations in Gangjeong, Jeju

    In response to individual complaints sent to the UN special procedure mandate holders, a joint letter was sent to South Korean government on alleged acts of harassment, intimidation and ill-treatment of peaceful protesters in Gangjeong village on 30 May 2012.

    In the letter, the Rapporteurs ask questions on the cases for clarification and request the Government to send a response within sixty days so that it can be presented at the UN Human Rights Council. Unfortunately, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights until today which has passed almost 100 days since the letter was sent, the Government has not submitted any responses to the Rapporteurs.

    The letter was jointly written by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Frank La Rue), Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of associations (Maina Kia), and Special Rapportuer on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders (Margaret Sekaggya). The letter is included in the Communications Report of Special Procedures (A/HRC/21/49) and is submitted to the 21st Session of the UN Human Rights Council which is now being held in Geneva, Switzerland (10 September~28 September 2012).

    In the letter, three special rapporteurs expressed serious concerns regarding the physical and physiological integrity of all persons involved in the actions against the construction of the naval base. It also reminds the Government on principles and values in various international human rights standards including the UN code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individual, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally.

    The Rapporteurs urged the Government “to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedom of all persons involved in” the actions against construction of the naval base respected. They also requested that the Government “adopt effective measures to prevent the recurrence” of these violations.

    We believe that the allegation letter and attention of the Special Rapporteurs on the human rights violations in Gangjeong shows that human rights violations on no Jeju naval base campaigners are grave. We would also like to remind the South Korean government that they will be soon reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review in October 2012. As the Government has shown their interest in running for the election to be a member of the UN Human Rights Council in 2013, we urge the Government to promote and protect human rights as enshrined in the international human rights standards and respect procedures of the UN Human Rights Council including Special Procedures. The South Korean government should responds to the joint allegation letter based on facts and immediately stop human rights violations on human rights defenders who are peacefully protesting against the naval base construction.

    Please note that names of human rights defenders and sites where human rights violation happened are not made public in the UN document.

    For further inquiries, please contact:
    Ms. Gayoon Baek, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, Coordinator, +82 2 723 4250, peace@pspd.org

     


     

    Click to Download: Joint allegation letter from UN Special Rapporteurs to South Korean government

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Click to Download: UN 21st Session Human Rights Council Communications Report (Gangjeong mentioned on page 53)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    September 13, 2012

  • Open Letter to IUCN President Ashok Khosla #1: Regarding Improper Conduct at Sept. 12 Contact Group for Gangjeong Motion 181

    Re: Improper Conduct at September 12 Contact Group for Motion 181: Protection of the People, Nature, Culture, and Heritage of Gangjeong Village

    *********

    Dear Mr. Khosla,

    My name is Sukhyun Park. I am a Research Fellow with the Korean IUCN member organization, Citizens Institute for Environmental Studies.

    This evening, September 12, a Contact Group was held for the deeply controversial issue regarding the construction of a navy base at Gangjeong Village. I’m afraid I must write to let you know that I am extremely offended by statements you made this evening concerning Korean environmentalists.

    You spent much valuable time during our Contact Group discrediting the Open Letters to IUCN concerning the Gangjeong navy base. You said that because so few Koreans were included in the letter’s long list of signatories that the campaign to save Gangjeong is actually a colonial-style case of foreigners coming to a sovereign land to tell people what to do and how to do it. Wow! Talk about flawed logic! With all due respect, Mr. Khosla, you are thoroughly mistaken. Please do not project your own colonial experience on us. Instead, if you truly care about what the local people in this country want, as you say you do, then please listen to what WE have to say, instead of obsessing on the foreign colonials!

    We told you, in our own open letter of July 10, 2012, signed by 125 Korean organizations totaling thousands of members, that we are opposed to the navy base that is slated to destroy Gangjeong Village. We told you that 3,000 university professors and five leading religious groups in South Korea oppose the Four Rivers Restoration project. We told you that we environmental organizations in South Korea are united in opposition to this project. We asked you if you were aware of the serious environmental and human rights violations that have been committed by the Korean government in the construction of the navy base at Gangjeong Village.

