No War Base on the Island of Peace
In this month’s issue:
Gangjeong and the Naval Base Issue stir up the IUCN’s WCC 2012, New U.S. Links to the Naval Base found, ROK Government ignores the UN on Gangjeong, Interviews with Prisoner Kim Bok-Chul and a WCC participant, Articles from several Veterans for Peace visitors to Gangjeong, and more!
Re-post from here
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 )
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
2013, 04, 26 18:01
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)
The following motion was submitted to the IUCN WCC Jeju 2012 Motions Committee. It has 34 co-sponsors, reportedly the most in WCC history.
TO: Motions Committee
FROM: Kathryn Kintzele, Esq. Director, Global Programs, Center for Humans and Nature
Deputy Chair, Ethics Specialist Group, IUCN Commission on Environmental Law
with
Dr. J. Ronald Engel, founder of the IUCN Ethics Working Group (1984)
Dr. George Rabb, Honorary IUCN Member and former Chair of the IUCN SSC (1989-1996)
The Honorable Kang Dong-Kyun, Mayor of Gangjeong Village
DATE: September 9, 2012
RE: EMERGENCY MOTION SUBMISSION: MOTION ON THE GANGJEONG VILLAGE
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Conservation Congress, the Center for Humans and Nature as sponsor, and the 34 co-sponsors listed below, submit this emergency motion regarding the Civilian Military Complex Tour Beauty being built in and near Gangjeong Village, Seogwipo Province, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea:
World Appeal to Protect the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village
As required, more than three of the following five criteria have been met and are explained as follows. Please note that what is listed is only a small part of what could be listed.
I. Subject is new, means that the issue which is the subject of the resolution or recommendation has arisen within ninety days before the start of the session of the World Conservation Congress;
II. Subject is urgent, means a matter in respect of which developments are about to take place soon after the World Congress and upon which a resolution or recommendation of the World Congress may reasonably be expected to have an impact;
III. Subject could not have been foreseen, means a matter which, while not itself new, has been the subject of developments within ninety days before the start of the session of the World Congress which call for action by the World Congress;
IV. arises out of deliberations of the World Congress, means a matter which has been discussed at any officially scheduled matter during the World Congress; including business and conservation sittings, technical meetings, Commission meetings, meetings of working groups or associated meetings;
This motion needs to be voted upon, for the future of this village, for the future of this island, for the future of the people and species that live here, and for the future of IUCN as a leader in the international environmental forum. This is an issue of democracy, transparency, conservation, science, law and ethics. This is an issue of a small village, a unique and disappearing culture, surrounded by complex and fragile biodiversity, and all immediately and irrevocably threatened.
Thank you for your attention.
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)
Today, The National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to the Naval Base in Jeju Island published two issue reports regarding the Jeju Naval Base construction.
Issue Report I is “Human Rights Violations on ‘No Jeju Naval Base Campaign’”. The report includes entry denials of foreign human rights defenders, freedom of peaceful assembly and associations, excessive use of force by the police and impunity for police violence, major human rights violations. The cases have been collected by the Gangjeong Human Rights Violation Investigation Team. The report gives recommendations to the Government of Republic of Korea and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This report was also presented to the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association on 4 September 2012 during the 5th Asian Human Rights Defenders Forum which was held in Bangkok, Thailand. The full report will be published in September.
Click to Download Report I: Human Rights Violations on ‘No Jeju Naval Base Campaign’
Issue Report II is “Environmental Disaster by Jeju Naval Base Construction”. The report is on how the suggested sea route creates environmental disaster, flaws in the environmental impact assessment conducted by the Government, and change of absolute preservation zone by the Governor of Special Self-Governing Province. It also includes recommendations to the Government of Republic of Korea and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the raised environmental concerns. This second report was jointly published by The Gangjeong Village Association, The Jeju Pan-Island Committee for Stop of Military Base and for Realisation of Peace Island, and the National Network.
Click to Download Report II: Environmental Disaster by Jeju Naval Base Construction
Updated Below!
As South Korean state oppression increases in light of the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) 2012 WCC (World Conservation Congress), with three Okinawans, one Japanese, denied entry on September 5th, and the entry denial of Imok Cha on September 3rd, Gangjeong villagers and activists are not giving into fear of unjust government attacks, something they have dealt with for 5 years.
On September 6th, the opening day of the 2012 WCC in Jeju, 5 anti-base activists climbed a 10 meter high, 8,800 ton caisson in Hwasoon Port, about a 40 minute car ride from Gangjeong village. Samsung is making these massive concrete caissons there and shipping them to Gangjeong, where they plan to use them to build the huge piers of the naval base.
The five simultaneously released a statement, translated and excerpted here:
Given that it is clear that the Jeju Naval base to be built in Gangjeong Village will be a military outpost of the United States, we cannot stand for our Gangjeong Village, Our Jeju Island to be in the middle of a conflict between an expanding China and the United States containment efforts. We know that the destruction of Gangjeong Village and Jeju, the Peace Island, will become the suffering of all our people. […]
Because of the recent typhoons, all seven caisson [brought so far to Gangjeong], the symbol of the Jeju Naval Base construction, were completely broken to pieces and left under the Gangjeong Sea. Still the Navy and [construction companies] Samsung and Daelim continue to eagerly produce new caisson in Hwasoon Port […]
Many villagers, religious figures, and peace activists have been injured, arrested, and imprisoned to stop this naval base construction (destruction) in the village.
