[April 3 Catch up: important] Navy attempts to define the naval base construction area as military restriction zone: an alarm for people
Source: Headline Jeju, April 5, 2012 / Article 8 of the MOU, April, 27, 2009
Article 8 (Exclusion of the limitation in the exercise of rights) In constructing the civilian-military complex harbor, the Minister of National Defense, despite the article 4 in the Military Bases and Installations Act, shall not designate the outside areas of the fence border in the civilian-military complex harbor on the ground and of the seawall in the military harbor on the sea, as the protection(restriction) areas for the military base and military facilities; and shall not do the activities that condition the exercises of the villagers’ survival rights such as passage, altitude, farming, fishing & architecture and their property rights.
Source: Headline Jeju, April 5, 2012, Gureombi Rock wired-fenced by the naval base project
According to the Jeju island government on April 4, the navy defense command headquarter of the Jeju sent it an official letter titled, ‘Inquiry on the opinion of the [Jeju] self-governing province regarding the matter on designation and management of beautiful tourism port for mixed civilian-military use as military facility protection zone,’ on March 12.
The navy’s point was to inquire the Island government whether it is OK to define the current naval base construction (destruction) zone as military facility protection zone.
The Island government rejected the navy’s letter, saying it is a violation of recommended items in the report by the sub-committee on the investigation on the Jeju naval base project (which was under the special committee on budget and balance, National Assembly) in 2011.
The ‘military facility protection(restriction) zone’ means a zone defined by the Ministry of National Defense to protect the facility in direct common use for the military purpose and to carry on smooth military operation. By the designation, these are not allowed: entry without permission; capture and collection of marine products; picture-taking, description, recording, measure of military base or facility; and publication and duplication on documents or books on them
The 1st clause of the report by the sub-committee of the National Assembly on Oct. 22, 2011 reads: “The Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs (MLTM) should revise the ‘Enforcement decree on the Port Act ( law on harbor and bay),’ by June, 2012 and alter the basic plan of the harbor and bay so that the water area of cruise and facility can be designated as the ‘TRADE PORT’
The report also reads that the Ministry of National Defense(navy) should revise the ‘Enforcement decree on Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act,’ by June, 2012 and [the three parties of] the MND(navy), MLTM, and the Jeju Island should promote the conclusion on the agreement on the common use on the civilian-military harbor and bay until June 2012 so that those steps should wipe out concerns that the Jeju naval base would be operated primarily as military harbor.”
The position of the Jeju Island government, rejecting the navy’s report is that if the construction area is to be the military protection area when the Enforcement decree on Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act and agreement on the common use on the civilian-military harbor & bay are not concluded yet, it does not fit to the recommended items by the sub-committee of the National Assembly.
People here are suspicious that the navy attempts to thoroughly block the entry by the villagers and peace activists in the construction (destruction) area during the remaining construction(destruction) period. It is because more strict control than current would be possible once the project area is designated as military zone.
Problem is that there is no way for the Jeju Island government to stop the navy when it promotes the designation on the military facility protection zone, completely ignoring the MOU in 2009 and National Assembly report in 2011.
The MOU on April 27, 2009 reads:
Article 8 (Exclusion of the limitation in the exercise of rights) In constructing the civilian-military complex harbor, the Minister of National Defense, despite the article 4 in the Military Bases and Installations Act, shall not designate the outside areas of the fence border in the civilian-military complex harbor on the ground and of the seawall in the military harbor on the sea, as the protection(restriction) areas for the military base and military facilities; and shall not do the activities that condition the exercises of the villagers’ survival rights such as passage, altitude, farming, fishing & architecture and their property rights.
……………………………………………………..
Here is an excerpt translation from the Headline Jeju on April 5:
‘Even though the details of type of military facility protection zone and scope of control, regarding the Jeju naval base project, were not given, it was confirmed that the navy’s inquiry to the Island government is a suggestion of the whole area of the Jeju naval base project area(* 480,000 square meters)
By law, military facility protection zone should be defined within 500 m distance from the most outside barrier of military facility.(* therefore more than 480,000 square meters of land and water area)
If the Jeju naval base is designated as military facility zone, the area of the Gangjeong village becomes the military zone where ordinary people’s entry is prohibited.
By law, forceful leaving is applied as measure in case of trespassing, and more than two years’ imprisonment, if there is damage on military facility.
The problem is that there is no way for the Jeju Island to deter the navy if the navy attempts to promote the designation on the military facility protection zone, completely ignoring the MOU in 2009 and recommended items by the National Assembly in 2011.