    But we Koreans from civil society seem to be invisible to you, even when there are thousands of us signing. You did not once this evening acknowledge the open letter that we Koreans wrote. You only continued to discredit our brave international allies, notably the Center for Humans and Nature. You wasted a lot of our Contact-Group time with that. We are invisible to you. It appears we count for nothing.

    We had already gotten a taste of being treated as second-class citizens by the IUCN. No, I’m not talking about when the Gangjeong villagers were denied their booth. I’m referring to Julia Marton-Lefevre’s August 28, 2012 letter stating that “no IUCN Members from Korea are signatories to this and previous open letters.” This remark was made in an effort to discredit the letter’s genuine pleas for the human dignity of the Gangjeong villagers. How cheap.

    Actually, my organization is both an IUCN Member and a signatory to the open letter. But you, nor Julia, seem to be paying attention. When members of my group, Citizens Institute for Environmental Studies, read Ms. Marton-Lefevre’s letter, of course we felt like second class citizens. Then, tonight, your behavior at the Contact Group meeting confirmed our suspicions that we count for nothing in the eyes of the IUCN.

    If you are interested, there is a reason that our open letter was separate from the internationals’ open letters. It is because when the internationals asked us to sign on, they also asked us to sign our personal names. Unfortunately, in our repressive nation, doing so would lead to employment blacklisting. South Korea is a democracy only in name. This is why we chose to write our own open letter, which has no individual signatories, only organization names, in order to protect people from government persecution.

    So, Mr. Khosla, please don’t assume that every non-European fits into your specific experience as a colonized person. You have proven tonight that you know very little about the situation in Korea or the Korean people.

    And if the Open Letter from 125 Korean civil society organizations could not convince you of the corrupt and oppressive human-rights violations that the Korean government levies on its people, then would you be convinced by the letter from the United Nations that was also cited at tonight’s meeting? At the meeting, the woman from Gangjeong Village spoke about a letter sent by three UN Rapporteurs: Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Margaret Sekaggya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. Their 30 May 2012 letter of inquiry was sent to the Korean government regarding numerous “acts of harassment, intimidation and ill-treatment of peaceful protestors in Gangjeong village,” requesting a response within 60 days. That was three and half months ago. The government never responded. But being ignored is nothing new to us.

    You are living proof of that.

    Very sincerely,
    Sukhyun Park

    September 13, 2012

  • Open Letter to IUCN #4: Independent Scientists Find Major Flaws & Omissions in ROK Government Environmental Impact Assessment

    The following statement is the 4th open letter mailed to the leadership and/or members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It was originally posted here.

    TO:   IUCN Leadership, All Participants, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2012 World Conservation Congress, Jeju Island

    FROM: Jeju Emergency Action Committee

    *********
    UPDATE:
     
    INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS FIND MAJOR FLAWS AND OMISSIONS IN KOREA GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR MILITARY BASE CONSTRUCTION ON JEJU
     
    WE MUST JOIN IN DEMANDING THAT NAVAL BASE CONSTRUCTION BE HALTED
     
    PLEASE VOTE “YES” ON MOTION 181: PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE, NATURE, CULTURE AND HERITAGE OF GANGJEONG VILLAGE
     
    **********

    IN PRIOR OPEN LETTERS TO IUCN, we referred to the unsatisfactory, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by the Korean government to allow building a giant naval base to home-port Korean and United States missile-carrying warships. The South Korean Navy conducted the EIA, concluding that its construction would have little impact on the surrounding environment, including on the ecosystem of Tiger Island, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. While the Navy’s 2,000-plus-page document appeared rigorous, external scientific reviewers found it excluded key impacts to endangered coral and wildlife species and ignored other significant factors.

