S. Korea’s Democratic Future Is Up to Us

South Korea’s crucial decision--how the successor to its President Chun Doo Hwan, whose term will expire in 1988, will be chosen--must be made this year. If it is made unwisely, the decision could produce riots, civil disobedience and drastic repression.

The United States has a role to play and a real stake in South Korea’s future. About 37,000 American soldiers are at the front line along with their South Korean counterparts. They face a well-armed, aggressive North Korean army. At their rear, in South Korea, anti-Americanism, fueled by past U.S. mistakes, has been growing. Over the past few months there have been encouraging signs that our foreign policy is changing, but Secretary of State George P. Shultz’s recent trip to South Korea has blurred these hopes.

Anti-Americanism began in 1980, when the American general in command of the joint forces released a South Korean division under the command of Gen. Chun. Chun used his division to break up an uprising in the southern city of Kwangju. More than 1,000 people were killed in what is now referred to as the Kwangju massacre. Shortly thereafter, Chun became president, ruled the nation with a ruthless hand and until recently has enjoyed virtually uncritical U.S. support.

Chun is scheduled to leave office next year. But does leaving office mean giving up power? In February, 1985, Chun’s democratic opposition in elections for the Assembly drew a majority vote, but, because of the way in which South Korea’s election laws are written, ended up in a minority position. Respected South Korean leaders such as Cardinal Stephen Kim Sou Hwan of Seoul fear that the government’s proposals to move toward a parliamentary system merely are a subterfuge for Chun and the military autocracy to continue to dominate. No fundamental changes are proposed for a system that rigs the electoral process to guarantee the ruling party a parliamentary majority and, through indirect elections, continued control of the presidency.

To democratic opposition leaders Kim Dae Jung and Kim Young Sam and their supporters, the answer is obvious: South Korea should adopt direct presidential elections and parliamentary elections based on one person, one vote.

Despite recent indications of willingness to negotiate with the opposition, Chun appears determined that this will not happen. As a result, his rule has become increasingly repressive. In 1983, 250 people were imprisoned for “political” offenses--possession of forbidden literature, expression of forbidden views, assembly in groups of more than two without a permit. In 1984, 57 were imprisoned; in 1985, 1,300; last year, more than 3,400.

Many in responsible positions fear that students, workers and others insistent on democracy will take to the streets and that a military crackdown will occur. The result could be a revolutionary spiral that would imperil both security and freedom.

Until last November the United States had done nothing and said nothing that could be construed as being critical of President Chun. But in November our new ambassador, James Lilley, presented his credentials and pointedly observed that democracy and security were intertwined. Last month U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Gaston J. Sigur, in a speech to the U.S.-Korea Society in New York, suggested that good relations with the United States depended on South Korea’s adoption of “a more open and legitimate political system.” He urged South Koreans to begin “permanently civilianizing their politics.”

This news arrived in South Korea three days after 35,000 riot police broke up a demonstration by 10,000 citizens; 400 were arrested, and a column of Buddhist monks and their followers were tear-gassed. The demonstration was to mark the 49th day--significant to Buddhists--since the death of a student, Park Jong Chul, who died while being tortured by the police.

At a press conference after meeting with Chun, Shultz read a carefully worded statement on “the aspiration of all Koreans” for political development, human rights and free elections. It sounds great, but it is an earlier statement that will be remembered in South Korea.

Shultz said that the government responded to Park’s death “in an interesting way,” and complimented the government for removing the home-affairs minister. What he didn’t know or chose to ignore is that the incumbent minister was replaced by Gen. Chung Ho Yong, a hard-line military-academy classmate of Chun who is known in South Korea for his participation with Chun in the Kwangju massacre.

Time is running out. Chun’s successor must be chosen this year. The Administration should make clear that the United States is committed to South Korea to secure the survival of freedom, not to perpetuate a dictatorship. Failing this, violence may be inevitable, and both freedom and security from the communist threat to the north will be lost.