Even though our power might be small, we will fight with all our strength against this enormous dominating power, symbolized by this caisson.
Therefore we will eventually REVOKE the Jeju naval base project, save the peace of Gangjeong and the peace of all humanity
The action began around dawn, with the 5 protestors scaling the caisson and displaying three large banners, two in Korean, on in English which said, “No! Naval Base in Jeju!” At approximately 7:30 a.m., construction workers violently assaulted the occupiers and began destroying the banners. The police began arresting the protestors by 8:30 a.m. 3 were arrested first as two of the protestors had chained themselves. Finally by 9 a.m. all were arrested and are, as of this posting, in police custody in the Seogwipo police station. Two of them are complaining of strong back pain as a result of assault by the workers. As of this time, the charges appear to be “Group Trespass of a Facility”.
The aforementioned caissons are a subject of major contention by the anti-base activists and Gangjeong villagers. In the late 90s, years before the Jeju Naval base construction was even begun, the South Korean Ministry of Construction and Traffic declared that, due to the topography and weather of the South Jeju Sea, caissons were not proper to be used for construction in this area.
Completely ignoring this statement, the Navy/Construction company plan calls for total of 144 caissons to be dropped in the total conservation area of the Gangjeong Sea of Southern Jeju. These massive caissons are also being dropped only 1km from a UNESCO World Natural Heritage Site and amidst Korean some of the worlds largest soft coral habitats. Soft coral is also a natural monument and endangered species in Korean.
When Samsung first began to bring the caisson to Gangjeong, it was discovered that they had not even done a simple and legally required inspection of the giant floating dock which is used to transport them. Samsung was later fined for this highly dangerous action.
Finally, two recent typhoons have been completely destroyed the 7 poorly made and dangerously placed thus far in the Gangjeong Sea. Their wreckage has litered the sea floor and contaminated the famously clean waters of Gangjeong. Learning nothing from this, Samsung continues to produce the caisson and will not change their plan. The Gangjeong sea is in a state of environmental emergency and if these unstable, unfit, and dangerous caissons continue to be dropped in this precious environment, the destruction could turn catastrophic.
In light of this new emergency, and the ongoing emergency of the illegal, unjust, and environmental destructive construction of the Jeju Naval Base in Gangjeong, the Gangjeong Village Association applied for a booth at the WCC 2012, to spread the word of this disaster. However, this booth was rejected by the IUCN under pressure from the South Korean Government and Samsung, a major sponsor of the WCC and primary destroyer of Gangjeong.
Please spread the word on this action and the Gangjeong Struggle. Especially, IUCN members, we appeal to you to listen to the cry of Gangjeong!
Peace in Gangjeong! No Naval Base!
Update:
Emergency Action Committee to Save Jeju and Speaker at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) World Conservation Congress (WCC) 2012, Imok Cha has been denied entry to Korea.
On September 3, Imok Cha, who has been working tirelessly to spread news related to the struggle against the Jeju Naval Base project was unjustly blocked from entering Korea, upon arrival at Incheon Airport, outside Seoul. According to Imok, she arrived in Incheon Airport and had her passport scanned and then was fingerprinted.
She said, “As soon as they scanned my passport and fingerprinted me, they took me to an office. No explanation of why I am not allowed in to even see my elderly parents!”
She was then detained for 30 minutes before being forced to board a plane to Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Save Jeju Now recieved this news from her while in Seattle awaiting a plane back to San Fransisco.
As stated, no explanation was given for her denial of entry by the Korean Immigration Office.
The IUCN’s WCC 2012 is being held in Jungmun, Jeju, just 7 km from Gangjeong and the Jeju Naval Base project site. She had planned to join the WCC as a speaker to speak on important environmental justice issues surrounding the illegal and violently enforced destruction taking place in Gangjeong.
Furthermore she was hoping to visit her elderly parents who live in Korea. It is an inhuman act of cruelty to deny her the ability to see her parents.
With the entry denial of Cha, the total number of internationals denied entry to Korea, related to the struggle to save Jeju, since Aug 26, 2011 is now 16. This includes 3 members of the U.S. Veterans for Peace and 12 people from Japan and Okinawa.
This entry denial highlights again who much the Korean government (and perhaps the U.S Government) wishes to hide the truth of what is happening on Jeju. This denial comes right after news that the IUCN has rejected to give an exhibition booth at their congress to Gangjeong Village due to pressure from the Korean government.
The South Korean government is clearly afraid of the increasing international solidarity as more people find out the real truth behind what is happening in Gangjeong. This pathetic and cowardly attempt to stop our movement will only increase our momentum. Or does the Korean government plan to block all the IUCN speakers?
Please help us spread this news, and denounce this oppression on international supporters as well as the continued violent and destructive naval base construction!