    As we also reported, over the last month, an independent team of researchers, including IUCN affiliated members, were doing a separate study to assess the accuracy and biases of the government report and to indicate its own findings and recommendations. The researchers felt they needed to operate secretly, even when diving along the reefs, because the government has been deporting people when it suspects they might shed light on the terrible impacts of the military base, or on the police brutalities visited upon the local indigenous villagers of Gangjeong. (More than two dozen researchers and scientists from several countries have already been deported by the government, including one member of our own team, Dr. Imok Cha, the highly renowned physician from the United States.)

    Today we are pleased to provide links to two of the independent assessments and one communiqué from the researchers:

    “An Independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Coral Communities Surrounding the Intended Site of the Gangjeong Naval Base—Including Analysis of Previous Research and Findings.” This report is by Greenpeace-East Asia, Green Korea United, and SaveJejuNow, based partly on the observations of a series of deep-diving units, was prepared by Simon Ellis, Dr. Katherine Muzik, , Sanghoon Yun, Boram Bae, Jinsoo Kim, and Dr. Imok Cha. http://savejejunow.org/eia-of-coral-communities-gangjeong-naval-base/

    “Endangered Species Relocation Assessment—Civilian-Military Complex Port Development, Jeju Island, South Korea.” This report was prepared by Endangered Species International (San Francisco.) The individual authors of this report have asked not to be identified for the moment, as they continue work in Korea, and fear government sanctions. http://savejejunow.org/endangered-species-relocation-jeju-island/

    “Sacred and Spectacular Soft Corals of Gangjeong” general observations by Dr. Katherine Muzik http://savejejunow.org/sacred-spectacular-soft-corals-gangjeong/

    MOTION 181
    Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village

    Because of reports such as these, and others, an emergency motion (Motion 181: Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village) has now been introduced for an IUCN membership vote this week.

    The Motion asks the Korean government to:

    (a) Take appropriate measures to prevent adverse environmental and socio-cultural consequences associated with the construction of the Civilian-Military Complex Port Project;

    (b) invite an independent body, to prepare a fully transparent scientific, cultural, and legal
    assessment of the biodiversity and cultural heritage of the area and make it available to the public; and

    (c) Restore damaged areas.

    SELECTED INDEPENDENT FINDINGS

    Below is an abbreviated summary of a few of our independent findings:

    * Navy EIA Dismissed Designations to Protect Jeju Soft Corals: The government EIA made no mention of the great uniqueness, or spectacular attributes of the Jeju soft coral habitat being endangered by the Navy base construction. The base construction is underway in the midst of a large globally unique contiguous Jeju Soft Coral Community—-9264 hectares—-which is, presumably, already protected as Natural Monument 442, by the Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea. The site is only 1.3km away from Tiger Islet, designated as the core area of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in 2002.

    Dendronephthya gigantea (top, purple color) and Scleronephthya gracillma (bottom, orange color). These corals are part of one of many large colonies living in the vicinity of the base construction site. Meanwhile, the Navy EIA has asserted that there are no large colonies in this area.

    What makes the Jeju Soft Coral Community possible is its adjacency to a nutritionally rich, tropical current flowing through northern waters, and its remarkable unique combination of ancient Andesite larva rock sea bottom, and abundant vertical walls, down to depths of 60 m. The Korean Navy report neglected to cite a seminal paper by the leading authority on Jeju soft coral, Dr. Jun Im Song. In her exhaustive three-year research of the entire Jeju Soft Coral Habitat, Dr. Song found 82 species of coral, including 42 indigenous species, 24 endangered species (out of 38 total protected species known in Korea.) (See full list in NOTE below.)

    Dr. Song reports “Coral habitat plays a variety of important roles, not only in terms of ecological stability and structure, but also as an important resource for tourism.” In Korea, the great majority of such corals are found in the southern coast of Jeju. At a geo-biologic level, this region offers this rare coral community an ideal potential for continuous propagation. However its location within such a unique region, creates vulnerabilities for ecological stress.

    Dr. Katherine Muzik, a member of the current team researching the Navy EIA, says this: “I can state unequivocally, based on my personal observations and a review of pertinent scientific literature, that Jeju’s octocoral assemblages are unique, spectacular, and worthy of special protection. They form the largest and most spectacular temperate Octocoral forests known on Earth.”