It is because, by the law on the military facility protection, the designation on the military facility protection zone is done by the examination committee on the military facility protection zone by the Ministry of National Defense.
It is not an item that should be permitted by local self-governing province but ‘consulted’ with administration agency for designation. However, the opinion of ‘OK’ is not mandatory but merely ‘procedural’ item.
Therefore if the navy ignores the MOU and National Assembly advice, and enforces designation, there is possibility that [the navy’s conspiracy] works.
It is why the Jeju Island government demanded the navy to carry on the National Assembly recommendation, ignoring the navy’s official letter.
The matter on designation on the military facility protection zone would be led to controversy on serious violation of the two documents, along with the promise of the docking capacity of two 150,000 cruise.
………………………………………………………….
The villagers and activists reject the idea whether it is a so called beautiful tourism port for mixed civilian-military use or military base. Woo Keun-Min, the Jeju Island governor, should revoke the resolution by the ex-Island government that cancelled the designation of the absolute preservation area ( * the Gangjeong stream and Joongdeok coast of which most part we call it as the Gureombi Rock) in Dec. 2009 ; and should revoke the navy over the license on reclamation on public water and its adjacent surface(coastal area) of the Gangjeong village, if he truly wants the stop of current destruction by the Jeju naval base project and don’t want to see his Jeju island as a war base.
Woo Keun-Min kmj5369@jeju.go.kr or jejumaster@jeju.go.kr
…………………………………………………………………
…………………………
Reference
http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=146918
‘기본협약서’ 약속 파기…군사시설보호구역 ‘파문’
[초점] 제주해군기지 군사보호구역 설정, 기본협약 파기 수순?
“군사보호구역 지정 안한다” 협약 정면 위배…국회권고도 무시
2012.04.05 08:26:41
http://www.jejudomin.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=30344
제주해군기지 부지 군사보호구역 지정하려다 ‘퇴짜’
지난달 12일 제주도에 의견 묻는 공문 보내
도, “국회예결 소위 권고사항과 위배” 거절
2012.04.04 19:53:58
http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=146804
제주해군기지 사업부지를 ‘군사시설보호구역’ 지정?
[초점] 제주도에 군사시설보호구역 공문 보낸 해군의 의도는
6월말 ‘시행령 개정’ 국회 권고 또 무시…공사방해 차단용?
2012.04.03 23:00:42
……………………………………………….
For Koreans: 해군은 군사 시설 보호 구역 지정 시도를 통해 어떻게 아래의 계약을 스스로 위반하는가?
1. 2011년 10월 22일 국회 권고 사항: ‘무역항’ 이란 단어 및 제주해군기지가 군항 중심으로 운영될 것일는 우려를 불식시키도록 할 것’이란 귀절에 주목
‘2011년10월22일 국회 소위원회가 채택한 보고서 1항에는 “국토해양부는 크루즈항만수역과 시설을 ‘무역항’으로 지정할 수 있도록 2012년 6월까지 ‘항만법시행령’을 개정하고, 항만기본계획을 변경하라”고 적혀있다.
또 국방부(해군)는 크루즈 선박이 출입할 수 있도록 2012년 6월까지 ‘군사기지 및 군시설보호법 시행령’을 개정하고, 국방부(해군)•국토부•제주도는 ‘민•군 항만 공동사용협정서’를 체결을 2012년 6월까지 추진해 제주해군기지가 군항 중심으로 운영될 것일는 우려를 불식시키도록 할 것”이라고 명시돼 있다.’ (제주 도민 일보)
2. 2009년 4월 27일 MOU (국방부, 국토부, 제주도): ‘군사시설보호구역으로 지정하지 아니하며, 통행․고도․영농․어로․건축 등 주민의 생존권과 재산권 행사를 제약하는 행위를 하지 아니한다.’ 에 주목
제8조(권리행사의 제한 배제) 국방부장 관은 민․군복합항을 건설함에 있어 군사기지 및 군사시설보호법 제4조에도 불구하고 육상의 민․군복합항 울타리 경계와 해상의 군항방파제 밖의 지역에 대하여 군사기지 및 군사시설보호구역으로 지정하지 아니하며, 통행․고도․영농․어로․건축 등 주민의 생존권과 재산권 행사를 제약하는 행위를 하지 아니한다.
(전문은 마우스를 내려주세요)
http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2010/07/jeju-naval-basetranslation-memorandum.htmlImage: Article 8, MOU, April 27, 2009 by the Ministry of National Defense