    The Korean government designated this frog (Kaloula borealis) endangered, but refuses to protect it from construction impacts. It relocated some tadpoles, but left all the adult frogs to be crushed by construction. Then it failed to monitor the tadpoles. A year later there has still been no report on their survival.

    * Ignored Endangered Species: The government EIA omitted two endangered species and one endemic species: the Boreal Digging Frog (Kaloula borealis), an IUCN Red List species; the Red Foot Crab (Sesarma intermedium); and also the rare, endemic Jeju Shrimp (Neocaridina denticulata keunbaei) found only on Jeju and nowhere else in the world. It was only after the Navy EIA was challenged by Korean NGOs, that the government indicated it would relocate the above threatened species. But the relocation process has been a failure. According to the independent researchers, no adult frogs were ever moved to safety. They are now being crushed under heavy construction machinery. Some tadpoles were moved, but the agency that was supposed to monitor them did not. When one of our team inquired about this, we were told, “Monitoring was not possible last year.” To date, no report is available.

    Some shrimps were also moved to a new site, but it caused dangerous overpopulation in that location; and some crabs were moved to a new habitat, but that habitat is now being destroyed as well. So, all three species are seriously threatened, and there is no meaningful “monitoring” of the situation.

    * Baseless Claims About Sea-Bottom Habitat: The government’s EIA asserted that the sea-bottom in areas of construction were completely sandy, and that therefore there are no coral colonies within the main construction area. Yet, the government conducted no research of the ocean floor in this area! These claims were only assumptions! The government then placed the area off-limits to outside diver/investigators. However, independent researchers have since pointed out that since Dendronephthya suesoni is found only 500m from the construction site, at the Gangjeong Lighthouse, then it is therefore highly likely that it and other endangered corals also inhabit the construction zone. Furthermore, local dive-masters, who’ve dived there as many as 7,000 times, strongly argue that the government’s assertion is wrong, and that significant coral colonies do exist, attached to rocky areas that can be found in many places within the main construction site.

    Meanwhile, our independent team’s divers were able to dive along the edges of the construction site, and found 34% coral coverage at a depth of 12 meters. This finding flies in the face of another fallacious statement in the Navy EIA — that there are no significantly large coral colonies living in the vicinity of the base site. Our divers also found “dense groups of the spectacular endangered Dendronephthya putteri corals.”

    * Omitted Three CITES-Protected Coral Species: Three other species of endangered corals were also found by our divers, omitted from the Navy EIA, despite that they are protected by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES): Montipora spp, Alveopora spp., Dendrophyllia spp.

    * Storm Threats: Typhoon Bolaven, hit the Gangjeong construction site on August 28, causing tremendous damage to the seven giant floating caissons used in construction of the sea wall and weighing almost 9,000 tons apiece. During the storm, all seven caissons were heavily damaged and two of them broke free and sank. The sunken caissons will have damaged coral and other benthic populations in and around the base. Now the government is in a quandary about how to clean up the mess. It has claimed it will use a “floating technique” to remove the sunken caissons, but how that can be achieved was not explained. Base construction workers were overheard discussing plans to blow them up, under the water! This would cause catastrophic damage to the entire underwater ecology. In any case, there is every indication that inadequate precautions have been taken by the base construction team to ensure the protection of the environment during the construction phase of the project, especially in this location known for being typhoon-prone. If there were no other reason to stop all construction, this would be sufficient. Functional ports should be built in protected harbors — not exposed to the open seas, as is the Gangjeong coast. Imagine what global disaster might unfold should a typhoon hit one of the nuclear submarines slated to be ported here.

    * Omits Impacts of Maritime Traffic: The Navy EIA does not mention the effects of constant maritime traffic. It is expected that there will be trauma and mortality to ecologically important coral populations from the constant passing of large ships. A nearby unique and spectacular soft coral garden, measuring 73.800 sq meters (15 acres) is located only 14 m below the surface and many naval vessels have a draft of 10 m or more. Neither does the Navy EIA mention the routes through the shipping channel. The south eastern sea wall of the base is only 250 m from the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve buffer zone. The Navy EIA omitted the fact that cruise ships and aircraft carriers can measure 350 m in length, which is longer than the distance between the base and the buffer zone.

    * Sediments/Heavy Metals: The Navy EIA indicated that there are concentrations of heavy metals in sediments around the Gangjeong Navy base. (This, despite that two key heavy metals, mercury and arsenic were not measured.) However, it confirmed that the heavy metal content of the sediment is high enough to be highly toxic to marine life, released into the water column through dredging or disturbance. The Navy EIA includes only a vague mention of long-term effects of sedimentation. Sedimentation is known to coat corals, increase stress, reduce growth and survival of corals and eventually kills them. Persistent siltation also coats rocks, prohibiting new colonies from taking hold and regenerating coral populations. Fine silt left from the construction may remain in the area for years and get stirred up into the water column whenever there is rough seas or large waves.

    Long lasting sedimentation will eventually kill any corals that have not already been killed by the direct trauma of dredging, fill deposit, or wall construction. Thousands of coral colonies are at risk. These dangers are obviously ultimately unavoidable, and are sufficient to warrant cancellation of this base.

    * Excludes Mitigative Measures Against Oil Spill Dangers: The Navy EIA states that measures should be taken to protect against fuel spills, but does not say what measures can be taken. Fuel, oil and other organic hydrocarbons can have serious effects on marine benthic organisms, even in small quantities. Corals are especially vulnerable to dispersed oils, especially lighter fuels such as gasoline, diesel and light crude. Other fluids associated with engine maintenance and function, such as antifreezes, lubricants and detergents, are also harmful. It is highly likely that once the base is operational there will be a constant release of small amounts of fuel into the environment. This contamination will have long-term negative effects on surrounding coral populations already stressed by other factors such as sedimentation, reduced flow and pollutants such as TBT and other heavy metals. Should there be a major spill or oil from the base site, the ramifications would be even worse, possibly leading to mass mortality in coral populations. The Navy EIA neglects to sufficiently address any of these problems, let alone mitigation.

    * Toxic Paints, etc.: Navy EIA recommends discouraging Navy ships from using anti-fouling paint Tri-butyl Tin (TBT). TBT is banned on small ships. But Navy ships and large ships are currently exempt from this ban. A large ship such as a navy destroyer can add 200g of TBT into the environment over a 24 hr period. TBT is very stable and can remain in sediment unaffected for 7-30 years. TBT is highly toxic to corals, oysters, clams, and abalones. Coral reproduction and recruitment will be severely restricted by these chemicals as they leach into the water, accumulate and remain active. The Navy report does not suggest how to ensure that such a ban could be enforced, as ships will be arriving from all over the world.

    * Ineffective Mitigation: The Navy recommends completely inadequate and ineffective mitigation measures. For example, it recommends “silt protectors” all around the construction zone. (Errant silt protectors from the base were already seen floating off Tiger Islet during moderately heavy seas on Aug. 23rd. Later, after the August 28 typhoon, every silt protector at the construction site had been ripped to shreds.) The Navy also recommends using “fall pipes” to lower rocks and other materials into the water, which have never proven adequate, and which workers don’t use anyway; workers have been seen recklessly dumping rocks and fill materials into the water.

    * Inadequate Addressing of Water Flow Problem: Because soft corals cannot survive without clean, constantly flowing water, the water flow rate will be severely obstructed by the construction of a large navy base. The Navy EIA suggests that the water flow rate will not be significantly changed in areas 500 meters from the base. But once the base is complete, there will very likely be a significant drop in current flow rates around the East and West sites surveyed by our independent EIA team. This will mean fewer nutrients to corals and will cause sediment to drop down quickly, smothering corals and other bottom dwellers. The Navy suggests an “Ocean Water-Way Activation system” to regulate ocean water flow to protect corals. But there is no empirical evidence that such a process would ever be helpful to maintain coral populations east and west of the base. It is guesswork.

    * Omits Fact that Large Ships Will Travel Through Core of UNESCO Biosphere Reserve: The Navy EIA omits crucial information regarding paths that large ships must take as they enter the port. And yet, this may be the most potentially destructive issue in the entire project. Neither is there is any mention of where ships will gather to wait while seeking entry to the port.

    According to the Navy’s “simulation study” studying wind effects in the port area (February 2012), it was first determined that the sea route that would best avoid impacting the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve buffer zone, (Route #1) would be “too dangerous” for the ship, and might lead to devastating impacts on the sea walls. This is because entry would require a steep turning angle of more than 70 degrees. A safer sea route should be no more than a 30 degree turning angle.

    Both proposed entry routes to the naval base present serious problems. Route #1, the originally route, turns out to be dangerous for ships, as it requires a 70 degree turn with risks of crashing. The Navy now contemplates route #2, which would send ships directly over and through rare spectacular soft coral reefs, with high risk for their destruction. Both are unacceptable.

    Both proposed entry routes to the naval base present serious problems. Route #1, the originally route, turns out to be dangerous for ships, as it requires a 70 degree turn with risks of crashing. The Navy now contemplates route #2, which would send ships directly over and through rare spectacular soft coral reefs, with high risk for their destruction. Both are unacceptable.

    Only last week it was announced by the Korean Department of Defense that the original route (#1) needed to be abandoned, and that a new route (#2) was preferred, especially in bad weather. However, in the new route, ships will invariably have to navigate through the UNESCO Biosphere core zone (See Map) http://savejejunow.org/reports-human-rights-environmental-destruction-naval-base/

    The core zone of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve contains a spectacular world of soft coral colonies, including one famous massive Coral Garden, measuring 73,800 square meters (15 acres). Alarmingly, this Coral Garden lives only 14m below the surface. But expected naval vessels may have a draft of up to 17m, bringing the prospect of a constant prop-wash from passage of large ships. This will surely bring trauma and death to amazing, ecologically-important coral populations. So, the conclusion can only be that while sea route #1 is unsafe for ships, sea route #2 will destroy an ecological paradise.

    Better to move the base somewhere else.

    *****

    These are only a few of the many serious problems of the Navy EIA that disqualify it as an exhaustive meaningful study that can help mitigate all the problems that a Navy base will and already is bringing to Jeju. These are all aside from the dire effects upon an indigenous community which has lived sustainably in this area for thousands of years, in close economic and spiritual relationship to the local environment.

    It will be a great step forward if the IUCN community votes to support the upcoming
    Motion 181: Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village.

    Thank you so much for your attention.

    EMERGENCY COMMITTEE TO SAVE JEJU ISLAND
    SaveJejuNow@gmail.com
    Christine Ahn
       Global Fund for Women; Korea Policy Institute
    Imok Cha, MD
       Physician; Save Jeju Now
    Jerry Mander
       Inter’l Forum on Globalization; Foundation for Deep Ecology
    Koohan Paik
       Kauai Alliance for Peace and Security
    ************

    NOTE: Protected coral species found in Jeju Soft Coral Habitat
    Song. 2009. Jeju Coast Soft Coral Habitat, Coral Distribution Study, Consolidated Report.
    1. Dendronephthya suensoni¸ 1
    2. Dendronephthya mollis¸ 1
    3. Dendronephthya putteri¸ 1
    4. Dendronephthya alba¸ 1
    5. Dendronephthya castanea¸ 1
    6. Euplexaura crassa¸ 1
    7. Plexauroides complexa¸ 1
    8. Verrucella stellata¸ 1
    9. Montipora trabeculata¸ 4
    10. Pasammocora profundacella¸ 4
    11. Alveopora japonica¸ 4
    12. Caryophyllia (C.) japonica¸ 4
    13. Dendronephthya arbuscular¸ 4
    14. Dendronephthya b. boschmai¸ 4
    15. Tubastraea coccinea¸ 1,4
    16. Cirripathes anguina, 4
    17. Antipathes densa, 4
    18. Antipathes dubia, 4
    19. Antipathes grandiflora, 4
    20. Myriopathes bifaria, 4
    21. Myriopathes japonjca, 1,2,4
    22. Myriopathes lata, 3,4
    23. Myriopathes stechowi, 4
    24. Plumapathes pennacea, 4

    Numbers on the right indicate Conservation Status:
    1) Endangered Species Level II, The Ministry of Environment of Korea
    2) Natural Monument No. 456, The Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea
    3) Natural Monument No. 457, The Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea
    4) CITES II

    September 12, 2012

  • Motion on Gangjeong Village

    Motion 181: Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village

    World Appeal to Protect the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village

    UNDERSTANDING that Gangjeong Village, also known as the Village of Water, on the island of Jeju, also known as Peace Island, is a coastal area home to thousands of species of plants and animals, lava rock freshwater tide pools (“Gureombi”), endangered soft coral reefs, freshwater springs, sacred natural sites, historic burial grounds, and nearly 2,000 indigenous villagers, including farmers, fishermen, and Haenyo women divers, that have lived sustainably with the surrounding marine and terrestrial environment for nearly 4000 years;

    NOTING that Gangjeong Village is an Ecological Excellent Village (Ministry of Environment, ROK) of global, regional, national and local significance, sharing the island with a UNESCO designated Biosphere Reserve and Global Geological Park, and is in close proximity to three World Heritage Sites and numerous other protected areas;

    NOTING that numerous endangered species live in and around Gangjeong Village, including the Boreal Digging Frog (Kaloula borealis) listed on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species; the red-footed crab (Sesarma intermedium); the endemic Jeju fresh water shrimp (Caridina denticulate keunbaei); and the nearly extinct Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins;
    NOTING the global uniqueness of the Jeju Soft Coral habitats, designated as Natural Monument 422 of Korea: the only location in the world known to have temperate octocoral species forming a flourishing ecosystem on a substrate of andesite, providing ecological balance to the Jeju marine environment and the development of the human culture of Gangjeong Village for thousands of years;
    UNDERSCORING that of the 50 coral species found in the Soft Coral habitats near Gangjeong, 27 are indigenous species, and at least16 are endangered species and protected according to national and international law, including Dendronephthya suensoni, D. putteri, Tubastraea coccinea, Myriopathes japonica, and M. lata;

    THEREFORE CONCERNED of the Civilian-Military Complex Tour Beauty project, a 50-hectare naval installation, being constructed within and adjacent to Gangjeong Village, estimated to house more than 8,000 marines, up to 20 warships, several submarines, and cruise liners;

    NOTING the referendum of Gangjeong Village on August 20, 2007, in which 725 villagers participated and 94% opposed the construction;

    ACKNOWLEDGING that the construction of the military installation is directly and irreparably harming not only the biodiversity, but the culture, economy and general welfare of Gangjeong Village, one of the last living remnants of traditional Jeju culture;

    NOTING the Absolute Preservation Act, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (1991) and that Gangjeong Village was named an Absolute Preservation Area on October 27, 2004: a permanent designation to conserve the original characteristics of an environment from the surge in development, therefore prohibiting construction, the alteration of form and quality of land, and the reclamation of public water areas;

    CONCERNED that this title was removed in 2010 to allow for the Naval installation, and that this step backwards in environmental protection violates the Principle of Non-Regression;

    RECALLING the numerous IUCN Resolutions and Recommendations that note, recognize, promote and call for the appropriate implementation of conservation policies and practices that respect the human rights, roles, cultural diversity, and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples in accordance with international agreements;

    CONCERNED of reports that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the naval construction was inaccurate and incomplete and may have violated well-known principles of international law concerning EIAs, transparency, public and indigenous participation, right to know, and free, prior and informed consent;

    CONCERNED of the destruction of sacred natural sites in and near Gangjeong Village, noting that the protection of sacred natural sites is one of the oldest forms of culture based conservation (Res. 4.038 recognition and conservation of sacred natural sites in Protected Areas);

    ACKNOWLEDGING that IUCN’s Mission is “To influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable;” and that “equity cannot be achieved without the promotion, protection and guarantee of human rights.”;

    NOTING Resolution 3.022 Endorsement of the Earth Charter (Bangkok, 2004) that endorsed the Earth Charter as “the ethical guide for IUCN policy and programme,” and that the military installation is contrary to every principle of the Earth Charter;

    NOTING the U.N. World Charter for Nature (1982), and that the military installation is contrary to each of its five principles of conservation by which all human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged;

    AND ALARMED by reports of political prisoners, deportations, and restrictions on freedom of assembly and speech, including the arrests of religious leaders, for speaking against the naval installation and for speaking in promotion of local, national, regional and world conservation and human rights protections;

    NOTING Res. 2.37 Support for environmental defenders, “UNDERSTANDING that the participation of non-governmental organizations and individual advocates is essential to the fundamentals of civil society to assure the accountability of governments and multinational corporations; and AWARE that a nation’s environment is only truly protected when concerned citizens are involved in the process;”

    NOTING principles enshrined in the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development such as those concerning military and hostile activities (Art. 36), culture and natural heritage (Art. 26), and the collective rights of indigenous peoples (Art. 15);

    FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that militarization does not justify the destruction of a community, a culture, endangered species or fragile ecosystems;

    AND UNDERSCORING that IUCN’s aim is to promote a just world that values and conserves nature, and the organization sees itself as nature’s representative and patrons of nature;

    The IUCN World Conservation Congress at its 5th session in Jeju, Republic of Korea, 6-15 September 2012:

    1. REAFFIRMS its commitment to the UN World Charter for Nature and the Earth Charter;

    2. CALLS ON the Republic of Korea to:

    (a) immediately stop the construction of the Civilian-Military Complex Tour Beauty;

    (b) invite an independent body, to prepare a fully transparent scientific, cultural, and legal assessment of the biodiversity and cultural heritage of the area and make it available to the public; and

    (c) fully restore the damaged areas.

    Sponsor – Center for Humans and Nature

    Co-Sponsors
    -Chicago Zoological Society (USA)
    -International Council of Environmental Law (Germany)
    -El Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental, CEDA (Ecuador)
    -Sierra Club (USA)
    -Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina)
    -Center for Sustainable Development CENESTA (Iran)
    -Asociación Preserve Planet (Costa Rica)
    -The Christensen Fund (USA)
    -Terra Lingua (Canada)
    -Ecological Society of the Philippines (Philippines)
    -Citizen’s Institute Environmental Studies (Korea)
    -Departamento de Ambiente, Paz y Seguridad, Universidad para la Paz (Costa Rica)
    -Coastal Area Resource Development and Management Association (Bangladesh)
    -Fundação Vitória Amazônica (Brazil)
    -Fundación para el Desarrollo de Alternativas Comunitarias de Conservación del Trópico, ALTROPICO Foundation (Ecuador)
    -Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano (Ecuador)
    -EcoCiencia (Ecuador)
    -Fundación Hábitat y Desarrollo de Argentina (Argentina)
    -Instituto de Montaña (Peru)
    -Asociación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, APECO (Peru)
    -Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica, COICA (Ecuador)
    -Fundación Biodiversidad (Argentina)
    -Fundacao Vitoria Amazonica (Brazil)
    -Fundación Urundei (Brazil)
    -Dipartimento Interateneo Territorio Politecnico e Università di Torino (Italy)
    -Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas (Costa Rica)
    -Corporación Grupo Randi Randi (Ecuador)
    -Living Oceans Society (Canada)
    -Instituto de Derecho y Economía Ambiental (Paraguay)
    -Korean Society of Restoration Ecology (Korea)
    -Ramsar Network Japan (Japan)
    -The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (Isreal)
    -Chimbo Foundation (Netherlands)
    -Endangered Wildlife Trust (South Africa)

    September 11, 2012

←Previous Page
1 … 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Next Page→

© 2025

Save Jeju Now